• 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.
Wait for AMD wait for AMD truth is they don't match the high end.

Like why is big Navi delayed still? They've been behind NV for months now on this current gen. If they had the gear to counteract they ought to just deploy yet they don't.
You pretty much can buy any NV card at any time and not have a bad GPU, depending on when you buy it though it may be a bit more expensive but not usually a huge difference in it. E.g. 2070S and 5700XT
 
There is a reason AMD have been out of the high end. They had no money to even attempt to match up with Nvidia and now they do. RDNA is a decent step forward and with more money coming in i expect AMD to keep on improving. They are still a bit off Nvidia atm but a big RDNA chip could compete with Nvidia's current gen. My only worry would be the power use prohibiting them from bringing such a chip out.
 
GPUs are only one of AMD's products, they dont need it as desperately as Nvidia. I suspect they pump more money in to their CPUs.
 
TheRealDeal said:
I was kidding. Fury X was a horrible card and the 4gb HBM was the worst part. Give it dx12/Vulkan and keep the memory use down and it fly's though from what i have seen.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the Fury X was horrible? I regretted not getting one, Because of the issue with the Fury X AIO whine on release I ended up getting a Fury Pro instead, I kept that for a year or so & I now consider that the best card I ever owned, a Fury X would have been just as good if they hadn't messed up with quality control. The 4gb memory limit was not as big an issue as some claimed, At that time Nvidia unexpectedly jumped on one of the big PC releases of the day which was Rise of the Tomb Raider & they removed all the PC versions A-sync compute & in my opinion purposely cranked up the ram requirement to make the Fiji cards look bad when compared to the 980ti, some pictures were put up on this forum showing how little difference the texture setting made to the game visually when going from high to ultra & showing how the ultra setting tanked the Fiji cards performance. I can't recall any other doozies & during the year & a half I had my Fury Tri-x for the driver support was excellent overall, there were a few bugs here & there such as the water bug on one map in RE Revelation 2 but my Fury Tri-x sold me on just how good Sapphire & AMD cards could be & it was also a turning point for AMD drivers. Yes 4gb's of HBM was not ideal & Red leaners came out with the crap about 4gb's of HBM being the same as 6gb's of GGDR5 which wasn't true but it wasn't really an issue anyway, not back then. The only other time I remember it making a game unplayable was if you chose to add Fallout 4's High-res textures DLC which had an 8gb requirement that said not using it was a non issue as anyone who compared Fallout 4 with & without the pack will surely attest to, It was a waste of the 60gb's it added to the game.
 
3t3P said:
Wait for AMD wait for AMD truth is they don't match the high end.

Like why is big Navi delayed still? They've been behind NV for months now on this current gen. If they had the gear to counteract they ought to just deploy yet they don't.
You pretty much can buy any NV card at any time and not have a bad GPU, depending on when you buy it though it may be a bit more expensive but not usually a huge difference in it. E.g. 2070S and 5700XT
Click to expand...

AMD's been behind since Kepler, The failure of Bulldozer left AMD in a pickle & they had to direct their focus & limited R&D to fix their CPU arm leaving their GPU's to start falling behind, They're in the process of fixing that now & I guess the delay we're seeing right now in respects to the high end is due to Nvidia having added RT hardware to their Turing range, it's only a stumble for AMD, they're still on track to become competitive at the high end again, at the moment my guess is they're in the process of adding their own ray-tracing hardware to the big Navi design hence the delay, That said they may still be playing catch up for a couple of years in respects to comparative release dates.
 
StriderX said:
:( I just want a huge ass die.
Click to expand...

135-8621


There you go yours for about £100
 
AMD has been extremely behind for around 10 years, I hope for costs sake that they have even 1 card to compete with nVidia, just one, not asking for much and at the very least compete with nVidia's top end card. I'll still pay whatever nVidia asks for their next gen, but I'd rather not have to. Unfortunately and while being 2nd best for a long long time, AMD used to be the company that would come in with just as good cards but more affordable, but now they have worse cards and price them up near the equivalent nVidia range. No longer can we rely on them to keep prices low, but one can at least hope, there's always hope.
 
LambChop said:
AMD has been extremely behind for around 10 years, I hope for costs sake that they have even 1 card to compete with nVidia, just one, not asking for much and at the very least compete with nVidia's top end card. I'll still pay whatever nVidia asks for their next gen, but I'd rather not have to. Unfortunately and while being 2nd best for a long long time, AMD used to be the company that would come in with just as good cards but more affordable, but now they have worse cards and price them up near the equivalent nVidia range. No longer can we rely on them to keep prices low, but one can at least hope, there's always hope.
Click to expand...
With this thinking no wonder AMD could not compete, as even when they did you gave Nvidia your money. Lol.

Is there any hope that if one day AMD release a card that beats Nvidia on performance and price for performance you will give them your money? :p
 
TNA said:
With this thinking no wonder AMD could not compete, as even when they did you gave Nvidia your money. Lol.

Is there any hope that if one day AMD release a card that beats Nvidia on performance and price for performance you will give them your money? :p
Click to expand...

I'd rarther frantically rub the end of my knob with 60 grit sandpaper.
 
nashathedog said:
Why do you think the Fury X was horrible? I regretted not getting one, Because of the issue with the Fury X AIO whine on release I ended up getting a Fury Pro instead, I kept that for a year or so & I now consider that the best card I ever owned, a Fury X would have been just as good if they hadn't messed up with quality control. The 4gb memory limit was not as big an issue as some claimed, At that time Nvidia unexpectedly jumped on one of the big PC releases of the day which was Rise of the Tomb Raider & they removed all the PC versions A-sync compute & in my opinion purposely cranked up the ram requirement to make the Fiji cards look bad when compared to the 980ti, some pictures were put up on this forum showing how little difference the texture setting made to the game visually when going from high to ultra & showing how the ultra setting tanked the Fiji cards performance. I can't recall any other doozies & during the year & a half I had my Fury Tri-x for the driver support was excellent overall, there were a few bugs here & there such as the water bug on one map in RE Revelation 2 but my Fury Tri-x sold me on just how good Sapphire & AMD cards could be & it was also a turning point for AMD drivers. Yes 4gb's of HBM was not ideal & Red leaners came out with the crap about 4gb's of HBM being the same as 6gb's of GGDR5 which wasn't true but it wasn't really an issue anyway, not back then. The only other time I remember it making a game unplayable was if you chose to add Fallout 4's High-res textures DLC which had an 8gb requirement that said not using it was a non issue as anyone who compared Fallout 4 with & without the pack will surely attest to, It was a waste of the 60gb's it added to the game.
Click to expand...

It was more expensive than a gtx980ti and way behind in performance, had less vram and literally had no overclocking headroom which the gtx980ti had in spades making the performance gap even bigger. Pretty much in every way the gtx980ti was better hence why the Fury x was a horrible card. Maybe if it had been cheaper than a gtx980ti i might have thought better of it. It really had nothing going for it compared to the competition at the time.
 
Why is it that Nvidia spends a massive $2,376 million dollars on R&D yet they can only beat AMD by aproximately 20%? Am I the only one that thinks that's pathetic? Nvidia must be paying huge bonuses to their R&D department for doing pretty much nothing. Either that, or AMD has the best R&D in the world for being able to get within 20% of Nvidia with less than a third of the budget. I think that's commendable, yet everybody seems to give AMD a hard time and says they suck.

Nvidia makes 59.75% gross margin on their products yet AMD only work to a 41% margin so they have to sell 50% more product to equal Nvidia's income. How can they possibly compete with such a monster?
Nasher said:
GPUs are only one of AMD's products, they dont need it as desperately as Nvidia. I suspect they pump more money in to their CPUs.
Click to expand...

AMD can only afford $1.4 billion on R&D for both their CPU & GPU divisions. So even if they pumped the lot into Radeon Technologies Group, it would still be £1 billion dollars less than Nvidia.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Why is it that Nvidia spends a massive $2,376 million dollars on R&D yet they can only beat AMD by aproximately 20%? Am I the only one that thinks that's pathetic? Nvidia must be paying huge bonuses to their R&D department for doing pretty much nothing. Either that, or AMD has the best R&D in the world for being able to get within 20% of Nvidia with less than a third of the budget. I think that's commendable, yet everybody seems to give AMD a hard time and says they suck.

Nvidia makes 59.75% gross margin on their products yet AMD only work to a 41% margin so they have to sell 50% more product to equal Nvidia's income. How can they possibly compete with such a monster?


AMD can only afford $1.4 billion on R&D for both their CPU & GPU divisions. So even if they pumped the lot into Radeon Technologies Group, it would still be £1 billion dollars less than Nvidia.
Click to expand...

AMD is doing pretty well with CPUs. Also they hold quite a lot of patents which they will be making money from.

Just because a lot is being spent doesn't mean it's going in to something actually useful.
 
Last edited:
CuriousTomCat said:
Why is it that Nvidia spends a massive $2,376 million dollars on R&D yet they can only beat AMD by aproximately 20%? Am I the only one that thinks that's pathetic? Nvidia must be paying huge bonuses to their R&D department for doing pretty much nothing. Either that, or AMD has the best R&D in the world for being able to get within 20% of Nvidia with less than a third of the budget. I think that's commendable, yet everybody seems to give AMD a hard time and says they suck.
.
Click to expand...

Well it’s more like 35% plus the 2080ti will overclock better to increase that. And we are in the land of diminishing returns.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt/28.html

What we are forgetting of course is that it’s 35% better on an old node compared to AMD’s new node. Once the 30’ series is released that will stretch again unless AMD can pull something out the bag but I don’t think they can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom