Newegg is listing Radeon RX 6700 XT, 6800 XT and 6900 XT specs in its blog

wow what a wall of bullshite above me!

 

6GB makes no sense to me, didn't they(AMD) said that some time ago, or something similar; also less RAM than the 5700XT

 

You don't need more than 6GB for 1080p and if the price is right it will make sense.

https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/89/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k/index.html

 

Thanks for elaborating with your thoughts clearly explained. Except you know I'm right, at $650 or even $600 vs $700 people are going to choose nVidia more often than not.

 

If AMD's RT and DLSS type solutions arent flawless from the start, expect even less people to go with AMD and hoping it eventually catches up.
FWIW, Nvidia is on the "second gen" of those techs atm, and a lot of ppl dont want to try out 1st gen tech....many didnt want a RTX2K series for the same reason.

 

I hate to disappoint but there is absolutely no ETA for AMD's version of DLSS, I don't even know if it'll see the light of day. All I know is that they're working on something.

I'm hoping they'll tell us something during their Oct 28 announcement.

 

We're paying attention. We just don't see Newegg as a credible source of spec info. If it was a rumor about NVidia, from the same source, I'd have the exact same response. Not a credible source. For me, Newegg is quickly losing it's position as a credible e-tailer in general.... Everyone who would have access to accurate information regarding specs, would be under NDA. Since Newegg has no need for product specs at this point, I would expect that they haven't received such information.

When did DLSS become the premiere feature of a graphics card? Personally, I'd prefer a card that can adequately render graphics at the desired resolution....not one that has to "upscale" an image rendered at a lower resolution to achieve adequate framerates....

We have no idea where AMD is actually at in their RT implementation. All we know is that AMD stated they won't release an RT capable graphics card until they could fill an entire product stack. That doesn't mean that the first release will truly be the first iteration. I'd venture to guess that even NVidia's first release was not their first iteration of RT implementation.

Many didn't want an RTX2K card because they were/are ridiculously overpriced. There was also that whole issue of lacking feature support at launch. For a lot of us, there still isn't enough support for RT to justify the cost. There's also people like me, where RT will likely never be a contributing factor in the decision of what card to buy.

 

It's taken ahold of mindshare in the gamer world, so it doesn't matter how good it even is, it matters now in the minds of buyers, at least those I've spoken to (and what I've seen online) make it seem that way to me. As for my personal view, it got my attention when I saw how well DLSS scales 1440p to "8K" in Control. That's a LOT of guess work, and yet the result is amazing. 8K native was getting something like 7 fps on an RTX 3090, while the 1440p "8K" DLSS version was getting 70+ fps.

It's obviously nowhere near real 8K but it supposedly looks better than 4K which is incredibly impressive. DLSS is now something to really consider when looking at performance, it's no longer a blurry joke or a half-assed way to squeeze out a few more frames.

 

I was wondering this myself. But I guess it's better than FXAA (or Quincunx AA):

I personally do think RT-performance is more important, but like you said:

Says to me it should be at least similar or better than 2080Ti's RT-performance, on the lowest specced card (RX 6700).
But I'm also curious how the overall Image Quality will turn out when compared to nVidia's solution...

 

I don't care if it doesn't beat the 3080, as long as it does it with a reasonable power draw. My Fury is getting a bit long in the tooth and needs a worthy replacement.

 

What makes you think that? The TDP? NV's efficiency evolved poorly in this gen: the 3080 needs nearly +100W to be much better than the 2080. The 1080 was a bit faster compared to the 980, and only needed 10W extra.

 

Calling 60 to 80% higher performance "a bit faster" is highly misleading...

 

Oh, so more rumors and more rumors?

Again, keep the hype low otherwise you're going to be disappointed, and what's the point of that?

I'd be glad to be surprised, but no, i hold a 99.99999% chance the 80cu card will not be above 2Ghz

And again, if you end up being even remotely right, sweet! But what you're expecting is AMD to pull a rabbit out of its hat, and expecting that there's no reason the xbox series x is not above 2Ghz.

Think logically, not hyped.

 

Reason for Xbox is simply keeping things low power.

 

So why not request a cheaper to make, less CU count, higher frequency chip? Not saying go down to PS5 CU count, somewhere inbetween, to hit the same power and performance

Even the Series S doesn't use high frequency CUs

Depending on how the PS5s RDNA is customized, i don't doubt that SOME RDNA2 chips will be able to hit in the 2Ghz, but just because a 36CU can hit 2.23Ghz, literally means nothing about what a full 80CU can do.

 

That is true it doesn't mean that 80cu will hit 2.2ghz. Now I can imagine AMD hitting those numbers with better 7nm process and rdna being tad better. But yeah I think it comes down to power envelope and so. I do believe the 40cu part will easily go over 2ghz.

Tho even with both xbox consoles it might come down to power envelope and cooling. And of course no need to bin really awesome chips for the S. I can imagine it keeps costs down tad too. And of coures ps5 runs at boost clocks while it could be MS wanted to have stable all the time at certain clocks.

Anyway you are right about the fact that it means nothing regarding the 80cu part tho I can still imagine it being close to 2ghz.

 

Well thing with the PS5 is the 8 cores of Zen 2 attached to the 36CU's, so no doubt a 80 CU with potentially bigger die size meaning better thermals per square inch than possibly the APU of the PS5, can hit higher sustained clock speeds than the PS5 with Big Navi 80CU RDNA2. Stronger 7nm process from TSMC also helps AMD hit clock speed goals for RDNA2.

 

they are not late, they are on their roadmap as announced. it's a coincidence that this time both nvidia and amd will release something so close. if the produce is good, they will price them only a little lower than nvidia, just look the price for the ryzens now that they are so competitive.

you just can't buy the 3080 now. so we will talk back when it will be available again (looking for the frequencies now that they have those problems..). if there will be only the customs 850+$ cards you will have to compare that prices not the paper-launch 719$ one.

DLSS sounds very good, point will be a full compare watching frame per frame both FPS and image quality

 

Why is anyone worried about 8K framerates? Unless you own an 8K display and use it for gaming, 8K framerates don't matter. Most gamers don't even own a 4K display.....

 

I know they intended on having it on shelves months ago, so whatever that updated roadmap was (or shown to begin with), it was already a heavy delay even if they didn't tell the public. But that's not even what I'm talking about, they're late if realistically offering competition against nVidia was the intent. Tens of thousands of people already have orders for 3080s in.

As for getting one, my local shop allows back ordering and they get stock every week, worst case scenario 2, AFAIK. So no I can't buy one instantly, but a 1-2 week delay isn't a big deal vs potentially waiting until next year if AMD don't have real stock and even my local shops can't backorder one for me. I don't know why I'm that pessimistic about it, stock shouldn't be an issue the since yields are (supposedly) fine from what I've heard. I just expect the worst when it comes to AMD offering an alternative to nVidia. We'll see if there's any real stock Nov 11th I guess... unless that's delayed.