• 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.

It looks like the 'real' /affordable RDNA3 + next gen NV desktop launch won't launch until September. Thoughts?

Murphy said:
You're more than welcome to mention more as like i said I'd struggle to give someone compelling reasons.

That wasn't really the question, it was "why anyone, even someone who has an existing PC, would buy a graphics card when they could just buy a console" however as long as you've not rephrased it in an attempt to strawman me then I'll accept and address it in a similar vain. The reason someone may buy a console instead of a graphics card is because for the same price they can have a similar, if not better, experience on a device that's dedicated to gaming than something they may use for other tasks.

e: Let me put it this way: If someone said they wanted to get into gaming and they have a 5-10 year old PC (seems reasonable, no?) would you say they should buy a $299-499 graphics card or a console?

Like i said though it's not good enough to just say these things are the same or similar, there needs to be a compelling reason for someone to choose one over the other and even though in the past you'd be paying a little more for the experience on the PC it would be a better experience and more utilitarian than consoles. I feel i can no longer make that argument in good faith any more. At best all i can say is that you'll probably be paying double the cost of a console and getting a similar experience and maybe you can use it to do some things that you're probably already doing on your phone/tablet/notebook.
Click to expand...

Surely "what games do you (want to) play" is a critical factor to take into account?

If all they want to play is AAA blockbusters like FIFA, COD, etc. then fair enough, by all means a console is probably adequate.

There's no point in suggesting an Xbox or PS5 if they want to play MMOs, RTS, MOBA, or serious/competitive shooters, not to mention the hundreds of Indie games which are only available on PC.
 
Last edited:
eddyr said:
In fact you could get the best of both worlds for the price of that console + an extra £40 (modern games plus access to the PC legacy library) with a console and stick a cheap 2nd hand Polaris GPU in their 5-10 year old PC.
Click to expand...
Haggisman said:
Surely "what games do you (want to) play" is a critical factor to take into account?
Click to expand...
Both fair points but when i said gaming on PC it was in the more general sense, as in being able to at least meet the minium specifications for +99% of games at a minium resolution of 1080p (does anyone use lower than that any more?)

To get similar performance to that of a console (do they render at 1080p nowadays or do some games have variable upscaling, was/is that even a thing or have i misremembered?)
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
Both fair points but when i said gaming on PC it was in the more general sense, as in being able to at least meet the minium specifications for +99% of games at a minium resolution of 1080p (does anyone use lower than that any more?)

To get similar performance to that of a console (do they render at 1080p nowadays or do some games have variable upscaling, was/is that even a thing or have i misremembered?)
Click to expand...
Consoles often drop way below 1080p to keep 60 fps and even then they can't keep 60 fps locked e.g. forgotten or one of the other games released drop down to 480P :o
 
Nexus18 said:
Consoles often drop way below 1080p to keep 60 fps and even then they can't keep 60 fps locked e.g. forgotten or one of the other games released drop down to 480P :o
Click to expand...
Yea that's the sort of thing i meant but i thought it was variable, as in the render resolution drops dynamically to keep frame rates up and it upscales to the display res. e.g. something like forgotten isn't rendering at 480p for the entire game just in scenes that need it.

e: Come to think of it that will probably be DLSS 4, only available on 50 series cards.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
Both fair points but when i said gaming on PC it was in the more general sense, as in being able to at least meet the minium specifications for +99% of games at a minium resolution of 1080p (does anyone use lower than that any more?)

To get similar performance to that of a console (do they render at 1080p nowadays or do some games have variable upscaling, was/is that even a thing or have i misremembered?)
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you, my point was also to how the value proposition in modern PC gaming has evaporated. I would struggle to recommend to someone to get into/build a modern gaming PC over console either.
The whole 'PC library' argument, which is the strongest, is largely a legacy game library, so is undermined by the fact that it could be handled by yesterdays PC, or even tomorrows laptop (so something you either already have or will need to get has that covered, or could be attained cheaply if you really wanted to dabble) and so leaving the modern titles to the simplicity of the console ends up attractive.
 
Last edited:
KompuKare said:
"Offically" yes, but no FE 4060's so AIBs can charge what they want! Maybe a few single fan models will be $299, time will tell.
Click to expand...

So long as there is one $299 GPU that is never actually available then it starts at $299.

Realistically ones that you can actually buy will be more than that, its marketing and these tech journalists fall for it every time, apart from Steve Burke that is....
 
Murphy said:
Yea that's the sort of thing i meant but i thought it was variable, as in the render resolution drops dynamically to keep frame rates up and it upscales to the display res. e.g. something like forgotten isn't rendering at 480p for the entire game just in scenes that need it.

e: Come to think of it that will probably be DLSS 4, only available on 50 series cards.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is variable, still **** though as it is incredibly jarring dropping to a res. that low with no form of upscaling tech. Shame consoles aren't utilising FSR 2 more, AMD really need to get the finger out and start pushing for this.
 
I think one of the main problems AMD has with Navi32, is that a 60 CU RDNA3 card is likely to only keep up with the RX 6900 XT, or possibly the 6950 XTX if clocked high.

I think the techpowerup's performance estimate is probably roughly correct:
www.techpowerup.com

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT Specs

AMD Navi 32, 2430 MHz, 3840 Cores, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 2438 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

I think the power usage will be less than 300w though, and it may be called the RX 7800 instead, which would be more logical considering that it has the same CU count ss the RX 6800. The main benefit will be FSR3 /frame generation and improved RT performance per CU.

So because it's not a clear improvement from what's on offer, it would explain the delay.

So from that point of view, only Navi31 is likely to offer impressive performance at 1440p/4K.

There could be a 70 CU consumer card eventually.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
You're more than welcome to mention more as like i said I'd struggle to give someone compelling reasons.

That wasn't really the question, it was "why anyone, even someone who has an existing PC, would buy a graphics card when they could just buy a console" however as long as you've not rephrased it in an attempt to strawman me then I'll accept and address it in a similar vain. The reason someone may buy a console instead of a graphics card is because for the same price they can have a similar, if not better, experience on a device that's dedicated to gaming than something they may use for other tasks.

e: Let me put it this way: If someone said they wanted to get into gaming and they have a 5-10 year old PC (seems reasonable, no?) would you say they should buy a $299-499 graphics card or a console?

Like i said though it's not good enough to just say these things are the same or similar, there needs to be a compelling reason for someone to choose one over the other and even though in the past you'd be paying a little more for the experience on the PC it would be a better experience and more utilitarian than consoles. I feel i can no longer make that argument in good faith any more. At best all i can say is that you'll probably be paying double the cost of a console and getting a similar experience and maybe you can use it to do some things that you're probably already doing on your phone/tablet/notebook.
Click to expand...
A 499$ gpu runs circles around any console though. Not very comparable to be honest. If you have a 10 year old pc then yeah, you need a new one. If it's 5 years old then you might be fine if it's something like an 8700k
 
I'm not sure, I think the Series X GPU is still reasonable, but loses against any card with more compute units (RX 6800 or RX 6800 XT).
 
Last edited:
Bencher said:
A 499$ gpu runs circles around any console though. Not very comparable to be honest. If you have a 10 year old pc then yeah, you need a new one. If it's 5 years old then you might be fine if it's something like an 8700k
Click to expand...
How so? Instead of using hyperberbaly like "runs circles" tell me how a $499 graphics card is going to give me a better gaming experience than a $499 console.

Tell me why i should spend $499 on a graphics card for my PC with a 8700k in it instead of just buying a console.
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
How so? Instead of using hyperberbaly like "runs circles" tell me how a $499 graphics card is going to give me a better gaming experience than a $499 console.

Tell me why i should spend $499 on a graphics card for my PC with a 8700k in it instead of just buying a console.
Click to expand...
The RX 6800 is around £480. The series X UK price is £450.

If you can get a new RX 6800 for around £450 or then I'd say that's not such a bad deal.

If you're willing to consider used cards, you can get cards with a warranty for ~£400.

If someone doesn't have a PC system already, I would still consider a Series X console.

One thing I'd say in favour of PCs is the number of free games you can get these days, but on the console side you still have things like Game Pass.

And services like GOG basically let you install your games on as many PCs as you like.
 
Last edited:
eddyr said:
In fact you could get the best of both worlds for the price of that console + an extra £40 (modern games plus access to the PC legacy library) with a console and stick a cheap 2nd hand Polaris GPU in their 5-10 year old PC.
Click to expand...

Haggisman said:
Surely "what games do you (want to) play" is a critical factor to take into account?

If all they want to play is AAA blockbusters like FIFA, COD, etc. then fair enough, by all means a console is probably adequate.

There's no point in suggesting an Xbox or PS5 if they want to play MMOs, RTS, MOBA, or serious/competitive shooters, not to mention the hundreds of Indie games which are only available on PC.
Click to expand...

But a laptop with a dGPU would be enough to play most of the Indie games,MMOs,etc. The issue is the running of the newer AAA games,where the average PC on Steam apparently has a GTX1650. Most of the top 10 dGPUs on Steam are really no better than a three year old current generation console! :(
 
Last edited:
g67575 said:
The RX 6800 is around £480. The series X UK price is £450.

If you can get a new RX 6800 for around £450 or then I'd say that's not such a bad deal.

If you're willing to consider used cards, you can get cards with a warranty for ~£400.

If someone doesn't have a PC system already, I would still consider a Series X console.

One thing I'd say in favour of PCs is the number of free games you can get these days, but on the console side you still have things like Game Pass.
Click to expand...
True but i had assumed when i initially said "why anyone, even someone who has an existing PC, would buy a graphics card when they could just buy a console" that people would assume i was talking about new/newly released cards.

Having to tell someone who may want to get into gaming on their PC that they should try to buy a two and a half year old graphics card or look for something on the 2nd hand market kind of sucks, dare i say it's a little embarrassing.
 
Murphy said:
How so? Instead of using hyperberbaly like "runs circles" tell me how a $499 graphics card is going to give me a better gaming experience than a $499 console.

Tell me why i should spend $499 on a graphics card for my PC with a 8700k in it instead of just buying a console.
Click to expand...
Cause the PC will be much faster or offer you much much better image quality? Isn't that the whole point of buying a new gpu in the first place? If you don't care about performance and image you can just use your old gpu and lower the settings. Im not sure what point you are trying to make
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom