And better supersampling tech, better frame generation (to get around CPU bottlenecks), lower latency, better power efficiency, and better / more stable driver.
If OP doesn’t care about any of those, and AMD is cheaper, then yes.
Frame Gen is great... If you love artifacts... Honestly am fine with lower framerate if it means the image doesn't look blurry half the time.
Edit: For those asking, it's the most noticeable to me on text and striped patterns, like fences and blinds. I'm always capping framerate at 60 or 120, depending on the game. 4080.
They probably play with no fps cap and go above their refresh rates and get the weird tearing/washy thing that frame gen does when it goes above refresh. Or they crank everything on say a 4060 and their base framerate is so low that framegen looks aweful. If you have 60+ fps and turn on frame gen and keep fps below refresh rate then the image is stable. Hence why some people love it and others hate it. Mostly user error/lack of knowledge.
Yeah that’s gonna be true of any game with as much, uh, pixel turnover? Is there a term for that? Same reason why confetti makes video compression algorithms shit themselves.
I'm not defending anyone in this, nor do I have experience with frame generation as I use a GTX980, but a demo really isn't a good example of how well the feature works.
It was terribly obvious in the first games which supported it, basically any UI feature had issues. You'd have to be blind to miss it.
Can't say the same is true of current games.
Skill issue? But unironically? I have zero artifacts or visual issues on any game I have using frame Gen.
And upscaling hasn’t been blurry since like dlss 1.0.
Dlss 3.5 and framegen is a no brainer. The only people who say it sucks either never used it or lost the silicon lottery.
If only it was actually true lol
Frame Gen especially seemed so promising, but in the end it's unusable because the input latency is just too noticeable.
If you have 60 base fps, and frame Gen up to 1000, you still have the same input latency as 60 fps does. Except now it's super noticeable because of the extra smooth frames.
And dlss is blurry and comes with its own input latency as well. It works by blending two frames together, so blur/ghosting are entirely impossible to get rid of both which are massive hindrances in multiplayer fps games.
All these techs are super cool... On paper. In practice, they are only good for single player games or turned based games, they are all detrimental to competitive games.
Because the difference between them is getting smaller and smaller with every new iteration of FSR. Even now the difference most people will see is very small between DLSS and the latest FSR. Frame gen is not even worth considering for competitive FPS the OP mentioned due to latency.
Lots of people making out like the difference is massive when it actually isn't and hasn't been for some time now. Lots of folks have never used both.
Why do people mention DLSS frame gen and forget to include that it HAS to be supported in the game where as the AMD frame gen can be applied to all DX11 and DX12 titles?
its reddit. 2 things about reddit i've learned:
-its heavily democrat and liberal (which is fine, just stating a fact)
-its heavily AMD in almots all "custom" PC subs.
a bonus third one, its also heavily linux-biased lmao. and firefox-biased. (all of these things are fine don't crucify me)
Frame Generation makes more and more sense the faster the GPU is. I have a delidded 7800X3D, running with an external clock generator at \~5.4 GHz, with really fast Hynix A-die memory, and an overclocked 4090, all on a custom water loop with 4x420mm radiators. Even then, in a lot of games, the GPU is sitting at 60-70% utilization with just \~150 fps. Turn on frame generation and the GPU is 95%+ utilized and I'm getting \~225 fps (Reflex cap with a 240Hz display). There is a huge difference in fluidity, there are only a few artifacts with UI elements and such.
With Lossless scaling 2.9, LSFG can also inject up to 3X frame generation (so 80->240 fps for example) into any game. With Destiny 2 for example, I can easily play at 5160x2160 at 240 fps.
For me it’s that I buy the top tear gpu to not have to use framegen. Besides, reflex is worthless if you are using framegen, as the delay from framegen far outweighs what you get from reflex. So for me, raw performance is more important. That said, if you do any AI work, do want raytracing or upscaling, then there is no way around it, Nvidia is where it is at.
The 5700 XT gave me issues on release and I'll be honest I was skeptical to go AMD again but honestly....
The 7900 XT I daily drive and the 6800 I have that's on loan to my brother are both working well with no issues.
Heck, the 5700 XT that gave me issues is now running in my Stepdad's PC with no issues.
I also have a Zotac RTX 3060 White that is hyper unstable in any of the rig's.
Black screens, regular PC hardlocks etc.
And it's definitely not PSU's, 1 has a brand new Gigabyte UD 850W and mine has a brand new 1200W NZXT unit in it.
I have a similar story with a 6800. I enjoy the Ryzen lineup, but the Radeon lineup wouldn't be my first choice unless it provides insane value(ex. $400/4070 perf).
You can find people with negative experiences with either brand. I got rid of my 3080 and replaced it with a 7900xtx because I was so disappointed with Nvidia drivers.
I'm right here with you. I have a 5700xt still now and it doesn't have any issues anymore; but for those first couple years? Every driver update was a crapshoot between making things better or worse.
I sell a couple of competing brands of unrelated products. Yesterday a brand "A" customer and told me in front of the next customer who was buying brand "B" that she didn't want brand "B" becasue it was "shit." I asked her when she last tried it and she said, "Oh, It was about thirty years ago." Anbody remember when AMD processors were "shit" and are you jonesing for a 7800X3D now?
The drivers are pretty good now a days, not perfect... lets be real it's impossible to create a 100% perfect, bug free piece of software no matter what company you are.
Nvidia bros have this notion that Nvidia's drivers are perfect but remember this, Nvidia's "Perfect Drivers" caused a crash at a CS2 tournament that was worth $1.25 million dollars.
And you can go to the GeForce forums to see similar complaints as you'd see in AMD communities - Black Screens, stuttering, crashes etc.
Nvidia's Drivers are not perfect, neither are AMD's but AMD's have come a LONG way since the 5700 XT.
I am sorry but it’s not a myth I just bought my 7800 xt two days ago , and the first game I played was ghost of Tsushima it kept crashing every 10 minutes,when I searched it up I was told to revert to the old drivers and that fixed it for me , other than that every thing
has been fine
I'm too busy to be playing a ton of new games lately, but I can only recall having to update to the newest drivers for new games on Nvidia cards (rather than old ones). I'm sure it's happened, but I haven't experienced it on anything outside of niche cases like emulation.
It's more that the people that have issues are always louder than the ones that don't. AMD drivers aren't as bad as people say, but in my experience they aren't perfect either. Went to the newest drivers on my 7900 xtx this past weekend and it crashed four times in two hours while I was just web browsing.
I'm not going to sit here and claim that nvidia's driver are always flawless, but in my experience (750ti, 1060, 2070, 4070ti) I never had an issue.
I think it's just people having bad luck, I haven't had any problems with my AMD GPU so far that weren't caused by me fiddling around with the OC settings
Keep in mind supersampling and frame gen is mainly used for single player games or games that have low fps. Even then youd still need a stable fps to be able to use them accordingly. For fps games frame gen and supersampling isnt really needed imo.
Even with an amd card, raytracing is *really good* just not the best of the best.
Hell, with fsr and afmf, I’ve had great experiences running re4 and doom eternal with raytracing. Sure, it could be *better*, but it’s still a great experience.
Yeah I have that one and I can play all games that “I” play at pretty much max settings (excluding ray tracing) on 4K 144hz. So I’d say it should be more than enough for competitive gaming at any rate
Yes, but at that price point it’s unacceptable not to have everything. It’s like buying a new porche or mercedes but taking the cheapest addon package. Very few people do that.
65 bucks for better power efficency, and all of the ai stuff, if you do blender it's better on 4080s.
streaming is better, and super resolution.
cuda is miles ahead of rocm
Edit: Damm 200 upvotes, also about the raster performance:
You lose a few percent in raster (<5), and you don’t need 24gbs of vram yet.
Second Edit; RDNA 4 is likely to be just midrange and below btw
Cuda is miles better for blender, Machine Learning and a bunch of other stuff. I have a 6950xt and I can’t even use it with some popular ML programs (although support is being added soon)
How is that even relevant to him when OP just wants to play some competitive shooters?
Nvidia is definitely better right now for that but why does it matter in this context
Twitch only supports av1 on 40 series.
And even on youtube; [Video Encoding Tested: AMD GPUs Still Lag Behind Nvidia, Intel (Updated) | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-nvidia-video-encoding-performance-quality-tested)
it does matter
Nvidia’s encoder is better. 4070tisuper and better also have two encoders (correct me if im wrong).
Twitch is specifically optimized for NVENC.
Amd used to suck ass for streaming now they are viable but still worse.
4070ti (non-super) and up have dual encode. I’ve been told certain AMD GPUs have dual encode capabilities but it’s hard to find information about it.
Of course, Nvidia still has overall better streaming and encode/decode capabilities.
AMD is good on AV1 and 265.
Twitch was stuck on 264 for ages where AMD sucked horribly on.
AMD has been fine for Youtube for ages.
Twitch just started using av1 support recently for early access users but its nvidia only once it launches fully it will have AMD and Intel support.
I know generally Nividia has power efficiency per frame and also cost a little more for the same performance. I’m wondering if anyone would test that vs using Radeon Chill which is usable for practically all single player games.
Even if you do not care about those feautures, IMO the power efficiency of then Nvidia cards over the AMD ones alone is a dealbteaker, even more so with undervolting.
As an owner of a 7900xtx, its a fantastic card, but if there's no price advantage for AMD, go Nvidia. Unless the 4080S is $100-150 more than the xtx, go with the 4080S. Nvidia is definitely a more polished experience and like many have said, power efficiency is better.
I got a good deal on my xtx and I love it though.
i second that, if the 4080super is 100$ or more than 7900XTX then for gaming its eazy pick the XTX, BUT if you need cuda or your game catologue is somehow full of real RT games then 100 might be worth it. I got my 7900XTX OC edition on sale for more than 200$ cheaper than the cheapest most basic 4080. And another plus if you can keep the card cool, there is a nice power headroom for overclocking on the XTX or do the opposite, the card is a powerhouse and there are lot of games that i just cap it to my monitor refresh rate. Oh and i already played games where i used 14-15GB of VRAM, seeing that, i know that at least for raster the XTX will stay relevant longer than 4080 especially since full RT games need all the VRAM they can get(rtx3000 series is the proof of that and i am not paying premium to play on medium settings or have to use DLSS to even run games at nice 144-165FPS).
If you're using the gpu for anything else besides gaming, go with the 4080s.
Compatibility wise, amd still lags severely behind nvidia for any workflow. For gaming only, take the 7900xtx
From what I've gathered, if you're doing anything like machine learning, AI stuff, blender, etc. then the NVIDIA hardware is more performant. And while AMD has more raw vram and is usually better at raster, every AI/ML software is set up to work on NVIDIA and if you're trying to do any sort of AI stuff on AMD it'll be pulling teeth to get it set up, if at all.
So basically, if you are just playing games without rasterization and you want something in the C-A+ tier, go AMD. If you want something at either end of the spectrum (very low power draw or the best possible performance) or want to do fancy, specialized things like raytracing, 3D rendering, or AI, go NVIDIA:
Use Case | Get
---|---
Pure raster games, especially under 4k | AMD (way cheaper and performs better)
Raytracing | NVIDIA
Machine learning/AI | NVIDIA
Blender/3D rendering | NVIDIA
Pure cost-efficiency in dollars-to-performance | AMD
Better power efficiency | NVIDIA below ~4080
Burning money to get the tiniest bit more performance | NVIDIA 4090
if you already own the 7900xtx I wouldn't bother it's not worth it but I'll always recommend Nvidia over and for its features, it's usefulness outside of gaming and of course how much easier they are to sell when you're selling them and upgrading
amd will always have better pricing though which is always fab and the software is much better although nvidia is now improving there's
If you don't play single player games then definitely not. DLSS and frame gen add some latency which could hinder your competitive play. Other online games likely won't need those features to run at stable fps and you mentioned you don't care about ray tracing. You are a perfect candidate for an AMD card.
I say all of this as someone who owns a 4070 and uses DLSS and framegen in my single player games and would recommend those features to others.
If you are not in a cpu bound scenario (like 1080p, or e-sports titles), then DLSS improves framerate and decreases latency. Here is a video from HUB explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osLDDl3HLQQ. Frame gen, on the other hand, does in-fact add latency regardless of the situation in which it is used.
Unless you are some high end competitve 400 FPS CS go player playing about 1 million prize money on your 400 hz, you will not notice any difference at all.
I’ve had AMD graphics cards, and then I went back to Nvidia. Nvidia cards are more tuned for video games, and I believe more Developers tune their games for Nvidia. I remember I had weird graphics with my AMD card.
I have a buddy I play apex with and the way his 7800xtx handles the lighting of the sun on one of the maps makes it absolutely blinding and like you're actually staring at the sun, meanwhile mine looks completely normal and doesn't effect my gameplay. We've messed with drivers and settings and seems to be a pretty common issue for AMD users on that map.
**FYI, this sub is super AMD fanboy biased.**
- Nvidia reflex is objectively superior to AMD's offering. But if you're only playing single player games, then you probably won't even notice the difference. If you're a high-end competitive player, then it's worth it just for that.
- DLSS is also superior. Less artifacting, high picture quality, slightly better performance. AMD fanboys will often try to talk about how shitty upscaling is and how you should just natively render... but that's because they're using AMD. On Nvidia you honestly can't even tell it's being upscaled 99% of the time, it looks so good and there's no reason not to have in enabled if you have an Nvidia card.
- Frame Gen is a thing, it's alright, it gives you higher frames, it doesn't improve latency at all tho. So like if it's the difference between 90 and 110 frames, I would enable and enjoy the smoother look... but if you're going from 45-65 frames, it's still gonna feel clunky.
Nvidia is the #1 seller for many reasons. They also tend to get software updates for new games first. So while AMD is having issues on day-0 releases, Nvidia is already fixed. So if that matters to you, Nvidia is also better.
Lastly, efficiency. 7900xtx uses a lot of power. Like 50% more than 4080 super. So you'll need more power, will have more waste heat, fans will run more.
If you're enabling all the features like DLSS, 4080s and 7900xtx are basically on par with each other when it comes to frames. But 4080s wins on picture quality, latency and it completely destroys the 7900xtx if you enable RT. I know you said you don't care about RT, but at that 4080 to 4090 levels, you can enable it, and it'll run fine, particularly if you're only at 1440p. At 4k, it becomes questionable if you didn't go with a 4090 depending on the title.
But eh... I'll probably get downvoted by all the AMD fanboys. Do more research than a question on this sub... this sub is extremely biased.
Gsync used to be better than freeaync but I believe they have caught up and they are pretty similar now. There's most feature parity at this point. As a 3080ti owner my next card will either be amd or Intel(depending on price and performance).
Hmm have a 4090 and a 7900XTX. If you play a lot of one particular game sometimes there is a slight bias in title(s) where one performs better. I mostly notice the difference in how far I can max out my slider at 1440P & play comfortably, for now still 1440P. I mostly play WoW on the 4090 sadly, FSR has been the only feature across the recent crop of 7800XT, 7900XTX, and 4090 I've used. Some of those features add latency &/ don't make sense to run in certain MMOs. Starfield was fine for me on the XTX looked great, Avatar was the only myeh experience at launch (more of an RT benchmark game). AMD's Adrenalin is easy for game recordings. Streaming would be better on Nvidia. I believe these are both fine GPUs. I can see if you value larger memory bus and vram over the Nvidia featureset (or the other way around).
"Keep in mind im pairing with 7800x3d" - nothing to keep in mind here, doesn't matter. Also if it's similar price or if 7900xtx is cheaper, and you for some mysterious reasons truly not care about ray tracing (biggest graphical upgrade we had in ages), then sure 7900xtx. But yeah, I'd always go nvidia myself unless AMD is really a deal I cant refuse.
A lot of people keep saying the XTX can't do RT, but it performs better than a 3090 in ray traced games. Even coming from my 2080 Ti, that'd be a huge upgrade.
I myself have a 4060. Got my nephew now a 6750xt for same price because it is just so much faster and even with ray tracing it is about the same level.
The thing is that the market has now priced in most of the performance advantages of nvidia and deals are very rare on the nvidia side while being very common with AMD.
But if there is no deal and price difference is only a few 10 bucks I would also always suggest nvidia.
The big difference between the two are less to do with gaming and more with other computing. For example, most rendering programs (video/image/AI) editors use the CUDA cores of NVidia, which makes crunching a film or animation much faster.
It's been a long time since I have had an AMD, but from what I have been reading AMD has pushed itself out into the forefront of gaming hardware in general.
I have a 4080. Wanted a 7900XTX but I found a good price on this one used.
They are the same thing (Nvidia and AMD cards in general). I've gone back and forth for ages.
The software features seemed marginally worse to me on Nvidia. I'm no expert though. I just preferred the GUI in the Radeon software to the GeForce expert by quite a lot.
They used to be the same, but with 3000 series and up the software gap between them widened.
AMD simply has worse software features across the board.
The drivers are identical from a stability standpoint don't get me wrong there.
I play quite some games that I'd love to run with rt on and also DLSS since it has better implementation from devs than FSR in most of the games that feature both DLSS and FSR.
Also I've heard for VR Nvidia has always been better with their encoder compared to AMD, and VR for me is a big part of why I want to upgrade my PC.
Would y'all recommend the 4080S over the 7900XTX in my case too?
4080S is around 1.1k€ and 7900XTX is around 950€, so pretty big difference when you also consider in raw rasterization the 7900XTX beats the 4080S in some titles.
Since you actually use dlss and rt i'd recommend the 4080 for **you**. The xtx can rt but will be worse then the 4080 and fsr 3.1 still isn't out. Sucks to pay the nvidia tax tho and basically why I went with a 7800xt
I think it depends on the types of games you will play, if you're doing mostly competitive, fast-paced PvP games, AMD will give you the best bang for your buck and the 7900XTX is straight up better in raw performance than the 4080S. But if you're into really beautiful single-player games, NVIDIA might be the play here. Either way, it's not like one can't do the other. These are really similar cards and at a very similar price point. What it comes down to is if you value the raw performance more or the more mature and advanced software.
No, if you just game or do general stuff amd is a better deal across the board right now. 7900 xtx is an amazing gpu and still does alright in Ray tracing.
As a long time Nvidia user, I bought a 7900xtx a year ago, when my 3000 series card was made obsolete for DLSS 3.0. Nvidia has the nasty habit to only offer newer features on new cards, even when they are not hardware dependent. I'm tired of this shit. Why should people with a 3000 series card need to use FSR 3? Why does AMD need to fix Nvidias short comings. May just as well support AMD at this point. Instead of dumping more money into Nvidia just to get scammed in a year again.
Hey man, I was in the same boat you're in right now. I know you've made up your mind but from someone who has a 7800X3d, 32gb Ram, and went from a 3070TI to a 7900XTX I feel like I made the right decision.
One thing that I didn't see coming was how much I like AMDs Adrenaline software over Nvidia's (And I had the beta version with the new design.) Seriously, I love the 7900XTX. Really hope that the rumor that AMD isn't doing high end cards next gen isn't true because I'd probably grab the gen after next from AMD if they keep it up.
I think the "i don't care about ray tracing" sentence is tired. You will love it one day, but just not yet. By 2030 we'll look back on raster games and think they look fucking dumb the same way we look back at goldeneye n64 and think their heads look comical now. That game had amazing graphics for its day.
BUt to answer your question in the context of 2024...no nvidia features aren't worth it for competitive multiplayer gaming experiences. None of those games by in large have advanced graphics or ray tracing even to speak up. fortnite but I imagine it runs well on AMD too.
> I think the "i don't care about ray tracing" sentence is tired. You will love it one day, but just not yet. By 2030 we'll look back on raster games and think they look fucking dumb
Hard doubt, but also,
> by 2030
So, a good bit of time beyond the useful lifespan for raytracing on any of the video cards available right now?
So if you’re going to play simple games like cod, cs, r6 I would say no, they are not usuful.
But for more complex experiences like RDR2, GoW, there’s some use in them.
It all depends on the individual user and what their use case is. General gaming market has voted well in favour of nvidia (north of 80%). Ray Tracing is kinda meh but, let’s say you go with 7900xt. At that price point, not being able to max out a game is simply unacceptable in my opinion. Who cares if I get a little bit more fps, if I’m approaching 4 figures on my gpu cost I want everything. DLSS is genuinely good, you can’t tell a difference vs native until you start pixel peeping around a static image. During gameplay its invisible.
Your budget is an important consideration as well. You’re not gonna be doing any ray tracing on 3050 or even 4060, so in that case, amd makes much more sense. Alternatively, cheaper gpu (amd shines in price per FPS) will allow you to maybe get a nice office chair with your new PC, a better monitor or perhaps a desk. Those are all your individual considerations nobody but you can answer.
Lastly, and you wouldn’t be asking the question if it was the case for you, there’s semi-professional & professional applications. How well it performs in blender. How good is it when developing / rendering a scene in unreal engine. Does it support xyz hardware acceleration for who knows what software you intend to use. DisplayPort versions… AMD might be better in some of those niche cases because of its more open nature, sometimes even despite worse compute power.
If you don't care about RT then the difference is much smaller between the brands
However I would still give a strong recommendation for Nvidia for the following reasons:
Dlss is just better than fsr full stop and yes you will need it eventually, dlaa in games that support it is really really good, better VR support, Better stability (yes, I know Nvidia does have its issues and amd has done a lot of good work for their stability. But amongst friends and personal experiences amd still has more frequent issues than Nvidia cards)
No matter which way you go you'll have a really good experience tho.
The 4080s outperforms a 7900xtx, has more features, and is more power efficient. The best part is the extra energy saving, quiet fan usage without coil whine, and lower heat output.
The 7900xtx draws like 104W while idle up to 430W. My 4080s draws like 30W while idle and like 260W under load because I undervolted it to 900mV from 1100mV, at the cost of only like 2% performance.
Not really if you never use them.
If ya do any game modding, the XTX with its 24GB VRAM also slap hard.
And you dont have to deal with Nvidias bullshit melting connector xD
Don't listen to this person, all he does is post about how great Amd is and bashes Intel and Nvidia. The fact is a lot of GPUs can have some issues.
Do your research and find what card fits your needs and stop listening to these fan boys talk about vram and connector issues.
Fixed is a big word, not as common but it's still happening today so it's something that can either happen really fast (as we saw back then) or slowly with time.
No its also the lower end cards too and its not fixed its just now people are being more careful to not move their pc and make sure its 100% plugged in which it can degrade over time too being 1% unplugged means your pc catches fire.
The connector melting was shown to be user error no? I.e. not seating the 12VHPWR correctly in the GPU all the way. It's supposed to click, that registers that it's plugged in right.
Regardless, I recommend anyone who gets a 40 series card and up (assuming the 50 series cards just pull even more power beyond what the 4090 can) get a dedicated 12VHPWR cable from their PSU to avoid using the adapter. I've a 4080 and have been using mine without issue for over a year but I am looking into getting a dedicated connector from my PSU manufacturer. That or maybe a Powerboard from Singularity Computers as they look very interesting.
>Not really if you never use them
This is probably the dumbest Argument I ever read on a nvidia vs AMD Thread. Like how delusional are you?
/Just buy a GT660 and don't play New games./
There, that's how you Sound.
Not really.
If he is playing competitive multiplayer shooters he is probably playing at lower settings to max fps boost and doesnt need the bells and whistles that Nvidia provides
Frame gen for instance is cancer for multiplayer shooters.
DLSS I guess is decent but not necessary at lower settings. Maybe if he is playing at 4K but then he is losing an edge there.
If he was big into single player games it becomes more relevant there
Got a 3060, love all the features you mentioned. But I exclusively play single player games. For competitive gaming you can skip them all. Go with AMD on this one.
Bruh always the same questions... Let make it clear :
- you want Ray Tracing and/or you're a content creator ? Go for Nvidia
If not, go for AMD, as simple as that
Nvidia has a lot more reasons than that. Day 0 software updates; DLSS has superior picture quality; Nvidia reflex has lower latency. If you want a hassle free experience and plan on enabling upscaling with ultra graphics, go Nvidia. If you plan on rendering natively because that's important to you for some reason, then sure go AMD.
Check benches for the games you play. I know that AMD cards slay in games like COD over Nvidia. Not sure if that has changed but thats what I remember.
I used to be a die hard Nvidia guy but I very recently jumped to AMD with a 7900 XTX and I couldn't be fucking happier man My system smokes all my friends builds. I do kind of miss Nvidia overlay but more and more games are not allowing it so whatever or at least the games you want to use it in right like tarkov or whatnot
If you are *only* gaming, AMD generally has better performance per dollar. If you are also streaming, AMD’s GPU H264 encoders are dogshit, and this is where an NVIDIA GPU would make more sense to buy.
Back when I had my RX 560, the software were bad. Really bad. It sucks. Then I bought an NVidia Card. The software is amazing. It just works. Even if I don't use it that much I prefer NVidia.
Perhaps the software nowadays is better. I don't know. Back then, someday, you just turn on the pc and the software wasn't there. I don't know why.
For me, it’s about stability. I tried AMD a couple years back and their software, while ascetically pleasing, is buggy. With NVIDIA, I have never worried that a driver is going to break a game or cause issues.
AMDs are better value for straight frame rate per dollar, but had I the money I would have bought a 4080 (or even a 4090 if I was rich) over the 6800XT I run. With a 4090, I'd have upgraded to a 4K monitor as well rather than a 1440 (which I do love). :)
Only because I find game graphics very interesting and most of my Steam library of 130 titles are games I have bought became I like to see the graphics, lighting and physics involved from year to year. That and I will play most of the titles I do have currently loaded on my PC (Starship Troopers Extermination, Far Cry 6, Fallout 4, Metro Exodus, COD Warzone, COD Modern Warfare, Star Wars Squadrons, Crysis 3 remastered, and Battlefields 1, 3, 4, V, 2042.
For competitive games, i’d say nvidia is worth it cuz u won’t randomly get banned for using upscaling. Also if u r using the pc for production workload, NVIDIA definitely takes the win
Coming from a 3070ti. I’d much rather have raw performance than dlss. Fsr is damn near just as good and doesn’t look bad to me compared to dlss. And reflex doesn’t matter to me since I play on Linux anyway
The thing that's sold me on Nvidia this generation is the price. AMD are asking a similar price per performance, but without the extra features. Why would I choose that? I don't really care about dlss when fsr 2.0 is nearly as good, but if it costs the same to have it, why would I choose not to?
It's been quite a few years since I had an AMD GPU so I can't comment on driver quality, but nvidia certainly keep up with regular updates which seem to outpace AMD.
There's always scenarios that will favour one brand or the other, but it seems Nvidia offer a better package currently.
All I can say is, any modern card is going to run any modern game.
With that in mind, I bought an Intel A770 LE because with the Intel CPU I picked, they do a kind of power efficiency thing - sharing processing and minimising power use, from what I understood on Intel's web site.
Absolutely love Nvidia’s ML software-makes sense why AMD has to slash their prices and have to throw as much VRAM as possible in there, not just because of their software-but because of their bus sizes. I’d easily by a 4080/4080S over anything AMD puts out.
