this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
383 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
72471 readers
3805 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But your performance isn’t even close to that of a 5090…….
80-90 fps @ 1440 isn’t great. That’s like last gen mid tier nvidia gpu performance.
Not 1440 like you’re thinking. 3440x1440 is 20% more pixel to render than standard 2560x1440’s. It’s a WS. And yes at max settings 80-90fps is pretty damn good. It regularly goes over 100 in less busy environments.
And yeah it’s not matching a 5090, a graphics card that costs more than 3x mine and sure as hell isn’t giving 3x the performance.
You’re moving the goalposts. My point is for 1/4th the cost you’re getting 60-80% of the performance of overpriced, massive, power hungry Nvidia cards (depending on what model you want to compare to). Bang for buck, AMD smokes Nvidia. It’s not even close.
Unless cost isn’t a barrier to you or you have very specific needs they make no sense to buy. If you’ve got disposable income for days then fuck it buy away.
I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.
Your card is comparable to a 5070, which is basically the same price as yours. There’s no doubt the 5080 and 5090 are disappointing in their performance compared to these mid-high cards, but your card can’t compete with them and nvidia offer a comparable card at the same price point as AMDs best card.
Also the AMD card uses more power than the nvidia equivalent (9700xt vs 5070).
Most people do not use WS as evidenced by the mixed bag support it gets. 1440 monitors are by default understood to be 2560x1440p as it’s 16:9 which is still considered the “default” by the vast majority of businesses and people alike. You may operate as if most people using 1440+ are on WS but that’s a very atypical assumption.
Raytracing sure but otherwise the 4090 is actually better than the 5070 in many respects. So you’re paying a comparable price for Raytracing and windows dependency, which if that is important to you then go right ahead. Ultimately though my point is that there is no point in buying the insanely overpriced Nvidia offerings when you have excellent AMD offerings for a fraction of the price that don’t have all sorts of little pitfalls/compromises. The Nvidia headaches are worth it for performance, which unless you 3-4x your investment you’re not getting more of. So the 5070 is moot.
I’m not sure what you’re comparing at the end unless you meant a 9070XT which I don’t use/have and wasn’t comparing.
Sorry I thought I read you had the 9070 XT, which is better than the 9070 that you have. The 9070 and the 5070 are the same price, and are neck and neck in performance , so the nvidia card isn't "insanely overpriced" compared to AMDs offerings, is it? The 9070 isn't a "fraction of the price" of the equivalent nvidia card, it's the same price.
As you said, there are 40 series cards that are better than the 50 series cards apart from probably the 5090, and the prices on those is cheaper than the 9070.
Better bang for your buck, but way less bang and not as impressive of a bang.
Not all of us can afford to spend $3000 for a noticeable but still not massive performance bump over a $700 option. I don’t really understand how this is so difficult to understand lol. You also have to increase the rest of your machine cost for things like your PSU, because the draw on the 5xxx series is cracked out. Motherboard, CPU, all of that has to be cranked up unless you want bottlenecks. Don’t forget your high end 165hz monitor unless you want to waste frames/colors. And are we really going to pretend after 100fps the difference is that big of a deal?
Going Nvidia also means unless you want to be fighting your machine all the time, you need to keep a Windows partition on your computer. Have fun with that.
At the end of the day buy what you want dude, but I’m pulling down what I said above on a machine that cost about $1700. Do with that what you will
@RazgrizOne @FreedomAdvocate the reason why i decided for AMD after being nearly all my life team green ( aka >20 years ) , i feel like AI Frame Generation and Upscalling are anti consumer cause the hide the real performance behind none reproducable image generation. And if you look correctly ... this is how nvidia has a performance lead over AMD.
Calling DLSS "anti consumer" is one of the dumbest things I've read about PC gaming in a long time.
@FreedomAdvocate you remember the time when AMD was called out for even the smallest of difference from a default render ? Now since nvidia basically use some kind of statistic guessing method -> Noone is allowed to call them out ?
I call them out cause basically they removed the possibility for any consumer to compare other graphics card with themself. Or did i miss nvidia making dlss / frametime generation and all the features available on other gpu brands ?
Do you know AI Models behind all this and how they would perform on other hardware ? Do we want to talk about how they try to force media to have access to tests ? Yes imho there is alot anti consumer here ...
No, I don’t remember that. What are you talking about?
Why would Nvidia make DLSS work on other brands hardware? It’s hardware dependant btw - it needs their cuda cores.
@FreedomAdvocate ... this question is totally unimportant for the fact that their current behaivior is not very consumer friendly or harder expressed anti consumer.
Second cuda is not hardware dependend ;) https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA/tree/master | https://www.xda-developers.com/nvidia-cuda-amd-zluda/
"Imagine a world where noone needed a brand specific addition to have modern features" ... oh those ideas exist since centuries ( DX / OpenGL / Vulkan .... ) ... now ask yourself why nvidia always tries to operate outside of those api's ?
....
That's essentially an emulation layer. Nvidia make DLSS specifically for their GPUs, which have CUDA cores on them. It's the reason why DLSS doesn't work on their pre-CUDA core hardware.
Could they make DLSS work on AMDs hardware? Sure, they could - but it would not be DLSS as we know it, and again - why would they? They are allowed to make stuff exclusively for their hardware.
@FreedomAdvocate zuda is an reimplementation of an api not a emulation.
I said it’s essentially emulation, which it is. Its like WINE, which is also essentially emulation but isn’t emulation.
@FreedomAdvocate there is a reason why WINE = Wine is not (a) Emulator is used. So don't call a api reimplementation a emulation specially since other api reimplementation have shown to be better than the original implementation from the hardware provider ( example dxvk on amd > the original amd dx implementation ) . But this gets us far from the original topics , my point was if nvidia wanted to have real competition they would have included all those new fance features into official api's like for example DX or Vulkan or any other.
They didn't ... and while not directly against the consumer it is against the consumer end.
So i have brought up another point why i call nvidia anti consumer ... neither you like it or not.
I’m not sure if English isn’t your first language, or if you’re just being wilfully obtuse, but I didn’t call it emulation. I said it is essentially emulation, like WINE. I know WINE isn’t emulation, which is why I said it is “essentially” emulation because it’s doing the same thing - converting calls from one set of APIs to work on other hardware/architecture. It’s not emulation, but it’s essentially the same thing.
Why would Nvidia want competition? AMD don’t want competition either, but they made FSR work on everything because they were so far behind Nvidia (and because it was all done in software, requiring no special hardware) that they have to give it away to try and catch up.
Companies making proprietary tech is not anti-consumer - unless of course you think that everything other than making everything free and open source is “anti-consumer”, which I am thinking you might?
@FreedomAdvocate This is my last answer.
Anti Consumer = working against the Consumer ...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-faces-us-doj-probe-over-complaints-rivals-information-reports-2024-08-02/
^^^ if you define NVidias Consumer as business
If you define NVidia Consumers as common people wanting a gamer gpu than you can keep believing that they try to do all those things to make you the cheapest and best offer and keep buying them.
I am not going to stop you! Since you don't know me and you don't know my experience and past with nvidia and seem not want to accept my standpoint -> i am not going to force it on you. But i want to ask you to refer from calling something "most stupid" just because you aren't sharing the other opinion...
@FreedomAdvocate https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/ati-cheating-on-benchmarks.877565/
read about that when they got grilled in the early 2000s
And how much nvidia influences media ->
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Nvidia-significantly-influences-early-tests-of-the-GeForce-RTX-5060-10388613.html
But nvidia got dragged across the coals for using frame-gen in their performance benchmarks too. Did you miss that?
Also ATI wasn't owned by AMD then.....AMD aquired ATI in 2006. Your link is from 2001.
Also no one should be listening to official GPU manufacturer benchmark results. No one. Review companies do their own benchmarking, and you do know that you can turn off DLSS and DLSS Frame-Gen, don't you? I haven't seen any reviewers only compare DLSS+Frame-Gen on an nvidia card to native-with-no-frame-gen on AMD cards. You must have, so can you link to any?
@FreedomAdvocate so you didn't read the heise link which showed you that pre release tests had strict rules on how to test including framegen settings ...
Nvidia can say what they want, but reviewers didn’t follow those.
Sounds like you need to find better GPU review sites.
@FreedomAdvocate what is more shady a reviewer who doesn't follow nda's or the company who makes nda's ... you can decide yourself i have made my decission and we have since then got far away from what it was.. Is NVIDIA anti consumer ... yes on multiple levels ... you can disagree but i have enough resons to say so
I’m not even against tricks like upscaling and such to be honest. If it looks good I’ll take it lol. But I do agree they don’t feel like long-term, hardened solutions vs something more like “raw performance.” And there’s no doubt There is a certain elegance to AMD’s cards
What exactly do you mean by this?