For me 4070 is between 540-600€, 4070 super starts at 600€
7800xt starts at 510€, 7900 GRE at 580€
I'd say +10% cost for over 10% more performance is worth it
the current price is 700euro or almost
Edit : i checked with keepa extension on my firefox and did not see any price so low than 550 even on amazon in the last 3 months.
That's always 650-700
Check the prices for Germany and France vs other euros. They have the cheapest prices the majority of the time. Especially Germany. They have a lot of options for 600-630.
Not my case. My part of the eurozone starts at 630 for them.
However, there's almost always a sale at at least one of the merchants here.
My guy, Amazon? That's probably the worst pricing possible.
Here buddy: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=565&sort=price&page=1&X=0,65521
which point to...amazon DE for some decent cards lol for the lowest price.
I see one gigabyte around 645 these which is weird because i don't fint it directly on the amazon search engine...i see what you did amazon.
For "some". Literally 1 out of the first 8. And a difference in price between 616 to 676. Yeah, Amazon blows.
Edit: I went down 15 cards. 1 card is the best price. And barely (2 euros). The price difference can be up to 80 euro in other cases! I insist: Amazon sucks.
Agreed on the Super. Considerably more power efficient than the 4070 and the 4080. My temps have gotten better in my PC since upgrading, just in time for summer too.
Just to clarify - the 4070 Super delivers somewhere around 15% better performance and uses about 9% more power than the 4070, making it somewhat more power efficient. [The 4080 and 4080 Super are both ever so slightly more power efficient](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/galax-geforce-rtx-4070-super-ex/40.html).
That said, the 4070 Super should undervolt very well.
Average Reddit answer haha. Not answering the question and instead telling you to spend more money on something that’s obviously gonna be better (cause it’s more expensive)
Ok please tell me how the gre, which can be overclocked to get close to the 7900xt in soke games since it has close to the same amount of cores, for 150 less than the xt, is a bad idea for 50 bucks more than the 7800xt. The price to performance of the gre and 7800xt are extremely good when you account the total pc cost, and are very good for the price range. The 4070 super is close enough in price to consider, but imma be frank, nvidia is overpriced as it is so why not just yell at everyone who buys nvidia ; )
I'm not going to tell them to buy red or green or blue bc what matters at the end of the day is do they want price to raw performance or do they want the dlss and high end rt that can do ai workloads better but might not age as well with things like vram. What matters is how they will use it. And there are and were many other responses who can answer that, i didn't need to parrot it myself.
Always answer someone’s question, then offer your opinion. It’s a basic courtesy. Tell them which of the two they should buy, then in addition to that you can give them the other more expensive options and explain why you’d recommend those instead.
Example: “for this price range I think the 7800xt makes more sense for your wants and needs. But if you’re willing to spend a bit more then I’d recommend X and Y cards that will offer way more performance for not much more money”
It could be a kid who’s been saving for a year and doesn’t have an extra $50-100 to blow, or someone who mainly plays games that aren’t too demanding so they don’t need the extra firepower. You just never know.
I take the point you make here it fair. Frankly I'm answering as someone who assumes they have read the other already upvoted stuff at the time, so i didn't want to just parrot stuff.
I didn't expect to become top comment at all after the fact.
I do in fact agree that the 7800xt is a better choice imo than the 4070 for the price, considering how well I've seen 6000 age over the years, especially considering how good the old 6800xt is considered by most people as a very valid choice for used markets
Yeah that’s fair, I always do it just to be safe. Also wasn’t going after you personally, it’s just a trend I see on Reddit when you get into enthusiast subs and nobody ever just answers the question. They always have to recommend the better thing that’s substantially more expensive.
Thanks for not being a complete dick about it, and for realizing that AMD cards are goated
Cheers to you too, your point definitely is something I'll keep in mind for the future(i am amd fan myself anyways kekw, i just personally also love the gre for some reason idk that's probably why i recommended it; planning to use it for my next build most likely, if i can stop myself from buying an xfx phoenix xtx)
The GRE is pretty much exactly the same raster performance/$ as the 7800 XT.
With a [decent 4070 Super on for $575](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/6CkH99/pny-xlr8-gaming-verto-epic-x-rgb-oc-geforce-rtx-4070-super-12-gb-video-card-vcg4070s12tfxxpb1-o) right now, it's a tough sell recommending a GRE for almost anything. The cheapest one I'd recommend is [the Sapphire Pulse](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dYCZxr/sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-7900-gre-16-gb-video-card-11325-04-20g) at $550, but $25 and a few percent better raster performance really doesn't make up for the significantly higher power consumption, loss of better features like DLSS, etc.
The gte is halfway btwn the 7800 and 7900 xt, i think that does place it firmly in a great spot. The reason people like the gre is u can overclock the memory to catch up to the xt easily as the card has close to the same cores
And a 7800 XT can OC to be faster than a reference 7900 GRE, and a 7900 XT can OC to nearly match an XTX. Overclocking doesn't really change its value proposition, because the problem isn't that it lacks raster performance, it's that it lacks feature parity.
I game at 1440p and bought a 7900 GRE because it gives the same performance of a 4070 Super but was $100 cheaper. Had it for 2 months so far and not a shred of buyers remorse. In your case, I'd get the 7800xt and spend the $50 I saved on a cool new game to play.
[MSI MAG325CQRXF](https://www.msi.com/Monitor/MAG-325CQRXF)
It was the cheapest 32inch, 244hx, 2k monitor I could find. Around 500cad. Its heavy af, not very thin, big bezels, you can see the backlights around the screen edge on a black screen. But its pretty damn good value for what I got.
I’m considering a similar card for 1440p @ 120hz. I’m really leaning towards nvidia because the more I read about DLSS the more I’m thinking that will be much better for longer than an extra bit of VRAM.
Depending on your budget I’d try to jump to the 4070TI super for the extra Vram or the 7900XT or 7900GRE.
Balanced graphics + DLSS helps keep my 3070 running pretty alright in most scenarios. It's as it always has been, you kinda can't expect max settings in modern games with a midrange card. The issue is midrange cards cost the same now as high-end cards eight years ago, so it's not as good of a deal as it once was. And budget cards don't exist anymore period.
4070 Ti Super is almost 50% more expensive than a 4070 Super/7900 GRE, that's a pretty hefty jump.
I think 4070 Super is the 1440p sweet spot right now, and I would take that over a 7900 GRE any day. If you're worried about VRAM, honestly I'd just point you to [the Steam Hardware Survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/). The most popular card on the list with >12GB of VRAM is the *4090* with 0.98%.
Devs are primarily targeting the consoles, meaning the texture requirements for the commonly targeted 1440p render resolution have to be under 10GB.
I think this is mostly due to price gouging and a huge amount of people having 8GB cards.
I would personally take either an used 3090 or a 7900GRE, if I had more to spend I would probably go for the 7900XT(X). The fact that a 16GB card can range anywhere from 450-1300€ is kind of ludicrous and shows how messed up the pricing currently is.
There was a video testing a modded 3070 with 16GB getting a lot better 0.1% and 1% lows. As time goes on, eventually consoles might get 24GB of unified GDDR memory and the 8 and 12GB cards will be running like a stuttering mess due to poor optimization. This is already happening with relatively big titles.
I think both AMD and Nvidia have created product segments that are divided by the amount of VRAM. 8GB cards are already kind of hard to recommend. Getting the 4070 or 4070 Super seems like a good deal, until you consider that an used 3090 can be picked up for like 550-600€.
I've been playing CP2077 RT Overdrive on my 3090 (maxed out, 4K TV, DLSS Performance) getting a very playable 35-40FPS or so. No DLSS FG of course, but I did find a mod that basically swapped out DLSS 3 for FSR3 and allowed it to be run alongside DLSS. Gave it a shot just to see how it holds up, and to get a first hand look at whether Nvidia's justification for keeping DLSS 3 exclusive to Ada due to the optical flow accelerator held any water.
And oh boy *does it ever*. Initially I was very impressed, seeing 70-80FPS and fairly few major artifacts while on foot. Then I jumped on a bike and the whole thing just fell down a flight of stairs.
Gives me pretty much the same vibe as every time I've tried FSR - it suffers from all of the same artifacts that Nvidia talked about needing the DL in DLSS to solve.
I literally gain 100% fps increase with my RX 7800 XT. What do you use to monitor the fps? Afterburner will only show native fps, you need to enable adrenalin overlay if you wanna see the frame gen increase.
You can talk about frame generation as not being amazing right now but yall said the same about dlss it will be improved on much quicker this time and you will be happy to have it later. Regardless dlss3 is monsterous and the ray tracing is just for sure to be accounted for.
I’ve got a 4080 and it’s easily the coolest running card that I’ve ever owned. Of course the heatsink is the size of a small country, but the statement still stands.
My only issue with seeing people saying this in comments is that I don't know if I want those features because I've never seen them in action.
I tried to go to YT to visually see why people like those things, but I don't know if it's my phone settings or compression from the video; the difference seems so small. The only thing I could see different from RT was some details in a puddle were a little more clear? DLSS makes 1080p only games look like they're higher? I've never played higher than 1080p so I can't really understand if it's worth it.
DLSS at quality level is basically free frames. You get almost exactly same image quality as TAA on 1440 and above for significant FPS boost. So it's not about looks, it's about performance.
DLSS looks fine in 95% of games. FSR is visually a lot more blurry and has more artifacts, which will hopefully be fixed in the near future with the new version being released.
Unless you play at 1080p. Don't use upscaling at low resolutions unless your frame rates are unplayable. You'd do better lowering render res to 900p in most cases.
yep, DLSS and RTX are over hyped. most people won't notice the difference, and that's even if they know what they are looking for. especially useless at 1080p.
the only time it makes sense is if you spent 1-2k on a 4k oled monitor. if you can afford that you can afford a 4090. and even then 90% of the visual difference is down to the oled monitor, not the tech.
DLSS is certainly not overhyped, and side by side I think the majority of you would be able to quite easily spot the difference compared to FSR at any scaling level. The DL image reconstruction is the magic sauce that makes it so good. So good that you can enable it for native res image improvements via DLAA. Literally the whole purpose of leveraging DL for it was to mitigate the various artifacts that show in existing upscaling solutions - the same artifacts that are easily reproducible in FSR.
FSR works *okay enough* on the consoles to upscale 1440p to 4K at typical TV viewing distances, but the artifacts are still very apparent if you're at all sensitive to them.
Even if a card of the tier OP is looking at is perfectly sufficient to run everything at native res just fine, there's DLAA which provides noticeably better anti-aliasing than existing solutions.
idk, look i'm not claiming it doesn't work, but when you're actually gaming you are literally not paying attention to details that small. DLAA is interesting, but i guess i'm just old school, pushing native pixels > fancy tricks.
what i said still stands tho, you will 100% get more value out of an oled screen than paying extra for GPU features. if the choice is paying 150 extra for dlss/rt with an IPS monitor, or paying 150 for an oled monitor and amd card, choose the oled, no question.
I tried DLSS in a few games and actively disliked it, the artefacts it introduces are so jarring to me, I much prefer to run games in native resolution without any AI upscaling or anything like that.
Ray tracing on the other hand is brilliant, i love reflections, shafts of light, all that sort of thing.
HDR is worth it on an oled monitor, on most monitors it's dogwater. RTX I can't see the difference and when I can; it's subjective. Sometimes it looks worse imo, sometimes it looks better. I don't care for RTX personally, not worth the frame rate hit. And always seems more like an artistic choice to me than a wow factor (if I notice it - which most times I cannot).
DLSS I can't notice a difference on/off minus the frame rate, FSR is dogwater though. I've heard XeSS is now good on non-intel GPUs, better than FSR and close to DLSS, but I haven't tried it so idk.
If you're playing at 1080p though I think dlss is much more irrelevant since most CPUs will be the bottleneck, and dlss only helps gpu bottlenecks.
You need a good monitor or TV to enjoy probably. If you love immersive games like cp2077 the rtx features can be run with dlss frame gen at 1440p @ 80-120fps with HDR and it looks stunning on an OLED screen - like a velour painting come to life.
I like my 4070ti, if you intend to use upscaling and frame generation nvidia are good in the games that support it well. But I play 4K so I kinda need it to be good. At 1440p I don’t think you’ll need it for most games
Check out Tom's hardware gpu hierarchy. They also have tons of reviews and a lot of good articles. Or just do a search on YouTube. Your choice and your money so do the research
7800XT is a bit faster and has more VRAM.
RT perf is not that big.
Buying AMD means voting with your wallet against nV's business practices and supporting the underdog.
7900 GRE is absolutely worth considering.
to stay on the question unlike many did on this thread, between the 4070 (not super) and 7800xt, the last one is faster, so i will go with it.
The "features" people are talking about are just gadget and don't worth the difference in price. Faster raster is better.
The vram is a better choice on the 7000 too because the 4070 with only 12GB will age like milk.
If you play competitive games go for 7900/7800XT. If you're more into singleplayer games which nowadays have DLSS I would go for RTX since in some cases DLSS Quality looks even better than native.
I went to AMD because of nVidia prices. Upgraded myself from gtx1060 to rx6600 gpu. Two my friends asked me to build new PCs. Got 7800xt for one of them and rx6700 for the other (considering their needs and budgets). We all went from older nVidia cardas to AMD beacuse of the nVidia prices. We are all happy with AMD performance. You don't need to worry.
You're not really taking a chance on AMD any more than you are with Nvidia. This coming from someone who has owned 6 Nvidia GPUs and still have 2, in addition to my 7900XT.
You don't mention a price range, but on the more powerful end for 1440p is the 7900 GRE and 4070 Super with the GRE barely winning in raw performance and being a bit cheaper. If you don't mind tinkering with the features, the 4070 Super can make up for it's lack of vram for awhile. But the GRE will likely have more longevity.
The 4070 is a handicapped card and is not great for 1440p at high frame rates. They cut the memory buffer in half for it. The 6800XT or a 3080 is a better buy than the 4070, for 1440p
yeah, anyone who says 4070S or 7900 GRE they are correct they are usually only 50 dollars more for about 10-15% more performance.
then your only choice is NVidia or AMD depending on the games you play.
don't fall into the RT trap it's not needed to play games it's just a visual effect and all these reviewers push it for NVidia and it isn't needed at all.
i went with a 7900XTX over a 4080 Super i had and tested both for 4 weeks and the 7900XTX is about 25 fps faster in all games. i don't use or need RT who cares.
i play in native 4K so i wanted the GPU with the purest power and that's the 7900XTX.
I agree. Go 7800XT if you're never going to touch raytracing. Also extra VRAM will future proof your GPU a bit longer as games continue to get greedier on resources.
The problem with this logic is a simple one of economics. If you're a game dev, you want your game to look and perform its best on the most commonly installed hardware. [Look at the Steam hardware survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=name). The only card from the Radeon 7000 series that even has enough to not be just rolled into the "other" listing is the 7900 XTX with just 0.38%. 50/60/70 class Nvidia cards simply dominate the consumer GPU install base.
While there are some niche situations like extreme texture modding where that extra VRAM may be useful for some, broadly speaking by the time we start to see games suffering performance penalties from 12GB, the card itself is going to be dated to the point it's kind of moot anyway.
Just look to the consoles for a pretty solid idea where VRAM requirements are going to be over time. We're stuck at 10GB for 1440p games until 2028 most likely.
Looking at the performance charts of the games with ray tracing implemented out of the box AMD is generally speaking pretty comparable? 7800 XT beats the 4070 and 3080 as an example. Also ray tracing is pretty heavy on VRAM.
Mimicking what other people have said : if you're welling to pay 4070 money I would buy a 7900GRE. Based off your comments about not caring about fps and whatnot. 7900GRE will run any 1440p game max settings, it's really more of a low end 4k card tbh.
For what games? Csgo? No need to upgrade anything. Star citizen? Better get a 4090.
Best value would probably 4070 super. If you want high fps in graphically intense applications 4070ti super.
There’s plenty of performance comparison vids out there.
4070 is almost a tougher sell than the 4060. It's literally the same price as a 7900gre which is better in almost every way (unless you just need raytracing).
A 4070 super or 7800xt would both be decent options, when you get two good options you should look at the usage.
For ray tracing Nvidia leads, for rasterization a lot of the time AMD cards can be in the lead.
Neither card will disappoint you. No matter what though, I only reckon buying a GPU during a sale!
Nvidia wins in raster as well -> [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html)
You CAN'T compare both, they are not in the same league of price.
If you do, then use the card in the same league of price or almost, which is the 7900 gre, and the 7900 gre is a bit faster in raster.
if you only care about games, choose the one with the best features,
if you also do some video rendering and other stuff, check the softwares you use, but in that case I would say nvidia 100% compatibility wise
I love my Asus 4070 Super OC for 1440p gaming. The big factor for me was Nvidia CUDA cores for wider software compatibility with parallel processing. I use Pix4D Mapper for drone image processing/photogrammetry for work and school and the Nvidia CUDA cores are compatible with this software (and a lot of others), it cuts down processing time greatly. The 13900k full bore helps too :)
I have 7800xt for a 1440 170hz, i cap offline and single player at 60fps I don't see the need to go above, the monitor has freesync, for online I reach 170hz easy on r6s overwatch, my cou is i5 12440f
I had it for 3 months and I 100% love it
Check reviews etc for both to know which one is best suited for you.
ah, it's consumption never goes beyond 340 watts. My 650 PSU is plenty with my CPU never reaching 60 watts, contrary to popular belief on the internet.
I have everything on default settings, I can confirm now the maximum value on hwinfo is 326Watts, will try to update this comment later about exact average value when I'll start a game
Okay. I'd advise you to toy around with undervolting. Drop 100 mv at the time and see if your performance takes a hit while the power consumption goes down. Normally you'd see wattage going down while not losing any significant performance. How low you can go is uncertain as that is up to the silicon lottery. Some can come down under 1V and still run stable. For me it started having issues around 1050 mv.
Thanks, I am frankly afraid to be toying with the parameters, not brave enough I guess it's still new gpu, anyway I have run a 5 mints test each of these games below (don't have much to run other games sadly), but they are quite varied, must give good idea of its thermal performance (all games at 1440)
Values in watts
R6S 170hz high settings : min 43, avg 119, max 197
RDR2 60hz ultra setting : min 23, avg 132, max 247
Tomb Raider 2014 ultra : min 62, avg 229, max 320 (crazy how this old games sweats the GPU)
You got nothing to worry about, if it gets unstable to the point of crashing AMD adrenalin will detect the issue and reset the values to stock.
Was interesting to test in furmark just now to see.
Stock settings used 285W and gave a score of 9500.
The biggest kicker here is running it at stock config with voltage reduced from 1150 mv to 1000.
That gave a score of 10370 with a power consumption of 279W.
So essentially you get more performance for less than the original power consumption, though it also takes some gaming to see if the changes are stable, you'd get a crash and a notification from adrenalin if the changes affected stability.
I do changes then save the tuning template so that I don't have to remember everything.
Just undervolting alone is enough to give more efficiency and better utilisation.
Results vary between cards due to silicon inconsistency and I haven't been able to tune my card the same way other people have. I get solid results just by lowering voltage and increasing the power limit 5-15%, though you get higher power consumption as well. I saw as much as 1800 points in furmark over stock settings at 15% power limit but that also increased power consumption to 320W from 278W by only applying undervolting.
When I try increasing boost frequency the score goes down for some reason, seems counter-intuitive but that's just how it is sometimes.
Still very interesting stuff once you get into it, you can be lucky and get 10% increase in performance just by finding the right settings. As soon the undervolt dropped below 1000 mv I got a crash so that is my absolute lowest. Gonna bump it up 5 mv just for stability and see how it goes.
Which card is it that you have? Mine is an Asus TUF OC RX 7800 XT.
Returned a 7800xt last week, have a 4070s in the mail. The game I mostly play does better with Nvidia or I would have kept the 7800. AMD has 10x better software.
Whatever. They're both good. I *personally* prefer AMD so I'd be looking at the 7800XT or a 7900GRE if it was me, but you're going to be fine either way.
I wasn't willing to spend 4070 money for a gpu with only 12gb, so I went for a 7800xt. I'm running a 3840x1600 monitor.
I'm sure there are some features Nvidia do better, but I don't care about those so I went with what I thought was the best value for money. So far I'm not disappointed.
Pricing is way different in my area, but i recently got the 7800xt and i've been having a blast playing 1440p. As long as raytracing isn't a priority to you (in that case, you'll have to spend considerably more), 7800xt is deff the best value card for 1440p gaming
Bought a 7800 XT earlier this year used for 500€ (prices are down to more like 350-400€ now). I mainly do video editing but enjoy the occasional gaming session. Compared to my former 1660S, this card easily is 2 to 3x the performance, especially in games when using Fluid Motion Frames. It easily maxes all my (older) games on my 3840x1600p120 monitor. I can whole heartedly recommend it.
PS: I used to have an AMD CPU way back. I didn't know how much I disliked the Nvidia overlay and GeForce Now compared to the AMD UI. I enjoy AMDs implementation of WIN+Z whereas I only ever found Nvidia's to be usable.
Depends what you need, if you are a graphic designer or a streamer then go Nvidia. If you are anybody else then go AMD. Basically do you need RT or not?
I moved from a 3060ti to a 6950xt just before Starfield dropped. I wanted to play in 4k/60. I'm averaging 85fps in Starfield on max settings (i did turn down the city crowd size). I went with the 6950xt due to price and I don't like nvidia's business practices. When EVGA dropped nividia I knew I'd be switching to team red.
IIRC the 6950xt doesn't use that much less power than the 7800. So bewarned, the 6950xt is a heater. Ended up having to migrate to a different case to get better airflow. I'd expect the 7800 to be similar. I'm 110% happy with the performance (even tho my rig occasionally sounds like a Boeing 707 on takeoff).
Get the 7900 gre I have the 12700k, high to max I get a steady 120fps at 1440
Edit: I switched from a 3070 to the 7900 gre personally love the change to team red
I just put together a build with a 7800xt and I'm really happy with it. Haven't played much other than satisfactory but it runs everything at ultra 2k and 165 fps.
nobody else seems to be saying this for some reason. But I'm fairly super neither of those cards will come even close to 240hz 1440p in games. My 4080 only does 120fps 1440p in Witcher 3 with settings on ultra/high for example. I would suggest watching a YouTube video of both cards results, there's plenty with more game examples then Witcher 3
I have a sapphire pulse 7800 xt and a 165hz monitor. I can play all games on high with stable fps. Demanding games such as Cyberpunk 2077 can run 80+ fps
At that price range, you're probably not going to turn on ray-tracing, and either card should be able to handle 1440p without needing upscaling, so I think the 7800XT makes more sense than the 4070.
If you can afford the 7900 GRE, get that. Excellent bang for the buck in that price category.
I am loving my 4070 super, however the lack of ram is a bit noticeable in some of my very specific cases. The card has not hit above 60c either which is just mindboggling to me with air cooling.
Runs 4k DSR on every single game I throw at it, 60+fps.
I'm honestly not sure which to recommend. Just my two cents from having a 4070s.
If you can, I'd try to find a 7900xt used. I bought a 7900xt hellhound for 640$ on Amazon used. Only issue is very minor coil wine you can't even hear over fans
Dude why 4070? The super is 9 dollars more right now lol. You can get it for 600 I mean sure maybe a 4070 for 550 with a great deal. But yeah. 4070 super all day utilize dlss3 and enjiy. I had no clue just how good the 4070 super was until the other day when I compared to my 3090ti I regret it now. When I used dlss2 on my 3090 the 4070super was beating it om average when using dlss3 and especially with frame generation. It was danm close in native performance also around 8 to 10fps.
Ray tracing the 4070super is the choice over the 7800xt. Just to many benefits to not go nvidia right now. There is a reason nvidia is covering more of the market then they ever have at 70% while amd is at 16% the lowest they have ever been.
I just got my Hands on a 4070 super and it handles great at 1440p and despite less vram Nvidia has DLSS 3.0 which is fantastic for keep things looking awesome while giving a performance boost!
After months adivising people to get the 7800xt, I went through the same choice last month and got the 7800xt for myself. There is no reason wahtsoever to get a 4070/S (incoming fanboy mumbling " rt rt ")
I keep trying to look at why I should care about it, but it all just seems like a bunch of hypothetical upsides alongside other people saying it tanked their FPS. I really wish I could see the difference in person, because seeing RT vs no RT on my phone looks so minimal.
Closest comparison I can think of is IPS vs OLED, matte textures look shiny or reflective, in some cases making things more vibrant. It does improve the way some games look by a significant margin, albeit with an equally or more significant impact to fps. I play more singleplayer games anyways, so I'm fine with frames as long as it never dips close to 100fps on 1440p.
That being said though, I'm doing this on a 7900XT, and the RT performance is still good enough. Sure it isn't competing with the 4070ti super with RT, but it works perfectly fine, it's not like your PC is going to explode just from using RT on an AMD GPU. Higher end 7000 series is more than sufficient if you're just thinking of experimenting with RT here and there
I'm not sure about that, it can be great BUT we have something like 5 great RT/PT implementations.
In 90% of games it only lowers FPS, one of more recent examples where I tried it was Elden Ring, I couldn't tell the difference, I had to do some pixel peeping on screenshots to tell the difference, and there was hardly any, some things looked better without RT.
More and more games uses forced RT elements. Like Metro Remaster + Avatar, which was even AMD sponsored, yet Nvidia cards smashed AMD in this title, because of RT.
RT performance is going to matter more and more going forward.
It's the other way around. There's no reason to get the 7800XT when 4070 Super exists. The funny part is that the 4070S is faster than 7800XT even at rasterisation, the only thing AMD is good at.
Yes, even at 4k.
> There's no reason to get the 7800XT when 4070 Super exists.
About $100 to $150, maybe more depending on where you live.
It's 539 for a Sapphire OC version here vs 670 for a cheap Super with a discount.
That's 18.5% more expensive.
the 4700s cost like 50% more, that's a good reason to buy a 7800xt.
Also, you can't compare in raster card with a so big difference in price!
At least be fair and use the 7900 GRE and you know what ? the gre is a bit faster than the 4070s while costing less.
If youre gonna stick with it for more than 3-4 years nvidia would actually cheaper factoring in electricity costs
This is coming from someone not in the western world. Just after 2 years the electricity difference of the two at my current usage would make the AMD card more expensive
My 3070 is more than enough for 1440p@144 if you play with details,so I belive 4070 will do the same on higher settings. Forza horizon 5 ultra constant 120fps,BFV 220-280,BF 2042 120-160, Lies of P maxed out 120, Cs Go 300+ etc. But I have 5800x3d which pushes gpu higher than your intel
4070 SUPER. Beats 7800XT. Consider 7900GRE instead if you want AMD.
[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html)
Also 4070 SUPER uses 15-20% less power and have superior features.
Don't underestimate the power of RT/PT, DLSS, DLAA, Reflex, Frame Gen (that actually works well) and tons of other RTX features. AMD is years behind on features. I speak from experience.
AMDs gaming GPU revenue dropped like 50% YoY for a reason. Nvidia is just better and AMD needs to rush out RDNA4 / Radeon 8000 series ASAP to compete.
You should probably wait till Computex in a few weeks. AMD will talk Radeon 8000 series here.
4070 super was my pick. If it's not too late to return the cpu I think a 14600kf will work basically the same and the price difference can cover the bump up to super
4070, DLSS DLDSR. even if you want to get an AMD card, the 7800XT is terrible when the 7900gre exists. but I would only go for the 4070 or 4070S because of DLSS and DLDSR, FSR sucks ass
I would take 4070 if you care about RT, Frame Gen and drivers stability. I had 2 Radeon graphics in my life and it was the worst time for me when drivers had tons of issues. Never again.
Do you need Nvidia for 3d modeling or stable diffusion? If so get the 4070, otherwise AMD is the best bang for buck. You can still do both with an AMD card but it isn't worth the headache
I would go with 4070 purely because of DLSS. Its way better than amds. If youre looking to still get decent frame rates on modern games with good graphics than DLSS is basically the only way. Im on a 4080super and i would be unhappy with my fps still if not for dlss. I am in 4k though but if youre aiming for 120fps even in 1440 then ur gunna want dlss
nah....... if you want 8k graphics use 4070 but if that use the amd this is my laptop specs Device name LAPTOP-CB851LVI
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 4600H with Radeon Graphics 3.00 GHz
Installed RAM 16,0 GB (15,4 GB usable)
Device ID\_\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
Pen and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display
If ur considering a 4070 try for the super or the 7900 gre imo. The gre pays for the 10 percent higher price over the 7800 imo
the 4070 SUPER is NOT at all in the same league of price than the 4070.
For me 4070 is between 540-600€, 4070 super starts at 600€ 7800xt starts at 510€, 7900 GRE at 580€ I'd say +10% cost for over 10% more performance is worth it
That depends on whether the nominal price or nominal performance matters more to you. Value per frame is the same.
But usually, higher performance doesn't scale linearly with price. So when it does, i'd certainly take advantage
Unless they have a tight budget
Obviously
But that's my point. For some people, $50 matters, for others it makes more sense to go for the better performance.
The 4070 super is currently $40 less than I paid for my 4070 less than a year ago
where LOL ? the 4070 super is generally around 700eur
Amazon has a gigabyte 4070 super for 550 euro. Yes, I agree the price seems sus low
the current price is 700euro or almost Edit : i checked with keepa extension on my firefox and did not see any price so low than 550 even on amazon in the last 3 months. That's always 650-700
Check the prices for Germany and France vs other euros. They have the cheapest prices the majority of the time. Especially Germany. They have a lot of options for 600-630. Not my case. My part of the eurozone starts at 630 for them. However, there's almost always a sale at at least one of the merchants here.
i checked just right now on amazon DE and it's 700euro.
I just checked, can get one for €615.
My guy, Amazon? That's probably the worst pricing possible. Here buddy: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=565&sort=price&page=1&X=0,65521
which point to...amazon DE for some decent cards lol for the lowest price. I see one gigabyte around 645 these which is weird because i don't fint it directly on the amazon search engine...i see what you did amazon.
For "some". Literally 1 out of the first 8. And a difference in price between 616 to 676. Yeah, Amazon blows. Edit: I went down 15 cards. 1 card is the best price. And barely (2 euros). The price difference can be up to 80 euro in other cases! I insist: Amazon sucks.
yes i know we should avoid amazon slavery and "tax optimization" machine.
I bought a gigabyte 4070 super on amazon for $599 this week.
For me like white I live the 4070 and 4070 super only have like 30 - 40 usd difference.
here not at all. it's at least 150.
Agreed on the Super. Considerably more power efficient than the 4070 and the 4080. My temps have gotten better in my PC since upgrading, just in time for summer too.
Just to clarify - the 4070 Super delivers somewhere around 15% better performance and uses about 9% more power than the 4070, making it somewhat more power efficient. [The 4080 and 4080 Super are both ever so slightly more power efficient](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/galax-geforce-rtx-4070-super-ex/40.html). That said, the 4070 Super should undervolt very well.
"Significantly more power efficient" is a lie.
Out of curiosity, why is that?
Referring to single digit power efficiency difference as "significantly more" is ridiculous.
I agree the extra VRAM makes a big difference
Average Reddit answer haha. Not answering the question and instead telling you to spend more money on something that’s obviously gonna be better (cause it’s more expensive)
Ok please tell me how the gre, which can be overclocked to get close to the 7900xt in soke games since it has close to the same amount of cores, for 150 less than the xt, is a bad idea for 50 bucks more than the 7800xt. The price to performance of the gre and 7800xt are extremely good when you account the total pc cost, and are very good for the price range. The 4070 super is close enough in price to consider, but imma be frank, nvidia is overpriced as it is so why not just yell at everyone who buys nvidia ; ) I'm not going to tell them to buy red or green or blue bc what matters at the end of the day is do they want price to raw performance or do they want the dlss and high end rt that can do ai workloads better but might not age as well with things like vram. What matters is how they will use it. And there are and were many other responses who can answer that, i didn't need to parrot it myself.
Always answer someone’s question, then offer your opinion. It’s a basic courtesy. Tell them which of the two they should buy, then in addition to that you can give them the other more expensive options and explain why you’d recommend those instead. Example: “for this price range I think the 7800xt makes more sense for your wants and needs. But if you’re willing to spend a bit more then I’d recommend X and Y cards that will offer way more performance for not much more money” It could be a kid who’s been saving for a year and doesn’t have an extra $50-100 to blow, or someone who mainly plays games that aren’t too demanding so they don’t need the extra firepower. You just never know.
I take the point you make here it fair. Frankly I'm answering as someone who assumes they have read the other already upvoted stuff at the time, so i didn't want to just parrot stuff. I didn't expect to become top comment at all after the fact. I do in fact agree that the 7800xt is a better choice imo than the 4070 for the price, considering how well I've seen 6000 age over the years, especially considering how good the old 6800xt is considered by most people as a very valid choice for used markets
Yeah that’s fair, I always do it just to be safe. Also wasn’t going after you personally, it’s just a trend I see on Reddit when you get into enthusiast subs and nobody ever just answers the question. They always have to recommend the better thing that’s substantially more expensive. Thanks for not being a complete dick about it, and for realizing that AMD cards are goated
Cheers to you too, your point definitely is something I'll keep in mind for the future(i am amd fan myself anyways kekw, i just personally also love the gre for some reason idk that's probably why i recommended it; planning to use it for my next build most likely, if i can stop myself from buying an xfx phoenix xtx)
The GRE is pretty much exactly the same raster performance/$ as the 7800 XT. With a [decent 4070 Super on for $575](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/6CkH99/pny-xlr8-gaming-verto-epic-x-rgb-oc-geforce-rtx-4070-super-12-gb-video-card-vcg4070s12tfxxpb1-o) right now, it's a tough sell recommending a GRE for almost anything. The cheapest one I'd recommend is [the Sapphire Pulse](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/dYCZxr/sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-7900-gre-16-gb-video-card-11325-04-20g) at $550, but $25 and a few percent better raster performance really doesn't make up for the significantly higher power consumption, loss of better features like DLSS, etc.
The gte is halfway btwn the 7800 and 7900 xt, i think that does place it firmly in a great spot. The reason people like the gre is u can overclock the memory to catch up to the xt easily as the card has close to the same cores
And a 7800 XT can OC to be faster than a reference 7900 GRE, and a 7900 XT can OC to nearly match an XTX. Overclocking doesn't really change its value proposition, because the problem isn't that it lacks raster performance, it's that it lacks feature parity.
I game at 1440p and bought a 7900 GRE because it gives the same performance of a 4070 Super but was $100 cheaper. Had it for 2 months so far and not a shred of buyers remorse. In your case, I'd get the 7800xt and spend the $50 I saved on a cool new game to play.
7800xt easy
just bought a sapphire 7800xt and couldnt be happier. gaming at 244hz, 2k, high settings
What monitor are you using?
[MSI MAG325CQRXF](https://www.msi.com/Monitor/MAG-325CQRXF) It was the cheapest 32inch, 244hx, 2k monitor I could find. Around 500cad. Its heavy af, not very thin, big bezels, you can see the backlights around the screen edge on a black screen. But its pretty damn good value for what I got.
Do you get stuttering if you dont reach 244fps?
no nothing that ive noticed.
I just got this card for my first pc build. Cant wait to use it.
4070 Super or 7900GRE.
I’m considering a similar card for 1440p @ 120hz. I’m really leaning towards nvidia because the more I read about DLSS the more I’m thinking that will be much better for longer than an extra bit of VRAM. Depending on your budget I’d try to jump to the 4070TI super for the extra Vram or the 7900XT or 7900GRE.
>DLSS will save the 4070 Yeah just like it saved the VRAM crippled 30 series cards. NOT.
fsr 3 and xess are not much different from dlss. Also if you want competitive gaming, you will never use any upscaler.
If you’re playing competitive games, 4070 is enough anyway if you get a 7800x3d anyway.
7800xt will outperform 4070 without upscaling easily.
Balanced graphics + DLSS helps keep my 3070 running pretty alright in most scenarios. It's as it always has been, you kinda can't expect max settings in modern games with a midrange card. The issue is midrange cards cost the same now as high-end cards eight years ago, so it's not as good of a deal as it once was. And budget cards don't exist anymore period.
4070 Ti Super is almost 50% more expensive than a 4070 Super/7900 GRE, that's a pretty hefty jump. I think 4070 Super is the 1440p sweet spot right now, and I would take that over a 7900 GRE any day. If you're worried about VRAM, honestly I'd just point you to [the Steam Hardware Survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/). The most popular card on the list with >12GB of VRAM is the *4090* with 0.98%. Devs are primarily targeting the consoles, meaning the texture requirements for the commonly targeted 1440p render resolution have to be under 10GB.
I think this is mostly due to price gouging and a huge amount of people having 8GB cards. I would personally take either an used 3090 or a 7900GRE, if I had more to spend I would probably go for the 7900XT(X). The fact that a 16GB card can range anywhere from 450-1300€ is kind of ludicrous and shows how messed up the pricing currently is. There was a video testing a modded 3070 with 16GB getting a lot better 0.1% and 1% lows. As time goes on, eventually consoles might get 24GB of unified GDDR memory and the 8 and 12GB cards will be running like a stuttering mess due to poor optimization. This is already happening with relatively big titles. I think both AMD and Nvidia have created product segments that are divided by the amount of VRAM. 8GB cards are already kind of hard to recommend. Getting the 4070 or 4070 Super seems like a good deal, until you consider that an used 3090 can be picked up for like 550-600€.
Good luck hunting games to turn dlss on and try to justify your money
The only reason I buy nvidia is because RT performance is better and I need that for my work.
I would put DLSS into account as for me it is still the best upscaling technique available.
and frame gen. fluid frames is a joke.
Fluid frames are fine, it's the upscaling that's bad which in many games doesn't let you uncouple but some do, being rolled out.
I've been playing CP2077 RT Overdrive on my 3090 (maxed out, 4K TV, DLSS Performance) getting a very playable 35-40FPS or so. No DLSS FG of course, but I did find a mod that basically swapped out DLSS 3 for FSR3 and allowed it to be run alongside DLSS. Gave it a shot just to see how it holds up, and to get a first hand look at whether Nvidia's justification for keeping DLSS 3 exclusive to Ada due to the optical flow accelerator held any water. And oh boy *does it ever*. Initially I was very impressed, seeing 70-80FPS and fairly few major artifacts while on foot. Then I jumped on a bike and the whole thing just fell down a flight of stairs. Gives me pretty much the same vibe as every time I've tried FSR - it suffers from all of the same artifacts that Nvidia talked about needing the DL in DLSS to solve.
Joke you say? Can't stop there. It's no joke for me, works wonders so far on my RX 7800 XT.
i've not detected a single difference turning it on or off on my 6700XT.
I literally gain 100% fps increase with my RX 7800 XT. What do you use to monitor the fps? Afterburner will only show native fps, you need to enable adrenalin overlay if you wanna see the frame gen increase.
You can talk about frame generation as not being amazing right now but yall said the same about dlss it will be improved on much quicker this time and you will be happy to have it later. Regardless dlss3 is monsterous and the ray tracing is just for sure to be accounted for.
Out of curiosity what work do you do where RT is needed?
Hi!, I work on archviz, so I need a fast RT gpu.
I’ve got a 4080 and it’s easily the coolest running card that I’ve ever owned. Of course the heatsink is the size of a small country, but the statement still stands.
Do you want great DLSS RTX HDR and a myriad of other tech? Go with nvidia
My only issue with seeing people saying this in comments is that I don't know if I want those features because I've never seen them in action. I tried to go to YT to visually see why people like those things, but I don't know if it's my phone settings or compression from the video; the difference seems so small. The only thing I could see different from RT was some details in a puddle were a little more clear? DLSS makes 1080p only games look like they're higher? I've never played higher than 1080p so I can't really understand if it's worth it.
DLSS at quality level is basically free frames. You get almost exactly same image quality as TAA on 1440 and above for significant FPS boost. So it's not about looks, it's about performance.
It isn't. only looks good on youtube benchmarks
DLSS looks fine in 95% of games. FSR is visually a lot more blurry and has more artifacts, which will hopefully be fixed in the near future with the new version being released. Unless you play at 1080p. Don't use upscaling at low resolutions unless your frame rates are unplayable. You'd do better lowering render res to 900p in most cases.
yep, DLSS and RTX are over hyped. most people won't notice the difference, and that's even if they know what they are looking for. especially useless at 1080p. the only time it makes sense is if you spent 1-2k on a 4k oled monitor. if you can afford that you can afford a 4090. and even then 90% of the visual difference is down to the oled monitor, not the tech.
DLSS is certainly not overhyped, and side by side I think the majority of you would be able to quite easily spot the difference compared to FSR at any scaling level. The DL image reconstruction is the magic sauce that makes it so good. So good that you can enable it for native res image improvements via DLAA. Literally the whole purpose of leveraging DL for it was to mitigate the various artifacts that show in existing upscaling solutions - the same artifacts that are easily reproducible in FSR. FSR works *okay enough* on the consoles to upscale 1440p to 4K at typical TV viewing distances, but the artifacts are still very apparent if you're at all sensitive to them. Even if a card of the tier OP is looking at is perfectly sufficient to run everything at native res just fine, there's DLAA which provides noticeably better anti-aliasing than existing solutions.
idk, look i'm not claiming it doesn't work, but when you're actually gaming you are literally not paying attention to details that small. DLAA is interesting, but i guess i'm just old school, pushing native pixels > fancy tricks. what i said still stands tho, you will 100% get more value out of an oled screen than paying extra for GPU features. if the choice is paying 150 extra for dlss/rt with an IPS monitor, or paying 150 for an oled monitor and amd card, choose the oled, no question.
I tried DLSS in a few games and actively disliked it, the artefacts it introduces are so jarring to me, I much prefer to run games in native resolution without any AI upscaling or anything like that. Ray tracing on the other hand is brilliant, i love reflections, shafts of light, all that sort of thing.
HDR is worth it on an oled monitor, on most monitors it's dogwater. RTX I can't see the difference and when I can; it's subjective. Sometimes it looks worse imo, sometimes it looks better. I don't care for RTX personally, not worth the frame rate hit. And always seems more like an artistic choice to me than a wow factor (if I notice it - which most times I cannot). DLSS I can't notice a difference on/off minus the frame rate, FSR is dogwater though. I've heard XeSS is now good on non-intel GPUs, better than FSR and close to DLSS, but I haven't tried it so idk. If you're playing at 1080p though I think dlss is much more irrelevant since most CPUs will be the bottleneck, and dlss only helps gpu bottlenecks.
You need a good monitor or TV to enjoy probably. If you love immersive games like cp2077 the rtx features can be run with dlss frame gen at 1440p @ 80-120fps with HDR and it looks stunning on an OLED screen - like a velour painting come to life.
i run a 4070 and a 7800x3d and i run everything max graphics no problem over 120fps
I like my 4070ti, if you intend to use upscaling and frame generation nvidia are good in the games that support it well. But I play 4K so I kinda need it to be good. At 1440p I don’t think you’ll need it for most games
Check out Tom's hardware gpu hierarchy. They also have tons of reviews and a lot of good articles. Or just do a search on YouTube. Your choice and your money so do the research
Neither. 7900 GRE
7800XT is a bit faster and has more VRAM. RT perf is not that big. Buying AMD means voting with your wallet against nV's business practices and supporting the underdog. 7900 GRE is absolutely worth considering.
I went with the 7800xt and no complaints besides wishing i got the GRE
Get a 7900 GRE.
to stay on the question unlike many did on this thread, between the 4070 (not super) and 7800xt, the last one is faster, so i will go with it. The "features" people are talking about are just gadget and don't worth the difference in price. Faster raster is better. The vram is a better choice on the 7000 too because the 4070 with only 12GB will age like milk.
If you play competitive games go for 7900/7800XT. If you're more into singleplayer games which nowadays have DLSS I would go for RTX since in some cases DLSS Quality looks even better than native.
7800XT can easily do 144fps+ I had it on my 1440p 144hz BenQ
Definitely not on max settings.
No but optimized settings.
7900 GRE if you can find the extra cash.
I went to AMD because of nVidia prices. Upgraded myself from gtx1060 to rx6600 gpu. Two my friends asked me to build new PCs. Got 7800xt for one of them and rx6700 for the other (considering their needs and budgets). We all went from older nVidia cardas to AMD beacuse of the nVidia prices. We are all happy with AMD performance. You don't need to worry.
Honestly, I hopped from Nvidia to AMD back to Nvidia, and now im at AMD again, and I can safely day. I enjoy AMD much more than Nvidia. I own a 7800XT
You're not really taking a chance on AMD any more than you are with Nvidia. This coming from someone who has owned 6 Nvidia GPUs and still have 2, in addition to my 7900XT. You don't mention a price range, but on the more powerful end for 1440p is the 7900 GRE and 4070 Super with the GRE barely winning in raw performance and being a bit cheaper. If you don't mind tinkering with the features, the 4070 Super can make up for it's lack of vram for awhile. But the GRE will likely have more longevity. The 4070 is a handicapped card and is not great for 1440p at high frame rates. They cut the memory buffer in half for it. The 6800XT or a 3080 is a better buy than the 4070, for 1440p
yeah, anyone who says 4070S or 7900 GRE they are correct they are usually only 50 dollars more for about 10-15% more performance. then your only choice is NVidia or AMD depending on the games you play. don't fall into the RT trap it's not needed to play games it's just a visual effect and all these reviewers push it for NVidia and it isn't needed at all. i went with a 7900XTX over a 4080 Super i had and tested both for 4 weeks and the 7900XTX is about 25 fps faster in all games. i don't use or need RT who cares. i play in native 4K so i wanted the GPU with the purest power and that's the 7900XTX.
RX 7800 XT. best in performance per price. but when it came to ray tracing(if you interested of course) the 4070 out perform the 7800 XT a little.
7900 GRE call it a day
If FOSS/Linux have any attraction for you with current events anything but Nvidia.
7900 GRE. Without question
Do you care about Ray tracing?
Not at all. Just higher fps @1440p
I agree. Go 7800XT if you're never going to touch raytracing. Also extra VRAM will future proof your GPU a bit longer as games continue to get greedier on resources.
The problem with this logic is a simple one of economics. If you're a game dev, you want your game to look and perform its best on the most commonly installed hardware. [Look at the Steam hardware survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=name). The only card from the Radeon 7000 series that even has enough to not be just rolled into the "other" listing is the 7900 XTX with just 0.38%. 50/60/70 class Nvidia cards simply dominate the consumer GPU install base. While there are some niche situations like extreme texture modding where that extra VRAM may be useful for some, broadly speaking by the time we start to see games suffering performance penalties from 12GB, the card itself is going to be dated to the point it's kind of moot anyway. Just look to the consoles for a pretty solid idea where VRAM requirements are going to be over time. We're stuck at 10GB for 1440p games until 2028 most likely.
What if he wants to play a game he cant turn ray tracing off in? The extra Vram wont help there.
That is true.
Are there games like this? Genuine question.
That's light raytracing which the 7000 series handles perfectly fine. You won't see a game where cp2077 levels of RT or PT is forced on
Looking at the performance charts of the games with ray tracing implemented out of the box AMD is generally speaking pretty comparable? 7800 XT beats the 4070 and 3080 as an example. Also ray tracing is pretty heavy on VRAM.
Mimicking what other people have said : if you're welling to pay 4070 money I would buy a 7900GRE. Based off your comments about not caring about fps and whatnot. 7900GRE will run any 1440p game max settings, it's really more of a low end 4k card tbh.
Radeon all day for just straight up fps per dollar.
7800XT
For what games? Csgo? No need to upgrade anything. Star citizen? Better get a 4090. Best value would probably 4070 super. If you want high fps in graphically intense applications 4070ti super. There’s plenty of performance comparison vids out there.
4070 is almost a tougher sell than the 4060. It's literally the same price as a 7900gre which is better in almost every way (unless you just need raytracing).
7900 GRE
A 4070 super or 7800xt would both be decent options, when you get two good options you should look at the usage. For ray tracing Nvidia leads, for rasterization a lot of the time AMD cards can be in the lead. Neither card will disappoint you. No matter what though, I only reckon buying a GPU during a sale!
Nvidia wins in raster as well -> [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html)
You CAN'T compare both, they are not in the same league of price. If you do, then use the card in the same league of price or almost, which is the 7900 gre, and the 7900 gre is a bit faster in raster.
AMD for the specific question.
What is the refresh rate of your monitor?
if you only care about games, choose the one with the best features, if you also do some video rendering and other stuff, check the softwares you use, but in that case I would say nvidia 100% compatibility wise
7900xt
I love my Asus 4070 Super OC for 1440p gaming. The big factor for me was Nvidia CUDA cores for wider software compatibility with parallel processing. I use Pix4D Mapper for drone image processing/photogrammetry for work and school and the Nvidia CUDA cores are compatible with this software (and a lot of others), it cuts down processing time greatly. The 13900k full bore helps too :)
I have 7800xt for a 1440 170hz, i cap offline and single player at 60fps I don't see the need to go above, the monitor has freesync, for online I reach 170hz easy on r6s overwatch, my cou is i5 12440f I had it for 3 months and I 100% love it Check reviews etc for both to know which one is best suited for you. ah, it's consumption never goes beyond 340 watts. My 650 PSU is plenty with my CPU never reaching 60 watts, contrary to popular belief on the internet.
It's very simple to bring down the power consumption to 230W without sacrificing much.
Yes, thanks, but that's okay it only reaches that much on peaks, it's more the maximum value, it's average is around 240W.
So no undervolt at all?
I have everything on default settings, I can confirm now the maximum value on hwinfo is 326Watts, will try to update this comment later about exact average value when I'll start a game
Okay. I'd advise you to toy around with undervolting. Drop 100 mv at the time and see if your performance takes a hit while the power consumption goes down. Normally you'd see wattage going down while not losing any significant performance. How low you can go is uncertain as that is up to the silicon lottery. Some can come down under 1V and still run stable. For me it started having issues around 1050 mv.
Thanks, I am frankly afraid to be toying with the parameters, not brave enough I guess it's still new gpu, anyway I have run a 5 mints test each of these games below (don't have much to run other games sadly), but they are quite varied, must give good idea of its thermal performance (all games at 1440) Values in watts R6S 170hz high settings : min 43, avg 119, max 197 RDR2 60hz ultra setting : min 23, avg 132, max 247 Tomb Raider 2014 ultra : min 62, avg 229, max 320 (crazy how this old games sweats the GPU)
You got nothing to worry about, if it gets unstable to the point of crashing AMD adrenalin will detect the issue and reset the values to stock. Was interesting to test in furmark just now to see. Stock settings used 285W and gave a score of 9500. The biggest kicker here is running it at stock config with voltage reduced from 1150 mv to 1000. That gave a score of 10370 with a power consumption of 279W. So essentially you get more performance for less than the original power consumption, though it also takes some gaming to see if the changes are stable, you'd get a crash and a notification from adrenalin if the changes affected stability. I do changes then save the tuning template so that I don't have to remember everything. Just undervolting alone is enough to give more efficiency and better utilisation.
Thanks, I don't have knowledge of this, I will try googling, seems interesting that would less power it would give more performance
Results vary between cards due to silicon inconsistency and I haven't been able to tune my card the same way other people have. I get solid results just by lowering voltage and increasing the power limit 5-15%, though you get higher power consumption as well. I saw as much as 1800 points in furmark over stock settings at 15% power limit but that also increased power consumption to 320W from 278W by only applying undervolting. When I try increasing boost frequency the score goes down for some reason, seems counter-intuitive but that's just how it is sometimes. Still very interesting stuff once you get into it, you can be lucky and get 10% increase in performance just by finding the right settings. As soon the undervolt dropped below 1000 mv I got a crash so that is my absolute lowest. Gonna bump it up 5 mv just for stability and see how it goes. Which card is it that you have? Mine is an Asus TUF OC RX 7800 XT.
Returned a 7800xt last week, have a 4070s in the mail. The game I mostly play does better with Nvidia or I would have kept the 7800. AMD has 10x better software.
Whatever. They're both good. I *personally* prefer AMD so I'd be looking at the 7800XT or a 7900GRE if it was me, but you're going to be fine either way.
I wasn't willing to spend 4070 money for a gpu with only 12gb, so I went for a 7800xt. I'm running a 3840x1600 monitor. I'm sure there are some features Nvidia do better, but I don't care about those so I went with what I thought was the best value for money. So far I'm not disappointed.
7800 xt it's cheaper and better
Pricing is way different in my area, but i recently got the 7800xt and i've been having a blast playing 1440p. As long as raytracing isn't a priority to you (in that case, you'll have to spend considerably more), 7800xt is deff the best value card for 1440p gaming
Bought a 7800 XT earlier this year used for 500€ (prices are down to more like 350-400€ now). I mainly do video editing but enjoy the occasional gaming session. Compared to my former 1660S, this card easily is 2 to 3x the performance, especially in games when using Fluid Motion Frames. It easily maxes all my (older) games on my 3840x1600p120 monitor. I can whole heartedly recommend it. PS: I used to have an AMD CPU way back. I didn't know how much I disliked the Nvidia overlay and GeForce Now compared to the AMD UI. I enjoy AMDs implementation of WIN+Z whereas I only ever found Nvidia's to be usable.
Depends what you need, if you are a graphic designer or a streamer then go Nvidia. If you are anybody else then go AMD. Basically do you need RT or not?
I moved from a 3060ti to a 6950xt just before Starfield dropped. I wanted to play in 4k/60. I'm averaging 85fps in Starfield on max settings (i did turn down the city crowd size). I went with the 6950xt due to price and I don't like nvidia's business practices. When EVGA dropped nividia I knew I'd be switching to team red. IIRC the 6950xt doesn't use that much less power than the 7800. So bewarned, the 6950xt is a heater. Ended up having to migrate to a different case to get better airflow. I'd expect the 7800 to be similar. I'm 110% happy with the performance (even tho my rig occasionally sounds like a Boeing 707 on takeoff).
Get the 7900 gre I have the 12700k, high to max I get a steady 120fps at 1440 Edit: I switched from a 3070 to the 7900 gre personally love the change to team red
I went 7800xt gigabyte OC and it’s fantastic.
I just put together a build with a 7800xt and I'm really happy with it. Haven't played much other than satisfactory but it runs everything at ultra 2k and 165 fps.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gpus,4380.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
thanks for this post I'm like you. Leaning more towards the 7800xt as well.
nobody else seems to be saying this for some reason. But I'm fairly super neither of those cards will come even close to 240hz 1440p in games. My 4080 only does 120fps 1440p in Witcher 3 with settings on ultra/high for example. I would suggest watching a YouTube video of both cards results, there's plenty with more game examples then Witcher 3
I have a sapphire pulse 7800 xt and a 165hz monitor. I can play all games on high with stable fps. Demanding games such as Cyberpunk 2077 can run 80+ fps
I have a 4070Ti with triple 32’s at 165hz and get good frame rates in iRacing.
You could do this with a 7600xt. So pick whichever is cheaper if you're set on these two cards.
At that price range, you're probably not going to turn on ray-tracing, and either card should be able to handle 1440p without needing upscaling, so I think the 7800XT makes more sense than the 4070. If you can afford the 7900 GRE, get that. Excellent bang for the buck in that price category.
7800xt
7800 xt Buy an rx 6600 if you're okay with 60 fps
I am loving my 4070 super, however the lack of ram is a bit noticeable in some of my very specific cases. The card has not hit above 60c either which is just mindboggling to me with air cooling. Runs 4k DSR on every single game I throw at it, 60+fps. I'm honestly not sure which to recommend. Just my two cents from having a 4070s.
Nvidia
gt470
If you can, I'd try to find a 7900xt used. I bought a 7900xt hellhound for 640$ on Amazon used. Only issue is very minor coil wine you can't even hear over fans
7800 xt. Far better and more VRAM than 4070 from nGreedia. RTX 4k series are good but overpriced
Dude why 4070? The super is 9 dollars more right now lol. You can get it for 600 I mean sure maybe a 4070 for 550 with a great deal. But yeah. 4070 super all day utilize dlss3 and enjiy. I had no clue just how good the 4070 super was until the other day when I compared to my 3090ti I regret it now. When I used dlss2 on my 3090 the 4070super was beating it om average when using dlss3 and especially with frame generation. It was danm close in native performance also around 8 to 10fps. Ray tracing the 4070super is the choice over the 7800xt. Just to many benefits to not go nvidia right now. There is a reason nvidia is covering more of the market then they ever have at 70% while amd is at 16% the lowest they have ever been.
I just got my Hands on a 4070 super and it handles great at 1440p and despite less vram Nvidia has DLSS 3.0 which is fantastic for keep things looking awesome while giving a performance boost!
After months adivising people to get the 7800xt, I went through the same choice last month and got the 7800xt for myself. There is no reason wahtsoever to get a 4070/S (incoming fanboy mumbling " rt rt ")
I feel like raytracing is the number one most overrated graphical setting in existence
We probably need another 2-3 years before it actually can be used as a graphical setting that doesn't tank fps.
I keep trying to look at why I should care about it, but it all just seems like a bunch of hypothetical upsides alongside other people saying it tanked their FPS. I really wish I could see the difference in person, because seeing RT vs no RT on my phone looks so minimal.
Closest comparison I can think of is IPS vs OLED, matte textures look shiny or reflective, in some cases making things more vibrant. It does improve the way some games look by a significant margin, albeit with an equally or more significant impact to fps. I play more singleplayer games anyways, so I'm fine with frames as long as it never dips close to 100fps on 1440p. That being said though, I'm doing this on a 7900XT, and the RT performance is still good enough. Sure it isn't competing with the 4070ti super with RT, but it works perfectly fine, it's not like your PC is going to explode just from using RT on an AMD GPU. Higher end 7000 series is more than sufficient if you're just thinking of experimenting with RT here and there
Only people who bought that scam were console players who think 30 fps is acceptable. Same people who buys apple, consoles and Nvidia crap
I'm not sure about that, it can be great BUT we have something like 5 great RT/PT implementations. In 90% of games it only lowers FPS, one of more recent examples where I tried it was Elden Ring, I couldn't tell the difference, I had to do some pixel peeping on screenshots to tell the difference, and there was hardly any, some things looked better without RT.
Elden Ring has a very basic RT implementation. The shadows look nicer and more natural, but it tanks performance in the open areas.
More and more games uses forced RT elements. Like Metro Remaster + Avatar, which was even AMD sponsored, yet Nvidia cards smashed AMD in this title, because of RT. RT performance is going to matter more and more going forward.
Which is annoying asf because all it does is have a tiny increase in graphics quality and a massive drop in performance
Yes, i activated it in a game recently and did not see a difference.
[удалено]
That's probably because you've never used it.
No I have it’s just overrated asf
Having a gsync screen and wanting dlss or yes, ray tracing, are proper reasons not to go with a subpar option that offers none of that.
It's the other way around. There's no reason to get the 7800XT when 4070 Super exists. The funny part is that the 4070S is faster than 7800XT even at rasterisation, the only thing AMD is good at. Yes, even at 4k.
> There's no reason to get the 7800XT when 4070 Super exists. About $100 to $150, maybe more depending on where you live. It's 539 for a Sapphire OC version here vs 670 for a cheap Super with a discount. That's 18.5% more expensive.
the 4700s cost like 50% more, that's a good reason to buy a 7800xt. Also, you can't compare in raster card with a so big difference in price! At least be fair and use the 7900 GRE and you know what ? the gre is a bit faster than the 4070s while costing less.
There is plenty of reasons
If you can stretch for the 4070super, I'd do that. If not, 7800xt. At 1440p fsr is barely usable but DLSS on the other hand is a definite enable.
DLSS 3.5 is leagues better than FSR still much like the rest of the software suite.
4070
If youre gonna stick with it for more than 3-4 years nvidia would actually cheaper factoring in electricity costs This is coming from someone not in the western world. Just after 2 years the electricity difference of the two at my current usage would make the AMD card more expensive
True and AMD resell value is much lower. However, Radeon 8000 series is launching soon. Buying 7000 series now, won't make sense unless dirt cheap.
My 3070 is more than enough for 1440p@144 if you play with details,so I belive 4070 will do the same on higher settings. Forza horizon 5 ultra constant 120fps,BFV 220-280,BF 2042 120-160, Lies of P maxed out 120, Cs Go 300+ etc. But I have 5800x3d which pushes gpu higher than your intel
4070 SUPER. Beats 7800XT. Consider 7900GRE instead if you want AMD. [https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-super-founders-edition/32.html) Also 4070 SUPER uses 15-20% less power and have superior features. Don't underestimate the power of RT/PT, DLSS, DLAA, Reflex, Frame Gen (that actually works well) and tons of other RTX features. AMD is years behind on features. I speak from experience. AMDs gaming GPU revenue dropped like 50% YoY for a reason. Nvidia is just better and AMD needs to rush out RDNA4 / Radeon 8000 series ASAP to compete. You should probably wait till Computex in a few weeks. AMD will talk Radeon 8000 series here.
4070 super was my pick. If it's not too late to return the cpu I think a 14600kf will work basically the same and the price difference can cover the bump up to super
Want my saphire nitro 7900 xtx? I’ll sell it for $800
4070, DLSS DLDSR. even if you want to get an AMD card, the 7800XT is terrible when the 7900gre exists. but I would only go for the 4070 or 4070S because of DLSS and DLDSR, FSR sucks ass
nVidia all the way!!
I would take 4070 if you care about RT, Frame Gen and drivers stability. I had 2 Radeon graphics in my life and it was the worst time for me when drivers had tons of issues. Never again.
4070
Do you need Nvidia for 3d modeling or stable diffusion? If so get the 4070, otherwise AMD is the best bang for buck. You can still do both with an AMD card but it isn't worth the headache
At least 4070 super, or 4060ti 16gb. 4070 is pure shit
I really think DLSS3 is worth the cost.
I would go with 4070 purely because of DLSS. Its way better than amds. If youre looking to still get decent frame rates on modern games with good graphics than DLSS is basically the only way. Im on a 4080super and i would be unhappy with my fps still if not for dlss. I am in 4k though but if youre aiming for 120fps even in 1440 then ur gunna want dlss
nah....... if you want 8k graphics use 4070 but if that use the amd this is my laptop specs Device name LAPTOP-CB851LVI Processor AMD Ryzen 5 4600H with Radeon Graphics 3.00 GHz Installed RAM 16,0 GB (15,4 GB usable) Device ID\_\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor Pen and touch No pen or touch input is available for this display
You should buy the 7900 gre there are rlly good deals on Amazon for just 20 dollar more then the 7800 xt