Feedback on the 4070 ti VRam, texture streaming, DLSS 3, RT Overdrive

[Soulreaver]

Hey guys,

First of all this is rather a casual post. I didn't do extensive number games. Although I had several monitoring softwares open during testing I never wrote anything down. It was just to get a better feel for how the card behaves. So this will be very unscientific and more of a "broscience" kind of post.

I tested the 4070 ti paired with a 9900k@5Ghz and 32GB@3800Mhz.

Games I used were Cyberpunk, Red Dead 2 and Witcher 3 Next Gen.

My Monitor is a 3840x1600 Ultrawide but I'm a big fan of DLDSR + DLSS so I'm generaly always playing on something akin to 5-6k with DLSS Ultra-Performance or Performance.


First thing I found out. Nvidias texture streaming is insanely good and allowed me to play up to ~6k combined with DLSS Ultra-Performance. ~7k was too much data though and brought the performance down and in general stuttered.

Second thing I found out. The performance gain even over my old 2080ti that was heavily overclocked is a lot. The 4070 ti atleast at the moment is almost a 4k turn everything up and enjoy card.

Third thing I found out. DLSS 3 is useless for someone like me. I'm someone who's in general happy with around 50-60fps and put every excess performance in visuals. For DLSS 3 to work decent enough you NEED a 60fps baseline. So in my case I could make it go from 60fps to 80fps but that wouldn't give me personaly a lot. The sub 60 frametime increase through DLSS 3 is by far too much even for someone like me.

Fourth thing I found out. The whole package works great for 4k. Even DLSS 3 is a viable option for 4k as the GPU has enough performance headroom and texture streaming still works great here. BUT it's no 4k card for long.
DLSS 3 won't be an option for long at 4k as it just tanks too much VRam. With DLSS 2 you'll still be fine for a while but you'll probably see the general performance not being on par in the next 2 years.

Fifth thing I found out. Even with a 4070 ti you can use RT Overdrive especially if you play at 1440p. You'll need DLSS though and the performance impact of RT Overdrive varies immensely. It tanks the FPS always by about 40% compared to RT Ultra but there are instances where it even exceeds this and is probably rather at around 60% performance impact.

For me personaly I decided to send it back and get a 4080 instead. I need the extra Vram.

For "normal gamers" who just want a very fast GPU and don't play on 4k but rather with my resolution of 3840x1600 or below I'd absolutely recommend it.

P.S.: Just to clarify - my resolution lies exactly between 1440p and 4k that's why the jump to 4k is still significant and noteworthy.

[Illusion of Progress]

3840 x 1600 is not exactly between 2560 x 1440 and 3840 x 2160 though. It's a bit closer to the latter in raw pixel count, but also in another way you're seemingly not accounting for, and few people ever seem to for some reason, and that is the extra stuff it will have to draw due to the wider aspect ratio. It's literally drawing a wider scene and more things that less wide displays will not have to draw at all. This costs performance (and VRAM). You can not compare things on pixel count alone, because pixel fill rate is not the only measure of performance demand.

[Soulreaver]

My resolution is ~6.1 mil. pixels, 1440p is ~3.7 mil. pixels, 4k is ~8.3 mil. pixels.
So it's ~2.4mil.-> 1440p vs. ~2.2 mil.-> 4k. Maybe I shouldn't have said "exactly" but whatever.

Regarding the extra elements to render I'm not sure what you are up to about this as it totaly depends on the implementation of ultrawide and in general the performance impact is almost linear to the pixel count. I think I've seen only one or two outliers when I researched this topic before buying my monitor but nothing noteworthy and till now never came across any meaningfull source pointing out the massiv performance increase due to a wider field to draw.

Besides this you absolutely missed the point of my post.

[Illusion of Progress]

Replying to one part of your post doesn't mean I missed the point though? It just means I didn't have something to say about every last thing you were talking about.

I think I understood your point; from what I gathered, your tried a product, found out it worked better than you thought in many regards, but ultimately still decided to go with something more?

Soulreaver eredeti hozzászólása:

Regarding the extra elements to render I'm not sure what you are up to about this as it totaly depends on the implementation of ultrawide and in general the performance impact is almost linear to the pixel count.

I was mostly replying to say that it won't always be this way.

Though, more often than not, it probably will, yes. Especially when factoring that most people will have more modest GPUs which are more likely to be pixel fill rate limited. I was probably thinking more broadly (the "extra demand" in ultra wide cases also comes in the form of more CPU needed, whereas you weren't talking about that and were just talking about the GPU side of things).

Since I'm not afraid to admit when I'm "wrong", I'll show you the example I was going to use just to show the "extra rendering" a wider aspect ratio will do. The White lines represent the edge of a 2560 x 1600 image on top of the same scene in 3840 x 1600.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t464/Garnet_Alexandria/0.jpg

But I also have performance numbers from both resolutions (along with 4K) that I got for curiosity sake, which in this case actually support what you say and not what I say, and I'm not afraid to admit that (sample size of one, though). Here they are.

2560 x 1600
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t464/Garnet_Alexandria/2_u9LqPXi2JQdxvgZQp58CKM.jpg

3840 x 1600
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t464/Garnet_Alexandria/4_ijV9JWNkqm4rNLhXvfHZLH.jpg

3840 x 2400
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t464/Garnet_Alexandria/6_bgW78KcWqaVRH1GBR6TN7F.jpg

Just as you say, pretty linear, so probably largely fill rate limited here. So in my one example I was wrong and I admit that. I just wanted to say that SOMETIMES there will be more to it than just the raw pixel count, which is still true.

