AMD Graphics Cards Are the Better Value at Every Price Point

Graphics card GPU group photos
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

The Cyber Monday graphics card deals are here, and there are many great values. They're also almost universally on the AMD side of the party, as Nvidia's RTX 30-series remains overpriced, relative to AMD's RX 6000-series. It feels like Nvidia's prices are still stuck in early 2022 and haven't adjusted to the new reality, and in fact Nvidia retail prices have increased compared to September.

In terms of bang for the buck, the only place AMD doesn't currently get the win is at the very top of the bang column. We'll have to wait for AMD RDNA 3 GPUs and the Radeon RX 7900-series to launch before we see a direct competitor to the RTX 4080, and maybe even the RTX 4090. But let's take the matchups on a relative performance basis and run through the categories, from highest to lowest performance and price.

We'll include overall performance results from our GPU benchmarks hierarchy for both the rasterization and ray tracing performance. Nvidia — and sometimes Intel — can stake a claim on the DXR (DirectX Raytracing) side of things, and if you feel ray tracing has lived up to the hype that's fine. In general, we still find RT effects drop performance far too much for their image fidelity gains, and upscaling algorithms like DLSS, FSR 2, and XeSS are often required.

TLDR: AMD's Best Radeon Values

Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.

  • Roland Of Gilead
    IMO, AMD GPUs are as fast as Nvidia, or sometimes faster - In general raster performance.

    Outside of that, and including RT goodness, and upscaling tech, AMD fall behind. My two cents. I know there will be some that don't agree with me.
    Reply
  • irateogle
    Looking around the used gpu market in my area, you get way better bang for your buck with AMD cards. 3060's were going for 400 or so and the 6600 xt I bought was 325 which comes with much better performance (prices in $CDN).
    Reply
  • blacknemesist
    Roland Of Gilead said:
    IMO, AMD GPUs are as fast as Nvidia, or sometimes faster - In general raster performance.

    Outside of that, and including RT goodness, and upscaling tech, AMD fall behind. My two cents. I know there will be some that don't agree with me.
    AMD needs to focus more on drivers and optimize them for games.
    NVidia drops drivers so often it is even annoying.
    DLSS and RT are still NVidia's win and the 4090 wins vs anything but AMD is ever so close, they just need to make the GPUs better with support, NVidia wins a lot in that department.
    Also AMD develops for all GPUs so even if inferior it still is a props for me, hate patented and gate keeping(not saying it is not fair to do so because it cost $ but as a consumer I want everything :) )
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    Amd gpus are better for old cpus and new ones. Nvidia drivers are bugged latency higher than amd. Kinda sucks for low ipc cpus (with amd your old computer fly, with nvidia you need a high end cpu).
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    blacknemesist said:
    AMD needs to focus more on drivers and optimize them for games.
    NVidia drops drivers so often it is even annoying.
    DLSS and RT are still NVidia's win and the 4090 wins vs anything but AMD is ever so close, they just need to make the GPUs better with support, NVidia wins a lot in that department.
    Also AMD develops for all GPUs so even if inferior it still is a props for me, hate patented and gate keeping(not saying it is not fair to do so because it cost $ but as a consumer I want everything :) )
    Radeon drivers are great now - Radeon drivers are poor still... what's the actual ratio of these claims?
    Radeon Software better than Nvidia Control Panel has been consistent though...

    With how much smaller(budget and resources) AMD is than Nvidia, how do you expect any of that to happen?
    "WTH AMD, your drivers are so crap. You gotta do better than that. Nvidia gpus all the way.

    /next gpu gen arrives
    "They were so close, but can do better next time. Meanwhile, I'll throw more money towards the more costly Nvidia options."

    /next gpu gen arrives
    "You've failed us again, AMD. Come on, try harder! Nvidia still offers the best - though pricing is higher - so I'll buy more Geforce."

    /next gen gpu arrives and the above has been rinsed and repeated for how many years now?

    Sometimes I think whether this is really a gpu duopoly...
    Reply
  • drivinfast247
    Amdlova said:
    Amd gpus are better for old cpus and new ones. Nvidia drivers are bugged latency higher than amd. Kinda sucks for low ipc cpus (with amd your old computer fly, with nvidia you need a high end cpu).
    WTAF?
    Reply
  • dalauder
    Okay, I was wrong before. Tom's does write pro AMD articles, they're just more pro Radeon and anti Ryzen.

    I do think this article needed writing--well done. Buyers tend to just think "GeForce is better" and that's mostly not true. I do have a game from 1999 that has trouble on my Radeon drivers though.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    drivinfast247 said:
    WTAF?
    I think what Amdlova is talking about is that AMD has a dedicated hardware scheduler on its graphics cards which offloads a lot of CPU overhead meaning older/slower CPU’s aren’t as big of a bottleneck when paired with an AMD graphics card vs nvidia.

    Of course, it could just be Amdlova trolling nvidia fans and he was not talking about the hardware scheduler at all…
    Reply
  • shady28
    I agree with the article, bought a 6700 XT for $330 about a month ago. I haven't used an AMD card since, well, I think it was an ATi 9700XT or some such.

    I had always said it was worth an extra $50 or so for more stable drivers, but Nvidia cards are just way overpriced even after the recent price declines and it's by more than $50 - way more now. The 3060 Ti is still north of $400, and the 6700 XT marginally outperforms it.

    I've no overt issues at all with drivers, and the AMD control panel is simpler and easier to use. However, I've had a couple of instances in the last month where when my PC goes to sleep the monitor won't come back on. No idea if that's related or a coincidence.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    dalauder said:
    Okay, I was wrong before. Tom's does write pro AMD articles, they're just more pro Radeon and anti Ryzen.

    I do think this article needed writing--well done. Buyers tend to just think "GeForce is better" and that's mostly not true. I do have a game from 1999 that has trouble on my Radeon drivers though.
    We're not anti-AMD. Paul has written some good reviews of Ryzen CPUs. The issue with Ryzen right now is that the AM5 parts are relatively overpriced — not so much the CPU, but the motherboards are expensive. Given Intel's chips often still end up faster (13th Gen stuff), there's a reason AMD is putting the 7000-series on serious discount. And we've written those articles as well. You'll notice Intel CPUs aren't going on sale, other than maybe $10 of 12th gen parts.

    I've swapped and tested GPUs from both companies so many times that I've lost count. For the past year or more, I've really had nothing that I would quantify as an overtly negative experience on the AMD or Nvidia side. Sometimes, things can go a bit quirky, but often that's just because I change GPUs so darn often. Run DDU, clear out all the AMD, Intel, and Nvidia GPU drivers, do a clean install: It almost always works fine. And by "almost always" I mean I'm sure I've had the occasional hiccup with all brands at some point, but lately it's all gone about as well as could be expected.

    Nvidia's advantage right now is that it has DLSS support (still not totally sold on DLSS3 though), plus Reflex. Reflex is in more games than Anti-Lag and probably works better overall. And Nvidia does have better DXR hardware. How much extra are those items worth? That's the difficult thing to assess. For all the games that don't have any special Nvidia features (DXR, DLSS, Reflex), you might end up paying 25% to as much as 50% more than equivalently performing AMD hardware. But if you start factoring in DLSS2... well, it's still a bit of a nebulous target.

    Personally, I think spending 10% more for equivalent performance Nvidia could easily be justifiable, maybe even 20%. That's using my base level of performance (meaning no DXR or DLSS). So if you want a high-end card like an RTX 3080, even if we use the $700 price (which requires sketchier hardware brands), you're looking at that or the RX 6800 XT. AMD's card is $515, so Nvidia costs 36% more. That's just too big of a jump in my book.

    And looking at the upcoming cards, hypothetically the RX 7900 XT might outperform the RTX 4080 while costing $300 less. Like, it wouldn't surprise me to see AMD (in rasterization games) delivering 10% better performance. Which means the 4080 might end up at something like a 45% price premium, for getting DLSS, DLSS3, Reflex, and DXR boosts. It's becoming an awfully wide gap that favors AMD.
    Reply