I bought a 6800xt for about $1300 so I feel ya. But then I also got almost $750 for my 5700xt so I guess it evens it out a little.Great analysis. I was stupid enough to buy a 6700xt when it cost around 1k, a few months later was half that price in my country. Nevertheless, it's good to see that at least I made a wise choice buying this card instead other that would have cost me a lot more and aren't as fast as the 6700xt in rasterization.
1440p IS the resolution! To be exacting its 2560x1440. In the same way that 1080p is 1920x1080p. 720p is 1280x720. There's a clear and obvious pattern. One that is commonly assumed to be known by the most general of layman. And almost certainly assumed to be known by those reading this type of article on this type of website. Therefore it does NOT need to be fully said. As 1440p will suffice!"1440p"? WTF. Just say the resolution.
Well, it is there.The object of this wasted time should have been to be able to recommend the best choice in terms of value for each of the resolutions.
I really don't understand the point of the GTX 1630, especially today. Well, since the GTX 1660 is already borderline useless, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the GTX 1630 will be like the GT 730, essentially a display adapter.Great, can't wait for your GTX 1630 review.
Not bad at all. I'd say that you both scored because the 5700 XT is a better miner than the 6700 XT but gaming-wise, the opposite is (of course) true.I exchanged my 5700xt +50€ VS a 6700xt brand new to a miner at the start of the scam... sorry crypto boom nearly 2years ago I think, when it was 900€+ in stores... so I paid 50€ for a decent upgrade, I don't think I made a bad deal ...
This makes no sense to me. To which card do you refer?I think that the card is obnoxious overpriced for the features and specs it comes with.
I agree that the article doesn't give a good conclusion but the problem is that different people want different things. Some people think that ray-tracing matters while others (like me) don't. Some care about DLSS and FSR while others (like me) don't.What is the conclusion of this article? It is one of the worst pieces of journalism as it fails to be clear, concise and answer the question it raises.
The object of this wasted time should have been to be able to recommend the best choice in terms of value for each of the resolutions.
The writer has failed miserably.
- that model is not good
- that other model we can't recommend
- this model can't be compared properly with this model
I think that he wanted to know what the author would choose overall, something that the article doesn't indicate.Well, it is there.
"Best Value GPU at 1080p
Just as we saw in April, the best value GPU for 1080p gaming is the AMD Radeon RX 6600."
"Best Value GPU at 1440p
For 1440p gaming we can compare the higher end models, although the overall positioning of each card hasn't changed much relative to the 1080p data. The RX 6600 is still the best value GPU in terms of cost per frame"
[HEADING=1]"Best Value GPU at 4K[/HEADING]
Moving up to 4K gaming, we see Nvidia RTX 30 GPUs move up the charts as their performance scales better at higher resolutions than AMD's. While the RX 6700 XT is the outright leader in cost per frame..."
I'm sorry but in the AAA gaming world and next gen focus EVERYTHING about the Nvidia cards ABSOLUTELY is worth the price premium of around 10%I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference between Nvidia's DLSS and AMD's FSR 2.0. Sure... you can point to Nvidia's better implementation of Ray-Tracing, but that is still a limited number of games. Otherwise, there is no point buying Nvidia's much more expensive hardware.
I had great experience over the last couple years with upgrades.I exchanged my 5700xt +50€ VS a 6700xt brand new to a miner at the start of the scam... sorry crypto boom nearly 2years ago I think, when it was 900€+ in stores... so I paid 50€ for a decent upgrade, I don't think I made a bad deal ...
And let me add, this is the first Radeon I have ever owned. The last time I owned an ATI card was long before AMD bought the company. Want to say it was an ATI Rage 3D card. And it was awful. Moved to a GeForce 2 and I've been Nvidia ever since, although nearly all my CPUs have been AMD during this time.Just picked up a used RX6600 for well under $200. Card looks brand new, runs great. The 6600 was already a great value but this price made it a grab and go. I wish articles like this one would have a chart showing the ranking as the prices decrease. Like, the 6600 at $300 is a good value, but the 6600 at $160 is a mega super value, do not pass Go. Buy it! Not that I am bragging.
I really don't understand the point of the GTX 1630, especially today. Well, since the GTX 1660 is already borderline useless, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the GTX 1630 will be like the GT 730, essentially a display adapter.