Very diplomatic, for sure. I appreciate that from a review.
It's a nice card; 4080 always was an almost-perfect card (especially when it launched). There was never any debate about that (I don't think?).
The problem was it was fookin' expensive. This is $200 less and still a nice card, but still too fookin' expensive IMHO and probably in a lot of OPO.
Maybe I live in a land of boomers remembering 25¢ cups of coffee, but I can't get past that this costs more than I paid for a new Voodoo2, 9700pro, and 9800pro in their heyday COMBINED.
(I didn't know which cards to use as an example, I've owned/used/tested a crap ton of cards from ~98-now. We all have our
favorites, for whatever reason). Maybe 4870+6870+7870 is slightly more relevant?
I'm also the (exploding) 970 guy, 1080 (ccc-combobreaker but I needed something for a 4k tv when it launched), and then 2080 Ti (which was cheap after 30 series launch because some people be
fools).
Now I'm just sad, although I don't begrudge 7800xt. I'm just more the type to wait for a $600 card that's capable of what a
7900xt can do overclocked or a 4080 at stock (120), even if it's absolute (OC) perf.
We just need a
better class of mid-range: it's long over-due; not a nice-but-expensive card many can't justify or a relatively-expensive part not much faster than my Playstation (or eventual Pro).
I will give nVIDIA credit, there ARE actual merits to this card for those that can. While there are instances the reverse is true for raster (and the 7900xtx could give a tangibly better experience in certain games at 1440p/4k
that are not Counterstrike), there are indeed instances with this card where RT is usable where it is not on the AMD counterpart. It's a trade-off, and one that I can respect someone choosing either direction, especially with current pricing. There will surely be instances at some point the larger RAM pool will be of
some help (alongside the extra raster), but it's not something I would say would make it a no-brainer decision. I stand by the notion that raster/ram age better and are of greater long-term use than current-gen RT performance (which will be deprecated and at some point become a non-factor), but for now it's a fair toss-up if that's what you want.
In my opinion, and I respect if you disagree, it comes down to looking at something like this, as I do think it shows a fairly decent representation of what we can expect in the near-future:
You'll likely be able to run a lot of games on a 7900xtx with RT at 'decent' rates; you'll likely get your 60 (especially if you OC/tweak settings a little). Will they be better on a 4080? Yes.
There will be a lot of games that at higher resolution 4080 cards will just not be able to play at a decent rate because of lower raster perf, and 7900xtx will. Ain't no cure for a 4080 than to buy a new card.
More-so than any other match-up (where I think the other Super cards are folly vs their competition), 4080 remains a viable option if you are looking for that very specific thing (for right now).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All parts above 4070 Ti Super are plenty-good on-the-whole; just too damn expensive.
One could argue 7900xt, although the cheapest, is still wine to the beer-drinking masses (and some are unwilling to OC to get that threshold performance into the high-end).
I wonder if Navi 4 will move the needle. Might; might not. Hope so. If not, maybe a $600 Blackwell. Who knows.
W1zard is right wrt his conclusion, though, imo. The performance is good and most really don't even need a 4090: the price just needs to come down (more) so more people can justify it (versus a console).
It's wonderful for those that can justify these for what they are, but this racket, even $200 less, is just not, and should not be, sustainable imho.
(editted for clarity)
www.newegg.ca
Give it a few days I guess.
