• 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.

The Radeon RX9070XT / RX9070 Owners Thread

Outsells nvidias 5000 series 9 to 1.
My 6950xt still holds it great but an upgrade if needed be a 9070xt even if the difference wont be much.

congrats to owning the best cards in gaming from amd
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
Funny I was just thinking how upscaling and RT was bad when one side couldn't do it very well but suddenly becomes good once that side can do it to a similar level as their main competitor. FSR3.1 was described as good enough, but now FSR4 is a game changer. If FSR3.1 was good enough what makes FSR4 such a big deal?
RT didn't used to be worth the performance hit but now it seems people are much more interested in it. I wonder what changed?
Path tracing doesn't seem to be getting as much attention, well at least not yet...
Click to expand...

Lol, what?

Even if FSR 3.1 was "good enough" (which it wasn't - I don't know where you got that idea since most people agreed, it was pretty awful 99% of the time) then with that logic once something is "good enough" then I guess that's okay and we should just stop innovating and pushing technology since it's "good enough", right?

If you look at FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 and don't see a huge difference and recognise the generational leap and the significance of the move to an actual AI upscaler then I don't know what to tell you.

And with the RT, the answer to your question is that on the new hardware you take much less of a hit when enabling RT and that is the whole reason why people are impressed.
 
Fizz said:
Lol, what?

Even if FSR 3.1 was "good enough" (which it wasn't - I don't know where you got that idea since most people agreed, it was pretty awful 99% of the time) then with that logic once something is "good enough" then I guess that's okay and we should just stop innovating and pushing technology since it's "good enough", right?

If you look at FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 and don't see a huge difference and recognise the generational leap and the significance of the move to an actual AI upscaler then I don't know what to tell you.

And with the RT, the answer to your question is that on the new hardware you take much less of a hit when enabling RT and that is the whole reason why people are impressed.
Click to expand...
It's a troll mate. Saying everyone hated RT and upscaling until AMD did them well - which doesn't wash given barely anyone actually owns/owned a Radeon card.

It would be more embarrassing to say you don't like "fake frames and fake resolution" and RT, then still preferring Nvidia.

FSR 3.1 was alright in some games, as long as you kept it in Quality mode. It was a means to an end, and it was fine given you paid less for your GPU and had no alternative.

The leap to FSR4 isn't magic though - it's the difference between a software and a hardware solution.
 
matty007 said:
PSSR is definitely very responsible for the improvement of FSR. More budget has gone into it, and more work.

AMD have been making inroads in the CPU and GPU market for ages now though, let’s be honest. They’re just trying harder at this point than Intel/Nvidia. That’s translating to their products/technologies.
Click to expand...
Yes it definitely is. PSSR took a lot of flack when it released but the quality of it has improved massively and is the main reason I became interested in FSR 4.

I am still amazed at how good it is in black myth wukong or kingdom come 2 (upscaled from 824p to 4k). I sit a few feet from my 65 inch TV when gaming and although there are they occasional glitch it's nothing short of miraculous. RT is also improved massively on my Pro.

FSR 3 was an ok upscaler if you used ultra quality but now even performance mode in my 9070xt looks amazing with FSR4 which gives it loads of legroom for higher frame rates especially when RT is used.
 
Bidley said:
I know right, people are being so unreasonable, being pleased that RT and improved upscaling is now more accessible.
Click to expand...
But why only be excited about it now, why was it downplayed so much before? And yes it's more accessible now, but let's not pretend that 9000 series owners make up a huge chunk of the market, DLSS has been available to a lot of Nvidia owners, which given they had a 90% market share might suggest a lot of people already had access to DLSS. I appreciate that FSR4 might be better than DLSS3.x, but I'd find it extremely coincidental if the minimum level for getting excited about this was almost exactly the level AMD have hit with FSR4. And Nvidia have had this sort of level of RT performance for a couple of years now.

ChosenName said:
It likely has something to do with feature availability on consoles - if a feature is available on them it's likely to be decently supported on "not highest tier" cards. While FSR has been a bit of a game changer for some, due to increasing apparent framerate in games where it has been implemented, the apparent leap in quality between FSR3.1 and FSR4 (with Sony's involvement in the development of FSR4) may well be appreciated by those who can benefit from it. Same with RT - as it used to reduce AMD cards to a crawl whereas now the 9070 cards have got closer in RT performance to the 5070 cards. Path tracing seems to be on a similar trajectory but not there yet - as it is still quite onerous and decent performance requires a card outwith the budget of the vast majority of gamers.
Click to expand...
Again it seems like AMD haven't pushed any boundaries with these things, they've just caught up (with a better price point), but people were downplaying these things before. Why?

Fizz said:
Lol, what?

Even if FSR 3.1 was "good enough" (which it wasn't - I don't know where you got that idea since most people agreed, it was pretty awful 99% of the time) then with that logic once something is "good enough" then I guess that's okay and we should just stop innovating and pushing technology since it's "good enough", right?

If you look at FSR 3.1 and FSR 4 and don't see a huge difference and recognise the generational leap and the significance of the move to an actual AI upscaler then I don't know what to tell you.

And with the RT, the answer to your question is that on the new hardware you take much less of a hit when enabling RT and that is the whole reason why people are impressed.
Click to expand...
I'll admit the "good enough" was the impression I got from these forums, but a quick search suggests it may not have been as common an opinion as I had thought. I didn't say we shouldn't keep improving things, it was more that FSR4 isn't so much better than things we've had before, like DLSS3 (maybe FSR3, maybe not). It just seems that some are suddenly making a bigger deal out of it.
Again with RT, AMD cards took a bigger hit from it before but Nvidia 4000 series cards weren't so much different from the current gen in that respect. People still said thing around it not looking much better and not being worth the performance impact.

As I've said before I don't currently use upscaling from either side or RT. I'd rather Nvidia and AMD gave us hardware that could run these games at native resolutions, but they both seem to have given us smaller hardware upgrades and then fudged it with some fancy software. I think that's why I find it hard to get too excited about the upscaling tech. I'd prefer if the use case for upscaling was to keep older hardware relevant for longer rather than being used for the top end hardware to play the top games at an acceptable framerate. But I guess that's just me and we're all allowed out own opinions.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
But why only be excited about it now, why was it downplayed so much before? And yes it's more accessible now, but let's not pretend that 9000 series owners make up a huge chunk of the market, DLSS has been available to a lot of Nvidia owners, which given they had a 90% market share might suggest a lot of people already had access to DLSS. I appreciate that FSR4 might be better than DLSS3.x, but I'd find it extremely coincidental if the minimum level for getting excited about this was almost exactly the level AMD have hit with FSR4. And Nvidia have had this sort of level of RT performance for a couple of years now.
ve given us smaller hardware upgrades and then fudged it with some fancy software. I think that's why I find it hard to get too excited about the upscaling tech. I'd prefer if the use case for upscaling was to keep older hardware relevant for longer rather than being used for the top end hardware to play the top games at an acceptable framerate. But I guess that's just me and we're all allowed out own opinions.
Click to expand...
You know the reason, and you've even posted it.

You even say that most people have had Nvidia and DLSS for years, and make the erroneous argument that "everyone" is now excited for FSR4. Which is it?

People are excited for an alternative. Now if you don't want to pay the Nvidia tax and have juuuuust enough VRAM (and melting connectors, missing ROPs, awful drivers, having to mash F5 daily and/or sit in a queue for months) you don't have to compromise.

You've picked a weird thread to die on this hill.
 
Bidley said:
You know the reason, and you've even posted it.

You even say that most people have had Nvidia and DLSS for years, and make the erroneous argument that "everyone" is now excited for FSR4. Which is it?

People are excited for an alternative. Now if you don't want to pay the Nvidia tax and have juuuuust enough VRAM (and melting connectors, missing ROPs, awful drivers, having to mash F5 daily and/or sit in a queue for months) you don't have to compromise.

You've picked a weird thread to die on this hill.
Click to expand...
I think I know the reason and I'm not sure it's what you're saying or maybe I'm just thinking of a more succinct way of saying it.
"everyone" is obviously an exaggeration for effect. I just find it funny that it was all downplayed as being bad or unnecessary when it was available on Nvidia but now it's being talked up as something wonderful (as I've said, personally I'd rather have better hardware than a software solution).
You say just enough VRAM but there's 32GB on the 5090 (which I believe was the one with the melting connectors you mentioned) so if that's "juuuuust enough" the other cards are gonna struggle. Other than that I think AMD and Nvidia are pretty close on VRAM this gen (5070 is also an outlier). Even the 5060 and 9060 cards are rumours to have 8GB and 16GB options. You're right though, while AMD drivers are having their normal new gen teething issues Nvidia have seemed determined to claim that limelight!

You do make a good point though, this thread is likely to be biased on these topics. I guess normally AMD threads are the places to go if you don't care much for upscaling or RT, so that's probably where I got confused! :D
 
Holy crap, 90+ sold today...They're back I guess!

image.png
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
I think I know the reason and I'm not sure it's what you're saying or maybe I'm just thinking of a more succinct way of saying it.
"everyone" is obviously an exaggeration for effect. I just find it funny that it was all downplayed as being bad or unnecessary when it was available on Nvidia but now it's being talked up as something wonderful (as I've said, personally I'd rather have better hardware than a software solution).
You say just enough VRAM but there's 32GB on the 5090 (which I believe was the one with the melting connectors you mentioned) so if that's "juuuuust enough" the other cards are gonna struggle. Other than that I think AMD and Nvidia are pretty close on VRAM this gen (5070 is also an outlier). Even the 5060 and 9060 cards are rumours to have 8GB and 16GB options. You're right though, while AMD drivers are having their normal new gen teething issues Nvidia have seemed determined to claim that limelight!

You do make a good point though, this thread is likely to be biased on these topics. I guess normally AMD threads are the places to go if you don't care much for upscaling or RT, so that's probably where I got confused! :D
Click to expand...
Nvidia have released one card that costs £1900 (or £3000, depending on if you want one today or in x amount of time) that has more than 16gb of VRAM. AMD have released two midrange cards with 16gb. Look at 7000 series vs 4000. And how about that 10gb 3080 and 8gb 3070? Come on.

I don't see that it was downplayed or unnecessary at all, except from a few on here. Frame gen is far more universally disliked, but that's because it's not actually that great, for AMD or Nvidia. HUB and all the Youtubers have long said that you pay the extra for Nvidia for DLSS upscaling and ray tracing performance. Now that gap is far narrower.

People are fed of being gaslit and bent over by Nvidia and are happy there are fewer compromises for the alternative. If people really didn't care about RT and upscaling then the 7900xtx would've been the absolute GOAT.
 
Last edited:
Fizz said:
Congrats. Seen it went to 100+ sold today and it's OOS now again, that's the longest I've seen it in stock since launch day!

I'm sure you will enjoy it, I have the 9070 Pulse and it's an excellent card.
Click to expand...
Thanks, would have liked it on launch day but there you go, least it's not a crazy price, I've had a couple of Sapphire cards before and they've done well. Just hope it fits in the NR200 OK :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom