Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
it's an ok option with the extra 25€ you have to spend to get better temps and silent fans
but nvidia got dlss and it's still the best upscaler on the market. with a 4060ti you could play everything at custon 1800p dlss balanced mode and get better picture quality
and don't buy msi ventus models. either spend the extra 50$ for the msi gaming which is quieter, cooler and with better vrm or get another aib model
The problem here is that the cost for this GPU is starting to really run away.
First i started looking at a good buy for around 450.. then i realized i need 16GB Ram
to futureproof, which elevated the price by 100$.. because apparently the market is still
higher than MSRP where a card that "should" cost 400, is sold at 500.
And now i'm approaching 650 incl taxes.. that is A LOT of money to spend on a gpu,
It's gotten to the point where i'm actually asking myself if i NEED 16GB since i
only play 1080p on a 144Hz monitor . I'm now actually looking into the popular
ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 3060 12GB OC V2 ..
I've looked at so many YT videos about how much VRAM games actually uses,
and it seems like as long as you remain 1080p, no matter the settings, you only
need 12GB of VRAM, especially if it's 256 and not 128.
Thanks for all the comments tho, helps me keep my options open,
i want to make an informed purchase.
/Edit. Also, buying the 3060TI 12GB, free's up money to spend on
other possible upgrades. I looked into the future for DDR4 RAM
and it appears that the "support" for this type of ram is stopping,
which i have no idea what that will do .
If having to upgrade to DDR5, that will ultimately force me to
upgrade to an AM5 motherboard, which also will increase the
price of the CPU .
The 7700XT will run everything imaginable at reasonable framerates even at 2K/4K (and may even be fast enough to use stuff like raytracing on some titles without turning the game into a slide show), and probably won't cost you much more than a 4060 Ti (but has WAY more performance - close to a 3080/4070 non-Ti version).
I just ordered one because my 3080 failed and I didn't want too steep a performance drop if I fork out 400 bucks or more (incl taxes), and the 7600 was far too low in performance (let alone the 4060ti) given what the savings are in comparison.
I paid 450€ (<500US$ incl 20% sales tax) for the ASRock Phantom Gaming 7700XT OC (which is the best variant of the 7700 w/ 60MB inifinity cache and 2599MHz), and since taxes in the US are usually lower I would be surprised if you couldn't get it cheaper than me.
The 4060 ti 16 gigabyte is heavily criticized by reviewers for just being a 4060 ti 8 gigabyte with 8 more gigs. of V.R.A.M. and a $100 price hike. It's not a good value card.
Yes, it is, but. what matters isn't necessarily where your upgrade budget is allocated, so much as it is spent as effectively as possible.
This is what your upgrade path looks like right now:
4060 ti ventus[www.newegg.com]: $440 (please don't spend $560 on it. That's a ripoff price)
7600x[www.newegg.com] $196
Motherboard: $70+ for an AM5 motherboard[pcpartpicker.com].
24 gigabyte single stick of 5600 mt D.D.R. 5 R.A.M. $44[www.amazon.com] (The cheapest 16 gigabyte kit costs just around the same. I just think it'd be more cost effective to just add another 24 gigabyte stick of the same stuff in the future.)
$750 plus tax is the very cheapest you're getting out of an upgrade path to AM5. Probably more because you're not going to want the cheapest AM5 motherboard with a 7600x motherboard because it will not have sufficient power delivery
This is what I'm suggesting.
Galax Geforce RTX 4070 Super 1-Click O.C. $550[www.amazon.com]
5700x3D[www.amazon.com] $210.
Motherboard: You already have it, so $0
R.A.M: You already have it, so $0
By siphoning funds away from unnecessary redundant purchases, you get out of this upgrade just spending $760.
(I'm not factoring in potential P.S.U. upgrades, since I do not know how strong your P.S.U. is.)
So what's the difference between these two systems?
You get a massive boost to your G.P.U. performance using a 4070 Super. We're talking around the lines of a 4070 super being forty to fifty percent more performant than a 4060 ti in most games.
You get a minor hit to in-game C.P.U. perf using a 5700x3D instead of a 7600x.[gamersnexus.net]
V.R.A.M. is important, but it's not everything. Think of it as a an assembly line. A place that brings more work for the actual processing unit to work:
This is the 12 gigabyte 4070 super doing the work effortlessly.
This is the 4060 Ti 16 gigabyte being overwhelmed by the amount of incoming work.
If you're going to spend around $750, I'd go with the 5700x3D and the 4070 Super. I can understand not wanting to spend $750, but in that case, neither of these upgrade paths make sense and we should slash the budget instead.
But it comes down to knowing the budget and what the best thing you can afford on it is.
You don't have to upgrade to D.D.R. 5 if you stay on AM4 and buy a 5700x3D. Ram Perf. differences are relatively minor, and the 3D v-cache on the 5700x3D makes up for a whole bunch.
You will if you buy a 7600x, and you'll be spending a bunch of money trying to just catch back up to about where you already are.
It's more cost effective to just stay on AM4 since you are there already.
Plus we're looking at D.D.R. 6 possibly being a thing in a few years anyway.[www.digitaltrends.com], so it makes more sense to try and leapfrog it.
This is especially so considering that R.A.M. speed difference is rather minor[www.pugetsystems.com]. It's one of the lower priority aspects of a build.
If an RTX 3080 barely takes full advantage of 10GB RAM (and is still faster than a 16GB 7800XT), good luck getting any ACTUAL benefit out of 16GB with a 4060, which has a MUCH slower chip.
The chip architecture, speed etc is MUCH more important for a GPU than the VRAM - which is why I didn't even consider buying a 4060 when I can have a 7600/7700/7800 XT for the same price or less. Just watch some videos on YouTube showing direct comparisons of the largest-RAM RTX 406x series to the 7xxx XT series cards in actual games and see for yourself how much of a difference VRAM vs Chipset actually makes.
The 7700XT gets you close to RTX 4070/3080 performance for under 500 bucks, the 7800XT is pretty much on par with the 4070/3080 (give or take - some games may run slightly better on one, some on the other).
Listen to Tonepoet regarding your upgrade path:
Get a 5700X3D (it's brilliant, I can tell you from first hand experience), and go for the best GPU you can get for your money (and ignore the VRAM amount, it is totally irrelevant).
Get the best chip you can get (a RTX 4070, 7800XT, or if on a budget, a 7700XT). You can then play all the latest titles for the next 5 years at the very least (and future proofing beyond that period is pointless anyway in modern IT - you don't know what will come out 5 years from now).
What I can guarantee you though is that you'll bitterly regret it if you buy a 4060 (Ti or non Ti) card, and then realize the chip it has is incapable of using that much RAM and cost you as much as a decent card from AMD would have cost you.
The 4070 is surely the best choice if you can afford it, if not for heaven's sake don't buy anything from Nvidia (their offerings below the 4070 are atrocious if you compare actual performance to the 7700XT, let alone the 7800XT)
Not saying I'd choose an RTX 4060 Ti (I wouldn't), but if you're going by performance, you can't say the RTX 3070 is fine the RTX 4060 Ti isn't when... they're pretty comparable in that regard (VRAM aside).
The problem is the other version has 8 GB and that's demonstrably too low on a card of that level of performance. The RTX 3070 (same level of performance and VRAM) was demonstrating that before the RTX40 series even existed. It would have been more appealing as a 12 GB/192-bit product, but slowing price/performance has everyone upgrading less frequently, so nVidia implementing a planned obsolescence approach to encourage upgrading every other generation.
Also, it's not as simple as "not fast enough to use it". VRAM is just a storage space. This idea that it can be "too slow to use it" comes from the fact that higher VRAM amounts are often only observed with very high settings/resolution, which lower end graphics cards can't do, but knowing the distinction is important because there are outliers where a card can have its performance tank before it's been dropped to unplayable levels. Again, there's enough examples of the very same RTX 4060 Ti, one 8 GB and the other 16 GB, where the former falls off a cliff on performance the latter is still very much "fast enough".
And yes, while they are the minority of cases, the 10 GB can also be a limitation on the RTX 3080. There's RTX 3080 owners themselves that admit it. There's tests showing it. They're usually edge case/uncommon enough that don't prevent it from performing well within its means, but it does happen even there.
They're comparable. The RTX 3080, RX 6800 XT, and RX 7800 XT are typically within the same rough range of performance.
The RTX 3080 will pull ahead in heavier ray tracing scenarios (in lighter ray tracing scenarios, which is what most games use, the Radeons aren't far behind), whereas the RX 7800 XT in particular can pull ahead in rasterization or if the VRAM limits of the RTX 3080 come into play (which isn't often, especially with the 12 GB version).
Scroll down to "relative performance" and they're all sandwiched together.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-3080.c3621
Tom's Hardware actually has it favoring the Radeons a bit more.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Gamers Nexus review of the 7800 XT only has the RTX 3080 in a few of them, but you can get a small idea...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qBQ0eZEnbY
Hardware Unboxed continues that same idea and confirms it with a larger sample of games, and they all include the RTX 3080.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4TW8fHVcxw
The problem is, buying the cheapest RTX4070 Super, costs me 650€ ...
That's the Gainward RTX4070 Super.. 650€ for a GPU .. Way over msrp.
/Edit.
I took a look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM4oAQkB77k
and it seems like the 3060TI is on par with the 4070 super when it comes to 1080p,
yet it costs literalyl half of the 4070 super.
But in the end i also see your point. NOT buying a new MB, NOT buying new RAM,
and putting those saved money into the 4070Super.. I can get the CPU later.
Decisions decisions decisions.
You dun goofed.
The 4060Ti isn't fast enough and overall a bad value card, especially for those prices at +550$. Seriously, you're getting scammed at 560EUR for a 4060ti.
Should have gotten a 7800XT, you can find them for 500 bucks and they completely destroy a 4060ti.
And before you say "i'm from europe, gpu's are more expensive here":
https://bestvaluegpu.com/en-eu/history/new-and-used-rx-7800-xt-price-history-and-specs/
And if you're really averse to AMD, get a 4070.
Already made up my mind to spend a little extra for the Galax/KFA2 GeForce RTX 4070 Super (1-Click OC) 2X HDMI 3xDP 12GB . It will set me back a little in terms of the rest of the upgrades but... he who waits
That'd probably be fine if it cost more like $50 for the upgrade, but $100 is a bit too much for just that in the lower tiers. The GTX 1060 doubled from 3 to 6 for just $50, and that represents only 20% of the price instead of 25%. Moreover even with a more recent comparison, the jump from A750 to A770 was only $80, but you get more out of that than just the V.R.A.M. The 4060 Ti 8 gigabyte and the 4060 Ti 16 gigabyte are exactly the same card aside from the V.R.A.M.
Doesn't help that the 4060 Ti isn't considered an especially good card in the first place as Nvidia reshuffles their model teiring. The 16 gig variant card was only released as somewhat of a concession to those who wanted a 16 gig option for under $700 or $800 from Nvidia.
Also, it has a whole bunch of V.R.A.M., but a very narrow memory bus compared to other cards.
Truth be told, you probably don't need 16 gigabytes of V.R.A.M. You're only playing at 1080p, and much of the advice you're reading probably regards 1440p, which is considered the current sweet spot resolution.
If you watch the video How Nvidia Tricks You to Waste Money (Don't Get Fooled) by Vex, when he's talking about how the 4070 Super isn't a particularly future proof card. However here's "the catch" portion of the video:
Emphasis my own. So we're kind of at the point where 10-12 gigabytes is just about enough for playing games at 1440p. A lower resolution like 1080p uses less V.R.A.M., so there's a bit of overhead left to go.
Moreover, some of the concern is that the consoles have 16 gigabytes of G.D.D.R. 6 R.A.M. However, that's for the entire system, and at least 1 gig is reserved for the system on the Series X. I'm thinking 12 might just be enough depending on how much R.A.M. games need for other things like enemy A.I. handling.
Plus there is a discrepancy between the amount of V.R.A.M. allocated and the amount of V.R.A.M. actually being used, so just because people are seeing a certain amount of V.R.A.M. is shown as being allocated for use by a benchmarking tool does not necessarily mean the game is actually using that much, which might mislead them into thinking they need more V.R.A.M. than they actually do.
Regarding how much V.R.A.M. is actually used
Techspot has an article on how much V.R.A.M. is needed for modern titles[www.techspot.com], and what we're seeing is it's around 8 for the medium preset and around 10-12 for the very highest settings, I'm not counting marginal amounts of spillover as a significant loss. Cross reference with RTX 4060 Ti 8GB vs 4060 Ti 16GB vs 4070: The Ultimate Comparison in the Latest Games! by Daniel Owen (circa 2023) and I think you'll find that there are significant drops in V.R.A.M. usage just by turning off ray tracing and/or lowering the settings from ultimate settings to the penultimate preset or disabling ray tracing.
We're really looking at gaming at the highest settings being "really dumb" (L.T.T's. phrasing) because just like with product tier pricing, we start to see a point of diminishing returns with visual fidelity settings, and these days the really high resolution textures are meant for 4k monitors anyway. You won't notice much of a drop in visual fidelity much from ultimate to penultimate.
Moreover, in more competitive games you're possibly looking at lowering the settings anyway just to get as many frames per second as you can get, even if it that is in excess of your monitor's refresh rate, because frame rates represent how often the game state is updated, leading to more responsiveness, and if you're willfully taking the fidelity hit anyway you're not going to be using swaddles of V.R.A.M.
And look, there's a limit to how much future proofing is worth. The purpose of future proofing is to prevent yourself from making a second purchase at a later date, in the hopes that spending a little extra money now saves you a considerable amount of money later on.
I would actually advise waiting. You'll see an uplift in performance but there are two reasons to wait:
First, the 3600 is going to be a bottleneck on the 4070 Super. A very big bottleneck. You'll likely see an uplift in performance, but I anticipate you'll only be operating at 2080 ti/6750 XT levels of performance until you finish your upgrade path. The second is that black friday is only about three and a half months away and we are on the cusp of a new generation of graphics cards.
It seems to me as if it'd be better to pool up all of your money so you can make the upgrade all at once, maybe get a discount and see if any new cards are released before then and benefit from the full upgrade. I don't see much of a reason to make that large of a commitment before you have all of the funds in order to realize the full benefits of your upgrade.
Plus I still think the only other thing you should upgrade is from the Ryzen 3600 to the Ryzen 5700x3D, which is only one other upgrade...
Oh, you're in Europe? I saw dollar signs and assumed you were probably in the U.S.A. Derp. I should've checked your profile. Thought I did in fact. Hmm...
kr7,223 should be more like 630€. European M.S.R.P. is more like 659€ though[www.techpowerup.com], so you're not actually paying more than M.S.R.P. if you order it at 650.
Thanks, you gave me a lot to consider, nothing's set in stone yet. But waiting 3-4 months to be able to "maybe" snipe a GPU is a long time to wait, especially when friends gives you games which are totally over your old GPU's performance (Enshrouded etc) .
I'm basically in the position that i need a GPU pronto, because my 6Gb vram is really
starting to bottleneck my system .
Vex did mention that he was conserned if 12gb was going to be enough in the future, and i'm thinking that with the way developers program games these days to rely more on hardware than good coding... we might be approaching that 16gb vram faster than we think.
Now.. let's say i buy a 12gb vram GPU in the end.
Asus Radeon RX 6700 XT TUF Gaming OC HDMI 3xDP 12GB
or
ASUS Dual GeForce RTX 3060 V2 OC Edition 90YV0GB2-M0NA10 Grafikkort (GDDR6), Svart, 12 GB .
I will be saving myself about 200€ directly and can upgrade the 3600 to the Ryzen 5700x3D at the same this. So if the 12gb is just fine, going this way seems the better option.
Both cards 256bit vram (important) , both cards ddr6 .