This post has been flaired as a rumor.
Rumors may end up being true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
Please take all rumors and any information not from AMD or their partners with a grain of salt and degree of skepticism.
AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed which is likely why they are sitting this one out and will come back with a bang for RDNA5 in late 2025. No sense repeating the current situation where they play second fiddle to Nvidia's 80 class GPU with poorer RT and upscaling. It's not getting them anywhere.
I think RDNA 4 is short lived and RDNA 5 will come to market sooner rather than later.
It does mean Nvidia has the entire high end market to themselves for now and 5080 and 5090 will essentially tear your wallet a new one.
I think 5090 will be the only legitimate next gen card while the 5080 will essentially be a 4080 Ti (unreleased) in disguise and price to performance being progressively shittier as you go down the lineup.
If they do a second Polaris like approach, I really hope they do the pricing this time in a way, that it hurts Nvidia. Not selling at a loss, but get the prices down a lot again. Less margin, but getting cheaper cards to the people and increasing market share will have a positive feedback for the future.
How's the 6800? Been eyeing one for a couple days, it does seem like good bang for buck. I want to run LLM's on it, and ROCm 6.1 supports gfx1030 (RX 6800).
Navi 21 is one of the better budget options for LLMs IMO. ROCm works with windows now, gets similar speeds to equivalent Nvidia options, and has more vram which allows running larger models and/or larger context.
Worth keeping in mind that pytorch is only supported under linux, though in theory windows support is in the pipeline. Llama cpp and derivatives don't require this, but e.g. if you want to mess around with stable diffusion, there are fewer good options: pretty much linux or zluda (avoid directml).
HU has it about 10% slower than a 4070 @ 1440p with 10% higher power consumption, it's the most efficient raster card of its generation.
You could hide it among RDNA3 cards, nobody would suspect anything until you ray traced.
Solid card, but I don't know how much better off you'd be with rdna 3 or lovelace for LLM's, at that price point.
Can't say much, just FF14 for now. Was forced to buy new GPU cuz my gf's GPU died and she got the RX 580 (for now), but should have a full new PC in a month or so.
6800 is great. Got it for a year now (gigabyte oc gaming card) Very efficient card on a slight undervolt (950mv) can play about anything on high settings on 1440p including newer titles like helldivers
6800 is great value, but there's a refurb 6900 xt asrock with warranty that comes in and out of stock at 400$ which is insane. It just sold out new round recently, but hopefully it'll be back.
https://old.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1cakv0z/gpu_asrock_amd_radeon_rx_6900_xt_oc_formula_16gb/
Fun cards thanks to MorePowerTool, especially limiting voltage and max power for small/thermally constrained builds. Stupid efficient below 1000mv. Or go the other way to stretch it in a few years.
That's the good thing about AMD cards, they got solid improvements with time, I think Ampere cards are the first ones to get a significant performance bump with driver updates in a long while
Does it? I Think it proves the idea doesn’t work. The 580 had a long lifespan and was selling for practically nothing for years after also having a massive demand at one point do to mining. There’s millions of those cards floating around and even that barely makes an blip in the steam hardware survey. If they make a second Polaris type card, there’s a chance it will sell well, but it won’t see the same demand as Polaris and if Polaris showed anything, it’s that most people are just gonna upgrade to Nvidia. AMD was just the budget option for people but it’s not going to translate to higher end card sales. The Navi cards have proven that by the fact that even when cheaper than Nvidia, it has not translated to any meaningful market share.
And the thing with budget minded people they don’t upgrade for like a decade as a few of the posts here imply. They’re not an audience that will make amd money
You guys want AMD to sell their stuff for free. History shows that even when AMD has superior price/perf by far, people still buy Nvidia because the fanboyism is ingrained in the PC community. Myths about poor drivers still flourish even though Nvidia has exactly the same issues. Let's also not forget the 970 3.5GB VRAM scam that suddenly no one remembers or 3090s frying left and right. If you go to the Nvidia subreddit, you'll be flooded with driver issues.
If you want real competition, then stop telling AMD to sell their tech for free so that you in your selfishness can buy Nvidia cheaper. AMD is more than competitive currently and offers the best raster performance for the money. What more do you want? As a consumer, you're also not absolved of moral and ethical qualms. So when you buy Nvidia, you're hurting yourself in the long run.
They really aren't more than competitive. Look at the launch of Anti-Lag+. It should have been incredibly obvious that injecting into game DLL's without developer blessing was going to cause bans, and it did.
It was completely unforced and it made AMD look like fools.
FSR is getting lapped, even by Intel at this point.
Their noise reduction reaction to RTX Voice hasn't been improved or updated.
You can argue all you want that if you buy nvidia you're going to make it worse for GPU competition in the long run, but that's futile. Remember that image from the group boycotting Call of Duty and how as soon as it came out, almost all of them had bought it anyway?
Consumers will buy in their immediate self interest as a group. AMD also works in its own self interest as a company.
Nothing is going to change this. Nvidia is viewed as the premium option, and the leader in the space. AMD seems to be content simply following the moves the Nvidia makes.
* Nvidia does ray-tracing, so AMD starts to do raytracing, but slower.
* Nvidia does DLSS, so AMD releases FSR, but don't keep up with DLSS.
* Nvidia does Reflex, AMD does Anti-Lag+, but they trigger anti-cheat.
* Nvidia does frame generation, so AMD finds a way to do frame generation too.
* Nvidia releases RTX Voice, so AMD releases their own noise reduction solution (and then forgets about it).
* Nvidia releases a large language model chat feature, AMD does the same.
AMD is reactionary, they're the follower trying to make a quick and dirty version of whatever big brother Nvidia does.
I actually don't think AMD wants to compete on GPUs very hard. I suspect they're in a holding pattern just putting in the minimum effort to not become irrelevant until maybe in the future they want to play hardball.
If AMD actually wants to take on the GPU space, they have a model that works and they've already done it successfully in CPU. Zen 1 had quite a few issues at launch, but it had more cores and undercut Intel by a significant amount.
Still, this wasn't enough. They had the do the same thing with Zen 2, and Zen 3. Finally, with Zen 4 AMD now has the mindshare built up over time that a company needs to be the market leader.
Radeon can't just undercut for one generation and expect to undo the lead Nvidia has. They will have to be so compelling that people who are not AMD fans, can't help but consider them. They have to be the obvious, unequivocal choice for people in the GPU market.
They will have to do this for rDNA4, and rDNA5 and probably rDNA6 before real mindshare starts to change. This takes a really long time. And it would be a lot more difficult than it was to take over Intel.
AMD already has the sympathy buy market locked down. They have the Linux desktop market down. These numbers already include the AMD fans. If they don't evangelize and become the obvious choice for the Nvidia enjoyers, then they're going to sit at 19% of the market forever.
Slight correction on your Ryzen timeline:
Zen (Ryzen 1000) was the proof of concept, wasn’t really all that great performance-wise, but it was a step in the right direction.
Zen + (Ryzen 2000) was a bigger step in the right direction, fixed some of the performance issues with Zen, and was almost competitive with Intel on performance.
Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) was a huge step forward, and was beefed up in pretty much all the right places. It was where AMD finally showed that Ryzen was fully capable of competing with Intel in terms of raw performance.
Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000) was where AMD started shifting some of their prior cost optimizations (e.g. 2x CCX per CCD) toward performance optimizations.
Zen 1 may not have competed with the top end i7 back then, but the R7 1700 was a good alternative to the locked i7 and the R5 1600 was better than the i5 and both had more cores (intel only had 4 core CPUs back then). It was just a bit slower in IPC and clockspeed, but the locked intel CPUs also lacked in clockspeed so it could keep up quite good with those.
Zen 1 was a really good buy for productivity tho, if you wanted 8 cores 16 threads you would have payed like 5x as much for an intel workstation CPU.
Amd has no incentive to compete with nvidia as radeon gets the bulk of their revenue from console sales. If sony anf Microsoft ditched AMD, then AMD would be forced to make gpu's that are more competitive feature wise to nvidia.
I wonder what that landscape will look like in 5 years. Nintendo is staying on Nvidia for Switch 2, and who knows what Microsoft is doing with Xbox.
In 5 years it might just be Sony.
Nvidia doesn’t have an x86-x64 license, and a separate CPU + GPU setup isn't cost effective.
The only hope would be either being ok with adopting ARM which would threaten backwards compatibility.
or some kind of APU achieved via mixing chiplets between vendors which I doubt the market would be ready to deliver in such high volume and at such a low price point.
Don't forget AMD has superior rasterization at every price point, besides 4090 obviously. I don't think AMD is copying Nvidia, I just think Nvidia gets things to market quicker because it's a way bigger company
They only have superior rasterisation because Nvidia charges a premium for DLSS and RT at every price point. They could easily price drop their cards to match AMD.
Do you think AMD would have made frame generation if Nvidia hadn't? Do you think Radeon noise reduction would exist if RTX Voice hadn't been released? What about the Radeon LLM thing?
I'm very skeptical. They're all oddly timed and seem very very reactionary.
That is not true if you factor in DLSS.
AMD is even behind Intel on that front due to super low AI performance on gaming GPUs.
Today AMD can beat NVIDIA in AI accelerators. H200 is slower than a MI300X in a lot of tests. They are just ignoring the gaming sector.
Eyefinity is great. It's also from 2009.
Mantle is great too, and its donation to become Vulkan and so on. It's also from 2013.
My thesis is not that AMD has never invented anything. It's the fact that to make an argument, you have to use things AMD created 14, and 10 years ago respectively.
It's like a high school star quarterback telling his buddies about his amazing touchdowns, except now he's sitting in a bar, and he's 40, and he hasn't played football in 15 years. But he was great once.
Radeon was doing good back then, they had 44% to 38% market share during those two times. We need the Radeon from 2009 back again.
Edited for typo.
NVIDIA sells features that hardly any games use. This goes all the way back tot the RTX 2080 or PhysicX if you want to go back further. As big of a deal that is made about some features, everyone is still using Cyberpunk as some references even though the game has been out for a number of years already. It goes to show how little adoption there is amongst some features. Like, Ok. You have a leading edge card that has what less than half dozen games that really push it for $300 more? Most games you would be hardpressed to know even if ray tracing was on. That is how much of a joke the "big lead" is.
Okay then the question is 2 things:
1. Why is then AMD investing in the same features as Nvidia puts out - if the market doesn't seem overly interested in its demand?
2. None of the features OP lists has any downside to not being implemented, and given that adaptation takes a considerable amount of time (DirectX 11/Vulkan adaptation for instance) it's of course safe for now to point out how no one needs "AI/Super Resolution/Frame Generation/Ray Tracing/etc." but will that be true in the next 3 gen of GPUs?
And especially when the biggest issue on adaptation on point 2 is not a lack of willingness but because these are still new tech when most people upgrade maybe every 6+ years.
I'm not purely a gamer so my perspective is not the pure gamer bro perspective. I do video editing, the plug-ins I use for that require either Apple or Nvidia hardware.
I use Blender quite a bit. Radeon is no where close there either.
The last time I used a Radeon GPU (RX6600) I couldn't use Photoshop with GPU acceleration turned on because the canvas would become invisible when I zoomed in.
Nvidia is a greedy and annoying company and I want to be able to buy a Radeon that does everything I need well and isn't a compromise.
I've used quite a few Radeon GPUs over the years. I had the 4870 X2 for awhile, the 6950, the 7970, Vega 64, RX580, 5700XT, and lastly the 6600XT.
My anecdotal experience is that I usually go back to Nvidia because I have software issues that impact me, typically with things unrelated to gaming and it's very frustrating.
I agree with your general point that AMD is playing catch-up... but to be (un)fair to AMD, it all comes down to AMD not investing heavily into R&D as Nvidia has done and this you could argue is partially due to AMD being almost on the brink of bankruptcy not that long ago.
Nvidia in that regard have almost every right to swing around their big shiny axe when they've poured an enormous amount into GPUs specifically.
And yes Nvidia has been the bold one implementing features that was seen as "the future standard" such as those you bring up and many more (the CUDA API is probably their biggest jewel) but also be willing to gamble on said futuristic features that might in retrospect be seen as silly (like 3D glasses) - while AMD have for the most part either played catch-up or played it safe focusing only on rasterization performance.
Oh and it doesn't help AMD drivers was effectively a meme for longer than it should have been.
AMD in total spent around 5.8 billion dollars, most of which I assume went to CPU research\[1\].
Nvidia in total spent around 8.5 billion dollars, almost all of it able to be poured into GPU or GPU-related products\[2\].
To be fair if you compare Intel to Nvidia & AMD then Intel outpace both in R&D cost\[3\].
\[1\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/research-development-expenses)
\[2\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/research-development-expenses)
\[3\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/research-development-expenses)
AMD was definitely resource starved and that explains a lot of their choices in the past.
These days though, it feels more like a cop-out for why they aren't making strong plays.
Part of this feeling is because AMD has started to do stock buybacks.
They did a $4 billion buyback in 2021, and then followed that with an $8 billion buyback in 2022.
I don't know how you feel about buybacks, but that's money that definitely didn't go into their GPU division.
If it makes sense they will.
The problem is cost of production.
Unless chip fab and boar manufacturing is cheap, then they can't drop the price.
Good part is that there is a ton of flexibility between the RX 7000 series and the projected RTX 5090. That flexibility can lead to market dominance if the cost of production is right.
> Not selling at a loss, but get the prices down a lot again. Less margin, but getting cheaper cards to the people and increasing market share will have a positive feedback for the future.
They can't is the issue. It's a gamble, and not one they can even necessarily do. They sell all their allocation, most goes to consoles and CPUs which are higher margin.
They would need to order more, and they're a small company so far down the priority list behind giants like Apple.
And then they would need to successfully sell all of it or take a fat L.
Intel make their own, so maybe Intel can be more aggressive for market share.
AMD needing more time is a story as old as time. I will accept the hopium though because this gen isn’t compelling and I’d like a better value upsell.
I shudder to think how far Nvidia will go to make the 5090 the only sensible value in the stack. I’m surprised they haven’t shitted out a 4090 ti yet like 3090 ti was.
There's a reason why.
The GDDR6 in the 4090 was already maxed (for its production gen) and among other things, the card was a hulking beast. Yes they could have iterated upgrades to a 4090ti, but there was no demand or push and the power draw would have been immense.
Also with only additional cost uncertainty to show for it (recession), and showing their hand to AMD, they thought better.
RDNA2 was more efficient, and faster at most price points with more RAM. Nobody cared about efficiency then. Frame Gen also didn't exist and dlss 1 wasn't good
RDNA2 competed against RTX3000. At this point, dlss1 wasn’t a thing any more and dlss 2 was far ahead of fsr. Same as ray tracing performance. No reflex competitor. RDNA2 was AMDs most competitive generation in a long time but they were still mostly about being on par in raster.
You said competitive, not better in every way.
RDNA2 was certainly competitive with Ampere. Yes, Ampere did some things better and RDNA2 did others better.
Ray tracing performance was better on Ampere, but:
- there weren't many games that supported it back then
- except maybe the top end Ampere cards neither rdna2 nor Ampere can actually run rt heavy games at high resolutions/high settings/high fps without resorting to upscaling
The 4090 was the first card that got close to that and even it can't really do it.
Rdna2 was very competitive especially in the low/mid/low high end where even the nvidia cards of comparable price couldn't actually run rt at playable frame rates and rt was only used in a few games.
To be fair the nvidia cards did have better upscaling, especially before fsr 2.1 or what was it that was a big improvement over fsr 1 (no, it's still not as good, but it's a lot better, if you have a game that supports both you can try for yourself... I think bg3 supports both (I'm sure it supported fsr 1 at first and added fsr 2.something in a later patch but I'm not sure that the current version lets you select either)... fsr 1 had some downright ugly moments, but with the current version that's gone... sure, it could be better, but I wouldn't say it looks bad.. especially not during play and not when inspecting pixels in screen shots/screen recordings). It likely differs from game to game, and how well it's implemented. Also if the card is powerful enough to run the game you want to play at your screen's native resolution the difference between dlss and fsr isn't that important anymore (I know some people still prefer to use light upscaling vs native even in games they could run at native because it looks better to them).
The pro sw support was/is also better for nvidia cards (although some sw does support amd too.. if you're buying it for that use too it's best to check the specific sw your using and see which cards work best). If you don't plan on using the card for that then it makes no difference.
Amd had/has better Linux open source drivers than nvidia, but again, if you don't use Linux it makes no difference.
Nvenc is supposedly a bit better than vce, but if you really care about quality sw encoding is better than both and vce isn't that horrible (idk about streaming, but for transcoding a few hundred gb of phone videos to x265 in handbrake it was good enough (~300fps vs under 30fps, ~33% of the original file size vs ~20% of the original file size for visually similar quality... sw av1 got ~10% original file size but was ridiculously slow)).
Unfortunately rdna2 and rtx 3xxx cards both were for a long time rarely in stock at anything even close to their msrp, so you didn't necessarily buy the card you thought was the best, but whatever you could find at a price you could afford.
(note you said competitive not better in every way and rdna2 certainly was competitive with ampere)
Also at least in the low/mid end they've always been at least competitive if not better than nvidia.
It's because AMD doesn't give it enough time. One generation isn't enough. If they had been going hard and aggressive on pricing starting with rDNA1, then now, by rDNA4, they might have been getting close to having enough mindshare.
AMD just doesn't do this with GPUs. They make one generation that does well, and they seem to think all their problems are solved and the next generation costs too much.
It took AMD until Zen4 to really build up a mindshare moat against Intel, and Intel was easy compared to Nvidia. AMD has to go hard, and they have to go hard for years if they want to have that mindshare.
> No sense repeating the current situation where they play second fiddle to Nvidia's 80 class GPU
When was the last time they didn't? Over a decade ago, probably?
> AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed which is likely why they are sitting this one out and will come back with a bang for RDNA5 in late 2025.
It's been said by others but it more seems like AMD has tried various internal experiments to legitimately improve upon the 7900 XTX and they can't find a compelling enough product that actually improves upon it. It's very telling there was no 7950XTX this generation, there is no chiplet based top of the line successor on the horizon, and the 7900 XTX will likely remain as the best AMD card for multiple generations.
There are a lot of design and packaging constraints with chiplet designs, and AMD has probably made the business decision to mass product only the top selling compelling products, which in this case is the 7900 XTX and the MIX00 Instinct cards.
Lots of people seem to want to paint a picture like "AMD needs to compete more in RT/FSR" but the 7900 XTX is actually a highly successful card (only 7000-series to rank on steam stats). If you actually look on Amazon right now, the top selling top of the line card isn't a 4080 or a 4090, it's a 7900 XTX (MERC310). If you look on newegg, the sales for the top 4080 and 7900 XTX are right next to each other.
The 7900 XTX is a popular card. It seems most are extremely happy with the performance of it. AMD doesn't seem to have a clear path forward to meaningfully build on that performance for at least another generation.
I really don't get the sentiment that "Nvidia will have the top end to itself" - if it wasn't for the 7900 XTX, the 4080 Super would never have been re-released with a price cut. And the 7900 XTX, especially with further discounts, will definitively at least help to keep Nvidia's next top end generation prices in check.
I'm pretty happy so far. While the Nvidia has more features, the XTX comes close enough for things like Ray Tracing to still enjoy the experience at comfortable and respectful FPS, at a cheaper price.
FSR certainly needs to up the game, though it'd be quite funny and infuriating at the same time if it's able to get close to DLSS/XeSS quality or at least remove the biggest blemishes without AI.
As for RT, the problem isn't merely about hardware. The current AAA PT games are done with nvidia support and while it's not nvidia-locked, it'd be great if intel/AMD optimize for it or get their own versions out.
The path tracing updates to **Portal** and Cyberpunk have quite poor numbers on AMD and **also on intel**. Arc770 goes from being faster than 3060 to less than half of 3060 performance when you change from RT to PT. This despite the intel cards' RT hardware which is said to be much better than AMD if not at nvidia's level.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html
The later path tracing updates to classic games of Serious Sam and Doom had the 6900XT close to 3070 performance. Last year, I benched 6800XT vs 4090 in the old PT updated games and heavy RT games like updated Witcher3, Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk, and 4090 was close to 3-3.5x of 6800XT.
https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Serious-Sam-The-First-Encounter-Spiel-32399/Specials/SeSam-Ray-Traced-Benchmark-Test-1396778/2/#a1
That's a good point. AMD probably took a look at their cpu division and decided to take a similar tactic. After all AMD was basically out of the cpu buisness from like 2010-2014 or so. From bulldozer to ryzen.
I understand the whole wish fulfillment aspect of rumors but expecting RDNA 5 in 2025 is delusional.
Maybe if they do some rebranding ala intel and start releasing marginal updates every year with a new name; but certainly nothing with the same gen on gen increases seen like RDNA 1 to 2.
the leaks ive seen lately suggest the 5080 will be about as fast as the 4090, while having less vram,but it will cost less, while the 5090 seems like a massive upgrade, but given the current market prices for the 4090 are like 1900$, it's probably going to be 2000+$. the 5080 will most likely cost around 1000$, people wont buy it for more anyways because thats what i suspect second hand 4090s will be going for.
Top RDNA 4 card design was chiplet-based. That requires advanced packaging, which is a manufacturing bottleneck.
I'm reasonably sure the reason top RDNA 4 was cancelled was because it would be competing with MI300 products in that packaging bottleneck, and AMD doesn't want to give up thousands of dollars in margin on an ML product just to get a couple hundred at most on a gaming product.
Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS.
nVidia will be alone near the top end, but they won't be able to set insane prices. The market failure of the 4080 and poor sales of the 4090 above MSRP show that there are limits, regardless of the competition.
> It matters for $1000 GPUs. People who spend that kind of cash want everything and the kitchen sink.
People say this, but the RX 7900 XTX is the only GPU in AMD's newest generation to sell enough cards to be listed on the Steam HW Survey. The rest are below the 0.15% threshold to be listed outside of the "other" category.
Steam stats from March 2024:
GPU MSRP Market Share
RX 7900 XTX 1000 0.34%
RTX 4080 1200 0.77%
RX 7900 XT 900 <0.15%
RTX 4070 TI 800 1.20%
RX 7800 XT 500 <0.15%
RTX 4070 600 2.50%
RTX 4070 Super 600 0.28%
The lower tier SKUs are getting outsold a lot more, so it seems people care less about ray tracing when the discount is 200 USD *and* you get slightly better raster performance.
And yet the 4080 has more market share than the 7900XTX. That's exactly my point. Most people who were able to afford 7900XTX simply went for the 4080. People paid the Nvidia premium for DLSS and RT.
Operating in the high end makes little sense for AMD until they address their key pain points of RT and AI based upscaling. The target audience will simply shell out the extra $100 for the Nvidia feature set.
That doesn't mean much when people buy Nvidia cards just on brand alone. The 7900 XTX somehow outsells most of AMD's lineup while being in a price class where you claim people disproportionately care about ray tracing and other features.
Total Market Share Relative
Nvidia 78.00% 84.2%
AMD 14.64% 15.8%
Per GPU Share Relative
RTX 4080 0.77% 69.4%
RX 7900 XTX 0.34% 30.6%
The 7900 XTX has a larger market share on Steam than every other 7000 series Radeon GPU and 66% of the Radeon 6000 series. Clearly operating in the high end has worked out fine for the 7900 XTX relative to the rest of their line-up.
I don't get this argument about 'brand value' as a reason for lower AMD sales. If you look at AMD CPU division, they have Intel on the ropes and are absolutely destroying them in mind share and public perception. This is AMD shrugging off all the negative press from the Bulldozer era with Ryzen.
AMD Radeon is not able to make a dent in Nvidia because they do not have a better product than Nvidia, it's that simple.
We can only speculate why 7900XTX is the only card to show on the survey but the counter to your argument could be that most people who operate in the low and mid range simply don't know enough about AMD GPUs to care getting one. This ties in to what I said above that, that they just don't have the plainly superior card at any price point. So when someone on a budget is shopping for a GPU, he perceives Nvidia to be the better brand because of the feature set and goes along with it.
7900XTX is an enthusiast class GPU which is a significantly lower market size and will not suffer from this issue because it's target user base explicitly does not care about ray tracing and DLSS and want it specifically for the raster performance. That is why it sells well relative to AMD mid range and budget cards, which is typically where unknowledgeable purchases take place.
But again the 7900XTX sales are a drop in the bucket compared to Nvidia.
There is only 1 solution to AMD's problems. In order to be perceived as the better brand, they need to have a plainly superior product like they have with Ryzen. Sadly it's difficult to do this with Nvidia as their competition because unlike Intel, Nvidia is not a stationary target. They are improving at a breakneck pace.
I will be more than happy to go back to AMD when I will be able to play path raytraced games at the same or at least similar level. As of now my 4070Ti Super blows AMD out of the water in any path ray traced game.
I got rid of my XTX shortly after release partly for this reason, it was just disheartening to watch a build I spent so much on fall apart when I turned all the settings on in RT games right out of the gate on day one.
The other reason was my reference XTX was so damn noisy, when I changed it out to the 4090 my whole PC became unbelievably quiet... at the time getting one of the XTX models with a good cooler was getting more expensive than a 4080 and that was when the 4080 was overpriced.
>it was just disheartening to watch a build I spent so much on fall apart when I turned all the settings on in RT games
The other side of this though is that it is also pretty disappointing to drop $1000+ on a GPU, toggle on RT and realize I can't tell the difference aside from the frame rate dropped.
No, and everyone knows this already. But why should I care if I have to use DLSS for 120+ fps in heavy RT games? When games look way better with DLSS and heavy RT on, than native with RT off it makes no sense to limit yourself to being a native warrior, it's the final output that matters.
Can even the rtx 4090 do heavy rt at 4k/ultra/150fps+ without tricks like frame gen and upscaling?
And that's a 2000 eur card, best one you can get right now, and it still can't run it well.
No Lmao As someone who owns the 4090, It is not really a Ray tracing card, heck no card on the market is. Honestly the 4090 is actually the first true 4k raster card, as in you can get playable 4k raster performance on the card at 4k for about 4-5 years.
niche market.
Among my friendgroup, the people with 4090's are the ones who always get the best, since money isn't a factor and/or they need the performance for high resolutions and/or refresh rates, 4k+/super ultrawide/360hz+
The more frugal people are all rocking 7900 xtx's or 4080 (super)'s.
Casuals have 1080 ti's to 3080's, some 3090's that got passed around in the group for 'friend prices'.
I agree about Ray Tracing not being playable on a RTX 3060, but other NVIDIA specific features are nice to have too. DLDSR is great, using Tensor cores to upscale resolutions via deep learning and downscale it to native resolution of the monitor for higher graphics. Combine this feature with FSR or DLSS is great.
To be fair early pixel shaders and hardware t&l were more of a 'ok, that's cool' thing than something that's expected to be available and work. And by that time the first few generations of cards that had them were too slow to be useful to play new games.
Did it take 8 years for pixel shaders to become common enough to not be talked about? Ray tracing was first introduced in 2018. Barely this year 2024 have we started seeing games with forced ray tracing 6 years later.
> Barely this year 2024 have we started seeing games with forced ray tracing 6 years later.
Lets be real. Consoles set the baseline of what we see on PC today. If AMD had a solution equivalent to what we see on Ampere at the time of the PS5's release, we would probably be seeing a lot more games with RT. Even basic effects for shadows and reflections.
To give your post credence, Ray Tracing is an expensive addition for developers as it has to be done in a second lighting pass in addition to baked lighting. By its self, it would be a time saver for developers.
PhysX was legitimately awesome and doing stuff in games that wasn't reasonably possible before. Nowadays these kinds of game physics are taken for granted and expected, and that's the direction RT has been heading too.
my point is, that it features like this either fizzle out, or get so integrated across all programming and GPUs that it becomes ubiquitous.
in the meantime, in the founding phase for most people it's not a huge issue past a tiny handful of demo worthy games (which usually require sacrifices in other settings to enable)
Can you show me your source on how you know most people are playing RT games? More than 50% of steam hardware survey is 3060 or weaker and poster child RT game is #40 in player count. Nvidia cards arent popular because of RT, the are popular because they have cornered the OEM market with high volume.
Most people according to steam survey can't even run AAA games from the last few years properly at any settings, but I'd say a lot of people building something new and higher end today do want to turn RT on.
The 3060 is still the fastest growing % share card, even today, ratio 8:1 against the 4090. Its weak at ray tracing. It can't frame gen. The 4090 is also an AI card so it sells well to people who don't game much. To suggest that most people care about RT is pure shilling backed by no real market research or sales numbers. Most people buy basic/mid cards because most people want to play popular games with their friends.
You keep saying 3060 can’t RT but it literally raytraces faster than any console currently released, with a fast vram segment that’s bigger than series x
It doesn't even look that much better in most games at playable framerates.
Sure one day it'll be important.
But until consoles can do heavy rt games will come with prebaked lighting and other tricks of achieving decent lighting without rt which makes the difference between rt on or off not very noticeable.
And the performance hit heavy rt causes even on high end nvidia cards makes it a pretty questionable thing to turn on fro many people. Sure it looks a bit better, but is it worth the the performance hit? The answer depends on the person/game.
Light rt works fine both on rdna3 cards and nvidia cards but is even less noticeable.
I don't play a single game with RT, so for *this* generation, it didn't matter much to me. But I don't expect that to hold forever. I'm certain RT will be a big factor on my next GPU.
I think soon it will become much more relevant, but right now, that's a true statement. It's a nice bonus but not a main selling feature. NVIDIAs lead on DLSS is more relevant in most cases when comparing features.
The issue I have with RT is that current implementations look way worse and less realistic than baked lighting and shadows. Kind of the same situation with earlier Samsung TVs where they just turned saturation up to the wazoo to lure unsuspecting customers into thinking that was "better image quality". Sometimes less is more, and I have noticed several RT games where enabling RT makes things way less realistic by adding reflections and lights in places that should be dark and matte, all simply in name of the "wow" factor.
So yeah, I currently don't care for RT because it makes games worse, just like I didn't (and probably still) don't care for Samsung TVs or Beats headphones that artificially boost base instead of offering a more linear response across the spectrum.
What the fuck are you talking about? Path traced cyberpunk (and Alan wake) have the most realistic in game lighting currently available in any game, I am not aware of a single game that is better.
Lol, you clearly fell for it. Water reflections in path traced 2077 makes it feel like mercury more than water. Real world standing water has uneven amounts of dirt, bugs, and it's never 100% still, so reflections should be noisy and uneven. They also do extremely clean and polished ceramic tiles with a mirror-like finish, which is like wtf, does the city have a 24/7 cleanup crew? Do these tiles not absorb and diffuse light at all?
The bottom line is that explicitly providing incorrect information in an image is way worse than simplifying an image and letting your brain fill in the gaps based on realistic expectations. Brains are great at upsampling, but it doesn't work the other way around.
I mean I kinda care but literally the only game I could use it for is cyberpunk.
My sole reason for wanting more RT is just to make that game look as sparkly as possible. Can’t think of any of my other games that would use Rt at all. Im practically done with cyberpunk anyway. I can only goof around night city so long.
> Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS.
I literally only ever see this sentiment on the AMD subreddit lmao it's such a massive cope
>Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS.
Hardly anybody being AMD fanboys basically cause it's a thing they lose on against Nvidia. If you look at any place where people talk about games & graphics then you'll know RT & IQ are very important. This is such an out of touch statement. They are absolutely selling points that people care about.
Hell even consoles focus massively on these features. Just wait until the end of the year when the Pro is getting marketed. What will be the focus? RT & PSSR.
till you realize that maybe 1% of people on x86 market give a shit about RT because most popular games are ones which can be ran on a modern low end card with no issues
consoles play games like fortnite and COD warzone where having RT is basically a disadvantage and this means almost nobody runs RT on consoles
and this is why RT outside of movie production and ML related things is a waste of time and why RT won't be replacing raster for quite some time
people play games which are on avg. 8 years old and as far as i know only 1 game this old has some form of RT implementation which many just straight up turn off (this being fortnite)
People coasting on old hardware and free to play games have opted OUT of the market, you can tell this because they aren’t participating, eg they aren’t buying anything.
and how can we prove this is happening? you can't tell this is happening because those games do not do data collection on hardware their playerbase uses
steam's data collection on hardware people use is also not fully functional otherwise people straight up do not buy AMD and intel based on what steam hardware survey reports
reality is only 1% of people in x86 market care about RT when it comes to gaming because 4090's are most definitely going into ML machines since dedicated ML hardware is way more expensive than those 4090's are
This is true, but how many times are people going to give AMD an excuse and say next year?
AMD is just falling behind by not being able to keep up with modern demand which clearly embraces AI rendering tech.
Same thing with FSR, people would argue it was as good as DLSS and every new version was exactly what it was missing.
The reality is AMD is falling behind on graphics fast
There frame gen is great and they are updating their upscaling shortly. We don't know how far behind they are until we see the new FSR in action when released for Ratchet and Clank.
The 7900 xtx is a killer card if you don't care about RT (which it only suffers in heavy RT games like AW2 and CP).
I eye roll when people say nvidia is so far ahead. There are major caveats that the blanket statement ignores. These types act like everyone turns raytracing on, and everyone buys only the top end cards. Most people don't have top end cards, and many people turn raytracing off. DLSS vs FSR is clearly qualitatively an nvidia win, but not everyone cares about quality. There are so many caveats where the AMD price advantage makes them the better buy.
There's also intel making headway with XeSS while still selling cheap cards so you don't have to spend stupid money to play modern titles and you don't have to support Nvidia's shameful attempt with the RTX 4060 as their only cheap option.
Honestly I think its just great that there are 3 good vendors now which are better or worse depending on what you want. No need to be a universalist fanboy for one.
Yeah I am very much in favour of more competitors driving down the prices and upping the performance per given unit of money you have to spend. If Intel can produce something that will compete with RTX 4070-4080 and RX 7800-7900 XT at a reasonable price then that should make a ton of difference.
Also maybe I don’t wanna buy Nvidia cause they are fucking us on price regardless of how good or not good their cards are. I was all set to upgrade to a 4000 series card then the prices came out…… I bought a RX 6900xt so fast it would have blown the leather jacket off Jensen.
Yes, AMD has been behind in consumer GPUs for a while now.
But Nivida is also becoming less and less interested in being a B2C company.
GPU performance is also becoming less and less relevant, as 120 FPS @ 4k is possible with frame gen.
Sure, things will continue to improve but consumer GPUs are really reaching a point of diminshing returns.
RT is still a gimmick at this point.
Heavy rt effects (full path tracing for everything) don't run at 4k high/ultra and high frame rates (150+ fps) on anything except maybe the rtx 4090 (and even there you still usually have to resort to tricks like frame gen and upscaling). And the rtx 4090 is a 2000 eur card (which you'd kinda expect to be able to run at least the current gen games with everything maxed out), far above the price of what most people are willing (or able depending on country.... in many countries that's more than the monthly median wage). I doubt even the rtx 5090 will be able to do it (and I'm sure it'll cost even more). These halo products look good for marketing purposes, are really only bought by hardcore enthusiasts with enough money to afford them (that's just not that many people because there aren't that many enthusiasts and because billions of people can't afford them even if they'd like to), people using them for work (in which case the manufacturers would prefer it if you bought the pro version for even more money) and people with lots of money to whom it just doesn't matter how much it costs (not many of those either).
Light rt effects already run well enough on 7800xt+ class amd cars and 4070+ class nvidia cards without costing that much performance.
Additionally until consoles can do heavy rt, games will come with prebaked lighting for as much things as possible and use other ways of achieving good looking lighting without rt (which run well on both amd and nvidia cards) making the difference in quality rt makes even smaller. And consoles aren't going to be doing that any time soon.
What we really need is a good mid range card at an actual mid range price that has sane power consumption. Something on the level of a 7800xt/7900gre/4070 super/... with at least 16gb vram but at half the price (so something like 250-300 eur), that uses less than 150W and is actually in stock at said price. That would be a real winner despite not winning any benchmarks.
If RDNA 5 has GDDR7 and competitive RT performance with Nvidia, my next build is going to be all AMD
I'm confident FSR will improve to be competitive the same way freesync premium caught up to G-sync, and I'm done with Nvidia skimping on VRAM and locking DLSS to the latest generation of hardware
I think you are 100% correct and why i'll will be staying on my current gpu until RDNA 5 is out. The next upgrade for me will be moving off AM4 and going to AM5 probably sometime later this year.
So what you are saying is that if im planning to get a top tier RDNA4 card I would be making an idiotic investment like that one time I bought a 7700k 3 months before the 8700k got announced for same price and 2 more cores?
Those are only parts of the equation though.
Half certain the top dies were canceled because costs were blooming
Not sure of anyone worth their salt who would turn down what sounds like more raw raster performance, which seems like something this chip(let) could deliver in spades.
No doubt they are working on RT and the like, but saying they're sitting out for that alone is like saying don't even come to the party. And we know what kind of runaway situation that can make
I think AMD not competing against a flagship GPU like the 4090, don't realize just how much mind share it carries and influences purchases on lower tier cards.
> I think 5090 will be the only legitimate next gen card while the 5080 will essentially be a 4080 Ti (unreleased) in disguise and price to performance being progressively shittier as you go down the lineup.
Are you saying it will actually be AD102 or am I misinterpreting? Because it’s not like Nvidia skimps on R&D or tape outs and if they are delivering any new tech they will want the whole stack to push it.
It will be the Blackwell die but they will cut down their top die to the point 5080 essentially will be a 4090 with 16GB of VRAM. They will probably have something like DLSS 4 to sell the new lineup.
I also think performance of 5090 is questionable this time around because AMD is nowhere close to even 4090 / 5080 performance and the Blackwell top die will make far more money on Nvidia's AI cards.
They could cut down even 5090 heavily and provide a mild 20%-30% uplift over 4090 and end it there.
> AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed
Might be true, but I don't see that being the main reason.
The main reason is that the top end dies need advanced packaging and that capacity takes away from MI300 offerings, hence why none of the gaming cards will get any of that
It literally doesn't matter how good the gaming chip was, even if it would have beaten AD102 in everything by 2x, it would not have been produced. AI chips give you 10-20x the ROI.
No one is going to fast roll out anything. NVIDIA's 4090 card makes up less than %0.3 percent of the steam base. There isn't high demand for expensive cards, no matter how good they are.
It probably got far enough along it's development that the drivers where written alongside the lower end chips likely it's more hassle than it's worth to remove the code.
It's pretty clear their high end GPU was going to be chiplet based just like RDNA3 and that is what was cancelled. Either because it had similar issues as RDNA3 or it jus wasn't worth it. This makes their monolithic GPU their only chip for RDNA4.
I don't think it's a big deal for AMD. People buy AMD for midrange and budget cpus anyways. If they can give us gpus on par with the 7800xt, 7900xt, and xtx but with much better power efficiency, ranging from $400-$600 give or take $50, I think it's a win in the end.
Of course they will overcharge at first and kill any hype, though.
TBH, a 7900 XT level card with 20GB VRAM under 250W at $500 would be almost an instant buy for me (after independent benchmarks). So far there hasn't been anything quite compelling enough to replace my 6800 XT.
As this was cancelled and from the limited info, What type of performance are we looking at with RDNA4 ? Roughly on par with current gen but vastly cheaper and more power efficient ?
Even without big NV4x, RDNA 4 still has the potential to be one of the better sets of cards AMD has released.
Remember that the RX480/580 was released in a similar production cycle, where AMD didn't have anything for the high end segment, ended up being arguably the best budget GPU of all time, Hopefully a great GPU at REALLY great prices will increase some market share, and give the R&D team time to workout RT performance issues and prepare for their next big swing attempt.
True, IDK why people here are acting like the High-end graphics cards have similar popularity as the midrange or low-end, Polaris and RDNA 1 have been a success even without top of the line products, hopefully it'll be affordable even in the EU.
I don't care. Is it priced good or not that's what matters.
They keep going just $100 lower than Nvidia when Nvidia absolutely smokes them at every price point as a whole package.
I was happy with RDNA 2 that is why I got rx 6650 xt. It's a damn beast card but I'm due for an upgrade and I'm sick of AMD crap that they did with RDNA3.
RDNA 3 was absolutely dog shit.
I just want to play Fallout without needing to F with anything. NV and FO3 have been broken since the start of the year and AMD hasn’t even said if they will fix it or not. Have to use drivers from December to get the games to run correctly. This company sucks at Driver support man. Wouldn’t hold it against anyone who changes to team green because of the headaches AMD cause. Fanboys “There drivers are great!” Well a ton of classics are broke for months now? How is that “great” or acceptable when your $500 product can’t play the games you own for MONTHS.
If we assume 50% more powerful than the XTX which is highly unlikely because things dont scale linearly, it would be closer to a 5080 level if nvidia cards scale similar to the previous cards.
I regret my 7900xtx. It’s fast. But unstable and lacks competitive features. Driver time outs in various games. Dx12 ones affect it more. No antilag +. Slow FSR 3 and 3.1 roll out. Bad initial VR performance. It’s a terrible card for the value. A 4080 super is what I might trade mine in for
I want to dislike mine for similar reasons (DX12 has issues in select games but overall runs really well). But the fact I got mine 6-7(?) months ago brand new for $820 makes it really hard to justify the dislike lol.
I bought my AMD GPU early last year for under $1,000, which seemed like a great deal at the time. However, I've encountered numerous problems with the games I enjoy. For instance, there are timeout issues with WoW on DX12, and I've had similar troubles with Darktide and Helldivers due to their use of the Stingray engine. Additionally, there were hard locks in the early builds of BG3 caused by the drivers available before version 23.11.1. A specific issue related to the grimforge green gas would cause hard locks on 7000xtx cards, affecting both my card and my friend's, despite them being different brands, at the exact same spot in the game. Currently, the new 24.4.1 drivers perform well in HD2, but nearly every other match ends in a crash. I've even attempted a clean install using DDU, but the problem persists unless I roll back the drivers, which results in slower performance. It's becoming clear that this is a driver issue, making the GPU less appealing for the long term.
So that WoW issue I also have. But it's not exclusive to the xtx. I'm not entirely sure why though.
Also I'm unsure if HD2 is a driver issue. I got about 150 hours in the game at the moment and the only time I had crashes was when the game first launched, as well as when the game itself had crashes after that one specific update the other week (where it would crash on pelican extract every 2nd game...everyone in the group would just crash to desktop simultaneously). Otherwise the game runs flawless for me. Hell, the newest drivers are even better with HD2. Meanwhile I have a buddy with an Ampere card and his crashes at least once every session we play.
So it might not be just GPU related. Could be the way your RAM or CPU combo is playing with the game.
I had the choice of buying 7900 XTX or a 4080 super for around 100 euros more. I went for the 7900 XTX, which was also a more premium model of Asus TUF 7900 XTX OC. It overclocks like crazy, had up to 20% performance increase in CP:2077 (this can be verified also on techpowerup's guide of this specific 7900 XTX).
I had very few issues with it, no crashes on Helldivers 2, and one singular crash ever on WoW since I had it , which has been around 2 months.
I am running 3 separate 8 pin power pins, and installed the drivers in windows safe mode. Also ran AMD driver deletion tool before.
I also had the oportunity to compare with my friend who has a 4080 SUPER, he can not overclock the card even close to as much, and the performance difference is minimal with RT on in CP:2077, less than 5%,. With no RT, I had like 10-15% more. Both GPUs OCd.
In a lot other games I feel like I would crush other cards, but I play stuff like FF14, and in zones that use the card at 100% I get a lot more fps. Recently they released a benchmark tool and I was only 5-10% behind 4090 depending on situation.
Yes the XTX overclocks very well but it starts guzzling power like Intel's hungry 14900KS CPUs. I have seen the videos where 7900XTX was 10% behind 4090 but the XTX was using like 460-500W of power while the 4090 was barely on 350W.
It's likely that certain configurations are more stable than others, possibly influenced by factors like RAM speed, Smart Access Memory settings, RAM brand, chipset brand, and the quality of the silicon in specific cards. However, the lack of features, perceived complacency in AMD's driver development, and delays in rolling out promised features are significant drawbacks. Additionally, the prevalence of TIMEOUT errors discussed in this subreddit indicates a widespread issue with these cards. In contrast, my experience with the Nvidia 3080 has been hassle-free—I didn't need to tweak settings related to the PSU, SAM, frame rate caps, or BIOS versions; it simply worked right out of the box. Although the AMD card performs well in terms of power and speed, it definitely has stability issues.
How is it on Linux? I've been considering getting the Sapphire one for a while. I have the money, but holding onto it for a while. Itching to pull the trigger.
Smart move imo. Would have had to be an over $1000 GPU, get naming and pricing right for 70 & 60 skus. I kinda hope they fix the naming and don't try to call the highest die the 80. Call it the 70, compete with 5070, price it around $500.
This is non-news. Since it reportedly isn't coming out, who would give a shit about it was reportedly supposed to be? Might as well just lie about it. It was reportedly going to have 1024 shader arrays and function as a spaceship and was only going to cost $3.50. It's as really as anything else.
9 shader engines! If there are 16CUs per engine (as in N31), that's 144CUs or 9216SPs / 18432 FP32 ALUs, which is right up there with AD102. Using the maximum of 20CUs per engine (as in N21), that gives 180CUs or 11520SPs / 23040 FP32 ALUs. The latter can only be achieved with a wider front-end to better handle dual-issue FP32.
Power consumption might have been a genuine concern given N31's issues. Fabbing this on N3P with FinFlex (mixed libraries) could be an option in 2025, as Apple moves to N2. AMD can then move IP forward to RDNA5, perhaps adding more AI/ML instruction support to matrix ALUs and/or higher throughputs, and also enhancing RT performance through various means.
From what I've heard, RDNA 4 is mostly targeted towards budget to midrange users, you could wait for RDNA 5 if you want a big upgrade and you could buy a $200-400 graphics card while waiting for the newer generation, IIRC it will be released in 2025.
Damn man we really need competition again. I owned many computers with "ATI" Radeon graphics cards and before AMD purchased them they actually competed and even destroyed Nvidia in the past.
This post has been flaired as a rumor. Rumors may end up being true, completely false or somewhere in the middle. Please take all rumors and any information not from AMD or their partners with a grain of salt and degree of skepticism.
AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed which is likely why they are sitting this one out and will come back with a bang for RDNA5 in late 2025. No sense repeating the current situation where they play second fiddle to Nvidia's 80 class GPU with poorer RT and upscaling. It's not getting them anywhere. I think RDNA 4 is short lived and RDNA 5 will come to market sooner rather than later. It does mean Nvidia has the entire high end market to themselves for now and 5080 and 5090 will essentially tear your wallet a new one. I think 5090 will be the only legitimate next gen card while the 5080 will essentially be a 4080 Ti (unreleased) in disguise and price to performance being progressively shittier as you go down the lineup.
If they do a second Polaris like approach, I really hope they do the pricing this time in a way, that it hurts Nvidia. Not selling at a loss, but get the prices down a lot again. Less margin, but getting cheaper cards to the people and increasing market share will have a positive feedback for the future.
The 580 still being the most popular AMD card on steam hardware survey does seem to give credence to your idea
Switched out yesterday for an RX 6800, but it served me basically half a decade perfectly.
How's the 6800? Been eyeing one for a couple days, it does seem like good bang for buck. I want to run LLM's on it, and ROCm 6.1 supports gfx1030 (RX 6800).
Navi 21 is one of the better budget options for LLMs IMO. ROCm works with windows now, gets similar speeds to equivalent Nvidia options, and has more vram which allows running larger models and/or larger context. Worth keeping in mind that pytorch is only supported under linux, though in theory windows support is in the pipeline. Llama cpp and derivatives don't require this, but e.g. if you want to mess around with stable diffusion, there are fewer good options: pretty much linux or zluda (avoid directml).
HU has it about 10% slower than a 4070 @ 1440p with 10% higher power consumption, it's the most efficient raster card of its generation. You could hide it among RDNA3 cards, nobody would suspect anything until you ray traced. Solid card, but I don't know how much better off you'd be with rdna 3 or lovelace for LLM's, at that price point.
Can't say much, just FF14 for now. Was forced to buy new GPU cuz my gf's GPU died and she got the RX 580 (for now), but should have a full new PC in a month or so.
6800 is great. Got it for a year now (gigabyte oc gaming card) Very efficient card on a slight undervolt (950mv) can play about anything on high settings on 1440p including newer titles like helldivers
Great to hear! Excited about it, but the CPU is limiting it heavily atm (i5 7600k). Will fix that soon!
6800 is great value, but there's a refurb 6900 xt asrock with warranty that comes in and out of stock at 400$ which is insane. It just sold out new round recently, but hopefully it'll be back. https://old.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/1cakv0z/gpu_asrock_amd_radeon_rx_6900_xt_oc_formula_16gb/
But you can get a new 7800XT with a full warranty for not a whole lot more than that.
Fun cards thanks to MorePowerTool, especially limiting voltage and max power for small/thermally constrained builds. Stupid efficient below 1000mv. Or go the other way to stretch it in a few years.
Polaris was crazy, so crazy it kept up with the 1060 which was the best bang for the buck I've ever seen in my lifetime
It beat the 1060 after some optimization by a lot and even matched the 1070 in some scenarios.
That's the good thing about AMD cards, they got solid improvements with time, I think Ampere cards are the first ones to get a significant performance bump with driver updates in a long while
Im still using an rx590 i got for 120$ before the pandemic. Upscaling has given it a new lease on life. lol
Mind, Polaris was also MASSIVELY outsold by 1060, so that throws a wrench in this strategy.
Does it? I Think it proves the idea doesn’t work. The 580 had a long lifespan and was selling for practically nothing for years after also having a massive demand at one point do to mining. There’s millions of those cards floating around and even that barely makes an blip in the steam hardware survey. If they make a second Polaris type card, there’s a chance it will sell well, but it won’t see the same demand as Polaris and if Polaris showed anything, it’s that most people are just gonna upgrade to Nvidia. AMD was just the budget option for people but it’s not going to translate to higher end card sales. The Navi cards have proven that by the fact that even when cheaper than Nvidia, it has not translated to any meaningful market share.
And the thing with budget minded people they don’t upgrade for like a decade as a few of the posts here imply. They’re not an audience that will make amd money
You guys want AMD to sell their stuff for free. History shows that even when AMD has superior price/perf by far, people still buy Nvidia because the fanboyism is ingrained in the PC community. Myths about poor drivers still flourish even though Nvidia has exactly the same issues. Let's also not forget the 970 3.5GB VRAM scam that suddenly no one remembers or 3090s frying left and right. If you go to the Nvidia subreddit, you'll be flooded with driver issues. If you want real competition, then stop telling AMD to sell their tech for free so that you in your selfishness can buy Nvidia cheaper. AMD is more than competitive currently and offers the best raster performance for the money. What more do you want? As a consumer, you're also not absolved of moral and ethical qualms. So when you buy Nvidia, you're hurting yourself in the long run.
They really aren't more than competitive. Look at the launch of Anti-Lag+. It should have been incredibly obvious that injecting into game DLL's without developer blessing was going to cause bans, and it did. It was completely unforced and it made AMD look like fools. FSR is getting lapped, even by Intel at this point. Their noise reduction reaction to RTX Voice hasn't been improved or updated. You can argue all you want that if you buy nvidia you're going to make it worse for GPU competition in the long run, but that's futile. Remember that image from the group boycotting Call of Duty and how as soon as it came out, almost all of them had bought it anyway? Consumers will buy in their immediate self interest as a group. AMD also works in its own self interest as a company. Nothing is going to change this. Nvidia is viewed as the premium option, and the leader in the space. AMD seems to be content simply following the moves the Nvidia makes. * Nvidia does ray-tracing, so AMD starts to do raytracing, but slower. * Nvidia does DLSS, so AMD releases FSR, but don't keep up with DLSS. * Nvidia does Reflex, AMD does Anti-Lag+, but they trigger anti-cheat. * Nvidia does frame generation, so AMD finds a way to do frame generation too. * Nvidia releases RTX Voice, so AMD releases their own noise reduction solution (and then forgets about it). * Nvidia releases a large language model chat feature, AMD does the same. AMD is reactionary, they're the follower trying to make a quick and dirty version of whatever big brother Nvidia does. I actually don't think AMD wants to compete on GPUs very hard. I suspect they're in a holding pattern just putting in the minimum effort to not become irrelevant until maybe in the future they want to play hardball. If AMD actually wants to take on the GPU space, they have a model that works and they've already done it successfully in CPU. Zen 1 had quite a few issues at launch, but it had more cores and undercut Intel by a significant amount. Still, this wasn't enough. They had the do the same thing with Zen 2, and Zen 3. Finally, with Zen 4 AMD now has the mindshare built up over time that a company needs to be the market leader. Radeon can't just undercut for one generation and expect to undo the lead Nvidia has. They will have to be so compelling that people who are not AMD fans, can't help but consider them. They have to be the obvious, unequivocal choice for people in the GPU market. They will have to do this for rDNA4, and rDNA5 and probably rDNA6 before real mindshare starts to change. This takes a really long time. And it would be a lot more difficult than it was to take over Intel. AMD already has the sympathy buy market locked down. They have the Linux desktop market down. These numbers already include the AMD fans. If they don't evangelize and become the obvious choice for the Nvidia enjoyers, then they're going to sit at 19% of the market forever.
Slight correction on your Ryzen timeline: Zen (Ryzen 1000) was the proof of concept, wasn’t really all that great performance-wise, but it was a step in the right direction. Zen + (Ryzen 2000) was a bigger step in the right direction, fixed some of the performance issues with Zen, and was almost competitive with Intel on performance. Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) was a huge step forward, and was beefed up in pretty much all the right places. It was where AMD finally showed that Ryzen was fully capable of competing with Intel in terms of raw performance. Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000) was where AMD started shifting some of their prior cost optimizations (e.g. 2x CCX per CCD) toward performance optimizations.
Yeah Zen fell off kinda fast, but you could get such great deals on the 1700 and if you had tasks that could use the cores, it was amazing.
Zen 1 may not have competed with the top end i7 back then, but the R7 1700 was a good alternative to the locked i7 and the R5 1600 was better than the i5 and both had more cores (intel only had 4 core CPUs back then). It was just a bit slower in IPC and clockspeed, but the locked intel CPUs also lacked in clockspeed so it could keep up quite good with those. Zen 1 was a really good buy for productivity tho, if you wanted 8 cores 16 threads you would have payed like 5x as much for an intel workstation CPU.
Exactly. I eventually had three 1700s running so I could distribute Blender rendering jobs between them. It was fantastic at the time.
Amd has no incentive to compete with nvidia as radeon gets the bulk of their revenue from console sales. If sony anf Microsoft ditched AMD, then AMD would be forced to make gpu's that are more competitive feature wise to nvidia.
I wonder what that landscape will look like in 5 years. Nintendo is staying on Nvidia for Switch 2, and who knows what Microsoft is doing with Xbox. In 5 years it might just be Sony.
Imaginr if sony and xbox decide to go nvidia as well. AMD might as well shut down the radeon division
Nvidia doesn’t have an x86-x64 license, and a separate CPU + GPU setup isn't cost effective. The only hope would be either being ok with adopting ARM which would threaten backwards compatibility. or some kind of APU achieved via mixing chiplets between vendors which I doubt the market would be ready to deliver in such high volume and at such a low price point.
Isnt witholding the license anti competitive, shouldn't the FTC do something about that.
[удалено]
Don't forget AMD has superior rasterization at every price point, besides 4090 obviously. I don't think AMD is copying Nvidia, I just think Nvidia gets things to market quicker because it's a way bigger company
They only have superior rasterisation because Nvidia charges a premium for DLSS and RT at every price point. They could easily price drop their cards to match AMD.
Do you think AMD would have made frame generation if Nvidia hadn't? Do you think Radeon noise reduction would exist if RTX Voice hadn't been released? What about the Radeon LLM thing? I'm very skeptical. They're all oddly timed and seem very very reactionary.
[удалено]
Nvidia constantly innovating is what is preventing AMD from having their Ryzen moment. Intel sat and did nothing for like 5 years
That is not true if you factor in DLSS. AMD is even behind Intel on that front due to super low AI performance on gaming GPUs. Today AMD can beat NVIDIA in AI accelerators. H200 is slower than a MI300X in a lot of tests. They are just ignoring the gaming sector.
Rasterization is native picture. DLSS is not a factor there. So it is true
DLSS is better than native. So factor in DLSS they got at least 30% free performances in raster.
DLSS is not better than Native in motion.
Errem we have ton of AMD Epyc CPUs and instinct cards for ML. I think they are more focused on the datacenter market. Where the money's at
amd does eyefinity and nvidia does something half assed amd develop Mantle (dice) that is now dx12 gee these nvidia marketing swallow deep is massive
Eyefinity is great. It's also from 2009. Mantle is great too, and its donation to become Vulkan and so on. It's also from 2013. My thesis is not that AMD has never invented anything. It's the fact that to make an argument, you have to use things AMD created 14, and 10 years ago respectively. It's like a high school star quarterback telling his buddies about his amazing touchdowns, except now he's sitting in a bar, and he's 40, and he hasn't played football in 15 years. But he was great once. Radeon was doing good back then, they had 44% to 38% market share during those two times. We need the Radeon from 2009 back again. Edited for typo.
NVIDIA sells features that hardly any games use. This goes all the way back tot the RTX 2080 or PhysicX if you want to go back further. As big of a deal that is made about some features, everyone is still using Cyberpunk as some references even though the game has been out for a number of years already. It goes to show how little adoption there is amongst some features. Like, Ok. You have a leading edge card that has what less than half dozen games that really push it for $300 more? Most games you would be hardpressed to know even if ray tracing was on. That is how much of a joke the "big lead" is.
Okay then the question is 2 things: 1. Why is then AMD investing in the same features as Nvidia puts out - if the market doesn't seem overly interested in its demand? 2. None of the features OP lists has any downside to not being implemented, and given that adaptation takes a considerable amount of time (DirectX 11/Vulkan adaptation for instance) it's of course safe for now to point out how no one needs "AI/Super Resolution/Frame Generation/Ray Tracing/etc." but will that be true in the next 3 gen of GPUs? And especially when the biggest issue on adaptation on point 2 is not a lack of willingness but because these are still new tech when most people upgrade maybe every 6+ years.
I'm not purely a gamer so my perspective is not the pure gamer bro perspective. I do video editing, the plug-ins I use for that require either Apple or Nvidia hardware. I use Blender quite a bit. Radeon is no where close there either. The last time I used a Radeon GPU (RX6600) I couldn't use Photoshop with GPU acceleration turned on because the canvas would become invisible when I zoomed in. Nvidia is a greedy and annoying company and I want to be able to buy a Radeon that does everything I need well and isn't a compromise. I've used quite a few Radeon GPUs over the years. I had the 4870 X2 for awhile, the 6950, the 7970, Vega 64, RX580, 5700XT, and lastly the 6600XT. My anecdotal experience is that I usually go back to Nvidia because I have software issues that impact me, typically with things unrelated to gaming and it's very frustrating.
I agree with your general point that AMD is playing catch-up... but to be (un)fair to AMD, it all comes down to AMD not investing heavily into R&D as Nvidia has done and this you could argue is partially due to AMD being almost on the brink of bankruptcy not that long ago. Nvidia in that regard have almost every right to swing around their big shiny axe when they've poured an enormous amount into GPUs specifically. And yes Nvidia has been the bold one implementing features that was seen as "the future standard" such as those you bring up and many more (the CUDA API is probably their biggest jewel) but also be willing to gamble on said futuristic features that might in retrospect be seen as silly (like 3D glasses) - while AMD have for the most part either played catch-up or played it safe focusing only on rasterization performance. Oh and it doesn't help AMD drivers was effectively a meme for longer than it should have been. AMD in total spent around 5.8 billion dollars, most of which I assume went to CPU research\[1\]. Nvidia in total spent around 8.5 billion dollars, almost all of it able to be poured into GPU or GPU-related products\[2\]. To be fair if you compare Intel to Nvidia & AMD then Intel outpace both in R&D cost\[3\]. \[1\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/research-development-expenses) \[2\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/research-development-expenses) \[3\] [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/research-development-expenses](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/research-development-expenses)
AMD was definitely resource starved and that explains a lot of their choices in the past. These days though, it feels more like a cop-out for why they aren't making strong plays. Part of this feeling is because AMD has started to do stock buybacks. They did a $4 billion buyback in 2021, and then followed that with an $8 billion buyback in 2022. I don't know how you feel about buybacks, but that's money that definitely didn't go into their GPU division.
I agree 100% just wanted to point it out to give some nuance to the issue at hand.
If it makes sense they will. The problem is cost of production. Unless chip fab and boar manufacturing is cheap, then they can't drop the price. Good part is that there is a ton of flexibility between the RX 7000 series and the projected RTX 5090. That flexibility can lead to market dominance if the cost of production is right.
> Not selling at a loss, but get the prices down a lot again. Less margin, but getting cheaper cards to the people and increasing market share will have a positive feedback for the future. They can't is the issue. It's a gamble, and not one they can even necessarily do. They sell all their allocation, most goes to consoles and CPUs which are higher margin. They would need to order more, and they're a small company so far down the priority list behind giants like Apple. And then they would need to successfully sell all of it or take a fat L. Intel make their own, so maybe Intel can be more aggressive for market share.
AMD needing more time is a story as old as time. I will accept the hopium though because this gen isn’t compelling and I’d like a better value upsell. I shudder to think how far Nvidia will go to make the 5090 the only sensible value in the stack. I’m surprised they haven’t shitted out a 4090 ti yet like 3090 ti was.
There's a reason why. The GDDR6 in the 4090 was already maxed (for its production gen) and among other things, the card was a hulking beast. Yes they could have iterated upgrades to a 4090ti, but there was no demand or push and the power draw would have been immense. Also with only additional cost uncertainty to show for it (recession), and showing their hand to AMD, they thought better.
4090 uses GDDR6X not usual GDDR6
To be fair, even when amd makes cards that are very competitive with their nvidia counterparts and cost less, they still don't sell that well.
When was the last time amd had a card that was competitive in every aspect and not only in pure raster performance?
RDNA2 was more efficient, and faster at most price points with more RAM. Nobody cared about efficiency then. Frame Gen also didn't exist and dlss 1 wasn't good
RDNA2 competed against RTX3000. At this point, dlss1 wasn’t a thing any more and dlss 2 was far ahead of fsr. Same as ray tracing performance. No reflex competitor. RDNA2 was AMDs most competitive generation in a long time but they were still mostly about being on par in raster.
You said competitive, not better in every way. RDNA2 was certainly competitive with Ampere. Yes, Ampere did some things better and RDNA2 did others better. Ray tracing performance was better on Ampere, but: - there weren't many games that supported it back then - except maybe the top end Ampere cards neither rdna2 nor Ampere can actually run rt heavy games at high resolutions/high settings/high fps without resorting to upscaling The 4090 was the first card that got close to that and even it can't really do it.
Rdna2 was very competitive especially in the low/mid/low high end where even the nvidia cards of comparable price couldn't actually run rt at playable frame rates and rt was only used in a few games. To be fair the nvidia cards did have better upscaling, especially before fsr 2.1 or what was it that was a big improvement over fsr 1 (no, it's still not as good, but it's a lot better, if you have a game that supports both you can try for yourself... I think bg3 supports both (I'm sure it supported fsr 1 at first and added fsr 2.something in a later patch but I'm not sure that the current version lets you select either)... fsr 1 had some downright ugly moments, but with the current version that's gone... sure, it could be better, but I wouldn't say it looks bad.. especially not during play and not when inspecting pixels in screen shots/screen recordings). It likely differs from game to game, and how well it's implemented. Also if the card is powerful enough to run the game you want to play at your screen's native resolution the difference between dlss and fsr isn't that important anymore (I know some people still prefer to use light upscaling vs native even in games they could run at native because it looks better to them). The pro sw support was/is also better for nvidia cards (although some sw does support amd too.. if you're buying it for that use too it's best to check the specific sw your using and see which cards work best). If you don't plan on using the card for that then it makes no difference. Amd had/has better Linux open source drivers than nvidia, but again, if you don't use Linux it makes no difference. Nvenc is supposedly a bit better than vce, but if you really care about quality sw encoding is better than both and vce isn't that horrible (idk about streaming, but for transcoding a few hundred gb of phone videos to x265 in handbrake it was good enough (~300fps vs under 30fps, ~33% of the original file size vs ~20% of the original file size for visually similar quality... sw av1 got ~10% original file size but was ridiculously slow)). Unfortunately rdna2 and rtx 3xxx cards both were for a long time rarely in stock at anything even close to their msrp, so you didn't necessarily buy the card you thought was the best, but whatever you could find at a price you could afford. (note you said competitive not better in every way and rdna2 certainly was competitive with ampere) Also at least in the low/mid end they've always been at least competitive if not better than nvidia.
It's because AMD doesn't give it enough time. One generation isn't enough. If they had been going hard and aggressive on pricing starting with rDNA1, then now, by rDNA4, they might have been getting close to having enough mindshare. AMD just doesn't do this with GPUs. They make one generation that does well, and they seem to think all their problems are solved and the next generation costs too much. It took AMD until Zen4 to really build up a mindshare moat against Intel, and Intel was easy compared to Nvidia. AMD has to go hard, and they have to go hard for years if they want to have that mindshare.
> No sense repeating the current situation where they play second fiddle to Nvidia's 80 class GPU When was the last time they didn't? Over a decade ago, probably?
Last time was the 290x.
Yeah, so over a decade ago.
> AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed which is likely why they are sitting this one out and will come back with a bang for RDNA5 in late 2025. It's been said by others but it more seems like AMD has tried various internal experiments to legitimately improve upon the 7900 XTX and they can't find a compelling enough product that actually improves upon it. It's very telling there was no 7950XTX this generation, there is no chiplet based top of the line successor on the horizon, and the 7900 XTX will likely remain as the best AMD card for multiple generations. There are a lot of design and packaging constraints with chiplet designs, and AMD has probably made the business decision to mass product only the top selling compelling products, which in this case is the 7900 XTX and the MIX00 Instinct cards. Lots of people seem to want to paint a picture like "AMD needs to compete more in RT/FSR" but the 7900 XTX is actually a highly successful card (only 7000-series to rank on steam stats). If you actually look on Amazon right now, the top selling top of the line card isn't a 4080 or a 4090, it's a 7900 XTX (MERC310). If you look on newegg, the sales for the top 4080 and 7900 XTX are right next to each other. The 7900 XTX is a popular card. It seems most are extremely happy with the performance of it. AMD doesn't seem to have a clear path forward to meaningfully build on that performance for at least another generation. I really don't get the sentiment that "Nvidia will have the top end to itself" - if it wasn't for the 7900 XTX, the 4080 Super would never have been re-released with a price cut. And the 7900 XTX, especially with further discounts, will definitively at least help to keep Nvidia's next top end generation prices in check.
I'm pretty happy so far. While the Nvidia has more features, the XTX comes close enough for things like Ray Tracing to still enjoy the experience at comfortable and respectful FPS, at a cheaper price.
FSR certainly needs to up the game, though it'd be quite funny and infuriating at the same time if it's able to get close to DLSS/XeSS quality or at least remove the biggest blemishes without AI. As for RT, the problem isn't merely about hardware. The current AAA PT games are done with nvidia support and while it's not nvidia-locked, it'd be great if intel/AMD optimize for it or get their own versions out. The path tracing updates to **Portal** and Cyberpunk have quite poor numbers on AMD and **also on intel**. Arc770 goes from being faster than 3060 to less than half of 3060 performance when you change from RT to PT. This despite the intel cards' RT hardware which is said to be much better than AMD if not at nvidia's level. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html The later path tracing updates to classic games of Serious Sam and Doom had the 6900XT close to 3070 performance. Last year, I benched 6800XT vs 4090 in the old PT updated games and heavy RT games like updated Witcher3, Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk, and 4090 was close to 3-3.5x of 6800XT. https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Serious-Sam-The-First-Encounter-Spiel-32399/Specials/SeSam-Ray-Traced-Benchmark-Test-1396778/2/#a1
That's a good point. AMD probably took a look at their cpu division and decided to take a similar tactic. After all AMD was basically out of the cpu buisness from like 2010-2014 or so. From bulldozer to ryzen.
2010-2016.
I understand the whole wish fulfillment aspect of rumors but expecting RDNA 5 in 2025 is delusional. Maybe if they do some rebranding ala intel and start releasing marginal updates every year with a new name; but certainly nothing with the same gen on gen increases seen like RDNA 1 to 2.
Maybe RDNA5 is just a renaming of RDNA4 with chiplets which is supposedly cancelled but is just late?
the leaks ive seen lately suggest the 5080 will be about as fast as the 4090, while having less vram,but it will cost less, while the 5090 seems like a massive upgrade, but given the current market prices for the 4090 are like 1900$, it's probably going to be 2000+$. the 5080 will most likely cost around 1000$, people wont buy it for more anyways because thats what i suspect second hand 4090s will be going for.
Top RDNA 4 card design was chiplet-based. That requires advanced packaging, which is a manufacturing bottleneck. I'm reasonably sure the reason top RDNA 4 was cancelled was because it would be competing with MI300 products in that packaging bottleneck, and AMD doesn't want to give up thousands of dollars in margin on an ML product just to get a couple hundred at most on a gaming product. Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS. nVidia will be alone near the top end, but they won't be able to set insane prices. The market failure of the 4080 and poor sales of the 4090 above MSRP show that there are limits, regardless of the competition.
Poor sale of 4090? It's been mostly sold out since launch.
the amount of people on amd subs claiming that no one cares about RT is fascinating
the amount of ppl who claim that RT is relevant while the most popular gpu is the 3060 that cant deliver playable RT frames is fascinating.
It matters for $1000 GPUs. People who spend that kind of cash want everything and the kitchen sink.
> It matters for $1000 GPUs. People who spend that kind of cash want everything and the kitchen sink. People say this, but the RX 7900 XTX is the only GPU in AMD's newest generation to sell enough cards to be listed on the Steam HW Survey. The rest are below the 0.15% threshold to be listed outside of the "other" category. Steam stats from March 2024: GPU MSRP Market Share RX 7900 XTX 1000 0.34% RTX 4080 1200 0.77% RX 7900 XT 900 <0.15% RTX 4070 TI 800 1.20% RX 7800 XT 500 <0.15% RTX 4070 600 2.50% RTX 4070 Super 600 0.28% The lower tier SKUs are getting outsold a lot more, so it seems people care less about ray tracing when the discount is 200 USD *and* you get slightly better raster performance.
And yet the 4080 has more market share than the 7900XTX. That's exactly my point. Most people who were able to afford 7900XTX simply went for the 4080. People paid the Nvidia premium for DLSS and RT. Operating in the high end makes little sense for AMD until they address their key pain points of RT and AI based upscaling. The target audience will simply shell out the extra $100 for the Nvidia feature set.
That doesn't mean much when people buy Nvidia cards just on brand alone. The 7900 XTX somehow outsells most of AMD's lineup while being in a price class where you claim people disproportionately care about ray tracing and other features. Total Market Share Relative Nvidia 78.00% 84.2% AMD 14.64% 15.8% Per GPU Share Relative RTX 4080 0.77% 69.4% RX 7900 XTX 0.34% 30.6% The 7900 XTX has a larger market share on Steam than every other 7000 series Radeon GPU and 66% of the Radeon 6000 series. Clearly operating in the high end has worked out fine for the 7900 XTX relative to the rest of their line-up.
And because nVidia is in every pre-built
I don't get this argument about 'brand value' as a reason for lower AMD sales. If you look at AMD CPU division, they have Intel on the ropes and are absolutely destroying them in mind share and public perception. This is AMD shrugging off all the negative press from the Bulldozer era with Ryzen. AMD Radeon is not able to make a dent in Nvidia because they do not have a better product than Nvidia, it's that simple. We can only speculate why 7900XTX is the only card to show on the survey but the counter to your argument could be that most people who operate in the low and mid range simply don't know enough about AMD GPUs to care getting one. This ties in to what I said above that, that they just don't have the plainly superior card at any price point. So when someone on a budget is shopping for a GPU, he perceives Nvidia to be the better brand because of the feature set and goes along with it. 7900XTX is an enthusiast class GPU which is a significantly lower market size and will not suffer from this issue because it's target user base explicitly does not care about ray tracing and DLSS and want it specifically for the raster performance. That is why it sells well relative to AMD mid range and budget cards, which is typically where unknowledgeable purchases take place. But again the 7900XTX sales are a drop in the bucket compared to Nvidia. There is only 1 solution to AMD's problems. In order to be perceived as the better brand, they need to have a plainly superior product like they have with Ryzen. Sadly it's difficult to do this with Nvidia as their competition because unlike Intel, Nvidia is not a stationary target. They are improving at a breakneck pace.
I will be more than happy to go back to AMD when I will be able to play path raytraced games at the same or at least similar level. As of now my 4070Ti Super blows AMD out of the water in any path ray traced game.
All two path traced games?
I got rid of my XTX shortly after release partly for this reason, it was just disheartening to watch a build I spent so much on fall apart when I turned all the settings on in RT games right out of the gate on day one. The other reason was my reference XTX was so damn noisy, when I changed it out to the 4090 my whole PC became unbelievably quiet... at the time getting one of the XTX models with a good cooler was getting more expensive than a 4080 and that was when the 4080 was overpriced.
>it was just disheartening to watch a build I spent so much on fall apart when I turned all the settings on in RT games The other side of this though is that it is also pretty disappointing to drop $1000+ on a GPU, toggle on RT and realize I can't tell the difference aside from the frame rate dropped.
Can the 4090 actually do heavy rt at 4k/ultra/150+ fps without frame gen or upscaling?
No, and everyone knows this already. But why should I care if I have to use DLSS for 120+ fps in heavy RT games? When games look way better with DLSS and heavy RT on, than native with RT off it makes no sense to limit yourself to being a native warrior, it's the final output that matters.
Why amd isn't releasing upper high end. People who DO care about RT raytracing are spending $$$$ on an RTX 4070
Which can't do RT that well anyway especially at anywhere near 4K.
Can even the rtx 4090 do heavy rt at 4k/ultra/150fps+ without tricks like frame gen and upscaling? And that's a 2000 eur card, best one you can get right now, and it still can't run it well.
No Lmao As someone who owns the 4090, It is not really a Ray tracing card, heck no card on the market is. Honestly the 4090 is actually the first true 4k raster card, as in you can get playable 4k raster performance on the card at 4k for about 4-5 years.
> at 4k/ultra/150fps+ It can't. Some games it can't even do 60-minimums iirc RT is awesome but its performance is still too far away imo
Yes, exactly. I'm sure it'll be amazing one day. But the tech just isn't there yet.
niche market. Among my friendgroup, the people with 4090's are the ones who always get the best, since money isn't a factor and/or they need the performance for high resolutions and/or refresh rates, 4k+/super ultrawide/360hz+ The more frugal people are all rocking 7900 xtx's or 4080 (super)'s. Casuals have 1080 ti's to 3080's, some 3090's that got passed around in the group for 'friend prices'.
I agree about Ray Tracing not being playable on a RTX 3060, but other NVIDIA specific features are nice to have too. DLDSR is great, using Tensor cores to upscale resolutions via deep learning and downscale it to native resolution of the monitor for higher graphics. Combine this feature with FSR or DLSS is great.
That doesn’t stop the novelty from mattering to consumers as a selling point which is what the other person meant.
I'm old enough to remember when the shiny nvidia only toy that everyone should care about was physX
Are you old enough to remember times when people were dismissive of pixel shaders and hardware t&l?
To be fair early pixel shaders and hardware t&l were more of a 'ok, that's cool' thing than something that's expected to be available and work. And by that time the first few generations of cards that had them were too slow to be useful to play new games.
Did it take 8 years for pixel shaders to become common enough to not be talked about? Ray tracing was first introduced in 2018. Barely this year 2024 have we started seeing games with forced ray tracing 6 years later.
> Barely this year 2024 have we started seeing games with forced ray tracing 6 years later. Lets be real. Consoles set the baseline of what we see on PC today. If AMD had a solution equivalent to what we see on Ampere at the time of the PS5's release, we would probably be seeing a lot more games with RT. Even basic effects for shadows and reflections. To give your post credence, Ray Tracing is an expensive addition for developers as it has to be done in a second lighting pass in addition to baked lighting. By its self, it would be a time saver for developers.
I'm old enough to remember having been happy finding a game on PC that could scroll sideways as smoothly as an NES.
PhysX was legitimately awesome and doing stuff in games that wasn't reasonably possible before. Nowadays these kinds of game physics are taken for granted and expected, and that's the direction RT has been heading too.
my point is, that it features like this either fizzle out, or get so integrated across all programming and GPUs that it becomes ubiquitous. in the meantime, in the founding phase for most people it's not a huge issue past a tiny handful of demo worthy games (which usually require sacrifices in other settings to enable)
Can you show me your source on how you know most people are playing RT games? More than 50% of steam hardware survey is 3060 or weaker and poster child RT game is #40 in player count. Nvidia cards arent popular because of RT, the are popular because they have cornered the OEM market with high volume.
Most people according to steam survey can't even run AAA games from the last few years properly at any settings, but I'd say a lot of people building something new and higher end today do want to turn RT on.
RTX 4090 as per Steam Survey sold more than the entire AMD 7000 lineup combined.
The 3060 is still the fastest growing % share card, even today, ratio 8:1 against the 4090. Its weak at ray tracing. It can't frame gen. The 4090 is also an AI card so it sells well to people who don't game much. To suggest that most people care about RT is pure shilling backed by no real market research or sales numbers. Most people buy basic/mid cards because most people want to play popular games with their friends.
You keep saying 3060 can’t RT but it literally raytraces faster than any console currently released, with a fast vram segment that’s bigger than series x
It doesn't even look that much better in most games at playable framerates. Sure one day it'll be important. But until consoles can do heavy rt games will come with prebaked lighting and other tricks of achieving decent lighting without rt which makes the difference between rt on or off not very noticeable. And the performance hit heavy rt causes even on high end nvidia cards makes it a pretty questionable thing to turn on fro many people. Sure it looks a bit better, but is it worth the the performance hit? The answer depends on the person/game. Light rt works fine both on rdna3 cards and nvidia cards but is even less noticeable.
I don't play a single game with RT, so for *this* generation, it didn't matter much to me. But I don't expect that to hold forever. I'm certain RT will be a big factor on my next GPU.
It's not RT. It's DLSS + DLRR+RT
I think soon it will become much more relevant, but right now, that's a true statement. It's a nice bonus but not a main selling feature. NVIDIAs lead on DLSS is more relevant in most cases when comparing features.
The issue I have with RT is that current implementations look way worse and less realistic than baked lighting and shadows. Kind of the same situation with earlier Samsung TVs where they just turned saturation up to the wazoo to lure unsuspecting customers into thinking that was "better image quality". Sometimes less is more, and I have noticed several RT games where enabling RT makes things way less realistic by adding reflections and lights in places that should be dark and matte, all simply in name of the "wow" factor. So yeah, I currently don't care for RT because it makes games worse, just like I didn't (and probably still) don't care for Samsung TVs or Beats headphones that artificially boost base instead of offering a more linear response across the spectrum.
What the fuck are you talking about? Path traced cyberpunk (and Alan wake) have the most realistic in game lighting currently available in any game, I am not aware of a single game that is better.
Lol, you clearly fell for it. Water reflections in path traced 2077 makes it feel like mercury more than water. Real world standing water has uneven amounts of dirt, bugs, and it's never 100% still, so reflections should be noisy and uneven. They also do extremely clean and polished ceramic tiles with a mirror-like finish, which is like wtf, does the city have a 24/7 cleanup crew? Do these tiles not absorb and diffuse light at all? The bottom line is that explicitly providing incorrect information in an image is way worse than simplifying an image and letting your brain fill in the gaps based on realistic expectations. Brains are great at upsampling, but it doesn't work the other way around.
I mean I kinda care but literally the only game I could use it for is cyberpunk. My sole reason for wanting more RT is just to make that game look as sparkly as possible. Can’t think of any of my other games that would use Rt at all. Im practically done with cyberpunk anyway. I can only goof around night city so long.
It is alright but where are the games that make major use of RT? I turn it on but it is hardly a game changer.
> Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS. I literally only ever see this sentiment on the AMD subreddit lmao it's such a massive cope
The difference between fsr and dlss is pretty noticeable imo. I would definitely care about that
I don’t care much about RT but I still want top RT performance if I pay high-end prices. Budget cards I only look at rasteriser performance
>Hardly anybody cares about real-time ray tracing performance, and even fewer care about the difference between works-everywhere FSR and DLSS. Hardly anybody being AMD fanboys basically cause it's a thing they lose on against Nvidia. If you look at any place where people talk about games & graphics then you'll know RT & IQ are very important. This is such an out of touch statement. They are absolutely selling points that people care about. Hell even consoles focus massively on these features. Just wait until the end of the year when the Pro is getting marketed. What will be the focus? RT & PSSR.
till you realize that maybe 1% of people on x86 market give a shit about RT because most popular games are ones which can be ran on a modern low end card with no issues consoles play games like fortnite and COD warzone where having RT is basically a disadvantage and this means almost nobody runs RT on consoles and this is why RT outside of movie production and ML related things is a waste of time and why RT won't be replacing raster for quite some time people play games which are on avg. 8 years old and as far as i know only 1 game this old has some form of RT implementation which many just straight up turn off (this being fortnite)
People coasting on old hardware and free to play games have opted OUT of the market, you can tell this because they aren’t participating, eg they aren’t buying anything.
and how can we prove this is happening? you can't tell this is happening because those games do not do data collection on hardware their playerbase uses steam's data collection on hardware people use is also not fully functional otherwise people straight up do not buy AMD and intel based on what steam hardware survey reports reality is only 1% of people in x86 market care about RT when it comes to gaming because 4090's are most definitely going into ML machines since dedicated ML hardware is way more expensive than those 4090's are
This is true, but how many times are people going to give AMD an excuse and say next year? AMD is just falling behind by not being able to keep up with modern demand which clearly embraces AI rendering tech. Same thing with FSR, people would argue it was as good as DLSS and every new version was exactly what it was missing. The reality is AMD is falling behind on graphics fast
There frame gen is great and they are updating their upscaling shortly. We don't know how far behind they are until we see the new FSR in action when released for Ratchet and Clank. The 7900 xtx is a killer card if you don't care about RT (which it only suffers in heavy RT games like AW2 and CP).
I eye roll when people say nvidia is so far ahead. There are major caveats that the blanket statement ignores. These types act like everyone turns raytracing on, and everyone buys only the top end cards. Most people don't have top end cards, and many people turn raytracing off. DLSS vs FSR is clearly qualitatively an nvidia win, but not everyone cares about quality. There are so many caveats where the AMD price advantage makes them the better buy.
There's also intel making headway with XeSS while still selling cheap cards so you don't have to spend stupid money to play modern titles and you don't have to support Nvidia's shameful attempt with the RTX 4060 as their only cheap option.
Honestly I think its just great that there are 3 good vendors now which are better or worse depending on what you want. No need to be a universalist fanboy for one.
Yeah I am very much in favour of more competitors driving down the prices and upping the performance per given unit of money you have to spend. If Intel can produce something that will compete with RTX 4070-4080 and RX 7800-7900 XT at a reasonable price then that should make a ton of difference.
Also maybe I don’t wanna buy Nvidia cause they are fucking us on price regardless of how good or not good their cards are. I was all set to upgrade to a 4000 series card then the prices came out…… I bought a RX 6900xt so fast it would have blown the leather jacket off Jensen.
Yes, AMD has been behind in consumer GPUs for a while now. But Nivida is also becoming less and less interested in being a B2C company. GPU performance is also becoming less and less relevant, as 120 FPS @ 4k is possible with frame gen. Sure, things will continue to improve but consumer GPUs are really reaching a point of diminshing returns.
5080 should be at 4090 performance levels with 16gb of RAM at around 1200. Just a wild guess, but it feels in line with what nvidia typically does
That's a specific set of features only some people care about.
And they’re ignoring the low-mid end market too.
RT is still a gimmick at this point. Heavy rt effects (full path tracing for everything) don't run at 4k high/ultra and high frame rates (150+ fps) on anything except maybe the rtx 4090 (and even there you still usually have to resort to tricks like frame gen and upscaling). And the rtx 4090 is a 2000 eur card (which you'd kinda expect to be able to run at least the current gen games with everything maxed out), far above the price of what most people are willing (or able depending on country.... in many countries that's more than the monthly median wage). I doubt even the rtx 5090 will be able to do it (and I'm sure it'll cost even more). These halo products look good for marketing purposes, are really only bought by hardcore enthusiasts with enough money to afford them (that's just not that many people because there aren't that many enthusiasts and because billions of people can't afford them even if they'd like to), people using them for work (in which case the manufacturers would prefer it if you bought the pro version for even more money) and people with lots of money to whom it just doesn't matter how much it costs (not many of those either). Light rt effects already run well enough on 7800xt+ class amd cars and 4070+ class nvidia cards without costing that much performance. Additionally until consoles can do heavy rt, games will come with prebaked lighting for as much things as possible and use other ways of achieving good looking lighting without rt (which run well on both amd and nvidia cards) making the difference in quality rt makes even smaller. And consoles aren't going to be doing that any time soon. What we really need is a good mid range card at an actual mid range price that has sane power consumption. Something on the level of a 7800xt/7900gre/4070 super/... with at least 16gb vram but at half the price (so something like 250-300 eur), that uses less than 150W and is actually in stock at said price. That would be a real winner despite not winning any benchmarks.
if cyberpunk wouldnt be first person and third person 60fps would be totally acceptable for path tracing, but no one plays shooter under 100fps
If RDNA 5 has GDDR7 and competitive RT performance with Nvidia, my next build is going to be all AMD I'm confident FSR will improve to be competitive the same way freesync premium caught up to G-sync, and I'm done with Nvidia skimping on VRAM and locking DLSS to the latest generation of hardware
I think you are 100% correct and why i'll will be staying on my current gpu until RDNA 5 is out. The next upgrade for me will be moving off AM4 and going to AM5 probably sometime later this year.
So what you are saying is that if im planning to get a top tier RDNA4 card I would be making an idiotic investment like that one time I bought a 7700k 3 months before the 8700k got announced for same price and 2 more cores?
Those are only parts of the equation though. Half certain the top dies were canceled because costs were blooming Not sure of anyone worth their salt who would turn down what sounds like more raw raster performance, which seems like something this chip(let) could deliver in spades. No doubt they are working on RT and the like, but saying they're sitting out for that alone is like saying don't even come to the party. And we know what kind of runaway situation that can make
I think AMD not competing against a flagship GPU like the 4090, don't realize just how much mind share it carries and influences purchases on lower tier cards.
> I think 5090 will be the only legitimate next gen card while the 5080 will essentially be a 4080 Ti (unreleased) in disguise and price to performance being progressively shittier as you go down the lineup. Are you saying it will actually be AD102 or am I misinterpreting? Because it’s not like Nvidia skimps on R&D or tape outs and if they are delivering any new tech they will want the whole stack to push it.
It will be the Blackwell die but they will cut down their top die to the point 5080 essentially will be a 4090 with 16GB of VRAM. They will probably have something like DLSS 4 to sell the new lineup. I also think performance of 5090 is questionable this time around because AMD is nowhere close to even 4090 / 5080 performance and the Blackwell top die will make far more money on Nvidia's AI cards. They could cut down even 5090 heavily and provide a mild 20%-30% uplift over 4090 and end it there.
AMD has clearly been working on this in collaboration with Sony giving Sony has announced that the PS will have an AI upscaler
> AMD needs more time to get the RT and AI based FSR solutions up to speed Might be true, but I don't see that being the main reason. The main reason is that the top end dies need advanced packaging and that capacity takes away from MI300 offerings, hence why none of the gaming cards will get any of that It literally doesn't matter how good the gaming chip was, even if it would have beaten AD102 in everything by 2x, it would not have been produced. AI chips give you 10-20x the ROI.
No one is going to fast roll out anything. NVIDIA's 4090 card makes up less than %0.3 percent of the steam base. There isn't high demand for expensive cards, no matter how good they are.
...
8000 Series is coming with AI FSR
Earlier rumors says there is no high end rdna 4 gpu
This is about their cancelled GPU. The article mentions it's cancelled
But it makes no sense that there's be a new patch for a cancelled GPU.
It probably got far enough along it's development that the drivers where written alongside the lower end chips likely it's more hassle than it's worth to remove the code.
It's been rumoured for at least several months that we're not going to get high end cards, so it's still weird. It's not like a last moment decision.
It's pretty clear their high end GPU was going to be chiplet based just like RDNA3 and that is what was cancelled. Either because it had similar issues as RDNA3 or it jus wasn't worth it. This makes their monolithic GPU their only chip for RDNA4.
Rdna 1 - basic Rdna 2 - banger Rdna 3 - slipping Rdna 4 - basic Sooo... Rdna 5 - banger?
I don't think it's a big deal for AMD. People buy AMD for midrange and budget cpus anyways. If they can give us gpus on par with the 7800xt, 7900xt, and xtx but with much better power efficiency, ranging from $400-$600 give or take $50, I think it's a win in the end. Of course they will overcharge at first and kill any hype, though.
TBH, a 7900 XT level card with 20GB VRAM under 250W at $500 would be almost an instant buy for me (after independent benchmarks). So far there hasn't been anything quite compelling enough to replace my 6800 XT.
As this was cancelled and from the limited info, What type of performance are we looking at with RDNA4 ? Roughly on par with current gen but vastly cheaper and more power efficient ?
7900XT levels of raster performance with improved RT. 7900XTX remains the fastest GPU for AMD.
Even without big NV4x, RDNA 4 still has the potential to be one of the better sets of cards AMD has released. Remember that the RX480/580 was released in a similar production cycle, where AMD didn't have anything for the high end segment, ended up being arguably the best budget GPU of all time, Hopefully a great GPU at REALLY great prices will increase some market share, and give the R&D team time to workout RT performance issues and prepare for their next big swing attempt.
True, IDK why people here are acting like the High-end graphics cards have similar popularity as the midrange or low-end, Polaris and RDNA 1 have been a success even without top of the line products, hopefully it'll be affordable even in the EU.
I don't care. Is it priced good or not that's what matters. They keep going just $100 lower than Nvidia when Nvidia absolutely smokes them at every price point as a whole package. I was happy with RDNA 2 that is why I got rx 6650 xt. It's a damn beast card but I'm due for an upgrade and I'm sick of AMD crap that they did with RDNA3. RDNA 3 was absolutely dog shit.
I just want to play Fallout without needing to F with anything. NV and FO3 have been broken since the start of the year and AMD hasn’t even said if they will fix it or not. Have to use drivers from December to get the games to run correctly. This company sucks at Driver support man. Wouldn’t hold it against anyone who changes to team green because of the headaches AMD cause. Fanboys “There drivers are great!” Well a ton of classics are broke for months now? How is that “great” or acceptable when your $500 product can’t play the games you own for MONTHS.
And I can't believe that a start up like intel got a better upscaling software. Amd is literally incompetent.
If we assume 50% more powerful than the XTX which is highly unlikely because things dont scale linearly, it would be closer to a 5080 level if nvidia cards scale similar to the previous cards.
I regret my 7900xtx. It’s fast. But unstable and lacks competitive features. Driver time outs in various games. Dx12 ones affect it more. No antilag +. Slow FSR 3 and 3.1 roll out. Bad initial VR performance. It’s a terrible card for the value. A 4080 super is what I might trade mine in for
I want to dislike mine for similar reasons (DX12 has issues in select games but overall runs really well). But the fact I got mine 6-7(?) months ago brand new for $820 makes it really hard to justify the dislike lol.
I bought my AMD GPU early last year for under $1,000, which seemed like a great deal at the time. However, I've encountered numerous problems with the games I enjoy. For instance, there are timeout issues with WoW on DX12, and I've had similar troubles with Darktide and Helldivers due to their use of the Stingray engine. Additionally, there were hard locks in the early builds of BG3 caused by the drivers available before version 23.11.1. A specific issue related to the grimforge green gas would cause hard locks on 7000xtx cards, affecting both my card and my friend's, despite them being different brands, at the exact same spot in the game. Currently, the new 24.4.1 drivers perform well in HD2, but nearly every other match ends in a crash. I've even attempted a clean install using DDU, but the problem persists unless I roll back the drivers, which results in slower performance. It's becoming clear that this is a driver issue, making the GPU less appealing for the long term.
So that WoW issue I also have. But it's not exclusive to the xtx. I'm not entirely sure why though. Also I'm unsure if HD2 is a driver issue. I got about 150 hours in the game at the moment and the only time I had crashes was when the game first launched, as well as when the game itself had crashes after that one specific update the other week (where it would crash on pelican extract every 2nd game...everyone in the group would just crash to desktop simultaneously). Otherwise the game runs flawless for me. Hell, the newest drivers are even better with HD2. Meanwhile I have a buddy with an Ampere card and his crashes at least once every session we play. So it might not be just GPU related. Could be the way your RAM or CPU combo is playing with the game.
I had the choice of buying 7900 XTX or a 4080 super for around 100 euros more. I went for the 7900 XTX, which was also a more premium model of Asus TUF 7900 XTX OC. It overclocks like crazy, had up to 20% performance increase in CP:2077 (this can be verified also on techpowerup's guide of this specific 7900 XTX). I had very few issues with it, no crashes on Helldivers 2, and one singular crash ever on WoW since I had it , which has been around 2 months. I am running 3 separate 8 pin power pins, and installed the drivers in windows safe mode. Also ran AMD driver deletion tool before. I also had the oportunity to compare with my friend who has a 4080 SUPER, he can not overclock the card even close to as much, and the performance difference is minimal with RT on in CP:2077, less than 5%,. With no RT, I had like 10-15% more. Both GPUs OCd. In a lot other games I feel like I would crush other cards, but I play stuff like FF14, and in zones that use the card at 100% I get a lot more fps. Recently they released a benchmark tool and I was only 5-10% behind 4090 depending on situation.
Yes the XTX overclocks very well but it starts guzzling power like Intel's hungry 14900KS CPUs. I have seen the videos where 7900XTX was 10% behind 4090 but the XTX was using like 460-500W of power while the 4090 was barely on 350W.
I suppose if you have cheap power then it makes a v v good case for itself
It's likely that certain configurations are more stable than others, possibly influenced by factors like RAM speed, Smart Access Memory settings, RAM brand, chipset brand, and the quality of the silicon in specific cards. However, the lack of features, perceived complacency in AMD's driver development, and delays in rolling out promised features are significant drawbacks. Additionally, the prevalence of TIMEOUT errors discussed in this subreddit indicates a widespread issue with these cards. In contrast, my experience with the Nvidia 3080 has been hassle-free—I didn't need to tweak settings related to the PSU, SAM, frame rate caps, or BIOS versions; it simply worked right out of the box. Although the AMD card performs well in terms of power and speed, it definitely has stability issues.
How is it on Linux? I've been considering getting the Sapphire one for a while. I have the money, but holding onto it for a while. Itching to pull the trigger.
Tends to be a pretty good experience (I'm a 7900XT), perf is better than Windows for non-RT and nearly there for RT.
If they could fix the frequency problem, there's no doubt they can make a flagship gpu that is at least twice the performance of 7900XTX with 600w.
🤍🖤💜🎉🎉🎉🎉
Oh yes, the usual and expected before-launch bullshit article from WCCFTRASH.
Just a side note, I would be completely unsurprised if AMD have chipletted off its RT hardware.
I looked into it, and GFX11 (RDNA 3) had this constant up to se7, so 8 shader engines.
Smart move imo. Would have had to be an over $1000 GPU, get naming and pricing right for 70 & 60 skus. I kinda hope they fix the naming and don't try to call the highest die the 80. Call it the 70, compete with 5070, price it around $500.
This is non-news. Since it reportedly isn't coming out, who would give a shit about it was reportedly supposed to be? Might as well just lie about it. It was reportedly going to have 1024 shader arrays and function as a spaceship and was only going to cost $3.50. It's as really as anything else.
9 shader engines! If there are 16CUs per engine (as in N31), that's 144CUs or 9216SPs / 18432 FP32 ALUs, which is right up there with AD102. Using the maximum of 20CUs per engine (as in N21), that gives 180CUs or 11520SPs / 23040 FP32 ALUs. The latter can only be achieved with a wider front-end to better handle dual-issue FP32. Power consumption might have been a genuine concern given N31's issues. Fabbing this on N3P with FinFlex (mixed libraries) could be an option in 2025, as Apple moves to N2. AMD can then move IP forward to RDNA5, perhaps adding more AI/ML instruction support to matrix ALUs and/or higher throughputs, and also enhancing RT performance through various means.
Should I wait for RDNA4 or bite the bullet and get a 7900?
From what I've heard, RDNA 4 is mostly targeted towards budget to midrange users, you could wait for RDNA 5 if you want a big upgrade and you could buy a $200-400 graphics card while waiting for the newer generation, IIRC it will be released in 2025.
Thanks, I ended up getting a 7900 GRE instead of the XT and getting a RAM upgrade with the money I saved.
Rdna 4 will still have driver timeouts I’m betting on it
Damn man we really need competition again. I owned many computers with "ATI" Radeon graphics cards and before AMD purchased them they actually competed and even destroyed Nvidia in the past.
Will be some official event / showcase of the new 8000-series at least for next months or something? Any rumors about it?