• 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.

Poll: Do you think AMD will be able to compete with Nvidia again during the next few years?

Do you think AMD will be able to compete with Nvidia again during the next few years?

  • Yes, Vega 7nm will be competitive

    Votes: 21 9.9%

  • Yes, but we will have to wait until Navi

    Votes: 55 25.8%

  • Yes, but it's going to be at least 3 "generations" of GPU

    Votes: 47 22.1%

  • No, NVIDIA have too much of a lead to overcome

    Votes: 74 34.7%

  • No, Intel's GPUs will be a significant threat when released

    Votes: 16 7.5%
  • Total voters
    213
  • Poll closed .
hyperseven said:
Well that means absolutely nothing :confused:

you can't just stick a graph in a post and write a load of incoherent nonsense, or can you...?
Click to expand...

:confused:
He posted a graph which clearly shows that AMD are not useless but actually dominate over nvidia when it comes to features leading to higher image quality.
 
D.P. said:
Nvidia were spot on, here we are half way through 2018 and there are almost no DX12 games out there as developers just don't want it, and none that were not possible with DX11, and almost none that show any real performance jump on any hardware.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Nvidia paying devs to stick with DX11 and gimpworks though, right DP :P
 
Muhammad.Abdelhameed said:
Vega drops from 54fps to 50 fps, which is 9% exactly.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-07...vidia-geforce/2/#diagramm-destiny-2-3840-2160

Far Cry 5 drops 6%, from 52 to 50.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-07...vidia-geforce/2/#diagramm-far-cry-5-3840-2160

HDR shouldn't drop any fps. Even on consoles.
Click to expand...

Consoles are capped at 30fps at 4K regardless if HDR or SDR. So plenty of GPU capacity there to hit the targets.

As for your comment on FC5. Nvidia drops how much on Destiny 2? (49.1 HDR, 61.3 SDR)
Did you check also the other games? 15% on avg (some games 20%) is the difference between HDR and SDR on Nvidia cards. On some the GTX1080 is already 10% bellow the Vega 64 performance on SDR also losing another 20% on top. on HDR, while AMD loses 1 fps!
So check the other games in the list. Assassins Creed, Battlefield 1, Call of Duty WW2, F1 2017, FF XV, Resident Evil 7, Shadow Warrior, Battlefront 2 (Vega 64 is ~50% faster here to boot even on SDR, thats in line of the GTX1080Ti).

@hyperseven As I wrote. Nvidia is good using brute force on DX11 to "be competitive".
Any deviation from DX11 to DX12 or Vulcan or HDR content, AMD shows competitiveness even on the high end range in GTX1080 level.
Some of the benchmarks above, it even shows same perf than the 1080Ti if you compare it with similar CPU reviews.
 
Satchfanuk said:
Nothing to do with Nvidia paying devs to stick with DX11 and gimpworks though, right DP :p
Click to expand...

:D Nah. The Nvidia subsidies for removing the AMD optimisation the games have in consoles and strap Gimpworks has nothing sinister on the back.
But somehow the same titles on Linux and Mac do carry the consoles AMD optimisations and not gimpworks.....

The entities of consumer choice and monopoly come to mind.....
 
Panos said:
:D Nah. The Nvidia subsidies for removing the AMD optimisation the games have in consoles and strap Gimpworks has nothing sinister on the back.
But somehow the same titles on Linux and Mac do carry the consoles AMD optimisations and not gimpworks.....

The entities of consumer choice and monopoly come to mind.....
Click to expand...
links to articles about removing AMD optimisation please.
 
hyperseven said:
links to articles about removing AMD optimisation please.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the DirectX 10.1 code path in Assassin's Creed needed some work, as Ubisoft claimed, but why remove DX10.1 support rather than fix it? The rumor mill creaked to life, with folks insinuating Ubisoft decided to nix DX10.1 support in response to pressure from Nvidia after the GPU maker sponsored Assassin's Creed via its The Way It's Meant To Be Played program. Our conversations with multiple credible sources in the industry gave some credence to this scenario, suggesting the marketing partnership with Nvidia may have been a disincentive for Ubisoft to complete its DirectX 10.1 development efforts.

https://techreport.com/news/14707/ubisoft-comments-on-assassin-creed-dx10-1-controversy-updated
 
Can AMD compete with Nvidia at the top end again? Of course they could.

The real question is do AMD want to or even think it's worth doing so. From what i have seen AMD no longer think it's viable and i don't blame them. They don't have the funds to risk it and there are more lucrative markets available to them without the risk. Mid high is where i see them competing from there down. I think they will stay in this area for a good few years. They might come back to the top end if they ever get rich again and want to take on the NV mind share.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Perhaps the DirectX 10.1 code path in Assassin's Creed needed some work, as Ubisoft claimed, but why remove DX10.1 support rather than fix it? The rumor mill creaked to life, with folks insinuating Ubisoft decided to nix DX10.1 support in response to pressure from Nvidia after the GPU maker sponsored Assassin's Creed via its The Way It's Meant To Be Played program. Our conversations with multiple credible sources in the industry gave some credence to this scenario, suggesting the marketing partnership with Nvidia may have been a disincentive for Ubisoft to complete its DirectX 10.1 development efforts.

https://techreport.com/news/14707/ubisoft-comments-on-assassin-creed-dx10-1-controversy-updated
Click to expand...
an article from 10 years ago and only a rumour :confused: You don't have the best track record of quoting, especially from Tech Report :p
 
Panos said:
Did you check also the other games? 15% on avg (some games 20%) is the difference between HDR and SDR on Nvidia cards. On some the GTX1080 is already 10% bellow the Vega 64 performance on SDR also losing another 20% on top. on HDR, while AMD loses 1 fps!
Click to expand...
I know NVIDIA drops more. But it shouldn't drop on NVIDIA nor AMD. It is a BUG.

Panos said:
Vega 64 is ~50% faster here to boot even on SDR
Click to expand...
You call 28% 50% faster? what is this ? some new AMD math? Also SWBF2 was never 28% on Vega 64 vs 1080, this test is bogus. They have comparable fps in that game.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...s/Star-Wars-Battlefront-2-Benchmarks-1243688/

Panos said:
Any deviation from DX11 to DX12 or Vulcan or HDR content, AMD shows competitiveness even on the high end range in GTX1080 level.
Click to expand...
Nope, NVIDIA beats AMD in several DX12 games already. HDR isn't even an API for you to count that in, IT IS A BUG in Windows 10.

God! the amount of trash talk and non sense from AMD fanboys is almost unbelievable!

92516.png


https://www.anandtech.com/show/11987/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-ti-founders-edition-review/5
 
Last edited:
Muhammad.Abdelhameed said:
I know NVIDIA drops more. But it shouldn't drop on NVIDIA nor AMD. It is a BUG.


You call 28% 50% faster? what is this ? some new AMD math? Also SWBF2 was never 28% on Vega 64 vs 1080, this test is bogus. They have comparable fps in that game.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Star-...s/Star-Wars-Battlefront-2-Benchmarks-1243688/


Nope, NVIDIA beats AMD in several DX12 games already. HDR isn't even an API for you to count that in, IT IS A BUG in Windows 10.

God! the amount of trash talk and non sense from AMD fanboys is almost unbelievable!

92516.png


https://www.anandtech.com/show/11987/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-ti-founders-edition-review/5
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't been around lately. Your first post in a while and you come straight in with AMD fanboys. Keep it up as the mods are handing out bans for that kind of talk.
 
jigger said:
Unless Nvidia make monumental jumps every generation AMD will have no problem competing over the next few years.
Click to expand...

Of course, AMD are yet to begin pouring serious investments in the R&D for the graphics department. It will be scary once they have the cash to design...
 
4K8KW10 said:
Of course, AMD are yet to begin pouring serious investments in the R&D for the graphics department. It will be scary once they have the cash to design...
Click to expand...

I would imagine a lot of the CPU money has already been made available to the Radeon wing. I agree if AMD keep up the current rate of progress they could become very dominant.
 
jigger said:
I would imagine a lot of the CPU money has already been made available to the Radeon wing. I agree if AMD keep up the current rate of progress they could become very dominant.
Click to expand...
Why would you imagine, what do you base this on, a feeling?

Don't they have a load of debt to pay off first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom