JustBenchingWell now. Content creators themselves have openly admitted the exact opposite. Like very openly. That the internet is so full of vocal amd fans that they have to make "nvidia / Intel is crap" content cause the clicks are through the roof with those.

Always has been btw. Guru3d back in the day had to remove their 720p gaming benchmarks cause zen 1 fans reacted negatively. Very negatively. I was shocked, I knew things were bad but not that bad.


You mean stuttering? It happens on my 680m as well, it's not just Vega.

It's not stuttering, it's an unrecoverable TDR. It always results in a blue screen when it happens. Will occur at least once out of 20 or 30 times.

Dr. DroIt's not stuttering, it's an unrecoverable TDR. It always results in a blue screen when it happens. Will occur at least once out of 20 or 30 times.

Oh, that's bad. Mine just recovers, basically stutters for a second and comes back.

bgxconsidering there is an abyss between 5070 and 5070ti (despite the similar name), my understanding is that 9070xt will land in between them.

And cost at most as much as 5070, less if the perf is not much better.

And then it will be a very good perf/$ card that will sell (possibly to me).

same perf same price as 5070 is not going to cut it.

I think it's better if it's actually positioned against the 5070 cause it has the extra vram. Against the ti that advantage just evaporates.

AusWolfI'm definitely not saying that only Nvidia has blind fans. It's only that I've seen way more of them than I have on team red.

I suppose that can come down to what we individually see or notice, and perhaps our own biases affect that too... food for thought on all sides.

AusWolfI don't even see why GeForce is seen as a premium brand. The reasons I get are all kind of vague and up to personal choice. It's not as black and white as Ferrari being a premium brand, for example. And if it's not black and white, then it's not a premium brand, it's just marketing and reviewers trying to score some brownie points. When something is premium, you know why. With GeForce, you don't, you just guess.

Over the years it's been features, stable / day 1 drivers, level of polish/lack of issues I've experienced, pushing the envelope on tech and new features and enhancements, all relative to ATi/AMD experiences of old and new. Without any hard evidence at all, I'd happily wager that given a large and broad enough sample size to be able to squash vocal minorities/echo chambers etc, the consensus would be that they're viewed as the more premium brand. I can appreciate some have had the opposite experience, and no I don't think a TPU poll would be a true representation :laugh:

AusWolfYep, let's keep agreeing to disagree there. :)

Although, the same can be said from the other side - FSR 3 really isn't as bad as FSR 1 was, but that somehow doesn't matter.

Happy to. Well it's great to see FSR improve, the issue they have is they're trying to catch a moving target, and the more they accelerate, the more Nvidia does too.

I can say with certainty as a 4k gamer that upscaler quality, performance and broad inclusion in games is very important to me, as I find it to be such a useful tool in optimising gaming experiences to my taste.

If what FSR4/"research project" has shown off is broadly how it looks in other titles and presumably keeps the current adoption pace, I think that's good enough and fixes my major gripes with 3.

JustBenchingWell now. Content creators themselves have openly admitted the exact opposite. Like very openly. That the internet is so full of vocal amd fans that they have to make "nvidia / Intel is crap" content cause the clicks are through the roof with those.

Always has been btw. Guru3d back in the day had to remove their 720p gaming benchmarks cause zen 1 fans reacted negatively. Very negatively. I was shocked, I knew things were bad but not that bad.

I'm only talking from my own experience.

In my opinion, having a preference is fine, but being a fan of any brand is bad. For me, there is no such thing as "brand". There are only products, designed to perform certain tasks. If they do that, good. If they do that cheaper, even better. What other people buy, I don't care. And to me, the word "premium" means better build quality, design and durability, not features of questionable use.

AusWolfI'm only talking from my own experience.

In my opinion, having a preference is fine, but being a fan of any brand is bad. For me, there is no such thing as "brand". There are only products, designed to perform certain tasks. If they do that, good. If they do that cheaper, even better. What other people buy, I don't care. And to me, the word "premium" means better build quality, design and durability, not features of questionable use.

