M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,042
4x RT performance with minimal FPS impact
Wouldn't 4X Performance have to mean 4X the FPS ? I mean 4x performance that does not impact fps, wth does that mean?
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.
4x RT performance with minimal FPS impact
Wouldn't 4X Performance have to mean 4X the FPS ? I mean 4x performance that does not impact fps, wth does that mean?
But since the bottleneck with RT games is RT performance 4x RT performance would have to mean 4x FPS in RT enabled games, no? Or at least the FPS the game has without RT.4 x RT performance is just that...4 x RT performance.
Everything you reduce/remove a bottleneck...a new one appears.
It is not rocket science.
I can explain it for you, but I cannot understand it for you.But since the bottleneck with RT games is RT performance 4x RT performance would have to mean 4x FPS in RT enabled games, no? Or at least the FPS the game has without RT.
It's not rocket science it is stupid wording. I assume what they mean is due to the 4x RT performance enabling RT in games has minimal FPS impact. But in this context it doesn't read like that.
Be careful, you might fall off your imaginary high horse.I can explain it for you, but I cannot understand it for you.
But since the bottleneck with RT games is RT performance 4x RT performance would have to mean 4x FPS in RT enabled games, no? Or at least the FPS the game has without RT.
Be careful, you might fall off your imaginary high horse.
We'll only be seeing whatever the market wants to pay. Same as always. A company like NV doesn't price a product arbitrarily with no market support. If the market wants to pay $5000 for a GPU, the price will be $5000.
AMD is in a tough spot because they'd have to produce a product substantially more powerful at same or less cost, since Nvidia's marketshare, inertia and brand halo status factor heavily into buying decisions.
Thats simply not true. In a monopoly the market pays what the manufacturer wants (within reason). That’s why competition is so important. I desperately want AMD and Intel to come out with competing products so that consumers have choice and aren’t constantly at NVs mercy.
Like AMD/Intel would act differently lol
AMD is not your friend(nor is Intel)...the first company to charge +$1000 for a CPU.
If ANY company can earn money, they will...hillarious how some people think a company has their best "interest" in mind.
They care about stockholders...and they are a business, not a charity.
Ah...we are back to "Wait for...".I don't think that's what he said. What he said was that if AMD comes out with a competing product, they aren't at nVidia's mercy and he's right. If AMD has a card that trades blows with nVidia's then nVidia has a reason to keep their price down, lest they want to lose customers to AMD.
Ah...we are back to "Wait for...".
Excuse me while I fall asle...zzzzZZZZzzzz...
Wouldn't 4X Performance have to mean 4X the FPS ? I mean 4x performance that does not impact fps, wth does that mean?
Are the masses going to vote on prices? I didn't get my ballot.
Like AMD/Intel would act differently lol
AMD is not your friend(nor is Intel)...the first company to charge +$1000 for a CPU.
If ANY company can earn money, they will...hillarious how some people think a company has their best "interest" in mind.
They care about stockholders...and they are a business, not a charity.
similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_lawLet's take a situation where 80% of the time spent computing a frame is due to the shaders and 20% is due to the RT cores crunching.
If you quadruple the RT performance, then RT cores would be down to 5%, which is a total frame time reduction of 15%. That means that the same frame now takes only 85% of the time to compute as the original, which is a 17% boost to frame rate.
In a frame where the time split is 50/50, the quadrupling would result in a 60% boost to frame rate.
This is all assuming that no other bottlenecks are encountered along the way.
As someone else said: It's not rocket science.Let's take a situation where 80% of the time spent computing a frame is due to the shaders and 20% is due to the RT cores crunching.
If you quadruple the RT performance, then RT cores would be down to 5%, which is a total frame time reduction of 15%. That means that the same frame now takes only 85% of the time to compute as the original, which is a 17% boost to frame rate.
In a frame where the time split is 50/50, the quadrupling would result in a 60% boost to frame rate.
This is all assuming that no other bottlenecks are encountered along the way.
As someone else said: It's not rocket science.
Assume the game runs at 120 fps without RT, but if you turn RT to the max setting the FPS drops to 30, due to the limited RT capacity. Which is not an unrealistic scenario given that people were struggling to get 30fps out of some games.
Now if ampere has 4x RT performance then that game would have to run at 120 fps, because we already know that without RT it can do 120fps.
Ummm that is literally THE market force. Everything else (competition, pricing etc) ultimately leads to the same question. Do I want to buy this thing.
When you are dealing with a monopoly over a product you really don't have a market. A market by definition is voluntary. When there's no choice, the nature of it being voluntary vanishes, and pricing of products is no longer dictated by the consumer. Halo products are not really dictated by the consumer especially without competition. If a vast majority of people can't afford your product then there is no decision to be made. Halo products are designed for marketing not mass sales.
If competition leads to the same question "Do you want to buy this thing?" and there's a lack of compeition then obviously the impact of the "market force" would be impacted would it not?
Are the masses going to vote on prices? I didn't get my ballot.
When you are dealing with a monopoly over a product you really don't have a market. A market by definition is voluntary. When there's no choice, the nature of it being voluntary vanishes, and pricing of products is no longer dictated by the consumer. Halo products are not really dictated by the consumer especially without competition. If a vast majority of people can't afford your product then there is no decision to be made. Halo products are designed for marketing not mass sales.
If competition leads to the same question "Do you want to buy this thing?" and there's a lack of compeition then obviously the impact of the "market force" would be impacted would it not?
Just now saw this. Correct.Thats simply not true. In a monopoly the market pays what the manufacturer wants (within reason). That’s why competition is so important. I desperately want AMD and Intel to come out with competing products so that consumers have choice and aren’t constantly at NVs mercy.
There's competition at the bottom everywhere AMD, Nvidia and Intel compete in the space.A monopoly on a luxury good isn't the same as a monopoly on a necessity. Simply not buying a video card is always an option. Maybe high pricing means upgrading on a 4 year cycle instead of a 2 year cycle. Maybe it means falling back on buying used GPUs or waiting for integrated graphics to catch up. There are loads of examples of monopolies which failed simply because the target market was no longer interested in the product.
If [H]'s naive concept of economics were correct, then Nvidia would be charging $5k for their lowest level card. I mean, they have a monopoly, right? So, like, you're literally forced to give them money, right?
Competition has driven all of those prices downward.Competition doesn't always drive down pricing. Look at cars for a couple hundred examples of this. Or gaming monitors. Or gaming mice. Or [.....]
If there's only one choice then you aren't voting.Ever wonder why there's the phrase, "Vote with your wallet?" Hint: it isn't about smashing that like button with your crypto stash.
You have several choices. Sure you are not getting the best but you got other choices.Just now saw this. Correct.
There's competition at the bottom everywhere AMD, Nvidia and Intel compete in the space.
Competition has driven all of those prices downward.
If there's only one choice then you aren't voting.
Nvidia doesn't really have a monopoly at all, there are choices.
I don't know, most of the cross-platform AAA titles on PC are fairly hacker free. Be it COD:MW, Sea of Thieves, etc. They've gotten pretty sophisticated on locking things down on the PC. I haven't seen many hackers in these games, and because they are crossplatform it means playing console won't save you from the PC hackers anyways. In fact, playing console just limits you because of frame times and if you use a controller you're extra boned.I think the end of this year is going to get interesting. Consoles are getting higher refresh rate options, crossplay, and mouse/kb support thats more broadly adopted. If I can get 100 frames with 99% less hackers, I may not give a shit about a 3080ti.
Correct, the GP
Exactly, the GPU market is nowhere close to a monopoly. If you look at just gaming it’s far from a monopoly with many platforms available for gamers to choose from.
Prices of discrete GPUs aren’t going up because of a monopoly. They’re going up for several reasons, one of which is that buyers are willing to pay more. People seem to be ignoring that important factor.
Well some are willing to pay more, volume is down quite a bit, but profit per unit is up so it's balancing out. Will be interesting if they dare to test it further by increasing prices again.
Volume at which price point though? There are great options for all budgets these days.