He used to be on the rage 3d forum quite a bit, and the hardocp forum. Pretty sure he died several years ago, I seem to member something along those lines.
-
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.
Could AMD retreating to mid-range & Nvidia becoming out of affordability scope help optimization?
- Thread starter willhub
- Start date
He used to be on the rage 3d forum quite a bit, and the hardocp forum. Pretty sure he died several years ago, I seem to member something along those lines.
Here is my 2c, and keep in mind I game on a TV and I sit 1.5 meters from the screen
There are some games I can tell no differences between dlss and fsr, this is around 20% of the games I've played that had both, however in this instance I still usually go with dlss as the framerate seems to be ever so slightly higher. There are games where the textures with fsr look noticeably blurrier, this is around 40% of the games - now this is not to say the difference is large, it's just I can notice a difference at my 1.5 meter viewing distance. And lastly there are games where the fsr image produces noticeably more artifacts on the screen when turning the camera, this is around 35% of the games.
However both fsr and dlss is beaten easily by DLAA. I'm currently playing assassins creed mirage and went with DLAA as it produces a noticeably better looking image for me than fsr/dlss and the game is optimized enough that I can still get 100-120fps
Last edited:
I tested my kids on DLSS and FSR in starfield and both said the DLSS one looked better when stationary yet in movement they said both looked the same.
Associate
I think it really depends on price/performance vs needs.
If AMD can as rumours suggest release a 4080 equivalent at the $400-$600 range... and i mean actually available at $400. That will meet the needs of lets say a made up figure of 99% of the market, UNLESS you have a 144hz+ 4k monitor there's no real need to go above that for a card.
It's not a "bad" shout from AMD so to speak, as a card of the 4080 performance will meet the needs of 1080p and 1440p for years to come.
The problem we have is... well... it's AMD.... they will shoot themselves in the foot and probably focus on the 600 price range which AIBs will sell for 700+, and Nvidia will just release a 5070 at the same or if not better performance to the 4080 at a price that makes upselling to the new 5080 worth it as you're not in the high price market again.
Unless AMD actually hits the $400 mark (which we know sub $300 is the mass market lets say sub $400 for the current world events and general inflation over the last years) then it's just going to be another fart in the wind. The problem you have is Nvidia has won marketing, they can sell you a card with 10% less performance at 20% higher price and people will pay the money because it's "Nvidia" that's the state AMD have got themselves in by trying to match the Nvidia price points.
Honestly if AMD has any hope in the GPU market they need to copy their CPU Market.
When Ryzen Gen 1 launched yes it was no where near Intel in performance but they sold their top tier at under 50% the price of the competition, since then AMDs top tier CPU is still cheaper than Intel and better as such the perform really well in sales.
With Intel now entering the GPU market AMD have some serious troubles coming if Intels Gen 2 GPUs perform as people hope, they will undercut the hell out of competition to get the market share or I at least expect them to that leaves AMD in this middle void, neither competing in the high end or the lower end, trying to scavenge up any sales on this weird middle area where people have more money to spend than the entry cards but not enough to pay Nvidia GPU tax.
To summarise I genuinely believe they should aim for market share over performance and try and hit that entry level $400 price point with insane performance. The middle ground wont help with in the current economic situation and they wont compete at the top, so just go mad at the lower price range, it will at least make Nvidias prices look even more ridiculous.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 2,317
Yeah, that's definitely what helped AMD take over the CPU market to the extent they have. They also had the advantage of being able to support drop in upgades on the same motherboard for 4 generations though, which won't be a thing for GPUs.
APU will and could replace low end 1080p today.
up to $500 cards
Meaning then its really just high end cards left to buy.
APU is the reasonable priced solution.
seperate cpu/gpu will cost more.
It be a totally different market and solution which isnt the more business orientation as far
^^ this
this is way things are going, not there yet, but there will come a time.for sure
Caporegime
The blurry comment is an interesting one, i've seen people say DLSS is over sharpened, like some over saturated post possessing effect, great gobs of LUA sharpening to make the bump mapping on low red textures look less blur, which has its own shimmering effect.
Its personal taste i guess but AMD could apply the same level of post processing sharpening, some will like it, others wont.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I agree. I think the Ryzen 8700G shows that's AMD's intent. It's not enough, but it sure looks like a step in that direction to me. I think another factor is an expectation that consoles will cover most of the lower end gaming market.
this is why i dont understand NVidia pricing policy, they are in effect shooting themselves in the head, AMD dominates the apu side, after AI madness, all NVidia will be left with is the upper mid to high end gaming wise , yep, higher margins but far less sales. very short termism from a huge company imo. they are pretty much handing low to mid range gaming to AMD on a silver platter
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,158
Amd supposedly have an Apu coming codenamed "AMD Strix Halo". The Graphics part is supposedly more powerful than a Ps5 and the cpu has 16 cores. While Ps5 levels of power is not that exciting to us that's pretty potent compared to todays Apu's. It supposedly has 2560 of RDNA 3.5 stream processors compared to the Ps5's 2304 RDNA 2 Stream Processors. Nothing is known of the clocks either so big gains over the Ps5 could be made there.
AMD Strix Halo
Last edited:
With the new APUs at half the performance of a 6500XT it’ll be a long time yet before they replace GPUs.
It does puzzle me, APU's offer great performance per watt and thermals, look at the PS5/Series X, near 2080Ti APU. Look at the power of the handheld Ally in an APU (Z1 Extreme similar to current 8000 series it seems), surely an APU would offer much better price to performance and give a more simple, clean and smaller setup rather than the chonky GPU that weights near 3 bags of flour.
Well it's up to AMD to offer a 400w APU for desktop. Nobody is doing this yet. The thought is that the customer who would be interested in a high end APU with a decent power draw would just buy a discrete cpu and gpu instead, plus with a desktop APU everything would need to be in the package, I.e your 16gb vram etc - otherwise it needs to be a custom motherboard and then you may as well make a custom chassis and sell mini PCs like Intel tried and failed, because the market for someone who will spend a $1500 for a tiny PC is tiny, when they could built their own $1500 PC and have it have better performance for sacrificing size
Last edited:
You wouldn't need a 400W APU?
Well however many watts to compete with desktop cpu and GPUs of the same cost. A 7900xt is like 300w and then another 100w for cpu I think is ok if you're aiming for high end. The PS5 APU pulls 230-250w while gaming
Last edited:
PS5's TDP is 180W, that seems pretty good no? And with further generational improvements the performance would only go up with given wattage
Associate
The 4080 super still seems a rip off. AIB ones i was looking at, especially Gigabyte are still set at £1,100. so that is £100 off from the original 4080 with 3% performance improvement. hardly anything to shout about.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,804
I don't see how an APU could come close to replacing a $500 card. A DDR5 6200 kit has a memory bandwidth of 99.2GB/s. Even the Radeon 6500 XT has a much higher bandwidth than that at 231GB/s.
You haven't fixed the other issue I raised, how much vram does a 8700g for example have? System RAM won't cut it for high end gaming, you want console performance you better have lots of high speed vram, which fits where without a custom main board?
As I said AMD could make APUs with high end CPU and GPU cores already, they don't see a business model for it
Last edited: