Question Thought the 3060 TI was "it" but then ...

[Upgr8er]

Hi All.

I haven't been living up to my name since my last build was around 10 years ago. But hey, the glass half full way to look at that is "look how long my last build lasted!" I have here to thank for that!

Anyway, I'm not a hard core gamer but still like my builds to be capable. I've been using the same 20 inch NEC monitor for the last couple of builds and I plan on going up only to a 24 inch IPS monitor with 144hz refresh and 2K resolution so all of that should let you folks know where I'm at for the following GPU question.

After a TON of research I thought my decision was done - the 3060 Ti seemed PERFECT for my needs. I've been waiting for prices to fall a bit as this build gave me sticker shock. I never go all the way to the top, I like to build at the highest point in the performance/price graph but stop as the curve just starts to flatten (the point where prices rise like mad but performance hardly moves). The 3060 ti seems to be the sweet spot. Then the 4070 (non ti) came along at only $100 more (in theory). I poked around for some comparisions but there aren't any good ones yet since I don't believe many (if any) have the 4070 in hand.

While we're on the subject, are brands like Zotac, Yesten and the like any good or should I stick with the big names like MSI, Gigabyte, Asus?

Thanks!

 

[igor_kavinski]

MSI Gaming Trio is good enough for most gamers. ASUS may be more expensive and Gigabyte is the runner-up. Zotac fans tend to be noisy. Getting the 4070 12GB is the better choice in these times. 3060 Ti will get massacred with newer games due to only 8GB VRAM. You may also want to check out the 7900 XT 20GB. AMD's Adrenaline software is more fun to use than Nvidia's control panel.

 

[biostud]

Have you considereded a 6700XT as it can be had for $349 and is slightly faster than the 3060Ti in most scenarios and has 12GB vram

GeForce RTX 3060 Ti vs. Radeon RX 6700 XT

In the best scenario for AMD, the Radeon 6700 XT and GeForce RTX 3060 Ti occupy the same price point. That being the case, it'll be interesting...

www.techspot.com

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’m an nvidia guy or more accurately a guy who’s been disappointed with too many ATI/AMD cards and I have to agree with the above posters. Lack of ram on the nvidia cards is concerning. AMD is probably a safer choice.

 

[Leeea]

The console ports coming over expect 12 GB of vram at 1080p.

Anything else is a budget experience. Vram is what matters.

If you want more then 1080p your going to want more then 12GB of vram.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'll join the unanimous chorus, every single nvidia 30 and 40 series card is VRAM gimped. Avoid them at all costs. RDNA2 is best bang for the buck right now, fast enough, and enough VRAM to be future proof. 6800/6800XT/6700XT are best bang for the buck right now.

 

[Upgr8er]

Wow, thanks much for the quick replies!

I've watched several comparison videos and did my own on a "dial a card" benchmark site and the reason I was going to stick with the 3060 ti despite the shortness of RAM was that it still seemed to beat the equivalent AMD card and even the one above it in most things EXCEPT ray tracing. When I dialed up higher on the AMD card against the 3060 ti where it did beat it in all categories, the price was MUCH higher than the already high price of the 3060 ti.

However, I trust you guys more than the self appointed YouTube gurus and I don't know what half of that stuff on the benchmark results means anyway so I'll take another look at the AMDs. I'm going to list the rest of my planned build here to give a full picture. I don't mean to hijack my own thread subject over to that category but we're here already so ... (let's hope a mod doesn't scold me or us!).

MB: Asus Prime Z790-A Yes, I know there are cheaper ones AND more gamer hardcore ones but remember this is an all around system and I do stuff with photos and videos from time to time. I also wanted the connectivity this one has AND my current system has an Asus that's lasted a full three times longer than any other motherboard brand I've owned.

CPU: I7 13700K

SSD: WD_BLACK SN850X NVMe M.2 2280 2TB PCI-Express 4.0 x4 Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) WDS200T2X0E

RAM: 2x16GB DDR5 5600

Yes, I know that is an overclocking board and I probably won't overclock. Yes, I know DDR4 on a Z690 is probably just as good in the end but I was trying to future proof. I did a good job last time, I'd like this next one to last at least as long. Also, when I dialed the board, cpu and ram all down a notch it only saved a couple of hundred bucks. I don't mind spending a little more to buy another couple of years on the back end however, overpaying for a single component (like the GPU) if bugging me a bit too much!

Thanks again.

 

[biostud]

It all depends on what you want spend on your video card and what kind of performance you want. In mid range and below AMD is currently king. I just upgraded from a GTX 1070 to a RX 6800XT and could not be happier.

 

[coercitiv]

I'm going to list the rest of my planned build here to give a full picture.

Your component choices are fine in principle, arguments can be made in favor of both 13700K + Z chipset and 13600K + H chipset. If you pick Z690 over Z790 to save some money, make sure the board can be flashed without a CPU or get reassurance that it has an updated UEFI with Raptor Lake support.

Keep in mind the following while you shuffle components and build plans:

• the 13600K is a very good CPU, it can still be an option
• the Asus Prime boards are their cheapest lineup, if you happen to find a TUF board with H chipset for the same price and offering the same features, consider that instead

When it comes down to the GPU, don't pick something with less than 12GB VRAM. I'm not going to promote AMD once again in this thread, you can consider 12GB cards from Nvidia as well (although with a huge gap exactly where you would want to shop in terms of $$$). You should also know the RTX 4070 will launch soon, supposedly with a retail price of $600. In theory that's well above your needs in terms of computing for now, but given that you're aiming for a long lasting build and a fast refresh monitor... it may still be open for discussion.

So recap:

• your system plan is fine
• don't buy a GPU with 8-10 GB of VRAM
• consider favoring the GPU budget, look at the upcoming RTX 4070 non-TI and maybe AMD's response to this card (even if it means lowering the price on 6800XT)

Have fun with your new build!

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I've watched several comparison videos and did my own on a "dial a card" benchmark site and the reason I was going to stick with the 3060 ti despite the shortness of RAM was that it still seemed to beat the equivalent AMD card and even the one above it in most things EXCEPT ray tracing.

I'd argue ray tracing is kind of irrelevant for this class of card. It's more of a checkbox feature, then something practically usable. You'll want a higher tier card if you want a good experience. Particularly if you aim for 144Hz.

F.x. the 6400/6500XT also supports ray tracing, but are far too low performance to actually make use of it.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Then the 4070 (non ti) came along at only $100 more (in theory). I poked around for some comparisions but there aren't any good ones yet since I don't believe many (if any) have the 4070 in hand.

Zero will have 4070 since it hasn't released yet. Wait a bit. IIRC its coming out in the next week.

4070 will be a significant performance boost over 3060 Ti, new generation tech, newer AV1 encoder, and 12GB VRAM for the bad console ports. Worth waiting...

 

[fleshconsumed]

Zero will have 4070 since it hasn't released yet. Wait a bit. IIRC its coming out in the next week.

4070 will be a significant performance boost over 3060 Ti, new generation tech, newer AV1 encoder, and 12GB VRAM for the bad console ports. Worth waiting...

If early rumours are to be believed, 4070 will be roughly equivalent to 3080, so essentially it'll be 3080 with 12GB of VRAM. That is still not enough VRAM to be futureproof. 6800XT will have similar performance, cost less and have more VRAM.

 

[Heartbreaker]

If early rumours are to be believed, 4070 will be roughly equivalent to 3080, so essentially it'll be 3080 with 12GB of VRAM. That is still not enough VRAM to be futureproof. 6800XT will have similar performance, cost less and have more VRAM.

The main reason we need more than 8GB is bad console ports. 12GB exceeds the VRAM available to consoles so is sufficient, until we get XBox Next and PS6 with higher VRAM to source next generation bad ports.

Even then of course, you could adjust settings.

 

[fleshconsumed]

The main reason we need more than 8GB is bad console ports. 12GB exceeds the VRAM available to consoles so is sufficient, until we get XBox Next and PS6 with higher VRAM to source next generation bad ports.

Even then of course, you could adjust settings.

We don't know if it's a bad console port or not, but even if it is, so what? There will always be bad console ports, and that's just a reality. 6800XT will be able to handle bad ports, 8/12GB card will not.

Why pay more just to lower the settings? RDNA2 is the logical choice for those on the budget. RDNA3, despite all the disappointment that it cannot compete at the high end is the logical choice for a midrange card (and I cringe at saying midrange card that starts at $800). 4090 is the only nvidia card worth buying if one has money. Below 4090 AMD is the logical choice for every price bracket right now.

 

[BFG10K]

The main reason we need more than 8GB is bad console ports.

Comedy gold. Added to the "reasons why 8GB isn't nVidia's fault" list. Cheers!

Even then of course, you could adjust settings

That one's already there - #14.

 

[Heartbreaker]

We don't know if it's a bad console port or not, but even if it is, so what? There will always be bad console ports, and that's just a reality. 6800XT will be able to handle bad ports, 8/12GB card will not.

Where is the evidence that 12GB card won't handle the bad console ports? Consoles can access more than 8GB of VRAM but they can't access more than 12GB.

Here is the Memory allocation for an XBSX:

Xbox Series X Allocates 13.5 GB of Memory to Games

gamingbolt.com

How this all splits out for the developers is fascinating. Of the total 16 GB memory capacity, Microsoft’s solution essentially reserves the vast majority for the actual running of games. A total of 13.5 GB – 10 GB of GPU optimal memory and 3.5 GB of standard memory – is dedicated to games themselves, while the remaining 2.5 GB from the slower pool is used for the operating system and background functions, which means games get more potential bandwidth, the results of which, in theory, should be more than tangible.

That is 10GB of GPU optimal (IOW VRAM) and 3.5GB of regular RAM for the rest of the game.

So sure bad port with easy access to 10GB VRAM for consoles can lead to problems on 8GB cards, but not 12GB cards.

I'd bet on the 4070 easily beating the 6800 XT on top of having the normal NVidia ecosystem advantages.

Definitely worth waiting 3 days for some reviews...

 

[fleshconsumed]

Where is the evidence that 12GB card won't handle the bad console ports? Consoles can access more than 8GB of VRAM but they can't access more than 12GB.

Here is the Memory allocation for an XBSX:

Xbox Series X Allocates 13.5 GB of Memory to Games

gamingbolt.com

That is 10GB of GPU optimal (IOW VRAM) and 3.5GB of regular RAM for the rest of the game.

So sure bad port with easy access to 10GB VRAM for consoles can lead to problems on 8GB cards, but not 12GB cards.

I'd bet on the 4070 easily beating the 6800 XT on top of having the normal NVidia ecosystem advantages.

Definitely worth waiting 3 days for some reviews...

12GB may be enough for now, just like 8GB was enough 2 years ago. However, 12GB will age just as badly as 8GB did.

6800XT traded blows with 3080. If 4070 is 3080 level of performance as leaks indicate, then it stands to reason that 6800XT will trade blows with 4070 as well.

I'll wait for reviews to form final opinion, but right now looks like nvidia is giving their users 2GB more ram for $100 less 2 years later. Hardly a good deal.

Paying $600 for a card that will run out of VRAM in 2 years is not my idea of good value for the money.

 

[Heartbreaker]

12GB may be enough for now, just like 8GB was enough 2 years ago. However, 12GB will age just as badly as 8GB did.

6800XT traded blows with 3080. If 4070 is 3080 level of performance as leaks indicate, then it stands to reason that 6800XT will trade blows with 4070 as well.

I'll wait for reviews to form final opinion, but right now looks like nvidia is giving their users 2GB more ram for $100 less 2 years later. Hardly a good deal.

Paying $600 for a card that will run out of VRAM in 2 years is not my idea of good value for the money.

There are no new consoles coming in 2 years to drive up VRAM usage. 2 years from now, the XBSX and PS5 will still have around 10GB of VRAM.

 

[biostud]

This just went up, and you might want to see it before making final decisions.

 

[Heartbreaker]

This just went up, and you might want to see it before making final decisions.

He only tests 8GB and 16GB.

It might be a shocker to some, but you actually need to test a 12GB card to see what happens with a 12GB card.

Again. Wait 3 days. HWUB will test the new card, and we will see how the 12GB 4070 fairs against the 6800XT.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

The main reason we need more than 8GB is bad console ports. 12GB exceeds the VRAM available to consoles so is sufficient, until we get XBox Next and PS6 with higher VRAM to source next generation bad ports.

Even then of course, you could adjust settings.

PC ports being bad has been the rule as long as I can remember, dating back to terrible ports like Shinobi, Mega Man, and Street Fighter 2 that I remember on DOS. I think it's just coming to the forefront with the 8GB cards now with games now releasing that werent designed around the crap last gen console hardware.

 

[Heartbreaker]

PC ports being bad has been the rule as long as I can remember, dating back to terrible ports like Shinobi, Mega Man, and Street Fighter 2 that I remember on DOS. I think it's just coming to the forefront with the 8GB cards now with games now releasing that werent designed around the crap last gen console hardware.

I agree. But it will really only be a problem for 12GB GPUs when games start getting designed for PS6/XB-Next.

 

[maddie]

I agree. But it will really only be a problem for 12GB GPUs when games start getting designed for PS6/XB-Next.

You definitely don'y know this. The consoles have at least 12 GB plus high speed streaming. This is superior to a flat 12 GB on the PC as you appear to be equating.

 

[Mopetar]

The main reason we need more than 8GB is bad console ports. 12GB exceeds the VRAM available to consoles so is sufficient, until we get XBox Next and PS6 with higher VRAM to source next generation bad ports.

Even then of course, you could adjust settings.

More than 8GB isn't a bad console port, it's the norm now that consoles have 16 GB of memory. With the XBox it's 10 GB running at the higher speed, so expect games to target that at a minimum for VRAM going forward.

 

[maddie]

More than 8GB isn't a bad console port, it's the norm now that consoles have 16 GB of memory. With the XBox it's 10 GB running at the higher speed, so expect games to target that at a minimum for VRAM going forward.

As I mentioned in the post above, XGB with high speed asset streaming is superior to a flat XGB. The better assumption is that you will need more VRam on a graphics card in a PC, for an equal experience.