• 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 thread which sometimes talks about RDNA2

Status
Not open for further replies.
From the bits and pieces I've picked up out seems that amd has best my expectations. Will need to have a proper look once I have a stable connection.

Not fussed about RT by the time it matters I'll be on my next card;)
 
EastCoastHandle said:
I disagree. AMD launched their GPUs without 1 single blip about RT and it was received very well. So for him to make the assumption that 'nobody cares' can be based on the positive reaction of RDNA 2 without showing anything regarding ray tracing.

For that, I would agree with him on that assumption based on the observations of today's launch. Which would make for a very strong case why 'no one cares'. Even though it's obvious that it's his opinion as the notion of it is implied.
Click to expand...

Ye the fanboys sure didnt care. Who are you referring to exactly? Even r/amd is full of ‘but RT??’.

:D
 
MikeB said:
I don't get the fuss either, majority of those wanting fast cards will be playing racing/FPS games, what they going to do in Forza....park up in the middle of a race , get out and admire the slightly better reflection in the puddles
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that.

Didn't we have youtube reviews posted with people checking out the racing on the new consoles where they'd be pausing the footage mid action and critiquing the quality of the lighting on the windscreen in the frozen frame...
 
When RT doesn't hurt frame rates, at least below the panel refresh rate, then it will be mainstream. Rights now you choose, high FPS or ray tracing. It is definitely the future and will make games look much better, in the future.
 
I DON'T fancy boys said:
It's just improved lighting, don't understand why everyone is so excited about it since the "fake" lighting really isn't too bad either tbh.

It's nice, but it's not so nice people will tolerate a noticeable FPS hit for it. It's a luxury, a bonus, an added feature - that I concede will certainly permeate into the market over time - but currently is just flavor of the month to help push GPU sales and next gen consoles since there's nothing too revolutionary about any of them.
Click to expand...

+1. Exactly my thoughts. RT is just boomers having their "Can it run Crysis? " moment :p.

It's the future no doubt, but at this point it's too much of a compromise IMO. "Raging" rasterization is where its at for me.
 
Gerard said:
Funny how things turn around, literally a few months ago all you read on here from the "Green faithful" was "AMD are 2 generations behind they will be lucky equalling 2080ti, and if they do 3080 will crush them".

Yeah, that worked out well. AMD have now done on the gpu side what they did on the cpu side, Nvidia and Intel made the same mistake by underestimating them. AMD are now as fast as Nvidia offerings at lower wattage, not much more to be said on that front really. :D
Click to expand...

Indeed, hats off to them! If I do upgrade this gen it will likely still be a 3080 due to my G-Sync monitor and the fact the performance is pretty much identical (although if the leaks of 2.5ghz AIB cards are true perhaps the 6800XT will pull ahead). I would only pay £650 for one with the pricing of the 6800XT however, and so I'm very unlikely to upgrade as I doubt we'll see that price again for months.
 
@Th0nt woohooo toxic 6800XT for me and a 5900X, notice that AMD benchmarked at 3200mhz ram as well.. Plenty of gas left in the tank, i think sweetspot for Ryzen 5xxx is like 4000mhz maybe? I have 3600mhz c16 so should hopefully see even more gains as we know Ryzens IF loves faster ram
 
stooeh said:
I think what people want is more frames, more performance and RT is currently too expensive comparatively so happy to turn it off and have the effects faked.
Click to expand...

If more frames is the goal, then set settings to "low" and go above 100fps even with relatively weak hardware. :) But not many want that, do they? They still want higher image quality.

I DON'T fancy boys said:
It's just improved lighting, don't understand why everyone is so excited about it since the "fake" lighting really isn't too bad either tbh.
Click to expand...

Mentioning just "lightning" is very broad and inaccurate. Shortly, here's from AMD own presentation the difference that it makes when it comes to shadows alone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHpgu-cTjyM&feature=youtu.be&t=1099 .

There a lot of lights that don't cast shadows in current games, reflections are also quite bad since they're done in screen space and whenever you're having a dynamic time of day (so you can't bake in the lighting in the scene), there are plenty of situations when stuff is just... off.

Majority of the people haven't really played with RT yet in games such as Metro or Control to see for themselves the difference and it seems like they're just accepting opinions/facts that are only enforcing their view and nothing much beyond that. :)

PS: Ray Tracing or Path Tracing should also lower the time it takes to build a game - or at least it should, when that's the only way you're doing it.
 
nashathedog said:
My point was they're only showing graphs with it on in comparisons against Nvidia's 3090, That's performance the majority of people won't see because it's only available with Ryzen 3, How will it compare for everyone who isn't on Ryzen 3? We don't know or we can guess. Only 1 graph for the 6900XT (with SA & Rage on) v RTX3090 isn't an apples to apples comparison, plus it isn't showing how the 6900XT will perform for the majority of people.
Click to expand...

I don't see much of a problem with it personally, if it can match a card that's 50% more expensive in any circumstances that's still quite impressive.
 
Kirby Wurm said:
I don't see much of a problem with it personally, if it can match a card that's 50% more expensive in any circumstances that's still quite impressive.
Click to expand...
If buying a 3090 that cost 150% more than a 3080 for only 15% extra performance was not already bad enough... AMD releasing a card that costs 50% less than a 3090 and yet more or less equals it in performance is a disaster. :eek:

At this point, only SLI (as flawed as it is for gaming) is a real USP for the 3090 over the 6900XT. At this point I would be having severe buyers remorse had I purchased a 3090. :(

Thankfully, I had more sense. :D
 
nashathedog said:
My point was they're only showing graphs with it on in comparisons against Nvidia's 3090, That's performance the majority of people won't see because it's only available with Ryzen 3, How will it compare for everyone who isn't on Ryzen 3? We don't know or we can guess. Only 1 graph for the 6900XT (with SA & Rage on) v RTX3090 isn't an apples to apples comparison, plus it isn't showing how the 6900XT will perform for the majority of people.
Click to expand...
They said SA and rage only nets you around 2 percent bump in performance
 
Hotwired said:
Funny you should mention that.

Didn't we have youtube reviews posted with people checking out the racing on the new consoles where they'd be pausing the footage mid action and critiquing the quality of the lighting on the windscreen in the frozen frame...
Click to expand...

That backs up my point, if you need to do that to notice then why is it a big deal to have it
 
923-block-diagram.jpg


few interesting (functionally unknown) blocks:
  • 4096 KB Pooled L2 Cache
  • 128 MB L3/Infinity Cache
  • Infinity Fabric+
  • xGMI/Infinity Link (is this crossfire?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom