50 Games Tested: GeForce RTX 3080 vs. Radeon RX 6800 XT

[btk2k2]

Great article and I really like the presentation.

I agree with a poster up thread in that it would be good to add the FPS of the baseline card so that you can see if the 10%+ wins make any meaningful difference to gameplay experience. If the baseline is running at 45fps then 10%+ can be a useful addition but if baseline is 200FPS then even being 20% behind may not matter as much in the scheme of things.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

This is pure garbage
Their are Console gamers and Pc gamers Who are fine with most things
and then there are pc elitists who need 144 fps for some? reason

Console & PC gamers are a different breed. Console cowboys are fine with sluggish gamepad controls & non constant 60 FPS. On PC gamers who play mostly RTS etc. are also fine with 4K 60FPS. But gamers who mostly play fast paced shooter games etc. will opt for 120+FPS on FHD or WQHD any day over 4K.

 

[mb194dc]

Excellent comparison.

Be good to see with overclocking and at equivalent power consumption.

6800xt can be pushed to 320w out of the box, which is similar to 3080 at stock and will gain 10 to 20% performance depending on exactly how you tweak the voltage and boost curve.

 

[Charcharo]

I'd be wary of the elitism in PC gaming because its mostly an influencer-thing. It doesn't exist, only in the minds of the lucky few who manage to get their hands on overpriced hardware. And you could question the point of that entirely, because all the hardware games just fine really. And the games don't always get better for them either. Too many gaming discussions are focused on FPS counters and other stuff that really only is about presentation.

So is it really important to spend over 1K on a screen? I beg to differ. The technology progresses rapidly, spending big now, is simply early adopting and you know you're overpaying. LG OLED has come down in price, yes. But its still triple that of an LCD that also offers a very immersive gaming experience. And if you go VA, black isn't an issue you will notice either.

The overall price tag for a gaming rig soars to great heights lately with all the new things you 'can' do. But its a mistake to consider them necessary or somehow universally 'better'. There are and were good reasons for display differences between segments like TV and PC. And they aren't gone.

As for not considering exceptions... oh? I do actually. The exceptions MAKE the rule. Its very common for PCs to display static content, and you only need one exceptional situation to reduce the lifespan of your TV.

Display Diagonal = size. 48 inch. 40 inch. Etc.

I do not consider top end IPS or VA panels (I use VA over IPS on LCDs) to be giving you a really immersive experience. The delta between OLED and LCD for gaming is so high that if I were to claim OLED is good for gaming, then LCD isnt decent, nor is it mediocre. It is poor. I legitimately would rather have something low-end like a RTX 3060 or RX 6600 XT and my OLED screen over a 6900 XT / 3080 Ti and a 1440p IPS/VA LCD display. IMHO the first will be a far more visually stunning experience, since medium settings on an OLED with HDR On would curbstomp Ultra on an LCD with its attempts at doing HDR (or even without HDR in the picture).

We also are not going to get MicroLED or OLED gaming monitors soon. And if they come out they will be 1K+ so same price as the OLED TV. Hell notice how in my initial comment I claimed that LCD displays are FINE for budget users or for cheap monitors. I specifically said that. The issue is when we have 800+ EUR LCD monitors. Those are useless.

"As for not considering exceptions... oh? I do actually. The exceptions MAKE the rule. Its very common for PCs to display static content, and you only need one exceptional situation to reduce the lifespan of your TV."

I was preemting you posting Linus' video where he had issues with burn in. Modern OLEDs do well to avoid burn in so it is the EXCEPTION to have issues with that.

"Display Diagonal = size. 48 inch. 40 inch. Etc."

Size does definitely matter, contrary to popular internet memes. but I get ya, if you dont have the space on the desk or living room, it will be an issue. This is why I hope monitors stop sucking and start providing real actually good displays in the high-end.

This is pure garbage
Their are Console gamers and Pc gamers Who are fine with most things
and then there are pc elitists who need 144 fps for some? reason

No lol. 320W (Rage Mode) is like 1-3% at BEST more performance. And the stock power limit takes you to 335W.

 

[R-T-B]

when you can simply do your own upscaling performance math.

If it were that simple, I'd agree. Due to driver eccentricities it often isn't.

 

[Vayra86]

I do not consider top end IPS or VA panels (I use VA over IPS on LCDs) to be giving you a really immersive experience. The delta between OLED and LCD for gaming is so high that if I were to claim OLED is good for gaming, then LCD isnt decent, nor is it mediocre. It is poor. I legitimately would rather have something low-end like a RTX 3060 or RX 6600 XT and my OLED screen over a 6900 XT / 3080 Ti and a 1440p IPS/VA LCD display. IMHO the first will be a far more visually stunning experience, since medium settings on an OLED with HDR On would curbstomp Ultra on an LCD with its attempts at doing HDR (or even without HDR in the picture).

We also are not going to get MicroLED or OLED gaming monitors soon. And if they come out they will be 1K+ so same price as the OLED TV. Hell notice how in my initial comment I claimed that LCD displays are FINE for budget users or for cheap monitors. I specifically said that. The issue is when we have 800+ EUR LCD monitors. Those are useless.

"As for not considering exceptions... oh? I do actually. The exceptions MAKE the rule. Its very common for PCs to display static content, and you only need one exceptional situation to reduce the lifespan of your TV."

I was preemting you posting Linus' video where he had issues with burn in. Modern OLEDs do well to avoid burn in so it is the EXCEPTION to have issues with that.

"Display Diagonal = size. 48 inch. 40 inch. Etc."

Size does definitely matter, contrary to popular internet memes. but I get ya, if you dont have the space on the desk or living room, it will be an issue. This is why I hope monitors stop sucking and start providing real actually good displays in the high-end.



No lol. 320W (Rage Mode) is like 1-3% at BEST more performance. And the stock power limit takes you to 335W.

I'll agree right away LCD is a poor technology - stack enough bandaids on it, and it becomes decent enough, which is where most gaming monitors are right now and have been for a while. OLED only just recently reached enough bandaids to be useful for gaming and durable enough.

But at the same time, I still view both technologies for displays inferior, simply because OLED is not available in proper sizes and a wide price range. You can say 'but they'll never get there and when they do, they also cost more', but that's turning the world upside down. The reality is, you've sacrificed certain monitor qualities and paid more so you could get a higher quality image. A simple case of 'you get what you pay for'. And I do agree with your statement, paying over $450 for any LCD is bonkers. Its supposed to be cheap, and 450 is pushing that already.

Its a sacrifice whichever way you go, which is my point. Exaggeration of the difference in perceived quality between OLED and LCD doesn't change that. You found it worth the sacrifice. That's fine, but others don't.

Also, not getting an immersive experience out of anything non-LCD, is a pretty big you problem Not a 'me' problem. Its the same thing as getting used to high refresh rates. Going back is difficult. I can immerse myself just fine on LCD, as I did on CRT, and on PAL TV with 576i on an ancient console. Immersion is not related to picture quality. Its about a state of mind and motivation more so than anything else. Do certain screen qualities help with it? Sure. But its totally abstract.

Console & PC gamers are a different breed. Console cowboys are fine with sluggish gamepad controls & non constant 60 FPS. On PC gamers who play mostly RTS etc. are also fine with 4K 60FPS. But gamers who mostly play fast paced shooter games etc. will opt for 120+FPS on FHD or WQHD any day over 4K.

Also unclear what you mean with "FAR inferior LCD displays". The LCD panels are mostly on the same quality level, while a 4K display just has some more pixels (sharper image) & a FHD/WQHD gaming display has higher pixel refresh rates (super fluid image). It just comes down what fits your needs more.

This is really more of the same - its what you're used to. All gamers go through phases. Some stop after casually exploring some console games. Some never buy a console and remain in browser games. Some go beyond that and generally are console & PC gamer all in one. Not necessarily at the same time. Underneath that is a desire to go further every time, explore new limits of gaming. Higher refresh rates, resolutions, better graphics are a driving force for this, but also new content.

There are no different breeds. There are just humans with their typical traits of expansion.

 

[Charcharo]

I'll agree right away LCD is a poor technology - stack enough bandaids on it, and it becomes decent enough, which is where most gaming monitors are right now and have been for a while. OLED only just recently reached enough bandaids to be useful for gaming and durable enough.

But at the same time, I still view both technologies for displays inferior, simply because OLED is not available in proper sizes and a wide price range. You can say 'but they'll never get there and when they do, they also cost more', but that's turning the world upside down. The reality is, you've sacrificed certain monitor qualities and paid more so you could get a higher quality image. A simple case of 'you get what you pay for'. And I do agree with your statement, paying over $450 for any LCD is bonkers. Its supposed to be cheap, and 450 is pushing that already.

Its a sacrifice whichever way you go, which is my point. Exaggeration of the difference in perceived quality between OLED and LCD doesn't change that. You found it worth the sacrifice. That's fine, but others don't.

Also, not getting an immersive experience out of anything non-LCD, is a pretty big you problem Not a 'me' problem. Its the same thing as getting used to high refresh rates. Going back is difficult. I can immerse myself just fine on LCD, as I did on CRT, and on PAL TV with 576i on an ancient console. Immersion is not related to picture quality. Its about a state of mind and motivation more so than anything else. Do certain screen qualities help with it? Sure. But its totally abstract.

Immersion in gaming is a function of many things. Writing is one of the biggest. Sound quality is huge too. Having a good UI is big as well, and the gameplay itself is a part of immersion. In actuality, graphics (bar art design) tend to be one of the smaller long term factors to immersion. But they are a factor still.

Though ya know, people underestimate how important storytelling is to immersion. Crysis 3 was not immersive to me because damn, its too stupid to take the game seriouisly

Proper sizes is a subjective term. I feel 55" or 65" is a proper size. My room has space for that and I can easily game on such a computer, or write or read from it. Now, if its for a desk even 48 or even 43" may be pushing it, fair on that one. But for a desk, a 32" or 28" 4K 120 hz display LCD is like 500+ EUR I think. That is too much. If it was 350 EUR .. oh that changes things dramatically. Id say its decent price/performance for an LCD panel and even if OLED is a lot better, it will still be worthwhile for many users.

If your argument is that for OLED to be truly completely superior for all users with zero exceptions, then it has to have smaller sizes like 32" or 28" available... that one I can accept. If that is the argument, I accept it. Ultimately, we need MicroLED displays to be the standard.

And no I am not exaggerating the differences at all. I 100% stand by this. Its the biggest upgrade ive done in years. My previous personal compute upgrade was an ATI 5770 to a R9 390. It was a VERY good upgrade, a 7-8X upgrade overall (sometimes less). Id say going from something good by LCD standards, like a ASUS ROG Strix XG27AQ to an LG C1 OLED is not AS big of an upgrade... but it isnt far off. Id say like R9 390 to 6900 XT. A 4X improvement but not in performance but in visuals and speed of the panel. Its that massive.

I argued against OLEDs in 2018 when one of my friends got his and started being like a preacher for them. I told him he is a madman. Then in 2020 I made the switch and I see that he was right .

 

[Arcdar]

Amazing amount of work put in there - I would have just broken it down into multiple pages (1080 / 1440 / 4k and conclusion - the same type for format you use for your general reviews for instance) but in general I loved reading say "thanks"

 

[W1zzard]

Amazing amount of work put in there - I would have just broken it down into multiple pages (1080 / 1440 / 4k and conclusion - the same type for format you use for your general reviews for instance) but in general I loved reading say "thanks"

I wanted to try single-page format to see if it does anything significant for search engine placement, "RTX 3080 vs RX 6800 XT" is a highly contested search term

 

[Deleted member 215115]

AMD is like fine red wine, gets better with age!
Nvidia is like fine beer, better when freshly brewed but starts to go off and stale with age!

If there ever was an example of this, just look at the venerable GCN architecture! The R9-290X to this day runs similar performance to a 580 and will run every single game tested today at 1080p! Can you say that about GTX 780!?!?!? which was its competition when it was released? Both cards are near a decade old!!!!

Facts i've been using Ati/AMD gpu's for 20+ years now going back to the very First Radeon 64DDR they always improve with time.

One can also argue that Nvidia cards are 100% ready at launch driver-wise whereas AMD cards are not. And before you call me a fanboy or whatever, you should know that I've actually owned some Radeon cards in the past: HD 7770, R9 270X, RX 580, RX 5700XT.

 

[seth1911]

This is pure garbage
Their are Console gamers and Pc gamers Who are fine with most things
and then there are pc elitists who need 144 fps for some? reason

For Skill, i get in CSGO with 75Hz every time a 2.2 -2.6 KD but Friends with 144Hz get a awfull KD of 1.1-1.2 (same Server, same Team)
Maybe im steal them the kills cause im not poor enough, next weekend ill try it to set the refresh rate down to 30 Hz.


If im then even better, yeah skill is skill and not FPS or refresh rate. Poor peasants




Wee need 144Hz we are Masterrace
We get killed by a APU Peasant Player, he Cheats 100%
No its skill, hightech cant equalize skill

 

[HD64G]

One can also argue that Nvidia cards are 100% ready at launch driver-wise whereas AMD cards are not. And before you call me a fanboy or whatever, you should know that I've actually owned some Radeon cards in the past: HD 7770, R9 270X, RX 580, RX 5700XT.

Agreed on this but for the knowers of that "habit", one could buy a 5700XT for the price of a 2060 back then and end up being faster than a 2070 after a year while spending much less. AMD loses money because of this but customers that buy their GPUs gain money on the long term, especially if they keep their GPUs for 3 years or more. And even more now that AMD's GPUs consume less power than the nVidia ones.

 

[Deleted member 215115]

Agreed on this but for the knowers of that "habit", one could buy a 5700XT for the price of a 2060 back then and end up being faster than a 2070 after a year while spending much less. AMD loses money because of this but customers that buy their GPUs gain money on the long term, especially if they keep their GPUs for 3 years or more. And even more now that AMD's GPUs consume less power than the nVidia ones.

True, but the 5700XT had serious driver issues. I'm speaking from experience here. My 5700XT Pulse cost me less than a 2070 back then and was great when it worked properly but the drivers were just really bad. I used to spend most of my time troubleshooting instead of playing games. I was seriously kicking myself for not getting the 2070.

Sure, one could see more value in AMD in the long run but also a lot of value in Nvidia right now. I'm always looking at things objectively and I'm very quick to criticize either camp for the shit they pull. I can name 10 things I dislike about either of them without even thinking about it so ultimately I choose whatever is best for me out of the stuff that's available. Right now, I feel like Nvidia has the upper hand with their features but I was really impressed by RDNA 2. Still a bit traumatized by the previous AMD driver issues though...

The power consumption thing has never really mattered. People who buy mid to high-end graphics cards are clearly enthusiasts who don't mind the extra power. If they did, nobody would buy Intel processors anymore.

 

[Makaveli]

One can also argue that Nvidia cards are 100% ready at launch driver-wise whereas AMD cards are not. And before you call me a fanboy or whatever, you should know that I've actually owned some Radeon cards in the past: HD 7770, R9 270X, RX 580, RX 5700XT.

Not going to call you anything you are free to have an opinion.

 

[wolf]

One can also argue that Nvidia cards are 100% ready at launch driver-wise whereas AMD cards are not.

This is certainly the other perspective of what people call finewine, and it can also involve rolling with a few punches along the way to get a few % more in the long run. Certainly seems better from launch with RDNA2, and given the vast differences in the test system, config options and games tested, I'm I'm not quite convinced the test results of this article really qualify as finewine. I'd love to see far more specific apples to apples testing to see if it is true though.

 

[DanglingPointer]

This is certainly the other perspective of what people call finewine, and it can also involve rolling with a few punches along the way to get a few % more in the long run. Certainly seems better from launch with RDNA2, and given the vast differences in the test system, config options and games tested, I'm I'm not quite convinced the test results of this article really qualify as finewine. I'd love to see far more specific apples to apples testing to see if it is true though.

Easily done mate! Grab a GTX780 and a R9-290X; then test all 50 games from OP's article.

If that doesn't show the longevity of AMD GPUs I don't know what will!?

As another poster said, they even had a 7970 from a decade ago running circles against a more contemporary competition!

You can also see the last graph of the OP article where it starts to show it.

You buy Nvidia, you'll have to upgrade more frequently. You get an AMD, you don't really have to cause it will run all the stuff for a long while to come!

 

[wolf]

Easily done mate! Grab a GTX780 and a R9-290X;

Not sure that's going to tell me anything relevant about how RDNA2 has aged or will age. But, I suppose if you're a person who plans to keep a GPU for 7-10 years or 3-4+ gens, that could be a unique selling factor. I tend to upgrade every gen, 2 at most.

 

[DanglingPointer]

Not sure that's going to tell me anything relevant about how RDNA2 has aged or will age. But, I suppose if you're a person who plans to keep a GPU for 7-10 years or 3-4+ gens, that could be a unique selling factor. I tend to upgrade every gen, 2 at most.

Yeah I'm one of those that skip multiple gens historically if I look at all the GPUs I've had. Been upgrading every 4-5 years since 3dfx Voodoo graphics era. But after I watercooled a R9-290X when it was first released, I couldn't justify upgrading since all games worked with my then 1080 display! They worked even up to now with 1080! I bought a 1440p 144Hz Free-sync monitor last year and thought this year perhaps its time. Its been nearly a decade so bought a 6900XT liquid Devil ultimate. I'm guessing I'll probably have this at least for a good 3-5 years unless it lasts as long as the 290X and able to play everything for more than that!

 

[arni-gx]

At the same time RT is being used more and more. It's pretty much in every AAA game nowadays and I feel like the lack of RT performance on the 6800xt is going to hurt it more than the VRAM on the 3080. In fact the lack of RT performance is already an issue atm.

v
v
v

While all our benchmarks are tested with ray tracing disabled and only few games today support the technology, ray tracing is here to stay. Comparing the Radeon RX 6800 XT with the RTX 3080 makes that NVIDIA has the upper hand in ray tracing performance crystal clear. The differences are significant, and if you believe ray tracing is the future, you should definitely consider the RTX 3080. On the other hand, some recent video game releases only have minimal ray tracing support that's just good enough to tick the "i haz ray tracing" checkbox without achieving the stunning fidelity improvements we were promised. In those titles, the RT performance hit is minimal, and both cards are surprisingly similar in FPS.

v
v
v

but, there is no RT benchmark with those article......

 

[MarsM4N]

For Skill, i get in CSGO with 75Hz every time a 2.2 -2.6 KD but Friends with 144Hz get a awfull KD of 1.1-1.2 (same Server, same Team)
Maybe im steal them the kills cause im not poor enough, next weekend ill try it to set the refresh rate down to 30 Hz.


If im then even better, yeah skill is skill and not FPS or refresh rate. Poor peasants

Wee need 144Hz we are Masterrace
We get killed by a APU Peasant Player, he Cheats 100%
No its skill, hightech cant equalize skill

Let me throw something scientific in here:

"High refresh rate doesn't make you a better gamer, but it makes it easier to be a better gamer." Quote: Linus Sebastian

This is really more of the same - its what you're used to. All gamers go through phases. Some stop after casually exploring some console games. Some never buy a console and remain in browser games. Some go beyond that and generally are console & PC gamer all in one. Not necessarily at the same time. Underneath that is a desire to go further every time, explore new limits of gaming. Higher refresh rates, resolutions, better graphics are a driving force for this, but also new content.

There are no different breeds. There are just humans with their typical traits of expansion.

Seen enough people who are just overchallenged with handling a PC (OS install, updating drivers, fixing things they have broken, etc.). Tried, failed & went back to a console. Everyone has their "driving nuts" experiences on a Windows PC, especially in the early days. Not everyone is patient or able enough to put up with these Windows shenanigans.

On a console it's just one button and the thing runs. It's just more "user friendly".

 

[Vayra86]

Let me throw something scientific in here:

"High refresh rate doesn't make you a better gamer, but it makes it easier to be a better gamer." Quote: Linus Sebastian



Seen enough people who are just overchallenged with handling a PC (OS install, updating drivers, fixing things they have broken, etc.). Tried, failed & went back to a console. Everyone has their "driving nuts" experiences on a Windows PC, especially in the early days. Not everyone is patient or able enough to put up with these Windows shenanigans.

On a console it's just one button and the thing runs. It's just more "user friendly".

Two nails hit squarely on the head!

but, there is no RT benchmark with those article......

It would be nonsensical because there is no metric both vendors can apply to while the degree of RT heavily influences FPS for everything else.

The best conclusion any benchmark would deliver is the exact same as the conclusion you can draw without it: RTX cards do it faster.

 

[r.h.p]

thanks for the review good work

 

[mama]

Thanks for this. Informative