Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by lowdog, Dec 7, 2018.
It’s $998 Aud here in taiwan. $974 if I pay cash.
(Cheapest 2080 is 1050$)
This is to do with the Frostbite engine, AMD has always performed well with it.
The unfortunate issue is that both Nvidia and AMD cards perform really well with Battlefield 5 and its really not that demanding on the GPU.
This makes the extra performance the Radeon VII gets mostly pointless.
The performance matters with Raytracing, which the Radeon VII can't do anyway.
I don't think there is any point in discussing RTX in BF, it's extremely limited. Wait a week for Metro Exodus at least.
Frostbite isn't demanding on the GPU? Hahahaha.
I don't think Navi is going to be that different, from what I am seeing online it's still CGN with some further work to it, so think Polaris shrunk to 7nm with some optimisations, should be great low/mid range cards and hopefully priced well.
AMD won't really have much to say until their next arch is put out, which looks to be 2020 or so, I think they were calling it Arcturus and this will be the first non GCN arch, so this should be the indicator of what they can do with the money they now have.
Would love to see some video rendering and cg rendering benchmarks, thinking there probably isn't much point moving from the Titan at this point.
Frostbite has been optimized for AMD due to the long-running deal AMD had with DICE. For example, AMD and EA DICE announced their Battlefield 3 partnership in 2013, and it's rumoured that AMD spent $8m on a BF4 optimization deal with DICE. The Frostbite Mantle aspect of the deal favoured AMD GPUs - by the way, Mantle is yet another great example of how a huge amount of hype can be inconsequential for any company.
BF5 is formally an Nvidia sponsored game, but that doesn't negate the AMD-favored work that's gone into the frostbite engine for years. it does however create an uneven playing field for AMD GPUs, so it's not an indicator of general gaming performance either way. I wouldn't use frostbite as an indicator of anything other than frostbite performance, so it's only relevant if you play a lot of Battlefield.
Are there many people playing a game that hasn't been released yet?
EDIT: Just to head off the expected comments - Anthem's performance is unknown, and is apparently quite concerning
So it's not really representative of the frostbite engine either it seems, other than running better on AMD GPUs.
There were a lot of people playing the demo. Granted it's not a final build, or very well optimized.
An Nvidia 1080 will get an average of 97fps at 1440p at ultra.
Thats not demanding in my opinion, not compared to other games.
There not point in boasting/complaining about "only 100fps".
However once you turn raytracing on, it matters as the FPS drops.
Its not even a discussion for the Radeon VII because it can't do raytracing.
So it's an efficient/optimised engine.
The initial point said "Even with raytracing off, the Radeon is competitive", which suggests a logic fail, because the RTX cards would smash it with raytracing on, (can you turn it on without an FP16/RTX module?).
You're confusing the game with the engine.
they should do an 8gb Radeon VII and knock $100 off, then it might be worth getting.
Raytracing is not worth it right now. You’re buying for the future.
Raytracing in BFV is limited to reflections. Wooooo amazing. Seriously discussing ray tracing is pointless when it’s currently useless.
I think as well given the cost is taken up by the HBM. Less HBM less cost theoretically.
They can't, because they need 4 blocks to HBM to get 4 channels of memory BW throughput, and they only make HBM in 4Gb stacks.
Doesn't work that way, it was only released to use dud MI50 chips, changing the design from 16/32GB would require development time and cost which would be stupid. They are just selling what they have and that's it.
Interesting. That does not sound good, because it seems to exclude the possibility of a "budget" Radeon VII. I fear this is all not too good for AMD. Their brand new product is behind the RTX 2080, but cost more or less the same, plus nVidia has much better driver support.
HBM2 memory prices could go down which would influence the price AMD charges quite heavily.
Don't understand this part? I thought they were pretty much neck and neck in terms of driver support in this day and age?
I recon we only got this card thanks to nvidia jacking prices in the RTX series allowing AMD to just scrape in at the same price point with a competing product. So I guess we have Nvidia to thank for this AMD release?