RTX 3090 benchmarks are coming in - 20% faster than 3080

[canadiantree 233]

Not sure how credible this benchmark is, seems legit:

 

 

Source:

 

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

Will definately wait for the 3090!

[steve310002 1,198]

34 minutes ago, canadiantree said:

Not sure how credible this benchmark is, seems legit:

 

I don't think it's very legit (which in fairness the creator acknowledges). He is just increasing all 3080 benchmarks by 20% as apparantly thats approximatly how much faster the 3090 will be. But also that will depend on each game. And for MSFS it would be hard to know how much faster the 3090 will be because at this point MSFS is CPU limited. It might well be 20% or it might be only 10%. Let's wait and see.

[737_800 434]

3 minutes ago, steve310002 said:

I don't think it's very legit (which in fairness the creator acknowledges). He is just increasing all 3080 benchmarks by 20% as apparantly thats approximatly how much faster the 3090 will be. But also that will depend on each game. And for MSFS it would be hard to know how much faster the 3090 will be because at this point MSFS is CPU limited. It might well be 20% or it might be only 10%. Let's wait and see.

Anyway, $800 more for 20% more performance sounds bit odd. Cannot imagen that 14 GB more VRAM are $more than $200 in production.

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

4 minutes ago, steve310002 said:

And for MSFS it would be hard to know how much faster the 3090 will be because at this point MSFS is CPU limited. I

Is it really? My CPU sits at around 25-30% running MSFS while the GPU is around 80% load.

[Colonel X 1,430]

3 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Is it really? My CPU sits at around 25-30% running MSFS while the GPU is around 80% load.

That's a perfect profile. Check your cores and you will see a few of them are loaded much higher. 30% is just the average load.

[G-RFRY 1,709]

Only in 4K most MSFS users are not running 4K by looks of it, and if you don`t have a 4K monitor you will have to upgrade to get the benefit more hardware cost.  

Edited September 19, 2020 by G-RFRY

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

3090 it is, then. Poor, poor wallet. 🤪

[ThomseN_inc 1,128]

23 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

That's a perfect profile. Check your cores and you will see a few of them are loaded much higher. 30% is just the average load.

Ok, i'm no pro. So with ongoing optimization we can expect better CPU usage overall?

[G-RFRY 1,709]

I would still wait 3 3000 cards releasing less than half the cards in the pipe line, and Partner cards will be tweaked more as they catch up with the new GPU, it could be months before the supple hit`s normal then the price will be down to web suppliers to compete on price to get your order.

I don`t think it will be any better for AMD and could be worse they don`t have the manufacturing numbers of the others, the game consoles will have a priority at the moment.

[peloto 213]

27 minutes ago, 737_800 said:

Anyway, $800 more for 20% more performance sounds bit odd. Cannot imagen that 14 GB more VRAM are $more than $200 in production.

If the SLI works in the MFS, it would have more sense to buy 2 3080 and to have more performance at the same cost.

[737_800 434]

8 minutes ago, peloto said:

If the SLI works in the MFS, it would have more sense to buy 2 3080 and to have more performance at the same cost.

I have read that couple of times. How is this possible to insert 2 GPUs on the motherboard?

[Nedo68 533]

yes! if thats true it will be my next horse 👍 😁

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

Fake BS.

Numbers extrapolated by a supposed 3D Mark Timespy leak? SMH

[mtr75 653]

2 hours ago, canadiantree said:

Not sure how credible this benchmark is, seems legit:

 

 

Source:

 

Why wouldn't it be legit? I would expect nothing less, indeed demand nothing less, of a card that alone will cost $1,800. I sure as hell hope it runs MSFS that fast.