bugGo back a little more and you find x60 cards there weren't as fast as previous gen x80. It was never a rule, but it was surely sweet when it happened.

Sweet 8 years.

oh! look what i found!

even better!

Another one!

An aib could go past the previous x80 series!

Seems to me that IT WAS ALWAYS THE RULE, or at least most of the time and not like you mention "sweet when it happened" as if it was just a rare ocurrence.

N3M3515Sweet 8 years.

oh! look what i found!

even better!

Another one!

An aib could go past the previous x80 series!

Seems to me that IT WAS ALWAYS THE RULE, or at least most of the time and not like you mention "sweet when it happened" as if it was just a rare ocurrence.

Check out 560, 660, 760, not all were that fast.
What happened post Maxwell was in part prompted by TSMC's failed 22nm node. GPU stagnated because of that (22nm designs had to be revised and built on 28nm) and when 16nm was available, GPUs took off once again. Good old days...

bugIt may have 33% less bandwidth, but it's ~20% faster in gaming. Bandwidth is not a goal on its own.

In what scenario is the 4070 20% faster than the 3080? are you refering to 1 game?

droopyROAnd you don't have to be "rich" to afford a 500-1000USD/Euro card, it's not a bloody 70-100K sports car :)

By that logic, a $1000 pencil is cheap, because it does not cost 100k like a sports car?

You can't compare apples to oranges.

N3M3515In what scenario is the 4070 20% faster than the 3080? are you refering to 1 game?

This one:

bugThis one:

Oh my bad, thought you where reffering to the 4070 vanilla.

DavenI also wonder if AMD needs to release anything below the 7900xt. They already have the 6950xt, 6900xt, 6800xt and 6800 all with 16 GB, lower TDP and lower price. There really are no new features between RDNA2 and RDNA3 because AMD applies FSR versions across generations.

I’m not sure what a 78xx brings to the table other than 5 nm and slightly better RT performance.

Less power consumption?
Not only that, the 7800 XT may be 6950 XT performance at $550 maybe? that's $100 less than what the 6950 XT is selling for. And that's only being 16% faster than the 6800 xt.

N3M3515Oh my bad, thought you where reffering to the 4070 vanilla.

No worries. I wasn't even referring it directly, I was just answering to Vayra's post.

tfdsafPlaying sports is pretty much free, at most you'd have to pay $5 to 10$ few times to play in a closed environment, a quality dirt bike costs $1000, but that bike is for life. Painting is like $10 per month for the paints and brushes, etc...

And gaming used to be a lot cheaper, for $1000 you could build a quality mid tier PC, for $2000 you'd have the best custom built top of the line PC, today $2000 barely buy you A graphic card, think about that!

I get that some game a shit ton and live rent free at their parents, I get that they can afford a $600 overpriced GPU, but that GPU used to cost $400, so while it isn't unaffordable, you are overpaying $200 more for the same tier GPU you used to be $200 less!

And again, anyone can afford even a $1600 dollars GPU, why buy a car when you can play racing games at home? Why buy clothes when you don't go outside and don't have a social life? Why buy food when your mommy cooks you food? Why go on a vacation when you can go to different world in games?

I can sell my car and buy a $4000 dollar PC. But I think in terms of priorities for most people having to pay more for LESS isn't worth it!

You exaggerate. Over the past and the next 5-6 years of gaming I spent 1.1K on GPUs (1080 > 7900XT and resale of the 1080 now). Lets say I upgrade from this new 7900XT in 2027. That would be 10~11 years worth of gaming, that is 100 EUR per year = less than 10 EUR per month. And then I havent even resold the 7900XT yet!

I think you just suck at managing finances or your upgrade paths...

N3M3515"Sneak up to the 3070 Ti"

Remember when the x60 series was on the same level as previous gen x80 series?

Imagine a 4060 with the same performance of a 3080 and for $300.

No, I dont, the usual MO is that per gen at the same ish price point you gain a full tier (25-30%) of performance. We did see some larger jumps (Pascal!) but they also carried a price increase.

N3M3515By that logic, a $1000 pencil is cheap, because it does not cost 100k like a sports car?

You can't compare apples to oranges.

No, a pencil is not a highly complex piece of parts and microchips stuck to a PCB that can only be made in Taiwan and/or China. A 1000$ pencil is a fashion/wealth statement. A RTX 4070 that costs 600$ is not something you brag at parties or in business meetings.

Vayra86I think you just suck at managing finances or your upgrade paths...

People like him are either highly frustrated individuals, trolling or very bad at managing finances and understanding money. The last part can easily be solved by reading a few articles or a book on the subject.

Like i previously said, if you play AAA games in 1080p or 1440p a 600$ GPU is all you need for 2-3 years at the minimum. If you save 20$ a month and have no GPU, you can buy a brand new one in less than 3 years. If you go for a second hand GTX 1080 that can run any AAA title in 1080p, you can afford that in about a year or so. Also there are monthly installments or paying plans with credit cards.

If you don't want to pay 600$ on a RTX4070/4060Ti and boycott it, yes, by all means, do that, it's your right. But complaining and telling people they are "rich" and idiots for wanting or buying one is not the way to go about it.

N3M3515I'll reply your trolling:

RTX 3060 Ti vs RTX 2080
RTX 2060 vs GTX 1080
GTX 1060 vs GTX 980

All exceptions - 3060ti isnt x60.

2060 had just 6GB and was also the lowest Turing RTX card. (Still, I agree best example of a 60~80 jump, but not quite it anyway)

980 was notoriously expensive price/perf compared to its very close in perf 970, but yeah, agreed, another close one. Except price didnt quite move in tune with the model number. Pascal made x60 more expensive.

bugThis one:

Thats a 4070ti AIB and it has 18% not 20. Its also a snapshot made in 2023 on release. Nobody is saying 12GB is insufficient today. We start to realize though it is where you need to be at the minimum for this level of core perf. On release day!

bugThere is no good guy/bad guy here. There is no significant difference in perf/$ between Nvidia and AMD. They have both identified users are willing to pay $1,000+ for a video card, they're both happy to charge you an arm and a leg now.

I broadly agree with your statement. AMD is over charging too. AMD's lower-end cards actually have decent perf/$. I got my 6750xt earlier this year for $369 at a time when I couldn't find the 3070 for less than $550 or 3060ti for less than $400. The AMD 6600xt and 6700xt and fantastic 1080p / 1440p cards if you don't need Ray Tracing. You can say that it is now a generation behind which would be true but for most gamers, this is plenty of gpu power.

bugI agree that marketing sucks. DLSS3 should be advertised like "turbo" mode is advertised for CPUs, not slapped on as default numbers. But I wasn't talking talking marketing, I was talking the actual tech (marketing is always deceptive, no need debating that anymore).



I was talking years back, when users fret over AA not being supersampling, thus being "fake". Today no game does SS anymore, it's all MSAA (or worse, as you have noted). And then we got mip maps and AF optimizations that were also shunned as "fake". They're also ubiquitous today.

The tech that is DLSS? I think its a load of horse shit because the supposed 'AI' required has proven to be a complete lie thanks to FSR.

DLSS3 in particular though is a case of 'Thanks, I hate it' because its just a pointless principle. There was a reason not to hard Vsync your games or run interlaced over progressive... DLSS3 offers you nothing in frame latency. Its interpolation. Well, yay, thanks for that in 2023 on select games and hardware, Ill order five and some extra ketchup.

Seriously, all of this perceived special sauce is a solution looking for problems that really arent as hard as they are made out to be. I just played Q2 RTX on my AMD card... it was interesting to look at for just over 10 minutes. Dynamic lighting and all... 55 FPS. Game still looks and feels like Q2... It will stay with me as notoriously unimpressive, especially considering the performance for what you really get. Three quarters of those fancy effects were done a hundred times with raster at 2-3x the efficiency, and it looks identical, only reflection accuracy is more refined. If you stop to stare at it.

