Maybe well i already got 4070 super for 1440p coming from 3060ti i just didn't see a reason to get 4070 ti super i keep getting earros saying CNWINDOWS\system32 vspcap.dll... do i re install nvidia drivers?
Getting a GPU now kinda feels a little bit like gambling "Will I need 16gb of vram in 2 to 3 years? Will the RTX 5070 have 12gb again? Will we have a new DLSS exclusive to the 5000 series?"
12gb of 4070 VRAm gets a vram warning in red dead 2, 4070 super 12gb does not. The memory efficienct and use of bandwidth is increasing. 16gb 256 bit vram of a 4070ti super is faster and more efficient than 384-bit of older vram. The whole featureset of the 40 series is misunderstood entirely. Use DSR to turn a 1440p monitor into a 4k monitor while staying at 1440p vram usage, then use dlss quality it is dlss quality to run it at 1080p but upscale to 4k and lookslik 4k. Path traced cyberpunk in 4k max everything, 102fps with FG.
@@jakubjungle656I recently watched a video where they tested how much vram games really use. There are many AAA titles that are blocking vram but not using it. The game developers are shit nowadays! Bad optimized. I have a 4070 super. The card run everything on 1440p 100fps+ and 4k 60fps! No Problem with vram. But it would be perfect if they had put 14 or even 13gb in it.
@@ZSergioZ1 yea and 4k on a 1080p monitor using DSR, looks better than a real 4k monitor imo, you won't need a fancy monitor or to render any game in native 2160 so 12gb will be plenty.
I got the 4070 Super to replace my dead 3080. I wanted to go another step up but couldn't justify it. People underestimate optimized ultra settings in reviews like this because it complicates things so much more I understand. There's usually all kinds of settings you can turn a notch or two down and maintain an almost identical visual experience and it saves you on VRAM. That with the fact that I'm playing at 1440p and happy with DLSS balanced? I think the 12 gig is going to be enough for a few years to come.
@@chunk3875 I would say no. I only did so because I was trying to replace my 3080 without actually downgrading. The next worth viable upgrade would be the 4070 TI Super if it wasn't so expensive. But it is. In my humble opinion wait for the 5000 series. That's what I was going to do before my tragedy lol.
lmao its flaw is raw performance which we're forgetting just because we were given the vram capacity that we should have gotten at that price point. In other words in 2021 8gb on the 3050 was plenty for its performance yet it's a flawed product because its performance is so bad for $250. Same deal here the 4070ti non super had dropped to like $750 before this released so we're getting roughly 0 cost per frame improvement and 4gb more ram.
I prefer the 4070 Ti Super to have the peace of mind that future games will likely require more VRAM and bandwidth, especially those that arrive poorly optimized in that regard.
What peace of mind dude? Look at the benchmarks, like here 19:20, both cards can barely deliver "proper" 1440p experience while using 7500 MB of their memory. It almost makes no sense to even make any kind of benchmarks since game optimization in this day and age can be crazy different from one game to another.
@@seventhsun1 yeah a poorly optimized game... There will always be games like that... Is like saying "omg Starfield needs a 4090 to run ok ish so now we need all cards have 24 gb of vram!!!!!"
@@LeaveMyGun Yeah, doubt they will be churning out more vram than say cyberpunk with path tracing enabled though. Which is the only game in my library that even comes close to maxing out the vram + HD Reworked project Quality version. Thats with a 4070 ti @ 1440p. Looking at about 3 or 4 years time where 12gb will be the new 8gb. 12gb is safe for 1440p users, 16gb for 4k users. I mean look at Stalker 2, probs likely to change of course but still recommended GPU is 1080ti or equivalent and the game is not even out yet.
@@seventhsun1 Lord of the fallen is an Unreal Engine 5 game, as you say there is no VRAM problem, it is more because of the graphic techniques of UE5, Nanite is very demanding with all GPUs so you have to use DLSS to get a good performance.
Spend 600 for a kneecapped planned obsolescence product or 200 more for a much more future proof memory spec, but that's too close to nearly 1K. Screw Nvidia. I hate it but I'll have to get the STI. The 70S's narrow bus can be a bigger bottleneck in certain case (like emulation) and for content creation 12gb is cutting it close.
You should always use protection to minimize your chances of getting an STI, although genital herpes can be contracted regardless as it is spread through skin to skin contact throughout the entire pelvic region.
@@Foxxnioxx AMD's options really aren't much better right now, unless the ONLY thing you care about is VRAM. Even going by just raster performance, the 7800 XT is comfortably beaten by the 4070 Super for only slightly more money, and the latter obviously offers far superior ray tracing performance and a better all-round feature package. At the two higher Super tiers AMD are roughly on par for raster performance, but again badly outmatched when it comes to anything else except VRAM. Pricing needs to come on AMD's entire lineup or nobody is going to consider them. There was some sort of argument for their cards before the Super lineup arrived, but not now.
@@CaptainKenway last night the 7900 XT was selling for 699 with a $30 off coupon. $670 for a equivalent card to the 800$ Nvidia offering certainly warrants some consideration, right?
The 4070 Ti S VRAM makes a difference in MSFS 2020. In fact, I'm hitting 12GB with high/ultra settings in 1440 and this isn't with 3rd party scenery packages.
Makes a lot of sense. I'm surprised I haven't seen all of the big card reviewing channels do a video, 'These are the games we all agree you actually do want 16gb or more VRAM for' and also 'These are the top 30 games on Steam, which need lots of VRAM?'
I agree. The few reviews that feature MSFS2020 have idiotic test scenarios like flying over NYC in a slow moving plane. This shouldn't be the baseline. @@jonevansauthor
Are you measuring allocated or actual used RAM? By default applications like Rivatuner show ALLOCATED which many games just take the maximum they can, even if they won't use it all. Unless you are experiencing performance issues you aren't hitting your limit yet.
You should take a look at 1% lows aswell. Some of you guys have no clue about framerates and the averages arent "just" 10 fps. It can range from 10 - 30 fps depending on the game even at 1440p.
It is worth it if you consider the extra 4 gigs of video memory will make the ti more relevant in future titles while the standard card will be bottlenecked much quicker.
@@starstreamgamer3704 maybe, also less memory chips across the same bus so it's really gonna come down to testing. I can only really speak for the Ti super since I own it
@@orangea9458well ur explanation is the reason why the non ti is more constrained, yes, lmao. Either way he's right lots of mid tier Lovelace gets a good bit extra headroom from just the mem oc but the 4070tiS has a lot of bandwidth at stock already. That being said it gets more core overclock headroom because at stock it runs about 60-75mhz lower core clock than the non super 4070ti. No harm in a mem oc anyway tho it'll barely change the power draw and really bandwidth heavy games like cs2 would still benefit.
Same. The 4070 super is under msrp right now at $589 on Amazon. I think I’m just gonna upgrade to the 4070 super for the meantime because the 4070 ti super after taxes is near or over $900. The 4070 super is basically the 4070 ti non super at a better price. If the 50 series have reasonable pricing and good performance then I’ll sell my 4070 super. My 3060 is great but it’s starting to show its age with these new games.
Lets be honest, the current gen of gpus is boring af. The only generational leap is on the 4090. The rest of lineup is simply terrible. Blackwell cant come soon enough.
I noticed that in alot of the benchmarks that the 4070 super still had headroom for overclocking, as it was running about 200-210w and most AIB cards allow 244w. Compared to the 4070 ti Super which is running at it's power limit.
False, the 4070ti super isn't at its power limit, it's the same chip as in the 4080 for the rtx 4070ti super and even if the rest doesn't follow, it's overclockable to just 320w...
I've been buying and using GPUs since the days when 3DFX was still around. And for most of that time I've heard folks talk about "future proofing" yourself by buying cards with lots and lots of VRAM on them - because "you may not need it now, but you might need it for future games". Thing is (in my experience): by the time that GPU that only seems to have an adequate amount of VRAM on it will start to struggle in the memory department, it'll probably be also struggling in other areas (raw performance, new or improved features, connections, etc.). So you'll want to upgrade to a new card at that point anyway, making all that extra VRAM you bought with the old card kinda pointless. And a waste of money. If you're into a specific usage scenario like AAA-games at 4K that absolutely need at least 16 GB, then: yes.. avoid anything with less than 16 GB. If you're like me and 1440p is the highest you'll go in the foreseeable future: I wouldn't be bothered too much about VRAM. I've used a 3070 (8GB), then switched to a 4070 (12GB) which I'm still on and neither of the two cards was really struggling with the kind of gaming I threw at them. Yes: It's nice to be able to ramp up the settings in Baldur's Gate 3 with the newer card and 8 GB really *is* too little in 2024. But the whole 12 vs 16 vs 20, etc bit is the least of my concerns when I'm looking at a new card. Knowing that by the time 12 GB will cause serious problems, I'll probably be on a much newer and better equipped card, anyway. I've always seen this whole "my GPU has more VRAM than your GPU" as a bit of a d!ck-measuring contest. So long as you have an adequate amount of memory on there for what you do with the card, you'll be fine.
Got a 4070tiS myself after 3070 and am super happy with it. Framegen also uses like upwards of 1GB of VRAM so I think it'll age better for 4K where I had started experiencing troubles with 8GB even using DLSS.
Same issue that I have with my 3080 10gb: The vram usage has started to become a problem in a few games at 4k. "Upgrading" to a 4070 Ti Super just doesn't feel right though. It's so stupid that Inno3d didn't use their 4070 Ti Super cooling solution on their 2-slot 4080 Super which is much bigger for no good reason: My 2-slot 3080 has the same TBP as the 4080 Super and is even slightly smaller than their 4070 Ti Super. For most SFF the 2-slot 4080 is too big and anyone who doesn't need a 2-slot card would go for a different 3-slot model anyway.
@@ehenningsen CP77 PT & framegen climbs up to 15GB. Video shows clear indication with AW2 0.1% lows. Edge cases today but I preferred 16GB after how I was good with 8GB in 2021 and no longer in 2023. A new 12GB card today will probably have trouble in 2026.
@@markus.schiefer i was eyeing on 2 slot card in 4080 aince a year and now on 4070 ti super. inno3d and ventus 2x 3x are proper 2 slot cards but somehow their vrm aren't good enough. so i got gigabyte eagle oc 4070 ti super which is 2.3 slot. i upgraded from my 3yr old rtx 3070 founders edition
If one would upgrade every 1 or 2 gen, 4070s is definitely the way. Thou i tend to run them into the sunset, like 5-10 years between swapping... so 12 gb is not my jam.
always amazes me that current generation games and card don't really work properly together , seems like the hardware is always behind,basically you have to spend 600$ for a card that can barely hit 30fps in 4k in 2024,astoundingly bad.
It's worse than that. They expect you to use upscaling to make up for their lack of properly developed hardware.... By now, we should have had $500 60fps native(no upscaling) 4K cards available....
4070 super is a good card, just a skim on vram (though I understand it wasn't possible due to ddr7 not being ready) made it not that compeling and steal the title of "best gpu in this generation". Currently at 3080, easy skip for me, at 550$ with 16gb vram - instant grab.
I think this vram thing is some kind of AMD PR. I mean some channels like MLID which are so AMD biased still saying density of GDDR not allow them to put 16gb without making clam or w/e it called design, which increase the need for more components. Also I do realise they might skimp on VRAM for people to not receive another 1060/1080ti for 5+ years. @@Razumen
If you want to do any AI on it, you can't have enough VRAM (e.g. Stable Diffusion). The newer models like SDXL need more VRAM because they have been trained for higher resolutions. Even worse if you are trying to train a model.
Yup. The extra VRAM is clearly mainly aimed at such workloads, and the handful of gamers who need it, as well as all the people who merely think they need it but haven't actually check if their favourite games are VRAM intensive at the settings they would otherwise use.
idk why but the ti super videos all look way more smooth than the super ones yet theyre all considered good fps. is there a difference in the recording setting or something? i can see how the ti s seems so much smoother in movement just from 10fps more than 120fps on super..
4070 super is obvious for me. Perfect 1440p RT card right now. The 16gb vram thing really isn't applicable right now unless you play a 4k and I'm not sure it'll have the power to be maxing out those games when the times comes to even utilize it. Huge upgrade from my 1080ti. Seeing rainbows. paired it with a i7 14700k and 32gb of ram for some sim games I play.
@opin1onno463 i have an 11600 non k but with boost frequency in bios.. so basically a k skew. Lol. Yes im seeing bottlenecks on competitive fps games. My main is cs2, and yea i am getting higher frames than before, but deffo held back by the cpu. On 2k graphics intense games like cyberpunk its night and day, ultra settings and path tracing with dlss quality and its very playable, on my 2070 it was 1fps. Lol. I love RT , reflex and dlss, so i went nvidia, if you dont care for them the 7800xt is better with more vram and in some games better texture quality, look at hogwarts legacy with amd v nvidia, amd looks way better.
@@Chilledoutredhead Thank you, this was helpful, especially with highlighting the difference in texture quality. I’m am also upgrading from a 2070 cause my GPU seized to exist, hope you’re 4070 super serves you well.
since i am absolutely ignorant on the subJect i'm watching a ton of videos here on RU-vid to develop an idea and your Final Thoughts have been the most helpful so far, thank you for the Job you are doing!
This needs to stop. Does anyone remember the line of GTX cards that you could get for under $250. When is Nvidia releasing the successor? It's been *4 YEARS* since the 16 series came out. I only care about raw performance. No up scaling. No ray tracing. I miss the days of yore. When games could be played well on a pc that cost as much as a ps4/Xbox one. At launnch price.
Thanks for this Dan! Alan Wake 2 RT 1440p comparison is what I've been looking forward to the most, and is what tipped the scales in favor of 4070 Ti Super for me. It should get over 60fps with optimized RT settings and FG disabled and that's what I'm after right now.
Having to render in 1080p in many of these games is just sad on such expensive cards. And if they want cards to be expensive, at least give them enough performance.
I'm using a 4070 super for twinmotion, it runs smoothly, but once lumen and pathtracer is on, it stutters significantly, even though it shows I have more vram available. Autodesk software is almost solely CPU based, I was able to run Revit smoothly without a GPU while I was waiting for shipping. I expect this setup to last at least 3 years if not more before I decide to upgrade.
The thing is, there is one thing that possibly matters. It’s the bandwidth of the vram. 256bit on the ti super as opposed to 192bit on the super. And there are usecases in emulation, where this matters a lot.
What impacts 4k rendering isn't so much the _amount_ of VRAM, it's the increased memory _bandwidth_ (that you typically also get from cards with more VRAM - but not necessarily; look at the 7600XT, for example). The amount of VRAM has an impact on how many (and how large) textures you can cache in VRAM. So, even at lower _screen_ resolutions, a card with more VRAM will be better able to avoid performance losses in games with more (or larger) textures. But if you want it to perform better at higher screen resolutions (ex., 4k), what you really need is more VRAM _bandwidth_ (even if you're not using a ton of high-res textures - if you are, then you might need both things).
It's both as he said. The 4070S is just past its limit, limiting how dramatic the performance drop is from using system ram rather than vram because it is barely using the system ram.
@@Frozoken - That depends on the game, and newer games will tend to use more (and larger) textures. Which means the 12 GB on the 4070S are likely to become its "weakest link" with upcoming games _even if you're still playing at 1080p._
I think it's worth noting that the TI Super does not just have more Vram, you get more Tensor cores, more RT cores, higher clock speeds and it's a different chip alltogether. I bought the ti super for 3D work, but I feel like for gaming 99% of people would be better off buying the 4070 super indeed. Great video as always Daniel, keep it up
I don't think you are getting ripped off and spending a lot of more money on 4070 Ti Super. Why? I don't buy a GPU, and probably many other people, just so I can game on it. I do productive work, photo and video editing. I use DaVinci Resolve for video editing so having 16 GB of VRAM is better, and 4070 Ti Super has the same performance as 4080 in Resolve. 4080 is about 1 - 2% better in overall score and is more expensive (in my country about 1000 euros) than 4070 Ti Super. So, 4070 Ti Super is not only better choice for productive work than 4070 Super and 4080, but is also better choice in the long run even for gaming.
For the average gamer, the 4070 super is the better bang for your buck in my opinion. However, I purchased the 4070 Ti Super for 1 main reason: I stream as a vtuber and that extra bit of ram comes in handy for me when it wouldn't make a huge difference to the average person. I think the AMD 7900xtx is the better choice for raw power and price if that's your concern and dlss is not important to you. I also went with the smaller 4070 Ti Super x2 fan due the smaller size so i can build 2 micro atx cases for dual pc streaming. When paired with my AMD Ryzen 7 7700x CPU, it's actually a monster for the price either way. If $800 doesn't seem like a lot to you then just spend a little more and get a 4080.
Guys please stop buying new releases , Nvidia is milking Gaming people like us for 3-8fps more on new releases like this , This is the reason they got into Trillions in profits and went up high as a public company , I'm nothing against that ... but they can release better versions way better with cheaper price and they would have better sales in number and quality
Nvidia is an AI company now. If you think boycotting their product will make them rethink their business decision, then think again. Gamers are now less than 10% revenue in their market. Most of their revenue comes from selling AI chips to companies like Google, Tesla, Microsoft, etc. And selling chips to these companies does not require a lot of management cost while selling to gamers does. At this point we should be grateful that Nvidia is still releasing chips for gamers. I bet for the next few years Nvidia is planning to release GPU at competitive prices with AMD but at a little higher price and then they will slowly stop selling or automate GPU selling.
That’s weird that the TI Super didn’t perform better in cyberpunk. I’m running a 4080 and at 4k max settings with path tracing on and DLSS quality plus frame generation I never drop below 60fps, even in Dogtown, and my processor isn’t even that great either, it’s just a Ryzen 7 5700 from a prebuilt
4070 S is obvious answer for gamers . Yes there's also alternative AMD GPU options. But.... for those who play games and do 3d rendering staffs , like me , 4070 T S is a better option .
12GB is going to continue to he the standard until the PS6. Developers make games where they make the most money and try to port to get a few more $$$ It's unfortunate for us in the PC master race as we often feel as if we are neglected. The only exceptions I have found are a few FPS above 12GB when at 4k maxed settings with PT or when downscaling from higher resolutions to get better detailed textures
@@ehenningsen 12gb is starting to be limiting factor even at 1080p. Games are only getting more demanding and pc graphics are way better than console so 12gb is not going to age well
@lifemocker85 12GB is the limit u til the PS6. If games go beyond, they won't be released on the console and the game will flop. This conversation is had every generation
I got both .. TI super has higher bandwith data transfer, 256-bit wide bus versus 192-bit wide data bus .. clock is also slightly higher on TI and more Cuda cores.
Ive just jumped from a 3060 to a 4070ti super I know the money x performance doesn’t worth it but its what I could get and im happy with the performance love your videos!!😊
Smart move, huge jump in performance and 16gb vram will give plenty longevity. Imo any 4070/1440p card with 12 gb of vram is a terribly overpriced product that will reach planned obsolescence soon. Unless turning down textures on a 600+ dollar card. You know, what 3080ti owners have already be complaining about for 2 years.
@@IiquidSkys you would definitely feel a good performance bump no matter what, depends what do you expect from it. Im in the end happy about my choice, this card gives me maximum performance for my 500W limited system. I was considering Ti but wasn't going to invest a new psu. If I had say 650W psu, then 4070TiS would be perhaps my choice too.
@@IiquidSkysI mean the 4070 super would be the best choice but I had the money for Ti super and it was the best I could get Im very very happy with it even though I want to get an 4090 😂 do not regret it if you have the money go for it if have money go for 4080 but if you dont go for 4070 super
I would say it is worth it, since it is sometimes the difference between having 60 fps and not having them. Plus, additional VRAM gives you higher GPU longevity in the sense that you will not suffer in four-five years due to VRAM limitations
I can't wait until they are going used, for $275, and $350 for the Super Duper version of the ti. (probably what they should go for new, if it wasn't for an artificial inflated MSRP. In my mind, even an 80 series card, should only peak around $500-$600.
@@lifemocker85 It is. But, on the other hand, the resale value is high, so if you plan to upgrade you can sell it pretty good. I don't want to sweet talk it because in the end the market is overly expensive. But, so is everything. Like for example. I'm into photography. A while ago I could buy second hand lenses for pretty cheap, but everyone is selling it at almost msrp nowadays...
That sounds like a wet dream that will never come true. At this point, in my country at least, used cards are rarely cheaper than brand new ones. Sometimes they are even x1.2 - x1.5 more expensive. That is completely fucked up and makes no sense whatsoever.
this is just what i needed. a detailed thorough comparison in a good variety of my gaming usecases. thank you very much. i am gonna get the ti super when the 5000 lineup dropps
I've been noticing that 1440p DLSS quality gets better frame rates than 1080p native. Have noticed it in the past few reviews. 1440p should be using an internal render resolution of 1080p. I think the extra performance is probably from how modern games use asset streaming and per pixel rendering. Nvidia has such a huge real world use case advantage. DLSS quality 1440p looks better than or equal to 1440p native, and gets better frame rates than 1080p native.
dlss really dosnt even compare to native, there are ALWAYS artifacts and issues with dlss that are not present in native. it will NEVER look better than native.
@@comeondown It most definately dosnt. DLSS has a "blur" effect that looks terrible. Makes the image very soft, and like I said there are artifacts in dark and fast moving scenes that dont exist in native. Having slightly better AA than TAA dosnt mean the overall image quality is better. Id rather have slightly worse aa and no artifacts/blur
@@Dempig That's false. FSR is pretty rough to look at. But as someone who has cards from both, DLSS quality at 1440p is really good. More often than not it looks better than native. Mostly because DLAA trumps any other form of AA. Hardware Unboxed did a DLSS vs Native video like 8-9 months ago and had DLSS looking better than native more often than not. Pretty much every gaming channel says DLSS looks as good or better than native. It's a great technology. Only people that I've seen hate on it are Radeon fans. Same people who act like Ray Tracing is still where it was 5 years ago. When it's actually starting to make a pretty big difference. Same people that hated frame generation and blasted it at every opportunity until Radeon released a version of it. I agree DLSS doesn't compare to native. It gives better image quality and higher frame rates. Not a fair comparison at all. Buying and using a Rx 6800 has really made me appreciate how far ahead Nvidia is with upscaling, latency reduction and ray tracing. And also made really dislike Radeon and it's very loud, very small user base. I completely understand why Nvidia has 90 percent of the dedicated GPU market share. Radeon fan boys are the kind of people to post up at a Lexus dealership and try to convince people to buy a Kia, because they are the same thing but cheaper.
answer Is YES cz we gonna need those Vrams for high textures and 3d or may be running LLMs locally infact even 24 GB might be less i was happy i got a 3070ti in a random pick in 2021 when GPU were not available at MSRP but now I see I can only go high in 1080p but for 2k I need more Vram and I cant run certain LLM locally . we will see 50 GB GPus in near future unless they make significant change where Vram requirement reduces.
