amd or nvidia for BO6?

[SilentGameTestR]

Hello,

So this was one of the games i tested, but i no longer have any graphics cards apart from a 710, but when i tested the 970/1070ti against the rx 480 be it 1080p or higher and mix settings, the radeon performed worse. I just couldnt get the game to match what the 970 was offering.

So im looking for my next trial cards plus a keeper, however im curious which team to go with going by my own experiences as im not sure if it was just the versions i had or BO6 is one of those games that favour red or green more.

Cheers

 

[SilentGameTestR]

What kind of age of cards are you looking at?

I really wouldn't have a clue with older cards because it is hard to predict how old architectures and old drivers will respond to newer games.

Performance reviews like this can give you an idea with new ones:

Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Performance Benchmark Review - AMD FTW

Call of Duty Black Ops 6 comes with a highly entertaining single-player campaign that feels like a James Bond movie. Graphics are good, too, with very high production value. In our performance review, we'll look at the game's graphics quality, VRAM consumption, and how it runs across a range of...

www.techpowerup.com

well no older than what i had really as they supported the latest drivers, but equally ones that are guaranteed to support whenever the next driver comes out.

So the 980 i mentioned in a previous thread, but for testing purposes only which would be the oldest nvidia or rx 580 from amd. for keeps then anything from an rtx 2060 or ideally anything with over 8gb vram as i said aswell it would be something to last awhile. Or whatever amd is offering thats a near direct competition. So nothing specific.

I dont recon it was the drivers as they are the latest and i know the 480 is able to use all its vram and use it better than the 970, but i ended having to use the pre-select recommended performance settings for the rx to make it playable. This is gaming in multiplayer though, so i dont know if theres much difference between that & campaign other than bandwidth use. It just seemed the game was favouring the green team.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

I don't think AMD are actively optimising their drivers for Polaris cards anymore, that likely stopped years ago, but they might fix game breaking bugs or patch security holes.

The game developers are unlikely to do much work on these cards either, probably just make sure they load the game and can play it.


Based on TPU's testing, the RX 6600 does pretty well and even beats the 3060 12GB, so that's the cheapest new card I'd consider for longer-term gaming. They're faster than a 2060, but not by a lot and are roughly comparable to a 5700 non-XT or a GTX 1080. I wouldn't assume that the RX 6600 will perform poorly based on the RX 480 because it is much newer, will have had meaningful driver support for longer and is a different architecture.

The next step up I'd look at (again, new) would be a 7700 XT for ~£300 (they were around that during the deals awhile back) which performs very well in TPU's BO6 tests for the money, even beating the 4070 (does lose to the Super).

Ok thank you, i will look in to those cards.

Im going to get myself a 570 or 580 for the tests and see if it was just the version of 480 i had or i was just unlucky at that moment as it was the only amd card i owned, so only had to replace nvidia drivers one time.

In theory playing in on series S the game should work well with amd desktop cards despite different ports(if they even are). Im yet to determine if the issue was all gpu or the fact i was using 1st & 2nd gen ryzen processors as well.

what other specs is your pc.

So the 2 systems that were my test bench systems consisted of:

ryzen 1600 & ryzen 2600
a320 for both and same models
16gb 3000mhz vengeance & 16gb 3600mhz vipers( both limited to what the board would accept though).
128gb & 256gb m.2 boot drives
2 x 512gb 2.5 ssds for the games
700w 80 bronze psu
windows 10

latest possible bios/drivers.

These will be replaced with a 9th-12th gen intel system once ive decided, but i am completing my 5900x build which all i need now is a gpu which as my personal will probably be what id stick with as my only system once ive finished with the intel.

So for that the system will be:

5900x
a520m gigabyte
16gb 3600mhz viper
mag 650w gold
windows 10 or maybe 11

plus whatever gpu i end up going with.

I play BO6 on xbox mostly, but i want the computer to be able to play it still and at 1440p high/max settings. With how well it plays on series S, i was expecting the rx 480 as old as it is to do a bit of a better job than i got.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

The RX 570/580 are basically the same architecture as the RX 470/480 (it was a minor refresh), so if the problem is the driver support and/or outdated architecture on your Polaris card then it likely won't work any different.

The architecture was not changed until the introduction of RDNA, which was released with the RX 5000 cards.

In regards to the Series S, again this is not the same architecture as the Polaris-based RX 480, so it being AMD too isn't really relevant in this case.

So far as I know, the Series S uses RDNA 2 (like the RX 6000 cards), which is probably around a 5500/6500 XT, though with games being optimised specifically for the console then the actual performance is likely higher than the raw specs suggest.

ah yeah of course. my first rx card was a 570 ages ago. forgot they were just rebrands with minor differences. So i will need a rx 5000 series gpu to put that theory to the test then. Would the rx 5500 be a good shout or would i need to aim higher for the tests?

Oh yeah i figured the console versions would be different in some ways for the nature of their purpose, just figured the tech as old as the 400 series would surpass still with the fact gaming pcs are meant to be better.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

have you looked into 5700xt gpu seem to be cheap but still up there with the benchmarks.

no i havent. I am currently looking at a RX 6650xt fighter which appeal for price being up to 250, but like my post about a 4060ti, i am questioning its 128bit bus even though that along with the rx 6600 and 7600 are highly rated or at least was the case within the last year.

I am looking at the rx 5000 series on the used market, but only the 5500 or if theres anything in between 5000-5500.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

I wouldn't say any of those cards were highly rated apart from the 6600, which is considered the best value entry-level card for 1080p.

The 128-bit bus isn't something I'd worry about if you're paying around £200-£230, since these are low-end 8GB cards and they won't really suffer from it. The 4060 Ti 16GB is usually more like £400 and a buyer will be tempted (by the VRAM) to use one for 1440p or 4K, so the 128-bit bus is not funny.

well in fairness the posts on reddit when i was looking were 10-12 months old, so probably not as highly rated now ha.

I dont know if you had made any more posts in that topic as this is the first time in a few days ive been on, but i think i might ignore the 4060ti. 16gb aside, if it does no better than the cheaper ones @ 1080p, but more importantly 1440p then it seems pointless. I had seen some for under 400 which is why i was thinking it. its the high settings 1440 im thinking of which will only effect the gaming side of things.

Im going to assume for a game like BO6 that has a vram monitor in the setting that it doesnt matter too much what 8gb gpu you have(supported ones obviously), the game isnt going to look or be particularly different if you have to keep it within/under its threshold limit still?

 

[SilentGameTestR]

It is hard to say because it depends on the game, for a few reasons:
- The VRAM usage for different quality settings and resolutions varies.
- The impact of exceeding VRAM usage often depends on the engine (some handle it better and less visibly than others).
- The visual quality impact of changing settings (especially textures, for example) is different.

In TPU's performance review, they have numbers for the VRAM usage at each resolution and screenshots to show you the quality differences.

When HUB do this, they often look at the actual gameplay too, so you can see if textures are disappearing, flickering or whatever, due to lack of VRAM.

The 4060 Ti 16GB is an awkward card and I suspect it might end up in a similar situation to the RX 480/580 4GB versus 8GB thing, i.e.:
- The 8GB version has more usability/utility, BUT
- Modern demanding games that really need 8GB to run, are starting to perform too slowly on the RX 480/580 anyway.


I guess, but they've never really been popular and even the 6600 was panned on release because it was way too expensive. The 7600 should have had 12GB of memory and the 4060 Ti was received poorly due to the lacklustre performance and not matching up great against the card (3060 Ti) it replaced. Since they released, the 6600 has dropped A LOT in price, so they're a decent pick now, but the 7600 (or 7600 XT) looks dated against the 4060, due to the high power consumption.

I'd say the 6750 XT or 6800 are really the best RDNA2 cards you can still buy, they're a fair price for the performance, the VRAM capacity is sufficient and they have plenty of grunt for 1080p and 1440p.

I wouldn't buy a 6600 or 7600 for 1440p or for longer-term gaming, they're just too slow.

Ah ok then i did think that might be the case and so in that sense the only real way to test that theory is to buy a bundle of cards to test then. I was a little surprised the 1070ti struggled a little with trying to get better settings id have liked because it looks like BO6 monitor has a cap not much high than 8gb.

Ah fair enough then, i suppose there was all that lark about demand/scalpers etc before which bumped up prices, but on a gpu basis they didnt seem to do too badly from what i did look up at the time. Defiantly seemed like miss opportunities as you say about the 7600 shouldve had 12gb.

