Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
and most important as a "FACTORY NEW" GPU of course ..
4060 is highly NOT recommended, as even between a 4060 Ti and a regular 4070, it is a HUGE LEAP for mankind ... a difference of about 18% in performance .. some german sites even show a difference of 30% ..
So, by your budget fun begins with a RTX 4070 / 4070 Super ..
And the point of thread is looking for cheaper alternatives given my use cases since the 4070 super is once again a tough pill for me to swallow.
I am going to bed so my apologies if i don't respond back again.
So it is the RTX 4070 Super. A good choice .. !!
But be aware, dont buy it from Gigabyte, get it from MSI ..
A RTX "4070 Super" is as powerful as a "RTX 3090 Ti" while using half of Watts .. !!
Keep this in mind ..
https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-RTX-3090-Ti-vs-GeForce-RTX-4070-SUPER
With a xx60 series you wont have any fun .. especially with used and probably damaged GPUs you can not trust .. not to mention used 20's series .. absolutely a no-go !!
30's and especially 20's series are not manufactured anymore as well ..
40's series are more stable and reliable, more "polished", especially Ray Tracing ..
100% go for a RTX 4070 Super, in your case ..
it is even somehow "future-proof" for minimum next 3 years ..
Keep your 1080p screen and play with high fps .. and on this XMAS get a better screen with at least 144 Hz, $200, something like ::
24" native 1080p
< 1 ms
min 120 Hz, 144 Hz better, 165 Hz is badly buffed, 240 Hz godlike
flat, IPS
100% DCI-P3
500 cd/m²
27" native 1440p
< 1 ms
min 120 Hz, 144 Hz better, 165 Hz is badly buffed, 240 Hz godlike
flat, IPS
100% DCI-P3
500 cd/m²
I'm someone else who had a GTX 1060 and used to buy at (former) mid range options and prices. I was also someone criticizing the now pathetic graphics card market in the 2020s.
The reality is, it seems nVidia and AMD both want the "mid range" closer to $500 to $600.
And this isn't just a random opinion pulled from nowhere. If we compare the latest generations to traditional norms, the mid range performance is exactly in that price window now. It's not $250 anymore.
Consider this example.
The GTX 1060 was ~63% of the performance of the flagship GTX 1080 (GTX 1080 Ti came later, which made the GTX 1060 half of its performance).
If we use the RTX 4090 as the flagship, the card that represents the same 63%/50% performance of the flagship of this generation is... the RTX 4070 Ti/Super Ti (63%) and RTX 4070 (50%).
If you want to live in imaginary land and pretend the RTX 4090 shouldn't count, then if we use the RTX 4080 as the flaship, that moves to the RTX 4070 (non-Super) representing 63% and the RTX 4060 Ti barely falling short of 50%.
Yeah, pricing has gone up that much.
Worse, using the above example with Pascal is a bit of an outlier as the x60 used to be even better compared to the flagship than that (in the Fermi era, it was as high as three quarters or even four fifths of the flagship's performance; yeah we used to be spoiled at the x60 tier). Maxwell was a bit of an outlier, of course, where the GTX 970 was the one time the x70 tier was worth it, and the x60 was awful (this mimicked the GeForce 8 series where the 8600 was mediocre and the 8800 was stellar). But those days are gone. If you want an improvement, you need something.
I ended up just spending the $500 to $600 to get something better enough, since I felt $300 or so was only going to get me a pathetic uplift (and concerning VRAM amounts if choosing nVidia) considering the eight years have passed since the GTX 1060 launched. Oh, wow, a doubling of performance and a whole 2 GB more VRAM after eight years. GPUs are reaching the same slowing trend CPUs did it seems.
Like you, I tended to look at nVidia first, although in the end, I chose the 7800 XT since it was cheaper than the RTX 4070 and a bit faster, and had more VRAM. The tradeoff was higher power consumption and a bit less ray tracing performance (the difference can be huge, but most games that use it don't use it to extents of the edge case examples). I can't say it's been perfect, but unless the initial issue returns (I did an RMA), I've been happy enough with it. I've had zero of the disastrous "the drivers are unstable and crash" scenarios, but I have had driver updates introduce behavioral or other changes that made me stay on older drivers. Which... happened to me on nVidia too, so same story, different day. In other words, no, the drivers aren't perfect, but the issues tend to not be major stability of the drivers but rather situational ones. I will say, if you play Minecraft Java and are interested in old versions (1.7.10 or older), avoid Radeon. The current drivers have a nasty VRAM leak that makes those versions effectively unplayable, and you need to go back to 22.6.1 to avoid it, which won't support new stuff/games. Besides that (and I focus on new Minecraft versions), I have no regrets. But if you're unsure of trying Radeon, the RTX 4070 non-Super exists and is a bit cheaper and is fine. I can't reasonably recommend nVidia below the RTX 4070 though.
I think the $500 to $600 price range has a lot of good options. The RTX 4070, 7800 XT, 7900 GRE, and RTX 4070 Super. I think either brand is about equally viable in this price range.
Below $400 (I don't think the $400 to $500 window has anything appealing?), AMD is far more appealing in my mind. Above $600, nVidia is far more appealing. Just my opinion.
With FSR3 and AMDFMF2 frame generation you'll even get more out the card in the long run.
Yes i'm biased but i switched over from Nvidia (1060) to a 7900XTX with 24Gb VRAM and i haven't regretted my purchase a single bit.
The muh AMD drivers are bad is so 2010 cringe worthy and hasn't been true in quite a while.
And if you must have Ngreedia's offerings, get a 4070.
Clearly the RX 7800 XT is "NOT" more "powerful" than a RTX 4070 >>>
The regular "RTX 4070" is about 12% better in performance than the "RX 7800 XT" ..
https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-RTX-4070-vs-Radeon-RX-7800-XT
The "RX 7800 XT" is about 25% less in performance compared to the "RTX 4070 Super" ..
https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-RX-7800-XT-vs-GeForce-RTX-4070-SUPER
"RTX 4070 Super" is equivalent more with a "RX 7900 XTX" ..
So even the lower "RX 7900 XT" is more expensive than the "RTX 4070 Super" by $100 ..
https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-RX-7900-XTX-vs-GeForce-RTX-4070-SUPER
So in this case, AMD is clearly more expensive by more than $100 than "Ngreedia" for a "same performance" ..
RTX 4070 Super == RX 7900 XTX (+ 3%)
RTX 4060 Ti == RX 7800 XT (+ 5%)
"RTX 4060 Ti" between 400 and 550 EUR .. ( NOT recommended )
"RTX 4070" between 550 and 650 EUR
"RTX 4070 Super" between 600 and 700 EUR
"RX 7800 XT" between 500 and 550 EUR ( NOT recommended )
"RX 7900 XT" between 700 and 800 EUR !! ( NOT recommended )
"RX 7900 XTX" between 950 and 1000 EUR !! ( NOT recommended )
AMD is WAY more expensive .. for just more RAM but with "same performance" ..
By this particular comparison here, AMD's RX 7900 XTX is clearly a "rip-off" .. !!
Paying about 300 EUR more for 3% (!!!) more performance against the RTX 4070 Super ..
For 1000 EUR I get a MSI / Zotac / ASUS "RTX 4080 Super" .. (+ 10.5%)
https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-RX-7900-XTX-vs-GeForce-RTX-4080-SUPER
So, the "RX 7800 XT" is slightly better than a "RTX 4060 Ti" by 5%, but more expensive again, and as mentioned above already, the difference between 4060 Ti and 4070 is +18% !! Some german sites even show a difference of 30% .. same results as on userbenchmark.
https://technical.city/en/video/Radeon-RX-7800-XT-vs-GeForce-RTX-4060-Ti
AMD is clearly not to be recommended during current generations ..
I do not even remember when AMD was ever been recommended ..
The "RTX 4070 Super" is going to be a really satisfying GPU .. also being future-proof for minimum 3 years . . . If in doubt by budget, get a "RTX 4070" from MSI . . .
Quoting myself from another recent post. It's about the RTX 3080, but the same applies here.
The RTX 4070 is included in a lot of that (and is pretty close to the RTX 3080 itself).
When legitimate review and benchmark outlets like the four I mention here (TechPowerUp, Tom's Hardware, Gamers Nexus, and Hardware Unboxed), plus many others that you can easily find yourself, all say the same thing, I'm going to believe that over some random "GPU compare" type website. People actually use those things!? For real performance research!? I'm shocked.
Look at the bottom of that website. Their "aggregated performance" is literally taking a bunch of third party data (not their own!), and it's all synthetics and benchmarks (not real world stuff!), and... that's it? No real world results? No data of their own? And you just believe that over real world results?
No, you believe it because it puts nVidia ahead.
Edit: I scrolled down more on that website. They actually appear to have gaming performance data too, but wait... what's this?
What are phrases like "Projected FPS" and "according to our approximations" doing on a performance website!?
That should be a pretty big Red flag. There's also no listed testing configuration of course because... it's all "estimated" and not actually tested on a real system.
This is Userbenchmark levels of bad. Maybe worse.
Where is SOS Hawkens? I need a break from this. Misinformation is starting to flourish with him absent.
This should maybe be your wake up call that the problem is with your personal acceptance of something you don't like.
It's been, and still is, recommended at times. As always, what is recommended tends to vary by price bracket and over time.
You need to check benchmarks for the games that you will be playing - both cpu and gpu.
Why cpu? That's what create the fps. If the cpu can't churn out the fps the gpu won't either.
Why gpu? That's what draws what the cpu tells it to and hopefully at the same fps.
Then there is the monitor.
The connection types have to match.
Cpu performance is independent of resolution.
But gpu performance is dependent on resolution.
1080p at 60hz - a 1080ti is likely to be a candidate.
A 2070 also but they have different connectors.
The lowest new card I would be looking at is a 4070. But looking at the games you play it might be overkill.
My comparison above clearly shows off, AMD is ripping off customers . . .
And besides that, AMD CPU's have a huge security vulnerability. Once your machine is infected, this malware can NOT be removed anymore and you need to trash your PC .. or at least to exchange your motherboard . . .
This vulnerability has been existent since 2006 and infects ALL of AMD processors since then up to today's latest AMD CPUs as the Ryzen 8000 series ... ::
https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-7014.html
Just search for "AMD Sinkclose" . . .
https://www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/amd-sb-7014.html
Newer CPUs have already been patched and there is no such thing as Ryzen 8000 series.
I just noticed that the Yeston Game Ace Radeon RX 6750 G.R.E.[yestonstore.com] is on sale. It's a 10 gigabyte card but it only costs $270 plus $10 shipping to the netherlands. Quick spot check shows $280 converts to only 240 euro.
It is basically expected to just be a 6700 xt[videocardz.com], which puts it roughly on the level of the 2080 ti anyway, just with 1 gigabyte less of V.R.A.M..
At a cost of 100 euro less than the 6750 xt refresh sku I feel like you ought to be willing to accept the V.R.A.M. sacrifice, you'll feel less burned if it fails to meet expectations, plus you'll have a warranty.
The only thing I'm rather reluctant about is whether or not you'll have to pay import duties or V.A.T. since I don't know from where they are shipping. You should check into that. Could be a rather good deal.
N3tRunn3r. I use technical city sometimes but they're not always perfectly accurate. They ranked the Arc a580 above the a770 for a long time. (It was probably not updated to factor in driver improvements)
They've corrected that by now but it made me reluctant to use as a reference more recently, and I'd only use them to confirm what I already suspect or in cases where comparisons with more reputable sources are difficult to find. Plus their main performance score is aggregate, so that's going to factor in ray tracing benchmarks where applicable, which is unflattering to Nvidia, so you also have to check individual benchmarks.
According to techspot the 7900xtx is 3% faster than the rtx 4080 in rasterization, and 7% slower in ray tracing[www.techspot.com]. Given that the 4080 super is 3% faster, we expect the 7900 xtx to be equal to the 4080 super, and maybe 10% stronger in ray tracing.
Cross referencing with P.C. World, one might accuse A.M.D. of bribing the ref with how often the 7900xtx beats the 4080[www.pcworld.com].
Are you suggesting that an RTX 4070 Super is about as strong as an RTX 4080? That's rather wishful thinking if you are. The 4070 Super is a significant upgrade from the 4070, but it doesn't even match the 4070 ti.
The reason the 4070 super is so great is because it hits the sweet spot where we start to really hit the upper limit of where the diminishing returns really starts to hit hard, but it's far far from a top tier card. We're looking at 4070 Super maybe being most comparable to the 7900 G.R.E.[www.techspot.com], which is $50 cheaper, and more like a 7850 xt than a proper 7900 series card.
In my case it's because there aren't very many good resources ranking where the RX 580 should rank because it's such an old card, and even techspot only does direct showdowns between roughly comparable parts, without giving any idea of what kind of uplift somebody should expect upgrading from an older system.
It's useful to know that an RX 6500 ($160) is expected to only be 7.6% stronger than a 580 ($89)[technical.city], or that the RX 580 is expected to be 12% faster than the 1650 ($140)[technical.city]. The 580 is just too old of a card to be directly compared with those.
I mean, the 1650 may be the bottom rung of the 1600 series, but it's also three years newer than the 580, and you'd think the 1650 could at least match the 1060's rival since one generation up is usually equivalent to one rung down the stack. Heck cross referencing with techpowerup[www.techpowerup.com] the relative performance of the 1650 is only about equal to an RX 470.
I think you'll find these results more or less align with reality too if you really look into it. Plus much of the time I only care about the results of a test rather than the pontifications on why it is or the reviewer's opinion on what constitutes a good tradeoff, and per-game results are rarely useful since most people play a variety of games.
But still, there's no way a 4070 super is as strong as a 7900 xtx. Technical city mentions you can comment on the pages to point out things that need correction, and somebody ought to do so, but I don't feel like registering with them so it shall not be me.
A770
3070
Base model 4070 at the absolute highest. It would let you run cyberpunk with rt enabled at 100 fps in 1080p.
You mentioned UE5 games. My 3070 runs The First Descendant in 2k resolution at medium settings at over 60 fps. Medium settings in UE5 looks like ultra in less modern games, because you are still getting the visual eye candy of the lumen and nanite features.
In terms of not leaving performance on the table I think you don't need to go for a 4070, let alone a 4070 super. Doubly so since you would need to push your budget to do so.
For reference my 3070 can run overwatch 2 in 2k at 230-240 fps at 80c, and 240 fps stable in HD at 46c at low settings.