PriitM

As a daily driver of R9 390X for 7 years, the 7900XTX i bought this february with January drivers have given me much less headache than old drivers. Games that dont have direct support anymore have little glitches but all run so far with little to no headaches

If you can squeeze the budget. If not, then keep the money and save up for 5800X3D or other even newer CPUs later on.

As a daily driver of R9 390X for 7 years, the 7900XTX i bought this february with January drivers have given me much less headache than old drivers. Games that dont have direct support anymore have little glitches but all run so far with little to no headaches

I'm looking on the SAPPHIRE nitro+ RX 6750 XT Gaming OC , It seems decent and has the same recommended wattage as the 3070 cause I already picked a PSU. What's y'all thoughts on this one?

I had to rma my ASRock card due to high temps. 100c (and climbing) memory and 110c on the hotspot. So you might want to keep an eye on your temps.
 
I don't think it's a bad card and I hope I just had a bad example. Replacement will be arriving soon.
 

We are DM-ing back and forth. No matter what he does, he can't seem to get the same performance I do.
 
He plays at 2560x1440 while I play at 3440x1440. He matched his settings with mine exactly in the same game and can only manage to nearly match my FPS, instead of exceeding it, despite the lower resolution.
 
He also just showed me a clip with some heavy artifacting in RDR2. I get some artifacting too on the DX12 API but nowhere near as much.
 
We are beginning to think he might just have to RMA the card. While games are playable and its not completely broken, there is certainly some sort of issue going on, we just cannot figure it out.

i wouldve never thought it was defect, but sure enough the artifacts are recurring and gettin worse by the minute
fps unstable
 
its becoming a mess
rmaing tomorrow, thanks

No its definitely less lag the more frames you have, its just that keyboards, mice, and and any controllers of any kind all have input lag, its simply the time a keystroke or mouse movement takes to travel down the wire into the USB port and then to your CPU to be processed.
 
It only takes 1-2 Milliseconds, but at 700 FPS you are rendering frames so quickly that the next frame appears in LESS than 2 miliseconds, meaning your frames are being processed faster than your computer can even provide input to the game, which is obviously completely useless.
 
Professional studies have been done already. The fact of the matter is no human being alive can play games any faster or better than 240Hz/FPS. Those are just the facts. The only reason monitors with higher refresh rates sell is because people are uneducated and assume a larger number is always better when in fact that simply is NOT true.
 
At 60 FPS a game will appear smooth but wont feel very responsive, especially if you look around quickly, shaking your mouse back and forth quickly. At 75 FPS the vast majority of games feel plenty enough responsive to the vast majority of people. Is it perfect? No, but nobody will complain that 75 FPS feels "laggy". At 90 FPS, the vast majority of gamers are completely satisfied, and once above 100 FPS the vast majority of gamers can no longer feel a difference. A few more FPS up to about 120 can be beneficial for fast-faced shooters like Call of Duty Online multiplayer as your shots will register slightly faster and provide a slight benefit over someone playing at 75-90 FPS.
 
Beyond 120 FPS, nobody can provide solid, tangible proof that there is any benefit to be had whatsoever. So the ideal monitor and FPS for basically anyone who isn't a professional E-Sports gamer who literally gets paid to play - is a totally standard 120 or 144Hz monitor and then just do your best to match that by tweaking game setting to match in FPS.
 
And then even if you ARE a paid E-Sports gamer, 200-240Hz/FPS is the maximum that will ever benefit you. Human beings can only react to things quickly enough up to a certain point and beyond that is simply not physically possible.
 
 
This is a good point, definitely worth a shot, especially if the Nitro isn't properly labeled like the Red Devil is. Mine at least says "OC" and then "Silent" so in my case its completely obvious.
 
 
Scaling resolution makes a game look worse, Native rendering in your exact monitor resolution at Ultra settings with no Frame Generation or FSR is the absolute best fidelity physically possible. So in the case of my 3440x1440p monitor, the absolute BEST scene quality possible is 3440x1440 resolution, Ultra-Everything Settings, render resolution disabled, no FSR/DLSS. Ray Tracing can help with fidelity if it doesn't hurt performance too badly.
 
RDR2 is an extremely demanding game, its very difficult to run Ultra-Everything. Some settings when switched from High to Ultra tank my FPS from 100 down to 65-ish (35% performance loss after tuning up ONE setting by ONE level. You can try this with water physics simulation quality. Run the benchmark with the bar maxed out, then tick it back by one notch and watch the massive boost in FPS).
 
Because of the massive performance losses with certain settings Im fairly certain even the Almighty RTX 4090 would struggle to run this game completely maxed out at 2560x1440p. Its just weird how some settings hit performance so drastically.
 
 

Middle (Silent) should be AMD reference BIOS and right (OC) should be Sapphire factory OC.

Yes.

Yeah and the pain is: a lot of the XTX AIBs on the cheap end is amazing. Big vouch for Nitro line as @PriitM mentioned, and the XFX Merc line is a really good one too. Asrock Taichi is a good shout but theyre absurdly expensive.

7900XTX. Did regular DDU + disable windows update while installing. Only use the drivers, no UI elements. UI has always caused the most headaches with weird profiles or over writes.
Nitro+ has not given me any problems than I can definitively put on the card or drivers.

Nvidia is using the big marketshare to push for AI features. AI features that require good CPU support to pull other duties like decompression, asset transfer etc. Also, with that marketshare, Nvidia can strong arm developers into optimizing for Nvidia ecosystem. Its a plus, but also a giant red flag for planned obsolescence. Nvidia is already locking out RTX20 series cards from modern game RT support.
 
AMD id more tech agnostic. Cards still do lots of graphic related stuff on the card itself, not so much dependent on the CPU. And AMD drivers have a track record of aging like fine wine.

Id say, at this point: NVidia is for flexing the shiny and AMD is for good investment

The R9390X I had for 7 years was fed by a 550W platinum PSU. It also had to feed i7-7700K. Not sure how this helps, but a quality 650W power supply should be fine.

Good rule of thumb, but not something to live by. Quality of the specific power supply matters more than wattage does.
I ran a 12900k and a 6800 xt off a SF600 for a while. 5800x/6800xt before that. 
What power supply did NZXT put in that build? If it's one of their C Gold series, I wouldn't worry about undervolting the 6800 xt at all. If it's the H1 series, or the C bronze series, I'd keep an eye on it, but not necessarily worry right away about it.

Ill try that! Thanks! I sometimes thought that remaining drivers from old installations might still be lingering around.

When AMD makes super resolution work on all GPUs (like they did with RT)

GSync and Freesync are in essence the same thing, just adapted to different architectures. Besides, this technology will be standard in the near future. DLSS and FSR are pretty much the same thing: just a competitive answer to each other. What matters is value and longevity. Nvidia is going with Apple approach, giving you less for more and requiring you to upgrade more often. And did you miss the part where AMD introduced a software Ray Tracing... which gave RT capability to pretty much ANY card? Vulkan API is full of such things, all ready to be applied in game engines. If AMD had the same game developer support Nvidia has... we would many more features than just Nvidia "offerings"

Use DDU, can't go wrong with that.

Bait post is Bait.
 
I've had a few of the HD7000 series GPU's. (I've had a few HD7970's and a few HD7870's and a HD7950). I went Nvidia since (660ti, 960ti, 1060, 2060 mobile etc etc). I've honestly never found any actual differences in terms of stability.
 
My tolerance for stutter was probably a lot higher back in the day to be fair.
 
I'm running a 7900xtx and apart from having to reinstall the latest driver once the cards been rock solid. The reference model is loud but whatever 🤷‍♂️

Currently sitting on 23.1.2 drivers, smooth sailing so far. Very minor bugs and rare crashes, nothing major.

Standard rituals nowadays when dealing with Radeon driver problem in Windows
Turn off MPO Turn off HAGS Turn off browser hardware acceleration (Chrome/Firefox/Steam/Discord/etc) Turn off Windows Update because it kept override AMD driver Make sure you system RAM is pyramid stable Use Linux Standard rituals dealing with AMD ATI driver back in the day
 

Yes. If they find the performance lacking and find its sole cause to be the CPU, sure go for it. But im saying bottle necking should not be some boogie man term that drives decisions. Unless they really REALLY need that bleeding edge performance, they should not worry about a little less performance. Stability is far more important that top of the line performance. Lots of other causes to instability or low performance than "bottle necking CPU".

XTX. And dont worry about "bottle neck". Its an upsell tactic, plain and simple. If you are not going for the bleeding edge or you are not a competitive player with income dependent on the absolute performance. A little longer loading time of assets or some minor stutter decompressing/decoding stuff on the CPU wont change your experience much. Few % difference at most if review graphs are to be believed. And besides. stable performance is far FAR more important than MOST FPS
I have a 7700K that should bottleneck the ever living snot out of my 7900XTX Nitro+... and its all smooth sailing. Rare tiny stutter is something I can live with considering im not forced to upgrade CPU and support hardware.

Only thing you will see is a minor asset loading time. The so called "bottle necks" occur when the application (in your case game) is dependent on CPU features to decode/decompress assets. In most scenarios, you wont see anything more than a few % difference. I would over speck GPU regardless, it will help very much in the long run when you decide to upgrade your CPU