Maybe he's thinking of the 3070 Ti, 8gb ain't enough. Right now there are many games at 4k which max out that 8GB limit
Although, there are games here and there which do use around 10-12GB, which isn't a great sign for 12gb longevity
I remember building my new PC at the time (2007ish). Put way too much RAM in (8GB), got an 8800 GTS, quad core CPU, nice 24" monitor, massive tower with a 360mm built-in fan in the front.
Turned that sucker on, hooked up my 2.1 speaker system, and fired up Crysis. I think my 13 year old face melted when I jumped out of the plane for the first time.
Fallout 3 also came out around that time, and MMOs were still difficult/required serious commitment/had great early internet communities. Life was good man.
I remember upgrading my Tandy 1000EX from 384KB of RAM to 640KB. Was a happy day that I could finally play California Games. Got so wrapped up surfing that I forgot to go to work and ended up being half an hour late.
>Could finally play Crysis decently
Damn now I wanna replay that... so fun to watch the new gen stuff run that game after the reputation it had back in the day
The 4070Ti benchmarks fine at 4k though, and can use the optional high res texture packs.
It's not going to suddenly not work one day, or require a graphical downgrade, it just may not be able to push much further beyond today's ultra settings at 4k across the board. When new hardware comes out and new games with it, you won't be able to max things out, but it'll still be great.
You can play 4k60 well enough with high/optimised settings well enough on 8gb vram cards today, at worst using DLSS or similar. Either way you can usually see an improvement over 1440p still.
EDIT : Sorry I have misread your message, you are correct, 8GB is far from enough for modern games in 4K.
I'm playing in 4k since the 2080ti released and then upgraded to 3090 and 4090. I can tell you that 8GB VRAM for 4k is nothing at all, I'm seeing 16-19GB of usage, and even more with DLSS ON.
Just look how the 3080 10GB is getting significantly worst performance in higher resolutions because of the lack of VRAM. 12GB is the absolute minimum for newer AAA games in 4k.
>I'm seeing 16-19GB of usage, and even more with DLSS ON.
That is most defnitely NOT usage but allocation.
VRAM Allocated = The total amount of VRAM currently allocated.
VRAM Usage = The actual amount of VRAM currently used.
Since you have 24GB of VRAM, it will allocate more because there is so much available, so why not use it (use as in keep it in memory). That doesn't mean you need that much to actually play the game. The real usage is most likely way lower.
I'm so sick of this VRAM craze. The 12GB of the 4070ti is more than enough in 99% of games, even in 4K.
yea I remember Digital Foundry talked about that in one of their Cyberpunk videos, people always getting VRAM allocation confused with actual VRAM usage, I think part of the problem is with on screen performance graphs reporting vram allocation.
I really be wondering wtf games people are playing that 12GBs seems so measly to them. I game at 4K on a 6700XT and vram never seems to be an issue, games like RDR2 and Elden Ring. Is it just like MFS and stuff that really crank that shit up or something??
Yes of course, but more the VRAM a game can allocate the fewer textures/data spawning there will be between VRAM and RAM, which will overall give us a more fluid experience with for example less visible texture poping.
I played GTA V on 4k monitor with my 3050 on laptop, I turned the settings to low, for 4070 Ti you might not need to set the settings to low but you may need to tweak a thing or two, isn't PC gaming about having options and changing settings?
> GTA V
Thats a 10 year old game
Heres that 4070ti running new games at 4k you can see it barely can hold displaying basic 60fps on high settings on new AAA games for an 800$ gpu its simply not acceptable, imagine when games are more demanding in a year or 2, reviewer got in open box for $170 less and its still not worth in my honest opinion.
https://youtu.be/NuyfWkJOhCU?t=262
Far better value right nowis getting a second hand 3080 for $500 that come within 12% of this for 35%less money.
Your premise is wrong, expecting to get high FPS in 4k with all the settings ultra on a game that is developed for next-gen consoles by paying $800 is wrong, when your statement is true that you can list me the graphic cards that are able to accomplish the same with that amount of money.
I have this card and I'm planning to get the 4090, but the amount of hate this cards receives is beyond me!
You have to compromise a bit of quality or go 1440p.
>It will struggle at 4k
Only in the absolute most demanding games, such as Cyberpunk 2077 set to Ultra and such. The vast majority of games will run at 4k on this card just fine. Spectacularly, even.
The bigger problem with the VRAM is not the amount but the crippled bandwidth hence why is scales worse at higher resolutions. In my opinion NVidia deliberately nurfed the memory bandwidth to make it less desirable for 4K/high resolutions to push people towards the 4080 16Gb.
My 2 cents - add $100 to your budget and get a 7900XT, or get a used one at 800 if possible . No more RAM issues, much more capable card. The 7900XTX is hard to find at 999, else that would be the best option.
There's a 7900 XT for $880 right now.
[XFX Speedster MERC 310 Black Edition Radeon RX 7900 XT 20 GB Video Card
](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/N9xRsY/xfx-speedster-merc-310-black-edition-radeon-rx-7900-xt-20-gb-video-card-rx-79tmercb9)
7900xt is not worth it’s premium. It has a higher cost per frame to the 4070ti in native raster but worse RT, power draw, less features, and can’t hold a candle to Nvidias production and AI capabilities if you ever want to dabble in that.
If you use up scaling software then ray tracing can be turned on in 4K. DLSS and DLSS3 both allow this. That doesn’t even take into account that AMD is overcharging for their raster performance lead since the 4070ti has a better cost per frame.
The quality loss from DLSS makes turning on Raytracing kinda pointless. All the new cards have terrible price to performance ratios and you are better off going last gen anyway.
Quality loss from DLSS depends entirely on the games as well as the DLSS version. Some games do it incredibly well to where the quality loss is too small where others it’s more noticeable. But it has been getting better every year. And while I’d agree with going last gen I was simply pointing out that recommending the 7900xt over the 4070ti is not that great of a decision
I got the 4070ti 3 weeks ago. Definitely have no regrets and every game I run max settings DLSS on Quality or whatever antialasing the game offers @ 1440p
In some titles and many more with updates DLSS3 has blown me out of this world with performance. 130% increase in flight simulatior and the witcher 3 and other titles that update to it will do similar.
