6800XT or rtx 3080

[raven123]

Consider they are price similarly in my country atleast. Which one is better? for 1440p gaming.

 

[Inoc19]

They perform pretty similarly but I'd go 3080 for DLSS. Ray tracing too if you care about that

[CommanderAlex]

If you want Ray Tracing capability, go with the RTX 3080, its a much better choice than the 6800XT. Also, be sure to have a good power supply from Tier B or higher on the PSU Tier List due to Amphere's transient power draw/spikes. 

[Action_Johnson]

I'd rather have 16GB of VRAM over DLSS or RT. I've seen videos where FS2020 uses about 24GB of system RAM and 10GB of VRAM when cruising around a dense spot on the planet at 4K. On my System I've seen FS2020 use 7GB of VRAM at 1080p and 22GB of system memory flying over spots like LA or Seattle. 

 

I've seen DLSS in person, I don't think it's really that impressive. It's an obvious visual downgrade over native res, and only exists because RT is simply too computationally expensive to run at native res, unless it's 1080P on a 3080. 

[Bobbysixjp]

42 minutes ago, Action_Johnson said:

I'd rather have 16GB of VRAM over DLSS or RT. I've seen videos where FS2020 uses about 24GB of system RAM and 10GB of VRAM when cruising around a dense spot on the planet at 4K. On my System I've seen FS2020 use 7GB of VRAM at 1080p and 22GB of system memory flying over spots like LA or Seattle. 

 

I've seen DLSS in person, I don't think it's really that impressive. It's an obvious visual downgrade over native res, and only exists because RT is simply too computationally expensive to run at native res, unless it's 1080P on a 3080. 

I’d choose the 3080 over the 6800XT if they are similar prices. Even though the 3080 only has 10GB of VRAM, it is GDDR6X which is faster than GDDR6. Whether 10 GB is enough or not remains to be seen. The two cards offer very similar performance but if you include RT and DLSS, the 3080 comes out on top. 

[GamerDude]

Depend on OP's preference, IF RT is important, go for the RTX 3080. But, if rasterization is more important than RT, then the RX 6800 XT which is pretty fast for regular non-RT games. I went with an RX card because, while I appreciate that RT is the future, present gen cards from nVidia (let alone AMD) are still not good enough to do games at high framerates at native res (like 4K or perhaps 1440P) without the need for DLSS.

 

Plus, as someone at guru3D had said, DLSS is planned obsolescence, there'll come a time when GPU's are powerful enough that DLSS isn't needed. Also, for RT to run well at higher res, nVidia MUST give the game the DLSS treatment, what if an RT that (that may not be popular or a AAA title) that you like isn't worthy of the DLSS treatment (or so nVidia believe)?

 

Don't get me wrong, the future is RT, but I'm gonna wait another iteration or two of both nVidia and AMD cards, then see IF they're powerful enough to handle RT at native high res with good framerates, then I'd probably throw in my lot with RT.

[Mark Kaine]

They perform pretty similar, but I'd go 3080 for NVENC. Recording videos is pretty cool, if you care about that. 

[Zberg]

It comes down to what you can find.  If you can find either they are both great cards.

 

If your truly had the MSRP choice I really dont see an argument for the 6800XT.  Framerates are comparable with the 6800XT winning out mostly at 1080p and a tiny bit at 1440p (might as well be a wash) and 4k going to the 3080.

 

More importantly, DLSS (which is just great now), NVENC (fantastic), RTX voice (this one is really minor but can help an untuned condenser mic sound a little better, for aspiring streamers), and of course ray tracing trouncing the 6800XT version of RT, I really dont see how at comparable prices (50$ savings is not that significant in this price bracket) there is even a competition.  If they had infinite 3080 and 6800 XT available, I couldnt imagine picking up a 6800XT unless I was all in on the SAM, which is maybe a (the only?) legit reason at this point.

 

I appreciate that AMD is normally the price/performance king, but a 50 dollar savings on a flagship GPU isnt worth losing that feature set to me.  There is nothing wrong with the 6800XT at all.  It just doesnt have enough going for it to make someone skimp for it.  550-600$ vs 700$?  Sure, I am on board, that is the bargain deal.  But 650 vs 700 for a card that is so close to tied (depending on which rez you pick...but they are all still within spitting distance) and has so fewer features?  There is just no "sell" for the 6800XT.  Unless there is literally no way to scrape together another 50 bucks.

 

 

 

 

[Zberg]

Also there is an oversimplification, unfortunately, that "if you want RTX, go green, if you want rasterization, go red" which is just faulty reasoning.  They perform very similar in rasterization.  Take out all features, and the 6800XT is a good buy at 1080p/1440p and the 3080 a better buy at 4k.  

 

The more apt phrasing is "if you care about rasterization, you truly cant go wrong since they are 50 bucks difference and perform the same in rasterization, and if you care about RTX, well you dont really have 2 options" 

 

 

[Bobbysixjp]

2 hours ago, GamerDude said:

Depend on OP's preference, IF RT is important, go for the RTX 3080. But, if rasterization is more important than RT, then the RX 6800 XT which is pretty fast for regular non-RT games. I went with an RX card because, while I appreciate that RT is the future, present gen cards from nVidia (let alone AMD) are still not good enough to do games at high framerates at native res (like 4K or perhaps 1440P) without the need for DLSS.

 

Plus, as someone at guru3D had said, DLSS is planned obsolescence, there'll come a time when GPU's are powerful enough that DLSS isn't needed. Also, for RT to run well at higher res, nVidia MUST give the game the DLSS treatment, what if an RT that (that may not be popular or a AAA title) that you like isn't worthy of the DLSS treatment (or so nVidia believe)?

 

Don't get me wrong, the future is RT, but I'm gonna wait another iteration or two of both nVidia and AMD cards, then see IF they're powerful enough to handle RT at native high res with good framerates, then I'd probably throw in my lot with RT.

I sold my 3070 and bought a 6800 for the same reason - I was disappointed with the RT performance of the 3070 because enabling it in games just tanks the FPS most of the time. 
But I imagine the 3080 has enough power to make RT worthwhile which is why I would choose it over the 6800XT.

[papajo]

The one you can find cheaper 

 

  

14 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

I'd rather have 16GB of VRAM over DLSS or RT. I've seen videos where FS2020 uses about 24GB of system RAM and 10GB of VRAM when cruising around a dense spot on the planet at 4K. On my System I've seen FS2020 use 7GB of VRAM at 1080p and 22GB of system memory flying over spots like LA or Seattle. 

 

I've seen DLSS in person, I don't think it's really that impressive. It's an obvious visual downgrade over native res, and only exists because RT is simply too computationally expensive to run at native res, unless it's 1080P on a 3080. 

This is also true and the 6800 XT in general is faster in rasterization  (so in the way 99% of the games are realistically going to be played) under some games/settings the 6800 XT is faster even compared to a 3090 but just on a few occasions. 

 

+ It has a type C (virtual link) port in case you would like to try out some VR (and it really buffles me why Nvidia does not have such a port even on the most expensive products) 

 

But as I said buy the cheaper one if the difference is only a small 2 digit number then buy the AMD one. 

[da na]

If you like more vram better, then def go 6800

[Princess Luna]

The RTX 3080's 10gb of vram is by all means 100% sufficient for 1440p gaming, VRAM hasn't much weight as it seems to be honest.

 

Like stated I'd go with the 3080 since DLSS and RT... the 6800XT is on pair rasterization wise so why not get the extra nVidia goodies.

[SFFDesigns]

19 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

I've seen videos where FS2020 uses about 24GB of system RAM and 10GB of VRAM when cruising around a dense spot on the planet at 4K.

Nah that's not true (on the 3080 at least). 4K @ Ultra, RTX 3080 FE. Never seen above 9 GBs usage ever, and that was in the worst case scenario. 

 

24GBs of RAM though, yeah that's true. 

 

I'd say, 3080 if you want the features, 6800 XT if you don't.

 

 

Realistically, get whatever card you can actually buy

[Chris79]

It is a dilemma, I got a 3080, for me DLSS and RT seems the better buy vs more VRAM, although I think these levels are too tight on the nvidia cards, I think it will be about enough for almost every game in the next few years at least.

 

I am replacing a 11 gig 1080ti, and the only game I own that stresses the limit is FF15.

[MadPistol]

I've done extensive testing of VRAM utilization, and what I found is that no game currently on the market will use more than about 9GB VRAM at 4K max details. You also have to consider that many newer games at 4K max details will run into performance issues before they reach full VRAM utilization by a game.

 

Don't look at the VRAM usage as many games will saturate the VRAM as a way to "buffer" with resources that may be needed later. This is not indicative of what the actual needed VRAM is.

16GB VRAM is awesome... if you have a the memory bandwidth to utilize it. As it stands, the VRAM bandwidth on the RTX 3080 is nearly 50% faster than an RX 6800 XT. It's because of this fact alone that I believe the RTX 3080 will last longer than the RX 6000 cards; your performance will be unacceptable long before you ever reach the 16GB VRAM threshold.


TL;DR the RTX 3080 is the better buy, IMO.

[Zberg]

19 hours ago, MadPistol said:

It's because of this fact alone that I believe the RTX 3080 will last longer than the RX 6000 cards; your performance will be unacceptable long before you ever reach the 16GB VRAM threshold.

Totally agreed.  This is one of the big things I keep trying to get people to realize.  VRAM at a quantity 2x or more than you will ever use is useless if you try and game in 4k max settings (or 8k) and get 7 FPS.  Any game that would actually demand 16 or 24gb VRAM right now would be absolutely unplayable on any of the hardware available.  Unless you are comfy with 10 fps gaming or less.   

 

It is just a mismatch of resources, like getting an overclocked 10900k to play games at 4k60fps (much like most of that VRAM you paid for, the 10900k's CPU horsepower is mostly unused; better to use the money for something else in the system and get a better matched CPU).

 

Now if you are using it for big 3d projects on the side, that is a whole different ball game.  But most are having this convo about gaming only

[i_build_nanosuits]

i was wondering the same the other day and so i watched A TON of videos on youtube reviewing those two cards...you should do the same.

my conclusion was RTX 3080 is better.

[i_build_nanosuits]

19 hours ago, MadPistol said:

I've done extensive testing of VRAM utilization, and what I found is that no game currently on the market will use more than about 9GB VRAM at 4K max details.

You should test with a VR headset tho

 

That said, you are right about pancake games, none of them require more than even 8GB at 4K to run well.

Also pancake games should be rendered on a high refresh 1440p desktop monitor for best results anyways.

[papajo]

On 1/22/2021 at 7:47 PM, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

Nah that's not true (on the 3080 at least). 4K @ Ultra, RTX 3080 FE. Never seen above 9 GBs usage ever, and that was in the worst case scenario. 

Has it occurred to you that you did not see above 9GBs of usage because you dont have any more to spare (it has 10G total)? obviously it is not going to max out the buffer because it then wont have any space to spare in case something new is going to be written to it. 

 

My dad's pc has 8GB of ram (windows 10) and uses about 3GB of it when nothing is loaded other than the basics.

My PC has 32GB of ram and uses about 6-8GB when nothing is loaded other than the basics 

 

Here you can see it uses about 12.5GB for example. 

 

 

But ok to be fair most the VRAM used is for elements that are buffered meaning you wont necessarily need them right now (e.g stuff on the background or stuff the game engine predicts you gonna see if you keep on a certain direction e.g a city/buildings or what not) 

 

It's always better to have more VRAM though for futureproofness upcoming titles surely are going to use more VRAM because they are going to have better textures or more elemtns (e.g NPCs ) etc 

[SFFDesigns]

23 minutes ago, papajo said:

Has it occurred to you that you did not see above 9GBs of usage because you dont have any more to spare (it has 10G total)?

I would believe that, but I tried 4K 150 render scaling, and the usage went up to 9.5, so it wasn't the max it could go

 

23 minutes ago, papajo said:

Here you can see it uses about 12.5GB for example. 

 

That's allocation, not usage. Usage is measure through sim dev tools.

 

7 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

You should test with a VR headset tho

I've tried the Oculus Quest, no issues either. 

[papajo]

4 minutes ago, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

That's allocation, not usage. Usage is measure through sim dev tools.

What do you mean by that it is the same thing. the game allocated 12.5GB of vram ram (which means it loaded elements worth of 12.5GB unto the vram) 

 

you cant see more than 10G because you dont have more than 10G the game isnt going to load the vram more than its physical capacity it would crash in such a case... 

[SFFDesigns]

2 minutes ago, papajo said:

What do you mean by that it is the same thing. the game allocated 12.5GB of vram ram (which means it loaded elements worth of 12.5GB unto the vram) 

 

No, that is incorrect. Tools like afterburner report 9 GBs allocated. Sim devtools report actual usage of 5 GBs

[papajo]

12 minutes ago, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

No, that is incorrect. Tools like afterburner report 9 GBs allocated. Sim devtools report actual usage of 5 GBs

I don't play this game and I am not aware about the sim devtools you are mentioning so I can not speak about what it exactly means by this figure (e.g it could mean the unpacked size of data

 

What I am sure though is that tools like afterburner are not known to show incorrect usage. 

 

but just to be 100% sure of how much Vram is utilized then just open GPU-z and go to the sensors tab and check there under "memory used" 

[SFFDesigns]

1 minute ago, papajo said:

What I am sure though is that tools like afterburner are not known to show incorrect usage. 

 

They do not show incorrect usage. They show allocation. 

 

The sim's developer tools show actual usage, the simulator allocates more than it actually uses