This card is atrocious value for money but you guys gave it 90! Even Tom's hardware who have been 'associated' with Nvidia gave it a 3.5* I.e. 70/100. I wonder what is going on.
yeah it'll get a lower score.What ? You get 52% better performance vs a 3080 for only 71% more money. That‘s clearly worthy of 100%.
It‘s good to see reviewers praising products that continue the trend of offering better value for money.
Oh, and anyone want to take bets if the $1,000 RX 7900XTX gets a lower score even if it beats the $1,200 RTX 4080 in raster by a good margin ?
yeah it'll get a lower score.
it could beat the 4080 in raster but if it loses to raytracing and AI/driver features then it makes sense.
in my eyes once you pass a grand of cash on these toys, tossing another hundred or so on top doesnt mean much if you get the best "overall" package and imo all of the features get weighed, I used an amd card awhile back and sold it for an nvidia card because they have better features for my uses although the choice of card was slightly weaker, it was still better.
with the money these companies want you better pay for the best all-around performance you can afford, thats what nvidia is leaning on.
I think many people would say that they're features they don't personally care about enough to want to pay extra for. I currently have no intention of buying any 4xxx cards myself. But it seems unreasonable to cast the tech itself as irrelevant.Ray-tracing and upscaling are features in the same bucket as Depth of Field and Motion Blur: stuff that is on permanent off. For me looking for best raster performance that doesn't burn down my PC without paying for fluffy junk features I don't use.
Good point. And as you'll notice, I did predicated "For me" in my response. RT without upscaling isn't there yet for my needs. Does RT improve some games? Sure. Does RT improve every game experience where it's implemented? No. Does upscaling improve the experience for me with my 144hz 4k montior (P32UQX)? No. I do not like upscaled images.I think many people would say that they're features they don't personally care about enough to want to pay extra for. I currently have no intention of buying any 4xxx cards myself. But it seems unreasonable to cast the tech itself as irrelevant.
Upscaling is one of the best technologies/techniques to come out in a long time to help drive higher frame rates without having to sacrifice too much in the way of perceived image quality. If you're running on a low res monitor, sure it won't matter to you. For anyone running a high-refresh 4k monitor, it's fantastic and absolutely could be a deciding factor in which card you buy.
Ray-tracing *was* "fluffy junk" when the performance hits weren't worth the visual trade off. When (some) cards are now able to combine technologies to allow ray tracing and still produce great frame rates, why wouldn't you turn it on if you could? (assuming you place enough value on how pretty things look).
So yeh. I wouldn't write-off technologies that *both* companies are actively pursuing and improving upon. Just don't spend outside of your own needs/means/wants when weighed against what's available.
understandable, in my case I play on pc because I want every bell and whistle in a game flicked on(and trainers)Ray-tracing and upscaling are features in the same bucket as Depth of Field and Motion Blur: stuff that is on permanent off. For me looking for best raster performance that doesn't burn down my PC without paying for fluffy junk features I don't use.
"31% faster than the Radeon 6950 XT"
AMD will have a comfortable lead outside of RT with the 7900xtx. And even the RT performance didn't impress that much (although I would like AMD to at least match the 3090ti).