Question Replacing GTX 660 finally, suggestions?

[kizo]

Right off the bat, I can see that you missed a vital aspect of my post. I said nothing about the RX 6700 XT. I said something about the RX 6700.

Allow me to say again what I said word-for-word:
"Honestly though, I don't think that the RX 6650 XT is worth buying while the RX 6700 still exists. This is because that 8GB VRAM buffer had become somewhat of a barrier for 1440p. Sure, you play at 1080p right now, but with 1440p monitors falling in price, who knows what you'll get in a year or two."

Now, to be clear, I agree with what you said about the RX 6700 XT not being ideal for your use-case which is why I didn't recommend it.

However, the difference in price between the RX 6650 XT and the RX 6700 is so small that it renders the RX 6650 XT pointless.

From PC Part Picker:

The RX 6650 XT that you consider to be ideal:
ASRock Radeon RX 6650 XT Challenger 8GB - $240

The RX 6700 that I consider to be ideal:
XFX Radeon RX 6700 Speedster SWFT 309 10GB -$270

Now, maybe the RX 6650 XT really IS the best card for you but it's very unlikely. I'm a seasoned tech expert who has owned three GeForce and fourteen Radeon cards so I have repeatedly seen the long-term effects of time on video cards that I have personally owned.

I think that spending a paltry $30 for two extra gigabytes of VRAM (to put you over the 8GB barrier) and a full PCIe4 x16 connection (6650 XT is only PCIe4 x8) is a no-brainer if the card has the same performance otherwise. For a video card, VRAM is LIFE as having too little is like giving the card a genetic defect that will cause premature death.

Since I've been buying cards for so long, I'm well aware of how cards age and in a year or two, 8GB will hinder 1080p as well. Sure, it can be mitigated but what's the point of your don't have to? You can always use these same mitigations years later with a 10GB card.

Since HW requirements for 1080p advance more slowly than higher resolutions, a 10GB card might outlive an 8GB card for an extra four years.

You'll also more than recoup that extra $30 if you ever sell the card because the demand for low-VRAM cards has TANKED in the used market. In five years time, I expect that the RX 6700 will be worth an extra $50+ over the RX 6650 XT because of the extra VRAM alone.

Hell, the RTX 3080, which had an MSRP that was $50 higher than the RX 6800 XT is now selling for $50 LESS than the RX 6800 XT on the used market. Why do you think that is?

The RTX 3080 has about the same gaming performance, supports DLSS2 and is vastly less prone to that performance being hampered by RT being turned on than the RX 6800 XT. So why is it $50 LESS expensive? It's because the RTX 3080 has 10GB of VRAM while the RX 6800 XT has 16GB. Over time, the value of the RTX 3080 will plummet while the value of the RX 6800 XT will remain relatively stable. AI some point, the RTX 3080 will be selling for HALF the price of the RX 6800 XT because the undersized 10GB frame buffer will render it a crippled card.

Whether you like it or not, VRAM has always mattered and always will. Do you really think that the GTX 1080 Ti would be so legendary if it didn't have 11GB of VRAM? Hell no.

I fully agree that the extra $80 for the RX 6700 XT wouldn't reap enough benefit for you to be worth it but I do believe that the extra $30 for the RX 6700 is TOTALLY worth it.

There is 12GB 3080 you know.
I had one.
I miss it .

 

[Avro Arrow]

There is 12GB 3080 you know.
I had one.
I miss it .

Of course I know about it but they were very rare compared to the 10GB model. Why don't you have it anymore?