-
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 RX6000 vs Nvidia Ampere performance benchmarks (from AMD's website and compiled by Redditor)
- Thread starter Richdog
- Start date
Maybe back then, they knew what had been cooked in the pipeline and knew Nvidia stands no chance 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
If the performance translates appropriately with the rumoured clock speed increase of AIB boards then I would say yes almost certainly over £600.
AIB partners are averaging 2300mhz so if they can get 2000 on a 6800 that will push it miles ahead of the 3070 or even 3070ti and justify its price.
that's all it's there for that's why it was invented - it doesn't run with cpu bottlenecks so it cannot deliver esports 500fps performance- it's only there to hell rayvtracing. AMD is working on its own version because they also know you can't get 60fps on pc without it.
A couple days ago a DXR benchmark was released for big Navi. While too simple to be super meaningful I extrapolated the data and applied it to watch dogs.
the rtx3090 gets 30fps with ultra ray tracing at 4k and 60fps with dlss on.
the 6900xt extrapolation estimates 20fps at 4k ultra ray tracing - this is not what I call playable
I think amd will suffer with the same issues as nvidia. Put 80-100£ on top of 6800 and 120+ on the 6800xt they will also have stock issues scalping mining etc so prices will rise very quickly. Gone are the days when we get graphic cards and I expect ryzen 5000 cpu to be the same expect to pay more then the Mrsp.
good job by amd though. They will need to continue this though. But the whole amd memory access I can see that backfire though. That means they need to keep infront or at least match intel to keep that advantage. I own a 3900x and will look at getting a 5900x but we’re talking about intel they will come back hard at amd I just hope amd don’t fall backwards again. (Just my view )
as for diss most games need it for ray tracing. Look at watch dogs it requires it to be playable. And it’s only going to get worse when every game adds it to some part of there overall plan consoles will push it forward a lot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Are we not worried that AMD's numbers are all 'up to' and not averages?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
AMDs DLSS solution, is going to be needed for RT too.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
That would be an unreasonable assumption.
The up to stands as a standard disclaimer, so that if someone reproduces the experiment with different results, AMD can disclaim liabilities
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
pft it's not been done before. 'up to' means max. which is virtually useless. These are their show stopping industry disrupting cards and all they're willing to lay down is that the 6900xt manages ' up to 92 fps' in gears 5 when their own testing clocks the 3080 in at 76. There is every bit of chance the 3080 could have higher average and higher lows, but nobody seems to be worried about that. weird.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 36
It does mean that but their FPS for Nvidia titles don't seem like max framerates. It is unnecessarily confusing though.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
If you seriously believe that benchmarking methodology would be changed so drastically, then I can only suggest waiting for reviews
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
I never said anything about methodology being changed, i questioned why people weren't talking about those numbers being max FPS and not average.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
I can't speak for others but I implicitly believe it's just semantics and discussions would amount to pointless hairsplitting.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
Max vs average fps is hairsplitting?
ill be honest first few times looking at it i didnt see it was max fps. ive just gotten used to see and reading avarge fps as being the standard and kinda expect to see those numbers hehe
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
Yes, if AMD did 3 runs computed average per run and then reported max of these averages and then used up to as a standard disclaimer what else could it be?
As I said it's best to wait for reviews.
Meanwhile, AMD has released a panel of benchmarks, you can probably cross reference geforce values to publicly available benchmarks.
Why are people so caught up on RT? It's not viable yet to any meaningful degree and we have people on here pretending DLSS matters, when all it really is, is a means to cheat the system and cover up the fact the headline act can't actually sing or play their own instruments yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2018
- Posts
- 2,827
Because they think that's the only metric Nvidia wins in so they will pump it up.
why even look at a 600£ gpu if you don’t want all the bells and whistles on? Plenty of lower cards can do high refresh rate 1080p or even 1440p and can do basic 4K. I spend the most I can to have all the extra bells and whistles so it does matter when your dropping so much on a card
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
So you think it could be a max of 3x average fps runs? Based on what? It's not hair splitting to question numbers, especially if 'up to 92fps' could mean any number of very different things. There's a lack of clarity there, certainly an amount of ambiguity, and nobody here is talking about it. To me, that's pretty odd.