discussion RTX 4070 Ti Super - reviews are live

[Bond007]

4070 Ti Super...yup, that's what they called it. Reviews are now live online. TPU has several card reviews posted, with the below linking to the Asus TUF version (seems to be the best of those reviewed so far). To me, this is what the original 4070 Ti should have been.

The increase to 16gb VRAM is (IMO) essential at this price point, but I actually thought performance improvement would have been a bit larger over the original 4070 Ti. Performance sits closer to the 4070 Ti than to the 4080. Pricing is the same as the 4070 Ti MSRP, but given the older cards have dropped from MSRP, this increase in performance will actually carry a similar % increase in street pricing (at least for now)...so no getting more performance/$ out of the gate. While a step in the right direction, I don't think it is going to do anything to the market. I would guess that immediate buyers will be limited to those who were on the fence about the original card, but held back due to the 12GB of VRAM.

ASUS GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super TUF Review

While the $800 ASUS RTX 4070 Ti Super TUF doesn't include a factory overclock, it features a highly capable all-metal cooler—ranking as the most effective among all the cards tested today. Additionally, the dual BIOS provides a quiet mode, transforming the card into a whisper-quiet gaming machine.

www.techpowerup.com

EDIT: The above is rasterization. Here is 4k ray traced to show the most demanding scenario (the gap to the original opens up a bit):

 

[crazyea]

The review you linked says the 16gb barely makes a difference.

 

[Marzipan]

next we'll have a special edition RTX 4070 Ti Super Ti SE

 

[Izerous]

Was going to say good job they beat the 3090... but thats at 1440p. Thing falls flat at 4k which is where you would think the extra memory would have made a difference.

 

[Bond007]

The review you linked says the 16gb barely makes a difference.

Absolutely! It doesn't matter in most games and most scenarios, but that is steadily changing. And if you spend that kind of money on a GPU it shouldn't already have some limitations. When you do run out of VRAM it is a no go. I just skimmed their charts, and at a glance you can find the ones where the card runs out of VRAM. Not that the specific example is perfect, as the FPS are low, but it gets the point across. Look at every card with less than 16GB VRAM. Again, yes you can turn some settings down to increase FPS and avoid the VRAM issue, but if you spend a grand on a GPU I feel most people would want 16GB as a minimum.

 

[Bond007]

Was going to say good job they beat the 3090... but thats at 1440p. Thing falls flat at 4k which is where you would think the extra memory would have made a difference.

I added the ray traced 4K performance in the OP to show a different perspective...though it does happen to be the 3090 in that.

 

[Sagath]

The origonal 70ti was the one that was 'supposed' to be the cut down 4080, right? And this super is still a 'falls flat, not even close' to a 4080?

God, what a terrible marketing job by NV.

 

[JD]

Not sure what people's expectations are, but this seems to fit in properly to me. About 10% slower than the 4080, and in things where 12GB of VRAM was not sufficient, those games are now playable.

And I always feel most gloss over the DLSS3 frame generation, that gives you like +20-30FPS too.

 

[Bond007]

GN summary in the conclusion:
“Meh”

 

[Izerous]

...

And I always feel most gloss over the DLSS3 frame generation, that gives you like +20-30FPS too.

I always disable it. The frame rate gains are not worth the quality / accuracy loss for the games I play so I intentionally ignore the DLSS variants of the benchmarks.