• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

RDNA4 (RX 9070XT / 9070) launch announced for (delayed to) March 2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
that is actually more true than people here realize. I always thought "competitive" is not enough to achieve parity between nvidia and amd. I, for one, do not need a dozen reasons to pay a 50eur premium on a 500-600 upper mid range card. DLSS/DLAA and +20-30% RT difference was always enough. I would absolutely regret not spending that 10% more than I would cherish saving it on a card that doesn't have features I like. It'd be different if that was 100-150eur, but it's not. Especially when most games these days have RT/PT from day one, and I'm never going to notice that added +5% rasterization performance on radeon cards when the fps numbers with rt off are already well above 100 on both.

View attachment 381116
It's 50 EUR now, but it wouldn't be if AMD quit the dGPU market. I cannot support closed standards with a good conscience, regardless of the price difference, but each to their own.

it'll never be when you have nvidia making AI their main selling point, even if Microsoft tried. they move too quickly for the market to adapt to new features every generation.
I understand, but my opinion stands.

why do you never actually try to be factual when it comes to using rt these days, it's easily achieveable on upper-mid range.

View attachment 381117
Ok, let's be factual:
1737617869040.png

1737617901157.png


Not even 60 FPS on a midrange card. I call that useless. You need at least a 4080 for RT.
 
This thread has been assimilated. Resistance is futile. You are now part of the TPU collective.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top