Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You mean the benefits of having to have completely different work arounds and hacks for shit RT can't do that Rasterization can? People are acting like RT is some savior, it's not, and never has or will be. It's a DoA tech that only serves to make the current problems worse, not better.I am underwhelmed as well. But I am interested in seeing if AMD comes up with some type of inexpensive solution to ray tracing using a $50 GPU for example. Many of the ray tracing haters on these forums don't really understand the big picture benefits of moving to ray tracing over traditional rasterization. Or they just hate anything that comes from Nvidia.
They said before the reason they do that is because it's the most commonly used high end processor on the market. Just like they previously used the 6700k for their test benches before the 7700k.Not the best PR move that they used an Intel CPU to bench their new GPU.
Not that it matters to me: I'm not buying it until I see an [H] review, if even then.
I got my GTX 1060 6GB new for $190 in June of 2017. I get ~4K 60FPS in most things with some settings tweaked. I'm waiting for the next card to replace this at the $200 price point.
3dfx for life.
For people saying to take these results with a grain of salt, the vega 64 numbers match up to review site benchmarks almost identically (guru3d anandtech etc)
This old man is out of the gpu game... I miss "great gpus for 130-170$" from 2001-2015 or so. Those days seem to be long gone.
"some settings tweaked" = running shit at low/mid for anything that actually stresses the video card. I'm running on a 2080 and it's only just acceptable at 4k resolution in any graphic intensive games. So I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your 1060 being able to push 4k/60 solid.
Anyone willing to spend $700 on a GPU probably already owns something powerful enough to make this card unattractive.
Doesn't change what he said. You can grab a 1080Ti for $500 easily.
AMD zealots are equally as useless. Both sides ultimately are once it turns into a red herring fest that ignores facts.
Unfortunately Jensen Huang is right to call it underwhelming. GTX 1080 TI levels of performance for $700? It's not out now either but something around June. By June Nvidia will have a RTX 2070 Ti and would have lowered the price of the RTX 2080. This shit is so predictable it hurts. Their CPU's has the right price and the right performance but their graphic card pricing is just as bad as Nvidia's RTX 2060.
This Radeon 7 shouldn't be more than $550. What's their new Radeon mid range cards going to cost, $350 like Nvidia's? I'm just going to sit here with my RX 480 and watch both Nvidia and AMD have poor sales. I'm not paying $350 for a $200 graphics card that can't do Ray-Tracing, and it fucking can't, and AMD's alternative is probably going to be just as bad if not worse. Meanwhile RX 480's are going for around $100 used, while used 1060's are $150~ish. AMD and Nvidia can both eat a bag-o-dicks.
Navi needs to get out of the gate and fast and when it does, it better be able to take on the latest Nvidia Titan by double digits just so they can hang with the 3080Ti when it's released.
So basically, this is the card AMD should have released instead of the Vega 64 back in 2017. It's about 10% faster than a 1080Ti, and on par with a 2080 minus Raytracing, PhysX and CUDA at about the same price.
At this rate, AMD is screwed to low and mid range status and need a generational leap to catch up. Navi needs to get out of the gate and fast and when it does, it better be able to take on the latest Nvidia Titan by double digits just so they can hang with the 3080Ti when it's released.
Correct - Navi is Polaris replacement.Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Navi is more of a replacement for RX500 series?
Correct - Navi is Polaris replacement.
You're right. screwed up on that part.Correct - Navi is Polaris replacement.
They use Intel because it paints the AMD GPU in the best possible light.They said before the reason they do that is because it's the most commonly used high end processor on the market. Just like they previously used the 6700k for their test benches before the 7700k.
I'm looking at the cheapest regular priced Vega 64 on NewEgg, not even looking around for sales.
Vega 64 : $399.
Radeon 7 : $699
2080 : $699
So 30% increase in performance as of right now for $300 more. Overclocked a bit and tweaked the Vega 64 performance has been shown to really increase. At the same price point as the newer tech 2080...I think that the Radeon 7 will be the best thing to ever happen to Vega64 sales! Come oooooonnnn Canadian prices![]()
Yes and NO.But can the Vega 64 do acceptable 4k?
A
No shit Sherlock if it was 1080p, I'm just saying what their reasoning for it they gave. Either way at 4k Intel or AMD processor means absolutely nothing so take the crap somewhere else.They use Intel because it paints the AMD GPU in the best possible light.
If a Ryzen could get equal or more FPS to Intel out of the GPU, you really they'd stick to the Intel anyway because "it's the most commonly used"?
Get out of my office.
Just standing back and watching this unfold... of anything positive, Radeon 7 was the first nail in the coffin of G-sync.
No shit Sherlock if it was 1080p, I'm just saying what their reasoning for it they gave. Either way at 4k Intel or AMD processor means absolutely nothing so take the crap somewhere else.
ryzen2 is not out yet and most benchmarkers use the intel chip for higher (current) IPC.
This is the current industry standard. not sure what your crying about.
"some settings tweaked" = running shit at low/mid for anything that actually stresses the video card. I'm running on a 2080 and it's only just acceptable at 4k resolution in any graphic intensive games. So I'm gonna have to call bullshit on your 1060 being able to push 4k/60 solid.
Pretty sure it's the fact that they.. who make said Ryzen CPU's, aren't even bothering to promote their CPU's with their GPU's for best performance...
Which IMO.. is Kinda funny that they used Intel over their own product to show off how good there other product is.. they simply used the competitors as if saying were not worthy.. but that's how I interpreted his comment anyways...
At least they can make a "1080Ti" and yes it is late and that's not optimal, but the main issue here are how valid are 1080Ti performance now, and what price do the competitor sell that performance at.So it's basically a 1080Ti at $700? How many years late?