Frame generation still shouldn’t be treated like normal performance, both AMD and Nvidia (And likely soon Intel) are doing this
-Manosko-
Dishonest marketing at best, calling it outperforming, when frame generation is not actual performance, it’s frame smoothing for a visually smoother experience, it won’t make the game render more frames, actually the opposite.
I wonder if this kind of marketing would even be legal in the EU, considering the strict and strong consumer protection laws here…
Stunrise
I own a 3090 and would never ever trade it against the 4070 Super, not even against 4070 Ti, even if they were new. Both have crippling 12GB Memory and I have zero interest in latency monster FrameGen, where I see 120FPS, but with 50FPS InputLag.
NVIDIA 4000 Series is the first one I miss since Maxwell GTX 970.
Smellfish360
and now turn all of the AI based stuff off…
DrKrFfXx
In any case, if I was to buy a GPU right now, given the choice between these two, I’d pick the 4070S, because they are a match 90% of the time, trading wins by small margins, but the power consumption is a big deal, specially in the summer. My 3080Ti at full power makes me sweat on the summer.
It’s not like they are dissuading 3090 users to buy 4070S.
I don’t mind them doing this, but they really should include frame generation enabled on the image or video with latency figures.
WrongSubFools
You ever notice how it’s always people who don’t have frame generation who are convinced it’s a scam? Never anyone who says “I got this card, and this feature is shit, I feel cheated?”
I was sold on frame generation before I bought my card (otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it), and there are other technologies I don’t own but that I still acknowledge are good. Foveated rendering. Haptic feedback. Just because you don’t have something doesn’t mean it’s bad.
I think it’s pretty clear that Nvidia are seeing if they can manage to convince a few 3090 owners to upgrade with this marketing, but the reality is 3090 owners are better off waiting for the 5000 series (or just going for the 4090 if money is no object of course).
It is certainly impressive that a sub $600 card is capable of being comparable to what used to be a $1500 card, particularly with its significantly more efficient power consumption, but it’s also worth noting that a second hand 3090 can be found for around the same price these days, so if you can find a good deal on one that hasn’t been mined on, and you don’t care about frame generation (or want 24GB of VRAM for 3D rendering work for example) the 4070 Super isn’t necessarily a better choice (especially if you don’t care for 4K gaming either).
Seeing as PC game optimisation seems to be on a downward trend we have to wonder, what technology is going to be relied on more in future? Frame generation and upscaling? Or more VRAM? We’re left with that unknown at the moment.
Pooctox
Few years ago, 3080 is advertised as a 4k beast. Now it’s not even “qualify for 2k” lol.
Do Nvidia reduce the GPU performance via driver? Do new games supper bad optimize?
I will keep my 3080 until new GPU double (or triple) its raw power.
Saw many people still rocking 1060 or 1080.
endless_8888
Comparisons absolutely SHOULD be including technology we will be using. It’s thanks to DLSS 3.5 / Frame Generation that I’m able to enjoy playing Cyberpunk at 4K with Path Tracing and Ray Reconstruction with 60-80fps.
I upgraded to a 4080 from a 3080 that could barely run 4K with ultra settings and Ray Tracing disabled.
Why would I give a shit about raw raster performance only when I’m never going to be in that scenario?
GPU’s should be tested traditionally with raw raster performance but also tested with their best features and technology being deployed. Just give us more data, and nothing misleading.
zunaguli
well good thing there is a fg-mod now for 3000s
Lone_Wanderer357
Future generations of GPUS will be defined by software, not hardware.
You seem to be stuck in the past with the mindset of raw horsepower.
David0ne86
The sad part is that 70% of people that purchase nvidia will think it’s true. While TECHNICALLY true, one is using frame generation, which isn’t the same thing as using an upscaler like dlss.
Also it’s funny hearing nvidia all of a sudden caring about efficiency lol.
willnoli
Isn’t this what we want? Like better performance and efficiency than last generation?
asphalt51dc
Nvidia could literally market it honestly as “equal to 3090 performance at 2/5th the price and half the power consumption”, and it would’ve been a good marketing point. But nah, they gotta use fake, latency ridden frames.
MaleficentBit596
My Steam Deck can run it at 30 with 26 watt usage what a loser
sk2536
fcuk DLSS and frame gen , whats the native res performance uplift ?
DropDeadGaming
I know what you mean, Nvidia has lied before, but this time they’re telling the truth. Daniel Owens put it to the test on YouTube and it seems to be genuinely faster than a 3090 in raw performance, no framegen. It is however more pronounced in 1080p, less pronounced in 1440p, and the advantage is almost completely nullified at 4k with the 4070super only being a few single digit percentile points faster or in some cases equal
Edit typos
LickingMySistersFeet
Yes it’s better, I don’t understand what you mean
Witcherjeralt
And u can only imagine how much they are looting from customers with their overpriced GPUs.
jake6501
When it comes to marketing, this is some of the most honest there is. They actually list all the settings and technologies used in getting this result and it’s probably pretty accurate.
Most companies would just say X times faster than the competition or something similar without any idea of how they came to the conclusion.
Cold-Feed8930
they really got away with making people accept DLSS as performance benchmark..
idc about how the game performa with DLSS i wana see RAW performance, cuz im not gonna use this blurry shit
Livid_Tap_56
Same old scummy company
Suspicious_Project_7
A “fraction” of the power consumption? I mean I guess 2/3 is technically a fraction but that’s not how I’d expect that term used.
joodontknowme
This is precisely the reason why it’s smart to wait a few series before you upgrade. My 2080 works just fine ,nothing i cant play. With the price of video cards when I upgrade I want to be able to say DAYAM!!
32 Comments
They should’ve clarified that it’s in certain games where dlss FG is implemented. Otherwise 3090 is faster.
yeah one is DLSS 2 other one is DLSS 3+. Wonder why it has far more fps. Not even showing if its an average fps or not.
Only thing I see is 2 random fps numbers on the screen randomly placed to make people buy 4070 Super.
I hate these deceptive marketing attempts.
Will be interesting to see a benchmark and comparison run by a normal, non Nvidia source with no marketing push.
this ain’t the problem, the real problem is the best card of 30 series can’t handle a new game at 60 fps.
The slide is misleading and unnecessary, because the specific claim is true
The 4070S is faster than the 3090 in AW2 RT _without FG_. This is one of the few scenarios where it can be faster
https://youtu.be/5TPbEjhyn0s?t=10m23s
Frame generation still shouldn’t be treated like normal performance, both AMD and Nvidia (And likely soon Intel) are doing this
Dishonest marketing at best, calling it outperforming, when frame generation is not actual performance, it’s frame smoothing for a visually smoother experience, it won’t make the game render more frames, actually the opposite.
I wonder if this kind of marketing would even be legal in the EU, considering the strict and strong consumer protection laws here…
I own a 3090 and would never ever trade it against the 4070 Super, not even against 4070 Ti, even if they were new. Both have crippling 12GB Memory and I have zero interest in latency monster FrameGen, where I see 120FPS, but with 50FPS InputLag.
NVIDIA 4000 Series is the first one I miss since Maxwell GTX 970.
and now turn all of the AI based stuff off…
In any case, if I was to buy a GPU right now, given the choice between these two, I’d pick the 4070S, because they are a match 90% of the time, trading wins by small margins, but the power consumption is a big deal, specially in the summer. My 3080Ti at full power makes me sweat on the summer.
It’s not like they are dissuading 3090 users to buy 4070S.
At least they’ve said the framegen was on
https://preview.redd.it/krug2nksxrdc1.jpeg?width=1012&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=940c11da78f4b07edd7eca14a980f9a180169f92
Have y’all already forgotten about this?
I don’t mind them doing this, but they really should include frame generation enabled on the image or video with latency figures.
You ever notice how it’s always people who don’t have frame generation who are convinced it’s a scam? Never anyone who says “I got this card, and this feature is shit, I feel cheated?”
I was sold on frame generation before I bought my card (otherwise I wouldn’t have bought it), and there are other technologies I don’t own but that I still acknowledge are good. Foveated rendering. Haptic feedback. Just because you don’t have something doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Try watching this instead https://youtu.be/8i28iyoF_YI?si=tzxXFzPKSLWxM2xK
Edit: Another benchmark video was just uploaded here too: https://youtu.be/5TPbEjhyn0s?si=Y_g8zZUVSloMy9cP
I think it’s pretty clear that Nvidia are seeing if they can manage to convince a few 3090 owners to upgrade with this marketing, but the reality is 3090 owners are better off waiting for the 5000 series (or just going for the 4090 if money is no object of course).
It is certainly impressive that a sub $600 card is capable of being comparable to what used to be a $1500 card, particularly with its significantly more efficient power consumption, but it’s also worth noting that a second hand 3090 can be found for around the same price these days, so if you can find a good deal on one that hasn’t been mined on, and you don’t care about frame generation (or want 24GB of VRAM for 3D rendering work for example) the 4070 Super isn’t necessarily a better choice (especially if you don’t care for 4K gaming either).
Seeing as PC game optimisation seems to be on a downward trend we have to wonder, what technology is going to be relied on more in future? Frame generation and upscaling? Or more VRAM? We’re left with that unknown at the moment.
Few years ago, 3080 is advertised as a 4k beast. Now it’s not even “qualify for 2k” lol.
Do Nvidia reduce the GPU performance via driver? Do new games supper bad optimize?
I will keep my 3080 until new GPU double (or triple) its raw power.
Saw many people still rocking 1060 or 1080.
Comparisons absolutely SHOULD be including technology we will be using. It’s thanks to DLSS 3.5 / Frame Generation that I’m able to enjoy playing Cyberpunk at 4K with Path Tracing and Ray Reconstruction with 60-80fps.
I upgraded to a 4080 from a 3080 that could barely run 4K with ultra settings and Ray Tracing disabled.
Why would I give a shit about raw raster performance only when I’m never going to be in that scenario?
GPU’s should be tested traditionally with raw raster performance but also tested with their best features and technology being deployed. Just give us more data, and nothing misleading.
well good thing there is a fg-mod now for 3000s
Future generations of GPUS will be defined by software, not hardware.
You seem to be stuck in the past with the mindset of raw horsepower.
The sad part is that 70% of people that purchase nvidia will think it’s true. While TECHNICALLY true, one is using frame generation, which isn’t the same thing as using an upscaler like dlss.
Also it’s funny hearing nvidia all of a sudden caring about efficiency lol.
Isn’t this what we want? Like better performance and efficiency than last generation?
Nvidia could literally market it honestly as “equal to 3090 performance at 2/5th the price and half the power consumption”, and it would’ve been a good marketing point. But nah, they gotta use fake, latency ridden frames.
My Steam Deck can run it at 30 with 26 watt usage what a loser
fcuk DLSS and frame gen , whats the native res performance uplift ?
I know what you mean, Nvidia has lied before, but this time they’re telling the truth. Daniel Owens put it to the test on YouTube and it seems to be genuinely faster than a 3090 in raw performance, no framegen. It is however more pronounced in 1080p, less pronounced in 1440p, and the advantage is almost completely nullified at 4k with the 4070super only being a few single digit percentile points faster or in some cases equal
Edit typos
Yes it’s better, I don’t understand what you mean
And u can only imagine how much they are looting from customers with their overpriced GPUs.
When it comes to marketing, this is some of the most honest there is. They actually list all the settings and technologies used in getting this result and it’s probably pretty accurate.
Most companies would just say X times faster than the competition or something similar without any idea of how they came to the conclusion.
they really got away with making people accept DLSS as performance benchmark..
idc about how the game performa with DLSS i wana see RAW performance, cuz im not gonna use this blurry shit
Same old scummy company
A “fraction” of the power consumption? I mean I guess 2/3 is technically a fraction but that’s not how I’d expect that term used.
This is precisely the reason why it’s smart to wait a few series before you upgrade. My 2080 works just fine ,nothing i cant play. With the price of video cards when I upgrade I want to be able to say DAYAM!!