Such comtempt. True rich people use their money wisely.
AMD RDNA 5 and Nvidia Rubin GPUs could both slip to late 2027 or 2028, board partners suggest
- Thread starter Skye Jacobs
- Start date
Axeia
Posts: 1,035 +1,431
Upscaling only works from an already rather high resolution to a higher resolution.
If there's little to work with (if you have a 1080p screen, so the upscaling would have to come from an even lower resolution) it looks like trash. So there's some caveats to that statement.
(And in my personal experience, if you got a 1440p screen it's a bit of a mixed bag. If I can get the needed performance by lowering settings instead I'd rather opt to go with that path. For 4k it's fine)
Bigger problem is that with new games DLSS is already getting factored into the base framerate. There's several games that were released with hot garbage performance where it's expected you're using DLSS even on new hardware.
Old rumors being replaced with new rumors.
Other than that I don't care, a Super series would also be super expensive, though that doesn't matter when Nvidia consumers have been believing in "the more you buy the more you save" for years.
Only the extreme high end Nvidia cards age well, because they have sufficient VRAM and power to begin with. DLSS and frame gen features take VRAM to work, a majority of 40 series users with a 4060 or 4070 are falling short on VRAM. Not to mention, the jacket man doesn't allow 40 series owners to use MFG 6X or dynamic frame gen.
The elitism from some people here is interesting, it isn't about affording the hardware, but we can still complain about it and refuse to buy it instead of being wallets for a multi-trillion dollar company. Also, because of AI none of these hardware companies care about you anymore.
But those who are actually rich wouldn't waste time on a forum or with PC hardware.
Thats on the low side for an upgrade, not even 40% increased raster perf and worse features with less support. 50% is bare minimum raster perf improvement for a worthwhile upgrade.
If your 3080 was loud as fck, you bought a crap card or had a defect one.
10GB does not limit you at all in 1440p outside a few titles that not even 9070 XT is going to max out either (Indiana Jones fully maxed out with RT/PT - The 9070 XT will buckle)
The VRAM argument is so stupid. Radeon 6800/6900 series aged like milk with 16GB, 7900 XT-XTX with 20-24GB aged like milk too, because arch sucked.
In plenty of games, Nvidia beats AMD with far less VRAM due to better memory compression and management:
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Performance Benchmark Review - 30+ GPUs Tested
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora features stunning visuals that recreate the movie franchise's unique universe. There's also support for AMD FSR 3 Frame Generation and NVIDIA DLSS. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection...
Here 3070 8GB beats 6800 16GB even at 4K/UHD in both minimum fps and avg while having access to far better upscaling in form of DLSS 4.x to actually make it playable
Pooooointless to have VRAM when GPU and features is what will limit you
FSR 4 is decent but DLSS 4 is better and has vastly better support, FSR 3.1 and older, is literally useless and look so bad. That is the reason why most people hate upscaling, because that is all they have tried (full support for all GPUs is why - most use old crap with no support for DLSS 4 or FSR 4)
Last edited:
Nah, old rumours being replaced by logic.
DLSS uses pretty much no VRAM, like 100MB or so and DLSS in itself also lowers VRAM usage so what you say don't make any sense. Do you even have EXPERIENCE with DLSS? I guess no. Like most of you guys here. Your upscaling experience comes from FSR 1/2/3 garbage.
FG uses 500MB-1GB. MFG uses up to 2GB on the X4-X6 modes.
No 4070 users are falling short of VRAM in any games the GPU will actually run, stop talking BS.
Does the new 9070 GRE 12GB fall short of VRAM? No. Lets have a look at a brand new tech, using newest drivers on a wide range of newer demaning games:
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.
Conclusion, 12GB is plenty for pretty much all PC gamers. Even 8GB will work for most games still. Most PC gamers uses 1080p still and 8GB is just fine here. 5060 Ti 8GB beats 9060 XT 16GB easily in 1080p here. It even wins in 1440p too.
4070 Ti 12GB performs like a 3090 Ti 24GB or better at 1080p and 1440p which clearly shows 12GB VRAM is not a problem in 1440p and lower - which is what 95% of PC gamers use, while still having access to FG and with full FP8 on 4000/5000 series for better DLSS 4.x support
DLSS Quality looks amazing at 1440p and lowers internal rendering res to 960p making VRAM usage drop below even 1080p.
Do you seriously claim AMD GPUs aged better? Radeon 5000, 6000, 7000 all pretty much aged like milk in comparison to RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000 series.
I can't stop laughing from all these claims, even Tech Spot said numerous times that most people today is using upscaling. Many even on old hardware is using both shitty upscaling (FSR 3.1 and older or XeSS) and garbage Frame Gen (Loseless Scaling) on top, and seems happy about it (because they can't afford new hardware anyway), DLSS 4 + DLSS FG/MFG is S-TIER of these techlologies, in both visual quality and game support.
Hence why Nvidia dominated AMD in the GPU market with ease. First with Radeon 9000 - and mostly thanks to FSR 4 - AMD gained back som marketshare.
Buying a GPU these days without good upscaling and maybe FG, is beyond stupid.
Even AMD said better upscaling was crucial and this was the main goal for RDNA4 with Radeon 9000 series.
Last edited:
That is true with FSR 1/2/3 but not true with DLSS 2+ at all. 1080p with DLSS Quality and Ultra Quality looks good and often better than native 1080p due to built in AA and sharpening. Even FSR 4 looks decent at this res now, FSR 3 and older, looks trash.
Again, this confirms have no experience with these features.
How to make a 1080p look good, even great? Simple: Use DLDSR and then slap DLSS on top if needed. Can make a 1080p monitor look better than native 1440p with ease.
1080p with DLDSR 4K = 2160p downsampled, but with less perf hit than native 2160p. Now enable DLSS 4 Performance mode, and you will be looking at 1080p performance hit with vastly better visuals than regular 1080p. Day vs night difference in visual quality.
AMD RDNA 4 can do this too (however, with a worse result but still decent) with VSR 4K + FSR 4 Performance mode. Only Radeon 9000 will do it for now.
RTX 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 all does this, and supported DLSS 4 since launch. That is the big difference between AMD and Nvidia.
DLSS 4 has massive and broad game support. Supports entire range of RTX cards, since day one.
Entire thread screams that most users here have no experience with these features AT ALL. Hence why you hate it. Can't use it = Hates it. Internet logic.
What I am saying is 100% true, RTX line of cards aged like wine, while RNDA 1, 2 especially but even 3, aged like milk. Regardless of having plenty of VRAM, GPU arch is the biggest problem due to lack of features and support of these in games.
DLSS 1 was pure garbage. Blurry shite. DLSS became GOOD with version 2, that is almost 7 years ago. Became GREAT with DLSS 3-4. DLSS 4 is pretty much upscaling perfection.
FSR 1, 2 and 3 is pure garbage. FSR became viable with FSR 4, which launched in 2025 and only supports RDNA 4 still but lacks game support and requires tinkering using 3rd party applications to get it working in DLSS titles.
FSR 4 is good, FSR 3 and older, pure trash. That is reality and the reason why most of you hate upscaling, because you have seen nothing but FSR 1, 2 and 3.
No they don't, truly rich people don't give a shite and buy whatever they want without even looking at the price. Lets stop acting like Nvidia GPUs are luxury goods. It is consumer stuff.Such comtempt. True rich people use their money wisely.
The fact some people think even a 5070 is expensive shows you should not visit a hardware forum. What is the point when you can't even afford mid-end hardware?
Axeia
Posts: 1,035 +1,431
Not everyone has the same set of eyeballs, mine are very detail orientated - what looks good to you might not look good to me. Upscaling is something my particular set of eyeballs do not appreciate.
I also noticed for example the 'touch' layer on my ex's laptop the second I tried to use it, she never noticed it until I pointed it out. I'm also a
(Frustratingly there's no options left in the market besides Apple's very expensive display so I'm hanging on to my ~12 year old imported from Korea glossy screen)
On the flipside I seem to be pretty bad at noticing refresh rates, 60Hz vs 144Hz refresh rate really isn't all that different to me whilst for some it seems to be a literal game changer (as in they experience the game differently and it actually affects their win rates).
Thats on the low side for an upgrade, not even 40% increased raster perf and worse features with less support. 50% is bare minimum raster perf improvement for a worthwhile upgrade.
If your 3080 was loud as fck, you bought a crap card or had a defect one.
10GB does not limit you at all in 1440p outside a few titles that not even 9070 XT is going to max out either (Indiana Jones fully maxed out with RT/PT - The 9070 XT will buckle)
The VRAM argument is so stupid. Radeon 6800/6900 series aged like milk with 16GB, 7900 XT-XTX with 20-24GB aged like milk too, because arch sucked.
In plenty of games, Nvidia beats AMD with far less VRAM due to better memory compression and management:
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Performance Benchmark Review - 30+ GPUs Tested
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora features stunning visuals that recreate the movie franchise's unique universe. There's also support for AMD FSR 3 Frame Generation and NVIDIA DLSS. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection...www.techpowerup.com
Here 3070 8GB beats 6800 16GB even at 4K/UHD in both minimum fps and avg while having access to far better upscaling in form of DLSS 4.x to actually make it playable
Pooooointless to have VRAM when GPU and features is what will limit you
FSR 4 is decent but DLSS 4 is better and has vastly better support, FSR 3.1 and older, is literally useless and look so bad. That is the reason why most people hate upscaling, because that is all they have tried (full support for all GPUs is why - most use old crap with no support for DLSS 4 or FSR 4)
Idk about low side upgrade. I got so much more performance, for so much less money, less noise, and the software side is much much easier to change specific things and customize.
You bring up cards from 2 generations ago as if I went for another card in that gen. I went to the much better 9070XT. The card is much better than 3000 series, much better than 4000 series, and much better than most of the 5000 series.
Its only about ~4% off the 5070Ti with the price being so much less. Lets not forget all of the driver issues and lighting on fire issues Nvidia has been dealing with lately.
Gravitytr1
Posts: 230 +137
Rule of thumb: if u need dlss, or heaven forbid, frame gen, then your game is unoptimized or your hardware is weak. It's not your fault tho.
Nvidia is scamming the industry. This is the same way Samsung and Apple remove features on their new model and then add them back after a year or two and tell you it's worth double the MSRP.
The US is allowing all kinds of corruption, collusion and theft. And because most of these conglomerates are US based, the rest of the globe pays the price.
Nvidia is scamming the industry. This is the same way Samsung and Apple remove features on their new model and then add them back after a year or two and tell you it's worth double the MSRP.
The US is allowing all kinds of corruption, collusion and theft. And because most of these conglomerates are US based, the rest of the globe pays the price.
Unless your 3080 was semi-defect, which it sounds like, 9070 XT is not a big upgrade. 30-40% faster perf increase with worse upscaling and support.
RDNA 4 and Radeon 9000 is mostly a joke, aside from FSR 4 which was the only reason Radeon 9000 did well, and why AMD did not want to support RDNA 2 and 3 to begin with.
Without FSR 4 exclusivity, Radeon 9000 would have been an absolute joke release.
7900 XTX 24GB was the flagship with RDNA 3.
9070 XT 16GB is the flagship with RDNA 4, because they cancelled the true flagship.
9070 XT is nothing but a mid-end solution really. AMD said this themself. They left high-end with RDNA 4, officially.
My 4 year old RTX 4090 absolutely destroys a 9070 XT and when 7900 XTX gets FSR 4 support, it will be AMDs best GPU again, till RDNA 5 hits next year.
Both RTX 5000 and Radeon 9000 was a joke-generation. Side-grades or even downgrades for the most part. RTX 5090 is the only card that actually moved the needle this generation.
I have 20/20 vision, uses a 77" top tier OLED in my living room, uses top tier panels in general. I hate bad image quality, yet I tend to enable DLSS/DLAA, what does this tell you?
I prefer glossy panels. Why on earth would I want matte?
I can see the difference between 60 and 120 Hz like day vs night. I can even see the difference between 120 and 240 - 240 and 480/500 Hz as well. I have not tried higher than 500 Hz yet. More is better.
Upscaling looks better than native today, or let me rephrase that, good upscaling looks better than native, while boosting performance. DLAA beats native anytime.
Both DLSS and DLAA have top tier built in AA with sharpness applied. Native with some crappy AA solution on top, rarely and pretty much never looks better anymore.
FSR 4 can look decent too but still needs work and support in games.
So what is bad upscaling? DLSS 1, FSR 1/2/3 and XeSS - All are bad, blurry, smeary. This is where most people have their experience with upscaling from.
Because their GPU don't support DLSS 4 / FSR 4.
The good thing about having DLSS in games, is DLAA is always possible, and DLAA always beats native visuals by a huge margin. It is not even close.
1440p DLAA looks better than native 4K/UHD in most cases, and most people who insist on native, often applies garbage AA on top, like TAA, because NoAA, even with 4K/UHD or higher, looks bad and jaggy.
Who do you think that pretty much all RTX users apply DLSS/DLAA when possible in games? Because the alternative is not better.
AMD GPU users hated upscaling too, till they changed to RDNA 4 and had option for FSR 4, now they suddently like it.
Once you have tried DLAA, you will never want to look at regular "native" again. DLAA >is< native, but on steroids. Improves on native in every single way.
DLSS makes a ton of sense for many, as image quality is still very good (beats native in many cases).
Native with NoAA looks bad. So either way you will need to apply some form of AA. With upscaling, it is built in. Win/Win for most people, who have access to good upscaling. Better perf, better visuals. Winning, like Charlie Sheen.
Last edited:
I got the 3080 checked and it was not semi defect. The card is just a bad card. 10GB of vram is not enough to push 1440p and max settings for much of anything.
The 9070XT that I got is an enormous upgrade. More vram for me to play at 1440p or 4k when I decide to go that route in the near future and not have the card screaming in my ear, more headroom for mods in games I play, less stuttering, better ray tracing performance relative to the 3080 and on par with the 5070TI (which was the entire point of this gen, but I dont expect you to know that).
The 9070XT is on par with the 4080 for a fraction of the cost. I get a better software suite with adrenaline, more control over the card than that wack ahhh Nvidia app.
I have used both cards man, the 9070XT and the 3080 after being only Nvidia. AMD is doing great things, thats why I switched. The drivers have gotten better and the card doesnt light on fire.
I threw my 3080 into my sim racing rig because thats where it belongs. On a 1080p monitor because it cant handle any more with only 10GB of vram.
The extra vram is great for the 3d modeling I do for 3d printing. It isnt hard to see why I went to the 9070XT instead of an overpriced 5070TI. I essentially got the 5070TI, sometimes better, for a fraction of the money.
Gravitytr1
Posts: 230 +137
A lot of words and claims but 0 evidence.
Native by definition is 100 percent accurate. How can an extrapolation of native be better than native? Are you talking about how the software feels with upscaling on? Do you prefer artificial scenes over native?
It's impossible unless you like AI aesthetics and fiction. And you have to be conditioned to like them, as naturally most people find it uncanny at the very least.
0 Evidence? Try reading a few articles about this, haha.
Techpowerup, Techspot, they all say DLSS beats FSR with ease. DLSS is a nobrainer for most people, it is that good.
Go read TechSpots 4K Real-Life gaming test, where they test with upscaling because in reality, 90% of 4K gamers use upscaling.
DLSS also have massive game support compared to FSR. Theres like 1000+ DLSS games/apps now with mods on top of that.