Speaking of the 3060ti, i was looking at those as while i dont know what good prices are, they come up at the lower end of the budget im setting and obviously been rated highly over the 4000 series for awhile, however i am a little dubious if they are too costly for how old they are. id like to think the 3060 will run BO6 really well.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

I don't really follow used prices so couldn't comment there, but for new the 3060 is fine at ~£250. The only snag is that the 4060 has also come down and they're literally competing in the same space. Daniel Owen did a long video comparing the two and his conclusion was that despite the 12GB of VRAM, he'd probably take the 8GB 4060 instead over the 3060. I understand his reasoning there and I'm coming around to it too.

The 3060 Ti, it is a decent card, roughly comparable to the 6700 XT, but to simplify things in my own mind I have a cut off (with new cards) where I just say "8GB = nope", usually because someone is looking at 1440p and I just don't think 8GB makes sense anymore for anything except a low cost entry level gaming card for 1080p.

The price i saw a 3060ti was new, i havent looked at used, but the 2060 is only now at what id consider a decent used price, so the 3000 series will questionable. I dont have to buy new as such, i just dont find some used prices as good value in comparison.

I will have to look for that comparison video. but it is interesting the 3000 series apparently is meant to be superior to the 4000 or least below a 4080, but someone would choose the 4000 version still. So many factors and mix reviews.

the 1070ti i had which i kept to stock settings could do a regular 70+ fps with the odd dips to 50s in BO6 with as high of settings and rendering i could get to fit in with the vram limit and that was at 1440p. Despite the dips the game was smooth and had no issues. That to me is very good though i dont know what a good fps is for 1440p high settings? the extra vram above 8gb would be mainly to increase a few quality settings for that game and Cyberpunk 2077 otherwise im not too particularly fussed on vram as long as its not below 8.

 

[SilentGameTestR]

I'd say that (this is from a POV of performance, not comparing used prices to new):

For the same price: a 3060 12GB is a better card for creators, but the 4060 8GB is a better card for gamers. I can't remember his reasoning, but it does have higher performance and lower power consumption. You can skip to the final thoughts with the timestamps:

The 4060 used to be more expensive, like £300+ and the 3060 12GB available near £250, so it was a different choice then, though I've seen the 3060 12GB come down toward £200 in the last few days.

The 3060 Ti and 4060 Ti are pretty close in performance, but it is consistently faster in a PCI-E 4.0 board and more energy efficient. Nvidia cut the lanes to 8 (which doesn't help in PCI-E 3.0 boards) and cut down the bus, which means that it loses performance against the 3060 Ti as the resolution goes up.

The 4070 I'd consider just better than the 3070. It has significantly more performance, higher VRAM and modest power consumption. The same goes for the 4070 Super, which in the absence of deals for the 4070 is looking the better buy now that you can get one around £500.


It is a personal thing ofc, but I'd want a new card intended for 1440p to be averaging 100+ FPS in TPU's test suite with the highest settings. If you look at the graph above the results, they show that some games are dipping considerably below the average, so my thinking is that an average of 100 fps is giving you some headroom to lower the settings a little and maintain above 60 fps for the next 3-5 years.

If the card is already below an average of 100 fps, I think that suggests it is going to age quickly at that resolution.

For reference, the 7700 XT hit 103.5 FPS and the 6800 (in the same review, here) 100.7 FPS and I consider those cards more or less the entry point for 1440p now. The 4060 hit 69.6 FPS which suggests right now it can handle 1440p in the majority of games just fine, but in the longer-term I think it will fall below decent playability in newer games (especially AAA) sooner rather than later. For a casual gamer playing older games then sure, it would do the job.

Interesting that and as for the pcie interface you speak of, the motherboard is a Gigabyte A520M, i believe the K V2(not at home to check) which i dont plan on changing unless it fails being a used motherboard when i got it, so i guess something to work with that if theres much difference between that and the better non A boards?

If i had to put my usage in to percentage then i guess around 50% will be gaming, likely less. I want a 2 monitor setup, so i will keep my 4k 60hz samsung for everything, but get a 1440p possibly 170-200hz maybe even just a 144hz for the gaming side. 100fps would be a nice target for the more demanding games.

Trouble i sometimes find is a lot of the higher end cards are triple fans or the size of a triple fan. my case supports long cards, but it is also a small case, so looking at 2 fan variants only.