https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-vii
Little blow up render of the card on this page showing the insides of the heatsink etc.
Little blow up render of the card on this page showing the insides of the heatsink etc.
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.
DLSS actually works very well with better image quality than not using it.
Having said that it is not perfect and does have flaws.
How does upscaling lower res image quality make it look better than native 4k? Entirely subjective imo.
How does upscaling lower res image quality make it look better than native 4k? Entirely subjective imo.
How does upscaling lower res image quality make it look better than native 4k? Entirely subjective imo.
The move to 7nm gives either 25% more performance or same performance for half the power consumption for the same performance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/9uqgbd/7nm_offers_2x_density_05x_power_at_same_perf_125x/
I think AMD should have gone for the latter route. Vega 64 performance at 150W to compete against the RTX 2060.
Then people would still have complained about no top end performance. Amd are in a situation currently where on the gpu side no matter what they do a vocal group will still be on the moan.
I think AMD should have gone for the latter route. Vega 64 performance at 150W to compete against the RTX 2060.
But that's Navi, supposedly.
I am not even going to pretend I know the technical reasons but it definitely works.
But I think they would have sold a load of cards. I don't think the card they have launched will sell that well.
Obviously I can speak with hindsight. AMD didn't necessarily know what nvidia were going to do.
Well Navi should hopefully also have IPC gains. Otherwise it would just be a Vega shrink.
Makes absolutely no sense, you can't just take a lower res asset and make it look better through some weird upscaling technique. If anything upscaling should make it look worse. I'll be interested to seeing actual side by side comparisons once this is something reviewers are looking at. What nvidia have shown so far reminds me of the old dvd\vhs comparison where people pushing dvd messed with vhs to make it look a lot blurrier than it was, was the same thing with dvd and bluray with dvd's suddenly looking like ass in the comparison. I think there are some shenanigans afoot, time will tell.
But you can do that. You won't get it perfect as ultimately you are guessing, but over millions of pixels you should improve the image.
The key point that annoys me is that, you do this through lots of tensor cores. You might as well have replaced those tensor cores with rasterisation cores and drawn the image correctly with that additional resource.
DLSS is an afterthought imo. They built Turing with ray tracing in mind, and now are coming up with other use cases for tensor cores, forgetting the fact ray tracing is a gimmick to bein with.
The move to 7nm gives either 25% more performance or same performance for half the power consumption for the same performance.
I think AMD should have gone for the latter route. Vega 64 performance at 150W to compete against the RTX 2060.
Instead of eking out that performance with the same high power consumption as Vega64.
I honestly don't see it, i seen nvidia's demos and even then they were very hit or miss to see if there was much difference. If you have to zoom in x amount of times to see a difference i don't see the point.
It's definitely something that was bolted on late in the game.
It will likely be no more than 20% faster on average than an LC imo.My graphics is Vega 64 LC edition and im prepared to buy Vega VII...
If Vega VII can faster 30% tahn Vega 64 LC, i will buy it when Vega VII released.