is radeon RX 6750 XT a steal ?

[ARF]

excuse my curiosity into Radeon... after posting an Nvidia tread im back at my gpu shopping list because my budget was all wrong...back then ive mentioned 600$ instead of 550 Euros and now my budget is down to 400 Euros (430$) because im keeping 100 Euros on the side to upgrade psu to 750W or even 850W (depending on connectors needed for the selected psu in this tread), so lets begin:

i have an intel cpu i5-12600k on a mobo Z790 limited to ddr4 Ram and i found on sale a gpu RX 6750 XT 12Gb for under 400 Euros (performance chart, the model above this radeon, is the rtx 4060 ti 16Gb which cost 550 Euros)... im looking for a minimum of 12 Vram up to 16Gb because buying cheaper Nvidias are limited to 8Gb (3060 and 4060 series) and i dont want to waste another 500 Euros in 5 years since games will only get more demanding.

QUESTION: this RX is a bargain so i ask, "whats the catch" with radeon cheap prices... what do i look for, as compatibility with my setup?
thank you for your insight.

AMD Radeon is always cheaper than the corresponding nvidia counter-part:

RTX 4090 - 1740€ | RX 7900 XTX 890€
RTX 4080S - 1000€ | RX 7900 XT 700€
RTX 4070 Ti S - 825€ | RX 6950 XT 620€
RTX 4070S - 600€ | RX 7800 XT 480€
RTX 4070 - 530€ | RX 7700 XT 390€
RTX 4060 Ti - 350€ | RX 7600 265€
RTX 4060 - 300€ | RX 6600 205€

 

[dgianstefani]

AMD Radeon is always cheaper than the corresponding nvidia counter-part:

RTX 4090 - 1740€ | RX 7900 XTX 890€
RTX 4080S - 1000€ | RX 7900 XT 700€
RTX 4070 Ti S - 825€ | RX 6950 XT 620€
RTX 4070S - 600€ | RX 7800 XT 480€
RTX 4070 - 530€ | RX 7700 XT 390€
RTX 4060 Ti - 350€ | RX 7600 265€
RTX 4060 - 300€ | RX 6600 205€

In what world are these corresponding lol

The 4090 has no competition.
You're using last gen parts that are not equivalent in performance to make your comparison "work"?
This is a false equivalence.

For example the 4060 is ~20% faster than the 6600, but you're trying to pretend the only difference is price.

Same for the 4060 Ti and the 7600, 25% difference in raster performance.

4070 is ~15% faster raster than 7700XT, while using less power (true for Ada vs RDNA 3 overall)

4070 Ti S is ~15% faster than 6950XT and almost twice as fast in RT, while power spiking to 350 W, instead of 650 W, and using 75 W for V-Sync 60 Hz instead of 160 W.

I could go on but you get the point

 

[lexluthermiester]

excuse my curiosity into Radeon... after posting an Nvidia tread im back at my gpu shopping list because my budget was all wrong...back then ive mentioned 600$ instead of 550 Euros and now my budget is down to 400 Euros (430$) because im keeping 100 Euros on the side to upgrade psu to 750W or even 850W (depending on connectors needed for the selected psu in this tread), so lets begin:

i have an intel cpu i5-12600k on a mobo Z790 limited to ddr4 Ram and i found on sale a gpu RX 6750 XT 12Gb for under 400 Euros (performance chart, the model above this radeon, is the rtx 4060 ti 16Gb which cost 550 Euros)... im looking for a minimum of 12 Vram up to 16Gb because buying cheaper Nvidias are limited to 8Gb (3060 and 4060 series) and i dont want to waste another 500 Euros in 5 years since games will only get more demanding.

QUESTION: this RX is a bargain so i ask, "whats the catch" with radeon cheap prices... what do i look for, as compatibility with my setup?

heres a pic of the minimum gpu requirements for my games in YELLOW and also the expensive nvidia in RED compared to the cheap radeon in GREEN... its more than 100 Euros difference which can buy me a new psu!

PS: i dont do live streams, i dont photo edit nor draw vectorial 3D architecture of sort - i just need gpu to surf the net, watch Netflix and play on Steam while listening to Spotify.​

thank you for your insight.

View attachment 352040

You should take a look at this;

JegsTV testing is on par with TPU's review numbers. If you can get the 6750XT for a bit better price, then heck yeah, go for it. Seems like a great value GPU!

EDIT: BTW, if you've already made your choice, please forgive me, 6pages of comments TL,DR..

 

[ARF]

The 4090 has no competition.

RX 7900 XTX is faster than RTX 4090 in enough instances.

Or has close enough performance.

AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX review (Page 13)

The flagship Radeon RX 7900 XTX is in the house, powered by new rDNA3 GPU architecture and paired with 24 GB of graphics memory. The card is pitted against the GeForce RTX 4080 and manages to keep up ...

www.guru3d.com

Between RTX 4090 and the vastly cheaper RX 7900 XTX, there is no competition - RX 7900 XTX is the better buy.

 

[freeagent]

Who spends that kind of money to play at 1080p.

Crazy talk.

 

[Vayra86]

"Better cards are better", I get it. I still don't see the connection to the original argument, but whatever. Fine. "Better cards are better and I'm really smart with money".

The topic start was whether a 6750XT was a steal at a certain price. I think the topic/argument really was all about value for money, and a 400 dollar 4060ti is not good value for money.

I'm really smart with money is the part that apparently needed spelling out before the penny, apparently, still doesn't drop. Did you try the thought experiment of buying x60's over a period of 10 years and getting equal value for money/gaming out of them compared to the path I illustrated? Or did you just gloss over that because you are convinced an x60 is just as fine as something with a much better perf/$? Numbers don't lie...

Come on, man.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Who spends that kind of money to play at 1080p.

Crazy talk.

You'd be surprised.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

The topic start was whether a 6750XT was a steal at a certain price. I think the topic/argument really was all about value for money, and a 400 dollar 4060ti is not good value for money.

I'm really smart with money is the part that apparently needed spelling out before the penny, apparently, still doesn't drop. Did you try the thought experiment of buying x60's over a period of 10 years and getting equal value for money/gaming out of them compared to the path I illustrated? Or did you just gloss over that because you are convinced an x60 is just as fine as something with a much better perf/$? Numbers don't lie...

Come on, man.

Eh, 50 bucks. I've sneezed and lost more than that haha.

The 4060 ti will OC core about 20% or more on average. It completely clobbers all of AMDs mid range line up. That's what you get for the extra 50 bucks. Plus it's much faster DX9 1080P as well.

 

[silverzero]

there is so much simping for nvidia on this thread.

its very simple, if you are on a budget, you buy radeon.
power consumption is not a big deal outside of the halo 4090 level cards, you will not notice the difference between a 4060 and a 6750 in your monthly bill
you will notice the increased ram a couple years from now though

the 4060 is bad value for money. and if money is the most important thing, its heretical to say, but the top end Intel cards are not bad value. Assuming your the adventurous type

 

[lexluthermiester]

power consumption is not a big deal outside of the halo 4090 level cards

And the 4080's. Seriously, look those up. It's obnoxious.

 

[Sithaer]

I still don't follow tbh, unless your point is simply *70 cards are faster than *60 cards. i had the 2060 and the 3060ti and both were fine cards*.

*the price of the 3060ti during the height of the pandemic was not fine though...

I'm still using a 3060 Ti since 2022 and in most cases Vram is still not an issue for me but the raster performance is starting to show its age in some of the new games that I play/played.
For example Hellblade 2 was completely hammering my GPU and so did all of the other UE 5 games that I've played so far.
It all depends on your use case/resolution,etc but for me its always the raster performance thats starting to run out and not the other way around.
Like the worst example I can give you thats Vram related is that I've had to lower Textures to High instead of Very High in Forbidden West and unless I take my magnifying glass and lick walls/trees up close I can't notice a damn differences while playing the game so its a moot point for me. 'I've used to mod older games with very high/4k texture mods but nowadays I don't feel the need cause to me even medium looks pretty good in most new games'

The point is, they're not just faster, they offer a greater value for your dollar. They keep a resale price if they're resold 5 years later, and it can be pretty substantial too especially if new generations don't keep on giving, and I think it needs no discussion that we've definitely arrived at that point. Basically what I'm saying is, an x60 (and other entry-mid range stuff in laptops etc.) in most cases to me has been an experience of penny wise, pound stupid. It is much wiser to be saving a little more and then getting a well rounded card that not only gives you an initially better gaming experience, but also keeps value that much longer and can be kept for longer. And this is doubly true in the case of a very overpriced x60(ti), with cards that offer +40% (!!!) raster perf sitting at a price point a mere 20% higher. Even if local pricing makes that 30%, its still a much better deal, and on top of the initial FPS/$ bonus, you can recoup the 20% you lost (and often more) if you resell the card before its completely obsolete.

And the obsolete part ties in heavily with overall performance with a heavy emphasis on the memory system's capability, because there's little wiggle room there for tweaking.

I'm honestly staggered I have to explain this, which to me seems basic reasoning. Being smart with your $$$ is especially useful if your budgets are tight. I've been on tight budgets in my life... the cheap route is the good old story of the 'quality of shoes'. Poor people buy cheap shoes and keep changing them every year. Rich people buy shoes that last 10 years and comparatively keep more money in pocket over that period of time - but here's the kicker: they paid, say 200 bucks initially in year 1. The poor guys pay 20 bucks the first year... but then inflation made the next pair 25 bucks, and the third time they want something different so they spend 35. This is part of the reason the rich get richer and the poor never get out of their situation. And, you can walk with a GPU until your foot's sticking through the bottom, or you can maintain it well and sell it off while its still in great condition. This part, is a true case of being smart with your finances - suppressing the 'urge' and using rationale. Let's be honest here, if you can save up $400,-, you can also save up $500,-.

So, yes there is a perspective beyond the benchmark.

To illustrate: when I started playing smart I sold my GTX 770 for 150 EUR, around when maxwell got released, I then bought a 780ti for 250 EUR 2nd hand. Sold it in 2016 for 150. I bought a 1080 at that point for 520 (actually 420 because I didnt have to pay tax but let's not count that ) and sold it last year for 200,-. You tell me you can get that lifetime of great gaming out of x60s spending the same money. It aint happening.

Keep in mind that this is also depends on where you live, where I live there is usually a pretty steep price difference/jump between the 60 series and anything higher up and if my use case does not demand it then I would rather not pay that when I'm already pushing my budget with a 60 serie. 'out of the entire 3000 serie at the time to me the 60 Ti was the best value'
Resale value is pretty bad after a few years anyway, regardless of the card at least here. 'Nvidia does keep its value better tho, so far I've lost about half of what I've paid for my 3060 Ti after 2 years but its actually even worse for the higher end cards.. My friend could talk about that with his 3080 Ti that he had to sell for less of its half original price after using it for less than 1 year..'

 

[alwayssts]

thanks again guys but please no arguments, im so stressed already to hold on to my leftovers budget till september after paying irs in august if my calculations were correct.

I have not read this entire thread (after when I last posted) as I too hate seeing (especially bad advice mixed with forceful arguments) fighting, but I was almost going to PM you to ask if this was the case.

Hence, I read until you actually said it.

I respect your situation.

We can still discuss in PM options if you'd like; I'm not against recommending a nVIDIA card if it suits you (last three cards I've owned were nV; before that largely ATi/AMD since the voodoo2).

I believe I have solid reasoning for everything I chose to purchase, and am very frugal. I have a 2080 Ti because some people are...not well-informed (I bought it VERY cheap after the 3000 series launched).

Some of the reasons for the reality of such ignorance and short-sightedness continue in this very thread.

But, as such, there have been and are many reasons to buy Radeon over the years, and that will continue. It is also especially the case for those that buy new.

If you can, please do truly wait for N48 (likely branded as 8600/xt or 9600/xt). It will be named for the Navi 4 architecture, and likely bring worth-while price, performance, and efficiency gains for your sitch.

It will also likely render many of these arguments moot.

I think that will be the card for your situation in which you will feel you got your money's worth but also won't need to worry for quite some time.

If you do not agree after reviews are out, there will likely be many options more in-tune with your price goals at that time given AMD's upper-end (N44) will likely fight the 4070 Ti Super, if not the 4080 (granted, that could involve overclocking; may not apply to you but may apply to market conditions), which will cause a cause a shake-up. nVIDIA may even release a 4060 Ti Super (the current products have unused cores on them so it could happen) and discount older cards, if not just the later.

All I care about is you getting the best native 1080p/60 (perhaps with some extra goodies like RT if applicable) for the longest amount of time for the cheapest amount of money.

IE: Happiness but not getting ripped off.

In that respect, especially given your desire to buy new, among other things I've learned wrt to your POV, I think this is the way to go so that you won't have buyer's remorse or need to upgrade again soon.

If nothing else, this will give you the most up-to-date information on the situation (to hear people argue about.)

I wish you much luck and please do have fun with whatever you end up doing/choosing.

I would kindly remind people that nobody uses their card at 100% load all the time, and idle/media playback is a miniscule amount of power regardless of difference, especially vs something like using a tv.

I remain at your (or anyones') disposal via PM if they seek my advice, but must bounce from this thread. Not because I invite ignoranance (I appreciate all pov/info); just can't imagine it being productive.

Some must be especially bored this weekend, which is fair-enough, as that's probably what brought me here to begin with as well (although I do like help whenever/however I can).

 

[AusWolf]

the 4060 is bad value for money.

So is the 6750 XT. The 7700 XT and 7800 XT are much better values in my opinion.

 

[Dr. Dro]

there is so much simping for nvidia on this thread.

its very simple, if you are on a budget, you buy radeon.
power consumption is not a big deal outside of the halo 4090 level cards, you will not notice the difference between a 4060 and a 6750 in your monthly bill
you will notice the increased ram a couple years from now though

the 4060 is bad value for money. and if money is the most important thing, its heretical to say, but the top end Intel cards are not bad value. Assuming your the adventurous type

Stating facts is not simping for the company you do not like... and no, not necessarily, Radeon is not a strict budget brand.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm still using a 3060 Ti since 2022 and in most cases Vram is still not an issue for me but the raster performance is starting to show its age in some of the new games that I play/played.
For example Hellblade 2 was completely hammering my GPU and so did all of the other UE 5 games that I've played so far.
It all depends on your use case/resolution,etc but for me its always the raster performance thats starting to run out and not the other way around.
Like the worst example I can give you thats Vram related is that I've had to lower Textures to High instead of Very High in Forbidden West and unless I take my magnifying glass and lick walls/trees up close I can't notice a damn differences while playing the game so its a moot point for me. 'I've used to mod older games with very high/4k texture mods but nowadays I don't feel the need cause to me even medium looks pretty good in most new games'



Keep in mind that this is also depends on where you live, where I live there is usually a pretty steep price difference/jump between the 60 series and anything higher up and if my use case does not demand it then I would rather not pay that when I'm already pushing my budget with a 60 serie. 'out of the entire 3000 serie at the time to me the 60 Ti was the best value'
Resale value is pretty bad after a few years anyway, regardless of the card at least here. 'Nvidia does keep its value better tho, so far I've lost about half of what I've paid for my 3060 Ti after 2 years but its actually even worse for the higher end cards.. My friend could talk about that with his 3080 Ti that he had to sell for less of its half original price after using it for less than 1 year..'

Ampere was entirely shit price/perf wise because all prices were inflated almost the entire lifetime of the cards. So yeah, that won't work out well. Its the reason I skipped the gen, and sat on a 1080 for longer than I wanted. And do you know why I could wait? Because I didn't buy an x60 during Pascal, but something that would last a bit longer, could be stretched a bit further. Case in point, right there, of penny wise pound stupid.

It really does matter a lot when and what you buy. Where, matters too, but that wasn't into play here.

Eh, 50 bucks. I've sneezed and lost more than that haha.

The 4060 ti will OC core about 20% or more on average. It completely clobbers all of AMDs mid range line up. That's what you get for the extra 50 bucks. Plus it's much faster DX9 1080P as well.

A yes, an even faster core on 288Gbps. Awesome! And you've sneezed and lost more than 50 bucks sure, but that doesn't account for the fact you've been gaming that time with a full tier higher worth of GPUs, ergo, at higher IQ/FPS. So it wasn't just 50 bucks cheaper, it was also better during the whole time. I think that's my point proven, thanks.

Perspectives, eh.

 

[Sithaer]

Ampere was entirely shit price/perf wise because all prices were inflated almost the entire lifetime of the cards. So yeah, that won't work out well. Its the reason I skipped the gen, and sat on a 1080 for longer than I wanted. And do you know why I could wait? Because I didn't buy an x60 during Pascal, but something that would last a bit longer, could be stretched a bit further. Case in point, right there, of penny wise pound stupid.

It really does matter a lot when and what you buy. Where, matters too, but that wasn't into play here.

I almost never buy into a new gen at launch only years later and even then strictly from the second hand market. 'my last brand new GPU was a GTX 950 in 2015 and I kept using that card for almost 3 years'
My upgrade cycle is usually 3 years between budget-mid range cards and that is the only way I can at least afford some upgrades. 'after that 950 I've had a RX 570 for again almost 3 years and then a GTX 1070 as a temporarily solution while waiting for prices to drop down to fit my maximum budget'

Telling ppl to nah save up and buy higher tier hardware is not an option for everyone, I wish it was but it really isnt for me so most likely my next upgrade will be in the same tier sometime maybe in later 2025. 'that will be exactly my usual 3 year cycle too'

 

[Dr. Dro]

A yes, an even faster core on 288Gbps. Awesome! And you've sneezed and lost more than 50 bucks sure, but that doesn't account for the fact you've been gaming that time with a full tier higher worth of GPUs, ergo, at higher IQ/FPS. So it wasn't just 50 bucks cheaper, it was also better during the whole time. I think that's my point proven, thanks.

