AMD Navi Discussion

Slutmonkey57b

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Not only are Ryzen 2700 superseded by Ryzen 3600 (€170-190) but even a €95 Ryzen 3100 will get you over 60fps.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

Summary :."midrange" is over 200 quid, often more like 300.
That's my point, "midrange" prices have shifted up a bracket and the previous "midrange" price point is now abandoned to "same product, slightly more energy efficient process node/newly validated direct x spec". That's not a good thing. Persuading yourself that ever increasing prices for graphics cards is a good thing is not for me, but maybe you're different.

"Consoles only meet the spec by making some sacrifices so it doesn't count"... Followed by mutterings about how pc components can also meet higher specs by making sacrifices or cutting corners. Apparently its bad if one side of the fence does it but not others.

"one game does not make the case". I wasn't suggesting it did. But there are plenty of examples like it. Pick your own. Tell me of a cross platform AAA title that looked like **** on the last generation of consoles instead. I can't think of one. I'd never have bought a 360 or a ps3 over a pc because there was a noticeable gulf in quality. That's simply not true any more.

The last time a console had hardware issues was the original 360. Whereas pc gaming comes with endless hosts of problems, all the time, every generation. Which the user has to dig through, often blindly. All for the pleasure of greater expense and some numbers which only make a difference if you're running a benchmark and writing them down.

And nobody addressed my central point : When you turn that slider to "ultra"...

What do you see? What *changes*? Not very much. Because today's game engines do all sorts of things to cover up the difference. PC gaming is stuck in that spinal tap moment : "Why don't you change it so that 10 is the loudest?.... This one goes up to 11". Great. Your slider is at ultra. Well done. Well worth paying 3-4 times as much. Totally see the difference.

Azza

No one would argue consoles are better bang for you buck in terms of performance, particularly when consoles are first released. As John Carmack said, consoles can get twice the performance from console than from an equivalent spec PC because of the fixed nature of console hardware and consoles are often sold at a loss as the company making them make their money back via game sales and subscription services.

If your happy with console graphics levels and performance and don't believe the advantages of PC warrant paying the added cost that's fine. But that's all subjective.

I game on PC for the following reasons.

Keyboard and mouse controls for FPS games, to me FPS games are simply more enjoyable with a keyboard and mouse. Third person shooters as well though not to the same extent as first person shooters. I can also use a pad in games I believe play better with a pad.

Higher frame rates. This isn't a thing where I absolutely must demand 60FPS at minimum in every game and proclaim 30FPs is completely unplayable. Some games and genre's don't massively benefit from higher frame rates, its just a minor bonus, but again in FPS games 60FPS is without a doubt more enjoyable than 30FPS and once your use to it, its hard to go back. The higher frame rates simply allow for a more responsive gaming experience. There has been tests done where players where asked to play the same game with the same graphics on three different PC's, the only difference was the frame rate was different on each machine, but they where not told this. When asked which version they preferred to play, the all choose the PC with the highest frame rate as the most enjoyable, though they couldn't explain why, they just said it felt better for some reason.

Current gen consoles are still largely 30FPS gaming machines, and there is a number of games that struggle to consistently hit this and it does noticeable detract from the gaming experience. Take the game Control with consistent low performance during combat on base consoles, dipping as low as 10FPs on the PS4, that is something I would call unplayable.

High resolutions, I'm not into 4K gaming and 1080p is perfectly acceptable to me, but again using Control as an example it runs at 720p on the Xbox One S and 900p on PS4, that's something I will notice and it would detract from my gaming experience. I was playing at resolution already exceeding 720p over 10 years ago.

Better graphics, yes in some cases the Ultra settings are very marginal in their improvements over console graphics, in some cases its more noticeable, but the advantage is there for the PC and if you put a PC with a console side by side you would notice the difference. If your saying the graphics improvement are not worth while your also in affect saying that new consoles are not worth while either, other than the fact that eventually games will no longer be made for the older consoles.

Faster load times. No contest here an SSD in a gaming PC will offer noticeable improvements over consoles when it comes to load times.

I also like RTS, strategy games and simulation games, these are genre's that the console's don't really cater too. I don't play MMO's but its another genre the PC has a better selection in. The PC with vastly more independent developers and tends to the lead the way in terms of game play innovations.

Playing online is free.

Its the platform with the single biggest catalogue of games.

Mods.

Unofficially community patches. Some bugs and developers the developer have decided not to fix can be fixed by modders.

Multiple competing digital store fronts, competition resulting in frequent sales which benefits me the consumer. In general PC game are about a €10 cheaper to buy at release as well.

Yes the PC as a gaming platform costs more than a console but to me these advantages are worth paying the additional cost for.

Homelander

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And nobody addressed my central point : When you turn that slider to "ultra"...

Eh, probably because you aren't making any sort of vaguely coherent point to begin with?

First it was that the One S is the same as a €600 PC.

Now it's that PC is for people who want to turn the slider to ultra, and an implication that the difference is so marginal people wouldn't really notice.

You do understand that most games run at 720p-900p on the One S, at 30fps? At the roughly equivalent to low/med settings?

I mean, you asked someone to name one AAA game?

Apex Legends. Runs at 720p-900p usually on the Xbox One, frame-rate varies from 30-60, visually looks similar to PC at low.

A friend of mine plays sometimes on my 2nd PC, he said he finds it jarring how much better it looks and smoother it is on PC compared to his PS4.

I could spent all day making similar comparisons in other games that have similar performance.

Now, that's not at all downplaying consoles. I have the Pro and One X myself, they are fine and I totally see their good points.

But to make claims that there is no real perceivable gap between the One S and PC is pretty laughable as an argument.

I don't know how you can claim there was a gap between the Xbox 360 and PC, but none with the One S/PS4.

The 360 was really impressive at launch compared with PC. The Xbox One and PS4 weren't, mostly due to the useless Jaguar CPU which was outdated even in 2012.

Mucashinto

Interesting points, for me only playing on a PC after years of consoles the difference was pretty big.

There's a few things that make PC superior for me, mainly immersion & latency. TVs have gotten a lot bigger lately obv so I could imagine this problem has reduced drastically and maybe some people have a serious set up where it's non-existent, but the difference in how involved in the game I get when sitting 18 inches from a monitor vs 6-8 feet from a TV completely changes the experience. Handheld can actually provide this a bit for me as well, cuts the peripheral vision out and just focus on the screen.

The latency. Arrgh, I don't even know what it is. FPS, upscaling by the TV, the controllers? But it just can feel like treacle sometimes. Really hoping the latest consoles can reduce this, and they know it's an issue so here's hoping. I have a couple of the Analogue products under the TV as well and it reminds you how the old school consoles made for CRTs didn't have this isssue. Instant on, fast action, the whole thing. Much more preferable to me.

One thing though, I'm always surprised how taken for granted mouse and keyboard being superior is. Mouse yes, overall yes, keyboard no imo. 4 digital direction buttons for movement is inferior to a multi-directional analogue stick. Add in Ctrl-z for crouch etc and I can hit a wall quickly. Often think someone should create a mouse and joystick device! Big, simulator like thing in my left hand with a few well placed buttons on it, mouse in the right hand. :pac:

Slutmonkey57b

Homelander wrote: »

Eh, probably because you aren't making any sort of vaguely coherent point to begin with?

First it was that the One S is the same as a €600 PC.

Now it's that PC is for people who want to turn the slider to ultra, and an implication that the difference is so marginal people wouldn't really notice.

You do understand that most games run at 720p-900p on the One S, at 30fps? At the roughly equivalent to low/med settings?

I mean, you asked someone to name one AAA game?

Apex Legends. Runs at 720p-900p usually on the Xbox One, frame-rate varies from 30-60, visually looks similar to PC at low.

A friend of mine plays sometimes on my 2nd PC, he said he finds it jarring how much better it looks and smoother it is on PC compared to his PS4.

I could spent all day making similar comparisons in other games that have similar performance.

Now, that's not at all downplaying consoles. I have the Pro and One X myself, they are fine and I totally see their good points.

But to make claims that there is no real perceivable gap between the One S and PC is pretty laughable as an argument.

I don't know how you can claim there was a gap between the Xbox 360 and PC, but none with the One S/PS4.

The 360 was really impressive at launch compared with PC. The Xbox One and PS4 weren't, mostly due to the useless Jaguar CPU which was outdated even in 2012.

Which looks better, a lower res version of a game running on a TV 6 or 7 feet away, or PC with a bluescreen from 30cm? Which runs better, a game on a one s at 20-30 fps or one on a pc that crashes randomly? For the most part, for gaming purposes, a one s is absolutely comparable to a 600 quid pc. There are swings and roundabouts, but overall you will get an experience out of both of them which will satisfy most people. If you pull out the measuring equipment you can show people exciting numbers. If you don't, most of the time they won't care. But one costs 3 times the other. And that's only going to get worse, not better, as the 600 quid pc is already on barebones entry level territory. I'm saying that's a bad thing. It shouldn't be the case, and it's largely down to the mad price inflation on graphics cards. Memory, ssd, processors have all not only massively improved in the same timeframe, they've got cheaper.

Overheal

I think consoles do pretty well for immersion, it's just not for me though.

Like my Xbox 360 has been collecting dust in my apartment. I re-bought vanquish on PC for $4.99 to have it in 60 fps HD today.

I hear the New xbox lets you up-port games from the Xbox One but I didn't hear if it worked for the 360 as well.

wotzgoingon

Mucashinto wrote: »

think someone should create a mouse and joystick device! Big, simulator like thing in my left hand with a few well placed buttons on it, mouse in the right hand. :pac:

There are one handed game pads for use on PC. Mouse in right hand for superior control and a one handed joy stick in left hand. You would also need a mouse with a lot of buttons as you are limited as you do not have your hand on the keyboard for extra buttons.

Squidgy Black

Overheal wrote: »

I think consoles do pretty well for immersion, it's just not for me though.

Like my Xbox 360 has been collecting dust in my apartment. I re-bought vanquish on PC for $4.99 to have it in 60 fps HD today.

I hear the New xbox lets you up-port games from the Xbox One but I didn't hear if it worked for the 360 as well.

Yeah it's backwards compatible with the 360 and even the original xbox in fairness to it.

Personally I think they both fill different purposes. If you literally just want to play story games and maybe a couple different FPS games casually and don't have a need for anything else them yeah a console's probably better value from that perspective if you're happy out with a controller.

PC on the other hand you're not only getting that ability plus potentially higher resolutions and frame-rates, but you're also getting a top spec workstation too.

Homelander

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Which looks better, a lower res version of a game running on a TV 6 or 7 feet away, or PC with a bluescreen from 30cm? Which runs better, a game on a one s at 20-30 fps or one on a pc that crashes randomly? For the most part, for gaming purposes, a one s is absolutely comparable to a 600 quid pc. There are swings and roundabouts, but overall you will get an experience out of both of them which will satisfy most people. If you pull out the measuring equipment you can show people exciting numbers. If you don't, most of the time they won't care. But one costs 3 times the other. And that's only going to get worse, not better, as the 600 quid pc is already on barebones entry level territory. I'm saying that's a bad thing. It shouldn't be the case, and it's largely down to the mad price inflation on graphics cards. Memory, ssd, processors have all not only massively improved in the same timeframe, they've got cheaper.

Do you actually expect people to take this argument seriously?

It's already been shown to you that you can get a 2700X and GTX1660 Super based machines for not much more than €600.

So you can drop the "600 euro pc is barebones entry level", unless by barebones entry level you mean 1080p ultra at 60fps on the latest games.

Also, no matter how much you repeatedly say "the xbox one s is the same as a €600 pc" doesn't make it magically true.

Because it's not true, and not even remotely close to being true.

The £589 PC that's been posted in this thread more than once - and repeatedly ignored by yourself - is way, way more powerful than a One S or PS4...or One X or PS4 Pro either for that matter.

You can build your own for €600 either. KO.Kiki posted a perfect €580 build that takes a dump over either console.

Basically you're attempting to argue that 1 + 1 = 3, completely ignoring actual facts.

BloodBath

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Summary :."midrange" is over 200 quid, often more like 300.
That's my point, "midrange" prices have shifted up a bracket and the previous "midrange" price point is now abandoned to "same product, slightly more energy efficient process node/newly validated direct x spec". That's not a good thing. Persuading yourself that ever increasing prices for graphics cards is a good thing is not for me, but maybe you're different.

"Consoles only meet the spec by making some sacrifices so it doesn't count"... Followed by mutterings about how pc components can also meet higher specs by making sacrifices or cutting corners. Apparently its bad if one side of the fence does it but not others.

"one game does not make the case". I wasn't suggesting it did. But there are plenty of examples like it. Pick your own. Tell me of a cross platform AAA title that looked like **** on the last generation of consoles instead. I can't think of one. I'd never have bought a 360 or a ps3 over a pc because there was a noticeable gulf in quality. That's simply not true any more.

The last time a console had hardware issues was the original 360. Whereas pc gaming comes with endless hosts of problems, all the time, every generation. Which the user has to dig through, often blindly. All for the pleasure of greater expense and some numbers which only make a difference if you're running a benchmark and writing them down.

And nobody addressed my central point : When you turn that slider to "ultra"...

What do you see? What *changes*? Not very much. Because today's game engines do all sorts of things to cover up the difference. PC gaming is stuck in that spinal tap moment : "Why don't you change it so that 10 is the loudest?.... This one goes up to 11". Great. Your slider is at ultra. Well done. Well worth paying 3-4 times as much. Totally see the difference.

The main difference is much higher resolutions and frame rates which are both very much noticeable. There are other graphical improvements on top of that but they are less noticeable.

Maybe you enjoy playing at 24-30fps. I sure as hell don't. I find 60 low.

I have a perfectly good experience playing at native 1440p/100fps with a €175 cpu and a €325 graphics card. Have a library of hundreds of games, many which were free or very cheap, that carry over every PC gen. Upgrades don't cost too much when you already have a PC. The first investment is the biggest.

I also use it outside of gaming for many things. It's a workstation that I use to learn and work. I think you're exaggerating the problems as well. In many years of PC ownership I've only had minor problems from time to time. It's been pretty much plain sailing especially in more recent years.

TitianGerm

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Which looks better, a lower res version of a game running on a TV 6 or 7 feet away, or PC with a bluescreen from 30cm? Which runs better, a game on a one s at 20-30 fps or one on a pc that crashes randomly? For the most part, for gaming purposes, a one s is absolutely comparable to a 600 quid pc. There are swings and roundabouts, but overall you will get an experience out of both of them which will satisfy most people. If you pull out the measuring equipment you can show people exciting numbers. If you don't, most of the time they won't care. But one costs 3 times the other. And that's only going to get worse, not better, as the 600 quid pc is already on barebones entry level territory. I'm saying that's a bad thing. It shouldn't be the case, and it's largely down to the mad price inflation on graphics cards. Memory, ssd, processors have all not only massively improved in the same timeframe, they've got cheaper.

If you built your PC as poorly as you're making this nonsensical argument I'm not surprised you were getting errors.

Overheal

Like if you are in the market and your only objective is to play Xbox games and nothing but xbox games, get an xbox. You won't be paying anything extra for performance you won't be using, to run windows, use productivity software, multitask, stream/render/edit, run more than 1 screen, or to play games at unlocked framerates and resolutions and settings, etc so yeah go for it. PC offers a pretty vast, open garden of gaming titles though, from current gen to retro emulated stuff and all the things that never make it to console.

Azza

BloodBath wrote: »

I think you're exaggerating the problems as well. In many years of PC ownership I've only had minor problems from time to time. It's been pretty much plain sailing especially in more recent years.

Aye, I don't think I have had a blue screen in over a decade.

Coyler

JoyPad wrote: »

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

I'm still at this point. I mistakenly assumed his original point was defending Nvidia is some way or singling out AMD in another but now it clear it's just general annoyance with PC gaming/building. Or maybe something a little more cynical given the other responses but that's not for me to hazard a guess at.

And, hey, if you don't like something more power to you. I just find it a bit odd to slide into a thread discussing one particular hardware release and go off on it there. It would be like jumping into a thread on the rugby forum about upcoming law changes and telling everyone how much you dislike the game. It's just weird.

Mucashinto

Azza wrote: »

Aye, I don't think I have had a blue screen in over a decade.

My theory on this is that they stopped once they got 'ol Billy out the door. Now they want us to take his vaccine :eek: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Slutmonkey57b

TitianGerm wrote: »

If you built your PC as poorly as you're making this nonsensical argument I'm not surprised you were getting errors.

Azza wrote: »

Aye, I don't think I have had a blue screen in over a decade.

Right. There's no posts on this very forum of people with PC issues. In fact, this forum doesn't specialise in helping people with build issues. Come to that, outside this forum, threads like this about driver issues with the 5700XT don't exist. https://community.amd.com/thread/250225 Also, bluescreens are so not a thing anymore that Microsoft didn't change the bluescreen in Windows 10 to make it more user friendly, adding QR codes and a dedicated website link. That's how rare it is. :rolleyes:

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Right. There's no posts on this very forum of people with PC issues. In fact, this forum doesn't specialise in helping people with build issues. Come to that, outside this forum, threads like this about driver issues with the 5700XT don't exist. https://community.amd.com/thread/250225 Also, bluescreens are so not a thing anymore that Microsoft didn't change the bluescreen in Windows 10 to make it more user friendly, adding QR codes and a dedicated website link. That's how rare it is. :rolleyes:

Console repairs are still a thing aren’t they?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to fanboi about honestly.

Slutmonkey57b

Coyler wrote: »

I'm still at this point. I mistakenly assumed his original point was defending Nvidia is some way or singling out AMD in another but now it clear it's just general annoyance with PC gaming/building. Or maybe something a little more cynical given the other responses but that's not for me to hazard a guess at.

And, hey, if you don't like something more power to you. I just find it a bit odd to slide into a thread discussing one particular hardware release and go off on it there. It would be like jumping into a thread on the rugby forum about upcoming law changes and telling everyone how much you dislike the game. It's just weird.

Pretty simple, it started out as simply a complaint that the GPU makers have spent the past 6-8 years pushing the boat out on pricing so that buyers are now getting "normalised" to the idea that a GPU should cost 300+ quid on its own to get reasonable performance. My point that consoles are now offering equivalent/better experience at lower prices than said 300+ quid GPU seems to have caused some numbers obsessives some offence.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Pretty simple, it started out as simply a complaint that the GPU makers have spent the past 6-8 years pushing the boat out on pricing so that buyers are now getting "normalised" to the idea that a GPU should cost 300+ quid on its own to get reasonable performance. My point that consoles are now offering equivalent/better experience at lower prices than said 300+ quid GPU seems to have caused some numbers obsessives some offence.

Which is again fine if you want a console games and only console games experience without any desktop applications or what have you. Once you need more than 1 screen, or want to do anything productive you’re SOL.

Another example of what’s in a GPU these days (and things that a console isn’t doing for users):

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-broadcast-app/

Not to mention frame rates way in excess of 60 Hz, if not double that or more. It’s just in no way an apples to apples comparison. If 100% of your workload is games and what you want to play is console titles, buy a console, nobody is stopping you, buying a console is a cost effective way to play console games and doesn’t have wasted frills like compatibility with thousands of printer drivers etc.

Slutmonkey57b

BloodBath wrote: »

The main difference is much higher resolutions and frame rates which are both very much noticeable. There are other graphical improvements on top of that but they are less noticeable.

Maybe you enjoy playing at 24-30fps. I sure as hell don't. I find 60 low.

I have a perfectly good experience playing at native 1440p/100fps with a €175 cpu and a €325 graphics card. Have a library of hundreds of games, many which were free or very cheap, that carry over every PC gen. Upgrades don't cost too much when you already have a PC. The first investment is the biggest.

I also use it outside of gaming for many things. It's a workstation that I use to learn and work. I think you're exaggerating the problems as well. In many years of PC ownership I've only had minor problems from time to time. It's been pretty much plain sailing especially in more recent years.

And that's fine. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, 100fps is important to some gamers but not to others (e.g. flight simmers). But my question is, let's compare 6-8 years ago with today. Back then, 4k wasn't very readily available. 1080 was midrange, 1440 was "high" and under 1080 was low res. If we take the position that today, 1080 is "standard", less than 1080 is "low res", 1440 is "midrange" and 4k is "high" gaming today, what has changed in those years? Basically, the GPU makers took 4k to mean they could move the price bracket for a top-line GPU from ~350 quid up to 800, and a midrange card from 150-200 up to 300-450 quid. My position is, that put PC gaming in a very negative spot compared to the alternative.

Slutmonkey57b

Overheal wrote: »

Which is again fine if you want a console games and only console games experience without any desktop applications or what have you. Once you need more than 1 screen, or want to do anything productive you’re SOL.

Another example of what’s in a GPU these days (and things that a console isn’t doing for users):

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/nvidia-broadcast-app/

Not to mention frame rates way in excess of 60 Hz, if not double that or more. It’s just in no way an apples to apples comparison. If 100% of your workload is games and what you want to play is console titles, buy a console, nobody is stopping you, buying a console is a cost effective way to play console games and doesn’t have wasted frills like compatibility with thousands of printer drivers etc.

If I was making a point about PC's for productivity use, this would be an interesting point. But I wasn't.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And that's fine. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, 100fps is important to some gamers but not to others (e.g. flight simmers). But my question is, let's compare 6-8 years ago with today. Back then, 4k wasn't very readily available. 1080 was midrange, 1440 was "high" and under 1080 was low res. If we take the position that today, 1080 is "standard", less than 1080 is "low res", 1440 is "midrange" and 4k is "high" gaming today, what has changed in those years? Basically, the GPU makers took 4k to mean they could move the price bracket for a top-line GPU from ~350 quid up to 800, and a midrange card from 150-200 up to 300-450 quid. My position is, that put PC gaming in a very negative spot compared to the alternative.

I think you need to have your memory refreshed. 7 years ago, right in your time frame, the GeForce GTX 780 Ti launched for $799 and the GTX Titan launched for $999 and a Titan Z was $2,999. The 770 was $349 and the 760 (aka the mid range) was $249. So, the prices really haven’t moved much. If at all. The 3080 is priced exactly where the 780 was. So I don’t think your point holds up to scrutiny. We have not seen the MSRP for any of Nvidias mid range cards yet.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If I was making a point about PC's for productivity use, this would be an interesting point. But I wasn't.

And your point is? “Dedicated slimmed down console gaming machine is efficient at console gaming”

Yeah, we know. There’s console forums though.

Slutmonkey57b

Overheal wrote: »

I think you need to have your memory refreshed. 7 years ago, right in your time frame, the GeForce GTX 780 Ti launched for $799 and the GTX Titan launched for $999 and a Titan Z was $2,999. The 770 was $349 and the 760 (aka the mid range) was $249. So, the prices really haven’t moved much. If at all. The 3080 is priced exactly where the 780 was. So I don’t think your point holds up to scrutiny. We have not seen the MSRP for any of Nvidias mid range cards yet.

So your gotcha moment here is that PC gamers have been getting ripped off by nvidia for longer than I initially guessed? This is... A good thing for you?

Slutmonkey57b

Overheal wrote: »

And your point is? “Dedicated slimmed down console gaming machine is efficient at console gaming”

Yeah, we know. There’s console forums though.

Your sneery tone brings me back to the 90's when "console gaming" was looked down upon for being lesser and different. Pretty much any triple a game is multi platform now.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

So your gotcha moment here is that PC gamers have been getting ripped off by nvidia for longer than I initially guessed? This is... A good thing for you?

There’s no “gotcha” and nobody’s trying to “fight” here, just saying your argument didn’t mesh with the MSRP of cards back from when you were referencing.

Overheal

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Your sneery tone brings me back to the 90's when "console gaming" was looked down upon for being lesser and different. Pretty much any triple a game is multi platform now.

Many AAA games but still also lots of exclusives.

Consoles themselves are competitively priced, sold at a loss and all. By all means, if the titles interest you go for it, they’re a streamlined consumer experience. IMHO, if something is on all platforms I’d rather just get it on PC, heavily due to future compatibility and no want for shared screen local multiplayer, nevermind the modularity and slot-in upgrades. I would pick up a PS5 off the build quality seen in that release the other day, nevermind they *finally* remade FF7. But yeah, def value in consoles, in case you thought I was saying there wasn’t.

EoinHef

Think this has gone far enough.

This thread is about AMD Navi,not this rubbish. Please take your opinions about PC gaming to a more relevant thread slutmonkey,maybe a console forum.

More posts about consoles im gonna just report.

So Big Navi eh?

Getting close

EoinHef

11 days left.

Really interested in how they approach ray tracing and how well the hardware can run it.