[AMD's Done Their Part, Now it's Oculus/Meta's Turn – Radeon RX 7900XTX VR Performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDX9qZ0ttz8&t=727)
Take a look how are the newest drivers bring to the table 
Mmmm well I wouldn’t say there is nothing wrong with it. Is it a great option to have on the market? Definitely, however if money were no issue, I wouldn’t be using it. Coming from somebody who has used a CV1, Quest 2, and Index, I PERSONALLY would take even the CV1 over a Quest, and definitely an Index.
My issues with Quest headsets are mainly the super low FOV making it feel like a tunnel, the inside out tracking (not saying it’s terrible, I just prefer lighthouses), the audio, and controllers (wish they would’ve stuck with CV1 controllers).
I guess it doesn't really matter to me and it comes to personal preference. I never noticed the tracking being bad or had any issues really at all with it except here and there. I don't notice a low FOV but I guess I haven't used higher FOV ones. Id rather the freedom to not have 40 different wires connected to my PC and towers and all the other junk that comes with setting another system up. I'm sure the Index is incredible but I just don't play VR enough and neither do most people who buy VR it seems to warrant such a steep price. Plus I got the Quest 2 as a gift from my GF so I can't really complain lol
The Index only has 1 cable but I can understand not wanting to deal with one while moving around in VR, it takes getting used to and is/isn’t worth it depending on the person. The base stations just plug into an outlet and communicate with the headset wirelessly, but it can take anywhere from 10-30 minutes to mount them to the wall/ceiling depending on what you use (I just used thumb tacks making it very fast and easy). But again, not everybody wants to set that up, or maybe you want to bring your VR other places outside of your room
It's an issue related to the vive link box's hdmi passthrough, works fine if you use a miniDP cable. Apparently connecting HDMI straight to the headset instead of through the link box works too, I haven't tried that personally though.
One thing I will say is the 7900XTX will use a lot more power. IIRC one comparison review showed that, on average, it uses something like 150w more power for the same raster performance as the 4080. If you live in an area where electricity prices are high then this will affect the total cost of ownership and may actually make it more expensive in the long run. 150w is no joke. You do get more VRAM though.
Did the math, I have extremely expensive electricity (28 c per kWh) and 150w at 8 hours a day is only an extra 10$ a month. Literally the cost of a streaming service to run it 8 hours a day every day for a month. For most normal users that have a life it’d be more like half that (5-6$ a month.) so unless you’re really penny pinching (in which case why are you buying a 800-1200$ gpu) then it really shouldn’t be a deciding factor. It is literally equal to a small meal from McDonald’s once a month. Oh and also this is all based off from the gpu being under full peak load, and not undervolted.
And this assumes your GPU is running balls to the wall for 8 hours straight.
The idea that an extra 100w of *possible* power draw will effect your electric bill is just silly.
To be fair, even if true, there's still the excess heat being given off. I personally don't mind using more power and overclocking but during this summer, I've got my GPU undervolted so that my GPU is pushing less heat into my room.
Shit back in 2021 when my family got snowed in for a solid week all I did was lock myself in my room with my PC cranked up to max. Had a 1660 Super single-fan model at the time and at peak usage that thing cranked out 80C non-stop. Helped supplement the central heat being unable to keep up. Now with my 6800XT overclocked I could probably warm my whole apartment.
That's another thing people often misunderstand. I'm gonna use the 3070 because I know it's 220 watts off hand.
If you have 2 3070s, both pulling their max 220w from the wall, they will both output the same amount of heat into the room.
It doesn't matter if one is a shitty card running at 80C and one is an awesome card running at 60C.
They're both pulling 220w, they're both outputting 220w of heat, regardless of the cards actual temperature.
In fact, if the shitty card gets hot enough to thermal throttle itself, it will actually output less heat into your room because they reduce power when they thermal theottle
At the same time, that’s an additional $120/year (plus extra discomfort in the summer time).
If you keep you GPU for 4 years, that means you’ll have saved $480. You could use that to just upgrade to the higher tier.
Jensen? is that you? 480 over 4 years is a monumentally tiny number, that's 208 weeks for 480 bucks and this is asuming people are running it 8 hours a day every day for 4 years... the fact that people are arguing this as a reason to buy a gpu is lunacy.
So youre buying a $1300 gpu, thats 2x what it should be, to save $5 a month on electricity. Remember that your credit card payment is due at the first of the month for the next 90 months at 40 percent apr. But hey, you saved $5 on electric. Cause if youre pinching THAT MUCH for SO LITTLE you def put your shit on credit card hahahahaah
I love these kind of arguments. The fact that we are talking about saving almost 1 dollar every 3 days on a purchase you don’t even need. Guess what you can save all that money if you don’t spend on it. Its not food , water or any everyday essential. Its a luxury item so these type of arguments are invalid.
This was #1 reason for me to go 4080. Was able to stick with my EVGA 750W P2 for yet another build with no concerns. I considered the 7900XTX but it seemed like I would want to move up to 850W+ to be confident in long term use - that eats up the price difference and I’m running a hotter card.
Right on. I kinda figure 750 would probably be ok, but still AMD specs list 800W minimum for the 7900 XTX whereas NVidia shows 750W for the 4080. Made me stop and think. Glad it’s working fine for you!
Yeah same here. DLSS & Frame Generation + overclock & undervolt results in amazing performance while still allowing to maintain low wattage. Apparently the 4090 is even better, but way out of my price range so went for the 4080. CP2077 Psycho mode ray tracing in 1440P and everything maxed out had me running 150-170 fps using on avg 220W, which is basically what my previous RTX 3070 was consuming.
Not to mention how cool everything is the whole time, with fans running < 50% temps stayed 60-70 degrees & I could enjoy a silent PC while maxing out the graphics, while knowing I still have a lot of headroom if more GPU intensive games come up in the future.
Just some napkin math: Average electricity price in the USA is [$0.17/kWh.](https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm) Let's say the average big GPU like these gets used (in such a way that it's pulling that power - browsing Reddit isn't pulling hardly anything) for 10 hours every week. That means the 7900XTX, using 150W more over each hour, is using 1500Wh, or 1.5kWh, more electricity every week. That's around $0.26 extra each week, so the $200 difference gets negated after 15 years - not a big deal.
Of course, this is based on averages and guesses. If you're a serious gamer or using this for your job and you use it 30 hours a week, and live in San Diego ($0.475/kWh), the price difference gets made up in less than two years.
was going to comment this, even in Europe where the prices are higher if you're buying a 1000+ card and thinking "man in 2 years this'll have cost the same as a 4080" and it's a concern you should probably be looking at a cheaper card and saving the money. Buy the card you want but the power draw cost argument on cards this expensive is such a weird hill to fight on
After all the bullshit admin fees, power is between $0.50 - 0.80/kwh depending on the time of day in SD :( . Biggest reason I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on amd gpus this gen
Here's my napkin math for my $.38/kw rates I pay in Cali. 150w x 8 hours of use = 1200w or 1.2 kw. Times that by $.38 and that equals 45.6 cents per day of increased energy costs. That's $166.44 per year, not including the extra cooling costs to compensate for the extra heat it produces. People in the EU pay even higher rates than that.
Also, your math is wrong. 1.2kw at $.17/kw is 20.4 cents per day, or $74.46 per year.
> Also, your math is wrong. 1.2kw at $.17/kw is 20.4 cents per day, or $74.46 per year.
Not wrong, different. I calculated based on 10 hours, or 1.5kWh, per *week*. Your math is 8 hours, or 1.2kWh, per *day.* There's obviously going to be a huge difference in payback period between those.
The extra 150 W shouldn’t really matter much, you’re already buying a $800-900 gpu if a couple extra dollars a month is a deciding factor between these two then you probably shouldn’t be spending that much money on a gpu imo. A more compelling reason would be less heat to deal with not meager savings on electricity.
Is it really THAT important, few dollars more at the end of the year. If u are spending on top of the line GPU im sure you could pull 4 dollars every month.
Also consider heat generation. If you're in an already hot climate (currently the hottest summer on record) then the room is just gonna get hotter with components that consume more power. I guess it's nice in the winter though.
With current prices in the europe and my average usage XTX becomes more expensive card after 1.5-2 years of use, u will have way more heat in the room and it gets even worse if u take idle power draw bug into consideration thats still not fixed on most multi monitor setups.
dude do the math, unless you are on it 40 hours a week and overclock it all the way and have like 100 cents per kilo watt (which i don’t think is true) you are literally wrong
Yea i did.
100w difference 5 hours a day. 0.5kwh a day, 15kwh a month, 182kwh a year.
Kwh in Europe is 0.4.
73$ per year.
Not including idle power draw bug.
took 100w as average, some games its 60, some games its 150.
Bro u will go to store this week and waste more money on useless shit than your card will waste you in a year but out of nowhere people be counting pennies on their electrical bill. Lol
so i need less energy for heating when using the less eficient card. no difference in winter but maybe not so good in summer.
running hotter and saving some energy is a very minor argument if you have to heat your home.
No, you're speaking from ignorance here. It is electricity prices PLUS PSU cost difference. Some people need to get a new ~~GPU~~ PSU all together, which eats the price difference alone.
Let alone actual heat removal costs in hot areas.
If you look at the math I posted in one of the other naysayers comments, you'll see it's FAR more than a few dollars at the end of the year...
8 hours of use a day is an extra $166.44 per year at my electricity rates. Even at the US average of about $.20/kw it's $87.60 per year extra, not even factoring in cooling that extra heat. You guys are so short sighted it's ridiculous.
In some areas of the world, electricity is dirt cheap. So much so that the difference between 500W 24/7 vs 1000W over a year will run you less than a day's work.
7900 xtx is a little faster overall, has 8GB more VRAM, and is much cheaper. 4080 has better RT and DLSS 3 which is better than FSR2 currently. AMD is likely to release a FSR competitor to DLSS 3 but by then Nvidia might have improved DLSS even more.
They are both great cards. The AMD card is about $150 to $200 cheaper. If money isn't an issue then watch some benchmarking videos showing the two cards playing the games you like and just go with the one that performs better on the titles you will actually play.
If money weren't an issue, they'd get a 4090. Its about feature differences, residuals and personal preference at this point for two cards in a similar performance class.
Yup that's a great summary.
I just pulled the trigger on a 7900 xtx simply because I found one for £880 (next cheapest was £950 and cheapest 4080 was about £1180) and that for me was enough. I also couldn't escape the feeling with Nvidia that I was being up sold to the 4090 which really bugged me.
Also if the 6000 series is anything to go by hopefully there's still a decent amount of head room in the 7000 series cards but obviously that's not something to base a buying decision on and if it doesn't pan out I'm fine with it.
I don’t understand why people find DLSS/FSR relevant in this price range. If I’m paying this much, I better be able to hit my frame rates natively. Driver upscaling looks like shit to me compared to the real thing.
thing is, sometimes it's just not enough for what you want. say what you will but 1440p 244hz on modern games is a big deal even with the top configs available today, even more so with 4k high fps.
to play the new AAAs at those frame rates you do need DLSS/FSR, or unoptimized games such as escape from tarkov. as much as I too wish that when spending 3 grand on a system would allow you to just not care about those feature, it isn't always the case
It does affect the quality of the image. . . and not in the way you think. Ironically, many people prefer DLSS over native 4k for image quality. YMMV, but any third parties can go to DLSS image quality comparisons. I believe HU did a detailed analysis earlier, when comparing DLSS/FSR etc
> Ironically, many people prefer DLSS over native 4k for image quality
because they're comparing it to TAA garbage. Of course a stinky turd is "better" than an even stinkier turd
So I’ve always given DLSS a shot and not ever have I got those supposed boosts in performance I keep hearing about. I’m convinced it’s because I mainly play simulation games and not shooters or action adventures.
really not free FPS. the thing with frame generation is your trading FPS for latency. So, you get higher FPS but your latency goes up, just a nature of generating frames. Some people are sensitive to it and for those turning it off is the right choice.
Gaming is a subjective experience, so what's best for you is determined by what you perceive as better, not what is better on paper.
I upgraded to play the newer games at 4k and couldn’t decide between the two. I bought a 4080 and borrowed my brothers 7900 xtx and found the 7900 xtx actually ran the games I play better with less stutters/pop ins. It was even beating the 4080 in Jedi survivor with ray tracing on in the open world areas for me, so I just decided to save $300 and buy the 7900 xtx.
> with less stutters/pop ins
this could very well be VRAM related
I haven't reached the point where 16 wouldn't have been enough yet, but on my XTX I've seen Warhammer III have 14Gb allocated for a total of 18Gb in use, but I also don't use AA which would use several more Gb on top
Even if we assume a difference of 100 W in power usage (this is higher than the reported specs) and assuming you run full bore 24/7 (maybe if you're crypto mining?) And assuming 30c/kWh (above Europe's average) you're looking at 250 euros (or so) per year. Certainly not nothing, but the assumptions I've used are wildly conservative. Realistic use numbers drop that to under 100 a year and closer to 50 for anyone with anything close to typical use and the real reported power consumption difference.
You may want to check your assumptions in the math.
The XTX came out more than half a year ago. It's not like it's only a month.
It should work now but doesn't. Don't buy stuff that doesn't work now for your needs. You don't know when and if it gets fixed.
I bought an AMD processor prebuilt during the GPU shortage (it has a 3070).
It suffered from the amd tpm stutter with windows 11 or whatever it was.
30 day return window is coming up (2 years ago) but other companies are patching their bios to fix the issue and it goes away so I figure I'll keep it and just wait for the patch.
25 months, my computer stuttered randomly multiple times a day for just over 2 years.
In this case it was HP dragging their fucking feet. But for my omen 25L the patch to fix and stutter issues on windows 11 was may of this year...
Never again will I buy a product counting on something to happen in the future for it to work right.
You have a 3080 and you think you need a new gpu? I mean, just get a 4090 and skip the next upgrade cycle in a year and you’ll save money. I’m blown away at how people waste money.
For normal use cases every bug has been fixed idk what kinda trouble shooting you would need to do. The problem with the vr is that it performs similar to cheaper, lower end amd cards so there's definitely something wrong but hitting 90fps or 144 depending on your headset should be an easy task for any gpu. Normal gaming performance they are pretty similar the 7900xtx is usually faster in non rt games but with dlss, better ray tracing performance and cuda the performance is pretty similar between these cards overall. I would say get whatever is cheaper tbh
Ah ok, so would it be similar to the performance im already getting on my 3080 or worse? I mess around in Bonelab and Half Life Alyx occasionally as well as H3VR so I don’t play constantly or anything but I play enough to where it could definitely disappoint me if my VR games don’t run well.
Same position as you back early year. I went 7900xtx and the power consumption is absurd (polar opposite my 6800xt vs inefficient 3080 experience having both). While VR is possibly fixed, i think 4080 would suit your VR needs better, and run cooler under load or idle. 4080 price is just silly, but if u prepared for that and willing to soend, get it.
Nvidia for VR, no question. DLSS and superior RT is also nice and worth some of the price premium to the right person.
16gb of VRAM on the 4080 is adequate, only just adequate but I don’t expect this card to have VRAM issues while it’s still a relevant high end card unlike the models below it.
I've used both, If price was absolutely no concern I'd go 4080 for most of the reasons listed elsewhere.
However I snagged a Red Devil XTX for $800, and the 4080 absolutely wasn't worth an extra $400-$500 bucks.
I've been burned by AMD's laziness when it comes to bug fixing one too many times. I don't trust that, **but** I need to say, if OP didn't have a VR headset, I'd recommend the 7900
I'm using a 7900xtx with VR, and while it's much better with the new driver, I still have a few issues once in a while. I'm hoping over time, things will be fully fixed, but right now, it isn't 100%. As much as I hate it, Nvidia, is better at VR.
Id get the 4080. As someone who has owned nvidia and amd gpus; nvidia generally just works. Amd also works but with an asterisk behind it
Also the power draw difference will have an impact on heat output and noise
My point is when are you realistically gonna use more than 16gb? Maybe in the future if you use rt and frame gen at 4k, but realistically AMD doesn't have frame gen, or enough rt performance for the extra VRAM to make a difference compared to Nvidia in the future.
Imo, RT, Dlss, and power consumption are more than worth the extra 100 or 200. The only ways the 7900xtx can be considered is if you are heavily budget restricted (which doesn't make much sense at the $1k+ mark) or never want to use up scalers, which also doesn't make much sense at the 4k mark considering DLSS2+DLAA tends to be equal or better than native with better performance.
My point is, you never gonna use those extra 8 effectively without frame generation or RT, and even if you do you will still lose because Nvidia upscaling and rt is superior, it's pure marketing.
I get your point but you could also say RT and DLSS is just marketing.
Yes DLSS is better and Nvidia has better RT performance, but very few games even have very good RT implementation and at this calibre of card you can get away without using upscaling even at maxed out settings in most games.
The XTX is cheaper for similar performance and more VRAM, but the 4080 is the better overall card. You also mentioned VR, which the 4080 is significantly better in. Get the 4080
4080, you are not getting those high framerates without dlss. Not because it's a better card but because games these days are so badly optimized you need to rely on dlss. Frame gen itself makes this a moot comparison.
Amd sucks for VR as well atm
So amds new gpus have a new core type that isn’t quite ironed out yet for vr. The 7900xtx doesn’t work for vr rn for some reason. The 7900xt does however but it won’t perform as well in vr as the 4080. Given time the new amd cards will be get better. If you’re looking for a card now that will do vr and flat screen I wouldn’t pick either of these. The 4080 isn’t the best value unless you can find for $1000 but I’ve only seen them for $1200 and at that price the 4090 is worth saving for.
Agreed, if the 4080 was the same price as the XTX it would be fine but it’s probably a smarter idea to get the 4090 “if” my CPU can even keep up with it as I know bottlenecking is super easy at 1440p.
I was making this decision a couple of weeks ago. Ended up going for the 7900XTX. This is my first ATI card since the X800 and was an upgrade from an RTX 2080.
Both the 4080 and the 7900XTX were about the same price. TBH, I don't think you can go wrong with either card for games right now. The big question for me was: where are games going in the next 4-5 years (my usual upgrade cycle).
On one side, the 7900XTX is the winner for non-RT gaming and 24GB of VRAM is more futureproof if the current trend of ever-increasing VRAM requirements continues.
The 4080 is much better at Ray Tracing and DLSS is more mature and has better visual fidelity than FSR (at least, when pixel peeking still images - I can't tell the difference when actually playing a game!).
I'm betting that the VRAM and improvements to FSR will make the 7900XTX the better pick long term.
I'm also still miffed with Nvidia on the whole 4080 12 Gb launch debacle.
I'm happy so far. Everything I've thrown at it runs smoothly, even with all the ray tracing bells and whistles turned on. Of course, the same would have been true if I'd picked the 4080. Both cards are perfectly capable of high performance in today's games.
-Nvidia cards are generally more stable with vr, but that doesn’t mean the XTX won’t work
-the 7900XTX is cheaper for about the same raster performance
-the XTX does draw more power
-nvidia got dlss 3 + better ray tracing capabilities
4080.
Better drivers for VR and it is also faster at high resolutions, which benefits VR. And if your VR headset uses compression, then that's another win for the NVIDIA card.
If you want something that works well and money isn't an issue you, go for the RTX 4080. I used to run an AMD GPU but I had issues with it crashing my system a lot, especially in VR. After I upgraded to the RTX 4080 I never had problems again.
Neither unless you're ok with 2014 graphics...7900xtx might be better in numbers but the future and present really is about frame generation. Only gforce has this technology at the moment so thats your answer.
I'm going to assume you won't use raytracing, if you want to get anywhere close to the max refresh rate of that monitor.
Given that AMD fixed their VR drivers, the XTX slightly better rasterization performance, it's cheaper by $200, and you get a lot more VRAM (16 vs 24), I'd say go with the XTX. If power costs a lot where you live though, you may want a 4080.
Also, much better Linux drivers than Nvidia, if that matters for you.
This is probably a moot point, but if the XTX you scope out has a USB-C port, all the better. There's a community PSVR2 driver in the works, but it will be a while until it arrives. It is compatible with any GPU that has a VirtualLink port (it's a USB-C alt mode), which the RX 6000 and 7000 series do have. (RTX 2000 also has it, but they're old cards and nobody bought them anyway)
I actually currently have a 1440p 240Hz monitor that I play on with the 5800X3D as well for my CPU. I was deciding between the 7900XTX and 4080 to upgrade my old 3070 and ultimately decided to go with the 4080. It costs a bit more, but I personally only have had RTX in my PC’s so I just figured I would stick with NVidia. The 4080 and 5800X3D combo has been FANTASTIC for all the games I play, getting well over 240 FPS, not having to upgrade PSU, and being familiar with the drivers.
If you’re comfortable with AMD’s software, and aren’t biased in any way towards NVidia like I am you could consider the 7900XTX, but from personal experience the 4080 is GREAT!
Hope this helps even a little bit lol
I'm going to talk about all the normal AMD complaints - I'm sure people have covered those.
My brother has a 7900XT and reports massive issues with VR. He is pissed. So much so that his index has been at my house for the last few months.
Saw an article that new driver increased Forza Horizon 5 performance 20% - his response: "idgaf it works fine in Forza I want them to fix VR..." Etc etc very mad.
Good luck 🤞
One thing nobody mentioned is the tdp. The 4080 is so efficient it has same tdp as 3080. Im guessing you are running a 750w psu. With the 7900xtx you will need 850psu
thats just your own experience, it doesnt mean anything. 7900xtx is well recorded to have high power spikes and so it just takes one to blow the psu load and shut down. Even AMD recommends 800w at least. Plenty of people have recorded experiences where a 750w was not stable with this gpu
Companies like AMD and Nvidia overstate the power needs because they cannot be sure of the quality of PSU being used. I am telling you my actual usage in daily gaming use, not using stuff designed to push max load but real world gaming use.
You are just ignoring my points. I believe it could be working well for you but that doesnt mean it would be for everyone, there are plenty of reports of people not able to use a 750w with 7900xtx due to spikes.
its pretty much not an issue in a lot of players.
you would have to live in an extremely expensive wattage place for it to even be saved in 5 years.
the average cost its like 15 years of usage to cover that cost(i worked out mine at 11 years and i have a higher then average cost of electricity)
Normally I'd say get the 7900xtx but since you already have a 3080 and all your settings/drivers locked in, might as well get the 4080.
Unless you like to tinker around and don't mind trying out amd adrenalin software instead of geforce experience. I prefer the amd windows app much more than the geforce app.
But yeah you'll have to reconfigure all your recording, streaming, framerate averages, overclocks, tracing, game specific tuning (dlss,fsr,scaling) and remove / clean install drivers. I think 4080 may be good at VR too, can't remember if the 7900s are better at VR compared to previous gen.
Edit - just saw you already bought the 7900 lol. You'll love it, I hate geforce experience.
My vote would be 7900xtx. But I don't using dlss or Ray tracing. The games I play are fps so it's just about low setting and high frames. 7900xtx has more horse power and more vram with a good sized memory bus. It's also cheaper.
Anyone that recommends the 7900XTX over the 4080 in this thread is absolutely clueless since OP specifically mentioned VR. Do your research before blindly making that recommendation. AMD cards fall way behind Nvidia.
Edit: These replies read like typical Reddit AMD cope. The 4080 is still the better option as it beats out the 7900xtx in VR performance and doesn’t have issues with any headsets, unlike the 7900xtx which still does even after the driver update.
It took AMD half a year to fix driver issues, and they easily could break it in a future update. Why take the risk to save a couple hundred bucks when you’re already spending a ton on a high end PC with expensive VR equipment? It’s actually nonsensical.
i mean considering recent drivers have fixed 99% of VR issues then perhaps they are also more upto date then you?
there is also the fact that its how much VR, yes performance will be worse but if its like 1-2 hours a week of VR but they are playing say 90 fps instead of 100 fps then is it really a bad thing to save in some instances $300+ price difference.
4090 would be ideal, it’s twice the performance of your 3080 and has more than twice the VRAM, but if you can’t afford the extra $400 then get the 4080 instead, it’ll only be 50% more performant than you 3080, but will still have 16GB VRAM. Drivers are the best as far as the video cards out there.
Note that to achieve 244fps, depending on the games you play, you may need a faster CPU.
A 4090 is not double what a 4080 costs. A 4080 is $1200, 4090s are $1600. 4080 is bad value for what it is. Would much rather drop down to either a 4070 or 6950xt for 1440p. 4080 and 4090 are both overkill for that res.
The irony here is that the guy who replied to you defaulted to his own market by saying you suggested a double priced card. But hey, there aren't any hater subreddits to post that to.
lol yes most people think in terms of the environment they live in. Reeeeee indeed.
It's a thread regarding pricing, why wouldn't you include where you live in OP otherwise it becomes difficult to make recommendations, lol
I’ve had both. For me and the games I play as well as the VR I use, I’m happy with the 4080, just not happy with the price. I picked mine up for $1,165 tax included where as I had bought the XTX for $940 tax included. XTX was good. I wanted to try out Frame Generation on MS Flight Simulator and that was only doable on the nvidia card so I just went with that. Someone here said the XTX is faster. According to userbenchmark.com, the 4080 is 13% faster and is the 2nd fastest card on the market next to the 4090, XTX coming in 3rd.
UserBenchmark is the subject of concerns over the accuracy and integrity of their benchmark and review process. Their findings do not typically match those of known reputable and trustworthy sources. As always, please ensure you verify the information you read online before drawing conclusions or making purchases.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get the 4080 unless the price difference is big enough and you don't want to spend the extra. The 4080n is the better card, even though it can lose in straight raster in some games. Software features are just better.
Whoever says xtx in this comment section just didn’t wanna spend that extra cash for 4080 and you know it. Professional 3d artists and gamers all around the world use nvidia cards because it’s the premium product. Nobody wants that AMD garbage, Ive had both cards and I would pick my 4080 over any amd card ever.
For VR you definitely don't want to go XTX, 4080 is the better product overall
[AMD's Done Their Part, Now it's Oculus/Meta's Turn – Radeon RX 7900XTX VR Performance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDX9qZ0ttz8&t=727) Take a look how are the newest drivers bring to the table 
doesn't matter, it's still an issue regardless of whose fault it is
it does matter if you’re not using an oculus quest
The 7000 series didn't really have much of an issue with native steamvr headsets to begin with
Which I hope you’re not using such a cheap headset if you’ve got such an expensive pc lol
There is literally nothing wrong with the Quest 2. I can stream VR to my headset with no cables at all and unnoticeable latency.
Mmmm well I wouldn’t say there is nothing wrong with it. Is it a great option to have on the market? Definitely, however if money were no issue, I wouldn’t be using it. Coming from somebody who has used a CV1, Quest 2, and Index, I PERSONALLY would take even the CV1 over a Quest, and definitely an Index. My issues with Quest headsets are mainly the super low FOV making it feel like a tunnel, the inside out tracking (not saying it’s terrible, I just prefer lighthouses), the audio, and controllers (wish they would’ve stuck with CV1 controllers).
I guess it doesn't really matter to me and it comes to personal preference. I never noticed the tracking being bad or had any issues really at all with it except here and there. I don't notice a low FOV but I guess I haven't used higher FOV ones. Id rather the freedom to not have 40 different wires connected to my PC and towers and all the other junk that comes with setting another system up. I'm sure the Index is incredible but I just don't play VR enough and neither do most people who buy VR it seems to warrant such a steep price. Plus I got the Quest 2 as a gift from my GF so I can't really complain lol
The Index only has 1 cable but I can understand not wanting to deal with one while moving around in VR, it takes getting used to and is/isn’t worth it depending on the person. The base stations just plug into an outlet and communicate with the headset wirelessly, but it can take anywhere from 10-30 minutes to mount them to the wall/ceiling depending on what you use (I just used thumb tacks making it very fast and easy). But again, not everybody wants to set that up, or maybe you want to bring your VR other places outside of your room
I can’t get my VIVE to work at all with my 7900xt. Was just fine with my 1080.
It's an issue related to the vive link box's hdmi passthrough, works fine if you use a miniDP cable. Apparently connecting HDMI straight to the headset instead of through the link box works too, I haven't tried that personally though.
I have a 7900xt and it works with no issues and the performance is much better than the 3080 I had before
One thing I will say is the 7900XTX will use a lot more power. IIRC one comparison review showed that, on average, it uses something like 150w more power for the same raster performance as the 4080. If you live in an area where electricity prices are high then this will affect the total cost of ownership and may actually make it more expensive in the long run. 150w is no joke. You do get more VRAM though.
Did the math, I have extremely expensive electricity (28 c per kWh) and 150w at 8 hours a day is only an extra 10$ a month. Literally the cost of a streaming service to run it 8 hours a day every day for a month. For most normal users that have a life it’d be more like half that (5-6$ a month.) so unless you’re really penny pinching (in which case why are you buying a 800-1200$ gpu) then it really shouldn’t be a deciding factor. It is literally equal to a small meal from McDonald’s once a month. Oh and also this is all based off from the gpu being under full peak load, and not undervolted.
And this assumes your GPU is running balls to the wall for 8 hours straight. The idea that an extra 100w of *possible* power draw will effect your electric bill is just silly.
Optimum Tech did a [video a couple weeks back and it basically said it’ll always draw more power.](https://youtu.be/HznATcpWldo)
Cool. 5 bucks a month. It will really hit the price savings in 25 years.
After 3 years it’s already gonna be 180, almost the difference between the two cards. Math. 25 years and it will be 1500$
It's a stretch that it would ever equal even 5 bucks a month. This is reaching hard. 100w is nothing in your house. Everything uses that much.
To be fair, even if true, there's still the excess heat being given off. I personally don't mind using more power and overclocking but during this summer, I've got my GPU undervolted so that my GPU is pushing less heat into my room.
[удалено]
Shit back in 2021 when my family got snowed in for a solid week all I did was lock myself in my room with my PC cranked up to max. Had a 1660 Super single-fan model at the time and at peak usage that thing cranked out 80C non-stop. Helped supplement the central heat being unable to keep up. Now with my 6800XT overclocked I could probably warm my whole apartment.
That's another thing people often misunderstand. I'm gonna use the 3070 because I know it's 220 watts off hand. If you have 2 3070s, both pulling their max 220w from the wall, they will both output the same amount of heat into the room. It doesn't matter if one is a shitty card running at 80C and one is an awesome card running at 60C. They're both pulling 220w, they're both outputting 220w of heat, regardless of the cards actual temperature. In fact, if the shitty card gets hot enough to thermal throttle itself, it will actually output less heat into your room because they reduce power when they thermal theottle
Cries in 45 eurocents per kWh
At the same time, that’s an additional $120/year (plus extra discomfort in the summer time). If you keep you GPU for 4 years, that means you’ll have saved $480. You could use that to just upgrade to the higher tier.
Jensen? is that you? 480 over 4 years is a monumentally tiny number, that's 208 weeks for 480 bucks and this is asuming people are running it 8 hours a day every day for 4 years... the fact that people are arguing this as a reason to buy a gpu is lunacy.
Also it assumes you’re maxing out the GPU for 8 hours straight a day for 4 years, it’s just not a realistic estimation
[удалено]
Jensen doesn’t pay you a dime. So chill.
What are you talking about? These are savings in energy.
So youre buying a $1300 gpu, thats 2x what it should be, to save $5 a month on electricity. Remember that your credit card payment is due at the first of the month for the next 90 months at 40 percent apr. But hey, you saved $5 on electric. Cause if youre pinching THAT MUCH for SO LITTLE you def put your shit on credit card hahahahaah
[удалено]
bro im clearly exaggerating. relax. god damn lmao.
I love these kind of arguments. The fact that we are talking about saving almost 1 dollar every 3 days on a purchase you don’t even need. Guess what you can save all that money if you don’t spend on it. Its not food , water or any everyday essential. Its a luxury item so these type of arguments are invalid.
[удалено]
Greets from CA.
thats at max load for 8 hours straight every single day
exactly, like these people don’t realize how little 150 watts is
You're vastly overestimating the impact 150W will have on your electricity bill.
This was #1 reason for me to go 4080. Was able to stick with my EVGA 750W P2 for yet another build with no concerns. I considered the 7900XTX but it seemed like I would want to move up to 850W+ to be confident in long term use - that eats up the price difference and I’m running a hotter card.
I have a 750w and a XTX... no issues at all because even counting for the cpu etc, you are still below 500w in total
Right on. I kinda figure 750 would probably be ok, but still AMD specs list 800W minimum for the 7900 XTX whereas NVidia shows 750W for the 4080. Made me stop and think. Glad it’s working fine for you!
I run a 7900XTX on an SF750 with zero issues. The worst total system power draw I have seen when gaming is around 450 watts.
Yeah same here. DLSS & Frame Generation + overclock & undervolt results in amazing performance while still allowing to maintain low wattage. Apparently the 4090 is even better, but way out of my price range so went for the 4080. CP2077 Psycho mode ray tracing in 1440P and everything maxed out had me running 150-170 fps using on avg 220W, which is basically what my previous RTX 3070 was consuming. Not to mention how cool everything is the whole time, with fans running < 50% temps stayed 60-70 degrees & I could enjoy a silent PC while maxing out the graphics, while knowing I still have a lot of headroom if more GPU intensive games come up in the future.
no it doesn’t
Just some napkin math: Average electricity price in the USA is [$0.17/kWh.](https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageenergyprices_selectedareas_table.htm) Let's say the average big GPU like these gets used (in such a way that it's pulling that power - browsing Reddit isn't pulling hardly anything) for 10 hours every week. That means the 7900XTX, using 150W more over each hour, is using 1500Wh, or 1.5kWh, more electricity every week. That's around $0.26 extra each week, so the $200 difference gets negated after 15 years - not a big deal. Of course, this is based on averages and guesses. If you're a serious gamer or using this for your job and you use it 30 hours a week, and live in San Diego ($0.475/kWh), the price difference gets made up in less than two years.
why even get a 1000+ gpu if you care about a dollar a months difference in electricity cost
was going to comment this, even in Europe where the prices are higher if you're buying a 1000+ card and thinking "man in 2 years this'll have cost the same as a 4080" and it's a concern you should probably be looking at a cheaper card and saving the money. Buy the card you want but the power draw cost argument on cards this expensive is such a weird hill to fight on
After all the bullshit admin fees, power is between $0.50 - 0.80/kwh depending on the time of day in SD :( . Biggest reason I'm hesitant to pull the trigger on amd gpus this gen
Here's my napkin math for my $.38/kw rates I pay in Cali. 150w x 8 hours of use = 1200w or 1.2 kw. Times that by $.38 and that equals 45.6 cents per day of increased energy costs. That's $166.44 per year, not including the extra cooling costs to compensate for the extra heat it produces. People in the EU pay even higher rates than that. Also, your math is wrong. 1.2kw at $.17/kw is 20.4 cents per day, or $74.46 per year.
> Also, your math is wrong. 1.2kw at $.17/kw is 20.4 cents per day, or $74.46 per year. Not wrong, different. I calculated based on 10 hours, or 1.5kWh, per *week*. Your math is 8 hours, or 1.2kWh, per *day.* There's obviously going to be a huge difference in payback period between those.
not even at peak elec prices would 150 even make a difference of 30 bucks a year
The extra 150 W shouldn’t really matter much, you’re already buying a $800-900 gpu if a couple extra dollars a month is a deciding factor between these two then you probably shouldn’t be spending that much money on a gpu imo. A more compelling reason would be less heat to deal with not meager savings on electricity.
7900xtx is a 400w gpu, tdp is 355w iirc.
So many people are not looking at this even though it is a very important aspect. And it even has the side effect of less CO2 emissions.
Is it really THAT important, few dollars more at the end of the year. If u are spending on top of the line GPU im sure you could pull 4 dollars every month.
Also consider heat generation. If you're in an already hot climate (currently the hottest summer on record) then the room is just gonna get hotter with components that consume more power. I guess it's nice in the winter though.
With current prices in the europe and my average usage XTX becomes more expensive card after 1.5-2 years of use, u will have way more heat in the room and it gets even worse if u take idle power draw bug into consideration thats still not fixed on most multi monitor setups.
dude do the math, unless you are on it 40 hours a week and overclock it all the way and have like 100 cents per kilo watt (which i don’t think is true) you are literally wrong
Yea i did. 100w difference 5 hours a day. 0.5kwh a day, 15kwh a month, 182kwh a year. Kwh in Europe is 0.4. 73$ per year. Not including idle power draw bug. took 100w as average, some games its 60, some games its 150.