Nvidia is selling so-called unique software solutions on top of meh hardware. Its clear and its not something I like to support, because its proven to be a lie every time. Both DLSS and RTX are not unique they just have a performance edge, at a sacrifice or two, dependancy for you, and an inflated price.

Similarly even when I owned Nvidia cards I never felt any urge to pay for Gsync. Its the same thing and look where we are now.

TheoneandonlyMrKShit a biscuit, what an odd vision.

loool

Thats what happens when you fuse "boredom" + "bewilderment" + "Nvidia's simply taking the p-i-s-s"

Vayra86No, I dont, the usual MO is that per gen at the same ish price point you gain a full tier (25-30%) of performance.

Oh i did offer examples a few posts back, i wasn't talking out of my ass you know...

Vayra86All exceptions - 3060ti isnt x60.

Consecutive generations, and if you look back the are more, so not exceptions, and the 3060 ti is x60.

N3M3515Sweet 8 years.

oh! look what i found!

even better!

Another one!

An aib could go past the previous x80 series!

Seems to me that IT WAS ALWAYS THE RULE, or at least most of the time and not like you mention "sweet when it happened" as if it was just a rare ocurrence.

This

More examples:

N3M3515Sweet 8 years.

oh! look what i found!

even better!

Another one!

An aib could go past the previous x80 series!

Seems to me that IT WAS ALWAYS THE RULE, or at least most of the time and not like you mention "sweet when it happened" as if it was just a rare ocurrence.

One thing that I hinted at, but didn't properly explain:

680 was ~20% faster than a 660Ti


3080 is 50% faster than 3060Ti.

Obviously, while it's reasonable to expect the next gen to be 20% faster, it's less reasonable to expect a 50% jump.

I haven't been following the above discussion but i'm seeing a lot of previous comparisons, charts, percentages, etc etc.

I just hope no sane person is attempting to justify these new pricing levels. Subjectively speaking, the 60-segment for me is entry-level gaming territory for above console elevated performance enthusiasts. Purely from an impartial broader consumer perspective, wanting something at the lower stack shouldn't push for almost half a thousand dollars. Thats probably half/+ the cash of what most buyers on a budget would consider sufficient for a gaming build.

Anyway, im not surprised anymore. The 4080 and 4090 MSRP was a clear indicator of what was yet to come. And NVIDIA has stayed true to its "need-mo-monayy" kingdom to come and upwards trajectory to stay until it reaches a boiling point. An interesting year/2 for me, i have never contemplated on the competition before (prior to covid)... now even i'm positively curious in anticipation for AMD and Intel to somehow kick Nvidia in the balls to bring them back to reality.

tfdsafPlaying sports is pretty much free, at most you'd have to pay $5 to 10$ few times to play in a closed environment, a quality dirt bike costs $1000, but that bike is for life. Painting is like $10 per month for the paints and brushes, etc...

And gaming used to be a lot cheaper, for $1000 you could build a quality mid tier PC, for $2000 you'd have the best custom built top of the line PC, today $2000 barely buy you A graphic card, think about that!

Mid tier PCs even back in the day was still pretty expensive.

I remember in 2007 building a PC tower for a friend that was based on the 8600GTS and a lowend variant of the core 2 duo (both of which didn't age that great) and it was still around $750 which would with inflation be close to $1100 now.

I'd argue that a $1100 PC now (6700XT maybe even a price slashed 6800 with something like a 5700x or 12600) is going to age a lot better than the PC in 2007........

tussinmanMid tier PCs even back in the day was still pretty expensive.

I remember in 2007 building a PC tower for a friend that was based on the 8600GTS and a lowend variant of the core 2 duo (both of which didn't age that great) and it was still around $750 which would with inflation be close to $1100 now.

I'd argue that a $1100 PC now (6700XT maybe even a price slashed 6800 with something like a 5700x or 12600) is going to age a lot better than the PC in 2007........

There has never ever been a GPU that cost even near $1000 until like 5 years ago! Even professional GPU's used to cost $1500, I don't know which koolaide you are gulping, but it ain't good for you!

You don't know what inflation even is, so please stop using it as a way to figure out the value of something.

tussinmanI'd argue that a $1100 PC now (6700XT maybe even a price slashed 6800 with something like a 5700x or 12600) is going to age a lot better than the PC in 2007........

That's because the jumps in performance before where greater, and the generations came almost every year. Nowadays gen to gen performance jumps are small, and almost 3 years in between.

tfdsafThere has never ever been a GPU that cost even near $1000 until like 5 years ago! Even professional GPU's used to cost $1500, I don't know which koolaide you are gulping, but it ain't good for you!

I never argued that the enthusiast bracket isn't currently out of control. Your narrative was that PC gaming is so expensive that even the mid-range isn't realistically priced ("2k barely buys a GPU") and as I pointed out that's a very exaggerated narrative. Midrange even 15 years ago wasn't cheap.

tfdsafYou don't know what inflation even is, so please stop using it as a way to figure out the value of something.

$750 during the start of the 2007 recession has about the same buying power as $1000-1100 now. That's not some complicated conspiracy or theory. Money from 15 years ago doesn't scale 1:1 to present day. A PC in that range now is better at the start and will arguably age better (8600GTS wasn't even that much faster than the 1.5-year-old xbox 360 GPU at the time)

N3M3515That's because the jumps in performance before where greater, and the generations came almost every year. Nowadays gen to gen performance jumps are small, and almost 3 years in between.

True but at the same time we built this PC almost 2 years into the console cycle so that theory should of give the advantage to the 2007 build but it didn't.

Vayra86Yep, that's pretty tone deaf. Maybe you should read what you're responding to, instead of repeating how well you can look at averages.

You've got a range of games over there that date back to 2021 and prior, none of this is 2023, or even 2022 content ;) Enjoy the dream, while it lasts.

Cyberpunk: 2020
CoD MW: 2019
Far Cry 6: 2021
Exodus: 2019...

:roll::roll:

There is a real term for this psychology, it is called cognitive dissonance. I'd reflect on that tbh. I'm not saying this to pester you, its a real thing that's useful to realize.

I can say the same about you.
The TPU review for the 4070 also added new games and the distance between the 3070Ti 8GB and the 6800 16GB is the same as two years ago. It's just the choice if you accept the reality or not.
Added NFS Unbound. I had forgotten about him.

GicaI can say the same about you.
The TPU review for the 4070 also added new games and the distance between the 3070Ti 8GB and the 6800 16GB is the same as two years ago. It's just the choice if you accept the reality or not.
Added NFS Unbound. I had forgotten about him.

Ah yes, the difference in averages again, yes, I agree on those. Third time now you've repeated that ;) Like I said, enjoy that 8GB while it lasts. I'll just eat more popcorn as the years go by and whole groups of people suddenly feel 'forced' to upgrade to yet another Nvidia midrange with lacking memory. This has been happening since Maxwell. It happened to 4GB Fury X owners and 1060 3GB owners. And it'll happen to 8GB Ampere owners too. At that point you're also left with a card that has abysmal resale value because, quite simply, it won't do well anymore. That sentiment has clearly already begun to land, as well.

wheresmycarAnd NVIDIA has stayed true to its "need-mo-monayy"

It's not la AMD is for the people or something. They are not selling their cards cheaper than Nvidia. They are matching their prices and pushing more vRAM as a selling point rather than ray tracing and DLSS. And Intel can't really compete this generation, their 16GB cards are insanely priced and hard to find, also they do not have DLSS or RT and still are fixing the drivers.

tussinmanI'd argue that a $1100 PC now (6700XT maybe even a price slashed 6800 with something like a 5700x or 12600) is going to age a lot better than the PC in 2007........

This, buying a PC today for gaming will last you way longer than it did 15-20 years ago. Especially if you don't go past 1440p resolution. And let's not forget, that today, games on medium settings look way better than they did 15 years ago. So even less reasons to upgrade frequently if you are on a tight budget.

Vayra86quite simply, it won't do well anymore.

It depends. Most people don't know their hardware limits and what the game's settings do. So they buy cards based on specs and reviews. Not knowing what to expect in reality.
I sold my two RX570 4GB to some friends that wanted to get back in to gaming, 50$ for each. I am and they are amazed at how good those cards are if you don't push the settings too much.
I did this test before i sold them, TW Warhammer III is one of the hardest games to run at high settings and 60 fps. My 3060Ti can't do it at 1440p.

droopyROIt's not la AMD is for the people or something. They are not selling their cards cheaper than Nvidia. They are matching their prices and pushing more vRAM as a selling point rather than ray tracing and DLSS. And Intel can't really compete this generation, their 16GB cards are insanely priced and hard to find, also they do not have DLSS or RT and still are fixing the drivers.

This, buying a PC today for gaming will last you way longer than it did 15-20 years ago. Especially if you don't go past 1440p resolution. And let's not forget, that today, games on medium settings look way better than they did 15 years ago. So even less reasons to upgrade frequently if you are on a tight budget.

It depends. Most people don't know their hardware limits and what the game's settings do. So they buy cards based on specs and reviews. Not knowing what to expect in reality.
I sold my two RX570 4GB to some friends that wanted to get back in to gaming, 50$ for each. I am and they are amazed at how good those cards are if you don't push the settings too much.
I did this test before i sold them, TW Warhammer III is one of the hardest games to run at high settings and 60 fps. My 3060Ti can't do it at 1440p.

Yes ofcourse, you start cutting down on quality level left and right when a card falls short.

But the perspective matters - if you've seen the history of a card live in gaming, you see how performance deteriorates over time with new games, and you really do notice the differences. While 'Medium' is acceptable in many ways, its certainly not as crisp and lively as higher settings. New games tend to even elevate what happens on Medium, but even then, you're left with all the nice ancient hiccups in graphics, like pop-in of textures and LOD, limited view distance, up to and including stuff like smaller unit sizes in TW WH3. Some graphical settings directly touch on the gameplay experience in that way.

And its true, it was exactly TW WH3 and its overall performance (FPS nosedives compared to WH2, and that wasn't light either) that pushed me to spending even a bit too much for a hefty upgrade. Had I stepped into the game with a 1080 today, coming from something much weaker, I might have been able to accept what it offered in perf and IQ.

Chrispy_There's definitely some delusions about costs of production and economic changes in the last 12 years, which is the last time a x60Ti card sold for $250.

Actually it was 2019-2020:-

"Most relevant to potential buyers of the GTX 1660 Ti is the GeForce GTX 1660 Super, which delivers similar performance to the 1660 Ti, at a lower starting price of $229. At this writing, that's about $30 less than the lowest-price GTX 1660 Ti".
www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-turing,6002.html

I honestly think the issue with this generation of gpu's so far is two fold. One is the performance increase isn't that significant and the gpu companies are largely trying to use Ai to convince people that using a DLSS or FSR etc is a great solution. Problem with that is you still end up with the drawbacks you already had if you are running a lower end gpu. So in the end it isn't that helpful.

The second problem is pretty drastic. Every gen for a decent amount of time you expected to make a leap in performance and typically in power consumption. So say you had been the owner of a GTX 970 back in the day you expected that when the 1070 came out it would be faster than the previous gen RTX 980 but also do it with better efficiency and less power draw. This is starting to not be the case. However, even if this was still the case gen to gen the drastic issue is that they aren't just trying to give you that but they are doing what little they are by making you pay for it.

What use would a 1070 of been if it matched the 980 but was a little more power efficient but the 1070 cost what the 980 did? That is the issue. Each gen they give us recently what gains we get they make you pay for them by raising the price each gen. So all you end up with is a little more efficient gpu and they force you into some Software via Ai etc and then don't backport the software portion to try and get you to upgrade.

They just are giving us half baked everything really and then saying oh by the way you have to pay the increased cost as well.