I only upgrade once every decade or so, so don't have much to compare to, but I'm quite happy with my AMD card, and it was hundreds of dollars cheaper than the Nvidia comparable card (which I never would have gotten due to the price.)
That said, considering you mentioned rendering, I think Nvidia is still the big standout there, as I recall. AMD is good for getting the same gaming experience for much cheaper, but Nvidia still has some bells and whistles for the professionals.
I've no strong feelings about AMD Vs nvidia, other than what you have roughly lined out.
I've heard rumblings from other more hardcore hardware benchmark nerds that AMD don't seem to have any real desire to push for more market share in the discrete desktop GPU market anymore, and are instead focussing more on their integrated GPUs in other third party devices. Which if they do slowly abandon the desktop GPU market you can expect support for them to only get worse as time goes on.
But I will say if you're worried about the hardware lottery, don't get an ASUS manufactured card currently. Their policies have shifted in the last couple years and now their idea of an RMA repair is either to straight up lie to you and charge for the pleasure, or telling you to shove the defective hardware up your ass and get fucked.
AMD got burnt on being competitive in pricing back then (like 10-15 years ago), leaving lots of money on the table.. but back then gaming GPU were not really a hot commodity.
AMD could've gambled during crypto and even now during AI craze to gain market share. they gained SOME, like 5% increase. the problem is that most things are designed with nvidia in mind because they still make up the super majority of the market share, so that is also kinda killing AMD. I am not surprised if AMD market share doesn't grow much more anymore.
The 7900xtx is between a 4080 and 4090 in power, and started out 200 dollars cheaper than a 4080 and trade blows with the 4090 in rasterization. i think a lot of people got the 7900xtx. the lower tier cards, i think people get nvidia over amd because the price difference is just 50ish dollars. people will get nvidia if prices are too similar and the performance is not that much different, even if nvidia is 50 dollars more expensive, maybe even 100 dollars more expensive.
A lot of people thought AMD would be priced super competitive because of "chiplets" for GPU. but most people will still buy nvidia because i think most people think a little ahead like "what if i want to do AI?" or "what if i wanna render?" so they will go with nvidia. or they see all their friends have nvidia.
Ive been making blender porn for half a year. Nvidia for rendering. 100%. Most rendering software uses cuda, which is what nvidia is. Amd uses hip/rocm, some software also use it but its usually a lot slower. A 7900xtx and 4090 for example. 7900xtx trades blows with the 4090 in games when it comes to rasterization. But 7900xtx is like 1,000usd cheaper. In ray tracing, 4090 pulls ahead. When rendering in blender (you can look it up, i think pudget site?), 4090 is like 3x faster than a 7900xtx. So if you render a 1minute animation that is 30fps/1080p (1800 total frames) and its 3minutes a frame with the 7900xtx you will save yourself tens of hours on rendering time.
Also.. more vram the better. AMD gives more for cheaper price but at expense of slower rendering. 16gb is barely enough. 24gb woypd be ideal for larger scenes or scenes with more than 3 high quality models.
I got a 4080 last year. Its a mistake because of vram capacity and shitty price.. but my gtx 1080 was not cutting it last year and 4090s kept selling out. Ill probably get a 2 computers, 4090 (to render) and a 5090 (to play games or work on next animation while 4090 renders), next year. Will sell my 4080 probably. But still trying to make enough money for that investment.
AMD used to be my go to choice. They had the cheaper but no less powerful options for everything. I remember when they bought ati.
NVidia has made AI research basically require one of their cards. It's really annoying, but also why they are so rich. When every console uses their cards, and AI needs them as well, they've won.
I've had a HD7970 that I loved. Currently have an RX 6600. Also a GTX 1660 Super in there too that I still have on a second PC, I never really worked it hard as a "main" gaming GPU. I generally don't have brand loyalty, I've had from an ATI Rage to a couple GeForce and a couple Radeon mixed in there over the years leading up to the 7970. I do discount Nvidia a bit, because they honestly seem like a total shit company to consumers even more so than the others. I'm not going to document or evidence this opinion, so don't ask, it's based on multiples of little news tidbits, etc.
