Unless the one shown by AMD at the Zen 3 event was the N21 XL, the 72CU part that's partly gimped by lower clocks and less RAM. That leaves the XT, the other 72CU part with more RAM and higher clocks, then finally the XTX, 80CUs and high clocks to take the top spot. But of course we don't know which they showed off, it's either the XT or the XL, they wouldn't show their top card, just like how they don't start with the 16 core CPU when showing them off, they start with the 8 core etc.
-
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
Unless the one shown by AMD at the Zen 3 event was the N21 XL, the 72CU part that's partly gimped by lower clocks and less RAM. That leaves the XT, the other 72CU part with more RAM and higher clocks, then finally the XTX, 80CUs and high clocks to take the top spot. But of course we don't know which they showed off, it's either the XT or the XL, they wouldn't show their top card, just like how they don't start with the 16 core CPU when showing them off, they start with the 8 core etc.
If you assume this is the situation nothing nVidia can't match, at a cost - the 3090 is 2 SMs short of the full core (2-4% uplift), they have loads of options when it comes to GDDR6 and GDDR6X.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
How much extra power use though with that if they stick to Samsung 8nm. Nvidia have hamstrung themselves a little bit by not using 7nm. I think tech wise Nvidia still have the advantage if both companies used the same process. AMD are catching them up though so i expect Nvidia won't be sitting around for long.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,389
- Location
- Birmingham
That chart has to be fake, it has 3070 Ti and 3070 Super on it - cards which haven't even been made yet (probably).
We are drip fed tech....
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 852
- Location
- Hartlepool
The crown for raging is over on the queue thread for the 3080, poor guys are being well shafted by the lack of communication and after paying could be waiting months.
Fixed that for ya
Someone is just generating synthetic performance results for all the logical variations. Numbers will be roughly indicative but IMO they've taken the 50% perf/watt improvements for AMD as providing similar performance uplift which it won't so over-calculating by around 15-20%. (Things like power gating will only give potential small performance increases).
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,107
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
Fixed that for ya
Not going to be captain obvious but I have no sympathy for the people jumping in two feet first like mindshare zombies without seeing what the opposition have to offer (when you know they are releasing is only weeks away). By putting nvidia up on a pedestal it high time they got stung and awoke to what imperfect business machines are like - they dont care about you so vote timely with your wallet if you want to hurt them.
Not really, if Nvidia had gone with 7nm their 3080 was going to run at up to 2500Mhz boost. Its only cause they are on 8nm that they have had to dial it back to up to 2100.
So I can certainly believe the frequencies on that chart for AMD.
That graph is without RT and DLSS. It is expected AMD will only have half or less the RT performance so Nvidia will concentrate on that and they are really really pushing DLSS in everything so with RT on, Nvidia equivalent cards will be faster again. With DLSS they will open up the gap a lot. All depends if you want t game with DLSS on or how much support in games there is.
Ig AMD give me a raw power 3090 beater for £800 I am all over it. I dont care about RT and DLSS. I will game in full native 4k between 60 and 120 fps and max quality. That wll do until next gen when RT will have improved.
Where are you getting the, AMD will have half or less the RT performance from? From reading on Twitter and various places from technical people, i.e people in the know, they expect AMD to at least match Turing at RT. As for DLSS, yes it's a good tech, but there's still very little games that actually use it, by the time more games actually do use it AMD will have a better implementation of it, they expect AMD to have a version that works, maybe similar to DLSS 1.0 perf.
They are just some guy's guess best on theoretical numbers. It's why you get things like clock speeds given, there's an underlying formula being used to generate these charts.
Not sure why this thread has gone gaga over them.
These get posted with almost every GPU release. Rarely correct other than at a very broad level which anyone could guessed. They are fake in the sense there is no real benchmarking behind them. It's also why it can produce GPUs that don't exist as it is all theoretical.
Those seem high to me - even with a 15% frequency uplift from using the plus variant of the node you aren't really going to see much over 2GHz at those kind of GPU sizes.
Cause ampere has 80% better RT than Turing so not quite half then, if its as good as Turing it will have 60% of the RT performance of Ampere.
Dont get me wrong I am not knocking AMD but doubt they are going to be able to match Nvidia in RT this gen.
SO if each AMD is up to 10% faster than the equivalent Nvidia model its up against, once you switch on RT, the Nvidia card will be faster. Basic maths. Unless AMD can pull off 90% of the RT performance of AMpere and I havent see anybody trying to claim that anywhere.
I will be happy if AMD are faster than Nvidia at every card at raw power and slower with every card with RT on. Will all depend on price. No good if each model is matching Nvidia in price.
And I agree with DLSS, there are what 14 games that support it? So if you like it (I dont) and play games which support it then obviously the Nvidia card is going to massively outperform the AMD model until they get something out to compete against it.
Last edited:
You forgot the amount of salt that link requires.
Would be nice. Take the best quality silicon ones 50-100mhz clock speed bump maybe another bump on memory and stick xtx sticker on it.
Ampere isn't 80% better than Turing at RT?
From Hardware Unboxed:
Metro Exodus (DX12) 4K Ultra
RTX 3080: Native Resolution: 124fps Ray Tracing: 48fps
RTX 2080TI:Native Resolution: 92fps Ray Tracing: 37fps
RTX 2080: Native Resolution: 73fps Ray Tracing: 26fps
At Native 4K 3080 is 34.78% faster than the 2080 Ti, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 29.72% faster.
At Native 4K 3080 is 69.86% faster than the 2080, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 84.61% faster.
3080 Ray Tracing performance is 38.70% of Native 4k.
2080Ti Ray Tracing performance is 40.21% of Native 4k.
2080 Ray Tracing performance is 35.61% of Native 4k.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider (DX12) 4K Highest Quality
RTX 3080: Native Resolution: 87fps Ray Tracing: 51fps
RTX 2080TI:Native Resolution: 67fps Ray Tracing: 38fps
RTX 2080: Native Resolution: 52fps Ray Tracing: 29fps
At Native 4K 3080 is 29.85% faster than the 2080 Ti, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 34.21% faster.
At Native 4K 3080 is 67.30% faster than the 2080, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 75.86% faster.
3080 Ray Tracing performance is 58.62% of Native 4k.
2080Ti Ray Tracing performance is 56.71% of Native 4k.
2080 Ray Tracing performance is 55.76% of Native 4k.
Control (DX12) 4K High Quality
RTX 3080: Native Resolution: 56fps Ray Tracing: 36fps
RTX 2080TI:Native Resolution: 41fps Ray Tracing: 25fps
RTX 2080: Native Resolution: 32fps Ray Tracing: 16fps
At Native 4K 3080 is 36.58% faster than the 2080 Ti, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 44% faster.
At Native 4K 3080 is 75.00% faster than the 2080, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 125% faster.
3080 Ray Tracing performance is 64.28% of Native 4k.
2080Ti Ray Tracing performance is 60.97% of Native 4k.
2080 Ray Tracing performance is 50% of Native 4k.
Wolfenstien:Youngblood 4K Mein Leben! Quality, TSSAA
RTX 3080: Native Resolution: 142fps Ray Tracing: 84fps
RTX 2080TI:Native Resolution: 116fps Ray Tracing: 59fps
RTX 2080: Native Resolution: 89fps Ray Tracing: 44fps
At Native 4K 3080 is 22.41% faster than the 2080 Ti, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 42.37% faster.
At Native 4K 3080 is 59.55% faster than the 2080, adding in Ray Tracing, 3080 is 90% faster.
3080 Ray Tracing performance is 59.15% of Native 4k.
2080Ti Ray Tracing performance is 50.86% of Native 4k.
2080 Ray Tracing performance is 49.43% of Native 4k.
So as you can see Ampere ranges from being similar to a bit better than Turing at Ray Tracing in actual games that use it, if it were truly 80% better than Turing at Ray Tracing then it would lose substantially less fps when turning it on comparing to how much fps Turing loses.
They finally have a proper income revenue now and hopefully have a focused product stack in all their segments, I still think their APUs are not focussed yet, hopefully the ryzen 3+navi 2 gpu APUs get released then they have among the tightest product stack next to Apple with its products.
- Status