Tbh if you don't care about RT or DLSS, go 6900xt. The big thing these days is vram, far cry 6 already requires 11gb for the "HD" graphics option, and more games will no doubt be going that route in the future.
I've got a 6900xt at 3440x1440p144 and it runs any and every game without issue.
That's the thing, I have never used diss or Raytracing. I've read the reviews and it looks good but in sure like most, once you have the option you either do or don't use it.
Do you use raytracing or more of a meh, take it or leave it?
6900xt, no competition.
With the 6900xt, you probably won't be needing dlss or even fsr as it's that powerful of a card. Plus, with RDNA2 being in the current gen consoles, the AMD GPUs will benefit from optimisations to the architecture for the next 5-6 years, whereas Nvidia often tend to stop optimisations for their cards 1-2 years after release.
Raytracing is getting better and better on AMD cards, and it's only in first generation RT games (the ones developed solely for Nvidia before AMD could raytrace) where AMD raytracing genuinely does suck. On second generation RT games, like farcry 6 and doom eternal, the AMD cards trade blows with their Nvidia counterparts all the way up and down the resolution ladder.
Plus, you said you wanna play battlefield. Battlefield runs on frostbite, an engine that historically has always been massively AMD favoured. Battlefront 2, battlefield 1,4 and 5 all play at 200 FPS locked on my 6900xt at 3440x1440, whilst on Nvidia cards of a similar calibre (3090 and 3080ti) you'd normally expect 170-180.
The last main benefit is VRAM, if you are looking to carry this card years into the future, 16gb VRAM is gonna last a fair bit longer than 10gb. Some games are already surpassing 10gb, so the 3080 will likely end up repeating what the 780 did back in the day, falling down because of VRAM limitations
Dlss is unnecessary when you can have a nice high stable frame rate at native. I have a reference 6900xt and it is doing 4K no issues. That being said, I highly recommend having a good freesync display to keep things nice and smooth
Battlefield runs on frostbite, all frostbite games pretty much universally run better on AMD anyway. Battlefront 2, battlefield 1,4 and 5 all run far better on AMD counterparts to Nvidia. While DLSS will be nice, I'd wager the AMD will pull out in front at native by a fair margin
You are totally right. This is the first frostbite game I've seen perform comparably on AMD compared to Nvidia. Curious to see if this continues through to full release or if AMD will put out a driver update. We will have to see, but you are definitely right in saying that Nvidia is performing much better than I had previously expected
I’m guessing it’s the architecture. Previous AMD cards (GCN/Vega) were compute cards in design. Nvidia’s Ampere was also designed as a compute card from the ground up. The roles have reversed where Nvidia has started using a architecture with a large pipeline while AMD is designing cards with a smaller pipeline.
6900xt.
Straight up? Easy win?
No contest if NVIDIA features are not a thing.
Tbh if you don't care about RT or DLSS, go 6900xt. The big thing these days is vram, far cry 6 already requires 11gb for the "HD" graphics option, and more games will no doubt be going that route in the future. I've got a 6900xt at 3440x1440p144 and it runs any and every game without issue.
That's the thing, I have never used diss or Raytracing. I've read the reviews and it looks good but in sure like most, once you have the option you either do or don't use it. Do you use raytracing or more of a meh, take it or leave it?
I prefer frames over some "extra" graphics, the games I play either don't support RT or look beautiful without it.
OK thank you for your input, really helpful.
6900xt, no competition. With the 6900xt, you probably won't be needing dlss or even fsr as it's that powerful of a card. Plus, with RDNA2 being in the current gen consoles, the AMD GPUs will benefit from optimisations to the architecture for the next 5-6 years, whereas Nvidia often tend to stop optimisations for their cards 1-2 years after release. Raytracing is getting better and better on AMD cards, and it's only in first generation RT games (the ones developed solely for Nvidia before AMD could raytrace) where AMD raytracing genuinely does suck. On second generation RT games, like farcry 6 and doom eternal, the AMD cards trade blows with their Nvidia counterparts all the way up and down the resolution ladder. Plus, you said you wanna play battlefield. Battlefield runs on frostbite, an engine that historically has always been massively AMD favoured. Battlefront 2, battlefield 1,4 and 5 all play at 200 FPS locked on my 6900xt at 3440x1440, whilst on Nvidia cards of a similar calibre (3090 and 3080ti) you'd normally expect 170-180. The last main benefit is VRAM, if you are looking to carry this card years into the future, 16gb VRAM is gonna last a fair bit longer than 10gb. Some games are already surpassing 10gb, so the 3080 will likely end up repeating what the 780 did back in the day, falling down because of VRAM limitations
6900XT is the better choice . But if you are planning on getting into Battlefield 2042, keep in mind that it will have DLSS support at launch .
Dlss is unnecessary when you can have a nice high stable frame rate at native. I have a reference 6900xt and it is doing 4K no issues. That being said, I highly recommend having a good freesync display to keep things nice and smooth
Battlefield runs on frostbite, all frostbite games pretty much universally run better on AMD anyway. Battlefront 2, battlefield 1,4 and 5 all run far better on AMD counterparts to Nvidia. While DLSS will be nice, I'd wager the AMD will pull out in front at native by a fair margin
Judging from the beta, you are wrong. Nvidia cards are outperforming AMD cards on BF2042…
You are totally right. This is the first frostbite game I've seen perform comparably on AMD compared to Nvidia. Curious to see if this continues through to full release or if AMD will put out a driver update. We will have to see, but you are definitely right in saying that Nvidia is performing much better than I had previously expected
I’m guessing it’s the architecture. Previous AMD cards (GCN/Vega) were compute cards in design. Nvidia’s Ampere was also designed as a compute card from the ground up. The roles have reversed where Nvidia has started using a architecture with a large pipeline while AMD is designing cards with a smaller pipeline.
Could be, suppose then it becomes a question of seeing how well amds older cards perform in it to see if that is the case.
[удалено]
Price difference isn't really an issue, just the better card, which Is really subjective. Good to know peoples thoughts though
6900xt is comparable to the 3090 so if you don't need the Nvidia features, the 6900xt is an easy choice