At the moment I'm waiting to see what the 8000 series Radeon and maybe even the new Intel stuff before I look to upgrade. Likely a year from now, and into something like 8600/8700 XT. I much prefer the AMD software experience. It's simple enough to set up, overclock if I want, no logging in, and I much prefer how the GPU upscaling works where it's essentially any resolution I want with a 4K output. There isn't like an "experience" and a control panel app. I never have to screw with anything.
My first card was a rx 480. It was cheap as shit and played anything I wanted reasonably well enough for my liking. I got a 3060 a few years later and I really don’t remember much difference, it was perfectly adequate for what I wanted at the time.
I have a 4070 now and I might upgrade again later but I can’t really justify it, I barely notice the improved frames or textures at a certain point, and I think a lot of the “high end” graphical features we’re being sold on look like shit.
Clarity, color, and smooth frames are all I really give a shit about. and with how poorly games are being optimized these days it’s not something I can always get just by having better hardware.
I can't speak to rendering, just gaming performance. I have been using AMD for at least a few generations now, from the 290 to 5700xt, to 7900xt currently. Mostly its a cost factor for me, saving a bit of money.
I don't worry about playing the [current year] games too much, so never have an issue (such as low frame rate) where I think maybe I should've gotten the current nVidia instead. When I do play some game that was first sold within the past 12 months, no issues usually (did have the terrain bug in RDR2 where snow was rendered wrong, but that was fixed by a driver update later on).
As far as I am concerned, as someone who dos not require the absolute maximum purchasable performance available at time of purchase, AMD is a worthwhile option.
For AI get nVidia.
For games on Windows get the cheapest one that's fast enough.
For linux get AMD.
I was going to ask the Linux question. I see its still true.
Doesn't AMD still have issues with multi monitor setups?
i dont. different res different hz, no prob.
I only upgrade once every decade or so, so don't have much to compare to, but I'm quite happy with my AMD card, and it was hundreds of dollars cheaper than the Nvidia comparable card (which I never would have gotten due to the price.)
That said, considering you mentioned rendering, I think Nvidia is still the big standout there, as I recall. AMD is good for getting the same gaming experience for much cheaper, but Nvidia still has some bells and whistles for the professionals.
I've no strong feelings about AMD Vs nvidia, other than what you have roughly lined out.
I've heard rumblings from other more hardcore hardware benchmark nerds that AMD don't seem to have any real desire to push for more market share in the discrete desktop GPU market anymore, and are instead focussing more on their integrated GPUs in other third party devices. Which if they do slowly abandon the desktop GPU market you can expect support for them to only get worse as time goes on.
But I will say if you're worried about the hardware lottery, don't get an ASUS manufactured card currently. Their policies have shifted in the last couple years and now their idea of an RMA repair is either to straight up lie to you and charge for the pleasure, or telling you to shove the defective hardware up your ass and get fucked.
AMD got burnt on being competitive in pricing back then (like 10-15 years ago), leaving lots of money on the table.. but back then gaming GPU were not really a hot commodity.
AMD could've gambled during crypto and even now during AI craze to gain market share. they gained SOME, like 5% increase. the problem is that most things are designed with nvidia in mind because they still make up the super majority of the market share, so that is also kinda killing AMD. I am not surprised if AMD market share doesn't grow much more anymore.
The 7900xtx is between a 4080 and 4090 in power, and started out 200 dollars cheaper than a 4080 and trade blows with the 4090 in rasterization. i think a lot of people got the 7900xtx. the lower tier cards, i think people get nvidia over amd because the price difference is just 50ish dollars. people will get nvidia if prices are too similar and the performance is not that much different, even if nvidia is 50 dollars more expensive, maybe even 100 dollars more expensive.
A lot of people thought AMD would be priced super competitive because of "chiplets" for GPU. but most people will still buy nvidia because i think most people think a little ahead like "what if i want to do AI?" or "what if i wanna render?" so they will go with nvidia. or they see all their friends have nvidia.
Ive been making blender porn for half a year. Nvidia for rendering. 100%. Most rendering software uses cuda, which is what nvidia is. Amd uses hip/rocm, some software also use it but its usually a lot slower. A 7900xtx and 4090 for example. 7900xtx trades blows with the 4090 in games when it comes to rasterization. But 7900xtx is like 1,000usd cheaper. In ray tracing, 4090 pulls ahead. When rendering in blender (you can look it up, i think pudget site?), 4090 is like 3x faster than a 7900xtx. So if you render a 1minute animation that is 30fps/1080p (1800 total frames) and its 3minutes a frame with the 7900xtx you will save yourself tens of hours on rendering time.
Also.. more vram the better. AMD gives more for cheaper price but at expense of slower rendering. 16gb is barely enough. 24gb woypd be ideal for larger scenes or scenes with more than 3 high quality models.
I got a 4080 last year. Its a mistake because of vram capacity and shitty price.. but my gtx 1080 was not cutting it last year and 4090s kept selling out. Ill probably get a 2 computers, 4090 (to render) and a 5090 (to play games or work on next animation while 4090 renders), next year. Will sell my 4080 probably. But still trying to make enough money for that investment.
Pics or it didn't happen
gonna keep it a secret on who i am, but recent one was a blacked tifa.
AMD used to be my go to choice. They had the cheaper but no less powerful options for everything. I remember when they bought ati.
NVidia has made AI research basically require one of their cards. It's really annoying, but also why they are so rich. When every console uses their cards, and AI needs them as well, they've won.
I want AMD to win, but I see no chance.
I've had a HD7970 that I loved. Currently have an RX 6600. Also a GTX 1660 Super in there too that I still have on a second PC, I never really worked it hard as a "main" gaming GPU. I generally don't have brand loyalty, I've had from an ATI Rage to a couple GeForce and a couple Radeon mixed in there over the years leading up to the 7970. I do discount Nvidia a bit, because they honestly seem like a total shit company to consumers even more so than the others. I'm not going to document or evidence this opinion, so don't ask, it's based on multiples of little news tidbits, etc.
At the moment I'm waiting to see what the 8000 series Radeon and maybe even the new Intel stuff before I look to upgrade. Likely a year from now, and into something like 8600/8700 XT. I much prefer the AMD software experience. It's simple enough to set up, overclock if I want, no logging in, and I much prefer how the GPU upscaling works where it's essentially any resolution I want with a 4K output. There isn't like an "experience" and a control panel app. I never have to screw with anything.
My first card was a rx 480. It was cheap as shit and played anything I wanted reasonably well enough for my liking. I got a 3060 a few years later and I really don’t remember much difference, it was perfectly adequate for what I wanted at the time.
I have a 4070 now and I might upgrade again later but I can’t really justify it, I barely notice the improved frames or textures at a certain point, and I think a lot of the “high end” graphical features we’re being sold on look like shit.
Clarity, color, and smooth frames are all I really give a shit about. and with how poorly games are being optimized these days it’s not something I can always get just by having better hardware.
The XTX sinks the 4080 and its a cheaper card as well
Nvidia fucked up this generation value-wise
While AMD's software isn't exactly "user-friendly" technologies like FSR3 are a massive boon for AMD users
If you want the best bang for the buck, Intel Arc is playing very well in the value segment. For gaming. AMD for the tier above.
The hype applications work best on Nvidia.
Really interested in what they do with their next release. I very well may get one. That market badly needs more competition.
I can't speak to rendering, just gaming performance. I have been using AMD for at least a few generations now, from the 290 to 5700xt, to 7900xt currently. Mostly its a cost factor for me, saving a bit of money.
I don't worry about playing the [current year] games too much, so never have an issue (such as low frame rate) where I think maybe I should've gotten the current nVidia instead. When I do play some game that was first sold within the past 12 months, no issues usually (did have the terrain bug in RDR2 where snow was rendered wrong, but that was fixed by a driver update later on).
As far as I am concerned, as someone who dos not require the absolute maximum purchasable performance available at time of purchase, AMD is a worthwhile option.
Nvidia is the only game in town if you're doing AI. If you're not AMD is going to be cheaper than a comparable Nvidia card.
What about Intel cards?