rtx 3080 vs 6900xt

[raysusan]

see this before u get gpu

 

[watzup_ken]

AMD doesnt fare any better in terms of power consumption... 6800xt is 300w. Although its still around 30w less than 3080, its not considered significant.

You kind of contradict yourself here. 30W less is less. Its not some measurement error that its consuming less power. And that's with the architecture allowing clockspeed easily at 2.3 Ghz at this level of power consumption. An average RTX 3080 with a power limit of betwen 320 to 350W will only see the card clock up to 1.9Ghz or a little higher depending on the silicon lottery. And to add on, the card running 30W less is able to outperform or hang around a card that runs at 350W, i.e. RTX 3090, in some cases. Especially when you consider games running below 4K. Not many people game at 4K, so the 4K comparison is basically pointless. I have a 4K monitor which I've never used for PC gaming.

 

[watzup_ken]

see this before u get gpu

I've not watched this, but I am pretty sure the way that AMD is marketing FSR is definitely a way to try to kill/ dampen interest for DLSS. These are the couple of points they highlighted a few times,
1. Hardware agnostic - works on any GPU
2. Working with game developers to come up with the best solution, i.e. easy to implement vs minimal compromise to visuals
My opinion is that point 1 itself is a killer feature if point 2 works well. I feel visually it will not match a proper AI upscaling solution like DLSS, but if its 70 or 80% there, its likely it will reduce interest in DLSS. DLSS won't go away especially when quite a number of titles each year are Nvidia sponsored titles. While not a like for like comparison, I always feel the strategy here is similar to what AMD did with FreeSync. Its inferior to G-Sync, but it works well enough such that I rarely see any G-Sync monitors nowadays. Some monitor maker slapped G-Sync on the box, but is because that monitor is on Nvidia's official G-Sync compatible list. All real G-Sync monitors exists in the absolute high end monitors which also cost a bomb.

In any case, if I look at it objectively, both DLSS or FSR are nice to have. Cards from both camps are actually doing well enough, unless until you switch RT on. If one still thinks that RT is a feature that cannot be missed, then Ampere it is. On the other hand, if RT is not a feature that matters to you, then you can consider whatever is cheaper, including the RX 6900/6800 series. I am not a big fan of the RX 6700 series because I feel AMD cut too hard on mid end range, similar to Nvidia's RTX 3060. The result is performance that don't stand out, though at this point in time, beggers cannot afford to be picky with the severe GPU shortage.

 

[m0n0n0ke]

Agree... Nice to see amd coming in strong
Enough of green monopoly sh1t

 

[CopySeeSewDye]

AMD showcased their FSR here. 2x performance in godfall in quality mode (amd sponsored title), need to see other games implement to see how the performance is. It also works on nvidia gpus, even the old ones, so it can extend the life of those with old gpus. So good to see nvidia users can get access to FSR tech as well, glad amd is not locking it to their cards only. Hopefully nvidia can do some optimization for FSR on their cards soon too.

 

[Clearnfc]

You kind of contradict yourself here. 30W less is less. Its not some measurement error that its consuming less power. And that's with the architecture allowing clockspeed easily at 2.3 Ghz at this level of power consumption. An average RTX 3080 with a power limit of betwen 320 to 350W will only see the card clock up to 1.9Ghz or a little higher depending on the silicon lottery. And to add on, the card running 30W less is able to outperform or hang around a card that runs at 350W, i.e. RTX 3090, in some cases. Especially when you consider games running below 4K. Not many people game at 4K, so the 4K comparison is basically pointless. I have a 4K monitor which I've never used for PC gaming.

For the power part, well, if you think 30W is a big difference, I am ok with it, not going to argue with you on that.

Especially when you consider games running below 4K. Not many people game at 4K, so the 4K comparison is basically pointless. I have a 4K monitor which I've never used for PC gaming.

OK, maybe you could show me any info that most pple who bought 6800XT/6900XT/3080/3090 (or others that are considered flagship models) game at 1080/1440 (or similar resolutions). My impression is that many people who bought these cards would want to game at 4K. It would be good if you could show me something to change my view.

 

[final1]

Bye bye DLSS. Kudos to AMD for even helping to increase performance on Nvidia cards.

 

[Clearnfc]

I game at 4k/120hz on a 6900xt which my GPU runs perfectly.
Looking forward to fidelity fx sr.
Though i do agree most people still game at FHD.
But, once you go to 4k, you can never go back.
Even for normal internet browsing. In FHD, you just have to scroll way too much. It sucks.

Technically, people can still game at 4k on a 3060 or a 6700 xt. It just wont be at 60hz all the time.
If GPU prices were actually at MSRP (hopefully one day), its actually not that out of reach to do 4k gaming.

My comment is directly at another forumer who keeps saying that few people games at 4K, so its pointless.... So, I am trying to tell him that 4K matters to gamers who owns high-end cards like 6900XT/3080/3090. Even if the person is gaming at 1440p, chances are he/she will be using a high refresh rate (120-144Hz) monitor.

 

[watzup_ken]

For the power part, well, if you think 30W is a big difference, I am ok with it, not going to argue with you on that.



OK, maybe you could show me any info that most pple who bought 6800XT/6900XT/3080/3090 (or others that are considered flagship models) game at 1080/1440 (or similar resolutions). My impression is that many people who bought these cards would want to game at 4K. It would be good if you could show me something to change my view.

Actual numbers as to RTX 3080/ 3090 users vs monitor resolution used, that information I don't have. Perhaps a survey of users with RTX 3080/3090 with 1440p or 4K monitor here can give you an idea. There are certainly people with 4K monitors with a high end card. Out of the people that I know as a sample, 90% are using 1440p, and below, and using either a RTX 3090 or RX 6800 XT.

 

[watzup_ken]

My comment is directly at another forumer who keeps saying that few people games at 4K, so its pointless.... So, I am trying to tell him that 4K matters to gamers who owns high-end cards like 6900XT/3080/3090. Even if the person is gaming at 1440p, chances are he/she will be using a high refresh rate (120-144Hz) monitor.

Please do not try and lower the bar subtly. I think you've mentioned 4K, and from your statement here, you are now trying to bring the bar down to 1440p (high refresh rate). I think its factual that few people game at 4K, that is public information. Feel free to cycle through the April Steam survey. Though there is no mapping of who buys RTX 3080 and RX 6800 vs what resolution they game on.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

 

[Yongkit]

Not really. Conversely, I would say that Ampere is more CPU limited and don't do that well below 4K. At 4K, that's when its running at full throttle, thus, it consistently beats AMD. I don't think its anything to do with the cache being insufficient or at its limits.

for this i got a bit confused, care to explain in more simple term ?

 

[watzup_ken]

Anyway, I am done checking this thread. Every time someone asks about which to get, we always get polarizing views due to individual bias towards a certain brand. I have gone beyond this A is better than B argument, and have certainly gone too far in this thread.

In my opinion, I seem to be siding AMD because its clear people don't see the innovation behind their work and blindsided towards something they can visually see. I think we should give credit where credit is due. Its like saying that because I cannot see the quality/importance of a building foundation, therefore, I only give credit to the interior designer that made my house look nice. Its certainly not a solid victory over competition, and regardless of AMD or Nvidia, they both have their pros and cons. None of them have a clear overall advantage over the other in my opinion. Again I stand by my opinion about if an individual finds that RT is an indispensable feature, RTX 3XXX series is your best choice, assuming you don't mind forking out 600+ bucks for the feature all thanks to miners. If RT is not a required feature, feel free to go with a RTX 3xxx or RX 6900/6800 series, whichever is cheaper.

 

[watzup_ken]

for this i got a bit confused, care to explain in more simple term ?

You may recall this video. Initially when RDNA2 was announced, I was thinking its odd that its capable of beating even the RTX 3090 in quite a few instances at 1080p and 1440p. I thought it was some inefficiency that is affecting Ampere, until this video appeared. Until the CPU bottleneck is minimized at higher graphical settings and resolution, the GPU is almost always CPU bound.

 

[m0n0n0ke]

Bro whatup... I enjoy your post. Dont stop
Ignore thise fan boys

 

[Yongkit]

You may recall this video. Initially when RDNA2 was announced, I was thinking its odd that its capable of beating even the RTX 3090 in quite a few instances at 1080p and 1440p. I thought it was some inefficiency that is affecting Ampere, until this video appeared. Until the CPU bottleneck is minimized at higher graphical settings and resolution, the GPU is almost always CPU bound.

Oh I see what you mean now, somehow Ampere does seems to follow its tradition required more powerful CPU to runs it high end card compare to RDNA2 at lower resolution which was CPU bound.

 

[kenzi87]

Skip 3080 go 3080ti on june 3rd

 

[Yongkit]

Anyway, I am done checking this thread. Every time someone asks about which to get, we always get polarizing views due to individual bias towards a certain brand. I have gone beyond this A is better than B argument, and have certainly gone too far in this thread.

In my opinion, I seem to be siding AMD because its clear people don't see the innovation behind their work and blindsided towards something they can visually see. I think we should give credit where credit is due. Its like saying that because I cannot see the quality/importance of a building foundation, therefore, I only give credit to the interior designer that made my house look nice. Its certainly not a solid victory over competition, and regardless of AMD or Nvidia, they both have their pros and cons. None of them have a clear overall advantage over the other in my opinion. Again I stand by my opinion about if an individual finds that RT is an indispensable feature, RTX 3XXX series is your best choice, assuming you don't mind forking out 600+ bucks for the feature all thanks to miners. If RT is not a required feature, feel free to go with a RTX 3xxx or RX 6900/6800 series, whichever is cheaper.

this is just my personal opinion, I am not actually sided any camp though I own RTX card.

As a gamer myself, my point of view it is the future or technology advance direction that interest me and the R&D efforts that have been in place currently that impress me.

If you visit both company in gaming R&D development section, you will see the different direction of the NVIDIA & AMD is moving ahead.

for me AI development is the future which is currently a challenging task for AMD to challenge NVIDIA simply I would said AMD have the advantages over chipset hardware development, but Nvidia have been advance to software integration which was currently a challenging path for AMD to compete.

DLSS was first introduced in Feb 2019 which AMD took 2 years plus to introduced the same tech for gamer, given this 2 years time frame Nvidia could have been heavily working on other AI project that will impress the world for next generation GPU.

Now I am wondering what AMD got to offer next if not following Nvidia pathway?

 

[soltrdc]

lol, look, the bottom line is, whatever card makes you go "Wow!" when you plug in and start playing your games is the best card. Who cares whether it's red or green as long as you like what's on your screen?

 

[Clearnfc]

Please do not try and lower the bar subtly. I think you've mentioned 4K, and from your statement here, you are now trying to bring the bar down to 1440p (high refresh rate). I think its factual that few people game at 4K, that is public information. Feel free to cycle through the April Steam survey. Though there is no mapping of who buys RTX 3080 and RX 6800 vs what resolution they game on.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

In case you missed it, my earlier posts already mentioned 1440, 4k and high refresh rate (144Hz is high refresh rate). Although my post No.32 did not mentioned resolution, its obvious that only 1440/144Hz is realistic right now.

My post (#43)
So, for this segment, 1440/4K is considered the norm. Running games at max settings is considered the norm.

My post (#32)
Btw, with 144Hz monitors becoming common, more and more players expect their games to run alot higher than 60fps now. So, even without RT, its is big difference between 80fps and 120fps.

 

[Clearnfc]

Anyway, I am done checking this thread. Every time someone asks about which to get, we always get polarizing views due to individual bias towards a certain brand. I have gone beyond this A is better than B argument, and have certainly gone too far in this thread.

In my opinion, I seem to be siding AMD because its clear people don't see the innovation behind their work and blindsided towards something they can visually see. I think we should give credit where credit is due. Its like saying that because I cannot see the quality/importance of a building foundation, therefore, I only give credit to the interior designer that made my house look nice. Its certainly not a solid victory over competition, and regardless of AMD or Nvidia, they both have their pros and cons. None of them have a clear overall advantage over the other in my opinion. Again I stand by my opinion about if an individual finds that RT is an indispensable feature, RTX 3XXX series is your best choice, assuming you don't mind forking out 600+ bucks for the feature all thanks to miners. If RT is not a required feature, feel free to go with a RTX 3xxx or RX 6900/6800 series, whichever is cheaper.

I am fine with different views. You feel 6900XT is better, thats perfectly fine with me. I am not here to trying to change your thinking. What I can't agree are your arguments you put forth trying to convince me.

1. You keep saying few gamers game at 4K resolution so it does not matter.

2. DLSS not important if you are not running RT and 4K.

3. RT does not matter because there is hardly any difference.

If RT and 4K doesnt matter, then why do you even need 6900XT or 3080 in the first place? I am very sure cheaper cards can do 1080/1440 very well and you won't notice any difference. So, doesn't that make the whole discussion pointless?