Gigabyte Lists RTX 4070 with Different Memory Configs: Report

News
By
published

Placeholders, typos, or multiple configurations?

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti Founders Edition
(Image credit: Nvidia)

Gigabyte now lists as many as six different GeForce RTX 4070 graphics cards models with various memory configurations on its Thai-language website, according to VideoCardz. Nvidia is rumored to formally announce its GeForce RTX 4070 in April, so Gigabyte's listings may be placeholders or even typos since actual specifications of the product may not be finalized. 

A Gigabyte game bundle giveaway in Thai language now reportedly lists GeForce RTX 4070 with 10GB, 12GB, and 16GB of GDDR6X memory, including GeForce RTX 4070 Aorus Master 12GB, GeForce RTX 4070 Eagle OC 12GB, GeForce RTX 4070 Gaming OC 10GB, GeForce RTX 4070 Gaming OC 12GB, and GeForce RTX 4070 Gaming OC 16GB. We logged into the Gigabyte Thai website, but couldn't find this giveaway, but presumably it exists as a user shared it with the staff at VideoCardz.

Gigabyte

(Image credit: VideoCardz)

Nvidia's vanilla GeForce RTX 4070 is expected to be based on the AD104 graphics processor with 5888 CUDA cores operating at 1920 MHz – 2475 MHz as well as a 192-bit memory bus. Given that the board has to use 16Gb (2GB) GDDR6X memory chips, the only configurations possible on a 192-bit memory interface are 12GB (using six ICs) and 24GB (using 12 ICs). 

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Nvidia RTX 40-Series Specifications
Row 0 - Cell 0 GPUFP32 CUDA CoresMemory ConfigurationTBPMSRP
GeForce RTX 4090 TiAD10218176 (?)24GB 384-bit 24 GT/s GDDR6X (?)600W (?)?
GeForce RTX 4090AD1021638424GB 384-bit 21 GT/s GDDR6X450W$1,599
GeForce RTX 4080AD103972816GB 256-bit 22.4 GT/s GDDR6X320W$1,199
GeForce RTX 4070 TiAD104768012GB 192-bit 21 GT/s GDDR6X285W$799
GeForce RTX 4070AD1045888 (?)12GB 192-bit 21 GT/s GDDR6X250W (?)?
GeForce RTX 4060 TiAD1064352 (?)8GB 128-bit 18 GT/s GDDR6160W (?)<$500?
GeForce RTX 3070GA10458888GB 256-bit 14 GT/s GDDR6220W$499

For 10GB, an AD104-based product would have to go down to a 160-bit memory interface, which is possible, but which will lower memory bandwidth. Meanwhile, the AD104 physically does not have a 256-bit memory interface to support a 16GB configuration without using an extravagant memory organization. 

For now, it looks like Gigabyte listed different versions of GeForce RTX 4070 because Nvidia either considers or considered various configurations of GeForce RTX 4070 product, including a 10GB and a 12GB verson. Meanwhile, it is impossible for an AD104-based product to support 16GB of memory with its 192-bit memory interface without using a fancy memory organization and possibly repeating the GeForce RTX 970 4GB fiasco, at least based on what we know about the AD104. 

While all of GeForce RTX 4070 boards with different memory configs might join the ranks of some of the best graphics cards available, it looks like only 12GB version will make it to the market. Still, we will have to wait until later this year (possibly April) to find out.

Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

See more GPUs News
11 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Amdlova
    4070 with 16gb will sell really well :)
    Reply
  • Metal Messiah.
    This GPU is rumored to actually have 3 different PCB boards, so I wonder whether this VRAM segmentation has anything to do with this leak.

    Though most likely, it could also be a TYPO error on Gigabyte's website, or a placeholder for the upcoming RTX 4060 Ti and RTX 4060 SKUs on a different bus width/VRAM config(despite the model name being displayed as RTX 4070 on Gigabyte's page).

    But the most possible explanation would be that Nvidia might have dropped/cancelled some of these planned SKUs, IMO. Because, it's going to get confusing for end users for sure if the RTX 4070 comes out in 3 different VRAM configurations.

    PG141-SKU343 RTX 4070 Reference Edition AD104-250-A1     PG141-SKU344 RTX 4070 Founders Edition AD104-250-A1 PG141-SKU345 RTX 4070 Reference Edition AD104-251-A1
    However as per one report, AD104-250 & AD104-251 GPUs are virtually the same chip, and the latter isn't going to be featured on the RTX 4060 as we thought so.

    Instead, the 251 designated chip will utilize a slightly different circuit board as pointed out by     HKEPC, allowing for lower BOM costs (around $1 Less) & also helping to improve the power efficiency slightly. I doubt this will effect the VRAM config though.

    1612395428083011585View: https://twitter.com/hkepcmedia/status/1612395428083011585
    Reply
  • HideOut
    Amdlova said:
    4070 with 16gb will sell really well :)
    and as the story said, it CANT happen.
    Reply
  • HideOut
    Metal Messiah. said:
    This GPU is rumored to actually have 3 different PCB boards, so I wonder whether this VRAM segmentation has anything to do with this leak.

    Though most likely, it could also be a TYPO error on Gigabyte's website, or a placeholder for the upcoming RTX 4060 Ti and RTX 4060 SKUs on a different bus width/VRAM config(despite the model name being displayed as RTX 4070 on Gigabyte's page).

    But the most possible explanation would be that Nvidia might have dropped/cancelled some of these planned SKUs, IMO. Because, it's going to get confusing for end users for sure if the RTX 4070 comes out in 3 different VRAM configurations.

    PG141-SKU343 RTX 4070 Reference Edition AD104-250-A1     PG141-SKU344 RTX 4070 Founders Edition AD104-250-A1 PG141-SKU345 RTX 4070 Reference Edition AD104-251-A1
    However as per one report, AD104-250 & AD104-251 GPUs are virtually the same chip, and the latter isn't going to be featured on the RTX 4060 as we thought so.

    Instead, the 251 designated chip will utilize a slightly different circuit board as pointed out by     HKEPC, allowing for lower BOM costs (around $1 Less) & also helping to improve the power efficiency slightly. I doubt this will effect the VRAM config though.

    1612395428083011585View: https://twitter.com/hkepcmedia/status/1612395428083011585
    again, it CANT happen. The memory controller is not compatible.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    It sounds like they're planning on pulling the exact same rip-off junk they pulled with the 4080, except with the 4070, this time.

    I can't wait for the entry-level 4GB GT 4070, for a cool bargain price of $500
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    HideOut said:
    again, it CANT happen. The memory controller is not compatible.
    Anything under 12GB is easily achievable by axing memory channels. More than 12GB would require die-stacked chips since nobody currently makes GDDR6(X) beyond 16Gbits With 24Gbits DDR5 though, probably won't be long until we see 18Gbits GDDR6(X) too, which would open up the possibility of 18GB GPUs.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Nvidia can do anything. Gtx 660ti have 2 and 3 gb version, why they can't have the 12 and 16gb version? That graphics with low pool of memory will need refresh
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Amdlova said:
    Nvidia can do anything. Gtx 660ti have 2 and 3 gb version, why they can't have the 12 and 16gb version? That graphics with low pool of memory will need refresh
    Because GDDR6 chips larger than 16gbits don't exist yet. 2GB per channel x 6 channels = 12GB max unless you tweak the interface to allow stacked dies, which may not be possible with straight GDDR6(X).
    Reply
  • Giroro
    InvalidError said:
    Because GDDR6 chips larger than 16gbits don't exist yet. 2GB per channel x 6 channels = 12GB max unless you tweak the interface to allow stacked dies, which may not be possible with straight GDDR6(X).

    Who's to say that a 16GB RTX 4070 would be limited to the same terrible 192-bit bus width? I mean, there's no chance they would do it at this point since Jensen lost his mind and tried to get away with selling a product with a 192-bit RTX class memory bus as the "RTX 4080 12GB" ... But I bet Nvidia's engineers specced their original RTX 4070 design with the same 256-bit bus as every other RTX x070 card.

    Look at the massive performance gap between the RTX 4090 and the RTX 4080 16GB. That giant performance hole could easily fit 2-3 intermediate SKUs. I think there's a very good chance that the RTX 4080 16GB was originally designed to be sold as a RTX 4070 16GB.

    The way I see it, the holes in their lineup makes a lot more sense if the following late-stage brand changes are assumed:
    Original Design targetJenson's greedy RebrandRTX 4090 TiNVIDIA RTX TITAN Ada RTX 4090NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Ti RTX 4080 TiGeForce RTX 4090 RTX 4080NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti RTX 4070 TiGeForce RTX 4080 RTX 4070GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (Previously RTX 4080 12GB)RTX 4060 TiAwkward new gap? May become RTX 4070 Super or bump everything down (Previously RTX 4070 Ti)RTX 4060 GeForce RTX 4070 RTX 4050
    NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Missing Entry Level or mobile SKUs, likely causing a minimum 1-year delay (possibly cancelled)
    GeForce RTX 4060 (AD106)Won't ExistRTX 4050 TiMissing Entry Level or mobile SKUs, likely causing a minimum 1-year delay (possibly cancelled)
    NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 (AD106)GTX 4060 Mobile/Max QGeForce RTX 4060 (AD107 ) subvariantGTX 1650/1660 class ReplacementAll cards with entry/mainstream pricing (<$300) cancelled.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Giroro said:
    Who's to say that a 16GB RTX 4070 would be limited to the same terrible 192-bit bus width?
    The 70/AD104-tier already has its Ti flagship model with the RTX4070Ti and 'Super" usually sits between plain and Ti when the two suffixes coexist in the same lineup. Doesn't leave many sensible naming options. People didn't like 12GB vs 16GB RTX4080 because you had two products sharing the same model name using different dies and only differentiated by memory amount in the name. You'd have the same situation with a 12GB/AD104 vs 16GB/AD103 RTX4070Ti. If it wasn't acceptable for the RTX4080, it shouldn't be any more acceptable for the RTX4070xx.
    Reply