AMD Navi Discussion

Hyzepher

I would be shocked if those figures were from the flagship card. It doesn't make sense not to have a big reveal for the announcement on 28th. Why do a teaser reveal like this during the Zen3 launch and show the best you have. They were ambiguous enough to mentiona generic 6000 card while specifically detailing the 5950x it was paired with

I suspect it's the middle tier card.

circadian

Exact same for me. There's no way they'd drop their flagship numbers as a teaser for later in the month.

z0oT

Hyzepher wrote: »

I would be shocked if those figures were from the flagship card. It doesn't make sense not to have a big reveal for the announcement on 28th. Why do a teaser reveal like this during the Zen3 launch and show the best you have. They were ambiguous enough to mentiona generic 6000 card while specifically detailing the 5950x it was paired with

I suspect it's the middle tier card.

circadian wrote: »

Exact same for me. There's no way they'd drop their flagship numbers as a teaser for later in the month.

I hope you're both right.

They have been known to play their cards very close to their chest in the past. Here's hoping they're doing something similiar again.

In any case, we'll all find out for sure in about 2 and half weeks time.

Simi

I doubt it's a middle tier card. It's likely their 3080 competitor. It's already almost twice as fast as the 5700XT. How much faster do you think they can get on the same process node, regardless of how many CU's they cram in there or how fast they clock it?

It'll probably take swipes at the 3080, beating it in some games while losing in others and might end up being ~5% slower on average.

The important thing is pricing and availability. If it significantly undercuts the 3080, solidly beats the 3070 whenever it shows up, and is widely available, then it might just gain some market share. Drivers better be absolutely perfect from day one though!

Personally I hope I'm completely wrong and it's actually between the 3080 and 3090 in performance

jebidiah

I will be pleasantly surprised if AMD can come out with a card that competes at the top end. They have had cards that come close to the Nvidia "flagships", but usually they come quite a bit after their counterparts have been out (Over 1 year between Gtx 1080 and Vega 64) and I think similar with 2070 and the 5700XT.

You see all these click bait videos about Big Navi $300 for 2080ti performance. It is just simply not going to happen. If they release a strong competitive product, it will be priced accordingly.

As someone rocking a Vega 56, I would be happy to go AMD again IF they release a superior card at the 3070 range.

Squidgy Black

If they can release a card within 10% of the 3080 for 500-600 quid I'd grab it no bother. Provided they actually have stock this side of Christmas.

Azza

jebidiah wrote: »

I will be pleasantly surprised if AMD can come out with a card that competes at the top end. They have had cards that come close to the Nvidia "flagships", but usually they come quite a bit after their counterparts have been out (Over 1 year between Gtx 1080 and Vega 64) and I think similar with 2070 and the 5700XT.

You see all these click bait videos about Big Navi $300 for 2080ti performance. It is just simply not going to happen. If they release a strong competitive product, it will be priced accordingly.

As someone rocking a Vega 56, I would be happy to go AMD again IF they release a superior card at the 3070 range.

The Vega series was initially very disappointing but in fairness its had better legs than Pascal. In more recent games the Vega 64 generally beats out the GTX 1080 and in few games so does the Vega 56.

Also the 5700XT beat the 2070 at launch. Nvidia immediately responded with the 2070 Super. Hardware unboxed found at launch the 2070 Super on average 7% faster at 1440P than 5700XT but when they recently redid the benchmarks with more recent games the gap had dropped to just 2% in favor of the 2070 Super.

AMD should be able to get very close in raw performance, but the big question is are they competitive in RT and do they have any answer to DLSS.

K.O.Kiki

TBH all AMD have to do is release a card without scalpers or low inventory screwing up the launch.

jebidiah

Azza wrote: »

The Vega series was initially very disappointing but in fairness its had better legs than Pascal. In more recent games the Vega 64 generally beats out the GTX 1080 and in few games so does the Vega 56.

Also the 5700XT beat the 2070 at launch. Nvidia immediately responded with the 2070 Super. Hardware unboxed found at launch the 2070 Super on average 7% faster at 1440P than 5700XT but when they recently redid the benchmarks with more recent games the gap had dropped to just 2% in favor of the 2070 Super.

AMD should be able to get very close in raw performance, but the big question is are they competitive in RT and do they have any answer to DLSS.

My point is that those card were released up to a year and more apart. Giving Nvidia enough time to catch the market. A year later at the same price the new AMD card comes out with all the usual doubts being cast and people continue to buy Nvidia.

And yes fine wine is wonderful for the consumer. But the 1080 and the Vega series cards are nearly 4 years old. How they perform NOW is irrelevant.

AMD need to release something competitive at the same time as Nvidia to really gain enough attention. Even then many ppl will still go for Nvidia.

Azza

jebidiah wrote: »

My point is that those card were released up to a year and more apart. Giving Nvidia enough time to catch the market. A year later at the same price the new AMD card comes out with all the usual doubts being cast and people continue to buy Nvidia.

And yes fine wine is wonderful for the consumer. But the 1080 and the Vega series cards are nearly 4 years old. How they perform NOW is irrelevant.

AMD need to release something competitive at the same time as Nvidia to really gain enough attention. Even then many ppl will still go for Nvidia.

Just pointing out AMD GPU sales are on the up, just not to same extent Nvidia's are.

As for Vega vs Pascal, performance is not irrelevant. Those series of cards are still quite capable cards and for the most part easily capable of maxing out games at 1080p and high settings at 1440p (they never where 4K cards). Even Jensen Huang said in the announcement for Ampere that it was now safe for Pascal users to upgrade which was an acknowledgement that Turing wasn't a significant performance improvement over Pascal. You can see it in the Steam hardware surveys far more users are on Pascal than Turing. Its not uncommon for enthusiasts to skip upgrade for a generation.

I do agree AMD need to get their competitor cards out closer to Nvidia's launch. Everything we hear about Big Navi indicates its launching in the next month or so, so on that front AMD should be fine.

jebidiah

Azza wrote: »

...AMD GPU sales are on the up,

As for Vega vs Pascal, performance is not irrelevant. Those series of cards are still quite capable cards and for the most part easily capable of maxing out games at 1080p and high settings at 1440p ...Its not uncommon for enthusiasts to skip upgrade for a generation.

I do agree AMD need to get their competitor cards out closer to Nvidia's launch. Everything we hear about Big Navi indicates its launching in the next month or so, so on that front AMD should be fine.

Absolutely agree with you man. They need a big win, and I would be extremely happy to give AMD my money if their Navi cards are tier leading. If they also include FineWine with the cards then its a huge win for the consumer.

For your part in bold I mean we should hope for a card that wins NOW and in the future.

Slutmonkey57b

Hyzepher wrote: »

With the recent reveal of the Zen3 pricing we may not see any pricing benefits from Big Navi if performance matches 3080/3070

It's taken AMD 4 CPU releases where they've been consistently beating intel to start pushing the price envelope up to where it is now, the Zen 3 parts are really only pushing over the last bastion of Intel power: single thread gaming. Every other use case has been a massive win for AMD basically from Zen 1.

Their GPU's have a similar hill to get over: years of underperformance, bad drivers and overheating. Unless Navi 2 does something dramatically different to Navi 1 it's not going to be something AMD can use to drive prices up I don't think. They still have to win back trust in the GPU arena.

circadian

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

It's taken AMD 4 CPU releases where they've been consistently beating intel to start pushing the price envelope up to where it is now, the Zen 3 parts are really only pushing over the last bastion of Intel power: single thread gaming. Every other use case has been a massive win for AMD basically from Zen 1.

Their GPU's have a similar hill to get over: years of underperformance, bad drivers and overheating. Unless Navi 2 does something dramatically different to Navi 1 it's not going to be something AMD can use to drive prices up I don't think. They still have to win back trust in the GPU arena.

Yep and considering work is well underway on RDNA 3 and maybe even version 4, it's very possible that AMD will be willing to take a hit on these new cards to try and capture market share.

The Zen pricing has moved beyond this and they are basically building a war chest because they can justify it and because they know Intel will be looking to hit them back as hard as possible.

