MSI GeForce RTX 4080 Super Expert

[lexluthermiester]

This isn't a software issue, imho.

There is a very distinct difference between politely expressing one's opinion and subtlely nitpick-trolling someone over an issue that is more or less academic anyway and baiting someone into an derailing a thread. Which do you think you are doing? You see, W1zzard is way too polite to tell you put a cork in it and get knotted. I have no such hesitations.

 

[cbb]

I disagree. Thinking that putting "RTX_" 12-19 times on an overly crowded graph is at all reasonable is simply a complete lack of proficiency in presenting data, and a lesser oversight in thinking things thru. Which is different from, say, gathering data (the reviews here are very good, imho!). This is a simple, and very specific, lack of skill in presenting information, which can be easily addressed if the person so chooses, and a complete failure to recognize the issue (which is a perceptual issue, which can be trickier). Up till now, I was being (I think) somewhat polite about it, despite the egregious claims, but...eh. The argument made is laughably indefensible, and an appeal to authority for a provably incorrect defense is hardly better. Sayin "it can't be done" and "it's a software problem" is simply incorrect. The nice person can, and would benefit from, learning to present data better. Or, they can just keep the status quo. But claims of "not my fault" are just wrong.

You, of course, can have a nice day.

 

[W1zzard]

nah, I'm saying it's unreasonable to ask software to compensate for arbitrarily unwise user choices. If you make halfway decent choices, consistent with sensible practices on how to present data, it works just fine. I'm trying to find a polite way to say it's not the software's fault that a user may not know how to present information, or how to use the software. W/ reasonable choices, auto labeling has worked well enough to be useable w/ little or no tweaking for ages. Can you exceed its limits? absolutely. No one who would try to put all those *very obviously* extraneous chars on a plot is in a position to opine on this. Even if it managed to fit all those pointless chars on the page, I'd have sent you back to redo it in a work env. Training new employees on the utter basics of presenting data always took the first month, but it is entirely a teachable skill. Every time I got a new employee I'd have to train them in basics of chart-making (and research, and a lot of other topics). This isn't a software issue, imho.

No significant improvement, except that the VRAM information is lost, so we have 2x "4060 Ti" now

I could write a label placement algorithm in VBA, the issue is that it's just not worth the time invested, same as dragging the labels around manually

 

[rv8000]

Picked one of these up for some fun testing, not sure which rig it’ll end up in but so far pretty disappointing performance wise (only done a quick CP2077 test)

High preset with FSR and DLSS disabled respectively; nitro 7900XTX all default settings

 

[jesdals]

If you do a test with the 4070 TI Super EXPERT version could you have a look at the diference between this design and more traditional designs like the STRIX regarding how the desing of the EXPERT influence the motherboard chipset. Haveing a x570 Gigabyte Aorus Master board its been a challenge with both the Radeon VII, 6900XT and 7900XTX that they dimp hot air direvtly in to the chipset due to the design of the GPU coolers

 

[Bobaganoosh]

I didn't notice initially, but why have you used a 14900k on an EVGA motherboard that doesn't officially support 14th gen? It doesn't have the correct microcode or V/F points for the 14900k and without some manual tuning will be operating at completely the wrong clocks and voltages. This would result in test results that are potentially different than what most people would find even if they had a 14900k and this GPU. It shouldn't effect GPU-to-GPU tests in the same system as comparisons to each other within the review, but it just seems like quite an odd choice.