Видео

For AAA I would probably go for the arc a750 as it should be a little better than the RX 6600, tho those are not the best options for future proofing for AAA games and probably getting a card with more VRAM and more performance would be a better bet.

@@teflonstestbench I dont have much budget. Though I can get a used rx 6600xt by cost cutting. But, the problem is it will have 3-6months of warranty. Which is quite concerning for me

The RX 6600 XT would be better. Don't worry much about warranty, if GPUs fail they usually do it on the first months of usage and if they survive that they will survive for months unless damaged, so just test it when you get it to make sure it is ok and that should be enough to make sure it will work fine.

-50w from 3060 ti

I left the Valhalla in because I already did the tests and the other two cards are good. It seems to be an extended issue with some rtx 2000 cards tho I only had issues with this batch of runs, and even when testing again it was still happening so not sure exactly what is causing it.

I got a 3070 for 130 bucks. It shreds still. Any game does great. It’s close to its limits but solid as hell. I get what you mean though. A 12 gig is kinda the new minimum.

If you are on 1080p and not maxing out all your graphics settings a 8gb gpu would be enough for most games. Most of the GPUs in this video would probably end up being used with 1080p monitors.

Exactly, but more and more games at 1080p are starting to use more VRAM with enhancements like RT or DLSS and getting over the 8GB both on AMD and Nvidia cards even with memory optimizations. They may not lose much performance compared to if that card have more VRAM as they usually just need 1 or 2 gb more but it is a problem for future titles, especially if optimization is bad or lacking altogether.

At least it's not underreporting like the previous generations

Sounds good, but depending on the price you are paying for it maybe there are better options or you could save on some parts.

As I said later I think it all comes down to virtual memory. With an SSD it can be enough if the game doesn't have a lot of activity on it, but of course, the performance is worse than with the correct amount. Also the port is really bad so I'm guessing it is allocating more ram that the game actually needs so that could be it too.

You need a compatible motherboard, and if I remember correctly that generation does not support pcie 4.0 so I don't think you can enable it.

@@teflonstestbench so I think the best way change the graphic card Gtx1070 is good?

I don't think a GTX 1070 will give you better performance than what you have now, I would recommend trying to get a better GPU like on the performance levels of a Rx 6600 XT or rtx 3060 12gb/ti as that would be a way better upgrade, even if you need to wait a bit to get the money to do it.

@@teflonstestbench ok

Because they report the wrong number via software/driver, they measure only the powered delivered to the core and VRAM but not the losses of the vrms or other parts of the board, making it unreliable and not comparable to Nvidia and also a smaller value than what the card is really drawing from the power supply

I didn't undervokt it, I just test on an open case so it has really good airflow and I also use a more aggressive fan curve for all the cards so the cooling does not affect the testing, but yeah, that model has terrible cooling and on long tests it will reach close to 80 even on the open table. And that is wild for a card with only 100ish W of tdp. To cool it down I can just recommend a new thermal paste, increasing airflow around it or just setting the fans higher.

It's a big upgrade, you should see a big jump in performance so it's really nice. Hope you enjoy it :)

@@teflonstestbench Thank you

DLSS 3 it's the upscalling, u mean Dlss Frame Generation?, if so, it adds some latency, more with the 4060 because the low base-framerate.

That only applies if you have the 4060Ti 16GB version. If you turn on Frame Generation, VRAM consumption will increase by 1GB+ . If you only have 8GB of VRAM, you will run out of VRAM very fast when you turn on FG . Performance might be even slower now because you run out of VRAM .

I would agree in all of them except the 3070. 2080 ti performance for less when it was released new was a really good deal. The only thing is VRAM... Tho by that metric the RTX 3070 ti is even worse xD

@@teflonstestbench ye the 3070 would have been a great card if it wasnt for the rediculously tiny VRAM for the price..the card had excellent potential

@@Greenalex89it still does fine in plenty of games i use mine to play star citizen on medium and even without frame gen it does well and stays cool

@@the_bromies_podcast239 ye, if it works on the games u play thats nice

I mean if they are new maybe, but second hand you can get them for half that maybe

@@teflonstestbench I got 3070 for 246usd, scam or what?

That is not a bad price, I got mine a month ago for that same price where I'm at, so makes sense depending on your second hand market.

@@alfonso5177 a new one?

I wouldn't call it a waste, but at the price the RTX 4060 ti is going it should at least be clearly faster than the rtx 3070 IMO, it's just sad at this point

I would say from 4070 on down...probably nvidia is faster with ray tracing and dlss + frame generation. honestly if you have a nvidia card y never use in raster

​@@teflonstestbench i think is because of x8, but you have to consider the price, my was only 300 and anything above the 4060TI was much more expensive, i''m from brasil so when the GPU cost 100 you can multiply by 3 because of taxes and others things

@mattsouza1448 I tested with PCIe 4.0 so it should have the same bandwidth as PCIe 3.0 x16, so that shouldn't affect it much

@@teflonstestbench i mean not the GPU being 4.0 and it running at 3.0, i mean the GPU is 8x with 128bit instead of 256bit as 3070, and the 4060TI has 160GB/s bandwidth less than 3070 and this is the difference between both

Well I don't know what the performance is with those GPUs as the versions for laptops are way different from the desktop ones. Also when choosing a laptop you usually one to consider the laptop as a whole and not compare just one part as usually the differences in size, structural design, ram, CPU or screen can affect the experience and performance of the laptop more than having a slightly faster GPU on it.

@@teflonstestbench in that case the rx 6800m has an ryxen 9 5900hx and the 3070 to has a i7, both have single channel 16gb ddr4 ram sticks and they are roughly the same weight and the model names are the asus rog strix 15 AE and the acer nitro 5.

I would go for the one with the Ryzen one, it's a much better CPU for laptops than the last i7s. Also check if you can upgrade the RAM, you might want to do that in the future with that hardware tho it depends on what you will be using for.

@@teflonstestbench mainly gaming and am gonna start content creation and rn I'm a really bad 1650 ik i can push it an year or more but it's really underperforming lol I think it's cuz it's like 2 years and the company is saying we can't do anything about it so I needed an upgrade for gaming and competitive e sports and content creation so yh... Thnx I guess I'll get the ryzen one. Edit:Shoot. It just went outta stock ;-;

@@teflonstestbench I guess I'll needa wait ;-;

Sadly it is the only API that supports Ray tracing so yeah, its gonna be DX12 except some really special cases.

1080p, in future videos i learned and put it more clearly.

@@teflonstestbench Great 👍

As shown in the intro of the video it has 4GB. The only 8gb version of that card is one that sapphire specifically made, but it's not an official variant.

@@teflonstestbench There's also ASRock 6500XT 8GB version.

It is turned on on every compatible card, both ReBAR for Nvidia and SAM for AMD. Tho despite the differences in naming they are equivalent technologies and do the same thing.

First of all, the bottleneck is not that big with that CPU, especially at that quality settings. Secondly you would need to test it on the same scenario, with FXAA and same quality settings.The drivers are good and are the same for the rest of the tests, and the metrics for the GPU are good too. I think the differences might be because you are running the game at DX11, as on DX12 the Radeon cards seem to have lower performance in this game in particular.

I mean, it is noticeably slower than the RTX 2080 Ti but depending on the game or your test system that difference may change, like for example if you were testing the RX 6700 XT without rebar or had models with more or less boost clocks or boards configurations than the ones I had.

