Should I go with RX 6700 XT or RTX 3060 for 4k

[Oni Kaioh]

Don't looking to run any new games at max settings, just medium or so at 60fps or lower as long as it's 4k.

[ZeekAncient]

UserNotFound の投稿を引用：

For 4K gaming, forget 8GB VRAM cards, they are gonna be quite limiting due to their VRAM capacity, or, lack thereof. I play Dead Space Remake (known as DSR henceforth) on my RX 7900 XTX and according to Adrenalin OSD monitor, playing DSR at 3840x1080, max ingame + RTAO, almost 10GB of VRAM is chewed up. That's one of the reasons why, when a poster here claimed that his GTX 1060 ran DSR 'maxed' out at 2560x1440, I was kinda like, "Really?"

nVidia has always been rather stingy with VRAM, even with their powerful mid-tier cards, and it's my suspicion that it's all part of their planned obsolescence. After all, no matter how powerful a card is, the lack of VRAM would tank performance at higher res and ingame setting. Just look at the RTX 3080 10GB or the RTX 3070 Ti 8GB and you get what I mean, good cards handicapped by VRAM capacity.

As others had said, AMD usually offer a tier higher cards at similar prices to nVidia's, with more VRAM to boot, and for 4K gaming, the least I'd recommend is the RX 6800 16GB, a card powerful enough to do rasterize games at 4K, at settings and res that may use up more than 10GB of VRAM. Ofc, the RX 6800 XT and higher cards would be better, and better price/performance than any similar tiered nVidia cards can offer.

I also have a Nitro+ RX 6900 XT in my 2nd rig, attached to a 4K TV, and can actually play many games at 4K, I know Godfall is playable at native 4K (faster with FSR Quality), DSR does require FSR to run nicely, and a good deal of other games run very nicely at 4K.

Now, strictly adhering to OP's question, between the RTX 3060 12GB and the RX 6700 XT 12GB (shouldn't the RX 6750 XT be included? I believe certain RX 6750 XT can be had for less), the obvious gaming choice would be the RX 6700 XT, it's a fair bit more powerful than the RTX 3060 at rasterize gaming. Besides, with RT enabled in RT games, performance is gonna tank for both, though the RTX 3060 would tank less. So, unless Cuda cores are needed for productivity work, the RX 6700 XT would be better for strictly gaming usage scenario.

I am also playing Dead Space Remake at 4K, on my 3070 TI, and have not run into any performances issues due to Vram. All settings are maxed, and I am maintaining a solid 60 FPS. Of course, I am playing with DLSS on Balanced, so that maybe the reason.

Although my 3070 Ti only has 8GB of Vram, I have not really had any issues with it at 4K, thus far. I am able to maintain a solid 60 FPS in all the games I play. Even in games that have a Vram counter that say I am at the limit or surpassing it, I have not had any performance issues.

The only thing that is telling me that it might be an issue in the future is seeing benchmarks for Hogwarts tank on the 3070 Ti at 4K with ray tracing. But this is not a game I play...yet. So, I think a card only having 8 or 10GB of Vram not being enough for 4K is a little overblown. But I do believe that cards that have more will probably age better. Especially at 4K.

I will try to make my 3070 Ti last me as long as I can, but I know for my next GPU, I will not want anything that has less than 16GB of Vram.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You don't need above 8-10GB VRAM just to run games on High/Ultra @ 4K

If you want it to last longer then get a 4070 Ti

[ZeekAncient]

Personally, I think if I am going to upgrade from my 3070 Ti, it has to be either a 4080 or 7900XTX.

Sure, the 4070 Ti's performance would be an uplift from the 3070 Ti, but I don't think it would be enough to justify spending $800 or more. It isn't just about Vram either. I might as well spend the extra money and get a GPU that will be a significant upgrade.

Right now, $1200 or more for a 4080 is just too much for me to rationalize it. A 7900XTX at $1000 would seem to make more sense, but I am one that would like the better ray tracing performance of the 4080 as well as the ability to use DLSS3. FSR, and its upcoming iterations, might be just as good, but I do like having the option to choose between all the up-scaling options.

Right now, I don't really have a need to upgrade GPU until I finally decide to upgrade my display. I am going to try to milk my current setup for as long as I can. But if the 4080 would go significantly down in price, I would strongly consider it. Then when I do decide to buy a new display, I will feel at least somewhat at ease that my GPU can push it better than my 3070 Ti could.

But like I said, I would like to stick with my current setup for as long as I can. In the past, I have had the tendency to want to upgrade GPU after two years of use. It will make two years in July that I have had my 3070 Ti. I would like to make it till then, or even longer if I can.

If I can make it into next year with the current setup that I have, hopefully I will saved up even more money by then and then I can be looking at the next generation of GPUs and CPUs, and build a whole new PC.

[Illusion of Progress]

The RX 6700 XT seems like a rather clear choice over an RTX 3060. I'd take that over an RTX 3060 Ti easily, so it's no question about it over an RTX 3060 non-Ti.

Bad 💀 Motha の投稿を引用：

You don't need above 8-10GB VRAM just to run games on High/Ultra @ 4K

If you want it to last longer then get a 4070 Ti

The RTX 3060 with 12 GB has been shown to turn in higher performance than not only the RTX 3060 Ti (8GB), but also an RTX 3070/3070 Ti and sometimes even the RTX 3080 10 GB in Hogwarts Legacy. Obviously, this is in select situations where VRAM is the limiting factor as those other GPUs are far faster otherwise, but it shows things "don't need above 8 GB to 10 GB" can be be wrong.

I personally wouldn't touch anything with single digit GB VRAM amounts in 2023 if I wanted it to last with less compromises and was targeting 4K especially.

Since OP's looking to target medium-ish settings though, that might not apply here, since settings (and certain ones like textures, shadows, anti-aliasing, and ray tracing as key ones) are a way to keep VRAM needs down, even at 4K, because resolution isn't the only/biggest part.

[xSOSxHawkens]

Bad 💀 Motha の投稿を引用：

You don't need above 8-10GB VRAM just to run games on High/Ultra @ 4K

If you want it to last longer then get a 4070 Ti

You def need more than 8...

Off hand two games I know will push 4K native well past 8gb and even past 10 would be the afore mentioned legacy, as well as Far Cry 6 with the HD textures pack. Then there are plenty of others which will either be right at 8gb or above depending on the usage.

[ZeekAncient]

I have Far Cry 6 and I play at 4K with settings maxed and have not had any performance issues. Then again, I don't play with the HD textures pack as I find it doesn't look as good as with it off for some reason. So, this is probably irrelevant, lol.

But I do have a lot of games that say that my 8GB is reaching the limit, or my settings exceed the Vram I have, and I may run into performance issues, but I simply don't.

Not trying to justify 8GB as being enough, I would like to have more, and I think it will definitely be crucial to have more in the future, but I am just going by the Hogwarts benchmarks I have seen. Currently at 4K, there are no games that I currently play where I can not maintain a solid 60 FPS in. And that is just with the 8GB of Vram that my 3070 TI has.

But into the future, as Hogwarts has shown, single digit Vram maybe a strong limiting factor.

Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just add Vram to our GPUs like we do Ram on our PCs instead of having to buy a whole new GPU? That would be great. And would certainly increase the lifespan's of many cards.

[Illusion of Progress]

ZeekAncient の投稿を引用：

But I do have a lot of games that say that my 8GB is reaching the limit, or my settings exceed the Vram I have, and I may run into performance issues, but I simply don't.

Resident Evil engine games (Resident Evil VII, 2 2019, 3 2020, and Village) among them, by chance? Those few games (at least Resident Evil 2 and 3 I know personally do) are known for showing/warning that in the settings but often needing much less.

[ZeekAncient]

Illusion of Progress の投稿を引用：

ZeekAncient の投稿を引用：

But I do have a lot of games that say that my 8GB is reaching the limit, or my settings exceed the Vram I have, and I may run into performance issues, but I simply don't.

Resident Evil engine games (Resident Evil VII, 2 2019, 3 2020, and Village) among them, by chance? Those few games (at least Resident Evil 2 and 3 I know personally do) are known for showing/warning that in the settings but often needing much less.

Exactly. I have Resident Evil 2. Have not played it that much, but I would like to get back into it someday. But I I maxed out all the settings on that game, even the ones that say I will need way more than 8GB, and that 8GB will not be enough. One of the settings that deal with the texture res I think. I maxed it out. But still even at 4K, I was having no performance issues.

Doom Eternal though, is one that if you want to have all the settings maxed, and have ray tracing on, you need at least 10GB to play. It will not even let you play if you have all the settings maxed AND have ray tracing on. I forget which settings prevented you from maxing them out and have the ray tracing on without 10GB, but I think it is one with that deals with the texture pool or something. But anyway, that is one game where I just maxed all the settings and turned off ray tracing. Game still looks amazing.

BTW, the Doom Eternal setting is Texture Pool Size, and in Resident Evil 2 it is the Texture Quality, along with some others, but it says that I will need over 14GB of Vram to play with those settings and not have performance issues. However, I maxed them out anyway, and didn't run into any performance issues.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You do realize that a 4070 Ti is a bigger leap then you might think from a 3070 Ti... or even a 3080

[ZeekAncient]

I know how much of a leap a 4070 Ti would be from a 3070 Ti, but I still just feel that if I am going to spend $800 or more on a GPU, less than two years after I bought the 3070 Ti, I might as well go for something that will be even more of a significant leap in performance. And since we are speaking about Vram, it doesn't hurt that the 4080 has 16GB, and that the 7900XTX has 24GB!!!

