Right now i game at 1440P, i may upgrade to a 4K screen in a year, but i'm not going to pay more than £500 for a GPU, for that money Ray Tracing is for the most part out of the question anyway, Nvidia's Ray Tracing is much better but at 1440P / 4K its not really going to be usable on a £500 GPU anyway, so it doesn't enter in to my equation.
I game at 1440p too and hadn't thought much before buying a larger monitor some three or four years back, which then forced me to buy a more powerful GPU (1070ti). Little did I know what was just about to happen with the pricing. But I'm not going to go back down to 1080p. Just maybe get far more cautious about 4K. I love 4K, even the kind emulated on a 32'' 1440p screen by 'super resolution' scaling, but with so many expenses, an uncertain situation in Europe and myself living just on Putin's border (well, not literally, but more like 200–300km) and refugees and people in need all around me, and inflated GPU prices on top of all this, I just can't afford the purchase. I'd be able to justify a good 1440p card for 75 fps (which is all my monitor can do) at all ultra, as a quality-of-life upgrade for me and something an enthusiast hobbyist might perhaps be justified in buying just to experience it, but nothing beyond; definitely not a new monitor.
DLSS and FSR 2, those are Nvidia and AMD equivalents and visually they are near the same, right now DLSS is far more wide spread, its available in many more games but FSR 2 has only just come out and IMO it will catch up, there are use cases for it, if you can't get the FPS you want at the resolution you want you have that option, but the image quality is not as good as native so for me its only a last resort, i would really rather not use it. i would rather tweak some graphics settings.
Thanks. I've heard some good things about DLSS, especially as compared to FSR, and I've seen some screenshots but nothing too big or telling. On small screenshots the IQ loss is obviously going to be more difficult to tell. I was thinking perhaps I could use DLSS just to the point of getting a stable 60 or 75 without tweaking the settings down, just to have a more fluid experience at minimal IQ loss after getting used to the game in native.
Rasterization performance they are equal but AMD are a bit less expensive.
From what I've seen, 6600XT also looks sturdier than 3060 and tends to come with two fans in the price brackets in which the 3060 comes with a single fan, like Fighter vs Pegasus. I wonder which one overclocks better (tests seem to suggest parity) and which one runs cooler and quieter for the same performance and quality, which would be a major decision-making factor for me, especially if regarding 3060/6600XT as simply a safer alternative to buying a used 1080/ti for pure rasterization performance. But of course there's also used 2080 super to be had for just 10% extra (well, 25% extra compared to the cheapest outlet 3060/6600XT).
I much prefer AMD software and software features, by comparison Nvidia's is so bad they should be ashamed of it.
I seem to prefer AMD's software too.
Radeon Image Sharpening (RIS) if you go AMD use this globally, it works really well, it makes games look more crisp, they look much better with it on, Nvidia have an equivalent but its crap, it doesn't look good and with it there is a weird halo around text.
Didn't know about that, thanks. It sounds like something I might like. So I might go AMD after all, despite my recent preference for nVidia (had been an AMD fan before GF generations 9–10). I might appreciate that sort of feature in my work with text as a translator, too.
