And it’s not to harm those who use high frequency monitors, they are a luxury if you can enjoy them on your computer and it has enough power to enjoy them. However, it’s a waste of money to use a graphics card that can run graphics at higher resolutions and frames per second than your monitor can display.
How much does each frame cost?
Yes, we look at the performance of high-end graphics cards, we will realize a very simple fact, the vast majority of them can play the most demanding games at a frame rate above 60 frames per second in any current game and without messing up. So much so that when it comes to enjoying any game today, it doesn’t matter what graphics card you buy. Obviously, an RTX 4090 will beat them all, but when it comes to gaming on your standard Full HD monitor, those steady 60 FPS will really come out on top.
All this whether you use the most powerful graphics card on the market or one that costs a quarter of its price. The problem is that graphics cards have completely exceeded the power needed to play the vast majority of g ames. And in the network of networks you will see comparisons with hundreds of frames per second and where they will tell you what each frame costs. The general feeling? It seems that given the economic situation, there is no incentive to buy a graphics card, unless, of course, there is a significant change that is driving it all.
put things into perspective
The following three graphs correspond to the cost in dollars per image, taking into account the price in Europe at the moment, of the various high-end graphics cards. That is to say with a price above 500 dollars, in the three most common resolutions: Full HD, Quad HD and 4K.
All graphics cards exceed 60 FPS without issue and the average was made with the total number of frames per second they can achieve. However, for the vast majority of audiences, maintaining a steady 60 FPS is enough to have a good experience for the vast majority of audiences. In other words, for those who have a simple monitor, whatever its resolution, with a refresh rate of 60 Hz, they will have to shell out the following in dollars per image:
So there must be some added incentive to pay too much for a graphics card and that’s where we get into the elephant in the room for AMD.
Euros per frame with more modest graphics cards
Well, things get quite interesting and the graphics that we saw in the previous section are completely transformed, especially if we are talking about enjoying a game in Full HD and at 60 FPS. Also, in a lot of games, even when playing at 4K, the NVIDIA RTX 3060 averages over 60 FPS without issue. Which makes it an ideal graphics card in terms of price and performance.
Y no solo los models de NVIDIA, podemos hablar de las RX 6600 XT de AMD, la cual consigue resultados muy similares, aunque mucho más justos par legar a los 60 FPS en 4K, pero se trata de la resolución más alta y menos usada de all. Thing is, if your goal is to game at standard frame rates without breaking the bank, then both are great graphics cards, which can handle any current game, but don’t expect them to run any games with ray tracing because they won’t be able to. with her Although this is another matter, but we will deal with it below.
In conclusion, if we are not going to use Ray Tracing and we have a 1080p monitor that cannot exceed 60 FPS, as you can see, it is currently not necessary to take out a mortgage to enjoy high-end games quality and working smoothly.
AMD’s Problem with Ray Tracing
This theme is like that of the fox and the grapes, since she didn’t come, she didn’t want them. For some time it had been known that graphics cards were going to exceed the power needed to move games in development, so a reason had to be found that would justify the need for more power. NVIDIA found it with Ray Tracing. Lisa Su’s company, on the other hand, has been boycotting its implementation for years, using substandard implementations that often look more like a boycott than anything else. In the case of the RX 7900 XTX and XT, it is for this reason that forums and social networks around the world have talked about it.
The problem is that comparing the implementation of ray tracing in different games is misleading, in some it’s so minimal that it doesn’t affect performance, in others optimizations from one or another manufacturer are used. That’s why we decided to take a rather neutral ground and opted for Control, the Remedy Entertainment game to measure the performance of the different cards in Full HD and Quad HD and incidentally know how many dollars per dollar each one costs us.
Full-HD
Here the high price of the RX 6900 XT stands out, but you have to keep in mind that it is discontinued and is the only model for which AMD has not lowered the price because it has been completely replaced by the new RX 7900. It is precisely in this resolution that it is in which the differences between NVIDIA and AMD are hardly noticeable in terms of cost, however, the graph is deceiving to say the least and we all know that the power of any which GPU on PC decreases over time. That’s why we decided to accompany it with the compared frame rate where all the reality is seen.
As you can see, the RX 6000 barely manages to increase just over 60 FPS in-game, which will have disastrous consequences if you’re using a monitor with a much higher resolution. Luckily for today’s games, two-thirds of users have had enough, but it’s not a good idea to think only of the present.
Quad-HD
This is already where the slaughter begins and where the previous generation of AMD graphics cards are already showing the white flag for the fact that they can’t handle the rush of having to push game graphics to 60 FPS. Although in this case there is occasionally an NVIDIA graphics card that is not registered and also with approved scraping.
However, we found a surprise in the case of measuring dollars per frame, although NVIDIA cards perform better in this respect. The price of each frame remains in a similar price segment and leads us to believe that AMD, while not publicly valuing Ray Tracing, has priced it based on its performance using ray tracing, but they also didn’t want to devalue their hardware below it. from Nvidia.
conclusions
For the vast majority of users, Ray Tracing is not necessary, it is rather its implementation in games that must justify the new generations of graphics cards under the GeForce RTX brand. Getting to use them without having Ray Tracing active is sacrilege to say the least, especially since today it’s the only way to justify their high price and choose them over those of your rival. Although, as we said before, for the vast majority of users, reaching 60 FPS is more than enough today and opting for a high-end graphics card.
Table of Contents
