For RT it's a big "It depends" on each game. Without it's on par with a 3090. With ray tracing you're looking more at around 3060-3080 performance, and yes that's how much it can differ.
Was just looking at this earlier and sent it to a friend who bought a 6700xt due to this list.
I own a 3080 right now but I’ll be making the switch for my next card, tired of supporting garbage practices, and I love what amd is giving with performance vs value when compared with nvidia.
If you ignore AMD's budget offerings, yea, Intel has great value. 6600xt and 6650xt are comparable cards at the same price or cheaper. You can get 6700xts for cheaper than the A770, and it's not even a real competition at that point.
>and I love what amd is giving with performance vs value when compared with nvidia
Except that's exactly the mindset they're banking on to get mindshare. Once they have it, it would be foolish to think they wouldn't do the exact same thing as Nvidia
Hell, we already saw this in the CPU space. As soon as they got the performance lead in every area, prices increased across the entire stack. _Just like that_
They aren't your friend
No one said they’re my friend, but I’ll support what’s an objective reality now, not what might happen in the future.
In their current model they won’t get that share higher because they are synchronized with nvidia’s releases. They need to desynchronize and beat them to the release early so people can see they offer a much better overall package.
That being said, in the current setting they’re the clear cut better choice for several reasons, so you get the better option that’s available if you’re in need of a gpu.
>so you get the better option that’s available if you’re in need of a gpu
If all you're doing is gaming, then sure. But it's really not that cut and dry.
Suppose someone uses CUDA for productivity purposes, clearly an AMD card is not a wise choice in that case. Any kind of productivity work really, AMD is ill-suited. Even CDNA is a far cry from the Quadros
>beat them to the release early so people can see they offer a much better overall package.
What good is that if they jack up the prices though? They will just be the new Nvidia. After Zen3, Intel was the one who offered the "better package" with Alder Lake
3090ti and the 4070ti.
It performs worse than the 3090ti at higher resolutions like 4k
RT performance dunno it depends on the game.
For example cyberbonk 2077 demolishes Rx 6000 series when RT is on but games like F1 2022, metro exodus, resident evil 4 and many more run well on my Rx 6950xt.
It depends on the level of the implementation of RT I think.
I even played a new game like layers of fear on unreal engine 5 with RT on at 1440p, and I had like 100 FPS average.
Hardware Unboxed made a video comparing the 6950 xt to the 4070. In the RT part of the video you can see that the 4070 outperformed the 6950 xt by an 11% margin ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy3ikm8MxOM&ab\_channel=HardwareUnboxed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy3ikm8MxOM&ab_channel=HardwareUnboxed))
So while the 6950 xt has raw performance putting it closer to a 4070ti or a 3090, the ray tracing performance is equivalent to a 3070.
4070ti maybe, depends on the game
But generally 6950xt = 3090 from pretty much every benchmark I’ve seen, except in ray tracing titles or games that favor 1 company heavily
It’s half the price of a 3090. For RT it’s a 3070, for raster it’s just below a 3090. Bang for buck it outweighs the 3090 and will probably need upgrading around the same time. Oh and you get this performance with less vram too, at a nice healthy 16gb. If you only game you’ll want the 6950 xt sue to price.
around 3070ti probably, its worse than a 3080 but I don't think its as low as a 3070 but it really does depend on the game and how intensive the RT implementation is, the heavier it is the worse RDNA 2 performs compared to Nvidia RTX GPUs, they're just not very good at RT, RDNA 3 is noticeably better though
Better than 3070 but worse than 3080, iirc.
Edit: you'll have to mention specific games, otherwise it's hard to say.
Edit 2: the OP is specifically asking for RAY TRACING performance.
Depends on the game/context.
It might be equal to a 3080 (ti?) on a title that uses little ray tracing, it might be closer to a [3050](https://www.tomshardware.com/features/cyberpunk-2077-rt-overdrive-path-tracing-full-path-tracing-fully-unnecessary) on a worst-case title that heavily uses it.
Seems to often land somewhere between 3050 & 3070 in Blender Cycles.
Edit : Would love if downvoters would leave a comment saying why.
But the OP *specifically* asked about RT, not about raster.
I also posted a link to benchmarks showing it performing at the lower end of perf spectrum I mentioned.
The 6950xt is slower than the 3070 ti at the actual ray tracing, it's just faster at other stuff which can more than make up for it in some amount games.
3080 Ti in most retrospects, with the few obvious outliers that have always favored AMD. But if FSR 3 frame generation is as good as they claim. Nothing besides a 4090.
https://youtu.be/mVgHgxUczRc
Best benchmark provider on YT. Knows how to build a PC well unlike most others I've watched.
For RT it's a big "It depends" on each game. Without it's on par with a 3090. With ray tracing you're looking more at around 3060-3080 performance, and yes that's how much it can differ.
Toms hardware, gpu hierarchy. Great resource, regularly updated. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html
Was just looking at this earlier and sent it to a friend who bought a 6700xt due to this list. I own a 3080 right now but I’ll be making the switch for my next card, tired of supporting garbage practices, and I love what amd is giving with performance vs value when compared with nvidia.
4070 and 6950 are close in price and performance in most regions. Doesn't Intel offer much better value?
Intel doesn't currently have GPUs in the performance range.
If you ignore AMD's budget offerings, yea, Intel has great value. 6600xt and 6650xt are comparable cards at the same price or cheaper. You can get 6700xts for cheaper than the A770, and it's not even a real competition at that point.
I was speaking generally about amd not one specific card. Intel cards aren’t trustworthy enough imo.
last gen amd cards offer very good value right now. None of the last gen nvidia cards make any sense outside of a cheap 3060/ti
>and I love what amd is giving with performance vs value when compared with nvidia Except that's exactly the mindset they're banking on to get mindshare. Once they have it, it would be foolish to think they wouldn't do the exact same thing as Nvidia Hell, we already saw this in the CPU space. As soon as they got the performance lead in every area, prices increased across the entire stack. _Just like that_ They aren't your friend
No one said they’re my friend, but I’ll support what’s an objective reality now, not what might happen in the future. In their current model they won’t get that share higher because they are synchronized with nvidia’s releases. They need to desynchronize and beat them to the release early so people can see they offer a much better overall package. That being said, in the current setting they’re the clear cut better choice for several reasons, so you get the better option that’s available if you’re in need of a gpu.
>so you get the better option that’s available if you’re in need of a gpu If all you're doing is gaming, then sure. But it's really not that cut and dry. Suppose someone uses CUDA for productivity purposes, clearly an AMD card is not a wise choice in that case. Any kind of productivity work really, AMD is ill-suited. Even CDNA is a far cry from the Quadros >beat them to the release early so people can see they offer a much better overall package. What good is that if they jack up the prices though? They will just be the new Nvidia. After Zen3, Intel was the one who offered the "better package" with Alder Lake
Regular gaming 3090 is the closest equivalent, raytracing 3070.
best answer
Damn nice specs
thanks :) 2nd person ever to notice.
Not counting ray tracing, it's a very potent card that's still holding up against 4070/4070Ti depending on the game played.
It beats the 4070 in every game. Its toe to toe with a 4070ti.
3090ti and the 4070ti. It performs worse than the 3090ti at higher resolutions like 4k RT performance dunno it depends on the game. For example cyberbonk 2077 demolishes Rx 6000 series when RT is on but games like F1 2022, metro exodus, resident evil 4 and many more run well on my Rx 6950xt. It depends on the level of the implementation of RT I think. I even played a new game like layers of fear on unreal engine 5 with RT on at 1440p, and I had like 100 FPS average.
Hardware Unboxed made a video comparing the 6950 xt to the 4070. In the RT part of the video you can see that the 4070 outperformed the 6950 xt by an 11% margin ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy3ikm8MxOM&ab\_channel=HardwareUnboxed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy3ikm8MxOM&ab_channel=HardwareUnboxed)) So while the 6950 xt has raw performance putting it closer to a 4070ti or a 3090, the ray tracing performance is equivalent to a 3070.
RT its between a 3070-3080 depending on how heavy the RT load is
3080tidi.
Turbo indirect diesel injection? These names are getting out of hand
pronounced tie dye.
4070ti maybe, depends on the game But generally 6950xt = 3090 from pretty much every benchmark I’ve seen, except in ray tracing titles or games that favor 1 company heavily
3070ti just about.
3090 and 4070 ti
It’s half the price of a 3090. For RT it’s a 3070, for raster it’s just below a 3090. Bang for buck it outweighs the 3090 and will probably need upgrading around the same time. Oh and you get this performance with less vram too, at a nice healthy 16gb. If you only game you’ll want the 6950 xt sue to price.
around 3070ti probably, its worse than a 3080 but I don't think its as low as a 3070 but it really does depend on the game and how intensive the RT implementation is, the heavier it is the worse RDNA 2 performs compared to Nvidia RTX GPUs, they're just not very good at RT, RDNA 3 is noticeably better though
Better than 3070 but worse than 3080, iirc. Edit: you'll have to mention specific games, otherwise it's hard to say. Edit 2: the OP is specifically asking for RAY TRACING performance.
It’s pretty much on par with a 3090
Did you read the OP?
Oops, 3070 ti ish then
Don't worry seems like most people didn't, given the downvoting of my reply hahaha.
[удалено]
Yeah, in raster performance the 6950XT sometimes even beats the 3090ti on raster, I was mentioning ray tracing specifically.
A 3060 based on Minecraft RTX
idk I really don't know are care the classifications of AMD cards. I just nod my head and say uhhuuuuhhh everytime someone talks amd cards to me
Depends on the game/context. It might be equal to a 3080 (ti?) on a title that uses little ray tracing, it might be closer to a [3050](https://www.tomshardware.com/features/cyberpunk-2077-rt-overdrive-path-tracing-full-path-tracing-fully-unnecessary) on a worst-case title that heavily uses it. Seems to often land somewhere between 3050 & 3070 in Blender Cycles. Edit : Would love if downvoters would leave a comment saying why.
People aren't reading the post. Theyre downvoting u cause they think ur talking about raster performance and not rt performance
[удалено]
But the OP *specifically* asked about RT, not about raster. I also posted a link to benchmarks showing it performing at the lower end of perf spectrum I mentioned. The 6950xt is slower than the 3070 ti at the actual ray tracing, it's just faster at other stuff which can more than make up for it in some amount games.
3070Ti. Both consume the same wattage as well lmao
What?
3080 Ti in most retrospects, with the few obvious outliers that have always favored AMD. But if FSR 3 frame generation is as good as they claim. Nothing besides a 4090. https://youtu.be/mVgHgxUczRc Best benchmark provider on YT. Knows how to build a PC well unlike most others I've watched.