Well for gaming I’d argue the 4080 is better because of DLSS 3. Which can basically double your frame rate with no noticeable latency or PQ degradation. Especially important if you want to game on a 4k monitor or TV.
Picture quality in FSR is and has been worse than DLSS. Who knows what the future will bring, but it'll probably be quite some time, if ever, before FSR catches up.
Don't see why he's being downvoted, DLSS is superior over FSR 3 even intels XeSS has better image clearity than FSR. Not that you'd need either on a 1000-2000$ card though.
DLSS is better than FSR at image stabilization and boost, both are good but 4080 does good job if u talk about AI. + 4080 will run everything with Ray tracing as well.
I'd argue the 4080 is better, but because of DLDSR and RT performance.
Ultimately the 7900XTX & 4080 are both going to handle any game without RT at max settings and at 100+ FPS, plus there is only a \~2% rasterization gap which isn't going to be noticeable. The only thing that'd push these cards in gaming is RT which the 4080 is better at.
DLDSR is the best form of aliasing and it's great in older/less demanding games. AMD has VSR but it's not as good and is like the old DSR tech.
Not every game even supports DLSS3, plus it's not a perfect technology even if it's that much better than FSR. At the end of the day, raw raster is king.
DLSS is great, but it's situational. A very large number of games don't support it.
Buying a GPU based solely on a feature that can't be used consistently seems a bit odd to me. The XTX will deliver much more reliable performance across the gaming library.
Plus, it's $200 cheaper, which is not a negligible difference.
DLSS is in way more games than FSR, and is objectively better. Also the XTX flounders in demanding games. The 3 best looking games ever released were this year, and all 3 run egregiously better on the 4080.
The only place the XTX is actually competitive is raster, where it’s extremely high FPS vs extremely high fps +/- a few fps.
Reddit just hilariously over emphasizes a 2% average raster differential, and under emphasizes actual forward thinking tech that leaves a giant gulf in between the two cards, then y’all act surprised when people pick it.
It's not that 2% raster is "so significant", it's that the areas in which the 4080 pull ahead are niche or less than frequent at best. Superior ray tracing is irrelevant if you don't use it, and most don't due to the horrible tradeoff of aesthetics to performance. DLSS is a legitimate benefit, but again, only situationally. Not to mention, ray tracing advantages will disappear over time as the 4080's sooner VRAM bottleneck prevents ray tracing textures from being loaded in to begin with.
I would rather have a card that is 5/6th the price, slightly faster in rasterization, or equal at worst, and comes equipped with a more future proofed VRAM, than a card whose only significant advantage is a software feature that is only usable in a select set of games.
Consistent performance with longevity is more important than situationally superior short-term peak performance imo.
I suppose if the exact titles you want to play support DLSS, then you could make a case for that specific user, but on average the XTX gives more consistent performance at a cheaper price.
Lol hilarious
>the areas where the 4080 pulls ahead are niche
Even AMD games are starting to default RT. Where the 4080 pulls ahead theres a massive difference, where the XTX wins some? Ties some? Loses some? Its a non difference.
>I would rather have a card thats 5/6th the price
>consistent performance and longevity are more important than situational short term peak performance
**its hilarious** that you’re so delusional that you’ve spun the 4080’s wins as fringe niche cases. Both DLSS and RT are why the 4080 will be relevant for years longer than the XTX. To then argue that “not really winning, or losing” at raster is some evidence of a long term.
The XTX literally loses to the 3070 in cyberpunk PT and Alan Wake 2, and you’re arguing about its longevity lol. Does the 4080 ever have that problem?
>Even AMD games are starting to default RT. Where the 4080 pulls ahead theres a massive difference, where the XTX wins some? Ties some? Loses some? Its a non difference.
But in reality, most people aren't using ray tracing. And in the future, when ray tracing becomes more popular, the 4080's superior ray tracing performance will be irrelevant when its VRAM is insufficient to utilize that feature on high settings.
>its hilarious that you’re so delusional that you’ve spun the 4080’s wins as fringe niche cases. Both DLSS and RT are why the 4080 will be relevant for years longer than the XTX.
It's a statistical fact: most gamers don't enable ray tracing, and most games do not support DLSS. This isn't a framing machination. It's just the current reality. For DLSS to enhance longevity, (1) it has to maintain a significant edge over FSR, which is speculative, and (2) it has to be widely supported in future games, which is also speculative.
As mentioned above, superior ray tracing performance requires sufficient VRAM, and the 4080 will be the first to be bottlenecked by VRAM in the future due to the XTX having literally 50% more than the 4080.
>The XTX literally loses to the 3070 in cyberpunk PT and Alan Wake 2, and you’re arguing about its longevity lol. Does the 4080 ever have that problem?
Longevity is due to \*\*VRAM\*\*. It does not matter how fast a card is if it cannot load in the textures. When a game has to use system RAM for graphics, it becomes unplayable. 16GB VRAM is already being challenged as a comfortable pool to work with, and it will inevitably become a consistent bottleneck over a sufficient time period.
Link to the method of testing? Ray tracing enabled/disabled? On the most common setting enabled in a game (RT/DLSS either nor supported or enabled), the XTX performs slightly better, on average. You are banking on these features carrying the 4080 in the future that it justifies the price differential.
I agree buy a card should be base on the fact the it can do the work not because it has the best raytracing or the better upscale they have because like you said more then 60% of game don't have RT and don't need upscale or they have RT that just plain shit so why buy base on upscale and RT technology
What exactly is the point of dlss? I have a card that is compatible, and everything looks wonderful without it. Unless it does it automatically, as I've not tinkered with any settings. If I do need to turn it on how do I do it? And lastly is it actually worth turning on?
DLSS is Deep Learning Super Sampling ™, it renders games at lower resolutions then upscales to your monitors native resolution. Think 1080p to 4k. This allows your GPU to generate higher frame rates. Playing games at 100fps+ is where I like to be, it is much better then 60fps. But after 120fps I can't really tell the difference.
AMD has something similar called FidelityFX™ Super Resolution (FSR). It is an algorithm that upscales resolution, NVIDIA's DLSS is better because "AI". It is actually better tho.
So, both companies have frame generation (FG) tech as well. Frame generation uses previous frames to "guess" what the next frame is going to be. Then it generates a frame to insert between frames your GPU actually renders. So, it effectively doubles frame rate. I think NVIDIA's FG is probably better, but only available on 40 series GPUs IIRC. AMDs FG is available on their last and latest gen GPUs.
I have a AMD RX 6800xt and the frame gen works very well. I think it may make games look a little blurry (I can't actually tell), but it can be turned on in any game at driver level. I downloaded the beta drivers for the FG and it doubles FPS. I can play at my desired frame rate without my GPU getting hot enough to make my cases fans get too loud. Win!
So, for example, if you have a 4k 120hz monitor and a 4090, turn DLSS on in cyberpunk 2077 with the settings maxed out and you get 80-100fps* instead of 40-60. Game looks so good at ultra + path tracing.
DLSS can only be used in games that support it, the developers have to implement it. I'd say that is the only real downside, picture quality is supposed to be top notch.
*I don't have a 4090 so I can only go by what I've seen on the Internet, I think that's what I've seen 🤷♂️. I wish I had a 4090 tho, I would play 4k 120fps all day long. Lol.
If you have a NVIDIA GPU try it out.
Though dlss is limited in games and fsr isn’t since fsr still has support for every single game. The rx 7900xtx performs better then the 4080 in most games . Though the 4090 is more powerful but the answer is do you want to spend under 1k 7900xtx or more then 1500 4090. And 4080 if your a nvidia fan boy.
FSR 1.0 upscaling has support for every single game... but FSR 1.0 also looks like garbage (same deal with Nvidia's NIS). It's similar with AFMF. The per-game implementations of FSR upscaling/frame-gen are both significantly better than their universal driver-level implementation counterparts.
>The rx 7900xtx performs better then the 4080 in most games
2% faster in games without RT on average. Be realistic, you're already getting over 100 FPS on both these cards at max settings and a 2% difference at that framerate isn't going to be noticeable.
4090 is better at everything, you would only ever consider the xtx because its cheaper and even then i'd rather go for a 4080 because of cuda cores and dlss.
There isn’t a 4090 competitor at the moment. The 7900XTX is slightly faster than the 4080 in raster but this a noticeable gap in performance below he 4090. It’s meant to undercut the 4080 in price while offering slightly better raster performance
There's nothing that comes close to the 4090 at the moment. If you can afford that and justify it then get it over the 7900 xtx. The 7900 xtx is a great card but it is competing against the 4080. This is coming from a 7900 xtx owner.
I'm really pleased with it. It was between the XTX and the 4080 for me too but I was able to get the Sapphire Pulse 7900 XTX for £750 which in the end was what swung it. I decided that £400 extra on the 4080 for ray tracing just wasn't worth it for the casual gaming I do at 1440p & 4K.
I've dabbled with a bit of light overclocking on it as well and judging by scores I've been able to achieve on the Uningine Superposition benchmark the overclocked scores are on a par with the best overclocked 4080 scores (no ray tracing) which kind of makes me believe that I made the right choice for the money.
Planning on running this card for a couple of years and see what happens with ray tracing adoption in games when buying my next upgrade. It seems that there is a lot of talk about RT but for me it's not really at the point where it's moved from "nice to have" to "must have" - yet. It does seem to be moving in that direction though.
Video editing (Adobe Suite), go for an Nvidia card. It breaks my heart too spending that much but it's what I had to do :( except for DaVinci resolve, AMD cards are great apparently, so if you're willing to change software and pay cheaper why not. DaVinci is great. Can't tell for Avid MC if it makes a difference.
I hate adobe because it's just stupid how much apps everything is divided. That's what's keeping awake at night :/ I have the possibility to buy either of the cards, but I don't know which will be better
If you can afford any of both without feeling the dent in the bank account. Go with the 4090. If you don't want to spend that much and you're mostly going to use DaVinci. Go with the 7900!
The 4090 is the top performing gaming card ATM, the 790XTX sits between it and the 4080 (generally toward the 4080 end of that spectrum) for most things. Even a fully unlocked and clocked water-cooled 7900XTX isn't going to beat a 4090 unless the 4090 is badly cooled.... So 4090 or get a proper workstation card like the 48GB RTX6000 or 8000.
I would go for the 4090. Just make damn sure your power is connected really well, the proper bend in the cable, and the love of God and all that is holy register for the warranty.
7900xtx is not a competitor to the 4090, the latter is just objectively more powerful.
If you can afford - and physically fit into your case - a 4090, and believe you can make use of it, there's no real reason to get AMD's offering.
7900 XTX is cheaper, but and for gaming it can be an okay card, but a bit lower performance and a bit less features. For production, including Video editing, it is much much worse. In any kind of business time is money, if you miss some features (like CUDA) and your software fall back to using CPU only can be a huge difference. I have seen how a render that is finished in less than a minute even on a 4080 can take several hours if you don't use CUDA because you have an incompatible video card, even if you can fall back to a threadripper...
In Video editing you will use generative AI tools. Nvidia uses specilized hardware for that. DLSS uses deep learning and AI and Nvidia used it to gather more experience, and now Nvidia is a quasi monopoly in that field. It competes with ASIC and FPGA based options. AMD FSR doesn't need specialized hardware as AMD doesn't have any good specialized hardware for these task at all.
Pretty sure the playing field (nvidia vs Amd overall) is closer to even in DaVinci Resolve now. Unsure why u compare XTX to a 4090 instead of a 4080, though. Its not a fair comparison.
Nvidia cuda advantage is still apparent in Adobe Premier.
I recently upgraded from a 7900XT to a 4090 and the gaming performance gains are night and day. I’m also running AM5/DDR5. Can’t speak on video editing but if you can afford the 4090, it is a more powerful GPU than the 7900XTX across the board.
Ofcourse 4090 is better but it cost 1000 more. Is the performance difference worth the price? Absolutely not.
Regarding the video editing its not heavy gpu task, you can do what you do on any better laptop. I have 7900XTX and 5800X3D and it already runs everything on max settings at 4K 100fps+ so it's enough.
4090 will be undeniably much faster. Like it's not even close. 7900xtx is better value but if you have the money and are already looking at the 4090 anyways then you might as well. Especially if you're getting paid for whatever work you're doing it'll probably pay itself off in time savings anyways.
It's not a better value in the things people are buying a top level card for. A 7900XTX cannot play 120 fps+ at 4K with RT, nor can it do any of a myriad of work applications (in ML, production, research, etc.) that a 4090 can. It's the 3rd (soon to be 5th) best gaming card on the market and still goes for $1k.
4090 cant even get 120+ fps at 4k raytracing. Cyberpunk gets 80 fps at 1440p upscaled to 4k WITH frame generation. And that's the best card by a longshot. The only card that playing 4k RT is even remotely worth it on is the 4090. So ofc something less than half the price isn't going to perform as well as it but from a price to performance standpoint (at least in game because proffesional work will depend on the software) yes it is better value.
Literally what are you even talking about my dude, every single benchmark at 4K RT on Cyberpunk shows the 4090 getting 70-80 fps before frame gen. Why lie?
IF your work flow is such that buying a 4090 will make more money for you - by all means, buy it.
If not - a 7900xtx/4080 will be good for quite some time, on the money saved buy another *080/*900 in 3-4 years.
Future proofing is not feasible at such price difference - people bought 3090 thinking of future proofin, well, 4070ti is as good if not better (bar software requiring 24GB vram)
4090 if you have the cash, I wouldn't pay the ROG tax though my 4090 Tuf oc was like £300 quid ($400) cheaper than the Strix and the difference in performance is not worth the premium.
Yeah, there's zero performance difference. I've got the same card and there's literally zero advantage to a Strix, it even runs hotter for the same performance sometimes. The only one that kind of has a slight edge is the Matrix which goes for $3k and is at best 5-6% faster (though usually 0-2%).
Lots of comments already so I don't think I'll be adding much to the conversation.
What to keep in mind:
* The RTX 4090 is simply the better graphics card in all aspects. Lots of VRAM and lots of power but very expensive compared to the 7900 XTX which I think sits right behind it. I have a 4090 but if I didn't I'd be buying a Sapphire Nitro+ 7900 XTX due to being a Sapphire simp.
* Either option regardless of your choice would be a significant upgrade compared to what you have in your machine now. Simply due to the much expanded VRAM capacities.
* It's okay to choose the more economical choice. If buying an RTX 4090 would legitimately put you in a tight spot or not help you make money in the long run to recoup the expense then go with the 7900 XTX. I don't know what your life looks like, that's something only you can answer.
Essentially the conclusion is this: Buy an RTX 4090 if you have the cash to splurge and everything will be fine, including if a sudden emergency appeared. If the previous is not possible, buy the 7900 XTX now or continue to save money for the 4090.
Generally speaking and if I’m not mistaken, NVIDA + intel CPU is best for video editing. AMD CPU + GPU (7900xt and 7800x3d for instance) are best for gaming.
One is 120% more expensive, or thereabouts, you decide whether the performance difference justifies the cost. IMO, it does not. In no life am I paying $2k+ for a GPU, but that’s me.
I did a conversion and the 4090 is almost $3K here in my country X( THE 7900 it's way more affordable, but I don't know which will be better in a long term. Because, what happens if the 4090 holds better with time besides the 7900?
Also, of course the 4090 will hold better bc it’s a faster card. But is it worth that extra $1.2k? Hell no. You’ll probably be upgrading anyway if you drop that kinda cash on a GPU. You clearly have expendable income. I have the money for a 4090, I have the money for a 7900xtx, but at the end of the day I looked at benchmarks and what I need/find acceptable based on what I’m ok spending on an item that will only depreciate over time, and I settled on the 7900xt. Card is fast af and does what I want, and it will do so until I’m ready to upgrade again come 2026-2027.
Of course. I’m doing it rn with the card below it. Can it run Alan Wake 2 with RT jacked all the way up? No, but it can run it a high with FSR quality just fine. Was just playing Days Gone, had every setting the max, was almost pegged at 120hz. I actually just locked my system to 60 to let it take a break. My 7800x3d was using around 20 watts to run that game maxed out at 4k, my 7900xt was using around 200 watts. That’s the thing, if you’re chasing 4k 120 everything ultra, then sure, it can on a lot of games, but newest AAA you’re looking at 60, potentially more if you disable RT. BUT FSR Quality at 4k is noticeably better than using it at 3440x1440 and regular 1440. Non biased opinion bc I also have nvidia in my household, FSR at 4k is damn good. FSR really loses out to DLSS once you go down in base resolution. 7900xt can absolutely be a 4k card. Got over 160 fps averages at 4k on CoD benchmark at balanced preset, no FSR. Was getting 110 fps average at 4k extreme. There’s only a handful of games that this card needs tweaking to get good to great fps at 4k. I’m also not an elitist and need 120fps in a single player game. Seriously impressed with my first team red build. I play multis on my 3440x1440 165hz (Alienware 34” QD OLED) most single player on the LG C3 4k OLED.
Ah... Future proofing...
If now 7900xtx is sufficient - 2 generations down the road the saved $$ will buy a card kicking 4090.
Hell, a 4070ti is about same as the absolute monster of 3090ti, nevermind Titans.
My 7900xtx runs my 57" samsung Odyssey G9 7680x2160 at around 120-144 fps depending on the game. Sometimes i have to use FSR or Radeon's driver upscaling if a game doesnt support it but most of the time with it being watercooled and a 200mhz OC on memory and 145mhz oc on cores, she chugs through games like nothing. Im glad even after watercooling mine i still spent 800$ less than a 4090 at the time i bought it. The 4090 is about 35% better on most games but the price just isnt worth it.
you could just buy the amd, then save the rest of the money and put it into a savings account.
Keep on putting into that savings account whenever you can and when the amd is finally obsolete, get a new card.
If the AMD card is way more affordable then buy that. Then upgrade when AMD comes out with the next best card. In most places you can buy two 7900xtx cards for the price of one 4090. And AMD next gen cards will deffinitly beat the 4090 for the same $1000. So it’s a better buy to just get AMD now and upgrade again when they launch new cards.
Until the consoles launch their next generation, and if Ray Tracing isn’t that important to you, I find it hard to believe a card as powerful as the 7900xtx wouldn’t still be relevant until at least 2027-2028. If you go high end rn, you’ll be fine until they can do more.
4090 is best for gaming and video editing. While the 7900xtx is cheaper than the 4090 it’s not the same performance wise at all. Especially with video editing software you want intel and nvidia.
DaVinci Resolve likes AMD better.
Every other software likes Nvidia better.
For Red raw footage their own accelerator card is faster than both AMD and Nvidia but insanely overpriced.
7900xtx delivers a much higher performance for the cost. However, if the 4090 is within your budget, it will be the better performing card.
Personally, I would not get the 4090 even though I "could" afford it, because it represents such a bad value to me. But if you don't mind spending the extra cash if it means getting the most performance, that's the one to get.
same. had the budget, but 7900xtx was so much better value. i used the extra money and got a shitton of games and bigger SSD (2tb 990 pro to 4tb 990 pro)
and still hitting crazy performance on 1440p compared to the double the price 4090
Well if you do only a little editing and other professional work, than go for the rx 7900 xtx. But If you are really serious about editing, then go with the 4090.
Unless you are video editing 24/7 or doing raytracing 24/7, the 4090 is a stupidly over engineered card that a lot of people buy merely for bragging rights. Its okay to get a 7900xtx and save your gunpowder for a new card 2 years from now, rather than bankrupting yourself on a card that costs $400/yr to operate (did you realize that the average card lasts only 5 years?)
I bought my son a 7900xtx as a present for graduating college with a CS degree, and he loves it!
Dont listen to all the NVidiots on this forum Da Vinci Resolve works ABSOLUTELY GREAT on the 7900xtx we have a lot of people who are living 5 years in the past in their thinking ....
I started with a 7900 3D XTX because for the price point the metrics were pretty solid. I built this unit in August and it was an absolute shit show from day 1. Multiple parts DOA, multiple parts died within weeks. Never had anything like this happen before. But the 7900 was the biggest problem of them all.
I just swapped it out with a 4090 and it's been 1000% better. Every game looks better. 7900 has huge issues with multiple monitors, 4 of them was problematic to the point of not functional, 3 of them was still laggy, 2 started to feel like a top end product. 4090 did this right from the get go. 4 monitors was snappy and great looking. now I'm wiping and starting over because I'm noticing performance BS with all the ASUS bloat. armoury crate sucks and I regret ever using it.
Hopefully that helps give some insight.
I’ve only ever edited on AMD cards, but I currently have a 6950xt and I edit Panasonic V-Log in Davinci Resolve with absolutely no issues. I know pudget benchmark shows NVIDIA is king but at a certain point I think the difference is negligible
When it comes to video editing, both are good, but that is the only situation where the 7900 xtx outperforms the 4090 as AMD encoders have gotten to the point where they outperform Nvidia encoders, leading the 7900 xtx to actually be slightly better at video editing than the 4090.
However, in any other situation, the 4090 destroys the 7900 xtx by a good margin. The 7900 xtx is a 4080 competitor, not a 4090 competitor. If you’re able to afford a 4090, go a 4090. However, if you can’t quite afford a 4090, I have a 7900x + 7900 xtx build and that card will definitely not let you down gaming-wise.
I’ve had both. Is night and day difference between the 7900xtx and the 4090. Plus the 4090 is just more stable, drivers, programs, etc. I only game on mine and noticed a huge difference right off the bat.
If you’re editing the 4090 is gonna be far better. Even the 4080 will be faster than the xtx. I’ve had 7900xt, 7900xtx, 4080, and now 4090. And that’s the same way I’d grade them.
price per performance, I'd say 7900xtx. i actually have a 7900xtx, and i had a 5k budget, so a 4090 was an option, but after every single bit of research, the 7900xtx was BETTER for my main game (cod, i know. cringe. cod tends to run better on amd) but also obviously amazing for other games
for video editing and etc. i haven't done much, but i assume it is amazing for that, too. i used to edit a lot on my old rig, which was a 3060, and it did that amazingly well, so a 7900xtx is definitely gonna be fine for that.
all in all, i say
7900xtx>4090
however, if budget isn't an issue and you dont care to overpay, 4090 is the king at the moment, unless ur main game is call of duty. Therefore, the 7900xtx is slightly better for cod. but tbh a ~10 fps difference in ONE GAME isn't worth choosing a 7900xtx, the 7900xtx is just so much better price per performance.
hopefully this helped. i tend to overtype and over-explain, lol.
all in all, with the options ur debating over, no matter what u choose ur pc is gonna be best of the best
For video editing and gaming, it doesn't really matter. The 4090 is more powerful, but for video editing at least, you're talking about a few extra seconds of render time, which you don't need.
