- Joined
- Aug 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,784 (0.52/day)
- Location
- North Dakota
System Name | Office |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5600G |
Motherboard | ASUS B450M-A II |
Cooling | be quiet! Shadow Rock LP |
Memory | 16GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4-3200 |
Video Card(s) | Gigabyte RX 5600 XT |
Storage | PNY CS1030 250GB, Crucial MX500 2TB |
Display(s) | Dell S2719DGF |
Case | Fractal Define 7 Compact |
Power Supply | EVGA 550 G3 |
Mouse | Logitech M705 Marthon |
Keyboard | Logitech G410 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro 22H2 |
560/460 OC to 660 to 760 OC 33%
no consistency after that for Nvidia really
1060 100%
2060 75%
3060 25%
4060 15%
Right, cuz like I said, 2060 wasn't the successor of 1060: 1660 was. Everything went wonky with the RTX cards. The only RTX cards Nvidia's launched since that come close to playing in that market are the 3050 and 4060. The 2060 and 3060 weren't in same class in price or power envelope.
See how the midrange tries to lag behind and then at some point suddenly there is a generation which tries to make it look good again...
Because if they don't do it, at some point the midrange will turn to 1% of the performance of the current flagship...
GTX 280
+57% performance improvement GTX 480
+52% performance improvement GTX 680
+54% performance improvement GTX 780 Ti
+28% performance improvement GTX 980 Ti
+67% performance improvement GTX 1080 Ti
+31% performance improvement RTX 2080 Ti
+78% performance improvement RTX 3090 Ti
+45% performance improvement RTX 4090
________________
average: 51.5%
Radeon HD 4870
+70% performance Radeon HD 5870
+19% performance Radeon HD 6970
+44% performance Radeon HD 7970
+50% performance Radeon R9 290X
+31% performance Radeon R9 Fury X
+32% performance Radeon RX Vega 64
+22% performance Radeon VII
+95% performance Radeon RX 6900 XT
+47% performance Radeon RX 7900 XTX
________________
average: 45.5%
We weren't talking about flagships. The high end doesn't play by the same rules as the price-sensitive mainstream. Also, you forgot the GTX 580, which was +24% against the 480, with the 680 +23% above that. Swapping out the halo x90 cards for their more-reasonable x80 siblings gets us +40% on average. More than the 33% we saw from Kepler to Turing for sure, but price came right along with it. The Fermi cards were $500. Maxwell jumped to $700, which held until the 2080 ti charged you an extra $300 for that 31% over the 1080 ti. At least it stuck to 250W; the 3080 ti wanted $1200 and 350W for the 52% bump it provided. The +78% you highlighted from the 3090 ti required 450W and a cool two grand. If we go back almost-sane cards, the 4080 gained 33% over the 3080 ti for the same money and a little less power.
I didn't do the same comparison with AMD because they're too inconsistent; GCN 4 and Navi 1 didn't even get high-end chips. The 4870-5870 is misleading because despite nomenclature, the weren't in the same bracket: $300/150W vs. $400/190W. The 6900 XT gain is inflated due to the aforementioned skipping of Navi 1 high end. It also got a price bump to a thousand bucks.
You're right about a couple of things at least: It's not exactly sunshine and rainbows in the <$300 space. There hasn't really been anything compelling there recently other than the RX 6600. The 7600 is a reasonable 26% faster, but at the cost of pulling as much power as a 6600 XT while beating that card by less than 10%. Oof.
Look, I get why you're frustrated. But allowing your expectations to be set by the increasingly-ridiculous flagships is just setting yourself up for disappointment.