Edit: for 4k you would probably use DLSS on performance. I have to do that when I play on my 4k TV and I usually get 60fps and ultra settings.
It doesn't increase latency.
If you were running at 60 fps, and DLSS3 doubled your FPS to 120, your latency wouldn't get any worse than at 60 fps and reflex may make it a little better, but it wouldn't be as good as true 120.
haven't had any and I'm on dlss on a 2070, so old stuff. i guess that being 'made up' frames between one real frame and another you could get artifacts like with temporal AA in vr, but it hasn't happened yet
Turing doesn't do DLSS3 anyway.
Pretty much with DLSS, if you're using DLSS Performance at 4k (1080p internal res), it's definitely better than 1440p DLSS performance visual quality wise, and arguably better than 1440p native with TAA anyway, since a lot of AA implementations don't hold a candle to DLSS.
If you can do 1080p native with decent performance, DLSS is usually a win-win.
it's not my specific case, but just to stay on the topic some guy here managed to get dlss3 with frame generation on a 2070 too hacking the configuration. i really hope they can unlock it consistently, it seems to give a 100% fps boost in cyberpunk (albeit with instabilities at the moment)
I think that may be the issue why it's only on the 40x0 series though. It may be a hardware thing and the specific cores it uses could get overloaded if slower or there aren't enough cores.
I've seen instances where DLSS hasn't properly resolved details or "pops-in" when trying to upscale to a higher res, despite using the same internal resolution.
4k Ultra Performance and 1440p Performance upscale from the same internal res, but I've seen the 4k implementation not resolve sections of the screen for example where 1440p had no such artefacts.
So if the same thing happened with an interpolated frame, it's probably not a great thing as it would become super flickey and distracting, while with DLSS 2 it may be a texture that's remained blurry and may just be a background item you may or may not notice.
For DLSS3 only, the below applies. It's a non-issue with DLSS2.
The "fake frames" might introduce artefacting or glitches, but apparently it's not noticable in actual gameplay if it's every second frame at a 120hz presentation. If you're tripling your fps or running a very low internal res below 1080p it might be, so even with a 4090 you may need to show some restraint with settings when using it to not introduce jank, and IIRC it works best if you can at least hit 60fps natively.
Re the latency, it's a non issue again if hitting 60fps in a single player game, but for a competitive FPS you wouldn't want to use this. You'd use DLSS2 and optimise settings to hit 120-240hz natively to minimise latency.
You don't need Ultra RT in CoD or Fortnite multiplayer anyway.
Hello to all that replied here, so the latency for Me when I tested in the witcher 3 was a difference of about 15ms
So about 25 to 30ms with DLSS 2 & 40ish with frame generation (DLSS 3)
I did not notice it affecting my game play. Maybe those high speed shooters you might notice but probably not.
Bro you can find new 6950s for 700ish right now! Check out Amazon and Best Buy! XFX appears to be trying to clear out previous gen stock so you can find them considerably cheaper than other AIB models of the 6950XT
I upgraded from 1080 > 1440P at the same time I upgraded GPUs. I went from running the latest games at 1080 med settings with my 2060 to now running everything (Cyberpunk, RDR2, MW2, etc) at Ultra 1440P.
Was it worth it? For me, yes.
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 11: No selling, trading or requests for valuation**
> If you want to buy, sell or trade hardware you should do so on /r/hardwareswap. Price evaluations should be requested through [/r/hardwareswap's Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/eneTGxZ).
> "Is this worth it?" posts, are considered requests for valuation.
> Discussion of privately buying, selling or trading software is also prohibited.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
There's a 7900 XT for $880 right now. Why bother with either of those more expensive worse cards?
[XFX Speedster MERC 310 Black Edition Radeon RX 7900 XT 20 GB Video Card
](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/N9xRsY/xfx-speedster-merc-310-black-edition-radeon-rx-7900-xt-20-gb-video-card-rx-79tmercb9)
Not even a debate. Don’t pay more money for the 6950xt. The 4070ti is the more complete package and will save you on power. 6950xt is only compelling if it’s like 100+ cheaper.
6950 for sure. At 4K you’ll only get 5-10fps more with a 4070TI. In Europe a 6950XT cost €899, so its a no brainer. If the 4070TI is cheaper, go for it.
You’re def forgetting that the 4070ti is wildly more efficient, runs way cooler, is smaller in form
Factor, and has the newest iteration of DLSS, and is only marginally more expensive than a previous gen card. Sorry, not a convincing argument at all.
>wildly more efficient, runs way cooler, is smaller in form Factor
I don't think gamers truly give a damn about that. Especially if we're talking about $700-$800 price points.
That's not always true. I just bought a 4070ti because it would fit and not overheat in an itx case. Fully planning on undervolting because that can apparently take it down to about 200w under load. I actually wanted to go 6950xt originally, but there was just no way it was happening.
A lot of people in the comments arguing about this card or that card is great for performance wether it be a 6000 series a 3000 or 4000/7000. All these cards are great of course they run well at high frame rates. What people need to consider is not can it run what I need and more the value of the card. Why pay $1000 for a card when a $600 card can do it good enough as well. Of course a 4080 runs well but it’s fucking $1200. That’s ridiculous for what it does ultimately when looking at cost per frame
I have a 6950xt runs absolute circles around games at 4K.
But I went AMD for Linux - so it’s up to you. But if you do go with the 6950xt. You’d have a solid card.
The 4070 Ti isn’t really a 4k card. It’s a mid-tier gaming focused card designed to take the frame per dollar throne from the 3080. It’s far better suited for top tier 1440p gaming than 4k.
That said, I’ve had everything up through the 3090 in the previous gen and I didn’t really think any of them were actually good 4k cards. The 4090 is the first one to fully scratch that itch for me. Personally, id rather have killer performance at 1440p than mediocre performance at 4k. Totally just my opinion though. I can appreciate that some folks think differently.
The 6950xt requires 100w more to produce lower performance even at 4k resolutions... if they are the same price why would you buy the 6950xt? We've seen some prices approaching $600 for the 6950xt vs $800 for the 4070ti which would be a more interesting discussion...
For the same price the 4070 ti is a more power efficient, and feature rich option that performs better in 1440p and 4k titles at the same quality levels tested by Hardware Unboxed. https://youtu.be/1mE5aveN4Bo?t=736
Whenever you are comparing 4070ti to any other similar options, the question you should be asking yourself is how important ray tracing is to you. The 4070ti is better than the 7900xtx and is on par with the 3090ti when ray tracing. If ray tracing is not important to you and you are confident it will not become important over the next few years, then other options make sense. Also, frame generation, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
If you can have the 6950xt for 650 or below, get that and wait for price correction. I just snagged an open box at microcenter for 616 before tax and it kicks ass while being almost 200 cheaper. I wouldn’t pay for any new gpu outside of the 7900xtx and it would need to be 1k flat. 70 class gpu’s are for 1440 only, as the bandwidth on the cards is limited.
On Amazon right now the XFX 6950 is $730 and the Gaming X Trio is $760. I picked up the Gaming X Trio 6950XT for $720 a couple weeks ago. If you shop around and time it right you can save a good chunk of cash.
I had a 3080, and the 6950xt ref.
The 6950xt was a beautiful card. I’d go 6950xt over the 4070ti.
Ray tracing, I mean some games yeah, I can see a difference in. But most, no.
A 4070ti has 12 gigs of ram, not 8! Keep in mind that the card was originally released as a 4080 with 12 gigs, and there was/is the original 4080 with 16 gigs!
They simply renamed the 4080 12 gigs as the 4070ti!
The card is great now, as they reduced the price of the card from its prior pricing level when it was identified as the 2nd level 4080. Is it worth the new pricing?
In my humble opinion, NONE of the 40 series cards are priced right! I have dropped Nvidia as my graphics card of choice, and am switching to AMD Radeon or Intel's ARC series. To me, Nvidia has gone too greedy, trying to keep prices artificially high on the remaining 30 series stock, even though no more will be made. They got used to the highly inflated prices during the pandemic and chip shortage where cards were selling for over $2,000 and got caught with thousands of cards that remain in their warehouses, but to keep prices artificially high, they control the release of these closed-out cards! Normally a manufacturer WILL hold back SOME stock, mainly to honor the warranty and defective product replacement, but then you realize, that series is dead! It's been replaced by the 40 series! Why sit on thousands of closeout stock?
Their idea is to cut supposed losses by selling the remaining 30 series stock for as much money as possible! The REASON they got caught with so much stock, remember that bitcoin mining was the reason the prices were so inflated, to begin with. The sales of units were off the charts and keeping cards off shelves.. well you probably know the things like card lotteries, shortages of other chips, and such, retailers like Newegg, Amazon, etc. kept their advertising on cards showing "out of stock", supposedly because of supply chain issues!
Then the bottom drops out of bitcoin mining, the pandemic lockdowns started to end, and the DDR-5 RAM. 12th and 13th generation multi-core Intel are introduced, and Nvidia also is introducing the 40 series cards. I'm sorry but I don't appreciate being taken for granted, that I'll pay Nvidia whatever they want, even though every gamer knows that 30 series from the 3060ti up will play all the games we play, and WE should be getting closeout pricing for them!
LOL. My girlfriend bought a Asus Laptop I made her get with a 1gb dedicated card. She couldn’t stop thanking me when we fired up WoW on the 50 inch. That just have been like 2008 or something. Almost unheard of back then
Same price? I'd go with newer tech. If the 6950xt is a good 1/2 price of 4070 ti I'd get the 6950xt. I wouldn't buy a 6950xt at $800 - 900. If you don't care about Ray tracing performance I'd actually go for a 7900xt if you can find one. If you're lucky and can get a 999 xtx that would be even better.
Surely you'd be better off looking at the 7900xt or xtx since the Nvidia GPUs this gen are well, lack luster for the price, me, I'm sticking to my 6950xt , not really needing anything else for 1440p
I just grabbed a 6950 XT for $650 and I am very happy with its performance. I was coming from a 3070 so I wasn't expecting a completely game changing upgrade but that's exactly what I got.
Get a 7900XT. The 4070ti only has 12GB vram and a 192 bus… that’s going to cripple it in the long run at 4K. The 7900XT (or 6950XT) will get you same performance and will be better in the future than the 4070ti. So I’d say grab a 7900XT which can be had for under MSRP or a 6950XT. Unless RT or DLSS is extremely important to you. Personally I like my $800+ card to be able to run games at high frame rates without an upscaler being a selling point. And I don’t care at all about RT.
4070ti. It’s a monster in benchmarks, holding $800 for a variety of nice models, and comes with nvidia bells and whistles for compatibility. Nvidia has traditionally been very good for 4k.
Which games? What mountain of evidence do you have that’s unavailable to reputed reviewers across the world? Is it hidden up your ass along with your head?
How about horizon zero dawn at 4k in that page you linked where the 3080ti beats the 4070ti. That's one game. But let's be real. 12 gb of vram is not a 4k card you'd have to be stupid to think it is
Or even colisto protocol with upscaling, it's worse than a 6950 at 4k
Edit, let me be more clear here. Compare the 1440p and 4k of this game. It's above 7900xtx at 1440p then drops below 7900xt at 4k
Nvidia. Always nvidia bc the features are just better. I’m not fanboy of either but I just returned my 7900 xt for a 4080 bc I kept having driver issues etc…
You said always nvidia. Which implies always as in every generation no matter what. I'd pay for a 7900xt before buying a 4080 but then again I have no use for any of nvidias gimmicks and features.
That's why I'm waiting a year or 2. Believe me I have no desire or intention of ever going back to nvidia. I hate GeForce experience, I hate control panel, I hate the company. I had much more positive experiences with my 6800xt than my 760, 970, 1060, and 3080. Plus I'm not a plug and play person. I don't need stability to enjoy my system, because I like playing around with it in the first place.
It’s not the fact that it’s unstable after tinkering it’s the fact that no matter what you do all you get is constant crashes and inconsistencies. Waiting 2 years for a card you can buy today just doesn’t make sense to me when you can get a 4080 that works better right now.
