Review average of 17 websites shows 6800 XT to be 7.4% Slower than GeForce RTX 3080

Anyone seen any tests using quiet mode or undervoting the 6800 XT? Really curious how much power draw can be reduced with little FPS loss. I have a feeling those of us that want quiet we could overpay for a 6800 XT and tweak it just a hair and get great results. However would like to see it tested out.

 

I'm sure the 6900XT will be impressive but it can't magically perform more than what the architecture and bandwidth allow.

The very BEST the 6900XT can perform is 11% better than the 6800XT. Going by the 7.4% collaborative advantage the 3080 has, it likely means the 6900XT will be the fastest card at 1080p and 1440p and match or be slightly faster than the 3080 on average at 4K.

 

Wonder how performance will be affected in the future as drivers has "matured", if amd continue "fine vine" patch. Maybe im wrong, tho thats my impression. I will not be surprised if ray tracing will get better, even considering this is amd's "turing" considering ray tracing and DLSS tech. I hope software updates will improve performance in the future. Tho, nvidia is one gen ahead when it comes to ray tracing and AI related tech.
If i would buy new GPU, i wonder how a 3 party water cooled navi would performe. Will they release for example xtx- ver. cards?
Is there any info out how flagship navi performance?

 

Hmmm -7,5% slower for less 200 Euro in price... it is still a good point for me.

 

No it's just a refresh, or an update... but in none way a gen ahead.
We are just on the 1st step of this kind of RT in game, right now ALL brand of GPU can't handle 4K RT in good condition.
For now there is the hype, and everyone implement it even if it bring nothing realy exeptional to their game.
The next gen will be when GPU will be able to handle it in a good way.
It's a bit like when the 1st 3D card appear on PC compared to regular VGA GPU. it take time but at the end we will have something good (green, red or blue).

 

1440 is more an "Exotic" as in the middle, and as 4k monitor went down drasticaly in price.
it's more, at least from my point:
2 - The Ascended: 3440x1440/144
3 - The Madman: over 4K (6K, 8K etc)

 

In times when consoles try to compete in 120Hz/fps space, PC turns to sub 60fps.

There was time, when this would be just a bad joke. I remember intel once saying that 30fps is good and standard. Or something like that. They took a lot of flak for it.
Not anymore.

I kind of wonder why people who were looking down on AMD's CPUs for having lower achievable fps than intel's are advocating sub 60fps gaming now. Especially since Zen1 was already capable to deliver way higher fps and was not limiting factor in such scenarios.

 

Perfect information for my next build where I used 20 different CPUs all at once.

 

Read this and weep bro... https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-3080-suprim-x/28.html The 3080 when averaged for each resolution: 1080p, 1440p and 2160p is faster then the 6800XT. The proof is right there in TechPowerUp's graph... Tissues?

 

No, it's not. But I also don't see many people buying a 3080 to play at sub 60fps. Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Not even close and resolution is "defining thing".

 

lol the techpowerup. They should be banned from here not gamers nexus for being jensen bitches.

What does guru3d review sais?

 

The difference is a whopping 1.2%.

 

You're obsessed with VRAM. Actual horsepower is way more important

 

So why do you keep going on about it?

 

Because nobody buys a 3080 to game at sub 60fps

 

Both are important and should be balanced. Even Thanos said it.

 

If you have a 3080 and getting sub 60fps you're doing it wrong.

 

4k users have sub 60fps. Im watching @XenthorX streams all the time he have sub 60 with 3090. It is what it is.