- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 7,310
Tell us how you really feel. How do you feel about the 5060 ti having more vram than the 5070?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
2027/2028 Nvidia/AMD/Intel GPU speculation
- Thread starter Marees
- Start date
I think it's not powerful enough to take advantage of the vRAM for what I do/play hence why I spent more and bought the 5070 over it
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/rtx-5070-vs-rtx-5060-ti-16gb
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 7,310
Kind of similar to how the 9070 gre is to the 9060 xt with 16gb. I got you.
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 463
It is actually worse for AMD in recent times:
And looking at Jon Peddie Research numbers, AMD is at 8% of global consumer slaes for the last 2 quarters.
That mean that developers are les sinclisned to spend time optimizing for a shrinking market share and there is zero "console effect" for AMD
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 7,310
I think your take is very valid. Why support a sinking ship? In terms of discrete cards in the context of global sales, I think a bit of it has to do with market penetration. M&P shops and computer stores in places outside of the US, do not have the variety of stock, equal to that of what we have here and a handful of countries. I mean, brand reputation can set trends that hurt or enable competition that can last for years. Just look at Bud Light, then look at AT&T. I mean, Intel had to pay over a billion to AMD because of it. At the same time, with smaller stores, they can be very loyal to the brands they support, and nothing wrong with that. I just don't think it is as simple as AMD slow, because the competition has been mostly relative between price or performance between AMD and Nvidia. In terms of sells, that has been a different story for a host of reasons.
Last edited:
I feel this could mean the opposite, the console effect is so big and important than despite the under 10% market share on PC, lot of game engine (of game engine with recent history of very strong console sales) are deeply optimised for them, Call of Dutys, Assassin Creeds and so on.
A 6800xt often beat a 3090ti in Call of Duty games, not sure that happen without the console effect.
Also JPR number are discrete client gpu, which would include RTX 6000 workstation (and now AI cards) where Nvidia dominate a lot, for gamings AMD could still be above 15%.
In recent generation, Nvidia has been just enough ahead to be nimble to respond, cutting price/releasing super series to match AMD the moment they gain share.
They are just a little bit better in their design while a monster in supply chain now, the gap is not that big but the "21.9 billions" 181mm of older 5nm family node 5060ti match the "29.7 billions" 199mm of fancier TSMC N4P FinFET of AMD 9060xt really well using a bit less power, they could at any point offer it for less money....
If you have the better brand, the better technology and the better supply-distribution chain at the same time, that can make you a bit coca-cola over pepsi and discouraging, you cannot just cut your price to oversell them, their product cost less to make and the R&D amortized over more units, they could for a month of course until Nvidia respond.
They do their best when the market become a buy anything available during crypto, until they get the best product in term of better performance for the marginal cost to make it, it will be hard for them to be aggressive price wise to gain share, the PS6 gen that let them push the R&D dollar on it is a good bet, they have a chance on those.
many don't realize, at one point in 2024, Microsoft was the biggest publisher in the world
the X in xbox stands for directX. so if you make a game optimized for directX13 on xbox pc/console/cloud store then you are optimizing for RDNA 5
going forward unreal engine will have separate branches, one for PC/steam directX (nvidia) & one for xbox directX (AMD)
as long as xbox lives, & they are also a top publisher, then games will continue to be optimized for Radeon.
I know this a typo DX13 but it is a good jumping point here, the reason there is no DX13 released and maybe will never see it is a bit the same that optimising for DX12 or that optimising for DX12 mean your optimising for a specific GPU does not really make sense in 2026.
DX or vulkan became such thin system wrapper that they do not mean much or do much, you cannot optimise for them, they are thin layer with very direct access to the GPU, when you use those you need to optimize for the GPUs specific advantage and limitation.
The fine wine in AMD reputations turned into vinegar. Dropping support in designs still being sold to second maintenance drivers while Nvidia is supporting like DLSS to Turing class cards and much more. Knowing your video card will be supported a long time, a card passed down or sold at a higher value can influence sells. AMD FSR 4, limited initially to current generation RDNA 4 when they had it working on RDNA 3 is an example. While Nvidia DLSS went back to Turing cards.
If I was not buying a high end card, why would I care who supposedly had a top tier card? I want a card that gave me the best bang for the buck. In this case for general gaming. AMD to me rules below $900 all the way to APUs. Why would someone else buy a lower performing game card with features that really are not that usable for that level of card is beyond me to explain. Buy what you want, don’t use the top tier card line like the 5090 as some sort of proof that the crappy card you bought will perform better. That is just silly.
