@@SansAppellation They can be, but it's a much less common issue now than it was a few years ago. The biggest issue I've seen is people having thermal issues. My friend had way more crashing on his RX 6650XT vs his old GTX 1650 and immediately assumed it was a driver issue. He checked his temps and saw them skyrocketing, realized his new card was being thermal throttled and had to open his side panel for better airflow.
@@IndyMiraagathank you for the insights. That puts my mind at rest a little. I don't mind occasional tinkering if it's mainly to optimize for gaming and doesn't affect my workflow.
@@SansAppellation What kind of workflow do you mean? I hate to say it, but Nvidia is generally a better choice for most work-related tasks. 3D rendering, video encoding, and other production tasks are usually better on Nvidia cards. Though if you were going from something like a 20-series Nvidia card to a Radeon 7000-series card, you'll probably still end up with a better experience overall.
@@Ace.20 lol if they were trying to preserve it they would stop releasing graphics cards that use more power every single gen. Focus on making hardware more efficient and longer lasting instead. But hey that wouldn't be easy money since people don't buy hardware for efficiency and longevity would reduce the incentive to buy new hardware.
Always remember that trillion dollar international corporations are not your friend or family and are not "yours"(unless you own substantial amount of stock).
It;s beyond me why anyone would buy nvidia unless it's a 4090. AMD is just better for your money. fake AI frames and pixels are gay. shouldn't be something you care about.
@@CombatMedic1OWell, AMD gpus don't have cuda, which pretty much throws them out as options if you're doing anything productivity related. IIRC an AMD gpu took like 4 times as long to render in Blender than a cheaper Nvidia gpu
@@henryviiifake8244 For example here in Germany. RTX 4080 Super 1000€ vs RX7900XT 700€ (Radeon Wins) RTX 4070 Ti Super 800€ vs RX7900 GRE 600€ (Radeon Wins) RTX 4060 ti 16GB 450€ vs RX7800XT 480€ (Radeon Wins) Its stupid to buy a Geforce because Radeons give way more fps per buck.
yeah, 7800xt in my country is same price to rtx4070 but Ventus version while i can get a sapphire nitro+ 7800xt, even cheaper if you buy a sapphire pulse models which is same price to 4060ti "8g", literally no brain at this point.
Seriously no one should be buying 4060. 8gb garbage aside, no one could seriously turn on RT with it anyway. DLSS upscaler is good. But if you can get. Cheaper and stronger AMD card with more vram, you don't really need upscaling to begin with.
Been PC gaming since like 1999 or so and have only owned 1 Nvidia GPU which is a gtx 970 I still have in my Plex PC. That being said I find "brand loyalty" to multi billion dollar companies weird honestly, I've never understood the AMD/Nvidia arguing or the console wars.
@@ZackSNetwork there is a difference between being brand loyal and having preferences that tend to align with a brand's offerings. AMD made more sense and was a much better value for what I use my PC for, but I would have been happy to buy a Nvidia GPU had they not been slower for more money.
Brand loyalty has a place, you satisfy your customers routinely, why not? Earned. But NV has a noticeable lead to me in bells and whistles and I find it hard to put a set price on that, other than I will pay extra and over 2-3 years of ownership that difference means little to me. I still haven't paid dearly yet (or any hardship) for having a bit less than the perceived ideal VRAM amount. AMD makes good GPU's, imo NV makes better one's.
My first proper pc had a 1050ti, then I went to an rx 570, rx 6600, rx 6700xt and now 7900xt. AMD's software is amazing its a key selling point for me over Nvidia, since I dont care about ray tracing. My 7900xt was also on sale for the same price as a 4070 super at the time, so it was a no brainer for 20% faster raster for not much slower RT
Eh I've had both and neither had any major problems. But both had the occasional driver bug (all software does). Amd is pretty famous for their recent problem with how driver based frame gen was implemented that got people banned on multiplayer games due to the anti cheat mechanisms classifying it as a cheat. As someone who plays only single player I wasn't affected by that one. There was another bug that made any video (like youtube) played in the browser make the entire computer extremely sluggish, it was fixed pretty quickly but I was affected by it.
It keeps turning my monitor on even when it's supposed to be off (like the turn monitor off after x minutes feature in windows). Disabling the ultra low power setting just crashes the AMD driver when the computer wakes from sleep. Definitely an AMD driver issue in Windows 10, since using Windows 7 with the same setup, everything works fine though the driver is much older. Does the same thing for both monitors. Already tested literally everything, there is no fix. Never had any issues like this with multiple nVidia cards, though those like to self-destruct permanently anyway.
You know you're in front of a Nvidia/Intel fan that hasn't used Adrenaline in their lives when they tell you their driver software is better than yours 😂
Exactly. I bought Nvidia ultimately because I built ITX and the 4080 ran cooler than what AMD was offering in that performance range. But next time around if I don’t go ITX, AMD will probably be where I go. I’m not loyal to any company.
I got a AMD 6950xt for $400 last prime day, Swapped out from a 4060TI 8Gb, I was shocked at how much more I got with AMD, only have issue with 1 game so far being Ark SA where I can't get my card to run at all in the game. Hard to swallow the Nvidia prices now especially for playable 1440p gaming, I'm happy with my system, happy with my GPU. Would love to see AMD getting more market share so game makers need to focus a bit more into giving AMD GPU's a little more love in using and building game engines that work will with all GPUS not just Nvidia's.
to be fair I owned 7700 1GB and 290X 4GB till mid 2019 and at least till 2017 AMD drivers where pain it the ass to use, but from what I saw its much better now
The Reference Model... "Founders Edition" in Nvidia's own version. Nvidia partners also get a reference design (a PCB layout and component list) to work from. AMD makes a reference model that they both make themselves AND allow partners to make. They all look identical.
what a steal...i wanted a 7900XT but i had to buy a "store pc" with no chance of choosing the VGA. Had to go with 4070 ti Super. Still im satisfied with my vga.
Refurbished= semi broken. Reference models aren't even reliable in terms of physical durability. I'd rather buy a second hand Asus or EVGA branded mining card. Just return that ,and get a bn 4070 ti/ 4070 super or even a gre instead.
I was one of the people that experience driver issues with the 7800xt. All you gotta do is uninstall your old driver with DDU before installing the new ones and no issues after that and I'm also using Adrenaline too. This literally fixed everything and i havent had a crash in months.
I dumped my 3080Ti and got a 7900XTX over a year ago for less than a $1,000 along with a free $60 game. An incredible deal when you consider the 4080 was $1,200 and the 7900XTX beats it in 9 out of 10 scenarios (without raytracing). I've had no more issues with the AMD card than I did with my 3080Ti or the 1080Ti I had before that. I don't care about raytracing. It's not even worth it with an Nvidia card, imo. All it does is halve your performance and most of the time, you can barely tell a difference in picture quality versus quality baked in lighting effects. I would've gotten a 4090, but a 15%-20% performance bump just isn't worth an extra $600-$1000.
@Goorood Graphics cards should have never sacrificed die space for useless Rt cores. Even then, they rely on cuda cores for certain functions. Leave that niche crap to workstation cards for the next 3 generations, and when the time comes go full raytracing instead of it taking an hour or more to render real time raytracing.
I got a AsRock 7900XTX for $800 because it was a return on micro-center , I was going to 4090 but it got me worried because of the power pins, but i was impressed it really good raytracing per on cyberpunk and with Radeon boost I get 120fps
Lies bro stop trolling you went going to spend 1900bucks because you would have got a 4080 for 1k. Bro stop ✋️ the lies you didn't even want to spend 1k we get it
@@bumperxx1 I don't think it's a lie. As someone who had only purchased Nvidia in the past, I also went for a 7900XTX instead of a 4090, and don't regret it. I actually built 3 different rigs this year, all with AMD GPUs and 7800X3D, money is not an issue. And nor me, my GF or my friend have any issue or complaint. To each their own. Honestly, a 4090, is a terrible value GPU.
I don't get the hate on the 4090 pins. I mean, does AMD encourage it's customers to learn new skills, like how to soldier to fix thier cards? Nope! 😂 Edit for clairity: I used to like nvidia, but I hate them for the crap they pulled in the 40 series- mainly trying to trick the general public into buying a 70 level card but calling it a 4080 with less vram. 2nd big thing I don't like is their obviously bad new connector & them blaming the user for it. They put it on huge cards, make it stiff, & make it stick out even further, nearly guaranteeing it hits the side. What do they expect???
food for thought.....85% of all gpu sales are in the 250-400 dollar range. Ray tracing isn't much of a thing at that price range but Nvidia has 80+ percent of the marketshare. Daniel said it, AMD simply has the better options in the aforementioned price range........my point is there are a crap ton of dummies out there spending their money on less performant gpu's only because Nvidia is stamped on it.
@@aladinz88 one could take the Steam Hardware Survey for example. You break it down by model and add all percentages together and check the Pricing for each card at their release and i'm almost certain, that this 85% Range might be quite accurate actually. I for example would never even consider buying a Graphicscard for more than 500$. I would rather get to the used marked and buy a cheaper one there before i spent my Money on that. People spending above 600$ for a Graphicscard alone is not common and we tend to live in a bubble with like minded people who might spend that much but thats actually not the majority It's called Volume-Market for a reason! 🙂
@@АндрейШевченко-к6й I bought a 7800 XT on release and sadly had problems with crashes/freezes(hold powerbutton to turn off) in league of legends and wow. You can check the driver patch notes of march April and may. You will see there were many problems with blizzard titles. Why the laptop / prebuild market uses Nvidia: Imagine you sell laptops and every time a customer plays a game that has problems he returns the laptop + calls you for help cuz the laptop driver is still crashing after a clean windows install. It's just not worth it dealing with the RMAs and playing the lottery. Don't get me wrong: Nvidia GPUs have the same issues and bugs with windows 11 and 1440p, BUT you don't get freezes, blackscreens or pc crashes. I think I had a Nvidia crash in frostpunk2 when I accidentally switched the monitor to my TV in the graphics options. Ontop of that: AMD pricing is very often just -10-15% to Nvidia but lacking real upscaling (FSR is just a filter, not an AI that actually adds missing information) and RT. So you sell an overpriced (it's the same shameless value/price ratio as Nvidia) product that has a shorter useful time/lifespan to a customer that doesn't know shot about PCs in > 95% of the cases. And the last reason: AMD always releases their GPUs after Nvidia and the process seemse rushed (if you look at early drivers). So your AMD laptop/prebuild is always 6-12 month behind. So you always try to sell a product into a market that is already saturated with similar products.
my filthy centrist take is none of the modern GPUs present particularly good value. They're all kinda bad for one reason or another at their price points. Intel's drivers still suck, AMD's features aren't as good as nvidia, and nvidia is just doing price gouging for the better raytracing and upscaling while crippling the cards with low vram. It all sucks and I'm gonna hold off on buying any new hardware for as long as possible.
Exactly, im using a 3070 now and when vram becomes a real issue ill use my rx6800 then ill only upgrade if i cant run games 1440p, 60+fps high/very high with upscaling. I was thinking about getting a 4080 but theres no way in hell im paying 1000+ euros for a toy😂
THIS. This is the sad truth. Let's be honest though, they're all price gouging right now. I've been well priced out of the GPU market entirely for many many years now.
I bought an AMD GPU once. Two days later my Dog died. My electric bill increased by $6,488 a month. My wife left me because of the mounting debt. A month later I'd persuaded her to come back, and promised to sell the AMD GPU and buy an Nvidia but when I tried to remove it, the damn thing exploded and blew up the entire house. I think it had something to do with the terrible drivers...
i had the same experience with their awful drivers back in 2015. i've had a 7800xt for 8 months now, my first amd gpu since 2015 and its every bit as good as nvidia driver wise these days. been 8 months and not a single issue of any kind.
I gave Nvidia the middle finger this generation after they showed the amazing things they could do with the 4000 series with the 4090 and then intentionally didin't deliver any of that capability to the lower tiers. I went with a 7800 XT. I liked the value, the performance is what I wanted, and I liked the 16 GB of VRAM. My only concern is potentially longevity if ray tracing really takes off, but for the near term, what has ray tracing worth bothering to turn on? Cyberpunk and Portal RTX, and I'm not sure Portal RTX really counts. And I don't play Cyberpunk. So I think I'm good for a few more years. I've had zero driver issues, despite playing quite a few different games over the last year. Some people nit pick DLSS vs FSR, but I don't use upscaling, so I totally don't care there either.
I honestly wouldn't worry about raytracing. My opinion of it is that it's largely a gimmick until it can be implemented with little to no performance cost. Even then, I don't know that it's worth the R&D when these companies could be working on better overall performance. In every game I have played with raytracing, most of the time it just looks different, not better.
It's been what... 6? years since raytracing was launched. It Still isn't that big a thing. Maybe in another 3-4? It is still semi niche, and the performance hit - any - card takes to do it is kinda nuts.
@@benknapp3787RT does matter though because we're starting to see games enable some level of it by default with no option to completely turn it off. That's going to make cards that are relatively weaker at ray tracing age poorly. On the flip side though a lot of Nvidia cards are also going to age poorly from a lack of vram, especially with RT turned on since that consumes a lot of vram by itself
@@MrLuna109 There are quite a few games with some element of RT that run completely fine on AMD cards with very little performance hit VS Nvidia cards. It's much worse for a card to have too little VRAM than for a card to be behind in RT.
@@benknapp3787No, some of these hit performance by quite a bit like Avatar Frontiers of Pandora. An RTX 4060 ti is outperforming an RX 6800 when an RX 6800 should be about 16 percent faster
As a 7900 XTX owner at the time the 4080 Super didn't exist yet. I absolutely don't care about ray tracing. I noticed as I was playing games with it on, I just didn't notice it at all. Even when I've been on a 4090 system with Path Tracing and shit, I just don't care about it. This isn't just 10 minutes of playing with the heavy ray tracing stuff, this is 40 - 50 hours. About the only ray tracing option that I actually like is reflections. GI, shadows, and the like I'm honestly guessing if it is on or off. Reflections are night and day. I'm at the point where I'm not sure ray tracing is ever going to replace raster lighting. A couple years ago I'd tell you yes, but it just doesn't seem to be catching on at this point yet. Might be because it is still hard on mid range and low end stuff, once that stuff does it easily that may change. Overall I'm happy with the XTX, solid damn card. At the time I bought mine it was just under $900, and the 4080 was $1200, much better value. Between the 4080 Super and the XTX at $1000, I'd probably go with the 4080, I don't think the XTX is worth it at $1000, under $900 is where you should start considering it. The best answer is, get what suits your needs.
I also left Nvidia and picked up the 7900XTX but I also mod high res Textures in all the games I play and for that the 4080's 16Gb just isn't enough since Im always hitting 20Gb-22Gb of VRAM usage. Would some extra Raytracing performance be nice for those 3 games that have heavy RT in it... yes, but again I still would choose the XTX every time for its Raw Raster power and the ability to load all those high res textures just beats the 4080 every time. When I upscale heavy RT games I use XESS and it works fine. Don't miss DLSS at all. So yes definitely comes down to how you want to use your GPU. Nvidia is not always better.
@@nathsabari97 As an owner of both a 7900 XTX and a 4090, I agree with Kam. The amount of games I regularly play that have heavy RT implementations is...1, which is Cyberpunk, and I only turn on the reflections and shadows. The lighting portion of RT in most games I've seen it in is not worth the performance hit. I'll take more frames and smoother frametimes over slightly prettier lights any day. I only turn on RT lighting if and when I have enough GPU headroom after all my other preferred settings are maxed.
I had them with my R7 370, R9 380 and 5700XT. But with RDNA2, they became a thing of the past. Your experience is definitely not the norm. But it is also an issue that has been blown way out of proportion.
@@retrofizz727 - If it was "unbearable", it was clearly defective (and I assure you, there are defective cards from lots of brands and with GPUs from different manufacturers). So, why did you *_sell_* an item which you _knew_ was defective (which seems pretty dishonest), instead of simply returning it to the shop or card manufacturer for a refund or replacement?
@@RFC3514 Because the Amazon 3rd party seller didn’t want to refund me. I sent them the card for repair and they "tested" it, then said it was perfectly fine. The person who I sold the card told me he had no issues after a week or so, and was very satisfied. So no I don’t think I’m being "dishonest" but yeah I’m not gonna buy an amd gpu anytime soon
Yeah when i bought my 7900XT over a year ago it was slightly cheaper than the 4070Ti, while giving 12% better non-RT performance and having way more than 12GB of VRAM. I am not a believer in RT stuff, as there are still only 3-4 games on the market that really show off RT, and it was even fewer when I bought the card. I have also played several games that were using more than 12GB of VRAM since, hence the 4070Ti would have been a texture quality downgrade. The only net positive for the card would have been access to DLSS, although I rarely use that on my 1440p system. I am very happy with my 7900XT, especially with the fact that it offers undervolting options right in the official driver.
@@bumperxx1 It was much rarer on the 4080, It did happen some, but again very rarely. The problem is the physical connector itself doesn't self secure well enough. Plus two different versions of the pins on the pin side were used, one was definitely much better at creating and maintaining contact. Also that radius restriction was to much. On paper the thing works, but there is not accounting for real world and safety margins are to tight. I would have gotten a poor grade if I'd turned in a design that unfit for it's use case, by poor I mean a flat out f. Now I was studying electrical engineering in the early 90's, so perhaps standards have dropped since then.
@@BryceCzirr-jz7ju Stop spreading this long debunked nonsense. There are countless videos proving that it's the connector's fault, also as der8auer pointed in his video, the safety margins are unbelievably tighter than the 8-pin.
I just looked today, and I paid $500 for my 3070 over 3 years ago. I checked today and I can get a 4080 Super for $1000, and that card is about twice as fast, and twice as much vram. 3 years and still zero price to performance increase. Nvidia GPUs are so depressing.
And the AMD "equivalent" (if you ignore all the missing features) to the 4080 Super is $900? A 10% difference. It's not like AMD hasn't raised prices as well.
@@albert2006xp The problem there is that they give you same VRAM as 4090 and it is generally faster in raster. The real problem for Nvidia is at the same price though. 4060 Ti, is just a 3060 Ti with 16 GB of VRAM and costs the same as 3070. While AMD right now gives you 7800 XT also with 16 GB of VRAM but over 40% faster.
@@prem3548 4060 Ti 16Gb is a budget AI card. It has its place. You don't go AMD for AI. So the VRAM of AMD doesn't really matter because it's such a hassle to use AI stuff on AMD and gaming doesn't really need more than 16 for quite a few years ahead. Even 12 is fine for gaming at midrange levels.
7800XT user here, love Adrenalin software, Linux support and just better Emulation/Old games support overall. Ray-Tracing is pretty close in non Nvidia sponsored titles too, and I can run most games at 4k native max settings +60fps, but of course, there are some more recent ones that do absolutely require upscaling no matter the brand of GPU. Great for AI and machine-learning too. All brands of GPUs have their strong and weak points, and I believe AMD is a gamer-centric brand with it's price/performance ratio while Nvidia is more about production and efficiency; most people will never make use of everything Nvidia offers as a brand because it's primarily focused on R&D&I and other high-tech stuff that most gamers will never make use of. Of course the technology that Nvidia offers is impressive, but bear in mind the few titles it sponsors will always crush AMD in purpose as a marketing move, because in real-life scenarios, most gamers will not see the differences.
Have a XFX 7900XTX (XFX SPEEDSTER MERC 310 AMD RX 7900 XTX Black Edition) and not regretting a single penny spent on it. It's simply amazing hardware. Runs all games fine if you don't value raytracing all too much. Run your game with AFMF and raytracing may be working just fine as well. For example, I run Dying Light 2 with raytracing on plus AFMF and runs at 235fps. Besides that rasterisation performance is insane with this card. There's a lot of value in AMD's cards as well as NVIDIA's.
After 10 years of being strictly Intel/Nvidia, I got the 7800x3d and 7900xtx and do not regret a single thing. Don't give a flying frick about ray tracing. This setup will easily last me until 2027 or longer. There will be ZERO reason to upgrade until MAYBE the nvidia 6000 series, but probably not.
XFX is dead to me. They burned me during COVID by selling me a used 5700XT as new. Fans failed in like 3 months. I don't think many gamers know about it but it was well known in the crypto mining community. Anyway, when a company scams me like that, I don't buy their products again. I would buy another Power Color or Sapphire card. Meanwhile, there are no more Nvidia board partners left I actually trust. Maybe Asus but I wouldn't be anywhere near as enthusiastic about an Asus GPU as I would Power Color or Sapphire. If they sold Galax GPUs in the US, I guess that would be an acceptable option. But I'm not having any of that 12VHPWR fire hazard. Experiencing one house fire was enough. Also, the XFX Thicc series was just the most disgustingly ugly GPU series ever launched. It has a friggin' chrome grille like a '57 Chevy. Frankly, ripping off the shroud and zip-tying a couple of Noctua Redux fans to it improved the looks🤣 A GPU designed by one helluva 🤡 show of a company.
Personally, the qualities that matter to me AMD: Better value, adequate vram, great software (adrenaline), worse upscaling nVidia: Better efficiency, stingy vram, horrendous software (gf experience), better upscaling I don't give a shit about RT or FG. I went with AMD mostly to avoid gf experience honestly. I do like the efficiency of the 4000 series tho
The Nvidia app is a massive improvement over Geforce Experience, though it still misses some of AMD's features like one-click undervolting or an equivalent to Radeon Chill.
that vram ain’t gunna mean shit when it’s too slow 😂 16GB is fine for the next few years. By the time that extra v ram is gunna kick in you’ll need another card
what drugs are you on saying nvidia has worser software than AMD, not to mention Nvidia's got alot much better software support for all things especially productivity softwares
@@IndyMiraagait’s a improvement but it still sucks, the new UI and performance overlay is so bad that I went back to GeForce experience. It’s crazy because NVIDIA is drowning on money rn but can’t even make good software for their GPU’s.
@@BlackJesus8463 People aren't actually buying AMD, the stats are right there. It's just the type of people that would come here to complain and pour over fps benchmarks are more likely to fall for the trap of strictly comparing money to fps or think they're sticking it to Nvidia. Nvidia's low end cards have been kind of bad (well, imo 3060 12Gb is a really good card for the time/price), but as long as you avoid the ones that aren't worth you are still getting DLDSR+DLSS level quality, don't have to worry about disproportionate RT performance drops and can even mess with AI right out of the box cause most people just develop for CUDA. If you're a low to midrange GPU buyer and keep your cards for 2-3 generations at least you're fine paying a bit more to get the full package.
@@albert2006xp " People aren't actually buying AMD," That's kind of the problem. Some people would be better served if they did. I've seen multiple comments from people over the past year or so who regretted buying a 3070 because of the lack of VRAM. Those people may have been better served with a 6700XT or a 6800. But part of that is on AMD because they're bad at marketing, their initial pricing is often too high, and they just follow whatever Nvidia does feature-wise.
@@Kryptic1046 I think the physical stores also has big problem tend to always recommend on clueless customers a much more expensive product and just how gullible most people are when it comes to product price, expensive = better.
The truth is: It depends on what YOU personally prefer in your GPU and what you value more. There is no universal answer. I know lame answer, but it is just the truth.
The truth right now is that you have to make a lot of asterisks and compromises to save a bit of money and buy AMD. There's no real "advantage" of AMD other than a small price to performance in pure raster. And the RX8000 series around the corner is looking to be leaps and bounds better if they deliver on the FSR 4.0 promises and RT performance. Even in the scenarios where you think AMD makes sense right now, you're probably making one of those arguments that "you'll run native anyway so upscalers don't matter". But they do, because DLDSR or even VSRing your screen before using an upscaler is going to beat native in image quality at equalized performance, and even for native the best AA is going to be your upscaler's native version, FSR/XeSS Native or DLAA. If you want to buy AMD, wait a few months.
i wont lie, i feel like a tool for the 4080 i just bought because im really not ok with the way NVIDIA abuses its market position. That being said, AMD would in theory give me more bang for my buck but it lacks in the key areas NVIDIA has a stranglehold on that I unfortunately rely on. Le sigh.
The average consumer see's that Nvidia has the best GPU, the 4090. And because of that, every other gpu they make must be better, right? But that's not how it works. The 4080 is like 1200 while you can get a 7900xtx for 999.99 and its literally the same performance and actually faster in a handful of games like call of duty. I remember my 6900xt beating my 3090 in COD Warzone because warzone actually developed the game using both brands hardware and through actual proper development, AMD edged out more performance. Most games are developed on Intel/Nvidia (cpu/gpu) and they completely ignore AMD hardware. Which is sad, because they too are brainwashed into thinking Intel/Nvidia is the only option. Fun fact, when app's/games properly use AMD hardware, its always faster than Intel (cpu wise) and can be faster or same speed as Nvidia. My 6900xt again, the perfect example, whooped the 3090's ass in call of duty. Meanwhile battlefield, which was "build for intel/nvidia" didn't run on AMD very well, and 2042 on launch day no AMD user could play because they had ZERO AMD computers in their office to make sure it ran right. They just didn't care. And that to me is ignorant. IF I was a game developer, I would have all brands in my company to make sure my game runs on everything, from intel to nvidia to amd.... hell with the new arm stuff getting more popular, i would try to make my game work on arm too. sure its extra work for little value, but you gotta start somewhere right? Feel real bad for people who fall into the meme builds of intel/nvidia, because they waste money for less performance.
This is such a naive take. Game developers make games with Intel/Nvidia in mind because that's what the majority of their customers use. The devs aren't stupid (for the most part). They just don't have infinite time/money to optimize their games for all platforms. If you have limited time to optimize, you'd be fucking retarded to work on AMD hardware. Shit, some devs don't even have time to optimize their games for any hardware, which is why some games have seen significant performance improvements with patches. In an ideal world without deadlilnes, quarterly reports, and shareholder meetings, we might get the optimization you want. But that's not the current landscape of gaming, which is more corporate than ever. Don't blame the devs. Blame the finance bros that ruined gaming. You are correct in that the average consumer only sees Nvidia flagship products being the best and then buys Nvidia.
4080 super is $999 and dumpsters a XTX in nearly every area including important ones that get missed like temperatures, driver stability, and insanely better productivity performance. This is coming from someone who just purchased a 9950x so I'm not an AMD hater just being real about their subpar GPUs.
@@jabronilifestyle 999 for the crappy low end 4080 super. Which no, it doesn't dumpster the 7900xtx.... Look up any reputable reviewer. The 7900xtx legit beats the 4080 super with current drivers. But i bet youre one of those fake "but muh ray tracing" meme people acting like you actually play games at low fps with RT enabled. No one does. I have a 4090 and wont even waste my time with RT and shit blurry upscaling.
@@goblinphreak2132 I have both, it definitely does - especially in anything productivity or cuda related. The XTX is a failure of a release, it's hot garbage basically. The low 1% is actually atrocious and the heat is ridiculous. Yikes.
@@jabronilifestyle It's neat you go 'productivity or cuda related' as if that isn't SOLELY down to CUDA being NVIDIA exclusive and nothing being designed to make proper use of alternatives like OpenCL or ROCm. It's almost like it's a problem AMD can't actually do anything about, what with NVIDIA actively shutting it down every time someone tries to make a translation layer to pass CUDA through OpenCL or ROCm instructions. Nvidia doesn't actually have better hardware. They just have proprietary software baked into the development process, and there is literally NOTHING AMD can do to solve that problem. It's been Nvidia's bread and butter since PhysX.
My old system had Intel CPU and GTX 1080ti which served me for almost a decade. Back then the 1080ti brand new was only $700 which was a steal for a top end 11 GB card. Now I have switched to full team red and do not regret my decision at all. AMD announced they are no longer making high end GPUs so the 7900 XTX was a good buy. The 7800X3D is also way better than anything Intel has. Overall, AMD has been cooking with their software lately so Anti-Lag basically caught up to Reflex and FSR 4 is rumored to match DLSS. I also love the Smart Access Memory fps boost for having both AMD cpu and gpu
@@Couchtripper they said "a decade" not "ten years", though, so if you're going to round, shouldn't you round to the nearest decade, not the nearest year? 7 years is closer to 1 decade than to 0 decades 😁
I don't know why people are bitchhing in 2016 the 1080ti was 750 to 800 bucks or more and now..... 8YRS LATER a 4080 can be had for only 1050 bucks only 250bucks more OVER 8YRS relax 😌 people
@bumperxx1 The 1080ti released in 2017, but I get your point. Cards today in comparison are not a terrible value. You can pick up a 7900XTX for $900 and you can pick up a 4080 Super for $1000. The 1080ti launched at $700
6 days ago, I switched from a 3070 to a 6750xt after 3 1/2 years to check out team red's higher vram options. I think the 6750xt does great for the price (on sale for $320 at the time. The sale has since expired, going back to $370). Nvidia's last gen dlss looks better than AMD's fsr 3, but both have the same performance uplift percentage while upscaling when compared to no upscaling. AMD ray tracing is understandably worse than Nvidia's, but I don't use it enough to care. Also, anyone who says to stay away from amd drivers and software because "they are trash" is on nvidia kool-aid. I've had no issues the past 6 days, but I have no reason to believe that one brand has more driver issues than the other. TLDR: Don't believe what everyone says. Do enough thorough research before buying anything.
A good balanced video. It is good advice to do your research, but not always easy to do. I had to do a system build about a year ago just before Ark Survival Ascended released and getting any info about features prior to launch was impossible (even now one can only infer that there is no RT by looking at the graphics options in the game) so I had to make a guess and gamble based on what Ark Survival Evolved had in RE4 and what it was likely the devs would try to add in RE5. I play PVE on private servers where most of us are looking for a great visual experience but low enough latency not to be disadvantaged against the wild creatures. I took a gamble that there wouldn't be RT and went for a 7900 XTX. Playing in ASE for the last few weeks before ASA released I found I had to cap the frame rate in game or the GPU would just keep pushing past it specs, fortunately this seemed not to happen so much in ASA when it released but I was getting a lot of crashes on default settings. When I looked into it further, the driver defaults were applying an overclock - 2300MHz (2500MHz boost) card actually set to 3000MHz in the driver forcing me to enable overclocking to wind it down to spec. AMD have fixed this and I have had no GPU based problems for many months (the game is still horribly optimised and every update introduces new issues). Obviously I only have 'in person' view of my own system, but watching streamers and youtubers playing the game on nVidia hardware (so the encryption and stream bandwidth likely reduce quality a little) it seems to me that I have fewer texture issues even than players using 4090s, although I may have more movement artifacts. A couple of weeks a big update dropped, DLSS upscaling has been removed because the devs still haven't managed to make it work properly, and they were supposed to be fully implementing FSR3.1 but actually don't even appear to have done that, it appears it needs a console command to activate in game. The same update completely failed to work with the AMD driver that released a few days earlier - I hadn't got around to updating the driver and the official line is to rollback to the version I have or install a beta of a future driver, but still it looks like I am getting a slightly better experience in the game than 4090 users. But I absolutely cannot claim it has been plain sailing or that it was the result of good research in the first place - I hit a brick wall with my research and ended up gambling on the 7900XTX. No-one ever runs benchmarks on either Ark game so it isn't even possible to infer anything from multiple benchmark based reviews.
I started my PC journey on a GTX 970. I upgraded to a 1660 Ti when that came out. In 2022, I built a secondary PC using two RX 580s for fun. I bought a 7900 XT on release, but returned it because it was having bad coil whine. I bought the 7900 XTX instead, and haven't regretted it. I never use ray tracing, and if I want good shadows and reflections, I just use lumen instead. I'm more for smooth gaming than extreme graphics when I am playing any game. I always try to target 1440P 144FPS medium or above settings. Sometimes with upscaling on quality if I want to get higher graphics settings. That said, I usually do custom graphics settings and things like textures, I usually set higher, and things like shadows or effects, I would set lower.
Owned both brands, currently have a 7900 GRE, and never had a driver issue with AMD, those comments existed back when I bought my first AMD gpu (HD 4650). Personally I don't care about RT and I'm not a console player so don't care about fake resolutions either.
@@TTx04xCOBRA DLSS looks garbage, just like FSR and TAA. Every temporal solutions look like ass compared to other methods like SSAA or MSAA. All these temporal solutions have ghosting and smearing issues in motion.
@@TTx04xCOBRA 1080p looks bad whatever the kind in 1080p and you don't really need to use it. I haven't seen it on higher resolutions but i guess it is where it starts to shine
Had mine for a year now. Only niggles are the odd crash and the card running a bit hot/noisy. Summer this year was pretty warm so I'll forgive it but I might add another case fan or at least try and optimize the cooling.
It is great. : ) As an owner of one, I might advise going into Performance -> Tuning in AMD Adrenalin and turning on the fan to 50% by default. It runs a little hot without the fan on, which AMD turned off by default.
My dad is the police... So.. there's that. Just saying you two might wanna simmer down, ok? I have already told him to call the military commando force and tell them to stand by for operation internet warning strike.. so you better respect my authority.
@@phantom0590 Way to run head first towards the point yet still miss it. It's not that "only enthusiasts buy Nvidia", it's that *only enthusiasts would buy a 4090 - a GPU that can cost as much as rent in many places.* The 4090 is the best consumer graphics card out right now, bar none. People who want the best possible graphics with good ray-tracing performance at 1440p and above (at high refresh rates) will save up for that holy grail card. No other company has even attempted to compete with the 4090. As for everything below the 4090's performance tier, AMD has an alternative to an Nvidia card that's very competitive in value-for-money (often having more VRAM that the Nvidia cards to boot).
They fixed the driver issues with RDNA 2. But I experienced it with my R7 370, R9 380 and 5700XT. If you don't OC, you were probably far less likely to experience it. As for who would run those older AMD GPUs at stock clocks and be satisfied with it, IDK. They got substantial performance gains with even modest overclocking.
Great video! Its nice to see people talking about this stuff as it helps show people there are options out there if your willing to give it a chance that is and what the user is going to be doing with there PC. I love my AMD Rx 6800 (non xt) I was lucky to get it early 2021 for retail. It was the only thing I could get in my cart after trying for months. I really wanted a nvidia GPU and had a 1070ti before this I was hoping for a 3080 to be honest. The AMD experience has been amazing for me for going on 4 years now I think the differences for gaming are pretty minor for most gamers. I actually play at 4k with FSR on quality high/epic/medium settings mostly although some newer games just seem to run really kind of poorly for the visual fidelity and I mean on the majority of benchmark tests I see as well if you dont have a 800+$ GPU your not really even getting 60fps sometimes upscaling is still needed....its kind of insane on the new new AAA games.(for higher resolutions 1440p/UW/4k ) I mostly am into Sim Racing Assetto Corsa Competizione. This game used to be considered very hard to run(still pretty CPU demanding) but compared to these new games it performs great lol and looks great as well that seems rare now days. 100-120 fps at 4k with FSR and mostly EPIC and HIGH settings. I just tried FROSTPUNK 2 and wow on my normal settings 4k high FSR quality I was getting 24 fps lol and it doesnt look like anything special to me it visually looks like I should have 300 fps(not great visually) lol to get 60 fps I had to really make it look kind of bad... System specs are i5-13600k cpu- AMD rx6800- and 4000mhz ddr4 as well for context I guess... I feel this system is pretty good still probably the upper end up mid range performance and I really would have to spend a lot to get something that would be a big enough upgrade to be worth it. Considering how long I have had the GPU already I would say its been really great. I do get the FOMO sometimes lol but really watching benchmark videos brings me back to reality and so does the prices of high end GPUs lol Sorry that was a bit long I just idk really feel like AMD does not get enough credit they actually make really good products for a good price that in many scenarios are just as good if not better especially at the kind of affordable price tiers(everything is pretty expensive). Thanks for the videos and information!
I picked up a 7800xt last week for £450 due to the prices of the Nvidea cards/equivalents being too high for me. At first I didn’t know what to expect, I heard the AMD cards were great so I thought id take a gamble and pick one up and I have to say it is a superb card especially for the price too! I would also like to say I’m not a Nvidia hater I’m far from it, I just think that Nvidia as a company has lost one of the most important selling points for their GPUs which was affordability. My last GPU was a GTX 1060 which I got in 2018 and at the time the prebuilt pc I got cost £850 all together which is rarely seen these days in the mid range market. I’d also like to say why does everyone feel the need to go off at each other for their card of choice too? At the end of the day they are both quality products, it just seems a little childish to judge someone by their choice of GPU😂 Anyway back to what I was saying I mean yeah you could say I do not get the benefit of ray tracing which yeah you’re right but for me personally ray tracing wasn’t the selling point for me which was also why I didn’t go with Nvidia. I think these days games look amazing as it is without ray tracing and I think that you shouldn’t let ray tracing be the deciding factor in your choice of card. I might sound like I’m being biased but looking at it from the point of view of someone who is on a budget and is looking for just fantastic visuals at a relatively low cost I would personally go with a AMD card at this moment of time. While I think DLSS is also amazing, AMDs super resolution option that you can access using the adrenaline software is also something to consider since so far I have seen zero issues with it and my games look and run smooth running at 2k on ultra setting with well over 120 fps. Anyway I’m gonna stop yapping and just say if your on a budget then the AMD cards offer more bang for your buck if your not bothered about ray tracing and don’t want to spend too much and if you would like to know anything about the 7800xt then be feel free to ask :)
this opener was gold😂😂🤣 and is so on point😂 However, I switched to AMD since my GeForce 8600GT and I am super happy. This is a long time and I never had any serious issues. I don’t even missed anything. Also I’ve played Cyberpunk 2077 in full Pathtracing on maximum settings. Only because AMD has less Raytracing performance doesn’t means it’s unplayable. I don’t see any reason to support leather jackets, and I kick RayTracing on every single time when it’s available on 7900XTX
First gpu was an Nvidia Riva 128, unstable drivers. Second was 3dfx Voodoo 2, great card. 3rd ATI all-in-wonder, good card. Then Nvidia 6200, terrible card and drivers. Next AMD 260x, great card. Then AMD rx580, terrific card. Finally AMD 6600xt, fantastic value 1080p card. I doubt Nvidia will ever get me back as they were always the worst, most unstable, and overpriced cards, and I do not think that has changed.
👍 for the ATI all in wonder, had that and the Voodoo as well. Those were the days. Thought I was a big deal because I scored a good deal on a CD-ROM drive of all things!
Early Nvidia drivers around the TNT and Geforce 1 era (Detonators) were a lottery. They were all over the place, it was a nightmare to uninstall and reinstall them and you'd sometimes lose 30% performance in a random game while gaining 15% more in another. They settled down during the Geforce 3 / 4 era but lost it again with the Geforce FX and Geforce GTX400 series. AMD/ATI had similar niggles over the years, but GCN was absolutely amazing rock solid for almost a decade and free performance every single year, even on ancient cards. AMD/ATI have been whooping Nvidia in drivers since around 2012.
@@jackpowell8155 So much of it is busted these days. Opened a brand new (still sealed) TNT 2 Ultra last year and it had black corrosion on the PCI connector and didn't POST. Devastated. Also opened a pair of VooDoo 2's that were brand new (Powercolour Power Of 2) and one of them was dead. Well, it "worked" (detected) but it didn't produce an image.
My RX580 sits on a special shelf in my hardware closet reserved for true troopers. I bought it for $220 a few months after launch and it lasted me until I wanted to upgrade my three monitors to 1440p165Hz so obviously I had to get an XTX. I did suffer two months of high idle consumption (at 45W, so not exactly a biggie) until AMD got that fixed.
AMD RDNA4 looks promising if it's 7900XT like raster or between 7900XT and 7900XTX raster with like 4070/4080TI level RT ..from the rumors + their AFMF2 it's gonna be amazing, im gonna get one for testing.
Im running AFMF 2 now on AMD's Preview driver it is Insanely good and its not even the official version. Its ALMOST as good as engine level frame gen like 95% as good... which is nuts because you can run it in any game. I can't even imagine how good it will be once the official version drops.
The thing is Battlemage won't need all that driver patching because the ARC issue is due to making design compromises with the memory subsystem, thereby requiring the driver to basically be a patch for every game in existence. But intel is VSF. Between the 13th and 14th gen silicon degradation issue and the ARC driver issue, nobody is going to buy Battlemage and that will be the end of intel's bid to be a GPU manufacturer.
@-Ice_Cold- 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Steam GPU market share measured in dollars haha... Intels GPU market share is 0% for anyone who wants a real figures AMD has 12% and Nvidia has 88%, however in steams CPU market share Intel still has 69%... Nice! 😏🤣🤣 leaving AMD with 31%.
@@-Ice_Cold- That would be I'm guessing... including IGPU's like ''Iris'' from decades of Intel having a strangle hold on the laptop space... Thats not the same as what my statement refers to. They genuinly have 0% of the desktop dedicated GPU space, down from the 2% they gained last year.
This video is very interesting and I agree. However I would like to describe my experience after using an AMD GPU (6700 xt) for more than 1 year. I will start by saying that I have had nvidia GPUs since I can remember (except for an r7 360x more than a few years ago). Given the excellent prices and reviews of many youtubers who praise AMD in one way or another I decided to try one of their GPUs, unfortunately the experience has never been up to the level of nvidia, I don't even want to talk about the AI or productivity sector because I was aware of it. It disappointed me a lot also in gaming and in daily use of the pc, many games have worse performances on amd gpu, very often the drivers are not stable or are released late, in about 1 year of use I lost count of the times I had to use DDU or that the pc decided to give a black screen or something else, I did not change anything apart from the gpu and I tried to update everything and reinstall windows (I also tried linux and there unexpectedly I also had problems, in particular with the ROCm drivers). Another hateful problem is given to me by freesync, in some games or apps the screen starts to flicker and becomes practically unusable, the monitor is also gsync compatible and had never given me this problem (among other things it is a freesync premium). Raytracing is a big NO, and the quality of the FSR upscaling is very poor in most games even with a target resolution of 1440p, the frame gen is good but in some cases it gives me the same flickering problem. In summary it is a good card but it has many defects that I find useless to deny (especially on the software side), I am keeping an eye on the used market to return to nvidia. Edit: Don't hesitate to ask questions if you want to know something more in detail.
Both amd and nvidia have their points, and both have been fairly alright driver wise for a long time. I have no idea why people think amd drivers are bad or the card just explodes except quite a bit of ignorance
Ignorance is bliss, that's their motto. There is always a lot Nvidia bots who claim insane driver issues and stutters, even though they never had an amd card or any experience with the actual drivers. Nvidia is using AI to flood the comments with ignorant statements with no logic, i hope, cause ppl can't be this stupid to keep echoing bs and lies.
AMD drivers utterly suck if you do the following: Install Windows on an Intel + Nvidia machine, then move the drive to your new AMD build. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING can fix it. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you shouldn't do this in the first place... but since it boots people think AMD is doing something wrong. And this happens a lot more than you think. Half (if not more) of DIY builders are not anywhere near capable of actually following correct procedure and, I will give Nvidia that, Nvidia is much better at handling that.
It's simple! 9700 Pro cards had driver issues around the time of Quack3.exe controversy (rename the exe = ATI turned out to improve the game performance if it detected Quake3.exe running), and that got thrown around as reasons why ATI - later AMD - was bad, over and over. It snowballed and got repeated generation by generation. They were bad with PhysX after Nvidia bought PhysX and had it crammed everywhere - AMD bad. They were bad with Tessellation after Nvidia focused on jamming it into their cards, especially in one stage of Crysis 2 often featured in benchmarks that had an entire ocean of tessellated water underneath it, constantly rendering - AMD bad. The Nvidia review guides instruct reviewers to focus on raytracing benchmarks - AMD bad :)
drivers are hit or miss, either stable or broken, random freezing or black screen issues, some windows versions tend to fuck with the drivers too. I experienced so much jank in 6 years.
I don't understand people talking about AMD drivers like it's still 2011... I've had my sapphire nitro+ 5700XT since the car launched and from DAY ONE I never experienced a single driver issue, I still have the card because it's been nothing but bliss for me so far. I might upgrade to the 8800XT, but only if it's a good deal because other then WuKong I haven't had a game make me bump the graphics down from high settings.
I was upgrading from 1070 and newer Nvidia prices were simply unbearable, so I went with 7800xt. Had to refund Helldivers 2 because the driver issues with that game literally physically damaged GPUs. So it still happens
this time last year i had my vega64 brake something in the registry on driver Update, wich resulted in bootlooping, that was fun to fix. driver issues are definitely still a thing(somehow)
Got a RX 6700XT last year for 230€ to replace my GTX 1070. So far very happy with it in terms of software and performance. It's my second AMD/ATI GPU so far (last one was HD5850). Other than that I owned several NVIDIA GPUs. Do I miss RT? No, not really. I'm more for comparing options when it's time to upgrade and get the one that makes more sense in terms of performance/ratio.
I was looking a budget friendly gpu that can max out my experience while playing 1080p while not making too much of a bottleneck and was hooked to rx 6800. Price difference with the 4070 was huge but the raw performance difference is barely noticeable sometimes the rx 6800 is even stronger because of SAM, then you can also enable afmf2 on any game while the 4070 would need the game to have frame gen option first.
I am one of those people who pay extra for NVIDIA cards because I want all the bells and whistles. However, I don't do it because I am 'Team Green' or have something against AMD. I do it simply because without having the ability to play games at 90+ fps with max ray/path tracing, I may as well be using my PS5. But that's just me and I know everyone is different and will admit in some instances the console version is better i.e. Jedi Survivor (pre recent PC patch).
@MelodeathMassacre wth? 🤣 I play rt games exclusively lately. There are dozens that I know of and tried and many more I haven't. Even older games are getting updates to use rt. Rt is such a killer feature though 😅 you can't go back just like with 4k. But right now it's just sad that you can't really use both without way overpriced 4090. At this moment I'd choose 4k over rt so AMD would be a better choice because of more VRAM. But game devs are going to get better at exploiting rt with every day now so soon it could be rt > 4k.
unless you're using high class gpus rt doesn't provide much and it tanks performence significantly. Personally I find native quality better than upscaled rt quality. Btw I use 7900 gre and it's overclocked quite a bit and it's a beast considering it price. I wanted buy 4070super because of it's efficiency but the price gap was huge
For me, AMD was the only option due to superior Linux drivers. I recently switched from Windows to Manjaro (Arch-based Linux distribution), and I am not looking back. I bought an RX6800XT for the same price as an RTX3060Ti here in Sweden. Which was quite honestly a much better deal. I received a 40-60% bump to performance, better or similar RT performance and 2x the VRAM. Nothing wrong with nvidia, but man! Their mid-range just suck in terms of value once marketing prices hit. At least here in northern Europe.
Nerds infighting, accumulating obscene amounts of debt, just to have bragging rights for what, 6 or 12 months....lol. Then the cycle starts all over again? GPU manufactures got em over a barrel and they don't even know it.
All i know is well over 90% of the games i play don't even have any ray tracing, so i bought a 7900xt for the better rasterization at it's price level and I've never felt let down by it.
I've always stuck with the reasonable crowd where you just go with whatever makes the most sense for your usecase. Play games with the best performance money can buy? Just get the top cards, either Red or Green. Play games on a reasonable budget with only limited or no concern for the extra features? Go with what's cheaper, but still good value. Do streaming and/or editing? Either one works, but we start leaning back and forth a bit depending on the expectations. If you want best overall and don't use a lot of raw footage or accelerated effects, you could go with AMD, but it would probably be a recommendation favoring the 7900s due to their encoder count (they have multiple hardware encoders compared to their Nvidia rivals apparently and they rip through stuff fast in both Premiere and Resolve with only marginal differences besides effects and 8k raw footage encode/transcode). Though of course with editing and streaming, Intel's apparently a hard beat who just... Beats both entirely in value for what you get, be it the QuickSync encoders in their recent cpus or that of which is in their dedicated gpus. You could literally do a dual card setup with whatever you want for your main, then plunk in an A380 and have that as your designated encode/editing gpu and it will virtually replace any Nvidia or AMD hardware you relied on before it. That makes the value for Intel insane pretty much! The only time anything comes up where neither AMD or Intel can win is it involves compute, where things get quickly complicated, since that's where Nvidia dominates, not even just with CUDA either but from overall widespread support. Mostly all because Nvidia partnered with everybody and went out of their way to cater to every corner of industry possible where their tech could benefit to improve. For AMD and Intel, it's just a missed boat they're playing catch-up on and while they seem to be getting out of the weeds, software people are just... Stuck in Nvidia's swamp really. There's only so many who can find alternative ways not to rely on their libraries and software support and by that really just a seldom few, so obviously CAD, compute, engineering, and deep learning software are just not there for... Well, really anyone else besides Nvidia at this point without talking niche areas. Thus, recommendations there tend to favor Nvidia most of the time, even when the option to use the other two is there because it's just a safety net at the least to stick to the established player till the other two catch up. ROCm and OneAPI are not bad from what I've heard, but matching the likes of CUDA and even on the rendering side, matching something like OptiX in rt/pt rendered scenes in hardware, there's no true alternative yet to change that for now. All that aside, honestly, the fanboying stuff is something I find pretty stupid so far. I would like seeing AMD, Intel, or even a completely different firm like Moorethreads in their own place come out on top, but only because I want the other competitors to them (particularly Nvidia) actually do something different for once in response. I personally couldn't care a less who's better as much, I just want to see how they all compete against each other most of the time. A lot of innovation is driven that way, so in some capacity, that's just all I want to see. I came from very low end hardware that was even nearly a decade old or older before getting into current, high end hardware, so I personally have no issue jumping back and forth, just that I would like to see multiple options exists that have some advantage over the other in some meaningful way to make it worth it. The best performing doesn't always interest me as much as the ones that go up against their limits in a tier below anyway.
if nvidia had more vram on their products amd would be totally doomed but is not the case because in the middle section there is not a big price difference.
NVIDIA won't offer more VRAM not only because it increases their costs, but because it means they are future proofing themselves out of a sale for another year or two. All NVIDIA midrange cards should have 16gb VRAM at this point, but they are still putting out 12gb. People are going to be left without enough VRAM in 2 years and, because NVIDIA dominates the marketshare, they will come right back to them. It is all part of the plan.
This gen Nvidia is mostly efficient focused (aside from the 4090) so yeah the 4060 & 4060 ti should had more performance the 8 gb made the 16 gb look bad which is why a lot of people were not buying him. Do i think its a good card? Absolutely no but its better than nothing.
@@jk2357 adding extra vram adds BARELY any more... its been debunked many times that argument of low vram cause... its because they want you to buy again as soon as possible its always the same,.
@@nicane-9966 I've got some Switch emulators chewing through 13gb of VRAM right now, so I'm glad to have the extra. For most average users, they should be okay with 12gb if they are fine turning down some settings in the future. We'll see how games progress with their demands.
@@kren4449 Sure but i'm pretty much screwed if I want to run a model that explicitly needs 11GB. Can't do much about it on an 8GB card. It's either that or wait for different models but that's going to be at a cost.
@@d4rkforce01 you can either buy the cheaper amd card with more vram and hope the sw your using to run your model works on amd cards or you can buy the more expensive nvidia card with more vram
@@kren4449 Yeah I'm SOL most of the time. AMD burned me pretty badly with regard to its drivers and constant crashing so I'm left with the only other GPU company. It's so unfortunate.
@@d4rkforce01 weird I have an amd card (rx 6600) and haven't had any issues with it except once last year when there was a bug in the drivers that made any video playback in a browser (like UA-cam for example) make the entire computer stutter like crazy but that was fixed relatively quickly. Which amd cards have you had problems with?
I was an nvidia fanboy for many years. I bought the 2080ti new for almost $1700. That card served me well lasting almost 6 years. Then I needed to upgrade my whole system. After many video reviews/comparisons I decided on an AMD build. Went with 7800x3d and 7900 xtx with AM5 mobo and zero regrets. The Adrenaline drivers work great...as long as I don't touch any default settings. Luckily nothing really needs altered with this set up. Runs fantastic right out of the box on 3440x1440 @ 185 Hz
As someone who plays racing sims. Being able to set the game to automatically start in Eyefinity, and have it go back to 3 separate monitors on it’s own when you close the game is godsend. The fact that I couldn’t do that with Nvidia is insane.
Just get the one that suits your need and budget. Please stop worshipping these big corporations. They don't actually care about you, just what's inside your wallet & bank account.
Gaming on the 6600 XT and the Adrenalin software is so good I never want to go back to Nvidia again. So much simpler and centralized. Undervolting? Done in Adrenalin. Recording? Done in Adrenalin. Byebye afterburner and OBS lol!
Without context this means nada. A 4090 doesn't do 100-240 fps in all games at 4k. You must be playing light games, and I'm someone that owns a 7900 xtx.
My only problem with AMD is its unsuffurable work with LLMs, stable diffusion, AI in general, Blender, and CUDA is essential fro this typeof things. It'd be great if AMD could work with these companies to make it shine for workload apart from just gaming.
I'm really excited for AMD's future, where they focus more on the mid-tier cards instead of trying to beat the 90 series from Nvidia. I ran an RX6800 on my game stream PC for the longest time, and it was amazing for 1440p gaming for the price.
@@Wobbothe3rd cope? I have a 4090. This is 2024. If you are having to play at 1080p upscaling from 720p, with frame gen to hit 60fps; so you can say you can use path tracing, you're the one coping. Without frame gen, a 4090 can't hit 60 fps and 60fps sucks. So, even with the most expensive GPU, upscaling, and frame gen, I can't hit 120fps with path tracing. Ray tracing is stupid. You are stupid.
@@emma6648 how? Gaming is one of my hobbies, and despite people thinking 4090s are absurdly expensive, it remains my cheapest hobby. I would agree if there was another card that offered the same performance for less money, but there isn't. To play at 4k 144hz, without using frame gen, you basically need a 4090. And even then you need to rely on upscaling. My original comment was regarding lower end cards. At most price points AMD beats Nvidia in pure raster performance per dollar. Unfortunately, AMD doesn't compete at the top end. People spend $300 a month on cable TV. They spend 60k on a new car every 3 years. So for me to spend $1700 on a GPU that I will use for 3 years then sell for more than half what I paid doesn't really seem like a waste to me.
@Wobbothe3 cope? I have a 4090. This is 2024. If you are having to play at 1080p upscaling from 720p, with frame gen to hit 60fps; so you can say you can use path tracing, you're the one coping. Without frame gen, a 4090 can't hit 60 fps and 60fps sucks. So, even with the most expensive GPU, upscaling, and frame gen, I can't hit 120fps with path tracing. Ray tracing is stupid.
No, I buy AMD exclusively because historically they provide the best bang for the buck. Not paying 2 grand for the honor and privilege of playing the latest and greatest AAA games crippled with RT at 30 fps.
Up to about $600-700USD, AMD GPUs seem to offer more performance for price than NVIDIA. Above that and NVIDIA cards with 16GB RAM and now more realistically usable ray tracing seem the better choice. Maybe FSR4 or whatever else NVIDIA has up their sleeve with 50xx series will shake it all up. Can't wait to see how things unfold in the next few months
I had made what I thought was a nuanced hot take about Nvidia vs AMD GPUs but this video really changed my mind. I'm a big Nvdia fan, but to be fair, I use an Nvidia RTX 4070 Ti Super not just for gaming but also for AI inference work with Stable Diffusion and local LLMs. It was the cheapest way to get both 16 GB of VRAM and DLSS upscaling that didn't suck as a total value proposition.
Despite having an Nvidia GPU because I use a laptop, as far as desktops are concerned, I'm firmly in the "AMD = no-brainier" camp. Despite the fact enjoying how ray-tracing looks in games like cyberpunk, it falls apart quickly even on mid-tier GPUs when the action gets heavy. If given the option to have significantly more VRAM at the expense of a _slightly_ worse upscaler and ray-tracing that's half a generation behind, I'd personally go for it. Until some mathematical breakthrough makes ray-tracing as computationally efficient as "traditional", rasterised graphics, the latter will continue to have a lot of relevance. Technologies like FSR and XESS (I believe DLSS is only for Nvidia) allow notably smother gameplay, which if far more enjoyable in far more situations (especially fast paces games like competitive FPS games or fighting games where every frame is valuable). If you want the best desktop graphics card, save your money for a 4090. Otherwise, you should really think long and hard about the value proposition between AMD and Nvidia options that fit in your budget! A high-powered version of the 4080 vs the 7900XTX is probably the most difficult to chose between at MSRP, but in my experience AMD cards tend to go for sale a bit more often and at a steeper discount than similarly priced Nvidia alternatives. Below the level of the 4080, I think AMD has a very compelling value proposition. Oh, and if you use Linux, apparently you'll have a far better time using AMD than Nvidia (who are notoriously stingy with their open source drivers).
If you are rich and dont worry about money go ahead and buy Nvidia it is the better performer. Better for streaming and video encoding/decoding and better for Gaming. Now for the rest of us who actually need to budget I am very happy with my used 6800xt and I play any game with high graphics settings and I didnt spend $2000 on a graphics card.
Daniel... I need you to back up your claim about productivity apps and AMD. Reason being that I looked into it and couldn't find a single GPU accelerated app I know the name of that doesn't specifically list support for at least RDNA 2 and 3. Solid Works, Fusion 360, DaVinci Resolve, all Adobe's crap, etc, etc, all support recent Radeon products. As for the XTX: I bought mine for $900 when the 4080 was $1200. And it sold well at that price discrepancy. I know several people who flipped Nvidia the bird for the first time in their life over the price of the 4080. But now where Nvidia has "corrected the price" and AMD can't go any lower without selling at a loss, yes the 4080 makes sense. If you don't happen to have been watching Nvidia be arseholes for 30 years in a row and refuse to give them money. There's a reason both Microsoft and Apple stopped partnering with Nvidia....
The vast majority of software in the 4d rendering space has little to no support for AMD cards. Blender only recently added it but its still a lot slower on AMD. The RT performance of the Nvidia cards is simply much better. You can even make use of the tensor cores for denoising. Much faster renders and much better viewport performance
@@ihadalife1177 "We" shurely means the europeans, right? Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989, while working at CERN.
I bought a 7900 XTX because it was much cheaper than a 4080. Plus I don't play games that have raytracing, except for Cyberpunk but I had already mostly finished playing that game. At the time I got my card the 7900 XTX costed 900 euros and came with a free game while the 4080 (non super) costed 1500 euros and no free games. The choice was easy to be honest.
So you paid £999 for the 7900XTX, and wasn't happy. SO you spent £2300+ on a 4090 for an extra 25-30% performance in games. You paid 230% MORE, for 25% more PERFORMANCE. Does that make you intelligent? Of course not. It also means you're in a tiny minority of the demographic who 1) buy halo products and top end cards and 2) have enough disposable income to buy a 4090. But that would beg the question .... if it's for an industrial purpose, why on earth didn't you buy a workstation card instead of a GAMING GPU? Like I said. Does that make you intelligent?
@@TheVanillatech He said he also needed it for work related tasks which would be 3d rendering I believe. CUDA has that market sewed up. If AMD can offer a lower cost better alternative than cuda the application developers would use it instead.
@@VoldoronGaming Mate developers ain't buying MASSIVELY OVERPRICED gaming GPU's ... at RETAIL PRICES ... to make games with! Or do modelling! MAYBE BEDROOM CODERS and HOBBYISTS ARE! But they are so rare, so TINY a demographic, it's insane to use that argument when it comes to comparing TWO GAMING CARDS! My mate owns THREE businesses that design (and then make) signs! For stores, for hotels, for hospitals, etc. And HE AINT BUYING 4090's for his artists and engineers to create them with! XD XD XD Stop being so daft! FACT is 4090's cost 2.2x more than 7900XTXs and only offered around 25-30% more performance. END OF!
@@TheVanillatechstop it, you're making too much sense! You'll make the Nvidiatards cry too hard. This whole "raytracing, muuuuh cuda!" bs is old and overplayed.
just like I heard in the past from tech deals guy. people like this shouldn't even think about it when the new one comes out every generation. especially for work relation tasks.
No but people should not be tricked into thinking they will be getting an equal experience. Regardless of your view on upscaling it is becoming more and more common in games, and dlss looks generations ahead of fsr.
Bought a 7900xt for £700. At first I was pretty happy, but after more than a year I do feel that I should have bought a 4070ti. At this price you do want the features, not just raster performance. Nobody wasn’t to disable some options on a high end priced product.
I got the 4070 Ti super instead of the 7900 XT and I regret it. Features like Ray tracing are not worth the performance loss unless you are using something like a 4090 where you can afford to lose frames. In most cases I want as many frames as possible and the 4070 ti can't deliver compared to the 7900 XT.
Definitely not the standard Ti. You will run out of the 12gv vram fast as both RT and Frame generation uses even more Vram. And for the price of the Ti Super you can get an XTX. Believe me just be happy, i’ve swapped out my XTX for a 4080S and i barely notice it all of features are overhyped.
I'd rather have a 4070 than any of those AMD cards. At least I know I still have my DLDSR+DLSS and am not stuck in 2018 with image quality and won't have issues running my AI stuff without going to Linux and trying to workaround stuff to get it to work at all, etc. There's zero way I am going from using DLDSR+DLSS on my 2060S to upgrading to something where I use FSR 3.1 in any form at any render resolution at or above native. When AMD has an AI upscaler with FSR 4.0 and they AI their VSR as well to answer DLDSR, then they might be worth the comparison. Because right now it's just, how much are you willing to get extorted by the only company making real GPUs anymore.
@@albert2006xp Dude, you're comparing a 2060 Super to literally mid-high to high end gpus two gens later on the opposite side of the fence. It's dumb enough a comparison that I can say that using upscalers as your reasoning here towards this guy's statement is... Simply pointless. Literally _everything_ from the that tier of hardware he mentioned, be it from last gen (6800XT/3070 Ti) or from current (7800XT/4070 Super) is going to literally wipe floor with what you have currently, multiple times over... In NATIVE resolution performance-wise. At their level, you literally don't even require upscalers at all unless you're trying to push for more performance than you actually have out of something in a lower rung than what you're trying to top (trying to match a 7900 XTX or 4080 Super with either of them for instance at ultra and 4k settings). Keep in mind btw that upscalers are literally for the cards that are obviously going to struggle with recent and upcoming games with ridiculous performance demands, which is usually 4070/7700XT going down the stack... Which is the opposite direction. Got a 6900XT, 7800XT, 3080 Ti, 4070 Ti, or any of those in that tier? I'm sorry, but upscaling is a backseat consideration that does NOT get brought up unless you must absolutely want to play a game where it's the only option even at that hardware tier just to be able to run it at acceptable performance. Otherwise, Mid-high tier: there is no discussion on upscaling because... You don't even need it at that level by then. And if you're able to get one, so can you get a monitor affordably as well to go with that gpu upgrade, if you don't stupidly manage your build budget and blow it on nonsensical specs not concerning performance.
@@1ace1000 Maybe you need to up your reading comprehension? I was comparing 4070 with it. 2060 Super is the thing I'd be UPGRADING from. So I would expect something worth upgrading TO to be across the board undeniable just benefits and losing nothing I have currently. Considering you don't even understand the sheer concept of judging upgrading your GPU, I am not surprised you make the same farcical argument that you don't "need" upscaling. DLSS isn't just for below native, I said DLDSR+DLSS. You can set that to native if you want. DLDSR+DLSS at a performance gain setting looks better than native does even with DLAA. Setting it to actual higher resolutions looks as good as it can possibly look, though at that point you're probably due a monitor upgrade and using a lower DLDSR+DLSS from that instead. DLDSR+DLSS is the first consideration. Full stop. If you can't beat that image quality don't even show up to the discussion. You would need to play at a much higher resolution for AMD to be comparable to Nvidia image quality at lower resolutions. Nvidia simply needs less resolution to look sharp and stable than AMD does because of how poor FSR and VSR are. Now I'm done talking to a guy that doesn't even acknowledge the DLDSR part of my statement and just rambles on about not "needing" upscaling.
Always built Intel/Nvidia PCs and was very happy. My last two PCs have been all AMD and I'm still very happy. I never lock into a single brand. If I'm not satisfied with price, features and performance, I will go where I get the best value for my dollar.
Check out Jawa! The marketplace for gamers! jawa.link/OwenOct24 Use code OWEN10 for $10 off your first purchase.
I just bought AMD and It was IMPOSSIBLE to get it to work
Serious question, as I've never owned an AMD. Are driver crash issues actually a real thing? Stability is a concern for me
@@SansAppellation They can be, but it's a much less common issue now than it was a few years ago. The biggest issue I've seen is people having thermal issues. My friend had way more crashing on his RX 6650XT vs his old GTX 1650 and immediately assumed it was a driver issue. He checked his temps and saw them skyrocketing, realized his new card was being thermal throttled and had to open his side panel for better airflow.
@@IndyMiraagathank you for the insights. That puts my mind at rest a little. I don't mind occasional tinkering if it's mainly to optimize for gaming and doesn't affect my workflow.
@@SansAppellation What kind of workflow do you mean? I hate to say it, but Nvidia is generally a better choice for most work-related tasks. 3D rendering, video encoding, and other production tasks are usually better on Nvidia cards. Though if you were going from something like a 20-series Nvidia card to a Radeon 7000-series card, you'll probably still end up with a better experience overall.
Nvidia is normalizing 8Gb like Intel did with Quad Core.
They are trying to preserve the environment, forcing developers to optimize the software, Because hardware creep seems to never end.
And....... it's for 1080p 60hertz people what's your point 👉
@@Ace.20 lol if they were trying to preserve it they would stop releasing graphics cards that use more power every single gen. Focus on making hardware more efficient and longer lasting instead.
But hey that wouldn't be easy money since people don't buy hardware for efficiency and longevity would reduce the incentive to buy new hardware.
What? Rx6600xt was 8gb whole the rtx3060 was 12gb.
Nvidia is about to face intel's faith
Always remember that trillion dollar international corporations are not your friend or family and are not "yours"(unless you own substantial amount of stock).
I own significant shares of both AMD and Nvidia but I only buy AMD as a consumer. As a finance guy I care more about value than bragging rights
Good to know 😊
It;s beyond me why anyone would buy nvidia unless it's a 4090. AMD is just better for your money. fake AI frames and pixels are gay. shouldn't be something you care about.
@@CombatMedic1OWell, AMD gpus don't have cuda, which pretty much throws them out as options if you're doing anything productivity related. IIRC an AMD gpu took like 4 times as long to render in Blender than a cheaper Nvidia gpu
@Username-jt4yq who the F is being productive lol???? .0001% of people actually do blender or actaul productive work on PC. This a gaming pc bro.
I bought AMD because at the time I built my PC, the 7800XT was the same price as the 4060Ti
Was yours on sale, or is the normal price of a 7800XT and 4060Ti really so close in your country? 😮
@@highwayvigilante Lol 7800 xt no brainer for sure, you picked the right choice
@@henryviiifake8244 For example here in Germany.
RTX 4080 Super 1000€ vs RX7900XT 700€ (Radeon Wins)
RTX 4070 Ti Super 800€ vs RX7900 GRE 600€ (Radeon Wins)
RTX 4060 ti 16GB 450€ vs RX7800XT 480€ (Radeon Wins)
Its stupid to buy a Geforce because Radeons give way more fps per buck.
yeah, 7800xt in my country is same price to rtx4070 but Ventus version while i can get a sapphire nitro+ 7800xt, even cheaper if you buy a sapphire pulse models which is same price to 4060ti "8g", literally no brain at this point.
Seriously no one should be buying 4060. 8gb garbage aside, no one could seriously turn on RT with it anyway. DLSS upscaler is good. But if you can get. Cheaper and stronger AMD card with more vram, you don't really need upscaling to begin with.
Been PC gaming since like 1999 or so and have only owned 1 Nvidia GPU which is a gtx 970 I still have in my Plex PC. That being said I find "brand loyalty" to multi billion dollar companies weird honestly, I've never understood the AMD/Nvidia arguing or the console wars.
same here Sir. it is a hilarious time to be alive and see the kids fight over their cookies.
You are brand loyal though. You have only owned one Nvidia GPU and have been gaming since 1999.
@@ZackSNetwork there is a difference between being brand loyal and having preferences that tend to align with a brand's offerings. AMD made more sense and was a much better value for what I use my PC for, but I would have been happy to buy a Nvidia GPU had they not been slower for more money.
*trillion dollar
Brand loyalty has a place, you satisfy your customers routinely, why not? Earned. But NV has a noticeable lead to me in bells and whistles and I find it hard to put a set price on that, other than I will pay extra and over 2-3 years of ownership that difference means little to me. I still haven't paid dearly yet (or any hardship) for having a bit less than the perceived ideal VRAM amount. AMD makes good GPU's, imo NV makes better one's.
I've been buying AMD GPU's for years...
RX550
RX5500XT
RX6600XT
RX7900XT
Never had a single problem.
Too
My first proper pc had a 1050ti, then I went to an rx 570, rx 6600, rx 6700xt and now 7900xt. AMD's software is amazing its a key selling point for me over Nvidia, since I dont care about ray tracing. My 7900xt was also on sale for the same price as a 4070 super at the time, so it was a no brainer for 20% faster raster for not much slower RT
Yeah slow as hell shader compilation on Radeons is not a problem, it's a feature.
Eh I've had both and neither had any major problems. But both had the occasional driver bug (all software does). Amd is pretty famous for their recent problem with how driver based frame gen was implemented that got people banned on multiplayer games due to the anti cheat mechanisms classifying it as a cheat. As someone who plays only single player I wasn't affected by that one. There was another bug that made any video (like youtube) played in the browser make the entire computer extremely sluggish, it was fixed pretty quickly but I was affected by it.
and when there's a problem, it's not a problem
Ppl are still saying amd software and drivers suck? Lmao Just straight cap.
Yea. Adrenaline has been awesome in my experience so far. Not one driver issue.
@@bobjoe5937 tbh my 7900xtx liquid devil experience has been a nightmare
ikr.
That green Kool-aid is strong though.
It keeps turning my monitor on even when it's supposed to be off (like the turn monitor off after x minutes feature in windows). Disabling the ultra low power setting just crashes the AMD driver when the computer wakes from sleep. Definitely an AMD driver issue in Windows 10, since using Windows 7 with the same setup, everything works fine though the driver is much older. Does the same thing for both monitors. Already tested literally everything, there is no fix. Never had any issues like this with multiple nVidia cards, though those like to self-destruct permanently anyway.
You know you're in front of a Nvidia/Intel fan that hasn't used Adrenaline in their lives when they tell you their driver software is better than yours 😂
Everyone should be buying the best value products that suits there needs
THIS.
Exactly. I bought Nvidia ultimately because I built ITX and the 4080 ran cooler than what AMD was offering in that performance range. But next time around if I don’t go ITX, AMD will probably be where I go. I’m not loyal to any company.
So, an Nvidia graphics card?
I got a AMD 6950xt for $400 last prime day, Swapped out from a 4060TI 8Gb, I was shocked at how much more I got with AMD, only have issue with 1 game so far being Ark SA where I can't get my card to run at all in the game.
Hard to swallow the Nvidia prices now especially for playable 1440p gaming, I'm happy with my system, happy with my GPU. Would love to see AMD getting more market share so game makers need to focus a bit more into giving AMD GPU's a little more love in using and building game engines that work will with all GPUS not just Nvidia's.
ark sa is a mess in general, when it launched nvidia gpu's had crashing issues and amd didn't so I don't know what wildcard are doing lmao.
I have 6950xt and can play all ark SA maps except abberation, which has a known issue with Radeon 6000 cards. Patch coming: maybe
hows the Ray Tracing??? 😂
Well now that you did ask.. Useles gimmic.
@@TTx04xCOBRAnobody cares about it and it Isnt like 4060 ti was good
A year ago I was between 7800xt and rtx4070, and bought a 7800xt because it was cheaper, more vram and faster in raster
AMD will last you longer due to more vram so it makes sense for reason plus your being cheaper reason as well
@@raven4k998 worth noting that nvidia give longer drivers support usually
Adrenaline is a bajillion times better than GeForce Experience
And don't even start me on Nvidia control panel.
Facts
You know what the nVidia control panel looks almost exactly like? ATi Catalyst from back in the day.
to be fair I owned 7700 1GB and 290X 4GB till mid 2019 and at least till 2017 AMD drivers where pain it the ass to use, but from what I saw its much better now
@@kjubon8888 oh absolutely. they were pretty bad before. but it's now, not then
Bought a founders edition 7900 xt at micro center refurbished for 599.99….a steal and amazing
The Reference Model... "Founders Edition" in Nvidia's own version. Nvidia partners also get a reference design (a PCB layout and component list) to work from. AMD makes a reference model that they both make themselves AND allow partners to make. They all look identical.
what a steal...i wanted a 7900XT but i had to buy a "store pc" with no chance of choosing the VGA. Had to go with 4070 ti Super. Still im satisfied with my vga.
@@andersjjensenpedantic much?
Refurbished= semi broken. Reference models aren't even reliable in terms of physical durability. I'd rather buy a second hand Asus or EVGA branded mining card.
Just return that ,and get a bn 4070 ti/ 4070 super or even a gre instead.
@@Big_Yin Calling any other card than Nvidia's own a "founders edition" is as correct as calling a Red Devil a Nitro+.
My 7900 GRE simply can't be beat for the price.
Especially after overclocking, that allows it to rival the 4070 Ti Super at times.
best amd gpu in the market!
same here bro. 7900 GRE under 500€ not to beat
7800xt -5% and costs more chips fore 7900gre
Truth
I was one of the people that experience driver issues with the 7800xt. All you gotta do is uninstall your old driver with DDU before installing the new ones and no issues after that and I'm also using Adrenaline too. This literally fixed everything and i havent had a crash in months.
I dumped my 3080Ti and got a 7900XTX over a year ago for less than a $1,000 along with a free $60 game. An incredible deal when you consider the 4080 was $1,200 and the 7900XTX beats it in 9 out of 10 scenarios (without raytracing). I've had no more issues with the AMD card than I did with my 3080Ti or the 1080Ti I had before that. I don't care about raytracing. It's not even worth it with an Nvidia card, imo. All it does is halve your performance and most of the time, you can barely tell a difference in picture quality versus quality baked in lighting effects.
I would've gotten a 4090, but a 15%-20% performance bump just isn't worth an extra $600-$1000.
lol @ playing without raytracing in 2024 after throwing away a grand on graphics card 😂
@@Gooroodlol playing shitty modern single player games
@@Goorood A Nvidia-trained ray tracing fanboi I see. Pathetic.
@Goorood Graphics cards should have never sacrificed die space for useless Rt cores. Even then, they rely on cuda cores for certain functions. Leave that niche crap to workstation cards for the next 3 generations, and when the time comes go full raytracing instead of it taking an hour or more to render real time raytracing.
@@GooroodTypical comment from someone that probably has a 1660ti on its pc
I got a AsRock 7900XTX for $800 because it was a return on micro-center , I was going to 4090 but it got me worried because of the power pins, but i was impressed it really good raytracing per on cyberpunk and with Radeon boost I get 120fps
Lies bro stop trolling you went going to spend 1900bucks because you would have got a 4080 for 1k. Bro stop ✋️ the lies you didn't even want to spend 1k we get it
@@bumperxx1 I don't think it's a lie. As someone who had only purchased Nvidia in the past, I also went for a 7900XTX instead of a 4090, and don't regret it. I actually built 3 different rigs this year, all with AMD GPUs and 7800X3D, money is not an issue. And nor me, my GF or my friend have any issue or complaint. To each their own. Honestly, a 4090, is a terrible value GPU.
@@skullcsr they are adding that price for the "best on the market" tag btw, as other corpos
I don't get the hate on the 4090 pins. I mean, does AMD encourage it's customers to learn new skills, like how to soldier to fix thier cards? Nope! 😂
Edit for clairity: I used to like nvidia, but I hate them for the crap they pulled in the 40 series- mainly trying to trick the general public into buying a 70 level card but calling it a 4080 with less vram.
2nd big thing I don't like is their obviously bad new connector & them blaming the user for it. They put it on huge cards, make it stiff, & make it stick out even further, nearly guaranteeing it hits the side. What do they expect???
@@goldenheartOh does Nvidia ?
Love my 7900xtx
food for thought.....85% of all gpu sales are in the 250-400 dollar range. Ray tracing isn't much of a thing at that price range but Nvidia has 80+ percent of the marketshare. Daniel said it, AMD simply has the better options in the aforementioned price range........my point is there are a crap ton of dummies out there spending their money on less performant gpu's only because Nvidia is stamped on it.
do you have source for the 85%?
i agree. got my pc this january and bought a 4060. now i have a 7900 xt. Thats why you never buy anything without knowledge
People simply don't want to understand technical issues. Also check all cheap "gaming" laptops options and pre-builds - Nvidia everywhere.
@@aladinz88 one could take the Steam Hardware Survey for example. You break it down by model and add all percentages together and check the Pricing for each card at their release and i'm almost certain, that this 85% Range might be quite accurate actually.
I for example would never even consider buying a Graphicscard for more than 500$. I would rather get to the used marked and buy a cheaper one there before i spent my Money on that.
People spending above 600$ for a Graphicscard alone is not common and we tend to live in a bubble with like minded people who might spend that much but thats actually not the majority
It's called Volume-Market for a reason! 🙂
@@АндрейШевченко-к6й I bought a 7800 XT on release and sadly had problems with crashes/freezes(hold powerbutton to turn off) in league of legends and wow. You can check the driver patch notes of march April and may. You will see there were many problems with blizzard titles.
Why the laptop / prebuild market uses Nvidia:
Imagine you sell laptops and every time a customer plays a game that has problems he returns the laptop + calls you for help cuz the laptop driver is still crashing after a clean windows install.
It's just not worth it dealing with the RMAs and playing the lottery.
Don't get me wrong: Nvidia GPUs have the same issues and bugs with windows 11 and 1440p, BUT you don't get freezes, blackscreens or pc crashes. I think I had a Nvidia crash in frostpunk2 when I accidentally switched the monitor to my TV in the graphics options.
Ontop of that: AMD pricing is very often just -10-15% to Nvidia but lacking real upscaling (FSR is just a filter, not an AI that actually adds missing information) and RT.
So you sell an overpriced (it's the same shameless value/price ratio as Nvidia) product that has a shorter useful time/lifespan to a customer that doesn't know shot about PCs in > 95% of the cases.
And the last reason: AMD always releases their GPUs after Nvidia and the process seemse rushed (if you look at early drivers). So your AMD laptop/prebuild is always 6-12 month behind. So you always try to sell a product into a market that is already saturated with similar products.
My reasons to switch from Nvidia to AMD are two:
1) better driver support on Linux (I'm full Linux Gaming now)
2) better value.
My use case is mostly first person shooters, just need 240 FPS at 1440p, AMD has the best FPS/price ratio
Value lol. Just say you're poor.
Than why is best selling GPU based on steam rtx 3060 , peasant race
@@BryceCzirr-jz7juyou’re poor
@@BryceCzirr-jz7jutell that to my 7800xt and my r7 7700x cpu with ddr5 ram. Some people are too stupid, you are one of them
my filthy centrist take is none of the modern GPUs present particularly good value. They're all kinda bad for one reason or another at their price points. Intel's drivers still suck, AMD's features aren't as good as nvidia, and nvidia is just doing price gouging for the better raytracing and upscaling while crippling the cards with low vram. It all sucks and I'm gonna hold off on buying any new hardware for as long as possible.
Exactly, im using a 3070 now and when vram becomes a real issue ill use my rx6800 then ill only upgrade if i cant run games 1440p, 60+fps high/very high with upscaling. I was thinking about getting a 4080 but theres no way in hell im paying 1000+ euros for a toy😂
@@englematic it's like Apple Vs Androids
THIS. This is the sad truth. Let's be honest though, they're all price gouging right now. I've been well priced out of the GPU market entirely for many many years now.
this is accurate.
doesn't this apply to almost everything in tech? Phones also have advantages and disadvantages, so too laptops etc
I bought an AMD GPU once. Two days later my Dog died. My electric bill increased by $6,488 a month. My wife left me because of the mounting debt. A month later I'd persuaded her to come back, and promised to sell the AMD GPU and buy an Nvidia but when I tried to remove it, the damn thing exploded and blew up the entire house. I think it had something to do with the terrible drivers...
some people will believe that xD
Lmao, this is basically what Nvidia fanboys think is gonna happen when owning one
i had the same experience with their awful drivers back in 2015. i've had a 7800xt for 8 months now, my first amd gpu since 2015 and its every bit as good as nvidia driver wise these days. been 8 months and not a single issue of any kind.
@@Evanx373 adrenalin is much better than nvidia app
I gave Nvidia the middle finger this generation after they showed the amazing things they could do with the 4000 series with the 4090 and then intentionally didin't deliver any of that capability to the lower tiers. I went with a 7800 XT. I liked the value, the performance is what I wanted, and I liked the 16 GB of VRAM. My only concern is potentially longevity if ray tracing really takes off, but for the near term, what has ray tracing worth bothering to turn on? Cyberpunk and Portal RTX, and I'm not sure Portal RTX really counts. And I don't play Cyberpunk. So I think I'm good for a few more years. I've had zero driver issues, despite playing quite a few different games over the last year. Some people nit pick DLSS vs FSR, but I don't use upscaling, so I totally don't care there either.
I honestly wouldn't worry about raytracing. My opinion of it is that it's largely a gimmick until it can be implemented with little to no performance cost. Even then, I don't know that it's worth the R&D when these companies could be working on better overall performance. In every game I have played with raytracing, most of the time it just looks different, not better.
It's been what... 6? years since raytracing was launched. It Still isn't that big a thing. Maybe in another 3-4? It is still semi niche, and the performance hit - any - card takes to do it is kinda nuts.
@@benknapp3787RT does matter though because we're starting to see games enable some level of it by default with no option to completely turn it off. That's going to make cards that are relatively weaker at ray tracing age poorly. On the flip side though a lot of Nvidia cards are also going to age poorly from a lack of vram, especially with RT turned on since that consumes a lot of vram by itself
@@MrLuna109 There are quite a few games with some element of RT that run completely fine on AMD cards with very little performance hit VS Nvidia cards. It's much worse for a card to have too little VRAM than for a card to be behind in RT.
@@benknapp3787No, some of these hit performance by quite a bit like Avatar Frontiers of Pandora. An RTX 4060 ti is outperforming an RX 6800 when an RX 6800 should be about 16 percent faster
As a 7900 XTX owner at the time the 4080 Super didn't exist yet. I absolutely don't care about ray tracing. I noticed as I was playing games with it on, I just didn't notice it at all. Even when I've been on a 4090 system with Path Tracing and shit, I just don't care about it. This isn't just 10 minutes of playing with the heavy ray tracing stuff, this is 40 - 50 hours. About the only ray tracing option that I actually like is reflections. GI, shadows, and the like I'm honestly guessing if it is on or off. Reflections are night and day. I'm at the point where I'm not sure ray tracing is ever going to replace raster lighting. A couple years ago I'd tell you yes, but it just doesn't seem to be catching on at this point yet. Might be because it is still hard on mid range and low end stuff, once that stuff does it easily that may change.
Overall I'm happy with the XTX, solid damn card. At the time I bought mine it was just under $900, and the 4080 was $1200, much better value. Between the 4080 Super and the XTX at $1000, I'd probably go with the 4080, I don't think the XTX is worth it at $1000, under $900 is where you should start considering it.
The best answer is, get what suits your needs.
Copium
@@nathsabari97 Oh, if you love ray tracing so much why don't you go marry it? It would suit you well considering just how out of reach it truly is. 🤣👍
I also left Nvidia and picked up the 7900XTX but I also mod high res Textures in all the games I play and for that the 4080's 16Gb just isn't enough since Im always hitting 20Gb-22Gb of VRAM usage. Would some extra Raytracing performance be nice for those 3 games that have heavy RT in it... yes, but again I still would choose the XTX every time for its Raw Raster power and the ability to load all those high res textures just beats the 4080 every time. When I upscale heavy RT games I use XESS and it works fine. Don't miss DLSS at all. So yes definitely comes down to how you want to use your GPU. Nvidia is not always better.
@@nathsabari97 I found the person Daniel was talking about!
@@nathsabari97 As an owner of both a 7900 XTX and a 4090, I agree with Kam. The amount of games I regularly play that have heavy RT implementations is...1, which is Cyberpunk, and I only turn on the reflections and shadows. The lighting portion of RT in most games I've seen it in is not worth the performance hit. I'll take more frames and smoother frametimes over slightly prettier lights any day. I only turn on RT lighting if and when I have enough GPU headroom after all my other preferred settings are maxed.
I honestly can't remember the last time I had a driver crash on AMD, and I've been on AMD since the HD 7000 series 🤷♂️
AMD drivers crash all the time... in the mind of Nvidia fanbois.
I had them with my R7 370, R9 380 and 5700XT. But with RDNA2, they became a thing of the past. Your experience is definitely not the norm. But it is also an issue that has been blown way out of proportion.
@@RFC3514 Had to sell my 6900 xt because it was unbearable. Never had issues with nvidia aside from wallet empty real fast🤷♂
@@retrofizz727 - If it was "unbearable", it was clearly defective (and I assure you, there are defective cards from lots of brands and with GPUs from different manufacturers). So, why did you *_sell_* an item which you _knew_ was defective (which seems pretty dishonest), instead of simply returning it to the shop or card manufacturer for a refund or replacement?
@@RFC3514 Because the Amazon 3rd party seller didn’t want to refund me. I sent them the card for repair and they "tested" it, then said it was perfectly fine. The person who I sold the card told me he had no issues after a week or so, and was very satisfied. So no I don’t think I’m being "dishonest" but yeah I’m not gonna buy an amd gpu anytime soon
Yeah when i bought my 7900XT over a year ago it was slightly cheaper than the 4070Ti, while giving 12% better non-RT performance and having way more than 12GB of VRAM. I am not a believer in RT stuff, as there are still only 3-4 games on the market that really show off RT, and it was even fewer when I bought the card. I have also played several games that were using more than 12GB of VRAM since, hence the 4070Ti would have been a texture quality downgrade. The only net positive for the card would have been access to DLSS, although I rarely use that on my 1440p system.
I am very happy with my 7900XT, especially with the fact that it offers undervolting options right in the official driver.
You forgot to mention the faulty Nvidia power connector, was definitely a factor when i was in the market for a new GPU,
Only with the 4090 I have herd of no 4080 affected we go 2 of them in the family no problems
@@bumperxx1 assuming the higher power means it happens more with the 4090, but the problem is with the connector itself so it can happen to others.
@@bumperxx1 It was much rarer on the 4080, It did happen some, but again very rarely. The problem is the physical connector itself doesn't self secure well enough. Plus two different versions of the pins on the pin side were used, one was definitely much better at creating and maintaining contact. Also that radius restriction was to much. On paper the thing works, but there is not accounting for real world and safety margins are to tight. I would have gotten a poor grade if I'd turned in a design that unfit for it's use case, by poor I mean a flat out f. Now I was studying electrical engineering in the early 90's, so perhaps standards have dropped since then.
Yeah, all 7 people it affected. (Because they didn't plug it in fully).
@@BryceCzirr-jz7ju Stop spreading this long debunked nonsense. There are countless videos proving that it's the connector's fault, also as der8auer pointed in his video, the safety margins are unbelievably tighter than the 8-pin.
my 6750xt is still playing my games at 90+fps on high and ultra settings, and it didn't cost me 2 grand.
Yep had mine till recently and was perfectly satisfied with performance. Mine just had some coilwhine unfortunately
Just got a 6700XT for U$230 like new. I wanted a 6800XT but I didn't want to spend too much so close to new gpu releases.
😂😂lol son my 4080 was only 1055bucks wtf
At what 😂😂 1080p
@@bumperxx11440p cope harder.
I just looked today, and I paid $500 for my 3070 over 3 years ago. I checked today and I can get a 4080 Super for $1000, and that card is about twice as fast, and twice as much vram. 3 years and still zero price to performance increase. Nvidia GPUs are so depressing.
And the AMD "equivalent" (if you ignore all the missing features) to the 4080 Super is $900? A 10% difference. It's not like AMD hasn't raised prices as well.
@@albert2006xp Totally true!
@@albert2006xp The problem there is that they give you same VRAM as 4090 and it is generally faster in raster. The real problem for Nvidia is at the same price though. 4060 Ti, is just a 3060 Ti with 16 GB of VRAM and costs the same as 3070. While AMD right now gives you 7800 XT also with 16 GB of VRAM but over 40% faster.
Twice as much VRAM isn't saying much either with how insultingly low it is for the 3070
@@prem3548 4060 Ti 16Gb is a budget AI card. It has its place. You don't go AMD for AI. So the VRAM of AMD doesn't really matter because it's such a hassle to use AI stuff on AMD and gaming doesn't really need more than 16 for quite a few years ahead. Even 12 is fine for gaming at midrange levels.
7800XT user here, love Adrenalin software, Linux support and just better Emulation/Old games support overall. Ray-Tracing is pretty close in non Nvidia sponsored titles too, and I can run most games at 4k native max settings +60fps, but of course, there are some more recent ones that do absolutely require upscaling no matter the brand of GPU. Great for AI and machine-learning too.
All brands of GPUs have their strong and weak points, and I believe AMD is a gamer-centric brand with it's price/performance ratio while Nvidia is more about production and efficiency; most people will never make use of everything Nvidia offers as a brand because it's primarily focused on R&D&I and other high-tech stuff that most gamers will never make use of.
Of course the technology that Nvidia offers is impressive, but bear in mind the few titles it sponsors will always crush AMD in purpose as a marketing move, because in real-life scenarios, most gamers will not see the differences.
I have the 7900gre so basically the same card it’s awesome hard to believe that some graphics cards have even more power than that lol
A pleasant overview on the GPU market conditions and good advice.
Have a XFX 7900XTX (XFX SPEEDSTER MERC 310 AMD RX 7900 XTX Black Edition) and not regretting a single penny spent on it. It's simply amazing hardware. Runs all games fine if you don't value raytracing all too much. Run your game with AFMF and raytracing may be working just fine as well. For example, I run Dying Light 2 with raytracing on plus AFMF and runs at 235fps. Besides that rasterisation performance is insane with this card. There's a lot of value in AMD's cards as well as NVIDIA's.
However, as well as the 4070 super, which is more powerful in the rays than 7900xtx
After 10 years of being strictly Intel/Nvidia, I got the 7800x3d and 7900xtx and do not regret a single thing. Don't give a flying frick about ray tracing. This setup will easily last me until 2027 or longer. There will be ZERO reason to upgrade until MAYBE the nvidia 6000 series, but probably not.
XFX is dead to me. They burned me during COVID by selling me a used 5700XT as new. Fans failed in like 3 months. I don't think many gamers know about it but it was well known in the crypto mining community. Anyway, when a company scams me like that, I don't buy their products again. I would buy another Power Color or Sapphire card. Meanwhile, there are no more Nvidia board partners left I actually trust. Maybe Asus but I wouldn't be anywhere near as enthusiastic about an Asus GPU as I would Power Color or Sapphire. If they sold Galax GPUs in the US, I guess that would be an acceptable option. But I'm not having any of that 12VHPWR fire hazard. Experiencing one house fire was enough.
Also, the XFX Thicc series was just the most disgustingly ugly GPU series ever launched. It has a friggin' chrome grille like a '57 Chevy. Frankly, ripping off the shroud and zip-tying a couple of Noctua Redux fans to it improved the looks🤣 A GPU designed by one helluva 🤡 show of a company.
@@mattwilson9293 Same here. we got enough VRAM to last, because that is the ONE thing that kills GPU lifetime in my 20 years experience.
Personally, the qualities that matter to me
AMD: Better value, adequate vram, great software (adrenaline), worse upscaling
nVidia: Better efficiency, stingy vram, horrendous software (gf experience), better upscaling
I don't give a shit about RT or FG. I went with AMD mostly to avoid gf experience honestly. I do like the efficiency of the 4000 series tho
The Nvidia app is a massive improvement over Geforce Experience, though it still misses some of AMD's features like one-click undervolting or an equivalent to Radeon Chill.
that vram ain’t gunna mean shit when it’s too slow 😂 16GB is fine for the next few years. By the time that extra v ram is gunna kick in you’ll need another card
TBH even when driving nvidia cards i never in my life installed gf experience.
what drugs are you on saying nvidia has worser software than AMD, not to mention Nvidia's got alot much better software support for all things especially productivity softwares
@@IndyMiraagait’s a improvement but it still sucks, the new UI and performance overlay is so bad that I went back to GeForce experience. It’s crazy because NVIDIA is drowning on money rn but can’t even make good software for their GPU’s.
You know what they say - Nvidia has majority market share, AMD has majority youtube comment share.
Nividia hasnt made a good midrange card in generations theyve all been artificially limited and overpriced thats why normal gamers buy AMD.
@@BlackJesus8463 People aren't actually buying AMD, the stats are right there. It's just the type of people that would come here to complain and pour over fps benchmarks are more likely to fall for the trap of strictly comparing money to fps or think they're sticking it to Nvidia. Nvidia's low end cards have been kind of bad (well, imo 3060 12Gb is a really good card for the time/price), but as long as you avoid the ones that aren't worth you are still getting DLDSR+DLSS level quality, don't have to worry about disproportionate RT performance drops and can even mess with AI right out of the box cause most people just develop for CUDA. If you're a low to midrange GPU buyer and keep your cards for 2-3 generations at least you're fine paying a bit more to get the full package.
@@albert2006xp " People aren't actually buying AMD," That's kind of the problem. Some people would be better served if they did. I've seen multiple comments from people over the past year or so who regretted buying a 3070 because of the lack of VRAM. Those people may have been better served with a 6700XT or a 6800. But part of that is on AMD because they're bad at marketing, their initial pricing is often too high, and they just follow whatever Nvidia does feature-wise.
@@Kryptic1046 I think the physical stores also has big problem tend to always recommend on clueless customers a much more expensive product and just how gullible most people are when it comes to product price, expensive = better.
Very true.
The truth is: It depends on what YOU personally prefer in your GPU and what you value more.
There is no universal answer.
I know lame answer, but it is just the truth.
It's not about what you value. It's about what you will use your computer for
The truth right now is that you have to make a lot of asterisks and compromises to save a bit of money and buy AMD. There's no real "advantage" of AMD other than a small price to performance in pure raster. And the RX8000 series around the corner is looking to be leaps and bounds better if they deliver on the FSR 4.0 promises and RT performance.
Even in the scenarios where you think AMD makes sense right now, you're probably making one of those arguments that "you'll run native anyway so upscalers don't matter". But they do, because DLDSR or even VSRing your screen before using an upscaler is going to beat native in image quality at equalized performance, and even for native the best AA is going to be your upscaler's native version, FSR/XeSS Native or DLAA.
If you want to buy AMD, wait a few months.
@@Diegsn Which also means that you value a certain card to use with your computer. Same thing.
There's literally no reason to buy AMD. thats the truth.
@@albert2006xp Your arguments are tailored to a specific set of expectations. Not a universal answer. As I said in my post.
i wont lie, i feel like a tool for the 4080 i just bought because im really not ok with the way NVIDIA abuses its market position.
That being said, AMD would in theory give me more bang for my buck but it lacks in the key areas NVIDIA has a stranglehold on that I unfortunately rely on.
Le sigh.
The average consumer see's that Nvidia has the best GPU, the 4090. And because of that, every other gpu they make must be better, right? But that's not how it works. The 4080 is like 1200 while you can get a 7900xtx for 999.99 and its literally the same performance and actually faster in a handful of games like call of duty. I remember my 6900xt beating my 3090 in COD Warzone because warzone actually developed the game using both brands hardware and through actual proper development, AMD edged out more performance. Most games are developed on Intel/Nvidia (cpu/gpu) and they completely ignore AMD hardware. Which is sad, because they too are brainwashed into thinking Intel/Nvidia is the only option. Fun fact, when app's/games properly use AMD hardware, its always faster than Intel (cpu wise) and can be faster or same speed as Nvidia. My 6900xt again, the perfect example, whooped the 3090's ass in call of duty. Meanwhile battlefield, which was "build for intel/nvidia" didn't run on AMD very well, and 2042 on launch day no AMD user could play because they had ZERO AMD computers in their office to make sure it ran right. They just didn't care. And that to me is ignorant. IF I was a game developer, I would have all brands in my company to make sure my game runs on everything, from intel to nvidia to amd.... hell with the new arm stuff getting more popular, i would try to make my game work on arm too. sure its extra work for little value, but you gotta start somewhere right? Feel real bad for people who fall into the meme builds of intel/nvidia, because they waste money for less performance.
This is such a naive take. Game developers make games with Intel/Nvidia in mind because that's what the majority of their customers use. The devs aren't stupid (for the most part). They just don't have infinite time/money to optimize their games for all platforms. If you have limited time to optimize, you'd be fucking retarded to work on AMD hardware. Shit, some devs don't even have time to optimize their games for any hardware, which is why some games have seen significant performance improvements with patches. In an ideal world without deadlilnes, quarterly reports, and shareholder meetings, we might get the optimization you want. But that's not the current landscape of gaming, which is more corporate than ever. Don't blame the devs. Blame the finance bros that ruined gaming.
You are correct in that the average consumer only sees Nvidia flagship products being the best and then buys Nvidia.
4080 super is $999 and dumpsters a XTX in nearly every area including important ones that get missed like temperatures, driver stability, and insanely better productivity performance.
This is coming from someone who just purchased a 9950x so I'm not an AMD hater just being real about their subpar GPUs.
@@jabronilifestyle 999 for the crappy low end 4080 super. Which no, it doesn't dumpster the 7900xtx.... Look up any reputable reviewer. The 7900xtx legit beats the 4080 super with current drivers. But i bet youre one of those fake "but muh ray tracing" meme people acting like you actually play games at low fps with RT enabled. No one does. I have a 4090 and wont even waste my time with RT and shit blurry upscaling.
@@goblinphreak2132 I have both, it definitely does - especially in anything productivity or cuda related. The XTX is a failure of a release, it's hot garbage basically. The low 1% is actually atrocious and the heat is ridiculous. Yikes.
@@jabronilifestyle It's neat you go 'productivity or cuda related' as if that isn't SOLELY down to CUDA being NVIDIA exclusive and nothing being designed to make proper use of alternatives like OpenCL or ROCm. It's almost like it's a problem AMD can't actually do anything about, what with NVIDIA actively shutting it down every time someone tries to make a translation layer to pass CUDA through OpenCL or ROCm instructions.
Nvidia doesn't actually have better hardware. They just have proprietary software baked into the development process, and there is literally NOTHING AMD can do to solve that problem. It's been Nvidia's bread and butter since PhysX.
i'm stoopit
This reminds me of when Triple H dressed up as Vince McMohn and during one part of the show he shouted STOOOOOP ITTT 🤣🤣🤣🤣
it happens
No ragrets
@@Fluskar Finest tattoo 4eva. I've had that included with ma 14700k.
My old system had Intel CPU and GTX 1080ti which served me for almost a decade. Back then the 1080ti brand new was only $700 which was a steal for a top end 11 GB card.
Now I have switched to full team red and do not regret my decision at all. AMD announced they are no longer making high end GPUs so the 7900 XTX was a good buy. The 7800X3D is also way better than anything Intel has. Overall, AMD has been cooking with their software lately so Anti-Lag basically caught up to Reflex and FSR 4 is rumored to match DLSS. I also love the Smart Access Memory fps boost for having both AMD cpu and gpu
Almost a decade? That card was released 7 years ago. That's closer to 5 years than 10.
I have the same setup and couldn't agree more. All AMD systems can crush any game out there.
@@Couchtripper they said "a decade" not "ten years", though, so if you're going to round, shouldn't you round to the nearest decade, not the nearest year? 7 years is closer to 1 decade than to 0 decades 😁
I don't know why people are bitchhing in 2016 the 1080ti was 750 to 800 bucks or more and now..... 8YRS LATER a 4080 can be had for only 1050 bucks only 250bucks more OVER 8YRS relax 😌 people
@bumperxx1 The 1080ti released in 2017, but I get your point. Cards today in comparison are not a terrible value. You can pick up a 7900XTX for $900 and you can pick up a 4080 Super for $1000. The 1080ti launched at $700
6 days ago, I switched from a 3070 to a 6750xt after 3 1/2 years to check out team red's higher vram options. I think the 6750xt does great for the price (on sale for $320 at the time. The sale has since expired, going back to $370).
Nvidia's last gen dlss looks better than AMD's fsr 3, but both have the same performance uplift percentage while upscaling when compared to no upscaling.
AMD ray tracing is understandably worse than Nvidia's, but I don't use it enough to care.
Also, anyone who says to stay away from amd drivers and software because "they are trash" is on nvidia kool-aid. I've had no issues the past 6 days, but I have no reason to believe that one brand has more driver issues than the other.
TLDR: Don't believe what everyone says. Do enough thorough research before buying anything.
A good balanced video. It is good advice to do your research, but not always easy to do. I had to do a system build about a year ago just before Ark Survival Ascended released and getting any info about features prior to launch was impossible (even now one can only infer that there is no RT by looking at the graphics options in the game) so I had to make a guess and gamble based on what Ark Survival Evolved had in RE4 and what it was likely the devs would try to add in RE5. I play PVE on private servers where most of us are looking for a great visual experience but low enough latency not to be disadvantaged against the wild creatures. I took a gamble that there wouldn't be RT and went for a 7900 XTX. Playing in ASE for the last few weeks before ASA released I found I had to cap the frame rate in game or the GPU would just keep pushing past it specs, fortunately this seemed not to happen so much in ASA when it released but I was getting a lot of crashes on default settings. When I looked into it further, the driver defaults were applying an overclock - 2300MHz (2500MHz boost) card actually set to 3000MHz in the driver forcing me to enable overclocking to wind it down to spec. AMD have fixed this and I have had no GPU based problems for many months (the game is still horribly optimised and every update introduces new issues). Obviously I only have 'in person' view of my own system, but watching streamers and youtubers playing the game on nVidia hardware (so the encryption and stream bandwidth likely reduce quality a little) it seems to me that I have fewer texture issues even than players using 4090s, although I may have more movement artifacts. A couple of weeks a big update dropped, DLSS upscaling has been removed because the devs still haven't managed to make it work properly, and they were supposed to be fully implementing FSR3.1 but actually don't even appear to have done that, it appears it needs a console command to activate in game. The same update completely failed to work with the AMD driver that released a few days earlier - I hadn't got around to updating the driver and the official line is to rollback to the version I have or install a beta of a future driver, but still it looks like I am getting a slightly better experience in the game than 4090 users. But I absolutely cannot claim it has been plain sailing or that it was the result of good research in the first place - I hit a brick wall with my research and ended up gambling on the 7900XTX. No-one ever runs benchmarks on either Ark game so it isn't even possible to infer anything from multiple benchmark based reviews.
I started my PC journey on a GTX 970. I upgraded to a 1660 Ti when that came out. In 2022, I built a secondary PC using two RX 580s for fun. I bought a 7900 XT on release, but returned it because it was having bad coil whine. I bought the 7900 XTX instead, and haven't regretted it. I never use ray tracing, and if I want good shadows and reflections, I just use lumen instead. I'm more for smooth gaming than extreme graphics when I am playing any game. I always try to target 1440P 144FPS medium or above settings. Sometimes with upscaling on quality if I want to get higher graphics settings. That said, I usually do custom graphics settings and things like textures, I usually set higher, and things like shadows or effects, I would set lower.
Owned both brands, currently have a 7900 GRE, and never had a driver issue with AMD, those comments existed back when I bought my first AMD gpu (HD 4650). Personally I don't care about RT and I'm not a console player so don't care about fake resolutions either.
How is it at Ray Tracing?
FSR is so bad huh? Good thing DLLS looks damm near identical to Native
@@TTx04xCOBRA As useless and unplayable as with NVidia gpus..😂 Even RTX 4090 isn't powerful enough for RT!
@@TTx04xCOBRA DLSS looks garbage, just like FSR and TAA. Every temporal solutions look like ass compared to other methods like SSAA or MSAA. All these temporal solutions have ghosting and smearing issues in motion.
@@TTx04xCOBRA 1080p looks bad whatever the kind in 1080p and you don't really need to use it. I haven't seen it on higher resolutions but i guess it is where it starts to shine
Just got my 7800 xt 😂
7900GRE in March. I was saving for a 7800xt when it dropped world wide and I could not be happier.
Had mine for a year now. Only niggles are the odd crash and the card running a bit hot/noisy. Summer this year was pretty warm so I'll forgive it but I might add another case fan or at least try and optimize the cooling.
And still you surely have to read 3060/4060 owners explaining why your RT capabilities suck and you should have spent $50 (or more) extra for a 4070 😅
@@vespasian606 My 3070 has had vram crashes, so I would say the crashing part is on par.
It is great. : ) As an owner of one, I might advise going into Performance -> Tuning in AMD Adrenalin and turning on the fan to 50% by default. It runs a little hot without the fan on, which AMD turned off by default.
REEEEEE my GPU is better than yours!
nuh ah
My dad is the police... So.. there's that. Just saying you two might wanna simmer down, ok? I have already told him to call the military commando force and tell them to stand by for operation internet warning strike.. so you better respect my authority.
And my comeback is always, my wallet is phatter than yours.
great video breakdown i ddint know about that dlss technology until today only heard about it
This was incredibly well explained. Thank you so much for the extreme clarity with examples and counter examples.
I only recently turned to Nvidia because I have become an enthusiast. If you are not getting a 4090 go AMD.
Best answer
lol what? Only enthusiasts are buying Nvidia?
@@phantom0590 FOURTY NINETY.
@@phantom0590 Way to run head first towards the point yet still miss it. It's not that "only enthusiasts buy Nvidia", it's that *only enthusiasts would buy a 4090 - a GPU that can cost as much as rent in many places.*
The 4090 is the best consumer graphics card out right now, bar none. People who want the best possible graphics with good ray-tracing performance at 1440p and above (at high refresh rates) will save up for that holy grail card. No other company has even attempted to compete with the 4090.
As for everything below the 4090's performance tier, AMD has an alternative to an Nvidia card that's very competitive in value-for-money (often having more VRAM that the Nvidia cards to boot).
I'd argue anything below the RTX 4080. That still has more RT perf than anything AMD offers, and when they cost the same it becomes a non-contest.
i have never had driver issues with AMD, my 6800 my 6800xt and my 7900xtx. i never had a problem with my 3080TI either
i never did with 6600xt or have with 6800xt. would never go back to nvidia
@@hasanmich1504 Same with my 7800 XT
The same to me.
They fixed the driver issues with RDNA 2. But I experienced it with my R7 370, R9 380 and 5700XT. If you don't OC, you were probably far less likely to experience it. As for who would run those older AMD GPUs at stock clocks and be satisfied with it, IDK. They got substantial performance gains with even modest overclocking.
Eight out of ten drivers claim they are better drivers than most others. Eight out of ten gamers claim they know GPUs better than most others. #Nvidia
Great video! Its nice to see people talking about this stuff as it helps show people there are options out there if your willing to give it a chance that is and what the user is going to be doing with there PC.
I love my AMD Rx 6800 (non xt) I was lucky to get it early 2021 for retail. It was the only thing I could get in my cart after trying for months. I really wanted a nvidia GPU and had a 1070ti before this I was hoping for a 3080 to be honest.
The AMD experience has been amazing for me for going on 4 years now I think the differences for gaming are pretty minor for most gamers.
I actually play at 4k with FSR on quality high/epic/medium settings mostly although some newer games just seem to run really kind of poorly for the visual fidelity and I mean on the majority of benchmark tests I see as well if you dont have a 800+$ GPU your not really even getting 60fps sometimes upscaling is still needed....its kind of insane on the new new AAA games.(for higher resolutions 1440p/UW/4k )
I mostly am into Sim Racing Assetto Corsa Competizione. This game used to be considered very hard to run(still pretty CPU demanding) but compared to these new games it performs great lol and looks great as well that seems rare now days. 100-120 fps at 4k with FSR and mostly EPIC and HIGH settings.
I just tried FROSTPUNK 2 and wow on my normal settings 4k high FSR quality I was getting 24 fps lol and it doesnt look like anything special to me it visually looks like I should have 300 fps(not great visually) lol to get 60 fps I had to really make it look kind of bad...
System specs are i5-13600k cpu- AMD rx6800- and 4000mhz ddr4 as well for context I guess...
I feel this system is pretty good still probably the upper end up mid range performance and I really would have to spend a lot to get something that would be a big enough upgrade to be worth it. Considering how long I have had the GPU already I would say its been really great.
I do get the FOMO sometimes lol but really watching benchmark videos brings me back to reality and so does the prices of high end GPUs lol
Sorry that was a bit long I just idk really feel like AMD does not get enough credit they actually make really good products for a good price that in many scenarios are just as good if not better especially at the kind of affordable price tiers(everything is pretty expensive).
Thanks for the videos and information!
I picked up a 7800xt last week for £450 due to the prices of the Nvidea cards/equivalents being too high for me.
At first I didn’t know what to expect, I heard the AMD cards were great so I thought id take a gamble and pick one up and I have to say it is a superb card especially for the price too!
I would also like to say I’m not a Nvidia hater I’m far from it, I just think that Nvidia as a company has lost one of the most important selling points for their GPUs which was affordability. My last GPU was a GTX 1060 which I got in 2018 and at the time the prebuilt pc I got cost £850 all together which is rarely seen these days in the mid range market. I’d also like to say why does everyone feel the need to go off at each other for their card of choice too? At the end of the day they are both quality products, it just seems a little childish to judge someone by their choice of GPU😂
Anyway back to what I was saying I mean yeah you could say I do not get the benefit of ray tracing which yeah you’re right but for me personally ray tracing wasn’t the selling point for me which was also why I didn’t go with Nvidia. I think these days games look amazing as it is without ray tracing and I think that you shouldn’t let ray tracing be the deciding factor in your choice of card. I might sound like I’m being biased but looking at it from the point of view of someone who is on a budget and is looking for just fantastic visuals at a relatively low cost I would personally go with a AMD card at this moment of time.
While I think DLSS is also amazing, AMDs super resolution option that you can access using the adrenaline software is also something to consider since so far I have seen zero issues with it and my games look and run smooth running at 2k on ultra setting with well over 120 fps.
Anyway I’m gonna stop yapping and just say if your on a budget then the AMD cards offer more bang for your buck if your not bothered about ray tracing and don’t want to spend too much and if you would like to know anything about the 7800xt then be feel free to ask :)
I got AMD GPU for Linux open source compatibility and Always been Apposed to Nvidia (long live 3dfx) and intel my luck for me ATI and AMD merged.
i am that idiot who bought an AMD haha love these GPU, never going back to rip off NVIDIA!
Sad
You didnt understand the video.
Alien vs. Predator
Whoever wins, we lose
Low end - AMD
Mid range - 50/50, can argue either way depending on use case
High end - Nvidia
this opener was gold😂😂🤣 and is so on point😂
However, I switched to AMD since my GeForce 8600GT and I am super happy. This is a long time and I never had any serious issues. I don’t even missed anything. Also I’ve played Cyberpunk 2077 in full Pathtracing on maximum settings. Only because AMD has less Raytracing performance doesn’t means it’s unplayable.
I don’t see any reason to support leather jackets, and I kick RayTracing on every single time when it’s available on 7900XTX
First gpu was an Nvidia Riva 128, unstable drivers. Second was 3dfx Voodoo 2, great card. 3rd ATI all-in-wonder, good card. Then Nvidia 6200, terrible card and drivers. Next AMD 260x, great card. Then AMD rx580, terrific card. Finally AMD 6600xt, fantastic value 1080p card. I doubt Nvidia will ever get me back as they were always the worst, most unstable, and overpriced cards, and I do not think that has changed.
👍 for the ATI all in wonder, had that and the Voodoo as well. Those were the days. Thought I was a big deal because I scored a good deal on a CD-ROM drive of all things!
Early Nvidia drivers around the TNT and Geforce 1 era (Detonators) were a lottery. They were all over the place, it was a nightmare to uninstall and reinstall them and you'd sometimes lose 30% performance in a random game while gaining 15% more in another.
They settled down during the Geforce 3 / 4 era but lost it again with the Geforce FX and Geforce GTX400 series.
AMD/ATI had similar niggles over the years, but GCN was absolutely amazing rock solid for almost a decade and free performance every single year, even on ancient cards.
AMD/ATI have been whooping Nvidia in drivers since around 2012.
That's some old tech 😂
@@jackpowell8155 So much of it is busted these days. Opened a brand new (still sealed) TNT 2 Ultra last year and it had black corrosion on the PCI connector and didn't POST. Devastated. Also opened a pair of VooDoo 2's that were brand new (Powercolour Power Of 2) and one of them was dead. Well, it "worked" (detected) but it didn't produce an image.
My RX580 sits on a special shelf in my hardware closet reserved for true troopers. I bought it for $220 a few months after launch and it lasted me until I wanted to upgrade my three monitors to 1440p165Hz so obviously I had to get an XTX. I did suffer two months of high idle consumption (at 45W, so not exactly a biggie) until AMD got that fixed.
AMD RDNA4 looks promising if it's 7900XT like raster or between 7900XT and 7900XTX raster with like 4070/4080TI level RT ..from the rumors + their AFMF2 it's gonna be amazing, im gonna get one for testing.
How about the 7900xtxtxtx it's way better 😉
Im running AFMF 2 now on AMD's Preview driver it is Insanely good and its not even the official version. Its ALMOST as good as engine level frame gen like 95% as good... which is nuts because you can run it in any game. I can't even imagine how good it will be once the official version drops.
@@SemperValorfr even for some competitive game
I think 7900XTX/4070ti in RT is more likely.
When Intel's GPU market share dropped to 0%... My ARC A380 turned into Thanos dust!
Thanks alot Nvidia! I was Capture/Editing on that!
The thing is Battlemage won't need all that driver patching because the ARC issue is due to making design compromises with the memory subsystem, thereby requiring the driver to basically be a patch for every game in existence.
But intel is VSF. Between the 13th and 14th gen silicon degradation issue and the ARC driver issue, nobody is going to buy Battlemage and that will be the end of intel's bid to be a GPU manufacturer.
According to steam, intel has 9$ market share
@-Ice_Cold- 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Steam GPU market share measured in dollars haha... Intels GPU market share is 0% for anyone who wants a real figures AMD has 12% and Nvidia has 88%, however in steams CPU market share Intel still has 69%... Nice! 😏🤣🤣 leaving AMD with 31%.
@@TriPBOOMER Of course i meant %, but 9$ is probably Intel's stock
@@-Ice_Cold- That would be I'm guessing... including IGPU's like ''Iris'' from decades of Intel having a strangle hold on the laptop space... Thats not the same as what my statement refers to. They genuinly have 0% of the desktop dedicated GPU space, down from the 2% they gained last year.
congrats on the 200K daniel!
This video is very interesting and I agree. However I would like to describe my experience after using an AMD GPU (6700 xt) for more than 1 year. I will start by saying that I have had nvidia GPUs since I can remember (except for an r7 360x more than a few years ago). Given the excellent prices and reviews of many youtubers who praise AMD in one way or another I decided to try one of their GPUs, unfortunately the experience has never been up to the level of nvidia, I don't even want to talk about the AI or productivity sector because I was aware of it. It disappointed me a lot also in gaming and in daily use of the pc, many games have worse performances on amd gpu, very often the drivers are not stable or are released late, in about 1 year of use I lost count of the times I had to use DDU or that the pc decided to give a black screen or something else, I did not change anything apart from the gpu and I tried to update everything and reinstall windows (I also tried linux and there unexpectedly I also had problems, in particular with the ROCm drivers). Another hateful problem is given to me by freesync, in some games or apps the screen starts to flicker and becomes practically unusable, the monitor is also gsync compatible and had never given me this problem (among other things it is a freesync premium). Raytracing is a big NO, and the quality of the FSR upscaling is very poor in most games even with a target resolution of 1440p, the frame gen is good but in some cases it gives me the same flickering problem. In summary it is a good card but it has many defects that I find useless to deny (especially on the software side), I am keeping an eye on the used market to return to nvidia.
Edit: Don't hesitate to ask questions if you want to know something more in detail.
Both amd and nvidia have their points, and both have been fairly alright driver wise for a long time. I have no idea why people think amd drivers are bad or the card just explodes except quite a bit of ignorance
Ignorance is bliss, that's their motto. There is always a lot Nvidia bots who claim insane driver issues and stutters, even though they never had an amd card or any experience with the actual drivers. Nvidia is using AI to flood the comments with ignorant statements with no logic, i hope, cause ppl can't be this stupid to keep echoing bs and lies.
AMD drivers utterly suck if you do the following: Install Windows on an Intel + Nvidia machine, then move the drive to your new AMD build. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING can fix it. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you shouldn't do this in the first place... but since it boots people think AMD is doing something wrong. And this happens a lot more than you think. Half (if not more) of DIY builders are not anywhere near capable of actually following correct procedure and, I will give Nvidia that, Nvidia is much better at handling that.
It's simple! 9700 Pro cards had driver issues around the time of Quack3.exe controversy (rename the exe = ATI turned out to improve the game performance if it detected Quake3.exe running), and that got thrown around as reasons why ATI - later AMD - was bad, over and over. It snowballed and got repeated generation by generation. They were bad with PhysX after Nvidia bought PhysX and had it crammed everywhere - AMD bad. They were bad with Tessellation after Nvidia focused on jamming it into their cards, especially in one stage of Crysis 2 often featured in benchmarks that had an entire ocean of tessellated water underneath it, constantly rendering - AMD bad. The Nvidia review guides instruct reviewers to focus on raytracing benchmarks - AMD bad :)
drivers are hit or miss, either stable or broken, random freezing or black screen issues, some windows versions tend to fuck with the drivers too. I experienced so much jank in 6 years.
I don't understand people talking about AMD drivers like it's still 2011...
I've had my sapphire nitro+ 5700XT since the car launched and from DAY ONE I never experienced a single driver issue, I still have the card because it's been nothing but bliss for me so far. I might upgrade to the 8800XT, but only if it's a good deal because other then WuKong I haven't had a game make me bump the graphics down from high settings.
I was upgrading from 1070 and newer Nvidia prices were simply unbearable, so I went with 7800xt. Had to refund Helldivers 2 because the driver issues with that game literally physically damaged GPUs. So it still happens
this time last year i had my vega64 brake something in the registry on driver Update, wich resulted in bootlooping, that was fun to fix. driver issues are definitely still a thing(somehow)
7900 GRE is the last high end without stupid VHPWR 🙃
Got a RX 6700XT last year for 230€ to replace my GTX 1070. So far very happy with it in terms of software and performance. It's my second AMD/ATI GPU so far (last one was HD5850). Other than that I owned several NVIDIA GPUs. Do I miss RT? No, not really. I'm more for comparing options when it's time to upgrade and get the one that makes more sense in terms of performance/ratio.
I was looking a budget friendly gpu that can max out my experience while playing 1080p while not making too much of a bottleneck and was hooked to rx 6800. Price difference with the 4070 was huge but the raw performance difference is barely noticeable sometimes the rx 6800 is even stronger because of SAM, then you can also enable afmf2 on any game while the 4070 would need the game to have frame gen option first.
I am one of those people who pay extra for NVIDIA cards because I want all the bells and whistles. However, I don't do it because I am 'Team Green' or have something against AMD. I do it simply because without having the ability to play games at 90+ fps with max ray/path tracing, I may as well be using my PS5. But that's just me and I know everyone is different and will admit in some instances the console version is better i.e. Jedi Survivor (pre recent PC patch).
So you play 3 games?
@@MelodeathMassacre😂😂😂
@@MelodeathMassacre 🗿😂😂
@MelodeathMassacre wth? 🤣 I play rt games exclusively lately. There are dozens that I know of and tried and many more I haven't. Even older games are getting updates to use rt. Rt is such a killer feature though 😅 you can't go back just like with 4k. But right now it's just sad that you can't really use both without way overpriced 4090. At this moment I'd choose 4k over rt so AMD would be a better choice because of more VRAM. But game devs are going to get better at exploiting rt with every day now so soon it could be rt > 4k.
unless you're using high class gpus rt doesn't provide much and it tanks performence significantly. Personally I find native quality better than upscaled rt quality. Btw I use 7900 gre and it's overclocked quite a bit and it's a beast considering it price. I wanted buy 4070super because of it's efficiency but the price gap was huge
For me, AMD was the only option due to superior Linux drivers. I recently switched from Windows to Manjaro (Arch-based Linux distribution), and I am not looking back. I bought an RX6800XT for the same price as an RTX3060Ti here in Sweden. Which was quite honestly a much better deal. I received a 40-60% bump to performance, better or similar RT performance and 2x the VRAM. Nothing wrong with nvidia, but man! Their mid-range just suck in terms of value once marketing prices hit. At least here in northern Europe.
Pc people making fun of console war when they do the same
Nerds infighting, accumulating obscene amounts of debt, just to have bragging rights for what, 6 or 12 months....lol. Then the cycle starts all over again? GPU manufactures got em over a barrel and they don't even know it.
@@LilaHikes Not sire what you mean I never saw a single person who bought a GPU on credit lol
@@acev3521 you underestimate the number of people that took loans for the 4090 just to have the top card
@@Raven3557what is that number
90% of PC Gamers buy Nvidia, the "wars" are just online. Nvidia already won in the real world long ago.
All i know is well over 90% of the games i play don't even have any ray tracing, so i bought a 7900xt for the better rasterization at it's price level and I've never felt let down by it.
I've always stuck with the reasonable crowd where you just go with whatever makes the most sense for your usecase.
Play games with the best performance money can buy? Just get the top cards, either Red or Green.
Play games on a reasonable budget with only limited or no concern for the extra features? Go with what's cheaper, but still good value.
Do streaming and/or editing? Either one works, but we start leaning back and forth a bit depending on the expectations. If you want best overall and don't use a lot of raw footage or accelerated effects, you could go with AMD, but it would probably be a recommendation favoring the 7900s due to their encoder count (they have multiple hardware encoders compared to their Nvidia rivals apparently and they rip through stuff fast in both Premiere and Resolve with only marginal differences besides effects and 8k raw footage encode/transcode).
Though of course with editing and streaming, Intel's apparently a hard beat who just... Beats both entirely in value for what you get, be it the QuickSync encoders in their recent cpus or that of which is in their dedicated gpus. You could literally do a dual card setup with whatever you want for your main, then plunk in an A380 and have that as your designated encode/editing gpu and it will virtually replace any Nvidia or AMD hardware you relied on before it. That makes the value for Intel insane pretty much!
The only time anything comes up where neither AMD or Intel can win is it involves compute, where things get quickly complicated, since that's where Nvidia dominates, not even just with CUDA either but from overall widespread support. Mostly all because Nvidia partnered with everybody and went out of their way to cater to every corner of industry possible where their tech could benefit to improve. For AMD and Intel, it's just a missed boat they're playing catch-up on and while they seem to be getting out of the weeds, software people are just... Stuck in Nvidia's swamp really. There's only so many who can find alternative ways not to rely on their libraries and software support and by that really just a seldom few, so obviously CAD, compute, engineering, and deep learning software are just not there for... Well, really anyone else besides Nvidia at this point without talking niche areas. Thus, recommendations there tend to favor Nvidia most of the time, even when the option to use the other two is there because it's just a safety net at the least to stick to the established player till the other two catch up. ROCm and OneAPI are not bad from what I've heard, but matching the likes of CUDA and even on the rendering side, matching something like OptiX in rt/pt rendered scenes in hardware, there's no true alternative yet to change that for now.
