AMD Radeon RDNA2 Navi (RX 6800, 6800 XT, 6900 XT) [2020-10-28]

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by BRiT, Oct 28, 2020.

  1. trinibwoy

    trinibwoy Meh
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    11,150
    Likes Received:
    1,651
    Location:
    New York
    Not quite. There are pitfalls with inline raytracing. Essentially it makes sense for simple RT scenarios but may not be ideal if you’re doing something more convoluted where dedicated shaders may be better optimized by drivers/hardware.

    https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Specs/blob/master/d3d/Raytracing.md#inline-raytracing

     
    iroboto, DavidGraham and pharma like this.
  2. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    RT performance will just be superior on NV hardware (or RDNA3/4) as opposed to consoles. Things do scale pretty well already. That or a complete lack of it in more demanding games.
     
  3. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes Received:
    3,975
    NightAntilli, Lightman and PSman1700 like this.
  4. Dictator

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Wow is a very hard game to test as it is online and also really heavily CPU limited.
     
    BRiT, DavidGraham, Lightman and 2 others like this.
  5. HLJ

    HLJ
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    326
    It is almost to easy to spot a "AMD raytraycing" title these days...raytraced shadows and not much more.
    I guess that is the price for having to little hardware raytracing acceleration in their SKU's.
     
    xpea, DavidGraham, pharma and 2 others like this.
  6. pjbliverpool

    pjbliverpool B3D Scallywag
    Legend

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    8,446
    Likes Received:
    2,626
    Location:
    Guess...
    Not at console settings which is the context of your statement. We've had this discussion before and weren't able to find any games that didn't run much better on the 4GB 980 than the PS4/XBO. Therefore it stands to reason that sufficiently powerful 8GB GPU's should be able to do the same this generation, although as mentioned before the SSD's might change that equation.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  7. Lightman

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes Received:
    835
    Location:
    Torquay, UK
    If you look at PS5 Spiderman, then not really. We are seeing around RTX2080(Ti) RT performance in most situations, so delivering games with full set of effects should be possible, but they will obviously run a lot faster on RTX30x0 series. So seeing only RT shadows in use is more to do with performance positioning than anything else. Besides, at least for WoW I don't see too much need for full RT reflections, wrong type of game. Dirt on another hand would be much better pick as cars do tend to be glossy :)
     
  8. Rootax

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,908
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Location:
    France
    Not a fan on the spiderman comparaisons to determine (RT) power, we don't have pc games with the same engine to compare how it would perform....
     
    xpea, tinokun, Scott_Arm and 6 others like this.
  9. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,445
    Likes Received:
    3,975
    Watch Dogs Legion showed us that both Xbox Series X and PS5 are slower than a 2060. That Spider Man example doesn't stand here as the game doesn't have a PC port.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  10. DegustatoR

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    msk.ru/spb.ru
    Technically we have Sunset Overdrive which is using the same engine but its previous version without RT.
    It ran at 60 fps on a GTX970 in 2560x1440.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  11. HLJ

    HLJ
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    326
    The reflection are running 1/2 the FPS at 1/4 the resolution so not a stellar example that one.
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  12. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,777
    It doesn't matter if RAM sizes were bumped by 2x or 16x. What matters is that consoles are used as baseline for VRAM usage on all major engines because they're a much larger source of income to publishers than gaming PCs.
    For the 8th-gen consoles the baseline was placed at around 6GB of RAM available for the GPU for rendering at 1080p. For the 9th-gen we're now looking at more than 12GB for rendering at 1440-2160p.


    If your goal with $500-700 graphics cards is as low as "not having issues" with the IQ of $500 consoles with GPUs that have half the processing throughput, then you've proven my point.



    Devs would have to be careful and creative with their PC ports, but not all of them will be. Also, I'm not saying 16GB is minimum, as 12GB might be more than enough for most performance targets for a while (consoles don't have much more than that available for the GPU).
    For example, this might put the 12GB 3060 oddly positioned against the 8GB 3060 Ti for higher resolutions, on the long run.



