- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Messages
- 14,870 (6.62/day)
- Location
- Midlands, UK
System Name | My second and third PCs are Intel + Nvidia |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D |
Motherboard | MSi Pro B650M-A Wifi |
Cooling | be quiet! Dark Rock 4 |
Memory | 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5-6000 CL36 |
Video Card(s) | PowerColor Reaper Radeon RX 9070 XT |
Storage | 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 4 TB Seagate Barracuda |
Display(s) | Dell S3422DWG 34" 1440 UW 144 Hz |
Case | Kolink Citadel Mesh |
Audio Device(s) | Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones |
Power Supply | 750 W Seasonic Prime GX |
Mouse | Logitech MX Master 2S |
Keyboard | Logitech G413 SE |
Software | Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE Plasma |
Don't let "the fastest card" cloud your judgement.But complaining that the one with the fastest isn't making them much faster while ignoring everyone else not even getting anywhere near to the fastest seems weird. If stagnation is an issue, the fingers should be pointed at Intel and AMD. If they can't even keep up with a "stagnated" nvidia, what the flying heck are they even doing and why are they doing it?
Would it be unfair to say that reading your previous post, I should have concluded that now nvidia only excels in RT and software, and that in raster performance they are lagging behind everyone else cause they ignored hardware improvements? And yet...reality is the exact opposite.
1. That fastest card is also more expensive and more power-hungry than the last fastest one = stagnation.
2. Look at levels below the fastest card. Do you see a lot of improvement there? I don't. I only see more fake frames and 12 GB GPUs for $550 = stagnation.