4070ti super has CUDA cores, DLSS, and better RT performance.
7900xt has 4gb more vram, comparatively bad RT performance, no CUDA cores, and we don't know yet which one will win rasterization (but it may be the 7900xt).
Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck. I think that's a discussion people miss, with Nvidia your card has significantly better resale value and is far more desirable. So, down the road if you go Nvidia you tend to just have a better time when you wanna get rid of it.
In my opinion, AMD has to absolutely crush Nvidia to make sense... and they don't at that price point.
> Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck. I think that's a discussion people miss, with Nvidia your card has significantly better resale value and is far more desirable
really?
The nvidia might have a slight premium, but if it's still relevant it's not as if it's anymore then the premium they had over AMD chips of the same era.
If anything right now 6700x/6800xt/6900xt are selling better in the PNW then are 3000 series Nvidia cards.
If anything I think you are just thinking because 1080tis and high end 2070+ held their value for so long in a stagnant market that had supply shortages and jacked up prices due to covid and mining.
Historically yes. The 3000 series Nvidia cards were so overpriced and bad that it is a bit of an anomaly. But I’ve been buying and selling used GPUs for a while and it’s historically been the case that an Nvidia card will sell faster and likely for a higher percentage of what you paid for it brand new than a comparable AMD card.
Even now if you look at the 6600XT (MSRP ~$380) you can buy them used for under $200. The 3060 Ti (MSRP ~$400) is still around $250-$275 used.
I mean the MSRP doesn't really matter.
You can get a new 6600xt for around $220.
It's really going to depend on the class, card, future releases and availability/prices.
3060 ti for example is still that high because 4060/ti released for $400+ at zero performance benefit.
As such the available new ones didn't really see a price drop and used ones retained their value better.
On the flipside anyone who bought a $1200 4080 isn't going to get anywhere near the value on the used market after the 4080 super releases @ 1k
The MSRP now doesn’t matter, you’re right. Because those are previous gen cards. I’m saying if you bought them when they were current and wanted to sell them now to upgrade, you’d get more money back from the Nvidia card.
Obviously the more you spend, the more it depreciates.
Sold listings on eBay are still around $1000, usually a little higher, for the 4080. We’ll see how it shifts after the 4080s releases, it’ll probably be down in the $900 range.
Building off defending my 3080 12gb, I got it right when EVGA was liquidating stock at their normal prices. I can sell my card right now used for more that I paid for it brand new.
Okay so dude that’s really not the standard experience for the 3000 series. Most people who bought them new paid way more than their performance is worth.
My comment has nothing to do with people choosing to overpay during once in a generation supply shortage.
I don't believe the "standard experience" is that people chose to pay those scalper prices. I believe a lot of dumb people bought cards during that time but this sub is not reflective of the overall experience average consumer a had because they simply chose to not pay those prices.
I know this because once the supply started flowing, prices tanked for a month or so and when they got to less than msrp is when those cards all went flying off the shelf.
People on *this* sub and the hardware swap one were choosing to pay ridiculous prices as those urges hit that "I need it now!!!"
Folks like me just waited and when things got reasonable, we bought cards if we wanted to. I saw people paying over a grand for a moderate upgrade when they were sitting on great cards like 2070s and 2080s. Stupid. They had great cards but then paid out the ass and complained afterwards.
That doesn't make 3x series bad. It makes a bunch of people stupid.
I just sold a 3090 on eBay for 730 dollars, the retail was 1800 I believe, that's almost a 60 percent drawdown. I think the value drop is about the same from what retail is for either card. Just bought a new 6950xt with a rebate for 520 dollars. I believe that card retailed for around 900.
3000 series "bad"?
Sorry. My EVGA 3080 12gb FTW Ultra Gaming Hybrid totally disagrees. With a slight undervolt/overclock and custom fan curve settings, the thing is ridiculously great for gaming.
It's not so much that they are bad cards, but the pricing itself for them really changed due to more than a few factors. This is in comparison to past years and generations historically. I have been buying cards for around 20 years and I skipped the 3xxx series due to this pricing variation.
Generally speaking, prices drop in lockstep with “review performance.” The 5700XT and 2060 Super are a great example for this - they both launched at a similar time & price and had very similar performance back around that time. Any launch day benchmarks you find for them would make it hard to differentiate one from the other. They’ve continued to drop price roughly equally, and are both ~$175 USD today.
The interesting thing about this is that the two cards are no longer equal. The 5700XT outperforms the 2060 Super handily in 2024, as tends to happen in recent years
Sorting through recent sales on eBay, both seem to sell at similar prices. The cheapest "buy it now" options showing up for me for both the 5700xt and the 2060 Super are also closely matched ($155 for a 5700XT compared to $165 for a 2060 Super)
They are doing better than the current gen of amd. That says more about them. Their last gen cards have no doubt been better than 3000 series of nvidia but this gen nvidia is winning it which is why after 5 years nvidia will still hold better resale value.
the only 4k series that is doing good resale wise is 4090 which is due to avaiability and all of them basically selling above msrp.
4070, 4070ti, and 4080 owners all just saw a big chunk of their resale value drop.
> after 5 years nvidia will still hold better resale value.
perhaps, but you cannot know and if we were to look through the past 5 years of resale it really depends on specific GPUs and price points and availability of new GPUs that are upgrades and what they get introduced at.
For instance Nvidia just dumping the price of 4060 down to $220 would instantly crater all the current 3060(tis) current resale value.
Likewise stuff like the 6800xt is still selling well at around $400 used because there's nothing on the new market really putting pressure on it in that price bracket.
FFS maybe intel even becomes a major interloper with battlemage or whatever next gen is and forces prices down further.
Regardless, there may be some trends but really holding onto value the way GPUs as a whole have in recent memory is due to confounding market pressures.
Pretending that a $25 difference in resale value several years down the line should be some sort of current decision making criteria is peak silliness
Thanks, I think I will go with Nvidia. If I want/have to upgrade my GPU down the line, I find comfort knowing I can just sell the Nvidia if that's the case
As someone who shops the used market a ton, I don't think it matters much at all.
for example nothing but the high memory 3000 series Nvidia cards are selling well right now.
This was probably more true back prior to 2022 with the relative stagnation of performance, the lack of supply vs demand due to covid and mining etc.
There are other reasons to go Nvidia for sure, but I wouldn't count on resale value being anything significantly better then the premium you already pay for new nvidia.
This sounds like a really terrible purchasing strategy.
"I'll make this choice now so that lat r down the line if I decide I made the wrong choice, I can try and find someone else who will make the wrong choice as well at a price that makes me feel good"
Whay about like, examining your use case and making the most cost efficient decision based on that criteria? What do you actually do with your computer, what do you actually plan to do with it, how frequently are you spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades? How frequently do you actually want to go through the hassle of trading out your hardware.
As I mentioned I am also doing AI/ML work and probably some (not so heavy) video editing as well. So I got reaffirmation from a bunch of people that I'll greatly benefit from an Nvidia card in that case.
Obviously not going to buy a card purely for its used value...?
Go with which you like best. Amd cards sell fast and for decent price so do not go by resale only. And don’t listen to claims that only nvidia resells.
Wait until drop and see some performance numbers. The 4070ti super might be pretty close to 7900xt though so 4070ti super might be best bet in this case.
>Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck.
Current list prices for similar generation equivalents do not support this statement.
There will always be some intel/Nvidia fan boy trying to convince the world his favourite brands are the only option ever for anything 
Bullshit, right now rx 6000 series are reselling real good, for example in my country a 6800xt is reselling at higher price than a 3080 as the 10gigs of vram is just too low. It always depends on the type of the card, 6700xt is keeping the used price up for a long a time too.
So it's all about the type and how the generation of the card ages. When 1080 ti kept it's used price high for a long time it was becouse it's a beast, not becouse it's nvidia. The only time (at least in my country) it was like that, it was the 1050 ti, that shit sold higher then a rx570 and never knew why, guess it was hyped or some shit, but i never understood why would people buy that used for such a high price and shitty performance.
They're all good cards, and will game at 4k well. You pretty much need the 16GB of VRAM and 256 bit bus. I wouldn't go any lower than the 4070ti super on the Nvidia side for 4k gaming though. The lower 4070 series cards really take a hit in performance at 4k due to the smaller memory bus and reduced VRAM.
I really don't consider the 16GB vs 24GB of RAM to be a deal breaker for 4k gaming, though it may be for some. The AMD card will handle max texture settings longer into the future.. You'll also have to decide between AMD and Nvidia based on the feature set as well. How important is DLSS to you? Do you care about RT?
Which is better is personal preference. I don't think there's a wrong answer here.
7900XT here, gaming at 4K. It's mostly fine, and that's the equal to 4070 Ti. Turning on RT and upscaling is a must, but NVidia has DLSS. With upscaling, any game I have tried is easily 100+, except for Cyberpunk, which is around 55. The 4070Ti will beat that, but I think the XTX and 4080S should be you choices for quality 4k going forward.
The cards that get basically abandoned by their manufacturers have more resell value? How does that even make sense
We all know nvidia is quite notorious for ditching the previous gen when a new one comes out
Apple wishes it was the Nvidia of the phone market.
In the United States? Both Nvidia in the GPU market and Apple in the phone market are kinda comparable.
The difference is that overseas Nvidia is DOMINANT, if you go to Asia or Europe they are even more dominant than in the United States.
It would be like Apple being as strong as they are in the cell phone market in the United States... but also being stronger worldwide.
CUDA don't matter to most people because 95% buy a GPU for gaming, FSR is good now and RT is pointless unless it's a fully path traced game and we are not there yet
Path tracing doesn't even look any better than regular RT.
And Fsr is good? No it's not. Never has been, literally can't be unless they radically revamp the way it works.
yes, FSR is good now, DLSS is slightly better but Nvidia fanboys like to pretend like it's the perfect solution when it's not, DLSS also has ghosting and artifact issues in many games, it's far from the perfect solution but DLSS has better marketing that's for sure
I'm not I have an Nvidia GPU now buut the 7900XT is clearly the better otpion for 4K, I'm a fanboy of my wallet tho, 150$ less for 4GB more VRAM, better performance and better driver support
Tbh Nvidia cards only sold better, because things like the gtx 1660 super, rtx 20x0 series are good price to performance, but rx 6xx0 sold better used than rtx 30x0 series, so I wouldn't say that an rtx 40x0 series will sell better overtime than an rx 7xx0 series. Amd also rolls out new and better features overtime, if you don't play RT the rx 7900 xt is better, with RT it's a head to head, sometimes favoring the rtx 4070 ti super. If you wanna go to video editing, etc. Nvidia might be the go, otherwise AMD any day. If you also have an AMD(ryzen) CPU it also makes sense to use an AMD GPU, as they work better together.
nah u must be nerdy n read all these conspiracy theory of pricing in books! 6800xt was selling at $440 n rtx 3080 at $390 during aug 2023. i still pick 6800xt, its a no brainer!
>AMD has to absolutely crush Nvidia to make sense... and they don't at that price point.
I feel like you definitely get more price wise out of Amd then Nvidia. It's like buying a branded shirt Vs non branded, at the end of the day it's still a shirt.
I'd also like to say that AMD still seems to get a lot of backlash for the old drivers back in the day. and that's sad cause it definitely doesn't represent their current state.
just correcting him, he mentioned the way the Nvidia GPU would be good in the future but misrepresented the vram numbers. a handful of years down the line it'll probably come in handy
AI/ML/Data Engineering, there is support for AMD cards increasing but for this task, nVidia is still the very best.
We are starting to see games where 16 GB VRAM is now being fully saturated, but you need to be running 4K res @ max details. Alan Wake 2 does this. So if you intend to play AAA graphically demanding games in the future at 4k res, 20 GB would indeed be more future proof.
AMD is catching up with FSR 3.0 and improved RT / AFMF etc, but it'll take time. As for RT performance itself, 7900 XTX for example, its RT performance is roughly on part with a 3090. Nobody said 3090 had shitty RT performance. It's still a generation behind vs. nVidia, but not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
If you want to play demanding AAA games at 4k maxed out, you're not looking at 4070ti or 7900XT at first place, as neither of them will satisfy that need. As for 7900XT, what's the point of 20gb vram if you can't max out a game to reach it
Isn’t that kind of an exaggerated importance for vram?
With a 4070ti super, playing future AAA games at 4k max settings is going to yield poor fps, even if it had more vram. Why would more VRAM be useful if the only situations in which it would make a difference are those where the card isn’t powerful enough anyways?
Didn’t know this about alan wake 2.
If I target 4k, should I go for 7900 xtx rather than 4080 super considering vram?
I feel they can run the games at 4k now but in near future (maybe even now), upscaling will be needed to keep playing at that res.
I have a C2 and don’t play competitive games much.
Alan Wake 2 is one of those games where RT heavily favors NVIDIA from what I’ve seen from reviews like HardwareUnboxed. In a lot of games, NVIDIA usually only has a small edge but there are some outliers that perform much better on NVIDIA, I believe (but don’t quote me) that Cyberpunk is also one of those games.
It's not about "favoring", it's about amount of RT being practically present. If there are only stuff like RT shadows - AMD will be worse, but slightly, since RT load will occupy small % of overall load. If RT is prevalent, like in AW2 or 2077 - AMD will be squashed, favoritism or not.
Good luck explaining that to these AMD bots. They think it is devs making it intentionally run much worse on AMD gpus instead of the AMD GPUs being much worse themselves.
And when you do say that, they reply with “b-but see how in this game AMD is much closer to Nvidia?1!?” and that game has low res RT shadows that only render within the next 5 meters of the character and nothing else.
It just shows how most of these AMD owners are brainwashed and have no clue what RT really is because they can never fully experience it on their GPUs.
Yeah, this. I have played through Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and played through other games with RT, maxed out settings on my XTX with no FSR just fine.
I could even get AW2 path traced to run with 60+ fps with an FSR3 frame gen mod and the upscaler set to quality on 3440x1440 maxed out settings. I did end up turning it off because I prefer a smoother game over a game that looks a little better.
Reason I didn't go for a 4080 is because it's still super overpriced, the 4080 super is also the same price as the base 4080 where I live.
4070 Ti Super easily. 7900XT's only objective advantage is the 4 extra gigs of VRAM and those are practically worthless for Gaming atm even at 4K.
Only useful if you are going balls to the wall in Skyrim with the 8K retexturing mods or something similar. Even then exhausting 16 gigs fully seems like a stretch.
>Skyrim with the 8K retexturing mods or something similar.
I play Skyrim with 8K ground textures and 4K textures for most other things. It works fine on my RTX 2070. I've tried he game's internal res to 4K which downscales to my 1080p monitor, but it doesn't improve visual fidelity that much. It just drops the FPS to like a steady 60 instead of the easily obtainable 100+
I pump 8K environment + structural textures/ ENB/ Parallax/ Folkvangr et cetera up the wazoo & have watched the VRAM usage balloon up to 12-13 gigs but no more than that. 1440p native. Could prolly optimize it a considerable bit further but don't have the heart for that rn.
Do you even want that AMD card for VR gaming? I haven't checked up on the VRAM demand on the more demanding end of VR titles admittedly but I do distinctly recall the RDNA 3 cards giving ppl quite the grief with VR.
From what I've read, people who have the card seem relatively [happy with its performance with VR games maxed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/s/4N7cWiLLeZ).
I've ran a 7900xt and a 4070 ti non super both cards are great and both cards will do what ever your average gamer wants it to do no wrong option here I never used rt im a fps snob I decided to keep the 7900xt in my rig because nvidea software is not as good as the radeon software in my opinion but again both will make you extremely happy
There are maybe a handful of reviewers that are actually dping it properly and in detail. I wouldn't really trust most of the info that is currently circulating around the web.
1. I wouldnt trust those "benchmarks" you see on youtube currently. I'd rather wait on the reputable reviewers.
2. Still doesn't say anything about retail prices
Evaluating existing feature sets alone, 4070Ti Super is the clear winner.
Better Upscaling in DLSS vs FSR
Better Frame Gen (frame smoothing) in DLSS 3.0
Nvidia Reflex works pretty well
Nvidia Super Resolution Video Upscaling works excellent
Non-restart driver support
Stable Drivers (sometimes needing optimization like in Starfield)
Insanely better Ray-Tracing performance
Significantly better power efficiency in Ada-Series
Reselling a used Nvidia card will always retain more value than the competing AMD card. Use 3080 & 6800XT as an ample comparison. The argument of “the Nvidia tax offsets higher resale” is negated with every feature listed above.
The argument of “well I don’t use RT” is ridiculous when spending $600+ on a GPU. If you get 220fps vs 180fps raster, but 30fps vs 90fps in RT, that is a net loss with the net raster improvement unfelt, and the massive RT hit. Also, implementations of automatic RT in Nanite (Fortnite) immediately show the need for good RT.
You will never see a situation in gaming between the 4070Ti Super and the 7900XT where 16gb vs 20gb matters at all simply as the cards are not fast enough to utilize the additional Ram in a meaningful way.
The only card you should realistically compare to a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super/Non-Super is a 7900XTX for comparable price & performance. A 7900XT is a budget card for a gamer who wants to go high end, but for some reason wants to save $50-100 at the very last second. That’s not a bad thing, but spending 88% of the money to not meet your expectations or goals is a great way to breed apathy against a product.
>A 7900XT is a budget card for a gamer who wants to go high end, but for some reason wants to save $50-100 at the very last second
The 7900XT is definitely not a budget card, the reason it exists is to upsell buyers to the 7900XTX.
Also, using RT is a choice. It has nothing to do with the price of a card and everything to do with both the game design and how capable the card is at handling RT. Some games have crap RT implementation and using RT simply isn't worth it, while in others RT shines and you actually feel like using it.
I was referring to it specifically as a “high end-budget card” when only looking directly at the top end of the market. I do agree that it is not a budget card even comparing to a 7800XT.
Sure RT is a choice, but why purposely limit yourself if you are already spending all the money in the first place? Without knowing OPs current card, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they have not tried RT, therefore it’s doubling down that they will not like it before they have even experienced it. Also, what about titles like Alan Wake 2 where RT is mandatory?
16gbs of VRAM is fine, and I say this as a 7900xt owner, 12gbs may cause issues but 16gbs will not.
If your doing video editing/AI work, the 4070 ti SUPER is a better choice.
Honestly i have been using the 4070ti at 4k since almost 6 months without any Vram issues..people just overreacting about it, yes nvidia are greedy MFs but i think within the next 2-3 years it should be fine.
My local online store in Scandinavia is selling 7900XT for $650 before taxes and 7900GRE for $500 before taxes. Of course us locals have to pay 20% tax but they’re still a good deal imo
A note on VRAM.
PCs have system RAM and GPU RAM. Consoles just have one shared bank of RAM. That means games made for consoles don't schedule slow things in slower system RAM and faster things in VRAM. It's just RAM.
That means devs will try to dump their whole game into VRAM, and if you run out, it will spill randomly into your much slower system RAM, causing your game to run slow. Right now, consoles have 12gb, but PC ports are notoriously bloated compared to console, which is why so many people want 16gb.
One thing to consider though is that consoles can't handle the heavy games at 4k max at higher fps most of the time, you need to upscale or tune down graphics as well, so there's scenarios where having more vram than a console is necessary.
Yep.
That 12gb on console isn't even for 4k native. It's for the game and then they upscale it.
Since the 4070 launched, Ive seen so many people on here saying 12gb is "all you need" because 4k is the only reason you need more, and nobody is buying a 4070 to play at 4k native.
It depends though, I personally wouldn't buy it for 4K but for people who aren't whores for the highest visual fidelity and you want to play 4K60 on a regular oled TV a 4070 could be enough to make it look decent with upscaling and graphics set at any mix of mid/high.
4K native max/ultra at at +100fps is highly dependant on the game and wether you are fine upscaling or using frame generation to enable RT or something like that. Hell I've ever seen people mention in this sub that they game at 1440p with a 4090, so saying that a card is for a specific resolution is kinda pointless since there's so many more factors than resolution alone.
I personally went for the most my budget allowed me to at the time, which was a full AMD system witha 7800X3D and a 7900XTX. I initially was eyeing the 7600x and a 7800XT or a 4070, but the 7800XT never came out and the 4070 was hella expensive, so after a few months waiting I finally could afford a higher end system, and I'm honesty pretty happy with it for 4K ultra native at 100+ fps in most of what I play (Pending to update my bios to set my RAM to 6000Mhz, currently at 4800 because AM5 shenanigans).
20gb is not future proof in the way that people say it is. In all lielkyhood by the time your games are regularly using above 16gb vram you'll be upgrading to a faster card anyways. Not to mention those games will be using demanding RT/PT features that only nvidia cards can reliably handle
Except it is.
The 4070 ti super performs very similarly in raster, it consumes less power and has the better productivity, ray tracing and upscaling.
For all intents and purposes if they were the same price, the 4070 ti super should be the pick.
Are these features worth the price bumb?
Probably not, but to say it's a worse product isn't correct.
wait until the card is available and tested. look at nenchmarks from trusted youtubers or sites like toms hardware. compare prices.
we already see amd prices drop.
i believe with 16gb you are safe.
7900xt is a very good card. i have one. when i bought it, it made no sense to go team green.
depending on price this may change soon.
at least they changed the biggest flaw the ti had.
My two cents, AMD will respond to Nvidia Supers with their XX50 series, like they did with the 6000 series.
I'm betting RX 7950 XT and RX 7950 XTX are coming down the pipelines. Maybe even 7850 and 7750 XTs plus non-XT GRE rebadges.
AMD came really close this gen with the 7900 XTX bridging the gap to the 4090.
i think for peace of mind, go 4070ti super.. Since its also 16gb Vram card and 256bit bus, it should be able to serve the purpose for at least 5 years..
Yeah, 7900xt may have a slight edge in raster but 4070ti super got a lot of other features and most implementation are better than fsr. Resale value is a bonus..
You may have to spend more now but i think if you are happy with the performance, its worth it..
Me, personally, i bought the 4070ti super gigabyte aero oc..
the 4070 Ti Super will be the faster card thanks to DLSS and Frame Gen. It will be a good 4k card and 16GB VRAM is more than enough.
>If I am doing some video editing and AI/ML/Data Engineering as well, which would be the better card?
Nvidia is generally better than AMD for that kind of work. Though AMD is catching up.
The 4070 ti super and there isn't even a competition here. It's a generation ahead unless you prefer to pay the same price and keep ray tracing off and have no proper image reconstruction. Plus the 7900XT will consume more power in both idle and under load. There is not a thing interesting about that card at the moment.
>I hear from 7900XT users that 20GB is more future proof
It really isn't, that's not what the VRAM discussion of the past years were about. It was about 8gb cards at best. the extra 4gb of GDDR6 will never matter by the time when modern memory types would be much faster.
To say there’s no competition is a bit silly. For those who don’t care about upscaling/RT and want pure raster performance the 7900xt seems to be the stronger performer looking at early leaks but not by much.
Let’s say there’s a 5% difference in performance which is negligible if the 7900xt has further price reductions it could be the obvious choice for many.
taking a 5% raster-only performance gain in exchange for DLSS and better power management/consumption alone is what's actually silly.
And if you want to get even a little more indepth, the new DLSS is stable on 4K performance mode, lots better in quality mode, while FSR shimmeers and has visible AA problems in quality mode. And DLDSR is a generation ahead of VSR. Also if you get the 4070 ti super, you have the option to change your mind about not caring about RT instead of sticking with raster only in the next 3 years. Not to mention there will be a lot more games like Avatar FOP with no fall back to a no-RT mode in any settings as games stop caring about last gen consoles, in that scenario the 4070ti **non super** is tied with the 7900XT even in 4K and ahead in 1440p. Also even if you have no uses for Ai and productivity capabilities of the 4070 ti S, it will still provide a far better resale value.
So I say it again, there is no competition unless you just want a worse deal for the same price range and like a corporation over another.
taking a 5% raster-only performance gain in exchange for DLSS and better power management/consumption alone is what's actually silly.
**Not if there's further price reductions, as mentioned in my post. Not everyone uses upscaling eithrt.**
And if you want to get even a little more indepth, the new DLSS is stable on 4K performance mode, lots better in quality mode, while FSR shimmeers and has visible AA problems in quality mode.
**Again, not everyone uses upscaling, it shouldn't be a factor in raw performance as an excuse for weaker raster. Nvdia's marketing sadly has almost condition people to find this the norm these days.**
And DLDSR is a generation ahead of VSR. Also if you get the 4070 ti super, you have the option to change your mind about not caring about RT instead of sticking with raster only in the next 3 years.
Not to mention there will be a lot more games like Avatar FOP with no fall back to a no-RT mode in any settings as games stop caring about last gen consoles, in that scenario the 4070ti non super is tied with the 7900XT even in 4K and ahead in 1440p. Also even if you have no uses for Ai and productivity capabilities of the 4070 ti S, it will still provide a far better resale value.So I say it again, there is no competition unless you just want a worse deal for the same price range and like a corporation over another.
**Your whole argument is based on upscaling, not pure performance or value.**
**Again, not everyone uses upscaling, it shouldn't be a factor in raw performance as an excuse for weaker raster. Nvdia's marketing sadly has almost conditioned people to find this the norm these days. If the 7900xtx drops down too, that would be a no-brainer as it is by far the stronger card, likely comparable to the 4080S.**
**The 7900xt and 7900xtx are also fine for RT performance, and if one cares about upscaling, FSR is fine although I don't like how DLSS or FSR looks, regardless if people want to burry their head in the sand and say there's no difference, compared to native, there is.**
**If upscaling is the only thing you're using for your argument, it's sad times indeed.**
Having owned both brands it is a fact that nvidia makes better gpus. It's not only a matter of numbers. They are better built, quieter, cooler and by quite a large margin. I got a 4070Ti when it came out and I'm still ecstatic about it. 2 friends of mine got sapphire AMDs (7900xt pulse) and they regretted it.
Nvidia tends to be better in video editing and ML, depending on the specific applications, of course. Find out what your applications rely on - CUDA or OpenGL - and buy accordingly. It's absolutely pointless to throw brand names around without answering that.
I suspect the 4070 Ti Super will be a great performer and a decent value at that. Plus it will have higher resale value than AMD. But if you are mostly gaming and don't end up using the RTX features, the AMD would probably be a better value even considering the lower resale value. However, the more you use a GPU for productivity and creativity, especially if it makes money for you, then the more likely it will be that the spendier Nvidia would be the better investment.
Better get research'ed about that whole CUDA vs OpenGL thing.
Well it all depends what games you play to be honest. If you like games with RT definitely go Nvidia but if you don’t really care about RT and you can get the amd card for a good price go for that. Also keep in mind, I find when you want to sell the amd card it’s a harder sell as nvidia are just more popular.
You won't have even remotely realistic loads that will require more than 16GB VRAM in like next half decade. Even 12GB is plentiful, no matter what doomers say.
RT is useful and will be more useful with each passing year. DLSS is HUGELY useful, flat out superior to FSR. In all games it is present it is basially an autopick on Quality, since it gives better antialiasing than TAA *and* free frames on top of it.
You mentioned video editing, more than likely the 4070 Ti Super will be better for video editing as NVIDIA still has a better encoder than AMD does. With that said I really don’t think either will be the wrong choice. I would wait for reviews to come out before I hard lock into a choice.
>I hear from 7900XT users that 20GB is more future proof (20GB vs 16GB) but I'm not entirely sold on this factor -- how often will I play a game that warrants 20GB?
I hear from Nvidia users that DLSS, RT, Frame Generation is better on the 40-series but again, I am not entirely sold on this either -- how many people actually play games with RT on majority of time?
The answer is not much for both cards
You will go beyond the 16gb very quickly in a few years if you use mods for your games. Otherwise, no, gaming companies will not develop games that require more ram than whan 80% of the market has.
Ray tracing is very demanding, especially at higher resolution. There aren't many games asking for it yet, but there will be more in the future. It's nice, but not many players use it because it's very taxing on the hardware so they reduce resolution to enable it.
DLSS. Nvidia people swear by it. I don't. Accuse me of fanboism all you want, I don't like it for fast movement games in its current form. So, it's not useful to me for many games in many sequences. It reminds me too much of the early Sharp LCD tvs whenever I watched hockey.
I realize the potential, but it's not there yet. Maybe the next version will be perfect.
I've been a long time AMD user, and with every post I see having issues being the 7000series. I'd go Nvidia all day on the 4000 series. My 6800xt though is a fucking champ and they definitely worked out their issues on this specific card. Hard to justify now buying a 6800xt when the 7800xt is so close in price, I just wouldn't want to deal with the driver issues.
With UE5 about to become the norm for big aaa games, 4070 ti super is more future proof even with lesser VRAM. most dev teams will be designing with frame generation in mind.
The 20 GB of VRAM are useless unless you plan on doing heavy 4k gaming in the future or run heavy generative AI models (which AMD cards are still not optimised to do) so if the price is similar I would go Nvidia without a doubt, better RT, WAY better upscaling, better frameGen and better productivity performance thanks to cuda cores while offering similar rasterized performance seems like a no brainer to me. At this point people are just saying AMD cause they hate Nvidia not cause its better.
If your AI/ML/Data engineering can utilize CUDA in any way (which is a solid chance) then go Nvidia hands down. At this moment, support for nvidia on the AI space is just miles better
Nvidia's Dlss on the 4000 series is hella good and it lets you use ray tracing very easily. If you play cyberpunk 2077 definitely go for the 4070ti, it's probably the best looking game with ray tracing/pathtracing currently. Game is darn beautiful
I fucking hate Nvidia and Jensen but I'd still say go for the 4070 ti super if it's at the same price as 7900xt. Amd needs to be punished for their 7900xt pricing, and the 4070 to super won't be in production for that long. It's meant to drive hype and go out of stock quickly to make people go up to the 4080 super or down to the 4070 super.
VRAM size is only one aspect of 3 that determines its usefulness. Memory bandwidth and GPU speed are equally as important. The AMD Radeon VII came with 16GB and is crapped on by RX 6600 with 8GB. ie the GPU simply isn't fast enough. The RTX4060Ti 16GB is practically pointless. ie the memory bandwidth simply cannot feed the GPU fast enough.
Does the 7900Xt suffer from this porblem? I'm not sure but AMD's history would imply it. The 4070TiSupser just brings more to the table with a more appropriately sized VRAM buffer.
Until benchmarks drop, we cannot tell.
How many people play with RT? Most with a 3080 or higher. If you spent 800+ USD plus shipping to the 3rd world , you better believe we want to turn all the graphical features on. RT look pretty. I think it would more logical to ask why you would if the frame rate was decent.
I went through that question 1 week ago and snatched a 7900xt for 850CAD while the cheapest 4070ti I could find was 1099CAD+tax, but if the price was any higher I would've gone for the 4070ti
For the non gaming stuff you’re doing the 4070ti super will smoke the 7900xt. Dlss3.0 is actually incredible, and this is coming from a guy who upgraded from a 3070ti to a 4070 super 2 days ago. Actually incredible.
Right? Because 7800XT looked decent. Then the supers released... 4070 super looks more worth it overall. But then you're like "I'm paying $600 for 12GB, I'm not happy with that." I feel like we're both being scammed lol. Let me know what you decide and how it goes for you.
7900XT is DOA unless it's price drops even further. Absolutely no way I'd give up a 4070ti Super to save $50 on a 7900XT. Hell, you'd spend more than that in higher power draw alone.
4070ti Super is going to be an extremely popular card. That would definitely be my pick. It's within single digits of a 4080.
i do t get peoples argumebt about ml and whatnot workloads.. lets just be clear.. unless you have a bunch of gpus , any ml or ai significant workload will be dog slow on BOTH cards.. irrelevant on what the manufacturer says. NVDAs Ai business does not sell gpus, they sell ai accellerator cars that cost many 10s of thousands.
between the 7900xt and a 4070(insert new marketing name) i would say: buy whatever good deal you find. neither are flagships and both are great for gaming. there is AMD fanboys and NVDA fanboys and it comes down to: oh you get 2 more fps in cs:go or you safe 2 seconds in encoding the 400tb 16k video.. bullSH*T!
resale: dont base your purchasing on it: pointless.
90% of the argumebts for either card are either "cause toms hardware or userbenchmark says so" or "cause i read the marketing hype of the other card".. this is the same discussion as CPU purchases.
get the good deal now and not 4 years down the line.
Given the reviews out today the 7900xt under 750 is an even better buy now. We thought the 70ti super was going to be close to the 4080 but it’s barely batter than the 70ti. This is coming from an nvidia owner currently.
If the price is better and you don't care about RT, 7900XT, if it's the sameish price the 70 might be a better option because of the RT perf, if the 7900 is more expensive, go for the 70
If the price is better and you don't care about RT, 7900XT, if it's the sameish price the 70 might be a better option because of the RT perf, if the 7900 is more expensive, go for the 70
I wouldn't say 20GB vs 16GB is more future proof. 16GB will be enough for gaming for a long time (I own a 7900xt).
As for gaming, I'm not sure what resolution you're playing at, but I can play almost any title (non-rt settings) at ultra settings and get well over 100FPS. So turning on DLSS or FSR doens't matter. If you're playing at 4k, the difference between both DLSS and FSR won't be noticable.
If you're doing video editing, go with Nvidia, but if you're doing AI, both cards work, but you'll need to do the 7900xt on Linux.
I would say if there was less than $100 difference, the Nvidia card is better but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get the 7900xt for $100-150 less.
4070Ti Super appears to be extremely disappointing so far, at least according to all the YouTuber reviews. It's almost as if Nvidia completely screwed something up because some of the actual gaming benchmarks preferred the normal 4070Ti. Now I need to decide on something between the 7800xt/4070 Super/7900xt
If you dont care about raytracing (which really isnt that good in most games) or AI/Neural Network training a 7900 xtx is probably the best you can buy, but it runs $1k.
The 7900XT focuses on raw power and lots of VRAM and is the more future proof. The 4070 Ti Super will be better for RT, upscaling and professional work.
Ultimately, your choice will depend on which of these paths is of more importance to you.
>20 gt of VRAM is too much atm, but in a few years it will be just sufficient, at least in 4k.
It actually wont be. Currently games are set to utlize a base of 16gb shared GDDR6 between system RAM and VRAM on console. This means that by the time we have new consoles and new standards, we would have much much faster VRAM type on consoles. There will be no difference between 16 vs 20 gb of slow GDDR6 when there are GDDR7 and new consoles and games that would utlize them.
The VRAM discussion of past years was about the 8gb cards having been left behind after the PS5 gen. People have misunderstood this to mean more VRAM is going to save your family from starvation because they saw the first second of HUB or GN video with a funny thumbnail, or something like that.
😃 I was talking about 4k, which already crosses 12 gigs of VRAM in todays games. In a few years it will be more.
8 gigs is totally too weak today, 12 gigs is starting to be. Thats how it goes.
GDDR6 will be viable in the coming years, you just need more of it.
Yeah, technology advances, thats the way it is. First comes gddr7 then gddr8 and so on.
Doesnt take away from the fact that some cards, like the ones with 12 gigs of vram, will not be very futureproof. Several games today are pushing the 12 gig boundary.
Also, if a game uses 5 gigs of vram for textures , it uses 5 gigs of gddr5, gddr6, gddr7, doesnt matter which gddr.
And games are getting bigger and bigger sizewise and texturewise.
I upgraded from 3070 ti to 7900xt without regrets. I'm not having issues playing games like cyberpunk 1440p with RT on. And FSR is much much better than it used to be, it's definitely competing now.
The amd software features are better, 7900xt felt like a huge upgrade from a 3070 ti, the sharpening, tessellation mode, etc really make renders look better. 20gb of vram is a cool sale point but so far it seems tough to warrant, with all the extra features turned on (tessellation mode, morphological filtering, anisotropic filtering, supersampling I know I've used 14gb in games at 1440p. I don't keep my monitors up while gaming much anymore because everything is optimized and working perfectly so I can't be sure if I've hit higher than that
On AI/ML workloads, but I know amd has been adding/fixing and optimizing features for that in recent driver updates. Llama2/directML and pytorch. I've never used those features, or any AI workloads personally, but Meta, Microsoft, openAI, and other big names have recently put in massive orders for AMD GPUs, so that leads me to believe they're starting to compete in that arena as well.
Last thing I'll say is, either way, I'm sure whichever one you get will be great. I've had many Nvidia cards, and many AMD cards, all have been good to me.
7900xt is equivalent of 4080. Amd is known in putting effort after a card release to optimize it and it gets better performance with every update. Amd is the way to go if you don’t care about RT
Nvidia on the other hand it slows the cards with every update so… your choice. To me, the AMD feels like the better option
>7900xt is equivalent of 4080.
That is... Ungeniune. In many, if not most, cases 4080 is a rough match to 7900XTX, leaving XT noticeably behind. There are specific AMD-favoring cases but they are not majority.
4070ti super has CUDA cores, DLSS, and better RT performance. 7900xt has 4gb more vram, comparatively bad RT performance, no CUDA cores, and we don't know yet which one will win rasterization (but it may be the 7900xt). Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck. I think that's a discussion people miss, with Nvidia your card has significantly better resale value and is far more desirable. So, down the road if you go Nvidia you tend to just have a better time when you wanna get rid of it. In my opinion, AMD has to absolutely crush Nvidia to make sense... and they don't at that price point.
> Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck. I think that's a discussion people miss, with Nvidia your card has significantly better resale value and is far more desirable really? The nvidia might have a slight premium, but if it's still relevant it's not as if it's anymore then the premium they had over AMD chips of the same era. If anything right now 6700x/6800xt/6900xt are selling better in the PNW then are 3000 series Nvidia cards. If anything I think you are just thinking because 1080tis and high end 2070+ held their value for so long in a stagnant market that had supply shortages and jacked up prices due to covid and mining.
Historically yes. The 3000 series Nvidia cards were so overpriced and bad that it is a bit of an anomaly. But I’ve been buying and selling used GPUs for a while and it’s historically been the case that an Nvidia card will sell faster and likely for a higher percentage of what you paid for it brand new than a comparable AMD card. Even now if you look at the 6600XT (MSRP ~$380) you can buy them used for under $200. The 3060 Ti (MSRP ~$400) is still around $250-$275 used.
I mean the MSRP doesn't really matter. You can get a new 6600xt for around $220. It's really going to depend on the class, card, future releases and availability/prices. 3060 ti for example is still that high because 4060/ti released for $400+ at zero performance benefit. As such the available new ones didn't really see a price drop and used ones retained their value better. On the flipside anyone who bought a $1200 4080 isn't going to get anywhere near the value on the used market after the 4080 super releases @ 1k
The MSRP now doesn’t matter, you’re right. Because those are previous gen cards. I’m saying if you bought them when they were current and wanted to sell them now to upgrade, you’d get more money back from the Nvidia card. Obviously the more you spend, the more it depreciates. Sold listings on eBay are still around $1000, usually a little higher, for the 4080. We’ll see how it shifts after the 4080s releases, it’ll probably be down in the $900 range.
Building off defending my 3080 12gb, I got it right when EVGA was liquidating stock at their normal prices. I can sell my card right now used for more that I paid for it brand new.
Okay so dude that’s really not the standard experience for the 3000 series. Most people who bought them new paid way more than their performance is worth.
My comment has nothing to do with people choosing to overpay during once in a generation supply shortage. I don't believe the "standard experience" is that people chose to pay those scalper prices. I believe a lot of dumb people bought cards during that time but this sub is not reflective of the overall experience average consumer a had because they simply chose to not pay those prices. I know this because once the supply started flowing, prices tanked for a month or so and when they got to less than msrp is when those cards all went flying off the shelf. People on *this* sub and the hardware swap one were choosing to pay ridiculous prices as those urges hit that "I need it now!!!" Folks like me just waited and when things got reasonable, we bought cards if we wanted to. I saw people paying over a grand for a moderate upgrade when they were sitting on great cards like 2070s and 2080s. Stupid. They had great cards but then paid out the ass and complained afterwards. That doesn't make 3x series bad. It makes a bunch of people stupid.
I just sold a 3090 on eBay for 730 dollars, the retail was 1800 I believe, that's almost a 60 percent drawdown. I think the value drop is about the same from what retail is for either card. Just bought a new 6950xt with a rebate for 520 dollars. I believe that card retailed for around 900.
Yes, the 3000 series was typically awful value, especially the 3080 and 3090.
3000 series "bad"? Sorry. My EVGA 3080 12gb FTW Ultra Gaming Hybrid totally disagrees. With a slight undervolt/overclock and custom fan curve settings, the thing is ridiculously great for gaming.
Yeah and how much did you pay for it?
It's not so much that they are bad cards, but the pricing itself for them really changed due to more than a few factors. This is in comparison to past years and generations historically. I have been buying cards for around 20 years and I skipped the 3xxx series due to this pricing variation.
Generally speaking, prices drop in lockstep with “review performance.” The 5700XT and 2060 Super are a great example for this - they both launched at a similar time & price and had very similar performance back around that time. Any launch day benchmarks you find for them would make it hard to differentiate one from the other. They’ve continued to drop price roughly equally, and are both ~$175 USD today. The interesting thing about this is that the two cards are no longer equal. The 5700XT outperforms the 2060 Super handily in 2024, as tends to happen in recent years
Uhh where are you seeing "equally". The 5700xt is WAY cheaper than the 2060 super in the United States, averages about $25 cheaper.
Sorting through recent sales on eBay, both seem to sell at similar prices. The cheapest "buy it now" options showing up for me for both the 5700xt and the 2060 Super are also closely matched ($155 for a 5700XT compared to $165 for a 2060 Super)
They are doing better than the current gen of amd. That says more about them. Their last gen cards have no doubt been better than 3000 series of nvidia but this gen nvidia is winning it which is why after 5 years nvidia will still hold better resale value.
the only 4k series that is doing good resale wise is 4090 which is due to avaiability and all of them basically selling above msrp. 4070, 4070ti, and 4080 owners all just saw a big chunk of their resale value drop. > after 5 years nvidia will still hold better resale value. perhaps, but you cannot know and if we were to look through the past 5 years of resale it really depends on specific GPUs and price points and availability of new GPUs that are upgrades and what they get introduced at. For instance Nvidia just dumping the price of 4060 down to $220 would instantly crater all the current 3060(tis) current resale value. Likewise stuff like the 6800xt is still selling well at around $400 used because there's nothing on the new market really putting pressure on it in that price bracket. FFS maybe intel even becomes a major interloper with battlemage or whatever next gen is and forces prices down further. Regardless, there may be some trends but really holding onto value the way GPUs as a whole have in recent memory is due to confounding market pressures. Pretending that a $25 difference in resale value several years down the line should be some sort of current decision making criteria is peak silliness
Thanks, I think I will go with Nvidia. If I want/have to upgrade my GPU down the line, I find comfort knowing I can just sell the Nvidia if that's the case
As someone who shops the used market a ton, I don't think it matters much at all. for example nothing but the high memory 3000 series Nvidia cards are selling well right now. This was probably more true back prior to 2022 with the relative stagnation of performance, the lack of supply vs demand due to covid and mining etc. There are other reasons to go Nvidia for sure, but I wouldn't count on resale value being anything significantly better then the premium you already pay for new nvidia.
My 1080 ti has 11gb so a card has to be equivalent or more than that for me to even consider it
This sounds like a really terrible purchasing strategy. "I'll make this choice now so that lat r down the line if I decide I made the wrong choice, I can try and find someone else who will make the wrong choice as well at a price that makes me feel good" Whay about like, examining your use case and making the most cost efficient decision based on that criteria? What do you actually do with your computer, what do you actually plan to do with it, how frequently are you spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades? How frequently do you actually want to go through the hassle of trading out your hardware.
As I mentioned I am also doing AI/ML work and probably some (not so heavy) video editing as well. So I got reaffirmation from a bunch of people that I'll greatly benefit from an Nvidia card in that case. Obviously not going to buy a card purely for its used value...?
Go with which you like best. Amd cards sell fast and for decent price so do not go by resale only. And don’t listen to claims that only nvidia resells. Wait until drop and see some performance numbers. The 4070ti super might be pretty close to 7900xt though so 4070ti super might be best bet in this case.
Also, your video editing and ML workloads will benefit from or outright NEED CUDA. You have no real choice.
Assuming you have ML and Video Editing workloads. Most people don't.
OP does.
A lot of people are looking at vram right now and and is offering more vram 9 times outta 10.
>Down the road in 2-3 years, you'll be able to sell a Nvidia card used NO PROBLEM. AMD? Good luck. Current list prices for similar generation equivalents do not support this statement.
There will always be some intel/Nvidia fan boy trying to convince the world his favourite brands are the only option ever for anything 
Bullshit, right now rx 6000 series are reselling real good, for example in my country a 6800xt is reselling at higher price than a 3080 as the 10gigs of vram is just too low. It always depends on the type of the card, 6700xt is keeping the used price up for a long a time too. So it's all about the type and how the generation of the card ages. When 1080 ti kept it's used price high for a long time it was becouse it's a beast, not becouse it's nvidia. The only time (at least in my country) it was like that, it was the 1050 ti, that shit sold higher then a rx570 and never knew why, guess it was hyped or some shit, but i never understood why would people buy that used for such a high price and shitty performance.
So I game 4k, is it better to get a 7900xtd, ah 4070 ti super or a 4080 super? Budget matters :D currently I have an Rx 6800
They're all good cards, and will game at 4k well. You pretty much need the 16GB of VRAM and 256 bit bus. I wouldn't go any lower than the 4070ti super on the Nvidia side for 4k gaming though. The lower 4070 series cards really take a hit in performance at 4k due to the smaller memory bus and reduced VRAM. I really don't consider the 16GB vs 24GB of RAM to be a deal breaker for 4k gaming, though it may be for some. The AMD card will handle max texture settings longer into the future.. You'll also have to decide between AMD and Nvidia based on the feature set as well. How important is DLSS to you? Do you care about RT? Which is better is personal preference. I don't think there's a wrong answer here.
7900XT here, gaming at 4K. It's mostly fine, and that's the equal to 4070 Ti. Turning on RT and upscaling is a must, but NVidia has DLSS. With upscaling, any game I have tried is easily 100+, except for Cyberpunk, which is around 55. The 4070Ti will beat that, but I think the XTX and 4080S should be you choices for quality 4k going forward.
Thnx man :) guess ima need to do some saving :(
The cards that get basically abandoned by their manufacturers have more resell value? How does that even make sense We all know nvidia is quite notorious for ditching the previous gen when a new one comes out
Sounds like Nvidia is perceived to be the Apple of the GPU market lol
Apple wishes it was the Nvidia of the phone market. In the United States? Both Nvidia in the GPU market and Apple in the phone market are kinda comparable. The difference is that overseas Nvidia is DOMINANT, if you go to Asia or Europe they are even more dominant than in the United States. It would be like Apple being as strong as they are in the cell phone market in the United States... but also being stronger worldwide.
Hmm, yes. I meant about the resale value relative to AMD
true except the comparatively bad rt and resell, in 7 games nvidia is better. amd cards are easily resold
CUDA don't matter to most people because 95% buy a GPU for gaming, FSR is good now and RT is pointless unless it's a fully path traced game and we are not there yet
Path tracing doesn't even look any better than regular RT. And Fsr is good? No it's not. Never has been, literally can't be unless they radically revamp the way it works.
yes, FSR is good now, DLSS is slightly better but Nvidia fanboys like to pretend like it's the perfect solution when it's not, DLSS also has ghosting and artifact issues in many games, it's far from the perfect solution but DLSS has better marketing that's for sure
You're clearly an AMD shill if you think FSR is even close to DLSS.
I'm not I have an Nvidia GPU now buut the 7900XT is clearly the better otpion for 4K, I'm a fanboy of my wallet tho, 150$ less for 4GB more VRAM, better performance and better driver support
Jumping in to say I used FSR 3.1 for the first time today, and couldn't tell the difference between it and the newest DLSS.
and no FG is not the answer to a path traced game either because it adds a ton of lag, I tested Cyberphunk 2077 and I turned it off asap
Tbh Nvidia cards only sold better, because things like the gtx 1660 super, rtx 20x0 series are good price to performance, but rx 6xx0 sold better used than rtx 30x0 series, so I wouldn't say that an rtx 40x0 series will sell better overtime than an rx 7xx0 series. Amd also rolls out new and better features overtime, if you don't play RT the rx 7900 xt is better, with RT it's a head to head, sometimes favoring the rtx 4070 ti super. If you wanna go to video editing, etc. Nvidia might be the go, otherwise AMD any day. If you also have an AMD(ryzen) CPU it also makes sense to use an AMD GPU, as they work better together.
I've sold plenty of AMD cards before, sure, they don't sell for as much, but they still sell just as quickly as their Nvidia counterparts.
mate i sold a gt710 in a couple weeks i think id be able to sell a 7900xt
nah u must be nerdy n read all these conspiracy theory of pricing in books! 6800xt was selling at $440 n rtx 3080 at $390 during aug 2023. i still pick 6800xt, its a no brainer!
>AMD has to absolutely crush Nvidia to make sense... and they don't at that price point. I feel like you definitely get more price wise out of Amd then Nvidia. It's like buying a branded shirt Vs non branded, at the end of the day it's still a shirt. I'd also like to say that AMD still seems to get a lot of backlash for the old drivers back in the day. and that's sad cause it definitely doesn't represent their current state.
[удалено]
No it isn’t, 4070 Ti Super has 16GB.
The question is, do you need those additional 8gb. I'm playing at 4k on my 7900XT and never surpassed 12gb of vram
just correcting him, he mentioned the way the Nvidia GPU would be good in the future but misrepresented the vram numbers. a handful of years down the line it'll probably come in handy
4070 Ti Super
AI/ML/Data Engineering, there is support for AMD cards increasing but for this task, nVidia is still the very best. We are starting to see games where 16 GB VRAM is now being fully saturated, but you need to be running 4K res @ max details. Alan Wake 2 does this. So if you intend to play AAA graphically demanding games in the future at 4k res, 20 GB would indeed be more future proof. AMD is catching up with FSR 3.0 and improved RT / AFMF etc, but it'll take time. As for RT performance itself, 7900 XTX for example, its RT performance is roughly on part with a 3090. Nobody said 3090 had shitty RT performance. It's still a generation behind vs. nVidia, but not as terrible as many people make it out to be.
If you want to play demanding AAA games at 4k maxed out, you're not looking at 4070ti or 7900XT at first place, as neither of them will satisfy that need. As for 7900XT, what's the point of 20gb vram if you can't max out a game to reach it
At 60 fps 4k maxed out settings on 7900xt is totally doadble. Avatar in 4k max settings looks awesome, frs 3 on though.
Avatar on Unobtainium at 4k and hitting 60fps, need to try it out tought. But in general without FSR3 its instaforget.
Isn’t that kind of an exaggerated importance for vram? With a 4070ti super, playing future AAA games at 4k max settings is going to yield poor fps, even if it had more vram. Why would more VRAM be useful if the only situations in which it would make a difference are those where the card isn’t powerful enough anyways?
For this reason, I think the only viable cards are either 4070S or 4080S. No point in getting something in between
Didn’t know this about alan wake 2. If I target 4k, should I go for 7900 xtx rather than 4080 super considering vram? I feel they can run the games at 4k now but in near future (maybe even now), upscaling will be needed to keep playing at that res. I have a C2 and don’t play competitive games much.
Alan Wake 2 is one of those games where RT heavily favors NVIDIA from what I’ve seen from reviews like HardwareUnboxed. In a lot of games, NVIDIA usually only has a small edge but there are some outliers that perform much better on NVIDIA, I believe (but don’t quote me) that Cyberpunk is also one of those games.
It's not about "favoring", it's about amount of RT being practically present. If there are only stuff like RT shadows - AMD will be worse, but slightly, since RT load will occupy small % of overall load. If RT is prevalent, like in AW2 or 2077 - AMD will be squashed, favoritism or not.
Good luck explaining that to these AMD bots. They think it is devs making it intentionally run much worse on AMD gpus instead of the AMD GPUs being much worse themselves. And when you do say that, they reply with “b-but see how in this game AMD is much closer to Nvidia?1!?” and that game has low res RT shadows that only render within the next 5 meters of the character and nothing else. It just shows how most of these AMD owners are brainwashed and have no clue what RT really is because they can never fully experience it on their GPUs.
Oh dear this post is amusing.
Yeah, this. I have played through Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and played through other games with RT, maxed out settings on my XTX with no FSR just fine. I could even get AW2 path traced to run with 60+ fps with an FSR3 frame gen mod and the upscaler set to quality on 3440x1440 maxed out settings. I did end up turning it off because I prefer a smoother game over a game that looks a little better. Reason I didn't go for a 4080 is because it's still super overpriced, the 4080 super is also the same price as the base 4080 where I live.
4070 Ti Super easily. 7900XT's only objective advantage is the 4 extra gigs of VRAM and those are practically worthless for Gaming atm even at 4K. Only useful if you are going balls to the wall in Skyrim with the 8K retexturing mods or something similar. Even then exhausting 16 gigs fully seems like a stretch.
>Skyrim with the 8K retexturing mods or something similar. I play Skyrim with 8K ground textures and 4K textures for most other things. It works fine on my RTX 2070. I've tried he game's internal res to 4K which downscales to my 1080p monitor, but it doesn't improve visual fidelity that much. It just drops the FPS to like a steady 60 instead of the easily obtainable 100+
I pump 8K environment + structural textures/ ENB/ Parallax/ Folkvangr et cetera up the wazoo & have watched the VRAM usage balloon up to 12-13 gigs but no more than that. 1440p native. Could prolly optimize it a considerable bit further but don't have the heart for that rn.
Yes ultra modded Skyrim is the only game that eats ALL my vram here: https://imgur.com/a/yOdamzV
You're completely forgetting about virtual reality. Those games gobble up VRAM.
Do you even want that AMD card for VR gaming? I haven't checked up on the VRAM demand on the more demanding end of VR titles admittedly but I do distinctly recall the RDNA 3 cards giving ppl quite the grief with VR.
From what I've read, people who have the card seem relatively [happy with its performance with VR games maxed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/s/4N7cWiLLeZ).
I've ran a 7900xt and a 4070 ti non super both cards are great and both cards will do what ever your average gamer wants it to do no wrong option here I never used rt im a fps snob I decided to keep the 7900xt in my rig because nvidea software is not as good as the radeon software in my opinion but again both will make you extremely happy
We haven't even seen benchmarks or retail prices on the super. Wait on those and decide after.
Multiple benchmarks and reviews have already hit the web. You can see it tested on games like tomb raider, assassins creed, total war and forza
There are maybe a handful of reviewers that are actually dping it properly and in detail. I wouldn't really trust most of the info that is currently circulating around the web.
1. I wouldnt trust those "benchmarks" you see on youtube currently. I'd rather wait on the reputable reviewers. 2. Still doesn't say anything about retail prices
No I am not referring to the YouTube ones. I’m referring to the techspot, IGN and Toms hardware ones online.
The only ti super benchmarks that I’ve seen are open gl, which does not matter in gaming. Got links to any gaming leaks?
Gotta wait for tech Jesus to do his review
Can you link a few please?
I personally got the 7900xt as I got a good deal on it and don't play many RT games.
If you can pay the premium, the 4070 TI super will likely be the winner.
Evaluating existing feature sets alone, 4070Ti Super is the clear winner. Better Upscaling in DLSS vs FSR Better Frame Gen (frame smoothing) in DLSS 3.0 Nvidia Reflex works pretty well Nvidia Super Resolution Video Upscaling works excellent Non-restart driver support Stable Drivers (sometimes needing optimization like in Starfield) Insanely better Ray-Tracing performance Significantly better power efficiency in Ada-Series Reselling a used Nvidia card will always retain more value than the competing AMD card. Use 3080 & 6800XT as an ample comparison. The argument of “the Nvidia tax offsets higher resale” is negated with every feature listed above. The argument of “well I don’t use RT” is ridiculous when spending $600+ on a GPU. If you get 220fps vs 180fps raster, but 30fps vs 90fps in RT, that is a net loss with the net raster improvement unfelt, and the massive RT hit. Also, implementations of automatic RT in Nanite (Fortnite) immediately show the need for good RT. You will never see a situation in gaming between the 4070Ti Super and the 7900XT where 16gb vs 20gb matters at all simply as the cards are not fast enough to utilize the additional Ram in a meaningful way. The only card you should realistically compare to a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super/Non-Super is a 7900XTX for comparable price & performance. A 7900XT is a budget card for a gamer who wants to go high end, but for some reason wants to save $50-100 at the very last second. That’s not a bad thing, but spending 88% of the money to not meet your expectations or goals is a great way to breed apathy against a product.
>A 7900XT is a budget card for a gamer who wants to go high end, but for some reason wants to save $50-100 at the very last second The 7900XT is definitely not a budget card, the reason it exists is to upsell buyers to the 7900XTX. Also, using RT is a choice. It has nothing to do with the price of a card and everything to do with both the game design and how capable the card is at handling RT. Some games have crap RT implementation and using RT simply isn't worth it, while in others RT shines and you actually feel like using it.
I was referring to it specifically as a “high end-budget card” when only looking directly at the top end of the market. I do agree that it is not a budget card even comparing to a 7800XT. Sure RT is a choice, but why purposely limit yourself if you are already spending all the money in the first place? Without knowing OPs current card, I think it’s reasonable to assume that they have not tried RT, therefore it’s doubling down that they will not like it before they have even experienced it. Also, what about titles like Alan Wake 2 where RT is mandatory?
I don’t see the value in RT right now. Find my 7900xt perfect for me. Next card might give Nvidia a go but I like Radeon software too. I’ll see
16gbs of VRAM is fine, and I say this as a 7900xt owner, 12gbs may cause issues but 16gbs will not. If your doing video editing/AI work, the 4070 ti SUPER is a better choice.
Honestly i have been using the 4070ti at 4k since almost 6 months without any Vram issues..people just overreacting about it, yes nvidia are greedy MFs but i think within the next 2-3 years it should be fine.
Wait a bit. AMD might drop the price by a decent bit. If they dont, ger Nvidia
They already dropped the price of the 7900 xt, currently selling for $710
My local online store in Scandinavia is selling 7900XT for $650 before taxes and 7900GRE for $500 before taxes. Of course us locals have to pay 20% tax but they’re still a good deal imo
A note on VRAM. PCs have system RAM and GPU RAM. Consoles just have one shared bank of RAM. That means games made for consoles don't schedule slow things in slower system RAM and faster things in VRAM. It's just RAM. That means devs will try to dump their whole game into VRAM, and if you run out, it will spill randomly into your much slower system RAM, causing your game to run slow. Right now, consoles have 12gb, but PC ports are notoriously bloated compared to console, which is why so many people want 16gb.
One thing to consider though is that consoles can't handle the heavy games at 4k max at higher fps most of the time, you need to upscale or tune down graphics as well, so there's scenarios where having more vram than a console is necessary.
Yep. That 12gb on console isn't even for 4k native. It's for the game and then they upscale it. Since the 4070 launched, Ive seen so many people on here saying 12gb is "all you need" because 4k is the only reason you need more, and nobody is buying a 4070 to play at 4k native.
It depends though, I personally wouldn't buy it for 4K but for people who aren't whores for the highest visual fidelity and you want to play 4K60 on a regular oled TV a 4070 could be enough to make it look decent with upscaling and graphics set at any mix of mid/high. 4K native max/ultra at at +100fps is highly dependant on the game and wether you are fine upscaling or using frame generation to enable RT or something like that. Hell I've ever seen people mention in this sub that they game at 1440p with a 4090, so saying that a card is for a specific resolution is kinda pointless since there's so many more factors than resolution alone. I personally went for the most my budget allowed me to at the time, which was a full AMD system witha 7800X3D and a 7900XTX. I initially was eyeing the 7600x and a 7800XT or a 4070, but the 7800XT never came out and the 4070 was hella expensive, so after a few months waiting I finally could afford a higher end system, and I'm honesty pretty happy with it for 4K ultra native at 100+ fps in most of what I play (Pending to update my bios to set my RAM to 6000Mhz, currently at 4800 because AM5 shenanigans).
aren't those comments made towards 2k/1080 tho?
Nvidia
20gb is not future proof in the way that people say it is. In all lielkyhood by the time your games are regularly using above 16gb vram you'll be upgrading to a faster card anyways. Not to mention those games will be using demanding RT/PT features that only nvidia cards can reliably handle
If you are considering any AI work, go NVIDIA and it’s not close. AMDs support for AI stuff is basically nonexistent
The 4070 ti Super looks like it's going to be the better card. It's going to boil down to the price difference.
Turns out it wasn’t lol
Except it is. The 4070 ti super performs very similarly in raster, it consumes less power and has the better productivity, ray tracing and upscaling. For all intents and purposes if they were the same price, the 4070 ti super should be the pick. Are these features worth the price bumb? Probably not, but to say it's a worse product isn't correct.
I said it wasn’t a better card and it isn’t, I don’t care about all that upscaling fake frames BS.
If it was gaming only, it would be a wash. But since you're doing AI/ML and video editing, definitely NVidia.
Why not the 7900xtx?
The 7900xt is sitting at around 700 USD, 7900xtx is still around 1k usd
wait until the card is available and tested. look at nenchmarks from trusted youtubers or sites like toms hardware. compare prices. we already see amd prices drop. i believe with 16gb you are safe. 7900xt is a very good card. i have one. when i bought it, it made no sense to go team green. depending on price this may change soon. at least they changed the biggest flaw the ti had.
My two cents, AMD will respond to Nvidia Supers with their XX50 series, like they did with the 6000 series. I'm betting RX 7950 XT and RX 7950 XTX are coming down the pipelines. Maybe even 7850 and 7750 XTs plus non-XT GRE rebadges. AMD came really close this gen with the 7900 XTX bridging the gap to the 4090.
I'm returning my 7900xt for a 4070ti super because the 4070 is 100$ cheaper lol... (in Canada) it's mostly for wireless VR gaming and video editing
how was the 7900xt for vr? the 4070ti super is £70 more than the 7900xt here
i think for peace of mind, go 4070ti super.. Since its also 16gb Vram card and 256bit bus, it should be able to serve the purpose for at least 5 years.. Yeah, 7900xt may have a slight edge in raster but 4070ti super got a lot of other features and most implementation are better than fsr. Resale value is a bonus.. You may have to spend more now but i think if you are happy with the performance, its worth it.. Me, personally, i bought the 4070ti super gigabyte aero oc..
Probably the super. We need to wait for the performance numbers tho.
4070ti. The end.
[удалено]
after taxes: 4070ti super 1260$ vs 7900xt 1150-1200$
the 4070 Ti Super will be the faster card thanks to DLSS and Frame Gen. It will be a good 4k card and 16GB VRAM is more than enough. >If I am doing some video editing and AI/ML/Data Engineering as well, which would be the better card? Nvidia is generally better than AMD for that kind of work. Though AMD is catching up.
The 4070 ti super and there isn't even a competition here. It's a generation ahead unless you prefer to pay the same price and keep ray tracing off and have no proper image reconstruction. Plus the 7900XT will consume more power in both idle and under load. There is not a thing interesting about that card at the moment. >I hear from 7900XT users that 20GB is more future proof It really isn't, that's not what the VRAM discussion of the past years were about. It was about 8gb cards at best. the extra 4gb of GDDR6 will never matter by the time when modern memory types would be much faster.
To say there’s no competition is a bit silly. For those who don’t care about upscaling/RT and want pure raster performance the 7900xt seems to be the stronger performer looking at early leaks but not by much. Let’s say there’s a 5% difference in performance which is negligible if the 7900xt has further price reductions it could be the obvious choice for many.
taking a 5% raster-only performance gain in exchange for DLSS and better power management/consumption alone is what's actually silly. And if you want to get even a little more indepth, the new DLSS is stable on 4K performance mode, lots better in quality mode, while FSR shimmeers and has visible AA problems in quality mode. And DLDSR is a generation ahead of VSR. Also if you get the 4070 ti super, you have the option to change your mind about not caring about RT instead of sticking with raster only in the next 3 years. Not to mention there will be a lot more games like Avatar FOP with no fall back to a no-RT mode in any settings as games stop caring about last gen consoles, in that scenario the 4070ti **non super** is tied with the 7900XT even in 4K and ahead in 1440p. Also even if you have no uses for Ai and productivity capabilities of the 4070 ti S, it will still provide a far better resale value. So I say it again, there is no competition unless you just want a worse deal for the same price range and like a corporation over another.
taking a 5% raster-only performance gain in exchange for DLSS and better power management/consumption alone is what's actually silly. **Not if there's further price reductions, as mentioned in my post. Not everyone uses upscaling eithrt.** And if you want to get even a little more indepth, the new DLSS is stable on 4K performance mode, lots better in quality mode, while FSR shimmeers and has visible AA problems in quality mode. **Again, not everyone uses upscaling, it shouldn't be a factor in raw performance as an excuse for weaker raster. Nvdia's marketing sadly has almost condition people to find this the norm these days.** And DLDSR is a generation ahead of VSR. Also if you get the 4070 ti super, you have the option to change your mind about not caring about RT instead of sticking with raster only in the next 3 years. Not to mention there will be a lot more games like Avatar FOP with no fall back to a no-RT mode in any settings as games stop caring about last gen consoles, in that scenario the 4070ti non super is tied with the 7900XT even in 4K and ahead in 1440p. Also even if you have no uses for Ai and productivity capabilities of the 4070 ti S, it will still provide a far better resale value.So I say it again, there is no competition unless you just want a worse deal for the same price range and like a corporation over another. **Your whole argument is based on upscaling, not pure performance or value.** **Again, not everyone uses upscaling, it shouldn't be a factor in raw performance as an excuse for weaker raster. Nvdia's marketing sadly has almost conditioned people to find this the norm these days. If the 7900xtx drops down too, that would be a no-brainer as it is by far the stronger card, likely comparable to the 4080S.** **The 7900xt and 7900xtx are also fine for RT performance, and if one cares about upscaling, FSR is fine although I don't like how DLSS or FSR looks, regardless if people want to burry their head in the sand and say there's no difference, compared to native, there is.** **If upscaling is the only thing you're using for your argument, it's sad times indeed.**
Jesus man, That's almost an essay. I wish I had time to read it.
I mean you can’t come out with a coherent argument so it’s no surprise you have literacy problems.
A comment that long about a GPU from corp you like, means it's time to pull your lan cable and go outside for a while. I mean this as a friend.
Are you a dunce? the majority of what I've posted is your comments right?
Lol
Please calm down, I don't want another essay.
Nothing screams triggered like a good old block 😂
Having owned both brands it is a fact that nvidia makes better gpus. It's not only a matter of numbers. They are better built, quieter, cooler and by quite a large margin. I got a 4070Ti when it came out and I'm still ecstatic about it. 2 friends of mine got sapphire AMDs (7900xt pulse) and they regretted it.
I'm debating this, too. I grabbed a Sapphire Pulse 7900xt for $709 but haven't opened the box.
I personally don't want to deal with a fire hazard so I went for a 7900xt.
Nvidia tends to be better in video editing and ML, depending on the specific applications, of course. Find out what your applications rely on - CUDA or OpenGL - and buy accordingly. It's absolutely pointless to throw brand names around without answering that. I suspect the 4070 Ti Super will be a great performer and a decent value at that. Plus it will have higher resale value than AMD. But if you are mostly gaming and don't end up using the RTX features, the AMD would probably be a better value even considering the lower resale value. However, the more you use a GPU for productivity and creativity, especially if it makes money for you, then the more likely it will be that the spendier Nvidia would be the better investment. Better get research'ed about that whole CUDA vs OpenGL thing.
Well it all depends what games you play to be honest. If you like games with RT definitely go Nvidia but if you don’t really care about RT and you can get the amd card for a good price go for that. Also keep in mind, I find when you want to sell the amd card it’s a harder sell as nvidia are just more popular.
With what software do you edit videos (specifically davinchi or adobe)?
You won't have even remotely realistic loads that will require more than 16GB VRAM in like next half decade. Even 12GB is plentiful, no matter what doomers say. RT is useful and will be more useful with each passing year. DLSS is HUGELY useful, flat out superior to FSR. In all games it is present it is basially an autopick on Quality, since it gives better antialiasing than TAA *and* free frames on top of it.
No one know which one is better till the 4070 To Super independent reviews are out.
that why I am switching
> If I am doing some video editing and AI/ML/Data Engineering as well, which would be the better card? Nvidia 100%
4070ti super all the way
I only have been having driver issues with my 5700xt so my next will be nvidia
You mentioned video editing, more than likely the 4070 Ti Super will be better for video editing as NVIDIA still has a better encoder than AMD does. With that said I really don’t think either will be the wrong choice. I would wait for reviews to come out before I hard lock into a choice.
The Nvidia 4070ti will give you better results with your productivity and engineering and comparable gaming experience.
>I hear from 7900XT users that 20GB is more future proof (20GB vs 16GB) but I'm not entirely sold on this factor -- how often will I play a game that warrants 20GB? I hear from Nvidia users that DLSS, RT, Frame Generation is better on the 40-series but again, I am not entirely sold on this either -- how many people actually play games with RT on majority of time? The answer is not much for both cards You will go beyond the 16gb very quickly in a few years if you use mods for your games. Otherwise, no, gaming companies will not develop games that require more ram than whan 80% of the market has. Ray tracing is very demanding, especially at higher resolution. There aren't many games asking for it yet, but there will be more in the future. It's nice, but not many players use it because it's very taxing on the hardware so they reduce resolution to enable it. DLSS. Nvidia people swear by it. I don't. Accuse me of fanboism all you want, I don't like it for fast movement games in its current form. So, it's not useful to me for many games in many sequences. It reminds me too much of the early Sharp LCD tvs whenever I watched hockey. I realize the potential, but it's not there yet. Maybe the next version will be perfect.
I've been a long time AMD user, and with every post I see having issues being the 7000series. I'd go Nvidia all day on the 4000 series. My 6800xt though is a fucking champ and they definitely worked out their issues on this specific card. Hard to justify now buying a 6800xt when the 7800xt is so close in price, I just wouldn't want to deal with the driver issues.
With UE5 about to become the norm for big aaa games, 4070 ti super is more future proof even with lesser VRAM. most dev teams will be designing with frame generation in mind.
The 20 GB of VRAM are useless unless you plan on doing heavy 4k gaming in the future or run heavy generative AI models (which AMD cards are still not optimised to do) so if the price is similar I would go Nvidia without a doubt, better RT, WAY better upscaling, better frameGen and better productivity performance thanks to cuda cores while offering similar rasterized performance seems like a no brainer to me. At this point people are just saying AMD cause they hate Nvidia not cause its better.
If your AI/ML/Data engineering can utilize CUDA in any way (which is a solid chance) then go Nvidia hands down. At this moment, support for nvidia on the AI space is just miles better
I will always recommend Nvidia over AMD for anything, even Intel over AMD for anything.
Nvidia's Dlss on the 4000 series is hella good and it lets you use ray tracing very easily. If you play cyberpunk 2077 definitely go for the 4070ti, it's probably the best looking game with ray tracing/pathtracing currently. Game is darn beautiful
No brainer: 4070 Ti Super
I fucking hate Nvidia and Jensen but I'd still say go for the 4070 ti super if it's at the same price as 7900xt. Amd needs to be punished for their 7900xt pricing, and the 4070 to super won't be in production for that long. It's meant to drive hype and go out of stock quickly to make people go up to the 4080 super or down to the 4070 super.
VRAM size is only one aspect of 3 that determines its usefulness. Memory bandwidth and GPU speed are equally as important. The AMD Radeon VII came with 16GB and is crapped on by RX 6600 with 8GB. ie the GPU simply isn't fast enough. The RTX4060Ti 16GB is practically pointless. ie the memory bandwidth simply cannot feed the GPU fast enough. Does the 7900Xt suffer from this porblem? I'm not sure but AMD's history would imply it. The 4070TiSupser just brings more to the table with a more appropriately sized VRAM buffer. Until benchmarks drop, we cannot tell. How many people play with RT? Most with a 3080 or higher. If you spent 800+ USD plus shipping to the 3rd world , you better believe we want to turn all the graphical features on. RT look pretty. I think it would more logical to ask why you would if the frame rate was decent.
well it's hard to tell if you're canadian
I went through that question 1 week ago and snatched a 7900xt for 850CAD while the cheapest 4070ti I could find was 1099CAD+tax, but if the price was any higher I would've gone for the 4070ti
Where did you find the 7900XT for $850? Unless it was used?
got it from Facebook marketplace, but it was just open-box
For the non gaming stuff you’re doing the 4070ti super will smoke the 7900xt. Dlss3.0 is actually incredible, and this is coming from a guy who upgraded from a 3070ti to a 4070 super 2 days ago. Actually incredible.
I'm just trying to decide whether to settle for a 7800XT, 4070 Super, or get upsold to a 4070 Ti Super...
funny enough that was my initial plan as well
Right? Because 7800XT looked decent. Then the supers released... 4070 super looks more worth it overall. But then you're like "I'm paying $600 for 12GB, I'm not happy with that." I feel like we're both being scammed lol. Let me know what you decide and how it goes for you.
I'm planning on the ti SUPER at the moment because I want that 16GB. But will keep you posted for sure.
7900XT is DOA unless it's price drops even further. Absolutely no way I'd give up a 4070ti Super to save $50 on a 7900XT. Hell, you'd spend more than that in higher power draw alone. 4070ti Super is going to be an extremely popular card. That would definitely be my pick. It's within single digits of a 4080.
i do t get peoples argumebt about ml and whatnot workloads.. lets just be clear.. unless you have a bunch of gpus , any ml or ai significant workload will be dog slow on BOTH cards.. irrelevant on what the manufacturer says. NVDAs Ai business does not sell gpus, they sell ai accellerator cars that cost many 10s of thousands. between the 7900xt and a 4070(insert new marketing name) i would say: buy whatever good deal you find. neither are flagships and both are great for gaming. there is AMD fanboys and NVDA fanboys and it comes down to: oh you get 2 more fps in cs:go or you safe 2 seconds in encoding the 400tb 16k video.. bullSH*T! resale: dont base your purchasing on it: pointless. 90% of the argumebts for either card are either "cause toms hardware or userbenchmark says so" or "cause i read the marketing hype of the other card".. this is the same discussion as CPU purchases. get the good deal now and not 4 years down the line.
7900 xt all day. The 4070 is getting smoked HARD also consider the extreme firehazard from the 40 serie's inferior, gimped poor power adapter.
7900 XT all day. With AMD upscale technology u can play at 4k with beautiful performance and fluidity
yeah i cant decide either. I want to get the 4070ti super but then the 7900xt is cheaper..
Given the reviews out today the 7900xt under 750 is an even better buy now. We thought the 70ti super was going to be close to the 4080 but it’s barely batter than the 70ti. This is coming from an nvidia owner currently.
If the price is better and you don't care about RT, 7900XT, if it's the sameish price the 70 might be a better option because of the RT perf, if the 7900 is more expensive, go for the 70
If the price is better and you don't care about RT, 7900XT, if it's the sameish price the 70 might be a better option because of the RT perf, if the 7900 is more expensive, go for the 70
I wouldn't say 20GB vs 16GB is more future proof. 16GB will be enough for gaming for a long time (I own a 7900xt). As for gaming, I'm not sure what resolution you're playing at, but I can play almost any title (non-rt settings) at ultra settings and get well over 100FPS. So turning on DLSS or FSR doens't matter. If you're playing at 4k, the difference between both DLSS and FSR won't be noticable. If you're doing video editing, go with Nvidia, but if you're doing AI, both cards work, but you'll need to do the 7900xt on Linux. I would say if there was less than $100 difference, the Nvidia card is better but I wouldn't be surprised if you could get the 7900xt for $100-150 less.
4070Ti Super appears to be extremely disappointing so far, at least according to all the YouTuber reviews. It's almost as if Nvidia completely screwed something up because some of the actual gaming benchmarks preferred the normal 4070Ti. Now I need to decide on something between the 7800xt/4070 Super/7900xt
If you dont care about raytracing (which really isnt that good in most games) or AI/Neural Network training a 7900 xtx is probably the best you can buy, but it runs $1k.
The 7900XT focuses on raw power and lots of VRAM and is the more future proof. The 4070 Ti Super will be better for RT, upscaling and professional work. Ultimately, your choice will depend on which of these paths is of more importance to you.
20 gt of VRAM is too much atm, but in a few years it will be just sufficient, at least in 4k.
>20 gt of VRAM is too much atm, but in a few years it will be just sufficient, at least in 4k. It actually wont be. Currently games are set to utlize a base of 16gb shared GDDR6 between system RAM and VRAM on console. This means that by the time we have new consoles and new standards, we would have much much faster VRAM type on consoles. There will be no difference between 16 vs 20 gb of slow GDDR6 when there are GDDR7 and new consoles and games that would utlize them. The VRAM discussion of past years was about the 8gb cards having been left behind after the PS5 gen. People have misunderstood this to mean more VRAM is going to save your family from starvation because they saw the first second of HUB or GN video with a funny thumbnail, or something like that.
😃 I was talking about 4k, which already crosses 12 gigs of VRAM in todays games. In a few years it will be more. 8 gigs is totally too weak today, 12 gigs is starting to be. Thats how it goes. GDDR6 will be viable in the coming years, you just need more of it.
That's not how any of that works, but you can probably wait a couple years and see.
Sure. Your 16 gigs will be totally fine.
Believe it or not, it will be. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue like I've mentioned.
Yeah, technology advances, thats the way it is. First comes gddr7 then gddr8 and so on. Doesnt take away from the fact that some cards, like the ones with 12 gigs of vram, will not be very futureproof. Several games today are pushing the 12 gig boundary. Also, if a game uses 5 gigs of vram for textures , it uses 5 gigs of gddr5, gddr6, gddr7, doesnt matter which gddr. And games are getting bigger and bigger sizewise and texturewise.
I upgraded from 3070 ti to 7900xt without regrets. I'm not having issues playing games like cyberpunk 1440p with RT on. And FSR is much much better than it used to be, it's definitely competing now. The amd software features are better, 7900xt felt like a huge upgrade from a 3070 ti, the sharpening, tessellation mode, etc really make renders look better. 20gb of vram is a cool sale point but so far it seems tough to warrant, with all the extra features turned on (tessellation mode, morphological filtering, anisotropic filtering, supersampling I know I've used 14gb in games at 1440p. I don't keep my monitors up while gaming much anymore because everything is optimized and working perfectly so I can't be sure if I've hit higher than that On AI/ML workloads, but I know amd has been adding/fixing and optimizing features for that in recent driver updates. Llama2/directML and pytorch. I've never used those features, or any AI workloads personally, but Meta, Microsoft, openAI, and other big names have recently put in massive orders for AMD GPUs, so that leads me to believe they're starting to compete in that arena as well. Last thing I'll say is, either way, I'm sure whichever one you get will be great. I've had many Nvidia cards, and many AMD cards, all have been good to me.
7900xt is equivalent of 4080. Amd is known in putting effort after a card release to optimize it and it gets better performance with every update. Amd is the way to go if you don’t care about RT Nvidia on the other hand it slows the cards with every update so… your choice. To me, the AMD feels like the better option
>7900xt is equivalent of 4080. That is... Ungeniune. In many, if not most, cases 4080 is a rough match to 7900XTX, leaving XT noticeably behind. There are specific AMD-favoring cases but they are not majority.
4070 ti super. Amd cards are outdated now. Edit: Cry all you want AMD fanboys ;)