Perspectives, eh.

Raw memory bandwidth doesn't matter though... it is not comparable between architectures and generations. Radeon VII had 1 TB/s, easily achieved 1.25 TB/s, 4060 Ti should be at least 40% faster still

 

[dgianstefani]

Raw memory bandwidth doesn't matter though... it is not comparable between architectures and generations. Radeon VII had 1 TB/s, easily achieved 1.25 TB/s, 4060 Ti should be at least 40% faster still

Radeon VII was beaten by a 1080 Ti, a two year older card with less than half the memory bandwidth too.

 

[soundzen]

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Unfortunately these sort of threads always turn out this way even after the OP has made a decision.....

People are very passionate about their gpu brand of choice....

If you did end up going with a 4060ti I hope it last you as long as you're hoping it will and provides an awesome gaming experience.

 

[SL2]

Might as well buy the 3060-12GB which is gonna do everything, right?

Don't be silly, I was just highlighting what the OP wanted.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Unfortunately these sort of threads always turn out this way even after the OP has made a decision.....

Did they? Might have missed it..

EDIT: Yup, they did, on page three.
@soundzen
So what did you ultimately decide on?

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Ampere was entirely shit price/perf wise because all prices were inflated almost the entire lifetime of the cards. So yeah, that won't work out well. Its the reason I skipped the gen, and sat on a 1080 for longer than I wanted. And do you know why I could wait? Because I didn't buy an x60 during Pascal, but something that would last a bit longer, could be stretched a bit further. Case in point, right there, of penny wise pound stupid.

It really does matter a lot when and what you buy. Where, matters too, but that wasn't into play here.


A yes, an even faster core on 288Gbps. Awesome! And you've sneezed and lost more than 50 bucks sure, but that doesn't account for the fact you've been gaming that time with a full tier higher worth of GPUs, ergo, at higher IQ/FPS. So it wasn't just 50 bucks cheaper, it was also better during the whole time. I think that's my point proven, thanks.

Perspectives, eh.

It's not perspective when I have the actual data being I benchmark (not a gamer), this data across 50+ 3D Benchmarks.

So you're saying saving 50 bucks was smarter than waiting the week ( thread past this time period) and having the extra 50$ to cover a slightly more expensive, but 15% to 20% faster card, from the box without OC?

Your perspective is shit.
I've benched
Rx 6400
6500 XT (Mgpu also)
6600 XT
6650 XT
6700 XT (Mgpu)
6800 XT

NV
RTX
3050
3060
3060 ti
4060 ti
4070 S

Probably some in between. I'd have to look.
At 50 benchmarks each, that's a lot of data to work with.

The 6800 is a little slower than the 4070 S, slightly faster than a 4060 ti.

 

[AusWolf]

Ampere was entirely shit price/perf wise because all prices were inflated almost the entire lifetime of the cards. So yeah, that won't work out well. Its the reason I skipped the gen, and sat on a 1080 for longer than I wanted. And do you know why I could wait? Because I didn't buy an x60 during Pascal, but something that would last a bit longer, could be stretched a bit further. Case in point, right there, of penny wise pound stupid.

It really does matter a lot when and what you buy. Where, matters too, but that wasn't into play here.


A yes, an even faster core on 288Gbps. Awesome! And you've sneezed and lost more than 50 bucks sure, but that doesn't account for the fact you've been gaming that time with a full tier higher worth of GPUs, ergo, at higher IQ/FPS. So it wasn't just 50 bucks cheaper, it was also better during the whole time. I think that's my point proven, thanks.

Perspectives, eh.

I'd say, that depends...

If you spend 2x on your GPU, and it lasts 2x as long, then it's the same deal as spending half and replacing it halfway through, isn't it? This is where performance-per-dollar figures come into play.

Another thing is keeping your needs in check. If you're ok with 40 FPS at 1080p, then you'll be happy with a 4060 Ti for years to come. However, if you want 120 FPS at 4K, then chances are, you're gonna be looking at replacing your 4090 as soon as Blackwell is out because it's just not good enough.

 

[Dr. Dro]

The 6800 is a little slower than the 4070 S, slightly faster than a 4060 ti.

At up to 4x the power consumption (median ~2.5x), it's the least it could do