• 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.
Where’s my bias?

Turing price was **** - check
Space invaders problems - check
DLSS 1.0 was useless - check
RT implementations are kinda rare - check

overall value of turing was garbage at the highend ( rtx 2080, 2080s, 2080ti)

but guess what? Rx5700xt’s value wasnt that much better considering every single one of its buyers is SOL when it comes to next-gen and RT. They HAVE TO ( emphasis on have to ) buy a new GPU if they want to experience console level graphics at the minimum in the next years.
 
Grim5 said:
According to digital foundry analysis, the PS5's Ray Tracing performance is on par with the RTX2060 Super


Click to expand...


Using some rough calculations, the 6900xt has roughly double the number of cores compared to the ps5 and even though it might run a lower clock speed, to make this easier let's assume they both running at 2.2ghz that the ps5 uses.

So the ps5 = 2060 Super in RT.
So the 6900xt = 2060 Super x2 in RT.
The 2060 Super average 5k points in Port Royal, so the 6900xt estimate is 10k points.
The RTX 3080 average 11k and RTX 3090 averages 13k.



So here is the Ray Tracing performance estimate where the 6900XT is the baseline.

edit: added in other consoles

Xbox Series S 25%
PS5 50%
Xbox Series X 70%
RTX 2080ti 75%
6900XT 100%
RTX 3080 110%
RTX 3090 130%
 
Last edited:
chris85oc said:
I’m very nice in general. Just can’t stand hypocrisy. Guess i turn into an ******* then, apologies.
Click to expand...

Ah I'm only kidding. Try not to get so worked up over the cards. Too many people do! Either they offer enough at the right price for someone to want one or they don't.
 
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...

If you don't use something, it's easy to forget.

Lokken86 said:
So iv misinterpreted the meaning of the 50% perf/watt but there's nothing wrong with the maths I used
Click to expand...

As an example (and assuming I've remembered it correctly) the best way to think of it is performance per watt = performance/watt (that's a divide)

so, lets say, currently we have performance is 100, power is 100, performance per watt is 100(perf)/100(watt) = 1 (100%), but now we have a new performance, at an increase of 50%, so we can either have 150(perf)/100(watt) = 1.5 (150%) or 100(perf)/66.66(watt) = 1.5 (150%). Or some mixture in the middle.

If that's not right, I'm sure i'll make @Howling RQ :p
 
loftie said:
If you don't use something, it's easy to forget.

As an example (and assuming I've remembered it correctly) the best way to think of it is performance per watt = performance/watt (that's a divide)

so, lets say, currently we have performance is 100, power is 100, performance per watt is 100(perf)/100(watt) = 1 (100%), but now we have a new performance, at an increase of 50%, so we can either have 150(perf)/100(watt) = 1.5 (150%) or 100(perf)/66.66(watt) = 1.5 (150%). Or some mixture in the middle.

If that's not right, I'm sure i'll make @Howling RQ :p
Click to expand...

Nope, you're absolutely right. I'm definitely losing the will to live a little though :D
 
humbug said:
You're working really hard picking your way through the internet to find things to use to chip off every percent you can get and then argue about those few percent as if its somehow a huge issue for AMD's competitiveness, it isn't, it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference, its just deranged.
Click to expand...
Typical of him :p
 
Even though I brought a 3080 at release I still hope AMD beat nvidia this time around in performance as I think it will be good for the market.
 
TBF all the points he makes about HU giving AMD leeway are perfectly valid imo. RT and DLSS are rarely used and not that much of a deal breaker imo. I'm sure that will change in the future but for now and for as long as the 5700xt will be still relevant I don't see it changing too much.

Another funny point was how 5700xt pc master race will be behind consoles without RT. Funny how pc master race would bash consoles for not using native res but now we have DLSS native res isn't important....:rolleyes:
 
chris85oc said:
Where’s my bias?

Turing price was **** - check
Space invaders problems - check
DLSS 1.0 was useless - check
RT implementations are kinda rare - check

overall value of turing was garbage at the highend ( rtx 2080, 2080s, 2080ti)

but guess what? Rx5700xt’s value wasnt that much better considering every single one of its buyers is SOL when it comes to next-gen and RT. They HAVE TO ( emphasis on have to ) buy a new GPU if they want to experience console level graphics at the minimum in the next years.
Click to expand...

If they launched a Gpu without some sort of RT now you have a point, but saying 5700/XT not really.

edit:- then to now
 
SpudMaster said:
TBF all the points he makes about HU giving AMD leeway are perfectly valid imo. RT and DLSS are rarely used and not that much of a deal breaker imo. I'm sure that will change in the future but for now and for as long as the 5700xt will be still relevant I don't see it changing too much.

Another funny point was how 5700xt pc master race will be behind consoles without RT. Funny how pc master race would bash consoles for not using native res but now we have DLSS native res isn't important....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I agree a lot of people laughed at checker board 4K, now look they giving a pass with DLSS.:rolleyes:
 
Peter75 said:
Whatever they unveil, they will ruin consumer confidence with awful driver support.
Click to expand...
Nvidia ? as the 3080/90 launch is going so well, they going to have their own fine wine drivers

To be honest 5*** must have been a pain to wright drivers for with Gcn and Navi code in there and that is down to Amd.
At least Amd cards don't catch fire.
 
queamin said:
Nvidia ? as the 3080/90 launch is going so well, they going to have their own fine wine drivers

To be honest 5*** must have been a pain to wright drivers for with Gcn and Navi code in there and that is down to Amd.
At least Amd cards don't catch fire.
Click to expand...

Right, I'm confused, you say its down to AMD. Yes, who else would I be talking about when it comes to driver support?

Catching on fire you say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQjTYbqG1CI
 
Last edited:
loftie said:
so, lets say, currently we have performance is 100, power is 100, performance per watt is 100(perf)/100(watt) = 1 (100%), but now we have a new performance, at an increase of 50%, so we can either have 150(perf)/100(watt) = 1.5 (150%) or 100(perf)/66.66(watt) = 1.5 (150%). Or some mixture in the middle.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yeah I got it the wrong way around and mistakingly took it to mean 50% of the power for the same performance I didn't realise it was actually 50% more performance for the same power :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom