• 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 RDNA 2 potential longevity concerns?

Journey said:
Didn't you just totally avoid answering the question though? The longevity of the 20 series of only looking for RT was abysmal at best, or do you some how disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll ever find me saying otherwise? I have often said, RT was not ready at the time of turing release for more reasons than just not having the RT grunt in the first place i.e. dlss being dog ****, pretty much no RT games and the ones that did have it were very limited and poorly implemented i.e. bf 5

As per all the articles/benchmarks etc. out there, ampere is superior in every way for RT to turing and most importantly is the fact that there is a considerable amount of RT titles now and not just quantity but also in terms of RT effects being used.


Again, the whole point was of this thread was to see how people viewed amds potential longevity issues given all the "zOMG, not enough vram!!!!" threads and making it out like nvidia users (more so 3080 10GB users) are suffering when there is still no solid evidence to show this where as we have several RT titles showing issues for amd across all resolutions, even with the flagship 6900xt.
 
Nexus18 said:
Again, the whole point was of this thread was to see how people viewed amds potential longevity issues given all the "zOMG, not enough vram!!!!" threads and making it out like nvidia users (more so 3080 10GB users) are suffering when there is still no solid evidence to show this where as we have several RT titles showing issues for amd across all resolutions, even with the flagship 6900xt.
Click to expand...

Again though isn't this only true if you bought a card because you care about the very best graphical settings? So therefore anyone who buys into a 3080/6800XT or above is a higher end user and more likely to change it sooner rather than later, possibly even more so given the average price of the cards over the last 12 months when the majority would have been sold. So neither RT or VRAM will ever be an issue for most high end users, only those that keep something for 5+ years.

The actual interesting question would be in the higher volume parts which were traditionally ~£300 or below, your 1060 equivalents, that is what matter to the masses not the few, I'll call them the 1% (might be slightly higher). So if RT is important and the longevity of the card is based on that then it need to do it at the price point that has the biggest effect, not with the super mega enthusiast cards that people have been paying £1500-2000 for. When cards that can do RT well are at sub £300 then longevity might be a consideration for those buyers.

I am sure if RDNA 3 is better for RT etc. and if the prices normalise somewhat, then the longevity issue would only really hit much later when people are picking them up second/third hand, and they end up a with a lower second hand price vs the Nvidia equivalent due to the lower RT performance.

Going back to my point with the 20 series, isn't the RDNA 2 issue just his repeated, but for AMD rather than Nvidia. So all the first gen users from either manufacturer get a rough deal at the high end, and even worse at the low end, RTX 2060 I am looking at you.
 
Journey said:
Again though isn't this only true if you bought a card because you care about the very best graphical settings? So therefore anyone who buys into a 3080/6800XT or above is a higher end user and more likely to change it sooner rather than later, possibly even more so given the average price of the cards over the last 12 months when the majority would have been sold. So neither RT or VRAM will ever be an issue for most high end users, only those that keep something for 5+ years.

The actual interesting question would be in the higher volume parts which were traditionally ~£300 or below, your 1060 equivalents, that is what matter to the masses not the few, I'll call them the 1% (might be slightly higher). So if RT is important and the longevity of the card is based on that then it need to do it at the price point that has the biggest effect, not with the super mega enthusiast cards that people have been paying £1500-2000 for. When cards that can do RT well are at sub £300 then longevity might be a consideration for those buyers.

I am sure if RDNA 3 is better for RT etc. and if the prices normalise somewhat, then the longevity issue would only really hit much later when people are picking them up second/third hand, and they end up a with a lower second hand price vs the Nvidia equivalent due to the lower RT performance.

Going back to my point with the 20 series, isn't the RDNA 2 issue just his repeated, but for AMD rather than Nvidia. So all the first gen users from either manufacturer get a rough deal at the high end, and even worse at the low end, RTX 2060 I am looking at you.
Click to expand...

Yup I agree there, that reasoning as well as what I stated in this thread was to highlight how flawed the vram/AMD fans logic is. Not sure if you have read the whole thread or not but you'll see all my posts are pointing to the fact that people will be upgrading for various reasons but chances are it's not going to be for "more vram" despite what the "need more vram threads!!!!" would have you believe.

Assuming that RDNA 3 main advantage is RT performance improvement i.e. similar as it was for turing to ampere, it'll be interesting to see how the ones/amd fans that give **** to turing owners for upgrading to ampere react to RDNA 3 ;) Not to mention, the inevitable sudden change in their opinions of RT ;) :p
 
Nexus18 said:
Assuming that RDNA 3 main advantage is RT performance improvement i.e. similar as it was for turing to ampere, it'll be interesting to see how the ones/amd fans that give **** to turing owners for upgrading to ampere react to RDNA 3 ;) Not to mention, the inevitable sudden change in their opinions of RT ;) :p
Click to expand...

Rt performance will increase over time obviously, was the same some years ago for anti aliasing with it taking multiple years of iterations to get it to a point where the trade off in performance wasn't that bad. Framerate is still king and will continue to be so regardless of what the future brings.
 
Nexus18 said:
Yup I agree there, that reasoning as well as what I stated in this thread was to highlight how flawed the vram/AMD fans logic is. Not sure if you have read the whole thread or not but you'll see all my posts are pointing to the fact that people will be upgrading for various reasons but chances are it's not going to be for "more vram" despite what the "need more vram threads!!!!" would have you believe.

Assuming that RDNA 3 main advantage is RT performance improvement i.e. similar as it was for turing to ampere, it'll be interesting to see how the ones/amd fans that give **** to turing owners for upgrading to ampere react to RDNA 3 ;) Not to mention, the inevitable sudden change in their opinions of RT ;) :p
Click to expand...
Likewise, I won’t be upgrading for better RT performance as I never use it. If other people do, that’s up to them.
 

Wondering if FSR 2 will help with RT perf. more on AMD than FSR 1 as it seems FSR 1 doesn't help out much at all with heavy RT scenes i.e. the 3080 hits 50/60 fps with same max RT settings using dlss quality @ 2560x1440. Bang4buck noticed this in his comparisons too, dlss performs significantly better in RT scenes than FSR 1 where as in rasterization, the performance gain is similar.
 
Nexus18 said:

Wondering if FSR 2 will help with RT perf. more on AMD than FSR 1 as it seems FSR 1 doesn't help out much at all with heavy RT scenes i.e. the 3080 hits 50/60 fps with same max RT settings using dlss quality @ 2560x1440. Bang4buck noticed this in his comparisons too, dlss performs significantly better in RT scenes than FSR 1 where as in rasterization, the performance gain is similar.
Click to expand...


Who is that? My own you tube channel has more subscribers and post about trains.....
 
Harlequin said:
Who is that? My own you tube channel has more subscribers and post about trains.....
Click to expand...

:cry:

A few amd fans have referred to his videos in the past so presumed he was reputable enough.... Unless that was just for narrative reasons.....

But with regards to the FSR 1 VS dlss in RT titles, bang4buck comparison on his 3090 in cp 2077:


Same for other RT titles too.

Wonder what it is that causes FSR 1 to not get as good perf. as dlss?
 
Nexus18 said:
:cry:

A few amd fans have referred to his videos in the past so presumed he was reputable enough.... Unless that was just for narrative reasons.....

But with regards to the FSR 1 VS dlss in RT titles, bang4buck comparison on his 3090 in cp 2077:


Same for other RT titles too.

Wonder what it is that causes FSR 1 to not get as good perf. as dlss?
Click to expand...

Probably methodologies , as FSR is performed after the rendering pipeline whilst DLSS isnt. I have emailed Ian Cutress to try and find out if AMD are going to use DirectML in the future.....
 
We knew from the early reviews that you didn't buy RDNA2 for ray tracing compared to the 3000 series, happy with my 6800 attempting to snuff out the 3070 the rest of the time, https://youtu.be/NbYCF_h2aVM?t=696
Seriously though, since the early reviews of RDNA2 we knew that if you wanted an AMD card and good raytracing you should at least wait for reviews of RDNA3 to see if ray tracing improved on that. Its a similar situation with ray tracing on the nvidia 2000 series compared to 3000 series, it would have been worth waiting for the 3000 series if you wanted ray tracing (in a normal market)
 
^^

Only recently had a look but I was surprised to see a turing/2080ti still matching and in some cases doing better than a 6900xt in RT "overall" too:


Not a lot of videos/stuff out there though.
 
Are we still going on about RT in the first gen AMD ray tracing cards? oh lord. If anyone bought any of these for RT, in my opinion, they're an idiot. They are AT LEAST a generation behind Nvidia for that, and only worth buying for conventional graphics.

For raster they are awesome which is where they shine. Can we move on now?
 
Scougar said:
Are we still going on about RT in the first gen AMD ray tracing cards? oh lord. If anyone bought any of these for RT, in my opinion, they're an idiot. They are AT LEAST a generation behind Nvidia for that, and only worth buying for conventional graphics.

For raster they are awesome which is where they shine. Can we move on now?
Click to expand...

If you care about RT, and some people do, fair enough, its not a bad point to make, RT on RDNA2 is not much if any better than Turning cards.

But some people do it because its the only argument they have, they don't have rasterization performance, they certainly don't have performance per watt, so RT becomes vastly over stated in argument.

Nvidia know any metric that anyone can use to say "this is why Nvidia better" will keep their market share and sales up even if the GPU's cost a lot more than the competition.

So, with that in mind just sit back and watch the insane lengths Jenson will go to to say ahead with the next generation, its going to be a calamity of laughs, its going to be helarious, so just get the popcorn and enjoy it.
 
Scougar said:
For raster they are awesome which is where they shine.
Click to expand...

image.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom