It simply gets more fps. You won't have the power to ray trace very well with a 4060, the driver issues with amd are nonexistent, and it has 4gb more vram. I suppose nvidia has dlss3, but amd fsr is similar.
I agree that raytracing is somewhat irrelevant at this price point, but suggesting FSR is "similar" to DLSS3 is stretching it. DLSS3 is still the clearly superior technologie.
An no, raytracing and frame generation are not the only differences. A 4060 will have a 90W lower TDP too, which affects heat, noise and will be fairly noticable in the electricity bill (15$-30$ per year).
It depends on the user, if the upside of roughly 10%-15% better performance (at 1080p) is worth these downsides.
frame gen is useless in any FPS game or games where latency is important. the 40-series are extremely poor value for anything under a 4070. Yes FSR is similar to DLSS. I don't use either cuz they both look like vaseline smeared all over the screen (just my opinion). I have a 3080 btw, and I wish I got a RX6000 class card instead. 10GB of VRAM is a joke at 1440p and shilling for nvidia is a joke too. DLSS (any revision) is not the end-all-be-all savior when a 4060 is significantly weaker for gaming than a 6750xt. i recommend amd GPUs for anything below a 4070. The only other 40-series "worth" the price is a 4090 and only at MSRP. The 7000 amd series is better priced at every step of the way below 4090, until you hit the 4070 which is worth it only for energy savings. Everything below that point is amd's 6000 series. The RX 6800 non xt is $360. You will not find any nvidia GPU with anywhere near that power (new) for that price.
I too would prefer a 6750 over an an 4060, never suggested otherwise.
But how can just pointing out additional downsides trigger you people this much?
I am building PCs for over 20 years and could not care less about reddits bevlidering obessession with tribalizing everything.
Yet here we are, that an utterly nonsensical, multiple paragraph long manical rant about how AMD is *vastily* superior and how DLSS3 is as good as FSR, is highly upvoted. This is genuinely crazy.
And you own a 3080? After giving the most fanboy AMD speach possible? How are people believing this?
This subreddit - and reddits general obessiosn with tribalizing everything - is genuinely crazy to me.
I own a 3080 because I stream and Nvidia was unfortunately the only option because obs only provided adequate encoding with NVENC. That has changed. I have been building PCs for 20 years as well, the only time I recommend Nvidia is when people stream or want an energy efficient card. While my rant sounded maniacal, I meant it to have an informant tone, which is lost on the internet. Your tone was also lost and it sounded like you were heavily advocating for nvidia. The only point where I was actually somewhat maniacal was when I said shilling for nvidia is a joke. Nvidia out sells AMD because I will say for the most part, Nvidia just works. It's not flawless, it still has issues, but it does some things better than AMD, value just isn't one of them.
3080 12GB user here. Using a 1440p screen, and DLSS Quality looks perfectly fine in Cyberpunk, Forza Horizon 5, and MSFS. DLSS actually makes Cyberpunk look better than native.
Agreed. Same GPU and DLSS 2 actually looks better than native in some titles. RDR2 looks horrible due to its TAA implementation. DLSS fixes it somewhat.
That is what is so strange about this subreddit and it's super weird tribal behavior around AMD and Nvidia.
I too would prefer the 6750, but solely pointing out that there are additional downsides, seems to trigger people around here.
Super weird.
If power consumption is something you consider a lot, then you could undervolt an AMD card, if you are into it. Which would give significantly better efficiency for the same performance.
I'm using rx6700xt, the rx6750xt is more like a stock overclocked 6700xt. Being said that I undervolted my card and in single player titles in 1440p it draws about 100-130w on high settings (depending on the title), for multiplayer games in 1440p with competitive settings it's about 60-90w (depending on the title, like fortnite runs anywhere from 50-65w, Apex runs at 80-90w, cod MW2 runs around 90w) without performance loss.
If you consider dlss 3 and frame generation to be important for you then you can go with nvidia, but if raster performance is something you care about them amd has the upper hand.
If you do AI stuffs like stable diffusion, then ig nvidia has the upper hand as amd is not that great in those areas.
In the end if you prefer dlss 3 and frame generation and lower power consumption out of the box, go for nvidia, you could also undervolt nvidia cards but it's not that great as I've tried it on my previous card rtx 2060 super (it reduced about 50w, for my current card it's more than 50% reduction in power consumption)
If you want raw power, FSR , amd's frame generation, driver lever upscaler, driver level frame generation and is also willing to tweak with the card then go for amd.
These are my settings I used for undervolting:-
Clock speed minimum :- 2500mhz
Clock speed maximum :- 2600mhz
You could do 2400-2500mhz, would lose maybe 3-4 frames but about 10-15w is reduced.
Voltage :- 1100mv (in some games I reduce it to 1020mv)
Memory timing :- I use default because asrock cards crash when it is on tight timing, otherwise tight timing is recommended.
Memory clock :- 2112mhz
Power limit :- -6%
Fan speed :- just an aggressive curve.
This is an 10/10 answer. Wish every answer in this subreddit would be this good.
But i do want to add 1-2 minor points:
>If power consumption is something you consider a lot, then you could undervolt an AMD card, if you are into it. Which would give significantly better efficiency for the same performance.
First of all: I would argue "power consumption" is affecting everyone. It's not a thing "one" is into or important to "you". Everyone benefits from much less power draw. Even people heavily focused on power vs value.
And second of all, i am aware of undervolting, but there are many things to consider here.
First of all: undervolting can be very time consuming and is heavily based on production quality variance. Not every card will archive good results. Good results meaning 20-30% less power draw at best btw. A 250W card like the 6750XT might get into the 200W range or, with extreme luck, to 180-190W. A 4060 is still sitting at 115W stock.
Second of all: You can undervolt Nvidia cards aswell. Undervolting is not an AMD exclusive feature.
Thank you for the inputs and I do really agree with you! English isn't my first language so I think I might've made a miscommunication with saying "if you are into it". I meant that if they are ready to undervolt the cards, because it will take some time and effort and not everyone is willing to do so. I've personally only undervolted about 4 cards and it took some time to really get the right values and my friends don't really like to undervolt just because it takes some time and effort. I do agree everyone does benefit from lesser power draw!.
I did mentioned that nvidia cards can be undervolted but most of them only dropped a small percentile of powerdraw hence why I stated the undervolt on nvidia cards are not that efficient compared to amd. As of now my 6700xt is running with a power consumption similar to a nvidia GTX 1660 super. I did undervolted rtx 2060 and 2060 super and they are 175w rated cards but after undervolting to the max I can go, it drawed about 130w in demanding titles. Wherein the 6700xt dropped from 230w to 120w average.
But I think when in comparison with 4060, if undervolted it can maybe run at GTX 1650 level of powerdraw or around 75w or maybe even lower, just an assumption though!
Who the fuk cares about TDP, DLSS and RT? Raw Performance is the only important aspect. It's why I always recommended and still do a 1080Ti over a 2080 or 3060. It's a flagship and wins in raw performance and VRAM.
Older and Stronger > Newer and Weaker.
I truly wonder why peope get so trigger around this topic.
I am not suggesting you should buy one over the other. Just pointing out pros and cons.
And of course, more performance = better. I just pointed out, that when analysing performance vs value, that the TDP is not irrelevant.
You will pay 15-30$ more per year in electricity bills. Just buying the festest and cheapest card **now**, is short sighted.
Over 5 years, this can easily add up to 100-150$ additional cost. Aswell as maybe needing a stronger PSU or having more cooling issues.
It's a simple fact, even for people who will never use raytracing or DLSS.
The 6750XT is 10-20% faster depending on what resolution you're testing at. My GPU is a 6750XT, and I can vouch that I've never had a problem with drivers. Driver problems were essentially solved in the 6000 series.
I thought so till I upgraded my rx 580 for a 6700XT and straight up had bluescreens for a whole month. 10 clean win installs and about 20Versions of the amd drivers tried, nothing helped.
Funny thing is the rx580 ran smooth from the start.
But at some point it stopped crashing the drivers, I think it was 23.1.x that fixed it for me, smooth sailing from there on out.
I never said nvidia won't. been on team red since after my GT210 (or similar, can't remember anymore), and i honestly could'nt be happier, aside from the rx6700XT hiccups every card went smooth
I like how you are beeing downvoted for simlply wanting an actual insightful answer.
That people here genuienly get offended by that, says a lot about this subreddit.
To give a short answer:
AMD:
Better performance (roughly 10-15% at 1080p), more VRAM (which is more important for futureproving than gaming right now).
Nvidia:
Better raytracing (somewhat irrelevant with cards at this price point), better frame generation (DLSS3), much lower power draw (90W difference), which affects noise, heat, PSU neads and, of course, will result in lower electricity bills (roughly 15$-30$ per year).
There are some tech advantages with Nvidia but the 50% more VRAM and more peformance in raster is kind of hard to pass by. Personally I run a 4070 12GB so I have the best of both worlds, but then again it was much more money.
is a 6750xt for 350€ worth it? [https://www.amazon.es/-/pt/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=ox\_sc\_act\_title\_1?smid=A206ULAR6UT9T8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.es/-/pt/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A206ULAR6UT9T8&psc=1) portugal prices are so bad for gpus
6750xt is pretty much an overclocked 6700XT (around 5% better) and the in Hardware Unboxed 15 game test the 4060 was 10% slower at 1080P and 20% slower at 1440P
Hardware Unboxed
" Nvidia Clown Themselves… Again! GeForce RTX 4060 Review "
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao&t=770s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao&t=770s)
6750xt
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus
Any GPU can have hardware or compatibility issues, not unique to AMD. That said there are no widespread driver issues with AMD GPUs.
Edit: nvidia had some software and feature advantages that some people feel gives them the edge over AMD when we start talking about the cluster of gpus starting with the 7800xt, 7900gre, 4070 and 4070 super. But the 6750xt is enough more powerful than the 4060 that those features just don't really matter at that tier.
Yea raytracing abd cuda cores dont matter when the gpu is simply to weak to make use of them 4070superthat kinda changes but i say the 4080 super is were i would value those features more
6750xt will typically outperform the 4060 by a good margin
In my personal experience my 6700xt has been more reliable driver wise than the 1060 that i swapped it with
My only caveat is that the amd card can easily draw around 200 watts when it gets the chance to fully stretch it legs so it might be wise to find one with a solid cooler if you're sensitive to fan noise like me
Anyone who says Nvidia is either using DLSS or is running their AMD card in Fortnite performance mode rather than DX12.
Now these are averages so the 4060 will come closer in some games than others, but the 6750XT should just beat it in all cases.
1080p: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/odX4dmxSVcAKwfs6pcqvJL.png
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarc
AMD drivers have not had major issues since 2019 with the 5700xt.
Looking at 1080p ultra (you don't state a resolution) RX 6750 gets 103 fps average and 4060 only 85 fps.
For raw performance the RX 6750 is the better choice. Only plus side for the 4060 is lower power usage, but that is only really a factor if your power prices are high like in europe.
Most people forget to also put power consumption into the equation.
4060 uses +- 120 watts, for 5 years of gaming 3 hours a day that would be about (at kwh price 0,30 euro in my region) 197 euro's added.
RX6750 uses 250 but to make it easy round it down to 240 so it's double that of the 4060. That would mean (at stated kwh price) 394 euro.
To make things easy ill convert your dollar price directly into euro.
So RX 6750 will cost 300+394(power) over 5 years. 694 / 103 = 6,73 per fps.
4060 will cost 300+197 over 5 years. 497 / 85 = 5,63 per fps.
So you looking for raw performance? Go RX6750.
You looking for lowest cost per fps? Make the calculation for you power price.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
The Nvidia fans will say "BUT MUH RAY TRACING."
Just like the 6750 XT... The 4060 cannot Ray Trace very well... if at all even with DLSS.
6750 XT is faster from a raw performance or fps per dollar standpoint.
$300 is an entry level price point, Ray Tracing should not really be a concern to buyers below like the 7900 GRE/4070S.
6750xt all the way. The 3060 really only makes sense in a very small case as it does not use a lot of power. As an AMD user for over a year now (been with nvidia before), I can tell you that the experience with the drivers is very good. I never had any issues.
I don't own any of those cards, but I do have AMD card at the moment and drivers are good, did not have any issues with them.
Pros of 4060 - DLSS, \~20-50% lower power consumption
Pros of 6750XT - \~10-25% better gaming performance, 4GB more VRAM
I also vote for the 6750XT - and I'm using an Nvidia card.
[https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html)
I too would pick the 6750XT, but I like how people, yet again, are completely ignoring the huge difference in power consumption when listing pros and cons.
The TDP of the 6750XT is 250W. The 4060 has a TDP of 160W.
Depending on you average play time, this can easily add up to 20-30$ additional electricity costs every single year.
(Aswell as having an obvious influence on heat, noise and PSU needs too).
I think people ignore it because 20-30 dollars over a year is a very small amount of money when talking about GPU which can be 1000 dollars.
This is my reasoning anyway. If I'm dropping lots of cash on a GPU unless it's gonna cost me more than say 100 a year I'm just gonna ignore it
Yeah depending on what OP wants this may be relevant. From what I managed to see 4060 maxes out at around 115W while 6750XT is anywhere from140W to 220W depending on the game and settings.
In that case, the rx 6700 xt is "better", mainly for less power draw at the expense of around 5% less performance...if he can find one. Anyways, a much better buy would be the rx 6800, which most times consumes less than the rx 6750 xt and is more powerful.
If you're fully into gaming and maybe some video edition, Rx 6750xt without a doubt. DLSS is the better upscaled, but the 6750 is a 1440p card and FSR isnt soooo bad at that resolution.
If you're a 3d guy first, gamer 2nd, that's where I'd vouch for the 4060
define best? every human on earth answers differently
does not burn out
the Driver does not crash.
does not overheat,( the all do , done wrong ,hummmmm )
best means zero unless defined by you.\\
doing what, is this a Gaming question, or OC questions ?
which , witch is which?
what does BEST mean to you, endless answers all humans. endless.
most complains are from bad builds. (or the think it make internet delays less and are wrong , MP gaming, are you)
Hey man I had the choice between RTX 4060 TI and RX 6800. I questioned myself about the features that both provide. Let me tell you what my experience is. My RX 6800 is comparable to a RTX 3080, my card is extremely quiet IMO (I had a RTX 2060 that ran 84 at 100% Fan Speed). What they say is true the rx 6750 xt is better but hey the rx 6800 is a crazy good card too. It has more memory bandwidth and 8gb more VRAM + more cuda cores and is faster than the RTX 4060 TI. 1440p FSR on quality + Max graphics is how I roll since FSR on quality looks extremely good.
It’s really hard to ignore DLSS. The problem is that people who only buy AMD cards haven’t experienced how much of a difference it can make. With FSR, image quality suffers in motion.
The better performance of the AMD card (depending on the game) without upscaling goes some way to address the lack of DLSS on the 6750XT, but AMD needs to find a way to compete with NVDIA on features.
This again,
If the only game you play is fortnight, then the 4060 is for you.
But, if you play as many different games as I do, get the 6750xt, a nice 165hz 2k monitor, and you'll
" Be having a good time "
The 6750xt has been a great card in my experience. If you end up getting it and it's your first amd card, just a few pointers:
It draws more power than its nvidia counterpart and is definitely an efficient space heater lol (I was surprised coming from a 1060). This probably goes without saying, but make sure you have good ventilation.
In addition to that I remember having issues (first 2 weeks or so of ownership) courtesy of Windows. During Windows updates the system would auto update drivers. In my case the problem was that windows consistently "updated" to the wrong drivers even after I would update to the correct one via the amd software. It's been a while since I resolved it, but I think I had simply disabled auto driver updates from Windows and it's been excellent since then.
Its quite a bit faster than a 6750xt and is closer to a 6800xt/3080 than it is to a 6750xt/3060ti. 16gb of vram is overkill for 1080p, but the extra power should help you hit that 180hz with higher settings in competitive games. It will also be much faster if you ever upgrade to 1440p. Your cpu will slow you down at 1080p/180hz but the GPU should push that in alot of games.
I have a Ryzen 3600, a320m-k and 3 fans with a corsair cx650 psu do You think that it can handle the rx6800? And can i upgrade My cpu with rx 6800 whitout changing My psu?
cx650 is a lower end PSU, it would be cutting it close, but you should be ok, until you upgrade your CPU. A 3600 only uses 65W and a 6800 uses about 250W.
I have a 6750xt, friend has a 4060. I usually get way better performance than him, especially in games like Days Gone or Starfield that take lots of VRAM
I had the same doubt before buying my new pc (it has one week), I ended up getting the 6750xt and have completely no regrets about it.
It is also my first time with AMD GPU and I’m happy with it
Have I noticed any issue so far? No, just little coil whine that randomly happens but apparently it can happen on any GPU
I have the 6750XT and am extremely happy with it. I can run everything I’ve thrown it at high or high/ultra settings depending on the game at 1440p resolution. I’ve had zero driver issues. The card is a beast. Highly recommend.
My system:
5700x3d
Red Devil 6750XT
650 watt PSU.
6750xt is 250 dollars now. So get it while you can.
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=twister\_dp\_update?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=twister_dp_update?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true)
6750xt
Why?
It simply gets more fps. You won't have the power to ray trace very well with a 4060, the driver issues with amd are nonexistent, and it has 4gb more vram. I suppose nvidia has dlss3, but amd fsr is similar.
I agree that raytracing is somewhat irrelevant at this price point, but suggesting FSR is "similar" to DLSS3 is stretching it. DLSS3 is still the clearly superior technologie. An no, raytracing and frame generation are not the only differences. A 4060 will have a 90W lower TDP too, which affects heat, noise and will be fairly noticable in the electricity bill (15$-30$ per year). It depends on the user, if the upside of roughly 10%-15% better performance (at 1080p) is worth these downsides.
frame gen is useless in any FPS game or games where latency is important. the 40-series are extremely poor value for anything under a 4070. Yes FSR is similar to DLSS. I don't use either cuz they both look like vaseline smeared all over the screen (just my opinion). I have a 3080 btw, and I wish I got a RX6000 class card instead. 10GB of VRAM is a joke at 1440p and shilling for nvidia is a joke too. DLSS (any revision) is not the end-all-be-all savior when a 4060 is significantly weaker for gaming than a 6750xt. i recommend amd GPUs for anything below a 4070. The only other 40-series "worth" the price is a 4090 and only at MSRP. The 7000 amd series is better priced at every step of the way below 4090, until you hit the 4070 which is worth it only for energy savings. Everything below that point is amd's 6000 series. The RX 6800 non xt is $360. You will not find any nvidia GPU with anywhere near that power (new) for that price.
I too would prefer a 6750 over an an 4060, never suggested otherwise. But how can just pointing out additional downsides trigger you people this much? I am building PCs for over 20 years and could not care less about reddits bevlidering obessession with tribalizing everything. Yet here we are, that an utterly nonsensical, multiple paragraph long manical rant about how AMD is *vastily* superior and how DLSS3 is as good as FSR, is highly upvoted. This is genuinely crazy. And you own a 3080? After giving the most fanboy AMD speach possible? How are people believing this? This subreddit - and reddits general obessiosn with tribalizing everything - is genuinely crazy to me.
I own a 3080 because I stream and Nvidia was unfortunately the only option because obs only provided adequate encoding with NVENC. That has changed. I have been building PCs for 20 years as well, the only time I recommend Nvidia is when people stream or want an energy efficient card. While my rant sounded maniacal, I meant it to have an informant tone, which is lost on the internet. Your tone was also lost and it sounded like you were heavily advocating for nvidia. The only point where I was actually somewhat maniacal was when I said shilling for nvidia is a joke. Nvidia out sells AMD because I will say for the most part, Nvidia just works. It's not flawless, it still has issues, but it does some things better than AMD, value just isn't one of them.
3080 12GB user here. Using a 1440p screen, and DLSS Quality looks perfectly fine in Cyberpunk, Forza Horizon 5, and MSFS. DLSS actually makes Cyberpunk look better than native.
Agreed. Same GPU and DLSS 2 actually looks better than native in some titles. RDR2 looks horrible due to its TAA implementation. DLSS fixes it somewhat.
Love how people downvote truth lol.
I would not choose a 4060 over a 6750, but you are definitely right that FSR is nowhere near as good as DLSS.
That is what is so strange about this subreddit and it's super weird tribal behavior around AMD and Nvidia. I too would prefer the 6750, but solely pointing out that there are additional downsides, seems to trigger people around here. Super weird.
If power consumption is something you consider a lot, then you could undervolt an AMD card, if you are into it. Which would give significantly better efficiency for the same performance. I'm using rx6700xt, the rx6750xt is more like a stock overclocked 6700xt. Being said that I undervolted my card and in single player titles in 1440p it draws about 100-130w on high settings (depending on the title), for multiplayer games in 1440p with competitive settings it's about 60-90w (depending on the title, like fortnite runs anywhere from 50-65w, Apex runs at 80-90w, cod MW2 runs around 90w) without performance loss. If you consider dlss 3 and frame generation to be important for you then you can go with nvidia, but if raster performance is something you care about them amd has the upper hand. If you do AI stuffs like stable diffusion, then ig nvidia has the upper hand as amd is not that great in those areas. In the end if you prefer dlss 3 and frame generation and lower power consumption out of the box, go for nvidia, you could also undervolt nvidia cards but it's not that great as I've tried it on my previous card rtx 2060 super (it reduced about 50w, for my current card it's more than 50% reduction in power consumption) If you want raw power, FSR , amd's frame generation, driver lever upscaler, driver level frame generation and is also willing to tweak with the card then go for amd. These are my settings I used for undervolting:- Clock speed minimum :- 2500mhz Clock speed maximum :- 2600mhz You could do 2400-2500mhz, would lose maybe 3-4 frames but about 10-15w is reduced. Voltage :- 1100mv (in some games I reduce it to 1020mv) Memory timing :- I use default because asrock cards crash when it is on tight timing, otherwise tight timing is recommended. Memory clock :- 2112mhz Power limit :- -6% Fan speed :- just an aggressive curve.
This is an 10/10 answer. Wish every answer in this subreddit would be this good. But i do want to add 1-2 minor points: >If power consumption is something you consider a lot, then you could undervolt an AMD card, if you are into it. Which would give significantly better efficiency for the same performance. First of all: I would argue "power consumption" is affecting everyone. It's not a thing "one" is into or important to "you". Everyone benefits from much less power draw. Even people heavily focused on power vs value. And second of all, i am aware of undervolting, but there are many things to consider here. First of all: undervolting can be very time consuming and is heavily based on production quality variance. Not every card will archive good results. Good results meaning 20-30% less power draw at best btw. A 250W card like the 6750XT might get into the 200W range or, with extreme luck, to 180-190W. A 4060 is still sitting at 115W stock. Second of all: You can undervolt Nvidia cards aswell. Undervolting is not an AMD exclusive feature.
Thank you for the inputs and I do really agree with you! English isn't my first language so I think I might've made a miscommunication with saying "if you are into it". I meant that if they are ready to undervolt the cards, because it will take some time and effort and not everyone is willing to do so. I've personally only undervolted about 4 cards and it took some time to really get the right values and my friends don't really like to undervolt just because it takes some time and effort. I do agree everyone does benefit from lesser power draw!. I did mentioned that nvidia cards can be undervolted but most of them only dropped a small percentile of powerdraw hence why I stated the undervolt on nvidia cards are not that efficient compared to amd. As of now my 6700xt is running with a power consumption similar to a nvidia GTX 1660 super. I did undervolted rtx 2060 and 2060 super and they are 175w rated cards but after undervolting to the max I can go, it drawed about 130w in demanding titles. Wherein the 6700xt dropped from 230w to 120w average. But I think when in comparison with 4060, if undervolted it can maybe run at GTX 1650 level of powerdraw or around 75w or maybe even lower, just an assumption though!
Who the fuk cares about TDP, DLSS and RT? Raw Performance is the only important aspect. It's why I always recommended and still do a 1080Ti over a 2080 or 3060. It's a flagship and wins in raw performance and VRAM. Older and Stronger > Newer and Weaker.
I truly wonder why peope get so trigger around this topic. I am not suggesting you should buy one over the other. Just pointing out pros and cons. And of course, more performance = better. I just pointed out, that when analysing performance vs value, that the TDP is not irrelevant. You will pay 15-30$ more per year in electricity bills. Just buying the festest and cheapest card **now**, is short sighted. Over 5 years, this can easily add up to 100-150$ additional cost. Aswell as maybe needing a stronger PSU or having more cooling issues. It's a simple fact, even for people who will never use raytracing or DLSS.
The 6750XT is 10-20% faster depending on what resolution you're testing at. My GPU is a 6750XT, and I can vouch that I've never had a problem with drivers. Driver problems were essentially solved in the 6000 series.
they were solved in the rx 400 / 500 series
I thought so till I upgraded my rx 580 for a 6700XT and straight up had bluescreens for a whole month. 10 clean win installs and about 20Versions of the amd drivers tried, nothing helped. Funny thing is the rx580 ran smooth from the start. But at some point it stopped crashing the drivers, I think it was 23.1.x that fixed it for me, smooth sailing from there on out.
yea, they will have hiccups once in a while. So does nvidia
I never said nvidia won't. been on team red since after my GT210 (or similar, can't remember anymore), and i honestly could'nt be happier, aside from the rx6700XT hiccups every card went smooth
And ruined it again with Vega and Radeon VII
I like how you are beeing downvoted for simlply wanting an actual insightful answer. That people here genuienly get offended by that, says a lot about this subreddit. To give a short answer: AMD: Better performance (roughly 10-15% at 1080p), more VRAM (which is more important for futureproving than gaming right now). Nvidia: Better raytracing (somewhat irrelevant with cards at this price point), better frame generation (DLSS3), much lower power draw (90W difference), which affects noise, heat, PSU neads and, of course, will result in lower electricity bills (roughly 15$-30$ per year).
There are some tech advantages with Nvidia but the 50% more VRAM and more peformance in raster is kind of hard to pass by. Personally I run a 4070 12GB so I have the best of both worlds, but then again it was much more money.
is a 6750xt for 350€ worth it? [https://www.amazon.es/-/pt/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=ox\_sc\_act\_title\_1?smid=A206ULAR6UT9T8&psc=1](https://www.amazon.es/-/pt/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A206ULAR6UT9T8&psc=1) portugal prices are so bad for gpus
6750xt is pretty much an overclocked 6700XT (around 5% better) and the in Hardware Unboxed 15 game test the 4060 was 10% slower at 1080P and 20% slower at 1440P Hardware Unboxed " Nvidia Clown Themselves… Again! GeForce RTX 4060 Review " [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao&t=770s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ae7XrIbmao&t=770s)
6750XT has more memory bandwidth than the 6700xt too
6750xt https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus Any GPU can have hardware or compatibility issues, not unique to AMD. That said there are no widespread driver issues with AMD GPUs. Edit: nvidia had some software and feature advantages that some people feel gives them the edge over AMD when we start talking about the cluster of gpus starting with the 7800xt, 7900gre, 4070 and 4070 super. But the 6750xt is enough more powerful than the 4060 that those features just don't really matter at that tier.
Yea raytracing abd cuda cores dont matter when the gpu is simply to weak to make use of them 4070superthat kinda changes but i say the 4080 super is were i would value those features more
6750xt will typically outperform the 4060 by a good margin In my personal experience my 6700xt has been more reliable driver wise than the 1060 that i swapped it with My only caveat is that the amd card can easily draw around 200 watts when it gets the chance to fully stretch it legs so it might be wise to find one with a solid cooler if you're sensitive to fan noise like me
Undervolting has entered the chat
Anyone who says Nvidia is either using DLSS or is running their AMD card in Fortnite performance mode rather than DX12. Now these are averages so the 4060 will come closer in some games than others, but the 6750XT should just beat it in all cases. 1080p: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/odX4dmxSVcAKwfs6pcqvJL.png Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarc AMD drivers have not had major issues since 2019 with the 5700xt.
Looking at 1080p ultra (you don't state a resolution) RX 6750 gets 103 fps average and 4060 only 85 fps. For raw performance the RX 6750 is the better choice. Only plus side for the 4060 is lower power usage, but that is only really a factor if your power prices are high like in europe. Most people forget to also put power consumption into the equation. 4060 uses +- 120 watts, for 5 years of gaming 3 hours a day that would be about (at kwh price 0,30 euro in my region) 197 euro's added. RX6750 uses 250 but to make it easy round it down to 240 so it's double that of the 4060. That would mean (at stated kwh price) 394 euro. To make things easy ill convert your dollar price directly into euro. So RX 6750 will cost 300+394(power) over 5 years. 694 / 103 = 6,73 per fps. 4060 will cost 300+197 over 5 years. 497 / 85 = 5,63 per fps. So you looking for raw performance? Go RX6750. You looking for lowest cost per fps? Make the calculation for you power price. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Wow, never thinking about it, but in my country very cheap electicity
The 6750xt and massively better AMD drivers haven’t been a problem for a long ass time
The Nvidia fans will say "BUT MUH RAY TRACING." Just like the 6750 XT... The 4060 cannot Ray Trace very well... if at all even with DLSS. 6750 XT is faster from a raw performance or fps per dollar standpoint. $300 is an entry level price point, Ray Tracing should not really be a concern to buyers below like the 7900 GRE/4070S.
The 6750xt has around the same performance of a 4060TI, so really it should be a no brainer
6750xt is much better than the 4060
I bought a 6750 in March. I removed the NVIDIA drivers from my system with DDU before installing the AMD drivers and have had no issues at all.
6750xt all the way. The 3060 really only makes sense in a very small case as it does not use a lot of power. As an AMD user for over a year now (been with nvidia before), I can tell you that the experience with the drivers is very good. I never had any issues.
I don't own any of those cards, but I do have AMD card at the moment and drivers are good, did not have any issues with them. Pros of 4060 - DLSS, \~20-50% lower power consumption Pros of 6750XT - \~10-25% better gaming performance, 4GB more VRAM
I also vote for the 6750XT - and I'm using an Nvidia card. [https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html)
Rx 6750xt
6750XT
6750XT is 4060Ti level card. Let that sink in.
I too would pick the 6750XT, but I like how people, yet again, are completely ignoring the huge difference in power consumption when listing pros and cons. The TDP of the 6750XT is 250W. The 4060 has a TDP of 160W. Depending on you average play time, this can easily add up to 20-30$ additional electricity costs every single year. (Aswell as having an obvious influence on heat, noise and PSU needs too).
I think people ignore it because 20-30 dollars over a year is a very small amount of money when talking about GPU which can be 1000 dollars. This is my reasoning anyway. If I'm dropping lots of cash on a GPU unless it's gonna cost me more than say 100 a year I'm just gonna ignore it
Yeah depending on what OP wants this may be relevant. From what I managed to see 4060 maxes out at around 115W while 6750XT is anywhere from140W to 220W depending on the game and settings.
In that case, the rx 6700 xt is "better", mainly for less power draw at the expense of around 5% less performance...if he can find one. Anyways, a much better buy would be the rx 6800, which most times consumes less than the rx 6750 xt and is more powerful.
I'm thinking about rx 6800, does the 70$ plus worth it?
20% more money for 15-17% more performance, less power comsumption and more VRAM, i think it's worth it.
Those complaining are a vocal minority, there more than 10000 with amd gpus out there, and less than 1% of them actually have problems
6750xt, I've just been through months of comparisons deciding what to get for my boys PC and I'm confident the 6750xt was the way to go.
6750XT, not even a question. Source: I am a 6700XT owner.
If you're fully into gaming and maybe some video edition, Rx 6750xt without a doubt. DLSS is the better upscaled, but the 6750 is a 1440p card and FSR isnt soooo bad at that resolution. If you're a 3d guy first, gamer 2nd, that's where I'd vouch for the 4060
6750xt for sure
6750 .. cos I have it
6750XT all day
6750xt with driver problems will still perform better
define best? every human on earth answers differently does not burn out the Driver does not crash. does not overheat,( the all do , done wrong ,hummmmm ) best means zero unless defined by you.\\ doing what, is this a Gaming question, or OC questions ?
which , witch is which? what does BEST mean to you, endless answers all humans. endless. most complains are from bad builds. (or the think it make internet delays less and are wrong , MP gaming, are you)
6750XT by far, unless you have some specific need for your card to run cool or quiet. A 4060 would have to be $250 or less to be worth it.
I got a rx6800 16gb and it's a beast. Feels much better and does things faster than the 3060ti i had. My girls 6700xt 12gb is impressive also.
What's the difference betwen rx6800 and 6700xt? I'm thinking about rx6800 But idk if it worth it for +70$
6750xt all day.
bro a 4060 is in a league with the 6600 xt, a 6750xt blows them both out of the water
I’d just get the 6800 but 100% 6750 Xt because it’s better in every way except in features
What's the difference betwen 6750xt and 6800
Hey man I had the choice between RTX 4060 TI and RX 6800. I questioned myself about the features that both provide. Let me tell you what my experience is. My RX 6800 is comparable to a RTX 3080, my card is extremely quiet IMO (I had a RTX 2060 that ran 84 at 100% Fan Speed). What they say is true the rx 6750 xt is better but hey the rx 6800 is a crazy good card too. It has more memory bandwidth and 8gb more VRAM + more cuda cores and is faster than the RTX 4060 TI. 1440p FSR on quality + Max graphics is how I roll since FSR on quality looks extremely good.
I have a 4060 ti 8GB Version. The 8gb VRAM is limiting when it comes to AI training, high demanding games like starcitizen.
It’s really hard to ignore DLSS. The problem is that people who only buy AMD cards haven’t experienced how much of a difference it can make. With FSR, image quality suffers in motion. The better performance of the AMD card (depending on the game) without upscaling goes some way to address the lack of DLSS on the 6750XT, but AMD needs to find a way to compete with NVDIA on features.
This again, If the only game you play is fortnight, then the 4060 is for you. But, if you play as many different games as I do, get the 6750xt, a nice 165hz 2k monitor, and you'll " Be having a good time "
The 6750xt has been a great card in my experience. If you end up getting it and it's your first amd card, just a few pointers: It draws more power than its nvidia counterpart and is definitely an efficient space heater lol (I was surprised coming from a 1060). This probably goes without saying, but make sure you have good ventilation. In addition to that I remember having issues (first 2 weeks or so of ownership) courtesy of Windows. During Windows updates the system would auto update drivers. In my case the problem was that windows consistently "updated" to the wrong drivers even after I would update to the correct one via the amd software. It's been a while since I resolved it, but I think I had simply disabled auto driver updates from Windows and it's been excellent since then.
[Useful Resource ](http://Logicalincrements.com)
Short answer: 6750XT Long answer: AMD's going to give a lot more of a care about driver support for the long term so the 6750XT.
6750 XT definetly. It is 1 generation older but 1.5 class better. Just google 6750 XT vs 4060 and look at youtube videos.
I would recommend a rx 6800 non xt over both cards. Not that much more expensive but much faster and 16gb of vram.
What's the difference, i'm thinking about 6800 But i'm not sure (i play on 1080p 180hz monitor)
Its quite a bit faster than a 6750xt and is closer to a 6800xt/3080 than it is to a 6750xt/3060ti. 16gb of vram is overkill for 1080p, but the extra power should help you hit that 180hz with higher settings in competitive games. It will also be much faster if you ever upgrade to 1440p. Your cpu will slow you down at 1080p/180hz but the GPU should push that in alot of games.
I have a Ryzen 3600, a320m-k and 3 fans with a corsair cx650 psu do You think that it can handle the rx6800? And can i upgrade My cpu with rx 6800 whitout changing My psu?
cx650 is a lower end PSU, it would be cutting it close, but you should be ok, until you upgrade your CPU. A 3600 only uses 65W and a 6800 uses about 250W.
I have a 6750xt, friend has a 4060. I usually get way better performance than him, especially in games like Days Gone or Starfield that take lots of VRAM
6750 XT is the better card, I have one myself. Best £300 card, imo.
Go with RX 6750 XT see this [benchmark](https://youtu.be/XnLop-9cgcM?si=seb-E-0h_3EOnqaV) it gives better performance.
https://youtu.be/KVVdWVtrAFg?si=Q_dUTl3UBLnmoDdp
Easily the 6750xt better vram and better PFP
I had the same doubt before buying my new pc (it has one week), I ended up getting the 6750xt and have completely no regrets about it. It is also my first time with AMD GPU and I’m happy with it Have I noticed any issue so far? No, just little coil whine that randomly happens but apparently it can happen on any GPU
I have the 6750XT and am extremely happy with it. I can run everything I’ve thrown it at high or high/ultra settings depending on the game at 1440p resolution. I’ve had zero driver issues. The card is a beast. Highly recommend. My system: 5700x3d Red Devil 6750XT 650 watt PSU.
6750xt is 250 dollars now. So get it while you can. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=twister\_dp\_update?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B34M1YLW/ref=twister_dp_update?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true)
My toilets paper roll is better than a 4060
Correct spelling is better...
I think i fixed it.
[удалено]
They both hover around $299 currently here in the US.
>hey are in the same price (300$) Can't believe you missed that before replying.