• FreedomAdvocate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.

    Your card is comparable to a 5070, which is basically the same price as yours. There’s no doubt the 5080 and 5090 are disappointing in their performance compared to these mid-high cards, but your card can’t compete with them and nvidia offer a comparable card at the same price point as AMDs best card.

    Also the AMD card uses more power than the nvidia equivalent (9700xt vs 5070).

    • RazgrizOne@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.

      Most people do not use WS as evidenced by the mixed bag support it gets. 1440 monitors are by default understood to be 2560x1440p as it’s 16:9 which is still considered the “default” by the vast majority of businesses and people alike. You may operate as if most people using 1440+ are on WS but that’s a very atypical assumption.

      Raytracing sure but otherwise the 4090 is actually better than the 5070 in many respects. So you’re paying a comparable price for Raytracing and windows dependency, which if that is important to you then go right ahead. Ultimately though my point is that there is no point in buying the insanely overpriced Nvidia offerings when you have excellent AMD offerings for a fraction of the price that don’t have all sorts of little pitfalls/compromises. The Nvidia headaches are worth it for performance, which unless you 3-4x your investment you’re not getting more of. So the 5070 is moot.

      I’m not sure what you’re comparing at the end unless you meant a 9070XT which I don’t use/have and wasn’t comparing.