ModEl4The rumor that I read is QHD 6900XT performance (i suspect -5%-7% at 4K) which means 6800XT 4K performance.
I didn't hear anything about a specific SRP but for a SRP range ($399-499) which frankly is the correct path since a lot can be changed till launch and also AMD like any manufacturer test the waters before the launch with targeted leaks, it's nothing new really.
The one that i certainly heard was that the "main" version is 8GB (if not the only version) which means that we have according to you $499 for 8GB version (correct me if my interpretation of what you suggest is wrong).
Now if we have a 16GB clamshell version then i bet $579 SRP since the 8GB version is $499, right?
it can't be $549 with what AMD's pricing practise was the last year...
So after 2 years AMD proposing the 2020 $649 6800XT 4K experience to be at $579?
That's a bargain?

4K ultra will never become mainstream and financially easy to get, so the 7700XT that might match 6900XT for ~$500 will be enough for 1440P ultra for the next few years. I just hope those prices are true since that will make the used market and the lower than that level of performance GPUs very approacheable. 2 x 5700XT performance for $500 and close to the same power draw wouldn't be something to talk down me thinks.

HD64G4K ultra will never become mainstream and financially easy to get

With 4K monitors being on discount below the 200-euro mark, and large part of the enthusiasts working with 4K, 4K is already quite easy to get and it is the mainstream choice among the enthusiasts.

Also, virtually all new TVs are 4K.

HD64G4K ultra will never become mainstream and financially easy to get, so the 7700XT that might match 6900XT for ~$500 will be enough for 1440P ultra for the next few years. I just hope those prices are true since that will make the used market and the lower than that level of performance GPUs very approacheable. 2 x 5700XT performance for $500 and close to the same power draw wouldn't be something to talk down me thinks.

Never say never, just kidding.
Why it has to be Ultra, you can make very meaningful deductions in settings to gain performance.
The problem with a $499 SRP for the Navi33 8GB model will be the competition.
Cutdown AD104 (i suspect 184TC vs 240 of the full chip) it will probably be around 26-32% faster than RTX 3070 (184TC) depending on frequency and i don't think a RTX 4060Ti or whatever Nvidia calls it to be higher than GTX 1080 price ($499).
So full Navi33 will have very similar performance level with cutdown AD104 and AD104 has 12GB memory, sure AMD may price it the same, it has done craziest things in the past, but street price at least in Europe will be lower in order to sell...

HD64G4K ultra will never become mainstream and financially easy to get, so the 7700XT that might match 6900XT for ~$500 will be enough for 1440P ultra for the next few years. I just hope those prices are true since that will make the used market and the lower than that level of performance GPUs very approacheable. 2 x 5700XT performance for $500 and close to the same power draw wouldn't be something to talk down me thinks.

1440p had its decade, its time for 4K to shine. 4K should become mainstream with 6900XT and 3080Ti performance in the mid-range cards. Its time to give 1080p the boot and make 1440p the standard for the e-sports fans. 1080p can join the retirement heap with 720p and 480i.

Guwapo771440p had its decade, its time for 4K to shine. 4K should become mainstream with 6900XT and 3080Ti performance in the mid-range cards. Its time to give 1080p the boot and make 1440p the standard for the e-sports fans. 1080p can join the retirement heap with 720p and 480i.

Steam says you're a few months if not years early for that.

Guwapo771440p had its decade, its time for 4K to shine. 4K should become mainstream with 6900XT and 3080Ti performance in the mid-range cards. Its time to give 1080p the boot and make 1440p the standard for the e-sports fans. 1080p can join the retirement heap with 720p and 480i.

Lol, 1440p barely started taking off in the last few years. Decade? Not even close.

As for 6900XT and 3080 Ti performance hitting mid-range cards .... only if your definition of mid-range is $500 and up. Which used to be the high end a few generations ago.

windwhirlSteam says you're a few months if not years early for that.

It's years, many years for 1080p, but regarding Navi33 he replied about a Q4 2022 $500 level product (so not really mainstream) with supposedly close to RX 6800XT 4K performance, so the 4K comment «that it's time for 4K to shine» is valid imo for those that will buy such product, but it doesn't mean that the steam survey will change overnight, i mean how many are they gonna buy $500 reference, $600 OC, plus potential inflation level cards in order to change the steam survey much?

Minus InfinityThey made a decision not to waste precious silicon on RT cores when RT is still limited in availability and the performance hit is huge.

Is it?


www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6900-xt/38.html

Although, it is, when one uses crippleware like Control, which even has separate codepath for AMD GPUs.

ModEl4It's years, many years for 1080p, but regarding Navi33 he replied about a Q4 2022 $500 level product (so not really mainstream) with supposedly close to RX 6800XT 4K performance, so the 4K comment «that it's time for 4K to shine» is valid imo for those that will buy such product, but it doesn't mean that the steam survey will change overnight, i mean how many are they gonna buy $500 reference, $600 OC, plus potential inflation level cards in order to change the steam survey much?

... to be fair, I was being incredibly generous with that "few months" phrase :laugh:

windwhirlSteam says you're a few months if not years early for that.

Steam's level is very low. These are mostly users from the second/third/fourth world, without money to upgrade.

Can you explain the high 1366x768 and 1440x900 results?

1920x1080 67.32%
2560x1440 10.49%
1366x768???? 5.89%
3840x2160 2.57%
1440x900???? 2.15%

ARFSteam's level is very low. These are mostly users from the second/third/fourth world, without money to upgrade.

Can you explain the high 1366x768 and 1440x900 results?

1920x1080 67.32%
2560x1440 10.49%
1366x768???? 5.89%
3840x2160 2.57%
1440x900???? 2.15%

Easy: People using old, cheap laptops to run very lightweight games.

I think 1366X768 is a standard laptop resolution.

I keep regular tabs on 4K and it has only gone up by 1% over the past 4 years in the Steam Hardware Survey. It probably never will become mainstream because at the same time that faster GPUs get released games require more and more resources and speed to run.

64KI think 1366X768 is a standard laptop resolution.

I keep regular tabs on 4K and it has only gone up by 1% over the past 4 years in the Steam Hardware Survey. It probably never will become mainstream because at the same time that faster GPUs get released games require more and more resources and speed to run.

I don't think 1080p is going anywhere, though I do think 1440p will slowly creep up closer to it. The thing is, 1080p even on a 27" monitor looks ... well, fine. It's not that visibly low resolution in motion like 720p or even 900p would be at that size, it's widely supported, cheap, and easy to run. I see 1080p sticking around as the dominant resolution for the foreseeable future for this exact reason, with 1440p gaining some more marketshare if the prices keep dropping. But that latter point is crucial: prices haven't really been dropping in the last few years; rather the price ceilings for all kinds of PC peripherals and components have skyrocketed. Where a $500 monitor was premium a decade ago, that's now "mainstream" (though the actual mainstream is still more like $200), and premium monitors are now $800+, and easily $1000+ for the really fancy ones. It's the same as we're seeing in the GPU market, the same that has happened over the past decade with smartphones, and the way technological development in general is going: the era of drastic cost cuts due to rapid improvements in production methods and equipment is coming to an end, and instead we are seeing additional features and performance add on top of previous base costs instead of replacing previous products at the same cost.

IMO, the future for tech enthusiasts must entail a radical shift in attitude, making more conscious long-term purchases at higher prices and keeping them for longer as it simply won't be feasible to quickly upgrade to something tangibly better a few years down the road.

ValantarThe thing is, 1080p even on a 27" monitor looks ... well, fine.

I can't stand 1080p even on smaller 22 or 24" monitors because I see the grainy images - the individual pixels are too large.

The difference between 3840x2160 with 8.2 MPixels and 2560x1600 with 4.1 MPixels is noticeable.


What is 4K PRO-UHD and why does it have lower resolution than standard 4K UHD? | BenQ US

ARFSteam's level is very low. These are mostly users from the second/third/fourth world, without money to upgrade.

Can you explain the high 1366x768 and 1440x900 results?

1920x1080 67.32%
2560x1440 10.49%
1366x768???? 5.89%
3840x2160 2.57%
1440x900???? 2.15%

I occasionally game on older laptops when laptop-restricted and both have 1366x768 screens.
My kids game on 1440x900 screens. If they want something better, they can figure a way to buy a 1080p screen.

Lew ZealandI occasionally game on older laptops when laptop-restricted and both have 1366x768 screens.
My kids game on 1440x900 screens. If they want something better, they can figure a way to buy a 1080p screen.

My old laptop from 2008 was with a 1440x900 screen. Core 2 Duo T-something, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, HDD, VGA GF 8400M... long long time ago.

ARFSteam's level is very low. These are mostly users from the second/third/fourth world, without money to upgrade.

Can you explain the high 1366x768 and 1440x900 results?

1920x1080 67.32%
2560x1440 10.49%
1366x768???? 5.89%
3840x2160 2.57%
1440x900???? 2.15%

Because only whatever demographic you are thinking of exists :rolleyes:

Also, Steam is the only one offering statistics with a somewhat high userbase to take data from. So, while it should be taken with a grain of salt, it's somewhat reliable info.

Reality is 4k won't steamroll anything until a few more years at the least, if it ever does. Not to mention, there might be reasons why a 1080p/1440p panel might be preferred over a 4k one.

ARFI can't stand 1080p even on smaller 22 or 24" monitors because I see the grainy images - the individual pixels are too large.

Also, that's a you problem, due to whatever eye condition you might have (whether your sight is basically in perfect state or the complete opposite) and the distance from your eyes to your monitor (which also have a say in which size of panel you'd prefer).

ARFI can't stand 1080p even on smaller 22 or 24" monitors because I see the grainy images - the individual pixels are too large.

The difference between 3840x2160 with 8.2 MPixels and 2560x1600 with 4.1 MPixels is noticeable.


What is 4K PRO-UHD and why does it have lower resolution than standard 4K UHD? | BenQ US

... way to take a quote out of context, and then read it as saying something it explicitly does not? I mean, I get that reading comprehension is difficult, but let's see:
- I never said higher resolutions don't look better (often by quite a lot!)
- I specifically said in the following sentence that in motion, it isn't very noticeably low resolution
- I never said this applied to every person on earth (myself included!)

I did say, and I quote: that it looks "fine". Not good. Not great. But not crap either - unless you either have very good eyesight or are spoiled by higher resolutions - like I am. Heck, personally I would never go below 1440p for my main monitor - but that's not mainly due to gaming, but rather because of the other uses the monitor has. I sort of agree with you about 1080p - my secondary 24" 1080p monitor could definitely stand to have some higher pixel density for what I use it for. But that isn't gaming, and motion resolution is very different from static pixel resolution on LCDs, and is just as dependent on response times as it is on pixel count. It's pretty easy to find a 1080p panel with better motion resolution than a 2160p one.

Does a good 1440p or 2160p monitor look better than a good 1080p one, each running at native resolution? Yes, all else being equal. But for most people, other factors start getting into the equation at that point - which I also covered above - factors of cost, access, processing power, etc. The 1080p monitor you can afford looks better than the 2160p one you can't afford; 1080p high or equivalent at 60+ fps looks quite a lot better than 2160p at low-to-medium 30fps, etc. And, crucially, you can get a good 1080p monitor in the ~$300 range. For gaming, that is. You won't find even a passable 2160p gaming monitor below $700 - below that they're all 60Hz office monitors with slow response times. Which, again, will likely have significantly worse motion resolution than that $300 1080p gaming monitor.

Also, it's downright hilarious to see someone use one of those terrible "this is what resolution looks like" comparison marketing photos in a discussion. Like ... do you honestly think that is representative? Or that it somehow tells me something I'm not familiar with? Heck, they don't even illustrate resolution well in the first place! (And the photoshop work is really lazy!)

Look if it works it should live on, so old laptops, your last gaming pc ,old monitors, they live on in others hand's plus their are way way more skint members than upgraders.
I know.
As for 4k a lot are getting their main family TV upgraded to 4k so adoption is increasing but Timmy isn't getting Csgo on that.

CS GO at 3840x2160 is super cool.

Valantar... way to take a quote out of context, and then read it as saying something it explicitly does not? I mean, I get that reading comprehension is difficult, but let's see:
- I never said higher resolutions don't look better (often by quite a lot!)
- I specifically said in the following sentence that in motion, it isn't very noticeably low resolution
- I never said this applied to every person on earth (myself included!)

I did say, and I quote: that it looks "fine". Not good. Not great. But not crap either - unless you either have very good eyesight or are spoiled by higher resolutions - like I am. Heck, personally I would never go below 1440p for my main monitor - but that's not mainly due to gaming, but rather because of the other uses the monitor has. I sort of agree with you about 1080p - my secondary 24" 1080p monitor could definitely stand to have some higher pixel density for what I use it for. But that isn't gaming, and motion resolution is very different from static pixel resolution on LCDs, and is just as dependent on response times as it is on pixel count. It's pretty easy to find a 1080p panel with better motion resolution than a 2160p one.

Does a good 1440p or 2160p monitor look better than a good 1080p one, each running at native resolution? Yes, all else being equal. But for most people, other factors start getting into the equation at that point - which I also covered above - factors of cost, access, processing power, etc. The 1080p monitor you can afford looks better than the 2160p one you can't afford; 1080p high or equivalent at 60+ fps looks quite a lot better than 2160p at low-to-medium 30fps, etc. And, crucially, you can get a good 1080p monitor in the ~$300 range. For gaming, that is. You won't find even a passable 2160p gaming monitor below $700 - below that they're all 60Hz office monitors with slow response times. Which, again, will likely have significantly worse motion resolution than that $300 1080p gaming monitor.

Also, it's downright hilarious to see someone use one of those terrible "this is what resolution looks like" comparison marketing photos in a discussion. Like ... do you honestly think that is representative? Or that it somehow tells me something I'm not familiar with? Heck, they don't even illustrate resolution well in the first place! (And the photoshop work is really lazy!)

Of course that it is representative - that is exactly what is seen live in front of one's eyes.

Well, 1080p on a 27" monitor does look bad - it is not year 1998 in order to accept it as "fine".
Look at the Retina smartphones displays - they are such exactly because you can't put no more a bad, low-quality 600x400 screen on a 5-6" smartphone screen.

1080p keeps going for two main reasons:
-ugly political support without reasoning;
-people don't think and don't care, just wait for something to fall from the heavens...

Bomby569The problem wasn't so much the MSRP (it meant nothing in the last gen cards) but the increase in MSRP (it still impacts the final price plus scalping fees, even if by a little) but all the BS that went down on the low end cards that made them even less apealing, the price/performance thing compared to cards in the past.

By BS, what do you mean, the limited features on Navi 24? That's the RX 550 replacement and the die size is pretty much set in stone. So if you wanted more of anything else you gotta sacrifice shaders. It should be a $120 card no doubt.

Lew ZealandI agree that these lowest end products need to be minimally good, which they are not. However that question won't be answered until a year or more from now.

It seems that since ~2019 the focus is on:

1) Highest end performance, increasing cost and power with little sensible limits, creating many new above-top tiers.
2) Former mid-tier (6, even 7- level) moved up to previous top-end cost, performance and power (ie: nothing actually improved for the consumer).
3) Lowest end gets minimally better with little to no price movement.

Bleah.

So AMD use old nodes for their cheaper cards on latest gen?

ARFCS GO at 3840x2160 is super cool.



Of course that it is representative - that is exactly what is seen live in front of one's eyes.

Well, 1080p on a 27" monitor does look bad - it is not year 1998 in order to accept it as "fine".
Look at the Retina smartphones displays - they are such exactly because you can't put no more a bad, low-quality 600x400 screen on a 5-6" smartphone screen.

1080p keeps going for two main reasons:
-ugly political support without reasoning;
-people don't think and don't care, just wait for something to fall from the heavens...

Remember this is an enthusiast forum run by a tech enthusiast orientated website. Whilst steam data is real world data. Tech reviewers tend to only mostly bother with AAA game testing, and focus on what enthusiasts look for in a product, but the reality is the vast majority of games played are not AAA titles, and most people are happy enough with 1080p or below.

For me personally I use 1440p, as 4k on a 27 inch screen everything would be too small for desktop use and I also feel its a decent performance/quality trade off, note that downscaling from 4k still has nice benefits of which dont need a 4k screen for. Also one thing I observed as well is that modern AA standards at least prior to DLSS and FSR are very poor, e.g. play star ocean 4 on a PS3 and then play it again on a PS4 or PC, there is a lot more visible jaggies etc. due to how rubbish the AA is, especially the hair on the characters. AA quality is as important as resolution for image quality.

Lew Zealand seems to have got it right where we seem to be transitioning to a market state that is driven by the enthusiasts instead of the mainstream. Seeing 120hz support on consoles was a real eye opener, as I dont know anyone personally who gives a damn about that. The take up of that feature must be really low, I be surprised if its over 10%.

Guwapo771440p had its decade, its time for 4K to shine. 4K should become mainstream with 6900XT and 3080Ti performance in the mid-range cards. Its time to give 1080p the boot and make 1440p the standard for the e-sports fans. 1080p can join the retirement heap with 720p and 480i.

Fully agree and get rid of garbage 16:9 format. Hell even most non-budget laptops are now 16:10, why no change on the desktop? I want a WQUXGA 3840 x 2400 for my desktop or even better 4096 x 2560.

chrcolukSo AMD use old nodes for their cheaper cards on latest gen

For me personally I use 1440p, as 4k on a 27 inch screen everything would be too small for desktop use and I also feel its a decent performance/quality trade off, note that downscaling from 4k still has nice benefits of which dont need a 4k screen for. Also one thing I observed as well is that modern AA standards at least prior to DLSS and FSR are very poor, e.g. play star ocean 4 on a PS3 and then play it again on a PS4 or PC, there is a lot more visible jaggies etc. due to how rubbish the AA is, especially the hair on the characters. AA quality is as important as resolution for image quality.

I definitely agree on AA, I used to buy a good GPU in large part to crank AA up to the max, but for some reason now we can't handle MSAA or SSAA and have to make due with crappy post processing AA most of the time. And MSAA implementations are often badly done. About 4K, I know it doesn't work for everyone, but the scaling options in Windows to blow everything up aren't a problem for me.

Minus InfinityFully agree and get rid of garbage 16:9 format. Hell even most non-budget laptops are now 16:10, why no change on the desktop? I want a WQUXGA 3840 x 2400 for my desktop or even better 4096 x 2560.

Always hated 16:9 and was very disappointed to have to buy into it. I've been wishing for a 3840x2400 panel for a very long time. That stupid IBM T60 or whatever it was made me think we would get one a long time ago, but that panel was limited to 30Hz out of the box and 40-something with an overclock. I still want an OLED monitor though even in the crappy aspect ratio. IPS is very stale at this point and I'm not interested in more of the same. Too much stagnation all around.

Guwapo771440p had its decade, its time for 4K to shine. 4K should become mainstream with 6900XT and 3080Ti performance in the mid-range cards. Its time to give 1080p the boot and make 1440p the standard for the e-sports fans. 1080p can join the retirement heap with 720p and 480i.

in what paralel universe do you live? 1080p is the king by an insane margin on steam surveys month after month, year after year. 1440p never got more then 10% and 4k is a rounding error.