AMD RDNA4 Architecture Speculation

DegustatoR said:
www.computerbase.de

Monster Hunter Wilds Benchmarks

Am 28. Februar erscheint Monster Hunter Wilds. Schon jetzt gibt es ein kostenloses Benchmark-Tool, perfekt für einen Community-Benchmark.
www.computerbase.de www.computerbase.de
So about 7900XT level?
Click to expand...
How on earth do you translate 1080p/High/Unknown RT/Unknown scaling/framegen 211 FPS to a table with 1080p/Medium/No RT/No scaling/framegen where fastest card gets 160 FPS and 7900 XT 108-116 FPS?
 
Kaotik said:
How on earth do you translate 1080p/High/Unknown RT/Unknown scaling/framegen 211 FPS to a table with 1080p/Medium/No RT/No scaling/framegen where fastest card gets 160 FPS and 7900 XT 108-116 FPS?
Click to expand...
Easily. You divide 211 by 2 and look at the results of cards available.
 
From the screenshot it's indeed with frame generation enabled (the yellow words under the FPS number indicated so).
The quality is the highest setting. If you change upscaling settings it would change the settings to custom so I guess it's not changed, though I don't know what's the default setting with AMD GPU (on NVIDIA GPU it's defaulted to DLSS Quality, so it's probably something similar).
Changing RT does not change the settings to custom so it's unknown if RT is enabled, but since it's disabled by default I guess it's probably disabled.
FSR frame gen is quite a bit faster than DLSS frame gen on this benchmark, but of course it can't 2X the frame rate. Some tests seem to indicate 60% ~ 70% more FPS as reasonable estimates.
Also since it's 1920x1080 it's more likely to be CPU limited, so indeed it can be difficult to see how well it compares to other GPU.
 
Even though popular opinion is that AMD needs to offer significantly better perf/$ I don’t know if it actually works in this case. The last time it worked (RV770) AMD had a pretty massive advantage in area efficiency. There’s also the question of whether Nvidia will lower prices in response. It’s a bit of a prisoners dilemma.

Ironically I think AMD’s best chance to gain market share and make money is to up their marketing game. They need to get people excited and proud to own Radeon again so they don’t need a 30% discount before even considering the option. Shipping good hardware is the first step of course but they really need to start talking about what they’re doing to push tech forward. That’s where they’re getting absolutely murdered right now on the marketing front.

This assumes of course that AMD actually wants to sell consumer GPUs.
 
1740313136877.jpeg
1740313153401.png
This percentage shows both raster and ray tracing games, so you will see higher gains if RT games are included and sometimes lower in raster-only games. But officially, the RX 9070 XT is much faster than the RX 7900 GRE, to the point where one might wonder why this card is even used for comparison.
Click to expand...
So I guess "Ultra" and "Max" now means "with RT"?

1740313818243.png

A couple of reference points:

1740313453005.png 1740313473780.png
 
Last edited:
These are old data, last I heard, AMD told the press 9070XT is 12% faster than 4070Ti Super at 4K in raster, and the same as 4070Ti Super in medium ray tracing.
 
trinibwoy said:
That would put it right at the 7900 XTX which is seriously impressive spec for spec.
Click to expand...
I'm looking at the numbers from various sources and I'd say that it will be quite a bit below 7900XTX in non-RT benchmarks but will be up there in RT.

Which does put both cards in an interesting position as the XT seem to be a bit below 5070Ti w/o h/w RT and further below with it. How do you price this if it's slower across the board? Or do you OC it trying to hit 5070Ti's non-RT performance at a similar price?

The non-XT seem to be faster than the upcoming 5070 w/o RT but will probably be slower or on par at best with it.

It is still not clear why AMD scrapped the launch back in January but I doubt that Nvidia's 5070/Ti positioning was made without knowledge of what AMD has coming. My guess would be that we should expect 500-550 for the non-XT and 650-700 for the XT or something along those lines.

Edit: Finished doing some napkin math.
9070 XT seem to be basically equal to 5070 Ti w/o RT and falls some 15% behind with RT.
9070 seem to be about equal to 7900 XT w/o RT and falls a bit behind 4070 with RT. Will likely end up being faster than 5070 w/o RT and slower w/RT.
So 9070 XT from these results should definitely cost less than 5070 Ti. 600-700 should be okay I'd say, anything less would be great.
With 9070 it's a bit less clear but I'd say that it should also be below 5070 on price to sell well. So 500-550 should be okay, anything less should be great.
That's of course assuming that all these numbers and my napkin math aren't completely wrong.
 
Last edited:
Power Consumption seems to be very good.

9a767efa0c6f40c47dd412590df32338.png


Someone made a comparison based on that table from a few days ago.

GkefiWFWcAAcG8_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
AMD RDNA5 Architecture Speculation
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
13K
Lurkmass
L
A
Holy Wall of Text: My impressions post Playstation 4 (PS4) unveil
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
22K
(((interference)))
I
Back
Top