If I was not buying a high end card, why would I care who supposedly had a top tier card? I want a card that gave me the best bang for the buck. In this case for general gaming. AMD to me rules below $900 all the way to APUs. Why would someone else buy a lower performing game card with features that really are not that usable for that level of card is beyond me to explain. Buy what you want, don’t use the top tier card line like the 5090 as some sort of proof that the crappy card you bought will perform better. That is just silly.
we've been essentially hearing this same argument just with the wording mixed around since the consoles went all AMD in 2013 though, 13 years ago
And has been true all along and particularly obvious right now, despite very low market share, games still optimise a lot for AMD gpu (to the point that many engine run better on them, like COD, assassin creeds and so on), one would think one reason for this, is the console being such a large user base for those title.
It has been oversold when some said that the 6800xt would age so much better than the 3080 and so on, Nvidia large pc market share and active relationship with studio made sure of course game would run well on Nvidia has well, but it was a safety valve, about not have to worry about RDNA 2 aging badly regardless of AMD market share on PC, because studio would need to make their game with a ~6700 in mind for the console, which they do.
And it would be self-detrimental to those same studios to not optimize for 80% of the PC market (Nvidia) when putting games out on PC and to only target/optimize for 20%
Unreal Engine 5 and Unity don't run better on AMD - and those are the the most commonly used cross platform game engines - so by your logic that the above is true, then those should be in there with the COD and AC engines - yet they're not - different engines just perform differently on PC due to different developers etc
What you guys are arguing - could be refuted by your own logic/argument even (if it were true which it is not) - Nintendo Switch/Switch 2 runs Nvidia HW and being low powered would require the most optimization(s) for games - thus Nvidia would theoretically benefit the most and have the most to gain from the most optimization work needing/being done for it's HW/SW features/etc
Last edited:
I am not sure what is being argued here.
My point is that without console, the amount of effort going into RDNA 2 type gpu would not be has big considering how small AMD pc market share has been in recent times, i.e. there seem to be an console effect.
The 7800xt do beat the 3080 in silent hill for an example of a new unreal 5 games and i am not sure there would have been that much effort into software Lumen if not of having AMD (consoles) gpu in mind in unreal dev, that feel something like that had console in mind and assured Unreal 5 game would run quite similar on both.
Of course, I doubt many studio do not detect gpu and do not have shaders for Nvidia (and probably still by generation not just maker).... they are such a big part of the market that it is a given, at least I did back in my very limited days in game dev. They probably use more capacity, wavefront size, cache size then going by hands and models like back in the days but for doing the same. Game drivers will do a lot of the work has well now.
Firstly, 7800XT was released in 2023 and RTX 3080 in 2020 - try comparing it to a more apt RTX 4080 released in 2022 - but for sake of argument - one example(s) does not disprove a rule - it highlights it - and can be chalked up to as said above different engines/games/ect have different developers working with different codebases thus with different outcomes as a result of all those variables (along with who sponsors a title between AMD/Nvidia lending more close direct developer support as well) - every Unreal 5 game would perform better and every single engine at that if they were optimized for 'AMD first' as stated/claimed
in terms of keeping the hardware alive and available to buy for PC? - sure
in terms of giving that hardware any performance benefit over Nvidia on PC? - nonexistent and imagined completely to highly over hyped and highly over exaggerated at best/most
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 463
- Consoles are low margin products and stagnant for years.
- Droppping to 8% of sales for a quater on the dGPU AIB market is bad, dropping to 8% for 2 quaters in a row is a disaster as consumers vote with their wallets.
- AMD are chasing NVIDIA features and dropping behind in visual quality. DLSS is better thna FSR, Ray Reconstruction is better tha Ray Regeneration, RTX remix have ZERO competation nor does DLSS5.
- NVIDIA features are getting implemented into to standards, like Opacity Micromaps (OMMs) and Shader Execution Reordering (SER)
AMD has been late to DXR (sub par performance), they are trailing behind in features and sales are have dropped hard.
Even worse if you compare:
- DLSS to FSR integration (number of games)
- Ray Reconstruction to Ray (number of games)
- NVIDIA exclusive max RT/PT settings in games
Reality does not agree with you.
Which part of the message you quoted exactly ?