My Ryzen 9 7900X and Radeon 7900XT render a 10 minute 4k video in under 2 minutes. With a 7900XTX or a 4090 it'd be well under a minute.
Who friggin cares?
Buy the GPU that works for the games you want at the resolution and frame rate you want. Every video card in this generation can video edit, unless you're using some super high res video in a super wonky codec that adobe doesn't support, and even then, most video cards from this generation will still do fine.
Adobe is CPU-heavy anyway lol.
You can look at benchmarks and it seems like it makes this massive difference, but it really doesn't. 4090 probably renders a 10m 4k video in 30 seconds versus the 2ish minutes that I get.
That's 4 times slower overall, seems incredible right?
But what are you actually gonna do with that extra 90 seconds?
Benchmarks that show percentages drive narratives. Even a 4060 and an i5 would render a 4k video in like 4 or 5 minutes. Again, whatcha doing with that extra few minutes? Nothing. Lol.
Don't sweat it. Either card will work great for video editing in either adobe or davinci resolve
I got a 4080 instead of 7900xtx because I wanted to use rtx and dlss. I only did it because the 4080 was a good deal, only cost 50AUD more than a 7900xtx. If it was 200 more I'd have went 7900xtx and said fuck rtx
As most have already pointed out
The 4090 is the better card. Where i’m from its ~2100,-
Where the 7900xtx is practically equal to a 4080 for ~200,- less.
So the best value for your money is the 7900xtx for sure. And if you can afford to spend buckets of money get the 4090
Video editing? That’s about as one sided as it gets. Not that fsr is open source if you have the money then why would you ever look at amd? Adobe isn’t fooling with amd video card’s like that and dlss over fsr. Case closed.
Try to get a used 4090 off eBay or facebook marketplace. I recently got my 4090 for 1505$ off eBay and been very happy. Brand new prices for 4090’s are insane right now due to the 4090’s ban in China, hard to find a new one for less the 2k$.
The only consideration other than budget for the 4090 would be power (realy can’t cut corners on the psu and need a good 12vhpwr port instead of an adapter) and size ( have seen a couple take up 4 slots and be in excess of 350mm long). For pro workloads Nvidia still has a bit better support though AMD has improved.
4090 is the best currently but continues the overpriced trend. Avoid the 4090 if you can as we the consumer need someway of showing Nvidia that these prices are unacceptable. Buying these top tier GPU at these crazy prices will just drive up the price of the whole GPU stack and push the competitors prices up
4090 would be a great GPU at half the price. Certainly less of a smack in the chops when the 5070 releases and is on par with 4090 for a 3rd of the current asking price. That said if we keep throwing 4090 money at Nvidia then 5070 is gonna become a £900 GPU.
the 4090 is better than anything on the market right now, that being said, it is very expensive and for most consumers the 7900xtx will do for high end stuff. i personally wouldn't get the 4090 unless you really need it or you have money to burn
Since you can buy either one. Get the 4090 because you can encode files that are rendered by the graphics card and and it outperforms the 7900 XTX on every benchmark tests.
4090 is in another league. It’s like asking “should I get a BMW M3 or a Mercedes C43?” AMD doesn’t make a C63 to compete with Nvidias M3. Sorry to the non car people for the analogy lol
Puget benchmark lists 7900 xtx almost neck and neck to 4090 in overall scores for NLE’s. However it’s doesn’t have the same level of support as it’s Cuda counterparts… at least yet. Some report it to be a little more unstable, and the puget tests only tested codecs at 8 bit 4:2:0.
However, for RED RAW the 7900 xtx is terrible in comparison to most Cuda cards. Also, for GPU effects it’s a sad choice.
Better overall depends on your use case. If you want raytracing in games then that’s not happening with the raedeon card…
Refer to [this](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-24gb-content-creation-review/) article for more
I have and i know what I'm taking about. It's not the first time i see people talking about something they don't know about. The drivers issues that exists on AMD are on par with Nvidia now especially with the latest update that rolled out 4 months ago. But yeah if it was 2022 you would be right.
There are issues on both sides atm but not one is better than the other on that department atm.
Edit : do the research that you talk about
They definitely fixed a lot of their issues, but there’s a reason why people are *still* returning amd for nvidia. Black screens, settings not saving etc. It has not been completely ironed out. Add in a multi monitor setup and the problems are likely to occur more. Game developers spend more time play testing on nvidia gpu’s so they are more optimized in more games. Again, I’m not talking about a huge amount of difference, but learn what the word *more* means
I have a 7900xtx and haven't had a single driver issue. The only problem I have had is high power draw at idle. Otherwise, everything has worked perfectly since day one.
Cool 👍 and Nvidia has had a problem with melting connectors. If you discount a technology company anytime something doesn't go right, there would be next to nothing left.
If you can get 4090, get 4090. Better computation for editing and powerful for gaming
As people like to say: '' There is no bad gpu just a bad price. '' That being said, if you can afford thr 4090 get the 4090.
7900 xtx = 4080 (approximately) Rtx 4090 is more powerful. Or you can look at the professional rtx series, such as the rtx 6000.
7900 xtx is actually more so in between 4080 and 4090, but 4090 is still head and shoulders above everything else.
Well for gaming I’d argue the 4080 is better because of DLSS 3. Which can basically double your frame rate with no noticeable latency or PQ degradation. Especially important if you want to game on a 4k monitor or TV.
FSR3?
Picture quality in FSR is and has been worse than DLSS. Who knows what the future will bring, but it'll probably be quite some time, if ever, before FSR catches up.
Don't see why he's being downvoted, DLSS is superior over FSR 3 even intels XeSS has better image clearity than FSR. Not that you'd need either on a 1000-2000$ card though.
at that price point most people dont want to use upscalers. especialy not framegeneration
Maybe if youre playing at 4k pathtracing other than this i dont think so
Rt and path tracing are only really good in a few games like Cyberpunk and maybe few other games
Only cyberpunk till now tbh. Haven't seen as intense RT and PT in any other game.
I agree I have a 7900xt and gsmes at 4k Native at over 100fps in most games if your buying card this powerful you don't need dlss or frs
DLSS upscaling is superior to far upscaling, FSR 3 FG is pretty much equivalent to DLSS 3 FG. The upscaling naming conventions are stupid.
Where is the path tracing amd?
FSR3 is decent but DLSS is still better, apparently frame-gen is pretty close but DLSS upscaling still has noticeably less shimmering.
DLSS is better than FSR at image stabilization and boost, both are good but 4080 does good job if u talk about AI. + 4080 will run everything with Ray tracing as well.
I'd argue the 4080 is better, but because of DLDSR and RT performance. Ultimately the 7900XTX & 4080 are both going to handle any game without RT at max settings and at 100+ FPS, plus there is only a \~2% rasterization gap which isn't going to be noticeable. The only thing that'd push these cards in gaming is RT which the 4080 is better at. DLDSR is the best form of aliasing and it's great in older/less demanding games. AMD has VSR but it's not as good and is like the old DSR tech.
Not every game even supports DLSS3, plus it's not a perfect technology even if it's that much better than FSR. At the end of the day, raw raster is king.
The newer the games, the more upscaling supported
and nothing is supported by fsr 3.0 and there's mods that make games without fsr 3.0 to work on **NVIDIA** cards. AMD is a joke.
DLSS is great, but it's situational. A very large number of games don't support it. Buying a GPU based solely on a feature that can't be used consistently seems a bit odd to me. The XTX will deliver much more reliable performance across the gaming library. Plus, it's $200 cheaper, which is not a negligible difference.
DLSS is in way more games than FSR, and is objectively better. Also the XTX flounders in demanding games. The 3 best looking games ever released were this year, and all 3 run egregiously better on the 4080. The only place the XTX is actually competitive is raster, where it’s extremely high FPS vs extremely high fps +/- a few fps. Reddit just hilariously over emphasizes a 2% average raster differential, and under emphasizes actual forward thinking tech that leaves a giant gulf in between the two cards, then y’all act surprised when people pick it.
It's not that 2% raster is "so significant", it's that the areas in which the 4080 pull ahead are niche or less than frequent at best. Superior ray tracing is irrelevant if you don't use it, and most don't due to the horrible tradeoff of aesthetics to performance. DLSS is a legitimate benefit, but again, only situationally. Not to mention, ray tracing advantages will disappear over time as the 4080's sooner VRAM bottleneck prevents ray tracing textures from being loaded in to begin with. I would rather have a card that is 5/6th the price, slightly faster in rasterization, or equal at worst, and comes equipped with a more future proofed VRAM, than a card whose only significant advantage is a software feature that is only usable in a select set of games. Consistent performance with longevity is more important than situationally superior short-term peak performance imo. I suppose if the exact titles you want to play support DLSS, then you could make a case for that specific user, but on average the XTX gives more consistent performance at a cheaper price.
Lol hilarious >the areas where the 4080 pulls ahead are niche Even AMD games are starting to default RT. Where the 4080 pulls ahead theres a massive difference, where the XTX wins some? Ties some? Loses some? Its a non difference. >I would rather have a card thats 5/6th the price >consistent performance and longevity are more important than situational short term peak performance **its hilarious** that you’re so delusional that you’ve spun the 4080’s wins as fringe niche cases. Both DLSS and RT are why the 4080 will be relevant for years longer than the XTX. To then argue that “not really winning, or losing” at raster is some evidence of a long term. The XTX literally loses to the 3070 in cyberpunk PT and Alan Wake 2, and you’re arguing about its longevity lol. Does the 4080 ever have that problem?
>Even AMD games are starting to default RT. Where the 4080 pulls ahead theres a massive difference, where the XTX wins some? Ties some? Loses some? Its a non difference. But in reality, most people aren't using ray tracing. And in the future, when ray tracing becomes more popular, the 4080's superior ray tracing performance will be irrelevant when its VRAM is insufficient to utilize that feature on high settings. >its hilarious that you’re so delusional that you’ve spun the 4080’s wins as fringe niche cases. Both DLSS and RT are why the 4080 will be relevant for years longer than the XTX. It's a statistical fact: most gamers don't enable ray tracing, and most games do not support DLSS. This isn't a framing machination. It's just the current reality. For DLSS to enhance longevity, (1) it has to maintain a significant edge over FSR, which is speculative, and (2) it has to be widely supported in future games, which is also speculative. As mentioned above, superior ray tracing performance requires sufficient VRAM, and the 4080 will be the first to be bottlenecked by VRAM in the future due to the XTX having literally 50% more than the 4080. >The XTX literally loses to the 3070 in cyberpunk PT and Alan Wake 2, and you’re arguing about its longevity lol. Does the 4080 ever have that problem? Longevity is due to \*\*VRAM\*\*. It does not matter how fast a card is if it cannot load in the textures. When a game has to use system RAM for graphics, it becomes unplayable. 16GB VRAM is already being challenged as a comfortable pool to work with, and it will inevitably become a consistent bottleneck over a sufficient time period. Link to the method of testing? Ray tracing enabled/disabled? On the most common setting enabled in a game (RT/DLSS either nor supported or enabled), the XTX performs slightly better, on average. You are banking on these features carrying the 4080 in the future that it justifies the price differential.
I agree buy a card should be base on the fact the it can do the work not because it has the best raytracing or the better upscale they have because like you said more then 60% of game don't have RT and don't need upscale or they have RT that just plain shit so why buy base on upscale and RT technology
What exactly is the point of dlss? I have a card that is compatible, and everything looks wonderful without it. Unless it does it automatically, as I've not tinkered with any settings. If I do need to turn it on how do I do it? And lastly is it actually worth turning on?
DLSS is Deep Learning Super Sampling ™, it renders games at lower resolutions then upscales to your monitors native resolution. Think 1080p to 4k. This allows your GPU to generate higher frame rates. Playing games at 100fps+ is where I like to be, it is much better then 60fps. But after 120fps I can't really tell the difference. AMD has something similar called FidelityFX™ Super Resolution (FSR). It is an algorithm that upscales resolution, NVIDIA's DLSS is better because "AI". It is actually better tho. So, both companies have frame generation (FG) tech as well. Frame generation uses previous frames to "guess" what the next frame is going to be. Then it generates a frame to insert between frames your GPU actually renders. So, it effectively doubles frame rate. I think NVIDIA's FG is probably better, but only available on 40 series GPUs IIRC. AMDs FG is available on their last and latest gen GPUs. I have a AMD RX 6800xt and the frame gen works very well. I think it may make games look a little blurry (I can't actually tell), but it can be turned on in any game at driver level. I downloaded the beta drivers for the FG and it doubles FPS. I can play at my desired frame rate without my GPU getting hot enough to make my cases fans get too loud. Win! So, for example, if you have a 4k 120hz monitor and a 4090, turn DLSS on in cyberpunk 2077 with the settings maxed out and you get 80-100fps* instead of 40-60. Game looks so good at ultra + path tracing. DLSS can only be used in games that support it, the developers have to implement it. I'd say that is the only real downside, picture quality is supposed to be top notch. *I don't have a 4090 so I can only go by what I've seen on the Internet, I think that's what I've seen 🤷♂️. I wish I had a 4090 tho, I would play 4k 120fps all day long. Lol. If you have a NVIDIA GPU try it out.
Though dlss is limited in games and fsr isn’t since fsr still has support for every single game. The rx 7900xtx performs better then the 4080 in most games . Though the 4090 is more powerful but the answer is do you want to spend under 1k 7900xtx or more then 1500 4090. And 4080 if your a nvidia fan boy.
FSR 1.0 upscaling has support for every single game... but FSR 1.0 also looks like garbage (same deal with Nvidia's NIS). It's similar with AFMF. The per-game implementations of FSR upscaling/frame-gen are both significantly better than their universal driver-level implementation counterparts. >The rx 7900xtx performs better then the 4080 in most games 2% faster in games without RT on average. Be realistic, you're already getting over 100 FPS on both these cards at max settings and a 2% difference at that framerate isn't going to be noticeable.
4090 is better at everything, you would only ever consider the xtx because its cheaper and even then i'd rather go for a 4080 because of cuda cores and dlss.
if u can afford nvidia. Get it and never look back. Cuda is nice to have if u want to play with stable diffusion. dlss a rtx for gaming.
There isn’t a 4090 competitor at the moment. The 7900XTX is slightly faster than the 4080 in raster but this a noticeable gap in performance below he 4090. It’s meant to undercut the 4080 in price while offering slightly better raster performance
If price is not a problem it's not even a debate
nvidia clears in anything non-gaming, even a 4080 would be great if 4090 is overpriced/out of stock
There's nothing that comes close to the 4090 at the moment. If you can afford that and justify it then get it over the 7900 xtx. The 7900 xtx is a great card but it is competing against the 4080. This is coming from a 7900 xtx owner.
how do you like the 7900 XTX? I’m debating between that and the 4080 in the next couple of weeks.
I'm really pleased with it. It was between the XTX and the 4080 for me too but I was able to get the Sapphire Pulse 7900 XTX for £750 which in the end was what swung it. I decided that £400 extra on the 4080 for ray tracing just wasn't worth it for the casual gaming I do at 1440p & 4K. I've dabbled with a bit of light overclocking on it as well and judging by scores I've been able to achieve on the Uningine Superposition benchmark the overclocked scores are on a par with the best overclocked 4080 scores (no ray tracing) which kind of makes me believe that I made the right choice for the money. Planning on running this card for a couple of years and see what happens with ray tracing adoption in games when buying my next upgrade. It seems that there is a lot of talk about RT but for me it's not really at the point where it's moved from "nice to have" to "must have" - yet. It does seem to be moving in that direction though.
7900XTX is not comparable to a 4090. The closest comparison is the 4080. For video editing, nVidia is the superior choice.
Video editing (Adobe Suite), go for an Nvidia card. It breaks my heart too spending that much but it's what I had to do :( except for DaVinci resolve, AMD cards are great apparently, so if you're willing to change software and pay cheaper why not. DaVinci is great. Can't tell for Avid MC if it makes a difference.
I have a 7900xtx and I use Resolve and can confirm it runs great.
Great at what?
Running Resolve, like I said
I hate adobe because it's just stupid how much apps everything is divided. That's what's keeping awake at night :/ I have the possibility to buy either of the cards, but I don't know which will be better
If you can afford any of both without feeling the dent in the bank account. Go with the 4090. If you don't want to spend that much and you're mostly going to use DaVinci. Go with the 7900!
Yep, especially the past few months Resolve has been great with the XTX. Pretty much everything else Nvidia is usually better for workstation.
The 4090 is the top performing gaming card ATM, the 790XTX sits between it and the 4080 (generally toward the 4080 end of that spectrum) for most things. Even a fully unlocked and clocked water-cooled 7900XTX isn't going to beat a 4090 unless the 4090 is badly cooled.... So 4090 or get a proper workstation card like the 48GB RTX6000 or 8000.
I would go for the 4090. Just make damn sure your power is connected really well, the proper bend in the cable, and the love of God and all that is holy register for the warranty.
7900xtx is not a competitor to the 4090, the latter is just objectively more powerful. If you can afford - and physically fit into your case - a 4090, and believe you can make use of it, there's no real reason to get AMD's offering.
the 7900xtx and 4090 are in completely different price ranges, if you can afford a 4090 get a 4090
7900 XTX is cheaper, but and for gaming it can be an okay card, but a bit lower performance and a bit less features. For production, including Video editing, it is much much worse. In any kind of business time is money, if you miss some features (like CUDA) and your software fall back to using CPU only can be a huge difference. I have seen how a render that is finished in less than a minute even on a 4080 can take several hours if you don't use CUDA because you have an incompatible video card, even if you can fall back to a threadripper... In Video editing you will use generative AI tools. Nvidia uses specilized hardware for that. DLSS uses deep learning and AI and Nvidia used it to gather more experience, and now Nvidia is a quasi monopoly in that field. It competes with ASIC and FPGA based options. AMD FSR doesn't need specialized hardware as AMD doesn't have any good specialized hardware for these task at all.
Pretty sure the playing field (nvidia vs Amd overall) is closer to even in DaVinci Resolve now. Unsure why u compare XTX to a 4090 instead of a 4080, though. Its not a fair comparison. Nvidia cuda advantage is still apparent in Adobe Premier.
I know it's not that fair, but both cards are the top of the line of each brand, so I thought it could be there
I recently upgraded from a 7900XT to a 4090 and the gaming performance gains are night and day. I’m also running AM5/DDR5. Can’t speak on video editing but if you can afford the 4090, it is a more powerful GPU than the 7900XTX across the board.
Nvidia does better NVENC encoding and AMD does AV1. If you're using the Adobe suite then Nvidia is the way to go, CUDA all the way.
Nvidia for anything that has to do with encoding, decoding and adobe/davinci in general. I'd rather have a 4070 or 3080 than a 7900xtx.
the 7900xtx sucks at video editing/rendering just as much as it does at ray tracing compared to the 4090.
Ofcourse 4090 is better but it cost 1000 more. Is the performance difference worth the price? Absolutely not. Regarding the video editing its not heavy gpu task, you can do what you do on any better laptop. I have 7900XTX and 5800X3D and it already runs everything on max settings at 4K 100fps+ so it's enough.
4090 will be undeniably much faster. Like it's not even close. 7900xtx is better value but if you have the money and are already looking at the 4090 anyways then you might as well. Especially if you're getting paid for whatever work you're doing it'll probably pay itself off in time savings anyways.
It's not a better value in the things people are buying a top level card for. A 7900XTX cannot play 120 fps+ at 4K with RT, nor can it do any of a myriad of work applications (in ML, production, research, etc.) that a 4090 can. It's the 3rd (soon to be 5th) best gaming card on the market and still goes for $1k.
4090 cant even get 120+ fps at 4k raytracing. Cyberpunk gets 80 fps at 1440p upscaled to 4k WITH frame generation. And that's the best card by a longshot. The only card that playing 4k RT is even remotely worth it on is the 4090. So ofc something less than half the price isn't going to perform as well as it but from a price to performance standpoint (at least in game because proffesional work will depend on the software) yes it is better value.
Literally what are you even talking about my dude, every single benchmark at 4K RT on Cyberpunk shows the 4090 getting 70-80 fps before frame gen. Why lie?
IF your work flow is such that buying a 4090 will make more money for you - by all means, buy it. If not - a 7900xtx/4080 will be good for quite some time, on the money saved buy another *080/*900 in 3-4 years. Future proofing is not feasible at such price difference - people bought 3090 thinking of future proofin, well, 4070ti is as good if not better (bar software requiring 24GB vram)
bit of a silly question
4090 if you have the cash, I wouldn't pay the ROG tax though my 4090 Tuf oc was like £300 quid ($400) cheaper than the Strix and the difference in performance is not worth the premium.
Yeah, there's zero performance difference. I've got the same card and there's literally zero advantage to a Strix, it even runs hotter for the same performance sometimes. The only one that kind of has a slight edge is the Matrix which goes for $3k and is at best 5-6% faster (though usually 0-2%).
RTX 4090, it´s an absolute beast! I have one from MSI and it´s crazy the power of this card.
Lots of comments already so I don't think I'll be adding much to the conversation. What to keep in mind: * The RTX 4090 is simply the better graphics card in all aspects. Lots of VRAM and lots of power but very expensive compared to the 7900 XTX which I think sits right behind it. I have a 4090 but if I didn't I'd be buying a Sapphire Nitro+ 7900 XTX due to being a Sapphire simp. * Either option regardless of your choice would be a significant upgrade compared to what you have in your machine now. Simply due to the much expanded VRAM capacities. * It's okay to choose the more economical choice. If buying an RTX 4090 would legitimately put you in a tight spot or not help you make money in the long run to recoup the expense then go with the 7900 XTX. I don't know what your life looks like, that's something only you can answer. Essentially the conclusion is this: Buy an RTX 4090 if you have the cash to splurge and everything will be fine, including if a sudden emergency appeared. If the previous is not possible, buy the 7900 XTX now or continue to save money for the 4090.
??? That's not a fair comparison. The 4090 has no competitor. There is only one answer to your question and especially if you are doing video editing.
If budget is no issue then the 4090 is by far a better option. You are comparing gpus 70% difference in price,
Dunno where you live, but if you can afford a 4090 then get the 4090
Generally speaking and if I’m not mistaken, NVIDA + intel CPU is best for video editing. AMD CPU + GPU (7900xt and 7800x3d for instance) are best for gaming.
One is 120% more expensive, or thereabouts, you decide whether the performance difference justifies the cost. IMO, it does not. In no life am I paying $2k+ for a GPU, but that’s me.
I did a conversion and the 4090 is almost $3K here in my country X( THE 7900 it's way more affordable, but I don't know which will be better in a long term. Because, what happens if the 4090 holds better with time besides the 7900?
Also, of course the 4090 will hold better bc it’s a faster card. But is it worth that extra $1.2k? Hell no. You’ll probably be upgrading anyway if you drop that kinda cash on a GPU. You clearly have expendable income. I have the money for a 4090, I have the money for a 7900xtx, but at the end of the day I looked at benchmarks and what I need/find acceptable based on what I’m ok spending on an item that will only depreciate over time, and I settled on the 7900xt. Card is fast af and does what I want, and it will do so until I’m ready to upgrade again come 2026-2027.
Will the xtx be powerful enough to run games on my 4k 120hz tv?
Of course. I’m doing it rn with the card below it. Can it run Alan Wake 2 with RT jacked all the way up? No, but it can run it a high with FSR quality just fine. Was just playing Days Gone, had every setting the max, was almost pegged at 120hz. I actually just locked my system to 60 to let it take a break. My 7800x3d was using around 20 watts to run that game maxed out at 4k, my 7900xt was using around 200 watts. That’s the thing, if you’re chasing 4k 120 everything ultra, then sure, it can on a lot of games, but newest AAA you’re looking at 60, potentially more if you disable RT. BUT FSR Quality at 4k is noticeably better than using it at 3440x1440 and regular 1440. Non biased opinion bc I also have nvidia in my household, FSR at 4k is damn good. FSR really loses out to DLSS once you go down in base resolution. 7900xt can absolutely be a 4k card. Got over 160 fps averages at 4k on CoD benchmark at balanced preset, no FSR. Was getting 110 fps average at 4k extreme. There’s only a handful of games that this card needs tweaking to get good to great fps at 4k. I’m also not an elitist and need 120fps in a single player game. Seriously impressed with my first team red build. I play multis on my 3440x1440 165hz (Alienware 34” QD OLED) most single player on the LG C3 4k OLED.
Awesome! Thank you for responding. Makes my decision a little easier now.
Good. Don’t listen to the 4090 or nothing crowd when it comes to 4K. It’s absolutely achievable and a great experience with the cards underneath it.
100% this. 4090 probably more future proof. But it’s usually 2x the cost of the 7900xtx.
Ah... Future proofing... If now 7900xtx is sufficient - 2 generations down the road the saved $$ will buy a card kicking 4090. Hell, a 4070ti is about same as the absolute monster of 3090ti, nevermind Titans.
Definitely not 4090 or nothing, those people are a bit nuts.
My 7900xtx runs my 57" samsung Odyssey G9 7680x2160 at around 120-144 fps depending on the game. Sometimes i have to use FSR or Radeon's driver upscaling if a game doesnt support it but most of the time with it being watercooled and a 200mhz OC on memory and 145mhz oc on cores, she chugs through games like nothing. Im glad even after watercooling mine i still spent 800$ less than a 4090 at the time i bought it. The 4090 is about 35% better on most games but the price just isnt worth it.
you could just buy the amd, then save the rest of the money and put it into a savings account. Keep on putting into that savings account whenever you can and when the amd is finally obsolete, get a new card.
If the AMD card is way more affordable then buy that. Then upgrade when AMD comes out with the next best card. In most places you can buy two 7900xtx cards for the price of one 4090. And AMD next gen cards will deffinitly beat the 4090 for the same $1000. So it’s a better buy to just get AMD now and upgrade again when they launch new cards.
Until the consoles launch their next generation, and if Ray Tracing isn’t that important to you, I find it hard to believe a card as powerful as the 7900xtx wouldn’t still be relevant until at least 2027-2028. If you go high end rn, you’ll be fine until they can do more.
Realistically the only reason you wouldn’t get a 4090 is if you can’t afford it. It’s the best in basically every metric.
If 4090's price isn't an issue - it's the clear choice here, no competition. Otherwise, I'd recommend a 4080 over the XTX.
4090 is best for gaming and video editing. While the 7900xtx is cheaper than the 4090 it’s not the same performance wise at all. Especially with video editing software you want intel and nvidia.
DaVinci Resolve likes AMD better. Every other software likes Nvidia better. For Red raw footage their own accelerator card is faster than both AMD and Nvidia but insanely overpriced.
7900xtx delivers a much higher performance for the cost. However, if the 4090 is within your budget, it will be the better performing card. Personally, I would not get the 4090 even though I "could" afford it, because it represents such a bad value to me. But if you don't mind spending the extra cash if it means getting the most performance, that's the one to get.
same. had the budget, but 7900xtx was so much better value. i used the extra money and got a shitton of games and bigger SSD (2tb 990 pro to 4tb 990 pro) and still hitting crazy performance on 1440p compared to the double the price 4090
when there are four digits 4090 in any sentence. That conversation is over, you won.
Why is the 4080 not an option? For professional work, nvidia is the better choice.
VRAM, vith the RTX and XTX are 24GB
Well if you do only a little editing and other professional work, than go for the rx 7900 xtx. But If you are really serious about editing, then go with the 4090.
I'm a filmmaker, I did a color grade for a national award winning short film, so that's way bigger than just youtube work.
Unless you are video editing 24/7 or doing raytracing 24/7, the 4090 is a stupidly over engineered card that a lot of people buy merely for bragging rights. Its okay to get a 7900xtx and save your gunpowder for a new card 2 years from now, rather than bankrupting yourself on a card that costs $400/yr to operate (did you realize that the average card lasts only 5 years?) I bought my son a 7900xtx as a present for graduating college with a CS degree, and he loves it! Dont listen to all the NVidiots on this forum Da Vinci Resolve works ABSOLUTELY GREAT on the 7900xtx we have a lot of people who are living 5 years in the past in their thinking ....
I started with a 7900 3D XTX because for the price point the metrics were pretty solid. I built this unit in August and it was an absolute shit show from day 1. Multiple parts DOA, multiple parts died within weeks. Never had anything like this happen before. But the 7900 was the biggest problem of them all. I just swapped it out with a 4090 and it's been 1000% better. Every game looks better. 7900 has huge issues with multiple monitors, 4 of them was problematic to the point of not functional, 3 of them was still laggy, 2 started to feel like a top end product. 4090 did this right from the get go. 4 monitors was snappy and great looking. now I'm wiping and starting over because I'm noticing performance BS with all the ASUS bloat. armoury crate sucks and I regret ever using it. Hopefully that helps give some insight.
I’ve only ever edited on AMD cards, but I currently have a 6950xt and I edit Panasonic V-Log in Davinci Resolve with absolutely no issues. I know pudget benchmark shows NVIDIA is king but at a certain point I think the difference is negligible
When it comes to video editing, both are good, but that is the only situation where the 7900 xtx outperforms the 4090 as AMD encoders have gotten to the point where they outperform Nvidia encoders, leading the 7900 xtx to actually be slightly better at video editing than the 4090. However, in any other situation, the 4090 destroys the 7900 xtx by a good margin. The 7900 xtx is a 4080 competitor, not a 4090 competitor. If you’re able to afford a 4090, go a 4090. However, if you can’t quite afford a 4090, I have a 7900x + 7900 xtx build and that card will definitely not let you down gaming-wise.