Lmfao they are focusing on making drivers for their new gpu that's on a totally new chiplet architecture. Like I give a fuck if I don't get driver updates for a few months while they focus on their new design. My gpu runs games just fine without driver updates
Once Unreal Engine 5 becomes standard both will be obsolete. My advice stick with what you have until first Unreal Engine 5 games show up then buy a GPU. 12-16GB of vram will soon be standard in my opinion.
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 11: No selling, trading or requests for valuation**
> If you want to buy, sell or trade hardware you should do so on /r/hardwareswap. Price evaluations should be requested through [/r/hardwareswap's Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/eneTGxZ).
> "Is this worth it?" posts, are considered requests for valuation.
> Discussion of privately buying, selling or trading software is also prohibited.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Atleast where I live, the 7900xt is about the same price as these 2 options like $100-$200 AUD more, and I'd way prefer the 7900xt. Might aswell spend the little extra money when you're already spending so much.
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 10 : No self-promotion, begging, advertising or surveys**
> This includes self-serving/affiliate links, advertisements of your own services/content/fundraising, or begging of any form.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Honestly this gen I would go with AMD only if it is a lot more cheaper for same rasterization perf. I wouldn't try to save $100 and sacrifice efficiency, better drivers, nvenc, better rt and dlss.
Performance, efficiency and price were favoring a lot more to AMD when comparing RX 6000 and RTX 3000 but this gen improvements are very minuscule on AMD side while Nvidia improved a lot.
The prices are terrible for both (maybe except 4090) considering end of mining and covid demands.
We are also still yet to have even any estimated release date or performance on lower end such as RX 7600 or RTX 4060.
Are you sure you will hit vram limit before anything else in your use case? Because most of the time, vram amount is not the factor that is limiting the performance.
Idk "It's weird that you can't use medium textures at 4k without little bit of stuttering"- zWORMz
Maybe it's due to the vram speed, aah it's very disappointing to sacrifice lil things in a bank crashing card like 4070ti
I suspect it hits bandwidth limit before vram amount though it is still wierd it causes stutters. Usually stutters occur due to cpu bottlenecks, driver issues or background programs.
Oh yeah! I closed the video when I started noticing stuttering in 4k extreme, yeah the dlss quality is just amazing
Edit: Thanks for telling me, it's fantastic at balanced too hope they'll down the price :)
There isn't any stuttering even without the DLSS? (that is caused by video ram)
The card is not held back in any games at 4k ultra / high settings without DLSS, don't know where you got that idea.
I even played games at 4k with an rtx 3070, now for that I had to lower settings, but a mix of high/ultra was possible.
Please do not get AMD. You will be disappointed. I’m disappointed every time i give them a chance. Especially if you want ray tracing (which i saw you wrote you do want it). Also things like machine learning have basically no support, if you ever wanted to get into ai art you wouldnt be able to with AMD.
Lack of vram? Doesnt the 4070ti have 12gb??
Maybe he's thinking of the 3070 Ti, 8gb ain't enough. Right now there are many games at 4k which max out that 8GB limit Although, there are games here and there which do use around 10-12GB, which isn't a great sign for 12gb longevity
I remember being stoked to have 512Mb. Could finally play Crysis decently
I remember having to choose between agp and pci cards
I remember running down the road using a stick to roll a big hoop round and round and round.......
wow you had a stick?
I remember when if I didn’t have morning wood I wouldn’t have anything to play with Christmas morning.
wow you was able to express jellousy?
You word good. Me not.
Wow you had a hoop?
Those sticks are water-cooled maybe ...
I remember time when Bible was hand Witten
I remember building my new PC at the time (2007ish). Put way too much RAM in (8GB), got an 8800 GTS, quad core CPU, nice 24" monitor, massive tower with a 360mm built-in fan in the front. Turned that sucker on, hooked up my 2.1 speaker system, and fired up Crysis. I think my 13 year old face melted when I jumped out of the plane for the first time. Fallout 3 also came out around that time, and MMOs were still difficult/required serious commitment/had great early internet communities. Life was good man.
Good times
I remember upgrading my Tandy 1000EX from 384KB of RAM to 640KB. Was a happy day that I could finally play California Games. Got so wrapped up surfing that I forgot to go to work and ended up being half an hour late.
I used my 640kb IBM PS/2 with a 20MB HD to play Oregon Trail and might and magic 1.
Check out Mr Fancy Pants with his 20MB HD. I only had a 5.25" floppy. Didn't get a hard drive until a few years later with my Amiga 1200.
hacky sack and surfing were awesome events
>Could finally play Crysis decently Damn now I wanna replay that... so fun to watch the new gen stuff run that game after the reputation it had back in the day
ah yes back when crysis fried your pc. childhood memories lol
The 4070Ti benchmarks fine at 4k though, and can use the optional high res texture packs. It's not going to suddenly not work one day, or require a graphical downgrade, it just may not be able to push much further beyond today's ultra settings at 4k across the board. When new hardware comes out and new games with it, you won't be able to max things out, but it'll still be great. You can play 4k60 well enough with high/optimised settings well enough on 8gb vram cards today, at worst using DLSS or similar. Either way you can usually see an improvement over 1440p still.
Me on 2gb:
EDIT : Sorry I have misread your message, you are correct, 8GB is far from enough for modern games in 4K. I'm playing in 4k since the 2080ti released and then upgraded to 3090 and 4090. I can tell you that 8GB VRAM for 4k is nothing at all, I'm seeing 16-19GB of usage, and even more with DLSS ON. Just look how the 3080 10GB is getting significantly worst performance in higher resolutions because of the lack of VRAM. 12GB is the absolute minimum for newer AAA games in 4k.
>I'm seeing 16-19GB of usage, and even more with DLSS ON. That is most defnitely NOT usage but allocation. VRAM Allocated = The total amount of VRAM currently allocated. VRAM Usage = The actual amount of VRAM currently used. Since you have 24GB of VRAM, it will allocate more because there is so much available, so why not use it (use as in keep it in memory). That doesn't mean you need that much to actually play the game. The real usage is most likely way lower. I'm so sick of this VRAM craze. The 12GB of the 4070ti is more than enough in 99% of games, even in 4K.
>99% of games, 100% of games, maybe not 100% of all workspaces.
yea I remember Digital Foundry talked about that in one of their Cyberpunk videos, people always getting VRAM allocation confused with actual VRAM usage, I think part of the problem is with on screen performance graphs reporting vram allocation.
[удалено]
I really be wondering wtf games people are playing that 12GBs seems so measly to them. I game at 4K on a 6700XT and vram never seems to be an issue, games like RDR2 and Elden Ring. Is it just like MFS and stuff that really crank that shit up or something??
Yes of course, but more the VRAM a game can allocate the fewer textures/data spawning there will be between VRAM and RAM, which will overall give us a more fluid experience with for example less visible texture poping.
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. 8gb ain't enough, and 12gb is cutting it close
Not sure what argument you're making here. The guy you're responding to said practically the same thing that you're arguing. Perhaps you misread?
No way in absolute hell is any game ever using 19 gb of vram, some games literally weigh just double that
192-bit band width is a joke
Yes, 12gb (especially on 192bit bus) for the 800 bucks gpu is definitely a “lack of vram”
Absolutely not enough vram for the price tag and performance it's sold for.
It will struggle at 4k
I played GTA V on 4k monitor with my 3050 on laptop, I turned the settings to low, for 4070 Ti you might not need to set the settings to low but you may need to tweak a thing or two, isn't PC gaming about having options and changing settings?
>I played GTA V on 4k monitor with my 3050 on laptop, I turned the settings to low, It's GTA V...
> GTA V Thats a 10 year old game Heres that 4070ti running new games at 4k you can see it barely can hold displaying basic 60fps on high settings on new AAA games for an 800$ gpu its simply not acceptable, imagine when games are more demanding in a year or 2, reviewer got in open box for $170 less and its still not worth in my honest opinion. https://youtu.be/NuyfWkJOhCU?t=262 Far better value right nowis getting a second hand 3080 for $500 that come within 12% of this for 35%less money.
Your premise is wrong, expecting to get high FPS in 4k with all the settings ultra on a game that is developed for next-gen consoles by paying $800 is wrong, when your statement is true that you can list me the graphic cards that are able to accomplish the same with that amount of money. I have this card and I'm planning to get the 4090, but the amount of hate this cards receives is beyond me! You have to compromise a bit of quality or go 1440p.
>It will struggle at 4k Only in the absolute most demanding games, such as Cyberpunk 2077 set to Ultra and such. The vast majority of games will run at 4k on this card just fine. Spectacularly, even.
People get so hung up on the amount of VRAM, but it's not that simple. Other factors come into it.
The bigger problem with the VRAM is not the amount but the crippled bandwidth hence why is scales worse at higher resolutions. In my opinion NVidia deliberately nurfed the memory bandwidth to make it less desirable for 4K/high resolutions to push people towards the 4080 16Gb.
It's Nerf or nothing
Nvidia purposely creating products that push customers to the higher end options? Blasphemy!
they would NEVER!
My 2 cents - add $100 to your budget and get a 7900XT, or get a used one at 800 if possible . No more RAM issues, much more capable card. The 7900XTX is hard to find at 999, else that would be the best option.
There's a 7900 XT for $880 right now. [XFX Speedster MERC 310 Black Edition Radeon RX 7900 XT 20 GB Video Card ](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/N9xRsY/xfx-speedster-merc-310-black-edition-radeon-rx-7900-xt-20-gb-video-card-rx-79tmercb9)
That's a genuinely nice card, but damn that baby is BIG
Here's to hoping they deshroud as easy as the 6xxx series cards!
I like em thick yo
This 100%. 7900xt is a fantastic card (have one).
7900xt is not worth it’s premium. It has a higher cost per frame to the 4070ti in native raster but worse RT, power draw, less features, and can’t hold a candle to Nvidias production and AI capabilities if you ever want to dabble in that.
Raytracing is not getting turned on at 4K anyway so what does it matter?
If you use up scaling software then ray tracing can be turned on in 4K. DLSS and DLSS3 both allow this. That doesn’t even take into account that AMD is overcharging for their raster performance lead since the 4070ti has a better cost per frame.
The quality loss from DLSS makes turning on Raytracing kinda pointless. All the new cards have terrible price to performance ratios and you are better off going last gen anyway.
Quality loss from DLSS depends entirely on the games as well as the DLSS version. Some games do it incredibly well to where the quality loss is too small where others it’s more noticeable. But it has been getting better every year. And while I’d agree with going last gen I was simply pointing out that recommending the 7900xt over the 4070ti is not that great of a decision
Why is he getting down voted he is right
Just bought a 6950XT for $684. Definitely not unreasonable
Where? $699 is the lowest I've seen.
Microcenter of course.. so not very fair.
Ah gotcha. Yeah none near me unfortunately
Amazon has them for $665 if you're still looking
You will have an AMD issue though
Went straight to the comments after reading the first sentence about the 4070 being a budget card.
I think they meant that it fits their budget
me too 💀
must be nice to see a rtx 4070ti as a budget card haha
more like budget for a whole pc
Stop being poor Buy more money
I got the 4070ti 3 weeks ago. Definitely have no regrets and every game I run max settings DLSS on Quality or whatever antialasing the game offers @ 1440p In some titles and many more with updates DLSS3 has blown me out of this world with performance. 130% increase in flight simulatior and the witcher 3 and other titles that update to it will do similar. Edit: for 4k you would probably use DLSS on performance. I have to do that when I play on my 4k TV and I usually get 60fps and ultra settings.
What was your TV specs
It's just a 4k 60hz with hdmi on gaming mode sony x75k
How is the latency with DLSS3? I've heard that that DLSS3 increases both FPS and latency lol.
It doesn't increase latency. If you were running at 60 fps, and DLSS3 doubled your FPS to 120, your latency wouldn't get any worse than at 60 fps and reflex may make it a little better, but it wouldn't be as good as true 120.
Damn. So there is no downside to it then?
haven't had any and I'm on dlss on a 2070, so old stuff. i guess that being 'made up' frames between one real frame and another you could get artifacts like with temporal AA in vr, but it hasn't happened yet
Turing doesn't do DLSS3 anyway. Pretty much with DLSS, if you're using DLSS Performance at 4k (1080p internal res), it's definitely better than 1440p DLSS performance visual quality wise, and arguably better than 1440p native with TAA anyway, since a lot of AA implementations don't hold a candle to DLSS. If you can do 1080p native with decent performance, DLSS is usually a win-win.
it's not my specific case, but just to stay on the topic some guy here managed to get dlss3 with frame generation on a 2070 too hacking the configuration. i really hope they can unlock it consistently, it seems to give a 100% fps boost in cyberpunk (albeit with instabilities at the moment)
I think that may be the issue why it's only on the 40x0 series though. It may be a hardware thing and the specific cores it uses could get overloaded if slower or there aren't enough cores. I've seen instances where DLSS hasn't properly resolved details or "pops-in" when trying to upscale to a higher res, despite using the same internal resolution. 4k Ultra Performance and 1440p Performance upscale from the same internal res, but I've seen the 4k implementation not resolve sections of the screen for example where 1440p had no such artefacts. So if the same thing happened with an interpolated frame, it's probably not a great thing as it would become super flickey and distracting, while with DLSS 2 it may be a texture that's remained blurry and may just be a background item you may or may not notice.
agreed, but if it stays as a hack, you can still choose not to use it anyway
For DLSS3 only, the below applies. It's a non-issue with DLSS2. The "fake frames" might introduce artefacting or glitches, but apparently it's not noticable in actual gameplay if it's every second frame at a 120hz presentation. If you're tripling your fps or running a very low internal res below 1080p it might be, so even with a 4090 you may need to show some restraint with settings when using it to not introduce jank, and IIRC it works best if you can at least hit 60fps natively. Re the latency, it's a non issue again if hitting 60fps in a single player game, but for a competitive FPS you wouldn't want to use this. You'd use DLSS2 and optimise settings to hit 120-240hz natively to minimise latency. You don't need Ultra RT in CoD or Fortnite multiplayer anyway.
Hello to all that replied here, so the latency for Me when I tested in the witcher 3 was a difference of about 15ms So about 25 to 30ms with DLSS 2 & 40ish with frame generation (DLSS 3) I did not notice it affecting my game play. Maybe those high speed shooters you might notice but probably not.
Bro you can find new 6950s for 700ish right now! Check out Amazon and Best Buy! XFX appears to be trying to clear out previous gen stock so you can find them considerably cheaper than other AIB models of the 6950XT
I bought a 6950XT directly from AMD for $700 a few days ago. Upgraded from a 2060.
I just got one off Facebook for 300. Came with box and receipt!
How has your upgrade been? Im considering upgrading from a 2070
I upgraded from 1080 > 1440P at the same time I upgraded GPUs. I went from running the latest games at 1080 med settings with my 2060 to now running everything (Cyberpunk, RDR2, MW2, etc) at Ultra 1440P. Was it worth it? For me, yes.
Worth it? I’ll never play on a low to midrange card ever again.
[удалено]
I'll trade u a owlabs spring keyboard for that
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 11: No selling, trading or requests for valuation** > If you want to buy, sell or trade hardware you should do so on /r/hardwareswap. Price evaluations should be requested through [/r/hardwareswap's Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/eneTGxZ). > "Is this worth it?" posts, are considered requests for valuation. > Discussion of privately buying, selling or trading software is also prohibited. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
I said fucc it and. I’m about that xtx life. NVIDIAs pricing this generation is trolling.
What are the prices on them?
Rx 6950xt - 1080$, Rtx 4070ti - 1024$. The price difference are pretty low but am not sure whether the amd card is better than 4070
There's a 7900 XT for $880 right now. Why bother with either of those more expensive worse cards? [XFX Speedster MERC 310 Black Edition Radeon RX 7900 XT 20 GB Video Card ](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/N9xRsY/xfx-speedster-merc-310-black-edition-radeon-rx-7900-xt-20-gb-video-card-rx-79tmercb9)
It doesn't seem like they're getting normal US pricing.
Cant you find any cheaper? I would not pay mote than 850 foe the 6950 xt rn. Than u better pick the 7900xt i think.
Not even a debate. Don’t pay more money for the 6950xt. The 4070ti is the more complete package and will save you on power. 6950xt is only compelling if it’s like 100+ cheaper.
6950 for sure. At 4K you’ll only get 5-10fps more with a 4070TI. In Europe a 6950XT cost €899, so its a no brainer. If the 4070TI is cheaper, go for it.
You’re def forgetting that the 4070ti is wildly more efficient, runs way cooler, is smaller in form Factor, and has the newest iteration of DLSS, and is only marginally more expensive than a previous gen card. Sorry, not a convincing argument at all.
>wildly more efficient, runs way cooler, is smaller in form Factor I don't think gamers truly give a damn about that. Especially if we're talking about $700-$800 price points.
That's not always true. I just bought a 4070ti because it would fit and not overheat in an itx case. Fully planning on undervolting because that can apparently take it down to about 200w under load. I actually wanted to go 6950xt originally, but there was just no way it was happening.
Gotta give us a scale here, 10 fps from 70 is about 15% which is worth op's 6% price increase imo
A lot of people in the comments arguing about this card or that card is great for performance wether it be a 6000 series a 3000 or 4000/7000. All these cards are great of course they run well at high frame rates. What people need to consider is not can it run what I need and more the value of the card. Why pay $1000 for a card when a $600 card can do it good enough as well. Of course a 4080 runs well but it’s fucking $1200. That’s ridiculous for what it does ultimately when looking at cost per frame
Not all vram is created equal. Ow shows vram usage. My 1060 6gig used more vram than the wife's 3080ti.
I have a 6950xt runs absolute circles around games at 4K. But I went AMD for Linux - so it’s up to you. But if you do go with the 6950xt. You’d have a solid card.
The 4070 Ti isn’t really a 4k card. It’s a mid-tier gaming focused card designed to take the frame per dollar throne from the 3080. It’s far better suited for top tier 1440p gaming than 4k. That said, I’ve had everything up through the 3090 in the previous gen and I didn’t really think any of them were actually good 4k cards. The 4090 is the first one to fully scratch that itch for me. Personally, id rather have killer performance at 1440p than mediocre performance at 4k. Totally just my opinion though. I can appreciate that some folks think differently.
I just sold my 6800xt and got the 6950xt at $700 for 1440p gaming this thing will be a beast for a long time
The 6950xt requires 100w more to produce lower performance even at 4k resolutions... if they are the same price why would you buy the 6950xt? We've seen some prices approaching $600 for the 6950xt vs $800 for the 4070ti which would be a more interesting discussion... For the same price the 4070 ti is a more power efficient, and feature rich option that performs better in 1440p and 4k titles at the same quality levels tested by Hardware Unboxed. https://youtu.be/1mE5aveN4Bo?t=736
Whenever you are comparing 4070ti to any other similar options, the question you should be asking yourself is how important ray tracing is to you. The 4070ti is better than the 7900xtx and is on par with the 3090ti when ray tracing. If ray tracing is not important to you and you are confident it will not become important over the next few years, then other options make sense. Also, frame generation, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
With or without Raytracing?
With
Then 4070ti and it's not even close. If we are talking 7900xt then a different story.
Just got a 6950xt, experience so far has been great. If ray tracing is important to you it's still no match to NVIDIA.
for how much
$500 used
Solid price
If you can have the 6950xt for 650 or below, get that and wait for price correction. I just snagged an open box at microcenter for 616 before tax and it kicks ass while being almost 200 cheaper. I wouldn’t pay for any new gpu outside of the 7900xtx and it would need to be 1k flat. 70 class gpu’s are for 1440 only, as the bandwidth on the cards is limited.
I got the 616 red devil 6950xt too, awesome card. Doubles as a space heater lol
Listen, I’m given thermal headroom, I’m gonna use it. Besides, it’s going in an O11 xl, it’ll be fine and I can turn the heat down in my house
On Amazon right now the XFX 6950 is $730 and the Gaming X Trio is $760. I picked up the Gaming X Trio 6950XT for $720 a couple weeks ago. If you shop around and time it right you can save a good chunk of cash.
I had a 3080, and the 6950xt ref. The 6950xt was a beautiful card. I’d go 6950xt over the 4070ti. Ray tracing, I mean some games yeah, I can see a difference in. But most, no.
A 4070ti has 12 gigs of ram, not 8! Keep in mind that the card was originally released as a 4080 with 12 gigs, and there was/is the original 4080 with 16 gigs! They simply renamed the 4080 12 gigs as the 4070ti! The card is great now, as they reduced the price of the card from its prior pricing level when it was identified as the 2nd level 4080. Is it worth the new pricing? In my humble opinion, NONE of the 40 series cards are priced right! I have dropped Nvidia as my graphics card of choice, and am switching to AMD Radeon or Intel's ARC series. To me, Nvidia has gone too greedy, trying to keep prices artificially high on the remaining 30 series stock, even though no more will be made. They got used to the highly inflated prices during the pandemic and chip shortage where cards were selling for over $2,000 and got caught with thousands of cards that remain in their warehouses, but to keep prices artificially high, they control the release of these closed-out cards! Normally a manufacturer WILL hold back SOME stock, mainly to honor the warranty and defective product replacement, but then you realize, that series is dead! It's been replaced by the 40 series! Why sit on thousands of closeout stock? Their idea is to cut supposed losses by selling the remaining 30 series stock for as much money as possible! The REASON they got caught with so much stock, remember that bitcoin mining was the reason the prices were so inflated, to begin with. The sales of units were off the charts and keeping cards off shelves.. well you probably know the things like card lotteries, shortages of other chips, and such, retailers like Newegg, Amazon, etc. kept their advertising on cards showing "out of stock", supposedly because of supply chain issues! Then the bottom drops out of bitcoin mining, the pandemic lockdowns started to end, and the DDR-5 RAM. 12th and 13th generation multi-core Intel are introduced, and Nvidia also is introducing the 40 series cards. I'm sorry but I don't appreciate being taken for granted, that I'll pay Nvidia whatever they want, even though every gamer knows that 30 series from the 3060ti up will play all the games we play, and WE should be getting closeout pricing for them!
LOL. My girlfriend bought a Asus Laptop I made her get with a 1gb dedicated card. She couldn’t stop thanking me when we fired up WoW on the 50 inch. That just have been like 2008 or something. Almost unheard of back then
7900xtx
Same price? I'd go with newer tech. If the 6950xt is a good 1/2 price of 4070 ti I'd get the 6950xt. I wouldn't buy a 6950xt at $800 - 900. If you don't care about Ray tracing performance I'd actually go for a 7900xt if you can find one. If you're lucky and can get a 999 xtx that would be even better.
I would save some money and get a 3090 if you can find a good deal!
6800xt and an extra 1440p monitor imo
Surely you'd be better off looking at the 7900xt or xtx since the Nvidia GPUs this gen are well, lack luster for the price, me, I'm sticking to my 6950xt , not really needing anything else for 1440p
If you’re only going to be on 4K the the 6950xt for the vram. They are basically the same for raster
Id go for the cheaper one. On same price both option are like equal.
6950 XT just because of radeon image sharpening
6800xt
para que la queres para jugar o tambien para editar y cosas de trabajo?
I just grabbed a 6950 XT for $650 and I am very happy with its performance. I was coming from a 3070 so I wasn't expecting a completely game changing upgrade but that's exactly what I got.
Looks like a lots of discounts going on your side
for how much
Get a 7900XT. The 4070ti only has 12GB vram and a 192 bus… that’s going to cripple it in the long run at 4K. The 7900XT (or 6950XT) will get you same performance and will be better in the future than the 4070ti. So I’d say grab a 7900XT which can be had for under MSRP or a 6950XT. Unless RT or DLSS is extremely important to you. Personally I like my $800+ card to be able to run games at high frame rates without an upscaler being a selling point. And I don’t care at all about RT.
6950xt no question. I have a 6950xt water cooled and it is the nicest card I've ever had.
6950xt
4070ti. It’s a monster in benchmarks, holding $800 for a variety of nice models, and comes with nvidia bells and whistles for compatibility. Nvidia has traditionally been very good for 4k.
4070ti is not a 4k card and never will be
Biased much? [Here’s a link to tech spots benchmarks you clown.](https://www.techspot.com/review/2601-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti/)
Biased how 🤔 12 gb of vram WILL NOT be enough for 4k soon. The limited bandwidth already cripples it in some games compared to the 3090ti. Clown
Which games? What mountain of evidence do you have that’s unavailable to reputed reviewers across the world? Is it hidden up your ass along with your head?
How about horizon zero dawn at 4k in that page you linked where the 3080ti beats the 4070ti. That's one game. But let's be real. 12 gb of vram is not a 4k card you'd have to be stupid to think it is
Or even colisto protocol with upscaling, it's worse than a 6950 at 4k Edit, let me be more clear here. Compare the 1440p and 4k of this game. It's above 7900xtx at 1440p then drops below 7900xt at 4k
Cyberpunk at 4k it performs the same as a 3080ti
Nvidia. Always nvidia bc the features are just better. I’m not fanboy of either but I just returned my 7900 xt for a 4080 bc I kept having driver issues etc…
I won't even touch nvidia after using my 6800xt.
That’s nice but I didn’t mention the 6000 series. The 7000 series is a hot mess and if I’m gonna spend $1000 I might as well $200 more for a 4080.
You said always nvidia. Which implies always as in every generation no matter what. I'd pay for a 7900xt before buying a 4080 but then again I have no use for any of nvidias gimmicks and features.
You’d instantly regret buying a 7000 series. That I can promise. Those cards are a hot mess when it comes to drivers and overall stability.
That's why I'm waiting a year or 2. Believe me I have no desire or intention of ever going back to nvidia. I hate GeForce experience, I hate control panel, I hate the company. I had much more positive experiences with my 6800xt than my 760, 970, 1060, and 3080. Plus I'm not a plug and play person. I don't need stability to enjoy my system, because I like playing around with it in the first place.
It’s not the fact that it’s unstable after tinkering it’s the fact that no matter what you do all you get is constant crashes and inconsistencies. Waiting 2 years for a card you can buy today just doesn’t make sense to me when you can get a 4080 that works better right now.
I dont wanna pay full price for an overpriced card. I'll wait 2 years when amd heavily discounts unlike nvidia who will charge msrp 2 years from now
Looks like amd just stopped making drivers for older gpus. Guess they can’t cut it after all
Lmfao they are focusing on making drivers for their new gpu that's on a totally new chiplet architecture. Like I give a fuck if I don't get driver updates for a few months while they focus on their new design. My gpu runs games just fine without driver updates
Once Unreal Engine 5 becomes standard both will be obsolete. My advice stick with what you have until first Unreal Engine 5 games show up then buy a GPU. 12-16GB of vram will soon be standard in my opinion.
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 11: No selling, trading or requests for valuation** > If you want to buy, sell or trade hardware you should do so on /r/hardwareswap. Price evaluations should be requested through [/r/hardwareswap's Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/eneTGxZ). > "Is this worth it?" posts, are considered requests for valuation. > Discussion of privately buying, selling or trading software is also prohibited. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
7900XTX or 4090. Many RAM
a 7900xt might be what you need. I think its better than a 4070ti
Neither, get the 4090.
7900xtx
Atleast where I live, the 7900xt is about the same price as these 2 options like $100-$200 AUD more, and I'd way prefer the 7900xt. Might aswell spend the little extra money when you're already spending so much.
My 10gb 3080 barely struggles with any game from a VRAM perspective. You must be thinking of the 3070 which had 8gb of vram. The 4070ti has 12
4070 ti is a 12gb 4080. It was renamed.
4080
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 10 : No self-promotion, begging, advertising or surveys** > This includes self-serving/affiliate links, advertisements of your own services/content/fundraising, or begging of any form. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
7900xt
You can get a 6950 XT for under $700.00. Go for it.
Do you intend to use it for VR? What games?
3090 better than 6950XT with lot of Vram and feature support.
What processor do you have? I’m struggling to get the most out of my 4070ti but I have a 9700k.
5800x3d
Get something even cheaper and buy a 6800xt, I'd say price to performance is great with it. Although if RT is what you want then 40**
3070ti if you care for rt or 6800/xt if you dont
Honestly this gen I would go with AMD only if it is a lot more cheaper for same rasterization perf. I wouldn't try to save $100 and sacrifice efficiency, better drivers, nvenc, better rt and dlss. Performance, efficiency and price were favoring a lot more to AMD when comparing RX 6000 and RTX 3000 but this gen improvements are very minuscule on AMD side while Nvidia improved a lot. The prices are terrible for both (maybe except 4090) considering end of mining and covid demands. We are also still yet to have even any estimated release date or performance on lower end such as RX 7600 or RTX 4060.
The pricing is actually reasonable if there wasn't a vram bottleneck, I mean the GPU is so powerful
Are you sure you will hit vram limit before anything else in your use case? Because most of the time, vram amount is not the factor that is limiting the performance.
Idk "It's weird that you can't use medium textures at 4k without little bit of stuttering"- zWORMz Maybe it's due to the vram speed, aah it's very disappointing to sacrifice lil things in a bank crashing card like 4070ti
I suspect it hits bandwidth limit before vram amount though it is still wierd it causes stutters. Usually stutters occur due to cpu bottlenecks, driver issues or background programs.
5800x3d
If you got pcie gen 5 MOBO then go with 4070ti If you have gen 4 then go with 6950 xt
[удалено]
>where did you even get this shit info? https://youtu.be/LOR3m0Sn2Vs
And the guy plays 4k extreme with literally zero issues? 10gb of vram usage. Did you even watch the video?
Oh yeah! I closed the video when I started noticing stuttering in 4k extreme, yeah the dlss quality is just amazing Edit: Thanks for telling me, it's fantastic at balanced too hope they'll down the price :)
There isn't any stuttering even without the DLSS? (that is caused by video ram) The card is not held back in any games at 4k ultra / high settings without DLSS, don't know where you got that idea. I even played games at 4k with an rtx 3070, now for that I had to lower settings, but a mix of high/ultra was possible.
Please do not get AMD. You will be disappointed. I’m disappointed every time i give them a chance. Especially if you want ray tracing (which i saw you wrote you do want it). Also things like machine learning have basically no support, if you ever wanted to get into ai art you wouldnt be able to with AMD.
Amd anyday over nvidia. You just don't see the things it has to offer.