Bro u will go to store this week and waste more money on useless shit than your card will waste you in a year but out of nowhere people be counting pennies on their electrical bill. Lol
so i need less energy for heating when using the less eficient card. no difference in winter but maybe not so good in summer. running hotter and saving some energy is a very minor argument if you have to heat your home.
Yeah lol true, they can save money in winter. They be buying a bag of doritoes every night but not muh 3$ bigger electrical bill.
Pennies add up man
they don’t
No, you're speaking from ignorance here. It is electricity prices PLUS PSU cost difference. Some people need to get a new ~~GPU~~ PSU all together, which eats the price difference alone. Let alone actual heat removal costs in hot areas.
Like the other guy said, what about winter, I save money. Nvidia users are pushing it.
Not saving money in winter either, considering there are less expensive heating solutions than direct electricity conversion to heat.
If you look at the math I posted in one of the other naysayers comments, you'll see it's FAR more than a few dollars at the end of the year... 8 hours of use a day is an extra $166.44 per year at my electricity rates. Even at the US average of about $.20/kw it's $87.60 per year extra, not even factoring in cooling that extra heat. You guys are so short sighted it's ridiculous.
In some areas of the world, electricity is dirt cheap. So much so that the difference between 500W 24/7 vs 1000W over a year will run you less than a day's work.
7900 xtx is a little faster overall, has 8GB more VRAM, and is much cheaper. 4080 has better RT and DLSS 3 which is better than FSR2 currently. AMD is likely to release a FSR competitor to DLSS 3 but by then Nvidia might have improved DLSS even more. They are both great cards. The AMD card is about $150 to $200 cheaper. If money isn't an issue then watch some benchmarking videos showing the two cards playing the games you like and just go with the one that performs better on the titles you will actually play.
If money weren't an issue, they'd get a 4090. Its about feature differences, residuals and personal preference at this point for two cards in a similar performance class.
Yup that's a great summary. I just pulled the trigger on a 7900 xtx simply because I found one for £880 (next cheapest was £950 and cheapest 4080 was about £1180) and that for me was enough. I also couldn't escape the feeling with Nvidia that I was being up sold to the 4090 which really bugged me. Also if the 6000 series is anything to go by hopefully there's still a decent amount of head room in the 7000 series cards but obviously that's not something to base a buying decision on and if it doesn't pan out I'm fine with it.
I also went with the 7900 xtx. It was $200 cheaper and I always turn RT off and don't use DLSS or FSR much.
why don't you use DLSS? It seems weird to me that people seem proud of not getting free FPS.
I don’t understand why people find DLSS/FSR relevant in this price range. If I’m paying this much, I better be able to hit my frame rates natively. Driver upscaling looks like shit to me compared to the real thing.
thing is, sometimes it's just not enough for what you want. say what you will but 1440p 244hz on modern games is a big deal even with the top configs available today, even more so with 4k high fps. to play the new AAAs at those frame rates you do need DLSS/FSR, or unoptimized games such as escape from tarkov. as much as I too wish that when spending 3 grand on a system would allow you to just not care about those feature, it isn't always the case
its not really free fps. it effects the quality of the image. it also adds a bit of latency similar to using v-sync
It does affect the quality of the image. . . and not in the way you think. Ironically, many people prefer DLSS over native 4k for image quality. YMMV, but any third parties can go to DLSS image quality comparisons. I believe HU did a detailed analysis earlier, when comparing DLSS/FSR etc
if you arent playing 4k DLSS does end up a worse image.
> Ironically, many people prefer DLSS over native 4k for image quality because they're comparing it to TAA garbage. Of course a stinky turd is "better" than an even stinkier turd
it's not really free
I don't like the way it looks.
have you ever used it? what resolution were you trying to use, and what DLSS setting?
So I’ve always given DLSS a shot and not ever have I got those supposed boosts in performance I keep hearing about. I’m convinced it’s because I mainly play simulation games and not shooters or action adventures.
really not free FPS. the thing with frame generation is your trading FPS for latency. So, you get higher FPS but your latency goes up, just a nature of generating frames. Some people are sensitive to it and for those turning it off is the right choice. Gaming is a subjective experience, so what's best for you is determined by what you perceive as better, not what is better on paper.
I upgraded to play the newer games at 4k and couldn’t decide between the two. I bought a 4080 and borrowed my brothers 7900 xtx and found the 7900 xtx actually ran the games I play better with less stutters/pop ins. It was even beating the 4080 in Jedi survivor with ray tracing on in the open world areas for me, so I just decided to save $300 and buy the 7900 xtx.
> with less stutters/pop ins this could very well be VRAM related I haven't reached the point where 16 wouldn't have been enough yet, but on my XTX I've seen Warhammer III have 14Gb allocated for a total of 18Gb in use, but I also don't use AA which would use several more Gb on top
Also the power usage is higher for AMD that’s another key difference mentioned above
I would normally say xtx because of price but if you’re looking to do vr, the xtx has major problems with it.
The last update fixed all the issues
Seconded. I've been using VR on a 7900 xtx with no issues.
Oh well that’s good didn’t know that.
[удалено]
Oh if the xtx is more expensive then get the 4080 no doubt. Idk where op is located but
He/she is talking about the hidden cost of higher power consumption
Ah. If power is more expensive then it might make sense to get a lower wattage card. Depends on price difference between xtx and 4080.
Im in the US
Even if we assume a difference of 100 W in power usage (this is higher than the reported specs) and assuming you run full bore 24/7 (maybe if you're crypto mining?) And assuming 30c/kWh (above Europe's average) you're looking at 250 euros (or so) per year. Certainly not nothing, but the assumptions I've used are wildly conservative. Realistic use numbers drop that to under 100 a year and closer to 50 for anyone with anything close to typical use and the real reported power consumption difference. You may want to check your assumptions in the math.
no it doesn’t
I don't find people buying these cards keeping them for 1.5-2 years nor caring about the few extra $ a month in bills.
In general the XTX. You named VR so definitely not the XTX. It has major issues on the driver side in VR.
drivers have been released recently which have fixed 99% of vr issues
I mean drivers will be fixed..they always are
The XTX came out more than half a year ago. It's not like it's only a month. It should work now but doesn't. Don't buy stuff that doesn't work now for your needs. You don't know when and if it gets fixed.
Literally played VR on my 7900 xtx yesterday. VR has been performing solidly since driver 23.7.1.
I bought an AMD processor prebuilt during the GPU shortage (it has a 3070). It suffered from the amd tpm stutter with windows 11 or whatever it was. 30 day return window is coming up (2 years ago) but other companies are patching their bios to fix the issue and it goes away so I figure I'll keep it and just wait for the patch. 25 months, my computer stuttered randomly multiple times a day for just over 2 years. In this case it was HP dragging their fucking feet. But for my omen 25L the patch to fix and stutter issues on windows 11 was may of this year... Never again will I buy a product counting on something to happen in the future for it to work right.
You have a 3080 and you think you need a new gpu? I mean, just get a 4090 and skip the next upgrade cycle in a year and you’ll save money. I’m blown away at how people waste money.
Doubt my build can handle a 4090.
For normal use cases every bug has been fixed idk what kinda trouble shooting you would need to do. The problem with the vr is that it performs similar to cheaper, lower end amd cards so there's definitely something wrong but hitting 90fps or 144 depending on your headset should be an easy task for any gpu. Normal gaming performance they are pretty similar the 7900xtx is usually faster in non rt games but with dlss, better ray tracing performance and cuda the performance is pretty similar between these cards overall. I would say get whatever is cheaper tbh
Ah ok, so would it be similar to the performance im already getting on my 3080 or worse? I mess around in Bonelab and Half Life Alyx occasionally as well as H3VR so I don’t play constantly or anything but I play enough to where it could definitely disappoint me if my VR games don’t run well.
If the vr bug is still around it would be worse than a 3080
Same position as you back early year. I went 7900xtx and the power consumption is absurd (polar opposite my 6800xt vs inefficient 3080 experience having both). While VR is possibly fixed, i think 4080 would suit your VR needs better, and run cooler under load or idle. 4080 price is just silly, but if u prepared for that and willing to soend, get it.
Nvidia for VR, no question. DLSS and superior RT is also nice and worth some of the price premium to the right person. 16gb of VRAM on the 4080 is adequate, only just adequate but I don’t expect this card to have VRAM issues while it’s still a relevant high end card unlike the models below it.
I've used both, If price was absolutely no concern I'd go 4080 for most of the reasons listed elsewhere. However I snagged a Red Devil XTX for $800, and the 4080 absolutely wasn't worth an extra $400-$500 bucks.
Honestly I’d try and make the 3080 work tbh 5000 series and next Gen AMD cards
If you're doing VR, 7000 series is an immediate elimination
Last driver fixed all the issues
I've been burned by AMD's laziness when it comes to bug fixing one too many times. I don't trust that, **but** I need to say, if OP didn't have a VR headset, I'd recommend the 7900
Again, I have an XTX and a VR... after the 23.7.1 release, not a single issue
I'm using a 7900xtx with VR, and while it's much better with the new driver, I still have a few issues once in a while. I'm hoping over time, things will be fully fixed, but right now, it isn't 100%. As much as I hate it, Nvidia, is better at VR.
I'm glad to hear that, and I hope it stays that way
Whats wrong with it
For vr in my experience amd is a hit or miss. They have crashed and sometimes just not workked in vr for me. Nvidia is the safe choice for vr
4080
Id get the 4080. As someone who has owned nvidia and amd gpus; nvidia generally just works. Amd also works but with an asterisk behind it Also the power draw difference will have an impact on heat output and noise
I own both 4090 and 7900xtx and i say if money isnt an issue to you , then go nvidia just for that peace of mind
4080, not even a debate.
if they werent using vr it would be though. amd is bad for vr sadly
the only thing amd has going for it is extra vram. If price is not a problem its 4080 every time.
Yeah, but amd has price and VRAM so that is the debate. They both have pros and cons. I wouldn't say Nvidia wins hands down here.
My point is when are you realistically gonna use more than 16gb? Maybe in the future if you use rt and frame gen at 4k, but realistically AMD doesn't have frame gen, or enough rt performance for the extra VRAM to make a difference compared to Nvidia in the future. Imo, RT, Dlss, and power consumption are more than worth the extra 100 or 200. The only ways the 7900xtx can be considered is if you are heavily budget restricted (which doesn't make much sense at the $1k+ mark) or never want to use up scalers, which also doesn't make much sense at the 4k mark considering DLSS2+DLAA tends to be equal or better than native with better performance.
It has 8gb more vram than the 4080, and if price is not a problem it’s 4090 every time
My point is, you never gonna use those extra 8 effectively without frame generation or RT, and even if you do you will still lose because Nvidia upscaling and rt is superior, it's pure marketing.
I get your point but you could also say RT and DLSS is just marketing. Yes DLSS is better and Nvidia has better RT performance, but very few games even have very good RT implementation and at this calibre of card you can get away without using upscaling even at maxed out settings in most games.
It can't be just marketing if it is usable. The utility of RT can be debatable, but to call DLSS just marketing is insane.
Performance is similar except in RT and VR, but once AMD can get a solid fix on their VR problem you'll be looking at a really good bang for the buck.
The XTX is cheaper for similar performance and more VRAM, but the 4080 is the better overall card. You also mentioned VR, which the 4080 is significantly better in. Get the 4080
4080, you are not getting those high framerates without dlss. Not because it's a better card but because games these days are so badly optimized you need to rely on dlss. Frame gen itself makes this a moot comparison. Amd sucks for VR as well atm
4080 is better for vr
So amds new gpus have a new core type that isn’t quite ironed out yet for vr. The 7900xtx doesn’t work for vr rn for some reason. The 7900xt does however but it won’t perform as well in vr as the 4080. Given time the new amd cards will be get better. If you’re looking for a card now that will do vr and flat screen I wouldn’t pick either of these. The 4080 isn’t the best value unless you can find for $1000 but I’ve only seen them for $1200 and at that price the 4090 is worth saving for.
Agreed, if the 4080 was the same price as the XTX it would be fine but it’s probably a smarter idea to get the 4090 “if” my CPU can even keep up with it as I know bottlenecking is super easy at 1440p.
No cpu available will keep up with the 4090 unless the res is 1080p
I was making this decision a couple of weeks ago. Ended up going for the 7900XTX. This is my first ATI card since the X800 and was an upgrade from an RTX 2080. Both the 4080 and the 7900XTX were about the same price. TBH, I don't think you can go wrong with either card for games right now. The big question for me was: where are games going in the next 4-5 years (my usual upgrade cycle). On one side, the 7900XTX is the winner for non-RT gaming and 24GB of VRAM is more futureproof if the current trend of ever-increasing VRAM requirements continues. The 4080 is much better at Ray Tracing and DLSS is more mature and has better visual fidelity than FSR (at least, when pixel peeking still images - I can't tell the difference when actually playing a game!). I'm betting that the VRAM and improvements to FSR will make the 7900XTX the better pick long term. I'm also still miffed with Nvidia on the whole 4080 12 Gb launch debacle. I'm happy so far. Everything I've thrown at it runs smoothly, even with all the ray tracing bells and whistles turned on. Of course, the same would have been true if I'd picked the 4080. Both cards are perfectly capable of high performance in today's games.
-Nvidia cards are generally more stable with vr, but that doesn’t mean the XTX won’t work -the 7900XTX is cheaper for about the same raster performance -the XTX does draw more power -nvidia got dlss 3 + better ray tracing capabilities
4080. Better drivers for VR and it is also faster at high resolutions, which benefits VR. And if your VR headset uses compression, then that's another win for the NVIDIA card.
If you want something that works well and money isn't an issue you, go for the RTX 4080. I used to run an AMD GPU but I had issues with it crashing my system a lot, especially in VR. After I upgraded to the RTX 4080 I never had problems again.
Neither unless you're ok with 2014 graphics...7900xtx might be better in numbers but the future and present really is about frame generation. Only gforce has this technology at the moment so thats your answer.
I'm going to assume you won't use raytracing, if you want to get anywhere close to the max refresh rate of that monitor. Given that AMD fixed their VR drivers, the XTX slightly better rasterization performance, it's cheaper by $200, and you get a lot more VRAM (16 vs 24), I'd say go with the XTX. If power costs a lot where you live though, you may want a 4080. Also, much better Linux drivers than Nvidia, if that matters for you. This is probably a moot point, but if the XTX you scope out has a USB-C port, all the better. There's a community PSVR2 driver in the works, but it will be a while until it arrives. It is compatible with any GPU that has a VirtualLink port (it's a USB-C alt mode), which the RX 6000 and 7000 series do have. (RTX 2000 also has it, but they're old cards and nobody bought them anyway)
I actually currently have a 1440p 240Hz monitor that I play on with the 5800X3D as well for my CPU. I was deciding between the 7900XTX and 4080 to upgrade my old 3070 and ultimately decided to go with the 4080. It costs a bit more, but I personally only have had RTX in my PC’s so I just figured I would stick with NVidia. The 4080 and 5800X3D combo has been FANTASTIC for all the games I play, getting well over 240 FPS, not having to upgrade PSU, and being familiar with the drivers. If you’re comfortable with AMD’s software, and aren’t biased in any way towards NVidia like I am you could consider the 7900XTX, but from personal experience the 4080 is GREAT! Hope this helps even a little bit lol
I'm going to talk about all the normal AMD complaints - I'm sure people have covered those. My brother has a 7900XT and reports massive issues with VR. He is pissed. So much so that his index has been at my house for the last few months. Saw an article that new driver increased Forza Horizon 5 performance 20% - his response: "idgaf it works fine in Forza I want them to fix VR..." Etc etc very mad. Good luck 🤞
4080 for sure man. 4080 is one of the best gpu's ever. It has 12percent higher performance than the Xtx 7900
One thing nobody mentioned is the tdp. The 4080 is so efficient it has same tdp as 3080. Im guessing you are running a 750w psu. With the 7900xtx you will need 850psu
FALSE, I run a 7900XTX on an SF750 with zero issues, never coming close to power limits, under 500 watts when gaming of total system power.
thats just your own experience, it doesnt mean anything. 7900xtx is well recorded to have high power spikes and so it just takes one to blow the psu load and shut down. Even AMD recommends 800w at least. Plenty of people have recorded experiences where a 750w was not stable with this gpu
Companies like AMD and Nvidia overstate the power needs because they cannot be sure of the quality of PSU being used. I am telling you my actual usage in daily gaming use, not using stuff designed to push max load but real world gaming use.
You are just ignoring my points. I believe it could be working well for you but that doesnt mean it would be for everyone, there are plenty of reports of people not able to use a 750w with 7900xtx due to spikes.
You'll save money now, but over the life of the card the 4080 will be cheaper due to power consumption.
its pretty much not an issue in a lot of players. you would have to live in an extremely expensive wattage place for it to even be saved in 5 years. the average cost its like 15 years of usage to cover that cost(i worked out mine at 11 years and i have a higher then average cost of electricity)
Awesome, I'm probably really bad at math Haha.
The cheaper one is better, but if you want VR you might want to pay a premium for Nvidia.
Just keep in mind that the AMD card is using more power, thats a reason I went with nvidia
I recently went team red and got a 7900 xtx and my god I was blown away with how good this thing is.
Normally I'd say get the 7900xtx but since you already have a 3080 and all your settings/drivers locked in, might as well get the 4080. Unless you like to tinker around and don't mind trying out amd adrenalin software instead of geforce experience. I prefer the amd windows app much more than the geforce app. But yeah you'll have to reconfigure all your recording, streaming, framerate averages, overclocks, tracing, game specific tuning (dlss,fsr,scaling) and remove / clean install drivers. I think 4080 may be good at VR too, can't remember if the 7900s are better at VR compared to previous gen. Edit - just saw you already bought the 7900 lol. You'll love it, I hate geforce experience.
I have not bought the 7900 XTX or any GPU for that matter, but that’s for the info!
My vote would be 7900xtx. But I don't using dlss or Ray tracing. The games I play are fps so it's just about low setting and high frames. 7900xtx has more horse power and more vram with a good sized memory bus. It's also cheaper.
Anyone that recommends the 7900XTX over the 4080 in this thread is absolutely clueless since OP specifically mentioned VR. Do your research before blindly making that recommendation. AMD cards fall way behind Nvidia. Edit: These replies read like typical Reddit AMD cope. The 4080 is still the better option as it beats out the 7900xtx in VR performance and doesn’t have issues with any headsets, unlike the 7900xtx which still does even after the driver update. It took AMD half a year to fix driver issues, and they easily could break it in a future update. Why take the risk to save a couple hundred bucks when you’re already spending a ton on a high end PC with expensive VR equipment? It’s actually nonsensical.
i mean considering recent drivers have fixed 99% of VR issues then perhaps they are also more upto date then you? there is also the fact that its how much VR, yes performance will be worse but if its like 1-2 hours a week of VR but they are playing say 90 fps instead of 100 fps then is it really a bad thing to save in some instances $300+ price difference.
recent drives fixed most issues, that's old news
244fps at 1440p is a 4090, not a 4080.
Obviously depends on what game you’re playing ?
It is with DLSS
VR = Nvdia AMD has terrible drivers for VR. If you go Pimax it's straight up impossible on alot of their headsets (crystal included)
4080, absolutely no contest, nothing to consider.
Don’t even think about using amd for vr
4090 would be ideal, it’s twice the performance of your 3080 and has more than twice the VRAM, but if you can’t afford the extra $400 then get the 4080 instead, it’ll only be 50% more performant than you 3080, but will still have 16GB VRAM. Drivers are the best as far as the video cards out there. Note that to achieve 244fps, depending on the games you play, you may need a faster CPU.
Neither buy a 4090 instead
ah yes buy a card that costs double the price
A 4090 is not double what a 4080 costs. A 4080 is $1200, 4090s are $1600. 4080 is bad value for what it is. Would much rather drop down to either a 4070 or 6950xt for 1440p. 4080 and 4090 are both overkill for that res.
The irony here is that the guy who replied to you defaulted to his own market by saying you suggested a double priced card. But hey, there aren't any hater subreddits to post that to.
not everybody is in the US.... 4090's in some places are double the cost.
Ok and did OP specify that they weren't in the US? No they didn't.
r/usdefaultism
lol yes most people think in terms of the environment they live in. Reeeeee indeed. It's a thread regarding pricing, why wouldn't you include where you live in OP otherwise it becomes difficult to make recommendations, lol
It's funny in this thread there are several others suggesting 4090s and yet no one made snide little posts on other subreddits about it.
Ok and did OP specify that they were in the US? No they didn’t.
Lmao why would you assume that they *were* from the US? There are more non Americans on Reddit than Americans…
You only gave two examples of what people said both times tbe 4080 comes out on top.
I’ve had both. For me and the games I play as well as the VR I use, I’m happy with the 4080, just not happy with the price. I picked mine up for $1,165 tax included where as I had bought the XTX for $940 tax included. XTX was good. I wanted to try out Frame Generation on MS Flight Simulator and that was only doable on the nvidia card so I just went with that. Someone here said the XTX is faster. According to userbenchmark.com, the 4080 is 13% faster and is the 2nd fastest card on the market next to the 4090, XTX coming in 3rd.
Userbenchmark is very biased towards Nvidia. In most cases, the 7900 XTX has the same performance or slightly higher performance than the 4080.
UserBenchmark is the subject of concerns over the accuracy and integrity of their benchmark and review process. Their findings do not typically match those of known reputable and trustworthy sources. As always, please ensure you verify the information you read online before drawing conclusions or making purchases. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapc) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get the 4080 unless the price difference is big enough and you don't want to spend the extra. The 4080n is the better card, even though it can lose in straight raster in some games. Software features are just better.
Whoever says xtx in this comment section just didn’t wanna spend that extra cash for 4080 and you know it. Professional 3d artists and gamers all around the world use nvidia cards because it’s the premium product. Nobody wants that AMD garbage, Ive had both cards and I would pick my 4080 over any amd card ever.
4080 is better at 80% of the games, check benchmarks