WEBVTT

00:00:00.399 --> 00:00:08.960
this is the world's fastest gaming GPU

00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:14.000
as of yesterday today envidia

00:00:08.960 --> 00:00:15.920
launches this the GeForce RTX 490 a

00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:23.480
massive improvement over its predecessor in almost every way so why aren't I more

00:00:20.039 --> 00:00:26.279
excited the fact that I could you know

00:00:23.480 --> 00:00:31.000
buy a cheap used car for what NVIDIA is asking for this aside there are some

00:00:28.679 --> 00:00:37.320
other problems that we need to talk about right after I tell you about our

00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:38.960
sponsor Zoho CRM Zoho CRM is a 360

00:00:37.320 --> 00:00:45.160
degree solution that offers an intuitive UI AI predictions and a design studio to

00:00:42.079 --> 00:00:50.199
help get your sales done faster get 50%

00:00:45.160 --> 00:00:50.199
off with code zcm 50 using the link down

00:00:57.320 --> 00:01:05.199
below 2 years ago the GeForce RTX 390

00:01:01.079 --> 00:01:07.040
launched at an eyew watering $1,500 us

00:01:05.199 --> 00:01:13.439
and NVIDIA's justification for this was that it was a Titan class GPU now of

00:01:10.439 --> 00:01:17.280
course we all know now that that was BS

00:01:13.439 --> 00:01:21.079
as NVIDIA launched the RTX 390 TI just 6

00:01:17.280 --> 00:01:23.119
months ago in March of 2022 at two grand

00:01:21.079 --> 00:01:28.560
with a very modest spec bump for the price and still no Titan class floating

00:01:26.240 --> 00:01:32.520
Point compute functionality both cards are available at around $1,000 or so

00:01:30.479 --> 00:01:36.159
today thanks to the crash and GPU demand and competition from AMD is actually

00:01:34.479 --> 00:01:43.240
coming in a little bit less than that the RTX 490 that launches at

00:01:39.240 --> 00:01:47.119
$1600 us what do you get for the price

00:01:43.240 --> 00:01:49.880
of three PS5 gaming consoles it's not a

00:01:47.119 --> 00:01:55.320
Titan class GPU and it has the same amount of vram as the previous gen RTX

00:01:52.479 --> 00:02:01.600
390 but that's where the similarities end not only is the memory as fast as

00:01:58.240 --> 00:02:04.240
what you'd find on an RTX 39 90 TI

00:02:01.600 --> 00:02:10.640
you're getting over 50% more Cuda cor that are each clocked at over 35% higher

00:02:07.960 --> 00:02:15.959
I mean say what you want but that alone would be a substantial upgrade for a

00:02:12.400 --> 00:02:18.200
mere 7% increase in MSRP which is half

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

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

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

00:02:29.920 --> 00:02:35.440
NVIDIA claims that each of their Cuda cores is beefed up compared to the

00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:39.720
outgoing ampere architecture in almost all respects with claimed performance

00:02:37.959 --> 00:02:44.159
improvements of up to two times what the 30 series could achieve that's thanks in

00:02:42.120 --> 00:02:48.280
large part to nearly double the L1 cach and a substantial change in the core

00:02:45.800 --> 00:02:53.280
layout itself and also to the use of tsmc's new N4 process that allows the

00:02:50.840 --> 00:02:58.000
total die area to be nearly 150 mm squared smaller than its

00:02:55.560 --> 00:03:03.000
predecessor of course we need to test NVIDIA's claims so we cut the lamps to

00:03:00.560 --> 00:03:10.080
fire up our shiny new socket am5 bench with a fresh install of Windows 1122 H1

00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:12.840
and go to town with testing why 22 H1

00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:17.280
apparently 22 H2 introduced some issues that NVIDIA is not going to have ironed

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

00:03:19.640 --> 00:03:25.640
event games and right out of the gate

00:03:23.680 --> 00:03:29.159
okay no these numbers aren't right turns out stability issues with our bench

00:03:27.519 --> 00:03:35.760
messed up the settings and enabled fidelity FX upscaling our bad it's still

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

00:03:38.599 --> 00:03:46.319
looking at minimum frame rates Beyond 120 at 4K in fors of horizon 5 compared

00:03:43.319 --> 00:03:48.920
to sub 90 on the 390 TI and it is

00:03:46.319 --> 00:03:54.840
incredibly stable Assassin's Creed Valhalla frame rate also shut up by

00:03:50.879 --> 00:03:57.480
about 50% on the 490 enabling 4K 120 FPS

00:03:54.840 --> 00:04:02.040
gameplay without any compromises remember this is just the rasterization

00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:05.799
performance what we thought NVIDIA was trying to hide from us by showing off

00:04:03.879 --> 00:04:10.480
their RT performance in the Press materials Far Cry 6 another Ubisoft

00:04:08.560 --> 00:04:15.879
title doesn't seem quite the same Improvement however at about 30% or so

00:04:12.840 --> 00:04:18.199
across the board it's not bad like not

00:04:15.879 --> 00:04:22.079
at all but I'm just ruined after seeing those other results improvements

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

00:04:27.560 --> 00:04:33.360
let that sink in for a moment maybe watch washed down with a big Swig from

00:04:30.880 --> 00:04:38.240
our chungus 64 Oz water bottle from LTD store.com we see exactly that problem

00:04:35.960 --> 00:04:43.880
again when we run csgo where for some bizarre reason the situation is flipped

00:04:40.639 --> 00:04:46.919
on its head the RTX 390 TI outperforms

00:04:43.880 --> 00:04:49.120
the 490 throughout multiple runs it's

00:04:46.919 --> 00:04:53.800
especially surprising because the GPU core clocks and the load remained High I

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

00:04:56.039 --> 00:05:02.800
dropping the resolution down to 1440p it seems like we're becoming even more more

00:04:59.840 --> 00:05:07.120
CPU bound but critically the minimum frame rates in fors of horizon 5 are

00:05:04.960 --> 00:05:12.479
massively improved making for a smoother overall experience interestingly CSG go

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

00:05:15.440 --> 00:05:22.160
a driver bug at 4K or something now do

00:05:18.759 --> 00:05:26.919
you still remember that cyberpunk

00:05:22.160 --> 00:05:28.880
result yeah okay okay so check this out

00:05:26.919 --> 00:05:32.680
proportionately we're looking at an even bigger performance Improvement compared

00:05:30.680 --> 00:05:38.720
to traditional rendering at nearly double the 390 TI although we're not

00:05:35.759 --> 00:05:42.360
quite able to pull off 60 FPS at 4K without

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

00:05:44.280 --> 00:05:53.360
the 4090 is capable of nearly doubling the minimum FPS of the 3090

00:05:49.240 --> 00:05:58.319
TI that brings this title from Mostly 60

00:05:53.360 --> 00:06:02.479
FPS or more at 4K to a buttery smooth

00:05:58.319 --> 00:06:05.800
100 to 12 20 dfps all without

00:06:02.479 --> 00:06:08.479
dlss with dlss in performance mode cyber

00:06:05.800 --> 00:06:13.599
hook manages close to 100 FPS and minimum frame rates enough to be quite

00:06:11.120 --> 00:06:18.520
smooth with gsync enabled so long as you can handle the image quality shadow of

00:06:16.280 --> 00:06:25.599
the Tomb Raider in dlss quality mode is just ridiculous where the 3090 TI can't

00:06:21.599 --> 00:06:27.960
quite reach 90 FPS and 5% lows the 4090

00:06:25.599 --> 00:06:32.240
is fast enough to comfortably Drive 144hz 4k monitor

00:06:30.639 --> 00:06:39.120
now you might be wondering about the uh new dlss 3.0 NVIDIA's AI frame

00:06:35.199 --> 00:06:42.680
generation technology we're wondering

00:06:39.120 --> 00:06:44.199
too unfortunately all of our cards even

00:06:42.680 --> 00:06:50.560
the third party ones that we're not allowed to show you today all of them

00:06:47.240 --> 00:06:53.120
crashed a lot like a lot a lot even

00:06:50.560 --> 00:06:58.000
across multiple benches as a result the Labs weren't able to properly test dlss

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

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

00:07:05.840 --> 00:07:12.319
gamer well you're in luck because this

00:07:08.840 --> 00:07:14.199
thing is also a productivity beast in

00:07:12.319 --> 00:07:19.000
blender it gets over double the samples per minute in both the monster and junk

00:07:16.599 --> 00:07:23.080
shop scenes and just under double in the older classroom scene that's a

00:07:21.160 --> 00:07:27.800
substantial Time Savings and might be worth it on its own if you're a 3D

00:07:24.759 --> 00:07:30.639
artist similarly our 4K Da Vinci resolve

00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:36.479
export finished nearly a minute faster a difference of roughly 25% something that

00:07:33.520 --> 00:07:40.680
that'll also add up over time especially for timelines with a lot of rendered

00:07:38.280 --> 00:07:43.800
graphical effects spec view perf meanwhile shows massive gains across the

00:07:42.520 --> 00:07:49.879
board with the most substantial improvements in 3ds Max Maya medical and

00:07:47.120 --> 00:07:54.800
solid works that nearly double the score well Creo only saw a modest performance

00:07:51.919 --> 00:07:59.520
Improvement of around 10% still this is like looking at a completely different

00:07:56.680 --> 00:08:03.000
class of GPU not a typical generational improvement with all of these

00:08:01.080 --> 00:08:06.720
performance gains maybe NVIDIA had to price these at $1,600 that they had any

00:08:05.240 --> 00:08:12.000
hope at all of selling through all of their mining Surplus

00:08:08.919 --> 00:08:13.960
390s and that's not everything either

00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:18.199
another big part of productivity that many companies Intel and apple included

00:08:16.120 --> 00:08:22.800
are taking very seriously is video encoding and NVIDIA's out to prove that

00:08:20.240 --> 00:08:27.240
they're not sleeping on the job not only do you get the same highquality encoder

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

00:08:29.840 --> 00:08:36.560
but you get two of them and they're both capable of

00:08:33.519 --> 00:08:38.399
av1 av1 is the new codec that's likely

00:08:36.560 --> 00:08:41.959
to take over for live and On Demand streaming on sites like YouTube and

00:08:39.959 --> 00:08:46.000
twitch and while it can produce significantly better video quality at

00:08:43.680 --> 00:08:51.120
the same bit rates it's significantly more timec consuming and difficult to

00:08:48.320 --> 00:08:56.200
encode unless you have Hardware dedicated for it Intel Arc launch with

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

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

00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:09.279
test of it for the review so again stay tuned for a future video comparing av1

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

00:09:11.640 --> 00:09:16.160
existing h264 and h265 encoders which is

00:09:15.399 --> 00:09:21.440
pretty impressive of course all of these

00:09:18.560 --> 00:09:26.000
capabilities come with some drawbacks the first of which being the power draw

00:09:24.360 --> 00:09:30.680
in order to reach the power Target that NVIDIA sent for it the RTX 490

00:09:28.600 --> 00:09:35.279
universally requ Ires an ATX 3.0 connector and comes with adapter swort

00:09:32.640 --> 00:09:41.640
in the Box as the specs indicated our RTX 490 draws nearly as much power under

00:09:38.519 --> 00:09:44.040
gaming load as the RTX 390 TI though it

00:09:41.640 --> 00:09:50.120
did stay closer to 425 Watts than it's rated 450 this is a sharp contrast

00:09:47.000 --> 00:09:52.000
against the RTX 390 and 6950 XT which

00:09:50.120 --> 00:09:59.079
consistently both pulled nearly 100 Watts less this does not bode well for

00:09:55.760 --> 00:10:01.000
an eventual RTX 490 TI at least the

00:09:59.079 --> 00:10:05.800
power Targets on the 480 series cards are lower though we don't have any of

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

00:10:08.360 --> 00:10:16.160
combuster power consumption skyrockets the red line for both the RTX 490 and

00:10:13.519 --> 00:10:20.120
the 3090 TI though curiously about halfway through it kind of dips down to

00:10:17.640 --> 00:10:25.160
about 440 which is kind of strange meanwhile the RTX 390 once again doesn't

00:10:22.640 --> 00:10:30.200
cross that 350 W threshold and neither did the 6950 XT with great power of

00:10:28.399 --> 00:10:35.000
course comes great thermal output capacity and the RTX 490 is no exception

00:10:33.160 --> 00:10:38.440
with thermals while gaming tracking roughly in line with the power

00:10:36.279 --> 00:10:42.600
consumption its massive 3 and 1 half slot cooler keeps the hot spot at the

00:10:40.160 --> 00:10:47.800
80° Mark while gaming placing it squarely between the RTX 390 and the

00:10:44.880 --> 00:10:52.120
6950 XT despite the power draw a testament to NVIDIA's cooler design core

00:10:50.200 --> 00:10:55.720
Clocks Were obviously way higher than any previous gen card and crucially they

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

00:10:59.120 --> 00:11:05.560
at again at our combuster results though the hot spot temperature crosses the 80°

00:11:03.040 --> 00:11:11.200
threshold along with the RTX 390 TI and we again see that slight dip halfway end

00:11:07.399 --> 00:11:13.519
of the run while the 3090 sits below 70°

00:11:11.200 --> 00:11:19.200
core clocks end up significantly lower at around 2.25 GHz for the 4090 with the

00:11:17.120 --> 00:11:23.680
3090 TI throttling down to below its less power hungry sibling our AMD card

00:11:21.880 --> 00:11:28.440
meanwhile sort of did a heartbeat pattern of boosting and throttling that

00:11:25.760 --> 00:11:32.519
could result in uneven performance it's worth noting that the these tests were

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

00:11:35.360 --> 00:11:40.360
mm fans drawing air up front so it's not

00:11:38.519 --> 00:11:44.920
like we were starving the carrots for oxygen or feeding them hot air from the

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

00:11:48.320 --> 00:11:55.800
caused internal casair temperatures to hit highs of 39 to 40° with

00:11:54.160 --> 00:12:01.120
significantly higher minimum internal temperatures than the RTX 390 all at an

00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:05.160
ambient temperature of around 21° that means that if your case can

00:12:03.560 --> 00:12:10.959
just barely handle a 3090 you won't be able to manage a

00:12:08.079 --> 00:12:16.480
4090 sorry small form factor efficient Autos this card is not for you after all

00:12:14.399 --> 00:12:20.920
that you might look at the spec sheet and have some lingering questions like

00:12:18.880 --> 00:12:26.440
why isn't NVIDIA supporting PCI Express Gen 5 and where's DisplayPort 2.0 and

00:12:24.800 --> 00:12:30.880
the answer to those questions both of them whether you like it or not is that

00:12:27.880 --> 00:12:33.079
NVIDIA doesn't think you need on a $1600

00:12:30.880 --> 00:12:39.519
graphics card you you smell that yeah that's the

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

00:12:41.800 --> 00:12:49.320
PCI Express Gen 5 probably won't be super useful today a GPU running eight

00:12:46.880 --> 00:12:53.480
Lanes of Gen 5 certainly would be especially for those who also want lots

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

00:12:55.839 --> 00:13:02.360
Express link the fewer the lanes you need for the same bandwidth require IR

00:12:59.360 --> 00:13:05.440
ments NVIDIA should know this as for

00:13:02.360 --> 00:13:08.519
DisplayPort 2.0 the official line is

00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:11.040
DisplayPort 1.0 already supports 8K at

00:13:08.519 --> 00:13:16.320
60 HZ and consumer displays won't need more for a while which is pretty valid

