Hmm. I have a steady 60 FPS in Final Fantasy XIV, with my RX580 8GB card and my settings are Desktop Custom, with most of it at high in 1080p. I think. "/ I wouldn’t want to buy a new card and end up with downgrading the experience.
Current GPUs in relation to a 580, approximate numbers, only GPUs better than 580 included:
RX 580 - 100%
RTX 3050 - 140%
RX 6600 - 175%
RTX 3060 - 210%
RTX 3060 Ti - 235%
RX 6600 XT - 240%
RTX 3070 - 290%
RX 6700 XT - 300%
RTX 3070 ti - 310%
RX 6800 XT - 350%
RTX 3080 ti - 355%
RTX 3090 - 363%
RX 6900 XT - 365%
YMMV of course.
2 Likes
Is this a price or performance %age?
If I was buying for high/ultra detail 1080p right now I’d be aiming at 6600xt-6700xt.
Be aware that next year or two you’ll likely need a 6700xt at least for that and maybe 2-3 years time a 6800 or better.
“1080p ultra” is a moving target as games get more detailed.
Whatever you get make sure it has current GPU feature support (I.e. Turing or newer on NVIDIA and navi2 on amd) to ensure longevity.
Otherwise you may get cut off sooner due to lack of support for a feature rather than just performance.
Edit : lag free borderlands 3 may need a cpu upgrade. I noticed a significant step going from 2700x to 5900x in 4K in borderlands 3 with my 6900xt.
I’d say you’d notice similar with say a 6600-6700xt at 1080p (guessing it would be similar frame rate).
Anything Ryzen 3000-5000 will be a big step from 1700x as far as high refresh gaming goes. I have a 3300x as well and that outperformed my 2700x in a lot of games (4 cores vs 8!). Zen2/zen3 cache and general architecture improvement helps a lot! A 5600g upgrade (or higher) for you would be huge (vs 1700x for gaming).
1 Like
Pure performance numbers, though not scientifically measured to exactness, more like my best guesstimate based on an average of a dozen benchmarks or so. Don’t take this as gospel, it’s supposed to be a rough guide but unintentional errors may exist, and right now I have a bias towards AMD due to their price advantage. Still, I stand by my rough ranking. 
2 Likes
Would you go for a 6700XT vs 6800 vs 6800XT for a more reasonable (whatever that means for you) 1440p 90-120+ fps experience? What in your opinion is the cheapest good enough GPU for that use case, assuming ultra vs very high detail isnt too significant?
For high rate 1440p I’d be looking at the 6800 or 6800xt personally.
1440 high refresh isn’t a walk in the park and some titles won’t even run that speed on my 6900xt in 1440p ultra.
Sure most stuff it destroys at 1440p but not everything.
Cyberpunk with rt on for example.
2 Likes
I would say, if you are price conscious the 6700 XT is the bare minimum for high refresh rates. You should get a 6800+ or 3080+ to be sure. That said, like thro mentions, it depends on what games you want. I play Cities Skylines at 100+ FPS in 1440p with my recently bought RX 6600 (non-XT), for instance.
I also run Linux where AMD has an advantage over Nvidia (or rather, Nvidia is 5-10% slower than on Windows due to not playing ball with rest of community).
Maybe I should do a quick price barometer as a coding exercise. Pretty much this as a price / perf graph:
Price | RTX 3090 (FPS: 200)
|
| RTX 3080 Ti (FPS: 182)
| RTX 3080 (FPS: 175)
| RX 6900 XT (FPS: 195)
| RX 6800 XT (FPS: 176)
| ...
+---------------------------------------------------------
Nvidia AMD
Obviously FPS is maybe a 3D studio mark score or something, instead, and you would need one for 1080p, one for 1440p and one for 4k or something. Maybe add 5k and 8k, too. If anyone wants to run with this idea, feel free.
2 Likes
The other thing with the 6700XT vs. 6800 is price vs. what you get…
YMMV but…
Right now checking my local retailer a 6800 is ~18-20% more than a 6700XT (both ASUS cards, the 6700XT is dual fan, the 6800 is a Strix with 3 fans - so better cooling solution).
For 33% more VRAM and way more than 50% more stream processors.
Sure, its more money (and obviously everyone has a finite budget), but you get a lot more card for that money imho. In terms of a complete system cost, its going to improve performance a lot more than the $ imho.
You also get the full-fat 256 bit memory bus (33% more bandwidth), full 128 meg of cache, etc.
Sure, on paper the 6700XT clocks faster out of the box, but big navi with a decent cooler clocks pretty damn well (my 6900XT sits on 2400-2500mhz quite happily under load - supposedly game boost clock is what 2200 or so. And that’s default fan profile, “balanced” mode - no OC), and memory bandwidth seems to be the limiting factor. Which the 6800 has a heap more of.
3 Likes
Interesting to read all the reply’s. I have since many years back kind of lost the interest of researching numbers, and I have kept on buying gpu’s that aren’t top-shelf because of the cost. I live on about 300 euro every month after the rent and other stuff is payed. It’s always a question for me if I should buy that 100 euro thing I have wanted for half a year/year, buy clothes, or food, fix my car or fasten for a month.
I know that a lot of other people don’t have to think about these things, I’m glad I live in a country where I get around 1k every month to survive, that’s the life when you are incapable of supporting the system you are a part of.
All of these answers have given me something to think about. I kind of need to prioritize pants this month. hahahaha
I’m fortunate enough that i can write a lot of this off on tax, and am in a well paying long term sysadmin/architect job. But believe me - i’ve been in your situation before this.
If you need to be savvy i guess the big thing is try to get a current-ish generation card (one that does DX12 ultimate in hardware - including mesh shaders and variable rate shading). Given the choice between say an older top end card and a new one that is almost same or same performance (for similar-ish price), go the new card.
- Warranty
- The above new DX12 hardware features won’t be supported on Pascal or AMD older than Navi 2. You can expect any resale that Pascal, Navi1 or earlier cards may have to completely tank when those features become more commonly used. They’re a huge potential performance win but only on hardware that supports them.
1 Like
Ouch, yeah, gaming isn’t the most expensive hobby, I know I spent like $150 a month on Taekwondo gear back in my youth for instance - still, the current hardware market sucks. AMD has pretty much abandoned the low-end with discrete graphics - everything will be APUs in the low end for them, and those APUs will by 2025 allow 60 FPS 4k gaming.
Hold on to that 580 as long as it can go and start saving up $20 every month for a system, would be my advice. According to my calculations, a decent system in 2025 will cost around $600-$700. Breakdown would be something like, APU - $200-$300, Motherboard - $150, RAM - $150, SSD - $75, exact specs depends on the market. If you can save $20 a month in three years you have $720 (in theory) to buy a new machine.
GPUs will cost $300+ from here on out though!
2 Likes
Are they really? I’ve been out of the tech loop for some years, but never really was following integrated GPUs. I’m quite surprised by your prediction.
Atleast according to Moores Law Is Dead, yes. The sub-$300 GPU market is dead, and RDNA2 APUs are good enough to drive 1080p @ 60 Hz in most titles. RDNA3 APUs are supposed to tackle 1440p and RDNA4 tackles 4k - the only question here is how many APU cores will you need to get that performance (e.g. how big does your die need to be)?
Still 3.5 years off, lots of things can change here, but from what I can tell, AMD is going to just provide APUs in all their CPUs, there is pretty much no reason not to do that for them.
5 Likes
This means that APUs currently on the market are just as or even more powerful than my 390x. Which bags the question: why am I in the market for a new gpu?
But this also means that game consoles and handhelds are gonna get loads more powerful, which is also great.
Edit to add a q: what do Intel GPUs look like, perf/price wise? I know it’s early and I have read some rumours that they’re average. Are their integrated gpus performing good as well?
Here is one benchmark, though recommend you check out others as well. Waiting for RDNA2 in desktop to see the real gains, that will come this fall. Essentially, pretty much this in mobile (relative GPU performance compared to the top row):
| CPU | i5 12500H | i7 12700H | R5 6600H (6c) | R7 6800H (12c) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| i5 12500H | 100.00% | 82.55% | 74.45% | 53.03% |
| i7 12700H | 121.14% | 100.00% | 90.19% | 64.24% |
| R5 6600H (6c) | 134.31% | 110.87% | 100.00% | 71.23% |
| R7 6800H (12c) | 188.56% | 155.65% | 140.39% | 100.00% |
However, mobile is not desktop, so until such a time gen 13 and Ryzen 7000 comes out and is properly benchmarked, all of the above is currently speculation. Still, if you are on a budget, try to save roughly $700 for 2025 and build an integrated graphics build. By then integrated graphics should reach 1660 Super / 6600 levels, at the very least.
2 Likes
This may well be true but I just want to come in with what we know and don’t know at the moment.
AMD did announce that all of the 7000 series would have integrated RDNA2 graphics. However they didn’t say how many CUs or what level of performance to expect.
So far we only have one RDNA2 APU, and that is in the steam deck. It is paired with a Zen 2 quad core. Looking at digital Foundry’s coverage, it seems a decent 720p 40 FPS gpu in modern games. It isn’t the best RDNA2 integrated graphics chip announced, at least for mobile, but it’s not the worst either. In any case expecting 1080p 60fps seems ambitious, and not just because of gpu horsepower.
One of the things holding back the steam deck is that even when the Zen 2 quad core and gpu are in and of themselves sufficient often as when both are simultaneously loaded there are bandwidth and power constrictions that prevent both parts from stretching their legs as they would if they were independent parts. It remains to be seen whether this applies to desktop 7000 parts, but if it does it implies that even FSR won’t be sufficient to bring the frame rate up to 60.
Very good points, I still think by early next year you will be able to buy a 1080p@60 Hz capable APU for around $200-$300. However, as you say not all Zen 4 will have great APUs, I have heard rumors of somewhere between 4 and 16 CUs depending on models. The Steam deck has 8, for comparison.
There is one ray of hope though, and that is power. The Steam deck is powered by a 1.0 / 1.6 GHz clock, while a desktop might easily push 2.1 / 2.8 GHz within 65W.
So I think a 16 CU model could very well handle 1080p, but the question then becomes, do we get a full core? I do hope for a relatively affordable ($300 or less) 16 CU / 8c16t with < 95W TDP. All of this is speculation and dreaming though, what I want is most probably not what I’ll get!
1 Like
Haven’t dealt with any of the Navi2 low end parts (APUs) outside of the PS5. And i must say, the PS5 is freaking impressive for what it is.
It’s what… 32 CUs (vs 80 in my 6900) and runs 4k gaming pretty well. Obviously using whatever playstation tricks sony have at their disposal, but clearly the hardware can do it given adequate software support.
Ditto for the level of performance we’re hearing about from the steam deck.
This is why i think getting onto navi2 or turing+ is a priority (don’t go for high end old generation parts which will turn into paperweights)… there’s clearly a lot of tricks going on in the new navi hardware to get the performance and i’m not so sure older generation parts will keep up once said features start getting used more on the PC side.
Sub $300/250 cards cost more to make than the profit margin these days. So APU’s or the Used market will cover the low end market.
Honestly its not a bad thing, a used 5700xt are getting close to $350 again and I expect now that RDNA2 is at MSRP and trending lower ($900 for a 6900xt) we should start to see a glut of used gpus as people who were holding out at all costs can finally get a decent card for more reasonable money.