Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 23, 2020.
I miss the times were 400 bucks were high-range...
I am hoping to get a 3060/3070 if the price is right. Because any of those two cards will be an upgrade over my 1070.
Prices fluctuate, but, still not a thing
Or do we want to not talk about inflation and talk about how we miss when we could get candy for a nickle?
I'm hoping 4k gaming with a 3070 will be a good option to look to, there's real nice 4k monitor /tele deals out there now.
We can also talkt that in most wester contries the wages did not rise same as inflation... But 400 bucks cannot be a low-mid range GPU.
Got a 3060 in mind, but will wait for reviews ofcourse.
1070 user as well.
Completely agree with you. Cheap VGA card, that is hard to happen anytime soon
Well, still cant come soon enough.
It feels like decades have been paased since i read an exciting GPU Benchmark here in Guru3D. So, for the sake of our pleasure (benchmark-reading-community-never-buying-high-end-stuff) , plz Ampere come soon enough
I got out the pc scene just after all the mining craze kicked off and had a great time with the switch and ps4.
Now the new consoles are about here i'm expecting some great gaming times ahead, just put together my first bulid for years and all i need now is an ampere lol. (will pick up a mid-range to keep me going till then, though this 1030 is doing great at 1080)
What? You saying AMD got lazy with the 5700XT and didn't work hard enough?
This was a new architecture, and on a new node. You also have to look at the position of AMD's graphics division during this time. They were not in a great position and couldn't afford to create a huge die GPU to compete with Nvidia it simply wasn't feasible for them at the time. They were also getting around the new architecture and still learning the new node which had to be completely changed from the previous Radeon VII which was still based on VEGA.
AMD needed to gain some cash and the main way to gain cash in this market is the mid to low end segment, so around the 2060/2070 and below. And this is what they did, they targeted the most profitable area and brought a great GPU to market at a good price. This is what the company needed to do, and whilst they did this you don't think another team was already working on RDNA2 and a much bigger GPU? Using those funds from Ryzen and RDNA1.
Now all we have to do is cross our fingers and hope to god that AMD can bring us a Ryzen level of distruption in the GPU space. I would love for AMD to either match or slightly beat Nvidia with Ampere (3080Ti) but priced very aggressively for then Nvidia to scramble and drop prices. We need a war, its been too long and with new consoles coming with some pretty high end specs we all need a good bump in overall performance.
Seriously anyone looking for a CHEAP vga is likely on 1080@60. You can literally get that for $125-150 now. This idea that the lower priced cards can’t keep up is getting old.
I finished Doom 2016 with a Steam controller and I'm never going back
Also for older games, or even cross-platform games. If you are willing to spend, you will get a superior experience.
It doesn't work this way. If anything, the new games will be on the same size for much better looking assets, or smaller.
The reason Unreal works is that you only need one copy of the asset. You don't need multiple LODs for textures, you don't need multiple copies of each texture, you don't need multiple shadowmaps, multiple 3d models.
You give the engine the high quality assets, and it scales. Also ray traced and real-time lighting models in general, don't need the textures with baked lighting, which means even smaller sizes.
This was also mentioned in the PS5 presentation. A scaling engine with really fast I/O actually needs less assets to work with.
If you have in VRAM texture with size of 4096x4096 and object far away needing to cover just 12 pixels. How many of pixels from this large texture are you going to pull from VRAM into GPU to accurately represent object that would otherwise use something like 64x64 texture?
If you're at 1080/60Hz, anything beyond gtx 1060 is overkill at this point.
Witcher 3 from 5 years ago would like a word with your statement.
Uh I dunno... it ran at 50s on my 290 @25x16 which is cca 20% slower than GTX 1060 6GB. Not maxed ofc, but with ~optimized settings.
This would have been very playable with FreeSync, if it wasn't for damn stutter/dips. Which never got fixed.
Regardless, cranking settings up with older/budget card is silly.
1060 runs W3 about same. Sure, 1060 can get 60fps at lower graphics preset. Or even 80fps on medium.
60s on high preset in Novigrad, come on
It really depends on how the scaling really happens. Once Unreal 5 is out, we can actually see how they do it. Other engines might have different approaches. They mentioned multiple times that their max detail level is 1triangle = 1pixel for mesh LODs, I don't know enough on how they will do it for textures.
All the people involved in this and whose job this is, say that it will work this way. I have zero reason to dispute it, honestly.
You also realize that the "manual" method of pulling that texture, involves an algorithm that does that dynamically in the end. If you replace the extra texture with the ability to scale a single texture because you can fit it in memory or load it instantly, then it's basically the same thing, without the extra texture.