• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Begbie said:
If they release a 6700XT @ £400, which beats the 3070 I'll be very suprised. I want it. But I'll be suprised.

But if they don't, then I'll move to Nvidia which will be the first time in over 10 years! I can't even remember the last Nvida card I had? 8800 of some description I think....
Click to expand...
Yeah last nVidia I had was a 8800GT in 2008 then I switched to crossfire soon after and had multi GPU setups all the way through to this single 5700XT. I just think if they release the 6700XT which will be around that 3070 speed imho within £100 of the nVidia, theyr'e on a hiding to nothing, but we'll see, exciting times at least! The one thing that's a surprise here is not the performance hints we've seen, it's the price! Simple as that wayyyy lower than I thought!
 
Last edited:
pugheaven said:
Yeah last nVidia I had was a 8800GT in 2008 then I switched to crossfire soon after and had multi GPU setups all the way through to this single 5700XT. I just think if they release the 6700XT which will be around that 3070 speed imho within £100 of the nVidia, theyr'e on a hiding to nothing, but we'll see, exciting times at least! The one thing that's a surprise here is not the performance hints we've seen, it's the price! Simple as that wayyyy lower than I thought!
Click to expand...

Same naughties card for me think it was the Alpha dog. I really think a 67/6800XT will be decent though, as in your gonna get near nvidia performance on both a better power level and its gonna be cheaper.
 
Like i have mentioned before i think two things from this launch point towards AMD having big competition this time.

The TDP and costs are pretty much what seals it for me, those big power numbers wouldnt be there if Nvidia thought they could leave 5-10% on the table... Fine for overclockers and all that but reference cards in the 300s?
Plus the pricing, actually semi-reasonable 3070 cost for a decent bit of performance strikes me as an obvious competition part that will be around the same speed but cheaper - Not like nvidia to do this.

I dont think AMD will worry about the 3090, its stupid money and nvidia will just launch "super" or the awaited ti version of both the 3070 and 3080 the second AMD gets close or passes the initial cards.

So i recon there could be real competition out of the various big Navi's for Nvidia and i think they know it.
 
Twinz said:
I think there is difference between simply filling up the buffer and actually running out of needed vram.
Click to expand...
Do you have any proof that they just fill it up for the sake of it?

From my understanding they don't just cache random stuff for laughs. They do it to avoid hitching regardless of how the player decides to traverse the world.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Do you have any proof that they just fill it up for the sake of it?

From my understanding they don't just cache random stuff for laughs. They do it to avoid hitching regardless of how the player decides to traverse the world.
Click to expand...

Quick google search and this example popped up:

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/12#:~:text=Simply put Call of Duty: WWII will use,that it can use in the GTX 1080.
Simply put Call of Duty: WWII will use all the VRAM it can and will fill it with any file that the GPU may need. This often makes the GPU use a lot more VRAM than is necessarily required, but the game can easily run with less than the 8GB of VRAM that it can use in the GTX 1080.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many games do it this way, but obviously some do.
 
Twinz said:
Quick google search and this example popped up:

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/software/call_of_duty_wwii_pc_performance_review/12#:~:text=Simply put Call of Duty: WWII will use,that it can use in the GTX 1080.


I don't know how many games do it this way, but obviously some do.
Click to expand...

Unless he tested the same card with different memory amounts and found that he achieved the same performance regardless of the amount of accessible memory, he can not draw the conclusion that it was caching unnecessay items.

If it was caching excessively then i would expect the graph on the page you have linked to have almost identical RAM usage regardless of setting.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Unless he tested the same card with different memory amounts and found that he achieved the same performance regardless of the amount of accessible memory, he can not draw the conclusion that it was caching unnecessay items.

If it was caching excessively then i would expect the graph on the page you have linked to have almost identical RAM usage regardless of setting.
Click to expand...

This was the very next paragraph:

The game's graphical options menu includes a VRAM indicator that gives an estimate of how much VRAM the game requires, which says that the game requires less than 3GB of RAM when using the game at 1080p max settings and 4GB of RAM when running at 4K. This means that modern 3+GB cards will have no issues when it comes to VRAM capacity, though 2GB card users will likely need to scale things back a little.
Click to expand...
 
Its even better now it has complete silence. Lisa must have the NDA boys by the balls waiting to light up that phat cigar!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom