It's getting Even Worse... RTX 4060 Ti tested on a PCIe 3.0 System 

GT 4030 when

@@_mrsahem_ nah it'll be the RT4030. gotta sell that raytracing to someone :)

NAH bruh it's GTX 4010Ti

@@potatoes5829 lol rt 4030, what a great idea, ngreedia should hire you :)

@@_mrsahem_ The 75w, PCI 2.0, 12bit bus, 16gb model with the oversized cooler be the one to buy.

Quite, I run a 9900k and hadn’t seen this referred to elsewhere. Perhaps because everyone runs absolutely top end hardware don’t think of checking on older platforms.

@@BikingChap They all use the best cpu at the time in order to exclude bottlenecking. And while that's great because it shows what the card can do without being held back, it also has downsides like the one we see here. We still have older cpus that are still way more than capable of handling newer gpus.

if youre into upgrading an old harwdware i dont think nvidia is the right choice

​​@@j33k83 agreed, upgrading old hardware is always better trough amd

@@m-copyright sure, I can see why they do that and it’s difficult to think of every scenario but now someone’s called it out it seems obvious. Easy to be wise after someone else has seen it I guess.

Nvidia paid for this test thats why ...

Please tell me which is better to buy a video card, RX7600, which costs 42599 rubles, or RTX 4060 Ti, which costs 43990 rubles?

@@Igor-Bond RX 6700 XT at 29120 rubles is the way to go, beats both cards by a generous margin.

Agree, but then you're not running 4.0 on the same intel 10th gen test bench.

@@Igor-Bond4060 Ti

Yep. And then there's the instances where it adds input latency as a trade-off, which is an objective gameplay experience downgrade the worse it gets.

The best use cases I have for DLSS3 with frame Gen are for titles it has to be modded into for lol. I use it in my Skyrim mod list and elden ring but using it in darktide or cyberpunk makes the experience feel very meh. Using a 4090.

@@chubmouse It always adds more latency, even if only a little. The only game it's worth it in is MS Flight Sim imo.

b-b-but dlss is every nvidia fanboys last resort if they were cornered 😢

How much is Putin .... I mean, AMD paying you?!?!?!?

That's literally been Nvidia's thing since the beginning.

Well.said

After today's keynote at computex it's clear that ai and data centres are priority for them now.

those nGreedia suckers who shows middle finger to customers, are just to be avoided for good

@@jacobrzeszewski6527 Yeah but they did kind of at least deliver before, back when Maxwell came out it was truly one of the most efficient and most performant GPU generations, even though back then nVidia literally got sued for lying about their VRAM on the 970 (and lost, not a good look when a corpo and its fleet of attorneys can still manage to lose and not buy a legal victory). Pascal was also good, it also delivered on performance, and AMD back then just didn't, their main value was in the lower and midrange but even then R9 300 was just not as performant and efficient. Also back then they didn't line their bullshit front and center, like TXAA, PCSS, HBAO+ wasn't being parroted in every outlet like it was some important thing to have, nobody ever implied you should buy a GPU just for better hairworks performance, but here we are and that's exactly what they are doing. I don't give two shits about frame generation. It also looks weird and bad upscaling so it kind of defeats the point to enable raytracing when you run worse fps and it looks worse too thanks to DLSS. And no idgaf that it's better now than 1.0, 1.0 was literally unplayable garbage and anyone who bought an RTX 2000 series ended up feeling cheated. The problem is they keep getting worse and worse. It's like they're drunk on their own hubris at this point, and truly expecting their loyal customers to be brainless sheep. "The more you spend the more you save" "we're like the new iPhone"I mean fucking really?

ITs important to tell consumers that its not a real frame rate increase either. They are fake frames. They are not rendered by the game but 'generated' by the gpu. It is frame 'smoothing' not actually improved FPS. This is why they should not replace the actual rendered FPS on graphs with frame generation data. For example in the Cyber punk 2077 graph with the added DLSS bar, an actually powerful GPU rendering at 152 fps will not only have lower latency but will look visually better than a 4060 ti using DLSS. DLSS 3 may be better, but it is still just fake frames generated to make the game appear higher FPS than it actually is. Its not magically improving FPS by flipping a switch. (which is what Nvidea wants people to think)

​@@Erik_Dz XeSS and FSR are NOT generating frames, that's not how they work, they (basically)render the frames at a lower resolution and feed them to an algorithm that upscales it while maintaining good quality (it's a little bit more complicated than that, just upscaling images alone makes it worse, but intel uses an ai model to try and improve the quality and AMD uses a few techniques together to do the same thing, trying to get as close as they can to what a native image would have been like) Neither does DLSS3, *BUT* , it has an extra option for frame interpolation which basically uses AI to "guess" a frame in between two already generated frames. THIS is what worsens latency because there is always one already done real frame ahead of every other frame you're presented (NVIDIA misleadingly markets this as "reducing latency" because frame interpolation mode forces Reflex on to mitigate that latency penalty, but you are indeed gonna experience penalties if you already were using Reflex beforehand) Now, AMD's recently unveiled FSR 3 will also feature interpolation (with their own techniques to do so) but they do admit that there will be latency penalties with frame interpolation

@@Erik_Dz While that's true with DLSS3FG, it's not true with DLSS2 or 3 minus the FG. (DLSS3 works on 20 and 30 series, it's only the frame gen aspect that nvidia gatekept) DLSS upscaling can often produce a _better_ image than native and HUB already proved that. FG is up in the air and entirely subjective if you like high fps for the visuals or the responsiveness. That depends on the types of games you play. But anyone that blindly turns off DLSS for scaling is an idiot when it _always_ gives you superior latency, and often gives you better than native visuals as long as you're using quality mode. This is where we get into the grey area of games that support DLSS but not FSR. This needs to be a note in benchmarks cause anyone that _needs_ the extra performance is ALWAYS going to enable DLSS. It's not like they're going to say "I can't enable that because it's not fair to AMD users."

@@KibitoAkuya I've got a sinking feeling FSR3 is going to suck. It's taking really long to come out and they don't have dedicated hardware for it. 30 series DOES have the dedicated hardware but doesn't have as big a frame buffer as 40 series. (Nvidia's bullshit excuse) FSR3 would most likely work _better_ on 30 series than RDNA, but of course AMD wants to change direction and limit FSR3 to AMD only. It's already been theorized Nvidia could easily enable FG on 30 series but they badly wanted a new feature they could gatekeep to 40 series. Typical Nvidia. The worst part is, imagine anyone that dropped 2 freaking grand on a 3090ti to have Nvidia only 6 months later spit in your face on DLSS3. I'd be fucking pissed. It pisses me off with my 3080ti and I spent far less than MSRP for it.

​​@@KibitoAkuya Is DLSS3 frame generation that basic? Would have thought with the fact that it requires specific support that it could do asynchronous reprojection and just fine tune the result, with reprojection being a much older technique that genuinely reduces latency (very common in VR games on mobile headsets). The only real disadvantage for AMD for "work" (you didn't specify so I'm making assumptions about which workload you have) is that it won't support CUDA software, but most client side applications don't use CUDA for hardware acceleration and AMD support in the GPGPU realm is getting better rapidly, so unless you're doing AI you *should* be good (and *might* be good even on AI - be sure to research hardware support for your intended application)

i'm in same boat, i built my system with ryzen 1700 nd aorus b350 board, when it died aorus gave me free b450 upgrade, now i'm running 5800x nd 1070, no way i'm buying nvidia cause their pricing nd products make no sense rn, 6700xt it is.

@@ManuSaraswat Yeah, I've been milking the first B450 for 4 years now and still running a 3700x in my rig that I want to replace with a secondhand 5800x3d/5900x/5950x/ for another few years when the time comes. I'd completely forgotten that I was still on 3.0 until this popped up lol.

I have a Asus Prime B450 with a 3600 that I never upgraded bios on, so its still a PCIE4 system :)

@@AndrewTSq according to the asus website that's A pcie3 board

@@grants7390 Yes, cause AMD forced all B450 boards that supported PCIE4 to remove it with a bios update... but I never updated mine, so its still PCIE4. Just search "PCIE4 removed from B450" on google. Not only Asus, also Gigabyte had it "Gigabyte, who introduced a Firmware BIOS switch in their X470 motherboards allowing you to enable PCIe Gen 4.0 (partially). Once that happened a lot of motherboard manufacturers felt obligated to follow. Meanwhile, AMD has been stating that non-500 series motherboards will not get PCIe Gen 4.0 support. "

problem is nvidia pushes reviewers really hard to pitch that so it looks better

I'd agree if Frame Generation's performance uplift was as linear as the performance uplift of DLSS. With DLSS, you can just calculate the difference in pixel counts between the output resolution and the render resolution and you will be very close to the actual performance uplift you get in game. With Frame Generation, it's really not that easy, because the base framerate with FG on and off are not the same - on my 4090, in a GPU-bound scenario, base framerate can be 25-30% lower with Frame Generation on. FG then doubles the effective framerate, and you end up with a 65-80% boost overall. However, in a CPU-bound scenario, you get a clean 100% uplift. This is very evident in poor quality PC ports like Hogwarts Legacy and Jedi Survivor, where if you enable RT, you cannot get over 60 fps, but Frame Generation doubles the framerate very effectively. Elden Ring is similar, there is a 60fps lock on the game, Frame Generation will double it to 120 fps without you messing up the gameplay because invulnerability frames not lasting as long as intended. So I think it could be very informative to test games with frame generation as well (not instead of native, that's disingenuous)

@@cpt.tombstone frame generation really kind of is cheating though as it only appeals to the eye candy factor of a high frame rate, and a high frame rate is already pretty superfluous to an eye-candy focused game. Thus, the main use of frame generation is to hit 60fps in a title where you are using graphics settings definitely too high for your gpu. Idk, I feel like there's more validity in testing native vs DLSS vs FSR than there is including frame generation in there

@@salmon_wine Any game that isn't some competitive multiplayer will benefit from frame generation, it is a really great tool for maximum visual fidelity while retaining a smooth experience, i have always dropped graphic settings to get at least 60 fps or more for every game i played and i would have loved such a tool back when i played mh world or other really pretty games and my gpu just wasn't quite up to the task

@@salmon_wine I strongly disagree. 60->120 in a game that cannot achieve more than 60 fps is very strong use case for the tech. I've been playing a heavily modded Skyrim with frame generation, I only get 60-70 fps in the wilds at 4K even with a 4090. Turning on Frame Generation, now it's an almost perfect 116 fps experience, and the game is super smooth. Very-very minor latency impact as well, even with Reflex not working in this version of the FG mod.

Indeed, IMO the current graphs / benchmarks don't show the potentially lost performance at all.

Same. Our power consumption bill is calculated in slabs so the higher we consume, the more expensive it gets per unit. And it gets barely talked in most reviews.

Exactly. My 4080 uses much less power than my 3080 Suprim. Runs very cool and as I don’t use high frame rates, only ultra on image quality, usually around 200w. Not bad.

2x. Furmark is good to include to know the peak sustained power a card can pull, e.g. good to know maybe for power supply capacity planning. But that's way too high a load compared to everyday usage, even for the most demanding games or graphics applications. A call for better/more granular power analysis from other reviewers was very much pertinent.

Copium!

@@hop-skip-ouch8798 You pay more for utilities to stop "climate change" and "racism". The experts would never lie for nefarious reasons. It is impossible that someone with an education could ever do any wrong. It's best to blindly believe them and persecute the heretics who dare defy the gods of science. Now eat ze bugs! You'll own nothing and be happy!

Frame generation and upscaling technologies are very vulnerable to abuse. In concept Nvidia can generate any framerate they want at any resolution they want if they are ok with grotesque artifacts and distortion. I really prefer to see the apples to apples raw performance comparisons and go from there.

dlss and fsr is really great for mobile devices like 7940U and asus rdna3

Frame generation should never be the focus in testing a Gpu. It is a nice feature to have but i pay for raw performance not for fake frames.

The thing that many people tend to forget or even misunderstand about FG is that it isn't even for people with low fps. The lower your fps is the harder it is to interpolate between frames. And it does nothing to fix the input lag which usually is pretty bad at low fps. This feature is for people who already have pretty decent >60 fps and who also have high refresh monitors, it allows them to saturate the pipeline to further visual smoothness. It's a "win-more" feature.

​​@@RN1441ot to mention, dlss3 is literally a performance worsener in online compatitive gaming. Increases latency, introduces false information (uses ML to predict what an object will do; if said object for example changes direction suddenly, DLSS3 will predict wrong and show you wrong information), etc. It's ok in slower paced stuff, but at that point... Do you truly need the high fps? It can't even be used to reach "playable" on heavy titles, because if native FPS are low enough you'll get untenable latency anyways. At the moment, the only actual use for it is basically VSync in single player titles: you can set it to match your screen refresh rate and that's it. Basically if you get 45 FPS in a non latency sensitive game, you can use it to get 120 fps with minimal drawbacks. Below 45 fps, but it depends on one's tolerance for it, it's useless because even if you get 100 fake frames you'll have an actual frame time of like 60 ms or more, which is about equivalent to playing at 15 fps. Literally unplayable. It can be a great technology, but in gaming it has very limited use at the moment (and in the future if they don't change something about it).

Man I'd be so pissed by that. Mainly because the board is literally the ONLY thing in my rig I don't expect ever to touch in the lifetime of the system period, literally even the PSU I would imagine needing to replace before having to get a different board. That's literally the exact reason why I got the pricey motherboard to begin with, because I didn't want to have stupid problems like these and not have any hassle because it's supposed to be a rock solid x570 that shouldn't even need to be touched until I replace my whole rig by 2030 (God willing, barring terrible unforseen consequence knock on wood).

I am buying a PCIe 3 motherboard and a Ryzen 2600. I know it's very very old but it's extremely cheap. And very oddly I am buying a 3090 or 4070. I know I know bottleneck. But I am going to be playing at 4k or even higher in my VR setting. Tell me how much difference will PCI 3 Vs PCI 4 will make at for example 8k?

@@DanishBashir-sz6vs Nothing, x16 4.0 cards does not bottlenecks with 3.0 setups. x8 4.0 cards does bottlenecks with 3.0 setups but the amount of bottleneck depends of the CPU and specific card pair, generally weaker cards bottlenecks less from it and AMD cards bottlenecks less due to Infinity Cache doing lift work and Nvidia having no equivalent. I will heavily advise to at least buy a Ryzen 5500 as it just costs $85 and doubles the performance, can be used on the same motherboard you had eyes on by just asking the seller to update the bios if it has not been updated yet.

@@MsNyara 5500 was exactly next in line and you made me reconsider again lol. Okay, I will think about processor once again.

@@MsNyara 5500 was exactly next in line and you made me reconsider again lol. Okay, I will think about processor once again.

On 8 lanes. It is garbage.

With 2 useless features that make gaming experience worse

It's same with dlss 3, because it's using same dlss super resolution. Difference between them is that dlss 3 also using frame generation tech that draws bunch of fake frames and make games visually smoother, but doesn't improve responsiveness (input lag), usually makes it worse, while real fps boost improves input lag.

Still looks bad at 1440p

​@@mryellow6918 agreed it doesn't look great on 1440p. Fsr looks even worse @1440p

You really shouldn't notice that much of a difference on the higher quality settings of DLSS, if you do it's probably not DLSS that's the issue as much as a shader game side bugging out due to sampling issues. Of course if you push it to the limit and use ultra performance you'll start seeing resolution issues, but that's the exception to the norm.

it looks better than native in cyberpunk

I disagree because the name of this product implies that a performance upgrade should be expected. If it was cheaper AND renamed the 4060 (or 4050Ti) then I think it would be worthy of praise. I think most people would expect a 4060 to be equal or better in performance to a 3060Ti AND consume same/less power. Nvidia has failed / misguided the public on two fronts, price and performance.

@@marstedt 4060 (non Ti) should perform around 3070, that would be a proper generational improvement as we usually saw in the past

No, the card is bad, it has a serious imbalance of memory and bus for its otherwise real power, leading it severe bottlenecks with itself, which is a very bad design.

@@MsNyara So if the RX 7600 and RTX 4060 Ti were the same price you would tell people to get the RX 7600?

@@xingbairong The RTX 4060 Ti if same price or up to $30 more but that is mostly comparing two terrible designed cards with each other. Just buy a RX 6600 for $200, RTX 3060 12GB for $280 or RX 6700 XT for $350, the rest does not makes sense in the performance segment.

It is definitely something they are lacking, but I guess most of their viewers are from the US and they don't (according to a lot of youtube comments) seem to care about power usage because of the power cost, or the cost to the environment.

@@-opus A lot of places in the US are on nuclear power. It's about as clean and efficoent as you can get.

Also GN needs to change those bars how he presents the numbers, looks like a mess, too many numbers on top of each other.

@@19alive Agreed, too many comparisons. The only issue is that there are often people questioning why certain models are still excluded.

@@GrizzAxxemann I guess that explains a lot, perhaps it is why they like rgb so much, it too glows in the dark. I am surprised no one has made a PC case shaped like a 3 eyed fish

I needed an upgrade and after watching the 4060 ti reviews I immediately went out and bought a 6700xt which has almost the same performance 50% more vram and was $70 cheaper than the 4060ti

Ngreedia wants to go the high end/workstation route, and that's exactly what ended their former competitor 3dfx. Now it seems Ngreedia is bent on following in 3dfx's footsteps and they'll soon get their just rewards for their nonsense. The irony of this situation is highly amusing; it'd be even more amusing if Ngreedia goes under and sells their IP to Intel.

​@@ResidentWeevil2077 Look, I'm rooting for Intel on their GPU front, but do you *really* want the company that kept 4 cores and 8 threads for almost eight years to take over?

​​​@@EbonySaintsey had zero competition, not even remotely close competition. And to be fair to Intel, the worst thing they ever did was not improve their CPUs enough with each generation for a couple generations. That's significantly better than all the issues AMD has been having with their CPUs these last generations. Also amd single handedly killed the workstation lineup with threadripper by pricing them to absolutely ridiculous levels. I mean first gen threadripper was good value, but then it went through the roof to 4k for a cpu. We used to be fuming at Intel for a 1k CPU. Honestly Intel looks way better than AMD now, and at least their CPUs are rock solid stable. AMD is pretty touchy. Edit: also Intel literally made all the high core count chips first before anyone else so your comment is slightly ironic. I'm referring to 6 cores, 8 cores, 10 cores, 12 cores, 14 cores, 16 cores, 18 cores, 20 cores, and 22 cores. Intel all did it first. They did that during your 8 year 4 core 8 thread time period. And yes they were expensive at the time, but AMD is now high core count king and they priced their stuff 4x higher than Intel ever did. So I don't see how Intel is worse.

@@ResidentWeevil2077 Nvidia seems to be going for the AI market now, judging from some stuff I saw regarding their most recent financial report. Hardware for that area has much greater overlap with high end/workstation hardware than with gaming hardware, so no wonder their gaming products aren't getting much R&D attention. With all the projections for the growth of the AI market, Nvidia's decision seems pretty solid compared to 3dfx's back then. Also, it would probably be bad for the gaming GPU market if Nvidia decided to quit, we'd be back to duopoly again, except we'd then be left with the two people that currently offer the lower quality products.

People in Europe will care more about power than the US for reasons made obvious in this video.

Good points. 1 I completely agree. And I seriously don't get that power efficiency thing. Because it depends on the settings that you play your game at. 2 This 8GB bs is completely ridiculous since we already had it on a GTX 1070 !!! 8 bleeding years ago. Ngreedia releasing it with 8 gb is completely ridiculous, to me the 8Gb should only be at the baseline of gaming which means only a 4050 should have it and the rest should go up. 4050 8Gb, 4060 12Gb , 4070 16Gb , 4080 20 Gb , 4090 24 Gb, and anything outside of that is Ngreedia just screwing us. 3 I think eventually they will though, but not as fast as people think. It will take a few months for them to organize a corporate meeting, to finally realize oh gush darnit we screwed up with pricing. They will have to lower the price... I saw a perfect comment on one of the 4060 videos, so now I repeat it everywhere. This 4060 is a 4050 at 4070' price.

80%+ of their income comes from enterprise/server/AI and another 10% or so from laptops, they don't really care much to sell volume on the desktop side, they'd rather have premium products. I'm more surprised that AMD are even trying, because last year less than 10% of their revenue came from their GPUs.

You can overclock the card, but not PCIE lanes.

7600 is the same...

In the US, you can get a new 6750 XT for 330 USD (including shipping) right now

@@syncmonism everyone did a price drop...

@@notrixamoris3318 Doesn't look to bad at the new price ,, 260 of those green American peso's

​@@notrixamoris3318 at least AMD's pricing is less wack... the 7600 having the same pitfalls isn't as bad when you factor in that it's lower in the product stack and priced according lower as well. Afaict, it's not *meant* to be a direct competitor to the 4060 Ti. Which makes the limited parameters a lot more excusable on AMD's side, since you get a low end limited product, but you do pay fittingly less for it. Whereas Nvidia's offering is kind of criminal...

@@mikeycrackson That is part of the problem but new games have very busy scenes and a lot of details that use up memory. They recommend a 12700K/5700X CPU and a 6800xt or 3080ti GPU @1440p 60FPS for medium to high settings for Immortals of Aveum. This game has an area where you are fighting on a moving mech and a battle is going on in the background and you have a hud screen etc...

Anyone who calls himself a "techspert" is probably neither. That's pure 100% marketing bullshittery right there. Also again the only sole reason for mentioning DLSS is for making raytracing playable. You either have a new enough graphics card you can probably run your game natively anyway, or your GPU is old and slow enough to actually need it but also old enough not to have DLSS and therefore you're going to be using FSR anyway. That's for the tiny amount of games which even have it mind you, that's completely irrelevant for literally 99% of my games (I have iirc 7 games tops out of a 700+ library on GOG, Steam, and Epic that even have the option to use FSR/DLSS or RT, none of my other games do). So DLSS is really so much of a niche use case for such a small proportion of gamers that I literally see it along the lines of mentioning AMD's drivers for Linux, or nVidia's NVENC encoding and CUDA, yeah I"m sure AMD does run great on Linux and I'm sure your media business is doing well with your rendering and encoding, but it's completely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of gamers just like DLSS is.

There's no excuse in 2023 for buying new hardware without checking out the numerous online written and video reviews first.

Yes, but! The large L2 makes up for everything, even the lack of RAM. Right? Right?

​@@EightPawsProductionsHDThere hasn't been that excuse for a very long time. People are just dumb to be honest. I'm shocked some people can even Velcro their shoes in the morning.

So, what GPU do you recommend for 1080-1440p with pcie 3? I've read about the rx 6750xt but some say this won't be a good option if I also want to work with the system so... Can you give me any recommendations?

@@EightPawsProductionsHD there is no excuse for them to cut 8 lanes

They are thinking: $$$

Cost saving. AMD has been doing it longer than nvidia.

I think this card is too underpowered to suffer any capping due to PCIe bandwidth at 8x 3.0

@@andrebrait Exactly

dude you re lucky in france people are insane and basically selling used at shop prices

I would actually get a new 4070 over a used 3080 anyday in the week. More vram, more speed, and you get a warranty. That is worth the extra $199 for me. edit: or if you dont mind AMD a 6800xt new is $529.

I think people are somewhat scared to open and clean what is quite possibly the most expensive part of the PC. Just yesterday I got a used 3060ti for 230$. It also has around 4 years of warranty still left....Zotac model. I got lucky as the guy who sold it to me was moving out and have had barely used it for just around a year....card is in great shape and I plan to open and clean it soon.

the problem with used is if was used in mining, you might higher rate of the fan bearing going to die in the mid use of it.... if mining wasnt a thing back when it was released, id recommend it anytime but since it's only 10GB of Vram... it's not that much of a different from having an 8GB

With European energy prices, getting a used 3080 at $400 vs a new 4070 at $600 is still a tough choice. In gaming the 3080 uses a solid 100W more than the 4070ti. If you game 2 hours a day for 5 years at 0.45€/kWh (prices will only go up from here), that comes down to 164€, which puts the costs of the cards more in line with each other. And that's not accounting for people like me, who also use their PC for work 8 hours a day and thus idle/low usage power consumption matters a lot. In conclusion, don't pay more than 400€ for a used 3080 if you live in Europe lol

"Not that long ago AMD got lambasted for doing the same thing" They were rightfully pointed out as it was only 4!!! lanes.

​@@ABaumstumpfyeah AMD should have been, and were called out, and it received lots of negative press. The odd thing is Nvida seem to have been given a pass on the issue of pcie lanes. Nvida should have been called out for it as well.

@@jonathanellis6097 again - twice the lanes and as he has shown even with PCIe3 not a real problem - contrary to AMD.

Indeed, this is also big in data centres. You pay for the power consumption twice due to cooling. It can work the other way too, though. In Norway, most of the year, the PC power consumption will be exactly balanced by needing less heating. It's very common to have resistive electric heaters and then the (marginal) cost of PC power usage is zero (though, more efficient heating options like heat pumps are becoming widespread). [Edit: and in the summer the electricity tends to be cheap here, due to large solar production on the continent]

@@palmariusbjrnstad1682 Yeah heatpumps can mitigate the heating cost. Though it doesn't work well under zero Celsius so might be less incentive to invest on it in your latitude than in southern Europe (especially units with reverse heatpump option to replace an existing HVAC)

You also absolutely need it to be able to judge performance for titles that don't have it.

@@amunak_ Yes, most definitely. Nvidia thinks DLSS3 should be compared to other cards running "raw" but that's just wrong. Nevertheless, I do want to see what kind of gains DLSS3+fg gives, but that should be an additional test, because raw performance is super important for the sake of comparison.

Trillion dollar company, folks.

Not at all. It's good for the stock value to sell overpriced cards that will feel obsolete in one or two years of use. The execs are doing what they are required to do: make the most money for the company. They just happen to have noticed that the best way to do that is to exploit consumer stupidity.

And then FSR3 enters the chat.

Agreed on the power metric. It's hugely important to me. I went from a 2070S to a 4070, and the power draw is about the same or a little less. But the performance is better. I'm happy to similar performance as well, if the power draw keeps falling. PC parts can consume so much power these days and power generation is expensive.

XESS

DLSS is such an important tech that it does need to be tested and factored into the purchase. Especially seeing as AMD themselves are working on their own DLSS 3.0 variant.

I agree with this, it does add a good deal of complexity to consider, but looking at a worst case during the summer months of having 150-200W or even more heat dumped into your house could be something.

This is hard to quantify in Germany because most houses and apartments here don't have AC anyway.

To be fair, you could get the reverse effect in winter, not having to run a heater as high.

@@Lishtenbird with this electricity price, it could be better to massively invest in heatpumps rather than resistive heaters.

another point is to not forget that older cards also have higher power consumption running light loads than newer ones. This dozen of Watts can be quite a difference when the computer is used for more than 4hr/day gaming sessions and sometimes barely powered off.

The problem is that a lot of people "speak with their wallet" by buying a higher end nvidia card instead, rewarding their gambit.

I bought RX6600 for around $220. Such a great gpu with no 2 useless features thaf Nvidia been scamming you

Just underclock...

As long so few of the game's don't have any option for this is, there's no need to test that.

Totally, I don't even think of turning on frs/dlss unless it's absolutely necessary.

Same here.

​@@einarcgulbrandsen7177 even if they would, they still 99% of the time reduce fidelity and introduce ghosting and artifacts (that 1% is when they make text more readable)

same thing dlss shouéd be a ladt resort crutch not the new normal

But how many different setups do you expect youtubers to benchmark on?

@@-opus That is an issue. Relative performance (with a fixed high-end platform) is great to show (generational) improvements (or lack of) etc. But this example is a case in point (and I think Jay's video is an extreme illustration) that not considering other factors can skew the result. I would suggest that there are a lot of folks happy with their "older" intel systems and AM4 kit that might want to upgrade their GPU - so testing at least a couple of the most popular configurations wouldn't hurt - particularly where there is a fundamental change between current and last gen e.g. PCIE3 to PCIE4. Most of us upgrade incrementally (I certainly do). Nobody running a 13900KS on a $1,000 motherboard is going to be gaming with an RTX4060 though anyway......

@@paulc0102 I agree that it makes sense for significant changes, I just don't see youtubers being keen on doubling their workload and complicating charts even further.

Well, then just watch a cpu review, a cpu can only give you so many frames

@@paulc0102 I 100% agree that benchmarks for older systems are super great but even adding one older platform can drastically increase the workload and production time for a video so I get why they don't when they already have such a limited time to benchmark the samples they get. It'd be great if AMD, Intel, Nvidia etc would send the samples out sooner to give reviewers more time to test more configurations.

AMD are working on their own version of DLSS 3.0 just as they did with DLSS 1.0 and 2.0. Current cards are all tested with DLSS/XESS/FSR on. It's a technology that helps, so why not test it and report on it?

I disagree, at this point DLSS 2.x and 3.x have gotten good enough that you should almost always use them when available, and when set to quality mode with or without frame generation I (and most people) would argue that more times that not you are getting better than native or equivalent to native rendering quality perceptually which is what really matters. So I say include them as the new default (labeled though) for nvidia cards, and when AMD and Intel get theirs up to a similar quality where it looks as good or better then start including them by default. It really reminds me of years ago when the rendering quality differed between cards and brands in the early 2000's. You would adjust them to have a similar visual quality when benchmarking to get the most out of the cards while having a fair comparison.

@@SirDragonClaw did you understand what I said and why I said it? Not all games have upscaling technology and good to still see without it also for comparison and then with it on

Theoretically the unlaunch of the 4080 12gb has pushed the rest of the lineup down a tier in relation to their original plan, not up. (Current 4070 would’ve been 4070ti, 4060ti would’ve then been 4070 etc).

I mean it could all bi fixed with the price, then it would be a normal line up. 4060 Ti (16Gb) fair price $300 4070 Ti fair price $600 4080 fair price $800 4090 fair price $1000

In my opinion this card would have done fine if it would have been named rtx 4060 and sold for 300. If it drops that much (100$/€) in price (wouldn't hold my breath) Radeon is screwed.

No, NVIDIA pushed the naming up a chip tier and it was all done many months ahead of time with press releases of the images showing the specs plus leaks. People looked at the "4080" "12GB" specs and it just looked like it actually supposed to be down a tier with the compute core amount and memory bus width. Back lash put it down to where is is supposed to, but pricing is still too much. You can also tell by looking at the chip codenames, NVIDIA could have named them up a tier, but the audacity to be honest here is quite admirable. My response is the same as a certain kernel developer:"FUCK YOU NVIDIA".

It's not worse, just more expensive.

the pros and cons of a long life platform...

Well intel also stayed on pcie 3.0 for a looooong time. It wasn’t until their 11th gen cpus running on a 500 series motherboard that they used pcie 4.0 and then 5.0 with 12/13 gen. I’m sure there are probably many people still running those “older” intel systems like the 8core 9900k or 10core 10900k that are limited to pcie 3.0.

@@smbu That's very much true but for the performance level a 5800x3d makes sense as an upgrade today.

Because they were whopping 4 lanes!

@@taylorshin yes the rx6500 only dropped 4 lanes compared to the rx5500. This is half less than what the 4060ti dropped. And TBF this is less of an issue on the 6400 as it's still way better than every

Interesting thought!

Between 4 and 10PM here in CA our rate is $0.52/KWH. During the morning it's $0.39/KWH. The only way to get anywhere near $0.18/KWH is to play midnight to 6AM here which is $0.26/KWH with SCE. SD PG&E and PGE in northern CA are about the same. I turn off all lights in the house except the one room where the kids and I game in and we try to vent the heat out windows because adding AC load on top really adds to the monthly bill. Fortunately the kids can still get by on APUs - I fear the day they want real dedicated GPUs.

@@Tokamak3.1415 same here in Florida,Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas maybe those prices are in the Midwest states or places that use damns. Also here in Florida the largest company FPL charges more rates at night smh I'm moving to A South American country when I retire if things get worse here in America.

x2 😢

Maybe next year.

Currently PCIe 4 is more than enough. Gonna be a few years before any GPU needs PCIe 5. But its good for marketing specs......

Well RTX 4090 shows barely any bottlnecking when using PCIe 2.0 x16 bandwidths (RTX 3080 with AGP, from 2003, bus speeds is still faster than RTX 3070 with PCIe 4.0 x16). It will take few generations when high end cards will need 4.0. Maybe next year these cards with insufficient amount of VRAM can utilize PCIe 5.0. Assuming they also cripple the PCIe connector.

7W idle, 13w on video playback. Its all on Nvidia's page.

That's their plan all along. By the 4060ti now and upgrade to 5060ti when it's out . The 2060super was my last midrange card from Nvidia.