Will a RTX 4070 TI super bottleneck a Ryzen 9 7950X3D?

[maramsp]

So what resolution is he going to play at? That is the most important question. If 2560x1440, the 4070ti Super is an excellent choice. If 3440x1440 ultra wide, it is still a good choice, though a 4080 Super will of course be better. If going to 4K, I would certainly want a 4080 Super.


Generally a CPU will bottleneck a GPU if your GPU is too fast and the CPU is slow and can't keep the minimum frame rate stable. For example, you may be getting 50 frame rates and you upgrade your GPU. You now get 80 frame rates average, but there are still large frame rate drops occasionally in situations where the CPU is limited. So the overall minimum frame rate will not be as stable. Average is important but you also want consistency and a high minimum frame rate. Your CPU will not be limiting your GPU. A 7800XD3 is better for gaming than the CPU selected, though that has more cores so might be better in productivity. The difference isn't that big though and it is an excellent CPU.

For example, you can view my benchmarks with a 7800X3D and a slower 4070 Super at 2560x1440. You can view the Cyberpunk settings here.


View attachment 343903


Dying Light 2. I have ray tracing enabled as well as DLSS.

View attachment 343904


If you are going to use ray tracing, you will need to use DLSS and possibly frame generation.

Thank you for this!

With his new screen hes gonna play at 2560x1440, since it doesnt support higher then that.
He wanted to grab a philips evnia screen at first, but then found out of the asus rog strix monitor, and decided that is good enough for what he wants, and not getting the evnia.

The evnia had 4k though, but he realised he'd need at least a 4080, or maybe even a 4090 to crank the settings up and still get enjoyable frame rates.

So all in all, its a step up for him nevertheless, with the 4070 ti super and the asus rog strix 1440p monitor.
He now has a simple samsung 24 inch screen that even lacks a DP connection lol. So, no HDR, no g-sync, no high refresh, no local dimming, nothing.

His new asus rog strix is 27 inch, has hdr400 (not the best, but still better then nothing) nvidia certified g-sync (so no compatible with g-sync), 175hz, and local dimming (although it isnt that great, but still better then nothing)

I myself am going to check out how games and stuff look at his screen, and then i might switch myself over to a samsung odyssey g7, which also has local dimming and even hdr600.

Nevertheless, i think my question is solved, so thanks a lot for everything!

This whole bottleneck drama needs to stop. Buy the card you want and leave the damn thing alone.

Honestly, if you think its drama, then i don't agree with it. I think its a fair question, cause were new to the table here, and don't know everything ourself yet.
But as the question is solved, probally fewer replies, or none whatsoever comes here anymore, so your wish is fulfilled i think

 

[Toothless]

Honestly, if you think its drama, then i don't agree with it. I think its a fair question, cause were new to the table here, and don't know everything ourself yet.
But as the question is solved, probally fewer replies, or none whatsoever comes here anymore, so your wish is fulfilled i think

A lot of people asking about bottlenecks is due to Youtube/Tiktok/whatever else videos and "bottleneck" websites making people second, third, fourth guess their hardware. It's all made a bigger deal than it actually is and yes it is drama.

 

[Flogger23m]

Thank you for this!

With his new screen hes gonna play at 2560x1440, since it doesnt support higher then that.

If that is the case I would get a 4070ti Super. It has 16GB VRAM, is almost as fast as a regular RTX 4080. The way I see it, that card will max out all games with 60+ frame rates if you use DLSS with ray tracing. With a 4080 Super it might be a bit faster and in some cases you can avoid using DLSS, but I think you'll still end up using DLSS regardless.

More examples here.

Sure, 60-62 frame rates is better than 50-52, but most likely they'll end up turning on DLSS. I don't like 60 frame rates and try to keep it above 90. So while a 4080 Super will be faster, it isn't fast enough to be worthwhile at that resolution. Without ray tracing a 4070ti Super is enough, with ray tracing a 4080 Super isn't enough without using DLSS.

Of course, you can always buy the fastest GPU you can afford and it depends on local prices. Personally I would save that money and put it towards something else even if it means saving it to upgrade to the next generation of GPUs next year.

 

[maramsp]

If that is the case I would get a 4070ti Super. It has 16GB VRAM, is almost as fast as a regular RTX 4080. The way I see it, that card will max out all games with 60+ frame rates if you use DLSS with ray tracing. With a 4080 Super it might be a bit faster and in some cases you can avoid using DLSS, but I think you'll still end up using DLSS regardless.

More examples here.

Sure, 60-62 frame rates is better than 50-52, but most likely they'll end up turning on DLSS. I don't like 60 frame rates and try to keep it above 90. So while a 4080 Super will be faster, it isn't fast enough to be worthwhile at that resolution. Without ray tracing a 4070ti Super is enough, with ray tracing a 4080 Super isn't enough without using DLSS.

Of course, you can always buy the fastest GPU you can afford and it depends on local prices. Personally I would save that money and put it towards something else even if it means saving it to upgrade to the next generation of GPUs next year.

Mind that he comes from a 3060, and i myself from a 2070, that are more or less equall in performance, and that we did upgrade the rest of our rig already in december last year.

He came from a ryzen 7 2700x, 32gb 2400mhz ddr4, and i came from a ryzen 7 1800x with the same ram.
So all in all with the system we both have now - he a 7950x3d, and 64gb 5600mhz ddr5 ram, me an 5800x3d with 32gb ddr4 3600mhz ram (planning to upgrade to 64 btw) - we really do need a better gpu to run all these new games.

Really the only game that i could run pretty well with raytracing, and my 1800x was cyberpunk back when it first launced. I got quite good fps with all ray tracing on that was available back then, while also having dlss on quality, but all of this was on 1080p ofcourse, as my screen doesnt support higher.

Havent tried yet even the new version, but honestly, that old cypberpunk was the only game that ran well with raytracing.
Maybe control ran well as well, but didnt played it that long honestly.

But later games ran worse and worse when applying ray tracing. But it is something that is of nowadays, so ye, if you want to have it, you gotta bring a good gpu to the table.

But.. As i said, the 4070ti, he (and me too) will get, and that will suffice for some years from now. I mean, I myself have always skipped at least one generation, which is true now again, going from a 20xx to a 40xx. Same goes for him, as the 3060 is - like i said before - almost equal to the 2070.

In any case, still thanks for your reply. As like i said before, more info is always welcome!

 

[AleXXX666]

Hello!

I ask this question for a friend.

His pc is the following:

Ryzen 9 7950X3d
Asus Rog strix B650-A Gaming
64gb Corsair vengeance ddr5 5600mhz
Windows 11 pro 64 bit installed on a samsung evo 860

And currently he has a gtx 3060 12gb as a gpu.

He wants to upgrade to a new videocard in about a month from now, and he is wondering, if a 4070 ti super would still bottleneck his cpu.

I myself dont think so. But i'm not really sure about it, so therefore this question.

He also have the option to buy a 4080 super, but that one is more expensive, so its only an option if the 4070 ti super is guaranteed to bottleneck his 7950x3d.

So, can anyone provide some info on this matter?

Thank you very much on forehand from myself and my friend.

Greetings from Martijn

ps. He also believes that his ram might be bottlenecking his cpu, and asked me to type this in this post as well. But honestly, cause of it being 64gb and ddr5, I dont think thats an issue that big.

lol, usually GPU are "bottlenecked" by CPU. In this case, all is good, spend the amount that is comfortable for him. It's 18% difference in performance, but:
- TDP of 4080S is 320 W - umm, crazy.
- price difference is OBVIOUSLY more than 18%.

 

[Toothless]

lol, usually GPU are "bottlenecked" by CPU. In this case, all is good, spend the amount that is comfortable for him. It's 18% difference in performance, but:
- TDP of 4080S is 320 W - umm, crazy.
- price difference is OBVIOUSLY more than 18%.

I'm pretty sure the people buying high end cards can afford the power bill and power supply used. 320w isn't unheard of when we've had 250w for years and years.

 

[Chomiq]

Don't worry about bottlenecks on GPU side or else you'll always end up buying flagship cards. 4070 Ti is perfectly fine card for 1440p gaming and with things like DLSS you can cheat your way out of super high GPU loads.

 

[azrael]

In my extremely humble opinion a 4070 Ti Super is pretty much the same as a 4080 which is pretty much the same as a 4080 Super. Just go with what is the cheapest of the three, which presumably is a 4070 Ti Super. Unless your friend is made of money. In that case the 4090 is the obvious choice.

 

[pressing on]

In my extremely humble opinion a 4070 Ti Super is pretty much the same as a 4080 which is pretty much the same as a 4080 Super.

They may look the same on paper - the only real differences are 8448 cores for the 4070 Ti Super against 10240 for the 4080 Super that also has slightly faster memory. But it does make a measurable difference at 4K in games like The Last of Us Part 1. Yes it does come down to what you can afford but I think most of the buyers of these cards are planning to keep them for a while. So there is always the temptation to spend quite a bit more to get just a bit more performance.

 

[dgianstefani]

They may look the same on paper - the only real differences are 8448 cores for the 4070 Ti Super against 10240 for the 4080 Super that also has slightly faster memory. But it does make a measurable difference at 4K in games like The Last of Us Part 1. Yes it does come down to what you can afford but I think most of the buyers of these cards are planning to keep them for a while. So there is always the temptation to spend quite a bit more to get just a bit more performance.

4080S has the full cache, 64 MB, not the 48 MB of the 4070 Ti S.

Helps at 4K.

 

[Flogger23m]

Mind that he comes from a 3060, and i myself from a 2070, that are more or less equall in performance, and that we did upgrade the rest of our rig already in december last year.

He came from a ryzen 7 2700x, 32gb 2400mhz ddr4, and i came from a ryzen 7 1800x with the same ram.
So all in all with the system we both have now - he a 7950x3d, and 64gb 5600mhz ddr5 ram, me an 5800x3d with 32gb ddr4 3600mhz ram (planning to upgrade to 64 btw) - we really do need a better gpu to run all these new games.

Really the only game that i could run pretty well with raytracing, and my 1800x was cyberpunk back when it first launced. I got quite good fps with all ray tracing on that was available back then, while also having dlss on quality, but all of this was on 1080p ofcourse, as my screen doesnt support higher.

Havent tried yet even the new version, but honestly, that old cypberpunk was the only game that ran well with raytracing.
Maybe control ran well as well, but didnt played it that long honestly.

But later games ran worse and worse when applying ray tracing. But it is something that is of nowadays, so ye, if you want to have it, you gotta bring a good gpu to the table.

But.. As i said, the 4070ti, he (and me too) will get, and that will suffice for some years from now. I mean, I myself have always skipped at least one generation, which is true now again, going from a 20xx to a 40xx. Same goes for him, as the 3060 is - like i said before - almost equal to the 2070.

In any case, still thanks for your reply. As like i said before, more info is always welcome!

If you're only playing games 64GB of RAM is useless. Put that money into the GPU. Or save it and put it towards something else. A 4070ti Super will be a big jump over those GPUs. At 2560x1440 I personally wouldn't think going to a higher end GPU is worthwhile. Again, put that aside for your next GPU upgrade.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a game that uses over 16GB of RAM, though it isn't that uncommon either. Mainly niche games like Flight Simulator and whatnot. Maybe some of the latest games will benefit from more than 16GB, which is why 32GB is recommended. But more than that is useless for gaming.

 

[azrael]

They may look the same on paper - the only real differences are 8448 cores for the 4070 Ti Super against 10240 for the 4080 Super that also has slightly faster memory. But it does make a measurable difference at 4K in games like The Last of Us Part 1. Yes it does come down to what you can afford but I think most of the buyers of these cards are planning to keep them for a while. So there is always the temptation to spend quite a bit more to get just a bit more performance.

Of course my statement was explicitly oversimplified, but it still comes down to not overly massive differences in performance. I got a 4080 "cheap" (around 1050€) at the beginning of the year and I plan to keep it for the next many years. The 1080 currently in my system I got in 2018, so it has served me for 6 years. I fully expect the 4080 to do likewise.

 

[Zach_01]

Avg 3060/12GB relative performance from top 10 GPUs in non RT gaming. You just choose whatever your wallet can buy and go one and live your life.
Especially when the system runs one of the fastest CPUs out there.
Everything else is subject for consumption on YT content.

 

[Vayra86]

This whole bottleneck drama needs to stop. Buy the card you want and leave the damn thing alone.

Yeah, if you're gonna spend money on a gaming rig, start off with a real gaming CPU, simple as, and add the best GPU you can pay, done. Bottlenecks are then self imposed. Every system has a bottleneck, its called peak performance. Even with the best CPU some games won't utilize 100% of GPU. Fact of life.

In my extremely humble opinion a 4070 Ti Super is pretty much the same as a 4080 which is pretty much the same as a 4080 Super. Just go with what is the cheapest of the three, which presumably is a 4070 Ti Super. Unless your friend is made of money. In that case the 4090 is the obvious choice.

This. We're late in gen as well, don't pay for top end GPUs anymore. Its a monumental waste of money.

4080S has the full cache, 64 MB, not the 48 MB of the 4070 Ti S.

Helps at 4K.

Aye but it really doesn't pay off relative to the cost difference.

 

[Flogger23m]

Aye but it really doesn't pay off relative to the cost difference.

4080 Super is around 3% faster than a 4080, so around 15% faster on average than a 4070ti Super. Though it will come down mostly to what games they play. Overall, an average of 15% more performance for 20% more cost. It isn't that bad when it comes to the performance/price ratio, but I would still recommend the 4070ti Super for 2560x1440. That 12-15% performance increase will generally be unnoticeable as frame rates are high enough in raster, or in ray tracing, will only give maybe 2-3 extra frame rates which isn't quite worth $200.

Of course there will be some outliers.

TLDR: OP, get a 4070ti Super. Skip the 64GB of RAM. You can probably save $350-400. If you find the 4070ti Super is not fast enough, a year from now you can put that $400 towards an RTX 5070 which will likely be faster and more efficient than a 4080 Super.

 

[AleXXX666]

I'm pretty sure the people buying high end cards can afford the power bill and power supply used. 320w isn't unheard of when we've had 250w for years and years.

the problem isn't in "bills" or "psus". The problem is just the design. High number of power draw, monstrous cooler, and all of them doesn't give you 200+ fps in 4K ultra with RT in Cyberpunk, unless you turn on the scaling magic... LOL

If you're only playing games 64GB of RAM is useless. Put that money into the GPU. Or save it and put it towards something else. A 4070ti Super will be a big jump over those GPUs. At 2560x1440 I personally wouldn't think going to a higher end GPU is worthwhile. Again, put that aside for your next GPU upgrade.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a game that uses over 16GB of RAM, though it isn't that uncommon either. Mainly niche games like Flight Simulator and whatnot. Maybe some of the latest games will benefit from more than 16GB, which is why 32GB is recommended. But more than that is useless for gaming.

LMFAO, you compare CONSOLE to PC or what? WINDOWS, my friend, likes RAM too, and I, personally, find it "OKAY" to open the game when I have browsers or other crap left OPENED too. So, that's WHY I recommend and will recommend 24-32 GB RAM for builds even since like 2020. One could play even with 8 GB RAM some games, closing everything in background and cutting Windows services lol

 

[Flogger23m]

LMFAO, you compare CONSOLE to PC or what? WINDOWS, my friend, likes RAM too, and I, personally, find it "OKAY" to open the game when I have browsers or other crap left OPENED too. So, that's WHY I recommend and will recommend 24-32 GB RAM for builds even since like 2020. One could play even with 8 GB RAM some games, closing everything in background and cutting Windows services lol

32GB is still plenty for that. If you have programs open that use so much RAM that 32GB is not enough you'll have having a CPU and/or GPU performance impact most likely. Example, if you're running UE5 or Blender in the background you'll probably loose some frame rates. Generally I find games crash more with constant minimizing as well. Some games work fine, others crash or have frame rate issues if constantly minimizing and maximizing. I can't recall which games it was but I recently played a game that would get frame rate issues if minimized 3-4 times. Restarting the game would of course fix it.

So I'd always recommend shutting down programs unless necessary. Leaving your browser, Discord or whatever on is fine of course. But if your background programs are using 10-20GB of RAM I assume they're quite demanding and not just in RAM.

 

[Toothless]

32GB is still plenty for that. If you have programs open that use so much RAM that 32GB is not enough you'll have having a CPU and/or GPU performance impact most likely. Example, if you're running UE5 or Blender in the background you'll probably loose some frame rates. Generally I find games crash more with constant minimizing as well. Some games work fine, others crash or have frame rate issues if constantly minimizing and maximizing. I can't recall which games it was but I recently played a game that would get frame rate issues if minimized 3-4 times. Restarting the game would of course fix it.

So I'd always recommend shutting down programs unless necessary. Leaving your browser, Discord or whatever on is fine of course. But if your background programs are using 10-20GB of RAM I assume they're quite demanding and not just in RAM.

That depends but applies on nearly all systems that aren't high core systems. I can sit idle around 20GB used but only like, 20% CPU usage at most. Memory amount is always based on user needs but overall yes closing background tasks will help and 32GB is plenty for majority users.

 

[Vayra86]

That depends but applies on nearly all systems that aren't high core systems. I can sit idle around 20GB used but only like, 20% CPU usage at most. Memory amount is always based on user needs but overall yes closing background tasks will help and 32GB is plenty for majority users.

20% CPU usage is substantial and will likely impact game performance won't it?

I'm still here 'getting by' on 16GB... can't say I've ever noticed a detrimental impact from having too little, but then again, I'm on an ancient CPU as well.

 

[Toothless]

20% CPU usage is substantial and will likely impact game performance won't it?

I'm still here 'getting by' on 16GB... can't say I've ever noticed a detrimental impact from having too little, but then again, I'm on an ancient CPU as well.

Not for the high core count chips like my 5950x.

 

[Vayra86]

Not for the high core count chips like my 5950x.

Well I reckon you have the cores available. But isn't RAM exactly the bottleneck here if you're moving that much data around? Not capacity wise, but in bandwidth/transfer speed? Especially on DDR4...?

 

[Dr. Dro]

lol, usually GPU are "bottlenecked" by CPU. In this case, all is good, spend the amount that is comfortable for him. It's 18% difference in performance, but:
- TDP of 4080S is 320 W - umm, crazy.
- price difference is OBVIOUSLY more than 18%.

320 W is a standard TDP for a GPU of this segment, it is lower than the RX 7900 XTX's, and adding to that, the RTX 4080 does not reach ~300 W for the vast majority of workloads, and I'm gaming at 4K. The 4080S is no different.

The 4080/S are, in fact, the most power efficient GPUs currently available from a raw performance to power draw perspective.

 

[Toothless]

Well I reckon you have the cores available. But isn't RAM exactly the bottleneck here if you're moving that much data around? Not capacity wise, but in bandwidth/transfer speed? Especially on DDR4...?

I haven't personally seen ram bandwidth being an issue but it could be something I've missed. I currently have three games, video stream, Discord, etc up with zero issues or any "laggy" feelings.

 

[dgianstefani]

I haven't personally seen ram bandwidth being an issue but it could be something I've missed. I currently have three games, video stream, Discord, etc up with zero issues or any "laggy" feelings.

Most games only use a few GB/s of bandwidth.

It's latency that causes performance improvements for games. Latency improves with higher MT at the same timings, so faster kits are generally lower latency, unless it's a particularly egregriously bad XMP/EXPO profile. It's easy to confuse higher MT ratings as giving the FPS (from bandwidth), but since you can measure how much bandwidth a game or application is using in various tools, it's pretty clear that it's something other than raw bandwidth.

More bandwidth helps resolve the latency issue in a non direct way, because you can make the entire memory transaction in one cycle, rather than taking several.

This is why it's not as simple as comparing first word latency of DDR4 vs DDR5, because the way data is read/written to the banks is different, so 1:1 latency/bandwidth comparisons don't work. There's also the issue of CPU memory controller gears.

Something most people probably aren't aware of for example, is due to the motherboard setting all subtimings, some of which can't be changed by the user in the BIOS, the same memory kit will be running at different settings on different boards/platforms. E.g. CMD rate 1T on AMD and 2T on Intel.

This is one of the reasons it's particularly prudent to manually set timings and voltages, auto settings for memory are as trash as auto settings for CPU overclocking, it's just most people don't realise XMP/EXPO only covers the main timings and main voltage.

For DDR5 especially, the subtimings are more influential on performance.

 

[Toothless]

Most games only use a few GB/s of bandwidth.

It's latency that causes performance improvements for games. Latency improves with higher MT at the same timings, so faster kits are generally lower latency, unless it's a particularly egregriously bad XMP/EXPO profile. It's easy to confuse higher MT ratings as giving the FPS (from bandwidth), but since you can measure how much bandwidth a game or application is using in various tools, it's pretty clear that it's something other than raw bandwidth.

More bandwidth helps resolve the latency issue in a non direct way, because you can make the entire memory transaction in one cycle, rather than taking several.

This is why it's not as simple as comparing first word latency of DDR4 vs DDR5, because the way data is read/written to the banks is different, so 1:1 latency/bandwidth comparisons don't work. There's also the issue of CPU memory controller gears.

Something most people probably aren't aware of for example, is due to the motherboard setting all subtimings, some of which can't be changed by the user in the BIOS, the same memory kit will be running at different settings on different boards/platforms. E.g. CMD rate 1T on AMD and 2T on Intel.

This is one of the reasons it's particularly prudent to manually set timings and voltages, auto settings for memory are as trash as auto settings for CPU overclocking, it's just most people don't realise XMP/EXPO only covers the main timings and main voltage.

For DDR5 especially, the subtimings are more influential on performance.

Yeah.. no.. current ram kit limits tweaking quite a bit. If I was running my 4000 2x32 kit then yeah I could get latency down quite a bit while keeping 3600-3800 for memory clocks. However my wife's 14900k needs it more for her stuff. I get about 70ns~ with the four dimms and at some point the chiplets of the 5950x are the stopping point of dropping latency more.

But yes, latency and all that helps.