RX 7000: 3 Things We Know & 2 BIG Things We Don't Know
video description
Date: 2022-11-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 12
John
Unfortunately AMD didn't get done what they needed to and this puts them well behind Nvidia now, which is greatly improve RT performance. Nvidia increased RT performance by almost 100% from the 3090 to the 4090. These gains were needed for true 4K gaming with RT. When you have to use an upscaler like FSR or DLSS to give the performance you need to compensate for the loss in FPS using RT, I find it self defeating. You lose some visual quality. Well, the purpose of RT IS VISUAL QUALITY.
So AMD GPUs supposedly have gained about the same raster performance as Nvidia, or it won't be that much different to complain about it. In that regard they're basically keeping up with Nvidia and I expected that to be the case. But AMD needed to improve RT performance by about 125%, not 60%
So Nvidia is going to destroy AMD in ray tracing even worse than they have been. It's not that AMD GPUs will be bad in this regard, it's just that you'll be stuck at lower resolutions or using some future software technology to help compensate for the lack of hardware performance.
So, both Nvidia and AMD have true 4K gaming GPUs now where in the absence of RT you can push really high fps, but only Nvidia has a GPU that can run RT at high fps and 4K. The current gen for AMD gets them to 2K gaming for RT, which is where Nvidia was last gen.
I guess you can look at it like, the 7900 XT or XTX will easily beat out the 3090 Ti in 4K gaming and cost less while doing it, and it will give you similar RT performance as the 3090 Ti. It's going to be outstanding in every regard for 2K gaming, but it's not the GPU for that nice shiny 65 4K OLED with a PC input, when a game relies on RT for lighting, sadly.
It also looks like AMD did a lot of work to make their GPUs more productive for rendering, so that should take away a benefit of using Nvidia GPUs.
But I bought a 6800 XT for 2K gaming. I didn't intend on buying a GPU from either Nvidia or AMD for this gen, unless Nvidia does something SHOCKING and puts a really good deal on that 4080 16 GB GPU and drops it down to 700 which is where I expect those to be priced. But really I want my next GPU to be good in every regard for 4K gaming including RT performance and I don't want a 400W GPU to do it so I'm probably waiting for next gen AMD to give my price/perf and good enough RT performance for 4K gaming. AMD is already there for raster perf.
reply
Unfortunately AMD didn't get done what they needed to and this puts them well behind Nvidia now, which is greatly improve RT performance. Nvidia increased RT performance by almost 100% from the 3090 to the 4090. These gains were needed for true 4K gaming with RT. When you have to use an upscaler like FSR or DLSS to give the performance you need to compensate for the loss in FPS using RT, I find it self defeating. You lose some visual quality. Well, the purpose of RT IS VISUAL QUALITY.
So AMD GPUs supposedly have gained about the same raster performance as Nvidia, or it won't be that much different to complain about it. In that regard they're basically keeping up with Nvidia and I expected that to be the case. But AMD needed to improve RT performance by about 125%, not 60%
So Nvidia is going to destroy AMD in ray tracing even worse than they have been. It's not that AMD GPUs will be bad in this regard, it's just that you'll be stuck at lower resolutions or using some future software technology to help compensate for the lack of hardware performance.
So, both Nvidia and AMD have true 4K gaming GPUs now where in the absence of RT you can push really high fps, but only Nvidia has a GPU that can run RT at high fps and 4K. The current gen for AMD gets them to 2K gaming for RT, which is where Nvidia was last gen.
I guess you can look at it like, the 7900 XT or XTX will easily beat out the 3090 Ti in 4K gaming and cost less while doing it, and it will give you similar RT performance as the 3090 Ti. It's going to be outstanding in every regard for 2K gaming, but it's not the GPU for that nice shiny 65 4K OLED with a PC input, when a game relies on RT for lighting, sadly.
It also looks like AMD did a lot of work to make their GPUs more productive for rendering, so that should take away a benefit of using Nvidia GPUs.
But I bought a 6800 XT for 2K gaming. I didn't intend on buying a GPU from either Nvidia or AMD for this gen, unless Nvidia does something SHOCKING and puts a really good deal on that 4080 16 GB GPU and drops it down to 700 which is where I expect those to be priced. But really I want my next GPU to be good in every regard for 4K gaming including RT performance and I don't want a 400W GPU to do it so I'm probably waiting for next gen AMD to give my price/perf and good enough RT performance for 4K gaming. AMD is already there for raster perf.
reply
GoblinPhreak
4090 is about 50% average faster than 3090 and up to 80% in select titles that favor Nvidia....
6900xt = 3090 rather you like it or not. yes you can pick one or two titles that favor nvidia by like 10fps. big deal. average wise, multiple games, they are equal. I know, because I LITERALLY own both. EVGA FTW3 3090 and PowerColor 6900xt Red Devil. I seen the performance with my own eyes. Sure, BF2042 favors Nvidia so it wins in that title. But COD WARZONE favors AMD, so AMD wins. Going through 100's of games, the overall average puts them literally the same performance. AVERAGES.
Now AMD claims 7900xtx is up to 70% faster than 6950xt .... well the 6950xt is about 10% faster than 6900xt.... that means the 7900xtx would be up to 80% faster than 6900xt....
this means 7900xtx should be on par with 4090.... also the 7900xtx wont be limited in 1080p and 1440p like Nvidia is. Nvidia's biggest gains are all in 4k territory. 1440p and 1080p literally suffers. yet on AMD, no suffering. shown by their crazy overwatch and valorant fps numbers. Right now in valorant, 3440x1440 (but black bars because no ultra-wide support) I get a minimum of 450fps and average around 550 (peaking to 650-750 depending on map) AMD stated 704fps at 4k which is more pixels and harder to drive than my 1440p.... that's a huge improvement in my mind. I think this card is gonna speak for itself, AMD didn't need to embellish against Nvidia. Just showing vs themselves is more than enough.
reply
4090 is about 50% average faster than 3090 and up to 80% in select titles that favor Nvidia....
6900xt = 3090 rather you like it or not. yes you can pick one or two titles that favor nvidia by like 10fps. big deal. average wise, multiple games, they are equal. I know, because I LITERALLY own both. EVGA FTW3 3090 and PowerColor 6900xt Red Devil. I seen the performance with my own eyes. Sure, BF2042 favors Nvidia so it wins in that title. But COD WARZONE favors AMD, so AMD wins. Going through 100's of games, the overall average puts them literally the same performance. AVERAGES.
Now AMD claims 7900xtx is up to 70% faster than 6950xt .... well the 6950xt is about 10% faster than 6900xt.... that means the 7900xtx would be up to 80% faster than 6900xt....
this means 7900xtx should be on par with 4090.... also the 7900xtx wont be limited in 1080p and 1440p like Nvidia is. Nvidia's biggest gains are all in 4k territory. 1440p and 1080p literally suffers. yet on AMD, no suffering. shown by their crazy overwatch and valorant fps numbers. Right now in valorant, 3440x1440 (but black bars because no ultra-wide support) I get a minimum of 450fps and average around 550 (peaking to 650-750 depending on map) AMD stated 704fps at 4k which is more pixels and harder to drive than my 1440p.... that's a huge improvement in my mind. I think this card is gonna speak for itself, AMD didn't need to embellish against Nvidia. Just showing vs themselves is more than enough.
reply
KolnFriedChicken
What battle? We're talking about cards that starts at 900USD ranging to 1600USD and that's best case scenario. In Europe they're about 20% more expansive due to taxes and weak Euro and in most of the world, they'll cost even way more. The only reason people are mildly interested in these dick measuring contests is because they might get an idea what that will mean for cards they then actually will buy like a 7600(xt) and such.
That's not a battle... That's more like three drunken dudes trying to land punches outside the bar that they just were thrown out of.
reply
What battle? We're talking about cards that starts at 900USD ranging to 1600USD and that's best case scenario. In Europe they're about 20% more expansive due to taxes and weak Euro and in most of the world, they'll cost even way more. The only reason people are mildly interested in these dick measuring contests is because they might get an idea what that will mean for cards they then actually will buy like a 7600(xt) and such.
That's not a battle... That's more like three drunken dudes trying to land punches outside the bar that they just were thrown out of.
reply
RN1441
I like how AMD and Nvidia are competing over 8k (half of real 8k in AMD's case but hey marketeers gonna marketeer), when a super-majority (>65%) of users are still on 1080p displays, and only 13.4% are even on 1440p. Other high refresh rate applications such as VR have.... 1.9% penetration. While part of me is mad that the MSRPs are in the 999-1600 USD range for flagship video cards now, I guess I should remember that for the vaaaaaast majority of the market, these things are complete overkill.
reply
I like how AMD and Nvidia are competing over 8k (half of real 8k in AMD's case but hey marketeers gonna marketeer), when a super-majority (>65%) of users are still on 1080p displays, and only 13.4% are even on 1440p. Other high refresh rate applications such as VR have.... 1.9% penetration. While part of me is mad that the MSRPs are in the 999-1600 USD range for flagship video cards now, I guess I should remember that for the vaaaaaast majority of the market, these things are complete overkill.
reply
Yannick
Is it PciE 4 or 5 ? They did not say and the site was updated, not this information in there, it may not matter because Pcie 4 is fast enough but since they did put DP 2.1, they should go full on the new tech.
reply
Is it PciE 4 or 5 ? They did not say and the site was updated, not this information in there, it may not matter because Pcie 4 is fast enough but since they did put DP 2.1, they should go full on the new tech.
reply
Tony
They kinda missed the mark for not showing the 7800XT and 7700XT. I was hoping to buy either one of those before 2023 and put my EVGA 3070 on my display shelf Now we have to wait
reply
They kinda missed the mark for not showing the 7800XT and 7700XT. I was hoping to buy either one of those before 2023 and put my EVGA 3070 on my display shelf Now we have to wait
reply
1BigBen
well, you can thank reviewers that have been saying for years that AMD/Intel/Nvidia fps benchmarks number are useless,
and people should wait for 3th party benchmarks
reply
well, you can thank reviewers that have been saying for years that AMD/Intel/Nvidia fps benchmarks number are useless,
and people should wait for 3th party benchmarks
reply
Leggir
1.6x performance when the leaks said 2x+. Leaks said well over 3 GHz, we got 2.5 GHz. Fire the leakers. Like Montgomery Scott said, Better to underpromise and overdeliver.
reply
1.6x performance when the leaks said 2x+. Leaks said well over 3 GHz, we got 2.5 GHz. Fire the leakers. Like Montgomery Scott said, Better to underpromise and overdeliver.
reply
Abiodun92
I think AMD priced their cards really well! If these cards compare well against the 4090 & 4080, they're gonna be sold out in a nanosecond.
reply
I think AMD priced their cards really well! If these cards compare well against the 4090 & 4080, they're gonna be sold out in a nanosecond.
reply
Dark
Finally Radeon cards will be good a rendering in UE5 .. That's all I wanted... Was hoping I wouldn't be foced to buy a a4500... now I'm happy
reply
Finally Radeon cards will be good a rendering in UE5 .. That's all I wanted... Was hoping I wouldn't be foced to buy a a4500... now I'm happy
reply
DodgeSkitz87
Currently I own a 1440p 144hz g-sync monitor. Do I buy a 4090 or a 7900xtx+1440p 240hz freesync monitor for about the same price?
reply
Currently I own a 1440p 144hz g-sync monitor. Do I buy a 4090 or a 7900xtx+1440p 240hz freesync monitor for about the same price?
reply
MRM
I like the pricing
But I am skeptical to disappointed about Raytracing performance. Wait for reviews for a final judgment.
reply
I like the pricing
But I am skeptical to disappointed about Raytracing performance. Wait for reviews for a final judgment.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
1:51:53