It's great to see Ryzen getting the recognition it deserves. But this would have been more credible if the same "judges" wouldn't have placed Navi above Turing.

bugIt's great to see Ryzen getting the recognition it deserves. But this would have been more credible if the same "judges" wouldn't have placed Navi above Turing.

Pretty much this ! As much as AMD is killing it with CPUs , Navi is nothing special and certainly doesn't deserve recognition over Turing which brought innovation to the table !

xman2007I thought this was sarcasm then read your post history, do your parents know you have unmonitored access to the internet? Seriously the CAPS, the constant childish remarks about amd make you sound about 12 years old. :slap:

He (or she?) took a wrong turn from Wccftech's cesspool. Comments like these are standard there if the article has anything to do with the big 3 (AMD, Nvidia and Intel).
Plus it's trolling and not even a good one.

bugIt's great to see Ryzen getting the recognition it deserves. But this would have been more credible if the same "judges" wouldn't have placed Navi above Turing.

I think there's very strong arguments in favor of RDNA1/Navi, more than what you're probably considering, and the decision for these awards were probably based on much more than just the benchmarks on a halo product that reality isn't affordable for 99% consumers and therefore might as well not even exist (e.g. 2080ti) .

First of all, are we forgetting the (in my opinion, insulting) price gouging that was the "Un-super sized" Turing? And that it was only because of Navi that they lowered prices/gave the super refresh, which just brought Turing to where it SHOULD have been in the beginning with respect to value/price : performance. Also, the 5700xt is quantifiably a better value (in that you literally receive more FPS per dollar spent) than the 2070 super, which is about 7-10% faster than the 5700xt, but 25% more expensive [at best]. Meanwhile, the 2060 super is the same price as the 5700xt while being slower. And it's more than valid to point out that at the mainstream price segments, Ray tracing features could be fairly argued to not even be applicable as the performance cost is either difficult to justify or cannot even be born due to the lack of graphical power itself.

In terms of more innovation, yes, Turing introduced Ray tracing, but for all intents and purposes that was actually only a worthwhile experience on the most expensive and least owned Turing videocards while DLSS, it can be argued, isn't widely implemented to the extent necessary to deem it as a clear advantage in Turing's favor for the overwhelming majority of Turing owners (e.g. 2060S and down) .

Let me end by saying: I'm just playing devil's advocate here and postulating what these reviewers could have considered, so please don't respond with an attack aimed at me personally. All I'm saying is, it's not nearly the "landslide victory" for Turing that you might be imagining and that much more than frame rates were probably considered. I'm sure these reviewers or the committee that decided on these awards considered the consumer's ENTIRE experience and the ENTIRE picture with respect to which hardware gave the most to the consumer for the money spent, and which hardware provided the greatest benefit to the MOST consumers (and perhaps something like the fact that Navi drove the price down on Turing by providing meaning competition, could have been considered in this)... meaning the impressive performance of a halo product, like the 2080ti, isn't weighted as heavily as a product in the mainstream segments... This is a more "holistic" assessment, which I think is preferable as what makes a truly great piece of hardware is comprised by far more than just benchmarks and performance. In my personal opinion, a great piece of hardware not only delivers performance, it democratizes that performance by delivering it at a price that makes it obtainable to a previously unprecedented amount of people (like how Ryzen CPUs delivered more multithreaded performance to more people than ever before).

bugIt's great to see Ryzen getting the recognition it deserves. But this would have been more credible if the same "judges" wouldn't have placed Navi above Turing.

Turing won in 2019 (makes sense as Turing was released in 2018) www.eha.digital/awards/european-hardware-awards-2019-winners-announced/

I'm a bit surprised by the GPU pick given the perks of DLSS/RTX/Mesh Shading from Nvidia. From a perspective of it's hardware however it works on both new and old software AMD's Navi 10 5700XT excluding the 2080Ti halo product is arguably the stronger buy because those things specifically require developer support and will only benefit future game titles in the general sense unless a developer retrofits a old game to support them which rather unlikely in the broad sense because why would they unless the game is still actively selling well which is few and far between.

All of that said I think that the key advantage of AMD's Navi 10 design is simply the standpoint that it'll work great on older titles with big benefits relative to the competition and still work great in future titles overall and especially true in games that don't leverage Nvidia new IP design differences which we'll see much less of overall in the first place in relative gaming terms. We got a good solid decade of older titles that are still very playable and a bunch could be revisited and played today at the highest image quality settings and at higher resolutions and very enjoyable experiences right now today in those scenario's which are still much more likely than DLSS/RTX/Mesh Shading usage overall now and into the future makes the Navi 10 probably the better overall buy from a collective gaming experience.

I've brought up the argument before that continuing with stronger rasterization emphasis is quite a bit more important in the grand scheme of things right now for GPU's. I don't think we've reached a point where RTRT is at a real convergence point as of yet the new consoles could help in that area though and change things given the wider scale reach of them. I think even in the case of the consoles we are going to see rather limited progressive upside on the ray tracing adoption and development front with current hardware available. I think we're probably two more generations away from it taking off to a overall significant extent perhaps one if you consider CF/SLI usage. I just don't believe we are there yet with GPU performance with all the denoise passes required to make RTRT a passable experience and without taking too enormous a performance hit. It's going to be a big hit no matter what when it comes to performance relative to resolution. It remains to be seen if it's worth it at this stage for the limited GPU resources available and Cyperpunk 2077 might be a indicator of that as well if the geometry had to be lowered just to make RTRT presentable enough that's a indication of clear trade off itself. Is it worth faking the shadows and lighting to degrade the geometry detail or are we better off improving geometric detail and optimized fake lighting and shadows!!? We can still improve the fake and optimized IQ detail with higher poly objects and better AA/AO quality and things like that.

obsidian24776Turing won in 2019 (makes sense as Turing was released in 2018) www.eha.digital/awards/european-hardware-awards-2019-winners-announced/

Ah, ok. Then it makes sense.

None of AMD's products are "best" for gaming, whether it is CPU or GPU. What a joke of awards. They're more like participation awards than anything.

dicktracyNone of AMD's products are "best" for gaming, whether it is CPU or GPU. What a joke of awards. They're more like participation awards than anything.

Well done again Dick Tracy, I'll reply to your comment to keep your average up!
I'm looking forward to your next post for the next laugh and the entertaining responses from others.