00:13:14.360 --> 00:13:21.240
well it's true that DisplayPort 1.4 only supports up to 120 HZ at full

00:13:18.920 --> 00:13:26.399
unadulterated resolution can go up to 268 HZ with no chroma sub sampling using

00:13:24.639 --> 00:13:29.360
display stream compression which is reported to be visually lossless that's

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

00:13:33.199 --> 00:13:42.160
argue that this is a suboptimal experience on such premium Hardware 240

00:13:38.480 --> 00:13:44.560
HZ 4K displays exist today and will have

00:13:42.160 --> 00:13:48.279
DisplayPort 2.0 support soon Arc already supports it and rdna 3 has been

00:13:46.440 --> 00:13:53.800
confirmed to support DisplayPort 2.0 since May NVIDIA is clearly trying to

00:13:50.720 --> 00:13:56.519
save a book again on a GPU that costs as

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

00:13:59.880 --> 00:14:05.920
were just ready and waiting in a warehouse for longer than we realized

00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:12.800
it's incredibly amusing to me that the first GPU that might actually be capable

00:14:09.240 --> 00:14:14.920
of running 8K gaming without asterisks

00:14:12.800 --> 00:14:19.279
is being handled in such a lacad isical fashion by team green the days of

00:14:17.720 --> 00:14:25.839
generational performance per dollar gains are over they say Moore's Law is

00:14:22.720 --> 00:14:28.240
dead they say and yet the competition

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

00:14:30.360 --> 00:14:38.279
performance right now as we saw with the RTX 390 that won't last forever and

00:14:36.040 --> 00:14:45.839
that's where things get weird as it exists right now while the RTX 490 chugs

00:14:42.120 --> 00:14:48.480
as much power as an RTX 3090 TI it is a

00:14:45.839 --> 00:14:54.759
massive upgrade over both that card and the vanilla 390 in nearly every respect

00:14:51.920 --> 00:14:59.399
well in excess of its price increase for Content creators this is a no-brainer

00:14:57.639 --> 00:15:02.839
but I cannot in good cont ience recommend Gamers with more dollars than

00:15:01.120 --> 00:15:07.160
cents go out and purchase a piece of Hardware that is incapable of driving

00:15:04.639 --> 00:15:11.519
the also very expensive displays that might actually be able to take advantage

00:15:08.800 --> 00:15:17.959
of it especially when a less expensive and less power hungry card perhaps even

00:15:13.880 --> 00:15:20.160
NVIDIA's own RTX 480s can do the same

00:15:17.959 --> 00:15:24.360
thing just like I can tell you about our sponsor Nord security if you keep up

00:15:22.680 --> 00:15:27.800
with the tech news you know that hackers are always looking for new ways to

00:15:26.160 --> 00:15:32.360
compromise everything from Tech Giant servers to Grand computer thankfully

00:15:30.360 --> 00:15:36.959
Nord Security's well-rounded protection package is there to help protect your

00:15:34.160 --> 00:15:40.600
files devices and personal data online there's Nord pass a password manager

00:15:38.839 --> 00:15:44.319
that helps you generate unique passwords across your devices and browsers and

00:15:42.279 --> 00:15:48.120
then there's Nord Locker a powerful file encryption and sharing service that's a

00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:51.199
great alternative to Google Drive cyber crime is everywhere these days so make

00:15:49.639 --> 00:15:56.160
sure you're taking precautions when you surf the web right now you can get 4

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

00:15:57.800 --> 00:16:04.759
security.com CR lus or click the link in the description below thanks for

00:16:02.240 --> 00:16:07.959
watching guys uh this is well I guess a little bit more positive and also

00:16:06.399 --> 00:16:12.079
negative than the Intel Arc review go check that review out as well for a

00:16:09.560 --> 00:16:19.560
little bit on the increasing competition in the GPU space I think we uh we all

00:16:15.440 --> 00:16:19.560
think that it's long overdue