That's not the point I was making. If it's a bad card, slate it. If it's a good card, praise it. If it's a so-so card then say that. But he was saying positive things in such a dour, cynical and negative fashion it almost came across as begrudging. And it really gave mixed messages if you weren't paying attention.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Navi 23 ‘NVIDIA Killer’ GPU Rumored to Support Hardware Ray Tracing, Coming Next Year
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
- Status
To me its more than a so so card in terms of AMD, its a fast card without being brut force, to be honest i think Nvidia are the yard stick for that, you have to compare AMD's cards to Nvidia because for a long time now they have made cards that are much more efficient than AMD's cards.
With that a 5700XT has 2560 Shaders, 256Bit 14BG/s GDDR6 and it runs at about 1900Mhz, identical specs to the 2070 Super and the performance is the same.
Now look at AMD's previous generation, The Radeon VII, 3,840 Shaders, 1900Mhz, HBM2, on the same 7nm its 40% larger. Its no faster, in fact some reviewers are saying the 5700XT is starting to overtake it.
Per shader per clock RDNA1 is more than 50% faster, its every bit as good as Nvidia's Turning, it is AMD's Ryzen 1000 GPU.
If its a "So so card" then so is the 2070 Super, and i don't think it is. the 2070 Super is also £100 more expensive.
Performance is closer to a 2070.
I'll give you that it is good card, time of arrival and were disappointing but good to see AMD making good strides in efficiency.
Performance is closer to a 2070.
I'll give you that it is good card, time of arrival and were disappointing but good to see AMD making good strides in efficiency.
Original Drivers.....
Vs a 2080 Supper, +18%
BFV: 49 - 59 (+20%)
Detroit Become Human: 56 - 60 (+7%)
Call of Duty: Warzone: 61 - 66 (+8%)
Forza Horizon 4: 80 - 93 (+16%)
Hitman 2: 57 - 67 (+17%)
Red Dead Redemption 2: 33 - 39 (+18%)
Metro Exodus: 49 - 61 (+25%)
Assassin's Creed Odyssey: 38 - 46 (+20%)
PUBG: 47 - 65 (+38%)
2080 Super vs 5700XT: Average: +18%
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The 5700XT is a good card, it's small and rather powerful.
But it's not that energy efficient considering its size advantage versus Nvidia GPU's. It's more energy and performance efficient than the VII, but the Vega stuff was never considered efficient.
But the price was meh, given how it skewed the AMD tiers.
This is compounded by the fact than AMD hasn't really launched a Vega 64 replacement still in terms of that flagship tier product, because the VII was just a "Because we've got no other options" launch.
At £250 the 5700XT would be A+ (And would qualify Navi as that Ryzen of the GPU world you want it to be), however the 5700XT's pretty much been a C its entire life.
It's a little bit harder to compare with the Nvidia stuff considering that came out first and all that with a better feature set.
The 2070 Super because of its pricing though would again be branded a C/So-so card for me too.
I don't rate either AMD or Nvidia. Nvidia are railing us from behind and then AMD's going for sloppy seconds afterwards.
People calling Navi the Ryzen of the GPU world is just a mockery though.
Ryzen was an absolute game changer. Navi's just more of the same in a red colour.
The TUF is a recent test, June 2020?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,659
"Navy Flounder" sounds very fishy to me 
@Martini1991
Power consumption is still too high i agree, at least it is for a 7nm GPU, performance per watt is the same as Nvidia but Nvidia are on 12nm, its a 200 Watt GPU, it should be 140 watt.
AMD have work to do there and lets see if RDNA2 50% performance per watt improvements hold true.
Yes its too expensive from what it is, i do think AMD wanted it to be a $500 card which is ridiculous, having said that Nvidia's performance equivalent is a $500 GPU.... take from that what you will the whole damn pricing structure is screwed up
I don't think RDNA2 will be the price reseter that some people think it will be.
Despite this i think AMD did very well, coming from the Bulldozer (sorry Vega fans) of the GPU space to at least matching Nvidia's Turing in a single generational step, there is more to do i agree, there was more to do when AMD launched Zen 1, they have done more now.... and it looks like are about to do even more.
I like the 5700XT, i do think its a very good GPU, i don't like the Cooler that ASRock glued on to mine but fine tuning it i have managed to get it to run at ~170 Watts with a few more % performance from stock.
In terms of AMD being on their way back its a good start.
Power consumption is still too high i agree, at least it is for a 7nm GPU, performance per watt is the same as Nvidia but Nvidia are on 12nm, its a 200 Watt GPU, it should be 140 watt.
AMD have work to do there and lets see if RDNA2 50% performance per watt improvements hold true.
Yes its too expensive from what it is, i do think AMD wanted it to be a $500 card which is ridiculous, having said that Nvidia's performance equivalent is a $500 GPU.... take from that what you will the whole damn pricing structure is screwed up
I don't think RDNA2 will be the price reseter that some people think it will be.Despite this i think AMD did very well, coming from the Bulldozer (sorry Vega fans) of the GPU space to at least matching Nvidia's Turing in a single generational step, there is more to do i agree, there was more to do when AMD launched Zen 1, they have done more now.... and it looks like are about to do even more.
I like the 5700XT, i do think its a very good GPU, i don't like the Cooler that ASRock glued on to mine but fine tuning it i have managed to get it to run at ~170 Watts with a few more % performance from stock.
In terms of AMD being on their way back its a good start.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Bulldozer wishes it was as good as Vega lol.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,525
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Vega was a D.Fair...
But tweaked it was a C.
At the time it could compete performance wise with the 1080.
Bulldozer could get smashed by a pentium sometimes lol.
lol... Ok that is true.
YE TEN FRAMES MORE THA A 5700XT FOR AN EXRA £350
Why i didn't get a 2070, i seriously considered it but AMD's driver performance is always crap initially, especially with new GPU architectures, i knew it wouldn't be too long before the 2070 got left being hind once AMD got their drivers act together.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
That video is using a 5700xt at 4k. Those results are only academic at best. However, at only 10 fps it really does show how well the 5700xt has come.
It's apparent that RTG finally got the hang of RDNA and now we are finally seeing improvements that leave the 2070 in the dust. It's finally a 2070s competitor within striking distance of a 2080s.
I posted a list of games in this thread:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33821451/
Yes its getting there, AMD never stop trying to improve driver performance and they always get a couple % every now and then. I think it will still grow a little more, 2080S i doubt that but 2080.... yeah.
Doesn't that mean they'd need a greater than 115% increase in performance to achieve 40% faster than a 2080ti? That does seem like a stretch to me.
Why is it a stretch? The 5700 XT only has 40 CUs and is a 225W card. If AMD are successful in bringing 50% performance per watt uplift with RDNA 2 then 40 of the new CUs at the same power will beat the 2080 Ti by 10%. Repeat: that's only 40 CUs. Now double up to 80 CUs as some of the rumours say and you easily hit that 40-50% more than the 2080 Ti.
Look at the XSX. It's 52 CUs? The entire system uses about 250W? And yet it's looking like it can match the 2080 Super? So what happens when you take those 52 CUs and drop it into a PC graphics card, and those same 250W only need to power the GPU, not an entire console?
So it's not a stretch at all, in fact I'd say it's a requirement and if AMD don't get there then they've disappointed us again. This is not hype train, this is real expectation based on what we've seen RDNA 1 can do, what (little) we've seen RDNA 2 consoles can do and what AMD said they're aiming for with RDNA 2 over RDNA 1.
Last edited:
- Status