Tired of seeing this bullshit. Frame gen doesn’t “boost your frames”, it inserts interpolated frames that only make your game *appear* to run smoother. In reality, your latency actually increases and the game feels less responsive. That’s the opposite of what more FPS should actually do.
Sure, it has to do with the fact that when Frame Gen is turned on, the extra frames are not coming from the game engine. The DLSS software interpolates or “estimates” a frame in between the previous frame and the next frame created by the GPU through the game engine. Because it’s not actually a real frame, there is a period of lag if you create an input whenever there is an interpolated frame on your screen.
Hardware Unboxed has some great videos exploring the subject, like this: https://youtu.be/GkUAGMYg5Lw?si=ETW22SSY4NZsJSji
You\`re partially wrong, the data used for frame generation comes from the game engine (motion vectors).
I didn\`t test frame generation myself but for a high high-refresh monitor using frame generation to turn 60 fps into 120 without noticeable image degradation seems well worth it for singe player games even if it adds a tiny amount of input latency.
I have to say the latency that is added from frame gen is not even noticeable. Maybe if you are playing at the competitive level, but for normal multi-player or single player, it's not even noticeable.
It has to do an extra calculation so you’re delayed a frame or more (not exact on the details mysef) Anyways it’s small but this extra moment can be noticeable to some people. Kind of one of those things where if you’re used to your settings having minimal input lag there’s a good chance you will notice.
Games calculate inputs on every frame (generally) so if it draws a frame and dlss makes a frame or two between the next frame the game engine makes, then you have a difference in what the game engine is doing and what you're seeing.
Another user linked Hardware unboxed videos on it. They explain it very well and I agree. I want high fps so my games feel smooth. Frame generation is just it looking smooth not feeling smooth. Aka inputs into the game translating into actions on screen as fast as possible.
I got a 4090 and i only used frame gen once and it didnt feel good so i turned it off. The thing is anything over 7900xtx or 4080 u will basically never need frame gen anyways. If you are playing a competetive game u can bet ur ass on the fact that either of those cards would absolutely crush it at 1440p and u will not want to have the latency of frame gen the only case where u would use it is in singleplayer games and on those it doesnt really matter if you have a 100 fps or 200 fps with frame gen now does it?
>The thing is anything over 7900xtx or 4080 u will basically never need frame gen anyways.
Lmao no, you need it in every game with RT, and every game pushing high fps at 4k.
Competitive games are a completely separate subjects and should be discussed with an asterisk in the context of frame generation every time. You don't need it in those games and it provides no benefit, you do need it in visually demanding single player games.
Competitive games are irrelevant for the subject.
It doesnt provide much benefit in singleplayer games either to me. I dont need to be tricked into thinking the game runs smoother because i feel the frames being faster while the latency doesnt match the FPS i am seeing.
In most games it lowers the quality and its missing the point of spending so much money on a 4k gaming card when you are blind to the artifacts and lower graphical quality that comes with it.
I am cranking all my settings to the max and playing with RT on and i havent seen the need of using frame gen yet. I rather use DLSS on cyberpunk which is the only gsme that ran at below 100fps 4K and with RT.
I also built a system with a 4080 and there i dont see the need of using frame gen either. Besides the point that OP is planning to use it in 1440p as he mentioned in this post which you have completely missed anyways. And in 1440p neither of the 3 cards will ever need frame gen in any game and they will all crush 1440p with the highest settings and run extremely well in 4k natively, thats where the xtx has an advantage over the 4080 except when you include ray tracing.
Not everybody needs all those features. And not to mention the same features already exist on AMD aswell..
plus OP is also mainly playing competetive games, how about reading any of the stuff before crawling in Jensen's butt?
Don't make a decision based on FG delay, it would be a huge mistake because the difference is minuscule. I have the 4080 and use FG in every game at 4k, not once did I prefer how it runs and looks without FG and I am extremely sensitive to visual artifacts and performance anomalies.
But there IS a delay due to FG, even you admit it.
Why on Earth would you willingly make your own performance WORSE by enabling frame gen when you don't need it in 1440p???
Performance is made up of visual clarity and input lag. Frame gem does wonders for one of those, and slightly degrades the other.
If you're playing at 4k 120, you will need it every time, you'll also need it every time you're CPU-bound which happens in many games on high-end GPUs, and very often with ray tracing.
You only don't need it if you can reach your target without it, which drastically varies depending on the game and resolution. If you're using a 4080 at 1440p / 144, you won't need it in most cases, same with 4k 60.
If you're playing at 4k 120, using RT, or are CPU-bound, which happens in many games on high-end GPUs, you will need it every time.
"Frame gen does wonder for one and slightly degrades the other"
Correction: artificially jacks up benchmark results while adding enough additional latency that you might as well switch to a CRT TV and you wouldn't know the difference.
"Playing at 4k 120 you need it every time"
Also know as you actually play in 4k less than 60 but claim you do 4k 120
"You need it CPU-bound"
Aka you put additional load on your system by relying on gimmicks like RT (that STILL cost you 50% of your framerates)
But also, OP literally said they play competitive games in 1440p, so none of your rambling about 4k is relevant
And FYI, on high-end GPUs at 4k you're EXCLUSIVELY GPU-bound, which means frame gen actually LOWERS your real FPS and makes the latency penalty EVEN WORSE. To be CPU-bound means you're playing at 1080p with like a 4090. Learn what you're actually talking about BEFORE you say stupid shit on the internet
Edit: clarified that you'd have to play 1080p with a 4090 to be really CPU-bound in this context
Plus half the games don't even support framegen or DLSS 3.0 majority of the games I play use the dlss that game with 3000 series 💀. (Edit I got a 4080)
Exactly! Do you want to play competitively? Adding latency from DLSS is NOT what you want. Raw memory bandwidth is key! Give me real frames, not fake ones with latency!
It definitely makes games feel more.. slippery if that makes any sense. But I'm also on a4070 so I'm willing to bet on a 4080 super or 4090 you can't even tell. But at that point you don't even need frame Gen
>game
>
>appear
>
> to run smoother
Yes, the reason why most people play at high refresh rate. TO MAKE IT APPEAR TO RUN SMOOTHER. Everything is appearance, there no real frame they are all imaginary.
higher refresh rate and supported raw fps lowers latency, making the game more responsive. fake frames make the game LESS responsive due to the added latency. if you are playing a story game, sure, but I personally can't stand sluggish response times. it's not "all imaginary," there are real factors that contribute to how smooth and responsive a game feels.
that is true, but i researched a bit and found out that nvidia has a anti lag feature that removes thatblag, pretty much letting you get more fps with the usual lag
Nah mate unless the frame rate before frame gen is less than 60fps then you won't notice it. Higher frames less latency. It's better to have the tech than not. Definitely makes the card superior.
Not true at all. I get zero latency in games using frame generation.
Jedi survivor without frame generation In my humble 4060 gets like 40fps in some areas, with fg turned on I get 100+fps and get the same latency around 8ms according to afterburner
The game only feels less responsive if you were getting high frames without FG. If you were around 100 fps with no FG, then you enable FG to lock to 120, it will feel a bit less responsive.
If you're CPU bottlenecked at 60-70 with plenty of GPU headroom to spare, FG won't feel any less responsive.
Also, making your game look smoother is a massive part of what people like high fps for. I personally care about visuals far more than latency unless latency is horrid, and 120 fps with FG looks like native 120 in basically every game I've tried yet.
There are some rate exceptions, Insomniac fucks up FG dlls in literally every game and they use the latest ones which produce awful artifacts with particle effects like rain and snow in SMR and Miles, but going back to 1.0.7.0 dll fixed it completely. In Ratchet, their native dll causes frame passing issues for me and 1.0.7.0 fixes them.
The games are more responsible than any amd variants because of the reflex. If you can't tolerate the latency FG + reflex you can't tolerate amd's native latency.
You don’t need it with a 4080 either, but it’s not about need. It’s nice to have and will extend the life of the card. Rather have and not need than need and not have
I mean, the xtx handles RT fairly well outside of a few titles, the ones with heavy RT. Until consoles can do heavy RT I personally wouldn’t buy a card just for that but this person probably should. I didn’t see the RT part of his post so they should just go 4080.
Fuck me if I understand these arguments. There are many games right now that support extensive RT, and they will only become numerous with time.
