Tag Product introductions

Is Nvidia really about to add to its lineup of top GPUs? All signs point to yes, and now, we have an official Nvidia keynote on the horizon that tells us when we might hear more about the rumored RTX 40 Super. Nvidia revealed that it’s going to deliver a special address on January 8 as part of CES 2024. Although the company hasn’t confirmed what it’s planning to cover, the rumor mill has been buzzing with information about three new desktop GPUs. But will they really be worth the upgrade?

Several reputable leakers have weighed in on the matter of the RTX 40-series refresh, and we’ve been getting updates about the range for a few weeks now. Nvidia doesn’t need to specifically state that it’ll talk about these graphics cards, as that is going to be the expectation anyway. The three GPUs in question are the RTX 4080 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and the RTX 4070 Super.

During its previous keynote at CES 2023, Nvidia talked about the RTX 40 laptop range but also unveiled the RTX 4070 Ti — formerly known as the RTX 4080 12GB. This year, as shared by VideoCardz, it’s likely that we’ll hear about all three new desktop GPUs, but some updates regarding AI are also possible. Although Nvidia might announce all three graphics cards at once, we don’t know whether all three will hit the market simultaneously. Leaks point to the first quarter of the year for all three, though.

Initially, it seemed like Nvidia might deliver a sizeable upgrade with the RTX 40-series refresh. Sources claimed that Nvidia might shake things up, upgrading the RTX 4080 Super to the AD102 GPU (which is the flagship chip found in the RTX 4090). The RTX 4070 Super was said to be getting upgraded to the AD103 chip, which is currently utilized by the RTX 4080. These changes would unlock far more cores, an increase in VRAM, and a larger memory bus for both cards.

However, it’s best not to put much stock in these assumptions. Other leaks suggest that the RTX 40 refresh will be a minor upgrade, with all cards sticking to their respective chips and maxing out the remaining core counts. Some rumors pin the RTX 4080 Super as featuring 10,240 CUDA cores and 16GB of GDDR6X memory across a 256-bit bus. The RTX 4070 Ti Super is said to sport 8,448 CUDA cores and 16GB VRAM, while the RTX 4070 Super might have 7,168 cores and 12GB VRAM.

Those specs mark an increase over the non-Super cards, but not a massive one. The RTX 4070 Ti Super (as a side note, that name’s always going to be a mouthful) would see the greatest boost thanks to the jump from 12GB to 16GB VRAM, while the core count boosts are mostly minor.

Regardless of the specs, the RTX 40 Super lineup might serve one important purpose — it should help the prices of some GPUs go down. Nvidia’s pricing has been on a worrying upward trend, which doesn’t bode well for the next generation of GPUs. If we can see the existing RTX 4070, RTX 4070 Ti, and the RTX 4080 drop in price thanks to the refresh, that alone will be a good thing.

We’ll be covering CES 2024 live as it happens, so stay tuned to make sure you don’t miss Nvidia’s announcement.

Editors’ Recommendations

The new iMac has arrived, complete with the updated M3 chip on board. Considering Apple now has just a single size of iMac, that should make buying one straightforward.

But as with all tech purchases, the devil’s in the details. So, after having tested the latest iMacs, we’re here to recommend how to determine which to buy and how to configure it.

Two primary options

When you look at Apple’s website, it shows three different iMacs to choose from, but really, there’s only two. There’s the base configuration and the more advanced one. Both come with the M3 chip, importantly, which has the eight-core CPU and 8-core GPU. They use the same screen as well. But from there, some subtle differences separate these models, which means you’ll want to choose carefully.

The biggest limitation of the M3 base model is ports. It comes with two less USB-C ports than the $1,599 model. Being restricted to just two Thunderbolt ports could be a nuisance, requiring the use of a dock. Both configurations can only connect to a single external display, though. You’ll have to pay an extra $30 for the gigabit Ethernet jack, which is built into the power brick. This comes standard in the $1,599 model, but unless you plan to use a hardwired connection, it’s probably not needed.

There’s a difference in bundled accessories too. While both configurations come with the unfortunate Magic Mouse, the cheaper configuration doesn’t come with the Touch ID keyboard. You have to pay an extra $50 to get some biometric security, which is really lame. The Touch ID keyboard is definitely worth getting, as is the Magic Trackpad. Those two accessories will cost you an extra $100, but unless you already have preferred third-party accessories, they’re absolutely worth it.

The other big difference between the two is in the GPU. The cheaper configuration doesn’t allow you to add the two extra GPU cores — so you’re stuck at just eight. Two extra GPU cores will give you a decent boost in graphics and make up the bulk of the $200 price difference between the two configurations. I haven’t tested the eight-core model myself yet, but Apple’s GPU cores tend to scale down fairly evenly. It might not be quite a 20% difference in actual performance, but it’ll be fairly noticeable. Ultimately, this decision is fairly simple: if you don’t intend to ever play games, edit video, or do 3D modeling, you may not see much in terms of gains.

Lastly, if you opt for the base configuration, you’ll have fewer color options to choose from. Blue, Green, Pink, and Silver are the main options, while the $1,599 model lets you choose from Yellow, Orange, and Purple. Before you choose a color, remember that the colors are two-tone. The front is a more saturated pastel color, while the aluminum base and back are a bolder, more vibrant color. So, make sure you like both shades of the color before you buy. The Silver color is certainly the most professional option, which is the safest best.

Storage and memory

The base configuration also limits you in terms of storage. You also can’t upgrade to 2TB of SSD storage, and are instead restricted to 1TB as the max. And remember — none of these specs can be upgraded after the fact, except by using external storage. Since Apple’s prices on extra storage are outrageous ($400 for a terabyte!), make sure to get what you need since there’s no way to upgrade in the future.

Memory is similar. Options for RAM in the iMac only include 8GB, 16GB, and 24GB — and 8GB should really only be reserved for people with the most basic computing needs. If you hope to use the iMac for anything more extensive, I’d recommend at least 16GB of RAM. If you’re choosing between the $200 RAM upgrade or the $200 storage upgrade, remember that storage can be expanded externally, while memory can’t.

What about the M1 iMac?

Apple doesn’t want you to think about the M1 iMac anymore. It isn’t sold, and the M3 is obviously the cream of the crop. But for a lot of people, the M1 iMac is still going to be a worthwhile purchase if you can find it for the right price. The key, though, is the price. Doing a quick look around, I didn’t see the M1 iMac being sold for more than $150 off the original price, which just happens to be the same price as the M3 iMac. Some other retailers are even still selling the M1 model for the full retail price.

Unless you have a super-tight budget, I think most people should just splurge on the M3 iMac at that point. But if we start to see a refurbished M1 iMac drop down below $1,000, for example, that’s where I perk up.

Because if performance isn’t a huge deal for you — if you just want a basic Mac and love the form factor of the all-in-one — the upgrade to the M3 won’t mean much to your day-to-day usage. But remember one thing: While comparing prices, make sure you’re comparing configurations on an apples-to-apples basis. A lot of times, older models are sold with higher-end specs, such as additional memory or storage.

Editors’ Recommendations

Apple just upset everyone, claiming that the 8GB of Unified Memory available in the base MacBook Pro M3 is “probably analogous to 16GB on other systems.”

The MacBook Pro M3 has already come under fire for only including 8GB of Unified Memory in its base configuration, which runs $1,600. MacWorld recently ran a story criticizing the 8GB of memory in the MacBook Pro M3, saying, “If 8GB will be a bottleneck for many today, imagine the performance of that non-upgradeable laptop in a few years’ time.”

Apple’s response is that 8GB on a MacBook Pro M3 is probably closer to 16GB on a Windows laptop. In an interview with Lin YilYi, Apple’s Bob Borchers addressed the 8GB of memory in the MacBook Pro M3:

“Comparing our memory to other systems’ memory actually isn’t equivalent, because of the fact that we have such an efficient use of memory, and we use memory compression, and we have a unified memory architecture. Actually, 8GB on an M3 MacBook Pro is probably analogous to 16GB on other systems. We just happen to be able to use it much more efficiently … I think this is a place where people need to see beyond the specs and actually look at the capabilities.”

Borchers has a point. Due to the fact that the MacBook Pro M3 uses a system-on-a-chip (SoC), it’s able to access memory much more efficiently than a standard Windows laptop. Capacity and speed are two sides of the same coin; if you have faster speeds, you don’t need as much capacity, and vice versa.

In addition, Apple includes a 512GB SSD with the base MacBook Pro M3, which uses two NAND chips. The previous version showed much slower SSD speeds with only a single NAND chip, and due to swap memory being critical in memory-limited situations, the 256GB SSD combined with the 8GB of memory vastly reduced performance. MaxTech’s early testing on the MacBook Pro M2 showed how big of a problem the 8GB of memory combined with the 256GB, single NAND SSD really was.

In real use, that shouldn’t be as big of a problem on the MacBook Pro M3. Unified Memory allows Apple to get away with lower capacity compared to Windows laptops, and the dual-NAND configuration of the SSD keeps things from being too slow when swap memory comes into play. The problem isn’t 8GB of memory, or even that it comes on a $1,600 laptop in 2023. It’s that adding more memory costs so damn much.

You’ll spend an extra $200 for 16GB of memory and an extra $400 for 24GB. Even ignoring the cost of those memory modules — I’ll let you know it’s far less than what Apple’s charging — you can see how big the upcharge really is just from configuration options. In Apple’s mind, each 8GB module of Unified Memory is worth $200. That’s insane.

If you look at a laptop like the Dell XPS 13 Plus, which comes with 16GB of memory for $1,500, you can upgrade it to 32GB for an extra $150. There’s no issue with Apple selling the MacBook Pro M3 with 8GB of memory, even for $1,600. But it shouldn’t cost an extra $200 just to get to 16GB for users who truly do need that extra capacity.

This really isn’t anything new for MacBooks, though, and it doesn’t just apply to memory. If you look at storage options, you’ll need to spend an extra $200 to upgrade the 512GB SSD to a 1TB SSD, and an extra $600 to upgrade the 512GB SSD to a 2TB SSD. Once again, each 512GB chunk of storage is worth $200 in Apple’s mind, despite the fact that the cost for these components isn’t anywhere remotely near that price.

It could go either way — Apple should have the base MacBook Pro M3 with 8GB of Unified Memory sell for a lower price, or it should make the cost of upgrading to 16GB of RAM much cheaper. It doesn’t really matter if you need that memory or not, either. The upgraded model is the one most people should buy, even if they only occasionally go over capacity.

At the very least, that pricing scenario would be a minor annoyance, with Apple nickel and diming people to get the RAM they need (definitely not uncharacteristic of Apple). As it stands now, with the high base price and huge cost of upgrades, it is hard to say the MacBook Pro M3 truly starts at $1,600 when a critical upgrade is locked behind a $200 paywall.

Editors’ Recommendations