Sharing my attempt at a handy list of 1440p Raster performance numbers, expanded from past meta review of GPUs posted by u/Voodoo2-SLi
This is a very limited take though, just 1440p Raster numbers as percentages. The basic data is from Voodoo’s 7700 XT and 7800 XT meta review post. Other GPUs are filled in with back-calculated numbers inferred from Voodoo’s previous meta review posts, in reverse chronological order as: 4060 Ti and 7600 meta review post, 4070 meta review post, and 4070 Ti meta review post. As example, 3060-12G numbers were calculated as:
70.7 (4060 Ti-8G percentage from 7800 XT meta review) x 69.2 (3060 Ti-12G percentage from 4060 Ti meta review) /100 = 48.92.
Since the set of games tested by various reviewers change across months- typically with increased GPU requirements- the filled in GPU data may not be highly accurate, but should still be fairly representative of the performance.
If you find any inaccuracies, please point them out, and I will make corrections in the table as needed.
| GPU | 1440p perf |
|---|---|
| 6600 | 43.06% |
| 3060-12G | 48.92% |
| 6650 XT | 52.25% |
| A770 LE | 55.15% |
| 7600 | 55.43% |
| 3060 Ti | 64.69% |
| 6700 XT | 67.40% |
| 4060 Ti-8G | 70.70% |
| 4060 Ti-16G | 71.20% |
| 3070 | 73.74% |
| 3070 Ti | 79.90% |
| 6800 | 82.70% |
| 7700 XT | 85.60% |
| 4070 | 95.00% |
| 6800 XT | 95.70% |
| 3080-10G | 95.86% |
| 7800 XT | 100.00% |
| 6900 XT | 103.90% |
| 3090 | 106.30% |
| 6950 XT | 109.35% |
| 4070 Ti | 115.05% |
| 3090 Ti | 115.05% |
| 7900 XT | 128.00% |
| 4080 | 138.30% |
| 7900 XTX | 140.60% |
| 4090 | 165.20% |
You must log in or register to comment.
Missed the 4060. Should be at 55.50% ish
Ah, thanks for pointing out that prominent omission.
Unfortunately, Voodoo’s meta review for 4060 only has 1080p numbers, no 1440p numbers there. But looking at his numbers here, the closest rival is 7600 at 2.2% slower than 4060 at 1080p. With an assumption that 1080p performance scales identically on both GPUs to 1440p, the 4060 calculation would be 55.43*100/97.8
= 56.68% in the above 1440p table, slotting in just above RX 7600. That’s pretty much your estimate.
Damn, 4080 is so slow compared to 7900xtx /s
you are going to run most games at 4k dlss performance with 4080 in which case it will absolutely smoke the 7900xtx in fps because fsr looks bad. at 4k you need to run fsr on quality to match dlss on performance.
Slower while costing 20% more isn’t good no matter how you spin it.
How does this compare with tom’s hardware GPU hierarchy and which one do you think I should use as a guidance?
That’s a great question- Tom’s hierarchy is a nice go-to resource, with handy quick reference charts and tables, but they aren’t the only ones doing rigorous testing. There are other well-regarded testers doing exhaustive and thorough testing- Techpowerup, Hardware Unboxed aka Techspot, ComputerBase to name a few I like.
What a meta review does is open up the test configurations and environments, broaden the number of tested games, reduce biases, and minimize errors because of the significantly larger data set. In my view, the meta review data is more reliable because of all these reasons.
All that said, if comparing this table with Tom’s or TPU’s or HUB’s tables, we will see similar ballparks and patterns.
What a meta review does is open up the test configurations and environments, broaden the number of tested games, reduce biases, and minimize errors because of the significantly larger data set. In my view, the meta review data is more reliable because of all these reasons.
This is usually correct, but sometimes reviewers as a whole screw things up. The X3D factorio benchmarks are a great example of that.
3080 can dlss it self to being a 4k card but 7800xt will always be a 1440p card because fsr looks bad.
7800xt can still use XeSS which is closer to DLSS.
If you are using upscaling, then it’s not 4K anymore. Nothing wrong with rendering at a lower resolution. I think cleaned up 1080p looks good enough for me, I wouldn’t call that 4K.
This reinforces an observation I made when we saw the leaks for the 40 series Super cards, which is that Nvidia is basically shoring up their raster performance against AMD in every segment except the low end.
- +5-10% would put 4070 Super just ahead of 7800XT
- +10% and 16GB VRAM lets 4070Ti Super compete on more even footing with 7900XT
- 5-10% improvement puts 4080 Super decidedly ahead of 7900XTX in performance and helps justify the premium, plus makes it look better against 4090.
Really looks to me like Nvidia is serious about moving more gaming GPUs next year than this year. They had to know the crypto oversupply hangover was going to keep GPU sales pretty slow in 2023, and the 40 series launch was very obviously kept mediocre to avoid forcing fire sales on Ampere parts to protect margins. Now that Ampere stock is truly just about dried up, I expect the GPU market to return more “to normal” with us getting better value on the Super cards, and probably at least decent value when the 50 series launches.
Not sure how others didn’t see that, but its obvious that Nvidia Super series is bridging the gaps of tiers that are edged out by AMD
Something is weird with the game selection for 4070 Ti to get past 6950XT. Is both bg3 and that crappy jedi game included?
Game selection widens considerably in such meta reviews actually, since testers test different sets of games. I had checked for the same two GPUs in Tom’s hierarchy before posting, since I too was suspicious of the 4070 Ti trumping 6950 XT at 1440p. But Tom’s confirms the trend, with 4070 Ti clocking 115.1 fps, and 6950 XT at 113.7.
They test with Borderlands 3 (DX12), Far Cry 6 (DX12), Flight Simulator (DX11 AMD/DX12 Intel/Nvidia), Forza Horizon 5 (DX12), Horizon Zero Dawn (DX12), Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan), Total War Warhammer 3 (DX11), and Watch Dogs Legion (DX12).
Regarding whether BG3 and Jedi Survivor were tested elsewhere, they were likely not, at least BG3 was not. The 6950 data was either pulled from 4070 Ti or 4070 meta review shortly after their release, and these games weren’t available then. This is one of the caveats I point out in the original post.