1
00:00:00,399 --> 00:00:08,960
this is the world's fastest gaming GPU

2
00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:14,000
as of yesterday today envidia

3
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:15,920
launches this the GeForce RTX 490 a

4
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:23,480
massive improvement over its predecessor in almost every way so why aren't I more

5
00:00:20,039 --> 00:00:26,279
excited the fact that I could you know

6
00:00:23,480 --> 00:00:31,000
buy a cheap used car for what NVIDIA is asking for this aside there are some

7
00:00:28,679 --> 00:00:37,320
other problems that we need to talk about right after I tell you about our

8
00:00:33,200 --> 00:00:38,960
sponsor Zoho CRM Zoho CRM is a 360

9
00:00:37,320 --> 00:00:45,160
degree solution that offers an intuitive UI AI predictions and a design studio to

10
00:00:42,079 --> 00:00:50,199
help get your sales done faster get 50%

11
00:00:45,160 --> 00:00:50,199
off with code zcm 50 using the link down

12
00:00:57,320 --> 00:01:05,199
below 2 years ago the GeForce RTX 390

13
00:01:01,079 --> 00:01:07,040
launched at an eyew watering $1,500 us

14
00:01:05,199 --> 00:01:13,439
and NVIDIA's justification for this was that it was a Titan class GPU now of

15
00:01:10,439 --> 00:01:17,280
course we all know now that that was BS

16
00:01:13,439 --> 00:01:21,079
as NVIDIA launched the RTX 390 TI just 6

17
00:01:17,280 --> 00:01:23,119
months ago in March of 2022 at two grand

18
00:01:21,079 --> 00:01:28,560
with a very modest spec bump for the price and still no Titan class floating

19
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:32,520
Point compute functionality both cards are available at around $1,000 or so

20
00:01:30,479 --> 00:01:36,159
today thanks to the crash and GPU demand and competition from AMD is actually

21
00:01:34,479 --> 00:01:43,240
coming in a little bit less than that the RTX 490 that launches at

22
00:01:39,240 --> 00:01:47,119
$1600 us what do you get for the price

23
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:49,880
of three PS5 gaming consoles it's not a

24
00:01:47,119 --> 00:01:55,320
Titan class GPU and it has the same amount of vram as the previous gen RTX

25
00:01:52,479 --> 00:02:01,600
390 but that's where the similarities end not only is the memory as fast as

26
00:01:58,240 --> 00:02:04,240
what you'd find on an RTX 39 90 TI

27
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:10,640
you're getting over 50% more Cuda cor that are each clocked at over 35% higher

28
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:15,959
I mean say what you want but that alone would be a substantial upgrade for a

29
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:18,200
mere 7% increase in MSRP which is half

30
00:02:15,959 --> 00:02:22,440
the rate of inflation since 2020 what a steal is what I would say if it weren't

31
00:02:20,879 --> 00:02:27,400
for the fact that it's it's honestly it's still the price of an entire

32
00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:31,800
mid-range gaming PC on its own so what else does this bring to the table and

33
00:02:29,920 --> 00:02:35,440
NVIDIA claims that each of their Cuda cores is beefed up compared to the

34
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:39,720
outgoing ampere architecture in almost all respects with claimed performance

35
00:02:37,959 --> 00:02:44,159
improvements of up to two times what the 30 series could achieve that's thanks in

36
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:48,280
large part to nearly double the L1 cach and a substantial change in the core

37
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:53,280
layout itself and also to the use of tsmc's new N4 process that allows the

38
00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:58,000
total die area to be nearly 150 mm squared smaller than its

39
00:02:55,560 --> 00:03:03,000
predecessor of course we need to test NVIDIA's claims so we cut the lamps to

40
00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:10,080
fire up our shiny new socket am5 bench with a fresh install of Windows 1122 H1

41
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:12,840
and go to town with testing why 22 H1

42
00:03:10,080 --> 00:03:17,280
apparently 22 H2 introduced some issues that NVIDIA is not going to have ironed

43
00:03:14,360 --> 00:03:23,680
out by the time this video airs but for now let's turn our attention to the main

44
00:03:19,640 --> 00:03:25,640
event games and right out of the gate

45
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:29,159
okay no these numbers aren't right turns out stability issues with our bench

46
00:03:27,519 --> 00:03:35,760
messed up the settings and enabled fidelity FX upscaling our bad it's still

47
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:40,439
really good though that's over 60 FPS most of the time in Native 4K we're also

48
00:03:38,599 --> 00:03:46,319
looking at minimum frame rates Beyond 120 at 4K in fors of horizon 5 compared

49
00:03:43,319 --> 00:03:48,920
to sub 90 on the 390 TI and it is

50
00:03:46,319 --> 00:03:54,840
incredibly stable Assassin's Creed Valhalla frame rate also shut up by

51
00:03:50,879 --> 00:03:57,480
about 50% on the 490 enabling 4K 120 FPS

52
00:03:54,840 --> 00:04:02,040
gameplay without any compromises remember this is just the rasterization

53
00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:05,799
performance what we thought NVIDIA was trying to hide from us by showing off

54
00:04:03,879 --> 00:04:10,480
their RT performance in the Press materials Far Cry 6 another Ubisoft

55
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:15,879
title doesn't seem quite the same Improvement however at about 30% or so

56
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:18,199
across the board it's not bad like not

57
00:04:15,879 --> 00:04:22,079
at all but I'm just ruined after seeing those other results improvements

58
00:04:20,519 --> 00:04:29,560
continue to become more modest in Shadow the Tomb Raider where we're likely starting to get CPU Limited at 4K I'll

59
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:33,360
let that sink in for a moment maybe watch washed down with a big Swig from

60
00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:38,240
our chungus 64 Oz water bottle from LTD store.com we see exactly that problem

61
00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:43,880
again when we run csgo where for some bizarre reason the situation is flipped

62
00:04:40,639 --> 00:04:46,919
on its head the RTX 390 TI outperforms

63
00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:49,120
the 490 throughout multiple runs it's

64
00:04:46,919 --> 00:04:53,800
especially surprising because the GPU core clocks and the load remained High I

65
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:58,400
mean if you've got an explanation I'd love to see your take in the comments

66
00:04:56,039 --> 00:05:02,800
dropping the resolution down to 1440p it seems like we're becoming even more more

67
00:04:59,840 --> 00:05:07,120
CPU bound but critically the minimum frame rates in fors of horizon 5 are

68
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:12,479
massively improved making for a smoother overall experience interestingly CSG go

69
00:05:10,360 --> 00:05:18,759
actually manages to return to normal C at 1440p so I don't know maybe we've got

70
00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:22,160
a driver bug at 4K or something now do

71
00:05:18,759 --> 00:05:26,919
you still remember that cyberpunk

72
00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:28,880
result yeah okay okay so check this out

73
00:05:26,919 --> 00:05:32,680
proportionately we're looking at an even bigger performance Improvement compared

74
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:38,720
to traditional rendering at nearly double the 390 TI although we're not

75
00:05:35,759 --> 00:05:42,360
quite able to pull off 60 FPS at 4K without

76
00:05:39,639 --> 00:05:46,600
dlss and when we turn rate tracing on in the much older shadow of the Tomb Raider

77
00:05:44,280 --> 00:05:53,360
the 4090 is capable of nearly doubling the minimum FPS of the 3090

78
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:58,319
TI that brings this title from Mostly 60

79
00:05:53,360 --> 00:06:02,479
FPS or more at 4K to a buttery smooth

80
00:05:58,319 --> 00:06:05,800
100 to 12 20 dfps all without

81
00:06:02,479 --> 00:06:08,479
dlss with dlss in performance mode cyber

82
00:06:05,800 --> 00:06:13,599
hook manages close to 100 FPS and minimum frame rates enough to be quite

83
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:18,520
smooth with gsync enabled so long as you can handle the image quality shadow of

84
00:06:16,280 --> 00:06:25,599
the Tomb Raider in dlss quality mode is just ridiculous where the 3090 TI can't

85
00:06:21,599 --> 00:06:27,960
quite reach 90 FPS and 5% lows the 4090

86
00:06:25,599 --> 00:06:32,240
is fast enough to comfortably Drive 144hz 4k monitor

87
00:06:30,639 --> 00:06:39,120
now you might be wondering about the uh new dlss 3.0 NVIDIA's AI frame

88
00:06:35,199 --> 00:06:42,680
generation technology we're wondering

89
00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:44,199
too unfortunately all of our cards even

90
00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:50,560
the third party ones that we're not allowed to show you today all of them

91
00:06:47,240 --> 00:06:53,120
crashed a lot like a lot a lot even

92
00:06:50,560 --> 00:06:58,000
across multiple benches as a result the Labs weren't able to properly test dlss

93
00:06:55,360 --> 00:07:02,319
3.0 and we'd like more rate tracing results than we got we'll have all of

94
00:07:00,280 --> 00:07:08,840
that missing data in a follow-up so stay tuned but okay what if you're not a big

95
00:07:05,840 --> 00:07:12,319
gamer well you're in luck because this

96
00:07:08,840 --> 00:07:14,199
thing is also a productivity beast in

97
00:07:12,319 --> 00:07:19,000
blender it gets over double the samples per minute in both the monster and junk

98
00:07:16,599 --> 00:07:23,080
shop scenes and just under double in the older classroom scene that's a

99
00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:27,800
substantial Time Savings and might be worth it on its own if you're a 3D

100
00:07:24,759 --> 00:07:30,639
artist similarly our 4K Da Vinci resolve

101
00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:36,479
export finished nearly a minute faster a difference of roughly 25% something that

102
00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:40,680
that'll also add up over time especially for timelines with a lot of rendered

103
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:43,800
graphical effects spec view perf meanwhile shows massive gains across the

104
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:49,879
board with the most substantial improvements in 3ds Max Maya medical and

105
00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:54,800
solid works that nearly double the score well Creo only saw a modest performance

106
00:07:51,919 --> 00:07:59,520
Improvement of around 10% still this is like looking at a completely different

107
00:07:56,680 --> 00:08:03,000
class of GPU not a typical generational improvement with all of these

108
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:06,720
performance gains maybe NVIDIA had to price these at $1,600 that they had any

109
00:08:05,240 --> 00:08:12,000
hope at all of selling through all of their mining Surplus

110
00:08:08,919 --> 00:08:13,960
390s and that's not everything either

111
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:18,199
another big part of productivity that many companies Intel and apple included

112
00:08:16,120 --> 00:08:22,800
are taking very seriously is video encoding and NVIDIA's out to prove that

113
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:27,240
they're not sleeping on the job not only do you get the same highquality encoder

114
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:32,240
that first debuted on the RTX 20 series as we saw in our Da Vinci resolve test

115
00:08:29,840 --> 00:08:36,560
but you get two of them and they're both capable of

116
00:08:33,519 --> 00:08:38,399
av1 av1 is the new codec that's likely

117
00:08:36,560 --> 00:08:41,959
to take over for live and On Demand streaming on sites like YouTube and

118
00:08:39,959 --> 00:08:46,000
twitch and while it can produce significantly better video quality at

119
00:08:43,680 --> 00:08:51,120
the same bit rates it's significantly more timec consuming and difficult to

120
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:56,200
encode unless you have Hardware dedicated for it Intel Arc launch with

121
00:08:53,839 --> 00:09:00,760
it as a headline feature and it's a safe bet that it'll become more important as

122
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:05,120
time goes on un fortunately we don't have the time right now to do a proper

123
00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:09,279
test of it for the review so again stay tuned for a future video comparing av1

124
00:09:07,040 --> 00:09:15,399
encoders what I can tell you today is that it's nearly as fast as NVIDIA's

125
00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:16,160
existing h264 and h265 encoders which is

126
00:09:15,399 --> 00:09:21,440
pretty impressive of course all of these

127
00:09:18,560 --> 00:09:26,000
capabilities come with some drawbacks the first of which being the power draw

128
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:30,680
in order to reach the power Target that NVIDIA sent for it the RTX 490

129
00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:35,279
universally requ Ires an ATX 3.0 connector and comes with adapter swort

130
00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:41,640
in the Box as the specs indicated our RTX 490 draws nearly as much power under

131
00:09:38,519 --> 00:09:44,040
gaming load as the RTX 390 TI though it

132
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:50,120
did stay closer to 425 Watts than it's rated 450 this is a sharp contrast

133
00:09:47,000 --> 00:09:52,000
against the RTX 390 and 6950 XT which

134
00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:59,079
consistently both pulled nearly 100 Watts less this does not bode well for

135
00:09:55,760 --> 00:10:01,000
an eventual RTX 490 TI at least the

136
00:09:59,079 --> 00:10:05,800
power Targets on the 480 series cards are lower though we don't have any of

137
00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:11,079
those to test today when we hit the RTX 490 with a more demanding load via MSI

138
00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:16,160
combuster power consumption skyrockets the red line for both the RTX 490 and

139
00:10:13,519 --> 00:10:20,120
the 3090 TI though curiously about halfway through it kind of dips down to

140
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:25,160
about 440 which is kind of strange meanwhile the RTX 390 once again doesn't

141
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:30,200
cross that 350 W threshold and neither did the 6950 XT with great power of

142
00:10:28,399 --> 00:10:35,000
course comes great thermal output capacity and the RTX 490 is no exception

143
00:10:33,160 --> 00:10:38,440
with thermals while gaming tracking roughly in line with the power

144
00:10:36,279 --> 00:10:42,600
consumption its massive 3 and 1 half slot cooler keeps the hot spot at the

145
00:10:40,160 --> 00:10:47,800
80° Mark while gaming placing it squarely between the RTX 390 and the

146
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:52,120
6950 XT despite the power draw a testament to NVIDIA's cooler design core

147
00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:55,720
Clocks Were obviously way higher than any previous gen card and crucially they

148
00:10:54,360 --> 00:11:01,160
remained just as stable throughout the run at about 2.6 to 2.7 GHz when we look

149
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:05,560
at again at our combuster results though the hot spot temperature crosses the 80°

150
00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:11,200
threshold along with the RTX 390 TI and we again see that slight dip halfway end

151
00:11:07,399 --> 00:11:13,519
of the run while the 3090 sits below 70°

152
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:19,200
core clocks end up significantly lower at around 2.25 GHz for the 4090 with the

153
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:23,680
3090 TI throttling down to below its less power hungry sibling our AMD card

154
00:11:21,880 --> 00:11:28,440
meanwhile sort of did a heartbeat pattern of boosting and throttling that

155
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:32,519
could result in uneven performance it's worth noting that the these tests were

156
00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:38,519
performed inside of a coair 5000d air flow with a 360 mm rat up top and 3 120

157
00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:40,360
mm fans drawing air up front so it's not

158
00:11:38,519 --> 00:11:44,920
like we were starving the carrots for oxygen or feeding them hot air from the

159
00:11:42,240 --> 00:11:50,279
CPU in fact in spite of all the air flow we gave them the RTX 490 and 390 TI both

160
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:55,800
caused internal casair temperatures to hit highs of 39 to 40° with

161
00:11:54,160 --> 00:12:01,120
significantly higher minimum internal temperatures than the RTX 390 all at an

162
00:11:58,399 --> 00:12:05,160
ambient temperature of around 21° that means that if your case can

163
00:12:03,560 --> 00:12:10,959
just barely handle a 3090 you won't be able to manage a

164
00:12:08,079 --> 00:12:16,480
4090 sorry small form factor efficient Autos this card is not for you after all

165
00:12:14,399 --> 00:12:20,920
that you might look at the spec sheet and have some lingering questions like

166
00:12:18,880 --> 00:12:26,440
why isn't NVIDIA supporting PCI Express Gen 5 and where's DisplayPort 2.0 and

167
00:12:24,800 --> 00:12:30,880
the answer to those questions both of them whether you like it or not is that

168
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:33,079
NVIDIA doesn't think you need on a $1600

169
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:39,519
graphics card you you smell that yeah that's the

170
00:12:36,760 --> 00:12:44,279
distinct scent of copium while it's true that a GPU running a whole 16 Lanes of

171
00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:49,320
PCI Express Gen 5 probably won't be super useful today a GPU running eight

172
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:53,480
Lanes of Gen 5 certainly would be especially for those who also want lots

173
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:57,639
of NVMe storage a good bet for a card of this class remember the faster the PCI

174
00:12:55,839 --> 00:13:02,360
Express link the fewer the lanes you need for the same bandwidth require IR

175
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:05,440
ments NVIDIA should know this as for

176
00:13:02,360 --> 00:13:08,519
DisplayPort 2.0 the official line is

177
00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:11,040
DisplayPort 1.0 already supports 8K at

178
00:13:08,519 --> 00:13:16,320
60 HZ and consumer displays won't need more for a while which is pretty valid

179
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:21,240
well it's true that DisplayPort 1.4 only supports up to 120 HZ at full

180
00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:26,399
unadulterated resolution can go up to 268 HZ with no chroma sub sampling using

181
00:13:24,639 --> 00:13:29,360
display stream compression which is reported to be visually lossless that's

182
00:13:28,519 --> 00:13:35,480
pretty good consider considering displays that can refresh faster than that aren't very common still I would

183
00:13:33,199 --> 00:13:42,160
argue that this is a suboptimal experience on such premium Hardware 240

184
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:44,560
HZ 4K displays exist today and will have

185
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:48,279
DisplayPort 2.0 support soon Arc already supports it and rdna 3 has been

186
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:53,800
confirmed to support DisplayPort 2.0 since May NVIDIA is clearly trying to

187
00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:56,519
save a book again on a GPU that costs as

188
00:13:53,800 --> 00:14:01,320
much as a series X A PS5 a switch and a steam deck combined or maybe these cards

189
00:13:59,880 --> 00:14:05,920
were just ready and waiting in a warehouse for longer than we realized

190
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:12,800
it's incredibly amusing to me that the first GPU that might actually be capable

191
00:14:09,240 --> 00:14:14,920
of running 8K gaming without asterisks

192
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:19,279
is being handled in such a lacad isical fashion by team green the days of

193
00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:25,839
generational performance per dollar gains are over they say Moore's Law is

194
00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:28,240
dead they say and yet the competition

195
00:14:25,839 --> 00:14:33,000
doesn't seem to think so while it's true that nobody can touch the 490s mammoth

196
00:14:30,360 --> 00:14:38,279
performance right now as we saw with the RTX 390 that won't last forever and

197
00:14:36,040 --> 00:14:45,839
that's where things get weird as it exists right now while the RTX 490 chugs

198
00:14:42,120 --> 00:14:48,480
as much power as an RTX 3090 TI it is a

199
00:14:45,839 --> 00:14:54,759
massive upgrade over both that card and the vanilla 390 in nearly every respect

200
00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:59,399
well in excess of its price increase for Content creators this is a no-brainer

201
00:14:57,639 --> 00:15:02,839
but I cannot in good cont ience recommend Gamers with more dollars than

202
00:15:01,120 --> 00:15:07,160
cents go out and purchase a piece of Hardware that is incapable of driving

203
00:15:04,639 --> 00:15:11,519
the also very expensive displays that might actually be able to take advantage

204
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:17,959
of it especially when a less expensive and less power hungry card perhaps even

205
00:15:13,880 --> 00:15:20,160
NVIDIA's own RTX 480s can do the same

206
00:15:17,959 --> 00:15:24,360
thing just like I can tell you about our sponsor Nord security if you keep up

207
00:15:22,680 --> 00:15:27,800
with the tech news you know that hackers are always looking for new ways to

208
00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:32,360
compromise everything from Tech Giant servers to Grand computer thankfully

209
00:15:30,360 --> 00:15:36,959
Nord Security's well-rounded protection package is there to help protect your

210
00:15:34,160 --> 00:15:40,600
files devices and personal data online there's Nord pass a password manager

211
00:15:38,839 --> 00:15:44,319
that helps you generate unique passwords across your devices and browsers and

212
00:15:42,279 --> 00:15:48,120
then there's Nord Locker a powerful file encryption and sharing service that's a

213
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:51,199
great alternative to Google Drive cyber crime is everywhere these days so make

214
00:15:49,639 --> 00:15:56,160
sure you're taking precautions when you surf the web right now you can get 4

215
00:15:53,680 --> 00:16:00,759
months free on all of nord's products so what are you waiting for head to Nord

216
00:15:57,800 --> 00:16:04,759
security.com CR lus or click the link in the description below thanks for

217
00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:07,959
watching guys uh this is well I guess a little bit more positive and also

218
00:16:06,399 --> 00:16:12,079
negative than the Intel Arc review go check that review out as well for a

219
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:19,560
little bit on the increasing competition in the GPU space I think we uh we all

220
00:16:15,440 --> 00:16:19,560
think that it's long overdue