-
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 RDNA3 unveiling event
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
I always thought these companies know more about each others unreleased products than we think. Nvidia priced the 4080 knowing full well where the 7900XTX was.
They don't probably will be looking at the lower stacks , which this generation looking right crap show
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2022
- Posts
- 1,010
- Location
- Pyongyang
thats the biggest lol.. its been such a time waster, i think i should stop talking trash abt amd on this thread.. need to just cool off
supposed to be "the most advanced **** show"
it comes down to prices, but why would anyone play on prices in a contracting market, it sounds irrational but who knows
Last edited:
I would look straight at the 4090 over either a 4080 or 7900xtxyz, it's like both companies want you to buy one
Mean, please tell me what RT games do you play or plan to get?
I actually dislike upscaling, I notice it very easily on how it degrades images, you people need glasses.
Both are bad and good at the same time.
I would argue only good thing Nvidia did have was Nvenc and the very reason I went Nvidia, now with the advent of AV1, nvidia no longer have that advantage (both use AV1 for OBS) so people can pick any title when it comes to recording and/or streaming.
Eh, old games maybe, but a lot of the newer games was similar, and the most relevant title on there is warzone 2, you know the very game that Sony does not want to lose to activision, thats how important that game is and used as a point of counter arguement to stop Microsoft buying activision, not portal 2.
What AI do you or anyone here use? if you need that kinda tech, you are already in the ecosystem for software and hardware, most people on this forum don't even know how to load a video editting program and enable graphic acceleration - at least know your ****.
The big contention AMD does have is access to much better monitors with much better image reproduction thanks to DP 2.1, larger dynamic range, greater colours, vibrance all at high frame rates and resolution without that being a bottleneck, I at least appreciate image quality.
I really want AMD to do well and it's disappointing, just having Nvidia controlling stuff hurts the consumer
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
People extrapolated the percantages on AMDs marketing slides, AMD said 1.5-1.7x the performance of the 6950xt. So people essentially worked out that that would place the 7900xtx clearly above the 4080 in pretty much everything except RT where it would be destroyed. So the expectation was at least in the UK around 100-200 cheaper than the 4080 for better overall Rasta performance but significantly worse RT.
Essentially a slightly lower price trading good RT perf for exceptional Rasta.
Instead we got the price being almost identical to the 4080, (under £100 difference) for the same Rasta peformance but an overwhelming loss in RT. Now I don't personally care about RT that much, but even me, for just £70 more i'd rather have the RT perf.
The problem is we all think the 4080 is a bad card and priced terribly, and AMD made it look worth it.
Seems AMD did deliver "rage mode" for the customers after all 
All in all, it's a good GPU like the 4080, it just needs to be a lot cheaper, same as the 4080 needs to be cheaper but given rDNA 3 has less features and less performance over all, it does need to be cheaper than a 4080
All in all, it's a good GPU like the 4080, it just needs to be a lot cheaper, same as the 4080 needs to be cheaper but given rDNA 3 has less features and less performance over all, it does need to be cheaper than a 4080
Well its not 70%, its not 50%, its not even 30%. the "show best case" argument doesn't wash, not by a very long country mile, its barley any faster than its predecessor.
If it was 5% out i could understand this argument, but its not, its 50% of their claims, you don't seriously believe they would massage the numbers by that much, deliberately,, when something is 95 you might say its 100, you don't say that when its 50, that's not a margin of error, if that was intentional that would be a bare faced lie and i don't think for a second that was delibrate, i don't hate AMD enough to draw that conclusion.
Last edited:
Nvidia CEO is AMDs CEO cousin, it's market manipulation aka price fixing.
Personal preference is irrelevant when you are comparing technologies. It is just a metric to be used.
If can play no relevance in your daily usage but to others it will.
Just like 3D marks. Those numbers means nothing as it doesn’t correspond to any given frame rate or guaranteed perf across all game titles.
If you don’t like those metrics then so be it. But these are the metrics things are measured up against one another.
Also it is worth noting that 7900XTX is on par with 4070 (the real 4070) in raster. That is underwhelming. Gen-on-gen is a meek 20% at best. Pretty poor no matter how you look at it.
Chiplets only means good profit for AMD and means no real gain for consumer in perf or prices
Well with the AMD claims of upto 1.7 the performance of the last gen people were expecting the raster performance to be close to the 4090 in a lot more titles and it is only a couple of outliers where it is close. For the main part the 4090 crushes the 7900xtx and it can barely match the 4080 which has far superior extra features and far superior RT.
I am a potential buyer for a 7900xtx and the question I am asking myself is do i want to deal with the bugs in this new architecture such as the idle power draw etc. I am not going to buy a 4080/4090 because of the PCB shape and power cable but for AMD to get me to upgrade it has to be a good product, RDNA2 was an excellent product and I am happy with my 6800 so why upgrade and potentially get issues.
So you answered with nothing.
Technology is preference, DLSS is a preference because it reduces image quality but improves FPS - its one or the other, preference, clearly you don't know that.
And 3D marks is odd because it should say the result for warzone 2 shouldnt exist, and I used a metric, Warzone 2 for performance and popularity, tell me how portal 2, control and cyberpunk compare to it?
Last edited:
They messed up the pricing. The 4080 was a terrible card which no one should buy as the 4090 made so much more sense. AMD saw that in the reviews for the 4080 and they still went ahead with releasing their card minus RT and DLSS for $200 cheaper. The card is priced wrong as the feature set isn't there.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,149
- Location
- United Kingdom
Makes you wonder doesn't it.
That's not what i said, i meant they picked the base case scenarios as in the games that showed the best performance uplifts and showed them to the public, ommiting the other games where the uplifts were far lower, not that they lied, becase they didn't they just done an intel.
The problem was people like me who took those claims of 1.5x in Game A and 1.7x gain in Game B and said well if we go by that we can say then lets say overall there will be a 1.4x uplift over the 6950. That's how myself and many others came to the conclusion we did, and where we set our expectations.
Overall better Rasta performance over the 4080 - 15-20% was my personal expectation.
Unfortionatly we didn't get that.
They managed to boot it higher than Kane!
Over promise and under deliver is an interesting strategy. I imagine there will be a lot of reluctant 4080/90 owners annoyed at AMD for making them wait a month or two for nothing.
So you saying to get value I need to spend £1600 now , that sounds like from someone that buys that high up
4080 is terrific card for someone coming from 3080 which I have it's the pricing and 4090 doesn't make sense for my use case
XTX and 4080 should be around £750 it's plain insulting what both are doing
So that means the lower stacks are gonna be higher so getting even less value
Looking forward buying 5060 for £700+
Last edited:
I was expecting about 15% faster in raster putting it ahead of the 4080 at 4K, but they are trading blows. RT is right where I expected at 15% - 20% less on average.
So price/perf is about the same as the 4080 at 4K which makes them both crap.
So price/perf is about the same as the 4080 at 4K which makes them both crap.