Видео

You'd have to normalize the mic to internet standards. lol

Bruh the midrange and below markets are objectively flooded with bad products.

Love my 3080 10GB!

At that price, that's the best value graphics card on the market. You really cannot do better than that, with the exception that someone might be better off paying more for a more efficient graphics card if they live in a region with very high electricity rates, but only if they also actually play games often enough on a weekly basis for that to actually save a significant enough amount of money on an annual basis to justify the initial higher price relative to performance. The 4060 ti 16GB is obviously way more efficient, but it's also more expensive AND significantly slower. And, you can still improve power efficiency of a 6800 significantly by undervolting and underclocking it when playing less demanding games which don't significantly benefit from its full performance potential, which has to be taken into consideration when trying to estimate how much a more efficient graphics card might save over time. You can obviously undervolt and underclock a 4060 ti as well, but the actual gap in power consumption becomes smaller even if both are undervolted and underclocked for maximium power efficiency... and with the amount of performance the 4060 ti has, it's harder to justify giving up even more performance in order to improve efficiency further. The 4060 ti's GPU is a solid GPU design for laptops (it was designed primarily with laptops in mind), but as a desktop GPU, it's definitely not the best.

Good choice, I bought a 6800 on launch and it is an absolute beast at 1440p.

@@syncmonism i live in a red energy exporting state. power was really only a cooling question for me, My gamemax 905 w/ 8 case fans and a 800w PSU were in need of new residents.. More than enough juice for a 7600+6800+14 HDDs, yes i am a hoarder....lol. Coming from the old SLI days w/ first gen FX CPUs, this power profile doesn't phase me. I can use the HTPC or lappy if im needing to save the planet for a minute. I'll probably skip a few generations until PCIe5 is a real thing. My x670e is waiting for that too. Upgrading from my refurb 4790+1650sff, I can confirm.....ITS A BEAST!

lol That Ti Super isnt bad but $200 too expensive.

Everyone is overpaying.

You know you pay extra for that right.

@@BlackJesus8463 Yes

@@BlackJesus8463 yep, imo it's worth it in the long run, that's why nvidia priced it like that i think, for ppl who pretty much use their computer all day long it's great, while other gpus draw way more power even being idle

Some GPUs have been very power efficient in the past. The 6800rx and the 2080ti could undervolt quite a bit and retain good performance. Rtx 4000 still not worth even for that, depends on your needs. I'm waiting for at least some good price performance uplift next gen. If not, we are all doomed again.

@@jarabaraplit1227 That's cool. I did the math for German energy prices when natural gas was at all-time highs and the difference was about $50 for a year of gaming four hours every day so I think it kinda offsets but I dont know anymore. As long youre gaming its all good. ✌

@@cubdukat 4070 ti super was the only good card from that lineup apart from the flagship. Things aren't looking any better for the 50 series either, with Ngreedia ceasing to care about low-mid tier and FSR 3.1 finally being out it looks like AMD will reclaim a big chunk of the market next year.

Often it's right before or right after the next gen cards launch which causes prices of previous gen cards to suddenly have a big drop in price, and the previous gen cards often end up being an equal or better value compared to the newly released cards. We saw this happen with a lot of the RX 6000 series card models.

@@syncmonismnvidia GPUs and amd aren't even in the same class GPU anymore. Amd has to cut prices because no one wants them. There's still last gen amd GPU being sold new. Most people who upgrade already have decent hardware, those on older GPUs are going to look for best price/performance. Not getting that here or near future. That's 500 bucks for a low end gpu this gen.

@@oneanother1 Ok bruh. You have no idea what youre missing out on but the average consumer is all-knowing for the sake of internet arguments. 🤪🤪

@@BlackJesus8463 oh they know, avg consumer spending as little as possible. The 3060 is the most popular card. Comments like mine are nothing new for the last 2 years, commenters all feel the same when nvidia tried to pass off a 4070 super as a 4080 12gb. They are still a tier higher than what they are suppose to be.

@@oneanother1 Forealz though but the 90 is really the only card in its own class. Guess I shouldve said that first. ✌

It's extremely similar in performance and capabilities to the 6900 XT and 7800 XT, so that's probably not such a bad thing, as he did mention the other two, but he probably should have mentioned the 6800 XT as well.

