The only real AMD option is the 6700xt and that was significantly more expensive, has a much higher power usage (so new psu), lacks features, and isn't Nvidia. Not really an option.
Ah. That is unfortunate. I understand your pro-nVidia stance now. Makes perfect sense. In UAE, AMD cards are cheaper coz they have almost zero resale value. You buy AMD, you either use it till it becomes obsolete or eat a massive loss on reselling. The higher prices of Geforce cards here make them not a very compelling buy.So here at least. At each performance tier, the price difference between AMD and NVidia is quite small, so then it becomes a battle of features, and NVidia wins the battle of features IMO.
I consider more VRAM a feature where it exists and for the 4060Ti matchup and the 4070 matchup it is a feature that can make a huge difference in playability, especially if you play the latest AAA titles close to launch so I am not so sure that NV outright wins the battle of features. It really depends on the use case.You don't know where he is, and what outlets he shops.
For Example: I'm in Canada, and only willing to buy a GPU from Amazon.ca (not their 3rd party market either) for simplicity in returns and overall trustworthiness. Prices at Amazon.ca have been fairly in line with performance.
I have a big wish list of AMD and NVidia GPUs and it's the first link I check each morning looking for deals.
I've never seen a RX 6700 (non XT) in stock. At Amazon it's a unicorn.
Prices are in Canadian Dollars:
On the AMD side:
Best Priced RX 67x0 option is the 6750 XT for $539.
Next step down is:
RX 7600 for $369, Which has a better price than the cheapest 6650 Xt at $392.
For the Step up:
6800XT for $793, there are no Amazon sold RX 6800 (A card I would be interested in), but even a third party is selling for an unpalatable $699, and it was kind of lucky to see a 6800XT in stock at all.
On the NVidia side:
4060 Ti - $539 - Essentially equal performance and price with the 6750 Xt.
4060 - $419 - Though these just entered the system and there is only 2. Wait a few days and the should fall to $399 vs $369 for the 7600, but for now the price difference may make the RX 7600 the winner.
4070 - $814 vs $793 for the 6800XT.
So here at least. At each performance tier, the price difference between AMD and NVidia is quite small, so then it becomes a battle of features, and NVidia wins the battle of features IMO.
I consider more VRAM a feature where it exists and for the 4060Ti matchup and the 4070 matchup it is a feature that can make a huge difference in playability, especially if you play the latest AAA titles close to launch so I am not so sure that NV outright wins the battle of features. It really depends on the use case.
The 8G vs 12GB of the 4060 Ti vs 6750 is definitely a point in favor of the 6750, that counts for a fair bit.
12GB vs 16GB for the 4070 vs 6800 XT, I don't weigh as much, so this one is no contest for me in favor of the 4070.
At 4K the 16GB is a huge advantage IMO.
At 1440p not so much however the NV features like RT and DLSS3 Frame Gen actually take up extra VRAM so I would not be surprised if some games running Frame Gen + RT with a 1440p output resolution actually exceeds the 12GB buffer. A bit like what has happened on the 3070 where the headline feature vs the RDNA 2 parts has actually become an Achilles heel due to a VRAM deficiency.
No interest in 4K, or Frame Gen. 12GB is plenty.
Consoles have 12GB or so of vram and target around 1440p render resolution which they often upscale to 4K. I wouldn't be so sure that 12GB will be enough for 1440p over the next few years. Especially 1440p + RT with or without DLSS 2.
There has been a PNY 3060 Ti going for $275 at BestBuy. I consider that to be a better buy than the 4060.
Of course, it's now sold out because others also considered that a better buy. But has been going in and out of stock over the last week.
XFX 6700I've never seen a RX 6700 (non XT) in stock. At Amazon it's a unicorn.
Prices are in Canadian Dollars:
On the AMD side:
Best Priced RX 67x0 option is the 6750 XT for $539.
XFX 6700
Asrock 6700XT
ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D Gaming Graphic Card, 12GB GDDR6 VRAM, AMD RDNA2 (RX6700XT CLD 12G) - Newegg.com
Buy ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D Gaming Graphic Card, 12GB GDDR6 VRAM, AMD RDNA2 (RX6700XT CLD 12G) with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!www.newegg.ca
No way you are buying that. Doesn't have the fake frames feature.This would be a very good alternative to the 4060.
Son just bought a 4060, for all the hate it's still the best card at it's price - 3060ti's and 3070's are significantly more expensive, 3060 is barely cheaper. It's small and lower power so he was thinking he'd need to upgrade his PSU but he doesn't for a 4060. It has all the latest features. It's gonna be very popular so games will be made to run well on it like they were for the 1060 it's replacing because of it's popularity.
The only real AMD option is the 6700xt and that was significantly more expensive, has a much higher power usage (so new psu), lacks features, and isn't Nvidia. Not really an option.
There is so much rage on this thread about what it's not got, but the 4060 is still the obvious choice for people at that price. There really isn't a better option.
I didn't really see a point other than justification of the "name matters more" theory by going further down the nerd rabbit hole of completely irrelevant minutia.
It's hardly irrelevant. Previously when you bought an xx60 card it was firmly a mid-range part.
With Pascal the 1060 was on the GP-106 die, which was the middle of the 5 dies NVidia released that generation. The same was true for Turing where the 2060 used the TU-106 die which was again the middle die. Same story with Ampere, but they only released desktop products on four dies so it wasn't quite in the middle of the stack.
This time around the 4060 is on the AD-107 die which is the bottom die of this generation. So that's why people are calling this a 4050. Because in any other generation it would have been an xx50 card. Maybe even an xx30 card.
And this is not a point that I didn't address. As I said before, this is just extreme nerd minutia.
Hardly anyone cares about names in the first place, but basing your argument against card naming, and the name of the chip inside, is just another even extra level of ridiculousness. I'd bet less than 1 GPU owner in a thousand knows the name of the chip inside their GPU card, let alone cares about it.
And that's why Nvidia can get away with it.
No, get away with shortchanging their gullible followers who pretend like they can't smell the overpowering stench.Get away with changing the irrelevant things like names of chips. How nefarious.
Think we have all witnessed this year that games are made for consoles, and more VRAM, then ported over with...mixed results at best.It's gonna be very popular so games will be made to run well on it like they were for the 1060 it's replacing because of it's popularity.
Yes, Nvidia is getting away with delivering a +60% generational performance uplift at the high end but only 5-20% performance uplift in what used to be the midrange. And before you whatabout AMD's doing about the same (+45% in the high end and +10% in the low end). But no one buys AMD either way so no one cares enough to complain.
And that's what sucks on the low end more than ever before. And why I didn't say anything about naming. The 4080 with it's +$500 price hike is the most blatant example of Nvidia's push. Everything less than the 4090 is basically deliberately crafted to be garbage to push people up market.It's not naming that does that, and if they just changed the name, then generation percentage uplift vs the previous would technically improve, but without a price change it wouldn't fix what really matters.
Is anyone happy with the 4080? It gets a decent generational performance update over the 3080, but no, because of the price.
What ultimately matters is the price of that that performance. With a 30% price cut, the 4060 would be $210, and it would have the best perf/$ among any of the lower end, and calling it 4060 really wouldn't matter, likewise the 4060 Ti would again be a much more palatable $280, and the 4060 Ti 16GB would be $350. This would completely change the reaction of the 4060/Ti from current hostility to a love in.
What matters is Perf/$, and features.
And that's what sucks on the low end more than ever before. And why I didn't say anything about naming.
But at least the 4080 is a serious upgrade over the RTX 3080 if it was ever discounted. Unlike the 4060 which will always have some serious VRAM drawbacks compared to its predecessor.