my benchmarks, 9800x3d, 4070ti (asus TUF OC), 1440p

[Tough-guy Blues]

transcribed:

Resolution 2560x1440
CPU AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D 8-Core Processor
GPU NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti
RAM 31GB
GPU Driver Version 566.36

Graphics Settings High
SCORE 36262
Average 106.43 FPS

Graphics Settings ULTRA
SCORE 31131
Average 91.90 FPS

Graphics Settings ULTRA / FRAME GENERATION ENABLED
SCORE 22795
Average 133.95 FPS

images:
https://imgur.com/a/8BpAxYd

build
https://ca.pcpartpicker.com/b/sr2V3C

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Tough-guy Blues:

transcribed:

RAM 31GB

???

Are you sure thats no typo or do you have an active IGPU that eats away 1GB of RAM, as its emulated VRAM? If so, you should deactivate it in the bios and get a little more system performance.

[Krustenkäse]

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

[Tough-guy Blues]

Originally posted by NeoX:

thanks, i didn't know

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

This is just a theory since i lack the data from OP, but if his 31GB of useable RAM is not a typo. The Bottleneck is the CPU because of the RAM only using base speed with no actual XMP profile CL-latency advantage what results in these numbers. because the IGPU of the CPU clocks down the RAM speed to its configures 2400MT/s (4800MT/s system) speed.

[Krustenkäse]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

This is just a theory since i lack the data from OP, but if his 31GB of useable RAM is not a typo. The Bottleneck is the CPU because of the RAM only using base speed with no actual XMP profile CL-latency advantage what results in these numbers. because the IGPU of the CPU clocks down the RAM speed to its configures 2400MT/s (4800MT/s system) speed.

Even without all that the 4070Ti is just a horrible card when you look at price/performance ratio.
Nvidia is getting less and less consumer friendly. 4000 and 5000 Series suck ass.

[Mechanique]

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Originally posted by NeoX:

This is just a theory since i lack the data from OP, but if his 31GB of useable RAM is not a typo. The Bottleneck is the CPU because of the RAM only using base speed with no actual XMP profile CL-latency advantage what results in these numbers. because the IGPU of the CPU clocks down the RAM speed to its configures 2400MT/s (4800MT/s system) speed.

Even without all that the 4070Ti is just a horrible card when you look at price/performance ratio.
Nvidia is getting less and less consumer friendly. 4000 and 5000 Series suck ass.

Yeah ok, but thats a whole different topic. Lets stick with the pure numbers of performance for now :-) .

[Krustenkäse]

Originally posted by Mechanique:

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

In what world do you live in to think that a 4070Ti TUF OC that costs around 900-1000$+ is "mid-range".
Brainwashed Nvidia shill strikes again.
NVIDIA Marketing

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Mechanique:

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

[Krustenkäse]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Mechanique:

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

Weird that the RAM would clock down to "match" the iGPU. Also, i dont think that's the case here. MH Wilds should still show the max available Ram. it showed 32GB Ram for me too when i did my benchmark.

[Minmataro]

Originally posted by Mechanique:

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Oof. The 4070Ti performs horrible lmao.

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

the 4070 ti is not a mid range gpu... wtf.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Krustenkäse:

Originally posted by NeoX:

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

Weird that the RAM would clock down to "match" the iGPU. Also, i dont think that's the case here. MH Wilds should still show the max available Ram. it showed 32GB Ram for me too when i did my benchmark.

Its BIOS settings depending. You can actualy configure that the emulated VRAM of the IGPU is "hard cut off" the system RAM. Then even windows (and all other apps/games) will only show you the rest RAM as the installed system RAM.

[The Spice]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Originally posted by Mechanique:

90+ fps in 1440p on a mid-range GPU is "horrible"? What world do you live in?

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

FrameGen costs more GPU Power.
If you are entirely CPU limited, your FPS will increase 2x.
If youre GPU limited, you will see less boost from FrameGen as it is taxing the GPU more.
A 1.5x increase in FPS is totally reasonable then.

[The Spice]

Originally posted by The Spice:

Originally posted by NeoX:

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

FrameGen costs more GPU Power.
If you are entirely CPU limited, your FPS will increase 2x.
If youre GPU limited, you will see less boost from FrameGen as it is taxing the GPU more.
A 1.5x increase in FPS is totally reasonable then.

This indicates to me that in his benchmark, he is probably entirely GPU limited.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by The Spice:

Originally posted by NeoX:

Not the native one, but the framegen one where he "only" gets 133 fps, where it should be above 150-160 compared to similar systems. Thats a bottleneck of the CPU in RAM config combination it seems. What would most likely also badly results in the 1% lows.

FrameGen costs more GPU Power.
If you are entirely CPU limited, your FPS will increase 2x.
If youre GPU limited, you will see less boost from FrameGen as it is taxing the GPU more.
A 1.5x increase in FPS is totally reasonable then.

Where do you take these numbers from?
I have gathered some informations from all the reports here so far, but these jumps were never in. What has been proven over and over again, that the core amount plays quite the role in the CPU bottleneck. Having a massive effection on the GPU utilisation.

Watch out for 2 scenes in the benchmark:

1. The view into the open gras fields
2. entrance of the vilage

So far everyone has been CPu bottlenecked there. Give it a try and check for yourself.