GHOST MGG

If The middle sku of the 6000 series can come within 10% of the 3080 and amd charge 500 dollars for it that would be a major win for amd
That 6000 semi reveal at the end of the cpu launch the other day did not make sense to me...i can see lisa su coming out on the 28th and saying "the card and accompanying benchmarks we showed you was the mid range card and now here is the 3090 killer today"

Azza

GHOST MGG wrote: »

If The middle sku of the 6000 series can come within 10% of the 3080 and amd charge 500 dollars for it that would be a major win for amd
That 6000 semi reveal at the end of the cpu launch the other day did not make sense to me...i can see lisa su coming out on the 28th and saying "the card and accompanying benchmarks we showed you was the mid range card and now here is the 3090 killer today"

I wouldn't call any GPU in the $/€500-600 price range a mid range card. The 3080 is a high end card in my opinion. Perhaps AMD are holding back a card that can beat 3080 but I'd be surprised if they had anything to compete with the 3090 and frankly I don't think they need too.

GHOST MGG

Azza wrote: »

I wouldn't call any GPU in the $/€500-600 price range a mid range card. The 3080 is a high end card in my opinion. Perhaps AMD are holding back a card that can beat 3080 but I'd be surprised if they had anything to compete with the 3090 and frankly I don't think they need too.

Well from what i can see now , 500/600 dollars/euro is at mid range..sure to buy a 3080 now is just shy of 800 dollars/euro and with the 3090 at 1700 euros who in their right mind would pay that for 10%- 15% performance over the 3080? plus the 3070 on overclockers when released will be 620 euros

MidlanderMan

GHOST MGG wrote: »

Well from what i can see now , 500/600 dollars/euro is at mid range..sure to buy a 3080 now is just shy of 800 dollars/euro and with the 3090 at 1700 euros who in their right mind would pay that for 10%- 15% performance over the 3080? plus the 3070 on overclockers when released will be 620 euros

In this generation, there are currently only 2 cards which cost more than €500.

the 3080 is high end, the 3090 is and extreme enthusiast card that very few people will buy.


Cards like a 1070, 2070, rx 5700xt etx were high end cards. Cards at their price points will be high end cards.

cards like a 580/590 or 5600 or 1060 or 1650 or 2060 are mid range cards.

Azza

I still think the mid range something in the €200-350 price category. I wouldn't class a RTX 2060 or RX 5700 as low end. Also I think there is a glass of GPU's like the RTX 2070 and the 5700XT or previous gen GTX 1070 and Vega 56 that I class in between the mid range and high end.

Mucashinto

GHOST MGG wrote: »

...plus the 3070 on overclockers when released will be 620 euros

Looks like the cheapest 3070 on there is £500. And that will only be for the first XXmins or so if the 3080 release is repeated, can probably expect another €30/40 added on as the F5 keys are hammered

EDIT: And they have one for £659?? That's more than the 3080 FE right? FFS

AZZA wrote:

I still think the mid range something in the €200-350 price category

I think atm that's low-end tbh (unfortunately). Nothing at that price range will get any genuine ray-tracing for example. So that would be a mid-range PC GPU not being able to do something a €400 console can.

Strange times. :eek:

MidlanderMan

Mucashinto wrote: »

I think atm that's low-end tbh (unfortunately). Nothing at that price range will get any genuine ray-tracing for example. So that would be a mid-range PC GPU not being able to do something a €400 console can.

Strange times. :eek:

If AMD's APUs for concole using RDNA2 based NAVI graphics can do ray tracing, so will their 250-300 euro mid tier cards which will have the same archiecture, higher clock speeds, and more VRAM.

Mucashinto

MidlanderMan wrote: »

If AMD's APUs for concole using RDNA2 based NAVI graphics can do ray tracing, so will their 250-300 euro mid tier cards which will have the same archiecture, higher clock speeds, and more VRAM.

That's reassuring, hadn't thought about it like that tbh. Obviously the usual caveats apply but if the consoles are advertising themselves as 4K machines, and I'm only gaming at 1440p, a €400 GPU from AMD (or Nvidia) should give me more than I need. It's just where they hell are they?

I just want a good update from my 1080 without crippling expense.
If they have a card nearing 3080, for less, I'll be happy.

Overheal

Radeon hasn't been the leader in forever. But I mean, I've also had all my builds be Radeon the past 10+ years and I haven't felt out in the cold, either. their market position always meant their cards are a bit lower price too, sometimes better bang for buck.

I'm still running an r9 390. Before that, I was running 2x 5770s in Crossfire. Another 5 years, another GPU?

According to TechPowerUp, going from the (1x) 5770 to the R9 390 was a 447% jump in relative performance. So, 250% from the crossfire if being really generous about the scaling.

An R9 390 to the 2080 Ti would be a similar performance jump, 282%, or to the 3080 would be 410%,

Honestly it seems inevitable Big Navi will met the gain in performance I would expect. The question will be price, if it's a sub $400 offering it seems like a no brainer to me, I don't need to spend $800 or $1500 on Nvidia's 2K and 4K gaming options - and they can't even run Crysis Remastered in Can it Run Crysis Mode in 4K 60 Hz (gets about 30 fps or less) - so, this does not seem like the generation to leap into 4K high end gaming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Xtmayoly8

Homelander

Crysis is not relevant at all, it's an absolute dog**** "remaster" to boot and offers no valuable insight whatsoever into this generation of cards.

RTX3080 is a killer 4K gaming card, new/current games run at 4k ultra way north of 60fps.

GHOST MGG

No offence but anyone that thinks that big navi even the mid range one will be sub 400 dollars is going to be in for a rude awakening.

AMD can smell blood in the water and their business model has changed from being the Cheerfully cheap graphics and chip developer to "i can charge as well as nvidia and intel do" for my products.

crazy to think that looking at intel now in regards to chips that they seem to be the cheap option....oh the irony

Squidgy Black

You can't really base everything off of one really poorly optimised remaster though. There's plenty of other GPU bound titles that the 3080 is running 4k ultra at above 60hz on average, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Far Cry New Dawn, Gears 5, Assassin's Creed Odyssey just as examples which are pretty demanding titles where previous gens couldn't.

I do agree though that it isn't a massive jump up performance wise in terms that there isn't a significant amount of headroom if there was a change in how things are done that would cause say a 10fps drop across the board or so if things got more taxing.

But it's definitely capable of 4k easily with present titles

Overheal

Squidgy Black wrote: »

You can't really base everything off of one really poorly optimised remaster though. There's plenty of other GPU bound titles that the 3080 is running 4k ultra at above 60hz on average, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Far Cry New Dawn, Gears 5, Assassin's Creed Odyssey just as examples which are pretty demanding titles where previous gens couldn't.

I do agree though that it isn't a massive jump up performance wise in terms that there isn't a significant amount of headroom if there was a change in how things are done that would cause say a 10fps drop across the board or so if things got more taxing.

But it's definitely capable of 4k easily with present titles

VERY true - but also, not seeing impressive performance out of flight sim 2020 benchmarks either. ie. not hitting 60 frames on the 3080. Very playable numbers, but tbh it doesn't match my expectations compared to the market hype during its launch based on that RTX Marbles demo.



So it's CAPABLE, of 4K, but that just gives me PTSD of "Windows Vista Capable" and these numbers, kinda reinforce that feeling. I could not confidently build a top end PC with these flagship cards/CPUs and expect to get frustration-free performance from a 4K setup, I'd be committed to tweaking settings for anything new I want to play. So, I'd definitely configure for 2K or 1080p gaming, personally.

TitianGerm

Overheal wrote: »

VERY true - but also, not seeing impressive performance out of flight sim 2020 benchmarks either. ie. not hitting 60 frames on the 3080. Very playable numbers, but tbh it doesn't match my expectations compared to the market hype during its launch based on that RTX Marbles demo.



So it's CAPABLE, of 4K, but that just gives me PTSD of "Windows Vista Capable" and these numbers, kinda reinforce that feeling. I could not confidently build a top end PC with these flagship cards/CPUs and expect to get frustration-free performance from a 4K setup, I'd be committed to tweaking settings for anything new I want to play. So, I'd definitely configure for 2K or 1080p gaming, personally.

Is Flight Sim not limited to DX11 at the moment and CPU limited rather than GPU limited?

Overheal

TitianGerm wrote: »

Is Flight Sim not limited to DX11 at the moment and CPU limited rather than GPU limited?

That is represented here by the extremely low minimum framerates that are consistent across the range of test cards. But it would be unfair to call it CPU 'limited,' if that were the case each of these cards would have the same max frames, but they clearly do not. eg. the max framerate of the 3080 is 48% faster than the 2080 Super

Overheal

This is a current gen test with the lastest Navi driver installed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6waeSoZlfE

The 2080 Super is definitely > 5700XT but not with linear bump in price, and both are very comparable to one another.