1.7 times is a best case scenario. Average would,be lower than thatIf we put it this way, their perf is amazing for the price. Not to mention they look a lot cooler than the 4090.
https://twitter.com/nerdtechgasm/status/1588282343256907776
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.
1.7 times is a best case scenario. Average would,be lower than thatIf we put it this way, their perf is amazing for the price. Not to mention they look a lot cooler than the 4090.
https://twitter.com/nerdtechgasm/status/1588282343256907776
To be fair US $ prices never include tax... so it's technically $1200 if you add on the 20% VAT we pay.... which currently converts to just under £1100 inc VAT.That's before the greedy retailers get their claws on them, As we live in the crap hole that is the UK the 7900XTX will be well over £1000.
355W compared with 450W (peaking 600W)...obviously 4090 losing some performance but saves a load of wattage. lets see the final analysis by HUB tbh.Not FPS/W... no... not a chance... the 4090 is far ahead in performance per watt.
$/frame they look to be *slightly* ahead, but it's not that much.
I very much doubt TSMC would be giving Nvidia preferential treatment over AMD.
AMD is a bigger customer than Nvidia, AMD use their fab on CPU and GPU...
I think that stuff is Nvidia marketing BS
If we put it this way, their perf is amazing for the price. Not to mention they look a lot cooler than the 4090.
https://twitter.com/nerdtechgasm/status/1588282343256907776
EasilyHope my RX6800 lasts another 2 years.
I think the graph is 1.6x, the claim was 1.5 to 1.7.erm their 1.7X is best case scenario not an average. i suspect the average would be a bit closer to 1.3/1.4 times.
they hand picked some games to show X times...
I've seen someone on twitter claiming 1.4 and 1.5 best case scenarioI think the graph is 1.6x, the claim was 1.5 to 1.7.
Surely the RT graph will look much worse.
Improving Nvidia RTX 4090 Efficiency Through Power Limiting
We tested the 4090 Founders Edition at 50% to 120% power limitswww.tomshardware.com
3% performance reduction at 355W... apparently.
355W compared with 450W (peaking 600W)...obviously 4090 losing some performance but saves a load of wattage. lets see the final analysis by HUB tbh.
I think the graph is 1.6x, the claim was 1.5 to 1.7.
Surely the RT graph will look much worse.
I didn't understand why they were going on about 8k screens, for those in the EU you won't even be able to buy them because of the energy efficiency law coming into play next year and I'm assuming AMD are bigger in Europe than they are in the US and UK.
Yup. This is AMD Graphics buried. They'll be lucky to even tie the 4080. Nvidia laughing all the way to the bank.Hold on, those were non RT numbers.
So, to make it simple. 4090 does about 42fps native, vs 7900xtx (if would be double 6950xt), 26fps +/- .
Ouch. So much for good gaming for "years to come".
So it seems the flagship Radeon 7900XTX will be comparable to a RTX 3090 ,requires a new monitor with DP 2.1 to shows all it’s potential and most likely there will be lots of bugs and game driver compatibility issues to deal with for the next 2 years..
I think it was a disappointment and underwhelming event.
That's because you suckers keep buying their overpriced products!Yup. This is AMD Graphics buried. They'll be lucky to even tie the 4080. Nvidia laughing all the way to the bank.
Highly doubt it'll be comparable in rasterization. What's important is that it's 3080 performance in RT - so these cards are pretty much worthless and will sell even worse than the 6000 series I imagine.
Nvidia have 80% dedicated GPU market share, this'll probably be closer to 85% a year from now.
Good enough though1.7 times is a best case scenario. Average would,be lower than that