• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Ask a question?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Haider

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Hi,

Just wondering in the UK 4070 Ti Super is just under approx £100 compared to 7900XT which is about 3% faster so why is nVidia more popular? Generally their GPUs offer lower FPS for a higher price?

Thanks
Haider
 
How many fps you get at a price only make up a small number of the variables. Most places will focus on raster rendering without using tools to increase performance. This does indicate a basic level of performance but fails to give the wider picture. RT is often neglected for example.

I think we're well into the upscaling era, and that massively increases the testing complexity, which is why most places will not include it. You could do FSR on AMD vs FSR on NV, and it may be applicable on limited games that don't support other scaling options. FSR on AMD vs DLSS on NV is the main comparison, but we introduce a non-performance criteria: image quality. This is partially subjective, and makes a direct objective comparison impossible. FSR2+ was and still is by far the worst looking upscaler. What is good enough for the user? A reviewer can't say that, if they cover it at all. So DLSS has some value that is hard to quantify. Some might value it more than others. Note I'm not talking Frame Gen, which is another knob to adjust. Reviewers have limited time and need to get something out.

Other factors can include software compatibility and power efficiency. Again, not everyone values them the same way. A pure gamer might not care about video encoders.

I also feel people don't blindly buy "fastest" but it is a more complex relation balancing "good enough" and cost. There will be a target performance level that once reached, performance beyond that may be valued less. A 10% faster GPU by one measure doesn't automatically make it 10% better overall.

In my opinion, AMD cost less because you get less, outside of specific tests. If that is all a user focuses on, great.

AMD are trying to make their offerings better, but still have some way to go. Later FSR3 versions promised better image quality, but I'm still not sold on that. They're having another go at reuniting their enterprise and consumer compute interfaces so that might also help them gain more traction outside of gaming. I forget if it is rumour or official but there has been talk they're improving RT perf next gen too, although it would need to be beyond basic scaling to make a real impact. Combined this might make them more appealing.
 
It depends on how you see it. Nvidia is faster in everything RT-related, and DLSS helps a lot in some titles. Nvidia cards also use significantly less power, heat up less, and aren't so noisy. I'm not on either side, and I tested cards from both sides, but I wouldn't get AMD for a daily gaming PC right now. Hopefully, they will improve a lot in the next generation, as the 7000 series feels like a 6000 refresh.
As you may have noticed, AMD adjusts its prices to Nvidia offerings and often waits for Nvidia's moves, not the other way around. Nvidia has fewer price cuts, while AMD only compares its cards in performance to price against some Nvidia models. They still can't beat top Nvidia cards.
 
TBH I've not really in to frame generation or upscaling but I also realise that at the budget end there may come a need and with hires VR sets it may be necessity. I'm from the old school Lamborghini thinking - the only reason you need a turbo is because your engine isn't making the power you need

my own history 3DFX Voodoo 1->Geforce2 GTS->ATI X850 XT Platinum->AMD HD 7950->GTX 1070->AMD 6900XT
Post magically merged:

It depends on how you see it. Nvidia is faster in everything RT-related, and DLSS helps a lot in some titles. Nvidia cards also use significantly less power, heat up less, and aren't so noisy. I'm not on either side, and I tested cards from both sides, but I wouldn't get AMD for a daily gaming PC right now. Hopefully, they will improve a lot in the next generation, as the 7000 series feels like a 6000 refresh.
As you may have noticed, AMD adjusts its prices to Nvidia offerings and often waits for Nvidia's moves, not the other way around. Nvidia has fewer price cuts, while AMD only compares its cards in performance to price against some Nvidia models. They still can't beat top Nvidia cards.
I agree with you on the AMD noisey part.

For me upscaling and frame generation are for consoles. If you're buying a Ferrari and the V8 isn't producing enough I would expect V12 or a W16 not a turbo or a super-charger, that's fine in a Nissan GTR...
 
Last edited:
I don't need anything better than RTX4070/Super, and I play at 1440p. AMD cards about the same price or slightly cheaper use 100-150W more. I don't really care about my electricity bill as one graphics card that runs in games for 1-3h per day won't change much. However, I can't stand hot and loud PC on my desk. I also build ITX PCs for gaming and they run 24/7. You can't use any reasonably performing AMD card in small ITX case. All their cards under RX7900GRE are nothing interesting or just slow. RX7900GRE runs hot and uses almost as much power as higher models. The next step is 7900XT or something like RTX4070 Super or RTX4070Ti/Super. Looking at available options, it is no wonder that people pick RTX4070Ti over anything AMD.

I'm not saying that Nvidia options are great, but they feel like a "lesser evil" when you need something quite fast for gaming.
 
TBH I've not really in to frame generation or upscaling but I also realise that at the budget end there may come a need and with hires VR sets it may be necessity. I'm from the old school Lamborghini thinking - the only reason you need a turbo is because your engine isn't making the power you need
I understand that, but we are in a "work smarter, not harder" world now. If an affordable GPU could do everything I want without needing that, great. Maybe a 4090 is adequate. Upscaling, especially if you play at higher resolutions like 4k, is practically indistinguishable to my eyes compared to native. I can see it if I take screenshots and look at each pixel, but you just don't see it in game. I'm also not sold on FG, yet. I think the idea has promise but the current implementations are not there yet for general use as routine.

For me upscaling and frame generation are for consoles. If you're buying a Ferrari and the V8 isn't producing enough I would expect V12 or a W16 not a turbo or a super-charger, that's fine in a Nissan GTR...
I guess our differences applies to cars too. The GT-R R34 was my dream car around the time I was learning to drive. Not the likes of Lambos or Ferraris. I'm not so much a fan of the modern GT-R though. Although it is a technical marvel, it lacks something in character the older ones had.
 
I guess our differences applies to cars too. The GT-R R34 was my dream car around the time I was learning to drive. Not the likes of Lambos or Ferraris. I'm not so much a fan of the modern GT-R though. Although it is a technical marvel, it lacks something in character the older ones had.
I'm more a rally fan, watched Group B Martini Racing Lancia Delta S4 in '86 at Sutton Park, remains etched in my memory...Rothmans Porsche 959 would be the pinnacle unfortunately FIA closed it down before it made it's debut but it won the Paris to Dakar...

I like 037 remake too
037.jpg
 
Last edited:
I get poopooed for my thoughts on RT but I just dont see the value yet, most games dont support it, those that do only a handful see an improvement in fidelity, and even when they do see that improvement it often can only be run on the highest end nvidia cards, so even a 4070 ti might not cut it depending on game and resolution.

So, while mackerel says
In my opinion, AMD cost less because you get less, outside of specific tests. If that is all a user focuses on, great.

I see it the other way around. Nvidia overvalues its features and software and thinks you should pay more for features that only apply to a subset of games, and only improve an even smaller number of those, and then only if you are comfortable with scaling since you are buying what THEY feel is a mid-range card.

Now, all that said, the efficiency of the 4070 cards is a fact, they run cooler, and use less power for their performance that similarly priced AMD cards. If you are intending to use Ray Tracing nvidia is simply better at it with current generation. If you want to use upscaling tech, DLSS is better tech period.

AMD gives you more vram per $$ and that is a fact. AMD gives you more raw raster per $$ again, fact. AMD has better driver support across operating systems. At the cost of more power use, less RT performance, and lower fidelity upscaling.

So ultimately I think the choice comes down to do the software features of Nvidia, and your ability to enjoy them match the difference in price next to a card in the same price class.

For me personally that is almost always no. For mackerel, and probably woomack that answer is probably yes.
 
I get poopooed for my thoughts on RT but I just dont see the value yet, most games dont support it, those that do only a handful see an improvement in fidelity, and even when they do see that improvement it often can only be run on the highest end nvidia cards, so even a 4070 ti might not cut it depending on game and resolution.
If you go back to the start of video gaming, then most don't support RT. More realistically, most new games do support it in some form, and have done for several years. At least for AAA ones, it is less realistic for indie to go there although some do. RT isn't all or nothing. There's different levels, from shadows, reflections and more complicated lighting. It is up to dev how to deploy that. Perf vs quality always has been a tradeoff in the PC space. RT is now one of those options. In my case I might be helped in that I don't play games that need triple figure fps. As long as I'm consistently getting over 60 that's fine by me.

AMD gives you more vram per $$ and that is a fact.
Which most of the time for gaming doesn't matter. People can construct edge case scenarios where competitive NV offerings run out and suffer, but with realistic settings it is fine. If you're doing some compute, maybe it is more value (like 4090).

AMD has better driver support across operating systems.
For most PC gamers this is mostly irrelevant so far. Maybe it'll pick up more if SteamOS gets significantly expanded. I think I saw somewhere the generic download doesn't support NV yet.

For me personally that is almost always no. For mackerel, and probably woomack that answer is probably yes.
The great thing is we have choice. And Intel is another choice, sometimes, maybe? :D I see rumours are kicking off suggesting their 2nd gen dGPU might be close. Could be interesting all round with all 3 players expected to release something in the not too distant future.
 
RT I don't see the value, to me it's too much a performance hit. It really should be in a lab being iterated on till it's competitive in terms of performance to raster graphics. It's like trying to do texture mapped 3D graphics on my old C64, it could just about do wireframe Elite:) I played the The Last of Us on HDR mode that seemed to do the same thing without a performance penalty. HDR & path tracing it's all about lighting...

DLSS & FSR2/3 from the guys I do a bit of iRacing with. They said not worth it, too blurry and artefacts, said just stick to brute force and a lower resolution VR headset. I was told Quest 3 or PSVR2 was good place to start and wouldn't tax my GPU like the 8K headset - 4K per eye...
 
Last edited:
Aren't you the guy who believes it's not RT unless it's realtime RT anyway? It's no wonder you don't believe in it (your expectations were like it was "movie cgi effects")... especially trying to run it on AMD (and 6000 series at that) and expecting good fps.

Like was discussed in 2022 (it was you, yes), it's not a WowO thing... maybe it shouldn't be here yet until the hardware catches up and make it WowO-looking. But you have to start somewhere...like mack said, there are varying levels of it. HDR has little (nothing?) to do with it...that's been around on gpus since 900 series and 300 series. For NV we're literally 3 gpu gens from inception.

....VR is also a different subject (also referenced in 2022).

Edit: I also don't understand the point of mentioning rasterization performance...maybe it's just me, lol. When I look at a review, performance it what it is. RT is just an option (in 600 games and apps, according to google) and an extra dataset for those who use it... like DLSS/FSR results that go hand in hand.
 
Last edited:
Aren't you the guy who believes it's not RT unless it's realtime RT anyway? It's no wonder you don't believe in it (your expectations were like it was "movie cgi effects")... especially trying to run it on AMD (and 6000 series at that) and expecting good fps.

Like was discussed in 2022 (it was you, yes), it's not a WowO thing... maybe it shouldn't be here yet until the hardware catches up and make it WowO-looking. But you have to start somewhere...like mack said, there are varying levels of it. HDR has little (nothing?) to do with it...that's been around on gpus since 900 series and 300 series. For NV we're literally 3 gpu gens from inception.

....VR is also a different subject (also referenced in 2022).

Edit: I also don't understand the point of mentioning rasterization performance...maybe it's just me, lol. When I look at a review, performance it what it is. RT is just an option (in 600 games and apps, according to google) and an extra dataset for those who use it... like DLSS/FSR results that go hand in hand.
Just wondering but could you list the games you have installed that support ray tracing without continuity mods, shaders, or enb's?
 
Just wondering but could you list the games you have installed that support ray tracing without continuity mods, shaders, or enb's?
While that wasn't directed at me, I will indirectly answer. The big name modern-ish games I own that support RT are:
Ghostwire Tokyo
Metro Exodeus EE
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
Witcher 3
Watch Dogs Legion

Not a very long list. That's my gripe. I want more support in more games. CP2077 RTO is the example of what could be. However it is mostly deployed in AAA, and modern ones are some variation of action adventure/shooter which isn't a genre I care at all about. Which mainly leaves a few indie games I'm not interested in either. One major addition is Tower of Fantasy. I didn't play it for long, but that would fall into a game type I am interested in. The same company has Neverness to Everness in development. If they learnt from their mistakes in the 1st game, it should be something to keep an eye on. Graphically it was fine, but unfortunately the story was lacking to make me want to stay there.

The other group of games would be ancient games with modern support added. Portal RTX is an official release, and same studio did Quake II RTX. I'm not so sure about the disposition of others like Doom.

I tried demos/benchmarks where available, most recently Black Myth Wukong. Again, not a game I'd care to play.
 
Everything from Ubisoft, too (Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Avatar, and some more), as we use built-in benchmarks to test RT and no RT for hardware reviews.
 
Just wondering but could you list the games you have installed that support ray tracing without continuity mods, shaders, or enb's?
Feels like you're missing the point (or me yours), but these are the RT titles on my PC...

Fortnite
COD
F1 series (from 22 iirc)
MS Flight Sim 2024
BF2042 (I rarely play this but it is installed)

PUBG does not.

That's all I play. Granted I play pubg 75% of the time, but my point, that I've made in previous discussions, is that it's out there and adding to the 600 titles/apps constantly. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it feels like most gamers have a game or few they play that can utilize the technology....for what little it may be worth, lol. But its there and constantly adding more.

EDIT: I believe all of the games I use for reviews do too (Avatar, CP2077, F1, Metro, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed - same as Woomack)
 
Last edited:
Feels like you're missing the point (or me yours), but these are the RT titles on my PC...

Fortnite
COD
F1 series (from 22 iirc)
MS Flight Sim 2024
BF2042 (I rarely play this but it is installed)

PUBG does not.

That's all I play. Granted I play pubg 75% of the time, but my point, that I've made in previous discussions, is that it's out there and adding to the 600 titles/apps constantly. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it feels like most gamers have a game or few they play that can utilize the technology....for what little it may be worth, lol. But its there and constantly adding more.

EDIT: I believe all of the games I use for reviews do too (Avatar, CP2077, F1, Metro, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed - same as Woomack)

Ok, another question and these are not traps just want to see how we value things.

Ultra 7 265K (~$390)
Ryzen 7 9700X (~$350)
Ryzen 7 9800X3D (~$480)
Ryzen 9 9900X (~$385)

Which would you pick and why?
 
Ok, another question and these are not traps just want to see how we value things.

Ultra 7 265K (~$390)
Ryzen 7 9700X (~$350)
Ryzen 7 9800X3D (~$480)
Ryzen 9 9900X (~$385)

Which would you pick and why?
Not sure what this has to do with the thread we're in... but...

For my personal uses (office stuff word/excel/ppt, limited vid/photo editing) none of the above... or if you forced me to pick one from your list, the 9800X3D as it can easily handle all of that but I chase FPS in my gaming. I'd get the 9900X3D as there's just some part of me that shudders at the thought of buying a 8/16t part in 2024 as it could cap some games I play. For example, COD balances the load among all cores/threads of my current 13900K, which I know is rare.
 
Ok, awesome so you see the X3D part a $100 value over similar numbers of cores. How do you value the E-Cores on the Ultra 7 265K? Do you think they are worth $40 over the 9700X?
 
SOunds counterintuitive to what I just said, but....I'm not a core count whor3, lol. I DISPISE(D...past tense) AMD for perpetuating it back in the day. People were all like zomg moar cores (like vRAM today) it has to be better...yeah no. lol

That said...the short answer, yes I do think it's worth it over the 9700X (no other variables considered). The 12 ecores are faster (I'd guess 8 ecores are too) than SMT in many (not all) tasks. I game at a higher res, so the difference there is nill (whereas 1080p there's a few FPS difference in favor of AMD).
 
Back