All that aside, honestly, the fanboying stuff is something I find pretty stupid so far.
I would like seeing AMD, Intel, or even a completely different firm like Moorethreads in their own place come out on top, but only because I want the other competitors to them (particularly Nvidia) actually do something different for once in response. I personally couldn't care a less who's better as much, I just want to see how they all compete against each other most of the time. A lot of innovation is driven that way, so in some capacity, that's just all I want to see. I came from very low end hardware that was even nearly a decade old or older before getting into current, high end hardware, so I personally have no issue jumping back and forth, just that I would like to see multiple options exists that have some advantage over the other in some meaningful way to make it worth it. The best performing doesn't always interest me as much as the ones that go up against their limits in a tier below anyway.
You don’t play multiplayer games
I have both GEFORCE RTX and AMD RADEON. They both SUCK and they both ROCKS....
Like your girlfriend!
if nvidia had more vram on their products amd would be totally doomed but is not the case because in the middle section there is not a big price difference.
NVIDIA won't offer more VRAM not only because it increases their costs, but because it means they are future proofing themselves out of a sale for another year or two. All NVIDIA midrange cards should have 16gb VRAM at this point, but they are still putting out 12gb. People are going to be left without enough VRAM in 2 years and, because NVIDIA dominates the marketshare, they will come right back to them. It is all part of the plan.
This gen Nvidia is mostly efficient focused (aside from the 4090) so yeah the 4060 & 4060 ti should had more performance the 8 gb made the 16 gb look bad which is why a lot of people were not buying him.
Do i think its a good card? Absolutely no but its better than nothing.
@@jk2357 adding extra vram adds BARELY any more... its been debunked many times that argument of low vram cause... its because they want you to buy again as soon as possible its always the same,.
@@nicane-9966 I've got some Switch emulators chewing through 13gb of VRAM right now, so I'm glad to have the extra. For most average users, they should be okay with 12gb if they are fine turning down some settings in the future. We'll see how games progress with their demands.
Having more VRAM would be sick for AI applications. Nvidia needs to step up so much it's so annoying.
It is, but nvidia cards are generally better supported so you'll have less issues running ai stuff on nvidia cards. The support is improving tho.
@@kren4449 Sure but i'm pretty much screwed if I want to run a model that explicitly needs 11GB. Can't do much about it on an 8GB card. It's either that or wait for different models but that's going to be at a cost.
@@d4rkforce01 you can either buy the cheaper amd card with more vram and hope the sw your using to run your model works on amd cards or you can buy the more expensive nvidia card with more vram
@@kren4449 Yeah I'm SOL most of the time. AMD burned me pretty badly with regard to its drivers and constant crashing so I'm left with the only other GPU company. It's so unfortunate.
@@d4rkforce01 weird I have an amd card (rx 6600) and haven't had any issues with it except once last year when there was a bug in the drivers that made any video playback in a browser (like UA-cam for example) make the entire computer stutter like crazy but that was fixed relatively quickly. Which amd cards have you had problems with?
I was an nvidia fanboy for many years. I bought the 2080ti new for almost $1700. That card served me well lasting almost 6 years. Then I needed to upgrade my whole system. After many video reviews/comparisons I decided on an AMD build. Went with 7800x3d and 7900 xtx with AM5 mobo and zero regrets. The Adrenaline drivers work great...as long as I don't touch any default settings. Luckily nothing really needs altered with this set up. Runs fantastic right out of the box on 3440x1440 @ 185 Hz
As someone who plays racing sims. Being able to set the game to automatically start in Eyefinity, and have it go back to 3 separate monitors on it’s own when you close the game is godsend. The fact that I couldn’t do that with Nvidia is insane.
Just get the one that suits your need and budget. Please stop worshipping these big corporations. They don't actually care about you, just what's inside your wallet & bank account.
THIS
Gaming on the 6600 XT and the Adrenalin software is so good I never want to go back to Nvidia again. So much simpler and centralized. Undervolting? Done in Adrenalin. Recording? Done in Adrenalin. Byebye afterburner and OBS lol!
Well rocking my 7900XTX and 78003d And pretty much maxing out every game at 100-240fps at4K. Yeah I'm an idiot.
Without context this means nada. A 4090 doesn't do 100-240 fps in all games at 4k. You must be playing light games, and I'm someone that owns a 7900 xtx.
@@MrNelahem Yeah no modern actually demanding game runs at 4k native on anything at fps that huge. Some games you can't even get a 7800x3d to hit 100.
@@albert2006xp that's objectively false. lol
My only problem with AMD is its unsuffurable work with LLMs, stable diffusion, AI in general, Blender, and CUDA is essential fro this typeof things. It'd be great if AMD could work with these companies to make it shine for workload apart from just gaming.
I'm really excited for AMD's future, where they focus more on the mid-tier cards instead of trying to beat the 90 series from Nvidia. I ran an RX6800 on my game stream PC for the longest time, and it was amazing for 1440p gaming for the price.
AMD usually offers more frames per dollar. If you are only gaming, AMD is most likely the best bet. Ray tracing is stupid, even at the top end.
Cope, and lies. The 4060 runs path tracing fine at 1080p. AMD loses in prove to performance everywhere except youtube comments.
@@Wobbothe3rd cope? I have a 4090. This is 2024. If you are having to play at 1080p upscaling from 720p, with frame gen to hit 60fps; so you can say you can use path tracing, you're the one coping.
Without frame gen, a 4090 can't hit 60 fps and 60fps sucks.
So, even with the most expensive GPU, upscaling, and frame gen, I can't hit 120fps with path tracing. Ray tracing is stupid. You are stupid.
@@CS-pl8fcwasted ur money
@@emma6648 how? Gaming is one of my hobbies, and despite people thinking 4090s are absurdly expensive, it remains my cheapest hobby. I would agree if there was another card that offered the same performance for less money, but there isn't. To play at 4k 144hz, without using frame gen, you basically need a 4090. And even then you need to rely on upscaling.
My original comment was regarding lower end cards. At most price points AMD beats Nvidia in pure raster performance per dollar. Unfortunately, AMD doesn't compete at the top end.
People spend $300 a month on cable TV. They spend 60k on a new car every 3 years. So for me to spend $1700 on a GPU that I will use for 3 years then sell for more than half what I paid doesn't really seem like a waste to me.
@Wobbothe3 cope? I have a 4090. This is 2024. If you are having to play at 1080p upscaling from 720p, with frame gen to hit 60fps; so you can say you can use path tracing, you're the one coping.
Without frame gen, a 4090 can't hit 60 fps and 60fps sucks.
So, even with the most expensive GPU, upscaling, and frame gen, I can't hit 120fps with path tracing. Ray tracing is stupid.
No, I buy AMD exclusively because historically they provide the best bang for the buck. Not paying 2 grand for the honor and privilege of playing the latest and greatest AAA games crippled with RT at 30 fps.
Up to about $600-700USD, AMD GPUs seem to offer more performance for price than NVIDIA. Above that and NVIDIA cards with 16GB RAM and now more realistically usable ray tracing seem the better choice. Maybe FSR4 or whatever else NVIDIA has up their sleeve with 50xx series will shake it all up. Can't wait to see how things unfold in the next few months
NVIDIA is certainly winning the high end war. No wonder AMD is focusing on budget and mid range cards since that is where the company shines.
I had made what I thought was a nuanced hot take about Nvidia vs AMD GPUs but this video really changed my mind. I'm a big Nvdia fan, but to be fair, I use an Nvidia RTX 4070 Ti Super not just for gaming but also for AI inference work with Stable Diffusion and local LLMs. It was the cheapest way to get both 16 GB of VRAM and DLSS upscaling that didn't suck as a total value proposition.
Despite having an Nvidia GPU because I use a laptop, as far as desktops are concerned, I'm firmly in the "AMD = no-brainier" camp.
Despite the fact enjoying how ray-tracing looks in games like cyberpunk, it falls apart quickly even on mid-tier GPUs when the action gets heavy. If given the option to have significantly more VRAM at the expense of a _slightly_ worse upscaler and ray-tracing that's half a generation behind, I'd personally go for it.
Until some mathematical breakthrough makes ray-tracing as computationally efficient as "traditional", rasterised graphics, the latter will continue to have a lot of relevance. Technologies like FSR and XESS (I believe DLSS is only for Nvidia) allow notably smother gameplay, which if far more enjoyable in far more situations (especially fast paces games like competitive FPS games or fighting games where every frame is valuable).
If you want the best desktop graphics card, save your money for a 4090. Otherwise, you should really think long and hard about the value proposition between AMD and Nvidia options that fit in your budget!
A high-powered version of the 4080 vs the 7900XTX is probably the most difficult to chose between at MSRP, but in my experience AMD cards tend to go for sale a bit more often and at a steeper discount than similarly priced Nvidia alternatives. Below the level of the 4080, I think AMD has a very compelling value proposition.
Oh, and if you use Linux, apparently you'll have a far better time using AMD than Nvidia (who are notoriously stingy with their open source drivers).
If you are rich and dont worry about money go ahead and buy Nvidia it is the better performer. Better for streaming and video encoding/decoding and better for Gaming. Now for the rest of us who actually need to budget I am very happy with my used 6800xt and I play any game with high graphics settings and I didnt spend $2000 on a graphics card.
Daniel... I need you to back up your claim about productivity apps and AMD. Reason being that I looked into it and couldn't find a single GPU accelerated app I know the name of that doesn't specifically list support for at least RDNA 2 and 3. Solid Works, Fusion 360, DaVinci Resolve, all Adobe's crap, etc, etc, all support recent Radeon products.
As for the XTX: I bought mine for $900 when the 4080 was $1200. And it sold well at that price discrepancy. I know several people who flipped Nvidia the bird for the first time in their life over the price of the 4080. But now where Nvidia has "corrected the price" and AMD can't go any lower without selling at a loss, yes the 4080 makes sense. If you don't happen to have been watching Nvidia be arseholes for 30 years in a row and refuse to give them money. There's a reason both Microsoft and Apple stopped partnering with Nvidia....
The vast majority of software in the 4d rendering space has little to no support for AMD cards. Blender only recently added it but its still a lot slower on AMD. The RT performance of the Nvidia cards is simply much better. You can even make use of the tensor cores for denoising. Much faster renders and much better viewport performance
@@mojojojo62924D?!? ARE WE IN THE FUTURE?!
Check out tech notice. He does HW tests in creativity apps.
support doesnt mean they perform well.
JAWA is US only, please include this next time.
Gatekeep your own country, bruh.
Annoying every day how US-centric the Internet is, can stomach it but wish this would change one day.
NA = World typical magagagagagagagagagqaggagagagag
@@idontcheckmynotificationswell we invented it lol.
@@ihadalife1177 "We" shurely means the europeans, right? Tim Berners-Lee, a British scientist, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989, while working at CERN.
I bought a 7900 XTX because it was much cheaper than a 4080. Plus I don't play games that have raytracing, except for Cyberpunk but I had already mostly finished playing that game.
At the time I got my card the 7900 XTX costed 900 euros and came with a free game while the 4080 (non super) costed 1500 euros and no free games. The choice was easy to be honest.
nah that ad placement was smooth
0:10 all of this but unironically.
Loser cope.
I bought a 7900xtx and returned it and got a 4090. Why? performance for work related tasks
So you paid £999 for the 7900XTX, and wasn't happy. SO you spent £2300+ on a 4090 for an extra 25-30% performance in games. You paid 230% MORE, for 25% more PERFORMANCE.
Does that make you intelligent?
Of course not. It also means you're in a tiny minority of the demographic who 1) buy halo products and top end cards and 2) have enough disposable income to buy a 4090.
But that would beg the question .... if it's for an industrial purpose, why on earth didn't you buy a workstation card instead of a GAMING GPU?
Like I said. Does that make you intelligent?
@@TheVanillatech He said he also needed it for work related tasks which would be 3d rendering I believe. CUDA has that market sewed up. If AMD can offer a lower cost better alternative than cuda the application developers would use it instead.
@@VoldoronGaming Mate developers ain't buying MASSIVELY OVERPRICED gaming GPU's ... at RETAIL PRICES ... to make games with! Or do modelling! MAYBE BEDROOM CODERS and HOBBYISTS ARE! But they are so rare, so TINY a demographic, it's insane to use that argument when it comes to comparing TWO GAMING CARDS!
My mate owns THREE businesses that design (and then make) signs! For stores, for hotels, for hospitals, etc. And HE AINT BUYING 4090's for his artists and engineers to create them with! XD XD XD
Stop being so daft!
FACT is 4090's cost 2.2x more than 7900XTXs and only offered around 25-30% more performance. END OF!
@@TheVanillatechstop it, you're making too much sense! You'll make the Nvidiatards cry too hard. This whole "raytracing, muuuuh cuda!" bs is old and overplayed.
just like I heard in the past from tech deals guy. people like this shouldn't even think about it when the new one comes out every generation. especially for work relation tasks.
No but people should not be tricked into thinking they will be getting an equal experience. Regardless of your view on upscaling it is becoming more and more common in games, and dlss looks generations ahead of fsr.
Bought a 7900xt for £700. At first I was pretty happy, but after more than a year I do feel that I should have bought a 4070ti. At this price you do want the features, not just raster performance. Nobody wasn’t to disable some options on a high end priced product.
I got the 4070 Ti super instead of the 7900 XT and I regret it. Features like Ray tracing are not worth the performance loss unless you are using something like a 4090 where you can afford to lose frames. In most cases I want as many frames as possible and the 4070 ti can't deliver compared to the 7900 XT.
Definitely not the standard Ti. You will run out of the 12gv vram fast as both RT and Frame generation uses even more Vram. And for the price of the Ti Super you can get an XTX.
Believe me just be happy, i’ve swapped out my XTX for a 4080S and i barely notice it all of features are overhyped.
Very useful video. Do you have a GC video focusing on non-gaming needs?
Who says that still stuck in 2018 😂
7800xt > 4070
7900 gre > 4070 Super
7900 xt > 4070 ti super
I'd rather have a 4070 than any of those AMD cards. At least I know I still have my DLDSR+DLSS and am not stuck in 2018 with image quality and won't have issues running my AI stuff without going to Linux and trying to workaround stuff to get it to work at all, etc. There's zero way I am going from using DLDSR+DLSS on my 2060S to upgrading to something where I use FSR 3.1 in any form at any render resolution at or above native. When AMD has an AI upscaler with FSR 4.0 and they AI their VSR as well to answer DLDSR, then they might be worth the comparison. Because right now it's just, how much are you willing to get extorted by the only company making real GPUs anymore.
@@albert2006xp Dude, you're comparing a 2060 Super to literally mid-high to high end gpus two gens later on the opposite side of the fence. It's dumb enough a comparison that I can say that using upscalers as your reasoning here towards this guy's statement is... Simply pointless.
Literally _everything_ from the that tier of hardware he mentioned, be it from last gen (6800XT/3070 Ti) or from current (7800XT/4070 Super) is going to literally wipe floor with what you have currently, multiple times over... In NATIVE resolution performance-wise. At their level, you literally don't even require upscalers at all unless you're trying to push for more performance than you actually have out of something in a lower rung than what you're trying to top (trying to match a 7900 XTX or 4080 Super with either of them for instance at ultra and 4k settings).
Keep in mind btw that upscalers are literally for the cards that are obviously going to struggle with recent and upcoming games with ridiculous performance demands, which is usually 4070/7700XT going down the stack... Which is the opposite direction. Got a 6900XT, 7800XT, 3080 Ti, 4070 Ti, or any of those in that tier? I'm sorry, but upscaling is a backseat consideration that does NOT get brought up unless you must absolutely want to play a game where it's the only option even at that hardware tier just to be able to run it at acceptable performance.
Otherwise, Mid-high tier: there is no discussion on upscaling because... You don't even need it at that level by then. And if you're able to get one, so can you get a monitor affordably as well to go with that gpu upgrade, if you don't stupidly manage your build budget and blow it on nonsensical specs not concerning performance.
@@1ace1000 Maybe you need to up your reading comprehension? I was comparing 4070 with it. 2060 Super is the thing I'd be UPGRADING from. So I would expect something worth upgrading TO to be across the board undeniable just benefits and losing nothing I have currently.
Considering you don't even understand the sheer concept of judging upgrading your GPU, I am not surprised you make the same farcical argument that you don't "need" upscaling. DLSS isn't just for below native, I said DLDSR+DLSS. You can set that to native if you want. DLDSR+DLSS at a performance gain setting looks better than native does even with DLAA. Setting it to actual higher resolutions looks as good as it can possibly look, though at that point you're probably due a monitor upgrade and using a lower DLDSR+DLSS from that instead.
DLDSR+DLSS is the first consideration. Full stop. If you can't beat that image quality don't even show up to the discussion. You would need to play at a much higher resolution for AMD to be comparable to Nvidia image quality at lower resolutions. Nvidia simply needs less resolution to look sharp and stable than AMD does because of how poor FSR and VSR are.
Now I'm done talking to a guy that doesn't even acknowledge the DLDSR part of my statement and just rambles on about not "needing" upscaling.
4070 super>7900gre and xt ngl
@@andreamaral9725 I kinda can see where this makes sense, especially if you can actually get one at a decently-competitive price.
6900XT bought it crimble 2022, going strong...probably get A 9900XT...
If there will be any. With this upcoming gen AMD wont even compete with 5090 and 5080 level, only below.
Click Baity title
Majority of this guy's audience already know it's not "DUMB" buying a AMD card.
It is dumb. AMD famboys dominate youtube comments sections, and social media rewards engagement.
Always built Intel/Nvidia PCs and was very happy. My last two PCs have been all AMD and I'm still very happy. I never lock into a single brand. If I'm not satisfied with price, features and performance, I will go where I get the best value for my dollar.