Everything I've heard is that all the AMD frame gen techniques look like shit but you can force them on any game unlike DLSS frame gen
Navi4C was cancelled in February 2023, no one outside of AMD has ever seen or touched it to know if the perf scaled up or not.
AFMF works on any game, but FSR 3 requires the developer to expose motion vectors, as with DLSS 3, and consequently produces a better result.
Please remind me, what Intel is "doing with RT".
You seem to be quite knowledgable about RT.
7000 series AMD beats 3090Ti.
You seem to be quite knowledgable about RT.
With 4000 series we are 3rd gen into |"hardwahrRT" right?
If progress is so cool and stuff, come turning RT on drops FPS even on 4090?
When are we going to get "enough RT cores" please?
In other words, 'Not enough hardware RT cores" is not a problem, the need for "hardware AI cores" in enough numbers is?
Well, 2020 something-something tracing on PS5:
The claim was made by Steve from HUB according to someone he “talked to at CES”. But he also said he was “basically making this up” summarizing what he thought he understood from the conversation.
It is explained in detail in the lumen tech doc, the two actually different. https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/lumen-technical-details-in-unreal-engine/
Possibly not. Although this is how they word what it is:
i'll believe that when they can get their default lighting to run at 60 fps on consoles
They can get it to run at 60 FPS (ok, maybe not always locked), just at low resolutions. I don't think that will change, but if you have PS5 Pro it will look a lot nicer.i'll believe that when they can get their default lighting to run at 60 fps on consoles
The problem with Unreal engine in consoles and even PC is those games are releasing currently are using older builds. I think Wukong is 5.0, when they are releasing 5.5 with a ton of optimizations.i'll believe that when they can get their default lighting to run at 60 fps on consoles
They meant flagship 4090 tier 7900xtx stuff
I want to have sexual relations with my motherboard like this guy is doing.
lol if I had any talent I’d photoshop that guy’s face on some Pornhub thumbnails, it looks like it belongs there anyway.
7000 series AMD beats 3090Ti.
How many "generation" a gap is that?
AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX Review - Disrupting the GeForce RTX 4080
Navi 31 is here! The new $999 Radeon RX 7900 XTX in this review is AMD's new flagship card based on the wonderful chiplet technology that made the Ryzen Effect possible. In our testing we can confirm that the new RX 7900 XTX is indeed faster than the GeForce RTX 4080, but only with RT disabled.www.techpowerup.com
where did you hear about RDNA4 sucks? low/mid is fine
Yeah, still going same. I remember when people praise 3090 RT and then sudennly after release 7900XTX people saying sucks etc.
that already old info with 8fps. Even at 1080p 30+ fps
Cyberpunk pathtracing isn't the best example as it's coded specifically for nvidia hardware, being a heavily nvidia-sponsored title. But the general gist remains correct, AMD's pure RT pipeline really sucks comparatively and they haven't put nearly enough resources into improving it gen-on-gen, even the rumors out for rdna4 don't seem like they're going to catch them up to nvidia all the way. And if AMD fans want their GPUs to succeed they need AMD to know that this kind of performance is important to them. Turing gen you could argue that RT performance was meaningless, Ampere you could argue that PT performance just wasn't there to be mass adopted. But the excuses have to stop since more and more games are going to come out with RT/PT as an option.I mean, "relative RT" is of course all over the place, it can go from a useless "there's RT in this?" game like Dirt 5, to Cyberpunk overdrive, depends how the reviewer stacks the games.
hybrid RT, where you better damn hope that the generational difference in rasterization would push the card ahead of one a gen behind, which they do with RT off, but ends up performing as good as a gen behind, it means RDNA 3 RT blocks perform worse on a CU-clock basis than even Turing. Manages to drag down a 27% lead they had in rasterization.
Then if we go bye bye hybrid pipeline and go path tracing...we can see up to 3 gens behind, Ada → Ampere → Turing
Putting our heads in the sand and say that AMD has no catch up to do is not helping AMD. I would hope their new RT block at least catches 3 gens up for path tracing. I'm not even putting Blackwell nor the flagships into the equation since they're going mid-range. I really hope their new RT pipeline performs really well.
Because averaging is insanely misleading and doesn't take the distribution into account. The 7900 XTX has a sizeable advantage in rasterization in the order of 15%. For it to end up neck-and-neck with the 3090 Ti on average means its 15% average gets completely wiped by a random sample of like 5 games. However, the performance impact on ray tracing varies enormously on a per-game basis, as does the implementation, so just taking on average of a small sample of games is incredibly flawed. And you two are also incorrect in stating that people say the 3090 and 3090 Ti were said to suck following the release of the 7900 XTX. They still obliterate it when you go hard with the ray tracing.
I mean, "relative RT" is of course all over the place, it can go from a useless "there's RT in this?" game like Dirt 5, to Cyberpunk overdrive, depends how the reviewer stacks the games.
hybrid RT, where you better damn hope that the generational difference in rasterization would push the card ahead of one a gen behind, which they do with RT off, but ends up performing as good as a gen behind, it means RDNA 3 RT blocks perform worse on a CU-clock basis than even Turing. Manages to drag down a 27% lead they had in rasterization.
Then if we go bye bye hybrid pipeline and go path tracing...we can see up to 3 gens behind, Ada → Ampere → Turing
Putting our heads in the sand and say that AMD has no catch up to do is not helping AMD. I would hope their new RT block at least catches 3 gens up for path tracing. I'm not even putting Blackwell nor the flagships into the equation since they're going mid-range. I really hope their new RT pipeline performs really well.
Because averaging is insanely misleading and doesn't take the distribution into account. The 7900 XTX has a sizeable advantage in rasterization in the order of 15%. For it to end up neck-and-neck with the 3090 Ti on average means its 15% average gets completely wiped by a random sample of like 5 games. However, the performance impact on ray tracing varies enormously on a per-game basis, as does the implementation, so just taking on average of a small sample of games is incredibly flawed. And you two are also incorrect in stating that people say the 3090 and 3090 Ti were said to suck following the release of the 7900 XTX. They still obliterate it when you go hard with the ray tracing.
In Alan Wake 2, the 3090 Ti outperforms it by a whopping 19% with hardware ray tracing turned on. This is despite the 7900 XTX being 18% faster without it.
In Black Myth Wukong, the 3090 Ti leads it by 46% at 1080p, max settings. Using Techspot because it doesn't seem like Techpowerup tested AMD cards.
In Rift Apart, it loses by 21%.
In Cyberpunk with path tracing, the 3090 Ti is 2.57x faster. However, I think AMD got an update that boost the performance of their cards significantly, though nowhere near enough to cover that gap.
Guardians of the Galaxy 4K Ultra, the 3090 Ti is 22% faster.
Woah, would you look at this? The 3090 Ti is 73% faster in ray tracing according to my sample of 5 games. But of course, the eagle-eyed among you quickly picked up that this was my deliberate attempt at making the 7900 XTX look bad. In addition, removing Cyberpunk, a clear outlier, from the results would probably drop the average down to the 20s. The point I'm making is that the average of 8 games does not represent the real world. You want to use ray tracing where it makes a difference and shit like Far Cry 6 or REVIII ain't that, explaining in part why they're so forgiving on performance (and why they came out tied). Expect to see the 3090 Ti outperform the 7900 XTX by 15% or more in games where ray tracing is worth turning on despite losing by this exact amount when it's off. The 3090 Ti's RT performance doesn't suddenly suck because it's equal to the 7900 XTX (it isn't, it's faster), but AMD is at least one generation behind, and in games where ray tracing REALLY hammers the GPUs, AMD cards just crumble.
tl;dr don't let averages fool you. Look at the distribution and how ray tracing looks in the games.
Don't know how reliable that benchmark is and it's rt, not pt, where the difference is much larger.
No, I wouldn't say 2-3 gens behind in general. In extreme cases, the difference can be enormous, but these are outliers.
Definitely not throwing them out. They count, but most of us don't actually care about turning RT on and not seeing a difference. I rather have a game like Cyberpunk where the ray tracing massacres performance, but there is a transformative difference over a game like Far Cry 6 that has relatively good performance but looks the same.
cherry picking is always irrelevant results, avg is best. Games going to RT when PS6 is coming, for now it's beta test for future.
still doesn't matter because it's Cyber/Alan only. When more games coming with PT 3090/4090 will be super slow for this.
Gaiff
said: weighting. I do get the idea of weighting the really heavy implementations more. There may be less of them but they expose the differences more clearly and they show what's around the corner. Still, once you start doing things like that, it's good to include the multiple ways it can be tallied up. To circle back around, saying it's 2-3 gens back is just not very helpful and as misleading as anything else.
