nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

AMD Navi Discussion

cherryghost

Embargo lifts tomorrow. Some leaked benchmarks look good. AMD heavily rumoured to discount the GPUs at launch, putting them at direct competition with the 2060S and 2070S, at which it seems to peg or better them.

Competition is great for consumers.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Revoker88

Homelander wrote: »

But surely that is a kinda redundant point when we're talking about brand new, high-end cards in 2020?

For the past 2 years there have been games that require 8GB vram for high/ultra textures.

Whatever about GDDR6X, a 3070 with 8GB GDDR6 is a major bum-deal from Nvidia.

You will have a situation in a few years where the card will still be able to effortlessly drive ultra settings, but have to reduce textures because of lack of vram.

Same rubbish they pulled with the 1660/RTX2060 6GB, GTX1060 3GB, and so on. Artificially limiting the cards potential based on their market share and the likelihood of customers upgrading to another Nvidia card.

If AMD can get a semi-strong foothold back, this practice will stop.

Originally someone said cards should have had more VRAM years ago,i just said until recently it hasn't really needed to be more than 8GB.

I agree that going forward there needs to be more VRAM,already said as much. If,as is most likely,8GB is not enough buying a 3070 would not be a good idea. I'm not buying one. Maybe 8GB on a 3060,10GB on a 3070 and 16GB on a 3080 seems fairer but it is Nvidia were talking about here,nothing is for free with them.

I'd also agree its where Nvidia may get people to upgrade mid cycle rather than generationally.

None of that changes the point that 8GB has been enough up until recently really. Also allocation and usage do differ,id actually like to see if someone has done a breakdown with figures etc.

z0oT

I have personally seen the 8GB on the 5700 XT I have nearly full many times in the last year. The frames/sec have been solid throughout so it hasn't bothered me any.

This is at 1440p.

Homelander

EoinHef wrote: »

Yes I'm aware,modded skyrim is the only game that has ever requested close to the full 8gb on my 1080 and that was because I crammed it with mods that had high res textures.

How often do you think a 480 has actually used,not allocated,its full 8GB of memory?

But thats beside the point,point is that up until recently 8gb has been sufficient imo.

But surely that is a kinda redundant point when we're talking about brand new, high-end cards in 2020?

For the past 2 years there have been games that require 8GB vram for high/ultra textures.

Whatever about GDDR6X, a 3070 with 8GB GDDR6 is a major bum-deal from Nvidia.

You will have a situation in a few years where the card will still be able to effortlessly drive ultra settings, but have to reduce textures because of lack of vram.

Same rubbish they pulled with the 1660/RTX2060 6GB, GTX1060 3GB, and so on. Artificially limiting the cards potential based on their market share and the likelihood of customers upgrading to another Nvidia card.

If AMD can get a semi-strong foothold back, this practice will stop.

Wonda-Boy

Interesting Article:-

CEO of Counter play games (GODFALL) Keith Lee explains that to play Godfall on 4K with Ultra settings you need MINIMUM 12GB Vram!!!
Gushes over the latest AMD offerings, seems a little back handed to me the way he is ramping up AMD cards even if true.

But its food for thought.

https://videocardz.com/newz/godfall-requires-12gb-of-vram-for-ultrahd-textures-at-4k-resolution

Revoker88

grogi wrote: »

Memory requirements are not really linked with the output resolution. In 1920x1080 and tripple buffering, you'd need ~25MiB for frame buffering. In 4K (3840x2160) and tripple buffering, you use ~100MiB. That's a mere 75MiB of difference.

What eats the VRAM is higher texture resolution.

Yes I'm aware,modded skyrim is the only game that has ever requested close to the full 8gb on my 1080 and that was because I crammed it with mods that had high res textures.

How often do you think a 480 has actually used,not allocated,its full 8GB of memory?

But thats beside the point,point is that up until recently 8gb has been sufficient imo.

grogi

EoinHef wrote: »

How much of that 8GB VRAM is being used at 1080p though?

Id agree going forward that more than 10GB is desirable,I just don't think its been nessacery till recently.

Memory requirements are not really linked with the output resolution. In 1920x1080 and tripple buffering, you'd need ~25MiB for frame buffering. In 4K (3840x2160) and tripple buffering, you use ~100MiB. That's a mere 75MiB of difference.

What eats the VRAM is higher texture resolution.

Revoker88

grogi wrote: »

Once you limit yourself to 1920x1080, the RX480 performs more than decently.

NVidia cards manage the memory slightly better than Radeons - 8GB in RTX is similar to ~10GB in a Radeon. That doesn't change a fact that a card with raw power of 3080 should have more memory than it has.

How much of that 8GB VRAM is being used at 1080p though?

Id agree going forward that more than 10GB is desirable,I just don't think its been nessacery till recently.

grogi

EoinHef wrote: »

We are only really starting to see games need more than 8GB though.

Like how does that 480 perform now? Not great despite it having 8GB of vram. 8 feels like it was enough until recently imo

Once you limit yourself to 1920x1080, the RX480 performs more than decently. 8GB was unnecesary five years ago, but today it is below minimum.

NVidia cards manage the memory slightly better than Radeons - 8GB in RTX is similar to ~10GB in a Radeon. That doesn't change a fact that a card with raw power of 3080 should have more memory than it has.

Revoker88

We are only really starting to see games need more than 8GB though.

Like how does that 480 perform now? Not great despite it having 8GB of vram. 8 feels like it was enough until recently imo

z0oT

There was a version of the RX 480 with 8GB of VRAM all the way back in 2016, and that was solidly marketed as a mid range graphics card back at the time.

4 years later the 3070 only has 8GB, and the 3080 with 10GB, and both are massively more high end cards than the RX 480 ever was. It really makes the both of them look silly compared with the 16GB on offer from AMD.

Bit of a shame because the 3070 would be quite a good buy otherwise.

[Deleted User]

One of the main reasons I bought a Radeon VII was for the 16GB vram. To see high end cards not having this as standard over a year later is madness.

Homelander

I utterly loathe Nvidia's stingy approach with the VRAM. They are always doing it, to artificially put a ceiling on the lifespan of cards and hoping the majority of people who upgrade will stick with Nvidia.

I have a 3070 on order out of curiosity, but that is exactly the reason I will not be keeping it. 8GB of VRAM is ridiculous on these 3070 cards now, when it is standard GDDR6. They are already struggling at launch in certain titles, in a few years it will become a big issue even though the core of the card will still be well capable.

Azza

I think AMD decision to opt for 16GB VRAM across the board is looking like a wise move.

Hardware unboxed are reporting that Watch Dogs Legion exceeds 8GB VRAM at 1440P on its highest settings and there is a performance hit incurred as a result.

Microsoft Flight Simulator seems to use as much VRAM as possible and on 16GB VRAM cards, showing over 10GB usage at 1440p and 12.5GB usage at 4K, though it doesn't appear to have too much impact on performance.

Doom Eternal uses over 11GB VRAM at 4K with ultra texture settings, and anything with less VRAM takes a performance hit. At those settings the Radeon VII actually out performs the 1080Ti and 2080 Super as a result.

Lastly the developers of Godfall have said that 4K/Ultra settings will require 12GB of VRAM, so even the RTX 3080 might take a performance hit with that game.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hoping for an all aluminium TUF gaming like the nvidia ones.

Homelander

Powercooler are OK, Sapphire are probably the best all-rounders. The Pulse is a good budget card and the Nitro is usually excellent.

MSI, Gigabyte and Asus are always a mixed bag. Grand on the higher end of things, but their budget models can sometimes be poor.

Rob2D

I've always wanted a DEVIL card ever since the 7870 days. Which are Powercolor as well I think???

Shame they've never made a really good one.

Overheal

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

Sapphire are meant to be the best AIB card to get for AMD are they not......then Powercolour?

I dunno. I'm homer simpson when it comes to brand differentiation. Except knowing that MSI, ASUS, EVGA etc. are high tier PCB makers.

Wonda-Boy

Sapphire are meant to be the best AIB card to get for AMD are they not......then Powercolour?

Overheal

I hate all their partner brand names. Oooooh Power Color! Sapphire. Meh. /has 2 Sapphire cards in the closet

MidlanderMan

1-3 weeks after the AMD branded cards launch before the partner cards launch.

AMD exclusive partners like Power Color will release before the likes of MSI, Gigabyte, etc.

Revoker88

MugsGame

Yes, the consoles have HDMI 2.1 VRR and the desktop GPUs have it as standard. See e.g. https://www.sapphiretech.com/en/consumer/21304-01-20g-radeon-rx-6800-xt-16g-gddr

Headshot

Have we heard anything about these AMD GPUs having HDMI 2.1?

fergus1001

Homelander wrote:

Like anyone else, I'm waiting for reviews, but even at this point in time I'm not counting Intel out.

Intel got caught napping and of

fergus1001

Simi wrote:

RT will probably be poor in currently available RT games, because they've all been designed around Nvidia's RT implementation.

not really they will also be designed for RT on consoles which uses RDNA2 so Nvidia might not have the advantage you would think here

Homelander

I know that, I'm talking about the comparisons with FX. It's not really a fair one as as Intel are still excellent for gaming.

Ryzen have shaken up the market and brought viable competition, but until this moment in time Intel have remained the best for gaming.

Even at lower end. For example it never gets mentioned but the 10th Gen i3 is significantly faster than 3300x in some games at same cost.

People sort of got it into their heads that Intel is now worthless but it's not at all true.

New generation of Ryzen will also be as expensive or more expensive than Intel counterparts in some cases.

I mean, 10700k is way, way faster than 3700x, but also more expensive.

However the suggested price places 5800x well beyond the cost of 10700k.

Like anyone else, I'm waiting for reviews, but even at this point in time I'm not counting Intel out.

So, while this is all great for consumers, comparisons with FX are a bit dramatic.

Inquitus

Homelander wrote: »

Ah, I wouldn't say it's really that comparable.

At least they still have really solid performance and are still top dog by a good margin for gaming.

The FX9590 guzzled about 250W and needed liquid cooling to trade blows with a 50w i3 in some games, it was truly just a god-awful CPU.

Aye as mentioned above Zen 3 takes the crown, even single-threaded!

MugsGame

Homelander wrote: »

are still top dog by a good margin for gaming.

Consensus seems to be that Zen 3 takes the gaming performance crown from Intel, for now ...

KillerShamrock

Wonda-Boy wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]Found this while looking for info.....6800XT vs 3070 (not sure why its not the 3080)

6900XT vs 3090

Sorry if posted already.

yeah that whole thing is bs some rando channel with no subs and like 6 videos all put up today :pac: plus wouldnt the 6800xt be way more than 10 fps faster than a 3070 at 4k.

The also have a vid with a 3090 vs a 6900xt so i Call Pure BS

Homelander

Simi wrote: »

The role reversal is crazy. Intel is edging closer and closer to FX9590 territory with each release

Ah, I wouldn't say it's really that comparable.

At least they still have really solid performance and are still top dog by a good margin for gaming.

The FX9590 guzzled about 250W and needed liquid cooling to trade blows with a 50w i3 in some games, it was truly just a god-awful CPU.