AMD RX6000 vs Nvidia Ampere performance benchmarks (from AMD's website and compiled by Redditor)

chroniclard · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:53

Quartz said:
A 1650 Super will likely do that on old games.

Yeah, maybe 5-10 year old games.

There is no lower range GPU that can do it.

crazy8s · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:54

Cecco said:
If this means nvidia dropping their prices then well done to team red but doubt that will happen, if anything amd will up theirs. And then we're
back to square one, you'll be looking at a grand for a high end gpu from either company so nothing will really change for us except for the choice of either giving amd or nvidia your hard earned money.

kieran_read · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:54

james.miller said:
Yeah sure, i'm at fault and im justifying a purchase i havent and am not going to make. Fine, whatever.

When did i mention you? Imply i was talking about you?

Why are you so defensive?

It's a general observation accross basically every forum, website where it has anything to talk about the current graphics line up, people are hell bent on trying to find hidden lines of text, secret testing results and missing features to try and crap all of the new AMD launch as much as they possibly can. Luckily here people are far more civil.

AMD has finally (what it seems to be so far anyway) released a competitive card we will get testing results in the next couple of weeks which will confirm or deny whats true.

I will however address your ridiculous point about the *figures* EVERY company does this. How many people who buy a AMD card will have a 5900X they tested on? with the latest Memory, Motherboard chipset?
This is no different with Nvidia figures, how many people actually have the exact configuration and get the same FPS?

EVERY card I have ever bought i've had slightly lower performance. On top of that the difference is 2.3fps it's hardly something to shout about (though I did notice you rounded down rather than up even though they were closer to 90fps and not 89fps) the figures AMD have announced seam reasonable and they don't seem to be hiding anything. They clearly state that SAM is enabled, a 6800X will not be faster than a 3090 without that enabled.

We all know they do this, you said it yourself, getting worked up over it wont change that fact. While I agree with you *up to* is an annoying thing to see I dislike it most places just tell me what ill get, but the reality is they have to say that, it's 100% IMPOSSIBLE for them to give you a figure, there's too many configurations and PC's out there to do that. When it all boils down to it though, i'm more inclined to belive those figures on the sole basis that they show themselves loosing in multiple scenarios and on multiple games. Are the games cherry picked? Obviously, but they are not hiding that fact they don't win everything. The number of test runs I get why you would want to know but it will hardly change anything for most people the 1fps difference it will be is hardly a deal breaker.

james.miller · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:55

kieran_read said:
When did i mention you? Imply i was talking about you?

Why are you so defensive?

Who else questioned the numbers in this thread?

There you go then.

kieran_read said:
It's a general observation accross basically every forum, website where it has anything to talk about the current graphics line up, people are hell bent on trying to find hidden lines of text, secret testing results and missing features to try and crap all of the new AMD launch as much as they possibly can. Luckily here people are far more civil.

I want clarification, not a get out clause.

keiran_read said:
I will however address your ridiculous point about the *figures* EVERY company does this. How many people who buy a AMD card will have a 5900X they tested on? with the latest Memory, Motherboard chipset?
This is no different with Nvidia figures, how many people actually have the exact configuration and get the same FPS?

james.miller said:
It's just a shame people are so willing to accept an ambiguous set of numbers like this without question. However, there are some decent independent reviewers out there so yes we will know soon enough and i can ignore nonsense like this, just like i do when nvidia do the same. I'd do exactly the same no matter who made the cards so:

Sorry you've lost me, which part was ridiculous? The part where you agreed with me, or? I didnt mention nvidia when i questioned the numbers and there's a good reason for that - I wasn't making this an AMD vs Nvidia argument. I didn't, but you did. Why cant people question non-specific benchmarks without being labelled and pigeonholed?

Grim5 · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:56

crazy8s said:

makes you wonder how much of a hit amd is taking on those consoles

amd must be selling ms/Sony a zen2+rdna2 apu at like $350 absolute maximum - amds margins are in order of magnitude lower than RDNA 2 desktop cards

the 6700xt in the ps5 is going to still cost $400-$450 on PC basically the price of the whole ps5...

chroniclard · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:56

The "up to" bit could mean a lot of things, reviews will tell us all, not worth arguing about till we see them and know if AMD are being dodgy or not.

Quartz · 30 Oct 2020 at 21:57

chroniclard said:
Yeah, maybe 5-10 year old games. There is no lower range GPU that can do it.

I still play the original Far Cry regularly - just today, in fact. Then there's Dark Star One. Command & Conquer 3. A good game is a good game. Hell, I have Freespace 2 which is what, 20 years old?

chroniclard · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:17

Quartz said:
I still play the original Far Cry regularly - just today, in fact. Then there's Dark Star One. Command & Conquer 3. A good game is a good game. Hell, I have Freespace 2 which is what, 20 years old?

Ok well this is a pointless discussion. Those will run on a potato.

EastCoastHandle · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:19

james.miller said:
Well,

So what do the numbers means then? Take Gears 5 again, 'up to 92 fps' on the front page, 89fps on the game selector. What does that mean? i've already been told 92 should be the highest average of three runs, so 89 fps then? The average of the three runs? The average on one run. Five runs? Max on ten runs? Because that information isn't anywhere. We're just accepting the numbers in this thread, no matter what they really mean.

It doesn't matter to me to take it that serious. 'Up to' is all I need to know that I wouldn't see 92FPS on average. Not sure how else to explain it. :confused:

Grim5 said:
up to is deceptive because it doesn't matter

the only framerate measurement that matters is average, low and frametimes

usually average is used it's the industry go to measurement - amd broke this by this time using maximum recorded frame rate which is odd

Deceptive? ROFL. Good luck proving that. They choose to use that for marketing purposes for their card(s). Not the review they posted that actual shows you averages. I think this whole "up to" was taken to 100x on the microscope. Relax.

james.miller · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:25

EastCoastHandle said:
Not the review they posted that actual shows you averages. I think this whole "up to" was taken to 100x on the microscope. Relax.

Wait which review was that?

EastCoastHandle · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:26

james.miller said:
Wait which review was that?

I consider their benchmark results a review.

james.miller · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:28

EastCoastHandle said:
I consider their benchmark results a review.

It doesnt say anywhere that those numbers were averages. It doesnt say anything. That was my point...

EastCoastHandle · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:43

james.miller said:
It doesnt say anywhere that those numbers were averages. It doesnt say anything. That was my point...

It doesn't have to for me.

james.miller · 30 Oct 2020 at 22:53

EastCoastHandle said:
It doesn't have to for me.

That's fine, you accept them. Great

gpuerrilla · 30 Oct 2020 at 23:05

Bergkamp said:
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.

Agree. It even goes one better and fills in more detail than is there, or at distances the human eye would never be able to distinguish shows that detail as if its a stones throw away. I know I am critical but the extra glossy puddles and shiny paints on vehicles etc are over exaggerated and makes the game less realistic. As if in battlefield world war you had shiny tanks like they buffed them with wax and stuff every hour they wernt fighting! The reality was they were dinted, dull and muddy/smog stained lol.

Bergkamp · 30 Oct 2020 at 23:12

Th0nt said:
Agree. It even goes one better and fills in more detail than is there, or at distances the human eye would never be able to distinguish shows that detail as if its a stones throw away. I know I am critical but the extra glossy puddles and shiny paints on vehicles etc are over exaggerated and makes the game less realistic. As if in battlefield world war you had shiny tanks like they buffed them with wax and stuff every hour they wernt fighting! The reality was they were dinted, dull and muddy/smog stained lol.

Must just be people from Northern Ireland that get this.

Phixsator · 30 Oct 2020 at 23:24

Cecco said:
If this means nvidia dropping their prices then well done to team red but doubt that will happen, if anything amd will up theirs. And then we're
back to square one, you'll be looking at a grand for a high end gpu from either company so nothing will really change for us except for the choice of either giving amd or nvidia your hard earned money.

People who thought AMD would come swooping in and launch at what most of us would call reasonable prices should stop with the drinking cause it was never going to happen. The 6800 is in my book a 450 USD GPU and the 6800XT 550-600 USD tops. If AMD matches or beats the next generation again(RTX 4000 or ?) then I'm sure prices will creep up again by 50 bucks or more. You can't even really protest by buying a console instead cause AMD makes money from that too

... clever ********

Bergkamp · 30 Oct 2020 at 23:29

Phixsator said:
People who thought AMD would come swooping in and launch at what most of us would call reasonable prices should stop with the drinking cause it was never going to happen. The 6800 is in my book a 450 USD GPU and the 6800XT 550-600 USD tops. If AMD matches or beats the next generation again(RTX 4000 or ?) then I'm sure prices will creep up again by 50 bucks or more. You can't even really protest by buying a console instead cause AMD makes money from that too ... clever ********

People seem to misunderstand competition. If your product matches the opposition how do you get people to buy yours over theirs? Oh yea, make it cheaper!

digiw0rx · 30 Oct 2020 at 23:51

AMD's drivers were enough to make me jump ship, the 6000 series can be wherever performance wise, but after having to deal with black screens and lockups during the entirety of lockdown several times a day, I'm glad I grabbed a 3070.

Tiny_D · 31 Oct 2020 at 00:16

Phixsator said:
People who thought AMD would come swooping in and launch at what most of us would call reasonable prices should stop with the drinking cause it was never going to happen. The 6800 is in my book a 450 USD GPU and the 6800XT 550-600 USD tops. If AMD matches or beats the next generation again(RTX 4000 or ?) then I'm sure prices will creep up again by 50 bucks or more. You can't even really protest by buying a console instead cause AMD makes money from that too ... clever ********

People complain and expect AMD to produce more than or at least equal to Nvidia performance but prices for less or it's not acceptable. Madness.
Then the rest complain AMD is cheap and only buy Nvidia cause the higher prices mean a better quality product.

I just sit back n throw popcorn laughing at stupid and nod knowingly at the few who get it as we await Darwin to take effect.