you should never upgrade until you absolutely have to. as in a game you want to play won't run on your current one, or if playing on lower settings becomes intolerable to you
I recently upgraded my computer and it has been very "fun".
Currently because new MB is apparently little bit thicker than the previous one my cooler tower is too big (half a inch too big) like so I cannot close the side properly lmao.
There are a couple high graphic games that are decent out there, but Nvidia's low ram amounts give their cards a shorter lifespan so by the time there are enough games to be worth one of their higher end cards the damn things can't play them anyway.
i actually think the 8gb thing is a bit of a nothingburger.
The only games that really had the problem were
The last of us pt 1 which is due to moronic optimization on the dev's end
and RE4make where the texture resolution scaling is moronic and it only causes the 8gb overspill when the textures are absolutely maxxed out. The 1gb option is marked as 'high' then it continues up to like 8gb which imo is unnecessary and barely makes any difference to the visual quality of the textures.
If dev's idea of increasing graphics fidelity is just throwing as many uncompressed textures on to the screen then yeah it would make sense but surely the processing side of a graphics processor should be advancing. Not just using the GPU as VRAM storage for your game's moronic huge uncompressed textures that nuke framerates.
>i actually think the 8gb thing is a bit of a nothingburger.
Its not though depending on your expectations. Nvidia markets to people as being so much better but they start to have an issue keeping up so they really aren't the long term investment their prices often hint at.
I use to switch between the brands based on deals of the time and how long I thought I would keep the card, my ex always got Nvidia. Her cards never aged as well and the 970 vs my AMD equivalent really showed it, hell that AMD card had 8gb back then and today it still can mange 1080@60 with reasonable settings in a lot of games while that 970 was struggling years ago.. That is the most extreme example of this but it happened every time. Last long lasting Nvidia card I personally got to game on friend or own computer was a 9800. 1080s were decent for life and the upper in 1660s for dollar to performance.
If you are going team green though you have to be careful with it. Its not just the shortage of ram but the nailing software based features to new hardware so even though your card could, it won't. Earliest I can think of this is PhysX. AMD can be dicks too and they certainly made some overpriced shit in a couple gens so don't take this a fan boy thing at all, I'll shit on them too.
tl;dr the ram thing absolutely has been an issue in the past in both top end and definitely in middle cards if you go the middle route upgrade more often for the new tech as the top end is rarely worth it as it doesn't live any longer, 1080 exception.
The lack of VRAM plays out in ways that don't necessarily impact FPS, but are still noticeable to the player. I played Atomic Heart with a 3080Ti (12gb) and was amazed by the visuals, switched to a regular 3080 (10gb) and immediately was noticing texture pop-in everywhere, despite Atomic Heart being recognized as a well optimized title. The engine handles it in a way that doesn't affect FPS, but 'does' affect the user experience in a way that's difficult to directly measure.
Unless you absolutely need the extra VRAM for AIshit, I'd just wait at least 2 GPU generations before upgrading.
I have a 3060 Ti and I'm gonna upgrade to a 5090.
>from rtx 3000 to rtx 3000
dont.
the next gen is better, and i'd rather you upgrade to that.
the only problem right now are the ridiculous prices (again) - everything else is better, thermals, power consumption, performance, etc.
No. Listen to the waitgods for once and hold until the 50xx. Not only is upgrading in the same gen a scam, but the 40xx series is trash if you aren't going for a 4090.
good luck getting a 3090 cheaper than a 4080
I got a 3090 for $600, it's not that hard.
Not OP, but following. I bought a prebuilt with a 3060 almost 2 years ago and it would be the first thing I upgrade if/when the time is right
you should never upgrade until you absolutely have to. as in a game you want to play won't run on your current one, or if playing on lower settings becomes intolerable to you
based and nobody else can answer this question for you
Get a 6800 XT and install Linux
It's stronger and costs $550 instead of $1400
You have to be a total fricking cuck to pay Nvidia nearly 3x for the same performance and worse Linux drivers.
>buying a dedicated GPU in the year 20, 20 and three
just get a good mini-pc
This. I wish I would have spent the extra money for a 6800 XT instead of a 6700 XT, but it still works great on Linux.
cave in and buy a 4090, wait for battlemage, or pray nvidia sets reasonable prices for 5xxx series
I have a 4070 on the way, did I frick up Ganker?
depends on how long 12gb stays relevant
Nah, it's a good card, just too pricey for what you get. Depending on your expectations, it should last you a good while.
what should I have gotten for the same price
money should I spend to get more stuff. Please advise on my rhetorical question. Money for more stuff yes.
You don't really need upgrade.
>ori 2
base
I switched from 3060 TI to 4070. Pretty nice boost, especially to games that support Nvidia meme tech like frame generation. Cyberpunk, returnal etc
I just upgraded from
>intel hd 630
to a 4070
feels good
I recently upgraded my computer and it has been very "fun".
Currently because new MB is apparently little bit thicker than the previous one my cooler tower is too big (half a inch too big) like so I cannot close the side properly lmao.
>Buying a mobo with a 5/8'' thick PCB
Based.
For what?
There are a couple high graphic games that are decent out there, but Nvidia's low ram amounts give their cards a shorter lifespan so by the time there are enough games to be worth one of their higher end cards the damn things can't play them anyway.
i actually think the 8gb thing is a bit of a nothingburger.
The only games that really had the problem were
The last of us pt 1 which is due to moronic optimization on the dev's end
and RE4make where the texture resolution scaling is moronic and it only causes the 8gb overspill when the textures are absolutely maxxed out. The 1gb option is marked as 'high' then it continues up to like 8gb which imo is unnecessary and barely makes any difference to the visual quality of the textures.
If dev's idea of increasing graphics fidelity is just throwing as many uncompressed textures on to the screen then yeah it would make sense but surely the processing side of a graphics processor should be advancing. Not just using the GPU as VRAM storage for your game's moronic huge uncompressed textures that nuke framerates.
>i actually think the 8gb thing is a bit of a nothingburger.
Its not though depending on your expectations. Nvidia markets to people as being so much better but they start to have an issue keeping up so they really aren't the long term investment their prices often hint at.
I use to switch between the brands based on deals of the time and how long I thought I would keep the card, my ex always got Nvidia. Her cards never aged as well and the 970 vs my AMD equivalent really showed it, hell that AMD card had 8gb back then and today it still can mange 1080@60 with reasonable settings in a lot of games while that 970 was struggling years ago.. That is the most extreme example of this but it happened every time. Last long lasting Nvidia card I personally got to game on friend or own computer was a 9800. 1080s were decent for life and the upper in 1660s for dollar to performance.
If you are going team green though you have to be careful with it. Its not just the shortage of ram but the nailing software based features to new hardware so even though your card could, it won't. Earliest I can think of this is PhysX. AMD can be dicks too and they certainly made some overpriced shit in a couple gens so don't take this a fan boy thing at all, I'll shit on them too.
tl;dr the ram thing absolutely has been an issue in the past in both top end and definitely in middle cards if you go the middle route upgrade more often for the new tech as the top end is rarely worth it as it doesn't live any longer, 1080 exception.
The lack of VRAM plays out in ways that don't necessarily impact FPS, but are still noticeable to the player. I played Atomic Heart with a 3080Ti (12gb) and was amazed by the visuals, switched to a regular 3080 (10gb) and immediately was noticing texture pop-in everywhere, despite Atomic Heart being recognized as a well optimized title. The engine handles it in a way that doesn't affect FPS, but 'does' affect the user experience in a way that's difficult to directly measure.
Unless you absolutely need the extra VRAM for AIshit, I'd just wait at least 2 GPU generations before upgrading.
I have a 3060 Ti and I'm gonna upgrade to a 5090.
what if i have a 1050ti
>buying nvidias trash
dios mio
But it's the only AI card brand
Not any more.
https://rocm.docs.amd.com/en/latest/release/windows_support.html
So can you buy decent graphics cards that don't cost an arm and a leg again yet
>from rtx 3000 to rtx 3000
dont.
the next gen is better, and i'd rather you upgrade to that.
the only problem right now are the ridiculous prices (again) - everything else is better, thermals, power consumption, performance, etc.
t. 4080 and 3080 owner
No. Listen to the waitgods for once and hold until the 50xx. Not only is upgrading in the same gen a scam, but the 40xx series is trash if you aren't going for a 4090.
Yes. You could be locked out of not having enough VRAM for a long time