Right now if AMD can get similar performance to a 4090 but at 4080 pricing they could have a really big hit on their hands esp if they have 16 and 24 gig on their cards vs 12/16 on the geforce 4080s.
- Status
I don't see a reality where AMD can compete with 4090 performance, particularly when RT is enabled, but hopefully they can offer something of better value than the 4080 duo. If DLSS frame generation really looks and feels like a natively rendered higher framerate AMD is dead in the water, but if not AMD has a chance to claw back some good market share.
We will have to see , amd was pretty close last gen with traditional rasterization so it could be the case again , they also could have improved ray tracing after all rdna 2 was their first attempt.
You are right that frame generation could be an issue but it also depends on how much support it gets. Also ram pools could end up being important this gen of cards . We just have to see what Nov 3rd brings I guess
TESKATLIPOKA
Newcomer
I can agree with you on enabling RT on expensive cards.
I want to have the best eye candy on such a card, but I certainly wouldn't like to activate DLSS or FSR just to have playable FPS.
RDNA2 architecture is not bad, but RT performance is abysmal. Let's hope RDNA3 will have a massive improvement in RT.
BTW, please enlighten me why do you compare 6950XT vs 3090 when you can compare 6950Xt vs 3090Ti or 6900XT vs 3090? Just so you can write, It was released 18 months later and still lost?
TESKATLIPOKA
Newcomer
This is not really true. If you check 6950XT TPU review you will see 6 games managed >60 FPS even at 4K using 3090 Ti.
The only exceptions were 3 games:
2160p Control: 39.6 FPS
1440p Cyberpunk 2077: 47.3 FPS
2160p Cyberpunk 2077: 23.6 FPS
2160p Watch Dogs Legion: 48.3 FPS
BTW for RT a lot of shaders is very important, right? Then RDNA3 should improve a lot based on leaks.
Shaders: 12288 vs 5120 = +140%
clocks: 2.31->3.5-3.6GHz = +52-56%
TFlops: 86-88.47 vs 23.65= +264-274%
Last edited:
TESKATLIPOKA
Newcomer
Without DLSS!
I just don't find It logical to enable RT for best eye candy, but because of low FPS I also need to enable DLSS in some games, which will improve FPS, but visuals will take a hit.
DLSS and FSR are great for weaker cards, there I can accept It.
I can agree with you on enabling RT on expensive cards.
I want to have the best eye candy on such a card, but I certainly wouldn't like to activate DLSS or FSR just to have playable FPS.
RDNA2 architecture is not bad, but RT performance is abysmal. Let's hope RDNA3 will have a massive improvement in RT.
BTW, please enlighten me why do you compare 6950XT vs 3090 when you can compare 6950Xt vs 3090Ti or 6900XT vs 3090? Just so you can write, It was released 18 months later and still lost?
AMD compared both: https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming/advancing-performance-per-watt-to-benefit-gamers/ba-p/545586
davis.anthony
Veteran
If you read my comment I said in some games...
DegustatoR
Legend
DLSS doesn't hit the image quality nearly enough for it to be an issue. In many cases it's actually improving game's own AA.
99.9% of times you're getting better graphics with RT+DLSS than without RT and DLSS.
FSR1 is useless trash IMO.
FSR2 looks good but so far I haven't seen a game with RT where FSR2 would be the preferable option on a GeForce.
You can't make those decisions for others. The universe doesn't rotate around you and you don't decide for anyone but yourself.
DegustatoR
Legend
Where did I say that I was making anything of what you're suggesting?
davis.anthony
Veteran
They need to have seriously improved on ray tracing performance as it'll be easy for Nvidia to justify their pricing.
Nvidia will just say "Yea they're just as fast in raster performance, but we offer higher RT performance so we've worth the extra"
You stated "DLSS doesn't hit the image quality nearly enough for it to be an issue" as if it was some kind of universal fact. It's a matter of opinion. For some it is issue, for others it isn't.
Bondrewd
Veteran
Lisa likes high gross margin more than she likes dGP mss.
Just the way of life, really.
DegustatoR
Legend
Everything you and I say in our posts and messages are "matter of opinion" unless it's a link/reference to something which can be seen as fact.
Leoneazzurro5
Regular
Yeah but when you produce something you have to sell it otherwise no margin, especially considering the fixed R&D costs. And for selling the price/performance must be attractive.
Navi 32 is only supposed to be about 200mm² of TSMC 5nm, and 150mm² of 6nm. There's definitely a lot of room there for AMD to utilize pricing/value advantages in the upper midrange compared to Nvidia. I'd expect similar performance to the 12GB
Though this isn't expected til early next year.
Navi 31 at 308mm² of 5nm and 225mm² of 6nm is still not gonna be cheap and definitely wont get below $700, especially since it has a very strong chance of performing better than the GA103 4080 16GB. I could see $1300 for full version, and then $1000 for cut down version.
Bondrewd
Veteran
Gonna sell something either way.
APUs cover the IP development costs.
Leoneazzurro5
Regular
So basically bad price/perf for RDNA3 too?
- Status
