I've been surprised how 3080s and 6800xt have been completely out of stock for the last month when we were supposed to continue to see a sell off of last-gen GPUs for a while.
I bought an RX 6900 XT a month ago because there were huge sales but now all the good deals are gone in the last gen high end segment. I wonder how many people bought last gen GPUs in the last few months.
I bought a 6800 XT too recently. I guess current gen is the most disappointing ever for the prices and all the people who were waiting for this next gen got pissed off and just jumped on the last gen ones. But now they're out of stock/overpiced too. What an awful market time.
I am currently with 1440p monitor and I don't want to go for 4K, because Twitch, RU-vid and basically all the content available is mainly 1080p. I would like to have a large monitor, if I go for 4K and 1080p videos looks awful on a large monitor. I am currently on 32" display and I need smaller second display, because some contents are so bad quality that I cannot watch it on 32" display.
@@Avenge_Computers you can compare modern GPUs best in 4K, the fps at 1440p can sometimes already be limited. at 1080p its more a CPU comparison as it doesnt stress the GPU enough to really compare them against each others.
I wish you mentioned 1% lows and frame draw time more in these comparisons, even when the XTX was losing in average FPS, a lot of the time it had higher 1% lows and lower frame time which would give a smoother, more enjoyable experience because of the consistency.
yea nvidia often feels more jittery on the long smooth movements. the cyberpunk benchmark shows this very well. the consistent speed panning really exemplifies the importance of this factor.
You are one of the best gpu benchmarking youtuber. Really appreciate the effort you put in your videos, very informative and entertaining, thank you. It's great to see your chanel grow so fast, you deserve it.
Thank you for sharing this Video, I am a happy man watching Cyberpunk in 4K with XTX run on FSR2 and with RT off, I can enjoy this game with awesome frame rate... I am planning to build and all AMD system next year...
Anything bellow 60fps, that also means minimums is a bad experience! Anyone who's games on PC for more than a few years will tell you that anything bellow 60fps is a bad experience. Now at some point we've all played bellow 60fps, when our "new" gpu's become old and they've been in our systems for 4 or 5 years, but that is what PC gamers strive for, to get that 60+fps experience with the best settings. So to me enabling RT just to have a terrible gameplay experience is NOT worth it at all and if I need to enable fsr or dlss then what is the point of RT? RT is supposed to improve the visual quality, but then enabling fsr or dlss degrades the visual quality, so why do it? I prefer 1440p high refresh gaming, to it looks and feels billion times better to play games at 120+fps on a 144hz monitor, then play with RT on at barely 60fps. It just doesn't make sense. High refresh gaming feels and looks much better, you do actually tend to notice the slowness of lower refresh rate when going from 120fps to 60 or 80fps.
I went with a 3070 Ti a few months ago. Got it WAY below price (new btw), because the store wanted to move inventory before the 40 series arrivel. I also wanted RTX and DLSS. I was interested. RTX does not worth it? Sure. But for single player experience (Cyberpunk was a huge pull personally), i love it. Only the reflections that you actually notice but you *see* *it* . For MP you would not want it. SP where the tech shines and i am happy with it. Otherwise the card is enough for my 160Hz monitor in online gaming. I could have gotten away with a 6800 XT, maybe a stretch for the 900. Better for the price for sure. I don't love/hate either company, just wanted a good bang for buck. And as i wrote before, RTX & DLSS was the reason i went green. I am overral happy with my choice. Ps: The price's still the same or more compared to my buy price at the time. I think thats a *W* purchase on my part! :D
thx for all the hardwork! I know you are showing the stats but most of the time the video is just showing the left side, almost got motion sickness trying to see the Callisto Protocol details.
Your new testbench looks fire bro. This has also got to be the most banger of banger videos out at this time of writing. Your analysis is very thorough and is literally better than every single other content creator on this platform. I am so glad I found your channel.
I'm running the Nitro + 6700xt and 5600x combo and still getting great frame rates in 1440p with almost all max settings. I did overclock, but it's only a middle of the road OC. And I can definitely hit a cpu bottleneck if I play in 1080p, but it's very impressive fps anyway.
My 5600x is paired with a 3090. Keeps up for the most part at 3440x1440 but can start to fall off in some games with RT + DLSS, since that can get pretty CPU demanding
This video just confirms that I am still good to go for a while with my 3080. Thanks for all the bench marking and deep dives you put out. I know that is a lot of work and time.
@@aidenh4681 yea i used my 1080ti for 5 years, i believe its about equiv to a 2070 super. i game at 1440pp.. tons of games like metro exodus.. doom.. all the resident evils. And so many others i actually still get 100-144 fps maxed out. In other games like total war wargammer 3.. i get about 50-70 fps but with some graphics turned down a notch or two. Only in stupid games like cyberpunk and stuff did my fps go to unplayable. Now with that being said i did sell my 1080ti recently for 260$ and i bought a used 6900xt with a waterblock for 600$.. which is a good deal specially with the block.. since i have custom watercooling already. My fps went up to 130fps in warhammer using the same settings.. and 60-90 maxed out. So still higher than the ti when it had stuff turned down. Cyberpunk is playable now at like 70-80fps. And im happy. I refuse to pay 900-1600$ for a video card. Yes i know a 4070ti is coming for 800$ .. but i dont habe 800$ and that other 200$ i saved id use for a 5800x 3d. But i guess my point is.. anyone who has a card from last gen who wonder if they gatta upgrade is insaine lol. Unless theyre gamung at 4k or something.. lol
@@aidenh4681 People with 3080's like myself love turning everything to Ultra with maxed out Raytracing but hate seeing FPS go below 60 😆 I mean we did just spend ~$1K on a GPU within recent years and it can't handle the new Witcher 3 upgrade!
@@addictedtoRS FYI the witcher 3 upgrade is broke....I have a 4080 n push 60 FPS with everything maxed (full RT with no DLSS) and its unplayable....hell even with RT disabled 100+ fps and its still unplayable, the micro stutters make it feel like you're playing with 30 fps....looks beautiful but I personally wont be playing it till they fix it (IF they fix it)
Regarding CoD performance on AMD, CoD is a huge title with a good deal of focus on consoles. Consoles have AMD GPUs so I am sure CoD devs spent a great deal of effort optimizing for consoles, and AMD GPUs as a result.
I have a 3080 and I'm loving the 1440p benchmarks. Buying a 4k monitor alongside the 6090 when it drops. I'm sure 4k monitors will be so much better by then. For now I'll keep enjoying 1440p. :)
Yep, consoles are very weak still I wonder when they will become properly powerful to handle RT etc etc seems like a must have tbh as the gap between console and PC perf grows larger and larger, but maybe I’m wrong idk
Yeah, still a shame that most of the best games are still PS exclusive :(. But I think the next gen PS will cost also around $1200 to compete with the PC's
Both of the 4080 and the 7900xtx are really good gpu really really bad priced. Saying the 7900xtx is a better deal than the 4080 is just dumb thought when the opponent is already almost 300 to 400 bucks overpriced and add to it the scalping price of the customs... Tbh i wish gaming community just stop buying those new gen GPU and dong even buy those upcoming overpricing 3000 series rn. Thats criminal and shouldn't be allowed buy consumer protection agency
You're doing exactly what I would hope for RU-vidrs to do with their "free" cards from these companies. Run countless tests and comparisons and serve the consumers who are looking to make a smart purchase for their situation.
but he isnt serving the consumer. everyone elses test the 4080 loses in all but dlss vs fsr and rt. otherwise it gets spanked by a xtx in almost all titles. and he doesnt have sam activated either.
@@sadssadsa5944 that's okay, it's still more available education than if he hadn't posted it. Also the whole amd vs Nvidia thing really depends on the title for this generation which this comparison demonstrates perfectly...
@17% no it doesn't. This comparison on every other tech tubers and xtx wins over 4080. It's simply a better card bar dlss and rt. And with Sam activated not even close.
SAM and reBar are both enabled in my testing. The 7900 xtx is slightly faster on average in pure rasterization, but both win some and lose some on a game by game basis. Once RT and DLSS vs FSR are factored in, the 4080 takes a noticeable lead. But it costs more and has less VRAM. I'd definitely take the 4080 over the xtx if they cost the same. But they don't. You just need to decide if the extra cost is worth the extra features and RT performance. If my testing isn't enough here's a good meta analysis of a bunch of launch reviews showing the 4080 has about 96.9% of the rasterized 4k performance of the xtx: www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/zqptli/amd_radeon_rx_7900_xt_xtx_meta_review/?
I wanted a RT 7900 XTX however here in the UK I brought 4080 for £1099 and all RT 7900 XTX started at £1199!!! (at that time of buying) and the stock for the RT 7900 xtx have been quite non-existent not even sure if the UK got any stock on the release day. Also note the 3080 is about £200 cheaper, the 3080 TI is only a little bit cheaper (£50 however a few are the same price) and the 3090 TI is more expensive !!!
not surprised that the 7900XTX is going better at RT in a CPU intensive RT especially given that it's been known that Nvidia drivers has a higher CPU overhead usage compared to AMD.
The nVidia driver overhead has been reported on by Hardware unboxed. They did a video on their investigation a while back detailing the issue. It's probably not a deal breaker since it generally only crops up in specific situations that aren't necessarily common.
@@Anon1370 It's literally a google search to find it but here to go regardless. Part 1 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JLEIJhunaW8.html Part 2 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G03fzsYUNDU.html
Great review! One important thing is missing: the energy usage of the 7900XTX. It performs similar to the 4080 while consuming > 25% energy. (300 watt vs 440 watt under load)
Lies. Xtx is more efficient 🤡 why would amd straight up lie in their slides? If they did then amd fans wouldn’t be as supportive as they r, it’s not like we’re delusional lol
@@Drip7914 I’ll be honest it’s not as efficient as I thought it would be but it’s still pulling way less than my 3080 ti. That thing was pulling close to 460 from the wall, this cards much more efficient, way faster is raster, and also has better RT than my 3080 ti.
About the different things Raytracing is used for and its varying performance impact: Most likely depending on the usage of textures. Calculating direct light vs shadows only involves geometry and no textures - and is the type of raytracing with the least impact on Radeons. Reflections in general take 1 texture-lookup (if the material at that pixel is reflective or not) - bigger impact. Physical based rendering (so translucent materials, glowing materials, distorting materials) - multiple texuter lookup - insane impact. We can nicely see this with portal remix or minecraft. Why is this the case? Radeon used the texture-units for the ray-evaluation as they have no dedicated raytracing units. This means that if whatever raytracing is used for is involving textures then the card has to do a full switch to free up the texture-units again so they can do their job and then switch back the raytracing data. This is a huge overhead and inevitable for these type of effects. They might be able to mitigate it the same way they did it for forced async-compute - adding extra cache to speedup the context-swap - or they might in the future choose dedicated hardware (that would be a great use of chiplets )
Thank you Daniel for the awesome in depth review. You did explore the different graphic settings of the games you tested, which most reviewers don't do, that makes it really helpful for making a decision on which card to get in my opinion. I really like these detailed reviews keep up the good work.
Looks like I’ll be holding onto my 3080 for another 2 years. No reason to upgrade especially at those prices. I would want a 100% performance increase if I’m going to even spend $800-$1000 on a GPU. I went from a 2070 Super ($500) to a 3080 ($800) in Dec 2020.That was a big jump in performance.
Did the exact same upgrade, at the same time. The only GPU with a similar uplift if I were to upgrade this gen is the 4090, and that is more than double the price compared to my expensive 3080 (900€ vs. 2100€, the 2070s was 500€).
I went from a $200 GTX960 in 2015 to the 6800XT last month for about $400. That's a 6-times performance uplift for only double the price. I like it a lot. lol
Yeh my 3090 has been a really cool card I was surprised compared to the 6800xt I bought together at the time to decide which I was keeping the 6800xt was hotter I believe it that the 4080 has good temps also
So what I'm seeing here is, regardless of which card you have, just don't bother with raytracing. I've yet to see a game that really makes use of it and makes you say "wow" in a way that's worth the 50% or greater fps drop.
A good compilation of the data. What I miss in the price comparison, however, is the reference to the follow-up costs. The 4080 has rarely reached the 300 W mark in all the videos, while both the 3080 and the rtx have a standard consumption of 330 - 350 W. I don't know the energy prices in the US, but here in Europe they are currently very high (up to 0.70 Euro (around 0.74 USD) per kWh in Germany for example). A gross consumption of, in some cases, more than 100W makes a non-negligible difference.
74 cents per KwH is ridiculous, and I feel for you guys over there. Right now where I live in Indiana its 8.1 cents per KwH, with the avg for the State being 12 cents and avg for the US as a whole at 16 cents.
Well the energy turns into heat so. Just means i gotta run my space heater less. Guess its a waste in summer tho. I actually put my processor to mine XMR when sleeping. Consumes about 200 watts and gives a littlebit back in crypto to help pay for the heating bill. I altso have a 5 old gpus mining, barely making any money. But they work as my space heater, gets turned off in summer. And the 35 euro my "spaceheater" miner makes per month, isnt going to make me rich. It helps to pay the energy bill thats so crazy right now. I live in Norway tho, and we heat mostly with electricity. I guess you heat more with natural gas in down in Europe from what ive understood? So if i heat with a space heater, or a miner. Does not matter much, except the somewhat higher investment cost of gpus. All the energy turns into heat i need anyways.
Oh wow, 4080 managing 4k high with hardware RT on in UE5 Fortnite while being at lower than 300w? An amazing card ruined by bad pricing. Still, curious that there is no wattage for 7900XTX in this video, heard that it really sucks so much power when RT is on.
I think the 4080 prices will come down relatively quickly. They aren't selling that well here in the UK and the 4090 is actually the much better value card lol.
@@JudeTheRU-vidPoopersubscribe crazy seeing so many in stock here the UK. Went to NVidia's site as I was wanting a reference one and somehow even those are in stock. I am honestly just gonna wait as I see them going to 999, or maybe 1050?.
@@Bdot888 "throwing away"... you know for some people 1200$ is not that much... other people have horses, tune their cars etc etc. gaming is still a very cheap hobby.
@@PrefoX price to performance is just not there. If the price to performance was better then yes the $1,200 price tag could be worth it. But at BEST the 4080 is 40-50 percent more performance but for almost double the price of the 3080
Loved the fact you’ve added CoD MW to the testing. No surprise your work is getting recognized! To 100k and above! Keep up the good work! I guess I’ll stick to the 7900 xtx, if I can find one here in Europe (at a reasonable price)
I got one coming today. Very Excited. I mainly play MW2 and WZ2 so it will be nice to run maxed out settings at 1440p and still get crazy frames. 7900X3D will compliment it soon also.
Funny to notice that at this moment for the current pricing the better option for a new high end card is the 7900XT that is sold at the same price of the 3080 but is much faster
Yes, but no one wants to go against the grain. Just look for what will give you an experience you will enjoy at the lowest price. For many that would be the 7900xt, but simply because it may have less relative value people seemingly are just pretending it doesn't exist and recommending that everyone should just spend more money for an experience that may be no different for them. It of course may go down in price in 1-2 months but that's the nature of tech market. Can wait a bit and maybe save, or buy now to start experiencing it earlier. Based on where nvidia prices the 4070ti will determine how much Amd will lower the price of the xt. Whatever it may be if Amd lowers it $100+ less than the 4070ti , then the xt may be my recommended for this gen. The 20gb vram is nice and doesnt look like nvidia will have anything close to that in that price range. The 4070ti will always have the ray tracing advantage but it's getting to the tier where the ray tracing isn't as important, or you would undoubtedly only be using it at 1440p with upscaling.
@123subject I am in Canada, so it was a $197 CAD difference after exchange and taxes. Not huge, but it amounted to a 13.5% savings over the XTX Canadian pricing which I was happy with.
Nvidia sales to engineering: Most of our cards are overly surpassing the latest game's requirements. How do we make people want to replace their perfectly good cards? Engineering: we invented another "setting" in the game, when selected linearly reduces the performance by 50% for marginally noticeable graphics changes. Nvidia sales: can it really be that easy? ...
that's how progress in graphics happen. It was similar with tesselation, very demanding and barely noticable. Now it is a basic game engine stuff. Without those small leaps, today's games would look a lot worse.
>Most of our cards are overly surpassing the latest game's requirements very bad logic, it implies people don't need better hardware and better graphics than what exists and progress should stop. when in fact we need WAY faster and cheaper cards (x2-5-10 times faster, not +50% for over 1000 bucks) so devs can utilize that and make real progress = games with better graphics. no hardware = no better graphics in games. even 4090 despite being faster then anything else CAN'T EVEN RUN RT properly even at 1440p 144Hz (mid-range monitor level). there's still no better graphics not because its hard to make better cards, but because top cards like 4090 are overpriced AF and no gamers can afford that = no devs make games for unaffordable hardware, because game devs actually need to sell games. nvidya/amd don't want fast progress or better graphics in games because 1) old cards would get cheaper and they like 'em overpriced = huge x5-10 margins = huge profits = they get billions of bucks quarterly 2) amd would like to sell morally obsolete ps5/xbox chips for as long as possible and nvidya sells gaas - instead of affordable GPUs. e.g. 5700xt from Xi Jinping costs 176 bucks now, same level of performance as 6600XT or 3060. 6600XT and 3060 are sold by amoode nvidya for x2 and x3 times more, and 3060 barely has any RT, RT is unusable at this performance level.
you can keep playing doom1 because after all, some idiot invented Voodoo that only enthusiasts can afford ;] Rome wasn't built in a day, as RT started, it was really painful to use it, now many cards calmly give it advice. Not long ago 1080p + rt WOW and now 4k without rt this gpu sucks... Personally, I prefer NV because it works with every program, every game and every VR and unfortunately AMD does not. The fact that amd works better in one game is a bit too little, especially since it's a new series of cards and the race to refine the drivers will only begin.
amazing video. I actually ended up getting lucky other day went to three diffrent microcenters and found 1 powercolor 7900xtx that had been returned a day before was on clerance at 899.99. Upgraded from a 6800xt, love this thing. Not a huge RT fan so the perf to price of this thing is amazing.
Please don't forget about us ULTRAWIDE gamers. It was one of the major aspects of benchmarking that drew me into your videos 🥲 (as well as your love for math/unbiased reviews).
This was excellent and showed exactly what I was looking for personally. 4k and 4k rt on/off. I’m happy I’m sticking with my 4080. Id still be happy even if I had an XTX. Still very good performance from both at 4k. I do prefer having RT when it makes sense.
why do you not have the power draw from the 7900 in the data? i mean, i already have a 4080 and i know that it uses less power than the amd card but still, it is nice seeing just exactly how much more power efficient it is
He explained at the start that it just didn't work for whatever reason. If the 7XXX series GPUs report power using the same system as 6XXX series it's useless anyway since they don't report the power used by the complete board (I.E. the whole GPU).
The 7900 xtx (Stock) has a fixed powerdraw of 350W in "gamining" Mode and up to 120 W in normal Desktop Mode. IgorsLab did a big comparision and testsetup to benchmark everything.
I'll have my 7900xtx coming today, yay. However if you are thinking of building a computer, I suggest getting a used 3080 as it is a beast of a card. Computers are hobby of mine and I had 3080, great card and enough juice to play every game on good settings.
Agree. XTX and 4080, 4090 are not for the average gamer. I just enjoy building and I'll sell my 3080 TI at some point. Unless I am unhappy with AMD. This is my 1st AMD run.
The Callisto Protocol RT isn't cpu limited as it is memory bandwidth limited on the cpu. For some reason bvh calculations are easier on branch prediction with amd gpus maybe? Once you use Intel with ddr5 7600+ manually tuned Nvidia pulls out a win as expected with RT on. Gotham Knights had a similar issue as well. Maybe something that might show up more often in future UE titles.
No RT is also CPU heavy, and Nvidia has a higher CPU overhead. It's been tested and confirmed by Hardware Unboxed. Can be up to 30% depending on the game.
For me it seems like amd had something really wrong in their drivers / gpu architecture. So huge difference in their own titles (mw2 / Callisto) was not a case for 6000 series. 7900xt slightly faster than 6900 while have pretty much same CU counts and wastly outnuber old gpu in cache size that is important.
Dude its a totally brand new architecture with totally brand new driver of course they have A LOT of work to do to make it work really, really well ...
13:23 There was a slide that AMD had that said they had something in place to help with CPU overheads, I can't find the exact slide though (7900 series)
My 1st RU-vid comment in many many months. First, great presentation as always man. One can tell youre a teacher. Im a 43 yo bartender with degrees in Electronics Tech and Mgmnt Info Sys with a father that was a Comuter Science professor for 51 years(just a little backgound). I just have one question. Why dont you customize the RTSS on screen display? The stock setup of the rows of data came be very confusing to the begining novice. Anytime I watch a GPU video on the TV at work I have to explain the numbers on the screen to whomever is watching. Think about please. Other than that I love youre content. Cant believe how fast youre growing. I think you had about 1500 subs the 1st time I watched ya. Congrats. Before you know it youll be at 1,000,000 subs.👍
What a massive difference in RT results between a game that was made specifically for Nvidia's RT and never optimized for AMD HW - Cyberpunk, and games that came out after AMDs RT technology was launched - Callisto Protocol, Fortnite, etc. that were optimized for both. When people say AMD's RT sucks - they are generally referring to Cyberpunks implementation only - which was made before AMD RT hardware launched.
@@krizby87 Yh he’s coping hard. Xtx gets trashed in dying light 2 and metro as well. My overclocked 3080 is actually slapping Daniels xtx in Rt by a couple Fps which is EMBARRASSING 😭
Would love to see a comparison of how Ryzen 5000 measures up to the Ryzen 7000 series when using a 3080, 7900 xtx, and 4080. Thanks for the great videos!
In Australia, you can get a 3080 (10GB) for about $1200 a XTX for about $1850 and 4080 is about $2200 AUD. Basically looks to be just behind parity for price per performance. Still crazy to pay $1800+ just to play 100+ FPS on Ultra at 4k. I run 1400p Ultra wide which from memory is 20% less pixels to push than 4K. So maybe 3080 will be ok for around 100fps in those games.
i have bought a 6800xt at msrp in november '21 and i play in 1440p high refresh rate with near all games. The rtx performance aren't good as a 3080, but with fsr and with this resolution, is not a huge problem. In Vr (i play on quest2 connected to pc) it perform very well (resolution x 1.3 @90hrz in all games, x 1.3 @120hrz or 1.4@90hrz in some games). with this assumption, i think that is not worth the upgrade to amd 7000 or nvindia 4000
damn, i didn't realize 3080's were so expensive now. i ended up buying one around the beginning of september and only payed $800 at newegg. it came with a spiderman code as well lol
I don't know who is buying XTXs at $1300-1400: it's literally a 4080 but with half the RT performance, more power draw, and a worse cooler / higher temps. People have lost their minds with GPUs.
My 2016 computer died 4 months ago (i7-6700, 980ti, 16gb ddr4 2000mhz or so). I typically keep my computers without upgrading/swapping parts for 5-6 years. I just recently pulled the trigger on a custom i7-13700k, 32gb ddr5 6000 and a 4090. I compared the price from when the 3090 launched to the 4090 and it’s a $100 difference. I read the 4090s can run hot so opted to not get the 13900k. If the 4080 was about $800, I would’ve gone with that but at $1200 before tax, it’s too close in price to the 4090 and the difference in power is pretty large. I plan to game at 4k 120hz ultra everything
Strangely enough I had similar experience . I returned mine just because the coil whine was driving me insane . I was running a 5800x3d at 1440p and saw no difference
Strangely enough I had similar experience . I returned mine just because the coil whine was driving me insane . I was running a 5800x3d at 1440p and saw no difference
That would require games that look better than 2011 games. Vr games just aren't that demanding, half life alyx runs great on any Rtx 2000 card or 6000 amd cards. These new Gpus would just run them at like 200fps. Even fortnite right now is twice as demanding as the best looking vr game (HL alyx) since I can barely run fortnite now and with HL alyx I'm running it comfortably.
@Gerson Gaete I don't want to tear you down or anything, but this level of misinformation is exactly why I wish someone would do detailed benchmarking for PCVR games. VE games don't look as good because VR is hard, and needs more horsepower. It means these new high end cards are even MORE relevant for VR than they are for flat gaming
Can someone explain the point of 4k gaming to me? Money aside.... a smoother experience is always a more immersive experience. Nothing breaks immersion faster than constant stuttering at 60fps because you like the pretty textures. I do not tolerate hitching, stuttering, or low frame rates in general very well. I would say anything under 100fps feels terrible even if stutters are not present. Once you crank textures to Ultra settings in most games (4090 included) you're going to start introducing micro stutters as the textures load. That's just the way it is. I see this $5000 gaming experience as sort of a fool's errand -- even if you have the money you're actually experiencing a WORSE product than someone who takes a bit of time to optimize settings and "settles" for a lower pixel count. I've built PC's my whole life and been around since the earliest days of GPU's. I've seen every step of the way. We are getting into completely "waste of money" territory with zero returns and I really mean that. 1440P 240hz+ is the optimal gaming zone and I think most will still be happy on 1080p 240hz. I can afford the gear I literally just don't see the point. It will not make you have more fun and it will not make you a better gamer.
Well, you raised related points. I kind of too can't wrap around my head the fact that people build PCs just to play games. Like, when i was a poor teen i was happy with used Pentium 4 661 with 2 gigs of ddr2 RAM and ATI 1950pro in 2009. I could play games and i really enjoyed it. So for me it was enough that game performs well in despite of low-medium settings. Now i not only play games but also work on my PC. It's ryzen 5950x with 128 gigs and RTX4080. I built it that way because i knew it will payoff in a year. But since i have such good specs that can run games in 4K why can't i play it? Otherwise i'd go for used components if PC wasn't source of income. I guess people just don't realize that. And this is why most people bitch about prices, because they don't get a return from such investment.
@@mael8328 Agree they do. But my 1080p 240hz sits merely 18" from my eyes which is optimal. I have them on articulating arms. If I have a 32" monitor 3 feet away from me it is defeating the purpose of having a larger size and resolution for that matter as you cannot see the details anyway. I previously owned a 27" 1440p 144hz when they first came out. I downgraded to 1080p and never looked back. GPU's are powerful enough for 1440p high refresh now so in the future I may upgrade again but my previous point remains. A larger monitor further away from your face is defeating the purpose. A large monitor too close makes it difficult to actually use especially in competitive settings.
32" 4k 4090 owner here. So in general, number of pixels / screen size = pixels per inch^2 or pixel density. The higher the better, as more pixels (with a quality screen) allow for the colors to "pop out" (of the screen) and is very pleasing. When I first loaded Plague tale Requiem, my jaw dropped. I didn't know where to look first... stuffed my head into the screen and noticed that I couldn't focus the entire screen (even thou i had 1440p 32" for 4-5 years before this 4k one). The amount of detail was... It took some time to adjust and find an adequate position/distance between the head and the monitor to be able to catch all the details of the whole screen (instead of just look at 1/4 of the screen :) ). So full RT (and DLSS + frame generation) ~ 108 FPS if i am not mistaken. Looks and feels beautifully. And tbh, I think i can't "see/feel" above that (maybe up to 120/140), so this is a kind of a sweet spot for me personally (not old, but not that young anymore). I think you can imagine how playing full RT Darktide (WH40k) on 120 hz+ feels with all its light/darkness dance and those glorious textures and oversized, well, everything :). A friend of mine (has 3080, 1440p, 27") tested my rig few days ago. He felt the difference, acknowledged that it's a completely different experience versus what he has ( he was also thinking of getting a similar rig, so i wanted to give him a chance to experience it before committing to such a huge expense ). But if you ask me, i would say, it's not worth the money, for majority of people. There are really only handful of games that benefit this "cutting edge", that you will play for 200-300h in total. Everything else, is probably capped at 60fps (so kind of overkill), has no RT, or it would work as good as it would on a 3080 or even older gpus. Hell I am still playing Vampire Survivor from time to time... Or just reading a book or watching a movie. But for me, getting this setup was kind of a dream/goal that I had for quite a bit of time (30 years, +- few years). Stars aligned, stuffed happen, and I was able to make that wish come true. Don't regret it one bit, but I can see that many would.
@@NoirTenshin Cool thanks for sharing! I guess I am just the type of gamer that only plays competitive multi player games so it doesn't really make sense to me. I would personally use the 4090 to run 1440p on a 360hz monitor you know what I mean. I am with you that diminishing returns start to kick in beyond 160-180fps in my opinion but less mouse latency is always better and can be felt in my opinion so there is a small but noticeable difference going from 160fps to 300fps lets say. Mouse also plays a part in that and is easily the best bang for the buck to shave MS off input lag. I guess single player gamers don't even consider these things and maybe a stutter to me is completely unfelt in single player games since the risk of death is lower. All relative.
Thank you Daniel! I've bought everything for my PC except the GPU. Waiting on the Lancool-216 to arrive here in the UK (mid jan) so I have a bit of patience for GPUs. Your guides have been really helpful for me deciding whether to go AMD or Nvidia, and which ones are really worth it. I'm going to wait for reviews of the 4070Ti then make my choice
Same, kinda.. i built my pc like half a year ago, and was wating to see what GPUs will come out.. i still have no idea what to buy tho. Im still using my old 1070 in my new pc lol..
@@GamingXperience I honestly think I'm gonna use my RX580 for a little bit until something really catches my eye lol. I wanna buy one of the top end ones now, but they're all like $400 overpriced it's so hard to justify :/
@@ayyorta I'd probably wait it out too if I were you. I don't think the 4070Ti is going to make much of a difference in the value proposition this generation. Maybe AMD will surprise with decently priced mid-range options, but it seems unlikely.
Gotta love that you can easily get a 7900XT for msrp, but the XTX is either gone or heavily inflated everywhere. I'm kinda surprised that it seems like people are actually smart enough to know the XT is overpriced. This morning there were XTX listings on Newegg for $2000 (third party seller), but they were gone after a few hours. Don't know if they sold or if Newegg removed them.
The XT is a bit maybe, but in reality it overclocks really well and can surpass a stock 4080 pretty easily. Hell, there are quite a few reports of them beating XTX cards.
@@PineyJustice Well yeah the 4080 is overpriced, but I am talking about within AMD's stack. When looking at the XT vs the XTX, it seems to me that you'd always just fork out the extra $100 if you're already looking at cards that expensive. Some of the custom XT's are $1000 too, while the Powercolor Hellhound XTX is $1000, so you're just paying the same price for a not insignificant reduction in baseline performance.
@@Jooglesberry It's not a significant reduction in performance though, sure it could be 100 bucks cheaper but it's not terribly priced. Refusing to tune AMD chips is utterly stupid, they've gotten better sure, but baseline is almost always terribly tuned.
@@Jooglesberry Additionally, people are still buying 3080ti and 3090 cards for over a thousand to 1400$ while 7900xt cards are readily available at 900, the 7900xt absolutely demolishes a 3090 at pretty much everything while having nearly the same RT performance.
i rather buy a nvidia card even if its more expensive. reasons being that nvidia is typically just higher quality. drivers are alot better and more stable. more games supported fully by nvidia cards over amd. majority of VR games runs better with nvidia. and also to note something here that 7900 XTX is fairly power hungry compared to the 4090 for instance. mind you the 4090 can go as low as 280 watts at only 5-10% loss of frames.
The 4080 is ridiculously overpriced, but the XTX is also $200 more than it should be. Hope we can return to reasonable prices for this performance in the future.
not true at all. worse RT, and extremely bad VR performance, bad thermals, pretty much everything about 7900xtx is worse except for some games were the xtx is a tiny bit better in raster. 7900 is worse than the 6900xt in VR let that sink in : )
13:41, yes the Nvidia driver does its scheduling on the CPU. It has like a 20-30% higher CPU overhead compared to AMD. Hardware unboxed confirmed this a while ago. Its a boon in games that are really old and poorly multithreaded (DX9->DX11). But with modern games it's a deficit.
@@0w784g It would be, if it was not already demonstrated across various other titles. The problem is not all games have as complex AI, Phsyics, Geometry to create sufficient CPU load for it to hit a wall when you turn on something like RT on top of it. Which is why that hardware unboxed video had mixed results. Only the CPU heavy games showed this 20-30% deficit.
NVIDIA does not do it's scheduling on the CPU this is factually incorrect. They also do not have a 20-30% CPU overhead compared to AMD, that's ridiculous. HUB didn't confirm anything that you said with their video, what they were seeing was that the resource binding model in DX12 is very similar to mantle and far more aligned with the way AMD's architectures work so in most dx12 games NVIDIA will become CPU bound earlier. You won't see this same bottle necking effect in DX11 or Vulcan.
@@bronsondog1000 Yes it does, which is why you can turn on Hardware accelleration for it in your windows options. And it seemed to effect DX11 based games like Watch Dogs just as much. Vulkan is derrived from Mantle as well, so that statement is "factually incorrect".
@@The_Noticer. "Yes it does, which is why you can turn on Hardware accelleration for it in your windows options." You can turn this on with both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs so I have no idea how you think this is evidence that "Nvidia does it's scheduling on the CPU". The Hardware Accelerated GPU Scheduling option in settings is referring specifically to offloading the scheduling for WDDM to your graphics card (AMD or NVIDIA) so you're literally pointing to something that disproves what you're arguing. Your CPU cannot do your GPU scheduling at runtime there is simply not enough bandwidth via pcie and even if there was your CPU isn't powerful enough. If the compiling and scheduling was all done on the CPU for NVIDIA graphics cards then they'd all be running at like less than 1 FPS. Yes, Vulkan is also derived from mantle but just because it's based on it doesn't mean the API is the same. A truck and a ferrari are both derived from a model T ford and you can draw some similarity between the ferrari and the model T that you couldn't between the truck and the model t. Do you believe that the intricacies of a mack truck are the same as a ferarri? As for the DX11 bottlenecks in games like Watch Dogs that comes down to NVIDIA distributing their calls to multiple threads and how devs program their game. Most of the time AMD cards will be CPU bound before NVIDIA cards in DX11 due to these draw calls because AMD don't do this in their driver.
I have 3060ti and im fine at 1440p. I don't use rt, and i use dlls quality when needed or when a game has garbage AA. For example i use dlss in Dying Light 2 or in Witcher 3 instead of AA. I play Witcher 3 on ultra+ without rt but with dlls Quality.
Its a bummer that u didnt enable the power consumption in the xtx :( the 4080 is avg pulling only 200w thats prety insane if the xtx uses 350watts... 12:30
It makes sense that the RX7900XTX is only equal to an RTX 3080 when it comes to reflections because from what I know, one of the main aspects for ray-tracing improvement that AMD has is that the 7000-series can discard unneeded rays to reduce the impact it has to performance which isn't as useful when it comes to reflections.
At 37 I can say I'm completely done with gaming. Gladly so as the prices of cards now days are absolutely and utterly ridiculous. I'm never ever paying that kinda price. I feel bad for younger people that are still in the hype.
The best GPU for the money right now buying strictly used is a RX 6900 XT, and if you care about RT, get the RTX 3090. For £650-750 you're getting 4K beasts.
LOL 3090 sucks now, the power usage for FPS is terrible. 4080 smokes it with less power usage. if you care about RT get the 4080 or honestly just wait a little bit more for a 4090. I bought a 4080 and a week later Microcenter got 10 Zotac 4090s in stock and I returned mine for store credit and paid $300 more out of pocket and now I have the best PC on planet earth right now.
Yup, bought a used 3090 for $600. Looked mint, not even dusty. Card was still on the original bios which didn't have Rebar support lol. So definitely wasn't mined on nor probably OCed. Playing at ultra wide 1440p 144 Hz, it's more than enough
Or save lots of money get the 3080ti with almost identical perf as the 3090, unless you need the extra VRAM, 3090 has never made sense for gamers, it’s not even much better than a regular 3080, but man the price difference is huge.
im gonna wait on this gen or possibly till next gen. im curious if after around 6-8 months of driver updates on the 7900xtx and see how much it improves. take a look at the 6000 series they perform way better now then when they launched. one thing i notice is amd improves greatly over the life of the generation as where nvidia starts strong and pretty much stays as is because they got the drivers right at the start. for now ill stick with my 6800xt though it does 1440p very well.
Wait for the 5000 series bro, by then the software side of things will have matured (it’s still infant stages for 4000 series) and hopefully the 5080 has better value than the 4080 compared to their 90 tier counterparts.
@@aiatgamer375 do more then just game so it will get upgraded sometime sooner then later. I do agree though it does shine at 100-144fps 1440p max settings except for a slim handful of games.
@@victors.6439 I don't like ultrawide, because it's not a standard format for video, and because with ultrawide it's best to use a curved screen which I do not like.
I would say most people don’t care about rt. If you do just buy whatever the top end gpu is. The real issue with amd v nvidia is production workloads and how most software suites favor nvidia software integration. Amd rules in pure clicks, but those clicks don’t perform as well when all the software is geared to the market leader.
I was lucky and was able to get a 3080 a few weeks after launch through the EVGA wait list program. The RTX 4090 looked enticing because I have a 3840x1600 widescreen, but it's just too expensive. I'm going to skip this generation after previously owning a GTX 1080, RTX 2080 Super, and now an RTX 3080. Most games I can adjust some settings or use DLSS to get an acceptable frame rate. The only exception being my heavily modded Skyrim, it dips to the high 30 fps at times, but it's fine.
I went for the 4080 for 4k gaming because I couldn't put my hands on a new last gen gpu that had a fair price.. Also some graphics settings are heavily taxing on performance while having a slight appearance change... so I'm sure i'll be fine with that card for at least 3 years of 100fps+ 4k gaming, wether I lower graphics or use DLSS.
Edit: I exchanged it for a 4090, I don't really like DLSS after all.. certain people say there's barely a difference but there's definitely more blurriness.. Having a 4k monitor I'd rather use the full clarity.. Dlss3 can be helpful for slow games but the added input lag makes me want to lower graphics instead but stay 4k.. Im power limiting the 4090 to 70% because I use a 750w psu, and maybe I get 5% loss of performance. My card almost never heats up above 50-55c I got the msi gaming trio, was having a bad coil whine but it wears down now I dont have any issues.
Its impossible to buy a 6800xt or a 3080 here in Greece even after the supposedly stabilized gpu market. They both cost 900-1k. Just fffs. I will stick to my 6700xt untill the 5000 series come out. North Americans are lucky to have the opportunity to buy gpus at a more decent pricing.
Yes, it is there for us to see. You elaborate on this nicely at the start. However, it is consistently higheest for the AMD card and we do not hear you mention this. Not a complaint. Just an observation.
Overall, the 7900 xtx seems a bit of a dissapointment. Really leaning to a 4080 right now if the price is adjusted. It really is a terrible time to upgrade, I have a RTX 2060 and was hoping to get a GPU to upgrade to 1440p with high refresh rate (completely gave up for 4k after this video since in some of the current games, the 4080 and 7900 can't keep at 60 fps native on ultra). I could get the previous iterations (6000 series or 3000 series) but I really want to have a future proof GPU for the next video game engines such as Unreal Engine 5.
@@Dempig you don’t even play games lmao. 4k and rt are completely useless technologies and i find it funny that people still buy into that crap. but it’s ok you can buy your 4090 just to play cyberpunk and stare at the fps counter
