[HN Gopher] Unlaunching the 12GB 4080
___________________________________________________________________
Unlaunching the 12GB 4080
Author : haunter
Score : 273 points
Date : 2022-10-14 16:28 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nvidia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nvidia.com)
| dragontamer wrote:
| NVidia proving to everyone why EVGA quit being their partner.
|
| This sounds horrific for the card manufacturers who have made a
| ton of product and are now unable to sell.
| karamanolev wrote:
| Could it be that EVGA got a whiff of that 4080 12GB business
| and noped out because of it? We only hear about it later,
| because AIBs knew sooner?
| usednet wrote:
| Nvidia tells near nothing to AIBs (even pricing!) until
| public release.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I think EVGA was probably unique in that the owner was
| passionate about actually providing a damn good product and
| service and at some point just got tired of it - hard to
| blame them. Running a business is stressful and if you have
| to become mediocre after striving to be the best it must just
| seem pointless.
| shmde wrote:
| > NVidia proving to everyone why EVGA quit being their *bitch.
| paol wrote:
| The launch of the 4080s is still a ways off.
|
| I doubt any partners had designs finalized, given the rumors of
| how little time they are given to do that before each launch
| (which is a problem in its own right, and one of the things
| they are know to complain about).
| lbotos wrote:
| I thought they were supposed to land in "November". Are
| manufacturers able to:
|
| - source components - finalize packaging design - finalize
| cooling design - assemble - ship
|
| Graphics cards in 47 days? I'd expect at MINIMUM 90 days.
| ajaimk wrote:
| Now will Nvidia have the courage to re-release it as the 4070?
| dannyw wrote:
| They wouldn't make it that obvious. They'd weaken specs a
| little, like 5% less Cuda cores or something.
| kickofline wrote:
| Aren't the chips already made, so they have to do something
| with them?
| wmf wrote:
| Yes, they will presumably release it as a 4070 or 4070 Ti.
| Razengan wrote:
| This is why biological tech is superior: You can just eat
| failed products.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Unless those failed products turn into something toxic
| izacus wrote:
| Sure, it'll just renumber it, sell it at the same price and
| gamers will move their screaming to a new issue.
| kickofline wrote:
| Despite Nvidia's past actions, I think this was the right move.
| wmf wrote:
| Wow. So there is a limit to how much abuse the market will
| accept.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Every single reviewer has shit on this thing... Nvidia might be
| semi-scared.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Why do you say that? They just pulled a cheaper sku leaving the
| more expensive one, no?
| wmf wrote:
| The "4080 12GB" name was misleading almost to the point of
| fraud because it led customers to think it would have the
| same performance as a 4080. I don't object to the product
| itself, just the name. Removing it from the market is the
| right move. Maybe they'll relaunch it with a non-misleading
| name.
| S0und wrote:
| Every hardware reviewer complained a about calling something
| xx80 while the card performs as a xx70 is a scamy move.
| jffry wrote:
| In the past, NVIDIA launched the "3080" and the "3080 (12GB)"
| where the memory capacity and bus width was the major
| differentiator. (it also had like 3% more cores or
| something).
|
| The RTX "4080 12GB" and "4080 16GB" were much further apart
| in cores (IIRC a 30% difference) and so naming them in the
| same category in a way that suggests the RAM is the primary
| difference, was widely seen as disingenuous.
|
| Yes technically any consumer could lookup the specs, but that
| doesn't still make it a dirty and dishonest move.
| samvher wrote:
| What a strange post - the name is not right, so it's unlaunched.
| No indication of a new name? Am I supposed to conclude that the
| whole product is canceled for now? If that's the case it seems
| unlikely that the naming error is the whole reason.
| mariusmg wrote:
| Cards are already made, they will be launched in the future for
| sure as RTX 4070Ti.
| selectodude wrote:
| Do we know that for sure? It's possible that the fake 4080
| was for yield reasons but the yields are higher than
| anticipated. May as well sell the same chips for more money
| and "unlaunch" the shitty product.
| tedunangst wrote:
| It's a different die.
| mariusmg wrote:
| Yes, back in August warehouses already has stocks of RTX
| 40xx cards.
|
| This "reverse" has nothing to do with yields, nVidia
| (rightfully) realized it's better to avoid a shitstorm
| because this 4080 12GB version is ~30% slower than the
| "real" 4080.
| [deleted]
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| ABIs will have already made _tons_ of cards, boxed up and ready
| to ship out, just contractually unable to sell them on-masse
| quite yet. And now they _really_ can 't sell them until they've
| reprogrammed and reboxed them to show up as (almost certainly)
| 4070 instead of 4080 because that's essentially what they are.
| The 4070 wasn't missing from the lineup: the GPU chip on the
| 4080 12gb model is literally a completely different chip from
| the one on the 4080 16gb.
|
| (Think of it like Intel calling the 14th gen i5 "an i9". Or
| heck, Exor deciding to label a Fiat sports car "a Ferrari 812
| V4" while keeping the real thing "a Ferrari 812 GTS").
|
| And of course, that's an _gigantic_ dick move because it costs
| NVidia nothing to announce this, but probably means no one will
| even be able to make a profit on the 4080 12GB cards they
| already made (which a cynic might say was precisely NVIDIA 's
| goal here, as plausibly deniable punishment dished out to the
| remaining ABIs for daring to let one of their own disobey the
| corporate overlord).
|
| If EVGA hadn't already broken their partnership, this
| definitely would have make them do so. "Thank you for jumping
| through our hoops, after paying for the entire course yourself,
| now make a new course because you displeased your master" is
| not a great way to treat your partners.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Nvidias arrogance is going to do them in.
| vhold wrote:
| If true, it reminds me of the reputation that Jack Tramiel,
| founder of Commodore computers, had in the 80s of screwing
| over his suppliers to the point they would no longer do
| business with him.
| happycube wrote:
| Intel all but rebadged dual-core i3's as i5's and i7's in
| mobile for _years_.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Yes, this is bizarre and cryptic. I kept rereading it a few
| times because I thought I for sure missed them telling me what
| gets renamed to what now.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| It seems pretty clear. As the title says, this is about
| unlaunching something, not about renaming it or launching it.
|
| Just forget the formerly named "12 GB 4080", it doesn't exist
| for now.
| kipchak wrote:
| Don't the cards physically already exist though?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| In a month or two they'll probably sell them as 4070 or
| maybe 4070 Ti cards
| dathinab wrote:
| The demand was probably also not right, as it was just not a
| very appealing offer.
|
| They will probably see what AMD does and then rebrand them
| maybe with some under or over volting tweaks.
| WithinReason wrote:
| Could this have to do with the demand they see for the 4090? It
| was launched just 2 days ago.
| neogodless wrote:
| It's hard to trace logic through that. Demand for the $1600
| RTX 4090 is from "money be damned, give me frames" consumers,
| mixed with "can use for ML" professionals, and as such, are
| not quite the same market segment as the $900 crowd
| (remembering that the xx80 cards used to be $700 and much
| closer to the top of the lineup in overall performance.)
| tracker1 wrote:
| It's a different die than the 4090 (and the 4080 16gb for
| that matter), they already had a lot of them made, but may
| redirect future production to more 4090 and 4080 12gb while
| having the mfgs rebadge the 4080 12gb to say 4070 and just
| sit on them until reboxing/rebadging.
| seansmccullough wrote:
| It seems like the Nvidia marketing team should have thought of
| this before launching the product.
| kipchak wrote:
| "The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math."
| dylan604 wrote:
| Now now, you can't expect them to think of everything now can
| you? /s
| [deleted]
| CobaltFire wrote:
| I didn't expect to see this much of a mea culpa after the 1060
| 3GB and 6GB being the same situation.
| s_dev wrote:
| Same -- I can appreciate there maybe confusion but this was
| done by nVidia before. There is a precedent -- though I guess
| with marketing the customer is always ultimately right.
| ZiiS wrote:
| I will get down voted to oblivion but if you consider yourself a
| x080 customer and don't want less silicon in a 4080 12GB or the
| price hike for the 16GB. You have a very viable option of just
| keeping your current x080 for free. The 4090 is extremely good
| value for an extremely small group of people wanting ML or
| perhaps 8k gaming. Cards that will appeal more then a very select
| few will be released latter.
| helloworld97 wrote:
| Havoc wrote:
| What the hell is going on at nvidia? First the very transparent
| not-a-4070 scam, then gigantic misjudgement on crypto demand
| drop, then the evga mess, then this "unlaunch" that looks like an
| intern post.
|
| The tech still seems good (e.g. DLSS) but corporate decision
| making seems in freefall
| UberFly wrote:
| Those pics of people waiting outside... yes please Nvidia, more
| abuse. EVGA seems to be a pretty decent company, and they quit
| Nvidia. I'm thinking they're the canary in the coal mine.
| tengbretson wrote:
| They're really doing their best to jerk around their AIB partners
| as much as possible, aren't they.
| WithinReason wrote:
| From the reviews it already seems there's not much point to AIB
| cards anymore, EVGA got out at the right time.
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > From the reviews it already seems there's not much point to
| AIB cards anymore
|
| There is, because in certain parts of the world NVidia
| refuses to sell their founders editions, so AIB cards' all
| you can get.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| One of those AIB 4090s with a child-sized cooler at 50-70 %
| power limit should make for a relatively quiet GPU.
| WithinReason wrote:
| The Founder's Edition coolers are now much better quality
| than previous generations:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmUb9sDS9zw
| josmala wrote:
| That 12GB 4080 had compute bit above 3090 ti. But memory
| bandwidth between 3070 and 3070 ti.
|
| If it the cache hit rate is similar to Navi2 of similar size. It
| would have effective bandwidth similar to 3090 in 1440p and way
| above any previous gen card in 1080p but at 4k it would be around
| 3070 ti territory in terms of memory bandwidth. So a great 1440p
| card natively and to those who are willing to use DLSS to
| upsample from that to higher resolutions.
| sliken wrote:
| What had me worried is that the 4080 12GB has a 192 bit wide
| memory interface, same width as the RTX 3060 and less than the
| RTX 3060 Ti.
|
| Sure they worked on the caches to improve performance, but I
| always worries that some games will do poorly with the caches
| and have terrible performance. After all it's the lowest frame
| rates that are most noticeable, not the max or average.
|
| Charging $900 for a RTX 3060 memory width is insane.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Weird post seemingly written by an intern during lunch. The
| pictures of "lines" scream desperate, "see! people want our
| cards!". I think nvidia is in deep trouble.
| protomyth wrote:
| A funny point is that the line depicted in the second picture
| down (Micro Center - Burlington) is not exactly unique to an
| NVIDIA launch. Micro Center often has long lines for a variety
| of manufactures new parts. That place is basically the biggest
| outlet in the area for the DIY crowd.
| ok123456 wrote:
| The GPU cost too damn high.
| cheschire wrote:
| Look at what the predecessors cost. I chose the higher 3080
| 12GB for comparison. 1080 $700 2016
| 2080 $800 2018 3080 $800 2020 4080 $1200
| 2022
|
| I'm sure there's some justification about why it's 50%
| increase in price, but if it's a necessary increase then even
| releasing just seems tone deaf given the state of the world
| right now.
|
| 10 series - https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| us/geforce/news/geforce-gtx-1080/
|
| 20 series - https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/10-years-in-
| the-making-nv...
|
| 30 series - https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-
| delivers-greatest-... and
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_30_series
|
| 40 series - https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-
| cards/40-serie...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Clearly, they're making up for the money left on the table
| for not increasing the price from 2080->3080.
| ErneX wrote:
| 2080 is when they introduced RT and the card performed in
| raster gfx about the same as the 1080. And support for RT
| was coming in the future so it kind of makes sense it was
| priced the same.
| izacus wrote:
| Now put the performance numbers next to them.
| dymk wrote:
| That's what stuck out to me as well. This legitimately reads
| like it's by someone who's never written marketing copy. And
| what the heck is with the last picture of the box buckled into
| a desk chair?
| maxsilver wrote:
| > And what the heck is with the last picture of the box
| buckled into a desk chair?
|
| The blog post reads like an Intern who is/was a Redditor
| wrote it. The "GPU buckled into a seatbelt" is an old-but-
| common PC Builder Meme/Tradition online (particularly
| Reddit).
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu+seatbelt&tbm=isch
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4skdlg
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4pt9nl
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/kmglh6
| zanecodes wrote:
| It's a car seat, not a desk chair.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Oh, but what an amazing desk chair could be! Heated seat!
| Motorized recline, height, position adjustments! Seatbelts
| for those intense coding sessions (or, more realistically,
| desk chair races). Hell, managers will love them too as
| they already have the butt-in-seat sensors to know if their
| underlings are "working"
| waking_at_night wrote:
| Agreed. This post is really weird, especially coming from a
| multi-billion company. Perhaps I'm too used to corpo-speak, but
| this coming from the opposite end does feel kinda fishy.
| mckirk wrote:
| What is going on over there? First the confusing move to release
| two 4080s, now a confusing press release about unreleasing one of
| them, that itself reads like somebody released it prematurely?
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps they are too focused on the technology side of things,
| as opposed to business. Kind of refreshing, actually.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I kept looking for the other half of the post!
|
| Did the poster have a gun to his head or something?
|
| "Okay, okay, I've unlaunched the 12gb put the gun down, Linus."
| bagels wrote:
| This, Nvidia competeing against their partners with Nvidia
| branded boards, and the evga article a few weeks ago make it seem
| like being in partnership with them must be dreadful.
|
| These card makers now have to sit on inventory and reprint boxes
| and repackage everything?
| NavinF wrote:
| The 4080 12gb release date hasn't been announced yet so it's
| likely that no boxes were printed or packed.
|
| In the long run this is a good move considering how idiotic it
| is to give the same name to products with different dies and a
| ~30% performance difference.
| tracker1 wrote:
| You're talking about supply lines across an ocean... that's a
| lead time of several months... not to mention the time it
| takes for making injection molds, etc. these cards were
| already made and badged... They may just be sitting on
| pallets waiting to be boxed, or may already be in boxes
| and/or shipped.
|
| At the very least there's probably some recall operations to
| ship back, take off the shrouds and put on new shrouds for
| the rebadge, if not also rebox.
| mikhailt wrote:
| > These card makers now have to sit on inventory and reprint
| boxes and repackage everything?
|
| If it is a simple rename, they can just prefix a new sticky
| label on top of the "4080 12gb" with "4070" for an example.
| tracker1 wrote:
| More than that is the injection molded shrouds and backplates
| on many of the cards in question, not to mention reboxing and
| recalling existing/shipped inventory.
| dralley wrote:
| I mean, they've pissed off nearly everyone they've partnered
| with in the past. Apple, Microsoft, Sony, the Linux kernel,
| etc.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| I am surprised Nintendo isn't pissed with them yet, they're
| also a company that pissed off nearly everyone they've
| partnered with in the past.
| Wohlf wrote:
| Maybe they understand each other better because both are
| incredibly greedy.
| verall wrote:
| Apple dropped NV because it's too expensive and apple is
| ruthless about their BOM.
|
| Whats the story about Microsoft and Sony?
| dralley wrote:
| Apple dropped Nvidia after Nvidia chips were failing en-
| masse in the late 2000s and early 2010s, and Nvidia tried
| to publicly pin the blame on Apple, even though Nvidia
| chips in laptops by other manufacturers were also failing.
|
| https://semiaccurate.com/2010/07/11/why-nvidias-chips-are-
| de...
| trashcan wrote:
| This is the best article I can found about Microsoft
| choosing to end its relationship with Nvidia for Xbox:
| https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Nvidia-loses-Xbox-
| Mi...
| shmde wrote:
| Nvidia caught with their pants down expecting consumers to be
| stupid and not knowing their 4080 12gig card was just a 4070ti
| wearing a makeup. They 100% knew it, definitely was NOT a
| mistake. Just tried to sell a lower spec card masquerading as a
| better card to your avg customers who would not know any better.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I can't imagine how much swearing there is going on in meetings
| with NVIDIA's "partners"[1].
|
| [1] It is increasingly obvious NVIDIA only views them as
| sycophants.
| ErneX wrote:
| EVGA decided to quit making GPUs so yeah things must be
| intense.
| [deleted]
| blake929 wrote:
| My two cents on Nvidia's rollback reasoning:
|
| 4080 12GB was universally panned. The 40 series launch also got
| heat for price gouging, particularly the higher cost for the low
| end of the launch (4080 12GB). They had to raise the cost of the
| lower end of the 40 series though if they wanted to maintain the
| value of the 30 series cards and clear out the remaining
| inventory. They couldn't just release a true 4070 for a true 4070
| price. While the name was obviously bad, it seems likely that
| they wanted to obscure the release of a 4070-quality chip for a
| 4080-price while attempting to sell off remaining 30 series. Pure
| speculation: maybe they were hoping a "cheaper 4080" would come
| across to the uninformed as Nvidia trying to lower the entry cost
| for 40 series rather than raising it through an expensive 4070.
|
| Two potential reasons for the rollback come to mind: 1) higher
| than expected 4090 demand means they can wait to launch a 4070.
| 2) higher than expected heat for the thinly veiled 4070 price
| gouging made it worth it to wait on the release since it helps
| sell more 30 series cards by raising the entry price for a 40
| series while getting better PR in the process.
| bitL wrote:
| 4090 is in stock in all shops around, so I don't think the
| demand was higher than expected. Zen 4 is also everywhere but
| not selling.
| mikhailt wrote:
| It depends on the location as well. In US, it's out of stock
| everywhere.
|
| In EU, where the price and electricity prices are much
| higher, it appears to not sell out like it did in EU. (As far
| as I know).
| TillE wrote:
| I don't see a 4090 in stock anywhere in Germany (big PC
| gaming culture), except for scalpers on eBay.
| neogodless wrote:
| > Zen 4 is also everywhere but not selling
|
| I was shocked to learn today that B650 boards are available.
| That information didn't seem to make it anywhere near my
| usual technology news channels!
|
| But... they start at $170 for a barebones motherboard. Having
| spent $200 not too long ago for a well-rounded mid-range X570
| board, I find $170 for the starting line up quite steep. And
| it's unlikely builders want to pair their $300+ Zen 4 chips
| with the most basic board available.
|
| The barebones right now would be $170 + $300 + $90 (16GB
| DDR5) = $560 before accounting for the rest of the parts
| (like a GPU).
| tracker1 wrote:
| I'm waiting until around March/April... hoping that prices
| settle by then, also considering rDNA3 and hoping to see an
| R9 7950X3D model by then before making final decisions on a
| next build. Also, right now there's not really any good
| options for higher speed DDR5 at higher quantities and am
| curious to see which boards support ecc by then.
| sliken wrote:
| Yup, doubling the memory bandwidth, doubling the memory
| channels, and doubling the PCIe bandwidth, and switching to
| DDR5 is placing a premium on the new AM5 platform for AMD.
| Similar happened with the Alder lake launch, which had the
| same upgrades and combined with sky high DDR5 memory
| prices.
|
| Just wait a few months, pioneers are the ones that get the
| arrows (high prices) in the back side.
| winkeltripel wrote:
| It's actually even worse. If you look at the core counts, the
| 4080 12g is a _60 tier card, and the 4080 16gb is a_ 70 tier
| card. The 4090 has a much better power to cost ratio.
| _hypx wrote:
| Same with memory bus. The 3060 Ti, 3070 and 3070 Ti all had a
| 256-bit bus. Only with the 3060 did it drop to a 192-bit bus.
| happycube wrote:
| And the 3060ti has less memory (8 vs 12GB) - for many non-
| gaming uses (i.e. deep learning/ML) that makes it much less
| useful.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| > higher than expected 4090 demand
|
| Has anyone done analysis on this? My layman's assumption is
| that with the shortages and gouging/scalping over the past two
| years, an awful lot of people decided to tough it out on their
| 10-, 16-, and 20- series cards, and now the narrative is that
| the shortages are over (whether or not the actual prices really
| back that up) and those people who skipped a generation or two
| are now emotionally and financially prepared to "treat"
| themselves to the new top of the line.
|
| If this is it, though, it seems weird that it could really have
| caught Nvidia by surprise. Don't they have driver-level
| telemetry that would show them all those older cards plugged
| into new-chipset motherboards, and could give them some
| indication of demand?
| injinj wrote:
| China fomo? Are these good enough to fill the needs of AI
| workloads of the datacenters which can no longer get the next
| gen NVIDIA GPUs?
| mattnewton wrote:
| Benchmarks I have seen absolutely put them above existing
| workstation cards in everything except memory. If your
| model and embeddings fit into 24gb vram, it absolutely
| makes sense to buy this over an a5500 or even a a6000
| cinntaile wrote:
| Plenty of people do have the money to spend on these cards.
| It's entirely possible that it's really just a vocal minority
| that refuses to pay these prices. I agree with the
| grandparent and the 4090 probably sells better than expected.
| The card performs well too.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| We are in an economic recession, so even if the people
| _have_ the money, many are _not willing_ to spend it on a
| graphic card. If you also consider parts of the world like
| Europe where the price of electricity more than doubled and
| the power consumption of 4xxx series (practically secondary
| room heaters), there are even less people here willing to
| pay the price.
| Melatonic wrote:
| aka " We realized nobody was going to buy this or most of the
| 4000 series cards "
|
| The 4070 was supposed to be the cash grab card for when
| everything sold out and desperate people would be willing to pay
| for it
| mkl95 wrote:
| Is this post AI generated? The images are particularly weird
| youainti wrote:
| They look like phone images to me. At least phone images from
| 2015 non-iphones.
| spelunker wrote:
| The name is bad, so we're unlaunching it? Is something else going
| on?
| aix1 wrote:
| My reading is that they're implying it'll be launched but under
| a different name.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| No way they did this on their own. Retailers or partners must
| have pushed back on it because they didn't want to deal with
| upset customers and constant returns, or scams.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| These big companies really need to get naming input from someone
| other than marketing teams. The second the 4080 and 4080 (not a
| typo) got announced, Nvidia was shredded by the media. It was
| immediately and obviously clear to basically everyone that this
| was a bad naming system and only a bunch of navel gazers could
| have thought it was "good".
|
| I get that Engineers tend to be more practical in their names,
| and don't have the finesse that marketing is looking for. But at
| least some sanity checks would be good....
| [deleted]
| dinobones wrote:
| I'm still mad about CUDA cores. I thought I was going to be
| able to write some epic 1000x level parallelism running
| individually on all cores.
|
| It turns out, a CUDA core is not actually a "core."
| Melatonic wrote:
| Why do they call it that then? I never really looked into it
| that much and just took as a measure of a certain type of
| compute capability ( FP16 or FP64 right? )
| wmf wrote:
| The SIMT architecture makes it look to the programmer like
| each FPU is a separate core, but all the cores in an SM
| have to run in lockstep to get good performance.
| monocasa wrote:
| They use that metric because it makes their marketing specs
| look nicer.
|
| Ultimately it's a count of the number of SIMD lanes.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| There was a golden age in the '00s when it was possible to get
| the gist of what Nvidia and ATI card names meant without
| consulting a very dense table. It was nice.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It was amazing actually. Intel's marketing was so
| spectacular. Blue man group. Bunny suit commercials.
| _Pentium_ , what a name. Intel Inside, those two words start
| an uninitiated jingle in my head.
|
| This is not looking through it with rose tinted glasses and
| nostalgia. It was objectively better, fun, straightforward
| and iconic. Not a single person knows what Intel's (or AMD,
| nVidia, Apple, etc.)'s advertisements after 2000's. Do you
| remember the last Apple ad? No. It is all generic, designer
| bullshit.
|
| All of it has gone to toilet. Marketing people have lost it
| across the board.
| blagie wrote:
| I agree. I think a deeper problem is it takes a Ph.D in
| Intel / AMD branding to understand what to buy. An 80486
| was faster than an 80386, and 33MHz was slower than 66MHz.
| It was simple.
|
| Intel's i7 line-up goes from 2 to 16 cores, 1-4GHz,
| spanning 13 generations. Toss in i3/i5/i7/i9, and lines
| like Atom and Xeon.
|
| Each time I need to upgrade my computer, I groan. It's not
| just less fun, it's positively miserable.
|
| Most people I know either buy the cheapest possible
| computer, or an Apple. I don't know why Intel thinks anyone
| will spend extra if they have no idea what they're buying.
| Most non-Apple users I know have phones with faster
| processor, higher-resolution displays, and for higher
| prices than their laptops.
| lbotos wrote:
| Agree on the misery. I was speccing out a build and
| inadvertently picked a 2019 processor because it was
| extremely unclear.
|
| (I'm now actually looking at an AMD 7700 rig, because
| intel won't do ECC on "desktop" CPUs, except for a rare
| chipset that I can't find a mobo for sale at the
| moment...)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It's the Packard-Bell marketing strategy. Confuse the
| marketplace with a profusion of similar models so that
| comparison shopping can't be easily applied by casual
| buyers.
| tracker1 wrote:
| The 13 generations is particularly bad, if you're just
| trying to comment to someone looking for a used system,
| when half the time they just list "Core i7" which is
| meaningless without at least a model generation.
| [deleted]
| deathanatos wrote:
| > _Do you remember the last Apple ad?_
|
| Yes, and dear God am I sick of it. AFAICT, they've bought
| all advertising space on the web, mobile, and TV for me, at
| the moment. (It's the one of the iPhone auto-dialing 911 in
| a wreck.)
|
| I'm (still) not buying an iPhone.
| wincy wrote:
| The last Apple ad I remember was that song 1234 by Feist.
|
| Which was... 2007.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Oh please, AMD CPUs had lower clocks so to compete with
| Intel's (making up numbers to illustrate the point) 2.3Ghz
| where theirs was 2.1Ghz, they would call it Athlon 2300 or
| something to the effect. They may have had a point that
| their 2.1Ghz was as good as Intel's 2.3Ghz chip, but it's
| not been straightforward, probably, since a 286. (Edit, I
| meant to reply to the parent comment)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| See Mac vs PC ads. Still memorable and impactful.
| Merad wrote:
| Are you maybe thinking of CPUs back when they were marketed
| by clock speed? Because GPU naming has always been a mess. In
| the mid 2000s for example you had the Nvidia Geforce 7 series
| with product names such as: 7800 GS, 7800 GT, 7800 GTX, 7900
| GS, 7900 GT, 7900 GTX, 7900 GTO, 7900 GX2. They've been
| moderately consistent with "bigger numbers in the name =
| higher end card" but beyond that you can't tell anything
| meaningful without comparing the cards in a table.
| userbinator wrote:
| At least they didn't reuse the names... unlike e.g. the
| _three_ variants of the "GT730" they released.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _These big companies really need to get naming input from
| someone other than marketing teams_
|
| It's not the marketing teams to blame.
|
| Marketing teams name things iPod, or MacBook, or PlayDate.
|
| I don't know who names things at Intel, or Nvidia, or Sony, but
| it's not the marketing team. At least not a good one.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Clearly some departments of Sony have engineers naming
| things. No marketing team would put out a product names the
| "Sony WH-1000XM4" not to be confused with the "Sony
| WF-1000XM4".
|
| Overall Nvidia generally has a very good naming system. They
| are easy to understand if you look at them for more than a
| minute. Nvidia is 4090? 40 = Generation. 90 = Model. Higher
| model # is better. They've stuck with the general concept for
| the better part of 20 years.
|
| Intel's naming is decent. Their cutsey names like Sandy
| Bridge, meh. No one can never remember those. But the Core
| numbering system is solid. i3 is lowest. i9 is highest. The
| processor numbers after that can be a little hard and do
| require a bit of a decorder matrix to understand. But as long
| as it's a system, with rules, that they follow, and can be
| explained fairly easily - I'm ok with it. Heck they have a
| page that gives you the magic decoder ring: https://www.intel
| .com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor...
| arprocter wrote:
| Acer's monitor naming looks like a cat walked on someone's
| keyboard - KVbmiipruzx
| muro wrote:
| The best named monitor recently is probably the Waysus
| 22.
| Macha wrote:
| I think you need to at least also consider the generation
| along with the bucket for Intel CPUs. For most users a 12th
| gen i3 is better than a ninth gen anything, yet plenty of
| retailers kept old laptop skus around long enough you would
| see both side by side at a retailer
| izacus wrote:
| I'll be honestly concerned for Sony if they stop naming
| their products from random bash line noise.
|
| It's now as much part of their brand as all other things
| are.
| eastbound wrote:
| Sony's naming problem is not because of engineers; It's
| clearly the marketing team, and the goal is most certainly
| to make this incomparable, across continents, across years,
| or between the one that was given to the
| reviewers/journals/comparators and the ones that the
| customers can actually purchase.
|
| Sony's problem is that they try to sell bad products for
| the price of expensive ones, and the best way to do that is
| to have incomprehensible names.
| ShroudedNight wrote:
| The MDR-7506 has just as obscure a name as anything
| they're selling; it's not clear to me that the naming is
| so much a strategy as a lack thereof...
| Someone wrote:
| I think the goal is more so that big chains can sell
| model numbers that nobody else sells, making it risk-free
| for them to promise "we'll match any cheaper price".
| mey wrote:
| Except Nvidia uses the same branding for it's mobile and
| desktop chips, and in the past have rebadged different
| architectures under multiple gen numbers. (GT
| 510/520/605/610/710 all the GF119 chip)
|
| It's all pretty bad.
| gigaflop wrote:
| For what it's worth, I bought a high end TV recently, the
| Sony Bravia A90J. I've left out some of the full product
| name, but this info is all you need if you care to look up
| that TV.
|
| When I was looking in physical stores, at physical devices,
| I noticed that there were important differences between the
| [A-Z][8-9]0[A-Z]s, when I would research the model numbers
| online. 80 vs 90 indicated jumps in overall quality,
| depending on the other letters in the model name, which
| usually meant that the product was created specifically for
| the store (like Best Buy vs Costco vs buying direct), and
| would have other minor differences from the 'true' version.
|
| A regular person would have probably just looked at the TVs
| in-store and decided based on whatever looked best, but I
| happened to have some specific features I wanted, and the
| weird-ass model names helped.
| solarkraft wrote:
| TV naming is especially crazy. They have variants for
| everything from geopraphical location to specific sales
| events.
|
| My TV lacks the ability to transmit audio via Bluetooth
| (no, I can't enable it, I think it actually lacks the
| module). Nobody could have told me that before I bought
| it, the marketing material and manuals all claim that it
| has it. There is precisely NO documentation for my
| specific model.
|
| I'm starting to think that they're actively counting on
| people not _completely_ testing their devices after
| getting them.
| Melatonic wrote:
| The A90J is the top model right? Was looking at those
| myself recently. Amazon warehouse occasionally has a
| cheap deal on one but I am always scared those probably
| have dead pixels.
|
| I really wanted a Panasonic Plasma but it looks like the
| sole importer may not be getting them anymore or might be
| getting less. But from what I understand the A90J and the
| top end Panasonics are the best in that they have a much
| better heatsink
| gigaflop wrote:
| A90J is, by the research I did and the word of the person
| who sold it to me (a family friend, has owned a TV
| business for 25 years, and gave me his at-cost price),
| the best. I absolutely love it. And yes, the panel +
| heatsink are top notch. Some other models/brands use the
| same panel, but lack the stronger heatsinks, and aren't
| able to utilize it as best as possible.
|
| It runs Android TV, which may or may not be a dealbreaker
| for you, but I enjoy it enough. I just wanted to be free
| of a vendor-specific TV os, in order to give myself more
| flexibility when I try to set up a pi-hole in the future.
| There's also a hardware switch to disable the TV's
| microphone.
|
| Also, the sound comes out from the panel itself, and is
| (to me) great. It calibrates itself using the microphone
| within the remote, by having you hold it a certain way
| when performing setup.
|
| Finally, there's an incredibly posh and satisfying
| 'click' noise when you turn it off. I don't know why, but
| this makes me like the TV more.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is weird because Nvidia clearly has an instinct to give
| their cards car names (with the GTX, GT, RTX, etc etc stuff).
| They should just get rid of the numbers for the most part.
|
| 4090 -> 2022 Nvidia Optium
|
| 4080 -> 2022 Nvidia Melium
|
| 4070 -> 2022 Nvidia Bonum
|
| 4060 -> 2022 Nvidia Benem
|
| (I barand-name-ified the latin words for
| best/better/good/okay).
| mosen wrote:
| Without the numbers, you have no idea which one's better at
| a glance (which is why they're retracting the "other"
| 4080).
|
| And "Bonum"... are you sure?
| bee_rider wrote:
| The problem with the numbers is that we expect them to
| have some meaning. There's no inherent ordering between
| maxima/altima/sentra but if you are shopping for Nissan
| cars you figure it out. If you are spending a couple
| thousand dollars on something you shouldn't pick at a
| glance, you should look at the specs.
|
| Bonum -- apparently that's the latin word for good? I
| dunno I just dropped words into google translate and then
| hacked off letters at random to fit the pattern. I'm sure
| they can come up with better fake words.
| rjmunro wrote:
| Marketing teams name things 360, One, One S, One X, Series S
| and Series X. I think that's the right order, I'm not sure.
| TillE wrote:
| When the Xbox One was announced, people complained that it
| was confusing, but really it had been long enough since the
| original Xbox that the name was just silly, not confusing.
|
| The One/Series S/X crap is genuinely baffling, totally
| incomprehensible unless you've really been keeping up with
| every Xbox release. You can go on Wikipedia and figure it
| out in a few minutes, but...you should not have to do that.
| monkpit wrote:
| Don't forget the OG offender in this category, the PSOne
| / PSX
| kmeisthax wrote:
| In Sony's defense, everything else with the PlayStation
| was actually pretty straightforward. PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4,
| and PS5.
|
| "PSOne" was a weird way to brand a slim console, but it's
| still obvious that it's a PS1. And while Sony _did_
| originally use PSX to refer to the PS1, that was an
| internal codename, i.e. "different from the Nintendo
| PlayStation[0]". The gaming press ran with it because
| people in that era insisted on awkward three-letter
| acronyms for all games consoles. Reusing it for a weird
| PS2 DVR combo unit is still way better than Microsoft
| launching two _different consoles_ with the same name.
|
| [0] The cancelled SNES variant with the also-cancelled
| Super CD add-on built-in, both built by Sony.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The order is 360, One, Series.
|
| The letter is just tier.
|
| It's remarkable how thoroughly they managed to outdo the
| confusing nature of "One". Who would look at "Xbox Series"
| and think that's the name of a _specific generation_? It 's
| an artistic masterpiece.
| dingaling wrote:
| What is an iPod without context? Some sort of protective case
| with an RFID tag maybe?
|
| PlayDate - is that a video conferencing product?
|
| These are not good product names
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Context is required for basically all product names, unless
| they've managed to make themselves generic. Ex
| https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-
| nam... . Even then, if they are "generic" they still often
| require context of a specific country or language.
|
| If I ask you about a Mustang, what do you think about
| first? Are you into cars and it's a Ford Mustang? Are you
| into Horses? Are you into Planes? Or maybe you're into
| ships? Heck, there is an entire list of options:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustang_(disambiguation)
|
| A good name is memorable, not necessarily descriptive. Most
| product and company names today are made up anyways. Or
| they are named after something else in a completely
| arbitrary fashion.
|
| The problem comes when a company establishes a name for one
| thing, then uses it for another. The iPhone is a good name
| in concept. Pro/Max/Ultra/Mini not withstanding. But what
| if tomorrow Apple said there was an iPhone Super Ultra Max
| that was 10" and couldn't make calls. People would argue
| that was an iPad and that this new Super Ultra Max was a
| stupid name.
| sulcate wrote:
| But that's not the point. It's not meant to be intelligible.
| The point is marketing, aka to misinform consumers. It's
| working as expected and it happens in every field.
|
| Choosing obscure names that make it extremely hard to compare
| characteristics within products by a company, much less to
| compare to outside competitors, is not a bug --- it's a
| feature.
|
| Try buying a bike and figuring out how to compare it to other
| bikes by the same manufacturer from this year or last, or try
| to figure out what features it carries. You're left doing what
| you always do: staring at 7 tabs with spec sheets and slowly
| trying to absorb the features of the various "poorly" named
| offerings
|
| It's anti consumer and I'm surprised there's not more outrage,
| given that a market purportedly should consist of rational
| consumers making informed decisions.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| >given that a market purportedly should consist of rational
| consumers making informed decisions.
|
| And that misconception of humans by economists has had
| massive repercussions.
|
| No human is rational.
|
| We are emotion machines riding hormone waves. Fatigue,
| hunger, anger, arousal all affect our choices and can be
| gamed.
| userbinator wrote:
| _I get that Engineers tend to be more practical in their names,
| and don 't have the finesse that marketing is looking for._
|
| I thought they could've just used the codenames, or whatever is
| actually written on the GPU IC itself...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces...
|
| ...but then you realise they called the "12GB 4080" an
| AD104-400, and the "16GB 4080" an AD103-300, while the 4090 got
| named the AD102-300.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Yeah, even if they had a good reason not to call one the 4070,
| the whole thing could still have been avoided by just calling
| them the 4085 and 4080. And the marketing people could probably
| have come up with something even cooler sounding, if somebody
| would have just stopped them from going with 4080 12GB and 4080
| 16GB.
| FractalParadigm wrote:
| The funny thing is Nvidia already has 2 sub-part-numbers for
| better-than-the-xxx0-cards, without creating another line of
| xxx5 products. The 16GB could have been branded 4080 Ti or
| 4080 Super with the 12GB being the 'base' 4080.
| tracker1 wrote:
| That was my thought... they should have just called it a
| "Super" still leaving room for a Ti model later. Or bring
| back GS designation after... 4080 and 4080 GS. They had
| lots of options to add distinction.
| CivBase wrote:
| I'd be _shocked_ if the original names were engineering
| decisions. Seems blatently obvious that marketing just re-
| badged the 4070 at the last minute and it backfired.
| aprdm wrote:
| To their credit, they did roll it back
| SevenNation wrote:
| I read this release 3 times and still don't know what's
| happening. What does "pressing the unlaunch button" mean?
| Discontinuation? Rebranding to RTX 4080? What?
| karamanolev wrote:
| There will not be a 4080 12GB card with the specs it was
| announced with. Basically, "pressing the unlaunch button" is
| exactly the opposite of doing the announcement. An attempt at
| "we take back what we said, imagine that nothing happened".
| ac29 wrote:
| For those not in the know the "4080 12GB" as compared to the 4080
| 16GB was not just the same card with a little less RAM, as you
| might assume from the name. It also had ~20% fewer GPU cores and
| was significantly slower for that reason.
| newsclues wrote:
| And slower bus speed for the memory
| ErneX wrote:
| Less memory bandwidth too IIRC.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| 192bit bus in 2023 on an 80 "class" GPU of all places.
| MikusR wrote:
| It's not like their greatly increased cache.
| westmeal wrote:
| yeah seriously what were they thinking
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| $$$
| timbo1642 wrote:
| cush wrote:
| Good on Nvidia for owning up to and quickly fixing the
| marketing mistake
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Did they just think it was too good to be a 70 level card? It's
| not like they had a 4070 and a 4070Ti and a Super 4070 already
| and had to figure out another way to market it.
|
| I just don't see the logic in the naming in any way shape or
| form.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| Their price point was too high to be considered a 4070. If
| they launched it as a 4070, it would be naked price gouging.
| [deleted]
| izacus wrote:
| I think you're setting yourself for another massive
| disappointment if you think nVidia will sell those at any
| kind of lower price in the future.
|
| Because that's the issue isn't it? Everyone wanting for
| nVidia to just sell those chips for less?
|
| They'll slap 4070Ti or something on it and sell it to you
| for the same price.
| Macha wrote:
| You might have missed it with how long the inflated
| market lasted, but in the last few months with the
| ethereum PoS transition and the threat of recession
| keeping gamers at bay they literally haven't been able to
| sell the 30-series cards for quite a bit under MSRP in
| what was a very sudden reversal from being above MSRP.
| Maybe a new series stole the demand but part of the
| reason they're holding out on lower tier SKUs is the
| 30-series is not going away fast enough, so there's a
| good chance that we're back in the 10-series vs 20-series
| day where there's so much used stock of the old series
| and a perception that nvidia is gouging to the extent
| that it hamepers sales of the new ones.
|
| 30 series launch MSRPs looked very good until it became
| clear you couldn't get them for that price, partly
| because they were having to partially roll back the 20
| series price increases, so it wouldn't be impossible to
| see a repeat.
| neogodless wrote:
| You can get an RTX 3090 (MSRP $1499) for about $900-950
| now. (In other words, the prices on these cards really
| should come down a bit.)
|
| So while the graphics card formerly known as RTX 4080
| 12GB might perform about the same as the RTX 3090, it's
| no better value.
|
| The issue isn't the pricing, even though that's an issue.
|
| The issue is what looks like an intentional attempt to
| confuse consumers by selling two products with roughly
| the same name, but one of them has 25% greater
| performance. Some consumers may think "I'm coming from a
| 6GB card, 12GB is plenty, I don't need to pay more for
| the 16GB one, I'll get almost the same performance"
| without knowing the technical details.
|
| Ideally they'll still read/watch reviews and get the best
| product for their budget, but that doesn't excuse
| misleading names.
| icambron wrote:
| This was me. I was too busy to read/watch anything, 12gb
| seemed right in the middle of the range, and I blindly
| pulled the trigger. Later found out I wasn't quite buying
| what I thought I was. It's shitty naming and I'm glad
| they're fixing it.
| imiric wrote:
| > it would be naked price gouging
|
| As opposed to the rest of the 40 series cards?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If you divide the cost of the card by the pixel fill
| rate, the 4090 is a bargain.
| onli wrote:
| It is a new series. It is supposed to be cheaper relative
| to the performance than the ancestor series, not priced
| as a higher tier.
| plasticchris wrote:
| This is a fundamental shift from years past where perf
| per dollar scaled up every generation. Now they are
| trying to scale performance while also scaling up price.
| Only time will tell if the demand is inelastic or not.
| neogodless wrote:
| The RTX 3090 had an MSRP of $1499, so this is only a 6.7%
| increase. If there was a fundamental shift, it was when
| that card launched.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 3070 had .29 GP/s/$ at base clock.
|
| 4090 has .28 GP/s/$ at base clock.
|
| Considering this is coming out two years later, I'm not
| so inclined to call it a bargain.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Meh, only if you accept that the 4090 is really a Titan
| or a Quadro under another name. And to be fair, I think
| that it probably is. But that doesn't match with the
| consumer designation that we see in these things and so
| bargain or not, this is a professional card being
| marketed to consumers.
|
| If you're looking for a pro card and have the cooling and
| power to support it (not to mention, the workflow needs
| that could benefit), that's great. If you're a gamer or
| enthusiast, the price is still high enough (not to
| mention the other changes you might need to make to your
| rig to support the card) that the actual delta between
| the potential and what you'll actually do with the card
| means you should probably just stick with either a 3090
| that is now half the price, or hold out for the other
| 4000 series cards if you must get a next-gen card.
| Retric wrote:
| The 4090 can't actually play Cyberpunk in 4k at max
| setting and RT without stuttering. People are seeing
| 22-30FPS walking around.
|
| There is a lot of confusion because some people assume
| turning on DLSS increases settings but it actually lowers
| quality. Sure DLSS is good enough most don't notice, but
| you can say that about lowering most settings slightly to
| improve performance.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| This is incorrect. If you want to play e.g. Cyberpunk at
| 4k maxed out with decent framerates the 4090 is the only
| card that gets you there. Especially once you start
| looking at meaningful numbers like 1% lows, even the 3090
| is struggling to break the low 30s.
|
| It doesn't apply to every game or every resolution, but
| there are actual game scenarios where a 4090 makes sense.
| Price and heat and power and space not withstanding, it's
| a meaningful upgrade.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| Look, if you want to pay $1600 to play one game at 4K on
| max settings, be my guest. I'm fine with it in 1440p or
| in 4K at not max settings, but you do you.
| flerchin wrote:
| Dangit, I do want to play Cyberpunk maxed in 4k. Sorry
| kids, I guess you'll have to take a gap year before you
| can go to college, daddy's gonna upgrade.
| cercatrova wrote:
| College isn't that cheap unfortunately.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I will add that, IMO, if it's possible for _any_ gpu to
| play a just-released game at maximum settings at a high
| resolution at 60+ fps, the developers haven 't set the
| maximum quality settings high enough. Leave some headroom
| for future GPUs, or allow players who e.g. prefer a
| ludicrously high draw distance at any cost to make that
| choice and dial down the resolution to compensate.
|
| Most games don't meet this bar, and I think gamers who
| expect to be able to set every slider to the max and go
| to town--yes, even on a $2K GPU--are mostly responsible.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| I disagree that developers should spend valuable
| engineering time on producing games that can't be run.
| Spend that time making other games instead, or squashing
| bugs (looking at you, cyberpunk!) and maybe keep a
| backlog of future features to patch in when the hardware
| gets there.
| autoexec wrote:
| I agree! When it comes to graphics, just make them look
| great with current (and not uncommon) hardware. When most
| gamers have upgraded hardware capable of substantial
| differences games can keep selling remasters if people
| care.
|
| I'm fine with nearly all gamers getting a better
| experience even if that means the tiny fraction of gamers
| who can and are willing to spend insane amounts of money
| on the best of all possible video cards are not able to
| take full advantage of their crazy hardware in most
| games.
| jandrese wrote:
| There is a limited set of knobs a developer can add
| without increasing their development costs. If you ship a
| set of "ultra mega extreme" textures that will only be
| usable with future hardware you are still bloating the
| download by many gigabytes, probably dozens or even
| hundreds. If your dev team says they can make even better
| shadows but not on today's hardware then is it really
| worth the development effort to create them now? You can
| multiply particle effects to crazy amounts but that ends
| up looking silly.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| To be clear, I'm just asking for extreme draw distances,
| higher resolution shadows, and full quality textures. If
| that would require significant engineering, I stand
| corrected! I can certainly see how install size would be
| a concern with textures.
|
| I find it difficult to return to games such as Assassin's
| Creed II because of their muddy textures and low draw
| distances. These issues feel like something that could
| have been avoided with just a tad more forward thinking!
|
| There are also games like Quantum Break which (at least
| at launch, not sure if it was ever fixed) included
| mandatory upsampling which the user couldn't disable. The
| reason given was that the game wasn't designed to be
| playable at native resolution, and no current hardware
| would be able to run it that way.
| ynx wrote:
| Yes.
|
| Extreme draw distances: large open-world games or those
| with very long, content-intensive environments need to
| resort to tricks to unload parts of the world that are
| not visible or quickly accessible. Extreme draw distance
| can mean keeping orderS of maginitude more objects
| resident, which could mean a lot more materials loaded,
| more draw calls, more VRAM usage, or more swap.
|
| Higher resolution shadows: Hard shadows tend to look bad,
| soft shadows tend to perform bad, and worse with more
| lights. It takes a lot of deep GPU knowledge to do these
| in a visually convincing and high quality manner. The
| difference between "good enough" and "perfect" will
| easily cost you double digit fps at a minimum.
|
| Full quality textures: As with the draw distance caveat,
| implementing LODs is rather work-intensive. Some people
| will tell you that you can automate it, and they're half-
| right. If you are looking for top-notch game quality,
| that absolutely does not cut it, but if you're not trying
| to go the extra mile it can be serviceable.
|
| Games are super inconsistent in how far they push
| technology vs push the art, but there is rarely a "turn
| the dial to 11" knob ready to turn. The production
| requirements and technical limitations mix in
| unpredictable ways.
|
| Other times, games push ridiculously far in certain
| directions that later become mainstream, and execute well
| enough that, after they are copied into other mainstream
| games, they feel deficient - not in spite of their
| success, but as a direct result of it!!
| int_19h wrote:
| > Extreme draw distance can mean keeping orderS of
| maginitude more objects resident, which could mean a lot
| more materials loaded, more draw calls, more VRAM usage,
| or more swap.
|
| The point is that all of this merely requires more
| resources at runtime, not any additional work on behalf
| of the developer. So, by allowing limits higher than is
| practical on hardware at the time of release, the game
| can scale somewhat better on future hardware. What's the
| downside?
|
| High-res textures are a different thing, since they
| actually have to be painted. Or upscaled, I suppose, but
| that's still code somebody has to write.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > High-res textures are a different thing, since they
| actually have to be painted.
|
| Ah, I want to clarify again--I was imagining the
| developers already had higher quality original textures,
| which they had downscaled for release. The textures in
| Assassin's Creed II, for instance, have the look of
| images that were saved down to a lower resolution from
| larger originals. But I could be wrong, or even if I'm
| not, it might be less common nowadays.
|
| As you say, the goal is to include things that only
| require computational resources at runtime (even an order
| of magnitude more).
| LegitShady wrote:
| they got greedy and every reviewer in existence called them
| out on it. The price is too high for a 4070 so they called it
| another 4080 no matter how different it was from the other
| 4080.
| samstave wrote:
| What the heck was the price?
|
| I paid $1,600 for an evans and Sutherland card with 32
| MEGABYTES to run Softimage on NT 4 because I couldn't
| afford an SGI in 1997
| goosedragons wrote:
| $900. But there was a time when the best GeForce you
| could get was less than that by a pretty wide margin.
| chippiewill wrote:
| They should have just called it a 4075
| Macha wrote:
| It probably will be. A 4075, 4080-lite, 4070 super or
| similar. I don't think their pride and target retail
| price could stomach calling it the 4070 it clearly is.
| filmgirlcw wrote:
| They thought they could fool people and that the graphics
| card demand of the last two years would let them coast on
| this. They were wrong.
| 0x457 wrote:
| I think what they saw is: we're going to release 4080 and not
| 4080 under 4080 name, that would allow us to claim that 4080
| stayed the same MSRP.
|
| Except anyone with a brain saw through it and enough content
| generated, that trick simply wouldn't work anymore.
| elabajaba wrote:
| The 4080 12GB's performance is about the same as where a new
| 60 series card sits compared to the previous gen 80 series
| card (60 series tend to be within +-10% of the previous gen
| 80 series, 4080 12GB is at most a 60ti based on this)
|
| The 4080 16GB is around where a 70 series card tends to sit.
|
| [0] https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/nvidia_rele
| ase... Ignore the dlss2 vs dlss3 numbers, just look at the
| base numbers since dlss3 numbers are interpolated framerates
| mooman219 wrote:
| Some reddit post looked at the % differences in core count
| and clock speed relative to each generation. It most closely
| fit in the spot a 4060Ti would fit in based its specs
| relative to the actual 4080.
| hankman86 wrote:
| It's smart how they make a backflip on the 4080 12GB naming to
| distract from the price hike. That's playing 3D marketing chess
| ...not.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Based on the pricing, they unlaunched the wrong one. The price of
| the 16GB 4080 is way higher than the 3080. Based on pricing
| alone, it's the 12GB card that should be called the 4080 and the
| 16GB card called a 4080Ti or Super or 4085 or something.
|
| So hopefully this is a sign that they're going to adjust the
| pricing of the 16GB 4080 to the price announced for the 12GB
| former-4080.
|
| I doubt it, but one can hope.
| sleepymoose wrote:
| In this case, I'm not sure that hope is really even worth it.
| This whole launch has been blatantly artificially inflated to
| move more of the backstock on the 30 series.
| izacus wrote:
| I strongly doubt it.
|
| What I bet will happen is: 4080 16G is going to be a very fast
| card that's going to sell as hot cakes at set price point. Just
| like the 4090 is selling very well despite all the moaning
| about power and price.
| bombcar wrote:
| USB Consortium: We will make the most customer-confusing naming
| system ever.
|
| NVidia: Hold my beer.
| josmala wrote:
| 4080 12GB did its task. It send the gamers a message that do not
| wait for cheaper 40 series cards go by 30 series now. Now the
| best thing Nvidia can do is wait until navi 3 has launched and
| release 4070 ti with same specs but decide price point based on
| what AMD has set to their cards.
| nomel wrote:
| > It send the gamers a message that do not wait for cheaper 40
| series cards go by 30 series now
|
| Jensen mentioned this with the Q2 earning statements [1][2],
| that pricing would be set to sell _old_ (30 series) inventory:
|
| > And so our first strategy is to reduce sell-in in the next
| couple of quarters to correct channel inventory. We've also
| instituted programs to price-position our current products to
| prepare for next-generation products.
|
| > ... we've implemented programs with our partners to price-
| position the products in the channel in preparation for our
| next generation.
|
| 1. See JayzTwoCents video about this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15FX4pez1dw
|
| 2. Q2 Transcript: https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-
| transcripts/2022/08/24/nv...
| sliken wrote:
| Indeed, apparently Nvidia misjudged the GPU forecast and the
| crash of crypto mining on GPUs and ended up with a ton of
| stock. Apparently AMD was more accurate, so here's hoping AMD
| beats Nvidia to the punch at the $300, $400, and $600 price
| points.
| datacruncher01 wrote:
| Watching that stock price circle like a turd in the bowl.
| shmerl wrote:
| I'm going to buy AMD RDNA 3 card anyway.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I'm leaning that way myself... will see where it lands... if it
| can get RTX performance close to 3090 or so will probably go
| that direction... I'm not giving up 4 slots for a video card,
| even if the boards just have m.2 there, it just feels so wrong.
| Rapzid wrote:
| I was thinking to myself the other week "It's only a few dollars
| more for the 16GB, why does the 12GB even exist?".
|
| Was under the impression that perhaps they had changed direction
| late in the game and had to offload those other cards.. Or maybe
| they lacked the political will to "unlaunch" it earlier.
| nottorp wrote:
| Hmm it looks like my idea of buying an AMD G series CPU with
| integrated graphics so I can wait out the current video card
| market was a stroke of genius.
| bonney_io wrote:
| Why not just call it the 4075, if its really sort of between the
| 4070 and 4080 in terms of price and performance?
| mnd999 wrote:
| I'm really hoping the new AMD cards are good because I think I'm
| done with Nvidia.
| dymk wrote:
| I think it's just as likely that somebody hacked the NVIDIA blog
| and made this post, as it is that the blog post is authentic.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| GiorgioG wrote:
| NVIDIA wanted to sell the "12gb 4080" _cough_ 4070 for "X080"
| prices. People yelled bullshit. End of story.
| cercatrova wrote:
| A perfect time to re-release it as the 4070, but retain the 900
| dollar price tag.
| [deleted]
| beebeepka wrote:
| From the company that brought us 970 4gb which had 3.5gb.
|
| Thing is, they know there's plenty of suckers out there and will
| absolutely not call, not to mention price, it as 4060 which it
| clearly is.
|
| Help us, Lisa, you're our only hope. Not that AMD didn't
| overprice the AM5 platform, too. The only way is to resist. Just
| wait it out if you can help it
| gl-prod wrote:
| * 4070
| causi wrote:
| Never forget that the inflation-adjusted launch price of the GTX
| 1080 is $740 and don't you dare let somebody tell you $900 or
| $1200 is "just inflation adjustment".
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I suspect they're trying to maximize profits before the 25% GPU
| tariff comes back. Then they can get good PR for keeping their
| GPUs at the same overly inflated price
| neogodless wrote:
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-...
|
| History... the GTX 1070 was a pinch better than the previous
| generation GTX 980 Ti; cost ~$429 (MSRP $379). The GTX 1080 was
| maybe 20-25% faster still, ~$699 (MSRP $599).
|
| The RTX 2080 was launched as the top card (September 2018), with
| the Ti and Super coming later.
|
| It wasn't until last generation (September 2020) where Nvidia
| introduced the x090 naming, and with an eye-watering $1499 price.
| The initial 10GB RTX 3080 had an MSRP of $699.
| angulardragon03 wrote:
| The 3090 heralds the return of "extreme" SKUs in the line up
| that was introduced with the 490 until the 690. There was no
| 790, but I would consider the Titan/Titan Z SKUs to have picked
| up that segment.
| JudasGoat wrote:
| Although there have been a lot of negative reviews regarding the
| value of the 12gb 4080. I wonder if it could be more of a
| response to what AMD is planning to release shortly? I don't
| recall Nvidia backtracking in the past because of bad press.
| intsunny wrote:
| The amount of negative press around the 4080 12GB was not
| insignificant:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7TRFK3lCOQ
|
| 1.4 million views in three weeks. And that is just a single
| Youtuber. Imagine all of them combined.
| latchkey wrote:
| All press is good press.
| sliken wrote:
| Heh, for some things.
|
| Tons of reviews saying $900 for the 4080 12GB is insane. The
| 4080 12GB is after all a 3060 update with 192 bit wide memory
| interface. Even the 3060 Ti has a 256 bit wide memory
| interface.
|
| Definitely had me decide to wait to see how AMD does in Nov.
| latchkey wrote:
| It gets more people talking about NVIDIA. That is worth
| more than you waiting to see what AMD does.
| sliken wrote:
| Not going to agree on that one, the message was generally
| Nvidia is screwing gamers, but ANYTHING else.
|
| Much like the general news of AMD server chips, tons of
| press on Intel's shrinking Xeon marketshare. Sure people
| are talking about Intel, as a lesson on what not to do.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| This is sort of true in this case. People who don't follow
| GPUs closely, like me, now know that the 4090 is an appealing
| card and the remaining 4080 deserves the name.
| jamesfmilne wrote:
| I just wish they wouldn't call the pro products RTX 6000 Ada
| Lovelace.
|
| Just call it the RTX L6000.
|
| Maybe the think L is for Losers?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I was expecting the article to announce it was being renamed to a
| 4070 or something. Now I'm just confused. It's just going away?
| Did they already manufacture these?
| wnevets wrote:
| Good, the whole thing was just stupid. It was a completely
| different tier of product.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| It's not just that the 12 GB 4080 was a confusing name - it
| wasn't the same class of card, at all.
|
| In previous generations when they've had differing memory sizes
| for the same card, that was the ONLY change. So, it was useful
| for something like CUDA, but usually not for gaming. A specific
| audience.
|
| For the 4080, the 12GB version has the following changes:
|
| * 12GB VRAM vs. 16GB VRAM (the obvious one from the name)
|
| * 7,680 CUDA cores vs. 9,728 CUDA cores for the 16 GB.
|
| * 192-bit memory bus vs. 256-bit memory bus (understandable,
| since this scales with memory size... but also probably means the
| memory itself is slower).
|
| This isn't just a different amount of memory, it is fundamentally
| a different product and should be marketed as such. Instead it's
| Nvidia being greedy.
| goosedragons wrote:
| That's not quite true. They've pulled this stunt a few times.
| Most recently with the 6GB and 3GB versions of the 1060. That
| was arguably even worse because they did it after the launch.
| MarioMan wrote:
| I didn't realize it was this bad, but Wikipedia lists 7
| different GTX 1060 chip revisions with 3, 5, and 6 GB
| variants.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces.
| ..
| Kirby64 wrote:
| The 1060 didn't really have significant differences in
| performance, as far as I can tell. Still bad to do it, but
| GPU benchmarks appear to put performance hit at ~3% less for
| the 3GB version.
|
| Looks like there's also a 5GB version which has slower
| clocks... which is about 10% worse... but I assume that's
| mainly due to clock rate, not the memory or the actual
| silicon.
|
| Those all have the same amount of CUDA cores and processing
| pipeline, though. Unlike this '4080 12GB'.
|
| See: https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare/GeForce-
| GTX-1060-...
| salawat wrote:
| Another GTX 970-esque abomination sounds like.
| izacus wrote:
| What?
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| The GTX970 is a fun bit of hardware. It's marketed as a 4GB
| RAM card.
|
| In practice, it's 3.5GB of normal GDDR4, and 512 MB of
| horribly slow, would have been considered bad in 2000 RAM.
| So, people who bought it thinking they're getting a less
| powerful GTX980 get more inferior product than they bought.
| The last 512Mb is truly worthless, only good for storing a
| desktop framebuffer. Anything that needs to write into it
| quickly (like, say, literally any game) will just slow down
| to a crawl.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > The last 512Mb is truly worthless, only good for
| storing a desktop framebuffer.
|
| Not even good for that, even just reading the slow VRAM
| slows down the entire GPU, so you never want to use the
| last 512MiB.
| wmf wrote:
| The 970 was one of the greatest _gaming_ cards of all time.
| Matthias247 wrote:
| I seriously enjoyed mine and didn't understand what the
| fuzz was about. Sure - it might have had less memory than
| people expected - but in the end the game performance for
| the price point mattered for me. And that was great. I got
| a card which delivered great performance at that point in
| time (certainly similar to what a 4080 12GB is for todays
| generation of games) for less than 350EUR.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Not true at all - it seemed like a great deal at the time
| but aged very poorly. You could run a 980 today and still
| be doing great. Everyone I know with a 970 is struggling
|
| At the time you would have been much better off going for a
| 780 as they had some bargains - especially on the more rare
| 780 with lots of ram
| IshKebab wrote:
| I still have a 970 and it's doing fine. 60 FPS 4K Rocket
| League. I dunno what games and settings you guys are
| using but I'm sure it could handle something more
| demanding if I just turn the settings down.
|
| I will never upgrade!
| tracker1 wrote:
| Enjoy Cyberpunk at 12fps.
| somehnacct3757 wrote:
| Still can't get over the power draw for the 40 series. They
| recommend an 850W PSU for the 4090? A 750W PSU for the 4080? Who
| is the intended audience for these cards?
| haunter wrote:
| 4k +144hz gaming or VR. This is probably the best GPU ever for
| high resolution, high FPS VR.
|
| It's cutting edge technology for sure.
| supercoffee wrote:
| Not the first time that Nvidia has released completely different
| GPUs under the same name. Around 2006, they had 2 existing
| variants of the 8800GTS(320mb and 640Mb VRAM). A year later, they
| launched a new 8800GTS with a newer GPU and 512Mb. The newer card
| was much faster than the both older versions of the card. I can
| only imagine that this caused lots of confusion for uninformed
| consumers who might think 640 > 512 > 320.
| 0x_rs wrote:
| There's also the MX150 case more recently.
|
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-has-been-sneaking-in-sl...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-14 23:00 UTC)