Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
AMD seems to have trouble getting rid of their old RDNA2 GPUs...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SportsFan581
Member
Well, in 2013 the X1 launched at $500 and the PS4 at $400, in 2020 both launched with models at the same price points (though you did lose the disk on the PS5). Can't really compare the current-gen consoles to GPUs in that way as both did an amazing job holding the line while upping the base tech quite a bit.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Maybe I'm too old, but in the past I only upgraded my PCs when games were running below 30fps, or at low settings. My GTX1080 can run games with comparable quality to PS5 despite it's age, and that's good enough for me... or should I say it was good enough
, because now my GTX1080 is VRAM limited in more and more games, and that's indeed a problem for me, because low texture quality looks like garbage. Yes, locked 40fps is playable to me, in fact 40fps on my 170Hz nano-ips VRR monitor is more sharp and responsive during motion than 60fps on my old 60Hz AS-IPS monitor (I no longer need to use laggy VSYNC and because 40fps is refreshed multiple times on my VRR display flicker improve the sharpness).
Of course I still prefer to game at 60fps, or even higher (especially in fast paced first person shooter games), but I can only tell the difference in latency up to 90fps, and above that it's a placebo territory for me. Only some extremely laggy game (games have different input lag) will benefit from 100fps and more (because higher fps reduce input lag).
How many frames per second can the human eye really see?
30 fps? 60 fps? If you've ever debated framerates, the cognitive researchers we spoke to have some complex answers for you.
Please read this quote if you really think you can see 200Hz
. To be fair higher fps on sample and hold display will improve sharpness during motion, but you need EXTREMELY HIGH fps (240fps) to even match the motion clarity of plasma running the same game at 60fps (in order to match CRT you would need 1000fps). On sample and hold display it's better to use BFI, because then even 60fps will look reasonably sharp thanks to BFI (way sharper than evev 120fps without BFI). The only downside is much lower brightness, but some displays are bright enough to compensate for this.
Even my plasma has sharper image at 60fps than my nano-ips sample and hold display at 170fps. I would have to buy 240fps monitor (and run games at 240fps on top of that) to match the motion quality of my 42VT30 plasma in 60fps game.
Buggy Loop
Member
Haint
Member
Nvidia's stock price is through the roof and they've been holding the line on price for 6 months suggesting demand is mostly matching supply, so no, it ain't happening. The PCMR has spoken and they've overwhelmingly supported $1300 mid range GPU's just like they support $1400 27" monitors and $300 Mice and Keyboards.
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
Since a few months DLSS3 FG can run with locked FPS with VRR displays. Just enable Vsync in the Nvidia control panel and the game will be locked at 116 FPS if your screen is 120 Hz for example when FG is enabled. It's a new feature that came months ago to make DLSS3 FG work better with VRR displays, locking it under the max refresh rate to keep a low latency.
Also, if a game offers frame limit settings you can set it to half the value you want as DLSS3 FG will double it, that's how I did it in A Plague Tale Requiem before this driver update.
Last edited:
Pasta la Vista
Member
Ehhh not quite enough for me to upgrade from a 2080 yet. I'm 1440 for life basically and there are not enough games I want to play out there yet that really make it sweat.
I'm willing to spend $600 - $800 when I do upgrade so maybe Ill wait for the 5070 to get a massive jump and mayyybe start playing around with 4k.
Starfield might make me bite the bullet... if it ends up being something truly amazing. Those AMD cards with all that vram are pretty enticing though.
I'm willing to spend $600 - $800 when I do upgrade so maybe Ill wait for the 5070 to get a massive jump and mayyybe start playing around with 4k.
Starfield might make me bite the bullet... if it ends up being something truly amazing. Those AMD cards with all that vram are pretty enticing though.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Not gonna lie, nvidia is doing better advertising for amd than they have ever done for themselves
Senua
Member
That's a good shill, are you the white cat on Jensen's lap getting your hairs on his nice new jacket? You better lick them off you little shit.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Instead of name calling, tell me where I lied?
Oh, that's right you can't, so you resort to childish name calling
hinch7
Member
Not sure if the guy has stock in Nvidia because that's some questionable logic. Performance wise its the one of the worst jumps we've seen from a 70 class card.
That's a good shill, are you the white cat on Jensen's lap getting your hairs on his nice new jacket? You better lick them off you little shit.
1070 > 980Ti
2070 =1080Ti
3070 > 2080Ti
4070 = 3080
And seeing as this is the first time Nvidia has released a 70 series card with essentially the same specs in terms of cores, TMU, ROP's etc as last gens 70 tier. Its a heavy gimped die and 192-bit bus. Despite being a AD104. And relying on node advantage to give it higher clocks. Plus DDR6X and a modest boost in cache. Really this is a 4060Ti tier card, at best.
Last edited:
Doctor Hades
Member
I can't lie but after holding off due to the pricing, I finally caved in a bought a 4080 Founders Edition card a few weeks ago for £1,199 from NVIDIA (via Scan) as an upgrade to my VRAM-diminished 3080 which was struggling with many recent games at 1440p with RT and I am absolutely delighted with it. However, part of me regrets giving in and paying that amount for an 80 series card when the 3080 was 'only' £749 and I only bought it in June 2022. The pricing of the 40 series card is utterly obnoxious in my opinion but my only upgrade option was the 4080. I don't think the new AMD cards are that impressive and their feature set (FSR etc) is inferior to NVIDIA's. Also, DLSS3 frame generation really is a lovely addition to the NVIDIA GPU feature set.
The 4070 though like all the other cards is overpriced and the VRAM is likely to become an issue even at 1440p based on my own experiences with my 4080 where many games hit 11 GB usage just at 1440p even without RT.
The 4070 though like all the other cards is overpriced and the VRAM is likely to become an issue even at 1440p based on my own experiences with my 4080 where many games hit 11 GB usage just at 1440p even without RT.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
This gen pretty much forced anyone who is serious about this stuff to fork out 1500 for a 4090.
Its an amazing card but there's no doubt nvidia are absolutely awful but also manage to get away with whatever they want. Prime example of what happens to business's with too much market share.
Its an amazing card but there's no doubt nvidia are absolutely awful but also manage to get away with whatever they want. Prime example of what happens to business's with too much market share.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
2070 was a bit weaker than 1080 Ti.
How is it questionable logic?
GP104 (1070) was 29% faster than full fat GM104 (980)
TU106 (2070) was 16% faster than full fat GP104 (1080)
GA104 (3070) was 26% faster than close to full TU104 (2080)
AD104 (4070) is 26% faster than close to full GA104 (3070)
The bolded was in the picture I quoted.
RTX 4070 continues the same trend of beating the previous gen x104 GPU by a similar margin as the previous 3 x70 GPUs have. Only the 30-series x104 happened to be the 3070 and not the x80 as the x104 has been the prior 3 generations.
It's a fact, but you people will still continue crying about pricing for some reason.
I find it funny that PC gamers are so outraged by pricing this gen, it's been quite the entertainment
Last edited:
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Nothing I say will change anything as the hive mind on the internet will continue believing whatever it wants to believe. Luckily I don't follow the hive mind.
Nvidia's mistake IMO was calling the 3070 a 3070. Usually the 104 is an 80 class GPU (980, 1080, 2080). Nvidia got lambasted trying to call AD104 a 4080 12 GB. In 3 of the 4 prior generations (from 900-20 series) the full fat x104 would have been an 80 class GPU.
Now Nvidia is stuck with hive minded individuals calling the 4070 a 4060.
Nvidia's mistake IMO was calling the 3070 a 3070. Usually the 104 is an 80 class GPU (980, 1080, 2080). Nvidia got lambasted trying to call AD104 a 4080 12 GB. In 3 of the 4 prior generations (from 900-20 series) the full fat x104 would have been an 80 class GPU.
Now Nvidia is stuck with hive minded individuals calling the 4070 a 4060.
CuteFaceJay
Member
Just get a 3090 on the cheap seeing as it's almost 3 years old now.
The 3080 has 10 GB of memory. It looks like the 4070 has about 2% better performance in ray tracing at 1440p.
The 4070 is 26% faster than the 3070, but is 20% more expensive at MSRP. The other parts you compared launched at the same or a cheaper price than their predecessors. (Well if you compare the 2070 to the 1070 the picture is less favourable)2070 was a bit weaker than 1080 Ti.
How is it questionable logic?
GP104 (1070) was 29% faster than full fat GM104 (980)
TU106 (2070) was 16% faster than full fat GP104 (1080)
GA104 (3070) was 26% faster than close to full TU104 (2080)
AD104 (4070) is 26% faster than close to full GA104 (3070)
The bolded was in the picture I quoted.
RTX 4070 continues the same trend of beating the previous gen x104 GPU by a similar margin as the previous 3 x70 GPUs have. Only the 30-series x104 happened to be the 3070 and not the x80 as the x104 has been the prior 3 generations.
It's a fact, but you people will still continue crying about pricing for some reason.
I find it funny that PC gamers are so outraged by pricing this gen, it's been quite the entertainment
I feel like 15% more performance per dollar is a good expectation since this should be achievable with clock speed boosts + architectural enhancements.
Last edited:
Not great.
Historically the 1060 matched the 980 and the 2060 matched the 1080.
Given this matches the 3080 it would seem that this should be a 4060 and at a reasonable x60 price of $350 to $400 it would be an outstanding product. At $600 though it is the best of a bad bunch. Especially with 12GB of vram, I would not be surprised if in a couple of years it ends up being relegated to a 1080p card and $600 for that is really poor imo.
Historically the 1060 matched the 980 and the 2060 matched the 1080.
Given this matches the 3080 it would seem that this should be a 4060 and at a reasonable x60 price of $350 to $400 it would be an outstanding product. At $600 though it is the best of a bad bunch. Especially with 12GB of vram, I would not be surprised if in a couple of years it ends up being relegated to a 1080p card and $600 for that is really poor imo.
Schmendrick
Member
Accusing others of being "hive minded" while deepthroating corporate dick...the irony.
Last edited:
Skifi28
Member
No, you've had your own hive mind for years now. Please keep entertaining us like you always have.
Last edited:
Senua
Member
The little shit was facetious as I was only calling you that if you were Jensen's cat spreading your white hairs all over the place, they ruin dark clothing you know. But the shill was definitely for you seeing as you constantly twist any negative situation for Nvidia into a positive, the mental gymnastics is pretty insane dude. We know what nvidia has done with the tiers this time around, how does that excuse them? It shows them as even more greedy and shady, but in your mind we ignore this and instead compare to the 3070 and ignore how the gain from last gens 80 card is embarrassing, and a lot of the time is even worse? This is unprecedented and is only defendable by shills or jensens cat so you are one of the two.Instead of name calling, tell me where I lied?
Oh, that's right you can't, so you resort to childish name calling
Corporal.Hicks
Member
FSR2 looks reasonably sharp with fidelity FX sharpening. I can still see the difference compared to the native image, but only from up close. I can also play games on my 42VT30 fullhd plsasma without any upscaling.
Why you upgrade GPUs every year when it takes 2 years to release a new generation? Also, good luck trying to sell 3070 at a reasonable price right now, because not many people will want to pay a premium for 8GB GPU these days (the mining craze is over). If the 3070 had 12GB (like the 3060), it would be MUCH better value.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
This is running in 1440p with balanced upscaling and getting 50fps.
?
One would be much better off with RT disabled, quality upscaling and higher FPS in this game. 6950 would do much better at that.
Again, RT can be good, but you are sacrificing significant image quality and frame rates for minor lighting improvements. You turned on Frame-Gen here too which results in artifacts, and isn't present in most games.
4070 is not the card for RT and Cyberpunk is a 3 year old game to boot. It's actually fairly flexible in config settings and scalability now. Hell, I run at on Steamdeck.
All that said, to each their oow preferences.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
Thats the only hope I have.
When RTX20s were widely paned Nvidia "fixed" it with the RTX30s......they got greedy again with the RTX40s and hopefully they "fix" things with the RTX50s.
The xx70 should absolutely match a 4090, then even someone upgrading from a 4080 will get a decent upgrade going to a 5070.
Buggy Loop
Member
Since when 50 fps (without frame gen) on a VRR monitor even bad? Dude seriously, I have this performance on my 3080 Ti for ultrawide 1440p and it blows me away in cyberpunk. Peoples who don’t find the difference worth it are clearly not on cards capable of handling it. Of course at sub 30 fps it’s a big no.
What’s the alternative here? Buying a more expensive 6950? These older gen cards consume >100W more, even more so with the 6950. You pay for that, you know, bills, if you have those.
Most of the frame gen artifacts from the day one release have been fixed.
I mean, I just keep hearing the arguments from day 1 review of the tech, such as artifacts and latency. All of that is mostly behind now, latency was debunked, misinformation came from techtubers who have no fucking clue.
I’m all for saying that this gen sucks and only 4090 makes sense (7% price increase for a whooping 50% performance increase is almost unheard of), but no, I would not recommend older gen cards if one were to jump in right now unless it’s bottom range deal like a 6700XT to hold on and SKIP this gen. Or until AMD someday releases their mid range if VRAM is really the best thing in the world and we ignore RT/ML.
Huge pushback on 8GB VRAM in past weeks, AMD marketing saying VRAM matters for a bunch of shit ports sponsored by AMD where even the potato quality mode takes 6GB at 1080p and looks worse texture wise than Crysis with 256MB cards. Now 12GB is a problem? That’s the next push for bullshit sponsored games with memory leaks?
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
We as consumers do not benefit from planned obsolescence. IDK why he defends Nv so much, but maybe you are right and he does work for Nv.
People were expecting 3090 like peformance from 4070, but is seems nvidia has changed their strategy, because now you have to go with more expensive 4070TI in order to match the top dog (3090) of the last generation.
IMO 3080 like peroformance is still good enough at 1440p (and especially for people like me, who still use pascal GPU), but 12GB is not good enough for sure. I watch YT comparisons and even now some games can max 12GB VRAM (Godfall for example). I hope that NV will also offer the 4070 with 16GB of VRAM, because 12GB is just not enough if you plan to play on the same GPU for more than 2 years.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, a planned obsolescence. You paid a premium for 3080 not so long time ago, and now you are forced to upgrade not because your GPU is too slow, but because games require more VRAM.
Last edited:
FingerBang
Member
PC gaming is awful this gen, price-wise. Nvidia's strategy is to ass-fuck their user base and expect them to say thank you. Their value proposition is horrible unless you go for the top-end, which is weirdly priced reasonably.
To me, it's ridiculous how they raised the price while offering less for each of the tiers, again, except for the 4090. The 4070 is priced reasonably compared to the 3070, but it's a smaller chip with the same number of CUs. The trend of the xx70 card matching the previous top-end is dead. The 4070ti did, though, but guess what? It's 800 now.
And in all this, where the fuck is AMD? Seriously, this is their moment. They could get in and take the market, but nope. N32 and N33 are nowhere to be seen. All we have is rumors, and after overpromising and underdelivering with N31 (good cards that should have been called 7080XT and 7090XT and be priced probably $200 less), they're letting Nvidia decide the market and setting price for performance. They don't want to be aggressive by setting a price on performance; they are happy to play Nvidia's game. You're the one getting fucked, as always.
Stop defending this. They are making PC games a luxury. Get a console instead of waiting for reasonable prices. You get the same, slightly blur games for a fourth of the price. Or buy used.
To me, it's ridiculous how they raised the price while offering less for each of the tiers, again, except for the 4090. The 4070 is priced reasonably compared to the 3070, but it's a smaller chip with the same number of CUs. The trend of the xx70 card matching the previous top-end is dead. The 4070ti did, though, but guess what? It's 800 now.
And in all this, where the fuck is AMD? Seriously, this is their moment. They could get in and take the market, but nope. N32 and N33 are nowhere to be seen. All we have is rumors, and after overpromising and underdelivering with N31 (good cards that should have been called 7080XT and 7090XT and be priced probably $200 less), they're letting Nvidia decide the market and setting price for performance. They don't want to be aggressive by setting a price on performance; they are happy to play Nvidia's game. You're the one getting fucked, as always.
Stop defending this. They are making PC games a luxury. Get a console instead of waiting for reasonable prices. You get the same, slightly blur games for a fourth of the price. Or buy used.
Low Moral Fibre
Member
Just going to get a 4090 and 7800x3d. Yes the 4090 is a gross price but it's such a huge jump over everything else unlike normal gens when it's a few percent better at the top end.
I have like £10k in my PC fund after skipping the 30 series COVID scalpers and while Nvidia just pre-scalp everything now PC gaming is still a very cheap hobby compared to some of the shit people do.
I have like £10k in my PC fund after skipping the 30 series COVID scalpers and while Nvidia just pre-scalp everything now PC gaming is still a very cheap hobby compared to some of the shit people do.
I don't think it is planned obsolescence. NV have a history of giving you enough for right now. They did it with 700 and 900 series parts and because they launched before the next gen consoles of the time had exited the cross gen period. Then with the post cross gen games hitting vram hard they released the 1000 series and that lasted really well. Ampere was the equivalent of 700 series. Ada is equivalent to 900 series but a proper uplift in terms of vram will occur with the 5000 series imo. That will be the 1000 series equivalent and should last until next gen comes out of the cross gen period.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
Dude, you must be joking. In 2012 I bought GTX680 2GB and two years later this GPU was extremely VRAM limited. I was forced to lower texture settings in pretty much every new game. In some games like COD Ghosts I had PS2 like textures no matter which texture settings I used.
