Thursday, November 10th 2022
NVIDIA RTX 4080 20-30% Slower than RTX 4090, Still Smokes the RTX 3090 Ti: Leaked Benchmarks
Benchmarks of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce RTX 4080 (formerly known as the RTX 4080 16 GB) are already out as the leaky taps in the Asian tech forumscape know no bounds. Someone with access to an RTX 4080 sample and drivers on ChipHell forums, put it through a battery of synthetic and gaming tests. The $1,200 MSRP graphics card was tested on 3DMark Time Spy, Port Royal, and games that include Forza Horizon 5, Call of Duty Modern Warfare II, Cyberpunk 2077, Borderlands 3, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
The big picture: the RTX 4080 is found to be halfway between the RTX 3090 Ti and the RTX 4090. At stock settings, and in 3DMark Time Spy Extreme (4K), it has 71% the performance of an RTX 4090, whereas the RTX 3090 Ti is 55% that of the RTX 4090. With its "power limit" slider maxed out, the RTX 4080 inches 2 percentage-points closer to the RTX 4090 (73% that of the RTX 4090), and with a bit of manual OC, it adds another 4 percentage-points. Things change slightly with 3DMark Port Royal, where the RTX 4080 is 69% the performance of the RTX 4090 in a test where the RTX 3090 Ti does 58% that of the RTX 4090.
The game tests present a slightly different story, with the RTX 4080 performing closer to the RTX 4090. In Forza Horizon 5, the RTX 4090 is only 15.7% faster than the RTX 4080. It's also just 7.9% faster in CoD MWII. The RTX 4090 does, however, post 30-something percentage gains over the RTX 4080 with Shadow of the Tomb Raider (+39%), and Cyberpunk 2077 (+37%). Given these numbers, we predict the RTX 4080 will post significant performance gains over the previous-generation RTX 3080 (10 GB), and acceptable gains over the RTX 3090 Ti, while trailing the RTX 4090 with just enough performance so as to not cannibalize it.
Sources:
VideoCardz, ChipHell
The big picture: the RTX 4080 is found to be halfway between the RTX 3090 Ti and the RTX 4090. At stock settings, and in 3DMark Time Spy Extreme (4K), it has 71% the performance of an RTX 4090, whereas the RTX 3090 Ti is 55% that of the RTX 4090. With its "power limit" slider maxed out, the RTX 4080 inches 2 percentage-points closer to the RTX 4090 (73% that of the RTX 4090), and with a bit of manual OC, it adds another 4 percentage-points. Things change slightly with 3DMark Port Royal, where the RTX 4080 is 69% the performance of the RTX 4090 in a test where the RTX 3090 Ti does 58% that of the RTX 4090.
48 Comments on NVIDIA RTX 4080 20-30% Slower than RTX 4090, Still Smokes the RTX 3090 Ti: Leaked Benchmarks
GTX 1080 was released for $600. :)
RTX 2080/3080 for $700.
We are looking at a 71%/100% generational price uplift. Damn. This is crazy. Consoles look better and better.
The RTX 4090 is faster than the 4080. By how much? 41 percent. It's not a good idea to talk about how much "slower" a card is. (100 percent faster, or the other one is 50 percent slower, same thing, very confusing for many people).Don't worry the 7900XTX is faster. Almost 20 percent faster most likely. The 7900XTX is in the middle between the 4080 and 4090, but slightly closer to the 4090.
rtx 4080 msrp: $1200
rtx 3090 ti provides 77.4% performance of a 4080 as per this news post
...yeah, no matter what way you spin it these cards are just not worth it
ATI Radeon HD 4870. Launch price $299
HD 4870 119% faster
Good times.
And if Nvidia will stick to it's pricing, bang for buck & performance will be painted red.
Then AMD bought ATI and took on a lot of debt and started having a lot of problems. 6870 wasn't even faster. 7870 was only 40 percent faster. So the 3000 series to 4870 to 5870 transition was the last time AMD was on top. That was the HD transition for me on PC.
Had to wait a long 4 years after the mildly better 7870 released for the RX 480 to release before AMD made another decent card. Then another 4 years for the Radeon 6800 to come out.
4870 -> 5870 -> 7870-> RX480 -> Radeon 6800. That's the 12 year journey :)
I'm starting to understand those who have PS5. For at least 6-7 years they don't care about buying a new console.
HD 5870 was great, HD 6870 was just a newer version of the architecture, more efficient and less vulnerable to Nvidia's shenanigans(with the help of a few game developers) with tessellation in games. HD 7870 was amazing because of the GCN architecture, but yes, not ground breaking jump in performance. RX 480 was the perfect value card and RX 6800 a return to the high end(excluding RT performance).
And previously I did upgrade faster but it was never really a game changer like the jump from 780 > 1080 was, I was mostly just moving 'up the stack' gen to gen at the time, selling the old to upgrade to new. Gaming wise, none of those upgrades did enable a higher res or different use case. The 1080 however carried me from 1080p to 1440p UW. In most games, still 100 fps at max settings (!), in other games, I drop settings to med/high to stay above 60 steadily. Only rarely will games present sub 50 FPS framerates. 2016 card.
There is absolutely no need to upgrade faster if you're near the top of the stack, at best there is a 'want', called upgrade itch :). GPU has hit the segment that CPU did already touch during the quadcore age. Its just more than enough, diminishing returns territory happens already from midrange on up. Sure, if you elevate the bar of acceptance to 'must have 4K, must have RT, must have 144+ FPS steady' then yes, you're in for a (bi-) yearly ride into crazy land. To me however those are all nice to haves at best. And if you compare to a console owner, really, chasing the cutting edge isn't happening there either.
As for the stated percentages in the article... a lot remains highly questionable. For example, the fact the 4080 in gaming ends up closer than in synthetics to a 4090 is obviously because of CPU impact, and that's already counting on a very fast chip there. Effectively, the article tries to suggest something changed in the relative perf of 4080 16G > 4090, as if it somehow hits above its weight, but it really doesn't. Its a 1200 dollar card way too expensive for what it is, and with major gap to a 4090.
Granted, demand for a PS5 is like double than for a xBox, but that's no excuse.
But I can never justify $1,200 for a video card when a few years back for that money I was able to build not one, but two PCs for friends that weren't high on gaming. It just doesn't make sense to me.
It's the same over here (and in most places on the planet).