The performance/dollar of a RX 5700 XT and RTX 3080 is quite similar, it's just a bit better for the RTX 3080. That means you're actually expecting AMD to double the performance/dollar compared to a RX 5700 XT and RTX 3080. That sounds more like a wish then something realistic.
You sound like you're arguing that perf/$ scales linearly across GPU lineups. This has
never been the case. Except for the very low end, where value is always terrible, you always get
far more bang for your buck in the $150-400 mid-range than anything above. I mean, just look at the data:
Results are similar at other resolutions, though more expensive GPUs "improve" at 4k. As for value increasing as you drop in price: just look at the 5600 XT compared to the 5700 XT in those charts. Same architecture, same generation,
same die, yet the cheaper card delivers significantly higher perf/W than the more expensive one.
As for your comparison: you're comparing across generations, so any value comparison is inherently skewed to the point of being invalid. If it weren't the case that you got more bang for your buck in a new generation, something would be
very wrong. As it admittedly has been for a couple of generations now, and the 3080 hasn't fixed it either, just brought us back closer to where things should be. It is absolutely to be expected that all future GPUs from both manufacturers at lower points in their product stacks will deliver significantly better perf/$ than the 3080. That's the nature of premium products: you pay more for the privilege of having the best. $700 GPUs have
never been a good value proposition.
Where? The cards don't cost MSRP except in the US, else it costs much higher, plus Ampere is more expensive than Pascal, the 1070 was faster and had more than the 980ti for less than 400$, while now the 3070 is supposedly faster than the 2080ti wouldn't be surprised if it's only in some cases with less memory.
nVidia managed to fool people by comparing prices to Turing, and let's not forget their lies about MSRP.
We're literally a week post launch. Demand has been crazy, scalpers with bots have run rampant, and everything is sold out. Give it a while to normalize before you comment on "real-world" prices. And while Nvidia's previous "here's the MSRP, here's the somehow premium, but also base-line FE card at a premium price" shenanigans and the near-nonexistence of cards at MSRP, to be fair to them they seem to have stopped doing that this time around.
Right. As if I ever said that. Maybe actually read my post? Nice straw man you've got there.
Remember power supplies don't run on 100% efficiency.
Again: accounted for, if you had bothered to actually read my post.
Let me refresh your memory:
Where did you get that TDP number from? Has it been published or confirmed anywhere? The only number I've seen is the whole-system power rating from the official spec sheet, which is 350/340W for the whole system (BD/discless). Even assuming that is peak draw numbers including PSU losses, having the SoC only account for 50% of that number seems low.
What I'm saying here is that
the SoC TDP only accounting for 50% of the PSU's rating, which might include PSU losses due to efficiency sounds a bit low. I'm asking you to source a number that you're stating as fact. Remember, you said:
And since you mentioned ps5 think of this, ps5 tdp is 175w
No source, no mention that this is speculation or even anything beyond established fact. Which is what I was asking you to provide.
also here's a link from techpowerup
AMD Oberon, 2233 MHz, 2304 Cores, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 16384 MB GDDR6, 1750 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com
Unsourced, based on rumors and speculation. The page says as much.
And in case you believe that one isn't confirmed then take a long at this link with ps4 pro
AMD Neo, 911 MHz, 2304 Cores, 144 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR5, 1700 MHz, 256 bit
www.techpowerup.com
ps4 pro has 310watt power supply and it's SOC is rated at 150w tdp
That is at least a correlation, but correlation does not mean that the rumor you are quoting as fact is actually true. This is what you call
speculation.
as far as rumors go, I been hearing that sony is keeping power usage around the same as last gen, so if anything it could be as low as 150watt, though I think it's more likely to be around 175w mark
And here is the core of the matter: you are repeating rumors and "what you think is likely" as if it is indisputable fact. It is of course
entirely possible that the PS5 SoC has a TDP somewhere around 175W - but you don't have any actual proof of this. So
please stop repeating rumors as if they are facts. That is a really bad habit.
