• 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.
Howling said:
Jesus ******* wept.... This thread is actually making me die inside with the level of maths... You'd be at 300w, not 220w with a 50% improvement

Edit: changed value, I quoted too high. It's closer 295w but I rounded for ease to 300.
Click to expand...
Why? It's using 50% of the power. 50% of 440 is 220 is it not?
 
4K8KW10 said:
Red Dead Redemption II - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 36 +6%
RX 5700 XT - 34

Resident Evil 3 - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 53 +10.4%
RX 5700 XT - 48

Battlefield V - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 61 +0%
RX 5700 XT - 61

Death Stranding - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 61 +3.4%
RX 5700 XT - 59

Gears of War 5 - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 42 +10.5%
RX 5700 XT - 38

Shadow of the Tomb Raider - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 44 +10%
RX 5700 XT - 40

Metro Exodus - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 35 -2.8%
RX 5700 XT - 36

Strange Brigade - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 71 +7.6%
RX 5700 XT - 66

Codemasters Formula 1 - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 67 -1.5%
RX 5700 XT - 68

Flight Simulator - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 26 +30%
RX 5700 XT - 20

Borderlands - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 34 +3%
RX 5700 XT - 33

Far Cry Dawn - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 57 +3.6%
RX 5700 XT - 55

The Witcher Wild Hunt - UHD 2160p
RTX 2070S - 57 +29.5%
RX 5700 XT - 44

In games - on average the RTX 2070S is 8.4% faster than RX 5700 XT across the tested 13 games https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_3090_founder_review,24.html

And in Compute the RTX 2070S is 30.9% faster on average in 8 benchmarks https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_3090_founder_review,27.html

Unigine 2 - Superposition - Extreme quality
RTX 2070S - 50 (6722 points) +21.5%
RX 5700 XT - 41 (5532 points)

3DMark: Firestrike - Ultra Preset
RTX 2070S - 6028 +0%
RX 5700 XT - 6060

3DMark Time Spy - Graphics Score
RTX 2070S - 10088 +8%
RX 5700 XT - 9334

Basemark GPU v1.2 Vulkan Score
RTX 2070S - 10488 +23.8%
RX 5700 XT - 8475

Basemark GPU v1.2 OpenGL 4.5 Score
RTX 2070S - 8970 +76.9%
RX 5700 XT - 5071

Basemark GPU v1.2 DX12 Score
RTX 2070S - 9562 +9.4%
RX 5700 XT - 8736

Indigo v4.0.64 SuperCar MSamples/s
RTX 2070S - 21.572 +50.9%
RX 5700 XT - 14.291

Blender v2.82 Classroom in Seconds - lower is better
RTX 2070S - 100 +57%
RX 5700 XT - 175

RX 5700 XT is a joke of a card. It scores 0 also in all CUDA and Ray-tracing benchmarks.
Click to expand...
What's the point in continuing to dump on the 5700xt? We already went over a million times the 5700xt improved since launch. Guru3d don't redo their benchmark scores for all the cards every review.
 
Twinz said:
Class. Tier, "flagship"...none of it matters. Ampere money gets you more than Turing money.
Click to expand...
And that makes artificially limiting stock to drive up prices and therefore actively lying about MSRP somehow OK? Turing gave us more than Pascal, Pascal gave us more than Maxwell. Are Turing, Pascal and Maxwell prices acceptable then? You clearly don't get what's going on, or you don't care, and that's fine. That also means theres zero reason to continue this particular subject of conversation.
 
Howling said:
Jesus ******* wept.... This thread is actually making me die inside with the level of maths... You'd be at 300w, not 220w with a 50% improvement

Edit: changed value, I quoted too high. It's closer 295w but I rounded for ease to 300.
Click to expand...


Nablaoperator said:
We have a much simpler way to estimate targeted performance:
50% improvement per W .. RDRs leaks are suggesting 60%
old navi tdp 225W
navi 21 rumoured tdp 300W
so navi 21 would be 2.1x (300/225*1.6) old navi (RX 5700 xt) fps throughput

since these are commercial targets i am assuming these translate to end performance and not how fast instructions are being processed, as many such instructions have to be thrown out and don't influence the final frame
Click to expand...
 
Lokken86 said:
Why? It's using 50% of the power. 50% of 440 is 220 is it not?
Click to expand...

Because it's not using 50% of the power... ..... It's 50% more efficient... so per watt it can do 1.5x what rdna1 did.. or inversely it takes 66.6% the power to put the same work out.

Honestly, these last 5 pages have diminished my faith in the education system to the point where if I ever have kids, I'm homeschooling ....
 
4K8KW10 said:
That's not true - TechPowerUp reports all the tested Radeon cards with driver 20.8.3 WHQL which is the latest version available prior to RTX 3080/RTX 3090 reviews.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-geforce-rtx-3090-strix-oc/4.html
Click to expand...
So why quote guru3d results?
Looking at those results from techpowerup. One issue I've spotted so far. Why do they test Borderlands 3 on dx11? Even my laptop gets like 25% increase using dx12. I know that the equivalent Nvidia laptops get no increase on dx12. Not sure about desktop but I ld wager they are the same. Techpowerup don't use it because "long load times". And there's no "Instability" either that's whack.
 
Howling said:
Because it's not using 50% of the power... ..... It's 50% more efficient... so per watt it can do 1.5x what rdna1 did.. or inversely it takes 66.6% the power to put the same work out.

Honestly, these last 5 pages have diminished my faith in the education system to the point where if I ever have kids, I'm homeschooling ....
Click to expand...
So iv misinterpreted the meaning of the 50% perf/watt but there's nothing wrong with the maths I used so stfu.
 
Lokken86 said:
So why quote guru3d results?
Looking at those results from techpowerup. One issue I've spotted so far. Why do they test Borderlands 3 on dx11? Even my laptop gets like 25% increase using dx12. I know that the equivalent Nvidia laptops get no increase on dx12. Not sure about desktop but I ld wager they are the same. Techpowerup don't use it because "long load times". And there's no "Instability" either that's whack.
Click to expand...

The argument began when @humbug brought different results to TPU's, showing that TPU's 11.4% difference is actually 1%.
Then, I decided to check a proper review, went to Guru3D and found the truth.

Both Guru3D (with 20.9.1) and TPU (20.8.3 WHQL) have tested with the latest or one of the latest Radeon drivers available.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The argument began when @humbug brought different results to TPU's, showing that TPU's 11.4% difference is actually 1%.
Then, I decided to check a proper review, went to Guru3D and found the truth.

Both Guru3D (with 20.9.1) and TPU (20.8.3 WHQL) have tested with the latest or one of the latest Radeon drivers available.
Click to expand...
He's basing that from hardware unboxed recent video revisiting the two cards using the latest drivers. Apparently the difference was cut down from 11% to only 1 or 2%. They did quite a lot of benchmarks too.
 
4K8KW10 said:
In games - on average the RTX 2070S is 8.4% faster than RX 5700 XT across the tested 13 games
Click to expand...

I just looked at the data

The AVG time interval between frames is
Rtx 2070 s 22 millisec
Rx 5700 XT 24 millisec
Rtx is faster by 9.5%

If we ignore witcher 3, flight simulator i.e. outlier adjustment
Rtx 2070 s 21 millisec
Rx 5700 xt 22 millisec
Rtx 2070 s is faster by 4.6%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom