Sharing my attempt at a handy list of 1440p Raster performance numbers, expanded from past meta review of GPUs posted by u/Voodoo2-SLi
This is a very limited take though, just 1440p Raster numbers as percentages. The basic data is from Voodoo's 7700 XT and 7800 XT meta review post. Other GPUs are filled in with back-calculated numbers inferred from Voodoo's previous meta review posts, in reverse chronological order as: 4060 Ti and 7600 meta review post, 4070 meta review post, and 4070 Ti meta review post. As example, 3060-12G numbers were calculated as:
70.7 (4060 Ti-8G percentage from 7800 XT meta review) x 69.2 (3060 Ti-12G percentage from 4060 Ti meta review) /100 = 48.92.
Since the set of games tested by various reviewers change across months- typically with increased GPU requirements- the filled in GPU data may not be highly accurate, but should still be fairly representative of the performance.
If you find any inaccuracies, please point them out, and I will make corrections in the table as needed.
| GPU |
1440p perf |
| 6600 |
43.06% |
| 3060-12G |
48.92% |
| 6650 XT |
52.25% |
| A770 LE |
55.15% |
| 7600 |
55.43% |
| 3060 Ti |
64.69% |
| 6700 XT |
67.40% |
| 4060 Ti-8G |
70.70% |
| 4060 Ti-16G |
71.20% |
| 3070 |
73.74% |
| 3070 Ti |
79.90% |
| 6800 |
82.70% |
| 7700 XT |
85.60% |
| 4070 |
95.00% |
| 6800 XT |
95.70% |
| 3080-10G |
95.86% |
| 7800 XT |
100.00% |
| 6900 XT |
103.90% |
| 3090 |
106.30% |
| 6950 XT |
109.35% |
| 4070 Ti |
115.05% |
| 3090 Ti |
115.05% |
| 7900 XT |
128.00% |
| 4080 |
138.30% |
| 7900 XTX |
140.60% |
| 4090 |
165.20% |
How does this compare with tom's hardware GPU hierarchy and which one do you think I should use as a guidance?
That's a great question- Tom's hierarchy is a nice go-to resource, with handy quick reference charts and tables, but they aren't the only ones doing rigorous testing. There are other well-regarded testers doing exhaustive and thorough testing- Techpowerup, Hardware Unboxed aka Techspot, ComputerBase to name a few I like.
What a meta review does is open up the test configurations and environments, broaden the number of tested games, reduce biases, and minimize errors because of the significantly larger data set. In my view, the meta review data is more reliable because of all these reasons.
All that said, if comparing this table with Tom's or TPU's or HUB's tables, we will see similar ballparks and patterns.
This is usually correct, but sometimes reviewers as a whole screw things up. The X3D factorio benchmarks are a great example of that.