AMD is an excellent choice. NVidia UI has been horrible and AMD adrenaline has been better than NVidia for several years now. With NVidia, you are paying A LOT of extra money for trickery and fake pixels, fake frames, fake (ai) rendeering. All fakeness. All hype. When you get down to the raw performance of these new cards, it must be a huge disappointment, otherwise, why would Jensen completely forget to mention anything REAL about the performance of these cards? These are cut-down cards designed to sell at cut-down prices with lots of fluff and whipped cream added on top ...

Do you have a good resource for learning what kinds of hardware can run what kinds of models locally? Benchmarks, etc?

I'm also trying to tie together different hardware specs to model performance, whether that's training or inference. Like how does memory, VRAM, memory bandwidth, GPU cores, etc. all play into this. Know of any good resources? Oddly enough I might be best off asking an LLM.

DLSS is good and keeps improving, as with DLSS 4 where most of the features are compatible with even the 2000 series cards. AMD does not have the same software feature set to justify a purchase.

AMD driver quality is crap. I upgraded from GTX 1080 to RX 6950 XT because I found a good deal and I didn't want to support nvidia's scammy bullshit of launching inferior GPUs under the same names. Decided to go with AMD this time, and I had everything: black screens, resolution drops to 1024x768, total freezes, severe lags in some games (BG3) unless I downgrade the driver to a very specific version.

Pointless putting yourself through the support headaches or having to wait for support to arrive to save a few dollars because the rest of the community is running Nvidia