Looking for guidance, More VRAM or more performance

[Builder_Burger]

Unfortunately, I am in need of a new GPU during these expensive times. With how expensive getting a new card would be, I'm looking to future-proof my purchase a little bit and am willing to splurge on something higher end than I normally would if it means I don't have to upgrade for a generation longer than normal (not gonna get a 4090 though...).
What I am mainly debating is whether or not getting more vram or more raw performance would be better for my usecase. I mainly play at 1440p but occasionally hook my pc up to the tv to play more cinematic games. So at most I would need to push 4k60fps. Would getting something like an rx 7900 xt or xtx with their 20 or 24gb of vram be more important or would getting the raw performance potential of a rtx 4080 be a better choice, is 16gb of vram enough for the way current games are trending to hog all of it. Are all these choices uneccesary and a rx7800 xt or a rtx 4070 or 4070ti be more than enough for my usecase.
Only on rare occasions do I ever render and edit videos and pictures so they don't have to put up with that often, with the footage also maxing out at 4k60fps.

 

[AMF]

well a 6900xt/6950xt sounds like what u need. save u a lil $$$$ my 6950 xt is equivilent to 4070ti.. in some cases a 4080 also a 7800xt would be a good choice https://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-113...13-b19d-e2b6dac394c9&pd_rd_i=B0CFX69R1R&psc=1

 

[lexluthermiester]

Unfortunately, I am in need of a new GPU during these expensive times. With how expensive getting a new card would be, I'm looking to future-proof my purchase a little bit and am willing to splurge on something higher end than I normally would if it means I don't have to upgrade for a generation longer than normal (not gonna get a 4090 though...).
What I am mainly debating is whether or not getting more vram or more raw performance would be better for my usecase. I mainly play at 1440p but occasionally hook my pc up to the tv to play more cinematic games. So at most I would need to push 4k60fps. Would getting something like an rx 7900 xt or xtx with their 20 or 24gb of vram be more important or would getting the raw performance potential of a rtx 4080 be a better choice, is 16gb of vram enough for the way current games are trending to hog all of it. Are all these choices uneccesary and a rx7800 xt or a rtx 4070 or 4070ti be more than enough for my usecase.
Only on rare occasions do I ever render and edit videos and pictures so they don't have to put up with that often, with the footage also maxing out at 4k60fps.

If Raytracing is important to you, the RTX4080 is hands down the best option if that price range is open to you. It's not even competition in the raytracing arena. In other areas, the Radeon option could be the better option if price is a factor.

 

[Lew Zealand]

* If you have the $1200, the 4080 is your best bet. 16 GB should be enough during the lifetime of this card.
* If you like RT then again the 4080 is best.
* If you want to spend a lot less money, then the $500 7800 XT is a much better (best?)1440p value at mid-high end at 69% raster frames for 42% cost.
* The 4070 Ti's 12GB may be a hindrance in a few years' time but may not. That's a bit of an $800 gamble.
* DLSS is better than FSR and that doesn't look to be changing and many games are now using upscaling as a crutch, so reasonable value-add for the 4080/4070 Ti. If you're avoiding new games for this reason (understandable), that advantage is negated but could still extend the card's useful lifetime 3-7 years from now.

 

[nomdeplume]

What I am mainly debating is whether or not getting more vram or more raw performance would be better for my usecase. I mainly play at 1440p but occasionally hook my pc up to the tv to play more cinematic games. So at most I would need to push 4k60fps.

Faced with a similar predicament here. Currently my response is shaped by realization no matter what the upgrade period is going to be small if playing non-retro inspired games under current development. So shooting for what is realistic in the next year plus before the cycle of repackaged or new for the sake of selling new features kicks off a marketing blitz to convince us to bend the knee at a cash register.

That means shopping a gen or even two behind with absolutely no stress.

 

[Vayra86]

Don't overspend when you can't find the ideal GPU. Rather just spend less and upgrade faster. This is the best upgrade path right now. 7800XT is in a perfect place for that. Nvidia's 16GB offering is not.

The 20-24GB GPUs barely pay off now unless you want the core performance too. Don't take them only for the extra VRAM.

16GB is sufficient / balanced given the core power on tap at the 7800XT and even the 4080 level.
You can overshoot VRAM a little bit if there is enough bandwidth.

12GB is definitely insufficient.

20GB is a perfect place for a longer usage time, but will likely be overruled by more demands on core performance (on cards like the 7900XT).

 

[Belfaborac]

This is pretty much the cookie-cutter answer in my opinion:

If Raytracing is important to you, the RTX4080 is hands down the best option if that price range is open to you. It's not even competition in the raytracing arena. In other areas, the Radeon option could be the better option if price is a factor.

Also, since you want to keep the card for as long as possible I would suggest you do NOT want any less than 16GB VRAM. Which again boils down to either a 4080 or a 6900XT/6950XT/7900XT(X), depending on what features you want beyond horsepower and VRAM.

 

[Hyderz]

if i were you i would grab the 4080 over the radeons because it edges out team red in dlss, rt, team red is getting better but its not on par yet.. in terms of latest offerings..

 

[bug]

Here's the thing, if you recognize this is a bad time to buy, why go for something future-proof? Why not getting something to get you to 2025? New cards are expected to land in the first half of the year. They can't be much worse than the current lineup (my guess/hope is they'll be significantly better deals).

As for what you need, don't expect a reasonable answer. Those that like AMD better will tell you you absolutely need more VRAM, those that root for Nvidia will point out RT and DLSS3. Only you know what's worth more to you.

 

[Vya Domus]

Regardless I would not touch a video card with less than 16GB unless the price is no more than 500$.

 

[Toothless]

Look at features YOU want, that'll determine red or green (or blue) team.

I admire the features of my wife's RTX3080, and the raw power of my 6950XT and 7900XTX. Personally the price/performance of AMD sits better with me because raytracing isn't required and honestly, fanboys are annoying.

Used market is fine. Some 3090's used are not bad for the price now.

 

[Belfaborac]

As for what you need, don't expect a reasonable answer. Those that like AMD better will tell you you absolutely need more VRAM, those that root for Nvidia will point out RT and DLSS3.

Yeah....except that's not actually true. Some people, me included, like both.

 

[Vayra86]

Here's the thing, if you recognize this is a bad time to buy, why go for something future-proof? Why not getting something to get you to 2025? New cards are expected to land in the first half of the year. They can't be much worse than the current lineup (my guess/hope is they'll be significantly better deals).

As for what you need, don't expect a reasonable answer. Those that like AMD better will tell you you absolutely need more VRAM, those that root for Nvidia will point out RT and DLSS3. Only you know what's worth more to you.

I think people have been giving extremely reasonable answers on this topic every time.

Almost everyone is of the opinion 'if you want the Nvidia featureset, get it' and 'if you don't care, get something else'.
That's really the same thing you're saying... The VRAM requirement is becoming clearer with every game released lately, no need to keep mulling over that. What's striking is that for the majority any card with less than 16GB is hardly even in the picture unless its dirt cheap. That's a world of difference from, say, the sentiment a year ago. It says enough.

 

[droopyRO]

Do a list of games you play, check out if AMD or Nvidia work better in those titles, make a choice. Having more vRAM but lower performance will not be better than lowering texture details on a more powerful GPU. Also a plus for Nvidia is the fact that it can use both FSR and DLSS. RayTracing is still a quirk, i would not make a choice based soley on this.
And i do have a 4070 since in launched in late April. This days i would probably choose the 7800XT if i were to build a PC.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Now nothing from nVidia is worth it except the 4090, the 4080 is the worse of the lot as it should be cheaper than the 7900XTX to start to make sense.

So the choice is a 7900XTX or some cheaper stuff like 7800XT or RDNA2/Ampere, but I would suggest to wait for the new supers from nVidia, hopefully they'll fix the 4080, or price correctly between the 7900xt and XTX.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Now nothing from nVidia is worth it except the 4090, the 4080 is the worse of the lot as it should be cheaper than the 7900XTX to start to make sense.

Your opinion isn't supported by the reviews & benchmarks and thus has no merit.

At the end of the day if the OP wants raytracing, the 4080 is the BEST option outside of the redonkulas cost of the 4090. If raytracing is NOT important to them, then the 7900XTX would be the better card in the same price range.

It IS that simple. Full stop, end of discussion.

 

[R33mba]

What's the point of buying rebranded 6950xt (7800xt,)??
If you dont mind fckng with drivers and setting power limit/undervolt profiles who will crash at least once a day,then
go with 7900xt..
Everything else 4080..
But if it isn't hurry wait for super versions of 4xxx cards.
I'm living in hope that there will be 4070 super with at least 16gb ram and 256bus

 

[Toothless]

What's the point of buying rebranded 6950xt (7800xt,)??
If you dont mind fckng with drivers and setting power limit/undervolt profiles who will crash at least once a day,then
go with 7900xt..
Everything else 4080..
But if it isn't hurry wait for super versions of 4xxx cards.
I'm living in hope that there will be 4070 super with at least 16gb ram and 256bus

Every AMD card I have will work, straight after install and driver install has zero issues. I don't get crashes, don't need to tweak, etc. My 6950XT has no issues and same thing; no tweaking needed.

 

[Belfaborac]

Never had a single driver issue with my 6800 XT. Utterly problem-free from day 1 to the day I sold it. Can't remember any particular driver issues with the many other AMD/ATI cards I've owned either; certainly no more in total than with all the Nvidia cards I've owned.

 

[Outback Bronze]

But if it isn't hurry wait for super versions of 4xxx cards.

This and other cards (you would think) will get price cuts which should make for a more competitive landscape price wise.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Your opinion isn't supported by the reviews & benchmarks and thus has no merit.

At the end of the day if the OP wants raytracing, the 4080 is the BEST option outside of the redonkulas cost of the 4090. If raytracing is NOT important to them, then the 7900XTX would be the better card in the same price range.

It IS that simple. Full stop, end of discussion.

Not it's not, the 4080 is an awful choice, ray tracing or not, vram is the main issue with card, to make sense the card should be cheaper than the 7900XTX.

The reasonable option is either going with the 7900XTX/4090, or the BEST option is to wait for Supers, more vram, 4080 priced correctly and AMD will definitely lower their prices.

Every AMD card I have will work, straight after install and driver install has zero issues. I don't get crashes, don't need to tweak, etc. My 6950XT has no issues and same thing; no tweaking needed.

There is this anti-Radeon sentiment even among tech enthusiasts, we had a great example with Starfield recently.

 

[Vayra86]

There is this anti-Radeon sentiment even among tech enthusiasts, we had a great example with Starfield recently.

There is effective marketing (Nvidia) and there is shit marketing - and poor time to market (AMD).

It has an effect. It says little about raw performance or overall quality. It says a lot about the person saying what it says and how they've been influenced. I also needed a few months on AMD before I could shake old Nvidia notions of how things 'should be' or 'should work'. A good example is how RDNA3 overclocks. Its a different thing. Is it worse? Nope. Its probably better. But different.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Not it's not, the 4080 is an awful choice, ray tracing or not

Reviews and benchmarks say otherwise.

vram is the main issue with card

It's 16GB, there is no issue.

to make sense the card should be cheaper than the 7900XTX.

That would only make sense IF the 7900XTX performed better than the 4080 in raytracing, which it doesn't. It's not even close.

Now, as I said earlier, IF raytracing is not important to the OP, then yes the 7900 would be the better choice, but ONLY if the OP doesn't care about raytracing.

 

[Vayra86]

This and other cards (you would think) will get price cuts which should make for a more competitive landscape price wise.

Inevitably, because vendors must get rid of stock, and the Supers are likely going to be a further push to buy Ada. They can't be that if they don't offer more for less or the same for less.

 

[iameatingjam]

Surprised to see so many people recommending the 4080. I get its not a half bad card but the price its just insane, and its not even close to the 4090 in performance. Its an insult, and buying it only convinces nvidia 80 class cards at $1200 USD is acceptable.

Perhaps I'm still bitter about my 3070s exceedingly short life span. The 4080 definitely wont be that bad and 16gb is more than enough for this generation. But if you're going to spend $1200 on a gpu, I would personally say, get a 4090, get the full memory bus (4080 has the same bus as a 3060 ti) get the full bandwidth ( the 4080 has less bandwidth than a 3080) get the full cuda cores ( 4080 has less cores than a 3080 ti - though thats not completely fair since each core has more transistors, but still!).

The real improvement is in cache, which yes helps, but helps less and less the higher the resolution goes, and that includes ssaa and msaa. I think it was something like the 7900xtx is 3% faster than the 4080 at 1080p, 5% faster at 1440p and 7% faster at 4k. Those numbers might be not exactly right but you get the trend. And the 4080 is only where it starts. It gets even worse with 70 series, and completely goes off the rails with the 60 series.

7900xtx is a faster card for cheaper with 24gb of vram. The 7900xt is good too you can get it for something like $750 new with 20gb of vram. If you want dlss, or ray tracing, why not go with the 3090? They are cheap used on ebay if you can power them, we are talking $750 or less also with 24gb vram ( though the people saying not more than 16gb is needed now, are correct).

If you want the 40 series but don't want the 4090 I think the most balanced card is the 4070. Its decently priced now ($550 I think it was), it only has 12GB of vram but thats enough for now, and its not completely lopsided like the 4070 ti (12GB for performance like that, makes no sense) plus its also priced way too high and has significantly less bandwidth than the 2080 ti and the 3070 ti, and only marginally more than the 3060 ti. Thats going to hurt at high resolutions. Guess we'll just have to rely more on dlss so nvidia can move from selling hardware to selling software.

I'm a lifelong nvidia user. And even I am recommending amd for people who don't want the 4090. I would even pick the 6800xt, 6950xt or 7800xt over the 4070, whatever you can find for cheaper.

If you want 4k60 without upscaling, 4090 or 7900xtx are the way to go. If you don't mind some upscaling, there's a few other options, the ones I mentioned previously.

Anyway, sorry if I got a bit hyperbolic, not exactly sober and the 40 series right ticks me off.