@@teflonstestbench Exactly. Gotta have that SAM on the AMD cards to get those huge boosts. AND depending on your CPU, SOME games benefit 0% from SAM with Zen 2 or Intel 10th gen in certain games, while in those same games, SAM shows the improvements with Zen 3 and Intel 12th gen. Not to say that ALL games don't benefit from same on Zen 2/Intel 10th gen, but I saw that in a test and it really surprised me. Dunno if it's an architectural thing or a "soft" limit but yeah... If you're running a Zen 2/Intel 10th gen, there's gonna be games that SAM gives 0% gains in whereas with a Zen 3/Intel 12th gen, you'll get substantial gains. But the 2080Ti is a beastly card, too. As is the 3070. It's always surprising to see the 6700XT 12GB hang with the 3070. 2 years ago, there weren't any games it could hang with it in. AMD Fine Wine drivers really are a thing lol. The 6700XT 12GB today is not the 6700XT 12GB at launch. I'd imagine the 6700XT 12GB does substantially better than the 2080 Ti in Call of Duty games. RDNA2 or just AMD in general really loves that engine or something. Kind of like Forza Horizon 4 and even 5.

Hey, seeing the two laptops and doing a little bit of research I would personally go with the G14 if I had to choose from these two. The RAM here is important as 16 gigabytes for a high end system like this is simply not enough for most tasks. Keep in mind in a laptop you have integrated graphics that will take a little bit of the RAM even if you are not using it and depending on the internal screen wiring. Also the two CPUs are really powerful so not having enough ram will limit them if you want to do heavy work like rendering or any kind of load that will use the CPU. For gaming it can be just fine if you stick with only those two games but if you try anything more demanding it will be a problem. Another point in favor of the G14 is the better screen, as it has a higher pixel density and resolution. The refresh rate from 120 to 240 it's true it's an improvement but I would personally go with resolution over refresh rate as that usually offers a better experience and refresh rate differences are usually not noticeable by most people from 120 to 240 unless you are used to using a really high refresh rate one already, so you are probably gonna appreciate the resultion more in the long run. Also the CPU is arguably better on the AMD side too. This first generation of core ultra chips use a new interconnecting system that yes, gives them more cores for different tasks and performance levels but in real life the improvements in performance from the previous generations are slim and I wouldn't be surprised if they have load balancing problems as it is a really complex system and they are using it for the first time. Also the Ryzen has a configurable tdp of half of the Intel chip, so that will probably mean it's a lot more efficient which is really important for a laptop so I would go with the more solid and traditional core approach with Ryzen over these first generations of Intel's experiments. I have a feeling you much prefer the G16 for the screen size. If that is the case you can maybe look for a different configuration G16 that has more ram or other internal parts, but to be honest I just can't recommend getting a high end laptop with only 16gb, especially if you want it to last. Also having a small screen is not that bad, we are using phones with way smaller screens all the time and we get used to it and fit everything we want, and there is nothing preventing you from just plugging a screen to the laptop later on and using the laptop one as a secondary if you really want a bigger screen. Also you should consider the size of the laptop itself too, the G16 will be bigger and heavier than the G14, so if you plan on moving it around a lot it may be a better option. Anyways I hope I helped a bit here and if you need anything else please let me know :)

@@teflonstestbench Thank you so much! I’ll try to get over the smaller screen and see what happens.

Sure, let me know once you get it and what you think about it.

I did Live streaming on the FX 6300, everything went well

My guess is AMD drivers. It happens with every AMD card and every system, I've seen it on other people tests too and also the ram goes extremely high vs the Nvidia cards so it's probably a driver thing. Tho the game seems to be playing well.

I mean they support it but their first generation ray tracing cores were not good, that is why the poor performance. But if it's on games that don't utilize it much it's fine and can kinda run it with FSR. Not the best experience but it's far better than cards without those cores like the GTX series or previous AMD ones

Seems a little expensive to me right now, I would look for other similar cards and maybe AMD options to see how the pricing for you on those is as you can maybe find a better deal

@@teflonstestbench Just recently I found an rtx 3070 for the same price, Wich is crazy good so I will probably buy that, because I also want to do a bit of blender and other work related stuff.

Yeah that sounds a lot better and those cards should be around that price, so go for that, the upgrade is huge.