3 ms·

It's not always faster than the 3090, let alone "significantly", except in very specific resolutions and games. here's a review from a traditionally pro intel

• ziml77 3y ago
  I checked a sampling of a few games there and the only one where it's not ahead by a solid margin at 2560x1440 is Far Cry 6... the game that I gave up trying to play because it would not run smoothly on my 3090 + 5900X even with the settings turned down.
  • beebeepka 3y ago
    I guess that site is serving completely different graphs to me and you. Or one of us sees what they want to see.
    • ziml77 3y ago
      Besides Far Cry 6 and it's strange bottlenecks, these are the other games I checked: | Game | 3090 FPS | 4080 FPS | Delta | % Change | | Cyberpunk 2077 | 83.3 | 114.6 | 31.3 | +38% | | Doom Eternal | 261.2 | 378.4 | 117.2 | +45% | | Forza 5 | 108.2 | 147.3 | 39.1 | +36% | | Halo Infinite | 95.7 | 107.0 | 11.3 | +12% | Maybe all those years where Intel was stuck on 14nm made me forget how big leaps could be generation to generation, but to me those jumps of more than 30% are huge especially considering that while the 4080 is a gen ahead of the 3090 it's also a tier down. Also if you look at 4K performance, the % gaps for all these games are even larger (and I'm not looking at 4K now because it's better for my point. My next monitor will be one of the 4K QD-OLEDs that were announced at CES, so those charts are now more relevant to me than the 1440p ones)