That's because frankly you are sticking your head in the sand. You keep calling them features of questionable use. Well sure maybe that's what the 5% that buys amd thinks, everyone else does not, everyone else that's buying nvidia is telling you why they don't buy amd and you keep refusing to accept it... You asked the question, you don't like the answer, I don't know man.

How can amd sell more cards if it's not catering to the needs of the people that are not buying amd cards?

AusWolfIn my opinion, having a preference is fine, but being a fan of any brand is bad. For me, there is no such thing as "brand". There are only products, designed to perform certain tasks. If they do that, good. If they do that cheaper, even better. What other people buy, I don't care. And to me, the word "premium" means better build quality, design and durability, not features of questionable use.

JustBenchingHow can amd sell more cards if it's not catering to the needs of the people that are not buying amd cards?

Both of you raise very valid points that I agree with 100%

wolfI suppose that can come down to what we individually see or notice, and perhaps our own biases affect that too... food for thought on all sides.

Perhaps... although it's true that I do not know a single person who would never consider buying an Nvidia card, but I do know several who would never want an AMD one even for free.

wolfOver the years it's been features, stable / day 1 drivers, level of polish/lack of issues I've experienced, pushing the envelope on tech and new features and enhancements, all relative to ATi/AMD experiences of old and new. Without any hard evidence at all, I'd happily wager that given a large and broad enough sample size to be able to squash vocal minorities/echo chambers etc, the consensus would be that they're viewed as the more premium brand. I can appreciate some have had the opposite experience, and no I don't think a TPU poll would be a true representation :laugh:

I'd say that some kind of bias affects that, too. I, for example, do not find any need for day-1 drivers. I rarely ever buy games on day one anyway, and when I do, I don't have any issues running them on old drivers.

Another thing is that I've been on Linux for about 3 months now, where drivers work differently. Updates come together with kernel updates, so you never really know which version you're on.

wolfHappy to. Well it's great to see FSR improve, the issue they have is they're trying to catch a moving target, and the more they accelerate, the more Nvidia does too.

I can say with certainty as a 4k gamer that upscaler quality, performance and broad inclusion in games is very important to me, as I find it to be such a useful tool in optimising gaming experiences to my taste.

If what FSR4/"research project" has shown off is broadly how it looks in other titles and presumably keeps the current adoption pace, I think that's good enough and fixes my major gripes with 3.

If I gamed at 4K, I would be much happier to use upscaling. Not just because of the performance need on 4K, but because it works with a larger input resolution, and looks a lot better for that.

JustBenchingThat's because frankly you are sticking your head in the sand. You keep calling them features of questionable use.

I do because despite all the marketing, reviews, and people telling me, I still fail to see why I should spend more money to have them.
1. I'm not a streamer, so all the streaming services, video recording, CUDA and such don't interest me - neither should they interest anyone else who isn't a professional using their GPU for work.
2. RT runs like crap on every midrange card, so it's not a valid selling point there, only on the higher end.
3. FSR exists, and FSR 3 is really not that bad (although I don't like upscaling in general). Not to mention, upscaling shouldn't be needed on a midrange card at 1440p and below.

So for every "premium" feature, there is always a "but". If GeForce was really so premium, there would be no buts.

JustBenchingWell sure maybe that's what the 5% that buys amd thinks, everyone else does not, everyone else that's buying nvidia is telling you why they don't buy amd and you keep refusing to accept it... You asked the question, you don't like the answer, I don't know man.

No offense, but this conversation feels similar to conversations I tend to have with my colleagues who always buy the latest flagship phone on finance just to play Candy Crush and scroll Facebook. They keep saying it's some kind of a premium thing, that my 200-quid Blackview is somehow inferior. I don't know man... I think I can play Candy Crush and scroll Facebook just the same as they can.

Basically, I see the features, I just don't see why gamers pay more money to have them. They're either not usable on midrange or lower hardware (RT), have an AMD equivalent (FSR), or not useful for a gamer (CUDA).

JustBenchingHow can amd sell more cards if it's not catering to the needs of the people that are not buying amd cards?

I agree with that point.

JustBenchingHow can amd sell more cards if it's not catering to the needs of the people that are not buying amd cards?

AMD can put the right price tags. RX 7900 XTX should be $699. It will sell. Else, no.

The gamers know the performance of these, and RX 7000 series is considered a disappointment, flop and failure. Navi 4x is also a flop, because two of the chips were cancelled.
Only Radeon RX 6000 series was something better.

3valatzyNavi 4x is also a flop, because two of the chips were cancelled.

So midrange Navi 4 will be a flop because they cancelled the high-end? Why would people shopping for midrange cards care?

It's like saying that McDonalds is a flop because they don't offer steak.

AusWolfSo midrange Navi 4 will be a flop because they cancelled the high-end? Why would people shopping for midrange cards care?

It's like saying that McDonalds is a flop because they don't offer steak.

What do you prefer - a Mercedes (Nvidia) or a no-name Vietnamese car (AMD) ?

3valatzyWhat do you prefer - a Mercedes (Nvidia) or a no-name Vietnamese car (AMD) ?

Easy - the Vietnamese car because I can afford it.

This question has no relevance in the 5070 (Ti) vs 9070 XT battle. Neither of them is a Mercedes of GPUs (especially not with 12 GB VRAM).

AusWolfEasy - the Vietnamese car because I can afford it.

The majority of consumers don't think so. That's how Nvidia is a well-established brand, with great marketing, while AMD is blamed to have no marketing, at all.
It has, it's simply the company is not liked nor popular.

AusWolfThis question has no relevance in the 5070 (Ti) vs 9070 XT battle.

The 9070 XT will lose it, 99% of the people will buy 5070 (Ti).

3valatzyThe majority of consumers don't think so. That's how Nvidia is a well-established brand, with great marketing, while AMD is blamed to have no marketing, at all.
It has, it's simply the company is not liked nor popular.

Ah, so it does come down to marketing after all! Just as I've been saying for the last 2 or so pages. ;)

3valatzyThe 9070 XT will lose it, 99% of the people will buy 5070 (Ti).

We'll see. For now, the 5070 has only 12 GB VRAM, and the 5070 Ti is considerably more expensive than the 9070 XT. Both are huge negatives, imo.

remekraTbh I'm not sure if even good price can make it sell like hotcakes.
I'm selling my 7900XTX and today I learned from one of the guys that was interested in buying, that my card doesn't support RT and Indiana Jones won't start on it so future games might also not. So he can buy it but for 100$ less than what I listed because if not then he can buy used 4080 that supports RT.

Nvidia market share and even more importantly mind share has got AMD in choke hold.
They would need to go all out, make a better card for every segment basically even the halo one and not 5-10%. Simply make it so that every reviewer can have no other conclusion but to say that AMD gpus is better compared to nvidia offering.

He's right, that's kinda exactly it: More and more games are coming out with heavier and heavier dependency on (full) raytracing / pathtracing. While AMD performing very badly:
www.techpowerup.com/review/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html

Isn't Indiana Jones And The Great Circle the first game that requires hardware support for raytracing? If the makers of the game would have increased the raytracing effects further, AMD would perform much worse than NVIDIA (I'm not sure, but Indiana Jones may not even run on AMD GPUs with the Full Ray Tracing setting enabled), so maybe the makers didn't do it for exactly that reason.
I personally don't care if AMD sells a GPU for 480 bucks, but it has worse upscaling and much worse raytracing performance vs a GPU from NVIDIA for 600 bucks (it's 120 bucks difference spread over a time of one generation/2-2.5 years..that's almost like nothing), which is much better at those tasks, especially if the NV card had the same VRAM amount.
You are right about the mindshare, at some point reducing the price by 20-30% isn't going to be enough or a good of a strategy and instead AMD must improved the perf of those mentioned features (which may be the case for AMD's FSR4 upscaling for what I have seen so far).

10tothemin9voltsIsn't Indiana Jones And The Great Circle the first game that requires hardware support for raytracing?

Second that I'm aware of, if you count the enhanced version of Metro Exodus (still one of the most beautiful games ever made)

10tothemin9voltsHe's right, that's kinda exactly it: More and more games are coming out with heavier and heavier dependency on (full) raytracing / pathtracing. While AMD performing very badly:
www.techpowerup.com/review/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html

Isn't Indiana Jones And The Great Circle the first game that requires hardware support for raytracing? If the makers of the game would have increased the raytracing effects further, AMD would perform much worse than NVIDIA (I'm not sure, but Indiana Jones may not even run on AMD GPUs with the Full Ray Tracing setting enabled), so maybe the makers didn't do it for exactly that reason.
I personally don't care if AMD sells a GPU for 480 bucks, but it has worse upscaling and much worse raytracing performance vs a GPU from NVIDIA for 600 bucks (it's 120 bucks difference spread over a time of one generation/2-2.5 years..that's almost like nothing), which is much better at those tasks, especially if the NV card had the same VRAM amount.
You are right about the mindshare, at some point reducing the price by 20-30% isn't going to be enough or a good of a strategy and instead AMD must improved the perf of those mentioned features (which may be the case for AMD's FSR4 upscaling for what I have seen so far).

Sure, 8.8 FPS is terrible from a $1,000 MSRP card, but the 18 FPS on the 4070 isn't a lot better, either. That game tanks every GPU with PT enabled. Every single one.

This is why I wouldn't base my buying decision on RT when shopping for a midrange card.

Dr. DroSecond that I'm aware of, if you count the enhanced version of Metro Exodus (still one of the most beautiful games ever made)

And Avatar: FoP if I'm not mistaken.

Edit: Actually, Avatar runs with a software emulation for RT on older hardware, I believe (so it doesn't quite require hardware RT).

10tothemin9voltsHe's right, that's kinda exactly it: More and more games are coming out with heavier and heavier dependency on (full) raytracing / pathtracing. While AMD performing very badly:
www.techpowerup.com/review/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/6.html

Isn't Indiana Jones And The Great Circle the first game that requires hardware support for raytracing? If the makers of the game would have increased the raytracing effects further, AMD would perform much worse than NVIDIA (I'm not sure, but Indiana Jones may not even run on AMD GPUs with the Full Ray Tracing setting enabled), so maybe the makers didn't do it for exactly that reason.
I personally don't care if AMD sells a GPU for 480 bucks, but it has worse upscaling and much worse raytracing performance vs a GPU from NVIDIA for 600 bucks (it's 120 bucks difference spread over a time of one generation/2-2.5 years..that's almost like nothing), which is much better at those tasks, especially if the NV card had the same VRAM amount.
You are right about the mindshare, at some point reducing the price by 20-30% isn't going to be enough or a good of a strategy and instead AMD must improved the perf of those mentioned features (which may be the case for AMD's FSR4 upscaling for what I have seen so far).

PT won't be a requirement at least until PS6 and next Xbox drops. As long as developers need to release games on current consoles, AMD GPUs will do just fine.
I can run both Metro Exodus EE and Indiana Jones on my XTX, in case of Indiana on native 4K, and always stay over 60fps.
PT is just an extra tech that Nvidia sponsored games include as a bonus. It tanks performance on every GPU, AMD are just hit harder.

I will admit that AMD dropped the ball hard on RT, by not focusing more on it. If RDNA2 had better acceleration for it then console games would look a lot better and that would transfer over to PC games.
Now simply because consoles can barely do any RT at 30fps, when games are ported to PC they can only add a little more RT or have nvidia come over with their devs and implement full on PT.

AusWolfI do because despite all the marketing, reviews, and people telling me, I still fail to see why I should spend more money to have them.
1. I'm not a streamer, so all the streaming services, video recording, CUDA and such don't interest me - neither should they interest anyone else who isn't a professional using their GPU for work.
2. RT runs like crap on every midrange card, so it's not a valid selling point there, only on the higher end.
3. FSR exists, and FSR 3 is really not that bad (although I don't like upscaling in general). Not to mention, upscaling shouldn't be needed on a midrange card at 1440p and below.

So for every "premium" feature, there is always a "but". If GeForce was really so premium, there would be no buts.

None of the features I mentioned are for streamers. Again, these are your opinions. Sure, you don't see a reason, the rest of the market does that's why nvidia is selling. And since that was your question (why is amd not selling), what you want is kinda irrelevant in this case, because you are already buying amd. It's the opinion of the people that aren't buying AMD that matters here.

Upscaling isn't needed, I don't know why you keep mentioning this. Upscaling is used cause it either looks better performs better or both.

3valatzyThe majority of consumers don't think so. That's how Nvidia is a well-established brand, with great marketing, while AMD is blamed to have no marketing, at all.
It has, it's simply the company is not liked nor popular.



The 9070 XT will lose it, 99% of the people will buy 5070 (Ti).

Fanboy much, eh?

I'd shut my trap if I was you.

AusWolfPerhaps... although it's true that I do not know a single person who would never consider buying an Nvidia card, but I do know several who would never want an AMD one even for free.

Those people are fools, perhaps another free example further down...

AusWolfI'd say that some kind of bias affects that, too. I, for example, do not find any need for day-1 drivers. I rarely ever buy games on day one anyway, and when I do, I don't have any issues running them on old drivers.

Do you agree that some, perhaps many might place value on that?

AusWolfAnother thing is that I've been on Linux for about 3 months now, where drivers work differently. Updates come together with kernel updates, so you never really know which version you're on.

I don't think it's a stretch to say users that main Linux are in the minority, perhaps even a very small minority. Valid perspective for sure, but not one for most buyers. You have very adequately bought what suits your needs the most. Given a couple of examples here, my assertion is that you are an exception to the majority.

AusWolfEasy - the Vietnamese car because I can afford it.

I don't like the question you were asked. 1, far too vague. 2, entirely hypothetical. I find more often than not when engaged in... lets call it debate, hypothetical questions serve little meaning as the responder is free to answer however they choose without ever having to face any real world consequence to that answer or having to put their money where their mouth is. Life is rarely so simple. I'd have tried to be more specific in many ways. Perhaps... my example might have been... let say you are freely offered one of two vehicles. Either one you choose, you keep for 3 years, then hand the keys back. Both have zero cost attached, no fuel or ancillary running costs, no insurance, no servicing or consumables, nothing - all inclusive and all headaches and costs are completely below the waterline to you, taking the same amount of time if they occurred, with zero difference in any ramifications to you beyond what you get to use and enjoy for 3 years. The choices on offer are a 2024 Toyota Crown, or a 2024 MG 3, - which do you choose? Noting of course, that I open myself to this hypothetical again, the cars could be argued to not directly compete, and you can perhaps see through my question as to what I am trying to get at, and could easily choose what virtually nobody would because [insert stretch of an argument/extremely niche and/or personal reason here], totally hypothetical so it's oh so easy to just choose the option here that aligns to your POV in this uhhh ... debate. But I believe this is at the very least adjacent to the point in this thread.

oxrufiioxoKnowing AMD like I do I think they will test 550 usd and just let it drop if consumers are like nah dog...... With a slim chance they will try $599

oxrufiioxoWouldn't be shocked if they wait till after the 5070 is reviewed. See how it's perceived and price accordingly....

Visible NoiseIt’s obvious that the 5070 at $549 scared the piss out of AMD. They panicked, did a complete WTF and even their biggest fans can’t defend the massive fail that was CES. They used to be called Another Month Delay, seems like those times are back.

Exaclty! This was so obvious, that AMD was waiting for nVidia to price their 5070 $649, or at leas $600. But nVidia outplayed them like little puppies, so they've sit with the sad faces, and decided to roll out some atroocious PR "team" to "calm down" the disgruntled public.
This is no secret, that nVidia creates and sells their "Gaming" GPU SKUs, (especially the lower tier ones) not for the profit, but for the status, public image, and as a placeholder, to keep the rivals in place, as this is top threshold/segment of their capabilities. nVidia just baited mocked the AMD with their 5070 and it's "garbage" fake performance "uplift" vs 4090. And AMD has been caught with their pants down.

WastelandBut AMD does need positive reviews. We've seen AMD price itself out of good reviews too many times, only to lower prices almost immediately after the damage is done. Who could forget the time that they lowered the price of the RX 7600 by $20 on the eve of release, just as reviewers were preparing to publish. Though the price cut was welcome, it looked like amateur hour, and making reviewers redo their work at the last minute probably didn't dispose them favorably. And we needn't discuss the goofy strategy behind RDNA3's launch, which saw AMD price its initial top-end-but-not-actually-halo-competitive cards with near-preposterous ($900+) optimism, and then sit on their much more attractive mid-range products for the better part of a year.

The amount of positive buzz that Intel earned just by releasing a competent 1440p card at $250 was eye opening even to me. It turns out that the average gamer isn't mindlessly devoted to all things Nvidia. People will even take a chance on a newcomer if the product reviews well and is priced to move. Granted, Intel's margins are razor thin, and the B580's launch was/is plagued by supply issues (and now grumbling over low-end CPU scaling), but any reasonable observer would have to judge the product a success, based on the response. Intel set out with the singular goal of getting their foot in the door, and they're on the right track. AMD is in a vastly better position than Intel; they have a decades-old headstart in the dGPU space. Yet AMD has basically zero buzz. Their abortive pricing schemes frequently give them what you might call anti-buzz. As a long time fan of their work, and of healthy competition generally, I can say that AMD's antics frequently feel like a buzzkill.

Insert @wolf 's hydra meme here--AMD with the badass engineers and the imbecilic marketing department. We get it; there's only so much AMD can do in the face of Nvidia's market dominance, but AMD should consider planning just a little bit more carefully. Instead of waiting for Nvidia to set the tone, and then pricing cards at the absolute highest point you think you can get away with (until you're forced to backtrack weeks later), try pricing the thing from day one at the lower end of what you're comfortable charging. You won't win an outright price war with a trillion-dollar company, but you might be able to create buzz and claw back some market/mind share. Now that Nvidia is distracted by the piles of AI money that big tech is throwing at them, they might even let you claw back some of the gaming market.

Of course, we don't know yet how the 9070 XT will perform. If AMD can pump out 4080-tier perf at $550, then it's a great product. It will review well, and it will sell. I might even buy one, despite my having basically zero use for a new graphics card. But if it's just the usual, basically-tied-with-the-5070-but-with-more-VRAM, then AMD needs to set a substantially lower price. We've seen this scenario play out, and it isn't pretty.

This exactly! nVidia and Intel used to poach AMD experienced staff, and look how this ended up. Now AMD... has a habit of hiring absolutely useless people for their Marketing. Especially when it comes to RTG. This is absolute trash.

Unless the 9070XT is really competitive and solid product, and AMD is just building up the stock, to just flood the market with their cards for the first time during the actual product launch. I don't see any other chance for them to rule this cr*p out. But this still has to be proven with actual reviews. Ans AMD still has to price the cards reasonably, because nVidia will outsell them in even greater quantities, because now they people might buy cheaper 4070Ti, 4080/S, and even 5070 with more advanced fake frames, and superior technologies, like encoding/decoding better AA, etc, and potentially better power efficiency, despite "Blackwell" being more power hungry "Ada" "refresh".

Again, the 9070, and the entire RDNA4 might end up a viable and great products. But the marketing and positioning, pricing, and all these secret shenanigans behind the scenes, are all making AMD a huge disservice. Just look at nVidia- they've just shown the bunch of BS slides and what's not, shown the actual products, and set the prices. Boom, they're good to go. People already setting for the purchase, despite obvious gaslighting, and it screams for the actual reviews.

AMD tries to copy nVidia, but why they just can't learn from nVidia's stronger parts, especially in marketing?

Most of the people don't consider AMD at all, I've been having both brands and never had issues in both of them, aside from an entry level Asus laptop that had a nvidia GPU, jeez the ammount of BSODs that I had because of that shitty switchable graphics not working as it should.

I will definitily upgrade for this new series, Intel is out of the question, too much overhead on their drivers.
So only AMD and Nvidia remains as an option for me, it will either be a 9060 or a 5060 with 16GB if possible, and I will probably be better off with AMD.

Let me explain:
Under DX12, AMD have actually less API overhead, this is a subject that people rarely point out but it's very important topic for anyone upgrading GPU while using an older system.

I do have a Ryzen 5 3600X and obviously I will be bottlenecked in CPU Bound games and will get worse each year with newer games, I have no interest in also upgrading the CPU, so it's important to have the most API efficent GPU and that's AMD.
As for RT, it also punish a lot the CPU so if it's optional I will probably disable it, unless it's mandatory ofc, I don't care about PT since no new mid-range GPU will be able to run it properly.
It's a little bit like the first RT titles that Nvidia pushed, or the first Tesslated games, it's something optional to favour Nvidia over AMD, even if most nvidia cards aren't really able to run it as it should, I still remember the Crysis 2 scandal or the Fallout 4 Volumetrics filtering being actually tesslation patterns, which nowadays aren't really that demanding but at the time, jeezzzzz

My system still run with PCI-EX3, so probably, the mainstream cards will run with PCI-EX 4 8x, which means I will be limited to PCI-EX 3 8x, this will penalty performance in 1-2% depending on the game, but it can be really harsh if VRAM Usage is nearly full, that's when PCI-EX starts to swap files like a madman between VRAM and system memory and that's exactly when the PCI-EX 3 is a bigger issue, so having more VRAM to spare makes a difference for me.

The downsides of AMD for me:
1. FSR is not in the same place of DLSS, well FSR 4 seems to be great, probably only titles starting today will have FSR 4 meaning a lot of older games won't be updated and will only have the less optimal FSR3, let alone the DLSS with transformation module which seems to be even greater (not sure if with a performance cost, that remains to be seen)
2. Possible worse encoding will be an issue for me, I do livestream, I do use OBS, I've heard AMD did improve a lot the encoding, but will see about that. (BTW recording and streaming consumes more VRAM) :)

Visible NoiseDo you even realize you’re blaming consumers for AMDs fuck ups?

Partly yes, do you have any idea how easily people bought the 5070 is as fast as the 4090? I'm not talking about the upper 1% that browse these forums. But your casuals that get their tech info from social media, zoomers.

Your average consumer is mildly retarded, yes.

3valatzyWhat do you prefer - a Mercedes (Nvidia) or a no-name Vietnamese car (AMD) ?

The Green psychosis in this thread is wild lol.

Sound_CardThe Green psychosis in this thread is wild lol

I found that people I'd consider green leaning give the bottom line on the 5070 = 4090 questions rather well across multiple threads/discussions.

There is, if we're to use your choice of terminology, plenty of "red psychosis" too around here, so perhaps there's some other specifics you'd like to comment on rather than throw divisive name calling shade? It's a discussion, respond to points with your own points.

Here I was with my only worthy input being: "Hello, Israel is not located in Europe".