• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7900xtx or 4080?

Soldato
Joined
18 Dec 2008
Posts
6,702
Location
Liverpool
I'm thinking about upgrading from a 3080ti and looking for some opinions. I wasn't planning on upgrading until 50 series but given the talk around another gpu shortage due to AI its got me thinking.

I game at 4k on a 42" oled Asus PG42UQ and have a 7950x.

Whichever card I get will be going under water and I'm tied into ekwb matrix 7 so will need to be one with a compatible matrix 7 block from EK.

So what would you get?
 
That was one of the reasons I decided to upgrade my 3080FE. Got my 7900XTX on Tuesday. Performance wise without RT they are pretty similar, but AMD is cheaper and I wanted to get Starfield and that was bundled in free. I play on a 34UW and have a 5950X. Not too fussed on RT or DLSS.
 
If DLSS2/3 and RT'ing is valuable to you then get the 4080, iirc there's an Overwatch 2 promotion currently.

Uses less power therefore less heat can be undervolted further using 3rd party apps.

If not, outwith RT'ing, 7900XTX is cheaper with Starfield Premium bundled, has more vram, is a touch faster, at native, and most likely a smaller footprint in your case.

Uses more power/heat than a 4080 but can be undervolted via AMD's Control Panel.

AMD Control Panel is a highly versatile software package: performance metrics with full over clocking/undervolting built in, Vs NV's poor by comparison 2001 era Control Panel.

Edit, upgraded from 3080 to 79XTX myself, quite the upgrade as I'm sure the 4080 would be too.
 
Last edited:
Very similar raster performance but 4080 has better RT performance and DLSS 2 and 3, which should extend the life of the card with little compromise. So yeah 4080, I guess FE since your water cooling.
 
Very similar raster performance but 4080 has better RT performance and DLSS 2 and 3, which should extend the life of the card with little compromise. So yeah 4080, I guess FE since your water cooling.

This depends on how long the OP plans to keep the card. If it’s a number of years the 16GB might be a factor at 4K.

Though I have a 4080 and a 7900 XT (non X) and if I had to buy one now it would be the 7900 XT. Save three hundred quid and get a GPU that is only marginally slower in raster and still gives 3080 or better RT performance. In games where heavy RT is used, even the 4080 has to use DLSS and compromise on settings.

So in answer to the OP, neither. Save yourself £230 over the XTX and £300 over the 4080. The extra grunt of the 4080 or XTX is not enough to transform your 4K experience over the 7900 XT in the majority of games.
 
Last edited:
DLSS is definitely the better upscaler and has more scope to improve, which might factor in more for 4K. Even now, the 4090 seems to be the only real 4K card so unless you're planning on upgrading next gen again, DLSS might give you the edge.

Probably won't go too wrong with either.
 
Yeah good points, but I still think dlss 2 pushes the 4080 into the lead. There's very little difference between 4k and dlss 2 quality. Also dlss 3 is legit in my opinion as long as the base amount of "real" fps is decent enough to start with. If it had to be the XTX though it would 100% be the Sapphire Nitro.
 
Personally disagree with the 7900XT recommendation for 4k.

At 4k Techspot data shows the XT is 17% faster than the 3080Ti you have, while the XTX is 41% faster.

The XT is only really an upgrade in VRAM.

Either the 4080 or XTX are fairly equal in performance with some trade offs.

Currently the Zotac 4080 is just under £1k at Overclockers while the XTX is now £930 without the starfield bundle. Surprised Gibbo hasn't been fluffing the 4080 price in the forum...

Not much in it price wise.
 
Personally disagree with the 7900XT recommendation for 4k.

At 4k Techspot data shows the XT is 17% faster than the 3080Ti you have, while the XTX is 41% faster.

The XT is only really an upgrade in VRAM.

Either the 4080 or XTX are fairly equal in performance with some trade offs.

Currently the Zotac 4080 is just under £1k at Overclockers while the XTX is now £930 without the starfield bundle. Surprised Gibbo hasn't been fluffing the 4080 price in the forum...

Not much in it price wise.

And the 4080 is about 35% faster than his 3080Ti. My 4080 in my tests is about 10% faster then my 7900 XT in 4K raster (more or less depending on the game). Obvioulsy the 4080 a fair bit faster in RT but both still needs up-scaling to get playable FPS in RT games

DLSS is generally better than FSR 2 but in most games you need to pixel peep to see any real difference. So at 4K a 7900 XT is 15% slower than a 4080 but is about £260 - £300 cheaper. That 15% raster difference difference is not enough to transform a 4080 into a £260 - £300 better GPU IMHO. If we look at average FPS at 4K between a 4080 and a 7900 XT it is the difference between a 96 FPS avg GPU and a 110 FPS avg GPU (HUB) and 100 FPS vs 114 FPS (TPU). If you have a VRR monitor both will give almost identical performance in the majority of games unless you have an FPS counter running.

This is my findings from owning both. It is only when you play an extreme RT game that the 4080 starts to show some worth, but you still need up-scaling and to compromise settings.

So if the OP plays RT games and needs that performance, get a 4080 and enjoy a ~30% uplift in performance over his 3080Ti. Though bear in mind you still need to use DLSS to get playable FPS.

In reality the OP should either not upgrade at all considering the meagre uplift they will get. Or just go all in an get a 4090.
 
And the 4080 is about 35% faster than his 3080Ti. My 4080 in my tests is about 10% faster then my 7900 XT in 4K raster (more or less depending on the game). Obvioulsy the 4080 a fair bit faster in RT but both still needs up-scaling to get playable FPS in RT games

DLSS is generally better than FSR 2 but in most games you need to pixel peep to see any real difference. So at 4K a 7900 XT is 15% slower than a 4080 but is about £260 - £300 cheaper. That 15% raster difference difference is not enough to transform a 4080 into a £260 - £300 better GPU IMHO. If we look at average FPS at 4K between a 4080 and a 7900 XT it is the difference between a 96 FPS avg GPU and a 110 FPS avg GPU (HUB) and 100 FPS vs 114 FPS (TPU). If you have a VRR monitor both will give almost identical performance in the majority of games unless you have an FPS counter running.

This is my findings from owning both. It is only when you play an extreme RT game that the 4080 starts to show some worth, but you still need up-scaling and to compromise settings.

So if the OP plays RT games and needs that performance, get a 4080 and enjoy a ~30% uplift in performance over his 3080Ti. Though bear in mind you still need to use DLSS to get playable FPS.

In reality the OP should either not upgrade at all considering the meagre uplift they will get. Or just go all in an get a 4090.

Thanks for this, considering a 4090 fe can be had for £1500 I could potentially get it, my problem comes from the fact I'd need to add the cost of a matrix 7 compatible block from EK which I just couldn't stretch to right now.
 
A 3080Ti is still a viable 4K card for now. I upgraded from a 3080 to a 4080 because I got a used one for a good price.

Are there games you are playing that are literally unplayable? A 3080 could not handle Witcher 3 with RT at 4K for example. So a 45% performance uplift was decent.
 
A 3080Ti is still a viable 4K card for now. I upgraded from a 3080 to a 4080 because I got a used one for a good price.

Are there games you are playing that are literally unplayable? A 3080 could not handle Witcher 3 with RT at 4K for example. So a 45% performance uplift was decent.

Oh I know it's more than viable at 4k, likewise struggled with Witcher 3 but nothing has been unplayable. Honestly, my plan was to wait for 50 series from NVIDIA or 8000 series from AMD but having seen the video from Jayztwocents and others about a looming AI powered GPU shortage on the horizon and 50 series rumoured to be out in 2025 and its got my wallet twitching.
 
With the prices as they are I would go with the 7900xtx - 7900xtx & 4080 are neck-and-neck in performance for rasterisation; an 18-20% price premium just for DLSS (which is marginally but not noticeably better than FSR in image quality, based on current industry reviews) is not worth it in my opinion.

Should the 4080 come down to £30-40 more expensive than the 7900xtx (which is what I personally consider a suitable premium for DLSS/Framegen) then would wholeheartedly recommend going for the 4080!
 
I'm thinking about upgrading from a 3080ti and looking for some opinions.

If you can afford it get a RTX 4090.

an 18-20% price premium just for DLSS (which is marginally but not noticeably better than FSR in image quality, based on current industry reviews) is not worth it in my opinion.

Agreed, but the 4080 also has DLSS 3 / frame generation.
 
Should the 4080 come down to £30-40 more expensive than the 7900xtx (which is what I personally consider a suitable premium for DLSS/Framegen) then would wholeheartedly recommend going for the 4080!
I kept the XTX over the 4080 because I'm not too bothered about RT but especially because in a growing list of games the XTX goes a bit nuts and is pretty much as fast as a 4090!!
 
And the 4080 is about 35% faster than his 3080Ti. My 4080 in my tests is about 10% faster then my 7900 XT in 4K raster (more or less depending on the game). Obvioulsy the 4080 a fair bit faster in RT but both still needs up-scaling to get playable FPS in RT games

DLSS is generally better than FSR 2 but in most games you need to pixel peep to see any real difference. So at 4K a 7900 XT is 15% slower than a 4080 but is about £260 - £300 cheaper. That 15% raster difference difference is not enough to transform a 4080 into a £260 - £300 better GPU IMHO. If we look at average FPS at 4K between a 4080 and a 7900 XT it is the difference between a 96 FPS avg GPU and a 110 FPS avg GPU (HUB) and 100 FPS vs 114 FPS (TPU). If you have a VRR monitor both will give almost identical performance in the majority of games unless you have an FPS counter running.

This is my findings from owning both. It is only when you play an extreme RT game that the 4080 starts to show some worth, but you still need up-scaling and to compromise settings.

So if the OP plays RT games and needs that performance, get a 4080 and enjoy a ~30% uplift in performance over his 3080Ti. Though bear in mind you still need to use DLSS to get playable FPS.

In reality the OP should either not upgrade at all considering the meagre uplift they will get. Or just go all in an get a 4090.
4090 was the only viable upgrade for me, that's what I went for.
 
Nvidia are easy to sell when upgrade time comes.

People in general seem to view AMD as the less desirable budget option regardless of performance.
 
Back
Top Bottom