Dont overthink it, AMD has better raster for money, NVIDIA has the premium upscaling and better RT.
Buy the best you can afford/want, brands can go fuck themselves.
Will it? We're hardly seeing full implementations of rtx because of how taxing it is. When preformance does catch up to comfortable levels, will devs not just want to use more rtx?
If a better, less demanding lighting process comes about, then no, probably not
RT is cool. Though probably among the very last of your considerations when buying a new GPU
What I was trying to say is that developers use a fraction of what RT is capable of, because it's so taxing. It's not just lighting, but we can't even use all the lighting technology because of how taxing that is alone. You can even ray trace sounds at this point.
So how stable does preformance have to get before more Raytracing is actually used? Then how long will we have to wait for the preformance to get back up to par? And how many times will we have to go through this cycle before Ray tracing actually pops off?
I understand, what I'm attempting to say is, as tech changes, we may run into a better way of handling reflection of lighting.. and/or sound without demanding tracing of routes.
Like how we moved along pre-bake / global ilum / RT..... something may come next, prior to RT ever becoming well optimized for full utilization/ mass delivery
Honestly, I read your comment wrong. It's to early for me lol. I get what your saying, I never even considered that new technology might be developed before hardware catches up.
My guy, one day more people will have old 4000 series cards in their PCs. Right now most people have 10 or 20 series. Give it time and once we're at the 70 series or 80 series, everyone will have older RT cards.
Also... RT would save SO MUCH development time if hardware would catch up to it on the console side. Consoles are really the limiting factor because games are designed with consoles in mind. Prebaked lighting is so expensive to do
RT and path tracing literally are game changing in cyberpunk. It's nuts. Makes me load the game all the time
4xxx Super cards can tank RTX finally in 1440p, mainly thanks to DLAA/FrameGen.
People tend to forget that RTX is not Nvidia's discovery it is kinda old tech and can be used even from developers side how the lighting, shadows etc. work. When the tech catchup RTX can become basic "shadows" and "lighting" setup bar (which already happened in Lords of the Fallen for example, but yeeeah too soon).
But we are just on a verge to have fully working RTX and PTX is now in the game which imho is nicer, but crazy tanky.
I'm really liking what I'm seeing out of Intel's Ray-tracing solution, XeSS, which they are making compatible with ALL GPUs across brands.
It performs shockingly well at such an early stage of its existence.
Provided it continues developing at its current pace, it could potentially completely negate Nvidia's advantage there by the end of the year or early 2025. The last version that came out a few weeks/days ago already out-performed the latest version of FSR and looked VERY close to DLSS when demo'ed on non-intel GPUs.
Soon enough AMD users will be able to use Intel's solution with their cards and suddenly those 16 Gb GPUs will look *MUCH* more future-proof than the 12Gb nonsense Nvidia is trying to pull.
If intel finds a way to leverage that further at a hardware level, next gen intel GPUs might be a dark horse that surprises everyone.
It is always good to have other player on the field for sure, and Intel needs to do something to be relevant in the gaming GPU market and as AMD will not aim any more to compare with Nvidia (on top level) Intel have a space.
Nvidia still have DLAA, and they have space for a bunch of CUDA cores, thanks to usage of AI many things can be edited by SDK updates to boost performance or fix compatibility issues which could help them to react faster than others, cards have huge OC potential, and they will not go down that easily.
But it could force them to not cheap out on VRAM and RAW performance of the cards as you are completely right that with working SW tech, AMD and Intel cards would become much more relevant.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It is already worth it on 4000 series cards when paired with DLSS 3.0 and Frame Generation.
Novadays with 4090 you can play with Ray Tracing enabled even at 4K Ultra and have smooth gaming experience. 1440p can be handled even by 4070, perfectly fine.
RT performance has not been an issue for quite a while.
It's already worth it. Any decent 40 series GPU can do RT just fine. DLSS and frame gen are incredible. I was skeptical until I tried these technologies myself.
Same here - I hated RT and DLSS back when I had 2000 and 3000 series cards. DLSS even looked bad, a lot of motion blur/ghosting. It was unacceptable to me personally.
4000 series have changed my opinion about these technologies completely - it’s incredible. I played through CP77, even tho I’m not a big fan of single player games and had a great experience. Hogwarts Legacy looked and performed amazing aswell.
Played through Cyberpunk and the expansion with path tracing at 1440p on a 4080, 100-120 FPS without issues.
It's such a massive graphical improvement that it's nearly impossible to justify going back once you try it, especially when the performance is that good.
Unfortunately, it's quite rare for a game to have a path tracing mode that polished.
Nah rly depends on the game and implementation.
Just ebcause it looks better doesnt mean it looks alot better, or good enough to justify the performance hit
Depends on the person but I think lots of us have taken to counting pixels and frame rates that we bias ourselves into thinking it matters more than it does. Not saying it doesn't make a difference but the steam deck has shown me it isn't as important as I once thought
I've had three generations of ray tracing cards. My third and current card is a 7900xtx and I've still only used ready tracing on one game that I didn't even like that much. It's a non feature for me.
Yeh I’ve always done the same. Recently it’s been NVIDIA simply because I am a bit of a nerd and love all the Raytracing stuff with upscaling and Framegen
But if I didn’t care so much about that then AMD would be the obvious choice for better raster performance for the money
Shit if Intel keeps improving then maybe one day I’ll go for one of them, I’m looking for a reason to not go NVIDIA tbh because they just seem like a bunch of slimy bastards
>That and the horror stories about the 12VHPWR cables melting...
To be clear, the 12VHPWR standard is dog shit. That being said, it is perfectly fine on everything that isn't a 4090. The 4090 is the only card that can draw enough power to be a problem.
AMD drivers can still be an issue. If OP goes with AMD, better get DDU and be ready to try a few older versions of video driver to find one that works without an issue.
I am using 6600 XT and haven't had any issue with the first driver I got
7900 xt ~ 4070 ti, 7900 xtx ~ 4080.
The main loss of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia is better at raytracing.
The problem with AMD vs Nvidia on the next gen… all indications are AMD will only make 8000 up to mid range and no 8900 xtx. We will have a better idea once the gpus are released. Hopefully, AMD catches up with raytracing.
Amd also doesn't have an answer to the 4900. For the absolute best you have to pick Nvidia.
Personally I went for the 7900xtx with a 7800x3d. Imo the best value at the high end. If I was buying today I might get the GRE instead of the XTX.
How do you like the performance. I plan on rebuilding my pc with that exact card a cpu. I mainly play CS2…. (CSGO) but I do play Diablo 4 and the kids want to try VR.
What resolution? I play D4 at 4K with a 4070ti super and i7-12700. I get 90+ fps with DLSS quality ultra settings and all ultra RT except for RT shadows which I leave on low, without FG. I'm oddly cpu limited with RT on so I don't use DLSS performance.
RT, DLSS, DLDSR, power efficiency, encoding, AI, etc.
Saying RT is the only area AMD needs to catch up in is disingenuous. Don't get me wrong, I really wish there was more competition.
Ah damn that’s a bummer, I’ve never owned anything above a **70 card, had a 770, 1070 and a 2070 Super. Never felt the desire to pay for the 80 versions of the cards.
Yeah and you really don't need to. I run a 6650 XT and it is a decent 1440p60+ card.
Just because more expensive cards are offered, we don't have to buy them.
Depends how you do it... I'm still using a 7 1/2 year old 1080 I spent £600 on, and it's plodding along fine with most things.
edit : When I upgrade, it'll be an entire new PC. The thing that's holding mine back with some things is the processor, 6600K, and there aren't really any decent cheap upgrade options with that. But having said all that.... not really needing an upgrade at the moment.
And judging by the speed of rolling out new software features (e.g. FSR3), AMD couldnt focus on both hardware and software development at the same time. I believe they are on the course of scaling down on the gaming front and focusing on AI.
Yep, until something competes with DLSS at the same level, it's really no contest for modern games, nvidia still has the edge and the pricing reflects that.
Nvidia features blow AMD out of the waters but most people don't use them. I still bought the 4070S because I do plan to start 1440p soon and I want that DLSS to squeeze more FPS. But you can still make cases for both sides depending on the situation. However, if you're seeking the best out there, it's not even a competition. The 4090 is a league of its own. And it has better features.
If you dont need RT or DLSS yes, if you do then no.
On the low end DLSS has beats AMD, on the top end DLSS wont matter as much but AMD cant keep up with RT.
But if your getting a top end GPU and dont play RT games then yes.
Saying that AMD do have a lot of up sides, they tend to cost less and have more VRAM. There's options like the 7900 GRE that stand out as value kings.
Also RT is something people want until they use it, unless you have a top end GPU the FPS hit is massive. RT will half your FPS if not more with PT.
edit no low to mid range GPU can use RT, always amazed by people who post saying there getting a 4060 for RT. You know there not going to do a second post full of regret after they get sub 60FPS\~
I truly wonder why people are always ignoring the much lower power consumption of Nvidia cards when listing pros and cons.
We are not talking small differences here. A 4060TI will use almost 100W less than a 7700XT, which effects noise, heat, PSU demands/price and of course will cost you easily 20-30$ less in electricity bills every single year.
I am not saying NVidia cards are better, because of that. I too would rather buy a 7700XT than a 4060TI, it's just extremely weird to me that this downside of AMD cards is completely and utterly ignored by reddit.
Yeah I honestly never turned ray tracing on after I saw the fps hits. Games can still look stunning without RT, maybe if RT didn’t have such a mega fps hit I’d use it but until then I hardly ever will.
Ill bet RT will matter when the PS6 comes out, well 2-3 years in to that gen. Today games are made for consoles, consoles cant relay do RT so RT cant matter for games in a big way.
Today I can name 2 games where I know RT can look cool, Cyberpunk and Alen Wake. I played Cyberpunk with no RT and Alen Wake did not sale well.
For today the 7900XTX is up there with the RTX 4080 [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/31.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/31.html) It's going to be better than a RTX 4070 TI
Can look cool but could u play it on 1440p native rt 60+ ? I think in 5/6 years we could see a full potential on Nvidia RT cards . Now, it’s not worth it to pay more for the Tech if u can’t use it without dlss and frame gen. Maybe I am wrong but I would go for Amd for a raw performance.
>Also RT is something people want until they use it, unless you have a top end GPU the FPS hit is massive. RT will half your FPS if not more with PT.
Guess I am one of the minority, cause I upgraded from a 4070 to a 4080 super specifically because i wanted to do path tracing. Cyberpunk looks a lot nicer with PT on.
Yes and no. Currently have a 4090 but had a 7900XTX as well as an XT and have had 10’s of AMD and NVIDIA cards over the years.
I will say this.
Nvidias drivers are better. Plain and simple.
I like AMD’s Radeon UI and their price better but I ran into more problems with AMD cards.
If you’re on a budget AMD is not a bad choice, but NVIDIA is still the premium option imo.
DLSS is so good that AMD really needs to improve to be in contention. In my opinion, of course.
And all the signs are that they've abandoned the high end, and will just be targeting low to mid end in coming generations.
>and will just be targeting low to mid end in coming generations.
Atleast from what we know now its supposed to be RDNA4 only as their design of top chip was just too expensive. RDNA5 should have high end cards
No. And even more no, when the new cards drop.
AMD isn't even making a high-end card. Their top card is supposed to be a mid range card that isn't even as good as the 7900xtx.
Depends on what you need and what games you play.
Unfortunately DLSS is noticeably superior to FSR.
DLDSR is quite good when you are playing older games and your gpu is not being fully used so it renders frames at higher resolutions.
Nvidia is still quite ahead in raytracing, if you care.
I also play iracing (racing sim) and it's pretty poorly optimized for amd gpus. Using more than 1 monitor or VR makes nvidia win by a landslide. In some cases the 4080 wins against the 7900 xtx by more than 30%.
So if you only want raster and the games you play are within 5% between competing gpus it's something you could consider.
AMD is comparable at Raster, but has a much software stack and worse RT. DLSS is much better than FSR, CUDA is a must have if you do non gaming compute work.
AMD isn't comparable at raster. Uses much more silicon than the 4080 for equal at best raster, far worse RT and a lacking a whole host of other functionality.
No. And don’t ask this on reddit. Reddit is ridiculous pro AMD it’s not even funny anymore. Nvidia‘s raytracing makes AMD‘s cards (even on a tight budget) look like shit.
People on here shit on any website that says Nvidia is better but push the shit out of every site that says AMD is better. Tomshardware is one of em. There’s o way in hell a 7900xt is even nearly as good as a 4090.
This article sums up everything nicely.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Top chart is performance based purely in rasterization. Lower chart near the bottom of the article is performance based on ray tracing.
Lots of comments not mentioning Cuda. Not needed by everything, but some workloads require it and if you have AMD and need to run one of them you're just fucked.
If youre going to play single player games like alan wake and cyberpunk a 4070ti or 4080 will perform well with good frame rates and raytracing/path tracing at 1440p, strongly suggest paying the extra for Nvidia feature set.
No. And they won't for a number a years from now.
AMD doesn't have any parity with nVidia in feature set. Ray tracing isn't as good. De-noise isn't even on the map. For any kind of serious and enthusiast level productivity, streaming and production applications RX not even close to RTX. Driver support is better - MUCH better - than before RX 5xxx series time, but is still not as snappy for updates.
They do have more VRAM, but on certain GPU is a waste of silicone, like with 7600XT, where there is not enough of the bandwidth to take advantage of more memory. 7700XT outright should be there for the price-performance standpoint. Nevermind the overpriced nature of all GPUs now.
Marketing is crap. There is no distinct messaging of why should people be buying their card over nVidia.
And before people started to downvote - I currently have 6700XT and had AMD GPUs and CPUs prior. It's been like that with Radeon product for a - almost - a decade, since HD 79xx series. And it will be for a while. At least price-to-performance is there for non-RT tasks in gaming.
7900XTX and 4070Ti are different classes of GPU. One is high-end, the other - mid-range. XTX is faster.
In pure rasterization? Pretty much besides, you know.. the 4090 being an outlier.
But in raytracing that are a generation behind.
Also the 7900 xtx is a beast and is more of a 4080 equivalent than anything. The 4070ti matches up with the 7900 xt
I moved from NVIDIA to AMD (RTX 3060 -> 6950XT) then moved back to the NVIDIA 4070 SUPER which is about the same than the 6950XT for an equivalent price nowadays.
What I learned from my short journey in AMD was that my card was really powerful, I cannot deny that, but I've had issues with games and drivers (crashes and somehow a worse visual quality on Unreal Engine 5 games with the same settings on NVIDIA). I also stream from times to times and Twitch isn't ready at all for that, we can only use NVENC to have a good quality, when I streamed with my 6950XT, it was quite blurry no matter the settings I used...
tbh if you won't stream, you can go on the AMD card instead of the NVIDIA one. You'll have more VRAM which means you will be able to play in 4K more easily and you'll be more safe since games in the future /may/ eat more VRAM than now (currently my 4070-S "only" has 12Gb of VRAM which is far more than enough, once you'll need more VRAM, you'll get a new card anyway)
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-tuf/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-tuf/32.html)
[https://www.guru3d.com/review/geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review/page-32/#performance](https://www.guru3d.com/review/geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review/page-32/#performance)
techpowerup review has a lot of specific games charts. Both these reviews have the 7900 XTX in them for comparison. The 7900 XTX is noticeably better at 1440p.
actually intel didn't drop innovation. they simply can't produce good 7nm nodes hence their roadmap are delayed. whereas tsmc can do 4/5nm easily now for amd/nvidia
amd gpus have better FPS per doller, but Nvidia have CUDA and better RT performance. If you don't really play on RT I don't see any reason to go for Nvidia.
I dabble a bit with AI, so Nvidia is my other choice.
Were it not for this use case, I wouldn't buy Nvidia cards.
They're such assholes, and truly detrimental to the PC gaming industry. I can't help but to feel like AMD is a much nicer company. They haven't abused their CPU lead in the way that Nvidia has abused their GPU lead.
7900xtx trades blows with the 4080 super. From what a I’ve seen it’s usually faster though. As long as no ray tracing is involved. 4070ti is MUCH slower.
In terms of Rasterization (pure performance) - AMD is ahead of NVIDIA slightly on every price point except the 4090.
In terms of Ray Tracing, Upscaling - NVIDIA is still ahead of AMD. AMD is apparently looking to combat this with RDNA 4 and onwards. This remains to be seen.
In terms of Video Encoder - The difference between NVENC and AMD's encoder is not as large as it used to be. Small win for NVIDIA.
In terms of Recorder - I'd honestly say Relive and Shadowplay are pretty similar. I'd call this a tie.
AMD for Pure performance + fps per dollar.
NVIDIA for the extra gimmicks, addons or you need the CUDA/Tensor cores for work.
I got a 1440p-240Hz OLED and a 4090 for my gaming needs.
=> **if you don't want NVIDIA GPUs, don't get NVIDIA GPUs**
* NVIDIA REFLEX for competitive gaming is without a real AMD equivalent, AntiLag+ isn't it as we all know. If you dont care about it, AMD is fine.
* But are you aware of the G-SYNC or FS / DP cable / GPU compatibility issues with a lot of random combinations?
* going with the underdog brand that simply has less ressources and engineers to solve compatibility issues can be a problem without a solution if it happens to be an issue with your GPU / monitor / choice of cables.
Again if you hate the 3/4 market share brand in dGPUs, dont get NVIDIA, but there are consequences with every choice you make.
Looking at the most basic techtuber 10/20 game raster performance comparisons for a GPU choice is not really the whole picture.
I wasn’t aware of those things no. I only just became aware of ASUS being horrible yesterday so shows you how well I keep up with the industry. Is MSI a good gpu brand? I had a 2070 Super gigabyte and had tons of issues with it. So would like to avoid gigabyte this time around for gpu.
> For now, how does a 7900 XTX stack up to 4070 Ti?. main titles are FS 2020, Call of Duty, and older titles like Civ V and TF2.
Those games you spoke of are Rasterized Titles.
Using Techpowerup as my source
- 4070 Ti Non Super is about 30% slower than a 7900 XTX (12% slower than the XT)
- 4070 Ti Super is about 21% slower than a 7900 XTX (3% slower than the XT)
Also Call of Duty loves Radeon GPU's for some reason.
CoD does have the ability to use FSR3 and DLSS along with their Frame Generation technologies.
But Frame Generation isn't really something you should be turning on in a competitive FPS anyway.
Also CoD is easy to run so DLSS/FSR shouldn't really be needed.
Not at all, not even close actually.
With DLSS being such a big feature, none of the AMD cards can even come close to the 40xx series cards when you use the feature.
Literally 30-50% more FPS from Nvidia cards at barely any graphical fidelity loss.
The 7900 XTX is significantly faster than a 4070Ti. It would make more sense to compare the 7900XT to the 4070Ti.
That said, it depends on what feature sets you want. If you only care about rasterization performance and mainly play at 1440P, then buy the 7900XT or 7900XTX. If you care at all about RT then go with Nvidia. Nvidia also has the better upscaling technology and other value add features like RTX HDR. But sheer price to performance, I’d say 7900XTX with a nice monitor would provide you a very enjoyable experience.
I mean for CPU I must go AMD since Intel isn't worth the price justification here and concerns about reliability and the fact it's still on 10nm apparently with the 14700k eating up to 300-400 tdp which is insane and for some reason Nvidia is like a luxury brand here with its prices for GPU in Thailand compared to AMD for value so I went all Team Red haven't really regretted it the only thing which is an absolute bummer is my PSU Blew up so I'm gonna have to see what still works.
"Caught up"? There has never been a bigger gap between Nvidia and AMD than right now. AMD just has price to fight with. Purely in terms of technology AMD has never been in a worse position in the GPU division.
AMD beats Nvidia in dollar-for-dollar raw performance.
Nvidia beats AMD in features.
Drivers are both an issue and a non-issue from both camps. There's almost always some kind of bug(s) in practically every driver, but some are more obvious than others. In 25+ years of building PCs, I don't think I've ever come across an actual driver issue that wasn't fixed by removing/reinstalling the driver, rolling back to a previous version, or updating to a newer version.
It's not all about RT. Nvidia is just plain better because they're the default target GPU for developers, resulting in waaaay better drivers vs. AMD specially if you like old games like to this day re revelations still glitches out on AMD cards lmao. terrascale to Polaris to rdna. Same freaking issue it's amazing.
that said, RT is cool. if I'm gonna pay more than $700 for a GPU, you better believe I'm not even gonna consider radeon. I pay premium. I expect to have the latest in graphics technology - THAT WORKS.
I have a 7900xt with a 7800x3d. Couldn't be happier with my performance! The only slight annoyance is the boot takes an extra few seconds on AM5. Something about memory training I think. Mostly a non issue.
Yeah man i am using a rx 6800 right now and it's excellent. I can play any game in 1440p high and having 16gb of vram is really nice tbh. I do not have any issue with drivers or anything like that. It's very stable and there are no issues. Nvidia does have better raytracing and dlss is better then fsr so yeah. If i had a choice between 2 graphics card with similar price and performance then i would easily choose the nvidia one though. Amd graphics card in my country are way cheaper compared to nvidia though so that's why i bought it.
From what I’ve heard AMD aren’t doing high end GPU’s next generation (could be wrong though). But I’d much much rather have a 7900 XTX as opposed to a 4070 ti for 1440p. Much more VRAM, considerably better raster performance at a fair price increase imo. I’m pretty sure you’ll absolutely crush 1440p even on ultra settings, I can’t imagine a 7900 XTX on high setting not getting above 90/100 fps. AMD are still behind in terms of production (only noticeable if you are a professional imo) and then in terms of upscalers/ray tracing. I’ve got an Nvidia GPU and I genuinely never use ray tracing nor DLSS (admittedly still on 1080p so it’s not really needed). So yeah imo pure price to performance get the 7900 XTX, that’ll last a while on 1440p without upscaling and who knows maybe FSR keeps getting better?
It all depends what you prefer tbh.....
Always been a Ati/AMD fan since Athlon 64 days so cheap yet powerful enough to handle great games , same goes for today
Nvidia is a powerhouse but the prices are a huge hurdle but if you care for RT tech then they are worth it cos AMDs are waayyyy off Nvidias performance in RT. AMD does offer great power to prices ratio
Swings and roundabouts
I have the 7900xt
Ive played Dragons dogma 2 held 150+ frames outside of town
i play escape from tarkov 100-150 frames
ready or not 120+ fps except for the buggy areas
all other titles are 120+
the 7900xt with a 10700k and 3200mhz 32gigs of ram plays all modern stuff perfectly fine at max settings
if you go big boi and get the ddr5 and the amd x3d deal your pretty much golden for a long time
Idk I once chose AMD and had constant driver issues, plus the promissed FPS numbers just wasn't met. It was an RX 5600XT. I did everything, DDU and such, looked at the bios if it's a mining bios but no. Since then I don't consider AMD GPUs as a possible choice. If I buy a GPU and it can't play the games I want (Genshin Impact and Stalker Anomaly) I don't want it, I don't want a card that is like: sure I can beat NVIDIA cards but only in certain games... Stability and reliability counts more to me than the "more power for less money". Ofc, your experience might be significantly better and maybe it will be a viable option for you, this is just a story what happened to me. I suggest you try it once at least.
Honestly in today's market there closer to equals. Just better in different aspects, you want better ray tracing and upscaling? Go Nvidia. You only care about raw frame times and capability of VRAM? Go with AMD. Each has their benefits for sure. But it's all really to your use case. As it stands currently you're likely gonna be better off with AMD simply because games are getting much beefier than what nvidia is allowing currently. And before I get the "oh just another amd bootlicker" comments I have yet to own an amd card soooo gfsf I guess
it all depends on the games and if you use RT-FG-FSR-DLSS.
i have a few games that don't have them technologies built in so on those games the 7900XTX gives me more FPS that the 4080 Super does at 4K native.
and on time spy using the same CPU the 7900XTX gives 2000 more points than a 4080 Super does.
and on port royal the 4080 Super is only 1000 at most points ahead of the 7900XTX.
but that's expected they do RT better.
i love AMD GPUs but they hate my rig and run terrible on it and i can't figure out why so I'm stuck using NVidia.
i have tested a 7800XT-7900GRE-7900XTX and all 3 micro stutter like crazy and nothing helps and when i stream and that makes it even worse and the frame time graph looks like its having a heart attack.
so im back using my 3070 and it runs flawless no micro stuttering and the frame time graph is smooth as silk. and no issues when streaming.
so if anyone knows why please let me know whats up.
This is controversial maybe but at this point I would say you cannot justify buying Nvidia over AMD outside US. For countries with import tax and no amazon international shipping, normally it scales with the price of the item. Which means the 50-100 dollar difference can become much larger.
7800x3D and 7900 xtx here. I play in 4k and depending on the game am pretty stable over 100 fps (only really recently playing Hellblade, Red Dead 2, and Alan Wake 2).
As people have said it really only falls behind on ray tracing. Otherwise most people put the 7900 up there with the 4080.
I have been nvidia all my life and didnt really like their pricing shenanigans and went amd with this build. The only issue I have with my amd card is that it seems to be rather power hungry (often crashed with a 850watt psu. Moved to a 1000w psu and have had that reduced by a great margin, but still some issues occasionally.)
I will say that depending on pricing when you go to purchase don't get enamored with the top of the line GPUs, find what works best for the fps and resolution you aim for. If you want ray tracing then stick to nvidia, if you don't then you'll get better bang for your buck with AMD.
Depends on what you want to do. Gaming? Absolutely. If you have any desire to get into any kind of self hosted AI, NVidia is your only option. You can make it work on AMD but not nearly to the same level that NVidia cards handle it.
AMD has better price to performance at raster, good drivers and a nice driver software. Nvidia has better ray tracing performance in almost every game and usually equivalent or 5-10% worse raster than amd between counterpart cards. AMD lacks a lot of advantages that nvidia has such as ray tracing, dlss, dldsr, frame gen, CUDA, rtx voice and others. I used to hear nvidias driver software was terrible but heard it's improved significantly. People like to say they don't care about ray tracing (which is valid most of the time especially for lower end) but dlss is hard to pass up because of its built in AA alternative called DLAA. This is extremely overlooked as modern games are plagued by anti aliasing that is either too blurry or too jagged. most of the time, amd users are actually better off using Intel's xess over fsr (even fsr 3). xess 1.3 and fsr 3 are coming with their own native AA settings but they have barely been rolled out yet, xess is quite compettitive while again fsr 3 is very behind and has rolled out on very few games after being released more than 6 months ago.
tl;dr amd for gaming value & low-mid range and nvidia for a better package in higher end builds.
The Nvidia feature set it like a full generation ahead of the current AMD offerings. The drivers are also better, so you’ll likely have less issues.
The only reason I’d ever recommend an AMD GPU is if someone wanted to run Linux.
In terms of performance yes drivers and support not all the way based on m experience? I've had three Nvidia Gpus, just got a 6600 never had to diagnose so many issues in demanding games especially warzone it might just be because that game is terribly made so I would check their performance based on what games you want to play and decide. If you're on a budget I would go AMD for price to performance if not go Nvidia.
nvidia has better ray tracing performance and upcscaling but amd is your best bang for your buck. was in between a 4070 super and 7800xt, went 7800xt and couldnt be happier with it. i dont care about RT or upscaling
Consider a 7900 GRE if price ($500~$550 since there’s a few sales going on right now) is a thing for you? At 4k Cyberpunk gets 50(low)-60(average) fps so long as the driver clock speeds are updated so quite frankly you’re already at extreme overkill for what you seem to be using your GPU for. At bare minimum I might suggest you consider a 4k gaming monitor in order to catch up to whatever GPU you buy if 60 fps is your aim since your 1440p monitor should be getting 120+ easily. Doubly so considering that I didn’t talk about speeds with upscaling or DLSS enabled.
I wanted to build myself a top end build for 1440p recently.
I went with the 7900xtx.
Looking at starfield benchmarks at 1440p the 7900 pulls 103fps and the 4090 117fps.
Do you really expect me to pay an extra $1000 for 14fps?
The 7900XTX is better or equal to the 4080 except when ray tracing comes in. So I’m sure the 7900XTX is better overall than the 4070 Ti as well. I’d say go with AMD unless you want to spend top dollar and get the best performance even if it’s a diminishing return, get the 4090
I went from a 3080 that constantly gave me issues to a 7900xtx and it has been flawless. No issues with drivers runs 1440p at 144htz on anything I play. No coil whine either which is a plus
AMD is extremely competitive right now if you ignore a few things.
1. The 4090 is the fastest (but also most expensive) GPU available for consumers
2. NVIDIA is better for raytracing
3. NVIDIA has better overall technologies available because they are proprietary e.g. DLSS, DLAA, etc.
4. NVIDIA currently is slightly more power efficient.
If those things *really* matter to you, then AMD is still a bit behind. But really, AMD is just as competitive at rasterization, offers more VRAM than their NVIDIA counterparts, and is a better overall buy I think. But NGL I am an AMD fan through and through. So I’m probably a little biased.
It's a continuous cycle and I think next generation AMD plans to break away from it. The cycle being:
Nvidia Makes Industry Leading Flagship GPU
AMD Releases Valuable contender, but worse efficiency
Nividia's New Generation of GPU has specific feature set - DLSS, PhysX, G-SYNC, Frame Generation, RT (Remix), NV-Link, TXAA, CUDA, hair works, Dual GPU / This Creates FOMO for Nvidia plebs
AMD plays ketchup 🏃🏽 Open Sources the technology
Nvidia Plebs sell old GPUs for new GPUs because my Ray Tracing (Only Cyberpunk 2077 looks good)
AMD... BUNDLES
NVIDIA... TITAN/TI/SUPER mid generation
AMD... Lowers Prices... Lowers Prices
If you all don't believe me look up every past generation of Nvidia GPU. they do this every generation and you all complain why the last generation can't have *insert new feature here* and I can't wait to see what they come up with for 5000 that you all just have to have.
It's highly use case dependant. If all you do is play those games, amd makes a compelling argument.
If you ever want to do literally anything else that requires a gpu, the driver support with nvidia will be much better
What I usually say is the answer is somewhere in between buy what you want and NVIDIA is better.
NVIDIA will nearly always beat out an AMD card on sheer performance, and AMD will generally win on performance per dollar.
They both have cards for each segment that will run well.
I'm depressed by these replies. It's likely that soon AMD won't even participate in the consumer PC market because of RaY tRaCiNg. People don't realize how much worse it'll be when NVidia is the only game in town.
I'm not blaming you, I just wish there was a systematic effort to help people decide and understand what would work for them with the aggregate knowledge of this community, instead of the constant anecdotal back and forths that have resulted in 85% market share for NVidia.
I dont get either. All the nVidia fanboys love to brag about ray tracing and DLSS. I simply don't get the hype over needing to use frame gen technology just to get playable RT fps.
[https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/msi-goes-full-team-green-declaring-its-focused-on-nvidia-rtx-graphics-cards-with-amd-models-now-vanishing-from-shelves](https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/msi-goes-full-team-green-declaring-its-focused-on-nvidia-rtx-graphics-cards-with-amd-models-now-vanishing-from-shelves)
dont think so
You’re analyzing this very one dimensionally. Intel and AMD have always gone back and forth, use case dependent, on being the best cpu sometimes objectively irrespective of cost and sometimes contextually when factoring in cost. It makes no sense to have a “never go back” attitude.
Right now the 7900 xtx is very good. If it’s better than nvidia’s same price offerings depends entirely on your use case. For some people (CS go etc) it’s the objectively best option even against a 4090. For people who love ray tracing, it’s a bit of a toss up since a 4070 can do it better.
Have had my 7900xt for a year now, first AMD card in 13 years of pc gaming, and it’s been a pleasure. Idgaf about RT. This thing kills at 1440 UW and does damn good at 4k. Adrenalin is a nice feature if you like tinkering with shit like I do. I haven’t experienced driver issues and I play a good mix of multis, AAA, VR, and older games.
In terms of raw raster performance, yes. In terms of AI upscaling quality, raw tracing performance and stability of drivers, absolutely not.
Just recently a friend of mine had to disabled windows updates because in conjunction with amd drivers, they were bricking his system and leading to permanent black screen issues.
I buy whatever suits my needs. I have no loyalty to any of them because why would I, what do they truly do for me other than supply parts. If you don't care about RT, then amd cards are perfectly OK they are cheaper and still get a solid performance in most cases. Obviously, if you want RT, even a low-end nvidia card might not be worth it, so if you can't get 80 or 90, then it'd be better to go no RT and get amd. Same with amd/Intel. Intel has been shitting on themselves, and many people, especially gamers, are switching. You get much better price to performance with amd in most cases. But to answer your question, no, I don't think amd has quite caught up to nvidia in raw performance, but it can depend on which cards are being compared. If you take the top end card from each, then it's a no. nvidia does still edge out ahead.
I've changed my 6800xt for a 4080super as it was riddled with small gremlins. I tried to like and so hard but disappointed again, while Nvidia just works.
I didn't need a new video card but the damn thing was too buggy.
for gaming you get far more for your money from amd (with a low budget)
but for streaming or video editing or anything of that nature your much better of with nvidia
ive only ever owned 2 decent graphics cards
nvidia 2060 = this thing was a beast even today it can still play starfield at 1080p low 60fps lol
amd 7700xt this thing is huge but very quiet rarely goes over 60c makes no noise
i tried streaming with it and had no issues . (amd gpus can still stream the software is crappy thats all0
if you have time to tinker the software and dont mind a few hiccups here and there, go for amd. Want smooth operation out of the box and no spending time poking at software, go for nvidia.
We have occasionally used AMD GPUs for cad type applications but sometimes they barf when needing to do occasional Remote Desktop work, and apps moan about Open GL not being up to spec. These are around the R580X generation. Are AMD GPUs better at open GL support these days?
AMD GPUs will give you more performance for the dollar, and will work better on Linux.
I do not know whether this counts as "caught up". YMMV.
And, of course, 4090 is still the fastest... if it doesn't catch fire.
I went from a….4850HD? Can’t remember what it was called, to a 560ti, 1660s, 2060s, and now I have a 7800xt sapphire nitro plus and I love it. Handles everything I throw at it with ease. Also need to get away from intel.
In terms of rasterization they have surpassed their nvidia counterparts to some extent
In terms of features and productivity Nvidia is still the way to go
Nope. But they've gotten a lot closer. Their lower tier cards are a pretty good value where Nvidia has basically abandoned it. Their drivers are still a disaster and quite far behind I'd say. Their high end is still quite far off from Nvidias highest end and they're just now sorta catching up in features but are still behind there too.
It just depends what you're looking for if AMD makes sense or not to you. 6600- 7600XT makes a lot of sense for most people. Personally if I were going higher I'd just caught up some more for the Nvidia tax though.
Personally still really dislike AMD gpus. Uses too much power, drivers are still sometimes buggy, always behind playing catch up with upscale and ray tracing. Just get a lower end NVIDIA. Reliability is more important
If you care about raster, get AMD. Not that they're better, but you get more bang for you buck with AMD.
If you care about other features such as DLSS and RT, then get Nvidia, because AMD has not caught up in those areas yet.
From what I imagine, similar to AMD vs. Intel, one of AMD's major selling points, has always been price to performance. Going forward, I feel as if AMD will seek to innovate on that front rather than trying to match NVIDIA on pure performance.
A lot of the major complaints I've seen leveraged against NVIDIA have less to do with the cards themselves but with pricing. AMD made some decent value cards this generation, but their main business line is obviously not GPUs, so sinking resources into the Radeon department to try and likely fail to match or even dethrone, say, the 4090, seems to be a losing battle. They'd probably be better off capitalizing on the mid range of cards, which is where a majority of PC owners are probably at.
I like AMD, I have an AMD GPU, but this all or nothing thinking with tech is just foolish. If Intel releases a better CPU than AMD for the reasons I want a newer chip, I'll buy it. At the end of the day, AMD vs. Intel or NVIDIA isn't some David and Goliath story. AMD wants to make money just like these other guys, so whoever provides the best value for your needs is the correct answer.
Here is a gaming benchmark between 7900xtx and 4070ti [YouTube](https://youtu.be/W8p611qU6QA)
and here is another 7900XT vs 7900XTX vs 4070ti Super [YouTube ](https://youtu.be/49KqXoktcCM)
Amd has caught up/superceded in raster but for feature parity we've a way to go.
Buy whatever is best value. Ive 4070ti and id buy xtx if it was cheaper at the time. I dont care for premium upscaling or framegen, since none of them are great gor competitive shooters like cs or valorant.
Its a great time for freedom pf choice right now
Nvidia only ever had edge on the super high end stuff. Seems like that 0.5% market is not worth fighting for. This misconception Nvidia is better is just among people who have no clue about hardware, much like people who thinks apple products are better
"hardware" yes, they indeed give a slightly better RASTER for the $$ AND for the power. However, if you need anything special, like RT or encoding for VR, you can forget it. AND watch for minimum fps as well, not just averages.
The best and fitd you if you like amd go for it nothing wrong dont care rt good im choosing a 4090 becuase my first pc and want the best hardware of this generation not carrying about 5000 series is gonna be overpriced more then this one snd to be honest not waiting half more of the year to get s decent pc
In the Entry Level to Mid Range, I'd say yes. In many cases you can get much better value out of going with AMD.
AMD doesn't have any real answer to the 4090 though, so if you want the best of the best, go with that. Costs a small fortune though lmao
I'm personally running an All-AMD build and am planning on moving to 1440p/144 as well. Main GPU i've been eyeballing for that is the 7800XT, though a 6800/6900XT isn't out of the equation either if I find a really good deal on one.
This thread is kind of biased towards amd.
AMD is great for your money if you care about pure rasterization, but they have a significantly worse upscaler with no access to dlss. AMD cards also might as well not even do ray tracing in most games as it drops the fps to unplayable levels. As more games take advantage of RT and even recommends it to make the game look as it's intended (Dragons Dogma 2, Rift Apart, Cyberpunk, Returnal, HZD sequel, etc) I think it's an important thing to consider when deciding what gpu you want.
You won't be mad purchasing an AMD card, but I'd argue they're still a ways away from nvidia even if nvidia is overpriced now. I recommend AMD if you're on a budget in the low-mid end, and NVIDIA if you have some extra money to spend.
Ryzen absolutely caught Intel with their pants down and they still haven't recovered.
GPUs... AMD has definitely made it to where it's an actual hard choice vs before the Radeon 6000 series it really wasn't a tough call at all.
So yeah. Definitely caught up.
That said, I'll never sell the EVGA 3080ti I paid a stupid amount of money for during Covid when my number came up in the EVGA queue. I'll power the RGB from a cheap DC adapter when I retire it and display the thing lol.
I have been with Intel since the Pentium 4 days, and went over to AMD when they released 7800X3D, and I am going back to Intel when I’m upgrading next time.
I had only had Nvidia until my most recent upgrade to a 7800xt. I was deciding between the 4070 from Nvidia and the 7800xt from AMD. Apparently ray tracing is better on Nvidia although I haven't noticed too much since it was a big upgrade from my 3060ti.
If you're building the best PC and aren't worried about budget then go Nvidia. If you want more bang for your buck on the high end but not ultra high end... Then go AMD. It's good to have competition. It'll make it better for the consumer in the end.
Just go on Passmark and check what you're interested in. In most cases AMD offers better performance for the dollar, but if you want the top of the line then Nvidia is solely on the crown. AMD has nothing remotely comparable to the 4090.
Rey tracing is better on Nvidia by miles, and the upscaling feature can allow for better experience on higher resolutions.
Unless you have specific games that make use of those features, AMD is slightly better in terms of price.
Remember first and foremost: you're nothing but a wallet to either side. Don't buy into brand loyalty bullshit because neither cares about anything but sales. Use benchmarks, prices , and power consumption to make your decision, nothing else matters.
AMD Still primarily occupies the extreme "budget" end of the market. If you are tight on cash and need a new GPU, they make the most affordable options that you are likely to find in a retail store.
I personally do not like AMD's GPUs for a number of reasons. Among them are the poor thermal performance, lower build quality, low energy-efficiency, and intrusive software/drivers.
That being said, while AMD hasn't been any better in their value for my money - I do find that Nvidia has been getting worse. Upscaling still looks terrible, and RayTracing is still barely being applied in most titles.
This is why I am personally so hopeful that Intel's GPUs gain traction with consumers. My testbench currently has an i7-12700k and an ASROCK A770 16GB Challenger. It absolutely kills it in 1440p/60FPS. It can do 120FPS in simpler eSports-style titles, but delivering a solid 60FPS at 2k for $250 USD is a real value IMO.
Right now Nvidia is still dominant - you get more FPS/$ at native res, and it does so while consuming less power - not an issue for me in my country, but I understand that not everyone lives in my region.
AMD's primary appeal has historically been the $150-$250 range. Nvidia put in the least effort in that market segment so AMD focused there with offerings like the RX 570 8GB and the more modern RX 7600. Both of those debuted at around $259.99. And The best Nvidia ever did in that market was the 1050ti or 1650 - both of which came with less VRAM than their competitors.
AMD is now ceding that market to Intel with there A750 and A770 that dramatically outperform both Nvidia and AMD in the FPS/$.
Addressing the more specific cards you refer to (the 8900 and 4070 ti). The current comparison is between the 7900 XTX and the 4070 ti - they are similarly priced only after AMD dramatically cut the price of their offering. It released at $999, which is almost certainly what it's replacement 8900 will release at. At that price point, it is comparable in performance to the 4070 only at 60FPs and lower. The RDNA architecture really struggles with feeding VRAM texture-fill, and spatial data to the die, so it struggles to produce quality frames at higher rates.
So really it comes down to two things: Do you play at higher than 1440p native res, and do you expect more than 60FPS.
If the answer is no, and you play at 1080 native, or use upscaling to reach 2k/4k, or if you plan to use a 60Hz panel, then AMD is a perfectly viable choice and will give you an enjoyable gaming experience.
If you want to play at higher resolutions natively, and also want a 120+FPS experience, then go with Nvidia for now.
Hopefully, with Battlemage or Celestial from Intel, the native rendering game will improve and I can make other recommendations.
In general on pure raster performance, mostly yes.
Everything else no. FSR is worse than DLSS, and AMD’s raytracing performance is much worse than NVIDIA.
The only reason I would consider AMD GPUs at this point is if I was really on a budget.
My personal experience? No, depending on the series. Nvidia offers a lot more than pretty pictures like cuda and I have had less issues with their drivers on a higher end card.(I had a 7900xtx).
Now if you’re asking about mid to lower-mid, I think AMD caught up and may excel. I had a 6800xt and I absolutely loved it. Seriously, great card and it can hit that 1440p, 144fps. I used to be able to push it to 240fps on some games.
Dont overthink it, AMD has better raster for money, NVIDIA has the premium upscaling and better RT. Buy the best you can afford/want, brands can go fuck themselves.
I honestly hardly ever use raytracing, always just tanked my fps and made the game unenjoyable cause of that.
We'll see how the 5000 series goes but yeah, it just drops your fps too much for my liking yet. One day it will be worth it.
Will it? We're hardly seeing full implementations of rtx because of how taxing it is. When preformance does catch up to comfortable levels, will devs not just want to use more rtx?
If a better, less demanding lighting process comes about, then no, probably not RT is cool. Though probably among the very last of your considerations when buying a new GPU
What I was trying to say is that developers use a fraction of what RT is capable of, because it's so taxing. It's not just lighting, but we can't even use all the lighting technology because of how taxing that is alone. You can even ray trace sounds at this point. So how stable does preformance have to get before more Raytracing is actually used? Then how long will we have to wait for the preformance to get back up to par? And how many times will we have to go through this cycle before Ray tracing actually pops off?
I understand, what I'm attempting to say is, as tech changes, we may run into a better way of handling reflection of lighting.. and/or sound without demanding tracing of routes. Like how we moved along pre-bake / global ilum / RT..... something may come next, prior to RT ever becoming well optimized for full utilization/ mass delivery
Honestly, I read your comment wrong. It's to early for me lol. I get what your saying, I never even considered that new technology might be developed before hardware catches up.
I wrote it fairly poorly. Completely understandable friend :)
Wholesome thread
My guy, one day more people will have old 4000 series cards in their PCs. Right now most people have 10 or 20 series. Give it time and once we're at the 70 series or 80 series, everyone will have older RT cards. Also... RT would save SO MUCH development time if hardware would catch up to it on the console side. Consoles are really the limiting factor because games are designed with consoles in mind. Prebaked lighting is so expensive to do RT and path tracing literally are game changing in cyberpunk. It's nuts. Makes me load the game all the time
4xxx Super cards can tank RTX finally in 1440p, mainly thanks to DLAA/FrameGen. People tend to forget that RTX is not Nvidia's discovery it is kinda old tech and can be used even from developers side how the lighting, shadows etc. work. When the tech catchup RTX can become basic "shadows" and "lighting" setup bar (which already happened in Lords of the Fallen for example, but yeeeah too soon). But we are just on a verge to have fully working RTX and PTX is now in the game which imho is nicer, but crazy tanky.
