PC 4080s are Overpriced and not selling

[Zaku3]

Actually this reminds me. Could this be a GPU issue? I was playing Spider Man and noticed the game would basically freeze. It looked like I was swinging around so fast the far areas didn't switch to the closer range visuals. Wasn't sure if it's because it's not on my main SSD or if it's a driver issue with the 7900XTX. If it's a GPU issue I will wait for my replacement 7900xtx.

[Mr.Vic20]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So when are FSR/DLSS most-useful? All the time?

I would say 4K benefits the most, where the IQ is really close to native and you are pushing for 60+ frame rate. Thanks to DLSS2 for older games and DLSS3 for current games, I am regularly hitting 120FPS on many titles I play. Its lovely. 

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

So when are FSR/DLSS most-useful? All the time?

 

DLSS is most useful when you want aliasing to go poof and an increase in framerate. Most notably, 4k and 8k gaming is where it's practically required on newer (demanding) games. With DLSS I've found...
4k:
Quality - better than native

Balanced - arguably better than native

Performance - less aliasing than native but slightly blurred (I had to flip between images of native vs performance that I took to notice)

Ultra Performance - worse than 4k, about the same amount of aliasing as native

 

1440p:

Quality - arguably better than native

Balanced - less aliasing than native, arguably not as sharp

Performance - meh

Ultra Performance - no

 

1080p:

Quality - almost as good as native but aliasing is cleaned up

Balanced - meh

Performance - no

Ultra Performance - why? WHY.

 

At 8k, to my understanding, you can drop to Ultra Performance for the same experience you'd get at 4k with regular Performance 

[crispy4000]

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

At 4k there's a 25-30% performance improvement on the 4080 for 33% more money. When RT is enabled the 4070 Ti struggles at 4k whereas the 4080 is mostly able to maintain 60fps. If your goal is 4k max settings but don't want to spend beyond 1200, the 4080 is a better solution. At 1440p, the 4070 Ti shines. 

 

I definitely wouldn't call it struggling based on the benchmarks coming out.

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review?page=4

https://www.theverge.com/23538558/nvidia-rtx-4070-ti-review-gpu-graphics-card-benchmark-test
 

The 4070ti still runs almost everything currently out at at least 4k 60fps+ average with just DLSS 2.

 

 

As for the few heavy games it doesn't, they're all DLSS3 enabled.

Cyberpunk at 4K with Psyco RT
4080 DLSS3 + DLSS2 Quality - 78fps average

4070ti DLSS3 + DLSS2 Quality - 64fps average

4070ti DLSS3 + DLSS2 Performance - 88fps average

 

I don't think the difference between Quality vs Performance DLSS at 4K is worth an extra $400.

[Spork3245]

6 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

The 4070ti runs almost everything currently out at at least 4k 60fps+ average with just DLSS 2.

 

 

I wouldn't want a card that's barely maintaining 60fps with current games, certainly not for $800. If you're buying a 4070 Ti for 4k, you're seriously doing it wrong.

[crispy4000]

12 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

I wouldn't want a card that's barely maintaining 60fps with current games, certainly not for $800.

 

 

You said it yourself, why would you not have DLSS enabled at 4k?  That chart doesn't reflect that.  This from their article does:

 

Quote

DLSS is certainly an important add-on for ray tracing games, as without it the 4070 Ti only averaged 32 fps, while Quality upscaling improved that to 59 fps. That's enough to get all six games above 30 fps, and only two of the games failed to break the 60 fps mark. 

 

I don't know which two games they're referring to, but Cyperpunk is definitely one of them.  DLSS3 and DLSS2 performance settings addresses that issue.

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

That chart doesn't reflect that. 

 

... Look at the top one in green.

 

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

And DLSS3 takes it the rest of the way.

 

DLSS3 isn't publicly available in Cyberpunk yet.

[crispy4000]

21 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

... Look at the top one in green.

DLSS3 isn't publicly available in Cyberpunk yet.

 

Gotcha.  Compare it their 4080 RT chart then.  4080 gets ~75fps on average with 4k DLSS2 Quality, where 4070ti is closer ~59fps.  That's still a gap that reducing DLSS settings can help close.

 

I'm also not as concerned knowing that Cyperpunk is dropping that average.  I'd be surprised if games that push the 4070ti's RT capability don't support DLSS3 going forward.

[Spork3245]

7 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

That's still a gap that reducing DLSS settings can help close.

 

You can reduce on the 4080 too, though which keeps the gap at the same percentage. The issue becomes future games which may be more demanding, unless everything gets DLSS3 (I mean... I hope everything does  ).
The issue for me becomes that with 4k 60fps, you don't want a 60fps average, you really want 70-80 so, even with dips, you still get a (mostly) locked 60 experience. The 4070 Ti can do 4k, but I think it's best as a high-hz 1440p card, with the 4080 as an entry level 4k card.

[stepee]

I think if your budget didn’t allow a gpu that’s over a thousand, the 4070ti could work as a fine card for 4k. You would just make some compromises here and there but overall it would be fine. 

[crispy4000]

24 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

You can reduce on the 4080 too, though which keeps the gap at the same percentage. The issue becomes future games which may be more demanding, unless everything gets DLSS3 (I mean... I hope everything does  ).

 

True, and we're already seeing with Portal RTX that games can challenge both cards' 4K capability.  Who know about Cyberpunk Overdrive RT.

 

That's why it's such a guessing game how much longer the 4080 would stay relevant at that resolution compared to the 4070ti.  If the price differential was less, this wouldn't matter as much.

 

24 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

The issue for me becomes that with 4k 60fps, you don't want a 60fps average, you really want 70-80 so, with dips, you still get a (mostly) locked 60 experience without dips. The 4070 Ti can do 4k, but I think it's best as a high-hz 1440p card, with the 4080 as an entry level 4k card.

 

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

I think if your budget didn’t allow a gpu that’s over a thousand, the 4070ti could work as a fine card for 4k. You would just make some compromises here and there but overall it would be fine. 

 

I'm with stepee.  Might have to tone down DLSS or some settings in cases, but it should last you at 4k60 for a good while for most games.  Plus I think many of those that would push it will be the ones supporting DLSS3.

[Spork3245]

9 minutes ago, stepee said:

I think if your budget didn’t allow a gpu that’s over a thousand, the 4070ti could work as a fine card for 4k. You would just make some compromises here and there but overall it would be fine. 

 

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Might have to tone down DLSS or some settings in cases, but it should last you at 4k60 for a good while for most games. 

 

 

  

 

[Zaku3]

Addition trouble with the machine. My Lincoln has died and I am now an old fart cuz I'm looking at new cars and am wondering why they are so ugly. I also lament the lose of Sedans among US auto manufactures. Praise the omnissiah it got me home. 

[crispy4000]

10 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

 

  

 

 

Not having to slightly reduce DLSS settings or RT for the time being isn't worth a 1/3 cost increase IMO.

 

But for those that would pay the extra $400, what's another $400 for a 4090?  That's why I've said its in a no man's land.

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

 

  

 

 

Yeah, in the context of this I’d say that it’s absolutely worth $400 more if you are gaming in 4k and have the money for it. Especially if you are 120hz/vrr as it’s not just about getting to 60 anymore. I wouldn’t be using quality dlss on a 4080, Id be going balanced or performance for the extra frames for better temporal resolution which would matter more than the dlss setting. 

 

But if your budget is more strict then the 4070ti is a fine option right now for sure.

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Having to slightly reduce DLSS settings or RT isn't worth a 1/3 cost increase.

 

It is if you're looking for max settings and not much concessions. The price increase is 33% and the performance increase is 25-30%. It's within reason.

 

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 then what's another $400 for a 4090?

 

Another $400.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

Yeah, in the context of this I’d say that it’s absolutely worth $400 more if you are gaming in 4k and have the money for it. Especially if you are 120hz/vrr as it’s not just about getting to 60 anymore. I wouldn’t be using quality dlss on a 4080, Id be going balanced or performance for the extra frames for better temporal resolution which would matter more than the dlss setting. 

 

But if your budget is more strict then the 4070ti is a fine option right now for sure.

 

I'd argue if you have a 4k60hz monitor/TV and you want to max everything out, DLSS not withstanding, the 4080 is a fine option if you really can't go to that $1600 mark for a 4090. Having had a 3080 Ti FTW3 Ultra (performance about even with a 3090 Ti at stock), I don't think I'd be able to recommend a 4070 Ti for 4k if you're looking for max settings for awhile. If you want entry level and don't mind turning some stuff down, sure, but this is why I feel like it's a great 1440p card.

[Zaku3]

Ok to make up for my off topic post. I am going back to Alienware for my next laptop. RGB trackpads are back.

[stepee]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

I'd argue if you have a 4k60hz monitor/TV and you want to max everything out, DLSS not withstanding, the 4080 is a fine option if you really can't go to that $1600 mark for a 4090. Having had a 3080 Ti FTW3 Ultra (performance about even with a 3090 Ti at stock), I don't think I'd be able to recommend a 4070 Ti for 4k if you're looking for max settings for awhile. If you want entry level and don't mind turning some stuff down, sure, but this is why I feel like it's a great 1440p card.

 

Yeah, 30% is 30%, that’s going to still make a big improvement at 60hz as well especially over the next year or two.

 

In a way the price scaling makes more sense than usual. It mostly scales with the performance increase, which is unusual for a gpu line. I think all of them are worth the extra money compared to the one below. I also think all of them are solid cards but it’s all just starting from too high of a price.

 

Normally you get to point to a more expensive card and talk yourself into thinking you are getting a better deal by being informed that the cheaper model isn’t much of a difference and so it’s like you are still getting the best gpu but at a value. Such mind trickery doesn’t work with the way they priced things relative to their power here.

 

On the other hand, if your budget is under a thousand, the 4070ti can still act as a fine 4k card. It’s just that a 4080 would be a good bit nicer. 

[Spork3245]

12 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Yeah, 30% is 30%, that’s going to still make a big improvement at 60hz as well especially over the next year or two.

 

In a way the price scaling makes more sense than usual. It mostly scales with the performance increase, which is unusual for a gpu line. I think all of them are worth the extra money compared to the one below. I also think all of them are solid cards but it’s all just starting from too high of a price.

 

Normally you get to point to a more expensive card and talk yourself into thinking you are getting a better deal by being informed that the cheaper model isn’t much of a difference and so it’s like you are still getting the best gpu but at a value. Such mind trickery doesn’t work with the way they priced things relative to their power here.

 

 

Yup! And that’s why so many are complaining this generation: we will never get insane deals like the 3080 or 3070 again. The 3070 matched/slightly outperformed a 2080 Ti in most games and was priced at $500, the 3080 was over 30% faster for $700. Then you had the 3090 for $1500 to get just about 10% more performance over the 3080  

 

12 minutes ago, stepee said:

On the other hand, if your budget is under a thousand, the 4070ti can still act as a fine 4k card. It’s just that a 4080 would be a good bit nicer. 

FWIW BestBuy has had the 4080 FE for $1080 all week making it probably the best value out there. (Need to use BB credit card + a coupon code… oh, and an in-stock $1200 4080).

THOUGH, I think there’s an argument to be made about “knowing the cost of gaming at 4k”, which is fair considering how much good 4k monitors cost.  

[Spork3245]

37 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

Addition trouble with the machine. My Lincoln has died and I am now an old fart cuz I'm looking at new cars and am wondering why they are so ugly. I also lament the lose of Sedans among US auto manufactures. Praise the omnissiah it got me home. 

A Q50 infinity is probably one of the best deal out there right now for used luxury sedans. The infotainment system kind of sucks, though.

[crispy4000]

35 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Yeah, in the context of this I’d say that it’s absolutely worth $400 more if you are gaming in 4k and have the money for it. Especially if you are 120hz/vrr as it’s not just about getting to 60 anymore. I wouldn’t be using quality dlss on a 4080, Id be going balanced or performance for the extra frames for better temporal resolution which would matter more than the dlss setting. 

 

But if your budget is more strict then the 4070ti is a fine option right now for sure.

 

Someone without a VRR screen may be better served putting that extra $400 to a new display.

 

35 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

It is if you're looking for max settings and not much concessions. The price increase is within 33% of the performance increase is 25-30%. It's within reason.

 

That's where the 4070ti is today for 4k60 gaming generally, to be fair.  The unanswered question is how much longer than 4080 would manage that by comparison, and if that's worth the price differential.

 

Part of me wonders if the 4090, DLSS3 and eventual 50xx cards will give PC devs the greenlight to go RT nuts, pushing max setting to something bonkers.

[stepee]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

Yup! And that’s why so many are complaining this generation: we will never get insane deals like the 3080 or 3070 again. The 3070 matched/slightly outperformed a 2080 Ti in most games and was priced at $500, the 3080 was over 30% faster for $700. Then you had the 3090 for $1500 to get just about 10% more performance over the 3080  

 

FWIW BestBuy has had the 4080 FE for $1080 all week making it probably the best value out there. (Need to use BB credit card + a coupon code… oh, and an in-stock 4080 FE).

THOUGH, I think there’s an argument to be made about “knowing the cost of gaming at 4k”, which is fair considering how much good 4k monitors cost.  

 

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Someone without a VRR screen may be better served putting that extra $400 to a new display.

 

 

That's where the 4070ti is today, to be fair.  The unanswered question is how much longer than 4080 would manage that by comparison.

 

I wonder what the overlap of people buying $800-$1600 gpus that do not have vrr is. TV’s are still a minority for pc gaming and gsync/free sync have been around forever.  At the point where someone has vrr though, it kind of ruins the argument of it not being worth the extra money when it’s literally just going to be 25-30% smoother for everything. 

 

Im sure there are some people due to their setup/interests that the extra $400 isn’t worth it, but there isn’t really a good argument that overall it is not worth it for 4k gaming. 

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

 

I wonder what the overlap of people buying $800-$1600 gpus that do not have vrr is. TV’s are still a minority for pc gaming and gsync/free sync have been around forever.  At the point where someone has vrr though, it kind of ruins the argument of it not being worth the extra money when it’s literally just going to be 25-30% smoother for everything.

 

 

Not many would have 4k vrr screens.  Many more would have 1080p and 1440p.  Which a 4080 would be overkill for.

 

[stepee]

28 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 

Not many would have 4k vrr screens.  Many more would have 1080p and 1440p.  Which a 4080 would be overkill for.

 

 

Right for 1440p a 4070ti makes sense, but we are specifically talking about 4k! If not a majority of users then at least a large chunk of users who would be in the market for a 4080, that are gaming at 4k, I imagine have vrr support. It’s 4k/hdr that is taking forever to be reasonable for monitors, 4k/vrr has been affordable and on all sorts of entry level models for a long time.

[crispy4000]

Vrr also kind of throws the whole idea of needing to get to a perfect 60 out the window though.  So if that’s the barometer of what 60fps gaming entails, it actually makes the 4070ti more flexible to be worse.

 

[stepee]

I mean there’s a bunch of different ways to look at it, and everyone has a different setup and priorities, it’s just that when one card is about 30% more powerful for about 30% more money, you can’t flat out say it’s not worth it at 4k. That 30% is going to make for a much nicer experience depending on your use case.

 

It might not be worth $400 more to YOU, which, understandable! But for me if say the 4090 didn’t exist and these were my options I would absolutely find the 4080 worth another $400 myself.