People learn on their mistakes, so in 2016 I bought GTX1080 with insane amount of VRAM (back then 8GB VRAM was lot). On the GTX1080 all textures in COD Ghosts loads correctly and the game is using up to 4GB VRAM, so no wonder I had problems on my 2GB GTX680.
The base GTX780 3GB model also had
insufficient VRAM, but people who bought 6GB model were probably set for the whole generation.
Nvidia can keep selling 4070 12GB, because for now 12GB is still good enough, but they should also offer 16GB model as well for people like me, who dont want to replace GPUs every 2 years. My old GTX1080 can still run games only because it had more than enough VRAM. The RTX4080 has plenty of VRAM and I' sure it can last the whole generation, but it's just too expensive.
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
The naming is sort of useless in the grand scheme of things. Most people just have a budget and will buy whatever's best within that budget.
One good way to measure how much of the fab process advantage Nvidia has been taking from customers to themselves is to compare performance ratios at launch MSRPs, but for previous products on a similar launch price.
Let's do it on a 2/3 year cadence which is the usual cadence for new architectures.
I'll count with 3.8% average inflation rate until 2021.
Just the sub-$400 bracket is a great indicator of what's been happening:
GTX 660 Ti 2012 ($300) -> GTX 970 2014 ($330): +82% (+70% price and inflation adjusted)
GTX 970 2014 ($330) -> GTX 1070 2016 ($379): +61% (+57% price and inflation adj.)
GTX 1070 2016 ($379) -> RTX 2060 2019 ($350): +18% (+37% price and inflation adj.)
RTX 2060 2019 ($350) -> RTX 3050 2022 ($380): -11% (-12% price and inflation adj.) -> mining craze though
I don't know what card Nvidia is releasing under $400. It might be the RTX4050 but from the looks of it they might launch that card over $400.
Regardless, Nvidia's increased hoarding of the value taken from architectural and fabrication improvements has been linear, generation after generation.
We reached a point where the RTX 4070 has almost the same price/performance as the RTX 3080 from late 2020. The added value for the consumer, between 2020 and 2023, is going down to zero.
The only people who are happy with this are nvidia executives, nvidia shareholders, paid astroturfers and the idiots.
Thank you.
One good way to measure how much of the fab process advantage Nvidia has been taking from customers to themselves is to compare performance ratios at launch MSRPs, but for previous products on a similar launch price.
Let's do it on a 2/3 year cadence which is the usual cadence for new architectures.
I'll count with 3.8% average inflation rate until 2021.
Just the sub-$400 bracket is a great indicator of what's been happening:
GTX 660 Ti 2012 ($300) -> GTX 970 2014 ($330): +82% (+70% price and inflation adjusted)
GTX 970 2014 ($330) -> GTX 1070 2016 ($379): +61% (+57% price and inflation adj.)
GTX 1070 2016 ($379) -> RTX 2060 2019 ($350): +18% (+37% price and inflation adj.)
RTX 2060 2019 ($350) -> RTX 3050 2022 ($380): -11% (-12% price and inflation adj.) -> mining craze though
I don't know what card Nvidia is releasing under $400. It might be the RTX4050 but from the looks of it they might launch that card over $400.
Regardless, Nvidia's increased hoarding of the value taken from architectural and fabrication improvements has been linear, generation after generation.
We reached a point where the RTX 4070 has almost the same price/performance as the RTX 3080 from late 2020. The added value for the consumer, between 2020 and 2023, is going down to zero.
The only people who are happy with this are nvidia executives, nvidia shareholders, paid astroturfers and the idiots.
This is the best ever and most adequate use of the word deepthroating I've seen on the internet.
Thank you.
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
A 16GB model on this chip is not realistic, they would have to clam-shell the 192bit bus and go with 24GB here. Which would be a lot for 70 series card.
If they had kept the 256bit bus like the 7800xt will have, then they would be at 16GB of memory.
The 7800XT is going to be a lot more interesting than I thought now, because it is likely going to have the solid, across-the-board lead in raster performance that the 7900 series doesn't have vs. the Nvidia counterparts.
Last edited:
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I simply compared them to the prior gen top (or nearly top 104 chip) like the picture I was responding to compared them to.
FSR2 looks bad to me at 1440p. It's one of the reason why I don't buy AMD sponsored games, because they lack DLSS2, which looks good to me at 1440p.
