FRONTPAGE Gigabyte RTX 4070 Ti Super Gaming OC 16G Review

[rainless]

The only thing I like about the TI Super is the 16GB of RAM. I was kind of hoping that this "Super" series would be the HUGE step-up that my 2060 Super was over the regular 2060... (Relatively ED... relatively...) but it doesn't look like that's the case.

I've seen some good deals on the 4070 Super though... as someone said before.

That might be a better conservative pick this late in the game...

 

[EarthDog]

but it doesn't look like that's the case.

I mean, if you look at 4K, the 4070 Ti S and the 2060 S both increased 13% (according to TPU). Dropping down to 1440p, it's 9 vs 11% difference. Just depends on what you call 2% difference, lol. The step-up seems about the same when you put numbers to it.

 

[rainless]

I mean, if you look at 4K, the 4070 Ti S and the 2060 S both increased 13% (according to TPU). Dropping down to 1440p, it's 9 vs 11% difference. Just depends on what you call 2% difference, lol. The step-up seems about the same when you put numbers to it.

As we discussed previously... I don't think of graphics cards should be talked about in terms of percentages because percentages could be misleading. If 2% is the difference between 63 and 67fps.. then it doesn't matter. If, that 2% difference is enough to drop you under 60fps... then it MATTERS.

Therefore the "percentage" doesn't tell you a damned thing... The FPS does.

Better to say a card is 10-20fps faster than to say it's 2-5% faster.

 

[EarthDog]

As we discussed previously... I don't think of graphics cards should be talked about in terms of percentages because percentages could be misleading. If 2% is the difference between 63 and 67fps.. then it doesn't matter. If, that 2% difference is enough to drop you under 60fps... then it MATTERS.

Therefore the "percentage" doesn't tell you a damned thing... The FPS does.

Better to say a card is 10-20fps faster than to say it's 2-5% faster.

Brother, no matter how you slice it, the uptick was the same, or following fps logic, MORE. It really does look like the case (that it's a 'HUGE" step up).

Let's follow that logic and explain...

13% of 200 fps (26) is more than 13% of 100 fps (13), right? If you were told the 4070 ti s gained 26 fps versus the 2060 s gained 13 fps, isn't that misleading without knowing the percentage difference??? BOTH are critical when trying to paint an accurate picture of the performance. Using this thought process, the 4070 Ti S gained a ton more than the 2060 S over their non-super counterparts.

 

[rainless]

Brother, no matter how you slice it, the uptick was the same, or following fps logic, MORE. It really does look like the case (that it's a 'HUGE" step up).

Let's follow that logic and explain...

13% of 200 fps (26) is more than 13% of 100 fps (13), right? If you were told the 4070 ti s gained 26 fps versus the 2060 s gained 13 fps, isn't that misleading without knowing the percentage difference??? BOTH are critical when trying to paint an accurate picture of the performance. Using this thought process, the 4070 Ti S gained a ton more than the 2060 S over their non-super counterparts.

Yeah but you weren't (and usually don't) using BOTH now were you?

Dropping down to 1440p, it's 9 vs 11% difference. Just depends on what you call 2% difference,

9 vs 11 percent of WHAT?

Like I said... On it's own... that tells you absolutely nothing.

You're the one claiming to be a bigshot hardware reviewer and all that... Without context... percentage means nothing.

Whereas with FPS... You can say this card will average about 60fps in 4K in most games where as that one will only average 54fps.

Okay then! Good enough for me. At least I have something.

Do you not see how RIDICULOUS it sounds to say: "Yeah this card is 15% faster than that one."

I mean maybe there is no "right" answer. Maybe looking at cards in terms of percentage actually makes sense to like-minded people.

But, to me... percentages only work in apples-to-apples comparisons. Like "The 2024 Dodge Ram is 6% more fuel efficient than the 2023 model."

Even then... you still need the "fuel efficient" part. And if you had that... you could do away with percentages entirely.

"The 2024 Doge Ram gets 6 more mpg than the 2023 model."

I dunno THAT... makes sense to me. The percentage thing doesn't.

Like I've gotta whip out my calculator to figure out the percentage difference between the 4070 TI Super and the 4070 TI... WHY?!?!

Why would anybody do that?

 

[EarthDog]

Like I said... On it's own... that tells you absolutely nothing.

It does, actually.

I agree FPS is an important metric, but not for the context you provided initially (performance uptick between non and super cards). You're moving the goalposts from...

I was kind of hoping that this "Super" series would be the HUGE step-up that my 2060 Super was over the regular 2060... (Relatively ED... relatively...) but it doesn't look like that's the case.

to...

If 2% is the difference between 63 and 67fps.. then it doesn't matter. If, that 2% difference is enough to drop you under 60fps... then it MATTERS.

...' What is the average FPS these cards achieve with the increase?'.

In other words, your original assertion that the 4070 Ti S appears to have less of a performance increase over the non-super than the 2060 S is false (talking 4K where they were both 13% increase over non-super cards). Overall/Relative performance does not come into play unless you expand the scope of your initial statement. I'm trying to compare apples to apples. You're trying to slip an orange in and make a fruit salad!

But, to me... percentages only work in apples-to-apples comparisons. Like "The 2024 Dodge Ram is 6% more fuel efficient than the 2023 model."

% literally takes away the other variables so you can compare them. Adding a relative performance metric, you not only know how much faster that difference is, but you also know how it performs overall!

For simple math's sake, let's say the cards were both 10% faster than their non-S counterparts (b/c the 13% actual I can't do in my head, lol).....

A 10% difference looks like this:

4070 Ti = 50/100/150/200
4070 Ti S = 55/110/165/220 (so +5, 10, 15, and 20 FPS)

2060 = 25/50/100/150
2060 S = 27.5/55/110/165 (so +2.5, 5, 10, and 15 FPS)

Since the 4070 Ti S is a lot faster of a card, assuming the same % difference it will always have more FPS difference than a slower card.

"The 2024 Doge Ram gets 6 more mpg than the 2023 model."

I dunno THAT... makes sense to me. The percentage thing doesn't.

Ok then, let's use this........... the 4070 Ti S gets 26 more FPS than the 4070 Ti, while the 2060 S gets 13 FPS more than the 2060. Using this logic, the 4070 Ti S 'stomps' the 2060 S in FPS gained over their non-S variants, right? Does that help to show you why % is important under the context you set up?

All I'm saying is that the performance difference between the 2 sets of non-S to Super cards is the same, proven in tests. How the cards actually perform is important when trying to get an overall view of the card, but that's not what I'm responding to/what you said initially. I hear what you're saying, and you're not wrong, but you ARE wrong when using the initial context. In other words, the 4070 Ti S step-up is the same as the 2060 S step-up. What those FPS translate to depends on the FPS the cards are getting and is largely out of scope.

@mackerel or @Kenrou - Not sure I'm getting my point across or understanding his... help?

 

[DaveB]

@mackerel or @Kenrou - Not sure I'm getting my point across or understanding his... help?

He's never going to get it, so don't bother. He's all wrapped around the wheel in his own illogical predetermined point of view. Nothing anyone says will change his nonsensical way of looking at this.

 

[mackerel]

I only skimmed it. TBH don't wanna get dragged into the details. Both absolute fps and relative % have their places when used appropriately.

 

[EarthDog]

Both absolute fps and relative % have their places when used appropriately.

Agreed. I inferred as much above as well.

I guess it boils down to this for me... when looking it up*, %/FPS in this situation notwithstanding, the 4070 Ti S and 2060 S had the same increases over their non-super counterparts (4K). If you're using the increase over the non-super as an important metric, that IS something more to like other than just the 16GB of RAM as the increases are the same*. I don't care how you read it, FPS or %, it 'looks like the case'/the same or similar. In other words, THAT isn't a reason to knock the 4070 Ti S.

* TPU tests, 4K.

Spoiler

If I'm going to be even more anal-retentive, the only fair way would be to retest teh cards using the same games and see how that changes things. But as is, we can see these data sets show the same increase at 4K.

 

[Kenrou]

@EarthDog You've been absolutely right on what you've been explaining, but try a different tack, search/make for videos/screenshots that show FPS like I usually do, some people just react better to that. I understand he's point on percentage performance, if you tell me that a GPU it's 10% faster/slower than another I still don't know how fast/slow both cards are, I need reference FPS, which is why I usually actually watch the videos I link (or the most important parts of them)

Maybe he's one of those that think outside the box? Either that or he's fast becoming the king of OC.com trolling

 

[EarthDog]

I don't mind thinking outside the box. The point isn't % or FPS. Seeing that tidbit about not liking the card because it didn't scale as much is simply bullshit with the information we have available. The facts are there and they are the same/similar. Switching goal posts, I don't play. I didn't want some BS minutia conversation (it wasn't needed), but, I should know better. Like, why can't the response be, "I see that they're the same, however, I'd like to see it in FPS.".

How anyone prefers to read it, I really don't care and not what I'm railing against (just explaining the reasoning why it is a fact, lol). One should be able to walk away with the same conclusion (and we're not). It's not my job to prove the sun comes up in the East (the obvious). If people want to use a stick instead of a compass, so be it so long as you come up with the same conclusion. Either way, they're the same in that dataset.