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, stepee said:

I mean there’s a bunch of different ways to look at it, and everyone has a different setup and priorities, it’s just that when one card is about 30% more powerful for about 30% more money, you can’t flat out say it’s not worth it at 4k. That 30% is going to make for a much nicer experience depending on your use case.

 

It might not be worth $400 more to YOU, which, understandable! But for me if say the 4090 didn’t exist and these were my options I would absolutely find the 4080 worth another $400 myself.

That’s exactly the point I was making  

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

That’s exactly the point I was making  

 

It’s not my first attempt either! 

[cusideabelincoln]

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Yup! And that’s why so many are complaining this generation: we will never get insane deals like the 3080 or 3070 again. The 3070 matched/slightly outperformed a 2080 Ti in most games and was priced at $500, the 3080 was over 30% faster for $700. Then you had the 3090 for $1500 to get just about 10% more performance over the 3080  

 

FWIW BestBuy has had the 4080 FE for $1080 all week making it probably the best value out there. (Need to use BB credit card + a coupon code… oh, and an in-stock $1200 4080).

THOUGH, I think there’s an argument to be made about “knowing the cost of gaming at 4k”, which is fair considering how much good 4k monitors cost.  

 

I wouldn't call the 3070 an insane deal; it was the norm for a 70 or 60 class card to match the previous gen 80 class card.  Now all new gen cards are overpriced from both AMD and Nvidia.

 

 

[Spork3245]

39 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

I wouldn't call the 3070 an insane deal; it was the norm for a 70 or 60 class card to match the previous gen 80 class card. 

The 2070 was $500 and was slightly better than a 1080 (but fell fairly short of a 1080 Ti) which was a $600 card (the 1080 Ti was $700). The 3070 slightly outperformed the $1000 2080 Ti for $500. It was not a normal thing, even then.

[stepee]

A lot of people are hoping the same thing next round will happen, that it’ll be priced like the 3000 series vs the rather high priced 2000 series. I believe they will be disappointed there.

[Spork3245]

Just now, stepee said:

A lot of people are hoping the same thing next round will happen, that it’ll be priced like the 3000 series vs the rather high priced 2000 series. I believe they will be disappointed there.

Yea, I think prices are what they are at this point. I still think that closer to $1000 would be ideal for the xx80, maybe $750 for the xx70. xx90 is actually the only one that didn’t get a huge increase considering the 3090 launched at $1500.  

[stepee]

14 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Yea, I think prices are what they are at this point. I still think that closer to $1000 would be ideal for the xx80, maybe $750 for the xx70. xx90 is actually the only one that didn’t get a huge increase considering the 3090 launched at $1500.  

 

I’d like to see at least with the 5000 there being a card as powerful as a 4070ti for $400-$500. I think at that point, especially with more dlss3 usage, even if they call it a 5050ti or whatever madness, that the mid range for pc gaming is doing ok. The capability over the consoles when using dlss3 would be an easy 4x at least.

 

Right now as things are if someone’s wants to get into gaming with a $800 budget I’d probably recommend a ps5 and a deck. Unless they were willing to get a used 3080…and we’ll still probably pay at least $200 over

[stepee]

5 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

I’d like to see at least with the 5000 there being a card as powerful as a 4070ti for $400-$500. I think at that point, especially with more dlss3 usage, even if they call it a 5050ti or whatever madness, that the mid range for pc gaming is doing ok. The capability over the consoles when using dlss3 would be an easy 4x at least.

 

Right now as things are if someone’s wants to get into gaming with a $800 budget I’d probably recommend a ps5 and a deck. Unless they were willing to get a used 3080…and we’ll still probably pay at least $200 over

 

To be clear, this is what the part of me that wants as many people as possible to enjoy the things that make me happy would like to see.

 

The part that fuck you got mine would want to see prices stay the exact same but hold even greater than usual resale value on ebay so I can just keep upgrading to an easy to obtain obscenely powerful gpu for like three hundred dollars every two years.