In either case, I'm glad you found something you were happy with. I'm looking at upgrading from my aged GTX 1060 very soon too, but an RTX 4070 Ti is just a bit too expensive for me, and 12 GB VRAM would be less that I would be comfortable with long term. If the RTX 4070 had 16 GB I'd probably look at it myself. And there's rumors of higher VRAM refreshes coming later but I'm not sure I want to keep waiting that long.

Out of curiosity, was the RTX 4080 an easy choice? I know an RTX 4090 is quite a bit more expensive than the RTX 4070 Ti you were originally looking at, but I still think the RTX 4090 would have made the RTX 4080 a tough choice to make to go with.

[Soulreaver]

Forgive me that I won't elaborate further on the Ultrawide topic. I just came from a run and wasn't keen to talk about this even before I ran. Now I'm exhausted too. :D

I went from a 970 to a 2070 super and it was heaven. So you're in for a treat whatever card it will be.

When I saw I needed about 25% more performance to play Cyberpunk at ~7k it was decided. First time I saw 7k in Cyberpunk with my 2080 ti I knew this is what I want. So yeah... was a rather easy choice to go for the 4080 :D
7k Cyberpunk was the first time in a game I thought this is almost real life.

Also right now is a rather unique situation in which the 4080 performance increase is higher than the price increase.

[Rod]

What % in rasterization over the 2080ti? I have cash a 2080ti and the last thing i would do with my cash would be buy a 4000 series. Vram is also limited to 12GB games at 1440p soon will push 16GB.

[Soulreaver]

I couldn't tell you. I don't think I played anything without Ray-Tracing and/or DLSS since Assassins Creed Valhalla and I haven't touched this for a long time.

According to Techpowerup and Userbenchmark probably about 50-60% Ras performance increase.
For Raytracing and DLSS I would guess closer to 100%+ performance increase.

[Illusion of Progress]

Soulreaver eredeti hozzászólása:

Forgive me that I won't elaborate further on the Ultrawide topic. I just came from a run and wasn't keen to talk about this even before I ran. Now I'm exhausted too. :D

No, that's fine. What I said probably applies less often than otherwise, and I even showed that with my own example, so maybe it was a bit borderline pointless for me to even mention it. I was just stating that there's sometimes more to it than raw pixel count.

Soulreaver eredeti hozzászólása:

ISo yeah... was a rather easy choice to go for the 4080 :D
7k Cyberpunk was the first time in a game I thought this is almost real life.

Also right now is a rather unique situation in which the 4080 performance increase is higher than the price increase.

That's actually kind of why I was asking. The performance increase of the RTX 4090 over the RTX 4080 seems to be higher than the price increase as well.

I "sort of" see the point to the RTX 4070 Ti even if its value is bad in my eyes, due to the gap in price, but the RTX 4080 just seems too "close" to the RTX 4090. So I was just curious if you had given it a look at all, or if you were happy enough with the RTX 4080 (sounds like the RTX 4070 Ti was mostly enough for you anyway so I get it it from a "why spend even more than I have to" perspective).

[xSOSxHawkens]

Soulreaver eredeti hozzászólása:

First thing I found out. Nvidias texture streaming is insanely good and allowed me to play up to ~6k combined with DLSS Ultra-Performance. ~7k was too much data though and brought the performance down and in general stuttered.

DLSS Ultra Performance = 1/3 scale internal rendering.
4k = 3840 x 2160
8k/7k = 7680 x4320

3840/3 = 1280
7680 / 3 = 2560...

As in 1280 x 720 and 2560 x 1440p.

So what you are actually saying in that long OP is that the 4070ti is a top end 720-1080p card, and a decent but not great one at 1440p ( too much data though and brought the performance down), and that if one is willing to accept quality (but fake) resolution and frames, along with compressed textures, the card can push 4k+ outputs, but not native internal render.

[Soulreaver]

Yeah I understand your train of thought.
Sadly this is not how DLSS works performance and vram wise.

This would make things sooo much easier :D

[Soulreaver]

Illusion of Progress eredeti hozzászólása:

That's actually kind of why I was asking. The performance increase of the RTX 4090 over the RTX 4080 seems to be higher than the price increase as well.

I "sort of" see the point to the RTX 4070 Ti even if its value is bad in my eyes, due to the gap in price, but the RTX 4080 just seems too "close" to the RTX 4090. So I was just curious if you had given it a look at all, or if you were happy enough with the RTX 4080 (sounds like the RTX 4070 Ti was mostly enough for you anyway so I get it it from a "why spend even more than I have to" perspective).

The price/performance increase from 4080 to 4090 is still linear what is actually insane.

But I realy don't want to keep on moving goalposts. You can always go for more and find reasons why it makes sense. "price/performance" is still just one of several metrics.

Also the 4070 ti still works pretty good with my system. The 4080 will too but it'll be borderline.
The 4090 would definetly need a new system.

If I kept the 4070 ti I'd probably still be happy until whatever model of the 50series catches my interest. With the 4080 it's almost certain though, that I will skip 50 series.

[Illusion of Progress]

Soulreaver eredeti hozzászólása:

The price/performance increase from 4080 to 4090 is still linear what is actually insane.

Yes, I'm noticing the RTX 4070 Ti and RTX 4080 have been slowly trending downard in price to where the RTX 4090 isn't necessarily the unanimous best choice between the three, so maybe that old "rule" is slowly diminishing anyway.