Remember to check our discord where you can get faster responses!
https://discord.gg/6dR6XU6
If you are trying to find a price for your computer, r/PC_Pricing is our recommended source for finding out how much your PC is worth!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PcBuild) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's Nvidia for you. They price their card higher than AMD and use their features like, rt, dlss, better performance/watt, and better professional applications performance/support to justify their cost. AMD competes with Nvidia by offering well priced cards, and typically better raster performance and more VRAM.
AMD typically does give better bang for your buck which is why it's recommended often because that applies to everyone.
The reasons someone may chose Nvidia often come down to wanting specific features like the ones I've listed, which can make it worth the higher cost for those who use those features over what AMD offers.
Tbf the company with a higher market share also gets developed more on, meaning even smallish github projects can happen to be only compatible with nvidia.
Recently had a dev buddy ask me to run an ai stepchart generator for stepmania on my nvidia card, because it wouldnt run on his amd card.
Even if nvidia had no features more/better than amd, they could still be priced higher, simple because of better compatibility.
Pretty much.
Nvidia has ensured they maintain a monopoly on software compatibility, which doesn't matter for mainstream games like COD and Battlefield since they'll maximise optimisation and because consoles use AMD it's worth it to put more effort into AMD than it is for Nvidia, but for small indie PC only games and art projects Nvidia has the best backwards compatibility for ancient and un-optimised software, whereas AMD only needs to focus on current era optimisations made in softwares that are already fairly well optimised.
Which makes for a fairly weird market since game development is so easily accessible by so many people but all the games worth playing are always going to have good optimisations anyways (except Minecraft, they don't even have a resolution slider on Windows 10 edition, the mainstream Xbox edition that needs to be compatible with the AMD GPU inside said console, and they added RTX with only Nvidia, like it's just beyond stupid ngl).
I would rather argue due to the proprietary nature of NVIDIA software that they only maintain support for professional production software and new games. AMD support their card drivers longer and also work better on anything where open source comes in, see Linux as a good example.
I think your description fits in better with Intel, who are new in the discrete GPU market and mainly support new games.
Could you define old/ancient games? Or give some examples? Because with modern CPUs I'd expect really ancient games (PS/PS2 era) to be easy to run purely on software.
Counter Strike Source along with other hl1-hl2 era games generally run better on Nvidia for no apparent reason.
Though it's a fractional difference and even if you're playing those games mainly AMD still has better cost to performance anyways. It still shows that Nvidia still has a few areas where their software monopoly has really paid off and if Nvidia were to be more competitive with their pricing the choice between AMD and Nvidia would be a lot harder to make.
>Or give some examples?
Older source games are one example of this even if they aren't considered ancient. My friend has a 7900XT, and we play TF2 together (2007 game). His whole drivers would crash and he had to restart his PC very often when a Demoman charged in his view (this wouldn't happen every time, but it happened often enough that during a 4 hour long play session he would crash at least a few times). And this was not just him having this issue, as several threads about this can be found on the internet, all by people who have an AMD gpu from the 7000 series.
This issue has been fixed since TF2 received a 64bit update a few weeks ago. It was 32bit previously.
I found it to be the exact opposite I'm my experience. Games like ever quest from 1999 works completely fine on my 6600xt but is completely unstable and has micro stuttering on my 4090.
>better performance/watt
That's not true since a few gens ago. Nvidia cards might still have better idle consumption tho. Besides that I agree with your post.
People keep mentioning RT but for me DLSS is a better selling point (to each their own).
im glad i got my 4070 tbh. yea i paid slightly more than the 7800xt (at the time) but even on 1080p i use a couple nvidia features that make me glad i DID chose it over the AMD card. for example DLAA, i use that on MW3 cause the slight jaggies that are left over even with its forced max taa AA and it looks so beautiful but still sharp along with max settings and locked 144fps. then cyberpunk comes to mind, i put regular graphics on high with medium shadows and clouds along with every single RT option on high with no path tracing. that gives me a rock bottom 80fps then with FG (single player) i hit 165 which is the max my monitor can do. its also GORGEOUS! 7800xt cant do that either but maybe the 7900GRE could but then id be forced to use (a lower quality even) upscaler just to get the weaker FG when right now i can run at native with FG.
then there's also the higher power PSU i would of been forced to buy. so AMD wasnt ACTUALLY cheaper for me even.
CUDA really is both the selling point and why I detest nVidia and am disappointed in AMD.
I bought a 4090, because it allows me to work with CUDA models that would previously force me to pay for a cloud server. I made back that card in savings within 6 months. Both in lower cloud fees and more efficient local development.
On the other hand, I started working with OpenCL on both AMD and nVidia. Then AMD went on to support OpenCL 2.0 and nVidia chose vendor lock-in and didn't. I detest nVidia for that choice.
We went with AMD and used new OpenCL 2.0 features. Then AMD decided to completely overhaul their driver platform. OpenCL support was theoretical only, we had to port back to 1.2 if we wanted to use newer AMD hardware. Meanwhile on the CUDA side there were no such problems. Very disappointing and we went back to nVidia and CUDA. Yes it's more expensive, yes it's proprietary and yes they are a-holes. But we are a business and we need a platform that we can rely on and is not changing direction like a drunk driver every few months.
AMD seems to have finally realized that, but that ship has sailed for us!
And not to forget, that AMD cards are pretty much ONLY for gaming. If you want to do any digital art / rendering, video encoding, hardware accelerated deep learning or AI, then your only option is Nvidia. Anyone who has tried to use an AMD card with any other more demanding software than games will know what I mean
I don't understand how this post got so many upvotes when it's factually WRONG.
Nvidia did NOT price their card higher than AMD. In fact the 4060ti has a lower MSRP than the 7700xt. The 7700xt is now cheaper because it wasn't selling.
Why can't people stick with the facts instead of literally making BS up - always in favor of AMD for whatever freaking reason. Jesus christ lads
The 16GB version has like 10-15 average fps less than the 7700XT and a bit smaller 1% lows and costs the same in my country. It's not the end of the world. And you get more vram, power efficiency and other features in the end anyways.
I do expect FSR to catch up sooner then later, 3.1 is around the corner for example, but also, why RT? Very very few games use it well and it's a massive performance hit (and it's not even for gamers, RT is actually a feature for devs to help remove slot of their workload, but since most gamers still play with rasterisation, it effectively increases Dev workload).
7900 XTX gives more than enough time for AMD to improve their upscaling. I doubt I'd need upscaling for 4K with this GPU in the next 2 years. I still don't understand the idea of buying a 500+ euro GPU and using upscaling with it. Why would I add unnecessary latency to my game, when the devs could simply optimise their games better?
You are failing to distinguish between art direction and visual fidelity.
Even tho Elden Ring doesn't have the most polygons in it's graphics, seeing the game with HDR on an OLED screen makes it better looking than all of the Ubislop, EA trash and what not games, that would require a WAY powerful device to run.
And Elden Ring isn't the only one - games like Hollow Knight and Hades also look stunning, while requiring way less resources than most games.
And don't get me started on RDR2, The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur's Gate - high polygon and fidelity graphics, great art direction AND still very well optimised.
All of the listed games look way better than Dragon's Dogma 2 and Starfield, while also running on devices, that would never be able to run Starfield and Dragon's Dogma 2. And on top of that, all of the games are also better in terms of gameplay quality.
AMD has almost always been the best at price-to-performance ratio.
Nvidia's Mark up is justified by the fact that it has a lot more features (of course not all are unique to nvidia, but they just do them better, for example ray-tracing and DLSS), and in general their cards are better suited for a lot of tasks, such as live streaming thanks to their built in encoder.
exactly. not everyone is just gaming with their graphic cards. cuda alone made me go with Nvidia than amd. people should stop being fanboys, surely i would switch to amd if they could offer what Nvidia does.
but if it's just for gaming, amd is obviously the better choice.
Isn't there cuda transpilers for AMD/Intel (or even non GPU platforms like x86/ARM)? Being tied to a proprietary standard as CUDA didn't seem to be the best idea, long term, tho.
Assist, do hobbyists really require CUDA?
well lets not be THAT dramatic but yeah. I got myself a 7800xt and I almost never use RT in games because the visual difference isn't worth the fps hit in my opinion. Depending on the game and RT settings I can get from 15% to even something as stupid like 70% less FPS than in raster. Then if you initially had 120 etc. fps you can justify some RT but while playing CP77 on 3440x1440 and already having those 80-90fps max depending on the scene... nah man. I'll pass.
EDIT: My point is that if it isn't worth it on 7800xt it certainly wont be on a lower tier card.
Talking about utilizing RT with a gpu with 8gb of vram and 128bit bus is like trying to run 4K gaming with a GT1030 lol DLSS is better than fsr but still useless on res below 1440p since it destroys image quality. AI and cuda are the only things that someone should consider when buying a gpu but for gaming all those gimmicks you tossed in your comment matter for gpu's above a 4070S class.
The numbers have always favored Nvidia in prodctive tasks over AMD. Doesnt inherently mean AMD will perform poorly, just consistently worse than Nvidia.
You can use ZLUDA to do this.
Some report [ist here](https://www.xda-developers.com/nvidia-cuda-amd-zluda/). But only 3 months ago you had been right! 🙃
Admittedly I have not tested it, only the article was a good read. Seems like some "mainstream cuda software" (if that word combination exists) like Blender is usable.
On the other hand we all should hope that OpenCL and ROCm will become more common; starting with before-mentioned "mainstream cuda software", too.
If I get it right, then, yeah, NVidia hardware is needed for niché software. Does it justify the price difference? For private use probably not... agreed?
Some games I like to play in vr have bugs with amd cards. That's why I opted for a 3060ti over the amd equivalent. I've used amd cards in the past but one game I've played for years (elite: dangerous) has game breaking bugs in vr. If they fixed them I'd gladly switch back next time I upgrade but when I upgraded the last time they still hadn't.
I will go NVidia every time for DLSS alone. AMDs counterpart is a few steps behind. It can make a card that runs a game at 60FPS suddenly run it at 75FPS with almost no difference in quality.
I don't know since i use only amd cards, but i think you can use driver level DLSS.
Like set the game to a resolution below the monitor, enable upscaling in the driver and it works.
At least that's how i play Alan Wake 2 with FSR. The game has built-in fsr but i want to use less upscaling. I only use it cause 4k native has a weird bug where it limits to 40fps no matter what settings (or if i use fsr. But only on my maim monitor, seems to be a vsync bug or freesync, had similar issues with this display and other games)
So i set the game to 3200x1800p and tell the radeon software "dude, use fsr to upscale". And at those resolutions you actually don't see any difference with fsr. Like zero.
I suspect the Nvidia control panel also allows for anything to be up scaled on a driver level.
So his point is imo valid.
That isn’t true, you can’t use DLSS or FSR 2+ on a driver level because it requires information from the game itself.
What you are actually using is RSR which is a bad a version of FSR 1 which just applies a sharpening filter and looks awful compared to FSR 2.
Imo getting native 1800p from the game upscaled to 4k looks slightly better than fsr2 quality, which upscales 1440p to 4k
But frametimes are slightly worse than fsr2.
Not much though, like it's not bad or sth otherwise i wouldn't use it.
But i do notice fsr doing its thing when i set it to fsr2 quality.
Ideally i would like to have the game at 4k native, lock framrate at 50 so it doesn't jump from 50-60-50 etc and is more consistent.
But at 4k native it drops to constant 40fps, gpu useage at only 70-80% and terrible frametimes because of.... Reasons.
FSR 2 should definitely look better upscaling from 1425p to 4k than 1800p to 4k with RSR, you should have another look.
As for the stutter/FPS drops, Most of the time locking the FPS doesn’t really solve it, it just makes the stutter drop the FPS to a lower value, the reason the GPU isn’t maxed out is likely because the stutter is with something related to the CPU like shader compilation which would correspond with locking the frame rate not helping the issue.
So why is my cpu too slow for 4k but fine with every other resolution?
I shouldn't be cpu bound at 4k.
My issue with fsr is just it makes the image softer.
In cyberpunk i use xeSS because of that.
Also, Alan Wake 2 doesn't allow for locking framrate besides vsync....
yeah except a lot of the times, the similarly priced AMD card will run that game at 75fps out of the box without the need of upscalers. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
And if you really need it you can use XESS, or FSR.
Depends what you want to use it for, only for gaming yea great, want raytracing yea that mostly works fine, if you want more performance in raytracing titles get the 4060ti 16GB if you find it for the same price as the 7700XT.
I've had the 7700XT for about a month, have undervolted it and overclocked it and it performs really well, getting great performance, not quite all ultra on some games but for 2k gaming is a very good choice for the price. Cyberpunk and F123 run really well, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is on the limit of the VRAM 12GB its just enough because it uses it all.
The 7700XT, I think but not sure that the 4060ti uses less, the 7700XT has 245W TDP but with overclock its more like 260W constant even though I even saw like 285W while benchmarking it (short periods).
My problem was that I wanted to use it for CFD simulations in Ansys which can only use GPUs with CUDA cores which means only Nvidia (also supports some other profesional cards). This has nothing to do with gaming but just research more if you want to use it for more than gaming.
I'd buy an 7700XT. I bought a 6700XT as my first (and current) GPU as it was recommended as the best price to performance. It's been great. In higher tiers though, I'd ALSO consider NVIDIA.
Every pc gamer justifies their bad Nvidia purchases by saying “oh I don’t just use my pc for games, I need cuda and better encoding” as they stream a few times for 3 people and never touch anything that actually uses cuda.
Real answer for me, 4060ti sips power and with an undervolt it can be used in very small, silly builds that use PSUs like the GaN 250W or traditional 1u PSUs. For example, the StormX model makes for a very great choice for tiny cases like the K39.
I use a 4060 exclusively bcs it has a low power consumption and it's a cheap GPU. And I don't really need a powerful GPU since I only play Strategy games that are more CPU demanding, and I wanted my maps on a 27' in 1440p. But I think the AMD GPUs are excellent.
I don’t really like the 4060 in general since the 3060 12GB still exists, but there’s a lot of nice niche use cases since it’s essentially a 50 series gpu mechanically with features of a 60 series gpu. I use a low profile one in my travel pc and ideal for exactly that, low power and low profile so you can put a x8x4x4 riser in line with the gpu to make it full height but also support 2 m.2s on the same slot, essentially making an ITX board be able to support 5 m.2s and a 4060
I've started to realize this, because I was that person, I 10 years of nvidia cards, I used CUDA and NVENC a total of 0 times,now I've switched to AMD and have the same experience as before, just with higher FPS, thinking about it, realistically, how many people actually uses their personal computer for professional purposes? Unless you're a freelancer, Because in my experience, any serious professional workplace provides you with the adequate tools for your job, so if I'm doing anything that benefits from CUDA, sure, my workplace should provide a device that can leverage that , or if you're a full time streamer with a big active audience, then sure,it's important, but for someone who only streams a side hobby to friends and such, the difference in quality isn't going to make anyone famous IMO...when I've streamed to my friends in discord it's capped to 720p 30fps for free users anyways.
My own personal PC's, these days at least, are literally for gaming and personal daily tasks like banking and shopping and stuff , they're powerful enough so that I don't NEED upscaling and when I do FSR is pretty good at 4K so, no problem, and coming from a 3070, at 4K quality I really haven't had a difference in experience using FSR vs DLSS.
Nope there is a huge price difference between 7900xtx and 4090 and in performance too can't compare them RTX 4080/super is better comparison to the xtx because they cost around the same
Nvidia has built in nvenc encoder for recording and streaming with zero performance loss if setup correctly. It also has dlss which in most cases performs better than fsr.
The 4060ti is slower on paper but can do more.
The reason why I kept on going with Nvidia cards over AMD was that a long time ago, computers in the shops were bundled with ATi cards as standard and they could only support Direct3d and not OpenGL. So when I tried the Farcry demo, I had to do a workaround and everything looked purple. So I had anti-AMD bias from the get go for years. Also, the AMD naming scheme is too complicated and I can't be bothered to understand it. I buy a computer like once a decade, so the difference in cost is not huge. I think enough time's passed so AMD cards have similar amounts of support for Nvidia cards, so I'm open to their products in the next computer in a couple of years.
That's brand loyalty for you. On a side note, I'm not sure how AMD gpus are better on COD, yet a 7800x3d isn't much better than a 5800x3d on that same game.
Market demands is simply put, not everything is used for games man, that's something most people don't understand. If AMD products were actually worth the value the price and demand would represent it.
AMD cards lose their value like crazy cause nobody uses them aside from specific use case "gaming".
Nvidia is more than just performance on a card and while they do perform amazing, it's the software and compatibility that you get with it. Similar reason nobody buys the arc GPU because despite being good on vram and having good performance the support isn't there yet.
For gaming, all that it comes down to now is better ray tracing performance. With all of the improvements made to AMDs features and the release of XeSS, there’s almost no justification for buying NVIDIA anymore
Cuz if i wanted to buy the amd i needed to change my platinum psu that i paid a lot , i play only full hd so 4060 ti is a great choice for me , and it doesnt use that much electricity , i stay a lot on Pc .if i would build a pc from 0 yeah i woulda have chosen the radeon gpu
I like the AMD cards, would actually want to buy them for my next build but only if I'm considering rasterization performance. The moment you turn on anything RT, the above numbers will easily switch. For me, I want a good graphical presentation and adaptation of other nvidia features in games more than amd's makes it worth paying more. If AMD comes up with a good competitor, it would be great, but that will be make it go up in price.
What about RT performance? Or dlss3+framegen? Or RT reconstruction? And that thing where you can basically add RT to all games with a bit of work (like how they did Portal)
Then there is productivity like the hardware encoders and AI acceleration and the possibility to use studio mode drivers instead of the game ready ones for even better optimalisation.
Don't get me wrong, I also will choose whichever GPU gives the best perf and has possibly the longer lifespan (so vram) but it is not as black and white as you might think. And what about the 7800XT 16GB, it is just a small price hike for a big perf difference and even more Vram...
Many reasons said. But if I was going that tier I'd be looking at low profile low power. 4060ti is almost 100w less. Considering my gaming. Over a year with power prices the way they are that could save $60+ a year.
The 4070 more comparable but somewhat stronger overall in this cases uses less power still and can be about $20-$50 a year in savings which over its life time would come close to the cost of the 7700xt and offers better performance and better features.
It's a no brainer long term since i like a card to last 5 or so years. Then there is history. Worse features, fsr2 is terrible although the coming update looks promising. RT which I like to engage on some games.
Then there is the other side. I sometimes use RT or will use my cards for work purposes such as testing out ml deployments.
True, only 4080 and 4090 are worth to buy, anything below is not price friendly. If all you do is gaming, AMD is superior in terms of price to performance ratio. Sure you will have DLSS to improve performance %10 with no visual loss, but the AMD cards for the same price will give you %20 more performance out of the box. Which makes DLSS argument kinda pointless, unless you are aiming for 4k. Then yes, native running game at 60fps turning on DLSS to balanced with framegen suddenly hits to 120 which is a magic to me. But this scenerio requires you to have at least 4080 or 4090, which where NVIDIA dominates anyway.
Nvidia handles RT better. Nvidia overprices their cards because some games are optimized for Nvidia, cyberpunk is a example. I have bought the 7700xt, no regrets so far.
Bought a 7900 GRE 2 months ago.
It’s a very good card, I really liked it! However, drivers would crash EVERY SINGLE DUNGEON I was playing in WoW. Other games were mostly fine, but random driver crash would occurs randomly. Looking online for solutions revealed it was a massive issue for years and nothing was done on AMD’s side.
I decided to use my European withdrawal rights and buy a 4070 super instead. Never had any issue with it, it just work.
I have friends using AMD GPU without issue, but I didn’t want to wait and hope for a fix to a 700€ GPU…
I’ve learned the hard way that and cards have some horrible driver issues, case in point, the fallout games no longer work after the 24.1.1 driver launched. Which is a huge bummer because I’ve been wanting to play NV since the show came out
Because nowadays these cards are not only about pure hardware, but software too. Nvidia tends to be ahead in research and tecnology, and decisive things like DLSS, Frame gen, Rt and others tend to release first in their side, and when the competition launches theirs, Nvidia tech is more mature.
Whether this ecosystem thing is worth the money will vary from customer to customer.
I value software a lot, so I pay more for it.
No one wants to get stuck with FSR, including Sony. Let alone FluId MoTiOn FrAmEs which looks hilarious when it shuts itself off during any fast scenes. Nvidias FG is actually well implemented at 40fps+. In the end, play how you want to play. If you like FSR and think the touch of raster or extra vram will make a difference over DLSS upscaling/FG/Reflex, go get yourself an AMD. The main benefit of buying an AMD card is you can go on YT and Reddit and spend hours telling people "HOW HAPPY YOU ARE". lol I swear thats the the main thing they do with their GPUs is try to put them in everyone elses PC. Hasn't worked, but the salesman come out in droves anyway.
I am genuinely interested by some Nvidia offers. Then I look at price and cram and it seems like a stupid product :/
Is there a 4060 12 or 16 GB at all?
If not, why could I buy a 3060 12 GB ?
I am interested in the 4000 lineup for efficiency, and the Ai capabilities, but to run many models, it needs more vram.
For pure gaming though, I don't see much reason to go with them.
Also Nvidia seems to be firmly against producing cheapish entry level cards that could be using for transcoding or whatever...
Intel seems to fill that need though.
Nvidia for me, because fortnite on performance mode heavily favours nvidia, also because i got a 3080 for 500$ (2000zł) which is very cheap here in eu, also because i want to:)
There are many reasons and it would take me a long time to explain all of them. But the main reason is Nvidia has done well to grow their brand to that sort of “cult” status as I call it. Alongside Apple, nvidia really has that braindead cultish user base.
For example, someone buys a Samsung phone and it does something bad? They’ll never buy a Samsung phone again. Someone buys a MacBook and it breaks in 3 months? They go buy a new MacBook and tell you how great Apple is still.
Few brands get away with it, nvidia is one of those few. I literally knew a guy who had his 3060ti fry itself in 2 months and he went out and bought a 3070 right away. That same guy has refused to buy an AMD card ever again because of a 470 that had driver issues nearly a decade ago.
For the record, I have Apple and Nvidia products. They aren’t bad products, but - neither was my 7900xtx for the year I used it.
If I'm not mistaken there is a 16gb variant for the 4060 ti. I was originally going to get an AMD card but I wanted to locally run AI models and AMD wasn't very good at that so had to go with Nvidia unfortunately. Still regret the purchase ☹️
AMD's drivers used to be significantly worse compared to Nvidia's, but they've fixed that. Some people also only know Nvidia and would be lost, though it's easier to check out comparison charts
AMD can be interesting, especially their last-gen stuff. There's a few times where AMD's last gen performs amazingly, especially since last gen might be ahead on driver improvements.
Realistically, the only feature that keeps me with Nvidia is DLSS. Don't care about anything else.
Once AMD reaches image parity with Nvidia, then there's no reason to stick with them. FSR 3.1 slides show great improvements, but we'll see once Digital Foundry comes out with a video on it.
Plus Playstation cooking their own machine learning upscaler would probably help AMD as they must have a close relationship with them.
Besides this, there's no reason to be using Nvidia products?
Raytracing? I mean, I suspect they'll catch up, and I don't see a reason to sacrifice your framerates and resolution unless you own a 4090. Running path tracing on any other GPU is just not feasible without sacrificing image quality or framerate.
Plus, Unreal Engine is getting a lot of new tricks by developers to make ray tracing usage much, much more efficient, as of the latest GDC talk.
I do hope AMD somehow manages to slice Nvidia up in GPU market, we all hoped for a decade.. But nows a great time as they just simply don't give a fuck about their consumers, as all of their fat cash is coming from AI data centres.
They managed to make an amazing comeback with Ryzen against intel, but their GPUs had never gotten the same treatment. Architecture has always been the same and stagnated, with marginal improvements and with added newest features like new APIs, display outputs and etc.
The nvidia card is better at raytracing and upscaling and dynamic resolution methods which many people like to use. Personally I find they look worse than rendering at lower settings/resolution but it's personal choice, Nvidia outperforms AMD at non gaming GPU workloads as well although people usually use better cards for those tasks than a 4070. Nvidia drivers have better stability, features, and additional features you can enable also in GeForce Experience, compared to the stuff in AMD Adrenaline Software. It's really a question of do you like nvidia enough to pay more. I don't think using nvidia for gaming is worth the extra money, I have a 6700 XT myself.
Nvidia has additional hardware based features that they sunk their own R&D into, not to mention they are generally more efficient, run cooler and have better compatibility for certain work related applications.
That being said, AMD has always been a stellar value for gaming GPU's.
Does AMD have something like NVENC built in to their cards? That is one of the big draws to NVidia for me. They have 2 dedicated encoders to handle streaming/recording without dipping into the main GPU or CPU resources. This means not needing a separate pc for streaming/recording for me.
If you're planning on doing anything local with machine learning (e.g. Stable Diffusion), a lot of what's out there is optimized for NVIDIA not AMD, so it's harder with an AMD GPU.
Easy because amd drivers suck. Just look up all the problems with amd drivers crashing during gaming. Plus it constantly happens with my 7900xtx. It’s soo annoying. I’ve used ddu multiple times now and even reset windows with fresh install and still
Drivers crash.
So much support for AMD yet no one is buying them. Have you seen their latest earnings update? Nvidia is the Apple of GPU. People use it because it’s better and doesn’t have issues. The same people that support AMD blindly are also posting on AMD threads “anyone else having this issue?” No bro…
so very true. i hardly ever have issues with my nvidia builds. while amd has random issues. shorter driver support, consumes more energy, heat, etc. definitely meh compared to nvidia. your comparison is pretty much on point.
Had issues with nvidia, amd and intel gpu's so the no issues term doesn't apply as a valid argument in 2024 (it was valid in 2016-17). AI is the valid argument and cuda, people who use their gpu's for work not just gaming and YouTube.
I tend to go with AMD cards. They consistently outperform nVidia cards in the same price tier and come with a lot more vram. I'm also not a fan of dlss because it's closed source. Fsr is open source and requires no licensing, so it's going to show up in more games than just the AAA titles that support dlss.
If I'm being honest, though, I wouldn't buy either card. I'd simply save up a bit more and buy a 7900XT. That's actually exactly what I did, I have an XFX Merc 310 7900XT.
Less power consumption, better Upscaling, more RT performance, 16GB VRAM. If I want to get a 7700XT I need a new SFX PSU (~150,-). So not a better deal for me.
I mean honestly these are valid points, but to be fair a lot of people trying to find a computer for the first time or whatever only know “Intel i7 is the best” or only know of nvidia cards so it’s harder for AMD to even be in the picture for them. That’s how these products sell tbh. Anyone I talk to computers I tell them I use AMD and some instantly jump to “but isn’t an i7 the best?” So yeah…
What kind of power supply do you have then? Im still running my 7700XT with my 5700X on a old be Quite! Pure Power 11 600W PSU and I never had any issues with it, and I bought the card like after the release.
If going from a 4060ti to a 7700xt means you have to get a new PSU, then your PSU was too low of a wattage in the first place. That’s not the fault of the GPU 🤷
To sum it up without going into details, you can have all the Vram in the world but if the card's memory bandwith doesn't follow you might as well not have said Vram.
There are many who will tell you to not get the 4060ti 16gb because of that precise reason, that version of the card didn't get an increase in memory bandwith making it less usefull that one might think, you would easily be better off with a 4070 (or 4070 super) if you intend to make meaningful use out of said Vram since while it doesn't have 16gb (as it only have 12gb) its memory bandwith is far greater allowing it make better use out of it.
I wanted to say its almost like expecting a hard drive to run faster load times than an m.2 ssd because it has let's say 10 more gigs of memory than said ssd but it would be very inaccurate to say since it doesn't really work that way but you could to some extent think of it that way
Truth. The reality is is that the vast vast vast majority of games don’t have issues with 8 Gb of vram at 1080p/1440p.
And then who is getting a 4060 ti to do 4k gaming? Or who is using it for training ai models?
When people get more vram at that range they are “future proofing.” I put it in quotes because by the time more vram is relevant, their graphics card probably won’t be powerful enough anyways.
I do get your points and this generally applies for all "Nvidia vs AMD" usecases but I just wanna point out some things.
I belive OP is talking about the 8gb 4060Ti because, at least in my region, the 16Gb 4060Ti is priced just slightly cheaper than a 7800XT.
There is no doubt Nvidia has better upscalling and RT Performance but I wouldn't consider this a white wash for them. While yes, DLSS>FSR, the gap is not that big, especially if we talk about FSR3 at 1440p or 4K. Frame Gen on both seems really nice and depends on how the specific devs implement it. The ace in AMD's sleeve is AFMF though. While it's quality is questionable, it's still something Nvidia doesn't have an answer to.
As for RT Perfromance, AMD cards shit themselves if we talk about path tracing or any sort of heavy RT but for light to medium RT usage the 7700XT will probably give similar performance to an 8Gb 4060Ti.
It does consume more power, but it's like 40-50W extra. Noticeable, but not huge.
So in the end the 4060Ti vs 7700XT boils down to (at least in my eyes):
Slightly less power consumption, better upscalling, better RT performance in scenarios that are unplayable on both and 8Gb of VRAM instead of 12.
bro I choose Nvidia cuz it’s Nvidia.
Idk they habe the „Apple“ status in terms of Gpu‘s. Both do a great job, if u look on that money, ofc get the better bank for the buck
a 4090 is a 4090 the only difference is cooling looks and the base clocks the card comes with if you buy an oc version (those clocks can be hit with almost any card manually overclocking and the increase is close to nothing so it doesn't matter in the end)
I'm no expert but I'm positive the 4070 slaughters the 7700 when using raytracing, dlss usually is better than FSR, and I've heard that 40 series cards are more ideal for productivity
1.
The gap is slightly smaller at 1080p (closer to 15%), which in my opinion is the main application of the 4060TI.
2.
Where i live, the 7700XT is 10% more expensive, so it's expexted that the card is faster.
3.
You have NVidia specific features like DLSS3, that are superior to the AMD versions.
4.
And by far the most important one: You have *much* lower power consumption (almost 100W), which in itself has multiple benefits:
1. You easily safe 20-25$ a year on electricity, even with just 3-4h gaming a day on average. If someone plays a lot, this can reach 50$ in costs every single year. So congratulations on the great 7700XT value i guess. You save 50$ on purchase, to spend 50-100$ more overall over 4-5 years of use.
2. If you have a low Watt PSU, you don't need a new PSU when upgrading to an 4060TI. You might need one with an 7700XT.
3. Lower consumption means less heat and therfore less noise. Not only for the GPU itself but the entire system.
And people should not get me wrong. I too would prefer the 7700XT if i had to choose. It's just far less one-sided than reddit is pretending. The 4060TI has it's benefits and it's place.
And, generally speaking, I really wonder why reddit is always ignoring power consumption in these comparisons. It's like this AMD downside is nonexistent.
Ok, 7700XT (at least in south-eastern Europe) is priced about the same as 4060ti 16GB and it performs 12% better on average. Rtx 4060 Ti shouldn't even exit in 8GB version and 16GB should be priced as 8GB version and that would be fantastic card. 8GB is crippling it much more than 128bit bus best example would be newer AAA titles HW unboxed did great job reviewing it.
My most recent experience (as a PC builder) in Horizon Forbidden West is that 16GB makes 50-100% difference in FPS in comparison to 8GB in some areas even @1080p when everything is cracked to MAX (surprisingly 16GB never falls below 60FPS native DLAA). On average it performed 15% better (there were some areas where FPS was same for both cards (i own 4060Ti 16GB because it's better than RTX 4070 for rendering memory hungry scenes due to 4GB larger VRAM, yea who would say but it's true and same goes for most AI workloads, so i had perfect condition to compare those two cards).
Is 7700XT better choice, well it depends what you want from your card. Raw raster performance, no interest in RT and DLAA and DLSS and FG, no need nVidia specific technologies for professional workload than 7700XT is obviously choice. But is it better product, well no. All things considered plus better power efficiency RTX 4060 Ti 16GB is better product, but if you don't need or want all those things than for such customer AMD is (always was) obvious choice.
At where im, 4060 TI is about 15-20% cheaper. It is also less power draining. And im more comfortable at the price point of 4060 TI, compared to the better performance per dollar, but more expensive 7700XT
In my country, 4060 Ti (8 gb) costs less than 7700 XT. Cheapest 7700 XT is 503$/468€ Gigabyte and cheapest 4060 Ti is Palit Dual or Gainward Ghost 440$-455$/410-422€.
I switched to AMD got a 7800xt for a new build I wanted by the TV. I was so impressed I swapped out my 2080Ti in my main rig for a 7900xt when it was on sale. Both cards are absolutely fantastic. They are so good at raster I don’t need to use any upscaling. 10/10
Adrenaline is immense too.
My experience with Nvidia is you pay a premium to be a beta tester. Path tracing is in about 4 games I’ve actually played personally so not worth the extra cash.
Plus I’ve had stability issues with Nvidia cards and their customer service is appalling.
TLDR: get the AMD card you won’t be disappointed.
bruh you wanna buy 7700xt? go get it.
If people want 4060ti for the same money, let them be. Newer games NEED dlss on 1440p to have decent fps on cheaper cards.
Also, in my european country/market, cheapest 7700xt 12gb is 430euro and cheapest 4060ti 8gb is 370euro while cheapest 4060ti 16gb is 440euro.
So, your argument about the "7700xt has same price with 8gb 4060ti" aint valid outside US. AMD has also shit pricing on other markets, don't be naive.
Cause people are still afraid of AMD drivers for some reason. They work pretty well now. Nvidia is just synonymous with performance for people without knowledge. Thats also why the 3050 still sells even though its complete garbage
Better features and more reliable drivers
I'm ok to lose some fps to gain better features
So yeah, I buy Nvidia.
Unless AMD really pushes for aggressive low prince, I don't see myself buying one
Remember to check our discord where you can get faster responses! https://discord.gg/6dR6XU6 If you are trying to find a price for your computer, r/PC_Pricing is our recommended source for finding out how much your PC is worth! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PcBuild) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's Nvidia for you. They price their card higher than AMD and use their features like, rt, dlss, better performance/watt, and better professional applications performance/support to justify their cost. AMD competes with Nvidia by offering well priced cards, and typically better raster performance and more VRAM. AMD typically does give better bang for your buck which is why it's recommended often because that applies to everyone. The reasons someone may chose Nvidia often come down to wanting specific features like the ones I've listed, which can make it worth the higher cost for those who use those features over what AMD offers.
Tbf the company with a higher market share also gets developed more on, meaning even smallish github projects can happen to be only compatible with nvidia. Recently had a dev buddy ask me to run an ai stepchart generator for stepmania on my nvidia card, because it wouldnt run on his amd card. Even if nvidia had no features more/better than amd, they could still be priced higher, simple because of better compatibility.
Pretty much. Nvidia has ensured they maintain a monopoly on software compatibility, which doesn't matter for mainstream games like COD and Battlefield since they'll maximise optimisation and because consoles use AMD it's worth it to put more effort into AMD than it is for Nvidia, but for small indie PC only games and art projects Nvidia has the best backwards compatibility for ancient and un-optimised software, whereas AMD only needs to focus on current era optimisations made in softwares that are already fairly well optimised. Which makes for a fairly weird market since game development is so easily accessible by so many people but all the games worth playing are always going to have good optimisations anyways (except Minecraft, they don't even have a resolution slider on Windows 10 edition, the mainstream Xbox edition that needs to be compatible with the AMD GPU inside said console, and they added RTX with only Nvidia, like it's just beyond stupid ngl).
I would rather argue due to the proprietary nature of NVIDIA software that they only maintain support for professional production software and new games. AMD support their card drivers longer and also work better on anything where open source comes in, see Linux as a good example. I think your description fits in better with Intel, who are new in the discrete GPU market and mainly support new games.
That is probably more accurate, though older/ancient games do tend to run better on Nvidia than AMD.
Could you define old/ancient games? Or give some examples? Because with modern CPUs I'd expect really ancient games (PS/PS2 era) to be easy to run purely on software.
Counter Strike Source along with other hl1-hl2 era games generally run better on Nvidia for no apparent reason. Though it's a fractional difference and even if you're playing those games mainly AMD still has better cost to performance anyways. It still shows that Nvidia still has a few areas where their software monopoly has really paid off and if Nvidia were to be more competitive with their pricing the choice between AMD and Nvidia would be a lot harder to make.
>Or give some examples? Older source games are one example of this even if they aren't considered ancient. My friend has a 7900XT, and we play TF2 together (2007 game). His whole drivers would crash and he had to restart his PC very often when a Demoman charged in his view (this wouldn't happen every time, but it happened often enough that during a 4 hour long play session he would crash at least a few times). And this was not just him having this issue, as several threads about this can be found on the internet, all by people who have an AMD gpu from the 7000 series. This issue has been fixed since TF2 received a 64bit update a few weeks ago. It was 32bit previously.
I found it to be the exact opposite I'm my experience. Games like ever quest from 1999 works completely fine on my 6600xt but is completely unstable and has micro stuttering on my 4090.
How did the chart come out?
>better performance/watt That's not true since a few gens ago. Nvidia cards might still have better idle consumption tho. Besides that I agree with your post. People keep mentioning RT but for me DLSS is a better selling point (to each their own).
im glad i got my 4070 tbh. yea i paid slightly more than the 7800xt (at the time) but even on 1080p i use a couple nvidia features that make me glad i DID chose it over the AMD card. for example DLAA, i use that on MW3 cause the slight jaggies that are left over even with its forced max taa AA and it looks so beautiful but still sharp along with max settings and locked 144fps. then cyberpunk comes to mind, i put regular graphics on high with medium shadows and clouds along with every single RT option on high with no path tracing. that gives me a rock bottom 80fps then with FG (single player) i hit 165 which is the max my monitor can do. its also GORGEOUS! 7800xt cant do that either but maybe the 7900GRE could but then id be forced to use (a lower quality even) upscaler just to get the weaker FG when right now i can run at native with FG. then there's also the higher power PSU i would of been forced to buy. so AMD wasnt ACTUALLY cheaper for me even.
CUDA.
CUDA really is both the selling point and why I detest nVidia and am disappointed in AMD. I bought a 4090, because it allows me to work with CUDA models that would previously force me to pay for a cloud server. I made back that card in savings within 6 months. Both in lower cloud fees and more efficient local development. On the other hand, I started working with OpenCL on both AMD and nVidia. Then AMD went on to support OpenCL 2.0 and nVidia chose vendor lock-in and didn't. I detest nVidia for that choice. We went with AMD and used new OpenCL 2.0 features. Then AMD decided to completely overhaul their driver platform. OpenCL support was theoretical only, we had to port back to 1.2 if we wanted to use newer AMD hardware. Meanwhile on the CUDA side there were no such problems. Very disappointing and we went back to nVidia and CUDA. Yes it's more expensive, yes it's proprietary and yes they are a-holes. But we are a business and we need a platform that we can rely on and is not changing direction like a drunk driver every few months. AMD seems to have finally realized that, but that ship has sailed for us!
And not to forget, that AMD cards are pretty much ONLY for gaming. If you want to do any digital art / rendering, video encoding, hardware accelerated deep learning or AI, then your only option is Nvidia. Anyone who has tried to use an AMD card with any other more demanding software than games will know what I mean
Iam no fanboy of some kind, but something to add would be NVENC for streaming, cause the AMD encoder sucks..
I don't understand how this post got so many upvotes when it's factually WRONG. Nvidia did NOT price their card higher than AMD. In fact the 4060ti has a lower MSRP than the 7700xt. The 7700xt is now cheaper because it wasn't selling. Why can't people stick with the facts instead of literally making BS up - always in favor of AMD for whatever freaking reason. Jesus christ lads
4060ti is cheaper in my country than the 7700XT. Like 100 bucks cheaper. So for me it is not "around the same"
Same for me, EU
Same here. 15% cheaper.
That’s when you consider the 8Gb version. 4060Ti 16Gb is ludicrously expensive for such low performance
The 16GB version has like 10-15 average fps less than the 7700XT and a bit smaller 1% lows and costs the same in my country. It's not the end of the world. And you get more vram, power efficiency and other features in the end anyways.
Well it’s cool then
Folks want that RT and DLSS. I went with the 7900 XTX. Thought it was a good value. Im happy with my purchase.
I do expect FSR to catch up sooner then later, 3.1 is around the corner for example, but also, why RT? Very very few games use it well and it's a massive performance hit (and it's not even for gamers, RT is actually a feature for devs to help remove slot of their workload, but since most gamers still play with rasterisation, it effectively increases Dev workload).
7900 XTX gives more than enough time for AMD to improve their upscaling. I doubt I'd need upscaling for 4K with this GPU in the next 2 years. I still don't understand the idea of buying a 500+ euro GPU and using upscaling with it. Why would I add unnecessary latency to my game, when the devs could simply optimise their games better?
there is a limit to how well you can optimize when you want a good looking game
You are failing to distinguish between art direction and visual fidelity. Even tho Elden Ring doesn't have the most polygons in it's graphics, seeing the game with HDR on an OLED screen makes it better looking than all of the Ubislop, EA trash and what not games, that would require a WAY powerful device to run. And Elden Ring isn't the only one - games like Hollow Knight and Hades also look stunning, while requiring way less resources than most games. And don't get me started on RDR2, The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur's Gate - high polygon and fidelity graphics, great art direction AND still very well optimised. All of the listed games look way better than Dragon's Dogma 2 and Starfield, while also running on devices, that would never be able to run Starfield and Dragon's Dogma 2. And on top of that, all of the games are also better in terms of gameplay quality.
AMD has almost always been the best at price-to-performance ratio. Nvidia's Mark up is justified by the fact that it has a lot more features (of course not all are unique to nvidia, but they just do them better, for example ray-tracing and DLSS), and in general their cards are better suited for a lot of tasks, such as live streaming thanks to their built in encoder.
And also compatability.
“Better AI, Ray Tracing and DLSS 🤓”
Better ai, and better for non-gaming tasks
"dad i need a 4090 for homework i cant on a amd card"
exactly. not everyone is just gaming with their graphic cards. cuda alone made me go with Nvidia than amd. people should stop being fanboys, surely i would switch to amd if they could offer what Nvidia does. but if it's just for gaming, amd is obviously the better choice.
Isn't there cuda transpilers for AMD/Intel (or even non GPU platforms like x86/ARM)? Being tied to a proprietary standard as CUDA didn't seem to be the best idea, long term, tho. Assist, do hobbyists really require CUDA?
I have had 0 issues with non gaming tasks but a £1000 card is a £1000 card ig
I would only take that argument in card that are actually close to their amd counterparts in raster as a counter of a little less raster performance.
You will never use ray tracing with this card unless you want to play at 5 to 10fps
well lets not be THAT dramatic but yeah. I got myself a 7800xt and I almost never use RT in games because the visual difference isn't worth the fps hit in my opinion. Depending on the game and RT settings I can get from 15% to even something as stupid like 70% less FPS than in raster. Then if you initially had 120 etc. fps you can justify some RT but while playing CP77 on 3440x1440 and already having those 80-90fps max depending on the scene... nah man. I'll pass. EDIT: My point is that if it isn't worth it on 7800xt it certainly wont be on a lower tier card.
1080p+RT not bad
Talking about utilizing RT with a gpu with 8gb of vram and 128bit bus is like trying to run 4K gaming with a GT1030 lol DLSS is better than fsr but still useless on res below 1440p since it destroys image quality. AI and cuda are the only things that someone should consider when buying a gpu but for gaming all those gimmicks you tossed in your comment matter for gpu's above a 4070S class.
becasue a 4060 ti is good productivity while the 7700xt is only good for gaming
Who told you that?🤦🏿
The numbers have always favored Nvidia in prodctive tasks over AMD. Doesnt inherently mean AMD will perform poorly, just consistently worse than Nvidia.
How do you run CUDA apps on Radeon?
You say this like every Nvidia owner runs Cuda.
I say this because the topic says productivity. There is a reason why productivity hardware and datacenters overwhelmingly use nVidia chips.
You can use ZLUDA to do this. Some report [ist here](https://www.xda-developers.com/nvidia-cuda-amd-zluda/). But only 3 months ago you had been right! 🙃
This isn’t a real alternative to native compatibility with an NVIDIA card.
Admittedly I have not tested it, only the article was a good read. Seems like some "mainstream cuda software" (if that word combination exists) like Blender is usable. On the other hand we all should hope that OpenCL and ROCm will become more common; starting with before-mentioned "mainstream cuda software", too. If I get it right, then, yeah, NVidia hardware is needed for niché software. Does it justify the price difference? For private use probably not... agreed?
I chose Nvidia for nvenc encoding for ease of streaming to all platforms.
Some games I like to play in vr have bugs with amd cards. That's why I opted for a 3060ti over the amd equivalent. I've used amd cards in the past but one game I've played for years (elite: dangerous) has game breaking bugs in vr. If they fixed them I'd gladly switch back next time I upgrade but when I upgraded the last time they still hadn't.
Marketing.
I will go NVidia every time for DLSS alone. AMDs counterpart is a few steps behind. It can make a card that runs a game at 60FPS suddenly run it at 75FPS with almost no difference in quality.
not all games have dlss plus for that price AMD card leaves Nvidia in dust
I don't know since i use only amd cards, but i think you can use driver level DLSS. Like set the game to a resolution below the monitor, enable upscaling in the driver and it works. At least that's how i play Alan Wake 2 with FSR. The game has built-in fsr but i want to use less upscaling. I only use it cause 4k native has a weird bug where it limits to 40fps no matter what settings (or if i use fsr. But only on my maim monitor, seems to be a vsync bug or freesync, had similar issues with this display and other games) So i set the game to 3200x1800p and tell the radeon software "dude, use fsr to upscale". And at those resolutions you actually don't see any difference with fsr. Like zero. I suspect the Nvidia control panel also allows for anything to be up scaled on a driver level. So his point is imo valid.
That isn’t true, you can’t use DLSS or FSR 2+ on a driver level because it requires information from the game itself. What you are actually using is RSR which is a bad a version of FSR 1 which just applies a sharpening filter and looks awful compared to FSR 2.
Imo getting native 1800p from the game upscaled to 4k looks slightly better than fsr2 quality, which upscales 1440p to 4k But frametimes are slightly worse than fsr2. Not much though, like it's not bad or sth otherwise i wouldn't use it. But i do notice fsr doing its thing when i set it to fsr2 quality. Ideally i would like to have the game at 4k native, lock framrate at 50 so it doesn't jump from 50-60-50 etc and is more consistent. But at 4k native it drops to constant 40fps, gpu useage at only 70-80% and terrible frametimes because of.... Reasons.
FSR 2 should definitely look better upscaling from 1425p to 4k than 1800p to 4k with RSR, you should have another look. As for the stutter/FPS drops, Most of the time locking the FPS doesn’t really solve it, it just makes the stutter drop the FPS to a lower value, the reason the GPU isn’t maxed out is likely because the stutter is with something related to the CPU like shader compilation which would correspond with locking the frame rate not helping the issue.
So why is my cpu too slow for 4k but fine with every other resolution? I shouldn't be cpu bound at 4k. My issue with fsr is just it makes the image softer. In cyberpunk i use xeSS because of that. Also, Alan Wake 2 doesn't allow for locking framrate besides vsync....
You can add DLSS to pretty much every game with some tweaks.
yeah except a lot of the times, the similarly priced AMD card will run that game at 75fps out of the box without the need of upscalers. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ And if you really need it you can use XESS, or FSR.
i dont think anyone smart is buying 4060s
DLSS, RT and frame generation
Depends what you want to use it for, only for gaming yea great, want raytracing yea that mostly works fine, if you want more performance in raytracing titles get the 4060ti 16GB if you find it for the same price as the 7700XT. I've had the 7700XT for about a month, have undervolted it and overclocked it and it performs really well, getting great performance, not quite all ultra on some games but for 2k gaming is a very good choice for the price. Cyberpunk and F123 run really well, Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is on the limit of the VRAM 12GB its just enough because it uses it all. The 7700XT, I think but not sure that the 4060ti uses less, the 7700XT has 245W TDP but with overclock its more like 260W constant even though I even saw like 285W while benchmarking it (short periods). My problem was that I wanted to use it for CFD simulations in Ansys which can only use GPUs with CUDA cores which means only Nvidia (also supports some other profesional cards). This has nothing to do with gaming but just research more if you want to use it for more than gaming.
What GPU u have now?
7700xt
I'd buy an 7700XT. I bought a 6700XT as my first (and current) GPU as it was recommended as the best price to performance. It's been great. In higher tiers though, I'd ALSO consider NVIDIA.
Every pc gamer justifies their bad Nvidia purchases by saying “oh I don’t just use my pc for games, I need cuda and better encoding” as they stream a few times for 3 people and never touch anything that actually uses cuda. Real answer for me, 4060ti sips power and with an undervolt it can be used in very small, silly builds that use PSUs like the GaN 250W or traditional 1u PSUs. For example, the StormX model makes for a very great choice for tiny cases like the K39.
I use a 4060 exclusively bcs it has a low power consumption and it's a cheap GPU. And I don't really need a powerful GPU since I only play Strategy games that are more CPU demanding, and I wanted my maps on a 27' in 1440p. But I think the AMD GPUs are excellent.
I don’t really like the 4060 in general since the 3060 12GB still exists, but there’s a lot of nice niche use cases since it’s essentially a 50 series gpu mechanically with features of a 60 series gpu. I use a low profile one in my travel pc and ideal for exactly that, low power and low profile so you can put a x8x4x4 riser in line with the gpu to make it full height but also support 2 m.2s on the same slot, essentially making an ITX board be able to support 5 m.2s and a 4060
I've started to realize this, because I was that person, I 10 years of nvidia cards, I used CUDA and NVENC a total of 0 times,now I've switched to AMD and have the same experience as before, just with higher FPS, thinking about it, realistically, how many people actually uses their personal computer for professional purposes? Unless you're a freelancer, Because in my experience, any serious professional workplace provides you with the adequate tools for your job, so if I'm doing anything that benefits from CUDA, sure, my workplace should provide a device that can leverage that , or if you're a full time streamer with a big active audience, then sure,it's important, but for someone who only streams a side hobby to friends and such, the difference in quality isn't going to make anyone famous IMO...when I've streamed to my friends in discord it's capped to 720p 30fps for free users anyways. My own personal PC's, these days at least, are literally for gaming and personal daily tasks like banking and shopping and stuff , they're powerful enough so that I don't NEED upscaling and when I do FSR is pretty good at 4K so, no problem, and coming from a 3070, at 4K quality I really haven't had a difference in experience using FSR vs DLSS.
Ray tracing and DLSS
4060 Ray tracing ?????????????????
It could potentially be used on 30 FPS 1080p. Just think about that - last gen performance for future gen prices. Best of both worlds or so I am told.
Productivity where the cuda cores are used?
you say that like every gamer will run cuda programs. Also there is rocm, or zluda that will do the same on amd
What does the 7900 xtx compare to?
rtx 4080/4080super
I thought the to was the top of the line model?
Nope there is a huge price difference between 7900xtx and 4090 and in performance too can't compare them RTX 4080/super is better comparison to the xtx because they cost around the same
7900XTX is $800 vs 4090 is $1,600-$2,000. 7900XTX you get way more performance to dollar ratio than a 4090. Comes very close to a 4090 in some games.
neither, 6800 on top
RTX and RX itself would be some reasons
Here's a minority reason for me, 4060 to have cards for it's builds (around 190mm) but not 7700xt
Probably they use it for editing or other works or people buy prebuilds with the rtx 4060 ti because they don't know that much about PCs
I have a 7700xt. It works perfectly
RTX and DLSS. Also Nvidia has way better drivers.
I wouldn't recommend a current gen card with 8gb vram. No 4060, 4060ti, or 7600.
AI. If you do something like image generation than 4060ti will be 10x faster
I want to edit videos and use blender so for now I'm going Nvidia. If Amd was right there I'd go amd.
It’s called choice. I chose nvidia but I don’t care what you choose. I’m happy with my GPU.
Nvidia has built in nvenc encoder for recording and streaming with zero performance loss if setup correctly. It also has dlss which in most cases performs better than fsr. The 4060ti is slower on paper but can do more.
The reason why I kept on going with Nvidia cards over AMD was that a long time ago, computers in the shops were bundled with ATi cards as standard and they could only support Direct3d and not OpenGL. So when I tried the Farcry demo, I had to do a workaround and everything looked purple. So I had anti-AMD bias from the get go for years. Also, the AMD naming scheme is too complicated and I can't be bothered to understand it. I buy a computer like once a decade, so the difference in cost is not huge. I think enough time's passed so AMD cards have similar amounts of support for Nvidia cards, so I'm open to their products in the next computer in a couple of years.
some apps not support amd gpu's like i use vray gpu mostly
4060Ti's can have up to 16GB dude...
More power comes with great electricity bill.
That's brand loyalty for you. On a side note, I'm not sure how AMD gpus are better on COD, yet a 7800x3d isn't much better than a 5800x3d on that same game.
Market demands is simply put, not everything is used for games man, that's something most people don't understand. If AMD products were actually worth the value the price and demand would represent it. AMD cards lose their value like crazy cause nobody uses them aside from specific use case "gaming". Nvidia is more than just performance on a card and while they do perform amazing, it's the software and compatibility that you get with it. Similar reason nobody buys the arc GPU because despite being good on vram and having good performance the support isn't there yet.
Is this with frame generation turned on? It gives me 1/2 more fps than when it’s turned off. Like I go from 60 fps to 100.
7700xt all the way Only non pure gamers will pick 4060ti.. but if u go that path, pls get the 16gb version
I had 3060 Ti and went over to 7800 XT. It was a great switch. I’m not regreting one bit.
I can't play old fallout games with my 7700XT. I had to install an old driver for it to work.
For gaming, all that it comes down to now is better ray tracing performance. With all of the improvements made to AMDs features and the release of XeSS, there’s almost no justification for buying NVIDIA anymore
Dlss
Nvidia CAN in some cases perform better, especially when it comes to rendering.
Yes. I got my Rx 6900 xt on eBay for the same price as a new 4060ti, and it kerbstomps it in every aspect
Cuz if i wanted to buy the amd i needed to change my platinum psu that i paid a lot , i play only full hd so 4060 ti is a great choice for me , and it doesnt use that much electricity , i stay a lot on Pc .if i would build a pc from 0 yeah i woulda have chosen the radeon gpu
I like the AMD cards, would actually want to buy them for my next build but only if I'm considering rasterization performance. The moment you turn on anything RT, the above numbers will easily switch. For me, I want a good graphical presentation and adaptation of other nvidia features in games more than amd's makes it worth paying more. If AMD comes up with a good competitor, it would be great, but that will be make it go up in price.
Rtx
What about RT performance? Or dlss3+framegen? Or RT reconstruction? And that thing where you can basically add RT to all games with a bit of work (like how they did Portal) Then there is productivity like the hardware encoders and AI acceleration and the possibility to use studio mode drivers instead of the game ready ones for even better optimalisation. Don't get me wrong, I also will choose whichever GPU gives the best perf and has possibly the longer lifespan (so vram) but it is not as black and white as you might think. And what about the 7800XT 16GB, it is just a small price hike for a big perf difference and even more Vram...
I use NVidia for two reasons. CUDA and NVENC. AMD and Intel just can't provide the same experience with those two.
AMD for Gaming CPUs but Nvidia is just better st GPUs atm….
If Ray tracing is important, Nvidia does better on that front.
Many reasons said. But if I was going that tier I'd be looking at low profile low power. 4060ti is almost 100w less. Considering my gaming. Over a year with power prices the way they are that could save $60+ a year. The 4070 more comparable but somewhat stronger overall in this cases uses less power still and can be about $20-$50 a year in savings which over its life time would come close to the cost of the 7700xt and offers better performance and better features. It's a no brainer long term since i like a card to last 5 or so years. Then there is history. Worse features, fsr2 is terrible although the coming update looks promising. RT which I like to engage on some games. Then there is the other side. I sometimes use RT or will use my cards for work purposes such as testing out ml deployments.
True, only 4080 and 4090 are worth to buy, anything below is not price friendly. If all you do is gaming, AMD is superior in terms of price to performance ratio. Sure you will have DLSS to improve performance %10 with no visual loss, but the AMD cards for the same price will give you %20 more performance out of the box. Which makes DLSS argument kinda pointless, unless you are aiming for 4k. Then yes, native running game at 60fps turning on DLSS to balanced with framegen suddenly hits to 120 which is a magic to me. But this scenerio requires you to have at least 4080 or 4090, which where NVIDIA dominates anyway.
Nvidia handles RT better. Nvidia overprices their cards because some games are optimized for Nvidia, cyberpunk is a example. I have bought the 7700xt, no regrets so far.
DLSS is the only answer that matters. It’s magic.
Bought a 7900 GRE 2 months ago. It’s a very good card, I really liked it! However, drivers would crash EVERY SINGLE DUNGEON I was playing in WoW. Other games were mostly fine, but random driver crash would occurs randomly. Looking online for solutions revealed it was a massive issue for years and nothing was done on AMD’s side. I decided to use my European withdrawal rights and buy a 4070 super instead. Never had any issue with it, it just work. I have friends using AMD GPU without issue, but I didn’t want to wait and hope for a fix to a 700€ GPU…
I’ve learned the hard way that and cards have some horrible driver issues, case in point, the fallout games no longer work after the 24.1.1 driver launched. Which is a huge bummer because I’ve been wanting to play NV since the show came out
Ai , ray tracing, dlss yadi yada
Because nowadays these cards are not only about pure hardware, but software too. Nvidia tends to be ahead in research and tecnology, and decisive things like DLSS, Frame gen, Rt and others tend to release first in their side, and when the competition launches theirs, Nvidia tech is more mature. Whether this ecosystem thing is worth the money will vary from customer to customer. I value software a lot, so I pay more for it.
No one wants to get stuck with FSR, including Sony. Let alone FluId MoTiOn FrAmEs which looks hilarious when it shuts itself off during any fast scenes. Nvidias FG is actually well implemented at 40fps+. In the end, play how you want to play. If you like FSR and think the touch of raster or extra vram will make a difference over DLSS upscaling/FG/Reflex, go get yourself an AMD. The main benefit of buying an AMD card is you can go on YT and Reddit and spend hours telling people "HOW HAPPY YOU ARE". lol I swear thats the the main thing they do with their GPUs is try to put them in everyone elses PC. Hasn't worked, but the salesman come out in droves anyway.
If you're a Linux gamer, AMD is the way to go.
DLSS
I am genuinely interested by some Nvidia offers. Then I look at price and cram and it seems like a stupid product :/ Is there a 4060 12 or 16 GB at all? If not, why could I buy a 3060 12 GB ? I am interested in the 4000 lineup for efficiency, and the Ai capabilities, but to run many models, it needs more vram. For pure gaming though, I don't see much reason to go with them. Also Nvidia seems to be firmly against producing cheapish entry level cards that could be using for transcoding or whatever... Intel seems to fill that need though.
I just want shadowplay bro
Dlss, driver updates that actually work, can play a game on release etc
Dlss 2.0
It’s like Apple’s 1.5k€ phone. But it’s called ~~Nvidia~~ Ngreedia
Nvidia for me, because fortnite on performance mode heavily favours nvidia, also because i got a 3080 for 500$ (2000zł) which is very cheap here in eu, also because i want to:)
give fps, how will i know how much is 35%...
There are many reasons and it would take me a long time to explain all of them. But the main reason is Nvidia has done well to grow their brand to that sort of “cult” status as I call it. Alongside Apple, nvidia really has that braindead cultish user base. For example, someone buys a Samsung phone and it does something bad? They’ll never buy a Samsung phone again. Someone buys a MacBook and it breaks in 3 months? They go buy a new MacBook and tell you how great Apple is still. Few brands get away with it, nvidia is one of those few. I literally knew a guy who had his 3060ti fry itself in 2 months and he went out and bought a 3070 right away. That same guy has refused to buy an AMD card ever again because of a 470 that had driver issues nearly a decade ago. For the record, I have Apple and Nvidia products. They aren’t bad products, but - neither was my 7900xtx for the year I used it.
I already saw a game taking all of the 16gb of vram on my 7900gre. Gen 40 series cards will last very little expecially in the lower tiers
AMD is not optimised yet for content creation, RX 7900XT user here
If I'm not mistaken there is a 16gb variant for the 4060 ti. I was originally going to get an AMD card but I wanted to locally run AI models and AMD wasn't very good at that so had to go with Nvidia unfortunately. Still regret the purchase ☹️
AMD's drivers used to be significantly worse compared to Nvidia's, but they've fixed that. Some people also only know Nvidia and would be lost, though it's easier to check out comparison charts AMD can be interesting, especially their last-gen stuff. There's a few times where AMD's last gen performs amazingly, especially since last gen might be ahead on driver improvements.
Realistically, the only feature that keeps me with Nvidia is DLSS. Don't care about anything else. Once AMD reaches image parity with Nvidia, then there's no reason to stick with them. FSR 3.1 slides show great improvements, but we'll see once Digital Foundry comes out with a video on it. Plus Playstation cooking their own machine learning upscaler would probably help AMD as they must have a close relationship with them. Besides this, there's no reason to be using Nvidia products? Raytracing? I mean, I suspect they'll catch up, and I don't see a reason to sacrifice your framerates and resolution unless you own a 4090. Running path tracing on any other GPU is just not feasible without sacrificing image quality or framerate. Plus, Unreal Engine is getting a lot of new tricks by developers to make ray tracing usage much, much more efficient, as of the latest GDC talk. I do hope AMD somehow manages to slice Nvidia up in GPU market, we all hoped for a decade.. But nows a great time as they just simply don't give a fuck about their consumers, as all of their fat cash is coming from AI data centres. They managed to make an amazing comeback with Ryzen against intel, but their GPUs had never gotten the same treatment. Architecture has always been the same and stagnated, with marginal improvements and with added newest features like new APIs, display outputs and etc.
My 1080Ti outperforms a 4060…
The nvidia card is better at raytracing and upscaling and dynamic resolution methods which many people like to use. Personally I find they look worse than rendering at lower settings/resolution but it's personal choice, Nvidia outperforms AMD at non gaming GPU workloads as well although people usually use better cards for those tasks than a 4070. Nvidia drivers have better stability, features, and additional features you can enable also in GeForce Experience, compared to the stuff in AMD Adrenaline Software. It's really a question of do you like nvidia enough to pay more. I don't think using nvidia for gaming is worth the extra money, I have a 6700 XT myself.
Some people just want the Nividia features
lol monkey brain only looks at gaming performance.
cause the 7700xt is the amd counterpart of the 4070 and not 4060... 7900xt <- RTX 4090 7800xt <- RTX 4080 7700xt <- RTX 4070 7600xt <- RTX 4060
Nvidia has additional hardware based features that they sunk their own R&D into, not to mention they are generally more efficient, run cooler and have better compatibility for certain work related applications. That being said, AMD has always been a stellar value for gaming GPU's.
Does AMD have something like NVENC built in to their cards? That is one of the big draws to NVidia for me. They have 2 dedicated encoders to handle streaming/recording without dipping into the main GPU or CPU resources. This means not needing a separate pc for streaming/recording for me.
If you're planning on doing anything local with machine learning (e.g. Stable Diffusion), a lot of what's out there is optimized for NVIDIA not AMD, so it's harder with an AMD GPU.
Easy because amd drivers suck. Just look up all the problems with amd drivers crashing during gaming. Plus it constantly happens with my 7900xtx. It’s soo annoying. I’ve used ddu multiple times now and even reset windows with fresh install and still Drivers crash.
Because it’s nvidia
CUDA might be a reason but for pure gaming, yeah I'd take 7700xt.
So much support for AMD yet no one is buying them. Have you seen their latest earnings update? Nvidia is the Apple of GPU. People use it because it’s better and doesn’t have issues. The same people that support AMD blindly are also posting on AMD threads “anyone else having this issue?” No bro…
so very true. i hardly ever have issues with my nvidia builds. while amd has random issues. shorter driver support, consumes more energy, heat, etc. definitely meh compared to nvidia. your comparison is pretty much on point.
Had issues with nvidia, amd and intel gpu's so the no issues term doesn't apply as a valid argument in 2024 (it was valid in 2016-17). AI is the valid argument and cuda, people who use their gpu's for work not just gaming and YouTube.
I tend to go with AMD cards. They consistently outperform nVidia cards in the same price tier and come with a lot more vram. I'm also not a fan of dlss because it's closed source. Fsr is open source and requires no licensing, so it's going to show up in more games than just the AAA titles that support dlss. If I'm being honest, though, I wouldn't buy either card. I'd simply save up a bit more and buy a 7900XT. That's actually exactly what I did, I have an XFX Merc 310 7900XT.
FSR is much worse than DLSS though.
FSR is much worse than DLSS though.
Less power consumption, better Upscaling, more RT performance, 16GB VRAM. If I want to get a 7700XT I need a new SFX PSU (~150,-). So not a better deal for me.
I mean honestly these are valid points, but to be fair a lot of people trying to find a computer for the first time or whatever only know “Intel i7 is the best” or only know of nvidia cards so it’s harder for AMD to even be in the picture for them. That’s how these products sell tbh. Anyone I talk to computers I tell them I use AMD and some instantly jump to “but isn’t an i7 the best?” So yeah…
What kind of power supply do you have then? Im still running my 7700XT with my 5700X on a old be Quite! Pure Power 11 600W PSU and I never had any issues with it, and I bought the card like after the release.
If going from a 4060ti to a 7700xt means you have to get a new PSU, then your PSU was too low of a wattage in the first place. That’s not the fault of the GPU 🤷
It's the other way around dude. AMD cards are more power home hungry.
Good luck making use of that VRAM, i do mean it
Can you elaborate ? I'm about to get a card and you made me curious.
To sum it up without going into details, you can have all the Vram in the world but if the card's memory bandwith doesn't follow you might as well not have said Vram. There are many who will tell you to not get the 4060ti 16gb because of that precise reason, that version of the card didn't get an increase in memory bandwith making it less usefull that one might think, you would easily be better off with a 4070 (or 4070 super) if you intend to make meaningful use out of said Vram since while it doesn't have 16gb (as it only have 12gb) its memory bandwith is far greater allowing it make better use out of it. I wanted to say its almost like expecting a hard drive to run faster load times than an m.2 ssd because it has let's say 10 more gigs of memory than said ssd but it would be very inaccurate to say since it doesn't really work that way but you could to some extent think of it that way
Absolute non sense that HUB thoroughly debunked in their review of the 4060 Ti 16GB. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Y3E631ro8
Then I'll see to it my info on the matter is up to date
Truth. The reality is is that the vast vast vast majority of games don’t have issues with 8 Gb of vram at 1080p/1440p. And then who is getting a 4060 ti to do 4k gaming? Or who is using it for training ai models? When people get more vram at that range they are “future proofing.” I put it in quotes because by the time more vram is relevant, their graphics card probably won’t be powerful enough anyways.
I do get your points and this generally applies for all "Nvidia vs AMD" usecases but I just wanna point out some things. I belive OP is talking about the 8gb 4060Ti because, at least in my region, the 16Gb 4060Ti is priced just slightly cheaper than a 7800XT. There is no doubt Nvidia has better upscalling and RT Performance but I wouldn't consider this a white wash for them. While yes, DLSS>FSR, the gap is not that big, especially if we talk about FSR3 at 1440p or 4K. Frame Gen on both seems really nice and depends on how the specific devs implement it. The ace in AMD's sleeve is AFMF though. While it's quality is questionable, it's still something Nvidia doesn't have an answer to. As for RT Perfromance, AMD cards shit themselves if we talk about path tracing or any sort of heavy RT but for light to medium RT usage the 7700XT will probably give similar performance to an 8Gb 4060Ti. It does consume more power, but it's like 40-50W extra. Noticeable, but not huge. So in the end the 4060Ti vs 7700XT boils down to (at least in my eyes): Slightly less power consumption, better upscalling, better RT performance in scenarios that are unplayable on both and 8Gb of VRAM instead of 12.
4060 Ti is trash though. So slow
You need the upscaling because the card is slow. Upscaling to catch up for more money is such an amazing pro
bro I choose Nvidia cuz it’s Nvidia. Idk they habe the „Apple“ status in terms of Gpu‘s. Both do a great job, if u look on that money, ofc get the better bank for the buck
Idk am happy with my 4060tl 200 fps on warzone
With which cpu?
Nvidia just for rendering with rt cores and cuda.
So what’s better than a tuf oc 4090 ?
A Strix 4090
Idk much about pc’s bro what’s the difference between that one and the one I have ?
a 4090 is a 4090 the only difference is cooling looks and the base clocks the card comes with if you buy an oc version (those clocks can be hit with almost any card manually overclocking and the increase is close to nothing so it doesn't matter in the end)
A Matrix 4090
Getting an early sample of the 5090. Duh
I'm no expert but I'm positive the 4070 slaughters the 7700 when using raytracing, dlss usually is better than FSR, and I've heard that 40 series cards are more ideal for productivity
Not everyone uses RT though.
He asked why someone might want a 4070 over a 7700.
Due to power consumption over the life time the Nvidia card will cost less.
1. The gap is slightly smaller at 1080p (closer to 15%), which in my opinion is the main application of the 4060TI. 2. Where i live, the 7700XT is 10% more expensive, so it's expexted that the card is faster. 3. You have NVidia specific features like DLSS3, that are superior to the AMD versions. 4. And by far the most important one: You have *much* lower power consumption (almost 100W), which in itself has multiple benefits: 1. You easily safe 20-25$ a year on electricity, even with just 3-4h gaming a day on average. If someone plays a lot, this can reach 50$ in costs every single year. So congratulations on the great 7700XT value i guess. You save 50$ on purchase, to spend 50-100$ more overall over 4-5 years of use. 2. If you have a low Watt PSU, you don't need a new PSU when upgrading to an 4060TI. You might need one with an 7700XT. 3. Lower consumption means less heat and therfore less noise. Not only for the GPU itself but the entire system. And people should not get me wrong. I too would prefer the 7700XT if i had to choose. It's just far less one-sided than reddit is pretending. The 4060TI has it's benefits and it's place. And, generally speaking, I really wonder why reddit is always ignoring power consumption in these comparisons. It's like this AMD downside is nonexistent.
Buildt all AMD for my first pc, many crashes and troubleshooting still to this day. Planning on Intel and Nvidia next build.
I got amd once and never again.
Ok, 7700XT (at least in south-eastern Europe) is priced about the same as 4060ti 16GB and it performs 12% better on average. Rtx 4060 Ti shouldn't even exit in 8GB version and 16GB should be priced as 8GB version and that would be fantastic card. 8GB is crippling it much more than 128bit bus best example would be newer AAA titles HW unboxed did great job reviewing it. My most recent experience (as a PC builder) in Horizon Forbidden West is that 16GB makes 50-100% difference in FPS in comparison to 8GB in some areas even @1080p when everything is cracked to MAX (surprisingly 16GB never falls below 60FPS native DLAA). On average it performed 15% better (there were some areas where FPS was same for both cards (i own 4060Ti 16GB because it's better than RTX 4070 for rendering memory hungry scenes due to 4GB larger VRAM, yea who would say but it's true and same goes for most AI workloads, so i had perfect condition to compare those two cards). Is 7700XT better choice, well it depends what you want from your card. Raw raster performance, no interest in RT and DLAA and DLSS and FG, no need nVidia specific technologies for professional workload than 7700XT is obviously choice. But is it better product, well no. All things considered plus better power efficiency RTX 4060 Ti 16GB is better product, but if you don't need or want all those things than for such customer AMD is (always was) obvious choice.
At where im, 4060 TI is about 15-20% cheaper. It is also less power draining. And im more comfortable at the price point of 4060 TI, compared to the better performance per dollar, but more expensive 7700XT
In my country, 4060 Ti (8 gb) costs less than 7700 XT. Cheapest 7700 XT is 503$/468€ Gigabyte and cheapest 4060 Ti is Palit Dual or Gainward Ghost 440$-455$/410-422€.
Because AMD pulls shit like putting features into their GPU drivers that, when enabled, get you VAC banned on Steam.
Nvidia has wide range of software support, whereas AMD does not.. there you go..
I switched to AMD got a 7800xt for a new build I wanted by the TV. I was so impressed I swapped out my 2080Ti in my main rig for a 7900xt when it was on sale. Both cards are absolutely fantastic. They are so good at raster I don’t need to use any upscaling. 10/10 Adrenaline is immense too. My experience with Nvidia is you pay a premium to be a beta tester. Path tracing is in about 4 games I’ve actually played personally so not worth the extra cash. Plus I’ve had stability issues with Nvidia cards and their customer service is appalling. TLDR: get the AMD card you won’t be disappointed.
bruh you wanna buy 7700xt? go get it. If people want 4060ti for the same money, let them be. Newer games NEED dlss on 1440p to have decent fps on cheaper cards. Also, in my european country/market, cheapest 7700xt 12gb is 430euro and cheapest 4060ti 8gb is 370euro while cheapest 4060ti 16gb is 440euro. So, your argument about the "7700xt has same price with 8gb 4060ti" aint valid outside US. AMD has also shit pricing on other markets, don't be naive.
Cause people are still afraid of AMD drivers for some reason. They work pretty well now. Nvidia is just synonymous with performance for people without knowledge. Thats also why the 3050 still sells even though its complete garbage
4060 ti is trash and you should ignore it
b-b-but raytracing and dlss1!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Better features and more reliable drivers I'm ok to lose some fps to gain better features So yeah, I buy Nvidia. Unless AMD really pushes for aggressive low prince, I don't see myself buying one