Correct me if I am wrong but maybe they meant when Publisher/Devs list hardware requirement for their games and includes DLSS in the calculations. IIRC AssCreed Shadows and MH Wilds had that.

Oh so you support grifting off the public domain? Maybe grow some balls instead of taking the status quo for granted.

Not 1440 like you’re thinking. 3440x1440 is 20% more pixel to render than standard 2560x1440’s. It’s a WS. And yes at max settings 80-90fps is pretty damn good. It regularly goes over 100 in less busy environments.

And yeah it’s not matching a 5090, a graphics card that costs more than 3x mine and sure as hell isn’t giving 3x the performance.

You’re moving the goalposts. My point is for 1/4th the cost you’re getting 60-80% of the performance of overpriced, massive, power hungry Nvidia cards (depending on what model you want to compare to). Bang for buck, AMD smokes Nvidia. It’s not even close.

Unless cost isn’t a barrier to you or you have very specific needs they make no sense to buy. If you’ve got disposable income for days then fuck it buy away.

Better bang for your buck, but way less bang and not as impressive of a bang.

Not all of us can afford to spend $3000 for a noticeable but still not massive performance bump over a $700 option. I don’t really understand how this is so difficult to understand lol. You also have to increase the rest of your machine cost for things like your PSU, because the draw on the 5xxx series is cracked out. Motherboard, CPU, all of that has to be cranked up unless you want bottlenecks. Don’t forget your high end 165hz monitor unless you want to waste frames/colors. And are we really going to pretend after 100fps the difference is that big of a deal?

Going Nvidia also means unless you want to be fighting your machine all the time, you need to keep a Windows partition on your computer. Have fun with that.

At the end of the day buy what you want dude, but I’m pulling down what I said above on a machine that cost about $1700. Do with that what you will

@RazgrizOne @FreedomAdvocate the reason why i decided for AMD after being nearly all my life team green ( aka >20 years ) , i feel like AI Frame Generation and Upscalling are anti consumer cause the hide the real performance behind none reproducable image generation. And if you look correctly ... this is how nvidia has a performance lead over AMD.

I’m not even against tricks like upscaling and such to be honest. If it looks good I’ll take it lol. But I do agree they don’t feel like long-term, hardened solutions vs something more like “raw performance.” And there’s no doubt There is a certain elegance to AMD’s cards

My last nvidia card was gtx 980.I bought two of them. After i heard about 970 scandal. It didnt directly affect me but fuck nvidia for pulling that shit. Havent bought anything from them. Stopped playing games on pc afterwards, just occasionally on console and laptop igpu.

Only Cyberpunk 2077 in path tracing. The only game i have not played until i can run it on ultra settings. But for that amount of money, i better wait until the real 2077 to see it happen.

Bought my first AMD card last year, never looked back

After being AMD for years recently went back to nvidia for one reason. nvenc works way better for encoding livestreams and videos than amd

I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.

Your card is comparable to a 5070, which is basically the same price as yours. There’s no doubt the 5080 and 5090 are disappointing in their performance compared to these mid-high cards, but your card can’t compete with them and nvidia offer a comparable card at the same price point as AMDs best card.

Also the AMD card uses more power than the nvidia equivalent (9700xt vs 5070).

I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.

Most people do not use WS as evidenced by the mixed bag support it gets. 1440 monitors are by default understood to be 2560x1440p as it’s 16:9 which is still considered the “default” by the vast majority of businesses and people alike. You may operate as if most people using 1440+ are on WS but that’s a very atypical assumption.

Raytracing sure but otherwise the 4090 is actually better than the 5070 in many respects. So you’re paying a comparable price for Raytracing and windows dependency, which if that is important to you then go right ahead. Ultimately though my point is that there is no point in buying the insanely overpriced Nvidia offerings when you have excellent AMD offerings for a fraction of the price that don’t have all sorts of little pitfalls/compromises. The Nvidia headaches are worth it for performance, which unless you 3-4x your investment you’re not getting more of. So the 5070 is moot.

I’m not sure what you’re comparing at the end unless you meant a 9070XT which I don’t use/have and wasn’t comparing.

"and the drivers, for which NVIDIA has always been praised, are currently falling apart"

what? they were shit since hl2

AMD & Intel ARC are king now. All that CUDA nonsense, is just price-hiking justification

The studio has done a great job. You most certainly have heard it already, but I am willing to say it again: the game is worth playing with whatever quality you can afford, save stutter-level low fps - the story is so touching it outplays graphics completely (though I do share the desire to play it on ultra settings - will do one day myself)

Those 4% can make an RTX 5070 Ti perform at the levels of an RTX 4070 Ti Super, completely eradicating the reason you’d get an RTX 5070 Ti in the first place.

You'd buy a 5070 Ti for a 4% increase in performance over the 4070 Ti Super you already had? Ok.