The AMD Navi Thread

ANDREW GREEN · 5 Mar 2019 at 09:55

Read somewhere Navi wouldn't get variable rate shading but Arcturus would. If that's true and as it's processing rather than high end components you'd expect that Arcturus would actually totally replace Navi rather than it just being high end

4K8KW10 · 13 Mar 2019 at 14:33

Navi to be released in August, with availability in September.
Source: ixbt.com

LePhuronn · 13 Mar 2019 at 15:12

ANDREW GREEN said:
... you'd expect that Arcturus would actually totally replace Navi rather than it just being high end

I think that was always the belief anyway. Navi replaces the aging Polaris at the bottom end and the expensive and bloated Vega in the midrange. High volume, low margin sales on a cheap-to-manufacture product to help win back marketshare and profits. Then Arcturus is almost a reset with being something new and GCN is dropped. Navi's performance (as suggested) would cover off the midrange segment for a while so Arcturus may well come in as a top-end card first and then scale down.

We'll see in 2020.

ANDREW GREEN · 13 Mar 2019 at 16:36

LePhuronn said:
I think that was always the belief anyway. Navi replaces the aging Polaris at the bottom end and the expensive and bloated Vega in the midrange. High volume, low margin sales on a cheap-to-manufacture product to help win back marketshare and profits. Then Arcturus is almost a reset with being something new and GCN is dropped. Navi's performance (as suggested) would cover off the midrange segment for a while so Arcturus may well come in as a top-end card first and then scale down.

We'll see in 2020.

I think I'll probably hang on for Arcturus if Navi doesn't have variable rate shading. It sounds like there's going to be a jump. I know you could always hang on but Polaris has been around for ages

LePhuronn · 13 Mar 2019 at 17:18

Given that architectures are planned a long time in advance, who's to say which features will appear in what product. AMD's VRS patent was filed in 2017, so it's feasible that it's being worked into GCN6 and therefore it will be in Navi. Given also it's rumoured AMD are putting VRS into next-gen consoles, and Navi allegedly was produced for the PS5, then the pinch-of-salt threads of information do seem to coalesce.

subbytna · 14 Mar 2019 at 16:33

With that 1660 out today, Navi needs to be in good shape and soon. the 1080p market is back in play again due to the pricing of the 1660 v the 580/590 cards

4K8KW10 · 14 Mar 2019 at 17:08

subbytna said:
With that 1660 out today, Navi needs to be in good shape and soon. the 1080p market is back in play again due to the pricing of the 1660 v the 580/590 cards

RX 590 8GB is fine to deal with GTX 1660 6GB. Navi should address some different tiers - RTX 2060 6GB and up.

subbytna · 14 Mar 2019 at 17:28

4K8KW10 said:
RX 590 8GB is fine to deal with GTX 1660 6GB. Navi should address some different tiers - RTX 2060 6GB and up.

1660 is beating the 590 by around 10% and is cheaper. Free games balances it a bit but that'll not last forever. Low end Navi needs to be competitive in price.

4K8KW10 · 14 Mar 2019 at 17:59

subbytna said:
1660 is beating the 590 by around 10% and is cheaper. Free games balances it a bit but that'll not last forever. Low end Navi needs to be competitive in price.

3% and RX 590 8GB goes for 199, while the cheapest 1660 6GB begins from 199, as well https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/graphics-cards/nvidia/geforce-gtx-1660?sPage=1&sSort=3

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1660_Twin_Fan/28.html

james.miller · 14 Mar 2019 at 21:14

They arent 4k cards, why anybody would compare them at 4k i don't know. The gap is 10% at 1080p and that's where they should be compared.

4K8KW10 · 14 Mar 2019 at 21:16

james.miller said:
They arent 4k cards, why anybody would compare them at 4k i don't know. The gap is 10% at 1080p and that's where they should be compared.

At 1080p, you are CPU-bound, so the card doesn't work at 100%.

And even there, it's 8%, nowhere near 10%.

james.miller · 14 Mar 2019 at 21:22

4K8KW10 said:
At 1080p, you are CPU-bound, so the card doesn't work at 100%.

Doesn't matter. Framerates are too low at 4k. Check the benchmarks in the review you linked to. Check TPU's GPU database info on the 1660 which they rate as unplayable at 4k and only playable at 2560x1440.

25.8fps AVERAGE? Not 4k cards.

4K8KW10 · 14 Mar 2019 at 21:55

james.miller said:
Doesn't matter. Framerates are too low at 4k. Check the benchmarks in the review you linked to. Check TPU's GPU database info on the 1660 which they rate as unplayable at 4k and only playable at 2560x1440.

25.8fps AVERAGE? Not 4k cards.

This is not objective testing - they don't test at which settings at 4K the games will become playable. Look for example how the framerate at 1080p is 150 FPS, while at 4K it's only 50 FPS.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1660_Twin_Fan/17.html

james.miller · 14 Mar 2019 at 22:05

4K8KW10 said:
This is not objective testing - they don't test at which settings at 4K the games will become playable.

So why did you post the comparison between the cards at 4k then? Didnt you read the review before you posted the link? That's not like you is it?

BAH who am i kidding. That's exactly like you

CuriousTomCat · 14 Mar 2019 at 22:13

Considering that the 2080 cant even handle 4k in every game at 60fps, I'd say that 4k isn't really a viable option with current gen cards. Especially when you consider that performance drops by 20% year on year. A GPU needs to last two years because thats the refresh cycle.

A 60 fps GPU wont get 60 FPS in next years games.

4K8KW10 · 14 Mar 2019 at 22:22

james.miller said:
So why did you post the comparison between the cards at 4k then?

Because that particular graph is the most representative about the differences between the cards.

james.miller · 14 Mar 2019 at 22:46

4K8KW10 said:
Because that particular graph is the most representative about the differences between the cards.

At an unplayable resolution. So not really then.

Scougar · 14 Mar 2019 at 23:27

It is about whether the graph supports 4K8KW10's argument. I have learned to mostly ignore him/her, panos and one other I can't recall the name of just now.

Bottomline is they beat the 590 easily for 1080p and maybe a little higher with decent frame rates for about the same cost at much lower power. If anyone is silly enough to buy a 590/1660 level card or below for 4k gaming, they ought to spend some time doing basic research next time.

4K8KW10 · 15 Mar 2019 at 00:01

Scougar said:
It is about whether the graph supports 4K8KW10's argument. I have learned to mostly ignore him/her, panos and one other I can't recall the name of just now.

Bottomline is they beat the 590 easily for 1080p and maybe a little higher with decent frame rates for about the same cost at much lower power. If anyone is silly enough to buy a 590/1660 level card or below for 4k gaming, they ought to spend some time doing basic research next time.

For me, GTX 1660 is late and fail. Launched 4 months after RX 590 and offering virtually the same performance at the same price and without 3 additional free games.

Navi won't even address GTX 1660 or 1660Ti, for that matter.

TNA · 15 Mar 2019 at 08:37

4K8KW10 said:
For me, GTX 1660 is late and fail. Launched 4 months after RX 590 and offering virtually the same performance at the same price and without 3 additional free games.

Navi won't even address GTX 1660 or 1660Ti, for that matter.

Pretty much what Vega was to Pascal, but you never called that a fail and that was much later than 4 months... I really don’t get why people are so bias one way or the other. Just say it as it is, it is just a graphics card end of the day.

Too much bias on this forum, all from fully grown men, some even grandpa’s

Competitor rules

** The AMD Navi Thread **

The AMD Navi Thread