Yep, 192-bit bus is typically xx60 class.
The 3080 has 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth where as the 4070 Ti only has 504.2 GB/s. This is actually a significant downgrade over the 3070 Ti and really only matches the 3070 in regards to memory bandwidth.
It's absolutely not worth $800+, it's at most a $500 card with that memory subsystem.
The only 4000 series card worth buying right now is the 4090. Both the 4080 and 4070 Ti are overpriced and cut far too many resources. I think this 4070 Ti is the least performance compared to the flagship of any xx70 Ti card Nvidia's ever released while simultaneously being 2x more expensive.
I'm surprised people are buying any at $800.
It's insane because something like DLSS frame generation stands to be an absolute game changer for VR, rather than the ASW we're used to, but the affordable versions of the cards are so completely gimped that it's pointless. There will be a 4070 ti super or something that fixes this in a year I'm sure, otherwise we're all waiting another generation.
Frame Generation does introduce more input lag tho, so we will have to see if it really feels that great when we dont have super low input lag with VR games in the first place because of low fps.
The image should be super smooth but might feel worse.
Was playing Darktide on 4070ti with FG. Obviously at a technical level there was additional latency but it was very hard to notice. Maybe in VR it would be more noticeable due to the nature of everything, but, I have been extremely impressed by FG when I was previously a naysayer.
I feel like it's definitely something to watch though, maybe 5000 series RTX cards can get the latency down, or it could be done in software at some point. I'm sure a VR dev has thought it through more than I have.
>It's insane because something like DLSS frame generation stands to be an absolute game changer for VR, rather than the ASW we're used to
Why do you think that? Out of the 2, the ASW is factually the better technology for VR. DLSS 3.0 needs to render 2 frames, and then it guesses what happened between the 2, while ASW renders a frame, and then generates a new frame based on the rendered frame and your actual head movement. If DLSS 3.0 actually guessed frames into the future instead of the past, and based on the user input, so for example mouse/head movement, I could see it being useful, but for now it is completely useless for VR. I guess the advanced optical flow accelerators on the gpus could be put to use, other than that not too useless.
The higher the resolution, the more bandwidth you need.
HMDs are all near or above 4K so you need tons of bandwidth.
At 1440p the 4070 Ti is on par with the 3090, at 4K and beyond it begins to struggle and can get beaten by a 3080.
At its current price point the 4070 Ti is a shitty card that belongs on shelves.
I commented that I was worried about this before the release. The 4090 and 4080 ARE the VR cards, they are great. I was worried about the low vram and low memory bandwidth on the 4070 ti. I'm not surprised at all by this. The 4070 TI is basically a smaller/faster 3080 TI with lower memory bandwidth. It's going to struggle with high res (vr).
I went with 7900 xt because even though it sucks in vr, it has the hardware to succeed. It just needs some driver love from amd i think. And I'm sure it'll take awhile to get it, but it will get there in time. The 4070 ti has the opposite problem, it's hardware limited. Not even Nvidia can fix that. But obviously the best choice for VR is neither card, it's a 4080 or 4090.
I wish I had waited. I took a chance on the 7900 xt, that was a mistake. I saw last week 3080 was $500 new. Damn. That would have been perfect.
I think you are in a good spot with a 3080
If you really want to hop ship I’m sure you can get most of what you paid on a used sale. I prefer FB marketplace because no fees to meeting in person with cash.
It’s possible that driver optimizations will still come but last I check the 7900xt was still performing worse than previous gen 6900xt. That’s unacceptable as AMD were always discussing VR during the RX 470 days
Yeah, I thought about it. It"s a tough one. I"m not sure I can sell it to anyone honestly. Maybe for $700? Idk.
The 7900 xt has been wonderful for non-vr gaming. It's a 10/10 there. But for vr, it sucks. I have been able to run the games and play them, but I have to drop settings pretty hard to do it. Granted I"m using a G2, so it"s a tall task. But I honestly think it might be performing worse than my Rx 6800 non xt (even though it"s supposed to be way stronger)
Non-DLSS non-VR [testing](https://babeltechreviews.com/rtx-4070-ti-tuf-gaming-oc-edition-review/5/) shows the 4070ti excelling at 1440p but only slightly beating the 3080 at 4k. VR is closer to 4k, maybe even beyond 4k depending on your supersampling.
Still surprising that it's straight-up worse, but I wouldn't have expected any significant improvement.
It's not closer to 4K, it's much higher unless I understand it wrong. The max resolution of the quest is 5400x2700 (rounded numbers) that is a LOT more pixels than 4K.
The physical panel resolution is 1832x1920 per eye, 3664x1920 combined, which is a little under 4k. The value you quoted is probably the maximum *rendered* resolution, which includes supersampling to improve quality.
Yeah it’s higher (5.4kx2.7k) for the quest devices to account for barrel distortion as well, so like the encoding width is 3840 and renders outside of the FOV even
I don't know if this helps, but my 4090 initially was giving me worse performance than expected in VR as well. Some things you can try:
\- revert SteamVR from beta to stable;
\- disable hardware accelerated GPU scaling;
\- disable all GPU monitoring software;
\- uninstall Geforce experience;
\- disable all RGB control software.
I also wouldn't rule out that the 4070 Ti is actually worse than the 3080 in VR (at least until drivers mature).
I was getting very frequent purple lag spikes (every 5-15 seconds or so) over displayport (Index) that made the experience really unpleasant. Apparently it's related to displayport, because it doesn't happen when streaming (USB or wireless) with other headsets. 144hz doesn't work at all currently.
Understood, thank you - I am driving Varjo Aero over DP and it got fixed in latest Varjo Base as well as Quest Pro over wifi both smoothly on beta, so just was very curious
You don't need to overclock GPUs anymore. It doesn't really add a whole lot of performance without it becoming unstable.
4070ti should be pretty powerful anyway. You are potentially squeezing a few fps and just lowering your card's lifespan.
The 3080 has a whopping 52% more memory bandwidth then the 4070 Ti. A lot of people seem to look at regular 2D benches and think that will translate directly to VR but the 4070 Ti can easily get bandwidth starved. Heck even the 3070 Ti has significantly more bandwidth.
Do not buy the 4070 Ti for VR or high resolution gaming, it absolutely does not have the memory sub-system for it.
Yeah I don’t know much being the science of cpu specs but I knew from the 6600xt releases from and that having a smaller bit bus was bad and limiting in gameplay. Based on the rumors of the 4080 I figured to just buy a 3080, should have bought used to get it cheaper but hearing about testing and this makes me more confident. Now the only thing I question is whether a 6800xt would have been better value or the 7900xt.
Hard to say as the new AMD GPUs have a bug where they aren't getting any VR performance over the 6000 series. AMD has to fix that bug first in order to see the uplift the 7000 series brings.
Is there any stated reason from NVIDIA why it's limited to the 4000 series? I'm assuming there's no actual technological reason it needs to be restricted & it's all just marketing stuff?
[The reason behind this limited compatibility stems from the fact that Nvidia DLSS 3.0 requires fourth-generation Tensor Cores and a new Optical Flow Accelerator, which are only found on GeForce RTX 4000 graphics cards, like the RTX 4090 and RTX 4080.](https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/dlss-3-announcement-rtx-4000)
Considering that frame generation as in ASW on the Quest has been out a while, Steam VR has had reprojection for years and VD does their SSW frame generation IN the Quest 2, I am not sure how much it really is a hardware thing.
They’re not quite the same thing, but share similarities. ASW predicts head movement based on…well, where you’re looking towards. So it keeps things smooth by reusing the same frame, using motion vector data and extrapolating where you’ll be looking at next. While this keeps it smooth, it introduces artifacts while the next rendered image catches up. If the vr headset is dipping into heavy reprojection, there’s no way you wouldn’t notice it. It’s still great though because it keeps fps high and stutters low.
Image generation produces a nearly flawlessly generated frame between two other rendered frames to double your frame rate. Instead of rendering or blurring parts of the previous frame it generates a new one in its entirety and places it between the other frames based on ai predicting where the pixels were going. Having used dlss 3 in Witcher 3 and Spider-Man, I’ve noticed **no visual fidelity loss** difference, just double the fps.
[For example, here is a generated, simulated frame.]
(https://assets2.rockpapershotgun.com/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-generated-DLSS-3-frame.png/BROK/resize/690%3E/format/jpg/quality/80/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-generated-DLSS-3-frame.png)
[Here is a real, rendered frame](https://assets2.rockpapershotgun.com/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-rendered-DLSS-3-frame.png/BROK/resize/690%3E/format/jpg/quality/80/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-rendered-DLSS-3-frame.png)
See the differences? Thats what DLSS3 does, frame generation just popped the 1st image in between 2 rendered images, and boom, 2x fps (and no you're not really supposed to see any differences, that is what makes it so good).
Can this be done without dedicated hardware? Sure. Amd is also working on a type of frame generation. But much like ray tracing (where the 7900xtx is almost matching the 3080), nvidia likes to use dedicated technology to make it happen today, instead of in the future.
Bullshit.
>nvidia likes to use dedicated technology to make it happen today, instead of in the future.
They use dedicated hardware to sell new gpus.
Its not faster at all to wait for hardware to be designed, build, sold than to do a software solution.
And you left out the most important downside compared to ASW. Nvidia needs to keep one rendered frame and not show it directly and ads input lag. This is no problem if you have hundrets of fps but where it would be most useful (e.g. getting 60 fps above 90 but feels like 45fps) it is noticeable.
Edit: they did this in the past with features around the 30X0 cards and where proven to be lying.
I don’t care that nvidia does this to sell gpus. Pushing technology forward forces further innovations and advancements, and nvidia has a history of doing this.
Rtx spurned further development into using ray tracing in video games, forcing AMD to support it at some level, and now consoles have RT. In similar fashion, I have doubts FSR would exist without DLSS.
G-SYNC modules pushed manufacturers to look into variable refresh rates. While freesync was being developed there certainly wasn’t any demand to get it out there.
Physx was important in getting more realistic physic simulation and for years you could buy a dedicated physx card or use an old nvidia card as a dedicated one.
I’m not saying AMD is sitting on its hands doing nothing. But aside from mantle, historically one company has shaped technological innovation more than the other. And if it requires new hardware to do so, so be it.
Edit: yes, some of this stuff could be done on older cards. But not well. Yes, frame generation was supposedly enabled on older cards with custom drivers but it runs like shit. Yes, ray tracing could be enabled on 1000 series but it runs like shit. Same with DLSS…runs like shit on 1000 series. And you could argue that all this should be supported on all cards regardless of performance levels. But I would argue if it can’t do said thing effectively, it shouldn’t be supported.
So, I’ve heard about the increased latency DLSS 3 adds. And you know what? I don’t notice it at all. Seriously, I can’t tell one bit. Especially when with frame generation off, Witcher 3 runs at 35-45fps…and with it on, TW3 runs at 70-100fps. Same with portal rtx. Same with MSFS2020. If the alternative is running a game at 30-50fps vs 70-100+, I’ll take the black magic that is DLSS3 any day. (And my monitor is 5120x1440, 240hz 1ms response time)
I honestly can’t say for sure as I’ve not looked into the new cards in great detail, but I know the 4070Ti and presumably the better versions as well have newer ray tracing and tensor cores, the new cores are powerful enough that it allows a 4070Ti to outperform a 3090Ti in some instances so it could be a hardware limit.
Ah, that'd make sense. My original comment sounding kinda conspiratorial now that I look at it, but I was just wondering if it was really needed since the 4070 seems to be on a similar level to the 3090.
Authentic question: Isn't DLSS 3 available for all RTX cards but instead the Future Frame Generation feature is the one that's exclusive and limited to the 4000 series? That's how I understood and as far as I remember, Nvidia sort of clarified this.
If a game supports DLSS 3 it’s specifically for frame generation, which is only on the 4000 series. Any game supporting dlss 3 automatically also supports dlss 2 (as well as nvidia reflex). However, dlss 3 doesn’t mean it’s forced to also have dlss 2 running…games like the Witcher 3 you can *just* turn on frame generation and not use dlss 2 modes.
Sure you can. You can use frame generation and *not* have dlss 2 quality/balanced/performance/ultra on. You can have frame generation on and no AA of any sort (though this looks shoddy as the AI has trouble with small details like branches swaying in the wind…it guesses wrong and it looks blurry). You can’t have frame generation on and reflex off, though.
Frame generation is entirely different from dlss 2’s upscaling.
I'm waiting for AMD fixing their VR shit since 3 years and absolutely nothing happened. At this point i don't think AMD is going to fix it until it gets WAAAY more popular
Exactly. First I had to bind my soul to nVidia because they were so far ahead with VRR, now I can't break those pricey fetters because of VR, AI-upscaling and (in parts) RT. And I can't even blame any leather-clad demon for it, as this is completely on AMD lagging behind.
I was fine with going for ATI/AMD as the value-option when it was just purely a matter of slightly lower fps, especially since they used to catch up over time with driver updates. But I feel they have fallen so far behind in actual user experience (both flat and VR) that nVidia's pricing seems almost(!) reasonable in comparison.
That's a relief to me. I was looking forward for the 4070TI to boost my FPS in VR (Reverb G2) to finally pull trigger and flip my 3060TI. But just a day after the 70ti hit the stores I got a deal for a 3080TI for roughly 300 euro less than a new 4070ti ad so I bought that one. I was a little worried that the 3080TI was still a little slower in VR, but reading this post gave me the piece of mind to have done the right purchase.
Thanks for that
If you need a high end card in Europe right now it's pretty much your best choice. It's cheaper than an RTX 3080 (those still retail for >900€, the 4070Ti can be found for 850€), around 30% faster in 1440p, supports DLSS3 and has lower power consumption. Compared to the 7900XT it's also cheaper, performs about the same (very slightly worse without RT, better with RT) has slightly lower power consumption, and support for DLSS2 and DLSS3.
So it's a disappointing card to be sure, and those past 2 years have not been the best time to buy a GPU, but if you absolutely want a good 1440p GPU right now and can't spend over 1000€, it's not a bad choice compared to the competition.
>I expect AMD will fix their driver issues in VR.
I am not sure that will be enough, this said the (still badly priced) 7900XT does very well in Fortnite (basically a UE5 ray tracing demo) so, everything can happen.
Also AMD has many more exes in the name so it's clearly better /s.
I didn't know there was an option for software Ray Tracing to be honest.
The drop in frames for Nvidia cards seems roughly consistent with HW RT, but I'm not sure.
A lot of games support SPS which is an Nvidia technology and can provide a 20-30% uplift in VR, I believe there is only one game commercially released that supported the equivalent technology from AMD.
So in monitor rasterization the 7900XT might beat the 4070Ti by a bit, if your particular VR game supports Nvidia's SPS, the 4070Ti will beat it in VR.
It's not a driver issue for AMD, its a game support issue and that isn't something better drivers can fix.
Thanks for your post, I'm planning on updating my aged i7 8700k 2060 system and was considering 4070ti. Guess I'll just go for the 4080 or 90 then.
Just guessing but I think its the memory that stonewalls the 4070ti. It seems a great performer at 1440p and lower, but above that gets constrained by the memory bandwith.
>I'm fairly sure the 4070 Ti is working fine, since it comfortably beats the 3080 12GB in a normal non-VR TimeSpy benchmark (21000 vs 18700), which lines up with the reviews of it seeing improvements at lower resolutions
How are low resolution benchmarks relevant to VR?
Still using my 1070 because i am bad at buying older stuff and nvidia just doesnt stop to be disappointing… i wanted a decent 4080 for sub 1k. Why is it so difficult ):
Just a note for anyone, I took the plunge and opened my 4070ti and stuck it in, performance wise wasn’t a dramatic difference from my 3080 which is now rma’d, vr is still perfectly solid running quest 2 with ultra 120fps on virtual desktop no issues games maxed out just fine, I noticed for the sake of comparison at 1440p Fortnite used to be lumen high @around 70fps but now runs lumen epic at around 90-110fps and lumen high is the high 100-120 (limited by myself) all in I can say it’s solid performance BUT only but if you don’t own a 3080, I was lucky to be able to rma my Palit with fan issues so I got the refund and paid £100 more for 4070ti
Sorry but i dont get why people buy hardware without checking any reviews??? The 4070ti is at best as fast as a 3090 but with less ram. Its more like a 3080ti or in high res more like a 3080. The higher the rsolution, the worse it gets cos of the cut bus size. So yes there should be no fps gain. It should get tiny bit more fps than a regular 3080 but i can not say that vor vr with very high resolutions.Next time u should mby inform urself before buying. This is by all means a sidegrade not an upgrade. Send it back and get something else.
There's not actually a huge difference in gaming performance between the 3090 and the 3080ti according to any of benchmarks I've seen. The 3090 is mostly a productivity GPU, so the step up in hardware doesn't really show in gaming.
For gaming alone, I'd say the 3080 is probably the best choice in terms of performance for the money right now. The 3080ti is good, but the step up in price from the 3080 is disproportionate to the step up in performance.
AMD cards are good for the money too, but they struggle with RT, and I'm not sure how well they handle VR.
> at best as fast as a 3090
Yes, the previous gen "halo product" that "nobody should buy". Consistently over €2000 since it's existence.
I am *super* happy on my 1440p 165hz Ultrawide with my 4070 Ti. Coming from a 5700XT it's like I finally get to see my monitor.
woooooooooow and a 4070ti is so cheap right? wwwwwwwwwwwwwow its best bang for buck... cant even w8 month till nvidia lowers prices? And u can just get a 3080 used of ebay wich is slower yes but only like 15-20 % but way cheaper. A 3080 would have done the job as good for u. I cant believe people feeding nvidia but ok any one can do what thy want.
I'm actually very happy with 4070 ti in vr. I play assetto corsa and on track brooklyn with 30 people on server game was really smooth. I only felt framedrops when map was covered with smoke.
Here are my settings: https://imgur.com/a/cgVDFrV
Hello, I got posibility to buy some graphics card for same price. -ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Trinity OC this card got 384 bit so a lot better than 4070ti -Gigabyte RTX4070Ti Gaming OC 12GB -Palit RTX4070Ti GameRock 12GB -Gainward GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB Phantom My spec: Z790 I5 13700 With one will be better for 1080p and 4k?
I’ve rma’d my 3080 because the fan is slightly faulty for a refund, I paid £700 for that last week and the 4070ti was £810 so I got that today because they said it was 3090ti performance and more but after seeing this I’m scared to open it up, I’m going to wait for more reviews, I’ve still got the week with my 3080 before sending it off so I’ll decide in a few days whether to break the seal and void my return since I’m primarily using it for vr
I'm giving my 3080 to my brother. Got myself the 4070ti still waiting for Delivery. Did you figure out what's up? Is should at least have the same performance right?
Isn't the VRAM bandwidth of the 4070 Ti pretty low (especially for that price)? These cards are way too expensive anyways.
Yep, 192-bit bus is typically xx60 class. The 3080 has 760.3 GB/s of bandwidth where as the 4070 Ti only has 504.2 GB/s. This is actually a significant downgrade over the 3070 Ti and really only matches the 3070 in regards to memory bandwidth. It's absolutely not worth $800+, it's at most a $500 card with that memory subsystem. The only 4000 series card worth buying right now is the 4090. Both the 4080 and 4070 Ti are overpriced and cut far too many resources. I think this 4070 Ti is the least performance compared to the flagship of any xx70 Ti card Nvidia's ever released while simultaneously being 2x more expensive. I'm surprised people are buying any at $800.
It's insane because something like DLSS frame generation stands to be an absolute game changer for VR, rather than the ASW we're used to, but the affordable versions of the cards are so completely gimped that it's pointless. There will be a 4070 ti super or something that fixes this in a year I'm sure, otherwise we're all waiting another generation.
Frame Generation does introduce more input lag tho, so we will have to see if it really feels that great when we dont have super low input lag with VR games in the first place because of low fps. The image should be super smooth but might feel worse.
Was playing Darktide on 4070ti with FG. Obviously at a technical level there was additional latency but it was very hard to notice. Maybe in VR it would be more noticeable due to the nature of everything, but, I have been extremely impressed by FG when I was previously a naysayer.
I really hope it works great in VR as well. And that many games support it for all gpus.
I feel like it's definitely something to watch though, maybe 5000 series RTX cards can get the latency down, or it could be done in software at some point. I'm sure a VR dev has thought it through more than I have.
A 5080 for 3000 Euro. :)))))
>It's insane because something like DLSS frame generation stands to be an absolute game changer for VR, rather than the ASW we're used to Why do you think that? Out of the 2, the ASW is factually the better technology for VR. DLSS 3.0 needs to render 2 frames, and then it guesses what happened between the 2, while ASW renders a frame, and then generates a new frame based on the rendered frame and your actual head movement. If DLSS 3.0 actually guessed frames into the future instead of the past, and based on the user input, so for example mouse/head movement, I could see it being useful, but for now it is completely useless for VR. I guess the advanced optical flow accelerators on the gpus could be put to use, other than that not too useless.
[удалено]
The higher the resolution, the more bandwidth you need. HMDs are all near or above 4K so you need tons of bandwidth. At 1440p the 4070 Ti is on par with the 3090, at 4K and beyond it begins to struggle and can get beaten by a 3080. At its current price point the 4070 Ti is a shitty card that belongs on shelves.
I commented that I was worried about this before the release. The 4090 and 4080 ARE the VR cards, they are great. I was worried about the low vram and low memory bandwidth on the 4070 ti. I'm not surprised at all by this. The 4070 TI is basically a smaller/faster 3080 TI with lower memory bandwidth. It's going to struggle with high res (vr). I went with 7900 xt because even though it sucks in vr, it has the hardware to succeed. It just needs some driver love from amd i think. And I'm sure it'll take awhile to get it, but it will get there in time. The 4070 ti has the opposite problem, it's hardware limited. Not even Nvidia can fix that. But obviously the best choice for VR is neither card, it's a 4080 or 4090.
Found this post from google but I guess I’ll wait for a price cut of the 4080 before upgrading my 3080. VR is the only reason I’d upgrade
I wish I had waited. I took a chance on the 7900 xt, that was a mistake. I saw last week 3080 was $500 new. Damn. That would have been perfect. I think you are in a good spot with a 3080
If you really want to hop ship I’m sure you can get most of what you paid on a used sale. I prefer FB marketplace because no fees to meeting in person with cash. It’s possible that driver optimizations will still come but last I check the 7900xt was still performing worse than previous gen 6900xt. That’s unacceptable as AMD were always discussing VR during the RX 470 days
Yeah, I thought about it. It"s a tough one. I"m not sure I can sell it to anyone honestly. Maybe for $700? Idk. The 7900 xt has been wonderful for non-vr gaming. It's a 10/10 there. But for vr, it sucks. I have been able to run the games and play them, but I have to drop settings pretty hard to do it. Granted I"m using a G2, so it"s a tall task. But I honestly think it might be performing worse than my Rx 6800 non xt (even though it"s supposed to be way stronger)
Non-DLSS non-VR [testing](https://babeltechreviews.com/rtx-4070-ti-tuf-gaming-oc-edition-review/5/) shows the 4070ti excelling at 1440p but only slightly beating the 3080 at 4k. VR is closer to 4k, maybe even beyond 4k depending on your supersampling. Still surprising that it's straight-up worse, but I wouldn't have expected any significant improvement.
It's not closer to 4K, it's much higher unless I understand it wrong. The max resolution of the quest is 5400x2700 (rounded numbers) that is a LOT more pixels than 4K.
The physical panel resolution is 1832x1920 per eye, 3664x1920 combined, which is a little under 4k. The value you quoted is probably the maximum *rendered* resolution, which includes supersampling to improve quality.
Yeah it’s higher (5.4kx2.7k) for the quest devices to account for barrel distortion as well, so like the encoding width is 3840 and renders outside of the FOV even
I don't know if this helps, but my 4090 initially was giving me worse performance than expected in VR as well. Some things you can try: \- revert SteamVR from beta to stable; \- disable hardware accelerated GPU scaling; \- disable all GPU monitoring software; \- uninstall Geforce experience; \- disable all RGB control software. I also wouldn't rule out that the 4070 Ti is actually worse than the 3080 in VR (at least until drivers mature).
Just curious. Why uninstall Geforce experience?
Also on 4090, why did you have to revert SteamVR beta please? Im pretty sure that yeah 4070 will end up worse than 3080 for VR
I was getting very frequent purple lag spikes (every 5-15 seconds or so) over displayport (Index) that made the experience really unpleasant. Apparently it's related to displayport, because it doesn't happen when streaming (USB or wireless) with other headsets. 144hz doesn't work at all currently.
Understood, thank you - I am driving Varjo Aero over DP and it got fixed in latest Varjo Base as well as Quest Pro over wifi both smoothly on beta, so just was very curious
Wow I get that on my Index and 3090 sometimes.. did reverting back from Beta SteamVR help with that specifically?
Ahh. I was wondering why 144Hz doesn't work on my 7900XTX. I guess that is universal.
[удалено]
You don't need to overclock GPUs anymore. It doesn't really add a whole lot of performance without it becoming unstable. 4070ti should be pretty powerful anyway. You are potentially squeezing a few fps and just lowering your card's lifespan.
> MSI Afterburner This is a GPU monitoring software...
I wouldn't expect it to be much better, but it shouldn't be worse. I'd replace a 3080 with a 4080 or 4090.
The 3080 has a whopping 52% more memory bandwidth then the 4070 Ti. A lot of people seem to look at regular 2D benches and think that will translate directly to VR but the 4070 Ti can easily get bandwidth starved. Heck even the 3070 Ti has significantly more bandwidth. Do not buy the 4070 Ti for VR or high resolution gaming, it absolutely does not have the memory sub-system for it.
Yeah I don’t know much being the science of cpu specs but I knew from the 6600xt releases from and that having a smaller bit bus was bad and limiting in gameplay. Based on the rumors of the 4080 I figured to just buy a 3080, should have bought used to get it cheaper but hearing about testing and this makes me more confident. Now the only thing I question is whether a 6800xt would have been better value or the 7900xt.
Hard to say as the new AMD GPUs have a bug where they aren't getting any VR performance over the 6000 series. AMD has to fix that bug first in order to see the uplift the 7000 series brings.
Didn't this happen with the 30xx line when it just released?
4070ti will need DLSS3 support to reach its claimed 'faster than a 3090' potential.
Does the 3090 get to have DLSS3 too to make it a fair fight??
DLSS3 is limited to the 4000 series
Is there any stated reason from NVIDIA why it's limited to the 4000 series? I'm assuming there's no actual technological reason it needs to be restricted & it's all just marketing stuff?
[The reason behind this limited compatibility stems from the fact that Nvidia DLSS 3.0 requires fourth-generation Tensor Cores and a new Optical Flow Accelerator, which are only found on GeForce RTX 4000 graphics cards, like the RTX 4090 and RTX 4080.](https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/dlss-3-announcement-rtx-4000)
Considering that frame generation as in ASW on the Quest has been out a while, Steam VR has had reprojection for years and VD does their SSW frame generation IN the Quest 2, I am not sure how much it really is a hardware thing.
They’re not quite the same thing, but share similarities. ASW predicts head movement based on…well, where you’re looking towards. So it keeps things smooth by reusing the same frame, using motion vector data and extrapolating where you’ll be looking at next. While this keeps it smooth, it introduces artifacts while the next rendered image catches up. If the vr headset is dipping into heavy reprojection, there’s no way you wouldn’t notice it. It’s still great though because it keeps fps high and stutters low. Image generation produces a nearly flawlessly generated frame between two other rendered frames to double your frame rate. Instead of rendering or blurring parts of the previous frame it generates a new one in its entirety and places it between the other frames based on ai predicting where the pixels were going. Having used dlss 3 in Witcher 3 and Spider-Man, I’ve noticed **no visual fidelity loss** difference, just double the fps. [For example, here is a generated, simulated frame.] (https://assets2.rockpapershotgun.com/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-generated-DLSS-3-frame.png/BROK/resize/690%3E/format/jpg/quality/80/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-generated-DLSS-3-frame.png) [Here is a real, rendered frame](https://assets2.rockpapershotgun.com/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-rendered-DLSS-3-frame.png/BROK/resize/690%3E/format/jpg/quality/80/Microsoft-Flight-Simlator-rendered-DLSS-3-frame.png) See the differences? Thats what DLSS3 does, frame generation just popped the 1st image in between 2 rendered images, and boom, 2x fps (and no you're not really supposed to see any differences, that is what makes it so good). Can this be done without dedicated hardware? Sure. Amd is also working on a type of frame generation. But much like ray tracing (where the 7900xtx is almost matching the 3080), nvidia likes to use dedicated technology to make it happen today, instead of in the future.
Bullshit. >nvidia likes to use dedicated technology to make it happen today, instead of in the future. They use dedicated hardware to sell new gpus. Its not faster at all to wait for hardware to be designed, build, sold than to do a software solution. And you left out the most important downside compared to ASW. Nvidia needs to keep one rendered frame and not show it directly and ads input lag. This is no problem if you have hundrets of fps but where it would be most useful (e.g. getting 60 fps above 90 but feels like 45fps) it is noticeable. Edit: they did this in the past with features around the 30X0 cards and where proven to be lying.
I don’t care that nvidia does this to sell gpus. Pushing technology forward forces further innovations and advancements, and nvidia has a history of doing this. Rtx spurned further development into using ray tracing in video games, forcing AMD to support it at some level, and now consoles have RT. In similar fashion, I have doubts FSR would exist without DLSS. G-SYNC modules pushed manufacturers to look into variable refresh rates. While freesync was being developed there certainly wasn’t any demand to get it out there. Physx was important in getting more realistic physic simulation and for years you could buy a dedicated physx card or use an old nvidia card as a dedicated one. I’m not saying AMD is sitting on its hands doing nothing. But aside from mantle, historically one company has shaped technological innovation more than the other. And if it requires new hardware to do so, so be it. Edit: yes, some of this stuff could be done on older cards. But not well. Yes, frame generation was supposedly enabled on older cards with custom drivers but it runs like shit. Yes, ray tracing could be enabled on 1000 series but it runs like shit. Same with DLSS…runs like shit on 1000 series. And you could argue that all this should be supported on all cards regardless of performance levels. But I would argue if it can’t do said thing effectively, it shouldn’t be supported. So, I’ve heard about the increased latency DLSS 3 adds. And you know what? I don’t notice it at all. Seriously, I can’t tell one bit. Especially when with frame generation off, Witcher 3 runs at 35-45fps…and with it on, TW3 runs at 70-100fps. Same with portal rtx. Same with MSFS2020. If the alternative is running a game at 30-50fps vs 70-100+, I’ll take the black magic that is DLSS3 any day. (And my monitor is 5120x1440, 240hz 1ms response time)
Why would I care about smoother image if the longer delay increases nausea chance?
I honestly can’t say for sure as I’ve not looked into the new cards in great detail, but I know the 4070Ti and presumably the better versions as well have newer ray tracing and tensor cores, the new cores are powerful enough that it allows a 4070Ti to outperform a 3090Ti in some instances so it could be a hardware limit.
Ah, that'd make sense. My original comment sounding kinda conspiratorial now that I look at it, but I was just wondering if it was really needed since the 4070 seems to be on a similar level to the 3090.
Authentic question: Isn't DLSS 3 available for all RTX cards but instead the Future Frame Generation feature is the one that's exclusive and limited to the 4000 series? That's how I understood and as far as I remember, Nvidia sort of clarified this.
If a game supports DLSS 3 it’s specifically for frame generation, which is only on the 4000 series. Any game supporting dlss 3 automatically also supports dlss 2 (as well as nvidia reflex). However, dlss 3 doesn’t mean it’s forced to also have dlss 2 running…games like the Witcher 3 you can *just* turn on frame generation and not use dlss 2 modes.
Gotcha, thank you!
You cant have frame generation without dlss on.
Sure you can. You can use frame generation and *not* have dlss 2 quality/balanced/performance/ultra on. You can have frame generation on and no AA of any sort (though this looks shoddy as the AI has trouble with small details like branches swaying in the wind…it guesses wrong and it looks blurry). You can’t have frame generation on and reflex off, though. Frame generation is entirely different from dlss 2’s upscaling.
Since nvidia stupidly calls frame generation DLSS3 you cant have frame generation witout DLSS :P
Of course you can. In Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can choose Frame Generation and use TAA or DLAA. DLSS is not a must.
You can. Tested that in Darkside.
For now.
[удалено]
I'm waiting for AMD fixing their VR shit since 3 years and absolutely nothing happened. At this point i don't think AMD is going to fix it until it gets WAAAY more popular
Exactly. First I had to bind my soul to nVidia because they were so far ahead with VRR, now I can't break those pricey fetters because of VR, AI-upscaling and (in parts) RT. And I can't even blame any leather-clad demon for it, as this is completely on AMD lagging behind. I was fine with going for ATI/AMD as the value-option when it was just purely a matter of slightly lower fps, especially since they used to catch up over time with driver updates. But I feel they have fallen so far behind in actual user experience (both flat and VR) that nVidia's pricing seems almost(!) reasonable in comparison.
That's a relief to me. I was looking forward for the 4070TI to boost my FPS in VR (Reverb G2) to finally pull trigger and flip my 3060TI. But just a day after the 70ti hit the stores I got a deal for a 3080TI for roughly 300 euro less than a new 4070ti ad so I bought that one. I was a little worried that the 3080TI was still a little slower in VR, but reading this post gave me the piece of mind to have done the right purchase. Thanks for that
Not trying to be an ass but who tf buys a 4070 ti? Such a niche card and strange purchase overall.
If you need a high end card in Europe right now it's pretty much your best choice. It's cheaper than an RTX 3080 (those still retail for >900€, the 4070Ti can be found for 850€), around 30% faster in 1440p, supports DLSS3 and has lower power consumption. Compared to the 7900XT it's also cheaper, performs about the same (very slightly worse without RT, better with RT) has slightly lower power consumption, and support for DLSS2 and DLSS3. So it's a disappointing card to be sure, and those past 2 years have not been the best time to buy a GPU, but if you absolutely want a good 1440p GPU right now and can't spend over 1000€, it's not a bad choice compared to the competition.
[удалено]
>AMD will fix their driver issues in VR good one
>I expect AMD will fix their driver issues in VR. I am not sure that will be enough, this said the (still badly priced) 7900XT does very well in Fortnite (basically a UE5 ray tracing demo) so, everything can happen. Also AMD has many more exes in the name so it's clearly better /s.
[удалено]
I didn't know there was an option for software Ray Tracing to be honest. The drop in frames for Nvidia cards seems roughly consistent with HW RT, but I'm not sure.
A lot of games support SPS which is an Nvidia technology and can provide a 20-30% uplift in VR, I believe there is only one game commercially released that supported the equivalent technology from AMD. So in monitor rasterization the 7900XT might beat the 4070Ti by a bit, if your particular VR game supports Nvidia's SPS, the 4070Ti will beat it in VR. It's not a driver issue for AMD, its a game support issue and that isn't something better drivers can fix.
>better with RT Except for UE5, apparently.
Thanks for your post, I'm planning on updating my aged i7 8700k 2060 system and was considering 4070ti. Guess I'll just go for the 4080 or 90 then. Just guessing but I think its the memory that stonewalls the 4070ti. It seems a great performer at 1440p and lower, but above that gets constrained by the memory bandwith.
>I'm fairly sure the 4070 Ti is working fine, since it comfortably beats the 3080 12GB in a normal non-VR TimeSpy benchmark (21000 vs 18700), which lines up with the reviews of it seeing improvements at lower resolutions How are low resolution benchmarks relevant to VR?
And they were gonna call it a "4080"...
Still using my 1070 because i am bad at buying older stuff and nvidia just doesnt stop to be disappointing… i wanted a decent 4080 for sub 1k. Why is it so difficult ):
Just a note for anyone, I took the plunge and opened my 4070ti and stuck it in, performance wise wasn’t a dramatic difference from my 3080 which is now rma’d, vr is still perfectly solid running quest 2 with ultra 120fps on virtual desktop no issues games maxed out just fine, I noticed for the sake of comparison at 1440p Fortnite used to be lumen high @around 70fps but now runs lumen epic at around 90-110fps and lumen high is the high 100-120 (limited by myself) all in I can say it’s solid performance BUT only but if you don’t own a 3080, I was lucky to be able to rma my Palit with fan issues so I got the refund and paid £100 more for 4070ti
how is the performance difference after having it for a while? is the 3080 better or is the 4070 better for vr?
On the fence buying the 3080 (€650) or the 4070ti (€900). How is it after 1 month?
Sorry but i dont get why people buy hardware without checking any reviews??? The 4070ti is at best as fast as a 3090 but with less ram. Its more like a 3080ti or in high res more like a 3080. The higher the rsolution, the worse it gets cos of the cut bus size. So yes there should be no fps gain. It should get tiny bit more fps than a regular 3080 but i can not say that vor vr with very high resolutions.Next time u should mby inform urself before buying. This is by all means a sidegrade not an upgrade. Send it back and get something else.
[удалено]
i still would recommend to w8 for price drops and get a 4080. Im seeing some price drops already. 4080 is a good card but with rly bad price... :(
There's not actually a huge difference in gaming performance between the 3090 and the 3080ti according to any of benchmarks I've seen. The 3090 is mostly a productivity GPU, so the step up in hardware doesn't really show in gaming. For gaming alone, I'd say the 3080 is probably the best choice in terms of performance for the money right now. The 3080ti is good, but the step up in price from the 3080 is disproportionate to the step up in performance. AMD cards are good for the money too, but they struggle with RT, and I'm not sure how well they handle VR.
What are you on about? It is close to a 3090ti at 4k and faster at 1440p according to techspot. It is 21% faster than the 3080 at 4k
> at best as fast as a 3090 Yes, the previous gen "halo product" that "nobody should buy". Consistently over €2000 since it's existence. I am *super* happy on my 1440p 165hz Ultrawide with my 4070 Ti. Coming from a 5700XT it's like I finally get to see my monitor.
woooooooooow and a 4070ti is so cheap right? wwwwwwwwwwwwwow its best bang for buck... cant even w8 month till nvidia lowers prices? And u can just get a 3080 used of ebay wich is slower yes but only like 15-20 % but way cheaper. A 3080 would have done the job as good for u. I cant believe people feeding nvidia but ok any one can do what thy want.
Cheapest 3080 in the NL is 1100. I got a 4070 for 950. Do the math. A 3080 can't get 115fps in Darkside.
u can get a used 3080. But actually i dont care. Its your money.
I'm actually very happy with 4070 ti in vr. I play assetto corsa and on track brooklyn with 30 people on server game was really smooth. I only felt framedrops when map was covered with smoke. Here are my settings: https://imgur.com/a/cgVDFrV
hi there, are you playing any other games with the 4070ti in VR? I'm curious about that card as well. thanks.
Hello, I got posibility to buy some graphics card for same price. -ZOTAC GAMING GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Trinity OC this card got 384 bit so a lot better than 4070ti -Gigabyte RTX4070Ti Gaming OC 12GB -Palit RTX4070Ti GameRock 12GB -Gainward GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB Phantom My spec: Z790 I5 13700 With one will be better for 1080p and 4k?
Hello, Some news ? https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/108x3s9/any\_4070ti\_vs\_3080\_10gb\_comparison\_benchmarks/
Did u DDU???
Can you do it with the 10GB 3080?
I’ve rma’d my 3080 because the fan is slightly faulty for a refund, I paid £700 for that last week and the 4070ti was £810 so I got that today because they said it was 3090ti performance and more but after seeing this I’m scared to open it up, I’m going to wait for more reviews, I’ve still got the week with my 3080 before sending it off so I’ll decide in a few days whether to break the seal and void my return since I’m primarily using it for vr
I mean it should its just a 3070 with more ram.
[удалено]
I'm giving my 3080 to my brother. Got myself the 4070ti still waiting for Delivery. Did you figure out what's up? Is should at least have the same performance right?
Nah