AMD Navi Discussion

BloodBath wrote: »

Nvidia cards also support support freesync now.

Thanks for the tip, wasn't aware of that.

Just looking into it and my monitor even though it not officially listed as doing so does supports G-Sync.

That's great, removes a constraining factor in my purchasing decision.

Still going wait and see what Big Navi is like before deciding.

BloodBath

Azza wrote: »

I'm itching to know myself. Think you are best off waiting a few months before deciding either way.

The last two generations AMD's competition has forced NVIDIA to counter with faster cards. The Vega 56 beat the GTX 1070 in terms of performance and forced NVIDIA to release the GTX 1070Ti. The 5700 and 5700XT forced NVIDIA to counter with the 2060 Super and 2070 Super.

I'd imagine that will likely be the case again.

I'm probably going to go AMD if its remotely close between them. I do want to loose FreeSync support or be forced to change my monitor to get G-Sync if opted for NVIDIA.

I'm not into spending thousands on a GPU nor do I need the absolute best performance. What I would like is to be able to max out the 165Hz refresh rate of my monitor at its native 1440P resolution more often in games that use rasterization and be able to use ray tracing features in games that use it and still hit 60FPS at 1440P. If the new GPU's are capable of accelerating data decompression as well that would a good plus to have as well.

Nvidia cards also support support freesync now.

I'm itching to know myself. Think you are best off waiting a few months before deciding either way.

The last two generations AMD's competition has forced NVIDIA to counter with faster cards. The Vega 56 beat the GTX 1070 in terms of performance and forced NVIDIA to release the GTX 1070Ti. The 5700 and 5700XT forced NVIDIA to counter with the 2060 Super and 2070 Super.

I'd imagine that will likely be the case again.

I'm probably going to go AMD if its remotely close between them. I do want to loose FreeSync support or be forced to change my monitor to get G-Sync if opted for NVIDIA.

I'm not into spending thousands on a GPU nor do I need the absolute best performance. What I would like is to be able to max out the 165Hz refresh rate of my monitor at its native 1440P resolution more often in games that use rasterization and be able to use ray tracing features in games that use it and still hit 60FPS at 1440P. If the new GPU's are capable of accelerating data decompression as well that would a good plus to have as well.

Wonda-Boy

Id love to wait and see what AMD brring to the table, if they even released some info about a possible release date. Id also love to wait and see if the 3080ti would be along quite soon after the launch of the 3080 but I am badly stuck for a card now.

bobbyy gee wrote: »

6000 must be doublely as fast as Nvidia 3000

https://www.techradar.com/news/wait-for-amd-to-make-its-big-navi-move-before-you-buy-the-nvidia-rtx-3080

Not a chance. :pac:

I don't follow leakers well I used to watch Adored until he went for pod cast type videos. Who is that _rogame fellow? It is believable though what he is saying although I still do not think AMD can match the 3090 and this is from someone who likes AMD.

bobbyy gee

6000 must be doublely as fast as Nvidia 3000

https://www.techradar.com/news/wait-for-amd-to-make-its-big-navi-move-before-you-buy-the-nvidia-rtx-3080

https://twitter.com/_rogame/status/1301955306021416970

I'm not sure but I think it works out at around 12GB VRAM while the rest of the 16GB's is for OS. That's from the top of my head so could be wrong and I didn't look up the spec of consoles since they were announced.

Squidgy Black

Azza wrote: »

The 16GB VRAM might be a handy thing to have with the advent of the next generation consoles. At the start of this generation of consoles, PC GPU's of the time where lagging behind the consoles with the amount of VRAM they where offering. Performance was still better on PC of course but if you didn't have at least 4GB VRAM you had to lower texture quality settings. I know I did with my GTX 680 2GB at the time with games like Titanfall and Watch Dogs. I remember thinking crikey when Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor offered an optional HD texture pack and it required 6GB VRAM.

Considering next gen consoles will come with 16GB VRAM, VRAM requirements in PC games may go up as well.

They're 16gb shared memory as opposed to dedicated graphics memory though are they not? The same as an 8gb VRAM card now.

The 16GB VRAM might be a handy thing to have with the advent of the next generation consoles. At the start of this generation of consoles, PC GPU's of the time where lagging behind the consoles with the amount of VRAM they where offering. Performance was still better on PC of course but if you didn't have at least 4GB VRAM you had to lower texture quality settings. I know I did with my GTX 680 2GB at the time with games like Titanfall and Watch Dogs. I remember thinking crikey when Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor offered an optional HD texture pack and it required 6GB VRAM.

Considering next gen consoles will come with 16GB VRAM, VRAM requirements in PC games may go up as well.

Cost of those is the thing. I'm not saying they were mad expensive to buy for end user but they were expensive for AMD to produce.

I actually had one of those cards. Pure silence while gaming. Not that noise bothers me as I were headphones while gaming but cards can sometimes ramp up the fans of non AIO gaming cards while running a demanding game.

SweetCaliber

EoinHef wrote: »

The pic above makes it look like a dual fan design. Thats been around awhile.

That blower cooler has done AMD damage over the years,how they still used it for the 5 series is beyond me.

Too many reviews on launch say hot and loud because they are reviewing the reference design. Talk about self harm

They should go back to their AIO cards, the R9 Fury for example...: :pac::pac:

81HRs3ta2tL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

Revoker88

Squidgy Black wrote: »

No AIBs in 2020 would be disappointing, unless AMD go down a similar route and have a much different design than the usual blower.

The pic above makes it look like a dual fan design. Thats been around awhile.

That blower cooler has done AMD damage over the years,how they still used it for the 5 series is beyond me.

Too many reviews on launch say hot and loud because they are reviewing the reference design. Talk about self harm

Squidgy Black

No AIBs in 2020 would be disappointing, unless AMD go down a similar route and have a much different design than the usual blower.

RX 6000 series named in Fortnite?
https://twitter.com/MissGinaDarling/status/1301721126846963712?s=19

Possible pricing:
https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1301839482287796224

Igorslab spilling possible details:

[...]Big Navi with 275 watts is somewhere between 3070 and 3080 and possibly with more power consumption (300W+) somewhere around 3080 performance. Big Navi will not be able to attack the 3090. Take this with a lot of salt.
[...]No AIBs in 2020.

Also reminder, reference cooler confirmed to not be a blower model.

Samuel T. Cogley

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Really hope they have something good and give us consumers something to think about.....competition is good and the only winner is the end user (us lot).

The issue is though it'll have to be really good. I mean at least 20% better at the same price point with a USP. nVidia have the 'mindshare' or whatever it's called.

Wonda-Boy

Really hope they have something good and give us consumers something to think about.....competition is good and the only winner is the end user (us lot).

Samuel T. Cogley

Rob2D wrote: »

Which is what they actually need.

I don't disagree.

Rob2D

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Nothing to counter DLSS.

Which is what they actually need.

Samuel T. Cogley

My predictions are better performance per watt.
Something approaching the 3080 at a similar price.
More RAM on the cards - which will be quickly countered.
Nothing to counter DLSS.

Hyzepher

Azza wrote: »

I also suspect they have something in the works comparable to RTX IO for speeding up data decompression.

I think Nvidia mentioned that RTX IO is dirived from implementations by xbox, so with AMD dominating next gen consoles I wouldn't be surprised if their IO offering was already superior to Nvidia and Nvidia just got their hype in first

BloodBath

Yeah I can't see them catching up with Nvidia this gen. They may well have specialist RT cores but will they have tensor cores?

Nvidia have nearly tripled the tensor cores with the 3000 series over 2000. That's how much they believe in them. They are driving lot's of innovation like DLSS and all of the other cool AI driven features like the microphone voice isolation, virtual green screen, 2d picture or video to 3d model and animation, voice to facial animation, camera to skeletal mesh animation and a bunch of other things.

There's a bunch of software utilizing these cores for workloads now as well. It's like having a super computer at home. You can or will be able to train game ai using them, you can create new unique 2d images and/or 3d models based on source samples of thousands and choose the 1 you like rather than trying to create it from scratch.

Mr Crispy

I'm guessing they'll use the ray tracing built into DX12 Ultimate, or whatever it's called.

I also suspect Big Navi is going be good as well

In terms of rasterization performance I think AMD will at least have a card that can beat the 3070 and 2080Ti

I'm also certain they will be able to offer some form of Ray Tracing as well.

The question is will they be capable of running the current form for RT used by NVIDIA Turing and Ampere GPU's or opts for their own non proprietary form of RT that NVIDIA GPU's will also be able to run.

Whether their potential own form of RT will as good, better or worse than NVIDIA's remains to be seen but they could be banking on the fact that it will become the de-facto standard of RT as it will be available on consoles as well. Would developers go to the extra expense of developing a different RT implementation or features just for NVIDIA GPU's, when they already have one that works on all formats and GPU's?

I also suspect they have something in the works comparable to RTX IO for speeding up data decompression.

They do need something to counter DLSS though, that seems to be NVIDIA's trump card at the moment.

Cuddlesworth

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Going by Nvidia's pricing I think big Navi is going to be good. Sure Nvidia would have engineering samples of big Navi. May even have final samples depending on how close we are to launch of Navi 2.

I'd usually say otherwise but its really unusual for Nvidia to firesale their last generation of product offerings, the last few years just have them come in at a higher price range.

Its worth pointing out to those that don't know, AMD hasn't really made a "large" graphics chip in a long time. Most product comparisons over the last few years have been a large Nviida chip over a much smaller AMD chip in the same price segment. Its part of the reason why AMD gets blasted over it power usage, since a node shrink and significantly smaller chip should use less power. I'm interested in Big Navi, if they can finally make a chip thats not slamming off power limits to get minimal gains and make it large enough to compete at the high end, it could actually be competitive.

Hyzepher

Given their console offerings I'd be surprised if AMD don't have something special this time around. Especially now that they have a couple of months to rethink their sku positioning