• 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.

RTX 4070 12GB, is it Worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
g67575 said:
Regarding a 'minimum playable framerate' I aim for either 60 or 70 FPS. Any thing over 60 I can't tell much difference, and the max refresh of my monitor is 70 hertz anyway.

Anything over 59 FPS feels very smooth to me, the most important thing is performance consistency.
Click to expand...

Think you need to experience at least good quality 144 monitor, I could never go back now

60 just feel like it's stuttering now I got used to 120+

Even in windows it's noticeable in scrolling, minimising windows etc

In single player slow paced games 60 is fine unless you start panning around quickly but can live with that but faster games no , online competitive games I would not want to be on 60

My monitor is 240hz 1440p , I can't notice 144 to 240 with games that can reach that from 60 it's very noticeable
 
Last edited:
Alt0153 said:
get a better monitor, i said the same thing at 60 fps to anyone on higher refresh, cant tell, dont need it blah blah then you see the smoother animations and you realise how wrong you were
Click to expand...
Yeah but with 144Hz+ once you go beyond around 100+ FPS, it's hard to tell the difference so it's a similar scenario to what g67575 is describing.

I do agree though, get a 144Hz or higher monitor, your eyes will thank you but your wallet might not depending on what hardware is needed to maintain the higher FPS.
 
J.D said:
Yeah but with 144Hz+ once you go beyond around 100+ FPS, it's hard to tell the difference so it's a similar scenario to what g67575 is describing.

I do agree though, get a 144Hz or higher monitor, your eyes will thank you but your wallet might not depending on what hardware is needed to maintain the higher FPS.
Click to expand...
yeah im on 165 now and when i cap to 60 i can see how bad it looked comapred to now, part of the reason i cant go console cause 30-60 fps is just ******* to me now
 
uscool said:
Think you need to experience at least good quality 144 monitor, I could never go back now

60 just feel like it's stuttering now I got used to 120+

Even in windows it's noticeable in scrolling, minimising windows etc

In single player slow paced games 60 is fine unless you start panning around quickly but can live with that but faster games no , online competitive games I would not want to be on 60

My monitor is 240hz 1440p , I can't notice 144 to 240 with games that can reach that
Click to expand...
yeah i dont need 144+fps for story games but anything with fast movement is awful on less than 90 to me
 
Alt0153 said:
yeah im on 165 now and when i cap to 60 i can see how bad it looked comapred to now, part of the reason i cant go console cause 30-60 fps is just ******* to me now
Click to expand...
I'm on same refresh rate and likewise, I couldn't go back now. I just cap at 162 for g-sync and hope I can maintain 100FPS+ which isn't hard in the games I've been playing recently.
 
Joxeon said:
Its the 4070ti I'd be more concerned with, brand new £800 card and cant even match a 3080ti at 4k in max and 1% low.
Screenshot-511.png
Click to expand...
That's what you get for not comparing DLSS 3 v DLSS 2 benchmarks-TWIMTBCompared.:p
 
Joxeon said:
Its still relevant and buyers should absolutely consider it when its beating the 4070ti by over 10% in newly released games, having double the vram while also being available for £150 cheaper.
Click to expand...
Where are you buying it from though at that kind of price? Presumably there's no warranty, which is very important when buying graphics cards.
 
uscool said:
60 just feel like it's stuttering now I got used to 120+
Click to expand...
I think I'd only consider doing that when graphics cards can manage ~120 FPS at high resolutions like 4K, whilst also being affordable. We're a long way of that still. I find the animations in games to be smooth enough at ~60 FPS.

Consoles are nowhere near 120 FPS in most games.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
I think I'd only consider doing that when graphics cards can manage that at high resolutions like 4K, whilst also being affordable. We're a long way of that still.
Click to expand...

That's why I have 1440p high refresh monitor I don't need the very best GPU to push it and prefer sitting on desk so don't need large screen, it's the sweet spot
 
Last edited:
I noticed that 'adaptive V-sync' on my monitor worked well with my Vega 64 card, it got rid of any vertical screen tearing issues in the Witcher 3.

I think this is all my current monitor can handle, so that counts in AMD's favour, taking into account my existing AOC monitor.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
Where are you buying it from though at that kind of price? Presumably there's no warranty, which is very important when buying graphics cards.
Click to expand...
Why when the failure rate for GPUs is 1-3%? so at worse a 1 in 33 chance that you would need to file a claim.
 
Joxeon said:
Why when the failure rate for GPUs is 1-3%? so at worse a 1 in 33 chance that you would need to file a claim.
Click to expand...
After 2-3 years of high usage I'd expect higher rates than that. Fans on some models seem to break fairly quickly, people don't always maintain cards well.

You need to buy from a trusted website for used technology, CEX has been fine for me when it comes to returns.

As for 2nd hand RTX 3090s, I doubt they made enough for good availability and price to be attractive now.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
After 2-3 years of high usage I'd expect higher rates than that. Fans on some models seem to break fairly quickly, people don't always maintain cards well.

You need to buy from a trusted website for used technology, CEX has been fine for me when it comes to returns.

As for 2nd hand RTX 3090s, I doubt they made enough for good availability and price to be attractive now.
Click to expand...
stuff like fans can easily be replaced or even just cable tying a PC can to the card would work.

Even with say a 10% failure rate you would still save £1500 over 10 used cards if used saved you £150 per card vs new which then if you had to replace one of those cards at £650 you would still be £850 better off.
 
I donno, just wait for used RTX 4080s or RX 7900 XTs to come down in price, that would be a better buy imo, if looking for high end cards.

There might be further price cuts on these cards also.

Nvidia's new cards have better coolers on them, Ampere cards with GDDR6X tend to run really hot.
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
I donno, just wait for used RTX 4080s or RX 7900 XTs to come down in price, that would be a better buy imo, if looking for high end cards.
Click to expand...
And in two years time you'll be saying wait for the 5080/8900XT to come down in price instead of getting a 4080 for £550.
 
g67575 said:
Is waiting so hard?
Click to expand...
Totally agree, I like to wait for cards to go end of life and often skip a generation to get a good bang for buck and increase. Pleased I didn't pay £695 for a second hand 3060 as some people did.
Bought a 680 new for about half price when it went EOL. Skipped the 700 series, bought a 970 EOL, down from £300 to £180. Sold the 970 for £100, bought a new 2060 12Gb for £270, so cost to upgrade £170. I can play with higher textures than a 3070. Skipping the 1000 series, the 2060 gives me slightly better performance than the 1080, with 4Gb more vram, full dx12 support, dlss. So waiting and skipping the 1000 series not only saved me money but gave a better performing card that is more future proof than the previous gen 80 class card
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom