pas008

So if it’s slower they need to sell it for less than the AMD chip.  Ryzen 2 was slower than top end intel for gaming, but ryzen was reasonably close and it was cheaper so it won.  It’s a pretty simple algorithm.  If you can’t beat them in raw performance, beat them in price/performance.  Theres a point where a chip is so slow that won’t work, but if the new intel is at least close they’re close enough to compete.  These days all that really has to be done is beat a 3700x with an 8 core.  Anything that can do that is competitive enough speed wise.

The purpose of my CPU is to perform billions of binary operations per second. Whichever one does that best for the price within my budget, at the time I am buying, is the one I will buy. I couldn't care less whether the little sticker on the casing is red or blue.
 
That said. it will be sad to see the end of the proper competition between the two brands - AMD becoming complacent is not something we want to happen, at all. (Though hopefully they will learn from Intel's mistakes and not become quite as bad as they clearly have)

We've not seen many games really favouring AMD with this generation of consoles, despite them running Radeon GCN hardware (the architecture AMD used from the HD 7000 series up to Vega). I don't really see why things would suddenly change with the PS5/Series X. They're just as similar to current AMD desktop hardware as the previous gen consoles were a few years ago. If a game favours one manufacturer over another, that's typically because the game is sponsored by them and includes their technologies, rather than because the game is more or less optimised for console architecture.
 
At the end of the day, consoles are fixed sets of hardware and so optimisation for them is done accordingly. For example, instead of writing a function that changes depending on how many cores the system has, console games can have a hard-coded function that's explicitly coded to make better use of the available hardware. Since all PS5s have the same amount of cores available, so there's no point writing code that can take use of more cores than that, so you can cut out that bit of code to save yourself some CPU cycles (this has got slightly more nebulous these days with mid-gen refreshes, but you get my point.) This is why PC ports often max out at using 6-8 CPU threads, because this sort of optimisation is common (and the last-gen consoles also had 8-core CPUs) and they just don't rewrite that kind of stuff for the PC port 'cause corporate deems it 'not worth the effort'. This sort of optimisation is more common (and easier) than optimisation for an individual architecture like RDNA2, at least in gaming.

Moderna vaccine possibly 94.5% effective, and is easier to store and transport than the Pfizer one ;
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/16/moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-almost-95-effective-trials-show
https://globalnews.ca/news/7464825/coronavirus-vaccine-moderna-update/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54902908
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/health/moderna-vaccine-results-coronavirus/index.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/moderna-vaccine-test-coronavirus-1.5803266

And he said it on January 1st, that shoe is going down!  🤣

Hey hey! @leadeater
 
Do you remember? 
 
 
So I did some calculations from Hardware unboxed 18 games tested data. And it turns out that 6800XT is at least 20% faster than 2080Ti in all resolutions. I hope you have more than one pair of shoes, would be pretty cold walking with one shoe during a winter 😁

 
 

In before power consumption doesn't matter. 
because Nvidia lost in power consumption this time.

But it shows the potential of arm even more
If you want to spend Some rnd funds on it
 
Along with nvidia having its chip designing hooks in it which could help push arm farther
 

There's a difference between paying for a product and using that product to make money. Think of it like buying a song on Google Play Music or Apple Music. Even though you paid for the song, you are not allowed to use it in a YouTube video and make money. By no means am I agreeing with him, if developers start charging for licenses to stream their games they are just shooting themselves in the foot, but the argument that streamers already payed for the game isn't a very good argument. 

And what has happened? It's like expecting ARM to suddenly make billions to NVIDIA. These are not short term turn over investments where you'd instantly earn a buck. These are long term investments. If AMD didn't buy ATi back then, there would be no entirely AMD consoles for the second or third generation?. There would be no entirely AMD laptops. There would be no compute clusters crammed with EPYC and Radeon Instinct GPU's. That's what ATi was purchased for. So you have a complete offering. Otherwise AMD would only be selling CPU's and the rest would be done by ATi or NVIDIA. People may be smartasses and complain over it, but AMD buying ATi was one of the best investments AMD could have made.

The real issue with this is the ever popular e-Retailers. If AMD isn't coming out with a new chipset to guarantee support, I don't see why companies don't do similar things as MSI's MAX series. Heck, all it needs is a "Rev.2" slapped in the title, and the problem is solved.

I'd rather they outright ban all political ads right now. Enough with that shit.
 
Who seriously watch a political ad and think "yeah I'm gonna blindly vote for them without informing myself any further past this one ad"

normal people dont use windows? and as ben franklin said anyone who gives up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both

OMG, you trying to tell us nothing is truly future proof?! 😱

That's something that really bothers me with benchmarks and the way people play in general.
They crank everything up to ultra, run the game and then complains about having not enough performance and them needing higher end hardware.
Dude, just turn the settings down a bit. Going from "Ultra" to "Very high" might lower image quality by 5% but you get 15% higher performance.
 
Typically, the higher the settings the less optimized they are, and on top of that there is a diminishing return which makes it even less worth it.
 
 
A lot of tech channels like LTT loves making videos about how awesome high end stuff is, but I think a more interesting video would be "how much visual fidelity do you gain and how many FPS do you lose from going between settings" would be a really interesting video.
Is cranking everything to ultra really a good idea and is it worth it?

Nothing today would require you to, future is future. Like I said everything could change so worrying about what might happen later is pointless, just buy the next new GPU at that point.
 
But also no, the difference some setting make is literally zero visually, when going from Ultra to High.

I'd like to remind everyone that we do not actually know how much VRAM is "enough VRAM".
Only people who have done deep analysis like those at Nvidia and possibly game developers (or some super nerdy hobby person) knows this.
 
You can NOT, and I repeat, you can NOT, look at task manager, see that your VRAM is at 90% usage and then say "I am using 90% so therefore if I turn settings up I will get bottlenecked".
VRAM, just like RAM, scales depending on how much you have. It costs processing cycles to flush your VRAM, so your GPU will rather just save a bunch of junk data it doesn't need than to actually flush it and only store what is necessary. You might be sitting at 9GB used on your 10GB card and think "holy crap I am almost maxing out!" while your GPU is thinking "I only need 3GB but why waste power flushing the other 6GB of of memory when I still got 1 whole GB left that I can fill?".
 
It's the same with regular RAM in Windows. I have pretty much nothing running on my PC right now but it's still using 6GB. That's because Windows thinks "I am only using 20% of the available RAM so why waste power and performance doing cleanup so that I got like 90% free? I'll just keep stuff loaded in case it is necessary, and I'll clean the cached stuff if I have to".
 
So, unless you have actually done some type of analysis which involves actually looking at what data is loaded in the VRAM, you can not say "we need X amount of VRAM and Y is a bottleneck".
Either that, or use the exact same graphics card but with different VRAM config and compare performance. You can not compare two different cards with different GPU cores and different memory amounts to draw any meaningful conclusions about how much VRAM is necessary. Especially not when comparing different GPU generations or brands since they use widely different memory compression and 1GB of VRAM on Ampere for example can be used to store more textures data than 1GB of VRAM on let's say an AMD card from a couple of generations ago.

You can have all the VRAM in the world, but if u cant suitably push the FPS at resolutions high enough to need the VRAM in the 1st place, its essentially useless.
 
I hope AMD can "bring it" to Nvidia, i really do. We NEED the competition, prices are getting insane. At no point should we be seeing Single Chip consumer grade gaming cards above $800.
Dual Chip (essentially SLI) cards at $1000, sure we've seen those before, but $1200 and $1500 single chip consumer cards are obscene and only the result of no competition. We havnt seen such absurd prices ,in mainstream full production cards, in over 2 decades of GPUs, even when u take into account inflation.

Yeah, this is not the first time it has been discussed on this forum. I think it is a bit of FUD being thrown around that if you have any less than whatever AMD gives, it'll be junk. To me, the worst that happens is you turn selected settings down a notch. Only if you need best of best might it make some difference eventually.

If anyone wants to know how it scales with PCIe 4.0: https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-pci-express-scaling/

Here are some written numbers: https://tweakers.net/reviews/8152/1/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-maakt-nvidia-de-hoge-verwachtingen-waar-inleiding.html quite a few written numbers, actually. It's in Dutch, but with google translate or so you'll get quite far, and the graphs should be understandable anyways.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-founders-edition/

Demand comes first before supply. The fact that someone sell 3080 for 1200 dollars tells you that there are people willing to pay for it. Let them get ripped off.

If someone really wants to pay $1200 for a 3080, let them. Let it be their problem. 

If you don't want people to scalp GPUs, convince people that they don't need a new GPU. Consumerism is what causes this.