I went from 2070 to 2070 Super to 3070. All at no additional cost because I used to sell the GPUs like a month or two before the new ones came out at the price I initially paid.
You're right, I'll lose a bit of value in selling the 3070 but I don't really care at this point as I got away with upgrading at no additional cost for my last two upgrades.
Another hive minder complaining about GPU prices
Even going as far to suggest that 4050 could launch at over $400
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz
Banned
The 7800XT might be in a tough spot against the previous (and perhaps cheaper to make) Navi 21 cards, namely the 6950XT.
We'll be looking at 60CUs in the new card vs. 80 CUs in the older. Either Navi 31 clocks 33% higher than the average 2400MHz on the 6950XT (some whopping >3100MHz) or AMD had better release a compiler that makes proper use of the new dual-pumped ALUs. Otherwise the new cards won't perform much better than the 6800 non-XT.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Nvidia’s Last Gen GPUs are still collecting dust as well.
Nvidia’s just keeping prices high because they know they can sucker their followers to drop $600 on an 8GB GPU.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
7800 XT vs. 4070 is probably going to be a repeat of 7900 XT vs. 4070 Ti
+10% raster
-loses in RT
-loses in efficiency
-loses in 1440p upscaling technology
4070 has 12 GB at $600.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
You hate FSR2, but DLSS2 looks good to you? To be fair, I have not seen DLSS2 with my own eyes, but on the screenshots they both look about the same to me.I simply compared them to the prior gen top (or nearly top 104 chip) like the picture I was responding to compared them to.
FSR2 looks bad to me at 1440p. It's one of the reason why I don't buy AMD sponsored games, because they lack DLSS2, which looks good to me at 1440p.
I went from 2070 to 2070 Super to 3070. All at no additional cost because I used to sell the GPUs like a month or two before the new ones came out at the price I initially paid.
You're right, I'll lose a bit of value in selling the 3070 but I don't really care at this point as I got away with upgrading at no additional cost for my last two upgrades.
Another hive minder complaining about GPU prices
Even going as far to suggest that 4050 could launch at over $400
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
The 7800XT is gonna be trading blows with the currently ~600 dollar 6950XT.
Im guessing part of the reason of the heavy price cut on the 6950XT is so its stock disappears and the 7800XT can take its spot easy work.
It will have to be sub 700 though to even make a mark.
With the new better RT performance itll not only be a true competitor for the RTX4070, realistically it should outdo the RTX4070 in every single way.
CUDA/Optix notwithstanding.
RTX3080s were such a good deal either way.
Upgraded to the RTX3080 because mining craze made people go crazy and were swapping 3070FHRs for 3080LHRs.......which ironically shortly after I did my swap LHR was basically defeated completely.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I don't hate FSR2, it's okay at 4K, it just sucks at 1440p, my resolution.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
That would make the 7800XT worse than a 6950XT?
At the very least I expect the 7800XT to match the 6950XT in raster and beat it in Raytracing.
Which in theory would actually make the 7800XT better than the RTX4070 in pretty much everyway.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
Roughly matching the 6950 XT in raster.
But 7800 XT would lose to 4070 in RT and 1440p upscaling and efficiency, making the 4070 better than 7800 XT to me in pretty much every way.
I need more RT performance more than I need 10% more raster.
Last edited:
You said "Looking at it this way nothing has changed". And you're right, if we ignore pricing, nothing has changed.
So I guess you are addressing the section of the audience that get their GPUs for free (from Nvidia?).
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
12GB is the new 8GB. Barely scraping by, and will be forced to drop textures in another year or two.
My old 1070 traded blows with a 980ti. That was back when Nvidia delivered value.
The 4070 barely beats a 3080, and loses on average to AMD’s last gen 6800XT.
This is why Nvidia will continue to dominate. People are too stubborn to open their eyes to even consider alternatives. Jensen has you by the balls.
Saying AMD loses out in RT is amusing. Like it’s some enormous loss, when in reality it’s like 3090 level. FSR difference isn’t even noticeable during gameplay.
I’ll gladly take two very minor losses in upscaling tech, over having to turn textures down to medium - and having worse rasterization. I want a card that delivers power without the need for the upscaling crutch.
But that’s just me. I’m loyal to neither company, but I will absolutely go to bat for whomever I feel is doing things better. I will call out who I feel isn’t. Realistically I’m hoping Intel wrecks both in the future, and lights a fire under their asses.
In the meantime 4070 is mediocrity for $600. It’s missionary position in GPU form. No way would I buy that card in 2023.
Last edited: