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%

  • bizudeB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.