Firstly, anyone can quote mine and misrepresent a position. If you're going to do that, I will not discuss anything with you.
Ok. Let's tackle some things.
Many gamers and developers disagree with you.
The amount of people agreeing on something has no bearing on whether something is true or not. That is a fact.
Developers like RT because it eases their development. That does not mean that it is actually practical for the end user at this point in time with the current hardware.
Gamers that think RT is a practical feature at this point in time are either content with 30fps, are simply blind nVidia followers or are unknowledgeable and fall for marketing. Just to copy one person with an actual RTX card;
"I've got a 3080, I tried the whole DLSS and RT, play with it enabled in Cyberpunk BUT at 1400p I still can't always maintain 60fps with DLSS set to quality, I would not use any other setting because you can absolutely tell the difference so for me RT is a bust atm. I paid £875 for my GPU and with the Quality setting in DLSS which basically renders the game at 1100p? I don't always get 60fps!! So if anyway here is buying a GPU that is not a 3080 don't bother with the RT because even DLSS wont save you"
https://www.techspot.com/community/...-41-game-benchmark.266962/page-3#post-1862014
They ended up maxing everything else out and disabling RT. And that is the most practical way to still use these current cards, even if they support RT. And if you think that performance will get better over time with these cards, you're delusional. At best we're going to get better visuals with the same large performance drop. More likely is a higher performance cost for better visuals. And considering the current performance is barely playable (if even that), it's not worth the cost.
Of course there is. Anyone reading that review in isolation to help them decide between the 2 GPU's would conclude that the 6800 is universally faster and get it. But in fact they would have purchased the slower GPU for any game that uses Ray Tracing. Which is likely to be a lot during the useful life of the card.
See what I wrote above.
This simply isn't true. RT is plenty playable on a 6800 at resolutions lower than 4K. 4K isn't obligatory, especially on a card in this performance category. I'm sure a lot of PC gamers would rather run at 1440p with Ray Tracing than 4K without. Especially if the game can upscale to native res as many can these days.
Why would RT be obligatory over 4k?
It will net you a locked
30fps. Nothing wrong with that. Or you could drop down to 1080p for a near locked 60fps.
DLSS performance has a large impact on image quality. It's not exactly viable to call it 4K anymore.
You need to stop taking this so personally. I'm in no way biased towards AMD. I own an AMD CPU and have owned AMD GPU's in the past. Prior to their launch I was completely open to the possibility of my next GPU being RDNA2 based. But if I'm buying a GPU in this price/performance category, I'm not willing to compromise on what will likely be one of the flagship graphical features for the next few years.
Instead, you'll buy a GPU on that price category to run games at 1080p just to turn on RT. That's much better, right...?
Because not doing so is ignoring a major aspect of both GPU's performance potential to the obvious advantage of one of them. I'm pretty sure that's already been mentioned above.
I guess then they should have also included things like power consumption numbers, maybe with Radeon Chill enabled... Overview of the software UI, the overclocking options... Input lag...
At what point does it become ridiculous to include things? Because if you're going to select one specific feature from one specific vendor, the only thing that that screams out is bias. And if you don't see that, I can't help you.
That's completely irrelevant. They didn't even need to add any other games to the review. Just test those games that do support RT with it turned on. It's highly likely that 6800 owners playing those games are going to want to play them with all settings turned up as high as they can be.
Testing 40 games is irrelevant now... Ok... I guess we're done here.
It's entirely different. SAM is only available to a small subset of people that would be using that GPU. As Zen2 owner for example, I can't take any advantage of it so it's irrelevant. RT is available to 100% of all users of those 2 GPU's so there's simply no excuse for not showing how they perform with it.
You really can't see the irony here...? You pretend that somehow there are a bunch of people that have RT enabled cards... Most people won't spend more than $300 on a graphics card... So that already puts all RT cards as a niche. And that would be assuming that these cards are actually practical in using RT at all for all those people that do spend so much money on them... Considering Intel CPUs can also use SAM and has pretty much already be enabled, I wouldn't be surprised if that subset is larger than the amount of people that can use RT.
It's quite obvious that if SAM was nVidia's tech, you would be begging for Hardware Unboxed to include those in their benchmarks also. Because neither of them are more or less niche than the other.
I'm done here. Things are obvious. One can't expect politicians to speak out against their own party. And this thread is a green party. Goodbye.