@@syncmonism The non-XT version is close to 6700XT in performance. its 1 better for every dollar spent

Yep the naming is completely wrong on all of the 40 series cards apart from the 4090. 4080/4080 super = 4070 Ti 4070 ti / 4070 Ti Super = 4070

Isnt it actually worse than the 3060Ti in some cases? lol

Not just hat though, they substituted upscaling for raw performance and raised margins by a whole tier. I think AMD does the same thing with laptop first design.

It a lot better at 999 than 1200! lol 80% the performance of a 90 at 50% the prices but its stupid in its own right.

@BlackJesus8463 I bought my 4080 founders at $975 when it was on sale at Best Buy, and I used my points on top of that. But even if I did not have the sale, I would still get xx80 or xx90 series because they will last a lot longer, and I can have all settings turned up. Not to mention, when I video edit, I can still play my games.

@@vi_EviL_iv Oh for sure I'd go for the 80 over the 90 even if I had 90-money. 👍

Nvidia's design choices with the 4060 ti's GPU and bus width make far more sense once you realize that it was designed primarily for laptops. This is true, to a lesser extent, with the RTX 4070 / 4070 Super as well. A wider memory bus, and more vram, just did not make sense for the laptop versions of either of those GPUs, because more memory chips and a wider memory bus has a huge impact on overall efficiency, (and takes up more space) and the lower clock-speeds used for the GPU in laptop versions also means that you need to use lower quality settings anyway, and so just don't need as much vram with those laptop variants. It's easy to forget just how big a portion of Nvidia's consumer GPU sales come from laptop sales. Those big laptop partners make ENORMOUS orders with Nvidia, and they have very strict and specific requirements for the different laptop graphics cards which Nvidia is happy to conform to.

@@syncmonism Dont justify their use in a desktop. ✌

Agreed ​@@BlackJesus8463

Got better hobbies to do than just gaming all day long.

What are your PC specs?

@@jp4762 i7-9700k 16gb ram gigabyte z390 motherboard

I'd say 4070 ti super, 4080 super and 4090. AMD has nothing usefull to offer in the highend because they lack raytracing power. So the only usefull AMD cards would be the lowend for people who play old games without raytracing, namely 7600/xt and 7700xt. 7900 is wasted money, why would you pay almost 1k for no raytracing power at all (literally half the frames of a 4070 ti super in Alan Wake 2 at same settings and there still is 4080 and 4090 above it) and the inferior upscaling tech which FSR still ist, also missing up to date encoders for good streaming. Nobody in the high end should ever go for AMD at this moment in time. They first need to step up their game.

@@williehrmann aint no way you said they have nothing useful at high end hahaha and 7900 xtx is pretty close to 4090 21.9 percent difference. They also give you 24gb of vram the 4080 super is a good card but should be priced below 7900xtx to really make it a better card. Ray tracing is definitely lacking on amd by about 25 - 30 percent less in most games compared to 4080 the only card that can run ray tracing Ultra smoothly is the 4090 and its not native its with dlss hitting above 60 fps. Fsr is getting improvements but obviously way behind nividia which I think is a big selling point for the 4080 super. For a majority of things you stated you are right but I think people generally buy a GPU to game on and you get way better performance with an overclocked 7900xtx vs an overclocked 4080 at 4k.

that card is 40% of the performance...

It's weak, but not horrible. It does kind-of force people to use DLSS in more demanding games at 1440p though, as that is a great way to reduce the amount of vram needed. The 7600 XT probably doesn't really need more than 12GB, but that would have required a different design for the GPU for that to have been feasible. Just one 12GB version of that GPU would have been better than having an 8GB and a 16GB version, but the 8GB version was designed more with laptops in mind, where the space and power savings would be more useful, and where the GPU itself is actually running at a lower clock-speed and probably should be running at lower resolutions anyway, and thus not needing as much vram when in a laptop.

@@AsianPersuation24x7 Yeah imagine how much nvidia fucks over its victims when selling them $600 gpu with only 12GB of vram.

@@syncmonism The most impactful graphical setting in modern games are textures and textures do not impact performance when you have a big enough vram. With 8Gb and sometimes 12GB vram you cannot use ultra textures without the performance penatly. Its unacceptable in single player graphically aesthetic modern AAA games. What nvidia is doing with vram is like what Intel did with quad cores.

If you are just paying 600 dollars just for a card I would say yes. If you are buying a pc prebuilt that cost 1500 dollars total with a 7700 amd cpu and a quality motherboard and power supply it's not so bad. Which is what I did. Ray Tracing on games that have it and more will is a consideration.

4070super is gddr 6 plus or so 😂

But I agree 12 is low end now

Yeah, if you consider we are likely about 6-7 months away from next-gen mid-range AMD cards being released, and with next-gen mid-ranged Nvidia cards likely coming out a little sooner than that as well. 12GB isn't horrible with this level of GPU compute performance, but having 16GB would definitely be better, and that is an advantage with the 7800 XT, which is also a somewhat cheaper card with about the same level of standard rasterized performance. It's not super easy to do an objective comparison, so anybody who already has a bias toward one brand or the other will find it easier to justify a preference for their brand by focusing on the advantages of the brand they have a preference for, and downplaying the significance of the advantages of the other brand. But, if you need a graphics card right now, I would say that you're not really going wrong with the 4070 Super, the 4070, or the 7800 XT, or even the 7700 XT if local pricing has it at about 400 USD. If you just want a cost effective stop-gap measure and are willing to upgrade again in a year or two, I'd recommend anything but the 4070 Super, as you're going to lose more in the difference between what you pay now and what you can get for it in a year or two on the used market, and I would lean toward the 7800 XT or the 7700 XT (and I'd say that a 6800 is better than the 7700 XT if you can find one for about the same price).

Not even paying 1500 for a 5080 super

You could consider a RX6950XT, RX6800, RX6900Xt.. Last gen AMD high end. you could snag one of them used for 300 to 450€ if you find a good deal. The RX6900XT is comparable to the 4070super or the or the RX7900gre. The RX6950XT would be closer to a 4070TI. It could save you 200 bucks or more for basically the same performance.

AMD needs an SDR to HDR feature. 🤪🤪

Also no DLAA and no DLDSR. Nvidia cards are better products overall, when it comes to feature set, that why they charge a premium over AMD competitive products. The only exception is 4060 Ti. 7700 XT (now when it costs $400) is so much faster than 4060 Ti in raster and matches it in RT, that the latter does not make any sense at all (both 8GB and 16GB variants).

Sometimes you gotta take what you can get but hope nobody buys unless they have to.

It's competitive bang-per-buck, but the non-super is arguably better if you can find an equal quality model for 50 USD less, and the 7800 XT is also excellent, with different pros and cons for likely around 70 USD less than a 4070 Super. Some would argue that the quality of the actual model matters more than anything else. I also think it's good to try to avoid brands which are known to have very bad warranty policies. Asus has been caught doing some very illegal things with their warranty services recently, for example.

Strix better nopt have coil whine I mean what are you paying $400 over msrp for? lol USA is doing everything theyre afraid China might do. 🤣✌

@BlackJesus8463 true and mo all cards at 4070 level or up can have coul whine. It's a 50% chance with any brand. When pushing that type of power and that much frames it's just normal. People are just to sensitive. I already with motors like direct drive motors and stuff they all whine due to the power and the coils. Idk why people don't expect it to happen in a gpu. I got lucky and didn't coil whine but many do.

The 7800 XT is at least as good of a value (and is around 70 USD cheaper right now), it just has different strengths and weaknesses. You're getting more vram and about the same standard rasterized performance for less money. DLSS is better than FSR, but it's not THAT much better, and FSR is continually being improved. Better ray tracing performance doesn't matter that much when you consider how much it hurts your framerate to turn the ray tracing settings up high, or even to a medium level in many cases, especially because ray tracing requires more vram. The 7800 XT can also match the 4070 Super with UE5 software ray-tracing, which actually strikes a good balance between visual quality and performance cost, and is competitive against hardware ray-tracing in this regard. And, lets be real here, the actual subjective improvement in the graphics from ray tracing is typically not worth the performance cost unless you already have a lot of performance to spare. Running without any ray tracing at all is also just a totally reasonable option, as it means that you can afford to set all other settings to a higher level of quality and likely still have a higher frame-rate. As games become more demanding, running without ray tracing at all will become the more efficient option for all of these cards, to get the best balance between image quality and frame-rate.

not bad. I have a 6700XT and I feel no need to upgrade any time soon but I'll trade GPUs if you want.

I bought an RX6900XT for cheap. Not bad considering that it basically has RX7900gre level of performance with more stability in the extreme lows. Definitely 4k capable. 🎉

yup! It's practically pandemic pricing 3 years later.

and he is running 6900 at reference stock speeds :)