Here are AMD's Radeon VII Benchmarks

ecktt said:
People still defending this cards?!

If AMD wants to sell this card at a loss while white knights fan boys defend their sensibilities, lets them. Thanks for what little competition AMD offers.
If people want to wait till next month to buy a card without PhysX and RTX for the same price (and propbably more) instead of a card that available NOW, let them. You can't argue with stupid.
When people have to go as far as saying the CEO is a douchbag as a technical argument, what hope is there for a resonable discussion? Your time is better spent else where.

Want to discuss something....Why did AMD have to use an Intel CPU to bench their card in the first place?
Click to expand...
An upgrade from my 1070 SLI was going to be the 2080. However the 2080 still has the same framebuffer limitiations as my 1070 (8GB) and useless RTX.

Right now, an (old - 2017) game I'm playing (Shadow of war) with high res texture pack already eats > 8G. This means the 8G cards are useless for top eye-candy. My next upgrade will be 1080Ti or AMD new Radeon VII.

Nvidia should have gone with 12G on the 2080, really...

Full Disclosure: I have a 1440p Gsync monitor & a 1080p Freesync for my RX580 based box.
 
/dev/null said:
An upgrade from my 1070 SLI was going to be the 2080. However the 2080 still has the same framebuffer limitiations as my 1070 (8GB) and useless RTX.

Right now, an (old - 2017) game I'm playing (Shadow of war) with high res texture pack already eats > 8G. This means the 8G cards are useless for top eye-candy. My next upgrade will be 1080Ti or AMD new Radeon VII.

Nvidia should have gone with 12G on the 2080, really...

Full Disclosure: I have a 1440p Gsync monitor & a 1080p Freesync for my RX580 based box.
Click to expand...

You, sir, have provided the first reasonable argument I've herd. Everyone else has concentrated on bashing the competition and yet some how missed the fact that AMD massive 16 frame buffer could be usefully in those circumstances.
 
ecktt said:
...and yet some how missed the fact that AMD massive 16 frame buffer could be usefully in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

Still missing the 'allocated' versus 'used' part. The 16GB of VRAM is 'extra', the same way putting 8GB on an RX560 or GTX1050 would be.
 
bGm0 said:
About RTX features one thing i ve found that can compete with DLSS is,
https://github.com/GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs/RadeonProRender-Baikal/pull/193

For this and RadeonRays one has to remember that RVII presentation said +62% OpenCL.
Of course the game usage and optimization will dictate real results but if they close the gap on some effects...
Click to expand...

A big plus would be getting it running functionally without the main dedicated hardware. DLSS goes hand-in-hand with RTX for Nvidia, as they'll need to be leveraged together to get the kind of performance demanded and move beyond the initial implementations seen in BF:V.

AMD already has non-hardware ray tracing in the stack, so if they can a DLSS-like setup going and get it tested in an engine or two, they'll have a chance to catch up from the software side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bGm0
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top