NVIDIA: GeForce RTX 3090 “10 to 15 Percent Faster on Average” than GeForce RTX 3080 for 4K Gaming

[Tsing]

Image: NVIDIA



NVIDIA has confirmed that its “big ferocious GPU” (BFGPU), the GeForce RTX 3090, is around 10 to 15 percent faster than the GeForce RTX 3080 for 4K gaming. The claim was made in a new article celebrating tomorrow’s launch, which you can check out here.



NVIDIA has also shared new benchmarks that pitch the GeForce RTX 3090 against the Turing generation’s halo product, the TITAN RTX. The BFGPU appears to provide a nice boost in rendering performance over its predecessor.







“For gamers pushing the limits, the...

Continue reading...

 

[Auer]

" Since we built GeForce RTX 3090 for a unique group of users, like the TITAN RTX before it, we want to apologize upfront that this will be in limited supply on launch day. We know this is frustrating, and we’re working with our partners to increase the supply in the weeks to come. "

 

[SeymourGore]

I heard Dan_D's been camping outside MC since Sunday in an attempt to get a couple 3090s at launch.

 

[Armenius]

I heard Dan_D's been camping outside MC since Sunday in an attempt to get a couple 3090s at launch.

Scalpers hired people to stand outside Micro Center stores since Tuesday. Stores are saying they only have 1-3 on hand. The store in Virginia already has 50 people waiting outside.

 

[Zarathustra]

Scalpers hired people to stand outside Micro Center stores since Tuesday. Stores are saying they only have 1-3 on hand. The store in Virginia already has 50 people waiting outside.

Jesus that is ridiculous.

If this is true demand for personal use, that is fine, but anyone trying to make a profit on a product launch (apart from the company launching the product and the retailer) ought to be whacked over the head with a shovel.

 

[Zarathustra]

I still kind of want a 3090, but at 10-15% advantage only at that price, it is starting to sound like it is tough to justify.

Maybe if it is an amazing overclocker under water?

 

[Auer]

Jesus that is ridiculous.

If this is true demand for personal use, that is fine, but anyone trying to make a profit on a product launch (apart from the company launching the product and the retailer) ought to be whacked over the head with a shovel.

 

[Auer]

I still kind of want a 3090, but at 10-15% advantage only at that price, it is starting to sound like it is tough to justify.

Maybe if it is an amazing overclocker under water?

I'm leaning a bit more towards the 3090 mainly because of longevity?

I actually started out just thinking I'll replace my 2070 with a 3070, but that went sideways in a hurry it seems...

 

[northrop]

I'm leaning a bit more towards the 3090 mainly because of longevity?

I actually started out just thinking I'll replace my 2070 with a 3070, but that went sideways in a hurry it seems...

Due to supply issue, I'm in a "wait and see" camp. The 10%-15% isn't that much considering the price difference vs 3080 (assuming the leaked benchmarks are in any way accurate, but I guess we'll find out soon enough).

On the other hand, at this point, I'm willing to pick up whatever becomes available without having to pitch a tent in front of MC a week in advance.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm leaning a bit more towards the 3090 mainly because of longevity?

I actually started out just thinking I'll replace my 2070 with a 3070, but that went sideways in a hurry it seems...

I'm interested in the 3090 because I run 4k, and there are some current titles that won't even hit 60fps at 4k Ultra on the 3080.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I heard Dan_D's been camping outside MC since Sunday in an attempt to get a couple of 3090s at launch.

If I had an MC, and though there was a chance in you-know-what, I would. All we got is BB and that's a no go.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I'm interested in the 3090 because I run 4k, and there are some current titles that won't even hit 60fps at 4k Ultra on the 3080.

I decided I'm going to commit to one after all as well. I was waffling a bit after the 3080 20 GB leaks but now I'm over it. Bottom line is that in the next 12 months there's probably going to be revisions to both and to me it's not worth waiting, again, going through this drama, again, just for whatever few percent they add later. Already made up my mind on a Strix OC edition. All in or nothing.

 

[Auer]

I'm interested in the 3090 because I run 4k, and there are some current titles that won't even hit 60fps at 4k Ultra on the 3080.

I hear ya, I have played a lot in 4K too, even with my lowly 2070. Worked great for some titles, less with others. DLSS is a big deal.

My PC is a workstation I use for photo editing, so got some 32" LG 4K60hz monitors but with a 3090 I would most likely replace one with a 144hz model of some kind. Gonna have to wait for 32" to get there tho, I can't with 27" 4K...

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I can't with 27" 4K...

It was great for years but after my first 31.5 LG 4K I quickly found myself wanting more.

 

[Auer]

It was great for years but after my first 31.5 LG 4K I quickly found myself wanting more.

I'm Gen X, finally fading eyesight so working in 27" 4K is just no fun. 32" at 125% is just right.
But if the monitor wasnt used for anything but games and movies etc, 27" is probably brilliant.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm Gen X, finally fading eyesight so working in 27" 4K is just no fun. 32" at 125% is just right.
But if the monitor wasnt used for anything but games and movies etc, 27" is probably brilliant.

I haven't lost any of my vision yet, but I just don't see much point in going much beyond 100dpi, which is why I think 43" 4k is the perfect screen size/resolution combination.

 

[northrop]

I hear ya, I have played a lot in 4K too, even with my lowly 2070. Worked great for some titles, less with others. DLSS is a big deal.

My PC is a workstation I use for photo editing, so got some 32" LG 4K60hz monitors but with a 3090 I would most likely replace one with a 144hz model of some kind. Gonna have to wait for 32" to get there tho, I can't with 27" 4K...

Same here. It's going to be a while before we get fast monitors for photography I too have the 32" LG 4K60hz monitor, and I'm having trouble finding anything faster with an adequate panel to satisfy my eyes. I suppose I could buy a second monitor for gaming, but It would disrupt my OCD with 2 different monitors, lol.

 

[MacLeod]

I'm still holding out for a 3080. 3090 is out of my price range but even if it weren't I still don't think it would be worth it for just 10% gains. 3080 is technically overkill for my 1080p @ 240Hz system but I think it's the best balance of expensive, not budget busting and somewhat future proofing.

 

[LazyGamer]

I haven't lost any of my vision yet, but I just don't see much point in going much beyond 100dpi, which is why I think 43" 4k is the perfect screen size/resolution combination.

Main reason is scaling.

I used to think that 1080p on 24" was about as good as a reference as one could get for desktop use, just scale up or down, but honestly I can see the value in doubling that just for desktop / UI detail, and games of course where they can handle it. Text and UI aliasing is actually pretty obvious these days. May just be me.

Of course that means that 27" at 5k, 32" at... 6k?, and say ~40" at 8k would be alright too.

The big problem with scaling of course, is that it needs great software support from UIs to game engines (and UIs in game engines), and also needs high-bandwidth video transmission support. Which is why I'm not in a hurry to get there myself!

It was great for years but after my first 31.5 LG 4K I quickly found myself wanting more.

I have a 32" 4k from Acer on my desk; it's not bad, except that without scaling everything is too small, and it's just not high enough resolution for scaling to work really well.

Also, Microsoft, who is doing the best when it comes to display scaling between different display sizes, still hasn't figured out how to make a scaled display the same size as an unscaled display when it comes to desktop spacing for stuff like moving the cursor between monitors.

This is a problem I see with a 1440p 32" monitor right next to the 4k one; while scaling is sharper, I wind up just setting the 4k monitor to 1440p to keep things consistent.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Main reason is scaling.

I used to think that 1080p on 24" was about as good as a reference as one could get for desktop use, just scale up or down, but honestly I can see the value in doubling that just for desktop / UI detail, and games of course where they can handle it. Text and UI aliasing is actually pretty obvious these days. May just be me.

Of course that means that 27" at 5k, 32" at... 6k?, and say ~40" at 8k would be alright too.

The big problem with scaling of course, is that it needs great software support from UIs to game engines (and UIs in game engines), and also needs high-bandwidth video transmission support. Which is why I'm not in a hurry to get there myself!


I have a 32" 4k from Acer on my desk; it's not bad, except that without scaling everything is too small, and it's just not high enough resolution for scaling to work really well.

Also, Microsoft, who is doing the best when it comes to display scaling between different display sizes, still hasn't figured out how to make a scaled display the same size as an unscaled display when it comes to desktop spacing for stuff like moving the cursor between monitors.

This is a problem I see with a 1440p 32" monitor right next to the 4k one; while scaling is sharper, I wind up just setting the 4k monitor to 1440p to keep things consistent.

Yep scaling can be all over the map and I agree that at 4K Windows still has issues. Even on my 49" 32:9 5120x1440 display it looks great but go to any 4K display in the house and I end up tweaking something.