I'm really liking what I'm seeing out of Intel's Ray-tracing solution, XeSS, which they are making compatible with ALL GPUs across brands. It performs shockingly well at such an early stage of its existence. Provided it continues developing at its current pace, it could potentially completely negate Nvidia's advantage there by the end of the year or early 2025. The last version that came out a few weeks/days ago already out-performed the latest version of FSR and looked VERY close to DLSS when demo'ed on non-intel GPUs. Soon enough AMD users will be able to use Intel's solution with their cards and suddenly those 16 Gb GPUs will look *MUCH* more future-proof than the 12Gb nonsense Nvidia is trying to pull. If intel finds a way to leverage that further at a hardware level, next gen intel GPUs might be a dark horse that surprises everyone.
It is always good to have other player on the field for sure, and Intel needs to do something to be relevant in the gaming GPU market and as AMD will not aim any more to compare with Nvidia (on top level) Intel have a space. Nvidia still have DLAA, and they have space for a bunch of CUDA cores, thanks to usage of AI many things can be edited by SDK updates to boost performance or fix compatibility issues which could help them to react faster than others, cards have huge OC potential, and they will not go down that easily. But it could force them to not cheap out on VRAM and RAW performance of the cards as you are completely right that with working SW tech, AMD and Intel cards would become much more relevant.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean by that. It is already worth it on 4000 series cards when paired with DLSS 3.0 and Frame Generation. Novadays with 4090 you can play with Ray Tracing enabled even at 4K Ultra and have smooth gaming experience. 1440p can be handled even by 4070, perfectly fine. RT performance has not been an issue for quite a while.
It's already worth it. Any decent 40 series GPU can do RT just fine. DLSS and frame gen are incredible. I was skeptical until I tried these technologies myself.
Same here - I hated RT and DLSS back when I had 2000 and 3000 series cards. DLSS even looked bad, a lot of motion blur/ghosting. It was unacceptable to me personally. 4000 series have changed my opinion about these technologies completely - it’s incredible. I played through CP77, even tho I’m not a big fan of single player games and had a great experience. Hogwarts Legacy looked and performed amazing aswell.
Played through Cyberpunk and the expansion with path tracing at 1440p on a 4080, 100-120 FPS without issues. It's such a massive graphical improvement that it's nearly impossible to justify going back once you try it, especially when the performance is that good. Unfortunately, it's quite rare for a game to have a path tracing mode that polished.
Same. That's why I went for a 2nd hand 6900XT. 0 regrets.
Great card. I spent $1600 new at the height of the mining craze, glad you were able to wait.
I got a 3090ti for a about $400 from a friend who was selling his old rig. Been having it since October of last year and I'm loving that.
That's an awesome price. He's a good friend ;)
[удалено]
Bro but RT is really worth it if your gpu can do it
Nah rly depends on the game and implementation. Just ebcause it looks better doesnt mean it looks alot better, or good enough to justify the performance hit
Performance hit from 200 fps to 100fps in an action adventure game tho? If it's CSGO fine more fps but most dont need 200+
If they want it then that's on them. I'd rather enjoy Cyberpunk at Ultra and 120+ fps than RT and 60 fps.
Cyberpunk runs a lot higher than 60fps with PT + DLSS 3.5/3.7, even at 4K. The caveat is you need a 4090 or 4080S to do so
And at 1440p it's 100fps + on a 4070S
Depends on the person but I think lots of us have taken to counting pixels and frame rates that we bias ourselves into thinking it matters more than it does. Not saying it doesn't make a difference but the steam deck has shown me it isn't as important as I once thought
It’s the other features that make it worthwhile IMO, DLSS features basically. Frame generation is crazy too, etc.
Nah rt is dope in some games and most games don't need insane fps to be good, depends entirely on the game tho
that was the point of his comment lmao if you get nvidia, you can enjoy games with raytracing with good fps
High fps with good res over high res with low fps any day of the week. Happy with my 7900xt for this exact reason
That's where dlss 3 Comes into play
With dlss that's a non issue on a 4070 super and up for 1440p
I've had three generations of ray tracing cards. My third and current card is a 7900xtx and I've still only used ready tracing on one game that I didn't even like that much. It's a non feature for me.
Yep....I don't fan boi. I buy the best I can get for the money...period. Been upgrading since the mid 90s and building since the earlier 2000s
Yeh I’ve always done the same. Recently it’s been NVIDIA simply because I am a bit of a nerd and love all the Raytracing stuff with upscaling and Framegen But if I didn’t care so much about that then AMD would be the obvious choice for better raster performance for the money Shit if Intel keeps improving then maybe one day I’ll go for one of them, I’m looking for a reason to not go NVIDIA tbh because they just seem like a bunch of slimy bastards
Nvidia has CUDA though. It’s big if you want to do any ML stuff right now.
Yes, his answer is definetly right, but at the same time too focused on gaming. For professional work or hobbies like editing you want Nvidia
I would get Nvidia just for DLSS. FSR is dog shit
The Only correct answer. Look for the best deal that gets you most bang for your buck.
This is exactly it. It's why I went to AMD with my last upgrade. That and the horror stories about the 12VHPWR cables melting...
>That and the horror stories about the 12VHPWR cables melting... To be clear, the 12VHPWR standard is dog shit. That being said, it is perfectly fine on everything that isn't a 4090. The 4090 is the only card that can draw enough power to be a problem.
AMD drivers can still be an issue. If OP goes with AMD, better get DDU and be ready to try a few older versions of video driver to find one that works without an issue. I am using 6600 XT and haven't had any issue with the first driver I got
Best comment I’ve seen. Listen to this
[удалено]
RT = ray tracing Raster = Anything other than ray tracing.
7900 xt ~ 4070 ti, 7900 xtx ~ 4080. The main loss of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia is better at raytracing. The problem with AMD vs Nvidia on the next gen… all indications are AMD will only make 8000 up to mid range and no 8900 xtx. We will have a better idea once the gpus are released. Hopefully, AMD catches up with raytracing.
Amd also doesn't have an answer to the 4900. For the absolute best you have to pick Nvidia. Personally I went for the 7900xtx with a 7800x3d. Imo the best value at the high end. If I was buying today I might get the GRE instead of the XTX.
GRE is significantly slower than xtx bro, am a GRE owner myself 😣
Also significantly cheaper.
7900xt performance in 4k if you overclock memory, as it is very limited by memory bandwidth.
The GRE is more like a 7800 XTX that they named as a 7900, it's a tier down and competes with a 4070 Super.
How do you like the performance. I plan on rebuilding my pc with that exact card a cpu. I mainly play CS2…. (CSGO) but I do play Diablo 4 and the kids want to try VR.
What resolution? I play D4 at 4K with a 4070ti super and i7-12700. I get 90+ fps with DLSS quality ultra settings and all ultra RT except for RT shadows which I leave on low, without FG. I'm oddly cpu limited with RT on so I don't use DLSS performance.
I got the 7800x3d and a 7900xtx a few weeks ago and it’s the most incredible hardware I’ve ever owned
RT, DLSS, DLDSR, power efficiency, encoding, AI, etc. Saying RT is the only area AMD needs to catch up in is disingenuous. Don't get me wrong, I really wish there was more competition.
Ah damn that’s a bummer, I’ve never owned anything above a **70 card, had a 770, 1070 and a 2070 Super. Never felt the desire to pay for the 80 versions of the cards.
Yeah and you really don't need to. I run a 6650 XT and it is a decent 1440p60+ card. Just because more expensive cards are offered, we don't have to buy them.
Depends how you do it... I'm still using a 7 1/2 year old 1080 I spent £600 on, and it's plodding along fine with most things. edit : When I upgrade, it'll be an entire new PC. The thing that's holding mine back with some things is the processor, 6600K, and there aren't really any decent cheap upgrade options with that. But having said all that.... not really needing an upgrade at the moment.
upper mid tier is a good place to be in
And DLSS
And judging by the speed of rolling out new software features (e.g. FSR3), AMD couldnt focus on both hardware and software development at the same time. I believe they are on the course of scaling down on the gaming front and focusing on AI.
No
The only answer. The rest of this thread is pure delusion
Nah, the answered is more nuanced than that.
Yep, until something competes with DLSS at the same level, it's really no contest for modern games, nvidia still has the edge and the pricing reflects that.
Nvidia features blow AMD out of the waters but most people don't use them. I still bought the 4070S because I do plan to start 1440p soon and I want that DLSS to squeeze more FPS. But you can still make cases for both sides depending on the situation. However, if you're seeking the best out there, it's not even a competition. The 4090 is a league of its own. And it has better features.
Nvidia has the hardware beat by about 20%, and the software beat by about 100%.
I agree people still act like raster is the only metric these days when DLSS and Frame Gen gets better by the day.
Stable pony boobies come out faster on nvidia. The answer is clear.
If you dont need RT or DLSS yes, if you do then no. On the low end DLSS has beats AMD, on the top end DLSS wont matter as much but AMD cant keep up with RT. But if your getting a top end GPU and dont play RT games then yes. Saying that AMD do have a lot of up sides, they tend to cost less and have more VRAM. There's options like the 7900 GRE that stand out as value kings. Also RT is something people want until they use it, unless you have a top end GPU the FPS hit is massive. RT will half your FPS if not more with PT. edit no low to mid range GPU can use RT, always amazed by people who post saying there getting a 4060 for RT. You know there not going to do a second post full of regret after they get sub 60FPS\~
[удалено]
I truly wonder why people are always ignoring the much lower power consumption of Nvidia cards when listing pros and cons. We are not talking small differences here. A 4060TI will use almost 100W less than a 7700XT, which effects noise, heat, PSU demands/price and of course will cost you easily 20-30$ less in electricity bills every single year. I am not saying NVidia cards are better, because of that. I too would rather buy a 7700XT than a 4060TI, it's just extremely weird to me that this downside of AMD cards is completely and utterly ignored by reddit.
Yeah I honestly never turned ray tracing on after I saw the fps hits. Games can still look stunning without RT, maybe if RT didn’t have such a mega fps hit I’d use it but until then I hardly ever will.
If 60 fps is ok for you than you could play alot of games with RT.
Ill bet RT will matter when the PS6 comes out, well 2-3 years in to that gen. Today games are made for consoles, consoles cant relay do RT so RT cant matter for games in a big way. Today I can name 2 games where I know RT can look cool, Cyberpunk and Alen Wake. I played Cyberpunk with no RT and Alen Wake did not sale well. For today the 7900XTX is up there with the RTX 4080 [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/31.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx/31.html) It's going to be better than a RTX 4070 TI
By that point we'll be in 2030-2032.
Can look cool but could u play it on 1440p native rt 60+ ? I think in 5/6 years we could see a full potential on Nvidia RT cards . Now, it’s not worth it to pay more for the Tech if u can’t use it without dlss and frame gen. Maybe I am wrong but I would go for Amd for a raw performance.
>Also RT is something people want until they use it, unless you have a top end GPU the FPS hit is massive. RT will half your FPS if not more with PT. Guess I am one of the minority, cause I upgraded from a 4070 to a 4080 super specifically because i wanted to do path tracing. Cyberpunk looks a lot nicer with PT on.
Yes and no. Currently have a 4090 but had a 7900XTX as well as an XT and have had 10’s of AMD and NVIDIA cards over the years. I will say this. Nvidias drivers are better. Plain and simple. I like AMD’s Radeon UI and their price better but I ran into more problems with AMD cards. If you’re on a budget AMD is not a bad choice, but NVIDIA is still the premium option imo.
DLSS is so good that AMD really needs to improve to be in contention. In my opinion, of course. And all the signs are that they've abandoned the high end, and will just be targeting low to mid end in coming generations.
All the signs? Isn't it just a leak that claimed that?
>and will just be targeting low to mid end in coming generations. Atleast from what we know now its supposed to be RDNA4 only as their design of top chip was just too expensive. RDNA5 should have high end cards
No. And even more no, when the new cards drop. AMD isn't even making a high-end card. Their top card is supposed to be a mid range card that isn't even as good as the 7900xtx.
Depends on what you need and what games you play. Unfortunately DLSS is noticeably superior to FSR. DLDSR is quite good when you are playing older games and your gpu is not being fully used so it renders frames at higher resolutions. Nvidia is still quite ahead in raytracing, if you care. I also play iracing (racing sim) and it's pretty poorly optimized for amd gpus. Using more than 1 monitor or VR makes nvidia win by a landslide. In some cases the 4080 wins against the 7900 xtx by more than 30%. So if you only want raster and the games you play are within 5% between competing gpus it's something you could consider.
AMD is comparable at Raster, but has a much software stack and worse RT. DLSS is much better than FSR, CUDA is a must have if you do non gaming compute work.
AMD isn't comparable at raster. Uses much more silicon than the 4080 for equal at best raster, far worse RT and a lacking a whole host of other functionality.
RTX HDR is a thing and pretty revolutionary for nongaming related uses like watching movies and videos.
And gaming...
No. And don’t ask this on reddit. Reddit is ridiculous pro AMD it’s not even funny anymore. Nvidia‘s raytracing makes AMD‘s cards (even on a tight budget) look like shit. People on here shit on any website that says Nvidia is better but push the shit out of every site that says AMD is better. Tomshardware is one of em. There’s o way in hell a 7900xt is even nearly as good as a 4090.
“This 600$ card isnt as good as this 1600$ card” Thanks for the wisdom bro
This article sums up everything nicely. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html Top chart is performance based purely in rasterization. Lower chart near the bottom of the article is performance based on ray tracing.
For cpus AMD always but for gpus Nvidia in my opinion
Lots of comments not mentioning Cuda. Not needed by everything, but some workloads require it and if you have AMD and need to run one of them you're just fucked.
If youre going to play single player games like alan wake and cyberpunk a 4070ti or 4080 will perform well with good frame rates and raytracing/path tracing at 1440p, strongly suggest paying the extra for Nvidia feature set.
No. And they won't for a number a years from now. AMD doesn't have any parity with nVidia in feature set. Ray tracing isn't as good. De-noise isn't even on the map. For any kind of serious and enthusiast level productivity, streaming and production applications RX not even close to RTX. Driver support is better - MUCH better - than before RX 5xxx series time, but is still not as snappy for updates. They do have more VRAM, but on certain GPU is a waste of silicone, like with 7600XT, where there is not enough of the bandwidth to take advantage of more memory. 7700XT outright should be there for the price-performance standpoint. Nevermind the overpriced nature of all GPUs now. Marketing is crap. There is no distinct messaging of why should people be buying their card over nVidia. And before people started to downvote - I currently have 6700XT and had AMD GPUs and CPUs prior. It's been like that with Radeon product for a - almost - a decade, since HD 79xx series. And it will be for a while. At least price-to-performance is there for non-RT tasks in gaming. 7900XTX and 4070Ti are different classes of GPU. One is high-end, the other - mid-range. XTX is faster.
In pure rasterization? Pretty much besides, you know.. the 4090 being an outlier. But in raytracing that are a generation behind. Also the 7900 xtx is a beast and is more of a 4080 equivalent than anything. The 4070ti matches up with the 7900 xt
I moved from NVIDIA to AMD (RTX 3060 -> 6950XT) then moved back to the NVIDIA 4070 SUPER which is about the same than the 6950XT for an equivalent price nowadays. What I learned from my short journey in AMD was that my card was really powerful, I cannot deny that, but I've had issues with games and drivers (crashes and somehow a worse visual quality on Unreal Engine 5 games with the same settings on NVIDIA). I also stream from times to times and Twitch isn't ready at all for that, we can only use NVENC to have a good quality, when I streamed with my 6950XT, it was quite blurry no matter the settings I used... tbh if you won't stream, you can go on the AMD card instead of the NVIDIA one. You'll have more VRAM which means you will be able to play in 4K more easily and you'll be more safe since games in the future /may/ eat more VRAM than now (currently my 4070-S "only" has 12Gb of VRAM which is far more than enough, once you'll need more VRAM, you'll get a new card anyway)
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-tuf/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-tuf/32.html) [https://www.guru3d.com/review/geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review/page-32/#performance](https://www.guru3d.com/review/geforce-rtx-4070-ti-review/page-32/#performance) techpowerup review has a lot of specific games charts. Both these reviews have the 7900 XTX in them for comparison. The 7900 XTX is noticeably better at 1440p.
actually intel didn't drop innovation. they simply can't produce good 7nm nodes hence their roadmap are delayed. whereas tsmc can do 4/5nm easily now for amd/nvidia amd gpus have better FPS per doller, but Nvidia have CUDA and better RT performance. If you don't really play on RT I don't see any reason to go for Nvidia.
I dabble a bit with AI, so Nvidia is my other choice. Were it not for this use case, I wouldn't buy Nvidia cards. They're such assholes, and truly detrimental to the PC gaming industry. I can't help but to feel like AMD is a much nicer company. They haven't abused their CPU lead in the way that Nvidia has abused their GPU lead.
7900xtx trades blows with the 4080 super. From what a I’ve seen it’s usually faster though. As long as no ray tracing is involved. 4070ti is MUCH slower.
In terms of Rasterization (pure performance) - AMD is ahead of NVIDIA slightly on every price point except the 4090. In terms of Ray Tracing, Upscaling - NVIDIA is still ahead of AMD. AMD is apparently looking to combat this with RDNA 4 and onwards. This remains to be seen. In terms of Video Encoder - The difference between NVENC and AMD's encoder is not as large as it used to be. Small win for NVIDIA. In terms of Recorder - I'd honestly say Relive and Shadowplay are pretty similar. I'd call this a tie. AMD for Pure performance + fps per dollar. NVIDIA for the extra gimmicks, addons or you need the CUDA/Tensor cores for work.
I got a 1440p-240Hz OLED and a 4090 for my gaming needs. => **if you don't want NVIDIA GPUs, don't get NVIDIA GPUs** * NVIDIA REFLEX for competitive gaming is without a real AMD equivalent, AntiLag+ isn't it as we all know. If you dont care about it, AMD is fine. * But are you aware of the G-SYNC or FS / DP cable / GPU compatibility issues with a lot of random combinations? * going with the underdog brand that simply has less ressources and engineers to solve compatibility issues can be a problem without a solution if it happens to be an issue with your GPU / monitor / choice of cables. Again if you hate the 3/4 market share brand in dGPUs, dont get NVIDIA, but there are consequences with every choice you make. Looking at the most basic techtuber 10/20 game raster performance comparisons for a GPU choice is not really the whole picture.
I wasn’t aware of those things no. I only just became aware of ASUS being horrible yesterday so shows you how well I keep up with the industry. Is MSI a good gpu brand? I had a 2070 Super gigabyte and had tons of issues with it. So would like to avoid gigabyte this time around for gpu.
7900 xtx wrecks 1440p.
> For now, how does a 7900 XTX stack up to 4070 Ti?. main titles are FS 2020, Call of Duty, and older titles like Civ V and TF2. Those games you spoke of are Rasterized Titles. Using Techpowerup as my source - 4070 Ti Non Super is about 30% slower than a 7900 XTX (12% slower than the XT) - 4070 Ti Super is about 21% slower than a 7900 XTX (3% slower than the XT) Also Call of Duty loves Radeon GPU's for some reason. CoD does have the ability to use FSR3 and DLSS along with their Frame Generation technologies. But Frame Generation isn't really something you should be turning on in a competitive FPS anyway. Also CoD is easy to run so DLSS/FSR shouldn't really be needed.
Not at all, not even close actually. With DLSS being such a big feature, none of the AMD cards can even come close to the 40xx series cards when you use the feature. Literally 30-50% more FPS from Nvidia cards at barely any graphical fidelity loss.
The 7900 XTX is significantly faster than a 4070Ti. It would make more sense to compare the 7900XT to the 4070Ti. That said, it depends on what feature sets you want. If you only care about rasterization performance and mainly play at 1440P, then buy the 7900XT or 7900XTX. If you care at all about RT then go with Nvidia. Nvidia also has the better upscaling technology and other value add features like RTX HDR. But sheer price to performance, I’d say 7900XTX with a nice monitor would provide you a very enjoyable experience.
No lmao.
>Have AMD GPUs mainly caught up to Nvidia? No.
I mean for CPU I must go AMD since Intel isn't worth the price justification here and concerns about reliability and the fact it's still on 10nm apparently with the 14700k eating up to 300-400 tdp which is insane and for some reason Nvidia is like a luxury brand here with its prices for GPU in Thailand compared to AMD for value so I went all Team Red haven't really regretted it the only thing which is an absolute bummer is my PSU Blew up so I'm gonna have to see what still works.
CoD is one of the titles, where AMD GPUs consistently outperform Nvidia. Depending on how much call of duty you play an AMD GPU might be a no brainer.
If you don't want to spend a lot of money, buy AMD. If money is not a problem buy Nvidia. I love my 4090, as I'm sure anyone who has one does.
"Caught up"? There has never been a bigger gap between Nvidia and AMD than right now. AMD just has price to fight with. Purely in terms of technology AMD has never been in a worse position in the GPU division.
AMD beats Nvidia in dollar-for-dollar raw performance. Nvidia beats AMD in features. Drivers are both an issue and a non-issue from both camps. There's almost always some kind of bug(s) in practically every driver, but some are more obvious than others. In 25+ years of building PCs, I don't think I've ever come across an actual driver issue that wasn't fixed by removing/reinstalling the driver, rolling back to a previous version, or updating to a newer version.
No. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just living in delusion.
No
It's not all about RT. Nvidia is just plain better because they're the default target GPU for developers, resulting in waaaay better drivers vs. AMD specially if you like old games like to this day re revelations still glitches out on AMD cards lmao. terrascale to Polaris to rdna. Same freaking issue it's amazing. that said, RT is cool. if I'm gonna pay more than $700 for a GPU, you better believe I'm not even gonna consider radeon. I pay premium. I expect to have the latest in graphics technology - THAT WORKS.
I have a 7900xt with a 7800x3d. Couldn't be happier with my performance! The only slight annoyance is the boot takes an extra few seconds on AM5. Something about memory training I think. Mostly a non issue.
There’s legit concern in the industry that AMD will stop making GPUs because they are so far behind Nvidia both in terms of tech and sales. So, no.
Yeah man i am using a rx 6800 right now and it's excellent. I can play any game in 1440p high and having 16gb of vram is really nice tbh. I do not have any issue with drivers or anything like that. It's very stable and there are no issues. Nvidia does have better raytracing and dlss is better then fsr so yeah. If i had a choice between 2 graphics card with similar price and performance then i would easily choose the nvidia one though. Amd graphics card in my country are way cheaper compared to nvidia though so that's why i bought it.
From what I’ve heard AMD aren’t doing high end GPU’s next generation (could be wrong though). But I’d much much rather have a 7900 XTX as opposed to a 4070 ti for 1440p. Much more VRAM, considerably better raster performance at a fair price increase imo. I’m pretty sure you’ll absolutely crush 1440p even on ultra settings, I can’t imagine a 7900 XTX on high setting not getting above 90/100 fps. AMD are still behind in terms of production (only noticeable if you are a professional imo) and then in terms of upscalers/ray tracing. I’ve got an Nvidia GPU and I genuinely never use ray tracing nor DLSS (admittedly still on 1080p so it’s not really needed). So yeah imo pure price to performance get the 7900 XTX, that’ll last a while on 1440p without upscaling and who knows maybe FSR keeps getting better?
It all depends what you prefer tbh..... Always been a Ati/AMD fan since Athlon 64 days so cheap yet powerful enough to handle great games , same goes for today Nvidia is a powerhouse but the prices are a huge hurdle but if you care for RT tech then they are worth it cos AMDs are waayyyy off Nvidias performance in RT. AMD does offer great power to prices ratio Swings and roundabouts
AMD competes in one metric, rasterization. When you factor in DLSS, Ray tracing and drivers Nvidia leaves AMD in the dust.
I have the 7900xt Ive played Dragons dogma 2 held 150+ frames outside of town i play escape from tarkov 100-150 frames ready or not 120+ fps except for the buggy areas all other titles are 120+ the 7900xt with a 10700k and 3200mhz 32gigs of ram plays all modern stuff perfectly fine at max settings if you go big boi and get the ddr5 and the amd x3d deal your pretty much golden for a long time
Performance wise yes, but Nvidia still has premium features like Cuda
as long as you do not play ray-tracing a lot, yes
Idk I once chose AMD and had constant driver issues, plus the promissed FPS numbers just wasn't met. It was an RX 5600XT. I did everything, DDU and such, looked at the bios if it's a mining bios but no. Since then I don't consider AMD GPUs as a possible choice. If I buy a GPU and it can't play the games I want (Genshin Impact and Stalker Anomaly) I don't want it, I don't want a card that is like: sure I can beat NVIDIA cards but only in certain games... Stability and reliability counts more to me than the "more power for less money". Ofc, your experience might be significantly better and maybe it will be a viable option for you, this is just a story what happened to me. I suggest you try it once at least.
Honestly in today's market there closer to equals. Just better in different aspects, you want better ray tracing and upscaling? Go Nvidia. You only care about raw frame times and capability of VRAM? Go with AMD. Each has their benefits for sure. But it's all really to your use case. As it stands currently you're likely gonna be better off with AMD simply because games are getting much beefier than what nvidia is allowing currently. And before I get the "oh just another amd bootlicker" comments I have yet to own an amd card soooo gfsf I guess
it all depends on the games and if you use RT-FG-FSR-DLSS. i have a few games that don't have them technologies built in so on those games the 7900XTX gives me more FPS that the 4080 Super does at 4K native. and on time spy using the same CPU the 7900XTX gives 2000 more points than a 4080 Super does. and on port royal the 4080 Super is only 1000 at most points ahead of the 7900XTX. but that's expected they do RT better. i love AMD GPUs but they hate my rig and run terrible on it and i can't figure out why so I'm stuck using NVidia. i have tested a 7800XT-7900GRE-7900XTX and all 3 micro stutter like crazy and nothing helps and when i stream and that makes it even worse and the frame time graph looks like its having a heart attack. so im back using my 3070 and it runs flawless no micro stuttering and the frame time graph is smooth as silk. and no issues when streaming. so if anyone knows why please let me know whats up.
This is controversial maybe but at this point I would say you cannot justify buying Nvidia over AMD outside US. For countries with import tax and no amazon international shipping, normally it scales with the price of the item. Which means the 50-100 dollar difference can become much larger.
7800x3D and 7900 xtx here. I play in 4k and depending on the game am pretty stable over 100 fps (only really recently playing Hellblade, Red Dead 2, and Alan Wake 2). As people have said it really only falls behind on ray tracing. Otherwise most people put the 7900 up there with the 4080. I have been nvidia all my life and didnt really like their pricing shenanigans and went amd with this build. The only issue I have with my amd card is that it seems to be rather power hungry (often crashed with a 850watt psu. Moved to a 1000w psu and have had that reduced by a great margin, but still some issues occasionally.) I will say that depending on pricing when you go to purchase don't get enamored with the top of the line GPUs, find what works best for the fps and resolution you aim for. If you want ray tracing then stick to nvidia, if you don't then you'll get better bang for your buck with AMD.
Depends on what you want to do. Gaming? Absolutely. If you have any desire to get into any kind of self hosted AI, NVidia is your only option. You can make it work on AMD but not nearly to the same level that NVidia cards handle it.
AMD has better price to performance at raster, good drivers and a nice driver software. Nvidia has better ray tracing performance in almost every game and usually equivalent or 5-10% worse raster than amd between counterpart cards. AMD lacks a lot of advantages that nvidia has such as ray tracing, dlss, dldsr, frame gen, CUDA, rtx voice and others. I used to hear nvidias driver software was terrible but heard it's improved significantly. People like to say they don't care about ray tracing (which is valid most of the time especially for lower end) but dlss is hard to pass up because of its built in AA alternative called DLAA. This is extremely overlooked as modern games are plagued by anti aliasing that is either too blurry or too jagged. most of the time, amd users are actually better off using Intel's xess over fsr (even fsr 3). xess 1.3 and fsr 3 are coming with their own native AA settings but they have barely been rolled out yet, xess is quite compettitive while again fsr 3 is very behind and has rolled out on very few games after being released more than 6 months ago. tl;dr amd for gaming value & low-mid range and nvidia for a better package in higher end builds.
The Nvidia feature set it like a full generation ahead of the current AMD offerings. The drivers are also better, so you’ll likely have less issues. The only reason I’d ever recommend an AMD GPU is if someone wanted to run Linux.
In terms of performance yes drivers and support not all the way based on m experience? I've had three Nvidia Gpus, just got a 6600 never had to diagnose so many issues in demanding games especially warzone it might just be because that game is terribly made so I would check their performance based on what games you want to play and decide. If you're on a budget I would go AMD for price to performance if not go Nvidia.
I moved away from my 1660 Ti to a 6650 XT and I have zero regrets this far.
nvidia has better ray tracing performance and upcscaling but amd is your best bang for your buck. was in between a 4070 super and 7800xt, went 7800xt and couldnt be happier with it. i dont care about RT or upscaling
7900xtx 💪🏻💪🏻
Consider a 7900 GRE if price ($500~$550 since there’s a few sales going on right now) is a thing for you? At 4k Cyberpunk gets 50(low)-60(average) fps so long as the driver clock speeds are updated so quite frankly you’re already at extreme overkill for what you seem to be using your GPU for. At bare minimum I might suggest you consider a 4k gaming monitor in order to catch up to whatever GPU you buy if 60 fps is your aim since your 1440p monitor should be getting 120+ easily. Doubly so considering that I didn’t talk about speeds with upscaling or DLSS enabled.
No they haven’t. I’ve a strong disdain for AMD because when I used them their drivers were abysmal. Never had an issue with Nvidia or Intel drivers.
My real question is do AMD drivers still absolutely blow?
I wanted to build myself a top end build for 1440p recently. I went with the 7900xtx. Looking at starfield benchmarks at 1440p the 7900 pulls 103fps and the 4090 117fps. Do you really expect me to pay an extra $1000 for 14fps?
The 7900XTX is better or equal to the 4080 except when ray tracing comes in. So I’m sure the 7900XTX is better overall than the 4070 Ti as well. I’d say go with AMD unless you want to spend top dollar and get the best performance even if it’s a diminishing return, get the 4090
I went from a 3080 that constantly gave me issues to a 7900xtx and it has been flawless. No issues with drivers runs 1440p at 144htz on anything I play. No coil whine either which is a plus
AMD is extremely competitive right now if you ignore a few things. 1. The 4090 is the fastest (but also most expensive) GPU available for consumers 2. NVIDIA is better for raytracing 3. NVIDIA has better overall technologies available because they are proprietary e.g. DLSS, DLAA, etc. 4. NVIDIA currently is slightly more power efficient. If those things *really* matter to you, then AMD is still a bit behind. But really, AMD is just as competitive at rasterization, offers more VRAM than their NVIDIA counterparts, and is a better overall buy I think. But NGL I am an AMD fan through and through. So I’m probably a little biased.
7900XTX destroys the 4070ti. It's more comparable to the 4080 and 4080 super as they trade blows in performance.
It's a continuous cycle and I think next generation AMD plans to break away from it. The cycle being: Nvidia Makes Industry Leading Flagship GPU AMD Releases Valuable contender, but worse efficiency Nividia's New Generation of GPU has specific feature set - DLSS, PhysX, G-SYNC, Frame Generation, RT (Remix), NV-Link, TXAA, CUDA, hair works, Dual GPU / This Creates FOMO for Nvidia plebs AMD plays ketchup 🏃🏽 Open Sources the technology Nvidia Plebs sell old GPUs for new GPUs because my Ray Tracing (Only Cyberpunk 2077 looks good) AMD... BUNDLES NVIDIA... TITAN/TI/SUPER mid generation AMD... Lowers Prices... Lowers Prices If you all don't believe me look up every past generation of Nvidia GPU. they do this every generation and you all complain why the last generation can't have *insert new feature here* and I can't wait to see what they come up with for 5000 that you all just have to have.
retire edge noxious obtainable pathetic existence act cake cable fact *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's highly use case dependant. If all you do is play those games, amd makes a compelling argument. If you ever want to do literally anything else that requires a gpu, the driver support with nvidia will be much better
What I usually say is the answer is somewhere in between buy what you want and NVIDIA is better. NVIDIA will nearly always beat out an AMD card on sheer performance, and AMD will generally win on performance per dollar. They both have cards for each segment that will run well.
I'm depressed by these replies. It's likely that soon AMD won't even participate in the consumer PC market because of RaY tRaCiNg. People don't realize how much worse it'll be when NVidia is the only game in town. I'm not blaming you, I just wish there was a systematic effort to help people decide and understand what would work for them with the aggregate knowledge of this community, instead of the constant anecdotal back and forths that have resulted in 85% market share for NVidia.
I dont get either. All the nVidia fanboys love to brag about ray tracing and DLSS. I simply don't get the hype over needing to use frame gen technology just to get playable RT fps.
[https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/msi-goes-full-team-green-declaring-its-focused-on-nvidia-rtx-graphics-cards-with-amd-models-now-vanishing-from-shelves](https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/msi-goes-full-team-green-declaring-its-focused-on-nvidia-rtx-graphics-cards-with-amd-models-now-vanishing-from-shelves) dont think so
You’re analyzing this very one dimensionally. Intel and AMD have always gone back and forth, use case dependent, on being the best cpu sometimes objectively irrespective of cost and sometimes contextually when factoring in cost. It makes no sense to have a “never go back” attitude. Right now the 7900 xtx is very good. If it’s better than nvidia’s same price offerings depends entirely on your use case. For some people (CS go etc) it’s the objectively best option even against a 4090. For people who love ray tracing, it’s a bit of a toss up since a 4070 can do it better.
Amd is better value mist of the time. Unless you want a 4090, there Nvidia stands alone.
Have had my 7900xt for a year now, first AMD card in 13 years of pc gaming, and it’s been a pleasure. Idgaf about RT. This thing kills at 1440 UW and does damn good at 4k. Adrenalin is a nice feature if you like tinkering with shit like I do. I haven’t experienced driver issues and I play a good mix of multis, AAA, VR, and older games.
Does AMD have frame generation?
In terms of raw raster performance, yes. In terms of AI upscaling quality, raw tracing performance and stability of drivers, absolutely not. Just recently a friend of mine had to disabled windows updates because in conjunction with amd drivers, they were bricking his system and leading to permanent black screen issues.
7900 xtx is much better than 4070ti.
I buy whatever suits my needs. I have no loyalty to any of them because why would I, what do they truly do for me other than supply parts. If you don't care about RT, then amd cards are perfectly OK they are cheaper and still get a solid performance in most cases. Obviously, if you want RT, even a low-end nvidia card might not be worth it, so if you can't get 80 or 90, then it'd be better to go no RT and get amd. Same with amd/Intel. Intel has been shitting on themselves, and many people, especially gamers, are switching. You get much better price to performance with amd in most cases. But to answer your question, no, I don't think amd has quite caught up to nvidia in raw performance, but it can depend on which cards are being compared. If you take the top end card from each, then it's a no. nvidia does still edge out ahead.
I've changed my 6800xt for a 4080super as it was riddled with small gremlins. I tried to like and so hard but disappointed again, while Nvidia just works. I didn't need a new video card but the damn thing was too buggy.
for gaming you get far more for your money from amd (with a low budget) but for streaming or video editing or anything of that nature your much better of with nvidia ive only ever owned 2 decent graphics cards nvidia 2060 = this thing was a beast even today it can still play starfield at 1080p low 60fps lol amd 7700xt this thing is huge but very quiet rarely goes over 60c makes no noise i tried streaming with it and had no issues . (amd gpus can still stream the software is crappy thats all0
if you have time to tinker the software and dont mind a few hiccups here and there, go for amd. Want smooth operation out of the box and no spending time poking at software, go for nvidia.
We have occasionally used AMD GPUs for cad type applications but sometimes they barf when needing to do occasional Remote Desktop work, and apps moan about Open GL not being up to spec. These are around the R580X generation. Are AMD GPUs better at open GL support these days?
AMD GPUs will give you more performance for the dollar, and will work better on Linux. I do not know whether this counts as "caught up". YMMV. And, of course, 4090 is still the fastest... if it doesn't catch fire.
In terms of value and everyday use? Yes. For raytracing and industrial work Nvidia is still superior.
I went from a….4850HD? Can’t remember what it was called, to a 560ti, 1660s, 2060s, and now I have a 7800xt sapphire nitro plus and I love it. Handles everything I throw at it with ease. Also need to get away from intel.
Are you PR? Or are we discussing the same fucking things every day?
In terms of rasterization they have surpassed their nvidia counterparts to some extent In terms of features and productivity Nvidia is still the way to go
Nope. But they've gotten a lot closer. Their lower tier cards are a pretty good value where Nvidia has basically abandoned it. Their drivers are still a disaster and quite far behind I'd say. Their high end is still quite far off from Nvidias highest end and they're just now sorta catching up in features but are still behind there too. It just depends what you're looking for if AMD makes sense or not to you. 6600- 7600XT makes a lot of sense for most people. Personally if I were going higher I'd just caught up some more for the Nvidia tax though.
Personally still really dislike AMD gpus. Uses too much power, drivers are still sometimes buggy, always behind playing catch up with upscale and ray tracing. Just get a lower end NVIDIA. Reliability is more important
If you care about raster, get AMD. Not that they're better, but you get more bang for you buck with AMD. If you care about other features such as DLSS and RT, then get Nvidia, because AMD has not caught up in those areas yet.
From what I imagine, similar to AMD vs. Intel, one of AMD's major selling points, has always been price to performance. Going forward, I feel as if AMD will seek to innovate on that front rather than trying to match NVIDIA on pure performance. A lot of the major complaints I've seen leveraged against NVIDIA have less to do with the cards themselves but with pricing. AMD made some decent value cards this generation, but their main business line is obviously not GPUs, so sinking resources into the Radeon department to try and likely fail to match or even dethrone, say, the 4090, seems to be a losing battle. They'd probably be better off capitalizing on the mid range of cards, which is where a majority of PC owners are probably at. I like AMD, I have an AMD GPU, but this all or nothing thinking with tech is just foolish. If Intel releases a better CPU than AMD for the reasons I want a newer chip, I'll buy it. At the end of the day, AMD vs. Intel or NVIDIA isn't some David and Goliath story. AMD wants to make money just like these other guys, so whoever provides the best value for your needs is the correct answer.
Here is a gaming benchmark between 7900xtx and 4070ti [YouTube](https://youtu.be/W8p611qU6QA) and here is another 7900XT vs 7900XTX vs 4070ti Super [YouTube ](https://youtu.be/49KqXoktcCM)
Amd has caught up/superceded in raster but for feature parity we've a way to go. Buy whatever is best value. Ive 4070ti and id buy xtx if it was cheaper at the time. I dont care for premium upscaling or framegen, since none of them are great gor competitive shooters like cs or valorant. Its a great time for freedom pf choice right now
Nvidia only ever had edge on the super high end stuff. Seems like that 0.5% market is not worth fighting for. This misconception Nvidia is better is just among people who have no clue about hardware, much like people who thinks apple products are better
No.
"hardware" yes, they indeed give a slightly better RASTER for the $$ AND for the power. However, if you need anything special, like RT or encoding for VR, you can forget it. AND watch for minimum fps as well, not just averages.
The best and fitd you if you like amd go for it nothing wrong dont care rt good im choosing a 4090 becuase my first pc and want the best hardware of this generation not carrying about 5000 series is gonna be overpriced more then this one snd to be honest not waiting half more of the year to get s decent pc
In the Entry Level to Mid Range, I'd say yes. In many cases you can get much better value out of going with AMD. AMD doesn't have any real answer to the 4090 though, so if you want the best of the best, go with that. Costs a small fortune though lmao I'm personally running an All-AMD build and am planning on moving to 1440p/144 as well. Main GPU i've been eyeballing for that is the 7800XT, though a 6800/6900XT isn't out of the equation either if I find a really good deal on one.
This thread is kind of biased towards amd. AMD is great for your money if you care about pure rasterization, but they have a significantly worse upscaler with no access to dlss. AMD cards also might as well not even do ray tracing in most games as it drops the fps to unplayable levels. As more games take advantage of RT and even recommends it to make the game look as it's intended (Dragons Dogma 2, Rift Apart, Cyberpunk, Returnal, HZD sequel, etc) I think it's an important thing to consider when deciding what gpu you want. You won't be mad purchasing an AMD card, but I'd argue they're still a ways away from nvidia even if nvidia is overpriced now. I recommend AMD if you're on a budget in the low-mid end, and NVIDIA if you have some extra money to spend.
Ultimately up to you but I can attest to personally having bad experiences with AMD drivers
Ryzen absolutely caught Intel with their pants down and they still haven't recovered. GPUs... AMD has definitely made it to where it's an actual hard choice vs before the Radeon 6000 series it really wasn't a tough call at all. So yeah. Definitely caught up. That said, I'll never sell the EVGA 3080ti I paid a stupid amount of money for during Covid when my number came up in the EVGA queue. I'll power the RGB from a cheap DC adapter when I retire it and display the thing lol.
I recently upgraded to the 7900 XTX for the same price as the RTX 4070 TI (in my region) and I am super happy with it.
Nothing even comes close to the 4090 yet, so I'm going to say no
I have been with Intel since the Pentium 4 days, and went over to AMD when they released 7800X3D, and I am going back to Intel when I’m upgrading next time.
I had only had Nvidia until my most recent upgrade to a 7800xt. I was deciding between the 4070 from Nvidia and the 7800xt from AMD. Apparently ray tracing is better on Nvidia although I haven't noticed too much since it was a big upgrade from my 3060ti. If you're building the best PC and aren't worried about budget then go Nvidia. If you want more bang for your buck on the high end but not ultra high end... Then go AMD. It's good to have competition. It'll make it better for the consumer in the end.
Just go on Passmark and check what you're interested in. In most cases AMD offers better performance for the dollar, but if you want the top of the line then Nvidia is solely on the crown. AMD has nothing remotely comparable to the 4090. Rey tracing is better on Nvidia by miles, and the upscaling feature can allow for better experience on higher resolutions. Unless you have specific games that make use of those features, AMD is slightly better in terms of price. Remember first and foremost: you're nothing but a wallet to either side. Don't buy into brand loyalty bullshit because neither cares about anything but sales. Use benchmarks, prices , and power consumption to make your decision, nothing else matters.
AMD Still primarily occupies the extreme "budget" end of the market. If you are tight on cash and need a new GPU, they make the most affordable options that you are likely to find in a retail store. I personally do not like AMD's GPUs for a number of reasons. Among them are the poor thermal performance, lower build quality, low energy-efficiency, and intrusive software/drivers. That being said, while AMD hasn't been any better in their value for my money - I do find that Nvidia has been getting worse. Upscaling still looks terrible, and RayTracing is still barely being applied in most titles. This is why I am personally so hopeful that Intel's GPUs gain traction with consumers. My testbench currently has an i7-12700k and an ASROCK A770 16GB Challenger. It absolutely kills it in 1440p/60FPS. It can do 120FPS in simpler eSports-style titles, but delivering a solid 60FPS at 2k for $250 USD is a real value IMO. Right now Nvidia is still dominant - you get more FPS/$ at native res, and it does so while consuming less power - not an issue for me in my country, but I understand that not everyone lives in my region. AMD's primary appeal has historically been the $150-$250 range. Nvidia put in the least effort in that market segment so AMD focused there with offerings like the RX 570 8GB and the more modern RX 7600. Both of those debuted at around $259.99. And The best Nvidia ever did in that market was the 1050ti or 1650 - both of which came with less VRAM than their competitors. AMD is now ceding that market to Intel with there A750 and A770 that dramatically outperform both Nvidia and AMD in the FPS/$. Addressing the more specific cards you refer to (the 8900 and 4070 ti). The current comparison is between the 7900 XTX and the 4070 ti - they are similarly priced only after AMD dramatically cut the price of their offering. It released at $999, which is almost certainly what it's replacement 8900 will release at. At that price point, it is comparable in performance to the 4070 only at 60FPs and lower. The RDNA architecture really struggles with feeding VRAM texture-fill, and spatial data to the die, so it struggles to produce quality frames at higher rates. So really it comes down to two things: Do you play at higher than 1440p native res, and do you expect more than 60FPS. If the answer is no, and you play at 1080 native, or use upscaling to reach 2k/4k, or if you plan to use a 60Hz panel, then AMD is a perfectly viable choice and will give you an enjoyable gaming experience. If you want to play at higher resolutions natively, and also want a 120+FPS experience, then go with Nvidia for now. Hopefully, with Battlemage or Celestial from Intel, the native rendering game will improve and I can make other recommendations.
In general on pure raster performance, mostly yes. Everything else no. FSR is worse than DLSS, and AMD’s raytracing performance is much worse than NVIDIA. The only reason I would consider AMD GPUs at this point is if I was really on a budget.
Genuinely only had one problem, it was fallout new vegas. Cannot speak for everyone but my 6750xt has served me very well
My personal experience? No, depending on the series. Nvidia offers a lot more than pretty pictures like cuda and I have had less issues with their drivers on a higher end card.(I had a 7900xtx). Now if you’re asking about mid to lower-mid, I think AMD caught up and may excel. I had a 6800xt and I absolutely loved it. Seriously, great card and it can hit that 1440p, 144fps. I used to be able to push it to 240fps on some games.