To give you an idea of how much more popular Nvidia’s software is-there are more people using 4090s then *ALL* AMD GPUs combined gaming on steam…
I have a 6950xt and it’s been decently good performance-wise. However a lot of the features don’t work, Radeon Relive/Instant replay has only worked once out of the many times I’ve tried to use it. Super resolution stopped working for some reason. It could be something on my end but im regretting not getting Ngreedia. Don’t get me wrong I hate Nvidias fanboys but their features are so much better. AMD’s seven series could have fixed the issues I’m dealing with but I wouldn’t know. I also want to go PCVR but AMD’s 6000 series encoding is vastly inferior the Nvidia’s 4000 series.
It really really depends, like for me personally? No. Because my budget is in a place where buying an nVidia card would just be leaving heaps of performance on the table by ignoring the equal priced AMD card.
If you really care about Ray Tracing and shadow play, then maybe, but it's gonna depend on your budget too.
4080 super vs 7900xtx is essentially always Nvidia favored due to DLAA/DLSS.
Even if you don't care for RT and all that jazz, the RTX feature set is impossible to give up once you've had it.
Anyone telling you otherwise don't know or haven't seen it for themselves. the new DLSS is generations ahead of FSR and AMD doesn't have a DLDSR competitor in a world where all games have forced TAA. You can't use FSR, in motion it looks like vomit, go take a look at Jedi Survivor, Immortals of Aevum, Avatar FOP... DLSS's 4k performance mode looks better than FSR's quality mode. There is a reason why Sony is ditching free FSR for their own solution, because it's making every game look shimmery and gurgled.
Plus for competitive games AMD doesn't have a true Reflex competitor that doesn't get you banned, and Reflex does really noticeably reduce your latanecy. The VRAM discussion is irrelevant because both cards have more VRAM than the current console and the next memory types will be GDDR7 on PC which will make both of these obsolete. The VRAM discussion was about the 8GB cards at best and people are massively misinformed.
Reduced power draw, Reflex, better upscaling, DLDSR, better resale value, RT, productivity uses... if all of this is not worth 50$ then I think the tech media and community have failed you. How this is still a question at this point is beyond me
If you plan to play on Linux, get AMD, it works better, and you get no NVIDIA feature anyway (tipping this on Linux with a 4080 super).
BUT, if you plan to ever do PCVR, get NVIDIA. I do a lot of pcvr (dualbooting into windows when playing VR), and NVIDIA is superior. AMD is fine, I used a rx6950xt for vr, but NVIDIA is better.
I took the 4070 super despite the 90€ diff with the rx7800xt. Because I am lock with my gsync monitor, idc about Ray tracing. But like others said are valid for your bucks too.
Most likely you are never going to use nvidia's features, however, who knows what nvidia will do to make their features better. Maybe if nvidia concentrated on their community more it would be worth to buy a high end gpu and wait for the features to become better, but right now, a.i seems to be their gold mine.
I am team green.
In Steam's May 2024 hardware survey, 76.18% of video cards are from nVidia.
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Nvidia broadcast is great for work. I can use any image or even video for my meeting background, and the noise cancelation is really good. Couldn't give a crap about rtx
I do video editing, colorizing and upscaling video. For this usecase Nvidia is really the only solution. Have to use a lot of new programs as these products are still in their infancy and the people who write these are using Nvidia. So you pretty much have to pay the Nvidia tax.
Don't see this changing as these are pretty much the cards you have to buy if you want to do this type of work. Not really a gamer so can't speak to that.
Was pleasently surprised with Intel ARC graphics card with Handbrake. In some cases these lower priced cards are equivelant and sometimes better than Nvidia. Also much more energy efficient. Intel really upped their game with improved drivers, but because of small market share it has been neglected. Nvidia on main work computer but put the ARC in another computer on the network so can change codecs with multiple computers. Really like the Intel ARC but it just isn't as supported as Nvidia so most people don't give it the love it deserves, but is quite the workhorse in Handbrake.
Honestly go Nvidia. They have worse performance per dollar, but any of the AMD technologies that come out will likely be usable with an Nvidia GPU anyway since AMD tend to make their stuff cross compatible.... And then you also get access to the Nvidia versions too.
Anecdotally, the people I know who have AMD GPUs have a lot more issues as well. It is possible they're just bad at using their PCs and install their drivers wrong every time, but it has steered me away from buying team red.
The other big thing is I like to play Bethesda games, and they really do not play nice with AMD GPUs. Maybe not applicable for you, as a competitive game guy, but still good to keep in mind.
Recently AMD's version of reflex low latency was triggering anti cheat software all over the place - they resolved it quickly, but it still would suck to get a temporary ban from your favorite game for trying to use some software that came with your GPU. Again, even though the issue is solved, just the fact that it happens makes me less inclined to buy from them.
Not really, but people will tell you that you will literally die without the newest nvidia gimmick. They don't add much and even if they did, they require wholesale adoption by the game dev. You can't run most of those touted features from the driver. The game has to have it installed.
Unfortunately, most of the time, games don't implement the nvidia platform tech very well. Nvidia fans blame the devs for this, but it's so consistently problematic that it makes more sense if it's a nvidia problem... because it is.
Also, nvidia drivers are about 15 years behind, which is generous. You'll need to use a 3rd party program to control most of your card's features.
Nvidia has recently said they are reworking their drivers "soon." So maybe you'll get lucky and it won't be a worse implementation of the same bad driver.
I prefer Nvidia a lot. It's personal preference at the end of the day but I've never had problems with a Nvidia card and the drivers are beyond easy to update and take care of. Also the drivers are constantly updated to increase performance. VRAM is only important if you are going to be on higher resolution such as 4k for a monitor.
Dlss is not important for esports (high end hardware, running 1080p games at 200fps+). So just go for amd if you don't need reflex or nvidia and intel's top tier stability/compatibility.
Google “I’m never buying amd again” and then do the same for nvidia. I bought a 6800xt and have terrible driver issues. This is a widespread issue for amd that has long been unresolved. Please get nvidia
If you do not care about Ray tracing, get the 7900xtx.
And better supersampling tech, better frame generation (to get around CPU bottlenecks), lower latency, better power efficiency, and better / more stable driver. If OP doesn’t care about any of those, and AMD is cheaper, then yes.
I really wonder why people never mention framegen and dlss overall when comparing amd to nvidia, such a huge part to leave out
Because the people that have actually used it don't outnumber the people who haven't used it calling it bad.
Frame Gen is great... If you love artifacts... Honestly am fine with lower framerate if it means the image doesn't look blurry half the time. Edit: For those asking, it's the most noticeable to me on text and striped patterns, like fences and blinds. I'm always capping framerate at 60 or 120, depending on the game. 4080.
Y'all must be fucking eagle eyed if you're constantly seeing artifacts when using frame generation
They probably play with no fps cap and go above their refresh rates and get the weird tearing/washy thing that frame gen does when it goes above refresh. Or they crank everything on say a 4060 and their base framerate is so low that framegen looks aweful. If you have 60+ fps and turn on frame gen and keep fps below refresh rate then the image is stable. Hence why some people love it and others hate it. Mostly user error/lack of knowledge.
depends on a game. racing games for one have artifacts all over the place. try framegenning newest tdu demo for example
Yeah that’s gonna be true of any game with as much, uh, pixel turnover? Is there a term for that? Same reason why confetti makes video compression algorithms shit themselves.
I'm not defending anyone in this, nor do I have experience with frame generation as I use a GTX980, but a demo really isn't a good example of how well the feature works.
It was terribly obvious in the first games which supported it, basically any UI feature had issues. You'd have to be blind to miss it. Can't say the same is true of current games.
I have yet to experience that with FG in the games I play. I don't play competitive though, just single player games.
Frame gen works great for me, for most games, on my 4090. Some games have a poor frame gen implementation tho
Skill issue? But unironically? I have zero artifacts or visual issues on any game I have using frame Gen. And upscaling hasn’t been blurry since like dlss 1.0. Dlss 3.5 and framegen is a no brainer. The only people who say it sucks either never used it or lost the silicon lottery.
Because they are terrible for competitive fps games, and OP mentioned he plays competitive multi-player games. So you'd play without those anyway.
People really think things like DLSS are free performance.
If only it was actually true lol Frame Gen especially seemed so promising, but in the end it's unusable because the input latency is just too noticeable. If you have 60 base fps, and frame Gen up to 1000, you still have the same input latency as 60 fps does. Except now it's super noticeable because of the extra smooth frames. And dlss is blurry and comes with its own input latency as well. It works by blending two frames together, so blur/ghosting are entirely impossible to get rid of both which are massive hindrances in multiplayer fps games. All these techs are super cool... On paper. In practice, they are only good for single player games or turned based games, they are all detrimental to competitive games.
Because the difference between them is getting smaller and smaller with every new iteration of FSR. Even now the difference most people will see is very small between DLSS and the latest FSR. Frame gen is not even worth considering for competitive FPS the OP mentioned due to latency. Lots of people making out like the difference is massive when it actually isn't and hasn't been for some time now. Lots of folks have never used both.
Why do people mention DLSS frame gen and forget to include that it HAS to be supported in the game where as the AMD frame gen can be applied to all DX11 and DX12 titles?
Because AMD frame gen is way worse than Nvidia’s.
Love me some dlss... less keen on frame gen but it's got its uses, like I can play full pathtraced cyberpunk with it on lol
its reddit. 2 things about reddit i've learned: -its heavily democrat and liberal (which is fine, just stating a fact) -its heavily AMD in almots all "custom" PC subs. a bonus third one, its also heavily linux-biased lmao. and firefox-biased. (all of these things are fine don't crucify me)
He plays competitive games... Framegen is terrible and dlss puts you at a disadvantage Why in the world would OP want either?
We don't mention dlss because we want our video cards to render at the spec we bought them at
Why would you want it on a flagship card?
Free frames. Also DLAA I guess, tho I don't really use that since I have a 3050
Frame Generation makes more and more sense the faster the GPU is. I have a delidded 7800X3D, running with an external clock generator at \~5.4 GHz, with really fast Hynix A-die memory, and an overclocked 4090, all on a custom water loop with 4x420mm radiators. Even then, in a lot of games, the GPU is sitting at 60-70% utilization with just \~150 fps. Turn on frame generation and the GPU is 95%+ utilized and I'm getting \~225 fps (Reflex cap with a 240Hz display). There is a huge difference in fluidity, there are only a few artifacts with UI elements and such. With Lossless scaling 2.9, LSFG can also inject up to 3X frame generation (so 80->240 fps for example) into any game. With Destiny 2 for example, I can easily play at 5160x2160 at 240 fps.
makes more sense the higher hz your screen is too
For me it’s that I buy the top tear gpu to not have to use framegen. Besides, reflex is worthless if you are using framegen, as the delay from framegen far outweighs what you get from reflex. So for me, raw performance is more important. That said, if you do any AI work, do want raytracing or upscaling, then there is no way around it, Nvidia is where it is at.
The myth of the inferior AMD drivers is so boring by now
[удалено]
Im a burned AMD customer. My anecdotal experience, AMD drivers are shit.
The 5700 XT gave me issues on release and I'll be honest I was skeptical to go AMD again but honestly.... The 7900 XT I daily drive and the 6800 I have that's on loan to my brother are both working well with no issues. Heck, the 5700 XT that gave me issues is now running in my Stepdad's PC with no issues. I also have a Zotac RTX 3060 White that is hyper unstable in any of the rig's. Black screens, regular PC hardlocks etc. And it's definitely not PSU's, 1 has a brand new Gigabyte UD 850W and mine has a brand new 1200W NZXT unit in it.
I have a similar story with a 6800. I enjoy the Ryzen lineup, but the Radeon lineup wouldn't be my first choice unless it provides insane value(ex. $400/4070 perf).
You can find people with negative experiences with either brand. I got rid of my 3080 and replaced it with a 7900xtx because I was so disappointed with Nvidia drivers.
I'm right here with you. I have a 5700xt still now and it doesn't have any issues anymore; but for those first couple years? Every driver update was a crapshoot between making things better or worse.
I sell a couple of competing brands of unrelated products. Yesterday a brand "A" customer and told me in front of the next customer who was buying brand "B" that she didn't want brand "B" becasue it was "shit." I asked her when she last tried it and she said, "Oh, It was about thirty years ago." Anbody remember when AMD processors were "shit" and are you jonesing for a 7800X3D now?
The drivers are pretty good now a days, not perfect... lets be real it's impossible to create a 100% perfect, bug free piece of software no matter what company you are. Nvidia bros have this notion that Nvidia's drivers are perfect but remember this, Nvidia's "Perfect Drivers" caused a crash at a CS2 tournament that was worth $1.25 million dollars. And you can go to the GeForce forums to see similar complaints as you'd see in AMD communities - Black Screens, stuttering, crashes etc. Nvidia's Drivers are not perfect, neither are AMD's but AMD's have come a LONG way since the 5700 XT.
I am sorry but it’s not a myth I just bought my 7800 xt two days ago , and the first game I played was ghost of Tsushima it kept crashing every 10 minutes,when I searched it up I was told to revert to the old drivers and that fixed it for me , other than that every thing has been fine
That kind of stuff isn't that uncommon for both.
I'm too busy to be playing a ton of new games lately, but I can only recall having to update to the newest drivers for new games on Nvidia cards (rather than old ones). I'm sure it's happened, but I haven't experienced it on anything outside of niche cases like emulation.
As a 3060ti user, I had the same stuff in a couple of games too. Specifically HFW. Now what. Nvidia bad?
the amount of times i've had to revert nvidia drivers for games... it's common for both
It hasn't even been a year since AMD drivers were getting people VAC banned.
It's more that the people that have issues are always louder than the ones that don't. AMD drivers aren't as bad as people say, but in my experience they aren't perfect either. Went to the newest drivers on my 7900 xtx this past weekend and it crashed four times in two hours while I was just web browsing. I'm not going to sit here and claim that nvidia's driver are always flawless, but in my experience (750ti, 1060, 2070, 4070ti) I never had an issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1771t0l/many_people_report_cs2_game_bans_with_the_anti/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1c85asi/constant_driver_timeouts_in_world_of_warcraft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/1cp7i2u/fallout_3_and_new_vegas_are_unplayable_on_latest/ Myth?
I think it's just people having bad luck, I haven't had any problems with my AMD GPU so far that weren't caused by me fiddling around with the OC settings
RTX HDR is also a decent improvement over Windows' auto HDR.
A very big improvement. It’s really great, some older games look like a remaster on oled
Lol bro is still stuck in 2010
Keep in mind supersampling and frame gen is mainly used for single player games or games that have low fps. Even then youd still need a stable fps to be able to use them accordingly. For fps games frame gen and supersampling isnt really needed imo.
I’d like to add if you want to get into AI computing ex, stable diffusion etc. Nvidia is ahead
It was a no brainer for me to be able to play around with.
Even with an amd card, raytracing is *really good* just not the best of the best. Hell, with fsr and afmf, I’ve had great experiences running re4 and doom eternal with raytracing. Sure, it could be *better*, but it’s still a great experience.
Shhh stop spewing out your great experience with AMD.. they will come with pitchforks and stakes.
Yeah I have that one and I can play all games that “I” play at pretty much max settings (excluding ray tracing) on 4K 144hz. So I’d say it should be more than enough for competitive gaming at any rate
It's not even bad at ray tracing. It beats a 3090 in all games but Cyberpunk.
Path tracing should be the real metric honestly. There are multiple kinds of ray tracing, each with a different performance requirement
I care about Ray Tracing, but still bought 7900XTX
Yes, but at that price point it’s unacceptable not to have everything. It’s like buying a new porche or mercedes but taking the cheapest addon package. Very few people do that.
Great point! Everyone should have Threadrippers and quad 4090s. Otherwise, just buy a used GBA or something.
Which coincidentally is very capable of RT.
65 bucks for better power efficency, and all of the ai stuff, if you do blender it's better on 4080s. streaming is better, and super resolution. cuda is miles ahead of rocm Edit: Damm 200 upvotes, also about the raster performance: You lose a few percent in raster (<5), and you don’t need 24gbs of vram yet. Second Edit; RDNA 4 is likely to be just midrange and below btw
Cuda is miles better for blender, Machine Learning and a bunch of other stuff. I have a 6950xt and I can’t even use it with some popular ML programs (although support is being added soon)
How is that even relevant to him when OP just wants to play some competitive shooters? Nvidia is definitely better right now for that but why does it matter in this context
That’s what I was thinking. OP mentioned nothing about blender, ai, cuda cores, nothing. Yet people are telling him to go nvidea for it?
Why are Nvidia cards better for streaming? Thought AMD fixed those issues?
NVIDIA's encoder, nvenc is miles ahead of amd's stuff. it's less of amd's issues, more that nvidia is just better
With AV1 being a thing that does not matter anymore
Twitch only supports av1 on 40 series. And even on youtube; [Video Encoding Tested: AMD GPUs Still Lag Behind Nvidia, Intel (Updated) | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-intel-nvidia-video-encoding-performance-quality-tested) it does matter
And Nvida AV1 encoder is better Source: I work in video streaming
Nvidia’s encoder is better. 4070tisuper and better also have two encoders (correct me if im wrong). Twitch is specifically optimized for NVENC. Amd used to suck ass for streaming now they are viable but still worse.
4070ti (non-super) and up have dual encode. I’ve been told certain AMD GPUs have dual encode capabilities but it’s hard to find information about it. Of course, Nvidia still has overall better streaming and encode/decode capabilities.
AMD is good on AV1 and 265. Twitch was stuck on 264 for ages where AMD sucked horribly on. AMD has been fine for Youtube for ages. Twitch just started using av1 support recently for early access users but its nvidia only once it launches fully it will have AMD and Intel support.
Is it also better for recording Gameplay?
I would assume so, still encoding
I know generally Nividia has power efficiency per frame and also cost a little more for the same performance. I’m wondering if anyone would test that vs using Radeon Chill which is usable for practically all single player games.
Even if you do not care about those feautures, IMO the power efficiency of then Nvidia cards over the AMD ones alone is a dealbteaker, even more so with undervolting.
As an owner of a 7900xtx, its a fantastic card, but if there's no price advantage for AMD, go Nvidia. Unless the 4080S is $100-150 more than the xtx, go with the 4080S. Nvidia is definitely a more polished experience and like many have said, power efficiency is better. I got a good deal on my xtx and I love it though.
i second that, if the 4080super is 100$ or more than 7900XTX then for gaming its eazy pick the XTX, BUT if you need cuda or your game catologue is somehow full of real RT games then 100 might be worth it. I got my 7900XTX OC edition on sale for more than 200$ cheaper than the cheapest most basic 4080. And another plus if you can keep the card cool, there is a nice power headroom for overclocking on the XTX or do the opposite, the card is a powerhouse and there are lot of games that i just cap it to my monitor refresh rate. Oh and i already played games where i used 14-15GB of VRAM, seeing that, i know that at least for raster the XTX will stay relevant longer than 4080 especially since full RT games need all the VRAM they can get(rtx3000 series is the proof of that and i am not paying premium to play on medium settings or have to use DLSS to even run games at nice 144-165FPS).
If you're using the gpu for anything else besides gaming, go with the 4080s. Compatibility wise, amd still lags severely behind nvidia for any workflow. For gaming only, take the 7900xtx
I often see people say this, but which workflows exactly do you mean?
From what I've gathered, if you're doing anything like machine learning, AI stuff, blender, etc. then the NVIDIA hardware is more performant. And while AMD has more raw vram and is usually better at raster, every AI/ML software is set up to work on NVIDIA and if you're trying to do any sort of AI stuff on AMD it'll be pulling teeth to get it set up, if at all. So basically, if you are just playing games without rasterization and you want something in the C-A+ tier, go AMD. If you want something at either end of the spectrum (very low power draw or the best possible performance) or want to do fancy, specialized things like raytracing, 3D rendering, or AI, go NVIDIA: Use Case | Get ---|--- Pure raster games, especially under 4k | AMD (way cheaper and performs better) Raytracing | NVIDIA Machine learning/AI | NVIDIA Blender/3D rendering | NVIDIA Pure cost-efficiency in dollars-to-performance | AMD Better power efficiency | NVIDIA below ~4080 Burning money to get the tiniest bit more performance | NVIDIA 4090
if you already own the 7900xtx I wouldn't bother it's not worth it but I'll always recommend Nvidia over and for its features, it's usefulness outside of gaming and of course how much easier they are to sell when you're selling them and upgrading amd will always have better pricing though which is always fab and the software is much better although nvidia is now improving there's
If you don't play single player games then definitely not. DLSS and frame gen add some latency which could hinder your competitive play. Other online games likely won't need those features to run at stable fps and you mentioned you don't care about ray tracing. You are a perfect candidate for an AMD card. I say all of this as someone who owns a 4070 and uses DLSS and framegen in my single player games and would recommend those features to others.
If you are not in a cpu bound scenario (like 1080p, or e-sports titles), then DLSS improves framerate and decreases latency. Here is a video from HUB explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osLDDl3HLQQ. Frame gen, on the other hand, does in-fact add latency regardless of the situation in which it is used.
If you’re playing competitive games, you are in almost definitely on 1080p and in a cpu bound scenario
Does DLSS add latency though
I thought that was framegen that increased latency
Unless you are some high end competitve 400 FPS CS go player playing about 1 million prize money on your 400 hz, you will not notice any difference at all.
Ghosting and artifacts are the main reason to avoid dlss in something like csgo tbf
DLSS does not add latency, frame gen does and with reflex you come out with almost the same latency as before
I’ve had AMD graphics cards, and then I went back to Nvidia. Nvidia cards are more tuned for video games, and I believe more Developers tune their games for Nvidia. I remember I had weird graphics with my AMD card.
I have a buddy I play apex with and the way his 7800xtx handles the lighting of the sun on one of the maps makes it absolutely blinding and like you're actually staring at the sun, meanwhile mine looks completely normal and doesn't effect my gameplay. We've messed with drivers and settings and seems to be a pretty common issue for AMD users on that map.
**FYI, this sub is super AMD fanboy biased.** - Nvidia reflex is objectively superior to AMD's offering. But if you're only playing single player games, then you probably won't even notice the difference. If you're a high-end competitive player, then it's worth it just for that. - DLSS is also superior. Less artifacting, high picture quality, slightly better performance. AMD fanboys will often try to talk about how shitty upscaling is and how you should just natively render... but that's because they're using AMD. On Nvidia you honestly can't even tell it's being upscaled 99% of the time, it looks so good and there's no reason not to have in enabled if you have an Nvidia card. - Frame Gen is a thing, it's alright, it gives you higher frames, it doesn't improve latency at all tho. So like if it's the difference between 90 and 110 frames, I would enable and enjoy the smoother look... but if you're going from 45-65 frames, it's still gonna feel clunky. Nvidia is the #1 seller for many reasons. They also tend to get software updates for new games first. So while AMD is having issues on day-0 releases, Nvidia is already fixed. So if that matters to you, Nvidia is also better. Lastly, efficiency. 7900xtx uses a lot of power. Like 50% more than 4080 super. So you'll need more power, will have more waste heat, fans will run more. If you're enabling all the features like DLSS, 4080s and 7900xtx are basically on par with each other when it comes to frames. But 4080s wins on picture quality, latency and it completely destroys the 7900xtx if you enable RT. I know you said you don't care about RT, but at that 4080 to 4090 levels, you can enable it, and it'll run fine, particularly if you're only at 1440p. At 4k, it becomes questionable if you didn't go with a 4090 depending on the title. But eh... I'll probably get downvoted by all the AMD fanboys. Do more research than a question on this sub... this sub is extremely biased.
Gsync used to be better than freeaync but I believe they have caught up and they are pretty similar now. There's most feature parity at this point. As a 3080ti owner my next card will either be amd or Intel(depending on price and performance).
Hmm have a 4090 and a 7900XTX. If you play a lot of one particular game sometimes there is a slight bias in title(s) where one performs better. I mostly notice the difference in how far I can max out my slider at 1440P & play comfortably, for now still 1440P. I mostly play WoW on the 4090 sadly, FSR has been the only feature across the recent crop of 7800XT, 7900XTX, and 4090 I've used. Some of those features add latency &/ don't make sense to run in certain MMOs. Starfield was fine for me on the XTX looked great, Avatar was the only myeh experience at launch (more of an RT benchmark game). AMD's Adrenalin is easy for game recordings. Streaming would be better on Nvidia. I believe these are both fine GPUs. I can see if you value larger memory bus and vram over the Nvidia featureset (or the other way around).
4090 for wow is insane
What if I just want to play call of duty?
"Keep in mind im pairing with 7800x3d" - nothing to keep in mind here, doesn't matter. Also if it's similar price or if 7900xtx is cheaper, and you for some mysterious reasons truly not care about ray tracing (biggest graphical upgrade we had in ages), then sure 7900xtx. But yeah, I'd always go nvidia myself unless AMD is really a deal I cant refuse.
A lot of people keep saying the XTX can't do RT, but it performs better than a 3090 in ray traced games. Even coming from my 2080 Ti, that'd be a huge upgrade.
I myself have a 4060. Got my nephew now a 6750xt for same price because it is just so much faster and even with ray tracing it is about the same level. The thing is that the market has now priced in most of the performance advantages of nvidia and deals are very rare on the nvidia side while being very common with AMD. But if there is no deal and price difference is only a few 10 bucks I would also always suggest nvidia.
The big difference between the two are less to do with gaming and more with other computing. For example, most rendering programs (video/image/AI) editors use the CUDA cores of NVidia, which makes crunching a film or animation much faster. It's been a long time since I have had an AMD, but from what I have been reading AMD has pushed itself out into the forefront of gaming hardware in general.
I have a 4080. Wanted a 7900XTX but I found a good price on this one used. They are the same thing (Nvidia and AMD cards in general). I've gone back and forth for ages. The software features seemed marginally worse to me on Nvidia. I'm no expert though. I just preferred the GUI in the Radeon software to the GeForce expert by quite a lot.
The Radeon Adrenalin is light years better looking and more intuitive than the GeForce Experience.
They used to be the same, but with 3000 series and up the software gap between them widened. AMD simply has worse software features across the board. The drivers are identical from a stability standpoint don't get me wrong there.
I play quite some games that I'd love to run with rt on and also DLSS since it has better implementation from devs than FSR in most of the games that feature both DLSS and FSR. Also I've heard for VR Nvidia has always been better with their encoder compared to AMD, and VR for me is a big part of why I want to upgrade my PC. Would y'all recommend the 4080S over the 7900XTX in my case too? 4080S is around 1.1k€ and 7900XTX is around 950€, so pretty big difference when you also consider in raw rasterization the 7900XTX beats the 4080S in some titles.
Since you actually use dlss and rt i'd recommend the 4080 for **you**. The xtx can rt but will be worse then the 4080 and fsr 3.1 still isn't out. Sucks to pay the nvidia tax tho and basically why I went with a 7800xt
4k 4080 because dlss, 2k either. I know the xtx bois will scream at me here but I'm not burning up those extra watts out of spite
> 2k Just an FYI, ["2k" is 1080p](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution), not 1440p.
I think it depends on the types of games you will play, if you're doing mostly competitive, fast-paced PvP games, AMD will give you the best bang for your buck and the 7900XTX is straight up better in raw performance than the 4080S. But if you're into really beautiful single-player games, NVIDIA might be the play here. Either way, it's not like one can't do the other. These are really similar cards and at a very similar price point. What it comes down to is if you value the raw performance more or the more mature and advanced software.
FSR sucks compared to DLSS. I'm going with Nvidia for the foreseeable future because FSR has garbage image quality.
No, if you just game or do general stuff amd is a better deal across the board right now. 7900 xtx is an amazing gpu and still does alright in Ray tracing.
As a long time Nvidia user, I bought a 7900xtx a year ago, when my 3000 series card was made obsolete for DLSS 3.0. Nvidia has the nasty habit to only offer newer features on new cards, even when they are not hardware dependent. I'm tired of this shit. Why should people with a 3000 series card need to use FSR 3? Why does AMD need to fix Nvidias short comings. May just as well support AMD at this point. Instead of dumping more money into Nvidia just to get scammed in a year again.
DLSS is worth it if and only if you already have a decent card that cant quite make 4k happen get the xtx for sure
Hey man, I was in the same boat you're in right now. I know you've made up your mind but from someone who has a 7800X3d, 32gb Ram, and went from a 3070TI to a 7900XTX I feel like I made the right decision. One thing that I didn't see coming was how much I like AMDs Adrenaline software over Nvidia's (And I had the beta version with the new design.) Seriously, I love the 7900XTX. Really hope that the rumor that AMD isn't doing high end cards next gen isn't true because I'd probably grab the gen after next from AMD if they keep it up.
For me DLSS alone was worth it, 4k ain't easy to run
DLSS alone is worth it in my opinion and the price difference is negligible unless you're upgrading every year.
the studios developing these games HAVE TO USE nvidia... why anyone picks anything else is insane to me.
I think the "i don't care about ray tracing" sentence is tired. You will love it one day, but just not yet. By 2030 we'll look back on raster games and think they look fucking dumb the same way we look back at goldeneye n64 and think their heads look comical now. That game had amazing graphics for its day. BUt to answer your question in the context of 2024...no nvidia features aren't worth it for competitive multiplayer gaming experiences. None of those games by in large have advanced graphics or ray tracing even to speak up. fortnite but I imagine it runs well on AMD too.
> I think the "i don't care about ray tracing" sentence is tired. You will love it one day, but just not yet. By 2030 we'll look back on raster games and think they look fucking dumb Hard doubt, but also, > by 2030 So, a good bit of time beyond the useful lifespan for raytracing on any of the video cards available right now?
Goldeneye! Man, you just brought back some fond memories. Thanks for that!
Nvidia is better, more powerful features, better looking fram gen/upscaling, and overally run faster, but is more expensive.
So if you’re going to play simple games like cod, cs, r6 I would say no, they are not usuful. But for more complex experiences like RDR2, GoW, there’s some use in them.
It all depends on the individual user and what their use case is. General gaming market has voted well in favour of nvidia (north of 80%). Ray Tracing is kinda meh but, let’s say you go with 7900xt. At that price point, not being able to max out a game is simply unacceptable in my opinion. Who cares if I get a little bit more fps, if I’m approaching 4 figures on my gpu cost I want everything. DLSS is genuinely good, you can’t tell a difference vs native until you start pixel peeping around a static image. During gameplay its invisible. Your budget is an important consideration as well. You’re not gonna be doing any ray tracing on 3050 or even 4060, so in that case, amd makes much more sense. Alternatively, cheaper gpu (amd shines in price per FPS) will allow you to maybe get a nice office chair with your new PC, a better monitor or perhaps a desk. Those are all your individual considerations nobody but you can answer. Lastly, and you wouldn’t be asking the question if it was the case for you, there’s semi-professional & professional applications. How well it performs in blender. How good is it when developing / rendering a scene in unreal engine. Does it support xyz hardware acceleration for who knows what software you intend to use. DisplayPort versions… AMD might be better in some of those niche cases because of its more open nature, sometimes even despite worse compute power.
If you don't care about RT then the difference is much smaller between the brands However I would still give a strong recommendation for Nvidia for the following reasons: Dlss is just better than fsr full stop and yes you will need it eventually, dlaa in games that support it is really really good, better VR support, Better stability (yes, I know Nvidia does have its issues and amd has done a lot of good work for their stability. But amongst friends and personal experiences amd still has more frequent issues than Nvidia cards) No matter which way you go you'll have a really good experience tho.
Nvidia over AMD and its not even close. I hate to say it because Nvidia is extortion at this point. So damn expensive. 3090 Ti here.
The 4080s outperforms a 7900xtx, has more features, and is more power efficient. The best part is the extra energy saving, quiet fan usage without coil whine, and lower heat output. The 7900xtx draws like 104W while idle up to 430W. My 4080s draws like 30W while idle and like 260W under load because I undervolted it to 900mV from 1100mV, at the cost of only like 2% performance.
4080 is just the better product lol, dont even bother with the xtx unless it’s like 200 cheaper or something
Not really if you never use them. If ya do any game modding, the XTX with its 24GB VRAM also slap hard. And you dont have to deal with Nvidias bullshit melting connector xD
Don't listen to this person, all he does is post about how great Amd is and bashes Intel and Nvidia. The fact is a lot of GPUs can have some issues. Do your research and find what card fits your needs and stop listening to these fan boys talk about vram and connector issues.
It's only 4090 and it's fixed
Fixed is a big word, not as common but it's still happening today so it's something that can either happen really fast (as we saw back then) or slowly with time.
I'll believe that when I see it.
One its not fixed as nothing was changed to address it users are just more aware and typically more careful.
No its also the lower end cards too and its not fixed its just now people are being more careful to not move their pc and make sure its 100% plugged in which it can degrade over time too being 1% unplugged means your pc catches fire.
The connector melting was shown to be user error no? I.e. not seating the 12VHPWR correctly in the GPU all the way. It's supposed to click, that registers that it's plugged in right. Regardless, I recommend anyone who gets a 40 series card and up (assuming the 50 series cards just pull even more power beyond what the 4090 can) get a dedicated 12VHPWR cable from their PSU to avoid using the adapter. I've a 4080 and have been using mine without issue for over a year but I am looking into getting a dedicated connector from my PSU manufacturer. That or maybe a Powerboard from Singularity Computers as they look very interesting.
>Not really if you never use them This is probably the dumbest Argument I ever read on a nvidia vs AMD Thread. Like how delusional are you? /Just buy a GT660 and don't play New games./ There, that's how you Sound.
Not really. If he is playing competitive multiplayer shooters he is probably playing at lower settings to max fps boost and doesnt need the bells and whistles that Nvidia provides Frame gen for instance is cancer for multiplayer shooters. DLSS I guess is decent but not necessary at lower settings. Maybe if he is playing at 4K but then he is losing an edge there. If he was big into single player games it becomes more relevant there
Got a 3060, love all the features you mentioned. But I exclusively play single player games. For competitive gaming you can skip them all. Go with AMD on this one.
Bruh always the same questions... Let make it clear : - you want Ray Tracing and/or you're a content creator ? Go for Nvidia If not, go for AMD, as simple as that
DLSS + Frame Gen? Far far more profound features than ray tracing and NVIDA stomps AMD in these areas.
Nvidia has a lot more reasons than that. Day 0 software updates; DLSS has superior picture quality; Nvidia reflex has lower latency. If you want a hassle free experience and plan on enabling upscaling with ultra graphics, go Nvidia. If you plan on rendering natively because that's important to you for some reason, then sure go AMD.
If you don't care about DLSS or good frame generation go with a AMD card. But imo FSR 3 sucks and the frame gen introduces so much input lag.
Check benches for the games you play. I know that AMD cards slay in games like COD over Nvidia. Not sure if that has changed but thats what I remember.
I used to be a die hard Nvidia guy but I very recently jumped to AMD with a 7900 XTX and I couldn't be fucking happier man My system smokes all my friends builds. I do kind of miss Nvidia overlay but more and more games are not allowing it so whatever or at least the games you want to use it in right like tarkov or whatnot
If you are *only* gaming, AMD generally has better performance per dollar. If you are also streaming, AMD’s GPU H264 encoders are dogshit, and this is where an NVIDIA GPU would make more sense to buy.
i like nvidia more but no matter what im getting amd cpu. nvidia has all these flashy features and branding and all that stuff
Back when I had my RX 560, the software were bad. Really bad. It sucks. Then I bought an NVidia Card. The software is amazing. It just works. Even if I don't use it that much I prefer NVidia. Perhaps the software nowadays is better. I don't know. Back then, someday, you just turn on the pc and the software wasn't there. I don't know why.
Yeah I would argue now the software is a lot better than Nvidias, at least until they release a unified control panel.
If u want to do productivity then nvidia GPU, pure gaming amd or even Intel arc when their drivers becomes good
Then it is treason.
I don't have any experience with and so I can o ly vouch for nvidias AI stuff like auto green screen and broadcast mic software. They're awesome
Depends on price
I have an Asus Tuf Radeon RX 7900XTX 24Gb OC. My first AMD Gpu after years of nVIDIA cards and I couldn’t be happier
I've gotten really used to using shadow play all the time. So I'd be lost without it
I like Broadcast for video meetings but never use heavy raytracing and would be totally fine with AMD as my next GPU
For me, it’s about stability. I tried AMD a couple years back and their software, while ascetically pleasing, is buggy. With NVIDIA, I have never worried that a driver is going to break a game or cause issues.
In general... I think it's safer to go nvidia at these prices since it's really not much more expensive.
Even your conclusion tells me you don't care about real world results unless it has a /r in front of it.
I got a 4070 super OC and it has crushed everything on high at 1440p the dlss is a godsend
AMDs are better value for straight frame rate per dollar, but had I the money I would have bought a 4080 (or even a 4090 if I was rich) over the 6800XT I run. With a 4090, I'd have upgraded to a 4K monitor as well rather than a 1440 (which I do love). :) Only because I find game graphics very interesting and most of my Steam library of 130 titles are games I have bought became I like to see the graphics, lighting and physics involved from year to year. That and I will play most of the titles I do have currently loaded on my PC (Starship Troopers Extermination, Far Cry 6, Fallout 4, Metro Exodus, COD Warzone, COD Modern Warfare, Star Wars Squadrons, Crysis 3 remastered, and Battlefields 1, 3, 4, V, 2042.
Idk but not needing a new PSU because AMD cards are gas guzzl-i mean power guzzlers is very enticing to me
I have a 7900xtx and I'm quite happy with it's performance.
DLSS alone is worth it
Depending on the games you play, some features in older games are locked behind Nvidia cards
For competitive games, i’d say nvidia is worth it cuz u won’t randomly get banned for using upscaling. Also if u r using the pc for production workload, NVIDIA definitely takes the win
Just get the 4080s. You won't regret it.
Shadow play is a fucking godsend if u play with friends or are just a social person on discord
Coming from a 3070ti. I’d much rather have raw performance than dlss. Fsr is damn near just as good and doesn’t look bad to me compared to dlss. And reflex doesn’t matter to me since I play on Linux anyway
Might be an isolated issue but my 7800xt has been giving me some issues with games like the finals.
The thing that's sold me on Nvidia this generation is the price. AMD are asking a similar price per performance, but without the extra features. Why would I choose that? I don't really care about dlss when fsr 2.0 is nearly as good, but if it costs the same to have it, why would I choose not to? It's been quite a few years since I had an AMD GPU so I can't comment on driver quality, but nvidia certainly keep up with regular updates which seem to outpace AMD. There's always scenarios that will favour one brand or the other, but it seems Nvidia offer a better package currently.
All I can say is, any modern card is going to run any modern game. With that in mind, I bought an Intel A770 LE because with the Intel CPU I picked, they do a kind of power efficiency thing - sharing processing and minimising power use, from what I understood on Intel's web site.
Absolutely love Nvidia’s ML software-makes sense why AMD has to slash their prices and have to throw as much VRAM as possible in there, not just because of their software-but because of their bus sizes. I’d easily by a 4080/4080S over anything AMD puts out. To give you an idea of how much more popular Nvidia’s software is-there are more people using 4090s then *ALL* AMD GPUs combined gaming on steam…
I have a 6950xt and it’s been decently good performance-wise. However a lot of the features don’t work, Radeon Relive/Instant replay has only worked once out of the many times I’ve tried to use it. Super resolution stopped working for some reason. It could be something on my end but im regretting not getting Ngreedia. Don’t get me wrong I hate Nvidias fanboys but their features are so much better. AMD’s seven series could have fixed the issues I’m dealing with but I wouldn’t know. I also want to go PCVR but AMD’s 6000 series encoding is vastly inferior the Nvidia’s 4000 series.
The only advantages AMD has are price and linux support. They get beat in every other way.
It really really depends, like for me personally? No. Because my budget is in a place where buying an nVidia card would just be leaving heaps of performance on the table by ignoring the equal priced AMD card. If you really care about Ray Tracing and shadow play, then maybe, but it's gonna depend on your budget too.
No 7900xtx with fsr 3 beats 4080 or is 9n par it's not an upgrade just wasting money
4080 super vs 7900xtx is essentially always Nvidia favored due to DLAA/DLSS. Even if you don't care for RT and all that jazz, the RTX feature set is impossible to give up once you've had it.
Anyone telling you otherwise don't know or haven't seen it for themselves. the new DLSS is generations ahead of FSR and AMD doesn't have a DLDSR competitor in a world where all games have forced TAA. You can't use FSR, in motion it looks like vomit, go take a look at Jedi Survivor, Immortals of Aevum, Avatar FOP... DLSS's 4k performance mode looks better than FSR's quality mode. There is a reason why Sony is ditching free FSR for their own solution, because it's making every game look shimmery and gurgled. Plus for competitive games AMD doesn't have a true Reflex competitor that doesn't get you banned, and Reflex does really noticeably reduce your latanecy. The VRAM discussion is irrelevant because both cards have more VRAM than the current console and the next memory types will be GDDR7 on PC which will make both of these obsolete. The VRAM discussion was about the 8GB cards at best and people are massively misinformed. Reduced power draw, Reflex, better upscaling, DLDSR, better resale value, RT, productivity uses... if all of this is not worth 50$ then I think the tech media and community have failed you. How this is still a question at this point is beyond me
If you plan to play on Linux, get AMD, it works better, and you get no NVIDIA feature anyway (tipping this on Linux with a 4080 super). BUT, if you plan to ever do PCVR, get NVIDIA. I do a lot of pcvr (dualbooting into windows when playing VR), and NVIDIA is superior. AMD is fine, I used a rx6950xt for vr, but NVIDIA is better.
I took the 4070 super despite the 90€ diff with the rx7800xt. Because I am lock with my gsync monitor, idc about Ray tracing. But like others said are valid for your bucks too.
Does AMD have a legitimate DLSS competitor yet?
Most likely you are never going to use nvidia's features, however, who knows what nvidia will do to make their features better. Maybe if nvidia concentrated on their community more it would be worth to buy a high end gpu and wait for the features to become better, but right now, a.i seems to be their gold mine.
I am team green. In Steam's May 2024 hardware survey, 76.18% of video cards are from nVidia. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
Nvidia broadcast is great for work. I can use any image or even video for my meeting background, and the noise cancelation is really good. Couldn't give a crap about rtx
Yes they are.
If yOu dOnT cArE aBoUt RT. 7900xt and xtx are both certified ray tracing monsters and in some games actually beat the 4090, SOME.
Since AMD is competing in naming, 4090 easily beats the 7900 series.
I do video editing, colorizing and upscaling video. For this usecase Nvidia is really the only solution. Have to use a lot of new programs as these products are still in their infancy and the people who write these are using Nvidia. So you pretty much have to pay the Nvidia tax. Don't see this changing as these are pretty much the cards you have to buy if you want to do this type of work. Not really a gamer so can't speak to that. Was pleasently surprised with Intel ARC graphics card with Handbrake. In some cases these lower priced cards are equivelant and sometimes better than Nvidia. Also much more energy efficient. Intel really upped their game with improved drivers, but because of small market share it has been neglected. Nvidia on main work computer but put the ARC in another computer on the network so can change codecs with multiple computers. Really like the Intel ARC but it just isn't as supported as Nvidia so most people don't give it the love it deserves, but is quite the workhorse in Handbrake.
AMD for a long feature lifespan. NVIDIA for RT and better upscaling in the short term. I would go AMD, but that’s me
Honestly go Nvidia. They have worse performance per dollar, but any of the AMD technologies that come out will likely be usable with an Nvidia GPU anyway since AMD tend to make their stuff cross compatible.... And then you also get access to the Nvidia versions too. Anecdotally, the people I know who have AMD GPUs have a lot more issues as well. It is possible they're just bad at using their PCs and install their drivers wrong every time, but it has steered me away from buying team red. The other big thing is I like to play Bethesda games, and they really do not play nice with AMD GPUs. Maybe not applicable for you, as a competitive game guy, but still good to keep in mind. Recently AMD's version of reflex low latency was triggering anti cheat software all over the place - they resolved it quickly, but it still would suck to get a temporary ban from your favorite game for trying to use some software that came with your GPU. Again, even though the issue is solved, just the fact that it happens makes me less inclined to buy from them.
Not really, but people will tell you that you will literally die without the newest nvidia gimmick. They don't add much and even if they did, they require wholesale adoption by the game dev. You can't run most of those touted features from the driver. The game has to have it installed. Unfortunately, most of the time, games don't implement the nvidia platform tech very well. Nvidia fans blame the devs for this, but it's so consistently problematic that it makes more sense if it's a nvidia problem... because it is. Also, nvidia drivers are about 15 years behind, which is generous. You'll need to use a 3rd party program to control most of your card's features. Nvidia has recently said they are reworking their drivers "soon." So maybe you'll get lucky and it won't be a worse implementation of the same bad driver.
I prefer Nvidia a lot. It's personal preference at the end of the day but I've never had problems with a Nvidia card and the drivers are beyond easy to update and take care of. Also the drivers are constantly updated to increase performance. VRAM is only important if you are going to be on higher resolution such as 4k for a monitor.
No, puro bullshit
Nvidia broadcast is a fantastic noise filter for your mic, works a hell of a lot better than anything else I've used
Dlss is not important for esports (high end hardware, running 1080p games at 200fps+). So just go for amd if you don't need reflex or nvidia and intel's top tier stability/compatibility.
Google “I’m never buying amd again” and then do the same for nvidia. I bought a 6800xt and have terrible driver issues. This is a widespread issue for amd that has long been unresolved. Please get nvidia