• 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.
shankly1985 said:
People just can not accept it. They fast to label AMD's faults but ignore everything nvidia has done wrong.
AMD's issues last years, nvidia last weeks.
Click to expand...

Yes, i know, that's always been the way, i had driver problem on and off during the 2 years i owned the GTX 1070, as did others, people have already forgotten that, the R9 290 was rock solid, as was the GTX 970, i have had issues with the 5700XT drivers but they are pretty solid now.

Nvidia do make great GPU's, i have had 2 of them in recent years, they are good, the R9 290 was a really good GPU too, the 5700XT is turning out to be a little beast and the Drivers have some really good and useful features. The only criticism i have is the image quality when using the Radeon software for recording, its not good, but weirdly if i use a third party app like OBS or Mirillis Action and use the AMD encoder the image quality is excellent, its the software and i wish AMD would fix that.
 
humbug said:
Ya, The 5700XT is faster than people give it credit for. :)

Vs a 2080 Super.


BFV: 49 - 59 (+20%)
Detroit Become Human: 56 - 60 (+7%)
Call of Duty: Warzone: 61 - 66 (+8%)
Forza Horizon 4: 80 - 93 (+16%)
Hitman 2: 57 - 67 (+17%)
Red Dead Redemption 2: 33 - 39 (+18%)
Metro Exodus: 49 - 61 (+25%)
Assassin's Creed Odyssey: 38 - 46 (+20%)
PUBG: 47 - 65 (+38%)

The outlier in PUBG, which is Unreal Engine.

Average: +18%, the 5700XT is a 2560 Shader, 1950Mhz, 251mm2 GPU, the 2080 Supper has 3072 Shaders, that's 20% more.

I would suggest RDNA1 has already caught up with Nvidia, it just needs to be bigger.
Click to expand...
Wow that is close :p:o
 
humbug said:
Yes, i know, that's always been the way, i had driver problem on and off during the 2 years i owned the GTX 1070, as did others, people have already forgotten that, the R9 290 was rock solid, as was the GTX 970, i have had issues with the 5700XT drivers but they are pretty solid now.

Nvidia do make great GPU's, i have had 2 of them in recent years, they are good, the R9 290 was a really good GPU too, the 5700XT is turning out to be a little beast and the Drivers have some really good and useful features. The only criticism i have is the image quality when using the Radeon software for recording, its not good, but weirdly if i use a third party app like OBS or Mirillis Action and use the AMD encoder the image quality is excellent, its the software and i wish AMD would fix that.
Click to expand...

All I read now is navi black screen poor drivers etc but people are fast to forget RTX series release with some very bad GPUs dying with space invaders it's all forgotten about lol

Enjoy the 5700XT I can't comment on the recording side of things as it's working what I would expect from Vega 64.
 
Actually......

Its is, take out the Unreal Engine outlier which is basically built for Nvidia the difference between the RTX 2080 Super and the 5700XT is 16% overall
Click to expand...

Call it 18% Unreal Engine is a thing. No one pays $750 vs $400 for 18% higher frames when they buy CPU's, why do people do it when they buy GPU's?
 
I think the question we need to ask ours selves is who has the real performant this go around?

AMD
Were we saw a big performance uptick in recent drivers that made the 5700xt a 2070s competitor now. This using a smaller die and lower cu counts of 40.

Nvidia
Were we already assumed that the 3080ti would be fast. But for some reason still needs to down scaling the resolution for a big performance boost using dlss as a crutch in order to beat RDNA 2.

Who really has the fastest Uarch? Time will tell. But I tell you one thing if you have to inject, recode games to get an advantage something is wrong with the approach of performance.
 
five8five said:
As they're rightfully rolling in cash from CPUs you'd think the GPU division would get a bigger investment.
Click to expand...
They are constrained by the amount of production they can do though. TSMC have x no. of machines that churn out the wafers per process node and fab plant. I don't know the details but for the sake of argument if AMD can order 100k wafers that yields a certain no. of chips it stand to reason they will order those that deliver certainty of a $$$ cos shareholders trump consumers unfortunately. If AMD can order more than they think they can sell that is good cos it encourages them to diversify and take some risks but if they are in we can't as much as we want position then I guess you'll have winners and losers particularly as they will have APU contracts for MS & Sony
 
EastCoastHandle said:
Who really has the fastest Uarch? Time will tell. But I tell you one thing if you have to inject, recode games to get an advantage something is wrong with the approach of performance.
Click to expand...

I always thought of AMD as using the "brute force" method while Nvidia use the "software tricks" method.

I don't really care how it's done though, as long as it looks good, offers good price/performance, and isn't totally ridiculous with power draw.
 
Twinz said:
I always thought of AMD as using the "brute force" method while Nvidia use the "software tricks" method.

I don't really care how it's done though, as long as it looks good, offers good price/performance, and isn't totally ridiculous with power draw.
Click to expand...
History repeating itself. I recall back during the IQ wars that same sentiment parroted. Even when shown differences that the developer did not intend in the game. It was still ignored as being the same IQ. Even when some were caught cheating in 3dmark by lowering the lid the same sentiment was parroted. That's because 3dmark was still validating their scores.

Now we are seeing Nvidia down scaling resolutions and yet again, the same is parroted. And it won't be long before another Nvidia scandal pops up over IQ reductions to boost fps. Particle effects, reduction in sun reflections, etc be damned until then.

Brings back memories, ahhhhhh the memories.
:D

But what doesn't make any reasonable sense is why are you paying more for a gpu that requires a software crutch when you should be paying less? I could understand that you don't care. But you should care for yourself to know that you are paying more and getting less in Uarch. That needs software to down scale resolution in order to bring you next gen performance. Something should click within you to say, "hey, wait a minute...an m I actually paying for dlss also??"
 
Last edited:
Twinz said:
I always thought of AMD as using the "brute force" method while Nvidia use the "software tricks" method.

I don't really care how it's done though, as long as it looks good, offers good price/performance, and isn't totally ridiculous with power draw.
Click to expand...

There is actually some truth to that, or at least there was, i think GCN hung around for too long, even in its latest iteration (The Radeon VII) has 60 CU's at 1900Mhz and its performance in games is identical to Navi 10 (5700XT) that's 50% more shaders at the same clock speed for the same performance, that's ignoring the fact that the Radeon VII has much higher memory bandwidth.

RDNA1 is more than 50% IPC improvement over the latest iteration of GCN.

Ok that was then, so lets look at RDNA1 vs Turing, with 20% more shaders at the same clock speed the 2080 Supper is 18% faster than the 5700XT, that's including the outlier PUBG, 16% without it, so with the same memory speed, with the same 256Bit Memory bus, take into account the 18% difference with 20% more shaders RDNA1 is the same if not slightly higher IPC than Turing.

Just as a note.... in CPU's Zen 1 was 52% higher IPC vs Excavator, Zen 2 is 15% higher IPC again, its actually 12% higher than Intel's latest and greatest, Zen 3 is touted as another 15% higher IPC.

Edit: BFV in the video i posted, 2080 Supper GPU power 250 Watts. 5700XT 200 Watts.
 
Last edited:
I remember when AMD were lowering the quality through their drivers to boost their fps, and when they got found out, 'its juts a bug, and we'll fix it' :p

Then theres that Radeon Boost (or whatever it is), that reduces the res on the fly.

EDIT: Yup, Radeon Boost.


:D

Both as bad as each other lol.
 
Last edited:
To be fair both sides have had their dodgy moments in the past.

RDNA 1 is a good architecture, only let down by AMD trying to push it as a higher teir spec than it was suppose to be (690 anyone). We will have to wait and see just how good or bad (depending on which rumours you go by) RDNA 2 turns out to be.

Exciting times ahead for sure.
 
KungFuSpaghetti said:
Does anyone actually believe AMD will be able to compete at the top end against nvidia this year? CPU space they are awesome, GPU's tend to be hot running power hungry let downs. Can see a spectacular hype train derailment incoming
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

I'm struggling to see any scenario in the next decade or beyond where AMD will ever compete with Nvidia at the high end.

I sincerely hope to be proven wrong and AMD can pull a "Ryzen" and do to Nvidia what they're doing to Intel.
 
EsaT said:
Also Nvidia's history has fails you conveniently forget:
Geforce FX... Fermi being late and achieving performance advantage only by for the time huge power consumption for single chip...
Drivers burning up cards few times...

Only reason Radeon 7 came out was Nvidia's crazy pricing leaving room for improvised renaming of some expensive computing cards for consumer market.
250 mm2 Navi 10 certainly was never meant to compete for top performance position.
Same probably for architecture, which was likely done on smaller resources as side project.
At the time it was designed AMD was still tight on cash and raytracing architecture also for new consoles must have taken most of RTG's resources.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm aware that nvidia have their share of fails, but recent history they have simply had a massive performance advantage.
Navi cards were okay, I almost bought a 5700xt, but for a small extra outlay the 2070s felt a better value proposition (cooler, less power hungry, more stable drivers IMO).
AMD have done amazing considering their budget, but as a consumer I don't really care, again, I'll just get whatever is the best at my budget.
 
humbug said:
Ya, The 5700XT is faster than people give it credit for. :)

Vs a 2080 Super.

Average: +18%, the 5700XT is a 2560 Shader, 1950Mhz, 251mm2 GPU, the 2080 Supper has 3072 Shaders, that's 20% more.

I would suggest RDNA1 has already caught up with Nvidia, it just needs to be bigger.
Click to expand...

That's the other gem, the card costs under $400 and the nvidia is a fat chunk extra (not value IMO ~ 20% better for 75% more £)
 
LoadsaMoney said:
I remember when AMD were lowering the quality through their drivers to boost their fps, and when they got found out, 'its juts a bug, and we'll fix it' :p

Then theres that Radeon Boost (or whatever it is), that reduces the res on the fly.

EDIT: Yup, Radeon Boost.


:D

Both as bad as each other lol.
Click to expand...

It's a feature that is mostly designed for APUs and users that want that extra bit of performance and don't care about image quality. It actually works quite well in APex Legends the faster you move the mouse the more FPS you gain.

They are a difference in labelling up a feature to do something than doing something behind the scene ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom