-
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
Looking at reviews of 4080 , just for example cyberpunk maxed 4k RT no upscaling
4080 31 FPS
Looking at AMD slide 7900xtx gets 21 FPS
I believe the AMD slides are accurate because AMD have 6950xt at 13fps and third party reviews confirm this
Gonna have to use upscaling regardless, getting 4080 just for slight RT advantage isn't worth it , will be interesting to see raster difference
4080 31 FPS
Looking at AMD slide 7900xtx gets 21 FPS
I believe the AMD slides are accurate because AMD have 6950xt at 13fps and third party reviews confirm this
Gonna have to use upscaling regardless, getting 4080 just for slight RT advantage isn't worth it , will be interesting to see raster difference
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,187
48% increase in RT is as slight as is the increase from 6xxx to 7xxx series since some games saw a 1.5x increase as per amd presentation 
)
)
Last edited:
Its not slight, its a pretty large advantage if your numbers are accurate. But they're still pretty low
Its lovely how percentages work, one thing can be much faster than another thing but if the thing were comparing it to was super slow then they're both super slow - a 50cc bike is much better than a 25cc bike, but they're still both very slow - Cinematic and Cat put it
Anyway, I don't know if I trust AMD's numbers, some of their stuff looks oddly low. For example in data they released yesterday they said the 6950xt gets 12fps at 4k max settings with RT on in Dying Light 2, but I specifically looked out for that game today in the 4080 reviews and no reviewer was showing the 6950xt running that slow with those settings
Last edited:
Both from a small town and both end up as CEOs of two of the most important companies. There is clearly something in that towns water supplyThis says they are related but it's not a direct relationship - Jensen's uncle is Lisa's grand father.
I can see there is a section on Lisa' Wikipedia page where she supposedly denies any relationship, but Wikipedia itself says the source for this claim is dubious and unreliable.
It's also interesting that both Jensen and Lisa were born in the same small area of Taiwan; not like they both came from the capital, they both come from an area in Taiwan that contains less than 10% of the population
Fact-Check: Is NVIDIA CEO an 'Uncle' of AMD's CEO Dr. Lisa Su?
As the Radeon RX 6800 XT goes head-to-head with GeForce RTX 3080, it's hard to believe that the leaders of these 2 companies are actually related!www.techtimes.com
Its not slight, its a pretty large advantage if your numbers are accurate. But they're still pretty low
Its lovely how percentages work, one thing can be much faster than another thing but if the thing were comparing it to was super slow then they're both super slow - a 50cc bike is much better than a 25cc bike, but they're still both very slow - Cinematic and Cat put it
Anyway, I don't know if I trust AMD's numbers, some of their stuff looks oddly low. For example in data they released yesterday they said the 6950xt gets 12fps at 4k max settings with RT on in Dying Light 2, but I specifically looked out for that game today in the 4080 reviews and no reviewer was showing the 6950xt running that slow with those settings
AMD either is going to jebait Nvidia,or RDNA2 jebaited RDNA3?
Last edited:
Its not slight, its a pretty large advantage if your numbers are accurate. But they're still pretty low
Its lovely how percentages work, one thing can be much faster than another thing but if the thing were comparing it to was super slow then they're both super slow - a 50cc bike is much better than a 25cc bike, but they're still both very slow - Cinematic and Cat put it
Anyway, I don't know if I trust AMD's numbers, some of their stuff looks oddly low. For example in data they released yesterday they said the 6950xt gets 12fps at 4k max settings with RT on in Dying Light 2, but I specifically looked out for that game today in the 4080 reviews and no reviewer was showing the 6950xt running that slow with those settings
The thing is if that's the case they have also overstated the 6950 XT in REV RT 4K. TPU reviews show about 85 FPS for the 6950 XT, yet in AMDs tests they show 94 FPS. So if they were underegging the 6950 XT to make the 7900 XTX look good, why add 12% to the 6950 XT scores?
Don't get me wrong, I know AMD marketing slides should be treated with scepticism, but that would be a glaring oversight.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,187
neah, that can turn into 62 vs 42 and so on. The difference is huge.Cinematic quality with both!
Dying Light 2, from memory, was a poor performer on the 6950XT upon the games release. The gap between the 6950XT and the 3080ti was large.
AMD have been featuring DL2 quite extensively in all their 7900XTX slides that have been leaked there was another one today with the latency reducer function which featured the game.
I would suspect therefore, that AMD have been focusing on closing the gap for this game, so I would not read too much into previous AMD vs NV comparisons with DL2 until the 7900XTX reviews hit.
AMD have been featuring DL2 quite extensively in all their 7900XTX slides that have been leaked there was another one today with the latency reducer function which featured the game.
I would suspect therefore, that AMD have been focusing on closing the gap for this game, so I would not read too much into previous AMD vs NV comparisons with DL2 until the 7900XTX reviews hit.
Last edited:
Indeed. Had AMD priced it at $650 I would have more than likely got one. But $900? Nah.
This isn't worth it's own thread... How do pre-orders work, usually? I am probably down for the 7900XT when it comes out. Do OC start taking pre-orders in advance or is it a race to click buy when it turns midnight on the 3rd of December? Will it release for MSRP or are prices going to be jacked up? Also, anybody heard any rumours about stock levels?
Sorry for ignorant questions - it's been a while since I've bought a new graphics card. Which reminds me - do people think I'll see much difference over my Radeon 480?
Sorry for ignorant questions - it's been a while since I've bought a new graphics card. Which reminds me - do people think I'll see much difference over my Radeon 480?
Last edited:
Soldato
As its AMD I wouldn't worry. 85% of folk here will be too put off by drivers and ray tracing to even browse to the page.
Nope they sold them in the uk through various retailers as AIB cards.
Associate
| Compute Units | 96 | 84 |
| RDNA 3 cores | 6,144 | 5,376 |
| Game clock (GHz) | 2.3 | 2 |
| Memory | 24GB GDDR6 | 20GB GDDR6 |
| Memory bus | 384-bit | 320-bit |
| Infinity Cache | 96MB | 80MB |
| Total Board Power (watt) | 355 | 300 |
| Price (MSRP) | $999 | $899 |
Whats the infinity cache? Does it have much impact?
Soldato
When the Gpu's prices will go down ?
Good points but as we brought this up last gen nobody seemed to get to the bottom of it. We used to have a couple of AMD reps on here that we could pester, but as they seemed to have moved on the only person that seems to reply to this talk would be @Gibbo . Now recently OcUK were listing...
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Last edited:
With RDNA 2, my understanding is that they used it primarily to increase bandwidth, since it made the card more effective at the intended resolution, since the bus width of each card was lower than that class of card previously (even halved). I think that this also reduced the cost of manufacture, because with a smaller bus, you can have a smaller die and use a lesser PCB? It's also supposed to improve latency and power efficiency, because it lessens the need/time to access memory.
There was speculation at the time that (especially with the lower-end cards) it could hurt their performance at high resolutions and it kind of does (they don't compete so well against cards with a bigger bus, or VRAM), but since performance is complicated I don't think it is a major factor, or the only factor.
I'm not sure what it is used for with RDNA 3, but the cache slide has the following text: "Increased lower-level caches capacities for reducing overall required internal bandwidths. Captures spatial and temporal data re-use, minimising data movement, latencies and power.".
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