    Don't start skewing my statements. I made no performance comparison claims between the GTX980 and the 2013 consoles.
    I don't know who set out to look for games that ran "much better" on the 2013 $400 consoles with 1.3/1.8TFLOPs than nvidia's $550 card from 2014 with 5TFLOPs, but if they did then it was a pretty stupid quest to start with.

    The 4GB cards (RX290, GTX 980/970, Fury) aged badly from 2015 onwards, on the resolutions they were marketed to work at (1440p and 4K), as typical VRAM occupancy on 1440p between games released up to 2015 and what we had by 2017 rose quite drastically.
    At Ultra Preset,
    1440p Battlefield 4: 2280MB
    1440p Battlefield 5: 5490MB

    4K Battlefield 4: 2988MB
    4K Battlefield 5: 6990MB

    The practical difference is that while the Fury X was beating the 4GB 290X by almost 40% on the 2015 Battlefield 4 at 1440p, on Battlefield 5 it was losing by 24% with the 390X (same card as 290X but 8GB VRAM).

    So don't worry, the VRAM usage spike due to 8th-gen consoles didn't just affect your precious GTX980. Perhaps it affected AMD cards even more.
     
  13. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    The ray tracing in MM PS5 doesn't scream 2080/Ti in any imaginary way.

    Last time, consoles had 8gb of GDDR5, while common on pc was 2gb (2013). This time around, all GPU's basically match or exceed what consoles have available to VRAM.
    Consoles are used as a baseline because their the lowest common denominator, i also doubt their the highest source of income anyway, in special not considering platform for platform. Combining switch, PS and XB etc then maybe, but even then not for all games.

    A gamer doesnt have to lower everything to console settings to reduce vram usage.

    In that case, so did consoles. Multiplat games started to suffer more and more as time went on. To the point where we landed at CP2077.
    I remember DF mentioning in a CoD analysis 'its really getting time for a new gen' etc.

    Those are stupid comparisons to begin with. 1440p and 4k are kinda unheard of for the 2013 consoles. Someone getting a 3060 or even 3080 now isnt looking at 8k ultra down the line in five years.

    A 7950 3gb, a 2012 gpu, outperformed both base consoles through the whole generation. A 7870 tags alone fine too for the most, bad ports aside.
     
  14. HLJ

    HLJ
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    326
    Using console PRICE as an argument is doomed to fail, as some generation the hardware was sold at a LOSS...and recouped by the higher cost of games on consoles...just to be nit-picky.
    So PRICE of the hardware for a console is nothing than a fallacy...
     
    PSman1700 likes this.
  15. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,777
    Yes you have a lot of money to spend and price isn't important to you nor should it be important to anyone else.
    You told us as much already.

    Though you conveniently forgot to mention the compute throughput disparity and year of release because those wouldn't help your argument.
     
    Jawed likes this.
  16. HLJ

    HLJ
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    326
    Again, hardware being sold at at loss, while games are more expensive cannot be ignored.

    Trying to hide the real cost is a fallacy...like it or not.
     
    DavidGraham and PSman1700 like this.
  17. DegustatoR

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    1,948
    Likes Received:
    1,077
    Location:
    msk.ru/spb.ru
    Let's just ignore the fact that at the moment of PS4/XBO launch a typical PC GPU had 1-2GB of VRAM which is 1/8-1/4 of what consoles had which actually had a profound effect on PC GPU VRAM sizes while 8GB GPUs now are at 1/2 of the new consoles already. It doesn't matter (c)
    We should also ignore the fact of radical storage change in consoles which lead to games needing less VRAM to achieve the same IQ on new consoles than they needed on previous ones.
    Anything which goes against the pushing for oh so needed 16GBs must be dismissed and ignored. No thinking and evidence needed.

    That "baseline" was and still is 2GBs. Any 4GB GPU has no issues with rendering like 99,9% of current gen games in 1080p at console level of settings.

    More than 16 even I'd say cause why not while we're just pulling stuff out of various places?
     
    HLJ and PSman1700 like this.
  18. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    And the need to pay to be able to play online for most games.... Yes upfront the pc is going to be more expensive, much more so if you want highend at launch.
    But you also get more, say a 6800/XT, you get double the capacity over what the PS5 delivers in raw gpu power, probably also better RT as it scales with TF down the range. In case of Ampere, you get much and much more rasterization power (like RDNA2 dGPUs do), but also ray tracing and reconstruction tech.
    When talking GPU, the consoles are closer to 2018/last gen GPUs (Turing) in both rasterization (around 2080 at best for PS5), and RT lays around 2060 performance.
    You pay less, you get less. Its all about what you want, which is going to differ for everyone.

    Same for the CPU, its basically a generation behind (Zen2), much lower clocked at it. Also, no serious system is going to be build with just 16GB of total ram, theres also system ram aiding things. Any RDNA2 today already sits at 16GB Vram (with IC), where PS5 seems rather BW limited (like the Pro was actually).
    Yes the SSD its high-end, but already slower before compression, until DS hits and we sit much higher.

    Price wars usually dont find their way into technical discussions, but from time to time, they do as seen here.

    Yes what i pointed out before, VRAM was rather limited across midrange products backthen, though there did exist 3 tand 6gb 7970 gpus already in 2012. The first titan (2013) had 6gb too. Anyway, even with 2gb, im quite surprised how well those held up, the AMD GCN gpus then. Most PS4 games actually never went much above 3GB for vram usage. In no way will games on PS5 consume anywhere close to 16gb for just the GPU.

    Exactly. But tottentranz ofcourse came with 1440p/4k Ultra max settings on GPUs launched in the same timeframe as the 2013 base consoles.
     
  19. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,849
    Likes Received:
    6,777
    No, you shouldn't. Most gaming PCs won't have the same up-to-6GB/s I/O of the SeriesX, much less the up-to-22GB/s I/O as the PS5.
    Since PC game devs can't make games for the PC that require a >3GB/s NVMe, you can count on VRAM allocation on PC dGPUs being larger than on consoles.


    Yes, you need to somehow negate the VRAM advantage of the RX6800 series over the RTX3070/3080.
    Let me guess, you think RT performance is of the utmost importance for long-term GPU performance?



    Pulling out of what places?
    The Series X has 16GB total, out of which 2.5GB are allocated for the OS. The PS5 should be similar.

    That leaves 13.5GB for games, of which the majority is to be used by the GPU. Therefore, 12GB should be sufficient for getting VRAM parity with most multiplatform titles in the long run. 8GB should not.
     
  20. PSman1700

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    1,915
    I highly doubt SSD's will account for, and replace VRAM to an extend where image quality matters. The 22GB/s figure isnt anything to go by either in most use cases.
    Also, in a pc you usually have large amounts of system ram, which the consoles lack (only gddr6 ram). Say a rdna2 16gb gpu with anything between 16 and 32gb ddr4, the system ram is much faster and less latency intrusive vs the SSD found in the PS5.

    Most gaming PC's wont have the same IO speed, but due to system ram they might not even need it right now. Anyway, direct storage, RTX-IO promise numbers way higher than what the PS5 does. Talking about right now, CP2077 sure does show some impressive SSD streaming on pc, basically no load times and ultra fast streaming speeding through the big city. The studio even mentioned that due to it being designed around fast IO, the older hardware suffers.

    Maybe, 8GB seems abit low indeed. At the same time, that 8GB isnt as much BW limited as the consoles are, its able to fill it much faster. More ram defenitely doesnt directly mean better. A 9600XT 256 wasnt performing better then a 128mb 9700pro either in the vast majority of games. What i want to say is, its not just soley about memory amount when gauging performance, in special not between different architectures, even more so not between different architectures in a console vs a pc.
    Like noted above, their setups are a whole lot different. On the consoles, the 16GB is shared between everything basically, both by amount and bandwith.

    We can point to current benchmarks, but that is going to be said its false and 'wait for later games'. On the other hand, when comparing Ampere to PS5/RDNA, current games do matter :p
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...