> a GPU that performs roughly the same as one I bought 7 years ago
Out of curiosity, which GPUs are you referring to, and how are you measuring or comparing perf?
Out of curiosity, which GPUs are you referring to, and how are you measuring or comparing perf?
I'm comparing perf by looking at sites likes userbenchmark and reading/watching reviews of newer cards. I'm running into games I can't play at a level that I'm happy with, but based on reviews I don't think a 4060 or 4060Ti would make a meaningful difference.
I’m not sure how you’re doing the price comparison. 1080ti launched at $699 (with inflation that’s $870 today). The 4060ti launched at $399. Why does that seem the same to you?
We’re in a ray tracing thread and for ray tracing, there’s no contest, the 4060ti wins there by a long way.
UserBench says today the 4060ti is 17% faster for 20% lower price today, which is about 33% better perf per dollar… which interestingly tends to match their user score and sentiment.
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-4060-Ti-vs-...
Also worth noting that some old games are bottlenecked on the software, not on the GPU, so it’s not surprising to find a game that was around for the 1080 or before and doesn’t get any better with more modern GPUs. Comparing the 1080 to the 4080, fp32 perf went up ~5x, and due to Amdahl’s law, game benchmarks tend to see more like ~3x in overall system perf.
I don't make purchasing decisions based on what's 'fair', I look at what capabilities I have, what I lack, and what my budget is.
> Why does that seem the same to you?
Exchange rate. But you make a valid point that I should also factor in inflation.
> We’re in a ray tracing thread and for ray tracing, there’s no contest, the 4060ti wins there by a long way.
It wins in the sense that it can do ray tracing while the 1080Ti cannot, but based on my understanding, the xx60-tier cards aren't viable for raytracing at 60fps without DLSS anyway, and I'm still not convinced I want to consider DLSS performance to be the number I care about in my purchasing decisions.
> UserBench says today the 4060ti is 17% faster for 20% lower price today,
The most important question I look at is "what games can I run at what resolution" and I don't think there's a single game I can get acceptable performance at 4K on a 4060Ti or even a 4070, that I can't get acceptable 4K performance on a 1080Ti. There are probably a couple that I could run at 1080p that I have to run at 720p currently. I'm not using a variable/high refresh rate monitor and i'm not playing competitive shooters.
> I don’t think there’s a single game I can get acceptable performance at 4K on a 4060Ti or even a 4070, that I can’t get acceptable 4K performance on a 1080Ti.
This is a very different claim than you made above. Yes, all the GPUs since the 1080 can get “acceptable” 4K performance on most games that will run on the 1080 (I assume acceptable means >= 30fps), so that’s not surprising. This is ignoring the game quality settings. The benchmarks you pointed at demonstrate that if the settings have a 4060ti running just barely at 30fps, then the 1080ti will not be able to hit 30fps with the same settings, because the 1080ti is 17% slower.
As sibling pointed out, the $699 1080 Ti would be $870 today in U.S. dollars.
The 4060 Ti is also a remarkably bad product (for the price). If you swap in the 4070, you're looking at a launch MSRP of $599 which is less than the 1080 Ti even before inflation, and about 50% faster (and over 30% faster than the 4060 Ti.)
Still not mind-blowing given the nearly 7 years between launches. There's a big delta going up to the 4080, both in price and performance. On UserBenchmark it's "135%" faster than a 1080 Ti, but at a mind-boggling $1200.