AMD Navi Discussion

Slutmonkey57b

Overheal wrote: »

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.

The thing is, too many people have reported fundamental problems with the 5700 not working, drivers crashing, etc. that 200 price difference doesn't matter enough. What's the point in saving 200 quid if after a month or so you are sending it back and buying the more expensive card anyway?

Homelander

Also it's a false comparison anyway. To begin with.... a) the 5700XT is much slower than the 2080S broadly speaking and b) the 2080S belongs in a higher price bracket where value per dollar falls sharply off anyway.

A better comparison is the 2070S, which does cost a similar amount, and performs on average better than the 5700XT still.

The widely accepted as terrible "remaster" of Crysis, Flight Sim 2020......a strange set of metrics to try and prove the unprovable really.

By those same metrics, the 5700XT is a bad 1440P card, the GTX1660 is a bad 1080P card, etc. You can't base the worth of a card on obscure benchmarks that don't remotely reflect the actual gaming market.

I mean how anyone can look at a benchmark which shows the RTX3080 is 20% faster than 2080Ti and more than 100% faster than 5700XT in a notoriously inefficient and demanding game, yet still offer a conclusion that the RTX3080 in isolation is under performing?

Look at benchmarks for actual "normal" games. The RTX3080 can do 4K ultra 60-110fps in the latest games, title dependent. The metric here is a) the fact it can do that and b) the improvement it offers on previous gen in raw performance as well as RTX capability.

So, yeah, the RTX3080 is expensive, but it is a bit ludicrous to try and argue that it's disappointing or under-performing.

Slutmonkey57b

Gaming metrics in a way are not a good benchmark anyway, because nobody starts with the most basic question : Is this game well coded? Games regularly ship with the sort of massive day 1 bugs that would see most commercial software companies go under due to an exodus of customers. And we're talking software with lead times of years with development budgets in the hundreds of millions in triple a game title so they can't use that as an excuse.

"This doesn't perform well" sure, but is it just **** code?

In AMD's world the video actually paints a worse case : it says "If you could trust us to write drivers, this is how the card would have performed 2 years ago, but you can't, so it didn't". Not a good sales pitch.

circadian

GHOST MGG wrote: »

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

I think $400 would be the bottom line for their mid range. AMD spent years maturing the Zen architecture and are now at a place where they can justify charging a premium and can use this to build funds for the inevitable fight back from Intel.

RDNA is still just chipping away at the Nvidia Market share. I don't think it'll mature into something that'll either truly compete or even best nvidias offerings for another generation or two. Until then, I'd imagine the pricing scale will be similar to how Zen was.

What IS impressive, however, is the performance gains on Zen with the power draw. If they can do similar with GPUs then that's a good sign, especially since Ampere seems to be very power hungry. More power, less refinement seems to be the deal with it. Maybe they'll refresh Ampere to be more efficient and I suspect that this was a rushed launch.

_CreeD_

I think there's a been a shift in expectations in the last decade around new tech and AAA game performance. It was previously a given that when a new high end title came out current hardware could not run it at typically accepted framerates on highest settings, there was always some future proofing built in with room for the game to look better at a later time. Resolution was on an almost yearly crawl upwards, 640x480...1024x768...1280x960... each year it would nudge up just a bit. Considering it wasn't uncommon then for people to be playing multiplayer titles almost exclusively for years at a time (I mean single titles exclusively) that was a plus, incremental upgrades brought incremental visual improvements over those years.
Consoles changed things to an extent in that they became the multi-year-static bar for development, with high end PCs at the launch of each generation being at or above that bar already. Then throw in the stall of max. resolution at 1080p for so long allowing hardware to pass 60Hz at the peak resolution with ease. The jump from that to 4K meant a 400% pixel increase, massive compared to previous resolution generational increases (which where typically closer to 50% or 100% every few years). Basically a long breather that set some false expectations (compared to long term) for how any new game should perform on current gen hardware , and recently a relatively huge jump that makes it look like the new cards have failed versus new releases.
Unless you see no obvious return for the less than 60FPS target on titles like Flight Sim then it's not a problem with current high-end it just means the game is designed to look/perform better over time, it's a value add imho for the game and not a strike against current high-end.

i think it'll be a few years before we have cards that absolutely will run 4k60 on everything, with the same level of certainty we've had for the last few years and 1080p. The 2080ti can do it currently on about 80% (of what I've played), the 3080 can do it on practically everything (bar the few mentioned above) but with the new console releases the bar will raise enough that this will not be the case a year from now. I'd say maybe the next gen, definitely the 2nd after this it'll be a reasonable expectation and anything that doesn't will simply be an un-optimised anomaly.

My $.02

BloodBath

I wouldn't mind crisis remastered. The game was optimized badly on purpose to play into the "can it run crisis" meme. I'd sooner play the original.

No chance of big navi being a sub €400 offering. It's a high end card that's gonna push the 3080 close and has 16gb of memory. €600 would be cheap/fair for it. I don't think they can charge much more than that for it though unless it outright beats the 3080. Maybe €650 at a push.

Down the stack there's a 12gb card that will compete, probably still beat the 3070, with 12gb of memory that I'd expect to cost around €500 undercutting the 3070 a bit.

Then there's the 8gb 5700xt replacement that should be around 30% faster for around the same price of 350-400 that will compete with the 3060.

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

I wouldn't mind crisis remastered. The game was optimized badly on purpose to play into the "can it run crisis" meme. I'd sooner play the original.

No chance of big navi being a sub €400 offering. It's a high end card that's gonna push the 3080 close and has 16gb of memory. €600 would be cheap/fair for it. I don't think they can charge much more than that for it though unless it outright beats the 3080. Maybe €650 at a push.

Down the stack there's a 12gb card that will compete, probably still beat the 3070, with 12gb of memory that I'd expect to cost around €500 undercutting the 3070 a bit.

Then there's the 8gb 5700xt replacement that should be around 30% faster for around the same price of 350-400 that will compete with the 3060.

+1

Azza

Regarding Flight Simulator, from looking at performance reviews, it can be both GPU and CPU limited depending on the situation. Most long time flights simmers do not care for 60FPS, 30 FPS is perfectly playable to them, they care primarily about realism of the flight model and the immersion of the graphics. Its not a high speed game that needs fast reaction times, so 30 FPS is more than playable, 60 FPS would just be a minor bonus to them, though for sure they would like some of the performance dips and stutters fixed. Its just the graphics of the new Flight Simulator have attracted quite a few gamers who are first time simmers and they have different expectations. I'm sure performance will improve and scale on multi core CPU's once they release a DX12 patch. You can likely expect AMD GPU's to get a boost as well when that happens.

@ Creed

There will always be a few games that won't run at 4K60, due to CPU limitations, regardless of how fast GPU's get. The original Crysis is one such an example. Unless CPU's manufacturers can find a way of substantially improving IPC or CPU clock speed.
It was very disappointing to see Crysis remastered be CPU limited almost as badly as the original game.

_CreeD_

Azza wrote: »

@ Creed

There will always be a few games that won't run at 4K60, due to CPU limitations, regardless of how fast GPU's get. The original Crysis is one such an example. Unless CPU's manufacturers can find a way of substantially improving IPC or CPU clock speed.
It was very disappointing to see Crysis remastered be CPU limited almost as badly as the original game.

Agreed, there will always be outliers.
I love the Crysis series and have replayed them more than any other franchise over the years but I have no desire to get the remaster, at least now for now. The visual upgrade does not justify the apparent performance problems and they don't deserve a sale to justify instancing a meme.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The thing is, too many people have reported fundamental problems with the 5700 not working, drivers crashing, etc. that 200 price difference doesn't matter enough. What's the point in saving 200 quid if after a month or so you are sending it back and buying the more expensive card anyway?

Depends on the consumer I guess. I could see a $200 for savings and and drivers which may or may not ever give your setup problems.

To be fair, the 3080 that just came out had its own problems, whether that can be fixed with a driver or has to be RMA'd (if it is the capacitor design) or the customer has to leave overclocking off the table is up in the air.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Gaming metrics in a way are not a good benchmark anyway, because nobody starts with the most basic question : Is this game well coded? Games regularly ship with the sort of massive day 1 bugs that would see most commercial software companies go under due to an exodus of customers. And we're talking software with lead times of years with development budgets in the hundreds of millions in triple a game title so they can't use that as an excuse.

"This doesn't perform well" sure, but is it just **** code?

In AMD's world the video actually paints a worse case : it says "If you could trust us to write drivers, this is how the card would have performed 2 years ago, but you can't, so it didn't". Not a good sales pitch.

It's not a sales pitch for a card over the other really. As a consumer if I want to build a PC now, I want a luxury experience with the newest games, period. That's an amalgamation of PC hardware and gaming software, bottom line if even the bleeding edge of consumer hardware cannot achieve what I would think is reasonably smooth, or consistent 4K gameplay, then I'm not going to use a 4K screen, or use it as a 4K build. If the game your playing (like flightsim) is smooth at 30 Hz, do that I mean but I play a huge gamut of games, so high framerate performance is a must for me, even as 1080p 60Hz feels more and more dated. That's why these benchmarks are relevant to me anyway. Personally I'm debating whether to go to 1080p 144 Hz or go to 1440p 60 Hz.

Coyler

Overheal wrote: »

Depends on the consumer I guess. I could see a $200 for savings and and drivers which may or may not ever give your setup problems.

Every generation of ATI/AMD card I've owned since my last Nvidia card (Geforce 3) has apparently has some "fundamental problems" according to people who don't seem to own any ATI/AMD cards. Yet I've managed knock out a few games in that time.

To be honest, I was so disappointed with the increase in performance that the Geforce 3 gave me at the time I swore off over spending on hardware ever since. As it stands, AMD GPUs are just better value for money and the "fundamental problems" that some claim to exist are usually not all that "fundamental" but just the usual rough and tumble of PC hardware.

But, hey, I used to play games from cassette tapes and before that they were just text in pages of magazines so my tolerance for that kind of BS might be a little more built up

Slutmonkey57b

Coyler wrote: »

Every generation of ATI/AMD card I've owned since my last Nvidia card (Geforce 3) has apparently has some "fundamental problems" according to people who don't seem to own any ATI/AMD cards. Yet I've managed knock out a few games in that time.

To be honest, I was so disappointed with the increase in performance that the Geforce 3 gave me at the time I swore off over spending on hardware ever since. As it stands, AMD GPUs are just better value for money and the "fundamental problems" that some claim to exist are usually not all that "fundamental" but just the usual rough and tumble of PC hardware.

But, hey, I used to play games from cassette tapes and before that they were just text in pages of magazines so my tolerance for that kind of BS might be a little more built up

I have similar recollections but I've no tolerance for it at all. As you say, some users won't have any problems, but far too many do. PC hardware is much more complex now, but engineering teams and tools are much better. If a single person inventing new programming techniques on the fly could make a game with fewer bugs than today's AAA titles then there's something wrong. Gaming wise, I am strongly leaning back towards the position I had at the beginning of the year : PC offers next to nothing over console gaming and brings endless hassle with 3x the expense to achieve similar results.

EoinHef

So If i spent €1500(3 x cost of a console) id get similar results to console?

Thats just not true at all

Slutmonkey57b

200 xbox one s absolutely = 600 PC

1500 quid pc is "better" if you're prepared to spend your life benchmarking stuff. At no point playing Witcher 3 on the xbox did I think to myself "god this is dog ugly wish I had a PC to do this justice". And a console will always look better than a bluescreening pc with months of "uninstall the drivers in this specific order while hanging upside down from a banana tree and then make sure you use the latest version of this but also not the latest version of the other because that's got issues and oh the 6gb version of that card is dodgy but it's got the same name as the good version so be careful".

EoinHef

https://www.awd-it.co.uk/awd-mb520-argb-ryzen-7-2700x-nvidia-gtx-1660-super-16gb-ram-desktop-gaming-pc.html

For €50 more than 3x €200 Id take that all day over a series s.

If console is for you fine,but stop talkin non sense.

JoyPad

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

200 xbox one s absolutely = 600

I hope you don't mind me asking, but why are you even reading this forum?

TitianGerm

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

200 xbox one s absolutely = 600 PC

€200 One S from last gen with the Jaguar chip? No chance it's even in the same ballpark.

Now if you're talking about the €300 Series S then we'll have to wait and see. Don't think I'll be able to work from home on my Xbox though.

GHOST MGG

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

200 xbox one s absolutely = 600 PC

1500 quid pc is "better" if you're prepared to spend your life benchmarking stuff. At no point playing Witcher 3 on the xbox did I think to myself "god this is dog ugly wish I had a PC to do this justice". And a console will always look better than a bluescreening pc with months of "uninstall the drivers in this specific order while hanging upside down from a banana tree and then make sure you use the latest version of this but also not the latest version of the other because that's got issues and oh the 6gb version of that card is dodgy but it's got the same name as the good version so be careful".

You obviously have not played the witcher 3 on my asus 4k monitor 144hz screen running a overlocked 2080ti

Aodhan5000

GHOST MGG wrote: »

You obviously have not played the witcher 3 on my asus 4k monitor 144hz screen running a overlocked 2080ti

Unless you dropped the settings a lot I don't think you'd be getting much value out of the high refresh there tbf now.

Slutmonkey57b

Aodhan5000 wrote: »

Unless you dropped the settings a lot I don't think you'd be getting much value out of the high refresh there tbf now.

Exactly. There is a massive assumption that all these numbers translate into some sort of meaningful difference for gaming. If you're a pro gamer playing cs:go, sure, maybe, in a pinch. Everyone else is getting a very mildly improved visual with no gameplay difference at all. Last gen consoles run games with beautiful visuals. The generation before that, sure there was a massive gap and the investment was worth it for a pc. And that's why pc desktop sales were in the bin pre lockdown. .

K.O.Kiki

Overheal wrote: »

It's not a sales pitch for a card over the other really. As a consumer if I want to build a PC now, I want a luxury experience with the newest games, period. That's an amalgamation of PC hardware and gaming software, bottom line if even the bleeding edge of consumer hardware cannot achieve what I would think is reasonably smooth, or consistent 4K gameplay, then I'm not going to use a 4K screen, or use it as a 4K build. If the game your playing (like flightsim) is smooth at 30 Hz, do that I mean but I play a huge gamut of games, so high framerate performance is a must for me, even as 1080p 60Hz feels more and more dated. That's why these benchmarks are relevant to me anyway. Personally I'm debating whether to go to 1080p 144 Hz or go to 1440p 60 Hz.

I think the minimum you should aim for is 1440p 75Hz.

Aodhan5000

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Exactly. There is a massive assumption that all these numbers translate into some sort of meaningful difference for gaming. If you're a pro gamer playing cs:go, sure, maybe, in a pinch. Everyone else is getting a very mildly improved visual with no gameplay difference at all. Last gen consoles run games with beautiful visuals. The generation before that, sure there was a massive gap and the investment was worth it for a pc. And that's why pc desktop sales were in the bin pre lockdown. .

Btw that isn't me advocating for consoles. I would agree that for bang for buck gaming, consoles win out however I think there's some middle ground between paying a fat amount for a 2080ti and getting a console. PC's are in general more versatile as well, it's just a given fact and some people just prefer them over console (myself included) based on operating system/customizablilty etc etc.

Slutmonkey57b

Here's why I think it's important:
Both companies have totally abandoned the €125-€200 market for graphics cards. AMD has been recycling the Polaris in that price bracket for ... 4 generations? More? Nvidia has offered a good couple of budget products in the 750/1050ti range, but then there is a massive gap from there to the next tier up. In the meantime, the products have just about kept pace with 1080p 60hz gaming. Every new "generation" launched just about keeps up with the new round of games. Where's the €150-€200 card that lets you game reasonably at 1440p, which is the next reasonable step up in resolution for the midrange gamer? There hasn't been one. In order to play 1440 at reasonable framerates you've got to spend €250 - €350. So yes a PC is more versatile. But when the graphics card alone is the price of a console which offers a similar games experience, what's the point? 4k PC graphics cards cost more than a new gen Xbox or PS5.

TO put this in context, I played through The Division on xbox. It looked great, ran great, and was well worth it. I'm currently playing Division 2 on PC. It looks no better, has cost me more than an Xbox to build, and the longest stretch of playing I've got on it without the PC bluescreening, or Uplay crashing is about 3 days. It can't even send crash reports reliably. So while I like the PC, and I've enjoyed getting back into a build, I can't get excited about the next launch of PC graphics cards that don't even cater to the average gamer, and won't keep pace with a console that costs less. It's frustrating.

circadian

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I think the minimum you should aim for is 1440p 75Hz.

I'd agree with this. I'm on 4K 60hz and hitting that target the vast majority of the time. But there are games where I question the need for that resolution. I was on 1440p 120hz as my brother let me borrow his monitor for a bit.

I think the higher refresh rate is worth the drop in resolution, especially in screen sizes less than say 32" or so.

Homelander

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

200 xbox one s absolutely = 600 PC

Is that a joke? €600 will buy you a new Ryzen 2700 and GTX1660 system to run every current game at 1080p ultra, light years beyond a One S.

If you want to talk 2nd hand, maybe a PC that could be bought for €200.

I know I built my friend a PC for low-intensity stuff, an i5-3470 with a GTX1050, total cost was about €220.

The games he plays, run as well/better than the Xbox One depending on the game.

Slutmonkey57b

Homelander wrote: »

Is that a joke? €600 will buy you a new Ryzen 2700 and GTX1660 system to run every current game at 1080p ultra, light years beyond a One S.

If you want to talk 2nd hand, maybe a PC that could be bought for €200.

I know I built my friend a PC for low-intensity stuff, an i5-3470 with a GTX1050, total cost was about €220.

The games he plays, run as well/better than the Xbox One depending on the game.

A 1660ti or S might, but that's a lot more expensive than a 1660 vanilla. And the One S will do 1080 at settings which honestly don't make a meaningful difference to "ultra" other than that the numbers fetishist gets to say "ultra". Who can, hand on heart, tell me they can see the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA? The only reason PC gamers claim to see massive differences is because they're sitting 30cm from the screen. If you're playing on a console, it's hooked up to a TV in the living room, and you're more than 30cm away, at which point, the jaggies start to go away anyway.


PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 3.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€339.90 @ Alza)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1660 6 GB VENTUS XS OC Video Card (€216.70 @ Computeruniverse)
Total: €556.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-10-16 02:32 CEST+0200

So.... 550 quid before adding minor items like ... a case, a motherboard, a PSU, memory and storage. Don't know where you're buying your parts...

Oh... and €500 quid will get you a PS5 or an Xbox Series X which will do 4k at 60hz+. Your 1660 will struggle with 1440.

K.O.Kiki

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Here's why I think it's important:
Both companies have totally abandoned the €125-€200 market for graphics cards. AMD has been recycling the Polaris in that price bracket for ... 4 generations? More? Nvidia has offered a good couple of budget products in the 750/1050ti range, but then there is a massive gap from there to the next tier up. In the meantime, the products have just about kept pace with 1080p 60hz gaming. Every new "generation" launched just about keeps up with the new round of games. Where's the €150-€200 card that lets you game reasonably at 1440p, which is the next reasonable step up in resolution for the midrange gamer? There hasn't been one. In order to play 1440 at reasonable framerates you've got to spend €250 - €350. So yes a PC is more versatile. But when the graphics card alone is the price of a console which offers a similar games experience, what's the point? 4k PC graphics cards cost more than a new gen Xbox or PS5.

1. Neither company abandoned the market, they just made their budget GPUs more efficient - RX 5500 XT & GTX 1650 Super are perfectly capable of 1080p & even 1440p 60fps gaming & sit in the €150-200 price brackets.

2. And you're forgetting the midrange which existed in form of 2060 Super & RX 5700 and was more than capable of 1440p 60fps+ gaming.

3. We're still waiting on AMD to compete with Nvidia in the high-end, but a graphics card from previous gen to match RTX 2070 (around where PS5/XSX are expected to be) is the RX 5700 XT which launched at $399 / €419 - on-par with PS5 disc-less & lower than XSX.
And we still need to see if games 2yrs into PS5/XSX lifespan can still achieve true 4k 60fps or will they abandon it for 30fps.

TO put this in context, I played through The Division on xbox. It looked great, ran great, and was well worth it. I'm currently playing Division 2 on PC. It looks no better, has cost me more than an Xbox to build, and the longest stretch of playing I've got on it without the PC bluescreening, or Uplay crashing is about 3 days. It can't even send crash reports reliably. So while I like the PC, and I've enjoyed getting back into a build, I can't get excited about the next launch of PC graphics cards that don't even cater to the average gamer, and won't keep pace with a console that costs less. It's frustrating.

That's 1 game. Blame Ubisoft, not the graphics cards.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

A 1660ti or S might, but that's a lot more expensive than a 1660 vanilla. And the One S will do 1080 at settings which honestly don't make a meaningful difference to "ultra" other than that the numbers fetishist gets to say "ultra". Who can, hand on heart, tell me they can see the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA? The only reason PC gamers claim to see massive differences is because they're sitting 30cm from the screen. If you're playing on a console, it's hooked up to a TV in the living room, and you're more than 30cm away, at which point, the jaggies start to go away anyway.


PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 3.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€339.90 @ Alza)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1660 6 GB VENTUS XS OC Video Card (€216.70 @ Computeruniverse)
Total: €556.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-10-16 02:32 CEST+0200

So.... 550 quid before adding minor items like ... a case, a motherboard, a PSU, memory and storage. Don't know where you're buying your parts...

Oh... and €500 quid will get you a PS5 or an Xbox Series X which will do 4k at 60hz+. Your 1660 will struggle with 1440.

That's a terrible comparison.
Not only are Ryzen 2700 superseded by Ryzen 3600 (€170-190) but even a €95 Ryzen 3100 will get you over 60fps.

As for GPU, cheap GTX 1660 Supers exist & are money better spent.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 3100 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor (€95.00 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Motherboard: MSI A520M-A PRO Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (€67.80 @ Computeruniverse)
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory (€52.90 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Storage: Western Digital Blue SN550 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive (€52.90 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB Phoenix OC Video Card (€217.33 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Case: Corsair 88R MicroATX Mid Tower Case (€45.48 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Power Supply: be quiet! System Power 9 400 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply (€42.92 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €574.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-10-16 04:00 CEST+0200

Is it comparable to a PS5/XSX?
No, because that's not a fair comparison.

Those consoles are new & Microsoft/Sony are selling them at a loss.
But as above, the 1660 Super absolutely can do 1440p 60 fps @ console (High/Ultra) settings and even 4k 30 at Ultra settings.

TitianGerm

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

1. Neither company abandoned the market, they just made their budget GPUs more efficient - RX 5500 XT & GTX 1650 Super are perfectly capable of 1080p & even 1440p 60fps gaming & sit in the €150-200 price brackets.

2. And you're forgetting the midrange which existed in form of 2060 Super & RX 5700 and was more than capable of 1440p 60fps+ gaming.

3. We're still waiting on AMD to compete with Nvidia in the high-end, but a graphics card from previous gen to match RTX 2070 (around where PS5/XSX are expected to be) is the RX 5700 XT which launched at $399 / €419 - on-par with PS5 disc-less & lower than XSX.
And we still need to see if games 2yrs into PS5/XSX lifespan can still achieve true 4k 60fps or will they abandon it for 30fps.


That's 1 game. Blame Ubisoft, not the graphics cards.


That's a terrible comparison.
Not only are Ryzen 2700 superseded by Ryzen 3600 (€170-190) but even a €95 Ryzen 3100 will get you over 60fps.

As for GPU, cheap GTX 1660 Supers exist & are money better spent.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 3100 3.6 GHz Quad-Core Processor (€95.00 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Motherboard: MSI A520M-A PRO Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (€67.80 @ Computeruniverse)
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory (€52.90 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Storage: Western Digital Blue SN550 500 GB M.2-2280 NVME Solid State Drive (€52.90 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6 GB Phoenix OC Video Card (€217.33 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Case: Corsair 88R MicroATX Mid Tower Case (€45.48 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Power Supply: be quiet! System Power 9 400 W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply (€42.92 @ Amazon Deutschland)
Total: €574.33
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-10-16 04:00 CEST+0200

Is it comparable to a PS5/XSX?
No, because that's not a fair comparison.

Those consoles are new & Microsoft/Sony are selling them at a loss.
But as above, the 1660 Super absolutely can do 1440p 60 fps @ console (High/Ultra) settings and even 4k 30 at Ultra settings.

He's not talking about the new consoles. He's talking about the One S. Digital Foundry have plenty of comparison videos up and the majority of games are usually running at 780-900p at 30FPS with large dips some do run better than that obviously.

Homelander

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

A 1660ti or S might, but that's a lot more expensive than a 1660 vanilla. And the One S will do 1080 at settings which honestly don't make a meaningful difference to "ultra" other than that the numbers fetishist gets to say "ultra". Who can, hand on heart, tell me they can see the difference between 4xMSAA and 8xMSAA? The only reason PC gamers claim to see massive differences is because they're sitting 30cm from the screen. If you're playing on a console, it's hooked up to a TV in the living room, and you're more than 30cm away, at which point, the jaggies start to go away anyway.


PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 2700 3.2 GHz 8-Core Processor (€339.90 @ Alza)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 1660 6 GB VENTUS XS OC Video Card (€216.70 @ Computeruniverse)
Total: €556.60
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2020-10-16 02:32 CEST+0200

So.... 550 quid before adding minor items like ... a case, a motherboard, a PSU, memory and storage. Don't know where you're buying your parts...

Oh... and €500 quid will get you a PS5 or an Xbox Series X which will do 4k at 60hz+. Your 1660 will struggle with 1440.

Sorry man this whole post is utter nonsense of the highest order.

Firstly - here's a brand new PC for £589 with Ryzen 2700X, 1660 Super, 16GB Ram, etc.

https://www.awd-it.co.uk/awd-mb520-argb-ryzen-7-2700x-nvidia-gtx-1660-super-16gb-ram-desktop-gaming-pc.html

And One S 1080P? The majority of games run at 720p-900p dynamic at 30fps due to the Jaguar CPU.

Maybe.... just don't post when you haven't a clue what you're even talking about.