Control Benchmark Test & RTX Performance Analysis

[Chrispy_]

Your whole argument is that we can't compare the $400 5700 XT to the $500 2070 Super because the discontinued 2080 where the TU104 debuted is/was $700? Not much of an argument there. Actually it's pretty deceitful to say "double the pricepoint." Were you saying it wasn't fair to compare the 980 Ti to the Fury X because it "came from the Titan X" and therefore was a $1000 card? Places like r/amd, techspot, guru3d all were selling the story that the 2070 Super was just 5% ahead. It's clearly another rung on the power ladder.

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else or suffering from a reading comprehension failure.

I'm not presenting any kind of argument whatsoever. I'm asking "who are these people you talk of that claim a 2070S and 5700XT are a match", because they're obviously not.
You've now kind of answered that with r/amd, techspot, guru3d.

I've got to admit, techspot and guru reviews are eye-opening but do not really explain their weird results. Most of the reputable reviews put the 5700XT at 2060S or vanilla 2070 level. I guess the fewer games a site uses for testing, the more invalid the results are because there is some huge variance between Navi and Turing performance, depending on the game in question. With only a small sample of games, you're going to see results that don't accurately represent the average across all games.

Like pretty much every review has mentioned so far, the performance differences between Navi and Turing have enough variance that you should pick the card that performs best on the games you actually play right now. Just because a 5700XT can match a 2070S in a couple of titles doesn't make it a match for the 2070S in every title. What about the titles where a 6GB vanilla 2060 beats it, for example?

That's the variance. If people don't get that, then I can't help them and I'm not going to engage in their frothing-at-the-mouth arguments over on r/amd

 

[danbert2000]

Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else or suffering from a reading comprehension failure.

I'm not presenting any kind of argument whatsoever. I'm asking "who are these people you talk of that claim a 2070S and 5700XT are a match", because they're obviously not.
You've now kind of answered that with r/amd, techspot, guru3d.

I've got to admit, techspot and guru reviews are eye-opening but do not really explain their weird results. Most of the reputable reviews put the 5700XT at 2060S or vanilla 2070 level. I guess the fewer games a site uses for testing, the more invalid the results are because there is some huge variance between Navi and Turing performance, depending on the game in question. With only a small sample of games, you're going to see results that don't accurately represent the average across all games.

Like pretty much every review has mentioned so far, the performance differences between Navi and Turing have enough variance that you should pick the card that performs best on the games you actually play right now. Just because a 5700XT can match a 2070S in a couple of titles doesn't make it a match for the 2070S in every title. What about the titles where a 6GB vanilla 2060 beats it, for example?

That's the variance. If people don't get that, then I can't help them and I'm not going to engage in their frothing-at-the-mouth arguments over on r/amd

You very clearly said it was unfair to compare a $400 5700 XT to a $700 graphics card. Except I can't find a 2070 Super that is that expensive.

 

[Chrispy_]

You very clearly said it was unfair to compare a $400 5700 XT to a $700 graphics card. Except I can't find a 2070 Super that is that expensive.

That's MSRP of the 2080, at $700
The 2070S has an MSRP of $500

The silicon is the same TU104 and even if the configuration isn't identical, the 2070s exists in the market solely because Navi upset the entire RTX product stack when it launched.

For the record, my idea of a fair comparison is a $400 card against a $400 card. If you want to keep labouring against that point I'm just going to have to conclude that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'fair'.

 

[Xuper]

Perhaps Nvidia Physx is applied to Jesse hair when game detects AMD cards.I checked CPU utilization , barely above 40%,

 

[danbert2000]

That's MSRP of the 2080, at $700
The 2070S has an MSRP of $500

The silicon is the same TU104 and even if the configuration isn't identical, the 2070s exists in the market solely because Navi upset the entire RTX product stack when it launched.

For the record, my idea of a fair comparison is a $400 card against a $400 card. If you want to keep labouring against that point I'm just going to have to conclude that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'fair'.

The RTX 2070 Super was a refresh card that was always coming because AMD was very clear when Navi was coming out. It's not like Nvidia wasn't planning the Super series for months. I just said that this game was an example of the gulf in performance between the 5700 XT and the 2070 Super. You're the one that responded to that with indignation. I think the word you're looking for is "belaboring" by the way. And I think you're the one that is belaboring the point, and also bringing odd things into the discussion like underlying silicon choices between products.

You seem to want to compare the 5700 XT to the 2070 or 2080, both discontinued cards at this point. Go ahead. Not sure why you even responded to my comment in the first place.

"The fact that 17% more performance than a 5700XT costs an extra $300 is laughable, but that' always the case at the high-end because of diminishing returns and other bottlenecks. "

This was the part of your initial comment that I took issue with, by the way. The 17% performance costs 25% more ($100) than the 5700 XT, which is a pretty reasonable rung on the power ladder, especially considering that's the best that AMD has to offer and the Nvidia option lets us play with raytracing and better driver support.

 

[Chrispy_]

Again, massive reading comprehension failure on your part.
If you go waaaaay back to this post that kicked off this thread, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was asking the question of who DID disagree with you. For some asinine reason you have made things far more complicated than they need to be,

The reason the 2070 and 2080 are discontinued is Navi. At the old prices of $500 and $700 respectively they were outclassed in the market and Nvidia retired them to produce the Super models at the price points to compete with Navi.

Again, I never disagreed with you. on that point. Re-read my post(s) - you're trying to pick a fight where there isn't a fight to be had because everything I said then is what you're also arguing.

 

[Chrispy_]

I don't know about other people but I bought my RTX despite knowing that I'd never actually turn on RTX raytracing (because unless you have a graphics card that is wastefully overkill for your monitor, it utterly destroys your framerate and/or detail and/or resolution)

I bought an RTX card in spite of RTX because it was just better performance/$ and better performance/Watt than anything AMD had on sale at the time.

Amusingly I've actually been given a Titan RTX for testing (having previously had a Quadro RTX 6000) and my own Geforce is sitting on a shelf gathering dust at the moment. Even with GPU horsepower to spare, I don't bother turning on RTX features because seamless 4K75Hz via DSR just looks nicer than native 1440p with RTX and the occasional framerate drop to under 50fps.