This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Wow some Nvidia fanbois in here. I preface this with actually owning a PNY 3090 Revel in my computer and a 3080 FE in my wifes. I only have those because it was what I got my hands on although I did have a 6800 for a bit before selling because I wanted an XT version.
For those still asking about performance comparisons on Nvidia vs AMD for this generation of cards is basically comes down to this.
Most games in Rasterization 3D, the AMD has a performance per dollar advantage over Nvidia in the majority of games out there both new and old. However, if you really want all the tracing of those rays while using super sampling to keep some performance than Nvidia with DLSS is better. The caveat is still that DLSS execution is spotty in various games. Some are still on 1.X versions and some are on 2.X versions which is vastly better.
For those wondering, ray tracing is basically dynamic lighting sources and shadows. Instead of prerendering the light sources and textures to look like they have shadows on everything, ray tracing does them all in real time correctly. That is a huge performance hog though for both AMD and Nvidia cards. If you are not using a super sampling scaling method, then both cards are bad at this. Meaning running Ray Tracing even at 1080p resolutions on new games is going to causing chugging frame rates for even the best cards. To get around that, the cards render the scene at a lower resolution like 720p, and then super size it back up at the last second, aka blowing the image up like a pinch and zoom. Unlike what Binger was trying to say, the original image when blowing up has changes made to it every time. Nvidia DLSS looks the "best" most of the time and is "faster" at this process causing less performance from the blow up process as well on top of the ray tracing as well as the original scene render. AMD uses FSR which is "slower" than Nvidia DLSS. Technically DLSS is FSR but the AI involved after to make it DLSS is the magic for Nvida.
So if you are looking for basically the best rasterization performance for the money in just about any game, nothing beats the 6900XT. The 3090 and 3090 TI are still better performance, but then again $500 and $1000 MSRP mark ups respectively for the small rasterization performance gains on those is really not going to make a difference for any gamer playing at 1440p or lower resolutions. Even at 4K gaming, the difference is small and certainly not worth it. The 6900XT is faster than the regular 3080 but about on par with the 3080 TI, which is still a bit more expensive.
Even still, I think the 6900XT is overkill for anyone at 1080p gaming even for modern AAA titles. I wouldn't buy anything faster than a 3070 for 1080p gaming. Even for 1440p gaming it is still a bit much but at least a little more deserving of the price for that resolution.
Yeah, lots of Nvidia fanboyism on this site. This card even trades blows with the 3090 in some games.. oh well, let the uninformed keep wasting money on team green. Hopefully this card will come down further and I can replace my 3070ti with..
Will this run Windows XP Minesweeper in compatibility mode?
On a serious note, I've been out of the game for so long. What do you need a thousand dollar graphics card for these days?
You don't.
You know how it used to be that unplayable meant that the gpu actually couldn't boot the game or constantly crashed? or that a slideshow actually meant a slideshow?
Now unplayable and slideshow means anything less then a smooth and constant 60 fps with very low minimum frame times at ultra.
And the same at 120 fps is playable 'shrugs'.
A 10 year old Radeon 7850 or gtx fermi 460 still plays everything as good or better then an Xbox 1 if they still work.
It's all kind of a joke my friend. The consoles have been holding things back for a very very very long time.
Wow some Nvidia fanbois in here. I preface this with actually owning a PNY 3090 Revel in my computer and a 3080 FE in my wifes. I only have those because it was what I got my hands on although I did have a 6800 for a bit before selling because I wanted an XT version.
For those still asking about performance comparisons on Nvidia vs AMD for this generation of cards is basically comes down to this.
Most games in Rasterization 3D, the AMD has a performance per dollar advantage over Nvidia in the majority of games out there both new and old. However, if you really want all the tracing of those rays while using super sampling to keep some performance than Nvidia with DLSS is better. The caveat is still that DLSS execution is spotty in various games. Some are still on 1.X versions and some are on 2.X versions which is vastly better.
For those wondering, ray tracing is basically dynamic lighting sources and shadows. Instead of prerendering the light sources and textures to look like they have shadows on everything, ray tracing does them all in real time correctly. That is a huge performance hog though for both AMD and Nvidia cards. If you are not using a super sampling scaling method, then both cards are bad at this. Meaning running Ray Tracing even at 1080p resolutions on new games is going to causing chugging frame rates for even the best cards. To get around that, the cards render the scene at a lower resolution like 720p, and then super size it back up at the last second, aka blowing the image up like a pinch and zoom. Unlike what Binger was trying to say, the original image when blowing up has changes made to it every time. Nvidia DLSS looks the "best" most of the time and is "faster" at this process causing less performance from the blow up process as well on top of the ray tracing as well as the original scene render. AMD uses FSR which is "slower" than Nvidia DLSS. Technically DLSS is FSR but the AI involved after to make it DLSS is the magic for Nvida.
So if you are looking for basically the best rasterization performance for the money in just about any game, nothing beats the 6900XT. The 3090 and 3090 TI are still better performance, but then again $500 and $1000 MSRP mark ups respectively for the small rasterization performance gains on those is really not going to make a difference for any gamer playing at 1440p or lower resolutions. Even at 4K gaming, the difference is small and certainly not worth it. The 6900XT is faster than the regular 3080 but about on par with the 3080 TI, which is still a bit more expensive.
Even still, I think the 6900XT is overkill for anyone at 1080p gaming even for modern AAA titles. I wouldn't buy anything faster than a 3070 for 1080p gaming. Even for 1440p gaming it is still a bit much but at least a little more deserving of the price for that resolution.
"if you want ray tracing and DLSS nvidia is better"
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
"if you want ray tracing and DLSS nvidia is better"
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
Not really. DLSS helps, but to me still looks like poo compared to native resolution. Not every game implementing DLSS does it good and in some the implementation looks worse than even FSR. Ray Tracing looks good, but the standard way games have faked dynamic lighting + shadows over the year by loading in the textures as the PoV changes makes it real hard to tell if RT is better looking in some games than without. Again, depends on how much attention to detail the artists and devs paid to that stuff. If you really like ray tracing and are determined to have it, then basically a 3080 TI or better is the only thing to handle it if doing 1440p gaming and setting the DLSS to best looking. Performance DLSS modes look like massive steaming dog poo to me since the resolution has to be dropped down so much and the super sampling scaling back up from such a small resolution loses so much details that it isn't worth bothering. Performance DLSS makes the game look worse than without RT and running in native resolutions every time and you don't take any performance hits running native resolution with ray tracing off. So if you are playing a game with better 2.X implementation of DLSS (only a handful of games have it), running 1440p native resolution or higher, running the highest quality version of DLSS, and wanting to run at 60 fps min is going to require the most expensive Nvidia cards to even get that. Sorry my man, but it isn't worth it and it isn't the most important feature for gaming in the current generation at all.
For those looking for more info, here is some Gamers Nexus videos going over in detail DLSS, FSR, and how it all works in game. As well as tons of benchmarks.
There are plenty more on this subject. The basic conclusion of most gamers that aren't fanbois is that DLSS is still a gimmick and isn't that important yet for games. DLSS and FSR eventually won't be needed at some point when video cards can handle ray tracing at high resolutions and still maintain 60 FPS at high native resolutions. DLSS is just a crutch for now.
The only reason I have a 3090 card was because someone who got one for a review sample early sold it to me for less than MSRP after he was done testing it. I think I am one of the few who can make the claim they bought a current gen card on release day for less than MSRP. Wouldn't have bought a 3090 for myself otherwise. I was aiming for 3080, 6800XT, or maybe at max a 6900XT when the new gens were coming and I knew the performance of the cards in rasterization. I wasn't that interested in ray tracing, still aren't, and preferred a good 1440p gaming card.
Loser benchmark is notoriously anti AMD. When AMD kept beating Intel they kept inventing new reasons why Intel was 'better'. They were twisting themselves in circles during Intels disastrous 11th gen Core series
I would just lookup youtube videos showing off both. For regular rastering, AMD takes a small lead. As for ray tracing, the new Nvidia models dominate AMD. AMD barely outperforms the Nvidia 2000 series
With the new RSR AMD put out, it performs much better than it was when ray tracing is on. I am debating to keep either my 3080 or 6900XT. Both are the same price
"if you want ray tracing and DLSS nvidia is better"
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
It's just funny that folks with say they'd rather something like a 3060 (non-ti) for $430 because of ray-tracing and DLSS when a Rx 6600 XT will be the same price and is faster. Sure 3060 will use DLSS just like the RX does FSR, but the 3060 will be atrocious at ray tracing. So the fanboys will pay more for less performance to use a feature that the card can barely handle.
Also, I know the marketing will get you like others, but Radeon cards do ray tracing, too.
Loser benchmark is notoriously anti AMD. When AMD kept beating Intel they kept inventing new reasons why Intel was 'better'. They were twisting themselves in circles during Intels disastrous 11th gen Core series
I would just lookup youtube videos showing off both. For regular rastering, AMD takes a small lead. As for ray tracing, the new Nvidia models dominate AMD. AMD barely outperforms the Nvidia 2000 series
in a blind test most people couldn't tell with ray tracing on/off. some even preferred rasterized vs ray tracing.
3
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Watch it, buddy..... I'm 72...my first car was 11 years old, and cost $250. Don't remember what my 2nd car cost, a 64 Plymouth Fury convert w/383, but knowing how little $ I made or had to my name back then, I doubt I paid more than $700--- in 1971.....
53 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
For those still asking about performance comparisons on Nvidia vs AMD for this generation of cards is basically comes down to this.
Most games in Rasterization 3D, the AMD has a performance per dollar advantage over Nvidia in the majority of games out there both new and old. However, if you really want all the tracing of those rays while using super sampling to keep some performance than Nvidia with DLSS is better. The caveat is still that DLSS execution is spotty in various games. Some are still on 1.X versions and some are on 2.X versions which is vastly better.
For those wondering, ray tracing is basically dynamic lighting sources and shadows. Instead of prerendering the light sources and textures to look like they have shadows on everything, ray tracing does them all in real time correctly. That is a huge performance hog though for both AMD and Nvidia cards. If you are not using a super sampling scaling method, then both cards are bad at this. Meaning running Ray Tracing even at 1080p resolutions on new games is going to causing chugging frame rates for even the best cards. To get around that, the cards render the scene at a lower resolution like 720p, and then super size it back up at the last second, aka blowing the image up like a pinch and zoom. Unlike what Binger was trying to say, the original image when blowing up has changes made to it every time. Nvidia DLSS looks the "best" most of the time and is "faster" at this process causing less performance from the blow up process as well on top of the ray tracing as well as the original scene render. AMD uses FSR which is "slower" than Nvidia DLSS. Technically DLSS is FSR but the AI involved after to make it DLSS is the magic for Nvida.
So if you are looking for basically the best rasterization performance for the money in just about any game, nothing beats the 6900XT. The 3090 and 3090 TI are still better performance, but then again $500 and $1000 MSRP mark ups respectively for the small rasterization performance gains on those is really not going to make a difference for any gamer playing at 1440p or lower resolutions. Even at 4K gaming, the difference is small and certainly not worth it. The 6900XT is faster than the regular 3080 but about on par with the 3080 TI, which is still a bit more expensive.
Even still, I think the 6900XT is overkill for anyone at 1080p gaming even for modern AAA titles. I wouldn't buy anything faster than a 3070 for 1080p gaming. Even for 1440p gaming it is still a bit much but at least a little more deserving of the price for that resolution.
On a serious note, I've been out of the game for so long. What do you need a thousand dollar graphics card for these days?
You know how it used to be that unplayable meant that the gpu actually couldn't boot the game or constantly crashed? or that a slideshow actually meant a slideshow?
Now unplayable and slideshow means anything less then a smooth and constant 60 fps with very low minimum frame times at ultra.
And the same at 120 fps is playable 'shrugs'.
A 10 year old Radeon 7850 or gtx fermi 460 still plays everything as good or better then an Xbox 1 if they still work.
It's all kind of a joke my friend. The consoles have been holding things back for a very very very long time.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
For those still asking about performance comparisons on Nvidia vs AMD for this generation of cards is basically comes down to this.
Most games in Rasterization 3D, the AMD has a performance per dollar advantage over Nvidia in the majority of games out there both new and old. However, if you really want all the tracing of those rays while using super sampling to keep some performance than Nvidia with DLSS is better. The caveat is still that DLSS execution is spotty in various games. Some are still on 1.X versions and some are on 2.X versions which is vastly better.
For those wondering, ray tracing is basically dynamic lighting sources and shadows. Instead of prerendering the light sources and textures to look like they have shadows on everything, ray tracing does them all in real time correctly. That is a huge performance hog though for both AMD and Nvidia cards. If you are not using a super sampling scaling method, then both cards are bad at this. Meaning running Ray Tracing even at 1080p resolutions on new games is going to causing chugging frame rates for even the best cards. To get around that, the cards render the scene at a lower resolution like 720p, and then super size it back up at the last second, aka blowing the image up like a pinch and zoom. Unlike what Binger was trying to say, the original image when blowing up has changes made to it every time. Nvidia DLSS looks the "best" most of the time and is "faster" at this process causing less performance from the blow up process as well on top of the ray tracing as well as the original scene render. AMD uses FSR which is "slower" than Nvidia DLSS. Technically DLSS is FSR but the AI involved after to make it DLSS is the magic for Nvida.
So if you are looking for basically the best rasterization performance for the money in just about any game, nothing beats the 6900XT. The 3090 and 3090 TI are still better performance, but then again $500 and $1000 MSRP mark ups respectively for the small rasterization performance gains on those is really not going to make a difference for any gamer playing at 1440p or lower resolutions. Even at 4K gaming, the difference is small and certainly not worth it. The 6900XT is faster than the regular 3080 but about on par with the 3080 TI, which is still a bit more expensive.
Even still, I think the 6900XT is overkill for anyone at 1080p gaming even for modern AAA titles. I wouldn't buy anything faster than a 3070 for 1080p gaming. Even for 1440p gaming it is still a bit much but at least a little more deserving of the price for that resolution.
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
For those looking for more info, here is some Gamers Nexus videos going over in detail DLSS, FSR, and how it all works in game. As well as tons of benchmarks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgFGI8J
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUVhfD3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCzjQ4q
There are plenty more on this subject. The basic conclusion of most gamers that aren't fanbois is that DLSS is still a gimmick and isn't that important yet for games. DLSS and FSR eventually won't be needed at some point when video cards can handle ray tracing at high resolutions and still maintain 60 FPS at high native resolutions. DLSS is just a crutch for now.
I would just lookup youtube videos showing off both. For regular rastering, AMD takes a small lead. As for ray tracing, the new Nvidia models dominate AMD. AMD barely outperforms the Nvidia 2000 series
okay so like if you want the 2 most important features of this gen go with nvidia? gotcha
Also, I know the marketing will get you like others, but Radeon cards do ray tracing, too.
I would just lookup youtube videos showing off both. For regular rastering, AMD takes a small lead. As for ray tracing, the new Nvidia models dominate AMD. AMD barely outperforms the Nvidia 2000 series
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.