Best GPU for £400, RX 6800/7700 XT/4060 Ti

[Marcus L]

As the title suggests, what's the best buy out of these 3 GPU's that can all be had for £400 give or take a little either way? tbh the 4060 Ti is probably my least favoured at this point owing to it's 8GB vram, though does have good RT and DLSS 3/frame gen support going in it's favour, the 7700 XT and 6800 are similarly matched with the 6800 having 16GB of vram vs 12GB on the 7700XT as well as being slightly more power hungry, I am looking to decide out of these 3 new GPU's, only for gaming so no workloads, gaming at 1080p/165hz likely up to 1440p when I upgrade my monitor.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

If its the bog standard 6800 - Ignore it and grab the 7700XT.

If its the 6800XT - Ignore everything else and get it.

4060Ti = weaker than both cards but might play slightly nicer if you have an Nvidia Gsync monitor. Nicer wont mean more FPS but games will run more smoother. Its still the lesser card.

 

[Marcus L]

Standard 6800 (non-xt) my monitor isn't Gsync either, so I can get a new XFX SWFT 6800 from eBuyer for £386 next day delivery, Gigabyte RX 7700 Gaming for £406 next day delivery, or MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Ventus 2X for £342.11 free 4 day delivery from Box on eBay using 20% voucher

 

[kapone32]

6800 all the way. Those are still relevant cards. The 7700Xt will be better at Ray Tracing but the 16GB on the 6800 will be of more relevance.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I would probably lean towards the 7700XT strictly because I feel like it will be supported drivers wise longer than the RDNA2 option, the 4060ti is trash in my opinion and should be avoided if it was the 16GB varient for that price it could be ok if you prefer some of the features Nvidia offers but my guess is it's the 8GB one at that price which is an avoid unless it was 250 ish.

Unless you are gaming at 4k or really love cranking RT which all these cards aren't very good at 12GB should be viable a long time before 16GB matters at these levels of performance. You are likely to need more gpu horsepower before needing more vram.

 

[Chry]

Prioritize a good model. For example Sapphire Nitro+. This will make your card cool and silent and you will always know you can rely on it more than on those cheap models that run at 105C at hotspots.

Whether it's 6800 or 7700 is secondary, in my opinion.

 

[kapone32]

I would probably lean towards the 7700XT strictly because I feel like it will be supported drivers wise longer than the RDNA2 option, the 4060ti is trash in my opinion and should be avoided if it was the 16GB varient for that price it could be ok if you prefer some of the features Nvidia offers but my guess is it's the 8GB one at that price which is an avoid unless it was 250 ish.

Unless you are gaming at 4k or really love cranking RT which all these cards aren't very good at 12GB should be viable a long time before 16GB matters at these levels of performance. You are likely to need more gpu horsepower before needing more vram.

The only issue with that thought process is that AMD's drivers are universal.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The only issue with that thought process is that AMD's drivers are universal

Aren't they already dropping support for Polaris? Or at least segregating it?

Also amd has a bad habit of ignoring prior generations while fixing it's latest.

 

[Marcus L]

Update, purchased a Powercolor Red Dragon 6800 on eBay for 350 should be here tomorrow

 

[Imperator]

Enjoy your card.
Make some tests and keep us informed about it.
Cheers!

 

[Macro Device]

You are likely to need more gpu horsepower before needing more vram.

With 6800, yes. It's 1/3rd VRAM beefier and ~35% faster than 6700 XT and I'm having ~25 FPS when I'm maxed out on VRAM only because 40 CUs is too little.
With 7700 XT, no.

 

[rusty caterpillar]

I would get only Sapphire but, 7800 XT, even that is a higher price.

7700 is weaker but got a good TDP -200W
7800XT got a TDP of 260 W but delivers more performance 5-15 % over 6800.
Price difference on Sapphire brand is about 20-40£.

By the way you don't need 165 FPS anyway, you should cap the FPS to max 100 FPS in Adrenaline soft or Nvidia CP. However 4060 is out of the question here,
since 8gb vram is to little for your future upgrade to 2k.
4060 Ti got 16 GB RAM and only 160 W TDP, will perform well on 2K but not in many AAA games.
As price 4060 Ti is the best can be found around 350 £ while both AMD if Sapphire will be around 500£.

Don't think there is human eyes to catch 140 FPS let alone 165FPS.

Letting you FPS lose can also result in :
1. more stuttering or lags.
2. Increase a lot power consumption - for example my PC @ 2k 1080Ti no OC, Anno 1800 @80 FPS -PC pull 430 W out of the
wall but with 50 FPS cap only 215 W. No visual difference in game between 50 and 80 FPS - settings Ultra, except AA is 4X instead of 8.
3. Increase the heat in your case, therefore resulting in more electricity taken by your fans on higher RPM to push out the heat of your case - well that can be only an extra 15-20 W depending on the number of your fans and specs, but is adding to your bill.
4. UK doesn't have cheap electricity
5. Any monitor over 120 FPS I think is waste of money.

For example: I found that for RTS games 60 FPS is plenty.
Elden Ring RPG is capped to 60 FPS by the game g engine and looks and feels very good/smooth.

I love PNY brand, I open only 3 of them for repasting or shrouding and they beat their competitions from PCB to thermal pads, heatsinks, pipes and fans.

The bad part on 4060 Ti is the 128 bit memory compared with 256 bit on 7800 XT. Maybe for 4060 Ti 128 bit affects more 4K gaming and less the 2k but I wouldn't know tbh.