• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Is it worth changing an RX 9070 XT for an RTX 5080?

Quiz

Quiz

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
1,048
For better ray tracing and path tracing performance? Or do you feel ray tracing and path tracing are not worth enabling? I haven't even tried a ray traced game on my new PC yet anyway but thought I'd still ask.
 
I imagine this would be extremely subjective, but imo: no. I can play at 60fps on 1080p with medium settings or 200fps on 4k at high and have almost the exact same experience. There may be a few extra bells and whistles I'd notice and think "oo that's pretty", but I'd probably overlook everything.

Yes you'll have better numbers. Yes you can max out settings. Does that change the game experience for you though? That's kinda up to you.
 
No. I have gone back and forth with these cards several times this gen. In fact, I am AMD-less right now and I am contemplating selling my 5090 to get a 9070 XT to pocket the savings. The 9070 XT is a phenomenal card. Just don't make that move. If anything go laterally. You really won't notice it much unless you play benchmarks.

What I love about AMD's newest cards is that the RT is actually decent now. Of course, it's not NVIDIA level - but it is very good for the games that I play. RT is amazing but it is not game-changing at this time. Just really nice eye candy that is fun...but I don't think you should waste the cash.

All in all - your call though! If you just want to tinker and would feel better with NVIDIA...go for it.
 
Would look better on benchmarks and slightly better on Ray Tracing but real world you would not really notice any difference. I would just hang on to your 9070xt. Path Tracing is a joke unless your going to buy a 5090 as it's just brings a video card to it's knees.
 
Up to you. Most people don't have the money to consider "smaller bumps" in performance sort of upgrades. But.... if you've got, use it. (Can I have your old DDR5 memory?)
 
I'm glad I did 9070xt for wife's pc, she would not have noticed a difference and it saves power, heat, and money.
 
Quiz said:
For better ray tracing and path tracing performance? Or do you feel ray tracing and path tracing are not worth enabling? I haven't even tried a ray traced game on my new PC yet anyway but thought I'd still ask.
Click to expand...
No.
 
Quiz said:
For better ray tracing and path tracing performance? Or do you feel ray tracing and path tracing are not worth enabling? I haven't even tried a ray traced game on my new PC yet anyway but thought I'd still ask.
Click to expand...
No
 
I have recently ran a 3080Ti, 9070xt, 5070ti and 5080 on my 5120x1440 monitor.

Get in Cyberpunk, run path tracing, get 35+fps with the 9070xt, and ask yourself, do I want it to look this good, and run at 75+fps?

Turn Oblivion remastered to max settings, full HW RT, play the game, and ask yourself, do I want it to look this good and run at 80+fps?

If the answer is no, then don't get a 5080. The answer for me, was yes. I think RT and DLSS 4 are great.

And I would not spend more than $999 on a 5080.
 
Quiz said:
For better ray tracing and path tracing performance? Or do you feel ray tracing and path tracing are not worth enabling? I haven't even tried a ray traced game on my new PC yet anyway but thought I'd still ask.
Click to expand...
Simple, turn on the ray tracing options on your current hardware in your games and at whatever resolution you play at. If you are satisfied with the performance and settings, then the answer is "no". If you aren't happy with your performance and settings then the answer is "yes". You don't need validation from others to spend or save your money.
 
How do AMD drivers compare to NVIDIA drivers these days?
 
CraptacularOne said:
You don't need validation from others to spend or save your money.
Click to expand...
Mimetic desire is destructive. And it is the norm. We all operate this way. If you're interested in learning more about it, this interview is excellent.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk

I had stuttering issues with DX9 games with the 9070xt. My friend, whose system 100% AMD, has no issues.

My computer crashed hard yesterday in windows while watching youtube. I looked at the dump. It seemed to be caused by changing power states, so I rolled back the driver. I wanted to try the DLSS 4.5, but I don't think their latest driver fully baked.

Otherwise Nvidia's drivers have been fine for me.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't change if I already had the 9070XT but if I didn't, I would just go for something like a 5070Ti to be honest. I like PT/RT and the RTX/DLSS ecosystem is in a good place right now.
 
Quiz said:
How do AMD drivers compare to NVIDIA drivers these days?
Click to expand...
All drivers work well if you can manage Windows and maintain it.
There is always something that needs to be fixed in the drivers of both companies.
AMD Adrenaline is way ahead of Nvidia's control panel, and Nvidia App needs a lot of work before it becomes anything useful.
AMD AFMF works much better than Nvidia Smooth Motion, especially with older games games locked at 60 FPS that you would like to boost to 120 FPS. (it is driver-based frame generation, not in-game).

If you want to upgrade, there are only two worthwhile options after the 9070 XT, and those are the 5090 and somehow 4090.
 
Imo yes. If you want to enjoy games with full bells and whistles and rarely revisit games.
 
I’ve got a RTX 4090 (slightly more powerful than a 5080) paired with a 9950x3d and a 9070XT paired with a 9850x3d. (So pretty equivalent gaming CPUs) If somehow you managed ti get one at the original MSRP and sell your 9070xt then yes, worth it. But at 1500-2000 absolutely not. If I only had the 9070XT I would be plenty content with its performance until next gen. Even if that may be 18 months out.
 
Simple - ray tracing and path tracing are simply not enough of an overall visual benefit to justify the bow $600+ price difference. For that amount you can get a pretty killer OLED screen that would make a much bigger impact.

Even when it was about a $400 difference it was impossible to justify. A raw raster performance jump of 15-20% isn’t worth any more than 20% of the cards price.

The only way the uptick in price would be justified is if you use professional programs that perform better with Nvidia cards. And even then the 5080 is not that much more performant vs the 5070ti, and has the same amount of VRAM.

Unfortunately with the AI shit those have jumped up 30% from MSRP as well. But still the best value in this generation for mixed usage.
 
RedCharles9001 said:
Mimetic desire is destructive. And it is the norm. We all operate this way. If you're interested in learning more about it, this interview is excellent.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk
Click to expand...


In that case "mimetic desire" is the main fuel for why advertisers constantly push the way they do. They shape human behavior with their constant pressure... hell.. I'd chalk it up to peer pressure in the OP's case of wanting to "sidegrade" from a nice mid-high end AMD GPU to an NVIDIA RTX GPU.
It's what the cool kids are doing.. .so why not me, right
 
jlbenedict said:
In that case "mimetic desire" is the main fuel for why advertisers constantly push the way they do. They shape human behavior with their constant pressure... hell.. I'd chalk it up to peer pressure in the OP's case of wanting to "sidegrade" from a nice mid-high end AMD GPU to an NVIDIA RTX GPU.
It's what the cool kids are doing.. .so why not me, right
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Object. Subject. Model. It's not that the subject admires the object, it's that the subject admires the model, and sees the object that the model has, and then wants it for himself because the subject wants to be the model. It's not genuine desire, it's a copy. The Girard video is excellent at explaining this.

I like the old muscle car ads because they're not sophisticated. One of these ads is a mimetic trick, with a good dash of fertility mixed in, and the other is focused on the thing itself.
Thrush1.jpgBitchCam.jpg
For example, Linus tech tips is dependent on Linus's personality. Nerds admire Linus, and are therefore interested in the object he has. And it's why his image is so important to his business. It's why he cannot be seen as an asshole, why he tries to look and act younger than he is, and his family is featured in some videos. You too could be Linus. Looking younger and cooler than you are, be a hardcore nerd and have a nice family, just get this RTX 5000. And I would add, even as he tells his audience not to buy to the 5080, the image of him holding the 5080 is more powerful than his words. The rest of the video shows his uncool, overweight goons tell you how shitty the value is, and then at the end, it goes back to him with the 5080. The key tell here is that there are no shots of his uncool goons and the 5080 together, so even as they tell you not to buy the 5080, they're still selling the 5080.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbg7ChsjmEA

I still remember the day I realized that car magazines were wall to wall ads, even the articles. Same goes for the news. And same goes for product reviews. It's not just that they're selling you a 5080, they're selling you a lifestyle, car guy, news junkie, or in this case, a lifestyle of upgrading your hardware all the time. Being a consumer whore.

There's nothing wrong with wanting the 5080. Just be sure you want it for the thing itself.
 
And if you can live without the XT, you can get Crimson Desert with a 9070 for $630 from Newegg right now. That's about as good as it's going to get this year for fast 16GB GPU deals.

I take it back, there's a PowerColor with Crimson Desert for $589. Huh. That would have been an ok price over a month ago.
 
Last edited:
sk3tch said:
No. I have gone back and forth with these cards several times this gen. In fact, I am AMD-less right now and I am contemplating selling my 5090 to get a 9070 XT to pocket the savings. The 9070 XT is a phenomenal card. Just don't make that move. If anything go laterally. You really won't notice it much unless you play benchmarks.

What I love about AMD's newest cards is that the RT is actually decent now. Of course, it's not NVIDIA level - but it is very good for the games that I play. RT is amazing but it is not game-changing at this time. Just really nice eye candy that is fun...but I don't think you should waste the cash.

All in all - your call though! If you just want to tinker and would feel better with NVIDIA...go for it.
Click to expand...
Same exact situation and assessment here. Performance above the 9070xt is right at the the precipice of diminishing returns. I love my 5090, but my 9070xt gave me 90% the same experience... for nearly 1/4 the cost. Conversely put, paying nearly 4x the price for a card that delivers 10% material gain in gaming experience (using the good-old [H] definition) is a ludicrous proposition. As a real-term example, I could nearly rebuild my entire home gym for the difference in price.

Further, no way in holy heckfire would I move from a 9070xt to a 5080. I'd put the real, material value in gaming between the two cards at around $200-250, no way is it $600 nV and resellers want.
 
No, keep the 9070 XT. I'm a 5080 owner who just played through RE Requiem maxed out with Path Tracing and MFG as well and enjoyed those features. But I'm 100% sure I would have been just as happy playing the game without those features, and and that goes for pretty much every other game with PT that I've played so far. I almost just played it on PS5 because I've played all the other recent REs on there before I got the 5080 (was on a 3080 12GB before) and enjoyed them.

The only reason I got the 5080 was because it was below MSRP at the time and was a "deal", though still stupid expensive for what it is IMO. I don't think anyone should be buying GPUs right now unless they absolutely have to. Now is really a good time to get into retro gaming (or just work on your backlog) and explore other hobbies, I think. 😅
 
harmattan said:
Same exact situation and assessment here. Performance above the 9070xt is right at the the precipice of diminishing returns. I love my 5090, but my 9070xt gave me 90% the same experience... for nearly 1/4 the cost. Conversely put, paying nearly 4x the price for a card that delivers 10% material gain in gaming experience (using the good-old [H] definition) is a ludicrous proposition. As a real-term example, I could nearly rebuild my entire home gym for the difference in price.

Further, no way in holy heckfire would I move from a 9070xt to a 5080. I'd put the real, material value in gaming between the two cards at around $200-250, no way is it $600 nV and resellers want.
Click to expand...
A 9070xt is not 90% as fast as a 5090 at 4k once you turn on rt ECT it's going to be way slower.

One is running medium settings the other is maxed out....I call that more then 10%
 
tunatime said:
A 9070xt is not 90% as fast as a 5090 at 4k once you turn on rt ECT it's going to be way slower.

One is running medium settings the other is maxed out....I call that more then 10%
Click to expand...
He said "experience", not performance. Much more subjective, but I agree with him. IMO console and lower tier card players get 90% of the "experience" as a 5090 owner playing the same game even at much lower IQ and performance levels.

Sure in the moment the 5090 player is getting a significantly better experience, but after the game is over and you're remember the game/experience afterwards both players essentially had the same experience playing the through the game and will remember them the same. Like I play Helldivers 2 with my friends on PS5 and Xbox while I'm on PC, and despite me playing at 150+ FPS at max IQ and they're at 60 or even less sometimes on medium/high settings prolly, we both are enjoying the hell out of it and talk about the experiences afterwards as if we all did it together still. Same with single-player games we play and talk about afterwards. We pretty much never talk about the graphics quality or performance of the game unless it's a bug or major issue with the game itself or something.

But of course there are PCMR types that would call those console experiences unplayable and say it would ruin the experience. And they only say that because they've been spoiled by the highest end hardware and think they couldn't go back from it. But personally, I have little issue going from 240 FPS in a game to 30 on a console, as it may be jarring for a few mins, but then I get used to it and adapt. Hell I still go back and play PS1 and N64 games at 20 FPS sometimes and play those fine as well as long as it's a stable FR like Wave Race and Zelda OOT is on N64 are at 20 FPS.

Apologies for derailing the threaed a bit for that though.
 
T4rd said:
He said "experience", not performance. Much more subjective, but I agree with him. IMO console and lower tier card players get 90% of the "experience" as a 5090 owner playing the same game even at much lower IQ and performance levels.

Sure in the moment the 5090 player is getting a significantly better experience, but after the game is over and you're remember the game/experience afterwards both players essentially had the same experience playing the through the game and will remember them the same. Like I play Helldivers 2 with my friends on PS5 and Xbox while I'm on PC, and despite me playing at 150+ FPS at max IQ and they're at 60 or even less sometimes on medium/high settings prolly, we both are enjoying the hell out of it and talk about the experiences afterwards as if we all did it together still. Same with single-player games we play and talk about afterwards. We pretty much never talk about the graphics quality or performance of the game unless it's a bug or major issue with the game itself or something.

But of course there are PCMR types that would call those console experiences unplayable and say it would ruin the experience. And they only say that because they've been spoiled by the highest end hardware and think they couldn't go back from it. But personally, I have little issue going from 240 FPS in a game to 30 on a console, as it may be jarring for a few mins, but then I get used to it and adapt. Hell I still go back and play PS1 and N64 games at 20 FPS sometimes and play those fine as well as long as it's a stable FR like Wave Race and Zelda OOT is on N64 are at 20 FPS.

Apologies for derailing the threaed a bit for that though.
Click to expand...
Is this soft or [H?]Have you looked at the new RE game? With path tracing it looks and feels like a totally different game that really adds to the creepiness with how well done the lighting is. Definitely more then a 10% feeling. Now rather that is worth it to you or not is another story.

However it makes no sense to go to an 80x card might as well go 5090 or hold what he has because they gimped the 5080 to much this gen.
 
I downgraded from a few different 5090’s at 4k to a 5080 and I don’t miss the 5090 at all to be honest. The 5080 does great for me at 1440P. All this talk of 1440P being the sweet spot finally sunk in after all these years..😂
 
1440p is only the sweet spot if the DPI is within reason.. ( is that fair to say and somewhat accurate ? )

1080p probably still looks good on 21-24 inch monitors
1440p on a 27 is probably the ultimate sweet spot.. even though 32" are made with this resolution and is an acceptable experience...just "lower" image quality as you can distinguish the pixels
 
tunatime said:
Is this soft or [H?]Have you looked at the new RE game? With path tracing it looks and feels like a totally different game that really adds to the creepiness with how well done the lighting is. Definitely more then a 10% feeling. Now rather that is worth it to you or not is another story.
Click to expand...

T4rd said:
No, keep the 9070 XT. I'm a 5080 owner who just played through RE Requiem maxed out with Path Tracing and MFG as well and enjoyed those features. But I'm 100% sure I would have been just as happy playing the game without those features, and and that goes for pretty much every other game with PT that I've played so far. I almost just played it on PS5 because I've played all the other recent REs on there before I got the 5080 (was on a 3080 12GB before) and enjoyed them.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I disagree. But to each their own and your opinion is just as valid as mine. It's good discussion and food for thought for OP at least. 🙂
 
Hash_Immutable_1337x said:
1440p is only the sweet spot if the DPI is within reason.. ( is that fair to say and somewhat accurate ? )

1080p probably still looks good on 21-24 inch monitors
1440p on a 27 is probably the ultimate sweet spot.. even though 32" are made with this resolution and is an acceptable experience...just "lower" image quality as you can distinguish the pixels
Click to expand...
I have often felt the same way despite idiots that want to argue. All about the DPI.

On that point, I never understood why 24" 4k panels exist. I feel like any improvement is very much deminishing returns.
 
The RedCharles9001 post about mimetic desire is probably the most underrated comment in this whole thread. Half the "should I upgrade" posts on hardware forums boil down to people wanting validation for a purchase they've already emotionally made.

To actually answer OP though: I went through a similar decision recently and kept my 9070 XT. The way I see it, the 5080 gives you maybe 15-20% more raster and noticeably better RT – but at current prices you're paying $600+ for that delta. That's a second monitor, a good set of headphones, or frankly just money in your pocket.

The one scenario where I'd say yes: if you play a lot of horror/atmospheric titles with path tracing (RE Requiem, Cyberpunk PT mode) AND you genuinely care about that lighting quality AND you're at 4K. In that very specific use case the difference is real and noticeable. For everything else at 1440p, the 9070 XT is doing the job just fine and will continue to for a while.
 
I have both cards. The only reason I even got a 5080 was the deal on a new one for less than $1000.

It still wasn't worth it to upgrade a 9070 xt to a 5080 for gaming. Other things perhaps. Depends on use case beyond gaming.

The 9070 it is a solid card. The 5080, for it's price point, especially these days, has very little gain over the AMD.
 
T4rd said:
He said "experience", not performance. Much more subjective, but I agree with him. IMO console and lower tier card players get 90% of the "experience" as a 5090 owner playing the same game even at much lower IQ and performance levels.
Click to expand...
I'd generally agree with that. I have a 5090 in my main rig. Also have an ARC B580 in my "portable" rig. Cheap Intel card does just fine as long as you don't try to make it do 4k. It obviously doesn't look as good, but it does the job just fine. That said, I like my bling and don't regret the 5090. By bling, I mostly mean path tracing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
I mean, define worth it. If you wanna spend you money, go for it, you don't need our approval. I spend stupid amounts of money on gaming and I don't care if people think it is silly, it makes me happy. I upgraded from a 4090 to a 5090. Was it necessary? Hell no. Am I happy with it? Hell yes.

The real question is how bad you want high end RT or PT and if that, plus better frame gen, is worth it because that's mostly what you are getting. If that is worth it, if you desire the shiny path tracing, which I totally get because I do then ya might be worth doing. nVidia's frame gen is nice too, it works real well in many games. Cyberpunk 2077 is great with 3x frame gen on my system.

Just keep in mind that:
  • Framegen is really only useful if you have at least a 120Hz monitor, and more is better. Doing framegen from a low input FPS ends up not only not looking great but feels too laggy. You need your base FPS to be in the 50fps+ range, (maybe 40fps). So if you have a nice fast monitor it is a nice "win more" technology that can let you have smoother motion, but if you have a 60Hz panel it isn't super useful.
  • Path Tracing is amazing and I love it, but not a lot of games support it. If you get the 5080, for sure go and get as many of them as you can and play them it is totally worth it, but most of your games are not going to benefit. Go have a look at nVidia's list of games that support things and filter by Ray Reconstruction. That's not a perfect list as games can do PT without RR or RR without PT but it is pretty accurate. How many of those interest you? If the answer is "none" or "one" might not be super worth. If the answer is "most" or "all" then it is more worth it.
  • DLSS is better than FSR but it is only a real big deal for FSR 2 and 3. Games that support FSR 4 look way closer to what you get with DLSS and it isn't likely to be a huge step up. Now a lot more games support DLSS, and you can override DLSS to newer versions in all but the very oldest games so that's an advantage, but again, look at the games you play and want to play. If they all support FSR 4 then the visual upgrade to DLSS will be more minor. I'd still say it is better but not so much that you'd want to spend a lot on it. On the other hand if the games you like only have FSR 2, DLSS 4/4.5 (which you can force with the nVidia app) will be a massive quality upgrade.
Just really thing is there something else you'd rather have the money for, including emergencies? How easy is it for you to blow $1400-1600? If it is super easy and it'll make you happy, then sure, you don't need our approval. However if not, it isn't like the 9070 sucks, it's a good card that'll play any games out there quite well.

THRESHIN said:
On that point, I never understood why 24" 4k panels exist. I feel like any improvement is very much deminishing returns.
Click to expand...
It's past the point where you can usually discern individual pixels (around 200PPI for monitors) so it looks real smooth. It's more of a desktop thing than gaming. Same reason why there's interest in 6k 32" monitors, again past that 200PPI limit where the individual pixels are pretty much imperceptible so things look super smooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top