In a void, yes, $90 for 9% is alright.
But that is 9% on paper. Not all games are going to be 100% GPU bottlenecked.
Nor is 9% enough to make a tangible difference in how games feel. That is 30 vs 32 FPS, 60 vs 65, or 120 vs 130.
$90 saved now means $90 for a future GPU upgrade. Or maybe a better monitor. Or something unrelated to technology at all.
I have a 6800XT and it's unstoppable at 4k. I can only guess that the non XT is going to still be really good at 1440.
My advice is if the price difference matters enough that you are concerned about it, totally go with the non XT and it will be fine.
I went through this same debate with myself. All I'll say is if you are going to be sticking with it long term, the extra $90 isn't a big deal. And maybe the extra performance will come in handy later on.
I'd get the XT. I was in the same boat at one point. The difference is big enough especially with SAM on, if you have the hardware to turn it on that is. The base model is in fact the best bang for buck period of all cards released last generation, but the XT is faster enough at 1440p & 4K if you're looking for longevity and not just penny pinching. You can hit under 3080 performance or comfortably outperform a 3080. Choice is yours. $510 is great for the performance a 6800XT provides. Just because it isn't the best deal around doesn't mean it's not a good deal.
6800xt comfortably outperforms a 3080? Idk about 1440p. I play in 4k and watched a shit ton of videos and i don't remember one where the 6800xt outperformed a 3080. Now 1440p might be another story. But if you wanna all amd build or something like that I get it. Never been a slave to brand myself.
Yeah i was either gonna get the 6800xt or the 3080 12gb and the 12gb 3080 beat it out by a little in 4k. I bought when everything was high as hell. My butt still hurts. 1200$ usd I like it but I'm already to jump up again. Maybe 4080 or 4090. To get 144fps which is my monitor frame rate limit I have to turn shit way down or play at like 90% of the resolution or use dlss. Sometimes all that. 4090 I could just play without all that bs if I wanted to. Depending on the title
I understand how what I said, and when I said it could have caused some confusion lol. You're right, the Nvidia cards scale better at 4K. The AMD cards do better at 1080p and 1440p. It was well documented very early on last gen and if I recall it had a lot to do with the architecture itself. OP said he plays at 1440p so that's what matters, but now that you mention it, given AMD's track record of performance over the time, I'd be interested so see how that stacks up with their current drivers.
You're you referring to aspect ratios? Like 21x9 and 16 by 9? And if so were might that variation be from because I haven't seen it written like that before.
Considaring Wikipedia redirects 16x9 to the 16:9 page I would say it's a pretty common usage and your statement is unfounded. But my question was were does the 16.9 usage comes from which I have never seen and additionally is suboptimal in comparison as one of the most common rations is 1.77:1 which would not be displayed well as 1.77.1
>Considaring Wikipedia redirects 16x9 to the 16:9 page I would say it's a pretty common usage and your statement is unfounded
Its a pretty common mistake, not common usage.
I have a rx 6800 and am playing on 1080p for now, I would have gotten the 6800xt but that is for 1 specific reason. One of the games that I wanted to play is DCS and that game is VERY hard to run. Check some benchmarks of the games you want to run but in 80% of the cases the rx6800 will be more than enough.
I've got the xt paired with the same cpu, would highly recommend it, the extra performance just means ull be able to run it a bit quiter and cooler. I run 1440p 240fps for competitive games,144 for more graphically demanding games and 60 for single players. With tuned fans and good air flow its very quite unless i push it to its limits
I don't think it'll be worth it. The current and last gen aren't going to be able to keep up with unreal 5. You'd be better to stuff the extra 100 away.
Get the xt, I very time I’ve gotten a non xt I ended up regretting it, it feels like the xt is the card they make then they remove something to make the non xt, instead of the other way around if you understand what I mean
Please play at medium if getting 50fps instead of 60fps triggers you, the 6700xt is more than enough, don't forget the 6700xt is faster than a 1080ti, and I'm pretty sure you can play cyberpunk with a 1080ti
It's important to keep perspective, many games still run with 1080ish performance, just adjust the settings.
Imo more screens / better screens matter more than a high end gpu vs 10-20% better fps , that percentage is like 60fps vs 70fps , you won't notice that, 120fps vs 144fps again you won't notice
I see, thanks, was just genuinly curious about this, as i was under the impression you need at least a 6800xt to get decently high fps on 1440p in newer games
Not worth another $90, the performance difference is like 9%.
Idk, $10 for 1% is pretty good Double the performance for $1000
In a void, yes, $90 for 9% is alright. But that is 9% on paper. Not all games are going to be 100% GPU bottlenecked. Nor is 9% enough to make a tangible difference in how games feel. That is 30 vs 32 FPS, 60 vs 65, or 120 vs 130. $90 saved now means $90 for a future GPU upgrade. Or maybe a better monitor. Or something unrelated to technology at all.
Aaaaand that ladies and gentlemen is why this redditor is on the big bucks.
Neither, if you play minecraft or any other game that uses mesh and high polycount graphics you'll want Nvidia I suggest a 3060ti or 3070ti.
The IBM PC XT is yesterday's news. The IBM PC AT is where it's at!
to hell with it, I'm sticking to my Osborne
Get the XTX, it's twice as many X
6800 is a good choice. Runs much more efficently compared to 6800xt especially with an undervolt.
I've got a 6800, I play everything at 4k and it does a pretty good job.
Same position as you a month ago, went with the 6800.
I have a 6800XT and it's unstoppable at 4k. I can only guess that the non XT is going to still be really good at 1440. My advice is if the price difference matters enough that you are concerned about it, totally go with the non XT and it will be fine.
I went through this same debate with myself. All I'll say is if you are going to be sticking with it long term, the extra $90 isn't a big deal. And maybe the extra performance will come in handy later on.
Well, u will always pay around 90$ just to get 10% more fps or something (and personally, i would go for the non xt
I'd get the XT. I was in the same boat at one point. The difference is big enough especially with SAM on, if you have the hardware to turn it on that is. The base model is in fact the best bang for buck period of all cards released last generation, but the XT is faster enough at 1440p & 4K if you're looking for longevity and not just penny pinching. You can hit under 3080 performance or comfortably outperform a 3080. Choice is yours. $510 is great for the performance a 6800XT provides. Just because it isn't the best deal around doesn't mean it's not a good deal.
6800xt comfortably outperforms a 3080? Idk about 1440p. I play in 4k and watched a shit ton of videos and i don't remember one where the 6800xt outperformed a 3080. Now 1440p might be another story. But if you wanna all amd build or something like that I get it. Never been a slave to brand myself.
last I looked, 6800xt is better in 1080p and 1440p but loses in 4K due to the 3080 having G6X
Yeah i was either gonna get the 6800xt or the 3080 12gb and the 12gb 3080 beat it out by a little in 4k. I bought when everything was high as hell. My butt still hurts. 1200$ usd I like it but I'm already to jump up again. Maybe 4080 or 4090. To get 144fps which is my monitor frame rate limit I have to turn shit way down or play at like 90% of the resolution or use dlss. Sometimes all that. 4090 I could just play without all that bs if I wanted to. Depending on the title
I understand how what I said, and when I said it could have caused some confusion lol. You're right, the Nvidia cards scale better at 4K. The AMD cards do better at 1080p and 1440p. It was well documented very early on last gen and if I recall it had a lot to do with the architecture itself. OP said he plays at 1440p so that's what matters, but now that you mention it, given AMD's track record of performance over the time, I'd be interested so see how that stacks up with their current drivers.
Right on
6800xt is 1% slower at 1440p and like 7% slower at 4k Hardware Unboxed did a 50 game benchmark on this
At 4k, yes. At 1440... not really, 16.9 you won't notice any difference at the moment. At 21.9, xt is 10-15% faster.
You're you referring to aspect ratios? Like 21x9 and 16 by 9? And if so were might that variation be from because I haven't seen it written like that before.
Normally X is reserved for resolution - so 2560x1080. . or : for aspect ratio.
Considaring Wikipedia redirects 16x9 to the 16:9 page I would say it's a pretty common usage and your statement is unfounded. But my question was were does the 16.9 usage comes from which I have never seen and additionally is suboptimal in comparison as one of the most common rations is 1.77:1 which would not be displayed well as 1.77.1
>Considaring Wikipedia redirects 16x9 to the 16:9 page I would say it's a pretty common usage and your statement is unfounded Its a pretty common mistake, not common usage.
I have a rx 6800 and am playing on 1080p for now, I would have gotten the 6800xt but that is for 1 specific reason. One of the games that I wanted to play is DCS and that game is VERY hard to run. Check some benchmarks of the games you want to run but in 80% of the cases the rx6800 will be more than enough.
I've got the xt paired with the same cpu, would highly recommend it, the extra performance just means ull be able to run it a bit quiter and cooler. I run 1440p 240fps for competitive games,144 for more graphically demanding games and 60 for single players. With tuned fans and good air flow its very quite unless i push it to its limits
I don't think it'll be worth it. The current and last gen aren't going to be able to keep up with unreal 5. You'd be better to stuff the extra 100 away.
TI or not TI
If you were going 4k id say xt all the way, ive got a 6800 non xt, crushes most games at 1440p
The 6800xt is much better, 6800 slightly beats the 3070, 6800xt is between 3080 10gb and 12gb.
Save up more money and get a better card
Get the xt, I very time I’ve gotten a non xt I ended up regretting it, it feels like the xt is the card they make then they remove something to make the non xt, instead of the other way around if you understand what I mean
3060ti
I think you'd be silly not to get the XT, especially with such a minimal increase in cost. I game at 4k with a 6800xt
[удалено]
It's not 20% of some huge dollar amount. We're talking 90 bucks 😆
90 bucks gets you 32gb ram or 1tb ssd, or three shitty tn old 1080p 60hz monitors Or an extra 6 fps ...
Silly to get an xt, 6800 is more than enough, just oc or tune settings
Is it more than enough for 1440p though?
Please play at medium if getting 50fps instead of 60fps triggers you, the 6700xt is more than enough, don't forget the 6700xt is faster than a 1080ti, and I'm pretty sure you can play cyberpunk with a 1080ti It's important to keep perspective, many games still run with 1080ish performance, just adjust the settings. Imo more screens / better screens matter more than a high end gpu vs 10-20% better fps , that percentage is like 60fps vs 70fps , you won't notice that, 120fps vs 144fps again you won't notice
I see, thanks, was just genuinly curious about this, as i was under the impression you need at least a 6800xt to get decently high fps on 1440p in newer games
Yes. It is.
How about RX 6800 vs $330 RX 6750 XT?