this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

48 readers
5 users here now

A place for quality hardware news, reviews, and intelligent discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I disagree with the 7800xt part tho. Yea naming scheme is as always manipulative but its not that bad... There is no bad product. only bad pricing. And the new card is the same as its older counterpart. BUT its 200 dollars lower on MSRP which is a huuge difference. completely going away from its older brothers price range. Its the same debait as the RX7/RX8 one is much slower but its half the money at launch times. And compared to 4060 and 4060ti which fails on both counts to be good priced and not be a manipulative 50 tier Die parading as a 60 tier product. Its value proposition of 7800xt is good

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's one of the most efficient cards out there, about twice the performance/watt of Nvidias offerings in the price bracket, and the price is low enough that it doesn't matter much that the gaming performance isn't great. For someone that needs a cheap GPU for an HTPC or server with no iGPU, it's not bad. Even runs some older games and emulators well enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There is no bad product. only bad pricing.

Pretty brave to leave this comment in the comment section of a Gamers Nexus video, when they specifically made a video about nad products no matter the price, lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Its a 150$ lower msrp not 200

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yea naming scheme is as always manipulative but its not that bad... There is no bad product. only bad pricing

manipulative 50 tier Die parading as a 60 tier product

Correct me if I am wrong: you are saying that it is okay for the 7800xt to be a weak gpu for it's name, but it is not okay for the 4060 to be a weak gpu for it's name? Afterall, the 6800xt used Navi21 and the 7800XT is on Navi 32.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I think you left the difference of 4060ti vs 7800xt. Its the same as 3060ti in performance and at 400 dollars. Which is the same as 3060ti on sellers now. And for a node shrink and genertion uplift. You gain nothing because its a 50 class die. But it doenst have 50 class die pricing. Navi32 7800xt has 7700xt or 7800 non Xt die. But has 7700xt pricing

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

7800xt should be 7700xt. But 7800xt is priced as 7700xt (comparing to 6800xt msrp).

4060 is priced as 4060 while it should be named and priced as 4050.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

4060 Ti is objectively a bad product.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope, again just priced badly. All of the Ada Lovlace chips are efficient and performant for what they are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (6 children)

3060 Ti is literally better.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks to the crypto/AI price gouging, nVidia have been allowed to up tier their GPUs. If the 4060 was released as the 4050 that it probably should've been then the 4060 Ti could've lost the "Ti" part and they could've sold the 16GB version as the plain Ti - with the corresponding price corrections.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

4060 Ti is much more efficient + that frame generation. The difference in performance is not material, really. I know imagining is hard for some people but please do try. If you can't judge chips on merit without marketing names and prices, just imagine it would cost $100 cheaper and be called 4060. Wouldn't it be impressive then? So much more perfromant, so much more efficient.

So, again, a great product but a bad pricing.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (9 children)

I still think is unfair to avoid results with FSR/DLSS/FG/XESS when available. I have a 4060 and it was the best use of my budget, specially considering future games. I don't buy a technology to not use it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Nope. You won't be able to use next version of DLSS on your 4000 series, so it's always the best the show how fast is GPU in pure raster to see how much actual power it has.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

nvidia will come up with some other funky software bs to try to get people to upgrade to a new gen, while artificially preventing it from running well on previous gen cards or competing products. physx, gameworks, dlss, nvfbc, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Downvotes for the truth.... Poor Nvidia fanshills copin xD

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

DLSS is why I bought a 4060 over a 7600. Mostly play e-sports games, so the cache offsets the bandwidth loss from a 3060, while DLSS is much better than FSR at going from 720p -> 1440p, as I wanted the increase over 1080p for daily usage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I still think is unfair to avoid results with FSR/DLSS/FG/XESS when available

If you don't understand why, I don't know what to tell you...

That is not solely dependent on the hardware... 🤦🏾‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I have a 4060 and it was the best use of my budget, specially considering future games.

A 6700 XT is still faster overall when AI upscaling is taken into account, and considerably faster when it's not, and has 4GB more VRAM. If performance in future games was the main consideration, that would've been the obvious choice in that price range and not the 4060.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Its not real 1080p. Its upscaled 1080p. Also, lol circlejerking over DLSS again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Pretty wild no one seems to care about native anymore

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, DLSS and other tech are a crutch. This weird obsession with it shows how susceptible some people are to marketing.

Anyway, generally speaking, those techs can improve performance 50-100% IIRC.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because native with TAA is worse than dlss quality.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Its not that. Notice that only people that purchased 960 variants care about that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Depends on the class if card. I don't think either of them are good at 1080p output. At 1440 fsr is a clear loss to the point where it's arguable if it should be enable. 4k is the only area where it's even reasonable to do a comparison, where dlss is better but fsr is okay.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

If only NV wasn't so stingy with the VRAM. I don't know how I feel about having DLSS, FG and RT but also blurry textures because the card runs out of VRAM.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not unfair. It's the only logical way to do the comparison.

It gets too complicated to do a comparison with upscaling technologies when there are so many constantly changing variables and a subjective aspect in regards to comparing different technologies. Which version of upscaling do you use? What if the game gets updated? What if the upscaling technology gets updated? How many frames of DLSS 2.x/3.x are comparable to FSR 2.x/3.x frames? At what quality levels? What if a game adds support for one technology but not another? I mean to even consider using upscaling numbers is ridiculous since each implementation is different and constantly changing. You're no longer able to objectively compare these products.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (8 children)

I'm going to hold out with my 1070 as long as I can because prices just aren't where I want them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm still waiting for a worthy successor to the 1060

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I jumped from a 1070 to an ex-mining 3080, having a blast!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (13 children)

I just figure the longer I can hold out the better card I can get. I can afford any GPU on the market even a silly 4090 but I'm not spending £2k on a GPU that's just stupid. Really I just want to spend £350 or so on a really good card like the 1070 was back then.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can you honestly say how much your 1070 build cost when you built it?

I think my 980Ti build back in the day ran around 1,500 beans.. You can build a 7900XT rig for around the same with a massive increase performance to dollars paid previously.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I a 1070 to replace my 680 Classified when the VRAM on it started to fail. But the rest of my rig which I still run is my 5820k which I think was about £300 or so new, the motherbaord was £140 which is an MSI SLI X99 Plus and my memory is some cheap Crucial 16GB DDR4 kit which was £170. A 850W EVGA powersupply and a Corsair Air 540. I think the power supply was £100 or so? and the case was about £150 I think. If you added it all up it should be around £1200 with the 1070. With the 680 whcih I got for a previous system that was £550 which was a lot of money back then.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Build Check anyone? About to upgrade the gaming PC this black Friday.

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/QDgPmr

load more comments
view more: next ›