Soldato
Same thing, really, depends on how good it is. DLSS3 is the benchmark so ideally AMD should match or beat it in terms of IQ, latency and performance improvement but we'll see.
-
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.
Do AMD provide any benefit to the retail GPU segment.
I'm asking, assume its all good.
Soldato
Sure, in that case why wouldn't it? Although who knows what DLSS4 will bring?
If you look at the 6950XT it's in 3090Ti territory. Once You get to that and above they all use more power. As someone mentioned, a few tweaks can bring things down nicely.
Bull,
Intel was charging nearly a 1k for a 10core part in 2017. 16 core was 1.7k
Now we have 10 + core CPU's starting from 450 from AMD and even less from Intel. Tell me how is that not due to competition ?
Yes it was terrible and Intel never discounted their older CPUs. Fast CPU power has never been so affordable, especially for gaming with the X3D chips.
Ignore him ffs, he goes around and around in circles.
Soldato
And in 2005 we had 1 core for 1k$. Isn't it always the case that as technology progress,, we get more performance at the same price? Excluding of course the last 7 years that amd has been stagnating - sometimes you get less performance for the same money (3700x to 5600x for example
).
And in 2005 we had 1 core for 1k$. Isn't it always the case that as technology progress,, we get more performance at the same price? Excluding of course the last 7 years that amd has been stagnating - sometimes you get less performance for the same money (3700x to 5600x for example
I bought a dual core for less than £200 in 2006, it wasn't from Intel.
In 2016 we had 8 cores for $900
In 2017 we had 8 cores for $500
In 2019 we had 16 cores for $750
In 2020 we had 16 cores again but a slight price hike to $800,
The competitor could only managed 10 cores
In 2021 they hit back with 8 + 8 half cores for $739
In 2022 Intel released an 8 core + 16 half cores for a very reasonable $589
Also in 2022 we had another 16 core for $699.
Right now you can get a 7950X for £590.
Or a 13900K for £570.
So now we have 16 cores, or 8 + 16 half cores for really not much more than 8 cores in 2017, a lot less than in 2016.
In 2017 we had 8 cores for $500
In 2019 we had 16 cores for $750
In 2020 we had 16 cores again but a slight price hike to $800,
The competitor could only managed 10 cores
In 2021 they hit back with 8 + 8 half cores for $739
In 2022 Intel released an 8 core + 16 half cores for a very reasonable $589
Also in 2022 we had another 16 core for $699.
Right now you can get a 7950X for £590.
Or a 13900K for £570.
So now we have 16 cores, or 8 + 16 half cores for really not much more than 8 cores in 2017, a lot less than in 2016.
Soldato
Oops, thought I came into the Graphics Card sub-forum, my bad I'll try that again...
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,939
Just bought that today.This every GPU is currently £440.
It has 12GB GDDR6 running at 432GB/s
Asus Radeon RX 6750 XT ROG Strix OC 12GB GDDR6 PCI-Express Graphics Card
Order Asus Radeon RX 6750 XT ROG Strix OC 12GB GDDR6 PCI-Express Graphics Card now online and benefit from fast delivery.www.overclockers.co.uk
Intel 10+ core CPUs today start at $180
Last edited:
Caporegime
Well going back to the OP,I would say yes. If we ignore the pandemic,AMD had a competitive range upto the RX6900XT,is what made sure we had the RTX3080 10GB at nearly £600,the RTX3060 having 12GB of VRAM,RTX3090TI being launched,etc. It was the first time since the days of the Fury X that AMD had a full top to bottom launch. Now look what happens,when AMD has not launched its full top to bottom range,and the RX7900XTX is not really competing with the RTX4090? Nvidia trying another Turing move.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,180
RDNA 2 was more competitive in terms of price/performance
3080 couldn't have been $1300 when 6800xt was $645. Likewise, if 7900xtx would have been $645, 4080 would have not remained at $1300.
Same for 4070ti vs 7900xt, 4070 vs 6800xt ( since AMD didn't bother to compete with newer cards).
So current Nvidia prices are thanks to AMD not competing and current AMD prices are due to their greed.
Last edited:
...or if Nvidia prices were lower AMD couldn't ask for more. If the 4080 was £700 how much would the 7900XT be?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,180
Of course, goes both ways.
@Calin Banc why should AMD sell cheap so you can buy Nvidia GPU's cheap? It doesn't work anyway, its on you mate.