• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Founders Edition

Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,642 (0.49/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
lol, I'd gladly run that listed machine on a quality 500W single rail PSU... I'd even stress test it... and maybe overclock some.

550W leaves proper headroom for quiet operation and expansion... but hell yeah.. especially at stock speeds. I don't 'play' P95 and stress tests... so long as it passes them when I overclock. It's on.

Anyway, 3060ti thread.... thats a 3070 listed, lol

So now we're up to 550W, nevermind 450 and 500W?

And the FE 3060 Ti takes 208W card only in gaming.

The Strix version of the 3060 Ti takes 251W in gaming. 31W more than the 3070 in that image.

Like I repeatedly noted in the post, the numbers from that calc are for non OC parts. A lot of parts are OC out of the box.
 

r9

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
3,300 (0.58/day)
System Name Primary|Secondary|Poweredge r410|Dell XPS|SteamDeck
Processor i7 11700k|i7 9700k|2 x E5620 |i5 5500U|Zen 2 4c/8t
Memory 32GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|16GB DDR4|32GB ECC DDR3|8GB DDR4|16GB LPDDR5
Video Card(s) RX 7800xt|RX 6700xt |On-Board|On-Board|8 RDNA 2 CUs
Storage 2TB m.2|512GB SSD+1TB SSD|2x256GBSSD 2x2TBGB|256GB sata|512GB nvme
Display(s) 50" 4k TV | Dell 27" |22" |3.3"|7"
VR HMD Samsung Odyssey+ | Oculus Quest 2
Software Windows 11 Pro|Windows 10 Pro|Windows 10 Home| Server 2012 r2|Windows 10 Pro
Just got back from microcenter they pulled the last one from somewhere for the guy in front of me.They had 3080ti for $750 too rich for my blood. So I had to make peace with the i7 9700k and msi z390 for $310 with tax.
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
58,413 (8.21/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570-F (BIOS Modded)
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V Hynix MJR - SoC 1.15V)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.750v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Phillips 32 32M1N5800A (4k144), LG 32" (4K60) | Gigabyte G32QC (2k165) | Phillips 328m6fjrmb (2K144)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE ( Sexy white keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
Benchmark Scores Nyooom.
Joined
Nov 11, 2016
Messages
3,045 (1.13/day)
System Name The de-ploughminator Mk-II
Processor i7 13700KF
Motherboard MSI Z790 Carbon
Cooling ID-Cooling SE-226-XT + Phanteks T30
Memory 2x16GB G.Skill DDR5 7200Cas34
Video Card(s) Asus RTX4090 TUF
Storage Kingston KC3000 2TB NVME
Display(s) LG OLED CX48"
Case Corsair 5000D Air
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Mouse Razor Viper Ultimate
Keyboard Corsair K75
Software win11
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,194 (3.86/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
1606958963785.png
For an intel CPU sucking down 125W and with VRMs running at 92-94% effieciency, that's about 9W lost to the VRMs and Intel rates the Z490 chip at 6W. There really isn't anything else on a board that uses any power. Maybe add one extra Watt if the board has particularly stupid amounts of RGBLED....
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,642 (0.49/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
For an intel CPU sucking down 125W and with VRMs running at 92-94% effieciency, that's about 9W lost to the VRMs and Intel rates the Z490 chip at 6W. There really isn't anything else on a board that uses any power. Maybe add one extra Watt if the board has particularly stupid amounts of RGBLED....

There's much more than 9W *difference* between boards with the same chipset in reviews.

This is a 49W delta low to high :

1606960434115.png


40W delta under load :

1606960571810.png
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,782 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
Just imagine if Samsung said: 1280x720 is enough for mobile users, we should convince them if they want more resolutions, they should pay more and do not complain about higher prices
Or if Qualcomm said same thing about processors
or if Apple said 4" is enough, people should not convince themselves to use bigger screen, bigger screens are more expensive, their production is costly.
do you see now how your poor your point is?

Its not poor, its the self-destructive idea of commerce. I can't help the fact its a paradox. The fact is, these products are entirely not necessary for anything. Its luxury - that is reality for ya. If you get one, lucky you. Nobody is entitled to it and the fact people are so eager is up to themselves and them alone.

Its obvious the salesman won't tell you not to buy. Doesn't make it a poor point. Things get scarce, we're too many people.

Anything higher than 720 for mobile is not noticable as well, but competition and high demand in phone market had the phone devices develop so quick and fast even that most phones now have features specs that is way higher than what actually this device need. Same thing would've been done in PC world too, All peoples would've been using 4k 144hz mintors by now if the market wasnt dominated by (until recently) Intel and Nvidia. We've been using the same Intel CPU technology for almost 10 yeras. And Nvidia has been giving almost the same FPS per Dollar for almost five years. These two firms are the only reason that PCs are not evolving the same way they were evolving before or the same way mobile devices are evolving.
Only CPUs and GPUs are preventing evoluition of the PC. Moore's law has been present in almost all parts, Monitors, 4k 120hz monitors now are not more expensive that what 1080p 120hz was 10 years ago. Same thing can be said for HDDs, SSDs, etc.

But PCs are evolving. Its just a lot more sensible for the most part.
Mobile market has taken off and never came down, now they jump from one shitty innovation to the next to keep selling phones, the better half of those ideas failing within a year or two. But you see the same things that happened on the PC. Your midrange phone is now feature complete, it also costs as much as a high end phone used to cost. Shareholders are happy. The phones still die in two-three years tops. PCs are not that quick to die - so what does the industry do to keep a constant flow of demand? They create heavy graphics settings, and push higher resolutions. They also push RT.

Demand for that high res and RT is exactly a key point of discussion right now. Do you need it, does it benefit gaming? Important questions to ask, as much as they are with a phone that has 8 camera lenses. There is a point at which 'desires' become straight up looney bin material IMO. We're going there - if we haven't arrived already some time ago. Look at the console launch titles. There's barely anything to show for it and yet we shrug and move on. There is so much to buy, you can hardly choose and we've lost touch with truly good content and what's bog standard filler. Information overload. Too much commerce?

The fact Intel never made more than a quad core... there was no demand for it. Even today you can still do quite fine with it in most applications.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
There's much more than 9W *difference* between boards with the same chipset in reviews.

This is a 49W delta low to high :

View attachment 177945

40W delta under load :

View attachment 177946

That delta is more likely down to MCE (multi-core enhancement, aka. boards allowing multi-core boost to go as high as single-core boost) and boosting behaviour than it is down to motherboard power draw. Motherboards often differ dramatically in how they manage the CPU's boost power and time limits as well as multi-core boost. What else exactly is supposed to be consuming all that power? Unless the board has integrated 10GbE, it's unlikely to have any power hungry controllers at all - SATA and USB is integrated into the SoC or PCH, at a few watts. (And even 10GbE tops out at about 5W using a modern controller.) Audio consumes next to nothing. I guess RGB could be noticeable, in the 5-10W range if the board has a ton of it, but that is accounted for separately in your table. VRM losses are as @Chrispy_ said tiny. So the only reasonable explanation for a delta that big is that one board causes the CPU to boost higher than the others, or feeds the CPU more voltage than the others. There could of course be power losses due to voltage drop in the board, but those are unlikely to be above a handful of watts. So again, accounting for real-world power draw numbers for these components, using reviews to source them, is a safe way to account for this. You call what I do "napkin math" and brag about your engineering chops, yet base your calculations on a calculator using on-paper specs rather than real-world data. Get off your damn high horse, please.
Also, please note that the calculator you're quoting quite obviously contradicts your concerns about peripherals, PCIe networking, etc. It even bases itself on much lower power numbers per fan, SSD, HDD etc. than my formula - in other words, my calculations have more built-in headroom than that table does. The only thing I really disagree with in those numbers (aside from the margins added at the end, which are at first sensible, then go into plain silliness) is the ridiculous power draw allotted to the motherboard, particularly when that number doesn't also account for RAM. A high-end, feature-packed 2020 motherboard including 4 sticks of fast RAM is unlikely to consume more than 50W, even including VRM losses when powering a 250W CPU like an i9-10900K. You might see a combined 75W for mobo+RAM with a TB3/10GbE-equipped motherboard when those controllers are under heavy load - though that's highly unlikely to coincide with a heavy CPU+GPU load. Or do you tend to do long-term continuous >1Gbps data transfers while gaming? The same goes for the ODD - which >1% of PC builds in 2020 have at all - how often is that going to be running full tilt at the same time as the CPU and GPU are? Are you ripping blu-rays while gaming? Do you see that as a common use case for a PC?

You don't seem to grasp the crucial point here, which means I have to repeat it yet again: normal consumer workloads never ever stress every component to 100% at the same time. It doesn't happen. Period. Games never stress the CPU and GPU to 100%, which means that starting with real-world maximum power draw numbers for each of those already includes a significant margin. I mean, just look at the difference between TPUs 10600K review power draw numbers. 162W under CB, 191W under P95, and 383W while gaming. The test setup uses an EVGA 2080Ti FTW3, which alone consumes 304W average while gaming. That means the rest of the system is consuming around 79 watts while gaming. CPU, motherboard, VRMs, SSDs, RAM, USB, PSU efficiency losses, everything. Do you see how that leaves a lot of headroom if you account for ~125W for the CPU alone, plus ~50-75W for the rest of the system? That is about 120W of margin just from base component numbers, before my added safety margin. There are of course games that need more CPU power than TW3, but 120W more? Not even close. My calculations for that same setup would end up at ~490W (~125W CPU + 304W GPU + 35W motherboard/RAM + 25W storage and cooling, of course depending on the specific configuration) + 20% margin, or a 590W recommended PSU (550W would be fine, but cutting it a bit close, so below what I would recommend). Yet the real-world gaming numbers for that exact setup are below 400W. And you somehow claim that my calculations are unsafe? Based on what, exactly?

This is, for the record, also a case where Nvidia's recommended PSU numbers align decently, as they recommend a 650W PSU for the 2080 Ti (as does EVGA for that specific OC model), though you could perfectly safely game on this setup with a high quality 500W unit - with more than 100W of headroom! - just don't run furmark+P95 on it. Step down to a less power hungry CPU and/or GPU, and you're looking at a smaller recommended PSU - a Ryzen 5 3600 + 2070S would cut ~45W and ~75W from the base numbers, for example, bringing the recommended PSU down to ~450W including a 20% margin, and real-world power draws would likely be closer to 300W. Heck, I've seen enough people run undervolted 2080 Tis off 400W SFF PSUs to know that is entirely feasible as long as you're comfortable with running on the bleeding edge. Yet for a setup like that you'd be more likely to find people saying "get a 750W PSU just to be safe" (or also the classic "aim for 2x power draw, so get an 800W unit"), than for people to make reasonable recommendations based on actual data.
My calculations are based on real-world data, take the user's intended use case and potential upgrade path into account, and adds a safety margin on top of a consciously unrealistic summation of peak power draws. Your preferred method is apparently "don't ask questions, don't look at data, just trust what's on the box, and aim high". I definitely know which method I trust more.

Anything higher than 720 for mobile is not noticable as well, but competition and high demand in phone market had the phone devices develop so quick and fast even that most phones now have features specs that is way higher than what actually this device need. Same thing would've been done in PC world too, All peoples would've been using 4k 144hz mintors by now if the market wasnt dominated by (until recently) Intel and Nvidia. We've been using the same Intel CPU technology for almost 10 yeras. And Nvidia has been giving almost the same FPS per Dollar for almost five years. These two firms are the only reason that PCs are not evolving the same way they were evolving before or the same way mobile devices are evolving.
Only CPUs and GPUs are preventing evoluition of the PC. Moore's law has been present in almost all parts, Monitors, 4k 120hz monitors now are not more expensive that what 1080p 120hz was 10 years ago. Same thing can be said for HDDs, SSDs, etc.
I don't know what kind of eyesight you have, but the difference in text rendering sharpness between a 720p and a 1080p (non-pentile) is very noticeable to my +1/+1.25 eyes without glasses. 1080p to 1440p is less noticeable but still there. Pentile subpixel layouts mess everything up, of course, with their significant reduction in subpixel density and their diagonal grid layout making straight lines look fuzzy. While text rendering is a bit of an edge case for sharpness, and the difference when looking at photos or videos is much smaller, text rendering still accounts for a huge amount of the use cases for a smartphone. The same goes for the difference in perceived smoothness from 60Hz to 90Hz - it's very clearly noticeable even when scrolling through web pages or texts. Does that make either necessary? Of course not.

As for everyone using 4k 144Hz monitors today if it wasn't for the non-competitive markets we've had for the past decade? Sorry, no. We would likely have been further along in performance and performance/$, but monitor prices would still have been far too high. It's more expensive to make denser displays, especially when you start to add features like HDR and direct backlighting. That's unavoidable. That obviously doesn't mean that 4k120/144Hz HDR displays won't come down in price, but for that to happen production and sales volumes need to increase dramatically - which is difficult when most people are happy with 1080p or 1440p. And if you're playing a fast-paced game, it's highly unlikely you'll be able to tell the difference between 4k120 and 1440p120, and even 1080p120 might be a great experience for most people, leaving 4k high refresh monitors a luxury rather than a necessity.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,782 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
Rightfully so. Just as people expected to game at 1080p 60fps ultra when consoles did 1080p 30fps, now consoles do 4k30fps, so we expect 4k60fps going mainstream.

To each his own loss then I guess. There is nothing 'rightful' about it, because the consoles don't even push native 4K, just as last gen didn't do native 1080p. Internal render res is usually fár lower, and most of what you see is made dynamic. The box of tricks consoles use to keep it somehow playable is always a reduction in quality.

Marketing <> Reality.
 
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
18 (0.01/day)
Are you continuing to add performance per dollar page to new reviews as a tradition? It's confusing at best and misleading at worst. Either link it to crawler that checks for availability or don't include it.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
476 (0.17/day)
$399 compared to Turing seems like a decent price but puts the card just $100 cheaper than the next gen consoles, which outperform it (not talking about on paper specs, look at an analysis of the settings and performance the PS5 and Xbox are running AC:Valhalla; equivalent to a 3070).

In fact the DE PS5 is the same price as this card, a whole console, next-gen controller, super fast SSD/IO....I'm a PC gamer primarily but I just dont see great value in a best case $400 card around 2080S level.

PS5 not, but Series X can. It's a shame, because this card costs a bit less than getting a whole gaming system that can play games on that same level. X is around the same 2080 level performance.

PS5 outperforms Series X in every next gen multiplatform game. It's probably faster real world because of its customizations. And in games, both Series X and its rival runs games the same as a 3070, not 2080.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,642 (0.49/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Well, it's not like Nvidia isn't making cards. It was hard to quantify but at least on Steam, there are now more 3080's showing than 5600XT's, about the same as the 5700. I would expect the 3070 and so on to start showing up too. This actually reflects significant volume :

Capture.JPG
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
Well, it's not like Nvidia isn't making cards. It was hard to quantify but at least on Steam, there are now more 3080's showing than 5600XT's, about the same as the 5700. I would expect the 3070 and so on to start showing up too. This actually reflects significant volume :

View attachment 178013
It would be really interesting if Steam ever reported on the number of respondents for their surveys, and how large a portion that amount is of their daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly active users. Still, that is indeed a significant number - the similarly priced 2080 Super is at .88%, so unless the numbers here have a significant margin of error (which is of course not unlikely) they've definitely sold a significant amount of 3080s.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,642 (0.49/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
It would be really interesting if Steam ever reported on the number of respondents for their surveys, and how large a portion that amount is of their daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly active users. Still, that is indeed a significant number - the similarly priced 2080 Super is at .88%, so unless the numbers here have a significant margin of error (which is of course not unlikely) they've definitely sold a significant amount of 3080s.

Agree one has to be careful about conclusions. However, I do think Steam is very representative of people who buy their PCs for gaming, and has some weight for occasional gamers. I also think it is meaningless in the overall market.

Looking at the people I know (keep in mind I'm 51) I think maybe 10% game on PC outside of say facebook or some such. That may be high, as this article from 2016 has numbers that would amount to well under 5% of PCs having a discrete GPU at all (more like 2%).
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
7,194 (3.86/day)
System Name Bragging Rights
Processor Atom Z3735F 1.33GHz
Motherboard It has no markings but it's green
Cooling No, it's a 2.2W processor
Memory 2GB DDR3L-1333
Video Card(s) Gen7 Intel HD (4EU @ 311MHz)
Storage 32GB eMMC and 128GB Sandisk Extreme U3
Display(s) 10" IPS 1280x800 60Hz
Case Veddha T2
Audio Device(s) Apparently, yes
Power Supply Samsung 18W 5V fast-charger
Mouse MX Anywhere 2
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys (not Cherry MX at all)
VR HMD Samsung Oddyssey, not that I'd plug it into this though....
Software W10 21H1, barely
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
That delta is more likely down to MCE (multi-core enhancement, aka. boards allowing multi-core boost to go as high as single-core boost) and boosting behaviour than it is down to motherboard power draw. Motherboards often differ dramatically in how they manage the CPU's boost power and time limits as well as multi-core boost.
This. The 49W delta is down to whether the BIOS applies an automatic overclock at stock settings or not. I've seen MSI B450 boards that provide an almost 50W overclock to a 105W part out of the box, just using AUTO settings for everything.

Some boards need to be tweaked to run a CPU at stock speeds, others run at stock and need to be tweaked to apply an overclock.

Either way, that 49W delta in power draw numbers come from the CPU, and doesn't explain where they're finding the mystery power consuption on the board to claim a 70W motherboard power draw. If that was true, your motherboard would need a sizeable heatsink and fan, similar to that of the i5 stock cooler, just for itself. Instead, it usually gets puny "decorative" heatsinks that exist more for corporate branding reasons than actual cooling, and usually no fan at all.
 
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
18 (0.01/day)
Well, it's not like Nvidia isn't making cards. It was hard to quantify but at least on Steam, there are now more 3080's showing than 5600XT's, about the same as the 5700. I would expect the 3070 and so on to start showing up too. This actually reflects significant volume :

View attachment 178013

Sorry, what?

From another person:
The 980 first showed up in the November 2014 survey with 0.18% market share, 74 days after launch. The 1080 first showed up in the July 2016 survey with 0.26% market share, 65 days after launch. Finally, the 2080 first showed up in December 2018 with 0.21%, 102 days after launch. For comparison the 3080 is at 0.22%, also 74 days after launch.


That would make
980 grow 0.07% per month
1080 grow 0.12% per month
2080 grow 0.06% per month
3080 grow 0.09% per month

Not unprecedented number of sales by any stretch of imagination.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.08/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
Agree one has to be careful about conclusions. However, I do think Steam is very representative of people who buy their PCs for gaming, and has some weight for occasional gamers. I also think it is meaningless in the overall market.

Looking at the people I know (keep in mind I'm 51) I think maybe 10% game on PC outside of say facebook or some such. That may be high, as this article from 2016 has numbers that would amount to well under 5% of PCs having a discrete GPU at all (more like 2%).
Yeah, gaming is definitely a niche within the overall PC market - that includes enterprise, after all, which is easily 10-20x the size of the gaming market in terms of units shipped. Then again, gaming drives a lot of revenue due to high component costs and performance requrements. But as you say, not that many people game on PCs - even if 70-80% of people below the age of 40 play games with some regularly, at least half of those play on mobile only, and likely 2/3 of the rest are console players. And of course a lot of people playing games on PCs are anything but hardware enthusiasts, making do with whatever they have or whatever pre-built fits their budget. So it's not a massive group, even if it is substantial. As for Steam being representative, I absolutely think it is given the ubiquity of their launcher, but one does have to wonder how representative the selection of systems polled is. The results being consistent over time speaks to a decent degree of reliability, but we still can't know how large the error margins are, sadly. So it's entirely possible that RTX 3080 owners are significantly overrepresented in these statistics, but I don't think it's very likely.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
535 (0.14/day)
Processor Ryzen 9 3900x
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB GSkill Ripjaws V 3600CL16
Video Card(s) 3060Ti FE 0.9v
Storage Samsung 970 EVO 1TB, 2x Samsung 840 EVO 1TB
Display(s) ASUS ProArt PA278QV
Case be quiet! Pure Base 500
Audio Device(s) Edifier R1850DB
Power Supply Super Flower Leadex III 650W
Mouse A4Tech X-748K
Keyboard Logitech K300
Software Win 10 Pro 64bit
$399 compared to Turing seems like a decent price but puts the card just $100 cheaper than the next gen consoles, which outperform it (not talking about on paper specs, look at an analysis of the settings and performance the PS5 and Xbox are running AC:Valhalla; equivalent to a 3070).

How can you compare the console version of Valhalla, which drops the resolution to 1440p on PS5 to maintain framerate close to 60, with a 3070 running native 4K?
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
4,054 (0.58/day)
Location
Ancient Greece, Acropolis (Time Lord)
System Name RiseZEN Gaming PC
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ Auto
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X570-E Gaming ATX Motherboard
Cooling Corsair H115i Elite Capellix AIO, 280mm Radiator, Dual RGB 140mm ML Series PWM Fans
Memory G.Skill TridentZ 64GB (4 x 16GB) DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) ASUS DUAL RX 6700 XT DUAL-RX6700XT-12G
Storage Corsair Force MP500 480GB M.2 & MP510 480GB M.2 - 2 x WD_BLACK 1TB SN850X NVMe 1TB
Display(s) ASUS ROG Strix 34” XG349C 180Hz 1440p + Asus ROG 27" MG278Q 144Hz WQHD 1440p
Case Corsair Obsidian Series 450D Gaming Case
Audio Device(s) SteelSeries 5Hv2 w/ Sound Blaster Z SE
Power Supply Corsair RM750x Power Supply
Mouse Razer Death-Adder + Viper 8K HZ Ambidextrous Gaming Mouse - Ergonomic Left Hand Edition
Keyboard Logitech G910 Orion Spectrum RGB Gaming Keyboard
Software Windows 11 Pro - 64-Bit Edition
Benchmark Scores I'm the Doctor, Doctor Who. The Definition of Gaming is PC Gaming...
Thanks to this 3060Ti release and price target, Nvidia single handily catabolized its RTX 3070 graphics card.
I wonder how 3070 owners feel about this release? I can also see AMD releasing the 6700XT sooner for a cost equal or lesser over the 3060Ti.
Moor's Law is Dead had some info on this strategy.

Pretty much every major OEM is shipping systems with 3070, 3080, and some with 3090. Nvidia is at least supplying the OEMs, and they are clearly opting to sell entire systems to capitalize on the populatirity. AMD is apparently has nothing to sell, as not even OEMs have 6800/6800XT and most don't have Zen 3 either.

There are literally pages of them on Amazon and most you can get by the end of this week.

Try doing this same search for 6800 or 6800XT :

View attachment 177725

Dell Alienware options :

View attachment 177726
Nvidia released Ampere sometime within September 2020. AMD released its RDNA lineup in November 2020. Seeing how Nvidia has more than a 1 month lead, it takes time to fill OEM channels, not to mention RNDA2's are being sold out like hot cakes. AMD can't make enough of them.

How can you compare the console version of Valhalla, which drops the resolution to 1440p on PS5 to maintain framerate close to 60, with a 3070 running native 4K?
And 99.9% of people won't see a difference in PQ and Frame Rate Drops on the PS5 & the XboxSX.

Yeah, gaming is definitely a niche within the overall PC market - that includes enterprise, after all, which is easily 10-20x the size of the gaming market in terms of units shipped. Then again, gaming drives a lot of revenue due to high component costs and performance requrements. But as you say, not that many people game on PCs - even if 70-80% of people below the age of 40 play games with some regularly, at least half of those play on mobile only, and likely 2/3 of the rest are console players. And of course a lot of people playing games on PCs are anything but hardware enthusiasts, making do with whatever they have or whatever pre-built fits their budget. So it's not a massive group, even if it is substantial. As for Steam being representative, I absolutely think it is given the ubiquity of their launcher, but one does have to wonder how representative the selection of systems polled is. The results being consistent over time speaks to a decent degree of reliability, but we still can't know how large the error margins are, sadly. So it's entirely possible that RTX 3080 owners are significantly overrepresented in these statistics, but I don't think it's very likely.
Despite being a Niche, it has grown massively throughout the years. PC Gaming is becoming more popular with each and every year. And now with this Covid nonsense, its become even more popular. Steam has seen record users since this fake pandemic took ahold of the world.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,642 (0.49/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i7-12700KF
Motherboard Asus Z690-Plus TUF Gaming WiFi D5
Cooling Arctic Liquid Freezer 2 240mm AIO
Memory PNY MAKO DDR5-6000 C36-36-36-76
Video Card(s) PowerColor Hellhound 6700 XT 12GB
Storage WD SN770 512GB m.2, Samsung 980 Pro m.2 2TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Montech Air X
Power Supply Corsair CX750M
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Nvidia released Ampere sometime within September 2020. AMD released its RDNA lineup in November 2020. Seeing how Nvidia has more than a 1 month lead, it takes time to fill OEM channels, not to mention RNDA2's are being sold out like hot cakes. AMD can't make enough of them.
They were announced in Sept (note this is different from 'release date').

The first 3090s were released early Oct. The 3080s 2nd half of Oct, and the 3070 released about the same time as the 68XX AMD cards.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
They were announced in Sept (note this is different from 'release date').

The first 3090s were released early Oct. The 3080s 2nd half of Oct, and the 3070 released about the same time as the 68XX AMD cards.
The 3080 was launched (sites had them and reviewed them) 9/17 and the 3090 9/24. They were available on the shelves shortly thereafter (both) in October. IIRC, availability of one of these were delayed for increased stock. They were both available in October. They still had plenty enough of a headstart in availability was his point. ;)

not to mention RNDA2's are being sold out like hot cakes. AMD can't make enough of them.
Nvidia still has this problem. ;)
 
Top