Gigabyte gaming and aero and higher tier has vapor chambers btw so they are one of the few AIB partners that still do it in the cheaper variants besides their flagship cooler other than water block or radiator; its crazy that it makes a big difference enough while the other manufacturers are still doing heatsink for more cost
Same here. I have both the 2-fan and 3-fan on my Newegg wishlist. I don't like how the 3-fan covers up the SATA port and connectors on the motherboard, and how much heavier the 3-fan card vs the 2-fan.
I max out at 70c, 83-84c hotspot (and only on peak) on the MSI. I run 65-66 sustained heavy loads. Memory temps are +6 above GPU temp (76-77 peak.) All while running a 235+ OC and 1375 memory OC, no voltage adjustments. Literally no issues, great budget 4070 Ti S. Anyone whining about MSI being bad is bad. YMMV as every manufacturer has duds here and there but my experience with my two previous ASUS laptops with QC and issues AND armory crate has turned me off from ASUS entirely.
Thanks for the review guys! Would love to see more on thermals and fan noise on GPU reviews. I feel like not enough reviewers take that aspect seriously. Performance is the most important thing, but spending $800+ on a gpu, id like to think im not the only one who very seriously considers heat and fan noise for my build.
Thank you for considering the creative folks on your future review process! As someone that does work with CUDA-dependent apps, it immensely frustrates me when the only thing most reviewers focus on is just gaming benchmarks, which can have little bearing on my mixed usage case.
The 4070 Ti Super that Nvidia sent to analysts is the Asus tuf non-OC with MSRP of $799, also your benchmark data does not match the results obtained by other analysts.I don't understand the use of FSR on Nvidia cards, no one with an RTX is going to use FSR over DLSS.
Good video. However, I'm still unsure about what to get. I found the MSi 4070ti Super Ventus 2x for $980Cad + tax after rebate. Is that worth it when you consider the worse cooling performance of the smaller cooler? Are those temps considered really high for a 4070ti Super? I do a lot of video editing and gaming at 1440p, but am also more budget oriented. Another thing to consider is I'm looking to upgrade and keep the card for 5 years. My current gpu is a 1070, which should give you an idea of how long I keep my cards. Thanks in advance!
I don't think the temperature of that card is a problem by itself, but it does depend on the rest of your system and how it's cooled. Undervolting/underclocking is always a thing as well, which could potentially bring down the thermals, but not everyone is into that. But while that MSI GPU is hotter than others in my test, I personally wouldn't have a problem buying it if everything else looks good. -Adam
Very strange results the 4070 Ti vs 4070 Ti Super, and as I have seen several reviews that have a gap of 10%+ between the cards. However I think limiting the performance of RT to FSR is not a good choice. Was this a review to compare Nvidia vs AMD? I felt that should have been more the title for this video. And some more thoughts: I think the value 4070 Ti Super proposes is longevity of 16GB VRAM that the 4070 Ti does not have, it proposes DLSS and Framegen currently in comparison to AMDs FSR and AFMF. FSR on AMD cards also works better than on Nvidia cards, so a comparison in that sense it not that good imo, especially when DLSS is always the Go-to for RTX GPU owners, and not FSR. And Nvidia does offer more features non-gaming related. And it was kind of hard to read the graph bars when the 4070 Super Aero and 4080 Super Expert had 0 as result, maybe in that case complete exclude it from the graph. Otherwise I like the setting and overall quality, it was easy to listen through this rather long video
It's why I got the 4070Ti Super the cheapest kind tbh Zotac got it a little less than MSRP £750 while all others were £800+ (6%) (but also it's fairly small formfactor hight wise) was the 16GB VRAM, since I want the card to last me at least 5 years and it's great, all specs do indicate there are 10%, in pixel pushing power, RT cores, TMU's, cuda cores then 33% more bandwidth, however checking gigabytes site the Aero's are factory overclocked not by much however 30Mhz however the chances are Gigabyte has upped the power limit and nVidia cards normally run higher than their advertised speeds anyway. Admittedly I was kind of shocked as to how little performance is gained from the 256bit bus memory, thus you are better off using your power budget to the GPU core frequency rather than memory since these cards seem more fill rate limited than bandwidth. MSI afterburner reduced my voltage and upped the power budget to 105% (max a stock card will provide) pushing the GPU to from 2610Mhz to 2880Mhz (10%) but it into spitting distance to a stock RTX4080 (6%).
@@stefannita3439 I think he meant to say that FSR is an AMD technology that was conceived and tuned to work well with their own graphics cards first, and then with the other card manufacturers. It is not necessarily true, but it is at least plausible.
The fact that they included the results for FSR on both AMD and NVidia cards is a good thing for comparison's sake, but I agree that they should have tested the performance of NVidia cards with DLSS as well. In most scenarios NVidia owners will choose DLSS over anything else.
Jesus christ why do you ALWAYS LEAVE OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT TEMPERATURES? Memory and Hotspot. Holy f. Core temp is the most irrelevant temperature thesedays (look at AMD's "50-60c" while their Mem and Hotspot is cooking 90+ c) And why do you guys run FSR 2 instead of DLSS in Cyberpunk for Nvidia? The ventus 2x being faster than the other 2 models doesnt make sense either.
Don't make that mistake. I've returned mine and got the 4070 ti super. Ray tracing, as much as I convinced myself I don't care is actually a big deal. Some games are coming with it baked in. it runs VASTLY better. DLSS looks vastly, vastly superior to FSR. I can turn on dlss quality at 4k and see zero difference. FG for Nvidia is also in a ton of titles, and is better. Also, the ti supers overclock very well, and I reached neck and neck with the 7900 xt stock. The 7900 xt's are not as stable, Mine was very odd with strange behavior. Their software, while it looks good is very glitchy. AI video upscaler is bugged atm won't even turn on. Vsync doesn't apply globally even with it selected. I've had my screen turn green, or wake up to the pc stuck. had to undervolt. The 4070 ti super runs like an absolute dream. It's a much better product overall.
You must really want some crazy raster performance if you buy an AMD card at this price, it's dead for raytracing, and in reality raytracing is ONLY getting bigger and bigger. Which again, is a reason to consider the 4070TIS. With a 4070TIS you are looking at 15% more frames in Raytracing compared to the 4070 Super.
353 watts!? (7900XT) I'm disappointed that the 4070ti Super performed much closer to the 4070ti than the 4080. The 4070 Super though... Decent price/power to performance. Thanks for the review guys.
You're just looking at the maximum GPU power spike. That's like a millisecond (more or less) of power going high. It's not staying a that level on average. That's nothing to what the 3XXX series were shooting up to, Those things had spikes well over 500-600W or so. That's within spec of your typical spikes.
I have a gigabyte 4070 ti super gaming OC. Has a power limit slider to +12% (320 watts). Metro exodus maxed out on 1440p pulls a constant 319 watts. Temp stays around 72C. I've seen it spike up to 330 watts. I would guess that the 7900xt's 350 watts is pretty close to its average power draw. They run HOT. Tons of brute strength comes at a cost.
@Obie327 I'm pretty happy with it. I really wanted a 4080 super, but they were selling for ridiculous prices at the time ($1400). Most of the time I'm within 10% of what the 4080 will do. At 1440p you can pretty much run ultra settings on any Game. Frame Gen is a nice feature, I can't tell the difference in lag time, and it will nearly double FPS if ray tracing is set to ultra.
Got my MSI Gaming X Slim RTX 4070 Ti Super from the open-box display at MicroCenter for $783 +tx. With 16GB of VRAM, it should last a decade or more with me playing the same games (Halo MCC and Halo Infinite) for as long as they last on PC. However, I'm keeping a close eye on the drivers for my Arc A770 16GB card, because in gaming, it's subpar to the RTX 4070 Ti Super, BUT in Heaven Benchmark, the Arc achieved a max FPS of 363, whereas the RTX achieved 361. So, the potential is there for the Arc card at less than half the price. Waiting for BattleMage, too.
It's what I thought even before I started and watched the whole video, if you care only about raster AMD this gen is doing pretty good; on RT not so much but we already knew this.
I think you should also test the cards without any upscaling. Some people play without it and it shows the tru raw performance of the cards. I hate the dlss artifacts and it always takes me out of the experience. I want all of my pixels to be true and not made up by AI
At first, I was pleased to see a GPU analysis video from PC World. But the Devil is in the details. Nvidia's native upscaling solution is DLSS which is driven by their dedicated machine learning hardware. Why would you use FSR on Nvidia's hardware? Performance and quality wise, the two don't even compare. Do you two know what you are doing?
I'm tired of RT on when comparing AMD and NVIDIA, it's like comparing the movement skill of a fish and a monkey, but only in relation to swimming (RT being the swimming analogy).
yuhr benchmarks were biased towards amd . period by using FSR in RTX GPUs ,yuh wanted Nvidia to perform worst or measurably worst in benchmarks. . Nobody in the world who wud buy RTX card will ever use FSR instead of DLSS/DLAA in game settings. you are trying to trick ppl in name of evenness. DLSS does not just provide high visual quality but as well as faster performance too.
*You're suprised?* You're suprised that AMD favored titles run better on the 7900 xt? lol Those games that were far higher, are not common and shouldn't be used a tool for concideration. On average, the 7900 xt is around 4-6 fps higher at 1440p. And around 5fps at 4k. According to 40 game benchmarks. The Nvidia card offers HDR AI, superior DLSS, superior FG, and VASTLY supeior RT and work flow as well. It is worth 80 bucks more. It's a better all around product. And yes, is more stable.
I'm pretty sure RT cores are used for ray tracing not CUDA cores. And the 4k upscaling was pointless you're just trying to make AMD look better they are not apples to apples. Nvidia spends a lot of money on dlss. If it's an advantage it's still an advantage you paid for over AMD.
@@Cody-ox2uu literally every single Radeon card this generation gets higher FPS than its closest-priced nvidia competitor, lol. Unless you turn on ray tracing that is. (and except for the 7600 series which is a terrible deal)
RT is not mcu on top of the parallel array? I'm not sure. I think it is. I heard RT implemented across Cuda Cores. I get that seems real, perhaps obvious, but I thought controllers were more there are a lot of applications. Please explain further. mb
What int he hell did I just watch. So you made the Nvidia card use FSR, and you put the RT to medium RT, instead of pathtracing? What in the hell is wrong with you? Your artificially gimped the Nvidia card and it's power to make the AMD card look better. No lol, just as much as you allow people to see AMD favored titles, you should allow Nvidia the same. Use DLSS, talk about quality of it, and use FG too. These are features and abilities present on the card you can't get currently on AMD> Put on path tracing you can do 1440p 60+fps easily on the Nvidia card.
Two weeks ago I got my Zotac RTX4070 Ti Super for £750, it sold out a few minutes after buying it however because it was the cheapest around. @@spike178
