[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)