• 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 4 thread

Latest MLID video is out

He's not corroborating recent leaks which say rdna4 will not have high end GPU's because MLID thinks AMD will still launch a 8800 and 8900 series GPU.

But MLID does confirm that with Rdna4 AMD has focused the architecture and design on APU, SoC and Mobile. While the rdna4 architecture can be used to power desktop gaming GPUs, the focus for RDNA4 is to power next Gen APUs and refreshed game consoles, handheld gaming devices and laptops and so rdna4 is focused on efficiency not peak performance

It's also possible that only APU, SoC and mobile devices uses rdna4 and that next Gen desktop GPUs use a modified rdna3, "rdna3.5" if you will

 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Latest MLID video is out

He's not corroborating recent leaks which say rdna4 will not have high end GPU's because MLID thinks AMD will still launch a 8800 and 8900 series GPU.

But MLID does confirm that with Rdna4 AMD has focused the architecture and design on APU, SoC and Mobile. While the rdna4 architecture can be used to power desktop gaming GPUs, the focus for RDNA4 is to power next Gen APUs and refreshed game consoles, handheld gaming devices and laptops and so rdna4 is focused on efficiency not peak performance

It's also possible that only APU, SoC and mobile devices uses rdna4 and that next Gen desktop GPUs use a modified rdna3, "rdna3.5" if you will

Click to expand...
To me this sounds more plausable than what that redgamingtech dude is spouting.
 
Hard to develop any feelings of hype for a Radeon product anymore. Their plan is clear, console development comes first (so whatever they're developing proceeds with that in mind) and after that they're squeezing margins as much as possible on desktop, so if that results in a catastrophic gen like RDNA3 then that's fine because they have room to price it down and still be in the game somewhat.
Basically - buy Nvidia, it's better. Only consider AMD if at your price point the vram advantage comes into play because Nvidia is happy to squeeze blood from a stone. So... a 6700 XT makes sense, but for anything beyond that then just pony up a few extra sea-shells and buy a team green GPU.
 
Poneros said:
Hard to develop any feelings of hype for a Radeon product anymore. Their plan is clear, console development comes first (so whatever they're developing proceeds with that in mind) and after that they're squeezing margins as much as possible on desktop, so if that results in a catastrophic gen like RDNA3 then that's fine because they have room to price it down and still be in the game somewhat.
Basically - buy Nvidia, it's better. Only consider AMD if at your price point the vram advantage comes into play because Nvidia is happy to squeeze blood from a stone. So... a 6700 XT makes sense, but for anything beyond that then just pony up a few extra sea-shells and buy a team green GPU.
Click to expand...
or you can watch some reviews, do some reasearch and buy what you think is best not based on any particular company.
 
Love how everyone here just jumps to conclusions without knowing any facts whatsoever. Let's just wait and see what happens eh, they may have other plans for high-end (such as the touted RDNA 3.5 with poss 3D cache). We just do not know.
 
Poneros said:
Hard to develop any feelings of hype for a Radeon product anymore. Their plan is clear, console development comes first (so whatever they're developing proceeds with that in mind) and after that they're squeezing margins as much as possible on desktop, so if that results in a catastrophic gen like RDNA3 then that's fine because they have room to price it down and still be in the game somewhat.
Basically - buy Nvidia, it's better. Only consider AMD if at your price point the vram advantage comes into play because Nvidia is happy to squeeze blood from a stone. So... a 6700 XT makes sense, but for anything beyond that then just pony up a few extra sea-shells and buy a team green GPU.
Click to expand...
You okay there, what you smoking cause I want some please.
 
Absolutely spot on with the 6950 XT. The power consumption that GPU is massive compared to the 6800 XT or even the 6900 XT. It was clocked to the max and efficiency be damned. You could set a more efficient power profile but then you are getting less performance.

Having said that I am not sure people are recommending them over the 7900 XT at current prices? It was indeed recommended when the 7900 XT release at the joke price of £900.
 
The 6950XT can be tamed very easily to around 260-280 watts with next to no performance loss or 200 with around 8-10% performance loss. The reason why I would recommend the 6950XT is when it is around 25-30% cheaper than the 7900XT which was the case when I bought mine. The price has to make sense of course and it seems pricing differs a lot depending on region. In my country the 7900XT was still a lot more expensive last I looked.
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
Are you comparing the same tier and or price points? For exmaple 4070Ti vs 7900 XT.

Price here in UK right now. 7900 XT is 10% cheaper.
4070Ti £770
7900 XT £700

The power efficiency is is maybe 10% at best in real terms gaming at 4K. Hardly a massive difference considering the 7900 XT has 8GB more VRAM to power and is a faster GPU. For example the 4060Ti 16GB consumes 13w more than the 8GB version and the only difference is 8GB more VRAM.

4070Ti - 290w
7900 XT - 310w (most of which will be the extra 8GB VRAM)

Features are… well fake frames. Because AMD can do RT and when you compare tier vs tier the “wins” for Nvidia are a joke. Ooooh Nvidia is 40% faster in extreme RT games like CP2077.

4070Ti at 4K ultra - 23 FPS
7900 XT ultra - 17 FPS

Both need up-scaling and reduced settings to become playable in extreme RT and when you add upscaling that lead for the 4070Ti drops from 40% to about 12% or 15%. But in normal RT games you would need to enable the FPS counter to tell the difference.

In raster games the 7900 XT turns the tables and is in general ~15% faster and comes with a lot more VRAM.

So it’s not just the 6700XT that makes sense because a 7900 XT is cheaper than the 4070Ti, is faster in the majority of games, has a similar power efficiency per frame and has much more VRAM. Then you can also add the fact it has a far more modern and feature packed control panel software suite.

I think I typed a lot of words to say, you are talking crap.
Click to expand...

People only ever reference Cyberpunk for RT performance and they do this knowing its an Nvidia RT showcase game.

You take averages across a number of RT games and the RTX 4080 comes out a not at all massive 16% ahead of the 7900XTX. This average BTW includes Cyberpunk.

The 7900XTX is 8% faster in raster, has 8GB more VRam, far better drivers and its 20% cheaper at £890 vs £1100 for the 4080.

WBUvO3K.png
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
People only ever reference Cyberpunk for RT performance and they do this knowing its an Nvidia RT showcase game.

You take averages across a number of RT games and the RTX 4080 comes out a not at all massive 16% ahead of the 7900XTX. This average BTW includes Cyberpunk.

The 7900XTX is 8% faster in raster, has 8GB more VRam, far better drivers and its 20% cheaper at £890 vs £1100 for the 4080.

WBUvO3K.png
Click to expand...
The 4080 for £1100 is a bad card but from a technical standpoint it’s excellent as this is effectively a 70 class specced card going up against AMDs 900 class
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom