AMD upgrade

[madman7]

Wow. We went from CPU to GPU upgrade. So you guys feel that I should upgrade the GPU. What series NVidia do you guys suggest then? I haven't followed video cards too closely lately.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm not in the gpu for now boat if you can already wait until the ENTIRE market turns new. If you were struggling, I'd be with it, but you're not. Why not wait for all new bits or at least to see what it does to last gen parts.

 

[MisterEd]

Wow. We went from CPU to GPU upgrade. So you guys feel that I should upgrade the GPU. What series NVidia do you guys suggest then? I haven't followed video cards too closely lately.

You probably wouldn't benefit at all from a GPU upgrade with your current CPU. You first have to ask why do you need to upgrade? Only when you answer that can anyone help you with upgrade options.

I only upgraded to faster desktops and laptops because I like to play games. My old computer with AMD FX8350 CPU and GTX1060-6GB GPU just didn't cut it for many newer games.

 

[infinitevalence]

Wow. We went from CPU to GPU upgrade. So you guys feel that I should upgrade the GPU. What series NVidia do you guys suggest then? I haven't followed video cards too closely lately.

Right now none unless you are getting a 4090, or play lots of games with Ray tracing. Nvidia thinks that they're cards are worth $100 more at every card class and wants you to pay a huge premium for vram.

 

[EarthDog]

Right now none unless you are getting a 4090, or play lots of games with Ray tracing. Nvidia thinks that they're cards are worth $100 more at every card class and wants you to pay a huge premium for vram.

I suppose it's a good thing there's no need to pay $100 more for additional vram then, eh?

Feel free to look up those tpu game reviews I mentioned in the other thread. I feel like it could be enlightening not only for you, but for many users.

 

[infinitevalence]

I suppose it's a good thing there's no need to pay $100 more for additional vram then, eh?

Feel free to look up those tpu game reviews I mentioned in the other thread. I feel like it could be enlightening not only for you, but for many users.

What I dont understand is why people keep doubling down on over paying and being taken advantage of. Nvidia cards are great, DLSS is really neat tech, and Ray Tracing will be the default in the future. What is not good, is the price point Nvidia is asking for. They re-badged the 4050 and called it a 4060, they re-badged the 4060 and called it a 4070, and they did it again with the 4080. Why pay 4080 prices for 4070 performance?

All I can say is watch HWUB's most recent tests, it confirms both our points, at 1080p its fine, at 1440 and up less than 12GB becomes an issue.

I dont know about you but I stopped gaming at 1080p almost 15 years ago.

 

[Woomack]

AMD refreshed the 6k series and called it 7k. Really, what are we talking about? You are defending AMD, which is one generation behind Nvidia and only fights with prices. I don't even want to talk about efficiency. Prices are another thing. Everyone can set them as high as they want. Somehow, Nvidia sells better even though it costs more.
Also, you link the same YouTubers all the time. Are there no other sources on the web?
You talk like RX7600 didn't exist ... it's even a bigger failure than RTX4060. Have you tested any RTX with 12GB VRAM or only watch YT?

 

[EarthDog]

I dont know about you but I stopped gaming at 1080p almost 15 years ago.

Awesome! You're now with ~20% of users. Like me. 1080p is hanging on to 60%. 4k just under 4%.

 

[infinitevalence]

AMD refreshed the 6k series and called it 7k. Really, what are we talking about? You are defending AMD, which is one generation behind Nvidia and only fights with prices. I don't even want to talk about efficiency. Prices are another thing. Everyone can set them as high as they want. Somehow, Nvidia sells better even though it costs more.
Also, you link the same YouTubers all the time. Are there no other sources on the web?
You talk like RX7600 didn't exist ... it's even a bigger failure than RTX4060. Have you tested any RTX with 12GB VRAM or only watch YT?

RDNA2 was a spectacular win on AMD's part the value and performance of the 6000 series really was great. RDNA3 on the other hand was not as good, because the 7000 series is NOT a refresh and they attempted to see if they could duplicate the chiplet success they have on CPU and do it in GPU and only managed a small uplift in performance with a decrease in power efficiency.

I do not think AMD represents the best performance, but it often represents the best value right now, outside of the 4090 (which is not a good value, but nothing else comes close). I am not defending AMD, I dont bother being a fanboy, I look at the value and base my arguments on that. Fact is Nvidia gave you less for more with the last generation than they have in a very long time. Unlike the nvidia 9xx and nvidia 1xxx series which were both fantastic values, and fantastic performance vs AMD's crap 400/500 series (which really were the same just different process nodes)

Historically the XX60 series card has been based on the 106 series:

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 8 GB Specs

NVIDIA GA106, 1777 MHz, 3584 Cores, 112 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 1875 MHz, 128 bit

www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER Specs

NVIDIA TU106, 1650 MHz, 2176 Cores, 136 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 1750 MHz, 256 bit

www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 TU106 Specs

NVIDIA TU106, 1590 MHz, 896 Cores, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 1500 MHz, 128 bit

www.techpowerup.com

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB Specs

NVIDIA GP106, 1709 MHz, 1280 Cores, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR5, 2002 MHz, 192 bit

www.techpowerup.com

This time around they went down a die to the 107 which normally would have been a XX50 series https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-4060.c4107 but kept the price point where the XX60 series would normally sit post pandemic. That means they charged us more for less. We got a more cut down die, with a smaller memory bus, less vram, and they charged MORE because now they can fake resolution with DLSS. XX90/XX80 = 102, XX70 = 104, XX60 = 106, XX50 = 107.

AMD is no saint, and they are no savior, but at least they only ****** up their naming but did not deliberately try to shove lower tier at a higher price.

As for the RX7600, yeah that was a mobile design that they tried to make lemonade with, other than its cheap I have nothing else good to say about it.

I keep linking to the same reviewers because Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus are have the most rigorous testing suites, do the largest number of benchmarks and publish their benchmarking standards.

They also have been the ones most publicly calling out nvidia for trying to cheap out on vram.

 

[Woomack]

RTX4000 has a totally different design than the RTX3000, just as the RX7000 is different from the RX6000. In both cases, we can say about "refresh" as both are different, yet follow the same scheme - typically, the new line replaces one step higher GPUs from the older series. You can't compare old and new using only PN numbers.
Current AMD graphics cards are more to survive until they get something good than to beat the competition ... as they have nothing that can beat Nvidia. Since there is no pressure, Nvidia dictates prices and doesn't care about releasing something better. Since people were so dumb as to pay for their overpriced cards a few years ago, everyone now sees that money is not a problem. People complain, but the ridiculously priced RTX4090 is more popular on Steam than any AMD RX7000 card. Also, graphics card manufacturers don't believe in AMD. The largest brands, like MSI, didn't even care to release some of the GPUs from the 7k series, and others, like Gigabyte, who usually flood the market with multiple models, were stuck with a single model per GPU.
I see it's pointless anyway, as any conversation with a fanboy.

 

[mackerel]

Here I am gaming at 4k on a 4070 with only 12GB. However will I manage? Oh, it works great. Would I like a faster GPU? Yes. Would I like more VRAM? Yes, but it is a distant second to faster. Having say 16GB right now would not help me game better because the limit is elsewhere. If there is nothing else to be learnt, different people value different things when it comes to game settings and image quality.

 

[unsafesteagle]

I mean , who wouldnt want one of each ?

 

[EarthDog]

and they charged MORE because now they can fake resolution with DLSS

Lol, FSR...

AMD is no saint, and they are no savior, but at least they only ****** up their naming but did not deliberately try to shove lower tier at a higher price

Hrmmm...am I the only one who doesn't care about that... at all? Serious question (to anyone).

At the end of the day, performamce is my metric of worth. I dont care that they used a boosted 6 cylinder instead of an NA V8 like they did last year. I'm getting XXX FPS regardless what class die is under the hood.

But again, this is due in part because of a lack of competition. Steam stats are quite telling though.

Serious question (to anyone).....if AMD cards are so good, why aren't people buying them over NV?



EDIT: I watched the video and have a question. In the video, he says, "...games tend to allocate more memory when there's more memory available...but for the purpose of this testing, we're looking at memory usage so the numbers should be very close to.....blablabla". How does he actually do this? He can't do it on an 8GB card and the 24GB card would 'allocate more memory when there's more memory available', right? Just not sure how he ACTUALLY accomplished that. He's comparing a budget 8GB card against a flagship 24GB card... I'm not entirely sure he's showing what he wants with those cards.

I'd like to see how 12GB cards (what we're talking about, not 8GB) do in this test. I think the performance (or lack thereof) of the 4060Ti plays a role in the experience of running out of vRAM.

But yeah, curious choice of cards to compare.... I know they didn't have much choice, but, I would like to have seen a 4070/4070S/4080(12GB) and maybe 4070Ti (16GB) and how those hold up at their respective limits. H

Shoot... this is quite a threadjack... maybe I'll split this off to it's own discussion..............

 

[mackerel]

At the end of the day, performamce is my metric of worth. I dont care that they used a boosted 6 cylinder instead of an NA V8 like they did last year. I'm getting XXX FPS regardless what class die is under the hood.

Let's run with the above parallel. You decide you need a new car. How do you choose one? I don't get a list and sort it by performance (either top speed or 0-60), or divide it by cost. When was the last time you heard anyone say "I'm buying this car because it has a 5% better speed/$ compared to that one? But gas is expensive. Maybe I should look at speed/mpg!" No normal person does that unless you're the type to join special events at tracks with specific entry requirements. I think a lot of people in the online tech space focus too heavily on simplistic performance numbers and miss out on the wider picture. What people really do is more along: I need roughly this kinda performance and feature set, and I have this kinda cash. What can I get to satisfy that? Can't afford it, ok, what is the tradeoff?

I just realised. I have an "AMD" car! It is red too. I'm low mileage, typically average 4000 a year. I don't spend enough time using it to feel worth buying something more upmarket. I spend more time with my PC in a day, than I do with my car in a month. So my car is the minimum required to do what I do.

Serious question (to anyone).....if AMD cards are so good, why aren't people buying them over NV?

I could try to answer that but the answer would be so long next gen would be obsolete before I finish In very short, people don't decide solely on simplistic measures often used in online "discussions".

 

[Woomack]

EDIT: I watched the video and have a question. In the video, he says, "...games tend to allocate more memory when there's more memory available...but for the purpose of this testing, we're looking at memory usage so the numbers should be very close to.....blablabla". How does he actually do this? He can't do it on an 8GB card and the 24GB card would 'allocate more memory when there's more memory available', right? Just not sure how he ACTUALLY accomplished that. He's comparing a budget 8GB card against a flagship 24GB card... I'm not entirely sure he's showing what he wants with those cards.

I'd like to see how 12GB cards (what we're talking about, not 8GB) do in this test. I think the performance (or lack thereof) of the 4060Ti plays a role in the experience of running out of vRAM.

But yeah, curious choice of cards to compare.... I know they didn't have much choice, but, I would like to have seen a 4070/4070S/4080(12GB) and maybe 4070Ti (16GB) and how those hold up at their respective limits. H

Shoot... this is quite a threadjack... maybe I'll split this off to it's own discussion..............

I was comparing 12GB cards like RTX4070 and 16GB cards like RX7900 GRE. In both cases, there was no issue with VRAM at 4K. However, the AMD card was locking all 16GB, even though it shouldn't need it. As I said, there was no performance drop or anything, and tests showed that less than 12GB was needed (you can see that in many game-based benchmarks like everything from Ubisoft), but GPU-Z was still showing 16GB in use on the RX7900 GRE.
I haven't seen running out of VRAM on 12GB cards. 8GB RX7600/RTX4060 already showed FPS drops at 4K and higher details. Even at 4k and maxed out everything, it's hard to pass 12GB. Now run DLSS, and it needs even less. On the other hand, without DLSS 12GB cards have too weak GPUs to handle some AAA titles at 4k, maxed-out settings, and acceptable FPS. So, really, why do you need more VRAM when GPU can't handle the settings anyway?
I have no idea how they checked how much VRAM is really in use when the card locks all available VRAM or at least predicts that it can use more than it actually needs at some specific moment. Drivers/diagnostic software doesn't show that. It only shows all allocated VRAM and the more VRAM is available, the more it reserves "just in case."

 

[EarthDog]

I recall that NV's memory compression was/is also better than AMDs... that plays a role in the experience of running out of vram as well.

.....Neural Texture Compression, anyone?

I normally like HUB's information and videos, but I'm left confused by what they chose to use to gather the data. The conclusion feels too 'extrapolated', for me because of that.... though I could be missing something.

I could try to answer that

Sorry, I was seriously facetious there.

 

[Woomack]

I often mention Nvidia's texture compression, but somehow, no one ever responds to that.

 

[Kenrou]

No one knows enough to reply to it?

 

[Woomack]

Most ignore the fact that it exists, trying to convince anyone that more VRAM is needed. For a couple of generations, better texture compression has been pointed out in general Nvidia specs.

 

[freeagent]

I too game at 4K on a 12GB card. For the most part things are ok, just trying to hit 60FPS is not that difficult. I do find at 4K that my 5900X pulls a bit harder. But at the cost of nearly more than double the CPU wattage, and some more fan noise.