The problem with both these cards is that they’re both not great for 4K gaming. They’re amazing 1440p cards though, but when you enable RT they both aren’t spectacular at 1440p. That leaves them in this weird spot where you need a 4080/4090 for 4K and you need a 4080/4090 for RT at 1440p which is just $$$ imho. I’m waiting with my 3070 until the 5080 comes out in December instead.
Go with the 4070 super and save the money. I got the 4070tisuper because of youtubers scaring me but i haven't had any scenario where i needed more than 12. I run into not getting high enough fps and having to lower settings before i get to over 12gb vram.
Cool that 600$ and 800$ cards cannot be tested in Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2 on native 1440p maxed out because they are not playable. Not so long ago this were premium prices and we now don't get premium performance for this high cost. I know path tracing is very new and very demanding but these cards are also 'very new' and very pricy so... they should do better. Or be cheaper
I have no idea what ur talking about cyberpunk is plenty playable on my 4070 tis at 1440 with path tracing. You’re running between 40-60 fps vs 110 fps with path tracing off but that’s still very playable performance
You should include some Quest 3 or equivalent current gen VR headsets with 3000 or so pixels per eye resolutions in your benchmark comparisons. IRacing in the Quest 3 was my main reason I upgraded from a Ryzen 2700 / 2080ti to a Ryzen 5800X3D / 4070 Ti Super.
Only reasons to get 4070 Ti Super over 7900 XT are ray tracing and DLSS, otherwise I agree with going for 7900 XT for pure raster(and more VRAM as mentioned).
The bigger cache on the 4070 super in comparison with the non super version makes the super very solid even with only 12gb. This card is made for 1440p and is crushing all games at this resolution
did you even watch the video? there are even areas where it drops into 40s, same with alan wake 2 and many other new titles. also imagine buying a 600$ gpu in 2024 and having to use a crutch that is Deep learning smear sh1t at Day 1, proving it's not "CRUSHING ALL GAMES AT THIS RESOLUTION"@@darkfire3691
getting forced to not even play in native for a $600 card is just insane but i still did get the 4070 super because for $50 more u get a 20% performance uplift from a 4070 while 4070 super to 4070 ti super is just 10-15% for $200 not worth it@@darkfire3691
Thank you for the analysis. I've bought a 4070 ti Super because I got an Asus TUF model at MSRP; I was upgrading from a 3060 ti and so pretty much a 100% increase in performance; I game on a large 65" display and so 1800p and 2160p are my targets; and because to me £799 was simply more palatable than £999+ for what is a refreshed 4080. The 4070 Super is a great card for less, but at higher resolutions and with RT enabled, that 12gb framebuffer just wouldn't have been quite enough for my requirements, certainly moving forward beyond the current batch of heavier titles. To me this video had probably the opposite affect of its intended purpose: it made my choice feel every bit justified. 20-40% improvement for a premium I could afford is kind of self explanatory.
Where I live the 4070S is $615 dollars and the 4070TiS is $855 dollars, so my plan is: Save $240 dollars and buy the 4070S for now that 12GB is perfectly fine and whenever games actually need more VRAM upgrade then...
I just ordered a 4070 Ti Super as a much needed upgrade from the 6600 XT I'm currently using. Got it for $1300 AUD, which was as good a price as I've seen to date. Best I've found on the 4070 Super was $970 AUD, so it's still 34% more. Mostly got it to run my Quest 3 (4128x2208 native res and I like to oversample to compensate for the lens distortion correction). I really wanted something 4K capable, and the 4080 for $1600 was more than I was willing to spend. Dual AV1 encoders is also helpful. I did consider the 7900 XT (best I found was $1139 AUD), but I've just had way too many issues with the 6600 XT for VR due to AMD drivers (the 24.1.1 update has resulted in intermittent coloured "snow" that looks like faulty VRAM, but only appears in VR titles). That's even compared to the GTX 1660 Ti I previously had, despite a 50% increase in performance. AMD doesn't seem to prioritise VR and VR headset manufacturers don't seem to prioritise AMD (Varjo and DPVR don't seem to even support them, link/airlink has always had awful antialiasing and intermittent tearing), so despite the raster bang for buck I didn't want the hassles.
@@itsmenord1993 Hasn't arrived yet. Shipping takes a while in Oz if you aren't on the East Coast. I just upgraded about a month ago from the Quest 2 to Quest 3, and the additional resolution and the difference running at native resolution makes when you have the clarity of the pancake lenses, just means the 6600 XT can't cut it. Ideally you'd also super sample to @ least 1.2x the native resolution to allow for the lens distortion. Pity about AMD. With the 24.1.1 driver update I started to get intermittent coloured "snow" that looked like faulty VRAM, although only in VR. Had a lot of issues with AMD using the Quest 2 and 3. From the link/airlink issues with poor antialiasing and tearing, to video playback not working in VR chat and weird texture shimmering. The 4070 ti super will probably take a couple of days to get across the continent, but I'm looking forward to it.
6600xt for that res - is stupid af Or did you buy it for 1000 during crypto-boom? Cuz that 1000 at the time was fucking entry level ... today you get it for quarter of price So you cannot compare the 47TIS with 6600xt Its like worlds apart - even with price points nowadays ...
@@mihapeterca7940 Yes, I got the 6600 XT a few years back for 1080P. It wasn't performance issues I was referring to, although that's why I'm upgrading to the 4070 Ti Super for the Quest 3. It's the issues with AMD cards and anti-aliasing/tearing with the Quest 2 Link/Airlink and a host of compatibility and performance issues (video playback in VR Chat, DPVR and Varjo headsets incompatible etc etc). Running lower than native res doesn't have any effect (although it raises frame rate obviously). Even though the 6600 XT performance was 50% higher than I had previously with a 1660 Ti, those issues hadn't been present. I knew it wasn't capable enough for the Quest 3 as it could barely run the Quest 2, but was waiting on better card options, and the Super series will have to do.
Thank you Daniel for the video. Ended up choosing the 4070 super as its the best value at 1440p and I will probably upgrade fully to a 5080 or 5090 depending on how good the price to performance is for those cards when they release.
I’m glad I found this channel. Thank you for doing this type of review and analysis which to me is much more relatable and usable info that day from Gamers Nexus or Paul’s Or Jays or whoever else runs companies that do this stuff. To me you’re the new go to. Keep it up!
ive had luck running my 4070 ti super with the auto overclock feature on Afterburner and am able to clock up to nearly 3000mhz and get a bit more improvement in performance
I'm upgrading from my 1060 3gb that I built like 8 years ago XD I feel like with the big change, I'd barely notice the difference between the S and the TiS
If dollars are tight but your hobby is gaming 4070S is the 1440P card right now. Personally I focused on your 1440P DLSS Q benchmarks as that is where I would be with either card (FG a possible bonus option), 4070S hits marks I need. However if you can do the extra $200 it's not a bad move up, the vram addition is nice, but my main focus would be heat and stress, locking the 4070TI S at 90 fps, it will run with less vs the 4070S, which I like that quite a bit myself.
12 gb vram is enough now but not in 1 to 3 years. So this 12 gb vram will be a hindrance. And will have to upgrade again while a 20 gb amd card will last longer
@@TheLongWind while not doom and gloom, to say the crappy memory system on the 4070 super wont be detrimental long term is just as disingenuous as saying the card is garbage because of of small bus and lower vram amount. hardware unboxed did a great video on the effects of lower vram amounts and memory bus width with 4060ti 8gb and 4060ti 16gb. essentially what most games do wont effect your fps but will effect image quality when not given appropriate amounts of vram as instead of dumping data to system memory they just dont render textures. . if your ok with spending 600 dollars on a "1440p" card that is powerful enough to play at ultra 1440p but gimped in memory so you wont get ultra quality textures then get the card as your fps in most games wont be affected. it just kinda sucks that a 600$ card is 12gb with 196 bit bus and marketed toward certain resolution at ultra settings and you wont get that full experience in some titles today and many more down the line. like with most things the truth over the subject is more towards the middle. personally i would spend the 200 dollar more on 4070ti super it will be a better 1440p card for much longer than 4070 super if im someone who upgrades every 6-7 years. also i would suspect over time for the 4070ti super to pull away by 5-15% at 1440p or higher resolutions in 1-3 years as we get true next gen titles sense game developers are not making ps4 and xbox one versions anymore.
I really appreciate you and the time it took to make this video!! y'know i have been dabating on which card i should buy for 1440p high refresh rate gaming & be able to stream. I was thinking about the 4070 super but do you think it's worth it? or should i look at a higher budget card..? (my build consists of a ryzen 9 5900x, 32gb of 3200 mhz ram, 850w gold rated and i have a 2tb 980 pro.) Have a great day everyone!!!!
Bought a $799 4070 ti S at microcenter. Upgrading from a 2060 S. The rtx feature set, dual encoders (something the 4070S does have) extra performance is worth it to me.
I got lucky and found an open box 4070 Ti S at Microcenter for $719. I would have gotten the 4070 S, but when I saw the open box price, I could not resist. Still pricey but worth the extra performance for RT.
FANTASTIC video!!!! I have yet to test the 4070ti super but so far my 4070 super tests have shown it to be the 14540p card to beat in terms of value, I think at 800 im more interested to see the 4070ti super vs the 4080 and the 7900xtx (assuming amd lowers it to around 850)
Geez dude! what a great video. Need more these. I am mso happy that i went with the 4070Super because here in my coutry(South Africa) i paid 560USD and was really lucky to get this deal where as the TI SUPER was like 880USD whic is insane for not that much performance difference.
I think the 12GB will gimp the 4070S in future, so 4070 Ti Super can give 1 more generation before the need to upgrade. That is why I think the 16GB VRAM will be worth it
@@lifemocker85 Nvidia has a better memory management, much better software/features, uses way less power etc...there is a reason the 7800xt is/has to be much cheaper.
@@Master2Khof 12gb gpu run out of vram before 16gb so mem management doesnt matter. Software tricks aint performance and when AMD overvolts their hardware undervolted power is no issue.
i bought 4070 super for 600. i also have a 1440p g-sync monitor so i can sync games from 28-150 fps. i'm very happy with this deal. so gigabyte windforce (3x) - i would recommed unless your cpu is bad
yeah dlss quality at 4k is really good. Techspot/hw unboxed compared how good it looks vs native and they had 10 games to native, 10 to DLSS quality (@4k) and 4 ties so near free performance. Still would like an ultra quality setting for the faster paced games like online multiplayer where native wins much more.
Here the prices are 690 euro vs 899 euro. That 20% price difference is show in same amount of increased fps, but you also get futureproof 16gb. Ti super is the winner imho.
Wow that’s a big bump in overall performance if you play at higher resolution, or with any sort of RT turned on. I actually thought they’d be a lot closer in performance, but the for $200 it’s a no brainer to buy the Ti Super. Thanks for the great comparison.
I'll probably go TI Super, most games would be fine with 12gb if Vram but I play a lot of fringe games and modded Skyrim that easily eat up 16gb of VRAM
I can't decide which one is the worse deal. The 4070 super is cheaper but more restricted in terms of use cases because of the 12 gb. But the 4070 ti super is expensive on a Level that shouldn't even be legal with these specs.
15% increase in performance, 30% increase in power consumption on average. Im sort of happy with the 4070S as I only have a 500W PSU (kind of my hero now)
@@lifemocker85 Sadly true but I wasn't gonna risk a burned psu. It's an old i7 8700k@5g anyway. Maybe 5xxx will be a reason to upgrade the whole pc, until then it will have to do.
500W is fine. It can easily power even 4070 Ti Super, if this card is undervolted. The quality of a PSU is more important then it's wattage. Though overclocked i7 8700k might be too much for a 500W PSU, even when paired with 4070 Super. So you'd better undervolt it as well, just to be on a safe side.
The tests are very detailed and all the videos are very cool! But I didn't realize, does it make sense for me to overpay $200 for the TI version? The conclusions are not clear. Sadness 😓
I got a 4070ti super over the 4070 super for the vram honestly....i sold my 3080 and 3900x so i pretty much got over half my money back....overall im happy with my purchase.
I did exactly the same, sold my 3080 10GB and 5800x3D and got the 4070Ti Super and the 7800x3D. Reviewers often overlook the fact that you can ALWAYS sell your old system to offset costs, specially if they're still considered top end. I got to stay on the high end without breaking the bank. Another thing I do is look for open box motherboards. In my experience, they always work perfectly fine and you can basically save enough money to get RAM for free. The VRAM issue is what made me go the Super route, i just couldn't pull the trigger on a 12GB GPU in 2024. You can see in many games that the VRAM usage is borderline ALREADY, can only imagine it will spill over moving forward and those 12GB GPUs will become today's 8Gbs.
Your jump literally was 3080 to 3090 ti not even worth it. Your jump was 20 to 25% (at Best with some exception maybe) average.... The Jump for you shouldnt have been slower than a 4080/7900xtx
@@nicane-9966 I don't play at 4k so a 4080 wasn't worth it to me...I play in UW at 165hz....the 4070ti super gets me exactly what I need...no more and no less. BTW my 3080 was the 10GB....I almost went with amd but then I wouldn't have access to dlss...so the 4070ti super was the best value to me. Sure it may not seem like a HUGE jump but like said I virtually only spent $400
I like to run cyberpunk on high settings with ray tracing on. I'll take the extra 4gb VRAM. Plus, it'll make the card stay relevant longer, which could make the extra cost make more sense. I'd also like to be able to get decent fps without DLSS if I can. It causes weird artifacting and texture popping sometimes in CP2077.
@@theanimerapper6351 sit rep, I have it now. And it's so much better. I'd say it's worth it. I was gonna go for the 4080 super, but this made more sense