The 4070 Ti only has 12GB. Maybe that is adequate right now, but as certain games have shown, like HL, at 4K with RT, even 12GB maybe a limiting factor in many games in the near future. I definitely would like my next GPU to have at least 16GB. Considering that my 3070 TI's 8GB didn't seem like an issue less than two years ago, but now appears that it will become a limiting factor.

[UserNotFound]

Bad 💀 Motha の投稿を引用：

You don't need above 8-10GB VRAM just to run games on High/Ultra @ 4K

If you want it to last longer then get a 4070 Ti

Forspoken, Returnal and Hogwarts Legacy (HL) are known to eat up VRAM like Hungry Hungry Hippos, having 8GB of VRAM now is still good for many games at 4K (especially with DLSS). Even at 1440P Ultra for HL, it takes up >10GB. This is why I referenced the RTX 3080 too, a powerful card that nVidia saw fit to cripple with just 10GB of VRAM.

IF someone were to ask about getting a brand new card now, the least I'd recommend is one with >8GB of VRAM, that's rule out just about every mid-tier nVidia GPU, that's where AMD 12GB and 16GB cards come into play. nVidia would have to be more generous with VRAM in their upcoming RTX 4070/4060 Ti cards, at least 12GB of VRAM, or higher (doubtful since the RTX 4070 Ti has 12GB). I hope nVidia isn't thinking of planned obsolescense by fitting 8-10GB on these upcoming cards.

[Oni Kaioh]

Bad 💀 Motha の投稿を引用：

6700 XT starts at approx = 500$ ^
6800 starts at approx = 600$ ^
6800 XT starts at approx = 700$ ^

Pretty soon the 4070 Ti should be around the 800$ starting area

What about the RX 6950XT, its 700$

Should I go with that instead

[Illusion of Progress]

ZeekAncient の投稿を引用：

Illusion of Progress の投稿を引用：

Resident Evil engine games (Resident Evil VII, 2 2019, 3 2020, and Village) among them, by chance? Those few games (at least Resident Evil 2 and 3 I know personally do) are known for showing/warning that in the settings but often needing much less.

Exactly. I have Resident Evil 2. Have not played it that much, but I would like to get back into it someday. But I I maxed out all the settings on that game, even the ones that say I will need way more than 8GB, and that 8GB will not be enough. One of the settings that deal with the texture res I think. I maxed it out. But still even at 4K, I was having no performance issues.

Thought so. Those games are known to warn about that in spite of often using less, so when you said you had a handful of games that 8 GB VRAM was enough for despite warning needing more, I had a feeling those games might be included among them. In other words, they don't (usually) count for games that are known to penalize VRAM amounts below 8 GB, so saying you can run it with 8 GB isn't surprising.

I've run it with 4GB and 6GB (that was the texture setting, so total VRAM estimation needed was 6GB+ to 9GB) on a 6 GB VRAM GPU and I also had no issues.

[Illusion of Progress]

UserNotFound の投稿を引用：

IF someone were to ask about getting a brand new card now, the least I'd recommend is one with >8GB of VRAM, that's rule out just about every mid-tier nVidia GPU, that's where AMD 12GB and 16GB cards come into play. nVidia would have to be more generous with VRAM in their upcoming RTX 4070/4060 Ti cards, at least 12GB of VRAM, or higher (doubtful since the RTX 4070 Ti has 12GB). I hope nVidia isn't thinking of planned obsolescense by fitting 8-10GB on these upcoming cards.

I'm not sure about the RTX 4070 but isn't the RTX 4060 rumored it will have 8 GB... still!? That's probably part of why the RTX 3060 was replaced with a slower 8 GB version, too. It makes it look a little less direct that a replacement is being downgraded. I can take a guess as to which version nVidia is more likely to compare the RTX 4060 to as well. Oh, wait, that's even if they compare it to anything at all.

These entry level cards (that's about what the base x60 GPUs are now) will probably barely get much attention from nVidia anymore. That's why for two of the three last generations, they've gotten downgraded with the same name partway through their life cycle. And despite that, the RTX 3060 is on its way to being a more popular GPU than the GTX 1060 ever was. That will encourage nVidia to continue. No wonder the RTX 4060 is going to be so cut back. People keep eating it up, and then wondering why chip cut downs continue, and why price/performance increases are getting worse. It's because the market is seemingly accepting it.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

You realize that most games CAN use all your VRAM and System RAM if you run the game long enough and also just because the game "can". That does not mean it's of any benefit or requirement. Hogwarts for one is a POS junk game atm that needs alot of optimization first and foremost.

RDR2 can eat up all my VRAM and a whole 12GB or more of RAM by itself if I run it long enough. It doesn't run any smoother as a result though. I can run the same settings on a lesser GPU with less VRAM and I can also ALT+TAB out and flush my ram to knock it down to around 6GB of ram usage for a while when it's ram usage gets out of hands. Games that use up available VRAM and RAM just because it's there can be a good thing but it saying it requires that much is just plain wrong in most scenarios