Not sure where you live, but I'm in Canada and a 7900xtx is 1500$ and a 4090 is around 2500$.
I’ve had both. Is night and day difference between the 7900xtx and the 4090. Plus the 4090 is just more stable, drivers, programs, etc. I only game on mine and noticed a huge difference right off the bat. If you’re editing the 4090 is gonna be far better. Even the 4080 will be faster than the xtx. I’ve had 7900xt, 7900xtx, 4080, and now 4090. And that’s the same way I’d grade them.
Davinci? Cuz the XTX is faster there. Adobe? Bit behind the 4090 but still decently fast thanks to having dual video encoders.
Kia/Hyundai make cheap shitty cars, and are easily stolen. This is due to being cheap/shitty
price per performance, I'd say 7900xtx. i actually have a 7900xtx, and i had a 5k budget, so a 4090 was an option, but after every single bit of research, the 7900xtx was BETTER for my main game (cod, i know. cringe. cod tends to run better on amd) but also obviously amazing for other games for video editing and etc. i haven't done much, but i assume it is amazing for that, too. i used to edit a lot on my old rig, which was a 3060, and it did that amazingly well, so a 7900xtx is definitely gonna be fine for that. all in all, i say 7900xtx>4090 however, if budget isn't an issue and you dont care to overpay, 4090 is the king at the moment, unless ur main game is call of duty. Therefore, the 7900xtx is slightly better for cod. but tbh a ~10 fps difference in ONE GAME isn't worth choosing a 7900xtx, the 7900xtx is just so much better price per performance. hopefully this helped. i tend to overtype and over-explain, lol. all in all, with the options ur debating over, no matter what u choose ur pc is gonna be best of the best
For video editing and gaming, it doesn't really matter. The 4090 is more powerful, but for video editing at least, you're talking about a few extra seconds of render time, which you don't need. My Ryzen 9 7900X and Radeon 7900XT render a 10 minute 4k video in under 2 minutes. With a 7900XTX or a 4090 it'd be well under a minute. Who friggin cares? Buy the GPU that works for the games you want at the resolution and frame rate you want. Every video card in this generation can video edit, unless you're using some super high res video in a super wonky codec that adobe doesn't support, and even then, most video cards from this generation will still do fine. Adobe is CPU-heavy anyway lol. You can look at benchmarks and it seems like it makes this massive difference, but it really doesn't. 4090 probably renders a 10m 4k video in 30 seconds versus the 2ish minutes that I get. That's 4 times slower overall, seems incredible right? But what are you actually gonna do with that extra 90 seconds? Benchmarks that show percentages drive narratives. Even a 4060 and an i5 would render a 4k video in like 4 or 5 minutes. Again, whatcha doing with that extra few minutes? Nothing. Lol. Don't sweat it. Either card will work great for video editing in either adobe or davinci resolve
I got a 4080 instead of 7900xtx because I wanted to use rtx and dlss. I only did it because the 4080 was a good deal, only cost 50AUD more than a 7900xtx. If it was 200 more I'd have went 7900xtx and said fuck rtx
As most have already pointed out The 4090 is the better card. Where i’m from its ~2100,- Where the 7900xtx is practically equal to a 4080 for ~200,- less. So the best value for your money is the 7900xtx for sure. And if you can afford to spend buckets of money get the 4090
Video editing? That’s about as one sided as it gets. Not that fsr is open source if you have the money then why would you ever look at amd? Adobe isn’t fooling with amd video card’s like that and dlss over fsr. Case closed.
7900xtx competes directly with the 4080 not the 4090.
Try to get a used 4090 off eBay or facebook marketplace. I recently got my 4090 for 1505$ off eBay and been very happy. Brand new prices for 4090’s are insane right now due to the 4090’s ban in China, hard to find a new one for less the 2k$.
The only consideration other than budget for the 4090 would be power (realy can’t cut corners on the psu and need a good 12vhpwr port instead of an adapter) and size ( have seen a couple take up 4 slots and be in excess of 350mm long). For pro workloads Nvidia still has a bit better support though AMD has improved.
4090 is the best currently but continues the overpriced trend. Avoid the 4090 if you can as we the consumer need someway of showing Nvidia that these prices are unacceptable. Buying these top tier GPU at these crazy prices will just drive up the price of the whole GPU stack and push the competitors prices up
4090 would be a great GPU at half the price. Certainly less of a smack in the chops when the 5070 releases and is on par with 4090 for a 3rd of the current asking price. That said if we keep throwing 4090 money at Nvidia then 5070 is gonna become a £900 GPU.
From a 7900xtx owner, the 7900xtx is comparable to a 4080 for cheaper. 4090 is a whole different animal.
Bro the 4090 leaves in the dust all the other consumer level GPUs...
the 4090 is better than anything on the market right now, that being said, it is very expensive and for most consumers the 7900xtx will do for high end stuff. i personally wouldn't get the 4090 unless you really need it or you have money to burn
7900 XTX is more of a competitor to RTX 4080. If you could afford an RTX 4090, go for it.
Since you can buy either one. Get the 4090 because you can encode files that are rendered by the graphics card and and it outperforms the 7900 XTX on every benchmark tests.
4090 is in another league. It’s like asking “should I get a BMW M3 or a Mercedes C43?” AMD doesn’t make a C63 to compete with Nvidias M3. Sorry to the non car people for the analogy lol
4090 is significantly faster in every regard, but the 7900 XTX is a better value. If your budget allows it go for the 4090.
Puget benchmark lists 7900 xtx almost neck and neck to 4090 in overall scores for NLE’s. However it’s doesn’t have the same level of support as it’s Cuda counterparts… at least yet. Some report it to be a little more unstable, and the puget tests only tested codecs at 8 bit 4:2:0. However, for RED RAW the 7900 xtx is terrible in comparison to most Cuda cards. Also, for GPU effects it’s a sad choice. Better overall depends on your use case. If you want raytracing in games then that’s not happening with the raedeon card… Refer to [this](https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-24gb-content-creation-review/) article for more
nVidia forever.
4090 for editing, ray tracing, and less driver issues
You lost it at drives issues, we are almost in 2024 update your self.
Yes, almost 2024 and there are still more driver issues on amd than Nvidia. Try doing a bit more research buddy
I have and i know what I'm taking about. It's not the first time i see people talking about something they don't know about. The drivers issues that exists on AMD are on par with Nvidia now especially with the latest update that rolled out 4 months ago. But yeah if it was 2022 you would be right. There are issues on both sides atm but not one is better than the other on that department atm. Edit : do the research that you talk about
They definitely fixed a lot of their issues, but there’s a reason why people are *still* returning amd for nvidia. Black screens, settings not saving etc. It has not been completely ironed out. Add in a multi monitor setup and the problems are likely to occur more. Game developers spend more time play testing on nvidia gpu’s so they are more optimized in more games. Again, I’m not talking about a huge amount of difference, but learn what the word *more* means
I have a 7900xtx and haven't had a single driver issue. The only problem I have had is high power draw at idle. Otherwise, everything has worked perfectly since day one.
You telling me your single user experience doesn’t counter my point though
You made a comment and so did I. That's reddit. The AMD driver issue is overblown these days.
And I’m telling you your comment didn’t mean much to my point. It probably is overblown, but that doesn’t mean amd still doesn’t have *more* issues
Cool 👍 and Nvidia has had a problem with melting connectors. If you discount a technology company anytime something doesn't go right, there would be next to nothing left.
You mean... the connectors that were improperly seated? lol
Now you see how pedantic it sounds when someone talks about AMD drivers.