• 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 RT Related Games, Benchmarks, Software, Etc Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grim5 said:
My condolences to bad purchasing decisions
Click to expand...

Says the guy who bought a 3090.. How much are those selling for these days? £650-£700?

With that kind of depreciation a 3080 FE works out to be free :cry:

In your case it was 100% depreciation as I heard you smashed your 3090 with an hammer after your 4090 arrived :p:D
 
Last edited:
Hope they release portal rtx soon, been looking forward to trying that out. I thought the racer rtx video demo they showed at the 4090 launch, they were going to release a playable one in November as well. Really hope they release that.
 
Nexus18 said:
Which will never happen if you want to keep improving visuals, same as is the case with improving visuals regardless of RT, there will always be a performance cost for better visuals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we should have stayed in the lowest res possible until 1080p/4k would have been available without performance drops. Same for details, low and ultra low is where is at. Artistic view, after all, is what gives a game personality and that truly shines in low settings :)

von Humboldt said:
Personally I'd be happy if the arms race for shiny visuals slowed down a little so that the likes of physics and AI could catch up. No point having super realistic character models when they move and act like ****.
Click to expand...

Catch up? Lol. They're being ignore on purpose, just like the audio.

Red Faction was awesome with what it did.
Crowds in AC:Unity were incredible, yet got downgraded in further games due to consoles...

No, my friend, until gamers will bother to point those things out, nothing will change. Not because is impossible, but because they don't want to. Just look how stupid simple in terms of gameplay are the "action RPGs" -> put 1 point in a skill an by the power of "magic" your bullet does 20% more damage. Hilarious. :)
 
Last edited:
Calin Banc said:
Crowds in AC:Unity were incredible, yet got downgraded in further games due to consoles...
Click to expand...

Also the draw distance detail in AC games is terrible, In AC Unity and Syndicate buildings a distance away look like low res cardboard cutouts even if your machine is capable of displaying high res assets at a massive draw distance the engine was hampered to be usable on console.
 
Last edited:
Kelt said:
Everybody knows the current AMD cards don't do RT well.

Will be interesting to see how much their new crop have advanced with this tech.
Click to expand...

Yup but that is pretty unusual even with FSR "performance" mode, probably just a bug though.

I do think this is where amd not having dedicated hardware for RT is hurting them though and why I am wary on rdna 3 supposed RT improvements...
 
AMD's approach is fine in a sense; the RT performance scales with their main core performance, IPC, clock speed etc. so as their cards get faster in general, RT goes up with it. The problem is that the RT performance for them is starting at a very low baseline and so to get acceptable RT performance, requires huge improvements in general performance.

Nvidia used fixed function accelerators to get around this low baseline; the upside is they have a much higher starting level which means better performance today rather than. Having to wait for several generations of general IPC improvement. The downside is now they have two different core units and to get RT performance improvements means doing architecture work on just the RT core which doesn't help raster performance and vice versa - essentially this means it's more complicated and costly to manage.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
AMD's approach is fine in a sense; the RT performance scales with their main core performance, IPC, clock speed etc. so as their cards get faster in general, RT goes up with it. The problem is that the RT performance for them is starting at a very low baseline and so to get acceptable RT performance, requires huge improvements in general performance.

Nvidia used fixed function accelerators to get around this low baseline; the upside is they have a much higher starting level which means better performance today rather than. Having to wait for several generations of general IPC improvement. The downside is now they have two different core units and to get RT performance improvements means doing architecture work on just the RT core which doesn't help raster performance and vice versa - essentially this means it's more complicated and costly to manage.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the top end (6900 vs 3090), which were both overpriced, the price difference between AMD and nVIDIA wasn't as big as the lack of performance in RT - not to mention DLSS vs. FSR.

Now, presumably, they have this cheaper design, plus chiplet design and still up the price for their 2nd best card upon launch while top end still sits at $1000. Ergo, their "efficiency" is more or less meaningless. Morever, if the market share was/is under 10%, their current not-so-premium-brand strategy will kill Radeon - at least for desktops.

Time will tell, I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom