Pilotasso

Absolutely get the 7900XTX. Your CPU is fine. I have an RTX 4090 and I had to buy a new case, PSU and now changing the 12VHPWR power cable due to black screens (swapped the original with a CABLEMOD third party unit only to get a bad batch, and I had to order one from the same PSU maker tssk tssk). This card is very picky with power requirements as well as overall component quality in your system. It's pretty mighty in DCS though. Save yourself the trouble and get the 7900XTX if your main game is DCS and ray tracing is not a thing for you. Uses normal power cables, less picky with your PSU and fits in more cases. you should be getting similar performance with 400$ savings. Should be a massive upgrade from your 2080Ti. My PC specs are: 5950X CPU RTX4090 SEASONIC 1000W PSU 64GB of 3600Mhz DDR4 I run the game at 4K/240Hz I run all high settings with view distance at extreme and clouds on ultra. In multiplayer RAM / VRAM usage is around 28GB / 22 GB respectively (shocking, yes). since the 7000XTX has also 24GB of VRAM you should be able to run same settings no prob without a hint of stuttering.

... not to be confused with the 43" one their completely different animals. I upgraded from this: 27" Aorus AD27QD IPS 1440P 144Hz, HDR400 To this: SAMSUNG NEO G8 32" VA 4K 240Hz HDR 1000 (samsung says 2000 but it is a lie) My requirements behind this upgrade: Needed a 4K monitor (I have an RTX 4090) with great motion clarity. and I love HDR content. I see alot of people advise the NEO G7 instead due to price difference but here they were like 100€ appart (1087€ VS 1229€) and this one I could get on a physical store if I need to RMA. (I replaced the stand with a 3rd party one) First the CONS: 1-Found out that the color shift is rather aggrevise during normal browsing or non HDR content (you can see it in my photo above, it can even be noticed when facing directly toward the screen). It's a VA panel. 2-Weak screen uniformity at the edges of the screen when displaying flat light colors, even surpassed by previous monitor which was "only" 600€ 3-Substandard color accuracy out of the box, but switching to sRGB mode and tweaking brightness, black equalizer and saturation makes it look very good. 4- Cheap & wobbly stand. promptly replaced. I recommend you using a VESA mount ( but my table doesnt have enough grip margin for one) PROS -AMAZING DAZZLING HDR performance (to the point of squinting with very bright lights) - MASSIVE contrast improvement in games and videos -HDR hardware on this monitor seems actively boosting my SDR movies & series as well - super sharp display, very clear text and graphics everywhere. - Very good motion clarity (not OLED) - No burn in and care free, better HDR in bright scenes with no limiter (2 reasons why I didnt buy an OLED) Quirks a- That curve is not for everyone, but it helps to keep flat colors from shifting further. b- HDR seems to iron out uniformity issues and color shifting. Gaming also is pleasing without noticing shifting as much anymore. c- when dimming zones are active your content consumption brightens and darkens everything else, including the mouse cursor o_O d- 4K makes my 1080P movies or everything 1080P I kept over the years look like dog poo. e- Low lag is only true if I switch off VRR (I found out I dont really need it with 240Hz & 4090 combo) f- What about them infamous scan lines? Yes they are there but I found out they only show up in very specific situations, screen has to be 240Hz and windows toggles and progress bars must be blue (@4K they are tiny and requires alot of effort to spot). Mine aren't blue because they are in sync with background color. I dont see any scan lines anywhere else not even in paint using flat blues or any other color. I dont understand why reviewers hammer so much on this issue. Critical items that might put you off: 1,2 & a. Item f is a nothingburger. Everything else about this monitor image quality is amazing. Hope this helps everyone else considering this monitor.

Your CPU is fine for a 4090. It shouldn't be an issue unless you want to play shooters on 1080P competitively. At 1440p and 4K, it doesn't matter. On the other hand your 3090 is still a beast, not worth upgrading IMHO, unless you have money burning your pocket, then go ahead sure. EDIT: BTW, if your PSU is not ATX 3.0 you should buy a 3rd party power cable for your 4090. Get rid of the adapter that comes in the box.

Another train wreck of a launch by AMD. The saving grace is that the reference models are out of stock everywhere still. The partner cards are the way to go and they don't have this problem.

Another video, best monitors per category:

As you hinted above for regular gaming there is little point in overclocking a card that is already the fastest, except for experimental / Benchmarking reasons. For your everyday gaming the challenge now is to undervolt to 7900XTX levels. Disclaimer: I would like to make it clear that during my christmas GPU purchase, if I had my way I would have gotten the 7900XTX from a partner brand that doesn't do alot of coil whine. However AMD had another trainwreck of a launch, the only card that was actually in stock and not as heavily overpriced was the ROG strix 4090 (sounds incredible but I have proof ). So that's the one I picked up. Kinda stings that I couldn't make an all red build but at least I gotten the fastest card with everything working as intended out of the box.

the 4090 doesn't consume 600W nominaly. It was the coolers that were engineered for that before final TDP was locked down. Mine will go to 430W peak when it's stressed, high refresh rates (G-sync turned off), ray tracing or just a demanding game like cyberpunk 77 will push the card that far. Enabling DLSS, G-sync and/or lock the framerates to like 100 you can bring that down to like 200-300W. I have one and for my casual gaming like Mechwarrior online, I measured power and it was like 100W lol. The big cooler has a blessing in disguise, because they are way overkill they are quiet even when stressed.

Being 144Hz monitors is a necessary condition for smoothness but by itself in not enough. You need: -That the monitor has reduced motion blur. - When you got that checkbox checked, you need a graphics card that can at least maintain 144 Frames second to match the monitors refresh rate. You can do that with a 1440p with current day high end GPU's but for 4K you there is only one GPU up for the task. Guess which one. Also take in consideration the panel technology and their strengths: -VA typically have great contrast but bad viewing angles and for motion blur but there are exceptions (for blur). One of them is the Samsung Neo G7, and that's even faster at 165Hz. -TN panels are super fast and affordable but their colors and contrast suffer. -IPS typically has the best viewing angles but contrast suffers. Fast ones are very expensive though. OLED/QLED, best image quality overall, but I am not a fan of the burn in anxiety. They are also expensive. here's a few videos to get you started:

Speculation is fun but don't hold your breath waiting for it. In my own experience I will never again adopt the 1st gen of a new tech, been there with powerVR and the original geforce. Both overpriced and could only use them on tech or gaming demos. Never did significant actual gaming on them that couldn't be done with a normal 3DFX. Eventually got one that I milked for years. When 2000 series came along I stayed put. Who played ray tracing games on them?

Just to compare a last gen 5950X on PCIE3 e VS Intel12900K on PCIE4 nullnull Source: https://www.eteknix.com/amd-radeon-rx-7900-xt-7900-xtx-review/7/ Not much of a difference between PCIE3 and PCIE4

Here's a quick benchmark run, 1080Ti VS 4090 on a 5950X...on PCIE 3, not 4 (very old motherboard). Look at them frame rates (focus on the GPU side of results ) 3 times faster. null

Ran away from the altar J/K

OK guys, here's the photos of the upgrade. Installation went smoothly, although that 12V cable adapter rubs on the side panel. Still testing the system, I will post some benchies. I noticed I got 3.5X more perf from this 4090 as compared to my older 1080Ti. BTW check out their sizes differences LOL. nullnull

Sometimes I am like that. I told you in another thread that I would get the RX7900XTX but I ended up ordering a 4090 instead It is Strix ASUS variant, was in stock but I have to wait them to ship it from central warehouse to the store which is more like a street quiosque. Why? There are both logical and illogical reasons I did that. The Illogical: - Recently I changed jobs with 50% upgrade of wage so I decided to treat myself with a little something something. - Deep down I am crazy mad scientist type. - Right now I'm more for the fun of it rather than practicality. -A bit of impulse buy - I am barely not married and have no one's wrath to answer for. - kinda breaks my heart not to build a full red system. The (barely) logical: - I buy GPU's for the long run and milk them for what they are worth. My 1080ti is 5&1/2 years old. Legendary card but it starts to show its age. - 4090 draws more watts than the 7900XTX reference but AMD partners side of things draw almost same as the 4090 anyway and those were the ones I was after. My intention was to tweak it's raster perf. to 4090 levels. - 7900XTX has a bug that makes it consume 1000W on idle, I would end consume more than the 4090 over time, who knows when that will get fixed. - Undervolting the 4090 while keeping performance is possible. Now I want to to the reverse of the abobe, tweak the 4090 to consume less than a partner 7900XTX while still keeping it the fastest card overall. - 7900XtX hopelessly slower in any upscale or ray tracing tech. May not matter now, but remember I buy for the long run. - 4090 is so far ahead in this tech that 4090 will still look good VS RDNA4, even if it gets beaten. - FSR3 is still a promise, good or bad green team has their stuff working out of the box. - I saw a local shop price the strix as the 2nd lowest partner card (INNO3D being the lowest), by a difference of 300€-500€ compared to others (depending on shop)... I couldn't believe it, maybe a mistake on their part (everywhere else its the most expensive by quite a substantial margin) and could not resist. I will not tell you how much. Everything is waaaaaaaaaay over MSRP. - Matching RGB scheme I was in the market for a card for a while now, I skipped the 30/6000 series as I was not impressed with their perf and price, and at the time I was kind shorter on funds than I am now for reason I explained above. Last month I upgraded my rig with a phanteks P600S and a SEASONIC Prime 1000W PSU (along with alot of RGB unicorn vomit) in preparation for a new card (in the pic below). I also ordered CABLEMOD's 12VHPWR RT series power cable, and signed up for their 90 degree power adapter launch. The rest of my system specs are: CPU: AMD RYZEN 5950X RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 Cooler: Corsair iCUE H115i RGB Elite Capellix280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

well, looks like the 7900XTX wins over the RTX4090 for me as much I was tempted for the latter. There is simply not enough performance to justify the price difference.

I was thinking in lines of 7950X with vertically stacked cache, but if both happen that would be wild.

I love this guy But bear in mind, Im am not biased on my GPU choice, if these cards have issues like stuttering or driver issues, I'll got 4090.

^^^^I think this stems from the fact people have unrealistic expectations about the 2 cards that were unveiled, along with a mix of total speculation due to the fact AMD had not shown all the information during the unveil show, namely performance figures VS NVIDIA, OC ability and only 2 SKU's of the lineup. Everyone instantly assumed those were the top 2 cards but after the show an AMD tech rep said those are meant to compete with the 4080, NOT the 4090. See video below at 8:20 In light of this, and the performance uplift figures from last gen make perfect sense and to compete with NVIDIA. If you watch the video below, you'll notice ASUS is the only AIB who has unveiled their version of the 7900XT and 7900XTX cards, both of which are limited to the Tuff editions. In that Video when the Strix Edition is mentioned, the rep's simply say they cannot not speak about it. Why was that? My speculation: IMHO The only reason to keep that variant secret is because it is bespoke to a different SKU that AMD has not unveiled yet. Most likely the 7950XT that will be the card to compare with the 4090.

I highly suspect AMD, unlike NVIDIA, will not reserve the best silicon for their own reference models only. The architecture can handle higher frequencies, therefore partners should be able to sort their chips bins to produce OC variants which may allow them approach 4090 levels of performance and watts too (just not ray tracing). This is very interesting. The only thing that can ruin this is bad drivers and stuttering due to higher latency from the communication between chips. Well see.

wait for the reviews man, this is Ryzen 1000 series moment for the GPU's. Cheaper (not cheap) GPU's should equate to proportional performance VS NVIDIA, i.e. not winning, I suspect but lets see first.

7900XT as in the new AMD GPU.

Hi Guys, I am interested in replacing my venerable 1080Ti, with a 4090 or a 7900XT, and for that I already upgraded the case and PSU (Seasonic prime 1000W and Phanteks P600S with some extra unicorn fans ) to make sure I have enough watts and room to install the beast. What is the best trustworthy online store that you would recommend to purchase those from? I live in south of Europe. I know there's a waiting line but the local stores put a nice 1K premium markup over MRSP, and I can't be bothered with that. Thx in advance! The rest of system specs are: Mainboard: ASUS crosshair VI Hero (chipset X370) CPU: AMD 5950X 16 core processor RAM: Gskill Trident Z RGB 32MB (4X8GB) running 3600Mhz CAS14 Future upgrade in mind: 4K HDR1000 monitor (hence my interest in a top tier card)

Bear in mind that most CPU's won't take more than 64GB without a massive drop in speed (by both memory controller limitation and motherboard design), I would hold off from a proactive 128GB upgrade unless capacity becomes the main bottleneck. I dont think there are many 128GB memory kits outside of quad channel systems and cost will be thru the roof. This is an issue for me. Im evaluating an upgrade to 64GB but even that is already expensive as is and not much future proofing in that as far as I can see (128GB kits are not even sold here).

OK guys I finally watched the movie... Twice... In same day... I worn a T-shirt with the American flag, I worn a leather jacket on top (hot as hell for the weather but one has to adhere to the spirit of things) sun glasses, I got pissed, I farted, I sang like an idiot, and enjoyed the snot out of it. It's been a while since I enjoyed a movie at cinema (last time was dune and before that was before the cough-cough). Man I think I needed that because I have been feeling down for years. Also I changed Job with several advantages (in aviation again but not as a pilot). OK back to the movie, I kept expectations low but I was positively surprised, they actually kep GCI to a minimum. It was refreshing to see actors inside the pit for real. I also the movie had a few hidden messages one of them was that the navy wants a dual engine Stealth plane, and it wants it yesterday. I wont spoil the movie but there were several instances the movie gave the F-35 the middle finger. yes it's in it and mentioned but ungraciously dismissed. Fully enjoyable movie that avoids the current fads that plages other movies and make them flop. RECOMMENDED.

The report only mentions 33 of the earliest aircraft in operation. This of course is still is not normal. Either it means there is something wrong with the funding, or that a new undisclosed aircraft is indeed being developed that will replace the type in the not too distant future. There was indication by the USAF in this direction last year, though they did not mention or connect that announcement with this one.