Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
for example the 4090 still struggles on a mid tier optimised game like Spare Marines 2 barely going above 130 on ultra whilst looking blurry due to forced TAA at 1440p
All depends on what games you play though.
What about the rest of your PC Specs?
Some games just aren't optimized well enough, it's not your GPU. There are many games that simply don't utilize like 50-70% of a 4090 properly. That doesn't mean you'd get terrible FPS @ 2160p though.
Overall you can't just look at the GPU alone, the rest of your system is a factor too. The CPU needs to be enough to not really be able to bottleneck anything; like your Drives or GPU for example. In most PCs, the Drives will end up being the bottleneck if done right. Since those are still the slowest I/O in any PC.
7800-XT is more or less mid range to upper mid range, it's good for now but it's going to struggle a lot if there's going to be a lot more games coming out that's as demanding and poorly optimized as games like Starfield
If you're not interested in those kinds of games then it doesn't really matter, I've no reason to change from my 3080 anytime soon
My 4790K has had no problems playing all the games @ 1440p or 2160p just fine; it had a 780 6GB then a 980 Ti, then 1080 Ti, then RTX 3080... it's still going strong today.
You know how old a 4790K is right?
But yea 7800 XT just barely cuts it now with some games. Save up and buy 7900 XTX on sale for around $600 or less when available at such sale pricing. Which they've been on sale for that low before.
AMD's next series will not compete in the "High end" so there won't be a card close to the RTX4090, but it is still questionable whether they will compete with the RTX4080, because if not, then these two categories will become way overpriced and less people will be able to buy them and game developers maybe would stop pushing graphics too far for a while.
How about Intel? They are cooking back in the kitchen, but we don't know if their GPUs will look good just in a photo, and in reality something is screwed out.
I don't even see myself buying a single think powered by Intel in the next 5 years. What's the point.
AMD is trying to focus on profits without asking consumers for $2000 for a GPU. They have their hands within many devices and that is what will help them overall.
And they don't have the cash on hand to do it anyway.
1. There's scenarios out right now that may make even the fastest hardware deliver less than desired performance.
2. Future software will tend to grow, not lessen, in demand.
Therefore, the old rule is to buy the best you can at the time you're buying, and use it until it's no longer enough. That's it. That's all you can do.
Is the 7800 XT a good choice for you? That's up to you. It's not going to be perfect for all scenarios, but I'd argue that in most of those scenarios where it's not, you're probably not going to be much better off unless you have something radically more expensive because the 7800 XT is a pretty good value (the 7900 GRE has since slightly displaced it though), and those scenarios should be few and far between anyway since the vast majority of the market has less performance than it offers, and games will tend to try and make themselves playable on what most people have. I mean, that might entail needing to do things like settling on your expectations, what with how some games are needing upscaling just to reach good performance even on some of the fastest GPUs, but that's the reality.
The thing is, statements like "no problem" and "just fine" are completely broad phrases that don't mean anything objective by themselves without further qualifying descriptors. All this says is that you're okay with its performance for what you do and expect of it. And that's fine mind you, but there's certainly multiple scenarios where faster CPUs will show their difference. CPU heavy games, or modern games where you expect higher frame rates or better frame rate consistency, come to mind. Minecraft under certain conditions can certainly make an old Haswell CPU seem absolutely slow. I mean, that game can already do that to the fastest of CPUs, so it does it a lot more to older and slower ones.
I'm not trying to insult it. I had a 2500K before and I know how surprisingly capable those older Intel CPUs can still be... but in a lot of situations, it shows that they're many times slower than today's stuff. Slow per core performance, quad cores at best, saddled with low bandwidth DDR3, and so on. In a growing number of situations, their age shows.
The reason those older CPUs still work fine a lot of the time is, as I said above with the 7800 XT, most game developers don't target the more recent stuff, but they target what the masses actually have (or even less) as it opens their potential sales up to a wider audience. Also, when modern CPUs are often good for very high frame rates, then if you adjust expectations on frame rate (and frame rate consistency, as stutters are usually the bigger problem on older CPUs as opposed to only raw frame rate), then older CPUs will often work fine too.
when you get rid of the card will be up to you and not us.......for me i am on a 3080 10gb that is on par with your card in most games minus ray tracing garbage.....im keeping my card until it dies.....my ego will be fine with it.....