is radeon RX 6750 XT a steal ?

[Vya Domus]

Buying a power hungry 3080 used for a similar price as a new 4060 Ti 8 GB for a whole 2 GB extra VRAM is... questionable logic.

For one thing a 3080 is way faster than a 4060ti and the 2GB of extra VRAM are questionable only if you don't understand how this works, if you run out of VRAM frame rate goes in the dump, yes 2GB can make a difference.

And yet at the same time you're trying to convince this guy to buy a 4060ti because it has DLAA and what not.

 

[dgianstefani]

For one thing a 3080 is way faster than a 4060ti and the 2GB of extra VRAM are questionable only if you don't understand how this works, if you run out of VRAM frame rate goes in the dump, yes 2GB can make a difference.

View attachment 352119

And yet at the same time you're trying to convince this guy to buy a 4060ti because it has DLAA and what not.

Because the 4060 Ti 8/16 GB has half the power usage and doesn't require OP to spend ~$100 of his limited budget on a new PSU, because the minimum recommended PSU is 350 W, compared to 650 W for the RTX 3080 and the 700 W for the RX 6800.

DLAA is a bonus my dude, and believe it or not, the 3080 also has access to it.

 

[Dahita]

To add my 2 cents to the discussion, I keep looking for every excuse to upgrade my 2070 SUPER, but combined with an AMD 5950 CPU, it still plays every single game at 60+ at 1080p with ease.

Given that the next gen is coming soon, I'd wait for sales.

Lastly, future proofing is not limited to RAM, but rather technology. DLSS 3 is a huge improvement in my book, which would have prolonged the life of my 2070 Super even further. Point is, going for a little pricier next gen for future proofing is never a bad idea to me.

 

[Dr. Dro]

I don't have enough time in this life to argue with angry children talking about RT on low-end GPUs, just seeing them roll out the long list of "bad and irrelevant things" to talk bad about AMD and distort the topic already makes me feel ashamed.

The best GPU you can buy in this price range is the 7700XT, period. But if you're not that demanding and only play old games like Skyrim, any modern GPU will do, even the 3060 12GB/7600.

None of my arguments touched RT, but I noticed that OP plays Skyrim - and that's one of the games that perform vastly better on NV. Starfield oddly enough runs better on Radeon, although, only the RX 7900 series.

 

[Vya Domus]

Because the 4060 Ti 8/16 GB has half the power usage and doesn't require OP to spend ~$100 of his limited budget on a new PSU, because the minimum recommended PSU is 350 W, compared to 650 W for the RTX 3080 and the 700 W for the RX 6800.

DLAA is a bonus my dude, and believe it or not, the 3080 also has access to it.

This is such bizarre logic.

So he should choose the abhorrently overpriced 4060ti because maybe his PSU will be enough instead of buying a faster alternative and a better PSU, which he was planning to do anyway originally. Such brilliant advice.

 

[dgianstefani]

This is such bizarre logic.

So he should choose the abhorrently overpriced 4060ti because maybe his PSU will be enough instead of buying a faster alternative and a better PSU, which he was planning to do anyway originally. Such brilliant advice.

Yes buying used cards from 2020 for the same price and the same performance (FPS above 1080p 60 are meaningless, and 4060 Ti already delivers 85 FPS in 1% lows in modern games at this resolution) is a much better idea.

None of my arguments touched RT, but I noticed that OP plays Skyrim - and that's one of the games that perform vastly better on NV. Starfield oddly enough runs better on Radeon, although, only the RX 7900 series.

Perhaps because Starfield is incredibly CPU limited and modern Radeon GPU drivers have slightly less CPU overhead than modern NVIDIA drivers.

From W1z 4070 reviews.

Launch of 4070S since then at the same price drives this point home further.

There's no way I'd buy RTX 3080 10 GB for $550 if I can get the RTX 4070 for $600. The selling points here are DLSS 3 and energy efficiency.

 

[Vya Domus]

Yes buying used cards from 2020 for the same price is a much better idea.

Given that it is almost 40% faster and has more memory ? It's not my fault Nvidia has such horrible pricing schemes for 40 series cards that used 30 series cards are not only cheaper but also much faster. Bizarre situation but that's how it is.

He doesn't have to buy a used card though, a 7700XT should work with his PSU and it's also faster than a 4060ti. Why not buy the fastest option he can afford ?

 

[dgianstefani]

Given that it is almost 40% faster and has more memory ? It's not my fault Nvidia has such horrible pricing schemes for 40 series cards that used 30 series cards are not only cheaper but also much faster. Bizarre situation but that's how it is.

He doesn't have to buy a used card though, a 7700XT should work with his PSU and it's also faster than a 4060ti. Why not buy the fastest option he can afford ?

40% faster?

So, bearing in mind OP has a 60 Hz 1080p monitor with zero plans to upgrade and exclusively plays older games.

Could you please explain how that 40% faster is relevant against a 4060 Ti which already gets 85 FPS in 1% lows in modern games.

Thanks.

From the 7700XT review.

Minimum recommended PSU: 650 W

 

[_JP_]

im into skyrim, the elder scrolls, enshrouded type of survival farming open world discovery more slow paced peaceful games

*sigh*
Haven't done this in a while, but lets see.
Of what you list, only Enshrouded requests a bit more of performance (going by the recommended specifications) and considering your budget being below 400€, using a FHD monitor, to potentially keep the current PSU and knowing the national market, you're SOL unless you pick the cheapest RX 7600 XT 16GB you can find. Yes, it's the unpopular opinion, but the prices for PT are not going to fluctuate even if the new gen comes out (maybe 40%-off 6 months the after the fact, because of a stocks clearance. Thanks mining craze...).
They don't. Traditionally.

If you can go over 400€, only then the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB, the RX 6750 XT or the RX 7700 XT (12GB, though) become an option.

The 7600 already has 16GB of vRAM, is within 9% of relative performance (TPU's chart) to the 6700XT (the recommended for Enshrouded) and no card will hold itself for 5 years playing AAA, save for top-tier exceptions. What you play now, will play the same in 5 years, though. OS support is another completely unrelated thing.
You can also think outside the box and go for the Intel Arc 770 (even less of a popular opinion), that costs roughly the same as the 7600 XT and plays Enshrouded with more or less the same performance. Has 16GB of RAM as well.

everyone relax take a deep breath and tell me "good luck now piss off" LOL thanks all

If it gets out of hand, a Mod swings a hammer. You'll get used to it.

 

[#22]

I don't have enough time in this life to argue with angry children talking about RT on low-end GPUs, just seeing them roll out the long list of "bad and irrelevant things" to talk bad about AMD and distort the topic already makes me feel ashamed.

I "invited" you to this discussion by approaching you directly, like that @Denver. So man can guess that now you try to name me "angry child" without saying it directly to me, like I maybe won't notice lol. Clicking laugh icon, now doing like that are both how losers do, so try to be a little better

RT performance is important for any performance tier card. Hardware accelerated RT is getting more and more common in games and usually happens lighter than heavier, so way more affordable than showcases like Path Tracing meant to kill anything, but highend. The thing is, noticeably less affordable for Radeons.

The best GPU you can buy in this price range is the 7700XT, period. But if you're not that demanding and only play old games like Skyrim, any modern GPU will do, even the 3060 12GB/7600.

And now example of point without a point. You definitely need to try being a little better, period!

Lastly, future proofing is not limited to RAM, but rather technology. DLSS 3 is a huge improvement in my book, which would have prolonged the life of my 2070 Super even further. Point is, going for a little pricier next gen for future proofing is never a bad idea to me.

You overestimate it. Frame Generation is seen like something making weak cards strong when in reality it's far from that good. It starts to work relatively well when you already have ~60 fps. And now many forget that it means having ~60 fps with satisfying graphic settings and rather not overusing basic DLSS. So it won't lead you to higher settings. Plus quite much to qualify if we talk demanding games already being here. And for some price of image quality. Imo it all make it feature rather esports, not AAA gaming.

 

[Vya Domus]

40% faster

37% so almost 40%, hard to believe but that's what TPU's chart says, point is it's much faster that much is clear.

So, bearing in mind OP has a 60 Hz 1080p monitor with zero plans to upgrade and exclusively plays older games.

Could you please explain how that 40% faster is relevant against a 4060 Ti which already gets 85 FPS in 1% lows in modern games.

You want me to explain why a faster card is better than a slower one ? If you think this 1080p60 aspect is so incredibly important why aren't you recommending him much cheaper and slower cards in the first place ?

I tell you why, because even you know it's stupid to not recommend someone the faster option. Despite him saying he only wants 1080p60 and that he wont play modern games the fact is if a game needs a 2070 super as minimum requirement that means the game isn't exactly that easy to run, there is just no reason not to get a more powerful GPU. So I ask again, why not just buy the fastest GPU you can ?

 

[dgianstefani]

37% so almost 40%, hard to believe but that's what TPU's chart says, point is it's much faster that much is clear.

View attachment 352125



You want me to explain why a faster card is better than a slower one ? If you think this 1080p60 aspect is so incredibly important why aren't you recommending him much cheaper and slower cards in the first place ?

I tell you why, because even you know it's stupid not recommend someone the faster option. Despite him saying he only wants 1080p60 and that he wont play modern games the fact is if a game needs a 2070 super as minimum requirement that means the game isn't exactly that easy to run, there is just no reason not to get a more powerful GPU. So I ask again, why not just buy the fastest GPU you can ?

Righto. So, trying to understand your logic here, bear with me.

-
Four year old used GPUs are the wise choice. Or more expensive (than the 4060 Ti 8 GB), less efficient RX models that, wait, have less VRAM than the 4060 Ti 16 GB, but can be had for the same money.

Oh, and RT, DLSS/DLAA don't matter because he only plays old games at 1080p 60.

But more performance (and double the power draw) does matter despite 1% lows being 25 FPS higher than his max FPS in 2024 games with the 4060 Ti 8 GB, let alone 16 GB.
-

About right?

If you can go over 400€, only then the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB, the RX 6750 XT or the RX 7700 XT (12GB, though) become an option.

Agreed, however the 7700XT becomes questionable, as OP would not need the extra raster power, since the 4060 Ti already has that in excess for his needs, but could potentially use the 4 GB extra VRAM, depending on whether or not he's the type of Skyrim player that runs 300 mods. The 6750XT is a strong no from me, since it requires a 650 W PSU (also true for the 7700XT), and that money is better saved or spent elsewhere, than as a required expense just so OP could have... a last gen GPU.

 

[Vya Domus]

Saying that the overpriced slower option is better is certainly one of the advices ever given.

This discussion has been very enlightening, thanks.

 

[dgianstefani]

Saying that the overpriced slower option is better is certainly one of the advices ever given.

This discussion has been very enlightening, thanks.

You're welcome.

You want me to explain why a faster card is better than a slower one ? If you think this 1080p60 aspect is so incredibly important why aren't you recommending him much cheaper and slower cards in the first place ?

Because buying last gen/used cards, or current gen less efficient cards for not that much savings (or none at all) is stupid, especially when you have to spend additional money on a stronger PSU to handle double the power draw. Yeah, no, not much of a savings there.

 

[Vya Domus]

Because buying last gen/used cards, or current gen less efficient cards for not that much savings (or none at all) is stupid, especially when you have to spend additional money on a stronger PSU to handle double the power draw. Yeah, no, not much of a savings there.

Even when said card is more than a third faster ? Something that not even the 600$ 4070 could deliver in raster performance ? Yeah, incredibly stupid.

And buying a high wattage PSU that will help you avoid these awkward situations in the future where you are limited in what you can buy ? Again, tremendously idiotic advice, better stick with the current PSU so this can be a problem next time you buy a GPU as well.

It's good people can come here on TPU and get amazing advice from such towering intellects.

 

[dgianstefani]

Even when said card is more than a third faster ?

At what?

1080p FPS in excess of 60?

Are you able to tell me how those FPS will be displayed?

It's good people can come here on TPU and get amazing advice from such towering intellects.

You said it .

Even when said card is more than a third faster ?

would like a brand new GPU because i've got dupped once with an "Outlet" item and store giving me 1~2 Years warranty doesn't appease me.

 

[neatfeatguy]

*sigh*
Haven't done this in a while, but lets see.
Of what you list, only Enshrouded requests a bit more of performance (going by the recommended specifications) and considering your budget being below 400€, using a FHD monitor, to potentially keep the current PSU and knowing the national market, you're SOL unless you pick the cheapest RX 7600 XT 16GB you can find. Yes, it's the unpopular opinion, but the prices for PT are not going to fluctuate even if the new gen comes out (maybe 40%-off 6 months the after the fact, because of a stocks clearance. Thanks mining craze...).
They don't. Traditionally.

If you can go over 400€, only then the RTX 4060 Ti 16GB, the RX 6750 XT or the RX 7700 XT (12GB, though) become an option.

The 7600 already has 16GB of vRAM, is within 9% of relative performance (TPU's chart) to the 6700XT (the recommended for Enshrouded) and no card will hold itself for 5 years playing AAA, save for top-tier exceptions. What you play now, will play the same in 5 years, though. OS support is another completely unrelated thing.
You can also think outside the box and go for the Intel Arc 770 (even less of a popular opinion), that costs roughly the same as the 7600 XT and plays Enshrouded with more or less the same performance. Has 16GB of RAM as well.


If it gets out of hand, a Mod swings a hammer. You'll get used to it.

I was just about suggest the 7600XT and as you said, only sits about 10% behind the 6700XT. The 7600XT will still be leaps and bounds faster over their 1660 (if that is indeed the current card they are still using).

Gaming power draw on it is about 200W and the OP shouldn't need to upgrade their PSU, though it's not a bad idea to do if the PSU is on the older side.

 

[Nordic]

In November 2022 I purchased a 6750xt for $330 because it was by far the best performance per dollar I could get with approximately twice the performance of my 1060 3gb. If I were to look for the best performance per dollar gpu that is approximately twice the performance of a 1060 3gb, that math doesn't come out in favor of the 6750xt. Last time I took a good look (a few months ago), the best bang for the buck gpu was the 3080.

Things could be different now. It has been months. Prices have been coming down. One thing is certain. The 6750xt is no longer the steal it was in 2022.

Now I find myself wanting something with ~2x the performance of the 6750xt. I am waiting for AMD to release whatever their top end RNDA4 gpu is to see how it compares in price to the 4080 super. By then prices will be even cheaper. The 4080 super might be a pretty good buy for the performance I want. Or AMD will keep me. It is too soon to say.

 

[Kyan]

1080p FPS in excess of 60?

today it's excess, but in 5 years it will be on point or close to it. OP asked upgrade path to play without changing anything for as long as 400-500€ can afford (+eventualy a psu if necessary, which, for a piece that can last a decade, is not a bad idea)

 

[Ruru]

Would categorically not recommend paying 400 euro for a new card with just 8GB of VRAM at this point in time, it's ridiculous.

If you want an Nvidia card buy a used 3080.

Agree, even though I had a little downgrade what it came to VRAM amount (6700 XT 12GB -> 3080 10GB), this has a lot more what comes to raw horsepower.

 

[dgianstefani]

today it's excess, but in 5 years it will be on point or close to it. OP asked upgrade path to play without changing anything for as long as 400-500€ can afford (+eventualy a psu if necessary, which, for a piece that can last a decade, is not a bad idea)

i will never play those modern games tested by forum, most are shooters which i deslike... im into skyrim, the elder scrolls, enshrouded type of survival farming open world discovery more slow paced peaceful games LOL --- i will upgrade my psu to 750 or 850 with 100~130€ ive kept alongside 400 for gpu is my 550w not enough

If in five years he's playing something current gen at ultra settings, as TPU tests, then he'd still be getting over 85 FPS 1% lows, with 105 FPS average.

If he's playing something newer, he can use DLSS 3.0 frame generation, which is superior to the AMD option, since he's only playing singleplayer games anyway. Then even if his FPS drops to half what it is now, he's still getting more than 40 FPS minimum, and 50 FPS average at ultra settings. Without upscaling, just frame generation, that's exactly the same performance he would get today, if he did play current games at Ultra. I.e. minimum low FPS 25 above his monitor refresh rate.

Instead of buying a four year old used GPU, that will be nine years old in five years time, and having to spend even more of his budget on a new PSU too (why are we even having this discussion, OP has clearly stated he does not want to buy a used GPU). Or buying a ~7700XT (for €150 more in total, €50 GPU + €100 PSU), having to suffer with substandard upscalers/no DLAA, poor RT support (since we're on the topic of "in five years time"), and poor energy efficiency on top of still having to buy a new PSU, because both the 3080 and 7700XT require a 650 W PSU at minimum compared to the 4060 Ti 350 W minimum recommended, which OP already comfortably exceeds with his 550 W Seasonic unit.

Get a 4060 Ti 8/16 GB, or a 4070.

There's no other 1080p60 intelligent choice buying new with a <€600 budget and a 550 W PSU.

Especially considering OP only plays old games as he has clearly stated many times.

Oh, and that €150 premium for the 7700XT gets you - 12 GB of VRAM, and 13% better raster performance at 1080p vs the 4060 Ti. Not worth it.

Spend €50 more for the 16 GB 4060 Ti if the VRAM really matters, which, for 1080p60, is only the case for heavily modded games.

Or €200 more for the 4070. But it's completely unnecessary as has been pointed out previously. Any current gen card has enough power to drive the games he plays at the resolution/Hz he does. Better to save the money for other things.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I've benched a lot of these cards. Lol.
That's 50 different benchmarks DX9 to DX12_2.
Rx 6400 through RX 6800.
NV 3050 through NV 4070.

If I had to choose between a 6750 XT or a 4060 ti, I'd take the 4060 ti.

If a 6800 is to be considered, it may be helpful for these guys to tell OP that a 6800 is exactly 2 inches longer than a 6700/6750 XT. Not to mention power requirements. There are some physical issues with gpus that are like a mile long. Haha.

 

[Vayra86]

Why not to consider 4060 Ti 16GB? It's one of the all time favourite cards to hate for few reasons, but I would like to see here some good points against it. Not idiots hating.

If we agree that Radeons can't be considered as cards for AAA gaming due to lack of RT performance and poor upscaler, we are left with Nvidia's offer. If not counting 8GB cards, there's only 3060 12GB and 4060 Ti 16GB left in more affordable category. There's also Intel, but rather still can't be consider reliable.

EDIT: @Denver @Kyan If you laugh from my comment, explain it. Just clicking things to manifest something with avoiding confrontation is for losers

Explanation:

Its godawfully slow memory. The card is neutered by its bandwidth, not even its 8GB.

Honestly @OP, stretch to 500 and get a 7800XT. Its a LOT more card. Like 40% more card. That's not bad for 20% more money. It will last 5+ years and won't struggle at anything. This 4060ti... is going to force you into proprietary solutions to keep playing proper.

And if the PSU won't cut it, get a new one or maybe a 7700XT or a 4070 will fit in the power budget. You either want to game proper or you don't. I'd seriously refrain from getting a 'just not quite it' GPU/system and then expect to enjoy it for long. My personal experience is, that just won't last and eventually you'll have spent more over the years than doing it right the first time. The playing field in the midrange is just very shitty right now.

 

[soundzen]

thank you all, i have made a choice - TOPIC CLOSED

 

[Denver]

If in five years he's playing something current gen at ultra settings, as TPU tests, then he'd still be getting over 85 FPS 1% lows, with 105 FPS average.

If he's playing something newer, he can use DLSS 3.0 frame generation, which is superior to the AMD option, since he's only playing singleplayer games anyway. Then even if his FPS drops to half what it is now, he's still getting more than 40 FPS minimum, and 50 FPS average at ultra settings. Without upscaling, just frame generation, that's exactly the same performance he would get today, if he did play current games at Ultra. I.e. minimum low FPS 25 above his monitor refresh rate.

Instead of buying a four year old used GPU, that will be nine years old in five years time, and having to spend even more of his budget on a new PSU too (why are we even having this discussion, OP has clearly stated he does not want to buy a used GPU). Or buying a ~7700XT (for €150 more in total, €50 GPU + €100 PSU), having to suffer with substandard upscalers/no DLAA, poor RT support (since we're on the topic of "in five years time"), and poor energy efficiency on top of still having to buy a new PSU, because both the 3080 and 7700XT require a 650 W PSU at minimum compared to the 4060 Ti 350 W minimum recommended, which OP already comfortably exceeds with his 550 W Seasonic unit.

Get a 4060 Ti 8/16 GB, or a 4070.

There's no other 1080p60 intelligent choice buying new with a <€600 budget and a 550 W PSU.

Especially considering OP only plays old games as he has clearly stated many times.

Oh, and that €150 premium for the 7700XT gets you - 12 GB of VRAM, and 13% better raster performance at 1080p vs the 4060 Ti. Not worth it.

Spend €50 more for the 16 GB 4060 Ti if the VRAM really matters, which, for 1080p60, is only the case for heavily modded games.

Or €200 more for the 4070. But it's completely unnecessary as has been pointed out previously. Any current gen card has enough power to drive the games he plays at the resolution/Hz he does. Better to save the money for other things.

Be more realistic. TPU tests are out of date and include many irrelevant games. The 7700xt is between 20-30% faster in most recent AAA, having performance to spare is the best thing for someone trying to keep a product for the long term. RT is totally irrelevant in low-end GPUs, for obvious reasons, the 4060ti can't even maintain stable 60fps without RT in all games. You're here recommending giving up 20-30% extra performance for futile gimmicks like a frame generator, it's a joke and it won't save you when your framerate is dropping to 30fps.