I really like this idea. Instead of reviewing it like "how much fps do thse cards get at x settings", you review like "at what settings do these cards get 60/120/170/240 fps?" I really like this. Not sure it entirely gets around thise things like automatic (intransparent) lower res textures even if it condraticts settings, but given that - i assume - most people go for FPS rather than quality (at least up until a point), i really want to see more of this.
This time I uploaded it with audio lol! Thanks to the quick commenters on the previous upload who caught the issue. (Actually what happened was I accidentally uploaded the benchmark footage file instead of the full review file with me talking, etc).
Yes, this is what you shine at. A channel with normaly a positive tonality, showing us what we can do with the hardware and not focusing so much on the can't. However, if a card can't play a game at reasonable settings it is important to know this as well. Treat us as adults that can make our own descision if a product is right to buy. Also, you don't need to have (and I don't think that you do) super focus on the commercial aspect of the products. Most reviews at least I watch, I watch because I'm interessted in hardware and what it can do, not because I buy each and every thing. The video you got here is a great example of you doing what you do best!
1 minute into the video and you're bringing into light what is obvious to oldschool PC Gamers but not so obvious to people that blindly follow what other people say and do. You're one of the best out there Daniel 👏👏👏👏
I bought a used 4060 for 260€ like a week ago and was experiencing a bit of buyers remorse that i didn't save up and get a 4070 in a few extra months. This video actually helped relieve that. The 4060 is more than enough for the new games i want to play in 1440p high with dlss quality, which i am totally fine with. This helped me out a ton, thanks Daniel. Also: I really loved this type of review because it's a more realistic comparison than just booting every game in ultra settings, would love to see more videos like this!
Daniel Owens always talking real world performance to the next level! I really think that this way if presenting the information will be very useful to many people; it really let's you know exactly what you will be getting...
I always wondered this. Its RUclipsrs fault. They have people thinking you gotta play all your games on Ultra or the GPU isn't worth it. YOU DON"T HAVE TO PLAY ON ULTRA to get the best experience. Optimized settings is the best way. Big part was Hardware Unboxed along with other getting people riled up about VRAM. Just optimize your settings. Those people skipped over a 4070 SUPER cause they're worried about VRAM when you don't need to play all games on ULTRA settings. Insane.
Exactly, even on high end systems optimized settings is the way to go, you get more performance and the visuals wont change that much cause games these days even on medium settings look great.
I always run the textures on high-ultra, shadows low-medium, and then everything else just medium. Rarely do I try to max everything out. I'm trying to get 60FPS minimum on every game. more on MP games, but co-op and single player I think 60 is fine.
I held off. Nvidia was insane with their price for performance. Starting their 2 budget cards at £400 and $550 was just crazy. I never thought anyone would actually pay that just for brand name for useless gimmicks in the budget range. I was able to pick up the GRE with 2 game coupons and trade in my RX6750xt for £300 in credit so walked out the door for £180 for the GRE. It is a spectacular GPU for the price and does way more than I need so it is nice to have the padding. I was going to be stuck in the 7900xt/4080 £900 quid range for what I needed when the GRE was announced here (Scotland) in Feb. Me and my fellow nerds cleared the shelf. My ideal card would have been a 4070 Ti Super but that £850 price tag was £450 the wrong way.
I think you did good.. 7900GRE isnt much better, just in some games but it tooks 100w more.. if you play 8hours a day you will save about 50 bucks a year.. if you live in Europe, it also could be 100bucks
The 40 series from 4060 up to 4070 Ti are named one higher than they should be. They should be:- 4070 Ti => 4070 4070 => 4060 4060 Ti => 4050 Ti 4060 => 4050 Add to this overpricing by around $100 and you have a proper piss take.
The Rx 6600 is 30% faster than a rtx 3050. The Rx 7600 is the same level as rtx 4060. So why would you say the 4060 = 4050 when it is the same level as the Rx 7600.
Something no one has done yet is a performance equalized visual comparison. Configure the games until you get say 60 fps and then compare what the image quality differences are. Similar to what you are doing here but a video solely focused on image quality would be great.
Imo I think these kind of review is more of a game side review rather than the GPU it self. While they might perform well in some game and get a decent graphic quality, it might not work on other game. the usual GPU review is more of a "how much raw power this card has against the other card", which is useful for potential buyer.
to be fair most of the chanel's goes for "how much raw power this card has against the other card" and the daniel's go for something like "what you get for the card you buy"
Daniel, you're actually the best at this - no one compares graphics cards better. The problem with most reviewers is they use VERY old games and benchmark these new cards which to me is TOTALLY redundant. Why? We all know new hardware will chew through a game from 2010-2015 and rendering engines have changed so much. GREAT work keep it up we are luck to have you in the tech space!
This is the exact reason I went with the 4070 and not the 4070 Ti last year (way before super launch), the 4070 Ti just wasn't giving the advantage like 4070 gives over the 4060 where you need upscaling for 4060 & not for 4070 to get same FPS. However the 4080 was indeed having the advantage over the 4070 to give same performance without the need of upscaling but for double the price lol ($550 for 4070, $1100 for 4080)
Yeah i was fine with either but ended up going with 4070 too based on what I was buying together. And yeah it made the choice easier when I looked at performance differences between 4070 and 4070 ti. Perhaps it does make a significant difference in certain games, but the numbers didn't look too impressive. Where the 4070 seemed like the base line you needed for a near optimal 1440p gaming experience. Anything below that seemed like a waste. I get why people do it (it's cheaper), but probably worth saving up to get at least a good value of vram and performance for the resolution you're targeting.
If you aren't super tight on the budget, it should always be 4070s or 4070ti over 4070. There is 0 reason to go for 4070 currently unless you are buying a prebuilt with 4070 at a discounted price.
@@eternalelife exactly I got a prebuilt with a great cpu so it was a good mix of what I was looking for. I still think 4070 is a good base line for everyone needing or wanting a new card these days that is ok with 1440p. But I agree with you if the price is close and you can get the S or the Ti why not. But I feel like I’m in a good place until the next series of guys tries to push me to get a 4k setup going ha.
@@Rebe-Caufman well 4070 computers are not cheap these days. I would say it’s a smart purchase. Not a poor purchase. A cheap purchase is buying a console or a gpu below 4070. Don’t forget how important cpus are these days. You need both to be high quality. I would consider a 4070 a high quality card as this video shows.
This is very nice. Although there was other thing I was concerned about - I was seeing in the tests that 4070 is reaching much higher temperatures... What is kinda understandable, but I got worried that it simply reaches a point where it's becoming problematic, even just for cooling and noise, being a serious downgrade to comfort and experience. I would love to hear how it is in practice.
Usually the min I wanna hit is 60fps, ideally comfortably above it. If I gotta fiddle with some settings to get there that's fine, graphics are so good nowadays it doesn't really matter much
I think cross generational comparisons may be even more useful. It’s easy to compare the 1080ti to the 1070 or the 2080 but not to anything newer, I would like to see more comparisons of 1000 cards and 3000/4000 cards at least a few data points to go off
Yes. I am considering a P520 Thinkstation with Xeon W-2135 and RTX 2080 (for under $600), which by raw power should be comparable to an RTX 4060 or RX 7600. But how close is it really?
The way I shop for GPUs is I target a framerate I want with max settings. Sure later on as my gpu ages, I might have to turn down settings. But in the beginning, I always want the max graphics settings.
Yes, yes we did. Though a lot has changed since then, in regards to how games dynamically manage texture and LOD detail based on VRAM, the inclusion of Upscaling and Ray Tracing, and the minimum framerates people find playable these days, way different back when we did it.
Using a 1080p ultrawide monitor here (2560 x 1080) Previous RTX 2060 6gb struggled with RT performance, even with DLSS. Now, with RTX 4070 upgrade, feels much better. Easily scaling to 1080p ultrawide. Re-playing metro exodus (enhanced edition) now with RT & DLSS. And can see the performance difference. For single player games with great graphics, i think, i am set for next 3-4yrs (with max settings) 😅
Maybe one more suggestion: try to target a particular monitor refresh rate. (For example, 1080p or 1440p at 120 or 144 Hz). So in that test, what settings are necessary to get close to that target, and then (and here it is a bit subjective) does that look OK or is the image quality too compromised? The reason I am suggesting this is that you almost always will be purchasing a monitor that can go much faster than 60 Hz if you are getting a 'gaming monitor' with variable refresh rate support today.
Commenting to boost! I like this. Great GPU reviews show what the actual experience is like. Nice to see you demonstrate the settings you would actually use. Most people would appreciate seeing how the cards perform with monitors that are pretty common. I hope you test on a 1080p, 1440p, or an ultrawide screen. Your expensive C1 OLED probably makes stuff look pretty amazing. .... Maybe your monitor supports some of the various resolutions/screen sizes as it is quite fancy or would make stuff more noticeable. This may not be practical for you to experience. Even 24" or 27" Desktop Screen at 1080p shows different quality settings with a different experience. Again hard to test so many combos. RX 6600 / 6600 XT users: These are 8GB cards that may benefit from the community drivers where user can enable vram compression.
I think there is room for both, as you want to know how the cards compare directly to eachother though the other way lets us see how we can get a desired frame rate. Though seeing the quality difference between two GPUs running at roughly the same frame rate but different quality levels doesn't always translate over youtube compression.
I have been advocating for this type of review for ages. I'm so tired of the misinformation that comes from only looking at a price point to say, "Look at that! Bigger number better!!" That method alienates a solutions based approach which, in my opinion, is how most people buy. All I hear is customers saying that they want a gpu that solves X. Show them the ones that solve their problem and let them determine the price is right. So yeah, much more of this please. 👍
GPUs should be tested against the 5-7 games that most people are playing. Sure, you can run some games that benchmark things well or whatever, but as a viewer, if you play COD or Baldur's Gate 3 mostly, that's your litmus test. So many reviews are run now using canned benchmarks like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or even worse, 3DMark scores. That's not appealing to people who actually buy these things, it's appealing to TechTube nerds who call themselves enthusiasts.
Hi Daniel, I think this is good content and would appeal to a good percentage of people who wanna see how far they can push in their budget. But i do think raw benchmarks (native to native) are done because people just want to see raw performance since competitively most people wont use DLSS due to input lag crepping in.
The problem with using features like DLSS in reviews is that reviewers will likely get complaints from AMD promoters about how unfair the review is. They will claim that reviews need to done on a level playing field, even if that level playing field is an unrealistic representation of how people actually play games and choose their graphics. Some reviewers don't want to upset those in their audience that would rather have the GPU that performs well against the competition in 'fair' reviews but are lacklustre when it comes to real life gaming scenarios.
Same here. Upgraded from RTX 2060 6GB to 4070. Games feel much better now. Metro Exodus (enhanced edition) looks awesome with all its ray tracing glory.
Thank you for this video! I love the way you approach your GPU testing. Until recently I played on a system with an i7-3770K and a 1070 Ti. Dropping the settings I usually managed to reach 50 to 60 fps in Games like Witcher 3, Tomb Raider Series, Pathfinder, BG 3 or Kingdom Come. As you said, it is all a question of what you are willing to sacrifice from the graphical beauty of game. With my new system 7800X3D/4080 I now can play all these older games as well as newer once easily with 144 fps in 1440p. And what I recognized was, in replaying some older games again, that the games are much easier to play at higher frame rates. Even though I'm nearly 70 I rarely died during Tomb Raiders Quick-Time-Events compared with my old system at only 50-60 fps or an my PS5. Though for a good gaming experience fps matter. With quiet affordable 144Hz monitors nowadays the goal on a PC should be to play the games with at least 100 fps+. The graphical sacrifice you have to make for this depends on the budget you can afford for the GPU.
I think you are one of the few channels that is treating hardware how real people will use them. For other pc channels hardware is just numbers and benchmarks.
No they did not cause it can Still play anything in 1080p high to ultra settings and 1440p in high to ultra settings with dlss and it is 80 cheaper than rtx 4070
It's cheaper than 1060 6 gb was at launch account ing for inflation, the only issue is 8 gb of vram, but it's not like AMD offer anything better except the drying up stock of 6700 xts.
@@beachslap7359you just contradicted yourself in one single sentence. The 6700xt is EXACTLY what amd is offering that is better - and it was available for a long long time now. Once stock is gone then the 6800 or 7700xt can come down even more. Why would you disqualify the 6700xt that is a much better deal than the 4060? Just because it's last gen?
For those of us who really can't upgrade yet, the art of lowering settings is key. I really like this form of analysis. For myself, for good 1080p into the future, with Unreal Engine 5 and all that entails, my current target would be the RX 7600XT. I predict that 16GB VRAM will start being important in the not so distant future, even at 1080p. Also: lowering settings in a game you really want to play is working out for me so far.
More emphasis on what cards are actually capable of without upscaling trickery is so much better than looking at charts from other publications that don't even bother to include non DLSS stats. Instead they are using DLSS the way they used to measure frames with Anti-aliasing and shadows. Now more people realize how much they are being ripped off just to run mediocre games and no longer trust those big review sites who never have to pay for review samples.
aslong as the comparisson is still made at the same maxed settings to show the absolute performance of the cards than after that showing what it takes to get a certain framerate target is fine. since if you compare cards they should be compared at the same settings to not favor one over the other skewing the results.
nice, I have a 4070 gpu so hopefully I didn't waste my money as it looked like a decent card to buy regarding vram and gaming at 1440p (if you take into account even the "better values" are expensive now).
Even though these videos don't get the most views, they are extremely informative and helpful for those who do watch it. Thanks for considering your audience's minority 👍
Thank you for this, I'm upgrading from a 1060 6gb due to buying a 1440p monitor (which then lead to a full upgrade of internals) and I've spent a month + debating 4060 vs 4060 ti vs 4070. But the reality is... I play basically 0 modern games. My most replayed games are - guild wars, guild wars 2, hunter: call of the wild, 7 days to die and the only recent games were elden ring (double playthrough), palworld (ongoing playthrough) and final fantasy vii remake (single play). I checked the upcoming games of 2024 and other than the ones in the list already (dlc, next chapter) there was zero games of interest for me. So for me the question was - do i seriously have to spent $1,049 (nzd) for a 4070? (according to the internet, yes) or will a 4060 ($400 - $500 (nzd) often on sale) allow me to play at 60 fps on high any game that does catch my eye as a one-off playthrough? Thank you so much for this fantastic showing of what settings give what play-ability in some of the most demanding games out there. The 4060 will easily give me the ability to play what I want but I may splurge on the ti for just a touch more wiggle room. Absolutely perfect.
Remember when we got told frame generation was doubling fps? Yeah, only the 4090 has the computational power to do that and get 120 from 60. Mid range is screwed with a miserable 30% improvement with all the quality issues with it.
Not really, it depends on the game and the scene. My 4060 doubles my frames on the town scene in Alan wake 2 but only does 50% in the forest area. Still much better looking than fsr3 frame gen tho, and at 300$ u can't beat it. Basically 3070ti performance when u use AI. I basically had a whole new PC experience upgrading my 2017 rig 1050ti to the 4060. And the great part is, I don't need more Cpu power to use frame generation, which means I don't need to upgrade my cpu. My ancient i5 7600 could max out at 40fps in most demanding single play games and frame gen would allow me to hit that 60fps mark. People only shit on the 4060 because they have enough money to buy the best Gpu. When you look at it with a price to performance angle, you'll see that the 4060 is as good a deal as the 4070 or the 4080
I know this is off-topic, but I'm hoping Mr Owen, or anyone here, can enlighten me. I'm looking at upgrading my gpu. And I've essentially brought it down to a 7900xtx or 4070ti super. I've never used Ray tracing since I don't have a gpu that can handle that. But I'm the type of person who mostly plays single-player games like jrpgs, horror, and action games. So, I'd want the game to look as pretty as possible. So essentially, it's 7900xtx if raytracing isn't worth it or 4070ti super if it is. Maybe this could also be a video idea for Mr Owens to cover in a future video.
If gaming is the only concern - I'd go with AMD. If you also value features and software support - go for Nvidia. That's what i did - i bought 4060ti 16gb, which is very bad value for gaming. But for software and AI tasks it's a good card. And i still can play all games with 1440p with dlss, even if the card is overpriced.
i feel like this generation (ada) is the first one where ray tracing and even path tracing are finally usable, at 600 euros with a 4070 super you can basically run 80+100 fps with fg on at 1440p dlss quality/balanced with path tracing and even more with ray tracing
The real value in 4070 now is the used market, many people upgraded and they are selling their 4070 cards as new open box/ slightly used with warranty for less than 500 dollars
Very interesting. That's a great review. Much more insightful and useful than just looking at raw performance differences or/and FPS per dollar. What difference does a good FPS/dollar value makes if you can't achieve performance and visual quality target that's comfortable for you.
There's another thing that almost no major reviewers do, and that's realistic hardware combos. Every major reviewer will slot every GPU into a testbench that has the fastest CPU with the fastest RAM on an high-end motherboard, which is absolutely not a realistic hardware setup except for the fastest GPUs. Few people are going to pair either a 4060 or 4070 with a 7800X3D on an X670E board with 6000CL30 RAM, for instance. More than likely, they're going to get something like a Ryzen 7600X and cheap DDR5 RAM or even an AM4 chip with budget DDR4 3200 RAM, just enough to avoid a "bottleneck". When people say that a slower CPU or slower RAM won't "bottleneck" a GPU, what they actually mean is that the performance gains you get pairing a budget GPU with high-end CPU+RAM+mobo aren't worth the money. There is absolutely a noticeable performance increase at resolutions under 4K from the small-but-cumulative performance gains found in faster CPU+faster RAM (and the potential addition of gains from a better mobo with better power delivery allowing CPUs to have more consistent or even higher performance by improving latency and potentially adding FPS). For instance, after digging around through forum posts, TimeSpy results, and the handful of reviewers who do test realistic hardware combos, I know that my 3700X with 3600CL16, 10ns FWL RAM in a B550 mobo will get anywhere from 5-10% fewer FPS at 1080p, and anywhere from 5-8% fewer FPS at 1440p, with any of the GPUs that are a realistic match for my hardware, than what major reviewers say the GPU will get. The FPS I do get might be noticeably less smooth because of increased latency. And that's considering that I have decent DDR4 RAM for gaming and the B550 board isn't exactly bargain-bin material. If I had cheaper, more budget-friendly RAM with an A-series chipset mobo, I'd seen even less performance compared to the reviewer's test setup. I'm not going to pair the $300-400 GPU with the $900+ test setups major reviewers use, so I'm going to get 5-10% lower performance at 1080/1440p compared to the review results. Others with a more budget build might see swings as big as 5-15%. That is the difference between the budget/lower mid-grade GPU being a 60 FPS card averaged across 32 games at 1080/1440p with a smooth experience, and it being anywhere from 45-55 FPS card averaged across 32 games with a potentially choppier experience. That is *not* a reasonable expectation to set on the performance. I would call that a bad review methodology. But that's just what almost every reviewer does. Now, having said all that, I will say thank you for being one of the reviewers who does things like build reviews to make recommendations about what hardware to realistically combine, so we can minimize the bottleneck. I rely on you, PC Builder, and Hardware Tested (along with forum posts and TimeSpy historical results) to provide me with that info, because the bigger reviewers like Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, or Techpowerup either do that sort of testing infrequently or simply don't do it at all.
Tbh, I feel Ray Tracing (RT), not Path Tracing (PT) is the way to got for games! Sure PT is a little better in terms of visual over RT, but the performance hit imo, isn’t worth the image quality in games. RT is much easier to drive and give 80% of the visuals and makes more powerful gpus easier and cheaper to build for consumers.💪🤩🥳👍
It would be nice if someone like Daniel could teach people about integer scaling so they could max out settings at naitve 720p or 1080p perfectly upscaled to your 4K TV. No need to buy a new GPU every like 4 years kids.
The biggest problem is that invidia is leeching on gamers with their colossaly huge and unjustified prices so you have too look if you want to pay double the price of the WHOLE computer with all its components for GPU only and it burns in your wallet so you go for the best affordable one.
just get one that's half the price and good enough for the next 4 years like the 4060, then when you need to upgrade the good gpus will be a lot cheaper. You save money that way instead of getting one of the expensive top range cards within the first years it comes out.
I would like to see comparison of gtx1660ti / super vs rtx4070 done in this way, beside games which can not work without RT. GTX aims at 1080p and 30-60fps, rtx4070 1440p-4k or 1080p and RT and 45-60 fps.
Ultra testing of a card as never ever given me relevant information. Setting an FPS limit and testing the cards variables to achieve that would be far more relevant
Looks like you're achieving the opposite By improving the standings of the 4060 You're showing the 4060 on its max at lower detail, hardly keeping up with a 4070 at native resolution "But the 4060 is cheaper" Yeah, nice consolation prize ...if it wasn't for the fact it won't be able to keep up any longer
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
I really like this idea. Instead of reviewing it like "how much fps do thse cards get at x settings", you review like "at what settings do these cards get 60/120/170/240 fps?"
I really like this. Not sure it entirely gets around thise things like automatic (intransparent) lower res textures even if it condraticts settings, but given that - i assume - most people go for FPS rather than quality (at least up until a point), i really want to see more of this.
this
This is the Way!
💯
It’s not a new idea HardOCP used to bench this way but it works much better in video format IMO and Daniel presents the information very well
I like it, too. It's a lot more realistic.
This time I uploaded it with audio lol! Thanks to the quick commenters on the previous upload who caught the issue. (Actually what happened was I accidentally uploaded the benchmark footage file instead of the full review file with me talking, etc).
😂 No Problem Daniel
I tried to watch it and was like umm did my headphones break 😆
Hello I got a great deal for ASUS TUF rtx 4070 for 400 usd/ 600 cad new.
Bet you will never find that card for so cheap.
That is also after taxes.
it happens man :)
tiny daniel owen is hilarious
the only thing that can defeat that is...
...Antman. :v
Fr
it is the peak humor on god
Yes, this is what you shine at. A channel with normaly a positive tonality, showing us what we can do with the hardware and not focusing so much on the can't. However, if a card can't play a game at reasonable settings it is important to know this as well. Treat us as adults that can make our own descision if a product is right to buy.
Also, you don't need to have (and I don't think that you do) super focus on the commercial aspect of the products. Most reviews at least I watch, I watch because I'm interessted in hardware and what it can do, not because I buy each and every thing.
The video you got here is a great example of you doing what you do best!
Me too. At best, cynism is ignorant or misinformed. At worst, it reveals or breeds narcissistic behavior.
Daniel, you`re by far the best and most versatile mousepointer on the whole interweb. Keep doing what you`re doing! You`re awesome.🙂
Thanks! Ever since I was a small child, I have always aspired to become the world's greatest mouse pointer.
@@danielowentech mission accomplished!
🎶 D-A-N
I-E-L
M-O-U-S-E! 🎵
1 minute into the video and you're bringing into light what is obvious to oldschool PC Gamers but not so obvious to people that blindly follow what other people say and do. You're one of the best out there Daniel 👏👏👏👏
If you feel bad, remember me - I bought 4070 two weeks before the release of the Super version
I did the same but I got it on a boxing day sale. I still paied less than what it's being sold for new today. So I don't feel super bad lol
I see the joke u made there @robbrg246. Saying I don’t feel SUPER bad…..😂. That’s kinda messed up man
u didnt see the leaks? cuz ppl knew the super varients were coming for a couple of months lol
Don't feel bad, I did the same, though I had some store credit when I got it so I didn't speed much outta pocket.
Nah you're fine because the horse power of 4070 super will be useless and limited by vram in a few years
The difference between medium and ultra has shrunk considerably.
Thank You, Daniel for realism and for your edge-running.
I bought a used 4060 for 260€ like a week ago and was experiencing a bit of buyers remorse that i didn't save up and get a 4070 in a few extra months. This video actually helped relieve that. The 4060 is more than enough for the new games i want to play in 1440p high with dlss quality, which i am totally fine with. This helped me out a ton, thanks Daniel.
Also: I really loved this type of review because it's a more realistic comparison than just booting every game in ultra settings, would love to see more videos like this!
Daniel Owens always talking real world performance to the next level! I really think that this way if presenting the information will be very useful to many people; it really let's you know exactly what you will be getting...
I always wondered this. Its RUclipsrs fault. They have people thinking you gotta play all your games on Ultra or the GPU isn't worth it. YOU DON"T HAVE TO PLAY ON ULTRA to get the best experience. Optimized settings is the best way. Big part was Hardware Unboxed along with other getting people riled up about VRAM. Just optimize your settings. Those people skipped over a 4070 SUPER cause they're worried about VRAM when you don't need to play all games on ULTRA settings. Insane.
Exactly, even on high end systems optimized settings is the way to go, you get more performance and the visuals wont change that much cause games these days even on medium settings look great.
ultra settings is just more ultra hair, fog and cloud then you drop 50% fps and bloat vram lol
Great review format. Getting both the head-to-head and fps by settings comparisons is v.helpful info
I always run the textures on high-ultra, shadows low-medium, and then everything else just medium. Rarely do I try to max everything out. I'm trying to get 60FPS minimum on every game. more on MP games, but co-op and single player I think 60 is fine.
I bought a 4070 last year for $550 but if I had another chance, I would definitely go for the 7900GRE which is also $550 currently.
I held off. Nvidia was insane with their price for performance. Starting their 2 budget cards at £400 and $550 was just crazy. I never thought anyone would actually pay that just for brand name for useless gimmicks in the budget range. I was able to pick up the GRE with 2 game coupons and trade in my RX6750xt for £300 in credit so walked out the door for £180 for the GRE. It is a spectacular GPU for the price and does way more than I need so it is nice to have the padding. I was going to be stuck in the 7900xt/4080 £900 quid range for what I needed when the GRE was announced here (Scotland) in Feb. Me and my fellow nerds cleared the shelf. My ideal card would have been a 4070 Ti Super but that £850 price tag was £450 the wrong way.
🤡
@@LeaveMyGun why show your face
I think you did good.. 7900GRE isnt much better, just in some games but it tooks 100w more.. if you play 8hours a day you will save about 50 bucks a year.. if you live in Europe, it also could be 100bucks
The 40 series from 4060 up to 4070 Ti are named one higher than they should be. They should be:-
4070 Ti => 4070
4070 => 4060
4060 Ti => 4050 Ti
4060 => 4050
Add to this overpricing by around $100 and you have a proper piss take.
The Rx 6600 is 30% faster than a rtx 3050.
The Rx 7600 is the same level as rtx 4060.
So why would you say the 4060 = 4050 when it is the same level as the Rx 7600.
@@adlibconstitution1609 Cos AMD are taking the piss as well.
Great video, hoping for a comparison between all models in the 4000 series in the future.
Something no one has done yet is a performance equalized visual comparison.
Configure the games until you get say 60 fps and then compare what the image quality differences are.
Similar to what you are doing here but a video solely focused on image quality would be great.
Imo I think these kind of review is more of a game side review rather than the GPU it self. While they might perform well in some game and get a decent graphic quality, it might not work on other game. the usual GPU review is more of a "how much raw power this card has against the other card", which is useful for potential buyer.
to be fair most of the chanel's goes for "how much raw power this card has against the other card" and the daniel's go for something like "what you get for the card you buy"
And why do we even WANT GPUs? To play games.
Raw power is a good stand in for game performance, but in the end, we just want to play.
Daniel, you're actually the best at this - no one compares graphics cards better. The problem with most reviewers is they use VERY old games and benchmark these new cards which to me is TOTALLY redundant. Why? We all know new hardware will chew through a game from 2010-2015 and rendering engines have changed so much. GREAT work keep it up we are luck to have you in the tech space!
Floating Daniel is needed for my x-mas tree. If you do merch, you need to make either a sticker or a magnet with you pointing up or down.
This is the exact reason I went with the 4070 and not the 4070 Ti last year (way before super launch), the 4070 Ti just wasn't giving the advantage like 4070 gives over the 4060 where you need upscaling for 4060 & not for 4070 to get same FPS. However the 4080 was indeed having the advantage over the 4070 to give same performance without the need of upscaling but for double the price lol ($550 for 4070, $1100 for 4080)
Yeah i was fine with either but ended up going with 4070 too based on what I was buying together. And yeah it made the choice easier when I looked at performance differences between 4070 and 4070 ti. Perhaps it does make a significant difference in certain games, but the numbers didn't look too impressive. Where the 4070 seemed like the base line you needed for a near optimal 1440p gaming experience. Anything below that seemed like a waste. I get why people do it (it's cheaper), but probably worth saving up to get at least a good value of vram and performance for the resolution you're targeting.
If you aren't super tight on the budget, it should always be 4070s or 4070ti over 4070. There is 0 reason to go for 4070 currently unless you are buying a prebuilt with 4070 at a discounted price.
@@eternalelife exactly I got a prebuilt with a great cpu so it was a good mix of what I was looking for. I still think 4070 is a good base line for everyone needing or wanting a new card these days that is ok with 1440p. But I agree with you if the price is close and you can get the S or the Ti why not. But I feel like I’m in a good place until the next series of guys tries to push me to get a 4k setup going ha.
you went with 4070 because you are poor
@@Rebe-Caufman well 4070 computers are not cheap these days. I would say it’s a smart purchase. Not a poor purchase. A cheap purchase is buying a console or a gpu below 4070. Don’t forget how important cpus are these days. You need both to be high quality. I would consider a 4070 a high quality card as this video shows.
This is very nice. Although there was other thing I was concerned about - I was seeing in the tests that 4070 is reaching much higher temperatures... What is kinda understandable, but I got worried that it simply reaches a point where it's becoming problematic, even just for cooling and noise, being a serious downgrade to comfort and experience. I would love to hear how it is in practice.
Usually the min I wanna hit is 60fps, ideally comfortably above it. If I gotta fiddle with some settings to get there that's fine, graphics are so good nowadays it doesn't really matter much
I think cross generational comparisons may be even more useful. It’s easy to compare the 1080ti to the 1070 or the 2080 but not to anything newer, I would like to see more comparisons of 1000 cards and 3000/4000 cards at least a few data points to go off
Yes. I am considering a P520 Thinkstation with Xeon W-2135 and RTX 2080 (for under $600), which by raw power should be comparable to an RTX 4060 or RX 7600.
But how close is it really?
Another great video about the real world usage of cards. The analysis is so helpful thanks :)
The way I shop for GPUs is I target a framerate I want with max settings. Sure later on as my gpu ages, I might have to turn down settings. But in the beginning, I always want the max graphics settings.
The price jump from the 4060 to the 4070 is ridiculous. It wasnt like this last time
This is why I like this channel. Nice job!
4070 costs twice as much can't compare
The $250 ~ $300 price difference can make or break the budget, even more if you add getting a 1440p monitor.
HardOCP used to this - "best playable settings"
Definitely miss that!
Yes, yes we did. Though a lot has changed since then, in regards to how games dynamically manage texture and LOD detail based on VRAM, the inclusion of Upscaling and Ray Tracing, and the minimum framerates people find playable these days, way different back when we did it.
When you put them side by side like that, Nvidia upsell strategy really become apparent.
I want a future where we can play games without graphics cards
you mean past :D you till can play board games ..
Would be nice if you include some test results of productivity, rendering performance, encoding/decoding, etc
Using a 1080p ultrawide monitor here (2560 x 1080)
Previous RTX 2060 6gb struggled with RT performance, even with DLSS.
Now, with RTX 4070 upgrade, feels much better. Easily scaling to 1080p ultrawide.
Re-playing metro exodus (enhanced edition) now with RT & DLSS. And can see the performance difference.
For single player games with great graphics, i think, i am set for next 3-4yrs (with max settings) 😅
Maybe one more suggestion: try to target a particular monitor refresh rate. (For example, 1080p or 1440p at 120 or 144 Hz). So in that test, what settings are necessary to get close to that target, and then (and here it is a bit subjective) does that look OK or is the image quality too compromised? The reason I am suggesting this is that you almost always will be purchasing a monitor that can go much faster than 60 Hz if you are getting a 'gaming monitor' with variable refresh rate support today.
Commenting to boost!
I like this. Great GPU reviews show what the actual experience is like. Nice to see you demonstrate the settings you would actually use.
Most people would appreciate seeing how the cards perform with monitors that are pretty common. I hope you test on a 1080p, 1440p, or an ultrawide screen. Your expensive C1 OLED probably makes stuff look pretty amazing. .... Maybe your monitor supports some of the various resolutions/screen sizes as it is quite fancy or would make stuff more noticeable. This may not be practical for you to experience.
Even 24" or 27" Desktop Screen at 1080p shows different quality settings with a different experience. Again hard to test so many combos.
RX 6600 / 6600 XT users: These are 8GB cards that may benefit from the community drivers where user can enable vram compression.
I think there is room for both, as you want to know how the cards compare directly to eachother though the other way lets us see how we can get a desired frame rate. Though seeing the quality difference between two GPUs running at roughly the same frame rate but different quality levels doesn't always translate over youtube compression.
Daniel, thanks. Please consider doing a video on selecting a graphics card for 4k, esp for single player games and a 60+ fps experience.
I bought a 4060, and returned it for a 4060Ti 16GB, and returned that for a 4070 Super.
Some thoughts on your new super card please?
I have been advocating for this type of review for ages. I'm so tired of the misinformation that comes from only looking at a price point to say, "Look at that! Bigger number better!!" That method alienates a solutions based approach which, in my opinion, is how most people buy. All I hear is customers saying that they want a gpu that solves X. Show them the ones that solve their problem and let them determine the price is right. So yeah, much more of this please. 👍
GPUs should be tested against the 5-7 games that most people are playing. Sure, you can run some games that benchmark things well or whatever, but as a viewer, if you play COD or Baldur's Gate 3 mostly, that's your litmus test.
So many reviews are run now using canned benchmarks like Shadow of the Tomb Raider or even worse, 3DMark scores.
That's not appealing to people who actually buy these things, it's appealing to TechTube nerds who call themselves enthusiasts.
Hi Daniel, I think this is good content and would appeal to a good percentage of people who wanna see how far they can push in their budget. But i do think raw benchmarks (native to native) are done because people just want to see raw performance since competitively most people wont use DLSS due to input lag crepping in.
The problem with using features like DLSS in reviews is that reviewers will likely get complaints from AMD promoters about how unfair the review is. They will claim that reviews need to done on a level playing field, even if that level playing field is an unrealistic representation of how people actually play games and choose their graphics. Some reviewers don't want to upset those in their audience that would rather have the GPU that performs well against the competition in 'fair' reviews but are lacklustre when it comes to real life gaming scenarios.
It's great way to review graphic cards. And I'm just one more time covinced that I made good choice deciding to go 4070 for next 5-8 years.
Same here.
Upgraded from RTX 2060 6GB to 4070.
Games feel much better now.
Metro Exodus (enhanced edition) looks awesome with all its ray tracing glory.
Thank you for this video! I love the way you approach your GPU testing. Until recently I played on a system with an i7-3770K and a 1070 Ti. Dropping the settings I usually managed to reach 50 to 60 fps in Games like Witcher 3, Tomb Raider Series, Pathfinder, BG 3 or Kingdom Come. As you said, it is all a question of what you are willing to sacrifice from the graphical beauty of game.
With my new system 7800X3D/4080 I now can play all these older games as well as newer once easily with 144 fps in 1440p. And what I recognized was, in replaying some older games again, that the games are much easier to play at higher frame rates. Even though I'm nearly 70 I rarely died during Tomb Raiders Quick-Time-Events compared with my old system at only 50-60 fps or an my PS5. Though for a good gaming experience fps matter. With quiet affordable 144Hz monitors nowadays the goal on a PC should be to play the games with at least 100 fps+. The graphical sacrifice you have to make for this depends on the budget you can afford for the GPU.
For me the most difference was low input lag of a modern monitor.
I think you are one of the few channels that is treating hardware how real people will use them. For other pc channels hardware is just numbers and benchmarks.
I love the tiny Daniel 😂
ppl who bought the 4060 got royally scammed lol
No they did not cause it can Still play anything in 1080p high to ultra settings and 1440p in high to ultra settings with dlss and it is 80 cheaper than rtx 4070
It's cheaper than 1060 6 gb was at launch account ing for inflation, the only issue is 8 gb of vram, but it's not like AMD offer anything better except the drying up stock of 6700 xts.
@@beachslap7359you just contradicted yourself in one single sentence.
The 6700xt is EXACTLY what amd is offering that is better - and it was available for a long long time now.
Once stock is gone then the 6800 or 7700xt can come down even more.
Why would you disqualify the 6700xt that is a much better deal than the 4060?
Just because it's last gen?
@@Humanaut.There was no contradiction because I included the word "except".
My 3070 with FSR 3 mod is superior than the 4060ti. Got my 3070 for $300.
For those of us who really can't upgrade yet, the art of lowering settings is key.
I really like this form of analysis.
For myself, for good 1080p into the future, with Unreal Engine 5 and all that entails, my current target would be the RX 7600XT.
I predict that 16GB VRAM will start being important in the not so distant future, even at 1080p.
Also: lowering settings in a game you really want to play is working out for me so far.
I like this new comparison you're doing.
His tombstone is really gonna read, Daniel "Mouse Pointer" Owen.
You should compare "4060" with "4060Ti with 16GB VRAM"
More emphasis on what cards are actually capable of without upscaling trickery is so much better than looking at charts from other publications that don't even bother to include non DLSS stats. Instead they are using DLSS the way they used to measure frames with Anti-aliasing and shadows.
Now more people realize how much they are being ripped off just to run mediocre games and no longer trust those big review sites who never have to pay for review samples.
Wow. I appreciate all the work you put into this to capture all the data and perform the analysis.
aslong as the comparisson is still made at the same maxed settings to show the absolute performance of the cards than after that showing what it takes to get a certain framerate target is fine. since if you compare cards they should be compared at the same settings to not favor one over the other skewing the results.
Possibly the best review format I’ve seen on RUclips, thank you 🙏
nice, I have a 4070 gpu so hopefully I didn't waste my money as it looked like a decent card to buy regarding vram and gaming at 1440p (if you take into account even the "better values" are expensive now).
It's really annoying how nvidia is calling the 4060 a 4070, the 4050 being called a 4060. 😮💨
But you can simply do the same on the other graphics card... And also it will last longer at higher frame rates.
My favorite mouse pointer
In a lot of games I would rather turn on some raytracing and upscaling rather than playing at max settings native.
*than
@@GrainGrown thanks, corrected it
Even though these videos don't get the most views, they are extremely informative and helpful for those who do watch it. Thanks for considering your audience's minority 👍
Came here for another smol daniel and was not dissapointed again
4070 is for 1440P, I don't think people would buy a $600 card just for 1080P
Have you made a pros and cons for DLSS/FSR vs native resolution? I would love to hear your opinion.
Dlss quality at 4k is basically native res +30-40% performance. It's fair enough to compare it against radeon's native res. at 4k.
Thank you for this,
I'm upgrading from a 1060 6gb due to buying a 1440p monitor (which then lead to a full upgrade of internals) and I've spent a month + debating 4060 vs 4060 ti vs 4070.
But the reality is... I play basically 0 modern games. My most replayed games are - guild wars, guild wars 2, hunter: call of the wild, 7 days to die and the only recent games were elden ring (double playthrough), palworld (ongoing playthrough) and final fantasy vii remake (single play).
I checked the upcoming games of 2024 and other than the ones in the list already (dlc, next chapter) there was zero games of interest for me.
So for me the question was - do i seriously have to spent $1,049 (nzd) for a 4070? (according to the internet, yes) or will a 4060 ($400 - $500 (nzd) often on sale) allow me to play at 60 fps on high any game that does catch my eye as a one-off playthrough?
Thank you so much for this fantastic showing of what settings give what play-ability in some of the most demanding games out there. The 4060 will easily give me the ability to play what I want but I may splurge on the ti for just a touch more wiggle room.
Absolutely perfect.
Remember when we got told frame generation was doubling fps? Yeah, only the 4090 has the computational power to do that and get 120 from 60.
Mid range is screwed with a miserable 30% improvement with all the quality issues with it.
Not really, it depends on the game and the scene. My 4060 doubles my frames on the town scene in Alan wake 2 but only does 50% in the forest area. Still much better looking than fsr3 frame gen tho, and at 300$ u can't beat it. Basically 3070ti performance when u use AI.
I basically had a whole new PC experience upgrading my 2017 rig 1050ti to the 4060. And the great part is, I don't need more Cpu power to use frame generation, which means I don't need to upgrade my cpu.
My ancient i5 7600 could max out at 40fps in most demanding single play games and frame gen would allow me to hit that 60fps mark.
People only shit on the 4060 because they have enough money to buy the best Gpu. When you look at it with a price to performance angle, you'll see that the 4060 is as good a deal as the 4070 or the 4080
I know this is off-topic, but I'm hoping Mr Owen, or anyone here, can enlighten me. I'm looking at upgrading my gpu. And I've essentially brought it down to a 7900xtx or 4070ti super. I've never used Ray tracing since I don't have a gpu that can handle that. But I'm the type of person who mostly plays single-player games like jrpgs, horror, and action games. So, I'd want the game to look as pretty as possible.
So essentially, it's 7900xtx if raytracing isn't worth it or 4070ti super if it is. Maybe this could also be a video idea for Mr Owens to cover in a future video.
If gaming is the only concern - I'd go with AMD. If you also value features and software support - go for Nvidia.
That's what i did - i bought 4060ti 16gb, which is very bad value for gaming. But for software and AI tasks it's a good card. And i still can play all games with 1440p with dlss, even if the card is overpriced.
@@user-so2dn7rm8n ah. OK. Thanks
Yup, it would be a better way to review as it's closer to real usage scenarios.
i feel like this generation (ada) is the first one where ray tracing and even path tracing are finally usable, at 600 euros with a 4070 super you can basically run 80+100 fps with fg on at 1440p dlss quality/balanced with path tracing and even more with ray tracing
60fps average is garbage. 1% lows make it a bad experience.
Yup, you need like 75 - 80 average and cap to 60fps in order to get smooth gameplay.
The real value in 4070 now is the used market, many people upgraded and they are selling their 4070 cards as new open box/ slightly used with warranty for less than 500 dollars
Finally someone talked about the user experience! Awesome review, very inovative.
Very interesting. That's a great review. Much more insightful and useful than just looking at raw performance differences or/and FPS per dollar. What difference does a good FPS/dollar value makes if you can't achieve performance and visual quality target that's comfortable for you.
great variety of benchmarks
very good point. i'm more interested in knowing what settings I need to get to 120fps with a 1% low above 90.
Its not always vram its just a gpu doesn't have the power to get higher fps and a lot of games the driver is just as important.
This makes me wonder if the 4060 has a better performance if it got 12 gigabytes of ram like the 3060.
This shows games are oprimized like shit
4070 Super is baller. Can get one for $590 to $600. 7900 GRE is a good option at $550.
Very good comparisons
the comparison is a 1 cylinder vs a 4 cylinder engine, I mean no hate to you Mr owen, but the sad state of GPUs
For my preference, i would rather save up money and wait to be able to afford a mid range card then get an entry level one
and for only 30 bucks more than the 4070 you have a 7900gre making the 4070 a waste of a buy
There's another thing that almost no major reviewers do, and that's realistic hardware combos. Every major reviewer will slot every GPU into a testbench that has the fastest CPU with the fastest RAM on an high-end motherboard, which is absolutely not a realistic hardware setup except for the fastest GPUs. Few people are going to pair either a 4060 or 4070 with a 7800X3D on an X670E board with 6000CL30 RAM, for instance. More than likely, they're going to get something like a Ryzen 7600X and cheap DDR5 RAM or even an AM4 chip with budget DDR4 3200 RAM, just enough to avoid a "bottleneck".
When people say that a slower CPU or slower RAM won't "bottleneck" a GPU, what they actually mean is that the performance gains you get pairing a budget GPU with high-end CPU+RAM+mobo aren't worth the money. There is absolutely a noticeable performance increase at resolutions under 4K from the small-but-cumulative performance gains found in faster CPU+faster RAM (and the potential addition of gains from a better mobo with better power delivery allowing CPUs to have more consistent or even higher performance by improving latency and potentially adding FPS).
For instance, after digging around through forum posts, TimeSpy results, and the handful of reviewers who do test realistic hardware combos, I know that my 3700X with 3600CL16, 10ns FWL RAM in a B550 mobo will get anywhere from 5-10% fewer FPS at 1080p, and anywhere from 5-8% fewer FPS at 1440p, with any of the GPUs that are a realistic match for my hardware, than what major reviewers say the GPU will get. The FPS I do get might be noticeably less smooth because of increased latency. And that's considering that I have decent DDR4 RAM for gaming and the B550 board isn't exactly bargain-bin material. If I had cheaper, more budget-friendly RAM with an A-series chipset mobo, I'd seen even less performance compared to the reviewer's test setup.
I'm not going to pair the $300-400 GPU with the $900+ test setups major reviewers use, so I'm going to get 5-10% lower performance at 1080/1440p compared to the review results. Others with a more budget build might see swings as big as 5-15%. That is the difference between the budget/lower mid-grade GPU being a 60 FPS card averaged across 32 games at 1080/1440p with a smooth experience, and it being anywhere from 45-55 FPS card averaged across 32 games with a potentially choppier experience. That is *not* a reasonable expectation to set on the performance. I would call that a bad review methodology. But that's just what almost every reviewer does.
Now, having said all that, I will say thank you for being one of the reviewers who does things like build reviews to make recommendations about what hardware to realistically combine, so we can minimize the bottleneck. I rely on you, PC Builder, and Hardware Tested (along with forum posts and TimeSpy historical results) to provide me with that info, because the bigger reviewers like Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, or Techpowerup either do that sort of testing infrequently or simply don't do it at all.
True most gamers will not have a high end cpu but midrange.
i literally laughed my ass off when he: ahhhhed! at 0:30.
now i gotta go to hemorroid docter tomorrow.
A gigantic work done here.
Tbh, I feel Ray Tracing (RT), not Path Tracing (PT) is the way to got for games! Sure PT is a little better in terms of visual over RT, but the performance hit imo, isn’t worth the image quality in games. RT is much easier to drive and give 80% of the visuals and makes more powerful gpus easier and cheaper to build for consumers.💪🤩🥳👍
I actually would like to have a Daniel Owen custom mouse cursor on my PC lol
Beside %, how do you measure playable and unplayable (under 60 fps).
So save up for a RTX 4070 is alll im getting here just sucks their round $800 in my country due to price couging.
It would be nice if someone like Daniel could teach people about integer scaling so they could max out settings at naitve 720p or 1080p perfectly upscaled to your 4K TV. No need to buy a new GPU every like 4 years kids.
Why isnt daniel benchmarking horizon forbidden west its literally the newest game
The biggest problem is that invidia is leeching on gamers with their colossaly huge and unjustified prices so you have too look if you want to pay double the price of the WHOLE computer with all its components for GPU only and it burns in your wallet so you go for the best affordable one.
just get one that's half the price and good enough for the next 4 years like the 4060, then when you need to upgrade the good gpus will be a lot cheaper. You save money that way instead of getting one of the expensive top range cards within the first years it comes out.
4060 is the best value for money rn if buying new.
I would like to see comparison of gtx1660ti / super vs rtx4070 done in this way, beside games which can not work without RT.
GTX aims at 1080p and 30-60fps, rtx4070 1440p-4k or 1080p and RT and 45-60 fps.
lol 😂😂😂
I think the 4070 is decent card but when you move up to ultra wide 1440p that’s where it begins to struggle.
Ultra testing of a card as never ever given me relevant information. Setting an FPS limit and testing the cards variables to achieve that would be far more relevant
Looks like you're achieving the opposite
By improving the standings of the 4060
You're showing the 4060 on its max at lower detail, hardly keeping up with a 4070 at native resolution
"But the 4060 is cheaper" Yeah, nice consolation prize ...if it wasn't for the fact it won't be able to keep up any longer