RX 7900 XTX vs. RTX 4080

[JustBenching]

read again. Yeah you did sure.

yes balance and you lose visuals for with a card that costs 1200USD.

You lose visuals compared to what? The 4090? Of course you do, thats why the 4090 costs more. Haven't tested 4k + DLSS Balanced, but im pretty confident it looks much much better than let's say native 1440p.


Would challenge you to a blind test, I post some screenshots or videos and you try to find out which one is the native one. Everyone ive tried it with has failed spectacularly.

 

[ratirt]

You lose visuals compared to what? The 4090? Of course you do, thats why the 4090 costs more. Haven't tested 4k + DLSS Balanced, but im pretty confident it looks much much better than let's say native 1440p.

That would depend on the game wouldn't it? DLSS, if you ask me, is not perfect and varies from game to game. The assumption (and a correct one in my opinion) is, if you dont use quality, you will lose visuals. If you tell me visuals are slightly worse with balance mode DLSS and are hard to spot and my notion is irrelevant, that is exactly what RT is to me in terms of visuals. Sometimes it is hard to even notice the game is running RT ON just by looking at the game and surrounding environment. You can notice it though by the FPS counter you have since that is easier to observe.

 

[Why_Me]

The point is that even if the RT performance is better than AMD's it's still overall horrible and it's nothing either of these companies should boast about, like ever. This is what you see on their product page :

View attachment 290378

Unless you're gonna tell me that 22fps is perfectly playable then no, this is advertised as being necessary and not just optional.

RTX 4090 Gets Just 16 FPS in Cyberpunk 2077 RT Overdrive Preview

Upscaling or DLSS 3 Frame Generation are practically mandatory

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Vya Domus]

RTX 4090 Gets Just 16 FPS in Cyberpunk 2077 RT Overdrive Preview

Upscaling or DLSS 3 Frame Generation are practically mandatory

www.tomshardware.com

Amazing stuff.

DLSS4 coming soon where Nvidia will just show you an AI generated video playback of the game because the framerate with RT on will be zero.

 

[JustBenching]

That would depend on the game wouldn't it? DLSS, if you ask me, is not perfect and varies from game to game. The assumption (and a correct one in my opinion) is, if you dont use quality, you will lose visuals. If you tell me visuals are slightly worse with balance mode DLSS and are hard to spot and my notion is irrelevant, that is exactly what RT is to me in terms of visuals. Sometimes it is hard to even notice the game is running RT ON just by looking at the game and surrounding environment. You can notice it though by the FPS counter you have since that is easier to observe.

OK then, we can put it to the test. Youll post me some screenshot with rt on and off and I'll try to guess, I'll post you some screenshot with dlss on and off and you'll try to guess.

Amazing stuff.

DLSS4 coming soon where Nvidia will just show you an AI generated video playback of the game because the framerate with RT on will be zero.

I wish that was true. Push the visuals so much that the 4090 gets 0 fps. That would be absolutely awesome.

1080 ti = 699usd (full die)
2080 ti = 999usd (full die)
3080 ti = 1199usd (not full die)
3090 = 1499usd (not full die)
3090 ti = 1999usd (full die)
4090 = 1599usd (not full die)
Why I have a problem with this? Well, in a 5 year mark we will have low end cards with a price tag of $1k if all goes according to NV's plan.

Does it matter if its a full die or not? If the full die is much bigger on the new gen, why does it matter? The 2080ti was a full die and the card was terrible.

Transistors are what actually matters, and the 4070ti has 20% more of those than the 3090,lol

 

[Vya Domus]

I wish that was true. Push the visuals so much that the 4090 gets 0 fps. That would be absolutely awesome.

The sad thing is that I know you're not being ironic.

 

[JustBenching]

The sad thing is that I know you're not being ironic.

Of course I'm not. Why would I be. Push visuals to the extreme, if your hardware can't handle it, drop settings. There is literally absolutely no downside. People like you don't actually care if a game looks good or not, they just want to run it at ultra, even if ultra looks crap. Weird times we live in.

 

[Mahboi]

4090 fam

I considered it. I considered it for like 20 minutes. I looked up price (2000€ since I also need a new PSU) and my actual build value. I checked that it was pretty much everything I could need for 5 years or more.
Then I came down from the bullshit and just said out loud to my monitor "I don't need a fucking GPU that is more expensive than my entire build and an extra screen combined, I just need decent 4K gaming".
The 4090 came off as the ultimate upsell to me.
I have 0 interest in a 4080 at this price, but I also have 0 interest in a 4090 as a product. I just don't need this shit. I want a decent card, with enough RAM to run all my needs, and a good power draw/performance/price. The 4080 is perfect, it's just that the price is wrong. The 4090 is a literal monster that I don't need and won't need anytime soon.

Actually I wonder how much of my logic departs from the common high end buyer :
- 7900 xt
It's nice and sufficient, more ram than needed, but it's on basically the same price to performance ratio as the XTX, and is 1000€.
If I buy this for a grand, and it proves insufficient on something, am I not investing in a sick donkey here? Maybe I should buy the XTX just to be sure, especially since I lose next to nothing in price /perf.
- 7900 xtx
It's the best AMD has to offer and has enough ram and power to handle anything. The problem with it is that it's not ready at all. Performance is unequal, power draw somewhat poor at load and abysmal at idle. Because it's AMD, you can expect that it'll FineWine itself over it's life cycle but it's just plainly inferior to Nvidia right now. Even if you count that the XT may also FineWine into a slightly worse 4080 while the XTX FineWines into something closer to a 4090 than a 4080, if it happens in a year from now, that just means that you pay full price for a product that'll be properly enabled for one year less. Nvidia meanwhile has everything that works, here, now.
- 4080
Perfect ram, power draw, performance, raytracing, 3rd party app and AI support, everything about it is ready and able, so where do I buy?
Oh.... 1369€.
On a card that has 33% less ram and less raw power than an xtx... And unlike the XTX has basically no shot in Finewining. You pay more, a ton of money actually, for a card with no flaws but no sparkles. If this card was 1000€ I'd just buy and go. I'd tell everyone to buy it. It's perfect for 4-5 years of usage. But it seems Nvidia is trying to train us to accept a volcanic level inflation, and I don't want to be trained into good boi begging for his treat.
It's truly ironic that Jensen decided to go for the Become the Scalper timeline after the 3000s, because this is honestly brilliant in terms of balancing. 3080 with 10Gos was debatably meh for the PS5 era. 4070 Ti is even worse. 3090 was too much and wouldn't ever justify its price over 4-5 years (as the 4090 proved as soon as it arrived). But the 4080? You get exactly what you need, in a neat package, with some of the best perf/power/ram/all around packaging. I see it as a truly excellent card for 99% of high end buyers. But if the price isn't right, everything else loses its value.
- 4090
Much more powerful, much more worthwhile, much more satisfying to own, incredibly capable... This is a masterpiece of power for gaming and productivity. It's honestly one of the best Nvidia has ever made. Even its price is justifiable. If you're using it for gaming, it's going to be extremely solid even for years to come. It's arguably just too much for it even, and works better as a monster productivity card.
But do I need a monster productivity card? Do I need 24Gb? Do I need to spend 2000 flipping euros for this? I CAN spend it, but I can also buy a ton of things with the extra 800€ that I'd save by taking an xtx. The 4090's problem is that like all highest end products, it lacks value. I just want a card that'll do me good, not a monster. And I don't wanna pay monster prices for something that'll mostly show that I bought more than I needed.

Oh and for kicks:
4070 Ti:
A total scam. Yes, the card is capable. Yes, 12Go will be argued to be "sufficient". I'll completely disagree on that one, but let's assume that it'll be "sufficient" for most cases.
I don't want to have a "sufficient" level of VRAM for a card that I can't find under 980€. Plain and simple. The 6700 xt can be a lovely little card with a "sufficient" 12Go because it's a 400€ card. The 4070 Ti is trying to both be stingy with such a basic thing as having enough RAM and demands what was flagship prices last gen. Heck, you can find a 6950xt for 700€ in some places right now. Fuck off Ngreedia.

This is the situation from my seat. I have money to burn. Even 2000€ may not be unrealistic for my wallet. I don't want ultra strong 3rd party app support, but I'd rather have it. I don't want turbo power, but I don't want to spend over a grand for something disappointing. I just need to power 4K gaming and be able to dabble in AI/video montage without thinking "should've bought the other one".

And when I look at the XTX, I think that even though it'll take probably over a year for the red fucks to get the card in full swing, they'll eventually do it and reach the performance targets the promised. It'll be a really strong card with worse rt and worse productivity, and that's enough for me.
When I look at the 4080, I think it's perfect. I look at the price and literally lose all desire to buy. If you're gonna spend this much on an item of fun, shouldn't you at least WANT it, rather than feel compelled to buy it?

 

[wolf]

Of course I'm not. Why would I be. Push visuals to the extreme, if your hardware can't handle it, drop settings. There is literally absolutely no downside. People like you don't actually care if a game looks good or not, they just want to run it at ultra, even if ultra looks crap. Weird times we live in.

We used to live for this stuff, I remember being amazed when Crysis came out at the visuals, was I upset the card I owned at the time (when gpu releases were more often too), couldn't Max it out and get wicked framrates at a high resolution? Heck no it was a taste of what's to come, played and replayed on every subsequent card since, and even when it first came out it was more than playable with smart settings choices.

The way some talk it's like they want a card that does 4k144+ and games never push anything ever again and they keep the card forever.

 

[Vayra86]

We used to live for this stuff, I remember being amazed when Crysis came out at the visuals, was I upset the card I owned at the time (when gpu releases were more often too), couldn't Max it out and get wicked framrates at a high resolution? Heck no it was a taste of what's to come, played and replayed on every subsequent card since, and even when it first came out it was more than playable with smart settings choices.

The way some talk it's like they want a card that does 4k144+ and games never push anything ever again and they keep the card forever.

Right! But then Crysis 1 was actually a nice game to play.

Cyberpunk is a piece of shit beyond the first story playthrough and everybody's done that by now. The Witcher RT remake isn't worth anything as its the same game we've already played a hundred times.

Tell me about one RT-enabled title that was a blockbuster. There isn't one, unless you're blindly following the marketing and stopped thinking for yourself altogether. The quality of triple A has taken a massive nosedive and not even CDPR was immune to it.

The rest is that umpteenth remake of a game that was nice to play. Five, or ten years ago.

But you can keep fooling yourself there is so much to discover here, to each their own. Still you're blind as hell if you can't see the difference with the current state of affairs and Crysis that was pushing the envelope. Crysis was a hand tailored engine. Current day RT is push a button and add massive performance hit, pick any game. There is nothing unique about it.

 

[wolf]

There is nothing unique about it

Cool man you hate RT/PT, and jump in to downplay it whenever you can, anything good to add to the conversation, or just came here for that?

 

[Vya Domus]

Right! But then Crysis 1 was actually a nice game to play.

And it actually looked great, there was nothing like it. Having the framerate halved from what was already utter crap so you can have a little higher accuracy reflections thinking that it's some amazing advancement in computer graphics is really laughable, it's just people trying to justify paying thousands of dollars something for something that's obviously not worth it.

It used to be you'd get a couple of games that looked really nice, they raised the bar visually and ran like crap but at least you knew the next generation of GPUs would make it worthwhile. Now you get games that run like crap, then you pay a ton of money and they still run like crap and they try to market it as an advantage, that's real progress right there. Nvidia was always up to no good but them blatantly shoveling technologies that destroy performance on purpose just so they can justify selling massively overpriced products is a new low.

 

[JustBenching]

Right! But then Crysis 1 was actually a nice game to play.

Cyberpunk is a piece of shit beyond the first story playthrough and everybody's done that by now. The Witcher RT remake isn't worth anything as its the same game we've already played a hundred times.

Tell me about one RT-enabled title that was a blockbuster. There isn't one, unless you're blindly following the marketing and stopped thinking for yourself altogether. The quality of triple A has taken a massive nosedive and not even CDPR was immune to it.

The rest is that umpteenth remake of a game that was nice to play. Five, or ten years ago.

But you can keep fooling yourself there is so much to discover here, to each their own. Still you're blind as hell if you can't see the difference with the current state of affairs and Crysis that was pushing the envelope. Crysis was a hand tailored engine. Current day RT is push a button and add massive performance hit, pick any game. There is nothing unique about it.

I don't judge the quality of a game by its sales numbers but since you do, cyberpunk is a blockbuster.

With that said, the game is great. Amazing I might say. If people stop treating it like an open world theme park (like gtav) maybe theyd enjoy it more.

 

[Vayra86]

I don't judge the quality of a game by its sales numbers but since you do, cyberpunk is a blockbuster.

With that said, the game is great. Amazing I might say. If people stop treating it like an open world theme park (like gtav) maybe theyd enjoy it more.

Not its sales numbers. I judge the game for the game

Cool man you hate RT/PT, and jump in to downplay it whenever you can, anything good to add to the conversation, or just came here for that?

Dude you can apply your RT sauce with Nvidias own tools what are you talking about?

 

[JustBenching]

Not its sales numbers. I judge the game for the game

OK, it's just that you asked for a blockbuster rt game. I agree that's irrelevant.

Lots of people were saying the same about crisis back in the day,thats it a bad game / tech demo.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

OK, it's just that you asked for a blockbuster rt game. I agree that's irrelevant.

Lots of people were saying the same about crisis back in the day,thats it a bad game / tech demo.

I remember trying to run it on a 8800GTX and thinking something was wrong with my hardware lol. On like medium settings it was fine though at 720P. It was a prebuilt so who knows what else might have been causing lower than expected performance at that time I didn't really pay attention to anything but the GPU I couldn't even say what cpu was in there other than it was intel because of the stupid sticker.

Crazy how far pc gaming has come from trying to push 1-1.4 million pixels 30-60fps really for most people to now RT and 8 million pixels above 100fps.

Even though it's quite different RT reminds me of tessellation Nvidia was also super far ahead and I remember Radeon fanboys saying how useless it was even though I believe it was first possible on an Radeon gpu. Makes me think how different these conversation would be if AMD was the one way ahead in RT performance, You'd have Nvidia FB downplaying it and trying to justify their purchases would be my guess.

 

[Vayra86]

OK, it's just that you asked for a blockbuster rt game. I agree that's irrelevant.

Lots of people were saying the same about crisis back in the day,thats it a bad game / tech demo.

It ran poorly. And initially it was buggy, oh yeah. The game itself though, was top notch and it still works today, combining sandbox elements with a linear shooter very well.

The key element in Crysis was not just its graphics, but its combination with the physics engine and game's mechanics. Crysis offered a degree of interactivity that was also pretty interesting, again, not something you can say of RT. Those are marked differences between then and now. We have to accept there isn't that much new to us anymore, even RT, for all its novelty, is just yet another graphical effect plastered over something we already had. In that sense I think RT is heavily overrated for what it does and is today. It just doesn't compare to earlier days' developments, diminishing returns happened bigtime.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

It ran poorly. And initially it was buggy, oh yeah. The game itself though, was top notch and it still works today, combining sandbox elements with a linear shooter very well.

The key element in Crysis was not just its graphics, but its combination with the physics engine and game's mechanics. Crysis offered a degree of interactivity that was also pretty interesting, again, not something you can say of RT - in fact games/environments are more plasticky and static than ever. Those are marked differences between then and now. We have to accept there isn't that much new to us anymore, even RT, for all its novelty, is just yet another graphical effect plastered over something we already had. In that sense I think RT is heavily overrated for what it does and is today. It just doesn't compare to earlier days' developments, diminishing returns happened bigtime.

I still think it being so clearly ahead visually vs pretty much everything else is a big reason people remember it. I remember getting SLI 680s and finally being able to run it at a decent framerate at 1200p and being super stoked. Although at the time I was more excited about Witcher 2. To this day I actually bust out Witcher 2 max it out with uber sampling every time I get a new gpu.

Maybe I'm not remember correctly but I feel like Crysis 1 was harder to run than Crysis 2.


As far as RT goes though I really like it if others don't good for them. I really don't look at it from a what does it cost me performance wise I just buy the closest card I can afford to the flagship crank everything and call it a day....

CP and many other games still look pretty darn good without it only Metro EE requires it as far as I know. As much as I like it I definitely do not want games requiring it.

 

[Kapone33]

OK, it's just that you asked for a blockbuster rt game. I agree that's irrelevant.

Lots of people were saying the same about crisis back in the day,thats it a bad game / tech demo.

Crysis was refreshing and only console players said it sucked.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Crysis was refreshing and only console players said it sucked.

nah, a lot of PC gamers complained as well with the same what's the point if nobody can run it BS we get now.

Even though it's a little foggy I think Radeon was way behind in it as well so you'd get the usual Nvidia is cheating to get their performance or whatever stupid argument fanboys wanted to make.

 

[Kapone33]

nah, a lot of PC gamers complained as well with the same what's the point if nobody can run it BS we get now.

It certainly influenced me to get a new PC. AGP was so weird. It seemed that everyone adopted it for like 2 years and then PCIe just took off.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

It certainly influenced me to get a new PC. AGP was so weird. It seemed that everyone adopted it for like 2 years and then PCIe just took off.

Mine was just a prebuilt at the time and I just remember being disappointed with HD 2900XT benchmarks this was in 2008 Crysis prompted me to upgrade as well. I was coming from from a prebuilt with an X1800 XT and wanted to stick with AMD. I think it's funny how clueless I was back then everytime If wanted a gpu upgrade I just purchased a whole new pc thinking it was the only way.

I stuck with that 8800GTX till the GTX 680/7970 came out.... Man that was a long time although I mostly console gamed at the time so it didn't matter.


either way not much has changed people still fighting over everything..... I kinda miss the console wars when the consoles were actually different though lol. Ps1 vs Saturn vs N64, PS2 vs Xbox vs gamecube, PS3 vs X360 the good old days. Personally I just owned them all and found it amusing.... Now we have Raster vs RT, DLSS vs FSR, 20GB vs 12GB lmao.

 

[Kapone33]

Mine was just a prebuilt at the time and I just remember being disappointed with HD 2900XT benchmarks this was in 2008 Crysis prompted me to upgrade as well. I was coming from from a prebuilt with an X1800 XT and wanted to stick with AMD. I think it's funny how clueless I was back then everytime If wanted a gpu upgrade I just purchased a whole new pc thinking it was the only way.

That was me as well. I remember going to the PC store and seeing the 965BE for $99 and GTS 8800GT for $79. RAM used to sit in a bin at the front of the store and was like $20. Then I bought a GTS 450 and because they were $100 I bought another one 2 weeks later and ran SLI with that until TW Shogun 2 or Rome I can't remember. That was when I bought a 6800 either 1 or 2 GB card and have not looked back sense. I was part of the crowd that almost killed AMD because my 7950 Crossfire system was the bee's knees to me and I did not change until Polaris. My favourite AMD cards were the 580, Vega 64 era cards as I am a proponent of Crossfire. Though I will say my 7900XT is the fastest card I have ever owned and has me smiling.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

That was me as well. I remember going to the PC store and seeing the 965BE for $99 and GTS 8800GT for $79. RAM used to sit in a bin at the front of the store and was like $20. Then I bought a GTS 450 and because they were $100 I bought another one 2 weeks later and ran SLI with that until TW Shogun 2 or Rome I can't remember. That was when I bought a 6800 either 1 or 2 GB card and have not looked back sense. I was part of the crowd that almost killed AMD because my 7950 Crossfire system was the bee's knees to me and I did not change until Polaris. My favourite AMD cards were the 580, Vega 64 era cards as I am a proponent of Crossfire. Though I will say my 7900XT is the fastest card I have ever owned and has me smiling.

Maybe it was the games I played but I gave up on crossfire when I had nothing but issues with two Sapphire 7970s my 680 sli was better in every game I played. I was relatively a novice at building PC at this time so maybe it my configuration or motherboard or whatever.

 

[Kapone33]

Maybe it was the games I played but I gave up on crossfire when I had nothing but issues with two Sapphire 7970s my 680 sli was better in every game I played. I was relatively a novice at building PC at this time so maybe it my configuration or motherboard or whatever.

I basically play TW at that time and it gave me 90% more FPS using 2 cards. I probably would never gotten AMD if Nvidia did not disable SLI on the GTS 450 with a driver update. During that time I only bought Games that supported Crossfire. Shadow of Mordor was really good too at Multi GPU.