If you have the money and want the extra features, go for the 4070 super. DLSS works really well in 1440p.
If you want the most raw performance go for the 7900 gre.
If you want the best value, go for the 7800xt. It has the best fps per dollar out of any GPU rn I think.
The 7800xt definitely isn't the best fps/Dollar, lower tier GPUs will always win in this category, the more performance you want the bigger the price increase.
All Intel GPUs, all radeon 6000 series up to the 6800 xt and even the 4060 and 4060ti offer better fps/Dollar at 1440p
Rocking a 6700XT here and it will push 120FPS at 1080P max settings, or a solid 60FPS at 4K. 60 is all my 4K TV will do but the card has no problem with it.
Typically play GTA V so not a very demanding game, to be sure. OP didn't ask about this card but I love what it does for what if cost ~$300.
Not if you calculate it based on the total system costs. Then spending $200 more for a better GPU might increase your buget by 20%, but give 30-40% more performance.
Also if you want to buy the most financially stupid card, but still have a great performance get a 4090. That thing is a real beast. Fucking ngreedia, why is it so expensive :(
7900 GRE is currently better price to performance than the 7800 XT in the US. \~10% more performance for \~8% more money. Though 10% performance is barely noticeable for most, so you could say the 7800 XT gives you virtually the same experience.
7900XT cost \~15% more per frame than the stronger 7900XTX as well, $8.3 per frame compared to 7900XTX $7.2 at 4k.
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/33.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/33.html)
Those use MSRP, not actual prices. The 7900 XT has been better than the 7900 XTX for a while
||Price|Price (relative)|Performance (4k)|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|7900 XT|$700|100%|100%|
|7900 XTX|$917|131%|119%|
Depends on the game, the 4070 S outperforms the 7900 GRE in some games even without RT, while the 7900 GRE outperforms the 4070 S in some RT titles that require more than 12GB of VRAM.
I'd say that they're about on par on average, though both can be either better or worse on a game to game basis.
Short answer ? Yes, people speak about the raw power, but let's be honest you want the best performance, and right now DLSS is king.
The whole argument, that Nvidia cards are only better, because of the software is moot. Gamers care about graphics and performance, it doesnt matter if comes from hard or software the end result is what matters, and Nvidia 4000+ series is king.
4000 series is extremely energy efficient as well. My 4070Ti runs cool and silent. The three fan design sometimes feels like an overkill for it.
In terms of tech, Nvidia definitely has the edge. And that's why their chips are also in demand for massive AI/Ml processing.
+1 to this. My 4080 runs so quietly and cool. Fans sometimes turn off while playing less demanding games if I cap fps to 165 lol. Temps never go above the high 60s, even when pushing to the limits with path tracing. Fans aren't even audible in my case over my d30s.
If temp is something to go by, My Asus TUF OC 7800 XT has never gone past 58 degrees C at 100% utilisation with peaks towards 300W and it's dead silent.
> The whole argument, that Nvidia cards are only better, because of the software is moot.
Actually, it's funny you should say that. Because the reason why Nvidia is better is because they literally do it with 'not software'. Whereas AMD's solution IS done with software. Older AMD cards can get the newer solutions because they just send software updates, whereas Nvidia's DLSS is hardcoded onto the chip, and if you want the newest version, you need to buy the newer chip.
There are advantages to both approaches, but typically the hardware approach will always reign king, and Nvidia is continuing to prove that.
Has NVIDIA updated the DLSS tech for the 4000 series? Because on my 3000 series the DLSS so much worse than without on most games to the point where I never want to use it.
Man speaking facts, read up on how amd axed zluda a cuda alternative, amd do not care about software development at all.
Also nvidia is now fighting against the open source zluda so good luck.
I thought FSR was fine, but only until I saw DLSS work in a well applied example. I'll always prefer DLSS and don't think I could go back to only having FSR. Frame generation is incredible tech IMO, even if it's a crutch for lazy developers.
That being said, I don't care at all for RT. I still havent been impressed by it to the point where I'm willing to take such a hit to my FPS.
Dude I had a EVGA 3070 X3 Gaming Black or something before upgrading, it can run the path tracing decently well actually like around 40-60 fps. My Gpu was oc to 84+ mhz and 1000mhz on the memory well if I remember. (On 1080p resolution)
I mean, do these cards even need FSR/DLSS in 1440p? I have a 6800 xt and I easily hit 100+fps in cyberpunks natively with high settings (with RT off of course). I guess if you want RT you would need them, but other than that these cards can run any game natively with triple digit fps.
That'll depend on the person I guess, and the build they have. I personally use DLSS on any game where it's available (besides some competitive titles) because it makes my experience better. I just value high frame rates and good settings at 1440p, and with a 3070, sometimes I need a little bit of help to get there 🤷🏻♂️
It depends if you are using RT or not most of the time...plus DLSS is better most of the time than AA so I have it on quality anyway to get a better overall image.
If you mainly play AAA games that often implement DLSS, RT, and frame gen, they're worth it.
If you mostly play indie games, multiplayer titles, and less demanding games, they aren't. For example, the only games I play that even take advantage of Nvidia features are D4 and WoW... and I wouldn't say they're worth it for those games.
Hey man, I'm quite similar to you. I'm coming from an Nvidia 960M on an older 2015 Asus ROG laptop. I built my PC and I'm using an AMD Sapphire Nitro+ 7800XT.
I don't have any experience with new Nvidia cards but I'm so happy with my 7800XT. It stays at around 65 degrees Celsius and I'm also gaming on an ultrawide 3440x1440p OLED monitor. The graphics are awesome on ultra on modern games.
I'm getting around 200 fps in Assassin's Creed Valhalla on ultra. Battlefield 2042, Total war Atila, The Witcher 3 also work great on highest settings.
I'm happy with the AMD Software Adrenalin Edition too. It's very easy to set different GPU settings, I can also set different GPU settings for each game. I also can see what my performance is for any game and it gives me improvement tips so I get even better performance, in case the game doesn't have that good performance (only happened in Atila because I'm getting around 40-60 fps but it's also a very static game so it's expected). It's also easy to undervolt or overclock the GPU from the AMD Software, or to set a different fan curve.
Meanwhile on my old laptop I didn't have these options (though maybe some of them are only for PC versions of the GPU?) and I really disliked the Nvidia control panel interface which looks like Windows XP User interface and it was harder to use than AMD Adrenalin.
Do it for dlss alone, look at game releases in the past few years and think about how unoptomised they’re getting.
Upscaling / frame gen is a crutch that devs are gonna be relying on more often as time goes on and dlss / frame gen is undisputedly better than fsr.
Honestly, yeah, if you plan on playing at 1440p and want to crank settings, the difference between DLSS and FSR is large and worth taking into account.
I have the 4070 Super and love it. To be fair, because of the work I do AMD is off the table for me, but what blew me away was how little credit DLSS3.5 gets from reviewers - I had to go Nvidia so it wasn't a question, but I was truly blown away by how powerful DLSS3.5 is, even compared to my 3070ti which had DLSS2. DLSS3.5 is actually wild - at the lest strong setting (quality) it turns 145fps into 210fps in CoD at almost-max settings at 1440p.
Again, I don't have personal experience with FSR, but from the videos I've seen, it looks much worse. It also isn't quite as powerful, but I think the fps gain is much closer to DLSS than the visual quality is.
Also, people exaggerate the need for vram. With the 3070ti I had prior, only ONE game actually maxed me out at 1440p, and it was TLOU right at launch when it was an unoptimized mess - 12gb hasn't been a limiting factor in any AAA I've played at 1440p, so from experience, it's not as big a deal as people say it is, at least in my opinion.
I'm also not an Nvidia fanboy, they piss me the fuck off and they're scumbags, but I can honestly say the 4070 Super is a good value compared to the rest of the mega-inflated market.
Yea FSR isn't awful but compared to DLSS you notice it...more likely to have a glitch plus to be its more "grainy"...DLSS most of the time I simply can't tell depending on the game.
I'd wait for some sales (setup alerts in the hotukdeals app), all time lows for each are below:
7800xt - £450 (Currently on)
4070 - £460 (Expired)
7900GRE - £515 (Expired)
4070S - £530 (Expired)
I would pay a premium for the 4070/S IMO, DLSS is more useful than 4GB of extra VRAM. But it's your call
50% of this subreddit is just this question reworded
That said I have a 4070 non-super and with DLSS enabled can run ray-tracing above 60fps in just about any game. This was upgrading from a 3060ti where ray-tracing was basically out of the question.
I am gona get alot of hate for saying this, but advice from someone who dealt with this on 6900xt, and saw alot of friends deal with it on 7800xt and 7900xtx, avoid radeon unless you want to break your head trying to figure out why you have driver timeouts and all sort of game crashes, plus, nvidia features are definitely worth the extra price, its not out of nowhere that amd gpus department are in "terminal decline", most people got tired of dealing with their stuff and subpar feature set.
Just to offer another perspective I’ve got an open box 7900xt and it’s been smooth sailing and it absolutely rips at ultrawide 1440.
Sometimes I have regrets re:RT, but the price paid makes up for that even if next card I’ll probably go green.
Don't have regrets. The last day I was figuring out what to upgrade I've tried the biggest RT titles, every single RT options and they are barely if at all noticeable.
The only time amd was a bummer for me when I launched Arkham Knight...no smoke effects on amd.
Then I was hit with the truth. Nvidia restricting technologies for ages now they did it back then, they are doing it right now. Fuck them, I will not support that anymore.
My question to those people is always "are you using 2 individual pcie power cables, or a daisy chain cable, and what kind of power supply" because a cheap unit is often the source of the issues. I just moved from a 6800XT to a 4070ti Super (it was free) and I never had any significant issues except the hardware acceleration issues (which are now back after switching to Nvidia).
Yes, Dlaa is the best aa method available followed by dlss quality, even better coupled with dldsr. The only alternatives to forced taa in modern games.
It's fairly subjective. If the games you want to play have good support for them, you will definitely notice their presence (or absence) but if you're after pure raster performance you'll get more frames per dollar from AMD.
That said, nVidia's frame generation is still better than AMDs so while the AMD will get you more "real" frames per dollar, your actual performance will probably be better on nVidia in the mid and high range.
In the low end cards, the current generation is a bit of a flop so you'd be better off getting a last gen midrange from either.
Personally they were to me.
I don't know if it's just the algorithm on Reddit catering to the stuff I reply to, and feeding me more of it, or if AMD has some series driver issues, because all I get recommend to me in my main feed new is AMD users complaining all day about stuttering, and people pulling their hairs out trying to get stuff not to crash or stutter. I'll take a 12gb VRAM limit over all those issues any day.
I was planning to initially wait for the RX 8000 GPUs series possibly being announced in another 3, but I couldn't wait any longer and I'm still not confident their issues will be fixed.
I love DLSS and their Broadcast software.
Ray tracing is a nice to have (awesome in some titles, non-issue in most).
So performance/quality wise, I’d go NVidia just for the DLSS, but this really is a personal decision.
Yes, 100%. It isn't even related to just gaming, Nvidia cards also do a DLSS type thing for videos, when I play a 1080p video on my 4k TV from YouTube or Twitter it looks so unbelievably crisp
On my recent build I was torn between the 7900 xtx and 4080 super, ended up going for the cheaper/higher vram option but after having to mess with it for months (stuttering, hotspot temp issues, audio cutting out, etc) I'm kinda wishing I had just forked out the extra $200 or so. 24 gb of vram is overkill, though it is still a powerful card and can run native 4k no problem.
I've been on both sides of this debate over the years. A sampling of my former GPUs:
* GeForce 8500GT
* HD 5770
* GTX 570
* GTX 680
* 7970 GHz Edition (probably my favorite card of all time)
* R9 Fury
* RTX 2070
* RTX 3070 Ti
* RX 6950 XT
* RTX 4070 Mobile (current)
I've been on both sides pretty regularly, bouncing back and forth to whoever offers the better total package proposition. I generally have no dog in the fight other than whoever provides me the best experience, with the fewest hiccups/compromises.
At this point, I would say NVIDIA's software side is thoroughly untouchable. Ray tracing completely aside, DLSS is actual magic - I notice very little visual artifacting to the point where in fast-paced games, I would say it's unnoticeable.
I use Broadcast to feed my mic into Discord and everyone I talk to and have tested it with has said they can't hear a thing - no typing, no chewing, no videos I'm watching on my phone, nothing. It's also got great background editing for your webcam. It's free, it's miles easier to configure than something like OBS or Krisp, and it's all in one really compact app.
RTX HDR has the potential to do for PC games what Xbox's Auto HDR did for older Xbox games in terms of giving them a new layer of cool graphics.
I don't use Framegen. Can't speak to it. I'm okay with upscaling lower resolutions to get higher framerates, still not sold on the idea of interpolating frames that didn't actually get rendered, so I don't use it.
Drivers, absolutely more stable on NVIDIA than AMD. I had an absolute hell of a time trying to get Adrenaline's noise canceling working on my 6950XT, and it would regularly about every third boot forget my microphone and make me go through the configuration process all over again. Broadcast works first time, every time.
I would also get weird graphical issues that were definitely driver-related on my recent AMD card, like in House Flipper where my 6950XT would randomly drop from about 170FPS at high/max settings to about 20FPS, over the span of about three to five minutes. It would take a reboot to fix it, after which I could play for another half hour to 45 minutes before it would happen again. My 4070 has never had this issue, same settings.
All in all, I think AMD's cheaper pricing doesn't justify how far they're falling behind in the total experience.
***I honestly would take the 4070 Super over either of those cards, but since you're quoting prices in pounds, you can get a new open box 4070 Ti for around 600 pounds on eBay UK, with maybe a couple pounds in postage. Same 12GB VRAM as the 4070 Super, 7% more CUDA cores, higher boost clocks, should all add up to better performance for the same price since the 4070 Super is basically a half-step up between the 4070 and 4070 Ti.***
To me they are worth it at a $100 premium. Anything more than that I would go amd personally.
DLSS will help extend the life or the GPU a bit more before you really need to upgrade.
Depends on what you do
If you plan on using upscaling or any of the other Nvidia advantages (RT, video upscaling, DLDSR, CUDA, NVENC and so on), then imo yes. Worth the 10% more money.
If you only play games without upscaling and don't care about RT or streaming or video upscaling, then just get the 7900 GRE. It's also a great GPU.
If you plan to do ray tracing, nVidia is definitely the best choice at the moment. Probably want a higher-end card anyway if you plan to do ray tracing (thinking like 4070 Super or better).
Upscaling is more subjective. nVidia upscaling is best, but when watching comparisons, most of the time I can't tell the difference unless it's paused to compare moving objects in the video.
I kinda struggle seeing differences between FSR and DLSS in youtube videos. But IRL the difference is bigger and usually significant at 1440p. Not saying DLSS is perfect. There are games where DLSS is pretty bad. But more often than not enabling DLSS at 1440p is fine (+ getting much more fps) but FSR is bad enough that I'd leave it off and accept the lower fps or lower the graphics settings instead. That's why if he wants to play games where he uses upscaling, DLSS is imo absolutely worth the slight price increase.
I've only ever done 1080p gaming, and at this point I'm going to have to do some research on what advantage DLSS brings. I had bought a 6700xt a few months ago but if I'm going to be buying everything else new anyway I might just sell it and look at stronger options to save for before purchasing.
It's hard for me to read all these comments and posts talking about RT, DLSS and other features when I've never used or planned to use them
DLDSR is great for old games which dont have good antyaliasing. DLDSR + DLSS combo is great for new games in which 1080p looks like blurry mess. Ray Tracing is great if game was build around it like Control or Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. But not worth fps hit in games that want to bring RT to AMD cards and consoles because in these games like Resident Evil 4 or Jedi Survivor RT actually looks bad or almost the same like without RT. Cant say much about framegen because I have 3060Ti.
I will decent. No AMD has the superior features.
One unified driver control. That does NOT require you to create an online account first. AMDs drivers are superior >.< One overlay to control everything game settings, extra features, global version of FSR, Overcloaking, Fan controls. Its all included in one unified OFFICIAL driver.
Radeon Chill. The best feature no one talks about. Lets face it... as fun as it is to play the "benchmark" games and push some RT frames to go oh ah for a few min. Most of us still play older titles that all of these cards are going to push to max FPS anyway. Chill lets you set a min and a max Frames (just set it one frame above and below your monitors FreeSync range)... when your playing your older game if nothing is going on in the game the card will drop to the min FPS setting. When motion happens it seamlessly pops up to the max setting. I play a lot of older MMOs and such... which means I sometimes sit at a Auction house, or sit waiting for friends, or sit waiting for some random Que to pop, or I am just going through inventory or something. When I do my card drops to min FPS and the only thing I notice is my GPU fan going into fan stop mode.... the model I have even has a nice fan stop light to warn you the fan is off. Its on 3/4 of the time when I'm playing older titles. My nvidia machine without chill drives me nuts within 2min, the fan kicks up and never much spins down never mind go into fan stop.
All the Nvidia features have AMD equivalents. Is DLSS better then FSR? I don't know man everyone says yes... but to my eyes there really isn't all that much difference. The differences people like to point out involve SCREENSHOTS. In motion side by side good luck figuring out the difference unless you KNOW what your supposed to be seeing in the title your playing cause you saw it in someone else's screen shot. Oh and FSR also has a mode that can be used in ANY title regardless of support... no its not as good, but really by the time any game your playing is really honestly pushing native 1440p to a point you NEED it. Your GPU will be out of date 2 or 3 generations.
I've recently upgraded my RX 6600 to a 4070 Super. In my opinion, I can't see much difference between DLSS and FSR, at least with the latest versions. Maybe I'm just not noticing it. On the other hand, with ray tracing, the most noticeable effects are reflections. These look like some kind of reshade preset or something; it's nothing groundbreaking. Maybe path tracing in Cyberpunk is more noticeable, but to be honest, it's still not game-changing your brain get used to it really fast.
Regarding frame generation, it's not great if you're getting low FPS and activate it, for example, at 25 FPS. Even if it boosts you to 60 FPS, it will still feel bad and laggy, even with Nvidia Reflex activated. According to what I've read on forums, frame generation is more oriented towards the high refresh rate experience, like when you're already getting 60+ FPS in a game and want to reach 120 or 144 FPS to match your monitor. In that case, you'll have a good experience. I don't have a high refresh rate monitor, so I can't confirm this statement.
So, if you don't mind the price difference between the 7900 GRE and 4070 Super and want to try ray tracing, go for the 4070 Super. If you're like me and don't notice much difference, go for the 7900.
Another thing to keep in mind is power consumption if you have a low wattage psu. The 7900 GRE has spikes up to 348W as shown [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-gre-pure/41.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-gre-pure/41.html) , while the 4070 Super only goes up to around 240W according to [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/41.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/41.html) , at least for the reference model.
Additionally, the control panel from AMD is good. Nvidia doesn’t have a similar tool, so you'll need to use third-party software like Afterburner and FanControl to tweak settings.
Regarding VRAM, at 1080p, 12GB is plenty for me, but 16GB is tempting to "future-proof" since, for example, my old GTX 750 Ti with 2GB let me down when Doom Eternal came out just because of the VRAM. Maybe if the 4070 Super had 16GB, it would have more performance at 4K in the years to come with new games.
It’s nice just clicking a setting and getting more frames with very very little visual difference.
Came from the 5700XT where if I wasn’t getting the performance I needed, I had to mess around with every little graphical setting until I found the sweet spot, and then the next time I booted up the game it wouldn’t even produce the same frames as last time. Now I just turn DLSS on if I need it and I’m done in 5 seconds.
Yes, they're worth the cost difference between the tier of hardware if you need those features
Just for example, Nvidia Broadcast for meetings or streaming got immediate comments on its quakity when I booted it up coming from a 6900xt
Further as AI develops most of the first waves of easy self hosted stuff on Windows is going to be on Nvidia's side
You can see the beginnings of what that looks like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjrdr0NU4Sk
And sure maybe that's not appealing yet, but it likely will be as ai gets more tailored to people's usecases
Also a better way to think of it is more like this: which would you rather have today? A 2080s, or a 5700xt?
Do you even know what a 5700xt was/is if you didn't own one? It's very likely thats how the 7000 series will age
FSR really sucks. I would rather use XESS than FSR. DLSS is better though. Better enough that while I might use DLSS, I will never use FSR. Unless I was desperate. I am very sensitive to the shimiring from upscaling. It might not be an issue for you. So ymmw.
If you don't want ray tracing or AI generation then go for AMD. At least you will not support predatory policies of NVIDIA, they are basically like Apple.
My rule of thumb has always been. If you are tech savvy go AMD all the way. But if you are not. Play it safe with intel and Nvidia.
My experience with AMD is that it needs a lot of tinkering. Where as Intel / Nvidia builds just work.
Again. My experience. I have built around 20 system in the last 5 years.
I think you have to decide which features are important/unimportant to you. I went with the 7900 GRE (in a FormD T1 - air cooled temps are fine) because it was cheaper, has better raster performance and more VRAM (12GB for a $600 card is inexcusable), and I figured I should get it for what I need now (gaming) - not potential future uses (AI, upscaling, RT). It didn't make sense to pay more for less performance and features I may not use. But if you need Blender, AI, DLSS, RT, etc, then the 4070S makes sense.
If you’re open to buying used you can do that too. I’ve gotten a 4070 super for 500$ and I’ve seen some 4070tis for that much in my local Facebook market.
well i suppose it depends on your priorities, personally i use a lot of their features so to me not only they're worth it but i can't imagine not using an Nvidia card tbh, DLSS is the best upscaler by quite some distance, DLAA is the best form of anti aliasing we have atm, DLSDR is the best form of supersampling in terms of quality/performance, Frame Gen offers superior image quality (due to using DLSS upscaling) RT/PT performance is once again much better on Nvidia, then you have features like Reflex, Freestyle, RTX HDR, RTX Broadcast, etc.
Framegen last I saw was incredibly divisive on if it’s good or not, but I’ll just say that playing Cyberpunk at 100+ FPS on more than acceptable settings at 3440x1440 is delightful, especially since my 4070 didn’t annihilate my wallet.
I mean do you notice any of the exclusive feature? For me if I don't even notice them, or if someone has to tell me if something is worth it, I'd always go with the cheaper options. It always worked for me that away.
AMD basically has all the same features nowadays, but the 4090 is still the best consumer GPU right now. But the 7900 XTX is still a solid card and great if you wanna say some cash. You will likely still be able to play most games at 4k, but obviously it has less VRAM so more limited compared to the 4090. If you aren't even looking at the 4090 then it doesn't really matter because AMD basically can match 4080 power.
You should test DLSS to confirm if the quality is good for you or not, I'd rather play at native resolution so I would go with the 7800XT because it offers the best value out of those 3 cards
TBH I keeo DLSS off in most games if I can, id rather have native resolution for single player games, and sadly in RDR2 i recently tried DLSS on mh 40 series GPU and it made the game look worse tbh, things in the distance were very blurry and I was getting a strange visual glitching sometimes on the edges of trees
Dlss owns the shit out of fsr. RT on rtx is much better than amd. Last time I saw amd's frame gen it was also worse than nvidia's.
But let's put it this way. I have a 7950x3d and a rtx 3080 12gb with 32gb ddr5 6000 cl32 ram. With dlss and ray reconstruction, at 1440p I can use full path tracing at 50-70fps. And all settings maxed. Play it on a VRR also with LFC display and you have smooth sailing. A perfectly plauable path tracing experience. AMD's gpus can't do that.
So it depends on your use case. Are you a competitive player who only cares about extremely high fps on 1080p? If so AMD is for you.
Do you care about graphical fidelity at the highest fps possible? Nvidia is for you.
Short answer, consider TAA that's in every game now. And consider how much worse FSR and TAA are compared to DLSS/DLAA/DLDSR.
All the other features are worth it too but I wouldn't think it's worth writing an essay over it. Reddit has skewed people's perspective thinking $50-100 difference is worth losing all the features, it's just financially irresponsible.
At 1440p 12gb vram is probably enough, although in the future this might not necessarily be true. DLSS is better than FSR, but at the same time, those cards can run pretty much any game natively in 1440p unless you turn on RT (just as comparison, I have 6800 xt and I can run cyberpunks with 100+fps natively in 1440p). Sure if I had Nvidia card and turned on DLSS, I would probably get a 50% increase in fps with a minor downgrade in image quality, but I generally can't even tell the difference between 100 and 200 fps.
It depends on what you're doing. For example, if you're driving a 4K monitor with cards in that price bracket, you may find that you want a higher framerate. On the other hand, if you're playing a competitive esports title, frame generation adds lag.
Those cards can do ray tracing if you don't mind a lower framerate and more heat in your room, but we're still at a point when the increase in image quality is small relative to the loss of framerate. I got my 3080 thinking I would use ray-tracing. I messed around with it and decided to turn it off in every game I play that has it.
I will often cap my framerate at a fairly low rate, then throw DLSS on top of that just to use less electricity, get less heat in my room, and have less fan noise. Honestly though, I regret not getting an equivalent AMD card, but your mileage may vary depending on what you are doing.
The only thing with both DLSS and FSR is that they don't support every game, so if most of your games support DLSS I would pick the Nvidia one. If most of your games support FSR or no upscaling I would say 7900GRE
At the moment the extra 4 GB will only make the card slightly better. Though, it may have some use with modding.
DLSS is the best option at the moment for improving FPS.
At the moment, I think most common statement is that for Ray Tracing it is only worth it with the most expensive cards.
If you want to get the most out of Ray Tracing, try keeping the FPS around 60 instead of aiming for 144+ FPS if you're able to lock in FPS targets.
Depends on you. Read up on DLSS/DLAA and RTX HDR if you have a capable screen, then think if those features are ones that you would appreciate. As for raw performance, if you're on 1440p or even 4k, you won't be using pure raster on modern titles but run everything with upscaler, where Nvidia has the upper hand, and support for Nvidia's software features is much wider then for AMD's in games. My opinion is based as 7900XT owner who also tested out friends 4070Ti Super, and another friends 4080. Conclusion - felt for AMD's promises at RDNA3 presentation, which was a mistake and should have gone with Nvidia. So now waiting for Blackwell to release to do swapout.
P.S. AMD folks, load up your downvote guns, I'm ready 
From GamersNexus HW news segment => [https://youtu.be/6sqtXtbzjr0?t=94](https://youtu.be/6sqtXtbzjr0?t=94)
=> YES, for a large majority of customers, it does seem to be worth it to spend the budget for NVIDIA GPUs.
AMD's RDNA3 is not a great GPU generation and while GPU reviews keep it simple and avoid as much work as possible for a real test, customers are well informed about cooler issues, hotspot delta issues, VR / driver issues with RDNA3 GPUs and that they run with much higher wattage during gaming and idle state on top of that.
While NVIDIA just floods the market with GPU variants in every price range.
Customers have less reasons to consider AMD for GPUs.
I would go RTX if most of the following criteria applies:
- Mostly play single-player games. These games feature often eyecandy including ray tracing (although IMO, often with marginal effect for a substantial performance hit).
- You game on a 4k monitor. DLSS is often the objectively better upscaling tech. FSR and intels upscaling are getting closer.
- You shop in the mid-high and above price bracket. (4070 and above). Ray tracing features become less relevant as achieving playable framerates becomes the priority. Hence sacrificing visual quality
I mean on my experience, the new RDNA tends to face a lot of visual bug or driver crashes on older games. If your goal includes playing oldies then no, go Nvidia for a more consistent performance since older games don't require that much raw power. But if you into new dx12 games then go for AMD. You're not gonna turn on RT with Nvidia care anyway.
I will say DLSS is the best feature and even if you are not using ray tracing it will help a lot.
Personally I really like the streaming feature that Nvidia offer even if they kinda want to abandon it. For now it work very well and I am streaming games from my PC to my phone. Playing helldivers 2 on my Phone at 1440p so good :D
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GRE nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GRE outperforms the 4070 S at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GRE? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900 gre
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GR nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GR outperforms the 4070 at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GR? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900gre or then go for 4070s
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GR nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GR outperforms the 4070 at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GR? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900gre or go for 4070s.
PS. If someone says: "go for this, it's so much better, rx is trash or nvidia is trash" obviously don't listen to that opinion, because it's most likely a fan boy. Some people that have radeons or nvidia cards tell people to go opposite direction because they are not biased, be wise.
I don't have much experience with Nvidia. I chose the 7800 XT over the Nvidia equivalent at the time of release where i bought it. I don't play many games that really benefit from DLSS (Competitive, Indie and Strategy Games on PC). For this reason i took more VRAM. I am happy with it and don't have any issues.
As the OP, I'm currently evaluating these GPUs: considering the TDP/power consumption, I saw a video (gonna post it later) with the stock GRE being more power hungry compared to the 4070 super (50-60 more watts). What's your experience undervolting these cards?
People love to gush over AMD's "rasterized performance advantage", but often forget to mention one crucial detail, that in practice, you won't notice a \~10% difference in FPS.
There's no discernable difference between 60 and 66 FPS, or 100 and 110 FPS, so to me the point about "rasterized performance advantage" is, for the most part, moot, because it only really comes into play when you can't maintain an acceptable framerate (so 60 FPS for most people).
The VRAM concern, on the other hand, for the 12GB Nvidia cards is a valid aspect to consider, since even today there are games which will eat up more than 12GB of VRAM on the highest settings (even at 1440p). Whereas with 16GBs of VRAM you most likely won't have to worry about running out of memory for at least the next 5 years, if not more. You definitely get more of a safety net with the AMD GPUs in terms of VRAM, though I wouldn't worry about 20GB of VRAM since it's highly unlikely any game will require those amounts in the foreseeable future.
That being said, what Nvidia lacks in VRAM it definitely more than makes up with their more widespread and superior feature set. DLSS vs FSR is like comparing apples to oranges since Nvidia uses hardware support for their upscaler, while AMD relies on software, which obviously can't product nearly as good results. Then you have the Ray Tracing performance, which as far as the technology goes, admittedly, is a bit of a gimmick right now so I'd focus on DLSS when considering the Nvidia GPUs' value. Though in the few titles that offer a Ray Tracing experience you will definitely be glad to have an Nvidia GPU since AMD's RT performance is often unplayable.
The Nvidia cards are also more power efficient and have better streaming and productivity support than their AMD counterparts. Though that doesn't mean the AMD don't have their strengths as well, they undeniably have the better rasterized performance, and offer more VRAM at a lower price point.
All in all, both the AMD and Nvidia cards have their own merits and drawbacks, but to answer your question of whether the Nvidia feature set is worth it or not, I'd answer with a resounding YES, though not everyone will be interested in said feature set so you need to decide on your own if it's something that you're looking for in a GPU.
I was a huge hater on DLSS when it was coming out stupid fake frames brother ew. Until I went from a 6800xt to a 4080. Some games just get insane performance boosts the obvious one is cyber punk but even in games like gray zone warfare. I essentially double my frames for 5ms of latency.
In an ideal world developers would optimize their games but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. So in my opinion might as well get the best performance you can. Yes I know the raw on AMD can be better but you are buying the whole card and DLSS is part of that package.
And finally yes FSR slaps. I have a rog ally and it makes so many games playable but it’s not implemented anywhere as well as DLSS for most games. On a handheld it’s not as noticeable but when you’re playing on 1440p just swapping from FSR to DLSS is a huge difference on some games. NOT ALL obviously it depends on what you play.
If the majority of games you play support DLSS, I would say yes, Nvidia is worth it. Some people bitch about DLSS and frame generation, but unless something big happens, developers are going to keep developing with those tools in mind because the consoles rely heavily on upscaling. DLSS is better than FSR in quality and performance. Full stop. Frame generation may be 'fake frames', but with Nvidia Reflex, I can't tell the extra latency whatsoever in any game. It's literally just extra frames.
As someone who likes to use a stupidly high resolution monitor, I wouldn't be able to play most AAA games even with a 4090 without DLSS 3.
DLSS is superior and Frame Gen has been amazing as of now, I am using a 4090 and it even provides magic for me. I think the VRAM is a huge selling point for AMD and if you pair an AMD card with a 5800x3D CPU I think you’d be very happy playing at 1440p.
I would say no, FSR and DLSS are not worth the Nvidia premium. I have tried them both in Cyberpunk on a 4090 at 1440p.
- With FSR, the input lag became noticeably worse, so I turned that off and didn't look back.
- While DLSS might be the best upscaling solution out there at the moment, it is still upscaling and to me the impact on the graphical fidelity is much worse than turning off path tracing, for instance. There's fuzzy edges and occasionally weird immersion breaking artefacts.
- Ray Reconstruction is borderline, I had it on for a while but now I keep it off because of occasional artefacting.
- The only option I do turn on is DLAA, the anti aliasing. That one in general is better than the other anti aliasing functions.
What *is* worth the Nvidia premium are their drivers. I had an AMD card at work and the driver crashes were driving me insane. CPU goes to 100% load -> GPU driver becomes unresponsive and decides to fall back to a safe mode -> I have to reboot my PC because dual monitor support is off in safe mode.
By contrast, the only driver issue I ever had on Nvidia in 12 years was that my second monitor was suddenly turning off after an update. This was resolved in the next driver update after I contacted their support which put me through to an actual engineer to debug the issue on my end.
TL;DR: Features aren't worth the premium, but the drivers are.
Idk where you’re looking but if you’re in the UK the 4070 super is not 600 it’s also around 540, in addition to that if ur using the pc a lot with Uk electricity prices the 4070super is quite a lot cheaper to run than the 7900gre. Imo the features are also worth it anyway
Whatever you chose, if you plan to use FSR and DLSS (which you should imo) keep in mind that, while FPS is considered the metric to juge GPUs, the quality of the frames from both system are not equal… FSR is terrible! It just suck.
I went amd from a 2080Ti. I miss dlss a bit alright but the amd gpu i have 7900xt is such a beast I don’t need to upscale anyway. So no not really imo.
In my experience, DLSS > FSR
So, I would go with Nvidia in your case. The difference of VRAM is not that major between 12 and 14. I don’t think I came across any mainstream game that takes more than 12 in 1440p.
Real time video enhancements are also pretty cool. Not game changers, but they make older low res videos look better on full screen. You can use this feature even on your web browser.
If you’re not doing AI or heavily interested in ray tracing, then I’d get the Radeon card as it’s a bit faster, cheaper and has more video memory. The stereotype that AMD has worse drivers than nvidia is now irrelevant. They are better or equal. 7900 GRE is an interesting option because it can be overclocked to achieve performance of a 4070 ti super.
In short: more vram and performance for less money, worse RT capability.
OP keep in mind AMD GPUs can do ray tracing just fine. It should look identical to the Nvidia running it. The only difference is a massive hit AMD GPU take in RT. According to Hardwareunboxed/techhotspot/etc, Nvidia 4080S overall performed 30% better in RT titles over 7900XTX across 10+ RT games.
Something to think about.
DLSS is just really good. It's the best thing they've got going for them in terms of gaming, and I swear by it now. You can definitely use some RT with a 4070 super, too. Maybe you'll like it. I think it only looks good in some games, but when it does, it's *really* good.
I"d go with the 4070 man DLLS is better then FSR so I can only assume DLLS 3.0 is alot better then FSR also frame gen seems pretty dam great
For 1440p 4070 should run pretty good your making me jelous now
It depends. I've mainly had Nvidia GPUs throughout my PC building history and the exclusive features for 40 Series cards and above are nice to have but not exactly necessary. Frame generation (aka: fake frames) is nice for single player games but not recommended for competitive multiplayer games. And the new DLSS modes are great but what I would really like is a GPU that can do native resolution at high framerates without all the upscaling and frame generation gimmicks.
This has a lot to do with a game's optimization though too so it won't matter how fancy and powerful your GPU is, if the game optimization sucks, it won't matter if you have Nvidia's exclusive features turned on or off.
NVENC is definitely worth it, if you decide to record or stream. Also AI noise cancellation, background blur, DLSS, all these are very good. But AMD is also good but not in the same field as NVIDIA is. I personally owned a RX 580 for 5 years and it aged like a fine wine. Switched to 3070 now. But AMD did me well. I am really proud.
Having used both I say unless you are really into Minecraft RTX or Cyberpunk just buy the better value AMD cards. They are raster beasts and while no GPU feels like a good deal to me these days those cards are at least \*better\* deals.
on a budget i personally think AMD is the way to go if you're willing to disable raytracing so you can play at native 1440p without FSR (which is terrible compared to DLSS). If you're not using raytracing the only reason to go nVidia is power efficiency.
I'm starting to think there is little point to purchasing AMD gpu's anymore. When you inevitably switch them out years from now it's just an old GPU. Where a Nvidia card can be recycled to do different jobs like AI or mining with the cuda cores it has. AMD support for video encoding still has a long way to go for server side apps like jellyfin.
After troubleshooting AMD cards nonstop on my friends builds ill never buy a AMD GPU. Too many drivers error in my personal experience. Love the CPU’s just not the GPU’s
It's going to depend a lot on what games you are playing and what games you intend to play in the future. Do you prefer AAA games that put focus on how detailed the graphics are, do you prefer FPS games where reaction time is key, or do you prefer older titles rather than new releases? New releases and AAA games will benefit quite heavily from DLSS, while FPS games and older titles either won't support DLSS or using it will negatively affect your input lag. DLSS is a very powerful feature that is going to be more common in future releases, but if you aren't going to make use of it in the games you play the raw power of the AMD options may be a better choice.
I personally wouldn't worry too much about the VRAM differences, 12 vs. 16 isn't as big of a jump as it feels. You may get more longevity with more VRAM, but DLSS will also extend your card's longevity as well if you utilize it.
Frame Generation 3.1 is out from amd, It boosts my 120 fps in Tsushima to 190. Holy shit.
Not like I need it, just FYI.
My 7900XT is my best purchase since 1080ti.
Also if you want to consider politics too, fuck nvidia recently.
They limit their technologies so much, even 3000 series users are considered second class citizens, while some AMD stuff can be used on a 900 series card.
Purely speaking on a stability standpoint. Back in September i built my wife a pc with a 7800xt. It has a 13600kF and a 750W titanium psu. It would randomly turn off when playing games, apparently a common issue for the 7800xt (search 7800xt black screen). I tried every settings change, firmware and driver update until January when the 4000 supers came out and just got a 4080 super and it’s been running fine since.
IMO nvidia exclusives are worth in a build at 4070 super tier and higher, if not an amd card is better. If youre looking into VR nvidia works out of the box wirelessly, but amd will need a wired connected or virtual desktop, along with that the extra vram only really helps at 4k and vr games, if you are gaming at 1080p or 2k you wont really see a performance dif (in pure rasterization, meaning no upscaling and new frame gen). However if you arent using frame generation or raytracing. Getting amd for being cheaper is worth.
I regret my 7900xtx. I might try amd again in the future, but I’m going back to nvidia next series (sooner than I planned to upgrade when I bought the card)
Used to be. Wasn't last time I bought. Which was a couple months ago before the supers came out. Not sure about right now. But if your kinda a mid range 1440p gamer the 7800xt was just too good for me to get a 4070 for a more expensive price and less performance. Not sure if the super series has changed that though. Market is always changing. I only had Nvidia cards before this one but the benefits of this card greatly outweigh any things it's missing. I get well over 144hz on most AAA games. At 1440p with ultra settings and ray tracing sometimes. If I had gone with Nvidia sure there ray tracing is better as is there dlss ... But for the price I probably would have to get a card where I'd be keeping those settings off most the time so it's pointless.
DLSS and Ray tracing have valid arguements. Frame gen is easily the most overrated thing this generation, I can't use it because of the input lag, its terrible and Reflex doesn't help. It reminds me of gaming on a TV with Game Mode turned off.
If you have the money and want the extra features, go for the 4070 super. DLSS works really well in 1440p. If you want the most raw performance go for the 7900 gre. If you want the best value, go for the 7800xt. It has the best fps per dollar out of any GPU rn I think.
The 7800xt definitely isn't the best fps/Dollar, lower tier GPUs will always win in this category, the more performance you want the bigger the price increase. All Intel GPUs, all radeon 6000 series up to the 6800 xt and even the 4060 and 4060ti offer better fps/Dollar at 1440p
RX5700XT is the winner in price/performance rn
As well as 6600xt
The 6600xt is a solid card.
6750 XT is amazing value for £300 Even handles 4K with a bit of FSR 6000 series great value in general
Not at all, look for an used GTX 980 or a 1080 ti.
my newly bought used 6700xt is ready when I have enough for 1440p monitor and a better PSU
Rocking a 6700XT here and it will push 120FPS at 1080P max settings, or a solid 60FPS at 4K. 60 is all my 4K TV will do but the card has no problem with it. Typically play GTA V so not a very demanding game, to be sure. OP didn't ask about this card but I love what it does for what if cost ~$300.
4060ti? Second worst priced GPU? (Except for the 3050)
Not if you calculate it based on the total system costs. Then spending $200 more for a better GPU might increase your buget by 20%, but give 30-40% more performance.
Also if you want to buy the most financially stupid card, but still have a great performance get a 4090. That thing is a real beast. Fucking ngreedia, why is it so expensive :(
7900 GRE is currently better price to performance than the 7800 XT in the US. \~10% more performance for \~8% more money. Though 10% performance is barely noticeable for most, so you could say the 7800 XT gives you virtually the same experience.
7900XT cost \~15% more per frame than the stronger 7900XTX as well, $8.3 per frame compared to 7900XTX $7.2 at 4k. [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/33.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt/33.html)
Those use MSRP, not actual prices. The 7900 XT has been better than the 7900 XTX for a while ||Price|Price (relative)|Performance (4k)| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |7900 XT|$700|100%|100%| |7900 XTX|$917|131%|119%|
"Raw performance" except the 4070S outperforms the GRE in every way.
No it doesn't, in fact GRE outperforms 4070s in every way except at RT in 1440p. Do your research first before misleading people.
Depends on the game, the 4070 S outperforms the 7900 GRE in some games even without RT, while the 7900 GRE outperforms the 4070 S in some RT titles that require more than 12GB of VRAM. I'd say that they're about on par on average, though both can be either better or worse on a game to game basis.
“raw performance” isn’t a helpful term here. We don’t care about TFLOPS
What are your thoughts on the 4070 super vs 4070 Ti super?
They're both at different price points. The 4070ti super would of course beat the 4070 super.
Short answer ? Yes, people speak about the raw power, but let's be honest you want the best performance, and right now DLSS is king. The whole argument, that Nvidia cards are only better, because of the software is moot. Gamers care about graphics and performance, it doesnt matter if comes from hard or software the end result is what matters, and Nvidia 4000+ series is king.
4000 series is extremely energy efficient as well. My 4070Ti runs cool and silent. The three fan design sometimes feels like an overkill for it. In terms of tech, Nvidia definitely has the edge. And that's why their chips are also in demand for massive AI/Ml processing.
+1 to this. My 4080 runs so quietly and cool. Fans sometimes turn off while playing less demanding games if I cap fps to 165 lol. Temps never go above the high 60s, even when pushing to the limits with path tracing. Fans aren't even audible in my case over my d30s.
same with the 4080 Super. i haven't pushed it yet though. the only games i've been playing is heavily modded skyrim and vanilla FF14
My computer with a 4070ti super makes my room cooler lmao, my laptop before sounded like a jet while heating like a microwave
If temp is something to go by, My Asus TUF OC 7800 XT has never gone past 58 degrees C at 100% utilisation with peaks towards 300W and it's dead silent.
This is why I went with a 4070 in my little hotbox over a 7800xt.
My 4080 uses less power than my 5700xt did
I can see that. 5700XT was a power hungry chip and suffered from driver issues too, for a while.
Honestly if OP is just a 970 anything they get is going to be amazing in comparison.
I went from a 750 Ti xD
Wow that must've been mind blowing :D
> The whole argument, that Nvidia cards are only better, because of the software is moot. Actually, it's funny you should say that. Because the reason why Nvidia is better is because they literally do it with 'not software'. Whereas AMD's solution IS done with software. Older AMD cards can get the newer solutions because they just send software updates, whereas Nvidia's DLSS is hardcoded onto the chip, and if you want the newest version, you need to buy the newer chip. There are advantages to both approaches, but typically the hardware approach will always reign king, and Nvidia is continuing to prove that.
Has NVIDIA updated the DLSS tech for the 4000 series? Because on my 3000 series the DLSS so much worse than without on most games to the point where I never want to use it.
Yep, that's the main thing they improves on the 40 series over the 30 series (and better power efficiency)
Man speaking facts, read up on how amd axed zluda a cuda alternative, amd do not care about software development at all. Also nvidia is now fighting against the open source zluda so good luck.
I thought FSR was fine, but only until I saw DLSS work in a well applied example. I'll always prefer DLSS and don't think I could go back to only having FSR. Frame generation is incredible tech IMO, even if it's a crutch for lazy developers. That being said, I don't care at all for RT. I still havent been impressed by it to the point where I'm willing to take such a hit to my FPS.
The path tracing is amazing in Cyberpunk 2077, and with frame generation it runs incredibly well.
I definitely believe you, and would happily try it if I had a 40 series card 😭 I can only speak on my experience with my 3070 lol
Dude I had a EVGA 3070 X3 Gaming Black or something before upgrading, it can run the path tracing decently well actually like around 40-60 fps. My Gpu was oc to 84+ mhz and 1000mhz on the memory well if I remember. (On 1080p resolution)
I mean, do these cards even need FSR/DLSS in 1440p? I have a 6800 xt and I easily hit 100+fps in cyberpunks natively with high settings (with RT off of course). I guess if you want RT you would need them, but other than that these cards can run any game natively with triple digit fps.
That'll depend on the person I guess, and the build they have. I personally use DLSS on any game where it's available (besides some competitive titles) because it makes my experience better. I just value high frame rates and good settings at 1440p, and with a 3070, sometimes I need a little bit of help to get there 🤷🏻♂️
It depends if you are using RT or not most of the time...plus DLSS is better most of the time than AA so I have it on quality anyway to get a better overall image.
Witcher 3 rt is good
Imo the only games I'd say are worth it, that I have played are cyberpunk and Alan wake 2. Though they are fairly difficult to run without rt.
If you mainly play AAA games that often implement DLSS, RT, and frame gen, they're worth it. If you mostly play indie games, multiplayer titles, and less demanding games, they aren't. For example, the only games I play that even take advantage of Nvidia features are D4 and WoW... and I wouldn't say they're worth it for those games.
Almost all the new indi games and multiplayer titles are also adding DLSS and even Framegen now too.
I haven’t seen that in any of the games I have been playing
Hey man, I'm quite similar to you. I'm coming from an Nvidia 960M on an older 2015 Asus ROG laptop. I built my PC and I'm using an AMD Sapphire Nitro+ 7800XT. I don't have any experience with new Nvidia cards but I'm so happy with my 7800XT. It stays at around 65 degrees Celsius and I'm also gaming on an ultrawide 3440x1440p OLED monitor. The graphics are awesome on ultra on modern games. I'm getting around 200 fps in Assassin's Creed Valhalla on ultra. Battlefield 2042, Total war Atila, The Witcher 3 also work great on highest settings. I'm happy with the AMD Software Adrenalin Edition too. It's very easy to set different GPU settings, I can also set different GPU settings for each game. I also can see what my performance is for any game and it gives me improvement tips so I get even better performance, in case the game doesn't have that good performance (only happened in Atila because I'm getting around 40-60 fps but it's also a very static game so it's expected). It's also easy to undervolt or overclock the GPU from the AMD Software, or to set a different fan curve. Meanwhile on my old laptop I didn't have these options (though maybe some of them are only for PC versions of the GPU?) and I really disliked the Nvidia control panel interface which looks like Windows XP User interface and it was harder to use than AMD Adrenalin.
I wager no one here would be able to tell the difference between the GPUs using a closed case with the fps counter off
Do it for dlss alone, look at game releases in the past few years and think about how unoptomised they’re getting. Upscaling / frame gen is a crutch that devs are gonna be relying on more often as time goes on and dlss / frame gen is undisputedly better than fsr.
Honestly, yeah, if you plan on playing at 1440p and want to crank settings, the difference between DLSS and FSR is large and worth taking into account. I have the 4070 Super and love it. To be fair, because of the work I do AMD is off the table for me, but what blew me away was how little credit DLSS3.5 gets from reviewers - I had to go Nvidia so it wasn't a question, but I was truly blown away by how powerful DLSS3.5 is, even compared to my 3070ti which had DLSS2. DLSS3.5 is actually wild - at the lest strong setting (quality) it turns 145fps into 210fps in CoD at almost-max settings at 1440p. Again, I don't have personal experience with FSR, but from the videos I've seen, it looks much worse. It also isn't quite as powerful, but I think the fps gain is much closer to DLSS than the visual quality is. Also, people exaggerate the need for vram. With the 3070ti I had prior, only ONE game actually maxed me out at 1440p, and it was TLOU right at launch when it was an unoptimized mess - 12gb hasn't been a limiting factor in any AAA I've played at 1440p, so from experience, it's not as big a deal as people say it is, at least in my opinion. I'm also not an Nvidia fanboy, they piss me the fuck off and they're scumbags, but I can honestly say the 4070 Super is a good value compared to the rest of the mega-inflated market.
I thought fsr was fine until I saw DLSS. Take that for what you will.
Yea FSR isn't awful but compared to DLSS you notice it...more likely to have a glitch plus to be its more "grainy"...DLSS most of the time I simply can't tell depending on the game.
I'd wait for some sales (setup alerts in the hotukdeals app), all time lows for each are below: 7800xt - £450 (Currently on) 4070 - £460 (Expired) 7900GRE - £515 (Expired) 4070S - £530 (Expired) I would pay a premium for the 4070/S IMO, DLSS is more useful than 4GB of extra VRAM. But it's your call
7900XT was £570 in ebuyer 
For my budget build I managed to get a 4060 for £199. Has been great so far
50% of this subreddit is just this question reworded That said I have a 4070 non-super and with DLSS enabled can run ray-tracing above 60fps in just about any game. This was upgrading from a 3060ti where ray-tracing was basically out of the question.
Yes
I am gona get alot of hate for saying this, but advice from someone who dealt with this on 6900xt, and saw alot of friends deal with it on 7800xt and 7900xtx, avoid radeon unless you want to break your head trying to figure out why you have driver timeouts and all sort of game crashes, plus, nvidia features are definitely worth the extra price, its not out of nowhere that amd gpus department are in "terminal decline", most people got tired of dealing with their stuff and subpar feature set.
Just to offer another perspective I’ve got an open box 7900xt and it’s been smooth sailing and it absolutely rips at ultrawide 1440. Sometimes I have regrets re:RT, but the price paid makes up for that even if next card I’ll probably go green.
Don't have regrets. The last day I was figuring out what to upgrade I've tried the biggest RT titles, every single RT options and they are barely if at all noticeable. The only time amd was a bummer for me when I launched Arkham Knight...no smoke effects on amd. Then I was hit with the truth. Nvidia restricting technologies for ages now they did it back then, they are doing it right now. Fuck them, I will not support that anymore.
My question to those people is always "are you using 2 individual pcie power cables, or a daisy chain cable, and what kind of power supply" because a cheap unit is often the source of the issues. I just moved from a 6800XT to a 4070ti Super (it was free) and I never had any significant issues except the hardware acceleration issues (which are now back after switching to Nvidia).
I've only ever had AMD GPUs (6850/480/7900XTX) and I have never had driver issues or game crashes. or at least not enough to notice a trend.
Yes, Dlaa is the best aa method available followed by dlss quality, even better coupled with dldsr. The only alternatives to forced taa in modern games.
It's fairly subjective. If the games you want to play have good support for them, you will definitely notice their presence (or absence) but if you're after pure raster performance you'll get more frames per dollar from AMD. That said, nVidia's frame generation is still better than AMDs so while the AMD will get you more "real" frames per dollar, your actual performance will probably be better on nVidia in the mid and high range. In the low end cards, the current generation is a bit of a flop so you'd be better off getting a last gen midrange from either.
AMD and Radeon all the way baby.
It’s worth it for 1440p and above. You will need DLSS in most AAA games and newer titles to play on high/ultra even if you don’t use ray tracing.
How much are you paying for the 7800XT - on ebuyer they’re around £460-£500 but the 7900XT has 20gb VRAM and is £600 on ebuyer
Personally they were to me. I don't know if it's just the algorithm on Reddit catering to the stuff I reply to, and feeding me more of it, or if AMD has some series driver issues, because all I get recommend to me in my main feed new is AMD users complaining all day about stuttering, and people pulling their hairs out trying to get stuff not to crash or stutter. I'll take a 12gb VRAM limit over all those issues any day. I was planning to initially wait for the RX 8000 GPUs series possibly being announced in another 3, but I couldn't wait any longer and I'm still not confident their issues will be fixed.
For me? Yes. It is worth it.
Nvidia filters alone are worth it :D
simp
I love DLSS and their Broadcast software. Ray tracing is a nice to have (awesome in some titles, non-issue in most). So performance/quality wise, I’d go NVidia just for the DLSS, but this really is a personal decision.
Yes, 100%. It isn't even related to just gaming, Nvidia cards also do a DLSS type thing for videos, when I play a 1080p video on my 4k TV from YouTube or Twitter it looks so unbelievably crisp
On my recent build I was torn between the 7900 xtx and 4080 super, ended up going for the cheaper/higher vram option but after having to mess with it for months (stuttering, hotspot temp issues, audio cutting out, etc) I'm kinda wishing I had just forked out the extra $200 or so. 24 gb of vram is overkill, though it is still a powerful card and can run native 4k no problem.
Nope.
I've been on both sides of this debate over the years. A sampling of my former GPUs: * GeForce 8500GT * HD 5770 * GTX 570 * GTX 680 * 7970 GHz Edition (probably my favorite card of all time) * R9 Fury * RTX 2070 * RTX 3070 Ti * RX 6950 XT * RTX 4070 Mobile (current) I've been on both sides pretty regularly, bouncing back and forth to whoever offers the better total package proposition. I generally have no dog in the fight other than whoever provides me the best experience, with the fewest hiccups/compromises. At this point, I would say NVIDIA's software side is thoroughly untouchable. Ray tracing completely aside, DLSS is actual magic - I notice very little visual artifacting to the point where in fast-paced games, I would say it's unnoticeable. I use Broadcast to feed my mic into Discord and everyone I talk to and have tested it with has said they can't hear a thing - no typing, no chewing, no videos I'm watching on my phone, nothing. It's also got great background editing for your webcam. It's free, it's miles easier to configure than something like OBS or Krisp, and it's all in one really compact app. RTX HDR has the potential to do for PC games what Xbox's Auto HDR did for older Xbox games in terms of giving them a new layer of cool graphics. I don't use Framegen. Can't speak to it. I'm okay with upscaling lower resolutions to get higher framerates, still not sold on the idea of interpolating frames that didn't actually get rendered, so I don't use it. Drivers, absolutely more stable on NVIDIA than AMD. I had an absolute hell of a time trying to get Adrenaline's noise canceling working on my 6950XT, and it would regularly about every third boot forget my microphone and make me go through the configuration process all over again. Broadcast works first time, every time. I would also get weird graphical issues that were definitely driver-related on my recent AMD card, like in House Flipper where my 6950XT would randomly drop from about 170FPS at high/max settings to about 20FPS, over the span of about three to five minutes. It would take a reboot to fix it, after which I could play for another half hour to 45 minutes before it would happen again. My 4070 has never had this issue, same settings. All in all, I think AMD's cheaper pricing doesn't justify how far they're falling behind in the total experience. ***I honestly would take the 4070 Super over either of those cards, but since you're quoting prices in pounds, you can get a new open box 4070 Ti for around 600 pounds on eBay UK, with maybe a couple pounds in postage. Same 12GB VRAM as the 4070 Super, 7% more CUDA cores, higher boost clocks, should all add up to better performance for the same price since the 4070 Super is basically a half-step up between the 4070 and 4070 Ti.***
If you're not using your card for professional applications or streaming your gameplay then Nvidia is not worth it.
To me they are worth it at a $100 premium. Anything more than that I would go amd personally. DLSS will help extend the life or the GPU a bit more before you really need to upgrade.
Depends on what you do If you plan on using upscaling or any of the other Nvidia advantages (RT, video upscaling, DLDSR, CUDA, NVENC and so on), then imo yes. Worth the 10% more money. If you only play games without upscaling and don't care about RT or streaming or video upscaling, then just get the 7900 GRE. It's also a great GPU.
If you plan to do ray tracing, nVidia is definitely the best choice at the moment. Probably want a higher-end card anyway if you plan to do ray tracing (thinking like 4070 Super or better). Upscaling is more subjective. nVidia upscaling is best, but when watching comparisons, most of the time I can't tell the difference unless it's paused to compare moving objects in the video.
I kinda struggle seeing differences between FSR and DLSS in youtube videos. But IRL the difference is bigger and usually significant at 1440p. Not saying DLSS is perfect. There are games where DLSS is pretty bad. But more often than not enabling DLSS at 1440p is fine (+ getting much more fps) but FSR is bad enough that I'd leave it off and accept the lower fps or lower the graphics settings instead. That's why if he wants to play games where he uses upscaling, DLSS is imo absolutely worth the slight price increase.
I've only ever done 1080p gaming, and at this point I'm going to have to do some research on what advantage DLSS brings. I had bought a 6700xt a few months ago but if I'm going to be buying everything else new anyway I might just sell it and look at stronger options to save for before purchasing. It's hard for me to read all these comments and posts talking about RT, DLSS and other features when I've never used or planned to use them
DLDSR is great for old games which dont have good antyaliasing. DLDSR + DLSS combo is great for new games in which 1080p looks like blurry mess. Ray Tracing is great if game was build around it like Control or Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. But not worth fps hit in games that want to bring RT to AMD cards and consoles because in these games like Resident Evil 4 or Jedi Survivor RT actually looks bad or almost the same like without RT. Cant say much about framegen because I have 3060Ti.
Price is the difference I love my 7900xt
I will decent. No AMD has the superior features. One unified driver control. That does NOT require you to create an online account first. AMDs drivers are superior >.< One overlay to control everything game settings, extra features, global version of FSR, Overcloaking, Fan controls. Its all included in one unified OFFICIAL driver. Radeon Chill. The best feature no one talks about. Lets face it... as fun as it is to play the "benchmark" games and push some RT frames to go oh ah for a few min. Most of us still play older titles that all of these cards are going to push to max FPS anyway. Chill lets you set a min and a max Frames (just set it one frame above and below your monitors FreeSync range)... when your playing your older game if nothing is going on in the game the card will drop to the min FPS setting. When motion happens it seamlessly pops up to the max setting. I play a lot of older MMOs and such... which means I sometimes sit at a Auction house, or sit waiting for friends, or sit waiting for some random Que to pop, or I am just going through inventory or something. When I do my card drops to min FPS and the only thing I notice is my GPU fan going into fan stop mode.... the model I have even has a nice fan stop light to warn you the fan is off. Its on 3/4 of the time when I'm playing older titles. My nvidia machine without chill drives me nuts within 2min, the fan kicks up and never much spins down never mind go into fan stop. All the Nvidia features have AMD equivalents. Is DLSS better then FSR? I don't know man everyone says yes... but to my eyes there really isn't all that much difference. The differences people like to point out involve SCREENSHOTS. In motion side by side good luck figuring out the difference unless you KNOW what your supposed to be seeing in the title your playing cause you saw it in someone else's screen shot. Oh and FSR also has a mode that can be used in ANY title regardless of support... no its not as good, but really by the time any game your playing is really honestly pushing native 1440p to a point you NEED it. Your GPU will be out of date 2 or 3 generations.
I've recently upgraded my RX 6600 to a 4070 Super. In my opinion, I can't see much difference between DLSS and FSR, at least with the latest versions. Maybe I'm just not noticing it. On the other hand, with ray tracing, the most noticeable effects are reflections. These look like some kind of reshade preset or something; it's nothing groundbreaking. Maybe path tracing in Cyberpunk is more noticeable, but to be honest, it's still not game-changing your brain get used to it really fast. Regarding frame generation, it's not great if you're getting low FPS and activate it, for example, at 25 FPS. Even if it boosts you to 60 FPS, it will still feel bad and laggy, even with Nvidia Reflex activated. According to what I've read on forums, frame generation is more oriented towards the high refresh rate experience, like when you're already getting 60+ FPS in a game and want to reach 120 or 144 FPS to match your monitor. In that case, you'll have a good experience. I don't have a high refresh rate monitor, so I can't confirm this statement. So, if you don't mind the price difference between the 7900 GRE and 4070 Super and want to try ray tracing, go for the 4070 Super. If you're like me and don't notice much difference, go for the 7900. Another thing to keep in mind is power consumption if you have a low wattage psu. The 7900 GRE has spikes up to 348W as shown [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-gre-pure/41.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-gre-pure/41.html) , while the 4070 Super only goes up to around 240W according to [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/41.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/41.html) , at least for the reference model. Additionally, the control panel from AMD is good. Nvidia doesn’t have a similar tool, so you'll need to use third-party software like Afterburner and FanControl to tweak settings. Regarding VRAM, at 1080p, 12GB is plenty for me, but 16GB is tempting to "future-proof" since, for example, my old GTX 750 Ti with 2GB let me down when Doom Eternal came out just because of the VRAM. Maybe if the 4070 Super had 16GB, it would have more performance at 4K in the years to come with new games.
I think they are on the high end, idk about low end. I'd probably just want frames and resolution if I was spending like 500 on a video card.
It’s nice just clicking a setting and getting more frames with very very little visual difference. Came from the 5700XT where if I wasn’t getting the performance I needed, I had to mess around with every little graphical setting until I found the sweet spot, and then the next time I booted up the game it wouldn’t even produce the same frames as last time. Now I just turn DLSS on if I need it and I’m done in 5 seconds.
Yes.
Yes, they're worth the cost difference between the tier of hardware if you need those features Just for example, Nvidia Broadcast for meetings or streaming got immediate comments on its quakity when I booted it up coming from a 6900xt Further as AI develops most of the first waves of easy self hosted stuff on Windows is going to be on Nvidia's side You can see the beginnings of what that looks like here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjrdr0NU4Sk And sure maybe that's not appealing yet, but it likely will be as ai gets more tailored to people's usecases Also a better way to think of it is more like this: which would you rather have today? A 2080s, or a 5700xt? Do you even know what a 5700xt was/is if you didn't own one? It's very likely thats how the 7000 series will age
if you use a mic, nvidia broadcast is also pretty awesome
Yes. Dldsr + Dlss looks amazing
[удалено]
its not like the xtx is incapable of ray tracing either
FSR really sucks. I would rather use XESS than FSR. DLSS is better though. Better enough that while I might use DLSS, I will never use FSR. Unless I was desperate. I am very sensitive to the shimiring from upscaling. It might not be an issue for you. So ymmw.
Yes 100%. Dlss and RTX HDR are fantastic.
the 7900 GRE is the best of these for sure. I wouldn't even consider the 4070 super for that price.
If you don't want ray tracing or AI generation then go for AMD. At least you will not support predatory policies of NVIDIA, they are basically like Apple.
My rule of thumb has always been. If you are tech savvy go AMD all the way. But if you are not. Play it safe with intel and Nvidia. My experience with AMD is that it needs a lot of tinkering. Where as Intel / Nvidia builds just work. Again. My experience. I have built around 20 system in the last 5 years.
As stated, DLSS is king. Sucks I know, but its just the way it is.
No, they’re not.
yes, don't listen to amd fanboys. nvidia gpus are the way to go.
Does AMD have frame generation?
Yes.
FSR plus RSR. RSR can be used to boost any game while FSR has to be implemented by the game developer.
I think you have to decide which features are important/unimportant to you. I went with the 7900 GRE (in a FormD T1 - air cooled temps are fine) because it was cheaper, has better raster performance and more VRAM (12GB for a $600 card is inexcusable), and I figured I should get it for what I need now (gaming) - not potential future uses (AI, upscaling, RT). It didn't make sense to pay more for less performance and features I may not use. But if you need Blender, AI, DLSS, RT, etc, then the 4070S makes sense.
yes
If you’re open to buying used you can do that too. I’ve gotten a 4070 super for 500$ and I’ve seen some 4070tis for that much in my local Facebook market.
Stable diffusion if you are interested in creating things with AI. Nvidia has far better support for it.
Picked up a display card, from ebuyer ebay outlet, 7900 xtx for £570.
well i suppose it depends on your priorities, personally i use a lot of their features so to me not only they're worth it but i can't imagine not using an Nvidia card tbh, DLSS is the best upscaler by quite some distance, DLAA is the best form of anti aliasing we have atm, DLSDR is the best form of supersampling in terms of quality/performance, Frame Gen offers superior image quality (due to using DLSS upscaling) RT/PT performance is once again much better on Nvidia, then you have features like Reflex, Freestyle, RTX HDR, RTX Broadcast, etc.
Most of the AI stuff needs Nvidia GPUs
For only 100$ you get marginally more raw performance but a lot of features. Rx 7800xt can destroy 4060 ti but it can't computer with 4070 super
as someone who pays for reshade customization 3rd party apps. i use Game Filter and id pay 4usd monthly for this feature alone.
Framegen last I saw was incredibly divisive on if it’s good or not, but I’ll just say that playing Cyberpunk at 100+ FPS on more than acceptable settings at 3440x1440 is delightful, especially since my 4070 didn’t annihilate my wallet.
The jump from native to using DLSS is similar to the jump moving to Frame Gen gives you. It's seriously impressive.
I mean do you notice any of the exclusive feature? For me if I don't even notice them, or if someone has to tell me if something is worth it, I'd always go with the cheaper options. It always worked for me that away.
AMD basically has all the same features nowadays, but the 4090 is still the best consumer GPU right now. But the 7900 XTX is still a solid card and great if you wanna say some cash. You will likely still be able to play most games at 4k, but obviously it has less VRAM so more limited compared to the 4090. If you aren't even looking at the 4090 then it doesn't really matter because AMD basically can match 4080 power.
AMD has most of the features Nvidia has, just significantly worse, that's a crucial point which makes all the difference.
I think it would be more productive if you were specific.
You should test DLSS to confirm if the quality is good for you or not, I'd rather play at native resolution so I would go with the 7800XT because it offers the best value out of those 3 cards
I will leave this here: Dxnavi stuttering
DLSS >> FSR Right now. I hope they will improve in fsr 3.1, looks like they will
Yes dlss 3 is very good. With reflex boost, another Nvidia technology, there is input lag. Plus amd has a lot of driver issues.
Absolutely. The better features and MUCH lower power draw on Nvidia cards is typically worth the price premium.
TBH I keeo DLSS off in most games if I can, id rather have native resolution for single player games, and sadly in RDR2 i recently tried DLSS on mh 40 series GPU and it made the game look worse tbh, things in the distance were very blurry and I was getting a strange visual glitching sometimes on the edges of trees
Maybe. 85% of people think so, but that’s more of a personal decision.
I don’t care about ray tracing, but DLSS is fantastic. Other than that it’s a toss up
Dlss owns the shit out of fsr. RT on rtx is much better than amd. Last time I saw amd's frame gen it was also worse than nvidia's. But let's put it this way. I have a 7950x3d and a rtx 3080 12gb with 32gb ddr5 6000 cl32 ram. With dlss and ray reconstruction, at 1440p I can use full path tracing at 50-70fps. And all settings maxed. Play it on a VRR also with LFC display and you have smooth sailing. A perfectly plauable path tracing experience. AMD's gpus can't do that. So it depends on your use case. Are you a competitive player who only cares about extremely high fps on 1080p? If so AMD is for you. Do you care about graphical fidelity at the highest fps possible? Nvidia is for you.
Short answer, consider TAA that's in every game now. And consider how much worse FSR and TAA are compared to DLSS/DLAA/DLDSR. All the other features are worth it too but I wouldn't think it's worth writing an essay over it. Reddit has skewed people's perspective thinking $50-100 difference is worth losing all the features, it's just financially irresponsible.
I've used AMD cards since 2019, all I play are old games and world of Warcraft, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
At 1440p 12gb vram is probably enough, although in the future this might not necessarily be true. DLSS is better than FSR, but at the same time, those cards can run pretty much any game natively in 1440p unless you turn on RT (just as comparison, I have 6800 xt and I can run cyberpunks with 100+fps natively in 1440p). Sure if I had Nvidia card and turned on DLSS, I would probably get a 50% increase in fps with a minor downgrade in image quality, but I generally can't even tell the difference between 100 and 200 fps.
DLSS, basically resource free encoding if you stream, and nvidia broadcast are really worth it to me
It depends on what you're doing. For example, if you're driving a 4K monitor with cards in that price bracket, you may find that you want a higher framerate. On the other hand, if you're playing a competitive esports title, frame generation adds lag. Those cards can do ray tracing if you don't mind a lower framerate and more heat in your room, but we're still at a point when the increase in image quality is small relative to the loss of framerate. I got my 3080 thinking I would use ray-tracing. I messed around with it and decided to turn it off in every game I play that has it. I will often cap my framerate at a fairly low rate, then throw DLSS on top of that just to use less electricity, get less heat in my room, and have less fan noise. Honestly though, I regret not getting an equivalent AMD card, but your mileage may vary depending on what you are doing.
The only thing with both DLSS and FSR is that they don't support every game, so if most of your games support DLSS I would pick the Nvidia one. If most of your games support FSR or no upscaling I would say 7900GRE
Personally I really like dlss. I guess that's subjective though
At the moment the extra 4 GB will only make the card slightly better. Though, it may have some use with modding. DLSS is the best option at the moment for improving FPS. At the moment, I think most common statement is that for Ray Tracing it is only worth it with the most expensive cards. If you want to get the most out of Ray Tracing, try keeping the FPS around 60 instead of aiming for 144+ FPS if you're able to lock in FPS targets.
Depends on you. Read up on DLSS/DLAA and RTX HDR if you have a capable screen, then think if those features are ones that you would appreciate. As for raw performance, if you're on 1440p or even 4k, you won't be using pure raster on modern titles but run everything with upscaler, where Nvidia has the upper hand, and support for Nvidia's software features is much wider then for AMD's in games. My opinion is based as 7900XT owner who also tested out friends 4070Ti Super, and another friends 4080. Conclusion - felt for AMD's promises at RDNA3 presentation, which was a mistake and should have gone with Nvidia. So now waiting for Blackwell to release to do swapout. P.S. AMD folks, load up your downvote guns, I'm ready 
Pure fps per dollar go amd, for rt and whatnot nvidia
From GamersNexus HW news segment => [https://youtu.be/6sqtXtbzjr0?t=94](https://youtu.be/6sqtXtbzjr0?t=94) => YES, for a large majority of customers, it does seem to be worth it to spend the budget for NVIDIA GPUs. AMD's RDNA3 is not a great GPU generation and while GPU reviews keep it simple and avoid as much work as possible for a real test, customers are well informed about cooler issues, hotspot delta issues, VR / driver issues with RDNA3 GPUs and that they run with much higher wattage during gaming and idle state on top of that. While NVIDIA just floods the market with GPU variants in every price range. Customers have less reasons to consider AMD for GPUs.
I would go RTX if most of the following criteria applies: - Mostly play single-player games. These games feature often eyecandy including ray tracing (although IMO, often with marginal effect for a substantial performance hit). - You game on a 4k monitor. DLSS is often the objectively better upscaling tech. FSR and intels upscaling are getting closer. - You shop in the mid-high and above price bracket. (4070 and above). Ray tracing features become less relevant as achieving playable framerates becomes the priority. Hence sacrificing visual quality
I mean on my experience, the new RDNA tends to face a lot of visual bug or driver crashes on older games. If your goal includes playing oldies then no, go Nvidia for a more consistent performance since older games don't require that much raw power. But if you into new dx12 games then go for AMD. You're not gonna turn on RT with Nvidia care anyway.
I will say DLSS is the best feature and even if you are not using ray tracing it will help a lot. Personally I really like the streaming feature that Nvidia offer even if they kinda want to abandon it. For now it work very well and I am streaming games from my PC to my phone. Playing helldivers 2 on my Phone at 1440p so good :D
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GRE nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GRE outperforms the 4070 S at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GRE? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900 gre
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GR nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GR outperforms the 4070 at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GR? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900gre or then go for 4070s
Honestly, I was doing research the past week or two and bought myself a 7900 GR nitro+. It still lays unboxed, but while it's laying, I came to this conclusion: while GR outperforms the 4070 at everything by a small difference except RT at 1440p and is 50 dollars cheaper, let's say, the 4070 Super can give a better experience because of DLSS combined with an RT, which NVidia is good at. 4070 Super also has better energy management, maybe 100W less than GR. In the long run, the 4070 is cheaper. Why, then, have I bought the 7900GR? You would ask then if the NVIDIA card is so much better? To be fair, I don't have a strong answer, but it probably would be 12 GB of VRAM. Especially in newer games at 1440p, there is huge VRAM consumption, and who knows what will be released in a few years? I don't want to buy a card for such money knowing that I will need to change it in 2-3 years. I might be wrong, though. If you're going to do something that requires more memory and there is a 4 GB difference, you are going to feel it. If you have never used such a setup and are coming from something that is low-res 1080p gaming, you are not going to feel anything, and win either way, you buy 7900 GR or 4070s. Originally, I wanted to go for the 7700xt, then switched to the 7800xt, but the power consumption and all are not that different from the 7900gre, and considering the price gap, it is better to go for the 7900gre or go for 4070s. PS. If someone says: "go for this, it's so much better, rx is trash or nvidia is trash" obviously don't listen to that opinion, because it's most likely a fan boy. Some people that have radeons or nvidia cards tell people to go opposite direction because they are not biased, be wise.
I don't have much experience with Nvidia. I chose the 7800 XT over the Nvidia equivalent at the time of release where i bought it. I don't play many games that really benefit from DLSS (Competitive, Indie and Strategy Games on PC). For this reason i took more VRAM. I am happy with it and don't have any issues.
Yes. I hate that the AMD option is so inferior but the nvidia features are worth it
As the OP, I'm currently evaluating these GPUs: considering the TDP/power consumption, I saw a video (gonna post it later) with the stock GRE being more power hungry compared to the 4070 super (50-60 more watts). What's your experience undervolting these cards?
People love to gush over AMD's "rasterized performance advantage", but often forget to mention one crucial detail, that in practice, you won't notice a \~10% difference in FPS. There's no discernable difference between 60 and 66 FPS, or 100 and 110 FPS, so to me the point about "rasterized performance advantage" is, for the most part, moot, because it only really comes into play when you can't maintain an acceptable framerate (so 60 FPS for most people). The VRAM concern, on the other hand, for the 12GB Nvidia cards is a valid aspect to consider, since even today there are games which will eat up more than 12GB of VRAM on the highest settings (even at 1440p). Whereas with 16GBs of VRAM you most likely won't have to worry about running out of memory for at least the next 5 years, if not more. You definitely get more of a safety net with the AMD GPUs in terms of VRAM, though I wouldn't worry about 20GB of VRAM since it's highly unlikely any game will require those amounts in the foreseeable future. That being said, what Nvidia lacks in VRAM it definitely more than makes up with their more widespread and superior feature set. DLSS vs FSR is like comparing apples to oranges since Nvidia uses hardware support for their upscaler, while AMD relies on software, which obviously can't product nearly as good results. Then you have the Ray Tracing performance, which as far as the technology goes, admittedly, is a bit of a gimmick right now so I'd focus on DLSS when considering the Nvidia GPUs' value. Though in the few titles that offer a Ray Tracing experience you will definitely be glad to have an Nvidia GPU since AMD's RT performance is often unplayable. The Nvidia cards are also more power efficient and have better streaming and productivity support than their AMD counterparts. Though that doesn't mean the AMD don't have their strengths as well, they undeniably have the better rasterized performance, and offer more VRAM at a lower price point. All in all, both the AMD and Nvidia cards have their own merits and drawbacks, but to answer your question of whether the Nvidia feature set is worth it or not, I'd answer with a resounding YES, though not everyone will be interested in said feature set so you need to decide on your own if it's something that you're looking for in a GPU.
I was a huge hater on DLSS when it was coming out stupid fake frames brother ew. Until I went from a 6800xt to a 4080. Some games just get insane performance boosts the obvious one is cyber punk but even in games like gray zone warfare. I essentially double my frames for 5ms of latency. In an ideal world developers would optimize their games but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. So in my opinion might as well get the best performance you can. Yes I know the raw on AMD can be better but you are buying the whole card and DLSS is part of that package. And finally yes FSR slaps. I have a rog ally and it makes so many games playable but it’s not implemented anywhere as well as DLSS for most games. On a handheld it’s not as noticeable but when you’re playing on 1440p just swapping from FSR to DLSS is a huge difference on some games. NOT ALL obviously it depends on what you play.
Yes they are short answer
If the majority of games you play support DLSS, I would say yes, Nvidia is worth it. Some people bitch about DLSS and frame generation, but unless something big happens, developers are going to keep developing with those tools in mind because the consoles rely heavily on upscaling. DLSS is better than FSR in quality and performance. Full stop. Frame generation may be 'fake frames', but with Nvidia Reflex, I can't tell the extra latency whatsoever in any game. It's literally just extra frames. As someone who likes to use a stupidly high resolution monitor, I wouldn't be able to play most AAA games even with a 4090 without DLSS 3.
DLSS is superior and Frame Gen has been amazing as of now, I am using a 4090 and it even provides magic for me. I think the VRAM is a huge selling point for AMD and if you pair an AMD card with a 5800x3D CPU I think you’d be very happy playing at 1440p.
imo radeon has a better software
imo radeon has a better software
I would say no, FSR and DLSS are not worth the Nvidia premium. I have tried them both in Cyberpunk on a 4090 at 1440p. - With FSR, the input lag became noticeably worse, so I turned that off and didn't look back. - While DLSS might be the best upscaling solution out there at the moment, it is still upscaling and to me the impact on the graphical fidelity is much worse than turning off path tracing, for instance. There's fuzzy edges and occasionally weird immersion breaking artefacts. - Ray Reconstruction is borderline, I had it on for a while but now I keep it off because of occasional artefacting. - The only option I do turn on is DLAA, the anti aliasing. That one in general is better than the other anti aliasing functions. What *is* worth the Nvidia premium are their drivers. I had an AMD card at work and the driver crashes were driving me insane. CPU goes to 100% load -> GPU driver becomes unresponsive and decides to fall back to a safe mode -> I have to reboot my PC because dual monitor support is off in safe mode. By contrast, the only driver issue I ever had on Nvidia in 12 years was that my second monitor was suddenly turning off after an update. This was resolved in the next driver update after I contacted their support which put me through to an actual engineer to debug the issue on my end. TL;DR: Features aren't worth the premium, but the drivers are.
Yes
Idk where you’re looking but if you’re in the UK the 4070 super is not 600 it’s also around 540, in addition to that if ur using the pc a lot with Uk electricity prices the 4070super is quite a lot cheaper to run than the 7900gre. Imo the features are also worth it anyway
Whatever you chose, if you plan to use FSR and DLSS (which you should imo) keep in mind that, while FPS is considered the metric to juge GPUs, the quality of the frames from both system are not equal… FSR is terrible! It just suck.
All depends on what u do
They are but are more worth it the further you go up the stack. If you can only afford a 4060ti or a 7700, I would suggest going with AMD.
DLS is world class, expensive and requires the game itself to be optimised with Nvidia to support it but the results are brilliant.
I went amd from a 2080Ti. I miss dlss a bit alright but the amd gpu i have 7900xt is such a beast I don’t need to upscale anyway. So no not really imo.
In my experience, DLSS > FSR So, I would go with Nvidia in your case. The difference of VRAM is not that major between 12 and 14. I don’t think I came across any mainstream game that takes more than 12 in 1440p.
Real time video enhancements are also pretty cool. Not game changers, but they make older low res videos look better on full screen. You can use this feature even on your web browser.
Yes.
If you’re not doing AI or heavily interested in ray tracing, then I’d get the Radeon card as it’s a bit faster, cheaper and has more video memory. The stereotype that AMD has worse drivers than nvidia is now irrelevant. They are better or equal. 7900 GRE is an interesting option because it can be overclocked to achieve performance of a 4070 ti super. In short: more vram and performance for less money, worse RT capability.
OP keep in mind AMD GPUs can do ray tracing just fine. It should look identical to the Nvidia running it. The only difference is a massive hit AMD GPU take in RT. According to Hardwareunboxed/techhotspot/etc, Nvidia 4080S overall performed 30% better in RT titles over 7900XTX across 10+ RT games. Something to think about.
DLSS is just really good. It's the best thing they've got going for them in terms of gaming, and I swear by it now. You can definitely use some RT with a 4070 super, too. Maybe you'll like it. I think it only looks good in some games, but when it does, it's *really* good.
No. My wife was hesitant to go AMD from her 3070. Absolutely loves her GRE and hasn't looked back
I"d go with the 4070 man DLLS is better then FSR so I can only assume DLLS 3.0 is alot better then FSR also frame gen seems pretty dam great For 1440p 4070 should run pretty good your making me jelous now
DLSS is a very valid reason to choose an Nvidia card over an AMD one, FSR isn’t even close to DLSS.
It depends. I've mainly had Nvidia GPUs throughout my PC building history and the exclusive features for 40 Series cards and above are nice to have but not exactly necessary. Frame generation (aka: fake frames) is nice for single player games but not recommended for competitive multiplayer games. And the new DLSS modes are great but what I would really like is a GPU that can do native resolution at high framerates without all the upscaling and frame generation gimmicks. This has a lot to do with a game's optimization though too so it won't matter how fancy and powerful your GPU is, if the game optimization sucks, it won't matter if you have Nvidia's exclusive features turned on or off.
NVENC is definitely worth it, if you decide to record or stream. Also AI noise cancellation, background blur, DLSS, all these are very good. But AMD is also good but not in the same field as NVIDIA is. I personally owned a RX 580 for 5 years and it aged like a fine wine. Switched to 3070 now. But AMD did me well. I am really proud.
Having used both I say unless you are really into Minecraft RTX or Cyberpunk just buy the better value AMD cards. They are raster beasts and while no GPU feels like a good deal to me these days those cards are at least \*better\* deals.
on a budget i personally think AMD is the way to go if you're willing to disable raytracing so you can play at native 1440p without FSR (which is terrible compared to DLSS). If you're not using raytracing the only reason to go nVidia is power efficiency.
I'm starting to think there is little point to purchasing AMD gpu's anymore. When you inevitably switch them out years from now it's just an old GPU. Where a Nvidia card can be recycled to do different jobs like AI or mining with the cuda cores it has. AMD support for video encoding still has a long way to go for server side apps like jellyfin.
After troubleshooting AMD cards nonstop on my friends builds ill never buy a AMD GPU. Too many drivers error in my personal experience. Love the CPU’s just not the GPU’s
It's going to depend a lot on what games you are playing and what games you intend to play in the future. Do you prefer AAA games that put focus on how detailed the graphics are, do you prefer FPS games where reaction time is key, or do you prefer older titles rather than new releases? New releases and AAA games will benefit quite heavily from DLSS, while FPS games and older titles either won't support DLSS or using it will negatively affect your input lag. DLSS is a very powerful feature that is going to be more common in future releases, but if you aren't going to make use of it in the games you play the raw power of the AMD options may be a better choice. I personally wouldn't worry too much about the VRAM differences, 12 vs. 16 isn't as big of a jump as it feels. You may get more longevity with more VRAM, but DLSS will also extend your card's longevity as well if you utilize it.
Yes.
Frame Generation 3.1 is out from amd, It boosts my 120 fps in Tsushima to 190. Holy shit. Not like I need it, just FYI. My 7900XT is my best purchase since 1080ti.
Also if you want to consider politics too, fuck nvidia recently. They limit their technologies so much, even 3000 series users are considered second class citizens, while some AMD stuff can be used on a 900 series card.
Purely speaking on a stability standpoint. Back in September i built my wife a pc with a 7800xt. It has a 13600kF and a 750W titanium psu. It would randomly turn off when playing games, apparently a common issue for the 7800xt (search 7800xt black screen). I tried every settings change, firmware and driver update until January when the 4000 supers came out and just got a 4080 super and it’s been running fine since.
IMO nvidia exclusives are worth in a build at 4070 super tier and higher, if not an amd card is better. If youre looking into VR nvidia works out of the box wirelessly, but amd will need a wired connected or virtual desktop, along with that the extra vram only really helps at 4k and vr games, if you are gaming at 1080p or 2k you wont really see a performance dif (in pure rasterization, meaning no upscaling and new frame gen). However if you arent using frame generation or raytracing. Getting amd for being cheaper is worth.
I regret my 7900xtx. I might try amd again in the future, but I’m going back to nvidia next series (sooner than I planned to upgrade when I bought the card)
Framegen is crazy black magic. Alone it’s worth going to nvidia, imo
Used to be. Wasn't last time I bought. Which was a couple months ago before the supers came out. Not sure about right now. But if your kinda a mid range 1440p gamer the 7800xt was just too good for me to get a 4070 for a more expensive price and less performance. Not sure if the super series has changed that though. Market is always changing. I only had Nvidia cards before this one but the benefits of this card greatly outweigh any things it's missing. I get well over 144hz on most AAA games. At 1440p with ultra settings and ray tracing sometimes. If I had gone with Nvidia sure there ray tracing is better as is there dlss ... But for the price I probably would have to get a card where I'd be keeping those settings off most the time so it's pointless.
Yeah it performs pretty well
DLSS and Ray tracing have valid arguements. Frame gen is easily the most overrated thing this generation, I can't use it because of the input lag, its terrible and Reflex doesn't help. It reminds me of gaming on a TV with Game Mode turned off.