What is Radeon RX 7000 series for you? Please elaborate

[Kyan]

Oh no AMD Fan and Nvidia fan are at war once again. EVERYONE GET OUT !

 

[JustBenching]

Oh no AMD Fan and Nvidia fan are at war once again. EVERYONE GET OUT !

Nowhere in any of my posts did I mention amd or nvidia. Stop seeing things that aren't there.

 

[AusWolf]

Guys, an iGPU and a 4090 aren't your only options. There's a whole world between the two. Just saying.

 

[Dan.G]

you can play TWWH3 or Crysis with an IGPU but will you enjoy it?

You might, with next-gen iGPUs (Ryzen 8000 series and Lunar Lake).
But... I always felt iGPUs were held back by memory bandwidth. What I really like about them is that you can control the amount of "VRAM" by adding more system RAM.
Also, you minimize the noise: less fans and, possibly, less coil whine.
I would really like for my next desktop to use an iGPU (too bad nVidia doesn't do that ).

 

[JustBenching]

Guys, an iGPU and a 4090 aren't your only options. There's a whole world between the two. Just saying.

Yes but say you have a 1080,would you upgrade to a new 1000 euro card to play "40000+ games" from 1990 or to play games that came out the last couple of years and the next few years? I bet the latter, cause your 1080 can already play those old titles just fine.

You might, with next-gen iGPUs (Ryzen 8000 series and Lunar Lake).
But... I always felt iGPUs were held back by memory bandwidth. What I really like about them is that you can control the amount of "VRAM" by adding more system RAM.
Also, you minimize the noise: less fans and, possibly, less coil whine.
I would really like for my next desktop to use an iGPU (too bad nVidia doesn't do that ).

Igpus are great for laptops cause they have a smaller screen, you can drop to 1080p or even lower, especially with fsr and enjoy the experience. I'm kinda blown away by the 680m on my laptop.

But for a desktop, naaaah.

 

[Kyan]

Yes but say you have a 1080,would you upgrade to a new 1000 euro card to play "40000+ games" from 1990 or to play games that came out the last couple of years and the next few years? I bet the latter, cause your 1080 can already play those old titles just fine.

It's 100% dependent on what people are playing. You can play 90% of the time older game/competitive game that don't require that much power but 10% of the time you play recent game, but you don't care about all the extra option, you just want the game to run well with some graphics settings, and you want to do so for more than 2-3 years. Then a high end GPU without DLSS, RTX, and FG is not a bad option.

 

[AusWolf]

Yes but say you have a 1080,would you upgrade to a new 1000 euro card to play "40000+ games" from 1990 or to play games that came out the last couple of years and the next few years? I bet the latter, cause your 1080 can already play those old titles just fine.

Good point.

Actually, my reason to upgrade has shifted from need to curiosity in the last few years, as the games I play have become older and/or less demanding.

 

[JustBenching]

It's 100% dependent on what people are playing. You can play 90% of the time older game/competitive game that don't require that much power but 10% of the time you play recent game, but you don't care about all the extra option, you just want the game to run well with some graphics settings, and you want to do so for more than 2-3 years. Then a high end GPU without DLSS, RTX, and FG is not a bad option.

But people do not spend a thousand or more euros to play games from the 90s or the early 2000s. That's my point.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

That's just next level cope. 40000 games don't support rt and dlss, but you wouldn't buy a card of that caliber to play 99.9% of those games. The majority of games can be played on an igpu. The reason you buy high end dgpus is to play the top echelon of aaa games that do in fact have fg dlss and rt

How's about you wind back telling people what to do or not do , you do you let others do as they will.

 

[AusWolf]

a high end GPU without DLSS, RTX, and FG is not a bad option.

I agree with this, too. I don't upgrade only to use image quality worsening tricks for a stable gameplay. If I spend a truckload of money, I expect good framerates at native resolution. That's also why I'm still on 1080p, but that's besides the point.

 

[Vya Domus]

But people do not spend a thousand or more euros to play games from the 90s or the early 2000s. That's my point.

Nah, they instead spend a thousand or more to get 30fps in a new game with ray tracing on and be forced to use upscaling or frame interpolation, clearly money well spent.

 

[kapone32]

You quoted 40000+ games. To get to that number you obviously included games from like the last 2 or 3 decades. The vast vast majority of those 40000+ games (like 95% of them) can be played on a 1060 or an igpu. Nobody buys high end hardware to play those games,because your old hardware maxes them just fine.

I play a lot of dota 2, I play Diablo 2 on occasion, I even play some cs go once in a while. You think I bought a 4090 to play those games though? No, I bought it for the latest heavy games, and those include rt and dlss on a much much higher rate than the 0.1% you claimed. I'd argue more than half of the games I "needed" a 4090 for include one or all of those features.

I have no idea how many Games have been created. I don't consider my card budget but if you want to spend to get a 4090 be my guest. I used the money I saved vs that to buy a MB, CPU and RAM with what I saved. But again why are you trying to insert Nvidia in an AMD thread? The prevailing grievance is not performance but price so the only people who are bagging the performance this hard are you. DLSS and RT are not the main features in Gaming no matter how strongly you may feel about it.

 

[JustBenching]

I have no idea how many Games have been created. I don't consider my card budget but if you want to spend to get a 4090 be my guest. I used the money I saved vs that to buy a MB, CPU and RAM with what I saved. But again why are you trying to insert Nvidia in an AMD thread? The prevailing grievance is not performance but price so the only people who are bagging the performance this hard are you. DLSS and RT are not the main features in Gaming no matter how strongly you may feel about it.

Upscaling rt and fg are technologies that both vendors have, or soon to have in the case of fg. So I have no idea how you managed to turn this into an amd vs nvidia again. Just stop it.

I'm saying that these technologies are included in the majority of new AAA games, while you are using games from 1990 to claim that they aren't as though someone buying a high end card would be buying it to play a game from 1999.

I agree with this, too. I don't upgrade only to use image quality worsening tricks for a stable gameplay. If I spend a truckload of money, I expect good framerates at native resolution. That's also why I'm still on 1080p, but that's besides the point.

Dlss and fsr are not image quality worsening techs. It's just that people have a fundamental misunderstanding.

Just for the sake of the argument I'll exclude games that just look straight up better upscaled than native (due to mediocre TAA implementation), upscaling is used in order to not sacrifice some other setting that is more important. For example in cyberpunk, I can either choose 4k RT + upscale, 4k native no RT, or RT + 1440p native instead of 4k. The first option looks by far better than the other to, so in this scenario upscaling gives me a much better image quality than playing at 1440p native.

 

[Kyan]

For example in cyberpunk, I can either choose 4k RT + upscale, 4k native no RT, or RT + 1440p native instead of 4k. The first option looks by far better than the other to, so in this scenario upscaling gives me a much better image quality than playing at 1440p native.

Remember that every person have different need, different perception. So probably that the 4K native RT off will be more appelling for another person. I don't have a 4K display but i think 1440p don't look really good on 4K yeah, this is where upscaling shine.

 

[JustBenching]

Remember that every person have different need, different perception. So probably that the 4K native RT off will be more appelling for another person. I don't have a 4K display but i think 1440p don't look really good on 4K yeah, this is where upscaling shine.

Well that is the point of upscaling, to use it when your alternative would be to drop resolution.

That's why I'm baffled when people claim that upscale lowers image quality.

 

[Chrispy_]

Err, nope.

GTX 280
+57% performance improvement GTX 480
+52% performance improvement GTX 680
+54% performance improvement GTX 780 Ti
+28% performance improvement GTX 980 Ti
+67% performance improvement GTX 1080 Ti
+31% performance improvement RTX 2080 Ti
+78% performance improvement RTX 3090 Ti
+45% performance improvement RTX 4090

The mean value of these is higher than the number 36% which you consider "higher than average". No, it is not.

AMD's generational improvements are (much) lower:

Radeon HD 4870 (RV770) | 55 nm | 2008 | 956 M tr
+70% performance Radeon HD 5870 (Cypress) | 40 nm | 2009 | 2154 M Tr
+19% performance Radeon HD 6970 (Cayman) | 40 nm | 2010 | 2640 M Tr
+44% performance Radeon HD 7970 (Tahiti) | 28 nm | 2011 | 4313 M Tr
+50% performance Radeon R9 290X (Hawaii) | 28 nm | 2013 | 6200 M Tr
+31% performance Radeon R9 Fury X (Fiji) | 28 nm | 2015 | 8900 M Tr
+32% performance Radeon RX Vega 64 (Vega 10) | 14 nm | 2017 | 12500 M Tr
+22% performance Radeon VII (Vega 20) | 7 nm | 2019 | 13230 M Tr
+95% performance Radeon RX 6900 XT (Navi 21) | 7 nm | 2020 | 26800 M Tr
+47% performance Radeon RX 7900 XTX (Navi 31) | 5 nm - 7+ (6) nm hybrid | 2022 | 57700 M Tr



You can use the number of transitors then. Navi 21 has 26.8 billion, Navi 31 has 115% more, 57.7 billion.
Performance difference is terrible ~36% higher.

Go away with your ill-informed, cherry-picked nonsense. You skip generations to show a larger than 36% increase - that's OBVIOUSLY bullshit. Where are the missing Nvidia series, Why did you ignore the RX 400, RX500, RX 5000 series? Why is okay for you to use a mid-cycle refresh in your comparison but no one else can use them in their counter-argument? Jesus, use apples-to-apples when you're tying to make a point man, otherwise you're just going to get shot down for moving the goalposts to suit the answer you want, rather than the reality of history that is clearly available to anyone who cares to look it up.

As for using transistor budget, that's also utter nonsense you've made up with zero factual basis. Transistor count spent on cache or chiplet interconnect logic does not add to performance the same way that transistor count spent on compute cores, ROPs. You're completely clueless to how a GPU works if you believe otherwise.

What are you even trying to argue, that 36% faster than last generation's refresh is poor?
Provably, it's not - it's typical for the GPU industry as a whole, and better than average for AMD in particular.
Secondly, why is that a problem? The products are priced for their performance in the market and you get what you pay for.

 

[kapone32]

I am just going to say that 4K 144hz is absolutely fine with a 7900XT. That is the reason I bought one and yes it does play 4K just fine. I use mine with an X3D and have rebar on so I guess this helps as well.

 

[Kyan]

Well that is the point of upscaling, to use it when your alternative would be to drop resolution.

That's why I'm baffled when people claim that upscale lowers image quality.

But the problem is that you need upscaling to run a game with just one graphics option who create light, which will run without any problem without ray traced light. Upscaling actually look like a solution to enable an option that is a bit too early in the market. A good amount of GPU (AMD and NVidia) can run actual games well at 1440p or 4K in native without upscaling.

 

[JustBenching]

But the problem is that you need upscaling to run a game with just one graphics option who create light, which will run without any problem without ray traced light. Upscaling actually look like a solution to enable an option that is a bit too early in the market. A good amount of GPU (AMD and NVidia) can run actual games well at 1440p or 4K in native without upscaling.

No, RT is not the only reason to use upscaling. Rdr2 is a game from 2018, lots of cards can't max it out at 4k native. You need a 3080 or a 6800xt at the bare minimum to achieve anything approaching 60 fps average.

 

[Space Lynx]

as someone who has been sickly most of my life, I am going to just share some advice with all of you, really stop wasting your time on these kinds of conversations. there is so much to enjoy in this world, but if this is what you enjoy, that is ok as well, I leave you in peace

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

No, RT is not the only reason to use upscaling. Rdr2 is a game from 2018, lots of cards can't max it out at 4k native. You need a 3080 or a 6800xt at the bare minimum to achieve anything approaching 60 fps average.

Yeah but YOU don't buy high end GPU to run old games, contradictory no ?!

Or are you realising how stupid the no one buys high end GPU for old games comment was.

 

[JustBenching]

I am just going to say that 4K 144hz is absolutely fine with a 7900XT. That is the reason I bought one and yes it does play 4K just fine. I use mine with an X3D and have rebar on so I guess this helps as well.

Define fine? Hwunboxed did a video a couple of days ago, the 7900xt is getting nowhere near 144hz at 4k. Heck, not even at 1440p. It drops below 60 fps in some games at 4k, and the average on the games he used was 82 fps.

Yeah but YOU don't buy high end GPU to run old games, contradictory no ?!

Or are you realising how stupid the no one buys high end GPU for old games comment was.

What? Im saying that upscale is useful even in games without RT, cause there are some really heavy games out there.

 

[AusWolf]

Dlss and fsr are not image quality worsening techs. It's just that people have a fundamental misunderstanding.

Let me politely disagree. Upscaling uses different algorithms to upscale (as the name suggests) a lower resolution image to your chosen resolution. That, by all means, is lower quality than native.

Just for the sake of the argument I'll exclude games that just look straight up better upscaled than native (due to mediocre TAA implementation), upscaling is used in order to not sacrifice some other setting that is more important. For example in cyberpunk, I can either choose 4k RT + upscale, 4k native no RT, or RT + 1440p native instead of 4k. The first option looks by far better than the other to, so in this scenario upscaling gives me a much better image quality than playing at 1440p native.

Sure, 4K + DLSS looks better than 1440p native. In my case, 1080p + DLSS would probably look better than 720p or something. But that's not the point. 1080p native will always be better than 1080p + DLSS.

No, RT is not the only reason to use upscaling. Rdr2 is a game from 2018, lots of cards can't max it out at 4k native. You need a 3080 or a 6800xt at the bare minimum to achieve anything approaching 60 fps average.

You need a powerful graphics card to play at 4K. That's kind of obvious, I think. This is why I'd much rather keep my current monitor. My gameplay experience is pretty similar, but even my 6750 XT is overkill.

 

[Kyan]

No, RT is not the only reason to use upscaling. Rdr2 is a game from 2018, lots of cards can't max it out at 4k native. You need a 3080 or a 6800xt at the bare minimum to achieve anything approaching 60 fps average.

So play it in the preset just below the maxed out one, the perceptible difference is generally inexistant and the game run much easier.

 

[cmguigamf]

Things are probably different in other markets from what I read, but here in Brazil 7900XT/XTX are overpriced as hell. The 7900XT is ~1000BRL (~200 USD) higher than 4070Ti on average, and with shorter warranties (1 year vs 3 from the nVidia lineup) most of the time. The 7900XTX is more or less equal to 4080 on pricing, but the warranty problem still stands, with only MSI offering 3 years for RDNA3.

The only product that makes sense from a bang for the buck perspective is the RX 7600, and that is if you're coming from Polaris or Vega at most, and if you only play 1080p (not a big deal, since 1440p and 4k gaming is still overwhelmingly the minority here).

All in all, I don't think AMD cares about this market. The price cuts that happen elsewhere usually never make it here, and combined with the warranty stuff, that makes it harder to recommend these products against the Ada stack.