It sounds like your PC is broken as the vast majority of games from even the late 90's and 2000's (let alone the recent 2010's) play absolutely fine. If they were "unplayable" as you claim, GOG & Steam wouldn't sell them. Deus Ex Human Revolution (2011)? Works great. Dishonored 1 (2012)? Absolutely flawless. Graphics of older titles may obviously be less detailed than today but that's a completely different thing to "everything more than 9 years old is completely unplayable" and the truth is FPS's have hardly changed at all since the mid 2000's. I replayed Bioshock 1 (2007) last week. Works fine. The week before? Thief The Dark Project (1998) in Ultrawide. Better than ever. Might want to get someone to take a look at your PC...
Radeon RX 6600 XT vs. GeForce RTX 3060: Tested in 30 Games
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Norsiiii
Posts: 87 +111
Does the 16 PCi lanes help the 3060 beat the 6600XT in frame-rates? No. Does the extra 4GB VRAM help the 3060 beat the 6600XT in frame-rates? No.
So in short, you're choosing to focus on meaningless system specs to determine which one is 'better' as opposed to judging the cards by their actual performance and frame-rates in game.....you know...the thing that they're actually used for? The actual performance....?!?!
What on earth is wrong with all of you Nvidia n*t-huggers? This crap is like saying "Well I don't care if your car does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds vs my car's 4.8 seconds. My car has a 5.2L V8 whereas yours is a stupid weak twin turbo 3.8L V6, so my car is still faster and yours is a useless heap of junk!"
Gotta be the singularly dumbest thing I've ever read on this website.
Norsiiii
Posts: 87 +111
So you are unironically confirming, matter-of-fact, that it is your honestly held opinion that the worse performing, slower frame-rate, more expensive, more power-hungry card ..... is somehow the better of the two...? By what metric, exactly, do you come to that conclusion? "AmDbAd" doesnt count.
Norsiiii
Posts: 87 +111
Name 2 games from 10 years ago that ARE "unplayable" today then
I have a fairly expansive Steam library backlog including heaps of games from around 2010-2013 that I've been steadily working through this year, I've probably played a dozen that are about 10 years old and never had any problems with any of them. No idea what you're harping on about
Beerfloat
Posts: 858 +1,579
Yeah, for reasons mentioned earlier. Why are you so angry?
Yeah, I still recall Nvidia card getting 100/100 score despite being at least 95% die shrink. Comparing review scores is fruitless.
kiwigraeme
Posts: 2,013 +1,419
I actually am eating popcorn right now .
Why are people so angry if someone buys a AMD? ( I have 3 nvidas BYW )
Is it because you love Nvidia and how they care about you?
I based my purchases on local prices & what my current needs are .
I've never overly believed that the current AMD drivers are bad - The story has never passed a sniff test -- The only test that has been consistent over the last 5 years - is that AMDs performance gets more & more optimised - whether this is they aren't as good day 1 as Nvidia or Nvidia has a lot of tie ins with developers or a combo - who knows .
I do know the latest Xbox & PS5 have AMD - and Sony and M/S are happy to use AMD . This knowledge will benefit PC users .
That sniff test is due to mainly it's just vocal screaming fans on specific tech sites - not in major public stories .
Even if you are trying to let others know - you sound demented - especially as competition is good.
Most sensible people are hoping Intel GPUs will be good - Intels new CPUs will kick Zen 3 , and then Zen 4 will kick Intel.
That the new ARM PCs will be excellent with long battery life .
When I first started buying a GPU the driver thing made me cautious about AMD - but in the 15 years since then - most of the claims are just from silly shrills - the odd story - no more than any other company story - eg Apple, Google, Nvidia itself - Ie I became more aware - and realised - there was little quantitative truth behind these claims - so citation needed - plus if it was true Nvidias dirty PR team would do more than support the shrills .
Nor do I care in you drink Pepsi or Coke , Ford or GM , BK or McDonalds - it's just BS .
I have 1060 because they sold it cheap.
I have a 2060 because I do hardware encoding sometimes.
I have 3080 so my son can do Ray Tracing on Minecraft if he wants , and some other games .
I thought the 5700x was a better buy than a 2060 for straight gaming - and subsequently it seems to be.
Looked in an old box saw a gtx 550 I think & a gtx 280 - probably bought those because they were cheap .
I paid a $50 prem to get ray tracing over a 6800 whatever .
No way would I pay stupid money more
Why are people so angry if someone buys a AMD? ( I have 3 nvidas BYW )
Is it because you love Nvidia and how they care about you?
I based my purchases on local prices & what my current needs are .
I've never overly believed that the current AMD drivers are bad - The story has never passed a sniff test -- The only test that has been consistent over the last 5 years - is that AMDs performance gets more & more optimised - whether this is they aren't as good day 1 as Nvidia or Nvidia has a lot of tie ins with developers or a combo - who knows .
I do know the latest Xbox & PS5 have AMD - and Sony and M/S are happy to use AMD . This knowledge will benefit PC users .
That sniff test is due to mainly it's just vocal screaming fans on specific tech sites - not in major public stories .
Even if you are trying to let others know - you sound demented - especially as competition is good.
Most sensible people are hoping Intel GPUs will be good - Intels new CPUs will kick Zen 3 , and then Zen 4 will kick Intel.
That the new ARM PCs will be excellent with long battery life .
When I first started buying a GPU the driver thing made me cautious about AMD - but in the 15 years since then - most of the claims are just from silly shrills - the odd story - no more than any other company story - eg Apple, Google, Nvidia itself - Ie I became more aware - and realised - there was little quantitative truth behind these claims - so citation needed - plus if it was true Nvidias dirty PR team would do more than support the shrills .
Nor do I care in you drink Pepsi or Coke , Ford or GM , BK or McDonalds - it's just BS .
I have 1060 because they sold it cheap.
I have a 2060 because I do hardware encoding sometimes.
I have 3080 so my son can do Ray Tracing on Minecraft if he wants , and some other games .
I thought the 5700x was a better buy than a 2060 for straight gaming - and subsequently it seems to be.
Looked in an old box saw a gtx 550 I think & a gtx 280 - probably bought those because they were cheap .
I paid a $50 prem to get ray tracing over a 6800 whatever .
No way would I pay stupid money more
Well, well, well. Every GPU article comment section seems to be the same. The general consensus is that Nvidia does stand better and has stronger club than the poor little AMD. So what people do? Even if AMD has better card, people read articles and comments all over, and know the green side have more players, so they keep joining the band where the little AMD still tries to prove itself that is better this round.
Heck people, be more brave and stop joining the masses, accept the facts and don't let the illusion of power in comments fade away any trace of logic, be unbiased, try let the product tell the story, not the general masses perception trying to look cool. It doesn't look cool, it looks like a sore child repeating the whole story again and again because he wants Nvidia this Christmas. So keep crediting Nvidia corporation inc everywhere.
I usually look an the billions of transistors the GPU has, and I start from there with its power and prowess.
Heck people, be more brave and stop joining the masses, accept the facts and don't let the illusion of power in comments fade away any trace of logic, be unbiased, try let the product tell the story, not the general masses perception trying to look cool. It doesn't look cool, it looks like a sore child repeating the whole story again and again because he wants Nvidia this Christmas. So keep crediting Nvidia corporation inc everywhere.
I usually look an the billions of transistors the GPU has, and I start from there with its power and prowess.
Last edited:
pildorman321
Posts: 140 +96
simple. unlike you, I can see past tomorrow. the 6600 is a SAD 1080p gpu. repeat after me: a SAD 1080p gpu TODAY, is a SAD 720P gpu TOMORROW. the 3060 will age MUCH better. and also the 6600 is the lamest amd gpu EVER, not a single plus, except "is available today and look it beats the 3060, sometimes" and? STILL ONLY 8gb, only 8 lanes, only 128 bit mem interface, NO dlss, NO rt, NO MARKET. CERO MARKET. AND AMD DRIVERS + 185w tdp (msi x steve doesn't like to show you that fact) so... the 6600 it is kinda SHT! ( EDIT. I planed to buy one for my father. old men that games w a 720p tv, (...) so this crap 6600 was ok- but it cost MORE than the 3060! ? super lame amd!
Last edited:
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Using caps liberally is never a good sign. And for the rest:
- power consumption: 6600xt consumes less than the 3060. Other publications show the same thing.
- price: The 6600XT is cheaper than a 3060 right now
- performance: again, on average the 6600XT performs better at all resolutions
What makes you think the 3060 will be better long term - memory ?
P
punctualturn
Technically, they are a advantage, but all I ask is that they also mention the main reason for their existence, to keep you locked to their hardware, which will be always a minus in my book and I feel that is a disservice to us when is not mentioned as such. It is less options for the consumer.
Also, if they mention DLSS, then mention FSR and as a plus, they can mention how much better it is on V1, compared to the mess that DLSS v1 was. And do mention the shimmering effect that many nvidia users keep mentioning.
P
punctualturn
I am sincerely confused, why do you think its a scam?
pildorman321
Posts: 140 +96
price. its not a $400 gpu. not even a $200 one. but hey kudos to amd, they managed to produce a 5700xt ocn to hell a super crippled latop solution.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,633 +3,078
Card priced a bit higher than the 3060, gives better performance than a 3060 (when used under 4k). Hopefully you guys feel the same about the 3060 being a scam.
Sadly, neither card has seen their MSRP pricing since launch day and now both cards sit in the $450-600 range.
Ι tried saints row IV (it's from 2015) after I played the 3rd one remastered. And holy crap after 20 minutes my eyes start bleeding, I like the game but can't stand to play it due to the visuals
Other games for example, which I liked at the time, like deus ex hr and Fear 3 or even fear 2 for that matter. They were great at their time but today, not so much. Besides the visual, gameplay wise it feels like something's missing.
P
punctualturn
I wanted to replay Ultima VIII Pagan and the blockiness on a LCD panel makes the text unreadable.
pildorman321
Posts: 140 +96
Lol
Last edited:
pildorman321
Posts: 140 +96
Even the 6600gt manages to surpass this joke of 6600 with a full x16 PCIe bus.. and a128 bit mem bus... in 2004.
Norsiiii
Posts: 87 +111
Oh, you're not referring to their literal technical ability to run, but merely to their outdated visuals? That is purely a matter of preference, and while I usually agree and do myself struggle to play older games with their dated visuals I have very recently completed playthroughs of the original Borderlands (12 years old), Dishonored (9 years old) and Skyrim (10 years old) without any problems.
Further, there are plenty of people (though I and apparently you as well, are not amongst them) who are perfectly happy to play games as old as Morrowind
Even if it was the worst card ever made, it would still be worth buying over Nvidia.
Yes, visuals AND gameplay. There are some stuff that we consider standard nowadays in terms of features and old games don't have them. Like for example, in first person shooters aiming down sights.Not saying today's games are better, but at least they have some features that are nowadays kind off mandatory and I can't imagine myself playing a game without them.
I completely agree with you about those games you mentioned (I played both dishonoreds and borderlands recently) but keep in mind, borderlands and dishonored (and to a lesser extent skyrim) have an artistic style that doesn't age. You can probably play them 20 years from now and theyll still look fine. Games that try to look realistic at their time don't age well at all.
Aiming down sights is the worst feature to have been introduced into FPS games. It's just a gimmick for consoles. It's one thing to use a scope, it's another to have to "aim" to shoot. It's only function is to slow down the gameplay so that you can aim with a controller.
Thankfully games like CS:GO or Doom don't use it.
Last edited:
hel0sn8
Posts: 114 +62
OK. Not well versed in these things, so why talk as if you are?! Unplayable? Reality check required. Theres prob a list somewhere (a massive one cos theres so many games from 10 years ago+ that are still fully playable and still enjoyed by many) but a few personal examples are; The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006) & Skyrim (2011), F.E.A.R 1 - 3 (2005 - 2011), Manhunt, Fallout New Vegas, Minecraft, Diablo 2, the list just dont seem to have an end. Foolish
Latest posts
-
Vfeheherh- tripx99x replied
-
Senua's Saga: Hellblade II system requirements revealed, 70GB of storage space required- Squid Surprise replied
-
Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark- erickmendes replied
-
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Revisit: Is this the GOAT?- Arbie replied
