AMD teases new Big Navi Graphis card and Ryzen 9 5900X combo

Considering a 1660 is plenty for most users and overkill for the vast majority of gamers, I'd say it doesn't matter in the slightest what they are at. Overhyped? By who? You? Or?

 

GPUs should be tested on same machines. Or at least on machines with the same CPU and RAM configuration.

 

Not bad and if it's bellow 700€/$, it's a win imo.

 

10% or less behind 3080, beyond 3070 by a comfortable margin, 1 month from release and without GDDR6X, i'm impressed and hyped. We dont even know which ship we re talking about in the stack.


They'll have time to finetune their position regarding Nvidia stack.
Looking forward to more infos.

 

AMD showed us performance of their own hardware. Big Navi and Zen 3. A quick preview. The comparisons are being made by people here at the forums have neither Big Navi or Zen 3. What do you expect?

 

DX12,DX12,DX12
Stood out to me,
clearly cherry picking their best results.

 

The future is DX12... I'll ask them next time to show some DX9 games too.

 

mmm the future is both DX12 and DX11, they are co-developed.

That being said I don't think it's a big deal that they only showed DX12 games. I'd just like to know more about how they were tested, what settings, what CPU, etc.

 

I guess...

The CPU was a 5900X.

 

Yeah... this is a bit of a concern to me. Since AMD ostensibly doesn't have dedicated RT cores and is already 10% behind the 3080, that doesn't bode well for raytracing. As of today, I don't consider that a big loss, since Nvidia's raytracing performance isn't especially impressive and I'm not impressed with how games are implementing it (I think it's a very impressive technology, but puddles and semi-glossy walls are NOT good uses of raytracing) but I don't upgrade my GPU often so I'd like something that isn't going to be immediately obsolete.

More specifically: UHD@60FPS without a hefty price tag. I'd say the 2080Ti is already capable of 4K gaming, but, it isn't worth the price.

I'm probably going to get whatever can consistently pull off 60FPS without AA on. I hope that will be something like the 6700 or 3060Ti.

Don't forget about Vulkan, either.
But yeah, it's wise to take any of their results with a grain of salt. I never trust the manufacturer's claims regardless of who it is.

 

Yeah, personally I like Vulkan better than all of them, but the number of implementations is fairly low.. and it's mostly dominated by id who just seems to be really, really good at optimization.

 

You mean during ray tracing workloads the rasterization workloads take a hit because there's no "dedicated" hardware like RTX GPU's?

In an ideal world Vulkan would be the future but I just don't see it happening. Look at Cyberpunk. DX12 only. I see that will happen a lot in the future, especially with newer games on new/upgraded engines

 

if its true , its very good for AMD, if the PRICE is right .

RUMORS are that bignavi will scale better than 3080 at 1080/1440p

 

Well, I expected what some people in here already wrote. We'd have to take into account that AMD claimed significant FPS improvements from the CPU. Hence, the GPU should be considered less powerful than perceived. For example, if the 5900x + RX 6x00 has 10% less performance than a 10900k + 3080, and the 5900x is 10% faster than the 10900k, then we should assume that the RX 6x00 is about 20% slower, not 10%.

 

Yeah pretty much. So basically, if it's 10% slower in games without RT, I imagine there would be a substantial hit to performance with RT.
However, next-gen consoles do intend to have RT support. I don't know how they're supposed to pull off 4K with RT, so, perhaps there's more to the architecture than we know.

 

From what we've seen it seems like they are going to pull it off at 30fps. Also I find it interesting that most of the next gen titles we've seen with RT focus on reflections only - I wonder if they are just cheaper to do and/or offer the most obvious visual improvement.

 

why publish results showing slower performance...

Borderlands 3
3080 69 fps dx11 4k
6000 61 fps dx12 4k
11.5% slower

Gears of war
3080 76 fps dx12 4k
6000 73 fps dx12 4k
4% slower

3 weeks to find out.
I think overclocking will be better on the 6000 and will close that gap.

 

"They" being consoles? Because I suppose that makes sense.
The whole thing about reflections is why I currently don't really care too much about RT performance. We've had good reflective and semi-reflective surfaces for years; RT offers a minimal visual improvement for a major performance deficit in that regard. I'm far more interested in the secondary lighting effects of RT since that's the difference between highly detailed vs realistic.

 

It makes no difference in 4k really. If nothing 10900k overclocked would still match 5900x.

 

If it's like 10% slower than 3080, BUT has 16GB RAM, AND you can actually buy it, it's gonna be a win (assuming there won't be any driver/software issue this time).