4080 or 7900xtx

[Space Lynx]

Currently looking at 2 cards
4080 zotac trinity for £1050
7900xtx hell hound for £975

the goal is 1440p high refresh (90 plus) for along as possible

nvdia pros
Ray tracing
Upscaling better quality
Frame gen can use fsr3 and nvdias
Dual av1 encoders
Drivers
Power efficiency

Amd pros
24gb vram
More memory bandwidth
Anti lag plus ( looks better than nvdias boost)

im swaying towards nvdia mostly becuase quality dlss I think is acceptable way to play
But fsr is too shimmery for me

also I understand Sam works a lot better with a amd system which I don’t have
I have a 13600k with ddr4

amd temps me becuase of the bandwidth and extra vram may play a part 3-4 years down the line

what do you guys think ? What would you pick ?

sam doesn't work a lot better with an all AMD system, maybe a few percentage points in most games, and a few outliers where it does indeed work really well. but no at those prices you should def take the 4080, thats a good deal for a 4080.

 

[wolar]

If you don't care for RT then 7900xtx hands down.
The drivers are much better vs nvidia in my experience and way more user-friendly to navigate.

Also don't expect 16GB on the 4080 to last forever. The same was said when i bought my 970 and the whole 3.5gb fiasco and i remember people saying it doesn't matter because 3.5GB are plenty.
They will not be plenty forever is all i am saying, if you expect this to be replaced in 5years then most likely you hit that wall by that time.

 

[JustBenching]

There isn't a single reason to buy an amd card unless it's cheaper. Much cheaper. For 75 bucks, roflmao go nvidia. Better features, much better rt performance. If you are spending 1k on a gpu I assume you want to see some nice graphics, and the 7900xtx can't deliver them.

 

[Shou Miko]

It's not a simple but yet a complex question to ask to go AMD or Nvidia really.

One of the questions are always you use ray tracing because than Nvidia is currently ahead but if you want more raw performance at a better price it's AMD but look at Hardware unboxed gaming tests where they test a lot of gaming and comparisons between not just cards but also games.

So far for myself I do AMD's RX 7900 XT if I need a card that could do like the same I need a RTX 4070 Ti at least or a RTX 4080 but they are so much more expensive it doesn't make sense and AMD's Adrenalin is so much more feature rich without needing an account talking about GeForce Now which I have removed with NVCleanInstall thanks to W1zzard for making this because I got a T480 with a Nvidia GeForce MX150 not for gaming really I do not need all the extras.

 

[las]

Anti Lag should not be a pro, Reflex beats it easily. DLSS/DLAA/DLDSR too is awesome features that AMD can't match at all.

FSR has not amazed me in a single game compared to DLSS. Techspot also tested this in like 26 games and FSR did not win in a single one.

However DLAA is extremely good and is a preset of DLSS now. Meaning you can be the best AA method in pretty much all new games. DLAA removes shimmering and jaggies like no other AA. Just a clean image. 1440p with DLAA looks close to 4K/UHD native. Not even kidding. It is one of the most underrated features of RTX.

4080 was the right choice IMO. 7900XTX should be much cheaper if AMD wants to compete.

Looking at raster perf and nothing else when buying a GPU in 2023 is a big mistake, however 4080 and 7900XTX are pretty much even in raster as well. Depends on games which win but with 4080 you will get tons of other possibilities (upscaling, superior AA, ray tracing etc)

Can't wait to replay Half Life 2 in the RTX Remix version. So many great RTX games and mods out there.

 

[Johnthedon1]

If you don't care for RT then 7900xtx hands down.
The drivers are much better vs nvidia in my experience and way more user-friendly to navigate.

Also don't expect 16GB on the 4080 to last forever. The same was said when i bought my 970 and the whole 3.5gb fiasco and i remember people saying it doesn't matter because 3.5GB are plenty.
They will not be plenty forever is all i am saying, if you expect this to be replaced in 5years then most likely you hit that wall by that time.

I’m yet to see a amd review without a 10 min caveat about driver issues, blacks screen and timeouts

 

[las]

If you don't care for RT then 7900xtx hands down.
The drivers are much better vs nvidia in my experience and way more user-friendly to navigate.

Also don't expect 16GB on the 4080 to last forever. The same was said when i bought my 970 and the whole 3.5gb fiasco and i remember people saying it doesn't matter because 3.5GB are plenty.
They will not be plenty forever is all i am saying, if you expect this to be replaced in 5years then most likely you hit that wall by that time.

If you by drivers mean their UI to control settings in Windows, then AMDs UI might seem more 2023, sure. However if you mean optimization, stability and day one drivers for new games, then absolutely not, Nvidia wins big time here. Nvidia prety much always have day one driver ready (including early access). AMD often don't.

AMD mainly focuses on optimizing popular games and benchmarks that gets used alot in reviews. Once you step away from these titles, AMD performance is way more wonky. Most lesser popular titles, betas and early access games tends to run FAR BETTER on Nvidia in general, meaning better performance and less glitches or even crashes. Why? Because Nvidia works closely with many developers. Developers very often use Nvidia for testing (and in their personal rigs) + Nvidia sits at 80-85% dGPU marketshare, so it just makes sense.

I set up Nvidia Control Panel and almost never open it again. You don't need to change stuff here all the time really. NCP works flawlessly and does what I need it to do and driver updates NEVER changes my settings here.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I would also have to say get the 4080, DLSS, RT, better drivers.

 

[bug]

The drivers are much better vs nvidia in my experience and way more user-friendly to navigate.

You seem to confuse the actual drivers and their control panels.
It's important for the drivers to work well. The control panel on the other hand, is an "also ran", you don't spend much time looking at the control panel. Imho, a flashy control panel is just as useful as RGB lighting on "gaming" things.

 

[Ripcord]

Sapphire RX7900xtx £949 would be my choice

 

[Outback Bronze]

1440p with DLAA looks close to 4K/UHD native.

Hasn't this been going on for years with MSAA e.g. 8xAA or 16xAA if you got the beef?

I have been reading that DLAA is in fact better in motion but will have to confirm myself. Havent played around much with DLAA yet.

Also, I had to turn DLSS off in Hogwarts and use native as I received too much flickering/shimmering on the mountain rocks during the day (sun was out in game) as it was doing my eyes in.

I couldn't replicate the same issues at night (in game) but I cbf turning DLSS on/off between night and day in game all the time.

To be fair, I have only found this in Hogwarts, so only one game atm, nonetheless one of the bigger titles this year.

 

[las]

Hasn't this been going on for years with MSAA e.g. 8xAA or 16xAA if you got the beef?

I have been reading that DLAA is in fact better in motion but will have to confirm myself. Havent played around much with DLAA yet.

Also, I had to turn DLSS off in Hogwarts and use native as I received too much flickering/shimmering on the mountain rocks during the day (sun was out in game) as it was doing my eyes in.

I couldn't replicate the same issues at night (in game) but I cbf turning DLSS on/off between night and day in game all the time.

To be fair, I have only found this in Hogwarts, so only one game atm, nonetheless one of the bigger titles this year.

Yeah difference is that DLAA barely eats ressources (2-5% at most) while delivering insane visuals, easily beating any other AA solution. In comparison, MSAAx8 just tanks performance. TAA is often a blurry mess. No AA solution is perfect but DLAA comes close.

Hogwartz have DLAA.

DLSS Quality can but won't always improve visuals (depends on scene and settings), however performance will skyrocket -> https://imgsli.com/MTk2MTE2

I'd take DLSS Quality enabled any day if my fps was below 100. Games should have built-in sharpening slider tho, then you can easily adjust.

Both DLAA and DLSS have built in AA with sharpening. This is also why DLSS can sometimes beat native - while improving performance alot on top -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance

Implementation is important tho. There's many games with insanely good DLSS implementation and some with mediocre. Whats good is that DLAA can be used in most now and this will improve visuals every single time. If a game has DLSS 2 or better, you can use DLAA pretty much every time now, or inject/mod/replace dll.

 

[Denver]

Anything that doesn't have the Zotac brand on it, and there is a big difference between bad service and no customer service at all(manipulation to deny RMA).

Careful. The worst thing is to buy something expensive and end up with no product or money.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Go nVidia if you can afford the 4090, otherwise the 7900XTX, the 4080 should be cheaper for what it is except if you use ML.

 

[Outback Bronze]

I'd take DLSS Quality enabled any day if my fps was below 100. Games should have built-in sharpening slider tho, then you can easily adjust.

Even if you're receiving a lot of flickering/shimmering and it's killing your eyes? Coz like I say I had to turn it off.

 

[wolar]

I’m yet to see a amd review without a 10 min caveat about driver issues, blacks screen and timeouts

Thats exactly what i kept hearing as well, but i got myself a 7900XT, my brothers (both) 7900XTX, with amd and intel CPUs.
We got 0 issues, none whatsoever from the drivers and we all agree the application is much easier to use.
I have no idea where the others are getting all these issues from but i saw none.

At the time we bought those the price gap between the 7900XTX and 4080 was enormous at over 200eur.
I misread the prices of the initial post at 175pounds less for XTX, just realized it's 75 only and for that difference it becomes a much harder choice.

Btw, just released HardwareUnboxed video you might want to check out.

 

[ARF]

Currently looking at 2 cards
4080 zotac trinity for £1050
7900xtx hell hound for £975

what do you guys think ? What would you pick ?

24 GB vs. 16 GB, there is really no contest. Of course, the Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the better buy. It is faster overall, and more future proof.

But if the thread is created for trolling purposes, you can go the oppossite - take less VRAM, take lower performance, and take the more expensive nvidia part

 

[las]

Even if you're receiving a lot of flickering/shimmering and it's killing your eyes? Coz like I say I had to turn it off.

I have not tried Hogwartz yet, but you can use DLAA if you want superior visuals (as in better than native).

DLAA only goal is to improve visuals. DLSS is not, but it can improve visuals too (on quality preset).

24 GB vs. 16 GB, there is really no contest. Of course, the Radeon RX 7900 XTX is the better buy. It is faster overall, and more future proof.

But if the thread is created for trolling purposes, you can go the oppossite - take less VRAM, take lower performance, and take the more expensive nvidia part

VRAM don't make a GPU future proof. LMAO. Features do.

By the time 24GB is needed, 7900XTX will be dirt slow, forcing you to lower settings alot anyway and hence lowing VRAM requirement. Logic.

 

[bug]

Thats exactly what i kept hearing as well, but i got myself a 7900XT, my brothers (both) 7900XTX, with amd and intel CPUs.
We got 0 issues, none whatsoever from the drivers and we all agree the application is much easier to use.
I have no idea where the others are getting all these issues from but i saw none.

At the time we bought those the price gap between the 7900XTX and 4080 was enormous at over 200eur.
I misread the prices of the initial post at 175pounds less for XTX, just realized it's 75 only and for that difference it becomes a much harder choice.

Btw, just released HardwareUnboxed video you might want to check out.

Most likely it depends on the setup. Having a second monitor, maybe with a different resolution, using VRR or perhaps combining a VRR and a non-VRR monitor can complicate things and create issues you wouldn't see otherwise. Sometimes the cause can be something as innocuous as selecting the a different power profile.
It's really hard to tell. Personal experience is usually just a sample of 1, and while you can find numerous reports of issues online, there's no way to tell what % of the total cards out there you are looking at.

 

[ARF]

VRAM don't make a GPU future proof. LMAO. Features do.

By the time 24GB is needed, 7900XTX will be dirt slow, forcing you to lower settings alot anyway and hence lowing VRAM requirement. Logic.

VRAM is one of the most important factors for future proofing.
16 GB is the bare minimum for ultra-high end graphics card, and the 4080 (rebranded 4070) is a junk product severely overpriced. It must cost not more than 650$.

Look at the product positioning:

GTX 470 GF100 529 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 570 GF110 520 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 670 GK104 294 mm^2 2012 400$
GTX 770 GK104 294 mm^2 2013 400$
GTX 970 GM204 398 mm^2 2014 330$
GTX 1070 GP104 314 mm^2 2016 380$
RTX 2070 TU106 445 mm^2 2018 500$
RTX 3070 GA104 392 mm^2 2020 500$
RTX 4080 AD103 379 mm^2 2022 1200$ ??

 

[bug]

VRAM is one of the most important factors for future proofing.

That's what AMD says these days, but think about it for a moment. If you run out of VRAM, you simply lower texture details and you're back in business. If you run out of compute power, you have to scale back shading and other things that have a much more visible visual impact.
Ime, it's very rare for a video card that can handle mostly everything today will struggle with many titles in 3 years. Some probably, but not many. After 3 years, most people are already looking at an upgrade anyway.

 

[las]

VRAM is one of the most important factors for future proofing.
16 GB is the bare minimum for ultra-high end graphics card, and the 4080 (rebranded 4070) is a junk product severely overpriced. It must cost not more than 650$.

Look at the product positioning:

GTX 470 GF100 529 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 570 GF110 520 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 670 GK104 294 mm^2 2012 400$
GTX 770 GK104 294 mm^2 2013 400$
GTX 970 GM204 398 mm^2 2014 330$
GTX 1070 GP104 314 mm^2 2016 380$
RTX 2070 TU106 445 mm^2 2018 500$
RTX 3070 GA104 392 mm^2 2020 500$
RTX 4080 AD103 379 mm^2 2022 1200$ ??

Hahah. Futureproofing hardware is the single most stupid thing you can do

3070 8GB beats 6700XT 12GB on launch and still does in 2023, even in 4K/UHD when looking at minimum fps, which none of these cards are made for -> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7800-xt/35.html

They launched at 499 and 479 dollars, meaning pretty much identical pricing.
Yet 4GB extra VRAM did nothing. Keep dreaming if you think VRAM will save you. I will be ready to laugh.

4060 Ti 8GB vs 16GB -> https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-16-gb/40.html

"No significant performance gains from 16 GB VRAM"

Debunked. Next.

 

[ARF]

Hahah. Futureproofing hardware is the single most stupid thing you can do

The most stupid thing is to take less VRAM for more money and try to convince yourself internally that you made a good deal. Not..

 

[las]

The most stupid thing is to take less VRAM for more money and try to convince yourself internally that you made a good deal. Not..

Truth hurts I see. AMD has nothing on Nvidia. Hence the low sales and lower prices. No-one is paying Nvidia prices for AMD hardware, wonder why

My 4090 beats everything AMD has to offer with ease. Even AMD said they can't compete with 4090

Besides, 4080 easily competes with 7900XTX + 4080 has next level RT performance and way better features. 4080 outsells 7900XTX with ease, even tho it's the worst priced 4000 series card (however the best card this generation when it comes to performance per watt)

 

[JustBenching]

VRAM is one of the most important factors for future proofing.
16 GB is the bare minimum for ultra-high end graphics card, and the 4080 (rebranded 4070) is a junk product severely overpriced. It must cost not more than 650$.

Look at the product positioning:

GTX 470 GF100 529 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 570 GF110 520 mm^2 2010 350$
GTX 670 GK104 294 mm^2 2012 400$
GTX 770 GK104 294 mm^2 2013 400$
GTX 970 GM204 398 mm^2 2014 330$
GTX 1070 GP104 314 mm^2 2016 380$
RTX 2070 TU106 445 mm^2 2018 500$
RTX 3070 GA104 392 mm^2 2020 500$
RTX 4080 AD103 379 mm^2 2022 1200$ ??

If the 4080 is a 4070, are you suggesting that amd, in the one thing that it is good at, raster performance, can't even outmatch a 4070?