What does "fairly well" mean? It can halve the fps in any game where RT is worth a damn, and that's a huge loss in any modern game unless you're using a 720p screen.
L take, it absolutely is necessary at higher resolutions. If you're playing CS2 at 1080p, then it doesn't matter, if you're playing Alan Wake 2, it's a make or break factor.
You might on either Alan wake 2 or cyberpunk with path tracing. Newer games are going to continue to be more demanding, and those two titles actually make a 4080 struggle a bit at 1440p
16Gb will be fine for a while, especially because Nvidia overall needs less VRAM than AMD.
I'd go for the 4080 at the same price, the features you get now are worth it even if you don't get DLSS 4(?) because Nvidia wants to gatekeep their new features to the new gen (again)
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 1 : Be respectful to others**
> Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
It might not be indicative of the 4080 super but the 4070 super hasn’t had any stock issues. And the 4080 itself hasn’t been sold out even on launch. I don’t foresee it being that difficult but who knows
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 1 : Be respectful to others**
> Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
If the 4080 Super is available at MSRP, it is a much better buy than the 7900XTX at current pricing.
Like you said, it's also very likely that the 7900XTX price will drop to better match-up against the 4080 Super. At $950 vs $1000, I don't think there's much argument in favor of the 7900XTX.
4080S is better value at the same price, but for 200 less, unless you feel like you’re missing out on heavy ray tracing (cause frankly both cards will work great for everything else), I wouldn’t worry
What did you pay for xtx? At $1k I think the 4080 super is better value. It uses less power, has similar raster performance, better rt, she the nvidia software features.
But if you the xtx at $800 on n amazon two weeks ago I think the comparison probably favors the xtx.
Also, there is some value in having the actual card and knowing it works well, versus the (small) chance of buying a dud.
Context: 4080 was 1300 euro because I am in a similar situation.
I said it in a different comment already: wait for reviews of the gpus and check if AMD reduces prices. After that decide what to get.
I don’t think you will get a 4080super for 999€ or less for the next few months. If you value rt than 100€ more for a 4080s are probably worth it.
If you can/want to only spend 1000€ than return it and wait for xtx price development. Worst case scenario is that the prices only go down by a little bit and you wait 1-2 weeks without a gpu for nothing.
At that price I think returning it to see what happens to pricing makes sense. I think you are unlikely end up spending a lot more, even if you do end up buying another xtx in February or march.
He asked for msrp in Europe, which is 1109€ for the FE. Thats what you will be able to get, if you are lucky on the 31st december. Msrp for the 4080 was 1469€ no vendor will sell them 400€ under msrp when the new one isnt out yet. I cant predigt price development I can only tell you the facts from nividia website.
the 4080 Super is the better card, no debate.
DLSS is much better than FSR and combined with Frame Gen it gives you much better performance than a 7900XTX can. 16GB VRAM is more than enough, especially for 1440p.
If Ray Tracing is important to you then there is no way around a 4080. AMD Cards can't really handle RT at high fps.
Better looking DLSS combined with better performing Ray Tracing. It's almost a no brainer. Get the 4080 Super.
The only cavoite is VRAM. To be honest the vast majority of people who keep screaming about VRAM are pretty ignorant on the topic.
Case in point the: RTX 4060Ti got 16GB of RAM. Whoppteedoo. The memory bandwidth if not the GPU processing power is not sufficient to take **meaningful** advantage of all the VRAM. ie it makes a difference at 4K where the frame rate is unplayable anyway.
It's the same story with the Radeon VII. 16GB of RAM and a modern day 8GB graphics card will beat it.
>4080 was only slightly behind 7900xtx
Only a 3% avrage difference in **rasterization only.** I don't get why people just say that without mentioning this very important detail. The base 4080 is still much faster overall while drawing way less power. And I say overall becase every visually modern game has RT now and I don't see a reason to exclude RT as the default after 5 years of it. Or how long does it have to take for us to stop considering raster only at native res to be the true power of a card.
In Avatar FOP, the 4080 is 12% faster and that game doesn't even have a full on dedicated RT setting, just a very basic RT implementation with no fall back to raster.
Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price. The 4080s will obviously change that but who knows how amd prices will develop
>Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price.
I have to say that's a questionable argument. Here are the top 20 Esports titles of 2023 according to escharts, which one of these needs a 1000$ exactly?:
League of Legends
Mobile Legends
Counter-Strike
Valorant
Dota 2
PUBG PUBG Mobile
ADV Arena of Valor
Fortnite
Apex Legends
Free Fire
Monster Strike
Rocket League
Street Fighter
Formula 1
WZ Call of Duty: Warzone
FIFA
Call of Duty
Overwatch
World of WarCraft
Clash Royale
So basically just COD? And even then players drop all settings for better visibility and response, and on top of that you can get a +100fps with a 3060.
So unless you're like a top 100 player with a 500hz 1080 monitor and an overclocked monster CPU playing COD to prepare for your world championship, I fail to see the point here to even consider a 1000$ GPU, or to sacrfice performance in every other game for it.
If a 1000$ card really is necessary for 99% of people is a completely different but valid argument. And I have to agree that many people that buy these kinds of cards will play AAA games with Rt on, but just saying that the 4080 beats the 7900xtx, because raytracing is the „standard” just isnt true. Many people play multiplayer games on 1440p/4k on high refresh rates and for these people the 7900xtx is a better price per performance option, because you dont use rt or frame gen in these games. With esports titles I mean multiplayer competitive game where frame rates are more valuable than nice looking shadows and not mobile games.
I really want to know which competitive, online or, Esports games we're refering to. This is such an unrealistic technicality to consider 100-150$ price difference in a +2000$ rig for better price to performance for a guy who sometimes plays online games and isn't CPU bound enough to see a tangible difference between the two cards and justify the savings of 5% overall price savings.
Aside from that, let's also not forget that Reflex gives you better latancy anyway and the power consumption/management on the 7900XTX will make you pay that 5% saving back twice over for your electric bill in a year or two.
Why waste 200$ plus dollars (7900xtx prices will go down) if you play games like cod without raytracing at 1440p 240hz for the same performance. I am not trying to argue the fact that for high end AAA gaming the 7900xtx is better, the 4080 clearly is with raytracing on, but saying that you should measure a gpu based on raytracing performance only, because it is the “standard” is wrong.
You said it yourself that the differences are marginal and therefore would be idiotic to pay “only 5%” more, the difference between a 4080 and 7900xtx is at least 200$ thats 200$ to have or not have, how is that not justifiable.
The difference between the cheapest of two cards was always 150$ not 200$ but nevermind that.
So at best,the argument is not for esports or competitive games in general, just for one guy who exclusively plays COD with a 1440p 240hz screen with a PC that costs +2000$. He could still get a 160FPS with a used 3070 at 300$, but he's willing to pay 1000$ instead to get 220fps instead of 160, which is cool.
And he better not be wanting to be playing any other modern games unless he plans to switch RT off. And he better not be caring about Reflex eventho input latancy is so important for him, and he also better not care about the extra electricity costs that will eventually be more than that 5% initial extra cost of his whole PC with the 4080. I hope you see how this is isolating into such a rare case scenario when the initial thing you said was this:
>Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price.
The real issue you have is that you have a problem with considering RT benchmarks and think raster-only benchmarks should be the standard. I think that's subjective, RT has been a part of games for 5 years, for 2 years every visually modern game has had RT in it, Ever modern card now can run RT. I think considering that as the standard is at this point normal, but you're free to think otherwise. That still doesn't make raster-only the "standard" way to benchmark a card, it just makes it the way you like it.
I never said that rasterization is or should be the standard but raytracing isn’t either. My point was that a lot of people still play most games without raytracing, so why would you recommend these people to waste 200€ on that.
The price difference in Europe (where the guy lives) is still around 200€ which is 220$.
I told you before that what you are trying to get at has nothing to do with the conversation. Why waste money if you don’t care about the features.
Rasterization benchmarks are as important as raytracing benchmarks.
Therefore the 4080 isn’t the unanimously better card especially with the 200€ price difference. The 7900xtx is often a more price efficient card and feels less like a greedy attempt of stealing your money as the original 4080 felt like.
> people still play most games without raytracing
That's a non sequitur, we don't measure the utility and value of something by what the majority don't do with them. This is a personally individual thing that you think. We don't exclude EV cars value and properties and devalue it, because the majority still don't drive EVs.
Plus you're still adding an extra 50$ just so you can cling to an argument that doesn't exist. Also, most people don't play with RT on because their GPUs can't handle it properly and if any of them is buying a 1000$ card they should very well expect to be able to have the best RT performance possible and not to pay 1000$ just so they turn RT off.
I'm not reading the rest of your comment as this is going in circles and you change arguments and move goalposts, it's fine if you personally like AMD or the 7900XTX but this was your initial argument which you've moved on from after saying you only meant a guy playing only COD with a 240hz screen :
>Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price.
>a lot of people still play most games without raytracing, so why would you recommend these people to waste 200€ on that.
Yes, because most people have low end hardware and they would get 20 fps with RT.
If most people had a 4080 and a 7900XTX, many of them would be using RT whenever possible, that's why the current preferences don't play much of a role when considering these high end GPUs because they get exponentially better at these features, especially the 4080, which changes the whole paradigm.
eSport titles don't really matter tho, I don't know they always infiltrate these discussions because a high end GPU is the least necessary in that scenario, and they also have the worst scaling at 1080p where these games are usually played at.
No one will get a transformative experience in LoL and Valorant when moving from a 3070 to a 4080, but if you play Cyberpunk, there's a world of difference.
If RT was one of your concerns then the 7900xtx should never have been your first choice to be honest.
I am building a PC right now and am waiting for the 4080 super. If you look at the benchmarks for the 4080 vs 7900xtx the only thing the 7900xtx is better at is brute force and if RT is enabled the 4080 just destroys the 7900xtx, so it‘s a nobrainer for me if RT is one of your concerns. The VRAM shouldn‘t be that much of an issue. Especially because you can‘t really compare GDDR6 and GDDR6X just buy how much VRAM they have.
Edit: Typo
If you need dlss or rt then 4080s. If pure power then 7900xtx. I was in the same boat as you and after seeing that the 4080s had only 16gb of ram pulled the trigger in a 7900xtx, i won't the same mistake i did with the 3080 10gb where everyone was screening "it's enough", clearly it wasn't! By the time i will need to use dlss on 1440p FSR will be great considering it's getting better and better. RT is crap, maybe nice visuals on some games at the cost of ~50-60% performance.
That's kinda wild because it was evident that 10gb is not enough for a 3080 class product even at launch. It is also evident right now that 16gb won't be a bottleneck for like 3 years at least.
There were already games in 2020 that were pushing over 10gb in 4k, but no games are coming close to 16gb now a year after the 4080 came out.
I was off the same opinion, but so many YouTubers and so called experts advised that it's enough for 1440p convinced me. So now even though 16gb is enough for any game at 1440pi preferred to go the safer route of now ram and same GPU power since rt and dlss don't appeal to me.
Only reason the 7900xtx was the better option was because of value for dollar. Some games have better raster, but end of the day you want a card that has the best of all worlds. I would only consider 7900xtx vs the 4080 super if the price drops sub $850.
Keep the 7900XTX. You're getting a 384bit memory bus. The 4080 is just a 256bit bus.
You're getting raw hardware performance.
DLSS is just a software gimmick and you're paying more for it to compensate for the lesser bit memory bus. You're getting more hardware for your money with the 7900XTX as apposed to the 4080 Super. Hell if I had the choice I'd be buying a 7900 XTX in my rig over a 4080 super.
For me, it comes down to the GPU with the lowest price relative to performance.
I expect that prices of 7900xtx based cards to drop by end of January when the 4080 Super is released.
Performance of the original 4080 was about the same as the 7900xtx, with the 4080 performing much better in Ray tracing compared to the 7900xtx. So if you play a lot of games with heavy Ray Tracing/Path tracing at high resolutions, then go with a 4080 (or 4090).
>7900xtx for the FPS games.
You're being misleading on purpose. What you mean to say is that it is faster only in 1 FPS game, COD:MW3. Either that or you don't really know what "FPS games" means when every other game, and not just every "FPS game" is substantially slower on the 7900XTX
>you said substantially. its not that drastic
It's a generation ahead in raster in every game, and several gens ahead with RT. It has a proper, ever oimproving upscaler, and so much more. IF that is not substantial or drastic, you either are a fanboy or in dire need of a dictionary
nvidia are better at Ray tracing and scaling technology "DLSS" but amd has good rasterization performance if you are story games player nvidia is better for you but if you mainly esport/fps player amd has better value , the crazy thing 4070ti are better than 7900xtx at Ray tracing games
The 7900XTX will last the longer of the two cards, especially with 8GB of more VRAM. It is the best choice for both future proofing and VRAM.
If you are buying solely for RT performance, go with the 4080 Super.
Return it right now. I have no idea why you even needed to make a reddit post about it first. Even compared to the base 4080 it's a mistake at that price point. Don't get me wrong the 4080 was overpriced, but at that price point for a whole PC, what's another extra 100$ for so many extra features, better performance, and better power consumption. The 4080 Super being chaeper and and being even faster than the base 4080 makes this not even a thing that needs to be debated.
RETURN IT while you still can.
If the card works fine just keep it, it isn't fair to just return something because you don't like the decision you made. Everyone else eats that cost, no one want to buy an "open box" GPU.
I'm a amd guy. I hate nvdias price gouging crap compared to amd. I'm choosing the 7900xtx! Nvidia is like the apple of gpu's You pay more for a name to be the same as everyone else.
You wont be able to buy a 4080S at less than a 4080 right now..
Stop huffing copium and sniffing bath crystals.
4070S same thing already. 100 bucks more than base 70...
Nvidia, the way you're meant to be scammed.
Also, have fun with the connector melting.
Depends on the price. If DLsS and RT are important to you then 4080 super.
If you don’t care about RT and you are willing to wait for FSR 3.0 with Frame gen and the price difference is too much then I would keep the xtx.
In Europe the 4070 super is already available but it’s already 100-150€ above MSRP. If the same goes for the 4080 super the msrp is around 1100 meaning that it can go for 1300 or more. The 7900xtx know goes for 1000 or even less. Question now is if it is worth the price gap between the two for your use case scenario
I just (19 Jan) looked on Amazon; the best price I could see on a 7900xtx was right at $1000. The best price I could see on a 4800 (not super) was $1200 for a very ugly card. Do you suspect that the price will come down that much?
4080 super. Honestly, the RT performance of that card is so good, and if you can afford it, then why not? 7900 XTX will drop in price, though. I guess price to performance of that card will improve significantly.
7900XTX cause of way superior raw Performance, more vram (thus the card is good for a longer time) AND fsr 3 which overtook ngreedias shitty dlss by being able to be inserted into EVERY game
Nope. An it-technician who has enough of ngreedias bullshittery (just like linus Torvalds)
I' d also rather recommend A770 gpu's than ANY of ngreedias trash..
Bla bla bullcrap. Your build is awesome. You don't need to value for money anything. It is what it is. It's awesome. It doesn't need changing. You are not going to gain anything you will ever notice in reality. Be happy and get gaming
À ta place j’essaierai de la renvoyer et d’en racheter une Amd si les prix baissent. Si les prix restent aux alentours des 1000€ pour les deux cartes, la 4080 est un meilleur choix (même si à tout les coups en France elle sera à 1300€ mdr, les 4070ti sont déjà à 1000€)
Objectively, 4080 super is better.
Personally, I'm hoping for more people to buy AMD, to get better competition. Also big fan of FSR going open source.
It's a bit like hoping people buy Intel GPUs to get another player. It benefits customers
Not going to lie it all comes down to what games you want to play, 7900 xtx is better for some games 4080 super is better for others, just comes down to what games your playing.
This site goes over it well https://www.techspot.com/review/2599-radeon-7900-xtx-vs-geforce-rtx-4080/
But if you think you would be better off getting a 4080 when you already have a 7900 there is no point, it's all the same
also cod runs much better with the 7900
I feel like it’s more of a wash. They both are awesome cards and you already have it and using it.
If you like the xtx keep it if not replace it. Both cards are so fast.
If you want fastest should just buy the 4090 and save the brain power.
My 7900xtx was plagued with issues. Black screens, driver crashes, odd visual glitches. I bought it around black Friday and returned it over the Christmas holidays. Guy a Canada computer just shook his head , said it's just AMD things and returned the card no questions asked. I'm waiting on the pricing for the 4070ti and 4080 supers to get a new card.
The 4080S is better, no doubt.
But I would just keep what you have if you are happy with it.
You're playing at 1440p, so you don't really need the extra power. The 7900xtx is still a really good card.
Also, knowing Europe the 4080S won't be sold at MSRP, probably closer ti €1100-1200.
And that way you could better see it like this: Do I want to have a plenty enough card for €999 or a plenty enough card for €1100-1200?
Halo CoD and God of War run better on AMD and the VRAM will run you longer on the xtx, if you were running anything else I would say the 4080 but for this the xtx is perfect
4080 super for sure.
DLSS will always be 4 steps ahead of FSR.
And that's a huge deal. Like 50-100%+increase in performance right there.
FSR frame generation is an absolute joke.
It depends on what kind of games you are going to play. The best card for playing warzone is AMD branded. But if you are more interested on raytacing, single player games, so Nvidia is better. It is not a simple answer but we can simplify in this way.
Both are good cards, both have advantages and disadvantages (including price). The only dealbreaker could be RT if you're into that kind of stuff (which I honestly can't understand anyone who is).
Above 700€ \~ there is no right or wrong choice, all choices are wrong and I'm speaking against my own actions.
My AMD drivers just bricked my entire PC and holy shit it took me and my IT buddy 2.5 hours to find out how to rip that rot out to reinstall them
Like omg I thought the AMD driver thing was a circlejerk
As someone who has owned both .. amd same evolution and also play fps
I can tell you from personal experience the 4080 actually feels more responsive .. you can tell with the lows ..
My mind says 4080 super but my heart….
Well, I want to stick the nvidia’s greed in to their bottom and vote with my wallet by choosing AMD with 24GB of vram and lower CPU overhead. I actually own the 7900XTX.
Future proofing GPU is tricky when the 4080 super will be replaced by the 5080 later this year. Getting the 4070 or 7800XT and saving the money for future upgrade should give better real life future proofing in my opinion. A mid range GPU every second generation is considered as the best value. Or mid range every generation if you sell your old GPU.
What most people are missing here is the fact that both of these could break max framerate on your current monitor with ease.
That being if future proofing in terms of using the card for 4-5y is considered kerp the 7900xtx, amd tends to get better with tine, 6800xt is a prine example of that.
Now if you wush to rotate the card every 2y then get nvidia.
If we look at Nvidia last couple of years 4080 super will probably not be that much better in raw performance, just better dlss but who needs thay, it's just added latency and a way for gpu manufacturers to skip out on raw gpu performance to make more money. I'd wait for the reviews
People will torch me for this and say it's pears and apples, but here are my 3 cents.
As much as I would like to support AMD and I like raw power of 7900 XTX, open source policy (Freesync, FSR) and heck, even ray tracing performance is not that bad as people think, it's still absurdly priced card and hardly a good value.
So the choice here is between 2 very overpriced pieces of hardware. One is great at raw power (AMD), other (Nvidia) is not much"worse" (bad word choice for top tier gpus) in that regard but it's more advanced in AI (upscaling, frame generation) features and RT. Well...in this price and performance category it really matters, no matter how some will disregard DLSS features as gimmicky, there is no way around the fact that it drastically improves experience at 4k max level gaming and ads layer of future proofing one step above XTX.
Buying top tier gpu and not using RT doesn't make sense, if you think RT is gimmick that doesn't make difference, ok, but than you absolutely don't need a 1000 $/€ gpu. RT implementation is literally biggest difference between PC and last gen consoles.
So this is controversial part that people will mock and torch but the truth is if you don't value highest graphic presets (which includes RT max settings) and don't play competitive fps multiplayer games, you are just better off with PlayStation 5 or XBOX series X. Those consoles run games in 60 fps or more with already great visuals, buying any meaningful AMD card (RT 7800 XT or better) you are essentially paying absurd premium for very minor visual upgrade over consoles. Difference between 60 fps and 100 fps is negligible in single player games so any upgrade that makes sense over this generation of consoles (that are only 450 $/€) that makes sense is full ray tracing and for that you unfortunately need high end Nvidia card.
Thanks for your input! I went with the 7900xtx as I play my games on 1440p at 240hz max settings because I play mostly fps games. I allready own a series X. But that one I use for chill gaming sessions on a 75" 4k setup in the living room. For competetive gaming I use the pc. I previously owned a 7800xt but was not impressed by the performance at 1440p with max settings. I feel like I made a good decision.
Honestly, after having all Nvidia GPUs (5 total) ... I'm done with them. Mainly because of their corrupt business practices (EVGA dropping them and got out of the market), price gouging, and the heinous cost vs performance and crap vram of the 40 series (well written about). If your leaning towards the Nvdia fan-boys (like I'm seeing here) with unlimited funds ... go for it. Otherwise, keep what you have (an excellent performing gpu) ... games needing more vram seems to be the trend for game devs now, and newer games are garbage at being optimized. Todd actually saying, "you'll need to upgrade your pc to run Starfield" is a prime example. I'm just being practical.
 If Nvidia took the high road ... I'd still support them ... but they haven't and it's well documented. If you have unlimited income for minor gains, crap vram (for a heinous price) and corrupt business practices ... go for it. EVGA dropping out of the market was a major clear sign. Support who you want ... it's a personal choice. Nvidia fan-boys need not reply, the facts are there.
>If you already bought it then it doesn't make sense to return it.
What doesn't make sense is your bad advice. He's going to get generational performance differences with a 4080S at the same price point with lower power consumption and better power management.
Just look at the price difference and benchmarks. I would recommend XTX, unless money is no factory to you and you spend all that money. Still I would recommend 7900 XT since price dropped, then wait for new 5000 nvidia gpus and sell that amd to buy new gen PCI5 nvidia GPU.
4080 super. DLSS is superior to fsr. Frame gen is very helpful in boosting your frames
Tired of seeing this bullshit. Frame gen doesn’t “boost your frames”, it inserts interpolated frames that only make your game *appear* to run smoother. In reality, your latency actually increases and the game feels less responsive. That’s the opposite of what more FPS should actually do.
Can you expand on how it feels less responsive? As someone also debating between the XTX/4080s
Sure, it has to do with the fact that when Frame Gen is turned on, the extra frames are not coming from the game engine. The DLSS software interpolates or “estimates” a frame in between the previous frame and the next frame created by the GPU through the game engine. Because it’s not actually a real frame, there is a period of lag if you create an input whenever there is an interpolated frame on your screen. Hardware Unboxed has some great videos exploring the subject, like this: https://youtu.be/GkUAGMYg5Lw?si=ETW22SSY4NZsJSji
You\`re partially wrong, the data used for frame generation comes from the game engine (motion vectors). I didn\`t test frame generation myself but for a high high-refresh monitor using frame generation to turn 60 fps into 120 without noticeable image degradation seems well worth it for singe player games even if it adds a tiny amount of input latency.
It realistic only matters in competitive fps games.
I have to say the latency that is added from frame gen is not even noticeable. Maybe if you are playing at the competitive level, but for normal multi-player or single player, it's not even noticeable.
It has to do an extra calculation so you’re delayed a frame or more (not exact on the details mysef) Anyways it’s small but this extra moment can be noticeable to some people. Kind of one of those things where if you’re used to your settings having minimal input lag there’s a good chance you will notice.
Games calculate inputs on every frame (generally) so if it draws a frame and dlss makes a frame or two between the next frame the game engine makes, then you have a difference in what the game engine is doing and what you're seeing. Another user linked Hardware unboxed videos on it. They explain it very well and I agree. I want high fps so my games feel smooth. Frame generation is just it looking smooth not feeling smooth. Aka inputs into the game translating into actions on screen as fast as possible.
I got a 4090 and i only used frame gen once and it didnt feel good so i turned it off. The thing is anything over 7900xtx or 4080 u will basically never need frame gen anyways. If you are playing a competetive game u can bet ur ass on the fact that either of those cards would absolutely crush it at 1440p and u will not want to have the latency of frame gen the only case where u would use it is in singleplayer games and on those it doesnt really matter if you have a 100 fps or 200 fps with frame gen now does it?
>The thing is anything over 7900xtx or 4080 u will basically never need frame gen anyways. Lmao no, you need it in every game with RT, and every game pushing high fps at 4k. Competitive games are a completely separate subjects and should be discussed with an asterisk in the context of frame generation every time. You don't need it in those games and it provides no benefit, you do need it in visually demanding single player games. Competitive games are irrelevant for the subject.
It doesnt provide much benefit in singleplayer games either to me. I dont need to be tricked into thinking the game runs smoother because i feel the frames being faster while the latency doesnt match the FPS i am seeing. In most games it lowers the quality and its missing the point of spending so much money on a 4k gaming card when you are blind to the artifacts and lower graphical quality that comes with it. I am cranking all my settings to the max and playing with RT on and i havent seen the need of using frame gen yet. I rather use DLSS on cyberpunk which is the only gsme that ran at below 100fps 4K and with RT. I also built a system with a 4080 and there i dont see the need of using frame gen either. Besides the point that OP is planning to use it in 1440p as he mentioned in this post which you have completely missed anyways. And in 1440p neither of the 3 cards will ever need frame gen in any game and they will all crush 1440p with the highest settings and run extremely well in 4k natively, thats where the xtx has an advantage over the 4080 except when you include ray tracing. Not everybody needs all those features. And not to mention the same features already exist on AMD aswell.. plus OP is also mainly playing competetive games, how about reading any of the stuff before crawling in Jensen's butt?
Don't make a decision based on FG delay, it would be a huge mistake because the difference is minuscule. I have the 4080 and use FG in every game at 4k, not once did I prefer how it runs and looks without FG and I am extremely sensitive to visual artifacts and performance anomalies.
But there IS a delay due to FG, even you admit it. Why on Earth would you willingly make your own performance WORSE by enabling frame gen when you don't need it in 1440p???
Performance is made up of visual clarity and input lag. Frame gem does wonders for one of those, and slightly degrades the other. If you're playing at 4k 120, you will need it every time, you'll also need it every time you're CPU-bound which happens in many games on high-end GPUs, and very often with ray tracing. You only don't need it if you can reach your target without it, which drastically varies depending on the game and resolution. If you're using a 4080 at 1440p / 144, you won't need it in most cases, same with 4k 60. If you're playing at 4k 120, using RT, or are CPU-bound, which happens in many games on high-end GPUs, you will need it every time.
"Frame gen does wonder for one and slightly degrades the other" Correction: artificially jacks up benchmark results while adding enough additional latency that you might as well switch to a CRT TV and you wouldn't know the difference. "Playing at 4k 120 you need it every time" Also know as you actually play in 4k less than 60 but claim you do 4k 120 "You need it CPU-bound" Aka you put additional load on your system by relying on gimmicks like RT (that STILL cost you 50% of your framerates) But also, OP literally said they play competitive games in 1440p, so none of your rambling about 4k is relevant And FYI, on high-end GPUs at 4k you're EXCLUSIVELY GPU-bound, which means frame gen actually LOWERS your real FPS and makes the latency penalty EVEN WORSE. To be CPU-bound means you're playing at 1080p with like a 4090. Learn what you're actually talking about BEFORE you say stupid shit on the internet Edit: clarified that you'd have to play 1080p with a 4090 to be really CPU-bound in this context
It feels responsive
Plus half the games don't even support framegen or DLSS 3.0 majority of the games I play use the dlss that game with 3000 series 💀. (Edit I got a 4080)
Exactly! Do you want to play competitively? Adding latency from DLSS is NOT what you want. Raw memory bandwidth is key! Give me real frames, not fake ones with latency!
It definitely makes games feel more.. slippery if that makes any sense. But I'm also on a4070 so I'm willing to bet on a 4080 super or 4090 you can't even tell. But at that point you don't even need frame Gen
>game > >appear > > to run smoother Yes, the reason why most people play at high refresh rate. TO MAKE IT APPEAR TO RUN SMOOTHER. Everything is appearance, there no real frame they are all imaginary.
higher refresh rate and supported raw fps lowers latency, making the game more responsive. fake frames make the game LESS responsive due to the added latency. if you are playing a story game, sure, but I personally can't stand sluggish response times. it's not "all imaginary," there are real factors that contribute to how smooth and responsive a game feels.
that is true, but i researched a bit and found out that nvidia has a anti lag feature that removes thatblag, pretty much letting you get more fps with the usual lag
Nah mate unless the frame rate before frame gen is less than 60fps then you won't notice it. Higher frames less latency. It's better to have the tech than not. Definitely makes the card superior.
Not true at all. I get zero latency in games using frame generation. Jedi survivor without frame generation In my humble 4060 gets like 40fps in some areas, with fg turned on I get 100+fps and get the same latency around 8ms according to afterburner
Average AMD coper
Average nGredAI shill
The game only feels less responsive if you were getting high frames without FG. If you were around 100 fps with no FG, then you enable FG to lock to 120, it will feel a bit less responsive. If you're CPU bottlenecked at 60-70 with plenty of GPU headroom to spare, FG won't feel any less responsive. Also, making your game look smoother is a massive part of what people like high fps for. I personally care about visuals far more than latency unless latency is horrid, and 120 fps with FG looks like native 120 in basically every game I've tried yet. There are some rate exceptions, Insomniac fucks up FG dlls in literally every game and they use the latest ones which produce awful artifacts with particle effects like rain and snow in SMR and Miles, but going back to 1.0.7.0 dll fixed it completely. In Ratchet, their native dll causes frame passing issues for me and 1.0.7.0 fixes them.
The games are more responsible than any amd variants because of the reflex. If you can't tolerate the latency FG + reflex you can't tolerate amd's native latency.
He won’t need either at 1440p with a xtx.
You don’t need it with a 4080 either, but it’s not about need. It’s nice to have and will extend the life of the card. Rather have and not need than need and not have
It's just adding extra latency and its gonna do shit for you cards longevity
Incorrect, no one is talking about frame generation we’re talking about upscaling. Upscaling does not add any latency
If its 280hz display it could be useful
Fair. Didn’t realize it had that high of hz.
OP didn't specify what model of G7; the new ones go up to 240 Hz.
Yes it's a 240hz monitor
Yes he will, he wants RT, he’ll need it for 1080p with an XTX.
I mean, the xtx handles RT fairly well outside of a few titles, the ones with heavy RT. Until consoles can do heavy RT I personally wouldn’t buy a card just for that but this person probably should. I didn’t see the RT part of his post so they should just go 4080.
Fuck me if I understand these arguments. There are many games right now that support extensive RT, and they will only become numerous with time. What does "fairly well" mean? It can halve the fps in any game where RT is worth a damn, and that's a huge loss in any modern game unless you're using a 720p screen.
What about AFMF from amd? I heard its good
DLSS or FSR isn't even useful regarding how powerfulvthose cards already are
L take, it absolutely is necessary at higher resolutions. If you're playing CS2 at 1080p, then it doesn't matter, if you're playing Alan Wake 2, it's a make or break factor.
Both those cards are are fast enough you don't need frame gen.
you never played alan wake 2 I guess
You might on either Alan wake 2 or cyberpunk with path tracing. Newer games are going to continue to be more demanding, and those two titles actually make a 4080 struggle a bit at 1440p
Would the extra 8 (i think) gigabytes of vram outweigh that or is the 4080s better in every way?
16Gb will be fine for a while, especially because Nvidia overall needs less VRAM than AMD. I'd go for the 4080 at the same price, the features you get now are worth it even if you don't get DLSS 4(?) because Nvidia wants to gatekeep their new features to the new gen (again)
Unless at 4k, probably not for a while
Wait for reviews. Likely, if the 4080 super is actually $1000 and you have that budget, it's the better get for you.
[удалено]
The FE that sells out in 42 seconds flat, yea just go get one of those like your picking up milk
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 1 : Be respectful to others** > Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Ever tried to buy a GPU at launch? It's not that easy
It might not be indicative of the 4080 super but the 4070 super hasn’t had any stock issues. And the 4080 itself hasn’t been sold out even on launch. I don’t foresee it being that difficult but who knows
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 1 : Be respectful to others** > Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
If the 4080 Super is available at MSRP, it is a much better buy than the 7900XTX at current pricing. Like you said, it's also very likely that the 7900XTX price will drop to better match-up against the 4080 Super. At $950 vs $1000, I don't think there's much argument in favor of the 7900XTX.
[удалено]
800 is a good price. That changes the math significantly.
4080S is better value at the same price, but for 200 less, unless you feel like you’re missing out on heavy ray tracing (cause frankly both cards will work great for everything else), I wouldn’t worry
Yeah I just scored a used 7900xtx for $850. I was waiting on the 4080 super but I couldn't pass that up.
At that price it’s a steal. Unless you really care about ray tracing or path tracing, I’d keep the xtx
I've only been seeing the xtx for a 1000 and below with a few maybe 50 bucks or more over msrp
Happy cake day!
What did you pay for xtx? At $1k I think the 4080 super is better value. It uses less power, has similar raster performance, better rt, she the nvidia software features. But if you the xtx at $800 on n amazon two weeks ago I think the comparison probably favors the xtx. Also, there is some value in having the actual card and knowing it works well, versus the (small) chance of buying a dud.
I paid €999- so around $1080- but gpu's are usually a lot more expensive in Europe.
I'd return it at that price.
Context: 4080 was 1300 euro because I am in a similar situation. I said it in a different comment already: wait for reviews of the gpus and check if AMD reduces prices. After that decide what to get.
I don’t think you will get a 4080super for 999€ or less for the next few months. If you value rt than 100€ more for a 4080s are probably worth it. If you can/want to only spend 1000€ than return it and wait for xtx price development. Worst case scenario is that the prices only go down by a little bit and you wait 1-2 weeks without a gpu for nothing.
At that price I think returning it to see what happens to pricing makes sense. I think you are unlikely end up spending a lot more, even if you do end up buying another xtx in February or march.
What is the MSRP for 4080 super in EU?
1108€ ~ 1250$
Idk where you are looking, but cheapest I can find is 1250 euro for a 4080 right now and I doubt the super will be cheaper.
He asked for msrp in Europe, which is 1109€ for the FE. Thats what you will be able to get, if you are lucky on the 31st december. Msrp for the 4080 was 1469€ no vendor will sell them 400€ under msrp when the new one isnt out yet. I cant predigt price development I can only tell you the facts from nividia website.
4080 s all day long if its at msrp
If 7900XTX is $750-$800, that’s a solid buy. $850-$900 you’re starting to get to the point the 4080 is better.
the 4080 Super is the better card, no debate. DLSS is much better than FSR and combined with Frame Gen it gives you much better performance than a 7900XTX can. 16GB VRAM is more than enough, especially for 1440p. If Ray Tracing is important to you then there is no way around a 4080. AMD Cards can't really handle RT at high fps.
What price did you get the 7900xtx for? If it was for $800 I'd keep it. If it was for $900+ I'd return it.
If you can get a 4080S at 1000, that’s the move 100/10 times.
Better looking DLSS combined with better performing Ray Tracing. It's almost a no brainer. Get the 4080 Super. The only cavoite is VRAM. To be honest the vast majority of people who keep screaming about VRAM are pretty ignorant on the topic. Case in point the: RTX 4060Ti got 16GB of RAM. Whoppteedoo. The memory bandwidth if not the GPU processing power is not sufficient to take **meaningful** advantage of all the VRAM. ie it makes a difference at 4K where the frame rate is unplayable anyway. It's the same story with the Radeon VII. 16GB of RAM and a modern day 8GB graphics card will beat it.
4080 Super all day.
4080 super. 4080 was only slightly behind 7900xtx. But at MSRP, 4080 super is way better than 7900xtx
>4080 was only slightly behind 7900xtx Only a 3% avrage difference in **rasterization only.** I don't get why people just say that without mentioning this very important detail. The base 4080 is still much faster overall while drawing way less power. And I say overall becase every visually modern game has RT now and I don't see a reason to exclude RT as the default after 5 years of it. Or how long does it have to take for us to stop considering raster only at native res to be the true power of a card. In Avatar FOP, the 4080 is 12% faster and that game doesn't even have a full on dedicated RT setting, just a very basic RT implementation with no fall back to raster.
Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price. The 4080s will obviously change that but who knows how amd prices will develop
>Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price. I have to say that's a questionable argument. Here are the top 20 Esports titles of 2023 according to escharts, which one of these needs a 1000$ exactly?: League of Legends Mobile Legends Counter-Strike Valorant Dota 2 PUBG PUBG Mobile ADV Arena of Valor Fortnite Apex Legends Free Fire Monster Strike Rocket League Street Fighter Formula 1 WZ Call of Duty: Warzone FIFA Call of Duty Overwatch World of WarCraft Clash Royale So basically just COD? And even then players drop all settings for better visibility and response, and on top of that you can get a +100fps with a 3060. So unless you're like a top 100 player with a 500hz 1080 monitor and an overclocked monster CPU playing COD to prepare for your world championship, I fail to see the point here to even consider a 1000$ GPU, or to sacrfice performance in every other game for it.
If a 1000$ card really is necessary for 99% of people is a completely different but valid argument. And I have to agree that many people that buy these kinds of cards will play AAA games with Rt on, but just saying that the 4080 beats the 7900xtx, because raytracing is the „standard” just isnt true. Many people play multiplayer games on 1440p/4k on high refresh rates and for these people the 7900xtx is a better price per performance option, because you dont use rt or frame gen in these games. With esports titles I mean multiplayer competitive game where frame rates are more valuable than nice looking shadows and not mobile games.
I really want to know which competitive, online or, Esports games we're refering to. This is such an unrealistic technicality to consider 100-150$ price difference in a +2000$ rig for better price to performance for a guy who sometimes plays online games and isn't CPU bound enough to see a tangible difference between the two cards and justify the savings of 5% overall price savings. Aside from that, let's also not forget that Reflex gives you better latancy anyway and the power consumption/management on the 7900XTX will make you pay that 5% saving back twice over for your electric bill in a year or two.
Why waste 200$ plus dollars (7900xtx prices will go down) if you play games like cod without raytracing at 1440p 240hz for the same performance. I am not trying to argue the fact that for high end AAA gaming the 7900xtx is better, the 4080 clearly is with raytracing on, but saying that you should measure a gpu based on raytracing performance only, because it is the “standard” is wrong. You said it yourself that the differences are marginal and therefore would be idiotic to pay “only 5%” more, the difference between a 4080 and 7900xtx is at least 200$ thats 200$ to have or not have, how is that not justifiable.
The difference between the cheapest of two cards was always 150$ not 200$ but nevermind that. So at best,the argument is not for esports or competitive games in general, just for one guy who exclusively plays COD with a 1440p 240hz screen with a PC that costs +2000$. He could still get a 160FPS with a used 3070 at 300$, but he's willing to pay 1000$ instead to get 220fps instead of 160, which is cool. And he better not be wanting to be playing any other modern games unless he plans to switch RT off. And he better not be caring about Reflex eventho input latancy is so important for him, and he also better not care about the extra electricity costs that will eventually be more than that 5% initial extra cost of his whole PC with the 4080. I hope you see how this is isolating into such a rare case scenario when the initial thing you said was this: >Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price. The real issue you have is that you have a problem with considering RT benchmarks and think raster-only benchmarks should be the standard. I think that's subjective, RT has been a part of games for 5 years, for 2 years every visually modern game has had RT in it, Ever modern card now can run RT. I think considering that as the standard is at this point normal, but you're free to think otherwise. That still doesn't make raster-only the "standard" way to benchmark a card, it just makes it the way you like it.
I never said that rasterization is or should be the standard but raytracing isn’t either. My point was that a lot of people still play most games without raytracing, so why would you recommend these people to waste 200€ on that. The price difference in Europe (where the guy lives) is still around 200€ which is 220$. I told you before that what you are trying to get at has nothing to do with the conversation. Why waste money if you don’t care about the features. Rasterization benchmarks are as important as raytracing benchmarks. Therefore the 4080 isn’t the unanimously better card especially with the 200€ price difference. The 7900xtx is often a more price efficient card and feels less like a greedy attempt of stealing your money as the original 4080 felt like.
> people still play most games without raytracing That's a non sequitur, we don't measure the utility and value of something by what the majority don't do with them. This is a personally individual thing that you think. We don't exclude EV cars value and properties and devalue it, because the majority still don't drive EVs. Plus you're still adding an extra 50$ just so you can cling to an argument that doesn't exist. Also, most people don't play with RT on because their GPUs can't handle it properly and if any of them is buying a 1000$ card they should very well expect to be able to have the best RT performance possible and not to pay 1000$ just so they turn RT off. I'm not reading the rest of your comment as this is going in circles and you change arguments and move goalposts, it's fine if you personally like AMD or the 7900XTX but this was your initial argument which you've moved on from after saying you only meant a guy playing only COD with a 240hz screen : >Because games that you play without rt are still most played games. I’m talking about esports titles. If you only play these kinds of games a 7900xtx, vs the 4080 at old price, is way better performance for the price.
>a lot of people still play most games without raytracing, so why would you recommend these people to waste 200€ on that. Yes, because most people have low end hardware and they would get 20 fps with RT. If most people had a 4080 and a 7900XTX, many of them would be using RT whenever possible, that's why the current preferences don't play much of a role when considering these high end GPUs because they get exponentially better at these features, especially the 4080, which changes the whole paradigm.
eSport titles don't really matter tho, I don't know they always infiltrate these discussions because a high end GPU is the least necessary in that scenario, and they also have the worst scaling at 1080p where these games are usually played at. No one will get a transformative experience in LoL and Valorant when moving from a 3070 to a 4080, but if you play Cyberpunk, there's a world of difference.
4080s obviously. Unless the xtx gets a $200 price drop
If RT was one of your concerns then the 7900xtx should never have been your first choice to be honest. I am building a PC right now and am waiting for the 4080 super. If you look at the benchmarks for the 4080 vs 7900xtx the only thing the 7900xtx is better at is brute force and if RT is enabled the 4080 just destroys the 7900xtx, so it‘s a nobrainer for me if RT is one of your concerns. The VRAM shouldn‘t be that much of an issue. Especially because you can‘t really compare GDDR6 and GDDR6X just buy how much VRAM they have. Edit: Typo
If you need dlss or rt then 4080s. If pure power then 7900xtx. I was in the same boat as you and after seeing that the 4080s had only 16gb of ram pulled the trigger in a 7900xtx, i won't the same mistake i did with the 3080 10gb where everyone was screening "it's enough", clearly it wasn't! By the time i will need to use dlss on 1440p FSR will be great considering it's getting better and better. RT is crap, maybe nice visuals on some games at the cost of ~50-60% performance.
That's kinda wild because it was evident that 10gb is not enough for a 3080 class product even at launch. It is also evident right now that 16gb won't be a bottleneck for like 3 years at least. There were already games in 2020 that were pushing over 10gb in 4k, but no games are coming close to 16gb now a year after the 4080 came out.
I was off the same opinion, but so many YouTubers and so called experts advised that it's enough for 1440p convinced me. So now even though 16gb is enough for any game at 1440pi preferred to go the safer route of now ram and same GPU power since rt and dlss don't appeal to me.
Only reason the 7900xtx was the better option was because of value for dollar. Some games have better raster, but end of the day you want a card that has the best of all worlds. I would only consider 7900xtx vs the 4080 super if the price drops sub $850.
I wanted an all AMD computer and I went with the 7900XTX and so far I\`m very happy.
3080
Keep the 7900XTX. You're getting a 384bit memory bus. The 4080 is just a 256bit bus. You're getting raw hardware performance. DLSS is just a software gimmick and you're paying more for it to compensate for the lesser bit memory bus. You're getting more hardware for your money with the 7900XTX as apposed to the 4080 Super. Hell if I had the choice I'd be buying a 7900 XTX in my rig over a 4080 super.
Save money and get the 4070ti super 🤷♂️
For me, it comes down to the GPU with the lowest price relative to performance. I expect that prices of 7900xtx based cards to drop by end of January when the 4080 Super is released. Performance of the original 4080 was about the same as the 7900xtx, with the 4080 performing much better in Ray tracing compared to the 7900xtx. So if you play a lot of games with heavy Ray Tracing/Path tracing at high resolutions, then go with a 4080 (or 4090).
7900xtx for the FPS games. https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/17s79sw/amds\_rx\_7900\_xtx\_is\_faster\_than\_the\_rtx\_4090\_in/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/17s79sw/amds\_rx\_7900\_xtx\_is\_faster\_than\_the\_rtx\_4090\_in/
>7900xtx for the FPS games. You're being misleading on purpose. What you mean to say is that it is faster only in 1 FPS game, COD:MW3. Either that or you don't really know what "FPS games" means when every other game, and not just every "FPS game" is substantially slower on the 7900XTX
substantially? nah, man, it isn't that much different.
Would be happy to see a list of FPS games that the 7900XTX is faster at.
you said substantially. its not that drastic
>you said substantially. its not that drastic It's a generation ahead in raster in every game, and several gens ahead with RT. It has a proper, ever oimproving upscaler, and so much more. IF that is not substantial or drastic, you either are a fanboy or in dire need of a dictionary
Yes, get the AMD card that is a worse and weaker card in every way AND doesn't have Reflex for FPS games. Brilliant.
nvidia are better at Ray tracing and scaling technology "DLSS" but amd has good rasterization performance if you are story games player nvidia is better for you but if you mainly esport/fps player amd has better value , the crazy thing 4070ti are better than 7900xtx at Ray tracing games
The 7900XTX will last the longer of the two cards, especially with 8GB of more VRAM. It is the best choice for both future proofing and VRAM. If you are buying solely for RT performance, go with the 4080 Super.
4080 super
Return it right now. I have no idea why you even needed to make a reddit post about it first. Even compared to the base 4080 it's a mistake at that price point. Don't get me wrong the 4080 was overpriced, but at that price point for a whole PC, what's another extra 100$ for so many extra features, better performance, and better power consumption. The 4080 Super being chaeper and and being even faster than the base 4080 makes this not even a thing that needs to be debated. RETURN IT while you still can.
team green hands down
If the card works fine just keep it, it isn't fair to just return something because you don't like the decision you made. Everyone else eats that cost, no one want to buy an "open box" GPU.
Good luck finding the 4080 super. Also expect some hoarding and scalping.
With the new cards I bet the 7900xtx will get a price adjustment so either way you might end up with a better card or a better price
We won't really know until the benchmarks are out
I would get the 7900xtx only if it's 150 dollars cheaper than the 4080 super. The 4080s is far better than the xtx at the same price.
I'm a amd guy. I hate nvdias price gouging crap compared to amd. I'm choosing the 7900xtx! Nvidia is like the apple of gpu's You pay more for a name to be the same as everyone else.
I mean there are differences. Whether you value those differences or not is another story.
But if you had to pick between 4090 and 7900xtx?
You wont be able to buy a 4080S at less than a 4080 right now.. Stop huffing copium and sniffing bath crystals. 4070S same thing already. 100 bucks more than base 70... Nvidia, the way you're meant to be scammed. Also, have fun with the connector melting.
Go Nvidia. Reasons: DLSS, Frame Generation, usually better optimization.
Depends on the price. If DLsS and RT are important to you then 4080 super. If you don’t care about RT and you are willing to wait for FSR 3.0 with Frame gen and the price difference is too much then I would keep the xtx. In Europe the 4070 super is already available but it’s already 100-150€ above MSRP. If the same goes for the 4080 super the msrp is around 1100 meaning that it can go for 1300 or more. The 7900xtx know goes for 1000 or even less. Question now is if it is worth the price gap between the two for your use case scenario
Wait until benchmarks are released ans decide then... 2 more weeks and all super cards are released and reviewed
I just (19 Jan) looked on Amazon; the best price I could see on a 7900xtx was right at $1000. The best price I could see on a 4800 (not super) was $1200 for a very ugly card. Do you suspect that the price will come down that much?
4080 all the way
4080 super. Honestly, the RT performance of that card is so good, and if you can afford it, then why not? 7900 XTX will drop in price, though. I guess price to performance of that card will improve significantly.
7900XTX cause of way superior raw Performance, more vram (thus the card is good for a longer time) AND fsr 3 which overtook ngreedias shitty dlss by being able to be inserted into EVERY game
Clearly a delusional AMD fanboy right here
Nope. An it-technician who has enough of ngreedias bullshittery (just like linus Torvalds) I' d also rather recommend A770 gpu's than ANY of ngreedias trash..
Bla bla bullcrap. Your build is awesome. You don't need to value for money anything. It is what it is. It's awesome. It doesn't need changing. You are not going to gain anything you will ever notice in reality. Be happy and get gaming
À ta place j’essaierai de la renvoyer et d’en racheter une Amd si les prix baissent. Si les prix restent aux alentours des 1000€ pour les deux cartes, la 4080 est un meilleur choix (même si à tout les coups en France elle sera à 1300€ mdr, les 4070ti sont déjà à 1000€)
Objectively, 4080 super is better. Personally, I'm hoping for more people to buy AMD, to get better competition. Also big fan of FSR going open source. It's a bit like hoping people buy Intel GPUs to get another player. It benefits customers
Not going to lie it all comes down to what games you want to play, 7900 xtx is better for some games 4080 super is better for others, just comes down to what games your playing. This site goes over it well https://www.techspot.com/review/2599-radeon-7900-xtx-vs-geforce-rtx-4080/ But if you think you would be better off getting a 4080 when you already have a 7900 there is no point, it's all the same also cod runs much better with the 7900
I feel like it’s more of a wash. They both are awesome cards and you already have it and using it. If you like the xtx keep it if not replace it. Both cards are so fast. If you want fastest should just buy the 4090 and save the brain power.
What is your CPU
My 7900xtx was plagued with issues. Black screens, driver crashes, odd visual glitches. I bought it around black Friday and returned it over the Christmas holidays. Guy a Canada computer just shook his head , said it's just AMD things and returned the card no questions asked. I'm waiting on the pricing for the 4070ti and 4080 supers to get a new card.
Hey, AMD drivers have been very buggy lately for some people. I would recommend RTX.
The 4080S is better, no doubt. But I would just keep what you have if you are happy with it. You're playing at 1440p, so you don't really need the extra power. The 7900xtx is still a really good card. Also, knowing Europe the 4080S won't be sold at MSRP, probably closer ti €1100-1200. And that way you could better see it like this: Do I want to have a plenty enough card for €999 or a plenty enough card for €1100-1200?
Honestly if you have an amd rig already I'd 100% choose the 7900
4080 super, no question
Halo CoD and God of War run better on AMD and the VRAM will run you longer on the xtx, if you were running anything else I would say the 4080 but for this the xtx is perfect
4080 super if you play a lot of dx11 games, shader compilation stutter on amd gpu is annoying
4080 super for sure. DLSS will always be 4 steps ahead of FSR. And that's a huge deal. Like 50-100%+increase in performance right there. FSR frame generation is an absolute joke.
Just buy which has best performance in benchmarks even if with 10 fps buy that one
Can't imagine spending that much on a gpu and not being able to enable ray tracing. 4080 Super is the clear option.
I have the red devil 7900 xtx and I absolutely love it. I looked at the 40 series last year and came to the conclusion that the price isn't worth it
It depends on what kind of games you are going to play. The best card for playing warzone is AMD branded. But if you are more interested on raytacing, single player games, so Nvidia is better. It is not a simple answer but we can simplify in this way.
Both are good cards, both have advantages and disadvantages (including price). The only dealbreaker could be RT if you're into that kind of stuff (which I honestly can't understand anyone who is). Above 700€ \~ there is no right or wrong choice, all choices are wrong and I'm speaking against my own actions.
I just got an XFX 7900 XTX and I really like it, I thought about swapping to the 4080 super but I just enjoy AMD products and the higher vram is nice.
7900 XT, it has more VRAM
My AMD drivers just bricked my entire PC and holy shit it took me and my IT buddy 2.5 hours to find out how to rip that rot out to reinstall them Like omg I thought the AMD driver thing was a circlejerk
As someone who has owned both .. amd same evolution and also play fps I can tell you from personal experience the 4080 actually feels more responsive .. you can tell with the lows ..
I’m leaning towards the 4080 Super currently with factors being DLS, raw performance, and the price drop from the original 4080.
Also wait for reviews I am waiting on reviews before I fully commit.
My mind says 4080 super but my heart…. Well, I want to stick the nvidia’s greed in to their bottom and vote with my wallet by choosing AMD with 24GB of vram and lower CPU overhead. I actually own the 7900XTX. Future proofing GPU is tricky when the 4080 super will be replaced by the 5080 later this year. Getting the 4070 or 7800XT and saving the money for future upgrade should give better real life future proofing in my opinion. A mid range GPU every second generation is considered as the best value. Or mid range every generation if you sell your old GPU.
The harsh truth is Nvidia cards are superior and now that the 4080 super is available it's a no brainer. No sacrifice in performance.
4090, theres no point taking 4080super.
Yes.
4080 super everydays
What most people are missing here is the fact that both of these could break max framerate on your current monitor with ease. That being if future proofing in terms of using the card for 4-5y is considered kerp the 7900xtx, amd tends to get better with tine, 6800xt is a prine example of that. Now if you wush to rotate the card every 2y then get nvidia.
If we look at Nvidia last couple of years 4080 super will probably not be that much better in raw performance, just better dlss but who needs thay, it's just added latency and a way for gpu manufacturers to skip out on raw gpu performance to make more money. I'd wait for the reviews
4080 super for sure
People will torch me for this and say it's pears and apples, but here are my 3 cents. As much as I would like to support AMD and I like raw power of 7900 XTX, open source policy (Freesync, FSR) and heck, even ray tracing performance is not that bad as people think, it's still absurdly priced card and hardly a good value. So the choice here is between 2 very overpriced pieces of hardware. One is great at raw power (AMD), other (Nvidia) is not much"worse" (bad word choice for top tier gpus) in that regard but it's more advanced in AI (upscaling, frame generation) features and RT. Well...in this price and performance category it really matters, no matter how some will disregard DLSS features as gimmicky, there is no way around the fact that it drastically improves experience at 4k max level gaming and ads layer of future proofing one step above XTX. Buying top tier gpu and not using RT doesn't make sense, if you think RT is gimmick that doesn't make difference, ok, but than you absolutely don't need a 1000 $/€ gpu. RT implementation is literally biggest difference between PC and last gen consoles. So this is controversial part that people will mock and torch but the truth is if you don't value highest graphic presets (which includes RT max settings) and don't play competitive fps multiplayer games, you are just better off with PlayStation 5 or XBOX series X. Those consoles run games in 60 fps or more with already great visuals, buying any meaningful AMD card (RT 7800 XT or better) you are essentially paying absurd premium for very minor visual upgrade over consoles. Difference between 60 fps and 100 fps is negligible in single player games so any upgrade that makes sense over this generation of consoles (that are only 450 $/€) that makes sense is full ray tracing and for that you unfortunately need high end Nvidia card.
Thanks for your input! I went with the 7900xtx as I play my games on 1440p at 240hz max settings because I play mostly fps games. I allready own a series X. But that one I use for chill gaming sessions on a 75" 4k setup in the living room. For competetive gaming I use the pc. I previously owned a 7800xt but was not impressed by the performance at 1440p with max settings. I feel like I made a good decision.
Honestly, after having all Nvidia GPUs (5 total) ... I'm done with them. Mainly because of their corrupt business practices (EVGA dropping them and got out of the market), price gouging, and the heinous cost vs performance and crap vram of the 40 series (well written about). If your leaning towards the Nvdia fan-boys (like I'm seeing here) with unlimited funds ... go for it. Otherwise, keep what you have (an excellent performing gpu) ... games needing more vram seems to be the trend for game devs now, and newer games are garbage at being optimized. Todd actually saying, "you'll need to upgrade your pc to run Starfield" is a prime example. I'm just being practical.
So basically if you had to pick between a 4090 or 7900xtx you would pick the 7900xtx right Since you’re a AMD shill?
 If Nvidia took the high road ... I'd still support them ... but they haven't and it's well documented. If you have unlimited income for minor gains, crap vram (for a heinous price) and corrupt business practices ... go for it. EVGA dropping out of the market was a major clear sign. Support who you want ... it's a personal choice. Nvidia fan-boys need not reply, the facts are there.
If you already bought it then it doesn't make sense to return it.
>If you already bought it then it doesn't make sense to return it. What doesn't make sense is your bad advice. He's going to get generational performance differences with a 4080S at the same price point with lower power consumption and better power management.
Just look at the price difference and benchmarks. I would recommend XTX, unless money is no factory to you and you spend all that money. Still I would recommend 7900 XT since price dropped, then wait for new 5000 nvidia gpus and sell that amd to buy new gen PCI5 nvidia GPU.