• 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.

*** The AMD RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***

muon said:
7900 XTX is worse than the 4080 Super when you include all games.

AMD know you can't just switch off RT and fudge the results anymore. RT is here to stay.
Click to expand...

So you telling me AMD made the chart's purely on ray tracing performance?

Ag9qJoW.jpeg

eA0k7hi.jpeg
 
99 fps at 4k looks pretty damn good compared to that chart, though I have a feeling the settings are very different. Still could mean 7900xt - 7900xtx levels, which is what we were hoping for

Edit: just re-read the ign thing and he says it's 4k extreme settings. I'm not sure if buy that, or that these are comparable, but damn wouldn't it be fun if after all the 9070xt is faster than the 7900xtx :P
 
Last edited:
Alexrose1uk said:
Did he clarify if it was an AIB model?
Those are meant to draw more power (hence 3x 8pin on some) and clock higher...could it be that meaning greater than 7900XTX performance possibly?
Click to expand...

Won't be better than the xtx, think the cards that have shown the 3x 8 pins have been aib boards, no idea why need the 3x connectors though, they've gone down a node so should be more efficient than the old cards, The ram and memory buses are much lower than the xtx, the GPU clocks are higher, so might consume more power, but I'd be surprised if it's over or close to 350 watts, this would make the card inefficient against the 40 series (4080 only consumes 320watts) let alone the 50 series, but it's definitely not going to be faster.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Also,the RX7700XT is below the RTX4060TI too,when it is usually faster.

Maybe performance is better than we think. It might explain why the top models seem to have huge coolers and power delivery.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking, the OEM/Stock/AMD equivalent might be efficiency designed to keep costs and power down.
The AIBs performance SKUs however might be balls to the wall instead.

Will see, there's got to be some sort of reason for them having 3x 8pin and massive coolers, especially as the OEM model looks relatively tame.

Edit: there was a lot of talk of the RDNA3 architecture having some bottlenecks/architecture flaws which stopped it clocking up across the entire GPU, leading to high front end clocks, but lower back end clocks essentially. It could be AMD have fixed those, but it requires wattage to fully unleash all parts of the core at high clocks. But that trade off for efficiency is performance. There were a lot of talks of RDNA3 having been meant/designed to hit over 3GHz across the core. Could be with the right power these new chips can do it, so the AMD OEM design comes in and looks like a good move efficiency wise, for those who favour size/noise/power, whilst the AIBs bring the raw performance for that market?
 
Last edited:
StarShock said:
99 fps at 4k looks pretty damn good compared to that chart, though I have a feeling the settings are very different. Still could mean 7900xt - 7900xtx levels, which is what we were hoping for

Edit: just re-read the ign thing and he says it's 4k extreme settings. I'm not sure if buy that, or that these are comparable, but damn wouldn't it be fun if after all the 9070xt is faster than the 7900xtx :P
Click to expand...

IGN used the benchmark tool in the game. TPU use a custom in game scene so the results are not comparable.

Maybe someone with BOPs 6 can test their 7900 XT(X) at 4K native using the built in benchmark tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom