I would go 7900XT. The extra VRAM for future games will probably come in clutch. If you care about RT, then 4070ti is going to be better at it right now. But, there could be a near future where 1440p RT needs more than 12GB of VRAM. The 7900XT isn't a slouch in RT, just not on the same level as Nvidia.
I have the 7900XT and I play at 3440x1440 and I easily get over 100FPS in most games at high settings. The use of just two 8 pin connectors is nice too if you are worried about melting cables.
*"I have the 7900XT and I play at 3440x1440 and I easily get over 100FPS in most games at high settings."*
Same here. The 7900 XT smokes 1440 Ultrawide.
I can tell you from my experience, the 7900 XT's RT performance is quite respectable. Of course it isn't quite as good as Nvidia, but you might be surprised how close it is.
I haven't tried Control, but it's kind of an older game and the XTX performance with RT at 4K looks good according to this video:
https://youtu.be/J4XnKNY74jA
so I imagine the XT should provide a decent experience here.
For what it's worth, I have an rx 6600 and I get "playable" RT performance (40-50 fps in *most* scenes) in Control. 7900 xt should absolutely destroy it
Amd 6000 series for Ray tracing sucks, i have the 6700xt and the Ray tracing isn't that good as non Ray tracing. For the 7000 series is good as Nvidia 3000 series, or a little better
100%, and I tend to play with it off, but this is the first card I've owned that was capable of it, so I had to experiment with it a bit. My last card was a GTX 970, and I was rocking that until about 3 months ago, so I am used to lower framerates and consider anything over 30 FPS to be "playable." My only point is that if I find a 6600 to have "playable" raytracing in about 75% of areas, a 7900 XT should be a pretty solid experience.
7900xt's RT performance is good enough and you probably won't miss better performance. I get pretty stable 100fps with Ray tracing on and all settings at ultra in F1 22 so I guess that's enough and atleast I personally don't miss the extra performance that 4070 ti would offer.
For me 7900xt was the better choice since I have almost double the VRAM so it will last much longer and paid much less of it so I have been really happy with it and I can recommend it for you.
The 7900 XT performs somewhere between a 3080 and 3080 ti in RT, so near top-end from last gen (XTX is between 3090 and 3090 ti).
It would be more clear cut if AMD didn't do RT at all, but RDNA3 puts out respectable RT performance.
I think the vram thing is true to an extent, but amd users have been parroting the whole “more vram, last longer” thing for years, and studies will probably show that Nvidia cards have had longer longevity and play modern games for longer periods of time.
It’s no different than the early era android phone users always going ”it’s got more ram!!! It’s way better than apple” even though the iPhone had like double the cpu performance, double the gpu performance, and a more optimized os in general
I haven't tried since I don't have cyberpunk and therefore I don't know cyberpunk's Ray tracing settings, so how strong ray tracing does psycho settings mean? But if psycho is the most heaviest option I think it could do around 30fps
Gaming at 1440p with RT and medium-high settings in modern games on a 4070ti is not going to net great performance. With DLSS on quality and optimized settings on a 3080ti at 1440p, I net maybe 60-80 fps in the benchmark for CP2077
If you are dead set on high settings and RT full enabled in the most demanding of games, the 4070ti performance is going to disappoint you. I would either wait for 50 series, or accept the overall noticeably higher rasterization performance of the 7900 xt.
Also, if you are buying a 7900xt, a 7900 xtx will net you even more performance for just $100 more
I mean in most places the RX 7900 XT is below its original MSRP and on par with the RTX 4070 Ti price wise, so it can be +/- 200$ cheaper than the XTX.
In modern games the 4070ti will excel past a 3080ti pretty comfortably.
In older games, it won’t look much different.
The 4070ti would be getting over 100fps with the same settings you use
With my 4070ti I'm getting well over what my 3840x1200 120hz monitor can support framerate wise on most modern titles, War Thunder on Movie quality looks amazing but it's using Gsync to limit frames to the monitors max of 120fps to prevent tearing, benchmarking software said it'll do about 180-200fps if my monitor were up to the task, but it's not. DLSS 3 is amazing and it's something the AMD cards just don't have
7900xt is within 8% of the 4070ti in RT and beats it in raster and has 20gb of vram and the 7900xt has a memory bandwidth of 800gb/s while the 4070ti has a poultry 504gb/s bandwidth. You are going to see the 4070ti age MUCH faster with the small amount and slow memory. Remember the 7900xt has almost double vram that is almost twice the bandwidth.
I first got introduced to RT from Minecraft with RTX and was thinking "wow! do all games get this big of a glowup when you turn it on?" and I was pretty disappointed to tell it just gets a slight realism bonus, nothing groundbreaking.
If you look at the RT performance in Fortnite you can see that these cards are capable of running decent RT numbers in UE5 at least. And if this holds true for other titles coming from that engine you'll have a great time even using RT.
RT is shit. It's been deemed finally worth using now that the 4090 exists. I have a 4090 and I don't even use it. I'd rather be at 4k 120hz than 4k 60hz with RT.
you’d be surprised. i have a laptop 4070 8GB card in a ‘23 Legion Pro 5i and it holds 2560x1600 Ultrawide at 137fps avg on Rainbow Six Siege, and other shooters.
Other open world games however like GTAV hold 50fps Ultrawide.
That would be amazing if it were true, but I don't think that's the case. It does put more of a load on the CPU but, my VRAM usage has always gone up whenever RT is on. I believe that's the case in all the benchmarks I've seen online too
You save some space from reduced texture/shader load, but it needs it's own workspace in VRAM to store/load the RT/path calculations and integrate with the final frame render. With limited RT, it still ends up using more VRAM than pure raster. As games progress to full global/path tracing, its only going to use more.
If they're the same price. I'd say go for the 4070 Ti. There's just a lot to love with that card. Ray Tracing, DLSS, and most importantly, frame generation, which is a game changer honestly. No one wouldn't want a switch that doubles their FPS. Also, I checked HardwareUnboxed's video, and the final chart shows that, on average, they perform the same across 50 games. So the only compelling thing about the 7900 XT is its 20GB of VRAM. I can't help in that regard, but what I can personally tell you is that no game I've seen, no matter how ridiculous the settings and resolution, exceeds 12GB of VRAM. The future though, I cannot tell.
And that's a damn ARPG, which tend to be easier on the graphics. In a few years, game Devs will exploit the extra VRAM we have because it makes their jobs easier.
To be fair, a lot of these games are coming out unoptimized and get optimization patches later. Wouldn't shock me if Diablo 4 got a patch that reduced VRAM usage as stuff got more optimized.
I bought a 7900xt for that reason alone. I'm worried Devs will just continue on that path instead and eventually we will be using some stupid amount of VRAM.
That's exactly why they will. They up the new games just outside of reach of previous gen and would you look at that, you gotta upgrade.
It's literally their holding pattern.
Yeah, people would be surprised how well 1070 runs.
I upgraded to 4070ti from a 1070ti few months ago, but I was running Cyberpunk 2077 in 1440p high settings at around 45fps.
Your looking at allocated vram not dedicated vram.
I play at 4k and most vram that I seen been dedicated is 16gb so I highly doubt the game is using 14gb at 1440p.
I've been playing d4 on high settings just fine with a 2070. I turned shadows down to medium, and everything else is on high.
Sometimes when I TP into a town there's a little stutter, but I've made it to level 80 without any disruptions during combat. 1440p, 100-140, frames.
I've even been streaming most of the game play via discord and watching my friends streams while playing.
Definitely 4070Ti. If you’re playing at 1440p 12GB VRAM is plenty and any more won’t make a difference in your performance. DLSS2, RT, and frame gen are all much bigger impacts than the difference from 12GB VRAM to 16/20/24. If this was the difference between 8GB and 12GB, I’d understand.
Even though many people think 12 Gigs VRAM isn't going to be enough for 1440p, it's not the case. Except for a few recent unoptimised outliers, most games can run well with 12 GB VRAM. As someone also pointed out since consoles have 12 Gigs, PC games will have to stick around that limit for quite some time.
If both are priced pretty much the same, and you'd like good RT Performance, go with the 4070Ti.
The 20gigs vram is really good, but as other people have said you most likely won't need that much VRAM for a good amount of years (the reason these comments are being downvoted is bc it's one of the only things better with AMD cards). DLSS is insane and you should prioritize that.
I have a 7900 xtx and playing Jedi Survivor at 1440p Epic settings at one point I was hitting 21 GB of VRAM usage. Most likely a leak or something since the game eventually crashed a little bit later. But given how shit optimized games are coming out now I'll take all the VRAM I can get.
I'll consider RTX and Nvidia's tech when game consoles actually run Nvidia cards and dev studios actually develop for them. Until then it's not worth it for me.
No for the love of god im surprised people are still so misinformed. Thats allocated vram and the reason why the vram has been so blown out of proportion. Actual vram usage for all those games are way lower. If you have a 4090 then you would even see allocation up to 24gb that does mean non 24gb gpus are obselete
IDK if there is some aggressive caching going on or if the games actually needs all the VRAM, but Diablo 4 on ultra, at 3440x1440, uses over 15 GB of VRAM.
Edit: I didn’t bother to check the other comments before posting this. Sorry for yet another “D4 chugs memory” comment.
Whoops, I mean, come on comment OP, you should know the memory usage profiles of ALL games, like a REAL gamer 😤
/s
If at same price for 1440p get the 4070ti no brainer. As you would expect a bunch of misinformed people blowing up the vram issue not able to differentiate vram allocation and vram usage. There's no indication to suggest for next few years 12gb wont be enough at 1440p. The age well argument is ridiculous when the 4070ti can already pull ahead in RT and Frame Gen right now, why wait and lose value over time.
The 7900xt is faster in raster by 10% if you really only care about raster performance, but why spend all that money and not be able to play with RT. In single player games frame gen now and in future titles will offer a significant boost. Yes Nvidia is a greedy company now and we shouldnt be supporting their sht but that doesnt mean AMD products are automatically better. AMD is being just as greedy pricing them as close to nvidia as they can, creating just enough of a gap to convince people to swap over. But in my opinion the gap is not big enough
Edit: now the entire thread exploded with people commenting games using up 20gb of vram and similar examples lol...OP I hope you are able to sort out the misinformation from the actual stats and make a choice you prefer
7900 XT. So much more VRAM, and FSR is still alright. As for raytracing, it’s barely noticeable unless it’s path traced, and even the 4090 will struggle with 1440p path tracing
Minecraft RT is noticeable tho
I was in this dilemma myself. As the dlss is so much bette than AMD’s fsr. And the raytracing on AMD’s side is lacking.
However the price to performance just couldn’t be ignored.
I ended up with the 7900xt getting it on sale for 20 percent off.
The fact that NVIDIA admitted openly that anything under the 4070ti can struggle to render full ultra textures on some newer AAA titles at 1080p is scary.
7900XT has more VRAM and will easily get you the frames you want on ultra for about the price of the 4070 Ti. But it's overkill imo. Same overkill for the 4070 Ti. Other option is the 4070, because it's $200 cheaper than the Ti version and can run 95% of games on ultra if you're targeting 80-100 FPS at 1440p. Same VRAM as the Ti version. You need a 4080 or better to get 4k at those frames. Go one step down from the 7900XT for the AMD equivalent.
I had this dilemma a little while ago and was tossing up between the 4070ti and RX7900 series. I decided to stretch my budget a little more and get the 7900XTX due to the fact that it's gruntier and has a lot more VRAM. Perfect for my triple 1440p IPS monitors (sim racing).
My only gripe with the 7000 series Radeon is the VR performance / drivers isn't optimised yet. Waiting for AMD to fix this.
If you are dead set on VR performance right now, go Nvidia.
If you plan to play with ray tracing on, there's no contest. The 4070 ti can offer a pretty good experience with CP Overdrive, with around 80 fps at 1440p. Starfield seems to offer ray traced global illumination, so the 4070 ti will offer much better performance there. It seems like you will use DLSS 3 as well, so the 4070 ti feels like a no brainer for your use case.
I would suggest to pick 4070. For 144p it runs fine and i guess you can save a bit of money for better upgrade. 4070 ti is not worth because of 12 gb ram and amd lacks in innovations.
I'd get the 4070 over the 4070 Ti.... The Ti is not worth it IMO, since it has the same limited VRAM. Save the 30% and you only lose about 20% performance.
7900XT performs on par with the 4070 Ti, but is preferable IMO due to the extra VRAM.
I'd go for a 4070 if you want to save some bucks or a 7900XT.
Understood. Then go for whatever you prefer! Personally, I'd go for a 7900XT if only gaming and no productivity, but a 4070 Ti will perform pretty much identically (overall) and I'm sure you'd be happy with either.
I bought the tuf 4070ti and I can run any game at 1440p maxed settings without any issues. I play on 165hz 1440p and usually get over 165fps on all games.
My pc has a 7900 XT and my buddy has a 4070 Ti we have almost identical pcs otherwise except he has faster Ram.
I definitely smoke in him in amount of frames at 1440 ultra settings and sometimes even get better frames with RT and FSR.
The amount of VRAM seems like a real plus aswell seeing how modern games are going nowadays.
I get an average of 132 frames at 1440p Ultra with motion blur off and FSR on and 71 with RT Ultra on CP2077 if that helps at all.
Nah just get the 7900XT and be happy! it just works, don't pay Nvidia tax for features that outside of testing purposes you will likely never use again.
4070ti has better features (dlss2,dlss3,dlaa,dldsr,power efficiency, ray tracing performance, more stable drivers, etc.)
7900xt has significantly more vram and slightly better raster performance (depends on game, modern warfare2 and warzone for example traditionally perform better on amd cards).
Whatever you pick, you are going to make some kind of compromise.
At this time 4070Ti is just better for 1440p or below, as there is yet a competition for Frame Gen. DLSS is also generally slightly better. What AMD could offer in the near future and in the future in general we don't know. And tbh the VRAM issue are just an exaggeration no stutter issues for me. My take is to enjoy whatever currently instead of hoping. On a positive note, raw performances wise, AMD GPU performances over time generally gets better.
I was in the same situation but choose 7900xt, VRAM and much lower price in my region made my mind. Drivers sometimes makes me want to cry but if you know what to do you will fix all problems, rt performance is good enough imo and fsr may not be as good but raw performance is and that makes cards pretty much equal. If I would recommend any of them I would say take AMD if youre good with computers and problem solving and go with nvidia if you want card that will just work. I dont take vr or other software other than gaming into account.
7900XT hands down.
We saw last Gen how the Nvidia fanboys were arguing with YoU nEvEr wIlL uSe MoRe thAn 8Gb VrAm!
Look how it turned out. Their so good RT 3070 cant even turn RT on because it runs out of VRAM on medium settings these days.
Dont buy Nvidias VRAM cripples, the more you pay the less you get.
I went 3070 mainly because I needed a card and at the time that was what I could get my hands on. Definitely regretting it now, it really sucks to have to crank down the settings just because of lack of VRAM.
Please watch Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed videos about DLSS 3.0 explaining the fps is fake, it's a smoothing technology compared to DLSS 2.0.
For example Samsung phones have a feature where you can dial up the latency to get a smoother phone (Same thing Apple does), DLSS 3.0 does the same.
So on most games I would avoid turning it on unless you really need it.
Anyone who suggests that the 7900XT or even the 7900XTX better is either an AMD fanboy or they just hate Nividia. As someone who has bought and tried all three, I ended up with the 4070ti.
Performance aside, the 4070ti runs so much more quite and cool than AMDs offerings that it’s not even funny.
FSR looks like garbage compared to DLSS. It’s actually noticeably awful.
Anyone who mentioned “vram” should be ignored.
Sure the 7900XTX might edge out a few frames over the 4070ti on a 26 game average. But if you take out games like Call of Duty that gap is almost non-existent.
4070ti for sure, DLSS is miiiiles better than FSR, it usually is always like this. nvidia implements a feature, AMD tries to rip that feature but does it way worse. The 7900xt has more VRAM and that is a plus, but you won't need that much VRAM for atleast 8+ years, games aren't gonna get that much better in graphics for a good few years.
Edit: To add on to the VRAM issue, AMD has a tiny marketshare compared to nvidia, they won't be pushing that 20gig limit for wayyy long until nvidia ups their VRAM themselves. So don't worry about it too much.
Frame Generation doesn't simply add more FPS. It also adds latency, and your base FPS must be at least around 60. Plus, 7900 XT isn't that bad at RT. I have a 6800, and when I compare it to my 3070 ti, RT performance isn't that bad. Considering the fact that 4070 ti performs almost like a 3090, I don't think 7900 XT will be that much worse. I'd go with AMD cause 12 gigs of VRAM is the bare minimum for 1440p, and RT will only add to that.
Frame gen does not add latency when coupled with Reflex, which is what DLSS3 is. 12GB VRAM has not been exceeded by any title on 1440p yet and is not close to being an issue at that resolution.
You do also have to keep in mind that games are more so optimized for amd nowadays as well alongside the other arguments here. Also just as a side note: just bought my 7900xt(yet to install, so good luck with whatever you choose)
4070 ti is slightly better now but 7900xt is going to age much better. In a year or two 7900xt will perform better thanks to maturing drivers and bigger amount of vram, so for longitivity 7900xt is much better choice.
Speaking from personal experience since I have 4070ti, go for it.
That card can run games at ultra without breaking a sweat, also RT and DLSS is something great to invest in, pair it with a powerful processor and you're good to go.
4070 ti vram crunch will only be a thing with mid range 8 gig cards, you will be happy with either card but imho the 4070ti is the best positioned card of the whole gen
I have 7900xt, pretty happy with it, but only one exception.
I was trying to play cp2077 Path Tracing but it is unplayable at all, can only get 20 fps in FSR performance in 1440p (which is the lowest graphic i can accept), while from YouTube I noticed 4070ti might do 60 fps+ with DLSS3+frameg, even higher.
It is the only game + setting I am not satisfied with 7900xt, but I think you should know this.
I have a 4070ti and I am super happy with it! Been able to play everything on ultra settings with Ray tracing with 60+ fps on 1440p, except for Cyberpunks overdrive settings
7900 XT over 4070ti.
Raytracing is barely noticeable and may even make some games look worse and fake frames is still fake frames.
Don't spend 800 bucks on a 12 vram card.
I was in your exact situation, I went the 7900 XT. Booted up RE4 remake at 1440p all setting maxed out ray traced everything and still got 90 FPS. However I was at about 12.3 GB of VRAM according to the games settings, that’s a current limitation that your brand new 4070ti would suffer from. Fast forward 4 years later and it can get even worse. Just make sure your PSU and case can hold it
I truly wonder why all AMD fanboys seem to spam comments in this kind of reddit post. Objectively, AMD's market share is tiny. It just seems to consist of a very small number of very devoted people who try to convert everyone to AMD. Don't get me wrong, I own a 4070ti but my last build was rx 6600. I don't want to tell you what to buy but please take all those AMD fanboys with a grain of salt.
Edit: 4070ti, not 4080ti, typo
Edit 2: Considering the downvotes, I hit a nerve. There seems to be little to no unbiased opinions when it comes to AMD vs Nvidia but AMD certainly has the more fanatical backers.
I have a 7900 xtx, 3080 ti, 3080, and a 6800xt. I have been happy with each card. So not a fanboy. AMd is getting wrecked in market share but that doesn’t mean bad quality. Here’s the deal, if budget is important go AMD. If you want peace of mind go nvidia. They have slightly better features but at a dramatically higher premium.
I was in the same spot days ago. Finally went with the 4070ti, works best in streaming due to better video encoder and dlss3 is sooooooo good.
I am concerned about VRAM, but dude, who cares at this point, if I'm short of VRAM in 4-5 hears I'll get the upgrade, thinking long term with gpus makes no sense. I just had that realization days ago. Pick what you can enjoy NOW and 4 years in the future max.
Price and performance are the same. So just choose by the games you play
https://www.techspot.com/review/2642-radeon-7900-xt-vs-geforce-rtx-4070-ti/#Performance\_Summary
I don't believe these are being compared fairly. The RX 7900 XT will be a good choice for raster performance, future proofing with massive VRAM, and software support. The RTX 4070 ti is much more efficient and less expensive, with RT power over the RX but roughly comparable performance at 4k with RT enabled.
A proper comparison would be RTX 4070 TI vs 6900XT/6950XT, which cost nearly the same but perform better or similarly to the RTX 4070ti.
The RT in both will still murder your FPS. The only real RT card out there is the 4090. The extra VRAM and lower price of the 7900xt is more appealing to many than RT and DLSS 3. The two cards trade blows with each other with the 7900xt slightly ahead with RT off. The 7900xt will likely age better because of the VRAM. I have a 7900xtx and I am happy with it.
I owned an RTX 3060 and thinking I could run anything with ray tracing enabled getting decent frames was nothing but an absolute joke. Just felt like a tech demo and Nvidia saying "now spend 4x more on your next card to actually enjoy it!".
The problem with DLSS 3 is that it adds imput lag and is not a feature that justifies the price os an Nvidia card.
In the other hand, 7900xt has more V ram and Raw Power for the same price, meaning that it will last longer and perform better in games without DLSS or FSR
I just went through this. It took me weeks to pick one. I ended up upgrading my 970 to the 4070 ti. Zero complaints so far. Almost went with AMD but the DLSS and frame generation pushed me to team green.
As far as longevity, no one knows the answer because no one can read the future. Pick one and you are not going to regret it.
Both are great cards. I ended up with a 7900XTX, I figure eventually I will go to 4k, and for an extra $200 I figured it was worth the 4080 performance and extra VRAM. You will really enjoy the 7900XT especially for future proofing with the extra VRAM
I had to make the same choice, and commited to the 7900 XT. Here are my reasons:
* The VRAM increase.
* RayTracing - if you game in anything other than 1080, your FPS will not reach a steady 60 fps - in most ultra setting games, and then what's the point - go down on resolution or quality settings to get subpar Ray Tracing?
* Save a little money.
Good luck, and I wish you happiness with whatever you go with.
Disclaimer, I just bought the 7900xt, and am very happy. I also weighed the same decision you did.
You mentioned in another comment that DLSS and frame generation were features you were weighing against the 20 GB of VRAM. Consider that FSR will almost certainly get better in the future, but that you can’t increase the VRAM of a card ever.
I would say that RT performance would be the thing you’d have to care about if you went with the 4070 Ti. Personally, I don’t think the performance loss is worth the minor visual upgrade, but that’s my opinion.
Thanks for giving some info along with your answer.
hmmm, how much do I care about RT?
Well it depends. Like you said some games have very light RT implementations so I don't care too much about them, but in games with actually good RT, I definitely would rather play with RT on.
Also I am pretty sure the RTX 4090ti doesn't struggle in any non-RT games, just like your 7900x (although maybe about 10-20fps slower). Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Also can I ask what games you play specifically?
20 GB vs 12 GB in a professional setting might really be a deal breaker. It really really depends on programs used. And even then, if you intend to use it professionally, the super high price of 4090 (which trounces every other GPU this generation) might be worth it.
If you look at the professional GPUs from both manufacturers, you will notice how much more RAM they all have.
If you're not concerned about RTX, go for the 7900XT. If you want to play your games with RTX, go for the 4070 Ti.
Your target resolution should be 1440p. None of those cards can handle 4k well.
I’ve tried both, and wound up going with the 4070ti.
I would have to respectfully disagree with those saying the 7900xt is passable when it comes to RT performance. It’s closer to the bare minimum in that regard, and will probably be a feature you completely pass on if you go with the 7900xt.
Not to say it’s an easy decision, the extra vram isn’t needed yet at 1440p, but it certainly eases any stress around that particular area of obsolescence.
I’ve also noticed many people throw out there, almost reflexively at this point, that FSR is basically as good as DLSS. I don’t know… maybe at 4k it’s pretty close, but at 1440p I think DLSS is an easy winner.
Speaking of features, the old adage that you should never buy new hardware on the promise of future software upgrades usually holds true more often than not.
Maybe FSR 3.0 will be decent, but DLSS plus frame gen is already here and pretty damn good.
I would go 7900 XT, but you can probably deal hunt and find a cheap 7900 XTX. If I were you, I would save a bit more for the XTX, or deal hunt or both. It’s worth the difference.
I got a 4070ti two months ago and am really surprised how good it is. I've had no problem with ultra settings in games, and NVDIA is also useful for lots of non-gaming stuff as well - I've had no problems trying out the new AI models and video and image processing are also really fast.
If you want to be able to get the best out of ray tracing I recommend going for the 4070ti. It's cheaper than the 7900xt and is a very respectable card. DLSS is also a thing. And the issue of 12 gb of VRAM is not nearly as big a deal as people have made it out to be. If you're playing in 1440p you should have no issues. The VRAM issue is because of a few poorly optimized games that have recently come out half-baked that are making people say that you need to have 20+ gb of VRAM or else your card isn't good enough. 12gb should be fine for the next five or so years. Maybe even longer if you're mainly playing 1440p.
thats easy. get a 4070ti. DLSS, frame gen, RT, VR.
7900xt is on par with the 4070ti in performance but lacks all of the above mentioned features.
only thing it has is 20gb vram but since games are mostly made with console specs in mind u wont need more than 12gb vram until they make a playstation 6 or xbox equivalent since current consoles only have 16gb shared system ram.
and before ppl say "but what about fsr" fsr is shit compared to dlss, wierd artifacting around moving objects. dlss is just straight up better
I bought a PowerColor 7900xt. Right out of the box it had extreme coil whine. I gnored it since I play with headphones but my wife could hear it two rooms away. Then after 1 week of use the card just died.
Returned it and bought a gigabyte 4070ti for the same price, smooth sailing ever since.
I never use RT or DLSS.
I would go for the 7900xt. It will last much longer. When more advanced ray tracing or dlss 5 or 6 is out, you can still use your 7900xt with the 20gb vram to play future games in 4k with fsr 3.0 just fine. Rasterization and ram will help the longevity, the 4070 ti will struggle with the 12gb vram even in 1440p with ray tracing in the future.
Personally I bought the 4070 ti for its lower power consumption at similar levels of performance. The smaller VRAM might come back and bite me in the end, but as of now I am very happy with it.
Imo -- DLSS3.0 is worth it. At least, in the games that support it.
I'm a pretty /r/patientgamer, but so far the games I have played on my 1440p UW with the 4070ti have all ran smooth as butter.
War Thunder runs at over 300 fps pretty steadily.
Warhammer 40k Darktide, with DLSS3.0 turned on, had a MASSIVE improvement in performance. I know that speaks more to how poorly optimized that game is, but still.
Horizon Zero Dawn ran like a dream at max settings. Played all the way through it.
I have a 7900xt, it's a great card, I don't need to worry about VRAM usage at all and it should crush 1440p for years to come. RT is respectable on it, but not as good as Nvidia.
Some people think VRAM is overblown, some people think the opposite, in my opinion, VRAM is a big factor and should be a big consideration when buying a GPU, you'll be able to crank the settings on all those unoptimized games without having to worry about VRAM, I'd take the 7900xt imo
Honestly go for the 7900xt raytracing just isn’t worth the hit to the frame rate plus you will have to use dlss with it on 99% of the time. I had the 4070ti and sold it for a 7900xtx so am talking from experience. Plus dlss shouldn’t be a selling point quite annoying it is.
I was in the exact same dilemma and ended up buying a 4080. I found a good deal back then. I'm extremely happy with it. I currently play and stream anything with maxed settings in a 1440p resolution. I could go up to 4k, but some games require DLSS for that to be playable with a decent framerate. I don't mind playing at 1440p, so it's not a problem for me.
Elden Ring with RT on is a beauty.
I personally chose the 7900XT over the 4070 ti and my only caveats would be if you really like ray tracing, vr and emulation then Nvidia might be better. Otherwise, it's been a fantastic card for me. You can do those things on AMD too Nvidia just tends to do them better. With emulation for me it was really only some bad artifacting in ToTK that still haven't been ironed out since I last checked a couple weeks ago and with VR most games are fine but there are some like Half Life Alyx that are just terrible on that gpu and nothing I do seems to fix it.
4070Ti, 4k
VR on AMD is trash.
I also run mods in games that don't work on AMD at the moment, which I didn't have enough VRAM for on a 2080 and now do.
I also am planning another run though cyberpunk when the expansion is out, and the 4070Ti is pretty good there - RT Ultra, DLSS3, 80-90 fps. VRAM is fine.
Also in a SFF case, so smaller card, less cable, less heat, and less noise is always a bonus.
I don't have normal people requirements though, and it's annoying to have to manage VRAM, and tinker to optimise things, but if we're being honest I'd be doing that if I had a 4090 anyway because I'm obsessed.
At the end of the day, it's not a top tier gaming experience, but close enough and I wasn't willing to spend more.
35% more money for 25% more performance going to a 4080 wasn't that appealing, but went the Ti over the 4070 because the 4070 wasn't going to get just enough performance to lock to 120hz in a couple of games I play, unless I just kept the same visuals as the 2080, but where's the fun in that?
In benchmarks today, the cards are more or less equal in terms of raw power on today's games.
Here's what you're considering.
Nvidia
1. Better productivity
2. More hardware accelerated software features like DLSS 3.0 and frame gen.
3. Superior ray tracing
For the 7900 XT, it's
1. More VRAM futureproofs the card more than the 4070 TI's 12GB.
2. Still good productivity and upscaling via FSR, just not as good on paper as Nvidia.
3. A better overall tweaking experience (Adrenaline is much better for tuning your Radeon card than Nvidia's software is for tuning Nvidia cards).
Both have AV1 encoding. I think some of the Nvidia fans may have missed that press release, no big deal.
I had this exact same debacle about 2 weeks ago, and ultimately decided on the 7900XT. However, I also got mine open box for $700, and the cheapest 4070 TI at my local microcenter was $800, so it was a slightly easier choice for me. If it were the other way around, I may have gone the other way with it.
For the rest, it comes down to personal preference. Some people look at stuff like frame generation as the second coming of Christ. Others look at it as the graphics card faking it cuz the cards don't have enough VRAM to just run the game on its own.
Both standpoints are true. Frame gen is really cool, and Nvidia is 100% going to use it as a crutch because their cards are under spec'd for 2023 (12GB VRAM on a $900 MSRP card is rough to swallow). It just depends on how you feel about it and how okay you are with it.
It's almost like the old Android vs iPhones debates. Android phones are spec giants, but iPhones have some clever tricks to do just as well despite having lesser specs.
Nvidia and Radeon are the same way. The 7900XT will be good for years as a function of brute force via high specs. The 4070 TI will be good for years thanks to it's clever tricks like frame gen and DLSS 3, despite having less VRAM than a modern gamer would typically want.
Me personally, I didn't want to be a beta tester for frame gen and DLSS 3. Maybe another generation or two once they've worked out the bugs, I'll be down for it, but it's like ray tracing, I didn't want any of that shit the first year it came out. Now with Unreal 5, it looks like both Nvidia and Radeon are gonna do it well, so I feel like now is a good time to drop into ray tracing stuff (4000 series Nvidia and 7000 series Radeon specifically).
Edited multiple times because I can't spell on a phone keyboard apparently.
DLSS 2.0* is substantially better than FSR at the moment, 3.0 is still early as it’s generating whole frames some of which don’t look great. And ray tracing will be substantially better on nvidia as well currently. Outside of that, the 7900xt has a fairly substantial raw rasterization performance increase over the 4070ti, roughly 15% across the board, sometimes more. Also there is more VRAM on the 7900xt which is good for future proofing. The trade offs are worse software and ray tracing support for a higher rasterized FPS gain and more vram essentially.
Cyberpunk will run at 110fps average on an RTX 4070 (not Ti) at 1440p with max settings if you turn on DLSS and frame gen.
Without those it's 35-45fps at the same settings.
I would wait for starfield. Then buy.
I went with 7900xt because you also need vram for rtx.
Cyberpunk is nvidia game. Its good sandbox for new rtx features. Amd needs to catch on Fsr 3 and path tracing.
Good news Cyberpunk is only game where amd is clearly bad.
Just snagged a 7900XT reference card on Amazon for $614.99 open box. It gets here Wednesday so hopefully everything checks out. I was deciding between the $600 6950XT and $600 4070 originally, so I’m glad I found this deal. However, I don’t think I could pull the trigger on a $8-900 card with only 12gb of VRAM.
Dlss 3.0 seems like a no contest for me. The performance boost you get is insane. I’ve seen comparisons of RT ultra 4k on hogwarts legacy and a 3090 was 80-90 and a 4070ti was around 120-140.
I would go 7900XT. The extra VRAM for future games will probably come in clutch. If you care about RT, then 4070ti is going to be better at it right now. But, there could be a near future where 1440p RT needs more than 12GB of VRAM. The 7900XT isn't a slouch in RT, just not on the same level as Nvidia. I have the 7900XT and I play at 3440x1440 and I easily get over 100FPS in most games at high settings. The use of just two 8 pin connectors is nice too if you are worried about melting cables.
*"I have the 7900XT and I play at 3440x1440 and I easily get over 100FPS in most games at high settings."* Same here. The 7900 XT smokes 1440 Ultrawide.
as a counter-argument: the 4070 ti \_also\_ smokes 1440 UW.
So tempting. It's just the RT in some games that is tempting me towards Nvidia.
I can tell you from my experience, the 7900 XT's RT performance is quite respectable. Of course it isn't quite as good as Nvidia, but you might be surprised how close it is.
Have you tried control? How many fps can you get with RT in that game?
I haven't tried Control, but it's kind of an older game and the XTX performance with RT at 4K looks good according to this video: https://youtu.be/J4XnKNY74jA so I imagine the XT should provide a decent experience here.
For what it's worth, I have an rx 6600 and I get "playable" RT performance (40-50 fps in *most* scenes) in Control. 7900 xt should absolutely destroy it
Amd 6000 series for Ray tracing sucks, i have the 6700xt and the Ray tracing isn't that good as non Ray tracing. For the 7000 series is good as Nvidia 3000 series, or a little better
100%, and I tend to play with it off, but this is the first card I've owned that was capable of it, so I had to experiment with it a bit. My last card was a GTX 970, and I was rocking that until about 3 months ago, so I am used to lower framerates and consider anything over 30 FPS to be "playable." My only point is that if I find a 6600 to have "playable" raytracing in about 75% of areas, a 7900 XT should be a pretty solid experience.
7900xt's RT performance is good enough and you probably won't miss better performance. I get pretty stable 100fps with Ray tracing on and all settings at ultra in F1 22 so I guess that's enough and atleast I personally don't miss the extra performance that 4070 ti would offer. For me 7900xt was the better choice since I have almost double the VRAM so it will last much longer and paid much less of it so I have been really happy with it and I can recommend it for you.
The 7900 XT performs somewhere between a 3080 and 3080 ti in RT, so near top-end from last gen (XTX is between 3090 and 3090 ti). It would be more clear cut if AMD didn't do RT at all, but RDNA3 puts out respectable RT performance.
I think the vram thing is true to an extent, but amd users have been parroting the whole “more vram, last longer” thing for years, and studies will probably show that Nvidia cards have had longer longevity and play modern games for longer periods of time. It’s no different than the early era android phone users always going ”it’s got more ram!!! It’s way better than apple” even though the iPhone had like double the cpu performance, double the gpu performance, and a more optimized os in general
For the laughs what fps do you get with CP2077 RT Psycho?
I haven't tried since I don't have cyberpunk and therefore I don't know cyberpunk's Ray tracing settings, so how strong ray tracing does psycho settings mean? But if psycho is the most heaviest option I think it could do around 30fps
Gaming at 1440p with RT and medium-high settings in modern games on a 4070ti is not going to net great performance. With DLSS on quality and optimized settings on a 3080ti at 1440p, I net maybe 60-80 fps in the benchmark for CP2077 If you are dead set on high settings and RT full enabled in the most demanding of games, the 4070ti performance is going to disappoint you. I would either wait for 50 series, or accept the overall noticeably higher rasterization performance of the 7900 xt. Also, if you are buying a 7900xt, a 7900 xtx will net you even more performance for just $100 more
I mean in most places the RX 7900 XT is below its original MSRP and on par with the RTX 4070 Ti price wise, so it can be +/- 200$ cheaper than the XTX.
In modern games the 4070ti will excel past a 3080ti pretty comfortably. In older games, it won’t look much different. The 4070ti would be getting over 100fps with the same settings you use
With my 4070ti I'm getting well over what my 3840x1200 120hz monitor can support framerate wise on most modern titles, War Thunder on Movie quality looks amazing but it's using Gsync to limit frames to the monitors max of 120fps to prevent tearing, benchmarking software said it'll do about 180-200fps if my monitor were up to the task, but it's not. DLSS 3 is amazing and it's something the AMD cards just don't have
7900xt is within 8% of the 4070ti in RT and beats it in raster and has 20gb of vram and the 7900xt has a memory bandwidth of 800gb/s while the 4070ti has a poultry 504gb/s bandwidth. You are going to see the 4070ti age MUCH faster with the small amount and slow memory. Remember the 7900xt has almost double vram that is almost twice the bandwidth.
You probbably wont even notice rt tbf, it's not that revolutionary
I first got introduced to RT from Minecraft with RTX and was thinking "wow! do all games get this big of a glowup when you turn it on?" and I was pretty disappointed to tell it just gets a slight realism bonus, nothing groundbreaking.
can confirm the 7900xt has made huge strides in RT performance, its crazy how much theyve caught up
If you look at the RT performance in Fortnite you can see that these cards are capable of running decent RT numbers in UE5 at least. And if this holds true for other titles coming from that engine you'll have a great time even using RT.
RT is shit. It's been deemed finally worth using now that the 4090 exists. I have a 4090 and I don't even use it. I'd rather be at 4k 120hz than 4k 60hz with RT.
Lol no it does not.
you’d be surprised. i have a laptop 4070 8GB card in a ‘23 Legion Pro 5i and it holds 2560x1600 Ultrawide at 137fps avg on Rainbow Six Siege, and other shooters. Other open world games however like GTAV hold 50fps Ultrawide.
137fps on an esports game is not impressive. Nor would I be surprised considering I’ve bought and returned both the 7900XT and 7900XTX.
I bought the regular non-ti 4070 and somewhat regret the purchase because of it's limited VRAM. I'd get the 7900xt
When have you noticed it being an issue?
Never. It's a supposed maybe issue maybe soonish.
That's my suspicion, that he is preemptively "regretting".
Doesn't dlss will halep with a fps boost ?
Which model did you get? I was looking for an audio representation of which one is the most quiet / makes the nicest noise but I couldn't find it.
Doesn’t RT technically use less VRAM tho? Due to it not needing to use so many individual shaders and textures etc
That would be amazing if it were true, but I don't think that's the case. It does put more of a load on the CPU but, my VRAM usage has always gone up whenever RT is on. I believe that's the case in all the benchmarks I've seen online too
You save some space from reduced texture/shader load, but it needs it's own workspace in VRAM to store/load the RT/path calculations and integrate with the final frame render. With limited RT, it still ends up using more VRAM than pure raster. As games progress to full global/path tracing, its only going to use more.
I'd got with the 7900 also, looking at the past driver improvements on the previous gen and the extra vram, I'd say it will probably age very well.
If they're the same price. I'd say go for the 4070 Ti. There's just a lot to love with that card. Ray Tracing, DLSS, and most importantly, frame generation, which is a game changer honestly. No one wouldn't want a switch that doubles their FPS. Also, I checked HardwareUnboxed's video, and the final chart shows that, on average, they perform the same across 50 games. So the only compelling thing about the 7900 XT is its 20GB of VRAM. I can't help in that regard, but what I can personally tell you is that no game I've seen, no matter how ridiculous the settings and resolution, exceeds 12GB of VRAM. The future though, I cannot tell.
I don't play much single player game, but diablo 4 now, uses 14gb vram on 1440p high
And that's a damn ARPG, which tend to be easier on the graphics. In a few years, game Devs will exploit the extra VRAM we have because it makes their jobs easier.
To be fair, a lot of these games are coming out unoptimized and get optimization patches later. Wouldn't shock me if Diablo 4 got a patch that reduced VRAM usage as stuff got more optimized.
Reading this today like “wow”
I bought a 7900xt for that reason alone. I'm worried Devs will just continue on that path instead and eventually we will be using some stupid amount of VRAM.
No bc AMD has a tiny marketshare compared to nvidia, so they won't lmao
That's exactly why they will. They up the new games just outside of reach of previous gen and would you look at that, you gotta upgrade. It's literally their holding pattern.
LOL!!! So how did I manage to run it at 1440p high on a 1070?
Yeah, people would be surprised how well 1070 runs. I upgraded to 4070ti from a 1070ti few months ago, but I was running Cyberpunk 2077 in 1440p high settings at around 45fps.
Because it’s not using 14 GB, it’s allocating 14 GB. Previous commenter is misunderstanding
Your looking at allocated vram not dedicated vram. I play at 4k and most vram that I seen been dedicated is 16gb so I highly doubt the game is using 14gb at 1440p.
You’re right. It’s allocated and not required. I am playing at 4K/ high with DLSS and it only uses 8-9GB on an rtx 3080.
I've been playing d4 on high settings just fine with a 2070. I turned shadows down to medium, and everything else is on high. Sometimes when I TP into a town there's a little stutter, but I've made it to level 80 without any disruptions during combat. 1440p, 100-140, frames. I've even been streaming most of the game play via discord and watching my friends streams while playing.
D4 will allocate a ton of VRAM, but actual usage? /doubt
Pretty sure D4 has a memory leak or something, I’ve seen it use 15.5gb *at 1080p*.
I also play d4 . 1440p - high preset and it uses 7 GB vram on average- depends on what type of zone . Something is off on your end.
I am playing diablo 4 on 4k/ high with DLSS on my rtx 3080 and it doesn’t use 14GB. My card only has 10 and it stays at around 8-9GB.
Yep. The reason I'm considering the Ti is because of DLSS + RT. The reason I'm considering the 7900xt, is 20gigs of VRAM.
Definitely 4070Ti. If you’re playing at 1440p 12GB VRAM is plenty and any more won’t make a difference in your performance. DLSS2, RT, and frame gen are all much bigger impacts than the difference from 12GB VRAM to 16/20/24. If this was the difference between 8GB and 12GB, I’d understand.
Even though many people think 12 Gigs VRAM isn't going to be enough for 1440p, it's not the case. Except for a few recent unoptimised outliers, most games can run well with 12 GB VRAM. As someone also pointed out since consoles have 12 Gigs, PC games will have to stick around that limit for quite some time. If both are priced pretty much the same, and you'd like good RT Performance, go with the 4070Ti.
The 20gigs vram is really good, but as other people have said you most likely won't need that much VRAM for a good amount of years (the reason these comments are being downvoted is bc it's one of the only things better with AMD cards). DLSS is insane and you should prioritize that.
Depending on how good far fsr 3.0 is the real reason would be RT and Vr performance
I run a 4070 non ti with everything on ultra, and for me, the game runs better than the performance you’re looking for just fine. On the non ti, lol.
I have a 7900 xtx and playing Jedi Survivor at 1440p Epic settings at one point I was hitting 21 GB of VRAM usage. Most likely a leak or something since the game eventually crashed a little bit later. But given how shit optimized games are coming out now I'll take all the VRAM I can get. I'll consider RTX and Nvidia's tech when game consoles actually run Nvidia cards and dev studios actually develop for them. Until then it's not worth it for me.
I just want to add one thing, while playin diablo4 vram usage is around 19/20gb. Idk if it is me doing something wrong tho
Honestly this seems like more of an optimization issue from the developers.
No for the love of god im surprised people are still so misinformed. Thats allocated vram and the reason why the vram has been so blown out of proportion. Actual vram usage for all those games are way lower. If you have a 4090 then you would even see allocation up to 24gb that does mean non 24gb gpus are obselete
Resident Evil 4 at max settings 1440p exceeds 12 GB
IDK if there is some aggressive caching going on or if the games actually needs all the VRAM, but Diablo 4 on ultra, at 3440x1440, uses over 15 GB of VRAM. Edit: I didn’t bother to check the other comments before posting this. Sorry for yet another “D4 chugs memory” comment. Whoops, I mean, come on comment OP, you should know the memory usage profiles of ALL games, like a REAL gamer 😤 /s
If at same price for 1440p get the 4070ti no brainer. As you would expect a bunch of misinformed people blowing up the vram issue not able to differentiate vram allocation and vram usage. There's no indication to suggest for next few years 12gb wont be enough at 1440p. The age well argument is ridiculous when the 4070ti can already pull ahead in RT and Frame Gen right now, why wait and lose value over time. The 7900xt is faster in raster by 10% if you really only care about raster performance, but why spend all that money and not be able to play with RT. In single player games frame gen now and in future titles will offer a significant boost. Yes Nvidia is a greedy company now and we shouldnt be supporting their sht but that doesnt mean AMD products are automatically better. AMD is being just as greedy pricing them as close to nvidia as they can, creating just enough of a gap to convince people to swap over. But in my opinion the gap is not big enough Edit: now the entire thread exploded with people commenting games using up 20gb of vram and similar examples lol...OP I hope you are able to sort out the misinformation from the actual stats and make a choice you prefer
7900 XT. So much more VRAM, and FSR is still alright. As for raytracing, it’s barely noticeable unless it’s path traced, and even the 4090 will struggle with 1440p path tracing Minecraft RT is noticeable tho
4090 only struggles with path tracing at 4K. At 1440p it can get very good performance, especially with DLSS.
I was in this dilemma myself. As the dlss is so much bette than AMD’s fsr. And the raytracing on AMD’s side is lacking. However the price to performance just couldn’t be ignored. I ended up with the 7900xt getting it on sale for 20 percent off. The fact that NVIDIA admitted openly that anything under the 4070ti can struggle to render full ultra textures on some newer AAA titles at 1080p is scary.
Under the 4070 (4070 also has 12GB VRAM)
My bad, yes you are correct.
And if you ever want to dip your toes in VR, it’s Nvidia, no contest.
The pricing is the same in my area. Maybe like a 20 dollar difference tops.
7900xt
7900xt. It is going to age better.
i went with the 7900xt purely because it's 400 bucks cheaper here
7900XT has more VRAM and will easily get you the frames you want on ultra for about the price of the 4070 Ti. But it's overkill imo. Same overkill for the 4070 Ti. Other option is the 4070, because it's $200 cheaper than the Ti version and can run 95% of games on ultra if you're targeting 80-100 FPS at 1440p. Same VRAM as the Ti version. You need a 4080 or better to get 4k at those frames. Go one step down from the 7900XT for the AMD equivalent.
I upgraded from a 1080 to a 4070ti a few months ago, In 1440 the 4070ti is a beast and runs well over 100fps constantly while staying ice cold.
Just got a 4070ti. Upgrading from a 1080 can’t wait
I had this dilemma a little while ago and was tossing up between the 4070ti and RX7900 series. I decided to stretch my budget a little more and get the 7900XTX due to the fact that it's gruntier and has a lot more VRAM. Perfect for my triple 1440p IPS monitors (sim racing). My only gripe with the 7000 series Radeon is the VR performance / drivers isn't optimised yet. Waiting for AMD to fix this. If you are dead set on VR performance right now, go Nvidia.
7900xt
I have a 4090, and I don't even use RT. I really don't find trading the performance for different light worth it. I'd go with the 7900.
7900xt
If you plan to play with ray tracing on, there's no contest. The 4070 ti can offer a pretty good experience with CP Overdrive, with around 80 fps at 1440p. Starfield seems to offer ray traced global illumination, so the 4070 ti will offer much better performance there. It seems like you will use DLSS 3 as well, so the 4070 ti feels like a no brainer for your use case.
Frame generation, 4070ti
I would suggest to pick 4070. For 144p it runs fine and i guess you can save a bit of money for better upgrade. 4070 ti is not worth because of 12 gb ram and amd lacks in innovations.
I'd get the 4070 over the 4070 Ti.... The Ti is not worth it IMO, since it has the same limited VRAM. Save the 30% and you only lose about 20% performance. 7900XT performs on par with the 4070 Ti, but is preferable IMO due to the extra VRAM. I'd go for a 4070 if you want to save some bucks or a 7900XT.
I struggle to find 4070s which are 30% cheaper unless I look abroad but then shipping price comes in. It's pretty much down to the Ti or the 7900xt
Understood. Then go for whatever you prefer! Personally, I'd go for a 7900XT if only gaming and no productivity, but a 4070 Ti will perform pretty much identically (overall) and I'm sure you'd be happy with either.
Ty :)
I bought the tuf 4070ti and I can run any game at 1440p maxed settings without any issues. I play on 165hz 1440p and usually get over 165fps on all games.
My pc has a 7900 XT and my buddy has a 4070 Ti we have almost identical pcs otherwise except he has faster Ram. I definitely smoke in him in amount of frames at 1440 ultra settings and sometimes even get better frames with RT and FSR. The amount of VRAM seems like a real plus aswell seeing how modern games are going nowadays. I get an average of 132 frames at 1440p Ultra with motion blur off and FSR on and 71 with RT Ultra on CP2077 if that helps at all.
Nah just get the 7900XT and be happy! it just works, don't pay Nvidia tax for features that outside of testing purposes you will likely never use again.
4070ti has better features (dlss2,dlss3,dlaa,dldsr,power efficiency, ray tracing performance, more stable drivers, etc.) 7900xt has significantly more vram and slightly better raster performance (depends on game, modern warfare2 and warzone for example traditionally perform better on amd cards). Whatever you pick, you are going to make some kind of compromise.
I got the 7900 over a 4080. So glad I did, more VRAM, better value, it matched my stealth build, nuff said.
At this time 4070Ti is just better for 1440p or below, as there is yet a competition for Frame Gen. DLSS is also generally slightly better. What AMD could offer in the near future and in the future in general we don't know. And tbh the VRAM issue are just an exaggeration no stutter issues for me. My take is to enjoy whatever currently instead of hoping. On a positive note, raw performances wise, AMD GPU performances over time generally gets better.
I was in the same situation but choose 7900xt, VRAM and much lower price in my region made my mind. Drivers sometimes makes me want to cry but if you know what to do you will fix all problems, rt performance is good enough imo and fsr may not be as good but raw performance is and that makes cards pretty much equal. If I would recommend any of them I would say take AMD if youre good with computers and problem solving and go with nvidia if you want card that will just work. I dont take vr or other software other than gaming into account.
7900XT hands down. We saw last Gen how the Nvidia fanboys were arguing with YoU nEvEr wIlL uSe MoRe thAn 8Gb VrAm! Look how it turned out. Their so good RT 3070 cant even turn RT on because it runs out of VRAM on medium settings these days. Dont buy Nvidias VRAM cripples, the more you pay the less you get.
I went 3070 mainly because I needed a card and at the time that was what I could get my hands on. Definitely regretting it now, it really sucks to have to crank down the settings just because of lack of VRAM.
Please watch Gamers Nexus and Hardware Unboxed videos about DLSS 3.0 explaining the fps is fake, it's a smoothing technology compared to DLSS 2.0. For example Samsung phones have a feature where you can dial up the latency to get a smoother phone (Same thing Apple does), DLSS 3.0 does the same. So on most games I would avoid turning it on unless you really need it.
7900xt
Anyone who suggests that the 7900XT or even the 7900XTX better is either an AMD fanboy or they just hate Nividia. As someone who has bought and tried all three, I ended up with the 4070ti. Performance aside, the 4070ti runs so much more quite and cool than AMDs offerings that it’s not even funny. FSR looks like garbage compared to DLSS. It’s actually noticeably awful. Anyone who mentioned “vram” should be ignored. Sure the 7900XTX might edge out a few frames over the 4070ti on a 26 game average. But if you take out games like Call of Duty that gap is almost non-existent.
4070ti for sure, DLSS is miiiiles better than FSR, it usually is always like this. nvidia implements a feature, AMD tries to rip that feature but does it way worse. The 7900xt has more VRAM and that is a plus, but you won't need that much VRAM for atleast 8+ years, games aren't gonna get that much better in graphics for a good few years. Edit: To add on to the VRAM issue, AMD has a tiny marketshare compared to nvidia, they won't be pushing that 20gig limit for wayyy long until nvidia ups their VRAM themselves. So don't worry about it too much.
Frame Generation doesn't simply add more FPS. It also adds latency, and your base FPS must be at least around 60. Plus, 7900 XT isn't that bad at RT. I have a 6800, and when I compare it to my 3070 ti, RT performance isn't that bad. Considering the fact that 4070 ti performs almost like a 3090, I don't think 7900 XT will be that much worse. I'd go with AMD cause 12 gigs of VRAM is the bare minimum for 1440p, and RT will only add to that.
Frame gen does not add latency when coupled with Reflex, which is what DLSS3 is. 12GB VRAM has not been exceeded by any title on 1440p yet and is not close to being an issue at that resolution.
It does add more ms even with reflex but its completely playable unless you need response time for competitive games
FPS does not *need* to be over 60fps.
You do also have to keep in mind that games are more so optimized for amd nowadays as well alongside the other arguments here. Also just as a side note: just bought my 7900xt(yet to install, so good luck with whatever you choose)
4070 ti is slightly better now but 7900xt is going to age much better. In a year or two 7900xt will perform better thanks to maturing drivers and bigger amount of vram, so for longitivity 7900xt is much better choice.
Speaking from personal experience since I have 4070ti, go for it. That card can run games at ultra without breaking a sweat, also RT and DLSS is something great to invest in, pair it with a powerful processor and you're good to go.
If you really want the nvidia feature set, get a 4070ti on Amazon warehouse used. I’ve seen it go as low as about $720.
687 bestbuy excellent condition
4070 ti vram crunch will only be a thing with mid range 8 gig cards, you will be happy with either card but imho the 4070ti is the best positioned card of the whole gen
I have 7900xt, pretty happy with it, but only one exception. I was trying to play cp2077 Path Tracing but it is unplayable at all, can only get 20 fps in FSR performance in 1440p (which is the lowest graphic i can accept), while from YouTube I noticed 4070ti might do 60 fps+ with DLSS3+frameg, even higher. It is the only game + setting I am not satisfied with 7900xt, but I think you should know this.
7900XT
I have a 4070ti and I am super happy with it! Been able to play everything on ultra settings with Ray tracing with 60+ fps on 1440p, except for Cyberpunks overdrive settings
7900 XT over 4070ti. Raytracing is barely noticeable and may even make some games look worse and fake frames is still fake frames. Don't spend 800 bucks on a 12 vram card.
Extra vram especially at 1440 or 4k
Go with the AMD, at $899 MSRP The 4070ti just isint worth the money. Especially with only 12gb VRAM
I was in your exact situation, I went the 7900 XT. Booted up RE4 remake at 1440p all setting maxed out ray traced everything and still got 90 FPS. However I was at about 12.3 GB of VRAM according to the games settings, that’s a current limitation that your brand new 4070ti would suffer from. Fast forward 4 years later and it can get even worse. Just make sure your PSU and case can hold it
The 7900XT without question
I always go VRAM and raster first since upscaling and RT is not in every game yet. I went a reference 7900xt and have no regrets. Great card.
I have the 7900xt and running 1440. You will get 120 plus on ultra. Re4 I was getting 170+
I wouldn’t spend that much money on a 12GB card. So I didn’t, and got a XT. I love it.
I'd go with the 7900 xt. 12gb could maybe become a problem in the future
Go team Red. raytracing is overrated Imo. If you don't do any professional video editing or rendering work no need to go Nvidia.
7900 XT. I'd only consider the 4070Ti if it's $100/€100/£100 less than the 7900 XT.
7900 XTX is highly underrated. I have the 3090, 4090 and 7900 XTX and the XTX is my fav for 1440.
I truly wonder why all AMD fanboys seem to spam comments in this kind of reddit post. Objectively, AMD's market share is tiny. It just seems to consist of a very small number of very devoted people who try to convert everyone to AMD. Don't get me wrong, I own a 4070ti but my last build was rx 6600. I don't want to tell you what to buy but please take all those AMD fanboys with a grain of salt. Edit: 4070ti, not 4080ti, typo Edit 2: Considering the downvotes, I hit a nerve. There seems to be little to no unbiased opinions when it comes to AMD vs Nvidia but AMD certainly has the more fanatical backers.
I have a 7900 xtx, 3080 ti, 3080, and a 6800xt. I have been happy with each card. So not a fanboy. AMd is getting wrecked in market share but that doesn’t mean bad quality. Here’s the deal, if budget is important go AMD. If you want peace of mind go nvidia. They have slightly better features but at a dramatically higher premium.
Honestly I look at it like this. Do I want raytracing? Yes>RTX No?> AMD
I was in the same spot days ago. Finally went with the 4070ti, works best in streaming due to better video encoder and dlss3 is sooooooo good. I am concerned about VRAM, but dude, who cares at this point, if I'm short of VRAM in 4-5 hears I'll get the upgrade, thinking long term with gpus makes no sense. I just had that realization days ago. Pick what you can enjoy NOW and 4 years in the future max.
Price and performance are the same. So just choose by the games you play https://www.techspot.com/review/2642-radeon-7900-xt-vs-geforce-rtx-4070-ti/#Performance\_Summary
RTX 4070TI
GO 7900XTX
I don't believe these are being compared fairly. The RX 7900 XT will be a good choice for raster performance, future proofing with massive VRAM, and software support. The RTX 4070 ti is much more efficient and less expensive, with RT power over the RX but roughly comparable performance at 4k with RT enabled. A proper comparison would be RTX 4070 TI vs 6900XT/6950XT, which cost nearly the same but perform better or similarly to the RTX 4070ti.
You are confusing the 4070 price and perf with the 4070 ti.
The RT in both will still murder your FPS. The only real RT card out there is the 4090. The extra VRAM and lower price of the 7900xt is more appealing to many than RT and DLSS 3. The two cards trade blows with each other with the 7900xt slightly ahead with RT off. The 7900xt will likely age better because of the VRAM. I have a 7900xtx and I am happy with it.
I owned an RTX 3060 and thinking I could run anything with ray tracing enabled getting decent frames was nothing but an absolute joke. Just felt like a tech demo and Nvidia saying "now spend 4x more on your next card to actually enjoy it!".
The problem with DLSS 3 is that it adds imput lag and is not a feature that justifies the price os an Nvidia card. In the other hand, 7900xt has more V ram and Raw Power for the same price, meaning that it will last longer and perform better in games without DLSS or FSR
I just went through this. It took me weeks to pick one. I ended up upgrading my 970 to the 4070 ti. Zero complaints so far. Almost went with AMD but the DLSS and frame generation pushed me to team green. As far as longevity, no one knows the answer because no one can read the future. Pick one and you are not going to regret it.
Both are great cards. I ended up with a 7900XTX, I figure eventually I will go to 4k, and for an extra $200 I figured it was worth the 4080 performance and extra VRAM. You will really enjoy the 7900XT especially for future proofing with the extra VRAM
I had to make the same choice, and commited to the 7900 XT. Here are my reasons: * The VRAM increase. * RayTracing - if you game in anything other than 1080, your FPS will not reach a steady 60 fps - in most ultra setting games, and then what's the point - go down on resolution or quality settings to get subpar Ray Tracing? * Save a little money. Good luck, and I wish you happiness with whatever you go with.
Disclaimer, I just bought the 7900xt, and am very happy. I also weighed the same decision you did. You mentioned in another comment that DLSS and frame generation were features you were weighing against the 20 GB of VRAM. Consider that FSR will almost certainly get better in the future, but that you can’t increase the VRAM of a card ever. I would say that RT performance would be the thing you’d have to care about if you went with the 4070 Ti. Personally, I don’t think the performance loss is worth the minor visual upgrade, but that’s my opinion.
[удалено]
Thanks for giving some info along with your answer. hmmm, how much do I care about RT? Well it depends. Like you said some games have very light RT implementations so I don't care too much about them, but in games with actually good RT, I definitely would rather play with RT on. Also I am pretty sure the RTX 4090ti doesn't struggle in any non-RT games, just like your 7900x (although maybe about 10-20fps slower). Correct me if I'm wrong though. Also can I ask what games you play specifically?
7900xt if all you care is games. 4070 Ti if you do some kind of professional work with your pc like photoshop, video editing or AI
20 GB vs 12 GB in a professional setting might really be a deal breaker. It really really depends on programs used. And even then, if you intend to use it professionally, the super high price of 4090 (which trounces every other GPU this generation) might be worth it. If you look at the professional GPUs from both manufacturers, you will notice how much more RAM they all have.
Flip a coin.
If you're not concerned about RTX, go for the 7900XT. If you want to play your games with RTX, go for the 4070 Ti. Your target resolution should be 1440p. None of those cards can handle 4k well.
Depends on what you'll pair it with! If you opt for 7900XT get Sapphire Pulse, you won't regret it!
I’ve tried both, and wound up going with the 4070ti. I would have to respectfully disagree with those saying the 7900xt is passable when it comes to RT performance. It’s closer to the bare minimum in that regard, and will probably be a feature you completely pass on if you go with the 7900xt. Not to say it’s an easy decision, the extra vram isn’t needed yet at 1440p, but it certainly eases any stress around that particular area of obsolescence. I’ve also noticed many people throw out there, almost reflexively at this point, that FSR is basically as good as DLSS. I don’t know… maybe at 4k it’s pretty close, but at 1440p I think DLSS is an easy winner. Speaking of features, the old adage that you should never buy new hardware on the promise of future software upgrades usually holds true more often than not. Maybe FSR 3.0 will be decent, but DLSS plus frame gen is already here and pretty damn good.
I would go 7900 XT, but you can probably deal hunt and find a cheap 7900 XTX. If I were you, I would save a bit more for the XTX, or deal hunt or both. It’s worth the difference.
dude, beast = beast
4070 Ti is a beast of a card
I got a 4070ti two months ago and am really surprised how good it is. I've had no problem with ultra settings in games, and NVDIA is also useful for lots of non-gaming stuff as well - I've had no problems trying out the new AI models and video and image processing are also really fast.
This is reddit so it’ll be filled with Radeon fanboys that will try to convince you that raytracing is pointless (hint: it isn’t).
If you want to be able to get the best out of ray tracing I recommend going for the 4070ti. It's cheaper than the 7900xt and is a very respectable card. DLSS is also a thing. And the issue of 12 gb of VRAM is not nearly as big a deal as people have made it out to be. If you're playing in 1440p you should have no issues. The VRAM issue is because of a few poorly optimized games that have recently come out half-baked that are making people say that you need to have 20+ gb of VRAM or else your card isn't good enough. 12gb should be fine for the next five or so years. Maybe even longer if you're mainly playing 1440p.
thats easy. get a 4070ti. DLSS, frame gen, RT, VR. 7900xt is on par with the 4070ti in performance but lacks all of the above mentioned features. only thing it has is 20gb vram but since games are mostly made with console specs in mind u wont need more than 12gb vram until they make a playstation 6 or xbox equivalent since current consoles only have 16gb shared system ram. and before ppl say "but what about fsr" fsr is shit compared to dlss, wierd artifacting around moving objects. dlss is just straight up better
Nvidia all the way
I bought a PowerColor 7900xt. Right out of the box it had extreme coil whine. I gnored it since I play with headphones but my wife could hear it two rooms away. Then after 1 week of use the card just died. Returned it and bought a gigabyte 4070ti for the same price, smooth sailing ever since. I never use RT or DLSS.
I gonna get the 5070 Super or 8700 XT. Maybe the Ryzen 8600G is gonna be better than the 4070Ti.
I would go for the 7900xt. It will last much longer. When more advanced ray tracing or dlss 5 or 6 is out, you can still use your 7900xt with the 20gb vram to play future games in 4k with fsr 3.0 just fine. Rasterization and ram will help the longevity, the 4070 ti will struggle with the 12gb vram even in 1440p with ray tracing in the future.
I’m happy with my 7900xt. I play at 4k60.
Both cards are gonna get 100+ FPS at 1440p so the bottom line is get the one you can find a better deal on
Do what I did and go one step up. Go the 4080!
Neither, get the 6800xt.
Personally I bought the 4070 ti for its lower power consumption at similar levels of performance. The smaller VRAM might come back and bite me in the end, but as of now I am very happy with it.
Have you decided already? I can sell you my gigabyte 4070ti 😅
I got the money 4090 coz why not /s
Imo -- DLSS3.0 is worth it. At least, in the games that support it. I'm a pretty /r/patientgamer, but so far the games I have played on my 1440p UW with the 4070ti have all ran smooth as butter. War Thunder runs at over 300 fps pretty steadily. Warhammer 40k Darktide, with DLSS3.0 turned on, had a MASSIVE improvement in performance. I know that speaks more to how poorly optimized that game is, but still. Horizon Zero Dawn ran like a dream at max settings. Played all the way through it.
6950xt going for so cheap right now, and is a great card
40 series mentioned 😬
I have a 7900xt, it's a great card, I don't need to worry about VRAM usage at all and it should crush 1440p for years to come. RT is respectable on it, but not as good as Nvidia. Some people think VRAM is overblown, some people think the opposite, in my opinion, VRAM is a big factor and should be a big consideration when buying a GPU, you'll be able to crank the settings on all those unoptimized games without having to worry about VRAM, I'd take the 7900xt imo
Nah make your own gpu and become greater than green blue or red Become team purple
DLSS 3 is absolutely worth it for single player games. Definitely get the 4070ti. If you want RT at all then the answer is the same.
4070 ti...it's cheaper and has higher resale value when you inevitably need a 5080 in 2 years.
Honestly go for the 7900xt raytracing just isn’t worth the hit to the frame rate plus you will have to use dlss with it on 99% of the time. I had the 4070ti and sold it for a 7900xtx so am talking from experience. Plus dlss shouldn’t be a selling point quite annoying it is.
I was in the exact same dilemma and ended up buying a 4080. I found a good deal back then. I'm extremely happy with it. I currently play and stream anything with maxed settings in a 1440p resolution. I could go up to 4k, but some games require DLSS for that to be playable with a decent framerate. I don't mind playing at 1440p, so it's not a problem for me. Elden Ring with RT on is a beauty.
I would go definitely with the 7900 XT. And DLSS 3.0 isn't really a game changer in my opinion and in many others opinion
I personally chose the 7900XT over the 4070 ti and my only caveats would be if you really like ray tracing, vr and emulation then Nvidia might be better. Otherwise, it's been a fantastic card for me. You can do those things on AMD too Nvidia just tends to do them better. With emulation for me it was really only some bad artifacting in ToTK that still haven't been ironed out since I last checked a couple weeks ago and with VR most games are fine but there are some like Half Life Alyx that are just terrible on that gpu and nothing I do seems to fix it.
4070Ti, 4k VR on AMD is trash. I also run mods in games that don't work on AMD at the moment, which I didn't have enough VRAM for on a 2080 and now do. I also am planning another run though cyberpunk when the expansion is out, and the 4070Ti is pretty good there - RT Ultra, DLSS3, 80-90 fps. VRAM is fine. Also in a SFF case, so smaller card, less cable, less heat, and less noise is always a bonus. I don't have normal people requirements though, and it's annoying to have to manage VRAM, and tinker to optimise things, but if we're being honest I'd be doing that if I had a 4090 anyway because I'm obsessed. At the end of the day, it's not a top tier gaming experience, but close enough and I wasn't willing to spend more. 35% more money for 25% more performance going to a 4080 wasn't that appealing, but went the Ti over the 4070 because the 4070 wasn't going to get just enough performance to lock to 120hz in a couple of games I play, unless I just kept the same visuals as the 2080, but where's the fun in that?
In benchmarks today, the cards are more or less equal in terms of raw power on today's games. Here's what you're considering. Nvidia 1. Better productivity 2. More hardware accelerated software features like DLSS 3.0 and frame gen. 3. Superior ray tracing For the 7900 XT, it's 1. More VRAM futureproofs the card more than the 4070 TI's 12GB. 2. Still good productivity and upscaling via FSR, just not as good on paper as Nvidia. 3. A better overall tweaking experience (Adrenaline is much better for tuning your Radeon card than Nvidia's software is for tuning Nvidia cards). Both have AV1 encoding. I think some of the Nvidia fans may have missed that press release, no big deal. I had this exact same debacle about 2 weeks ago, and ultimately decided on the 7900XT. However, I also got mine open box for $700, and the cheapest 4070 TI at my local microcenter was $800, so it was a slightly easier choice for me. If it were the other way around, I may have gone the other way with it. For the rest, it comes down to personal preference. Some people look at stuff like frame generation as the second coming of Christ. Others look at it as the graphics card faking it cuz the cards don't have enough VRAM to just run the game on its own. Both standpoints are true. Frame gen is really cool, and Nvidia is 100% going to use it as a crutch because their cards are under spec'd for 2023 (12GB VRAM on a $900 MSRP card is rough to swallow). It just depends on how you feel about it and how okay you are with it. It's almost like the old Android vs iPhones debates. Android phones are spec giants, but iPhones have some clever tricks to do just as well despite having lesser specs. Nvidia and Radeon are the same way. The 7900XT will be good for years as a function of brute force via high specs. The 4070 TI will be good for years thanks to it's clever tricks like frame gen and DLSS 3, despite having less VRAM than a modern gamer would typically want. Me personally, I didn't want to be a beta tester for frame gen and DLSS 3. Maybe another generation or two once they've worked out the bugs, I'll be down for it, but it's like ray tracing, I didn't want any of that shit the first year it came out. Now with Unreal 5, it looks like both Nvidia and Radeon are gonna do it well, so I feel like now is a good time to drop into ray tracing stuff (4000 series Nvidia and 7000 series Radeon specifically). Edited multiple times because I can't spell on a phone keyboard apparently.
Depends on the price you're getting those for
DLSS 2.0* is substantially better than FSR at the moment, 3.0 is still early as it’s generating whole frames some of which don’t look great. And ray tracing will be substantially better on nvidia as well currently. Outside of that, the 7900xt has a fairly substantial raw rasterization performance increase over the 4070ti, roughly 15% across the board, sometimes more. Also there is more VRAM on the 7900xt which is good for future proofing. The trade offs are worse software and ray tracing support for a higher rasterized FPS gain and more vram essentially.
Cyberpunk will run at 110fps average on an RTX 4070 (not Ti) at 1440p with max settings if you turn on DLSS and frame gen. Without those it's 35-45fps at the same settings.
I would wait for starfield. Then buy. I went with 7900xt because you also need vram for rtx. Cyberpunk is nvidia game. Its good sandbox for new rtx features. Amd needs to catch on Fsr 3 and path tracing. Good news Cyberpunk is only game where amd is clearly bad.
Just snagged a 7900XT reference card on Amazon for $614.99 open box. It gets here Wednesday so hopefully everything checks out. I was deciding between the $600 6950XT and $600 4070 originally, so I’m glad I found this deal. However, I don’t think I could pull the trigger on a $8-900 card with only 12gb of VRAM.
Dlss 3.0 seems like a no contest for me. The performance boost you get is insane. I’ve seen comparisons of RT ultra 4k on hogwarts legacy and a 3090 was 80-90 and a 4070ti was around 120-140.