DLAA is native res, with top tier AA applied + sharpening on top. Makes native look bad. The fact you can't fathom this, tells me you have no experience at all with it. Like most who says upscaling is bad. You probably used FSR 1, 2 or 3 which all are crap, like all people who hate upscaling. They use old hardware and never tried actual good upscaling (or frame gen)
DLSS still have that top tier AA and sharpening appliad, hence why DLSS 4 Quality (and especially Ultra Quality) can easily look and run better than regular Native.
"Native" is crap tbh, as you still need AA and everything besides MSAA is pretty much crap. MSAA is taxing as hell and you won't be able to use it on slow/dated hardware anyway.
Mindboggling that some people spend time on tech forums while having 10 year old hardware and zero experience with new hardware, yet talking **** about new features (because they can't use them) - Laughable really, but thats FOMO, Humans 101.
Can't afford it, talk shite about it. What else is new. The poor will stay poor.
Ah so 10GB is not enough to push 1440p. How does 3080 10GB beat 6900 XT 16GB, 7800 XT 16GB here?
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.
9070 XT is not an enourmous upgrade, LMAO. It like 30-40% and in some lesser popular games, the 3080 might even beat it due to developers wanting to focus Nvidia and target 80% gamers instead of the 10% AMD GPU users.
Most betas, early access games, runs vastly better on Nvidia. 99 out of 100 times, developers use Nvidia to test, and in their private PC as well.
4080 is like 4 years old, LMAO and 4080 still beats 9070 XT with ease.
You get a crappy software suite and crappy features, FSR 4 needs work still and support is too low. AMD frame gen is meh (simple interpolation for the most part)
Why do you think AMD is cheaper? Because its worse.
On the CPU side, AMD is on a roll. X3D is the best gaming CPUs but on the GPU side, AMD is barely competing. They don't even hold 10% GPU marketshare on Steam when you remove iGPU share. Nvidia at 80%
You did not get a 5070 Ti by buying a 9070 XT, stop joking please. You got a worse card than 5070 Ti.
5070 Ti is faster than 9070 XT, even in rasterization. Same link, go have a look. 5070 Ti is 5-10% faster but what people that buys 5070 Ti pays extra for, is the RT and PT performance and the option for best in class upscaling and frame gen, where AMD does not even come close.
9070 XT is priced lower for a reason, logic 101. Uses slow GDDR6 memory. Low bandwidth. Bad upscaling. Bad frame gen. Drivers are not better, overall most games tends to run better on Nvidia, as most dev's prioritize Nvidia. This is reality for you.
3080 to 9070 XT is a terrible "upgrade" - I can't stop laughing. My 4 year old 4090 takes a big dump on 9070 XT and AMD still don't have anything that comes close. They won't have anything with this kind of GPU power before 2028 probably - or should I say, sadly.
I usually takes AMD 5-6 years to beat Nvidias top card or release something that deliver similar raster perf, while sucking in terms of features.
RDNA 1, 2 and 3 aged like milk compared to RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000.
Resell value on the AMD cards, total crap as AMD lowers price accordingly over time and 9 out of 10 people won't want to buy an AMD GPU. That is reality for you.
AMD also uses more power.
AMD GPU is cheaper for a reason. For many reasons really.
Last edited:
Really? Because the population statistics say the 9070 XT is ~6% faster than the 5070 Ti. You are linking small sample sizes. Zoom out and you will see the 9070 XT is better overall and thats raw power, none of the fake frames you like to claim.Ah so 10GB is not enough to push 1440p. How does 3080 10GB beat 6900 XT 16GB, 7800 XT 16GB here?
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.www.techpowerup.com
9070 XT is not an enourmous upgrade, LMAO. It like 30-40% and in some lesser popular games, the 3080 might even beat it due to developers wanting to focus Nvidia and target 80% gamers instead of the 10% AMD GPU users.
Most betas, early access games, runs vastly better on Nvidia. 99 out of 100 times, developers use Nvidia to test, and in their private PC as well.
4080 is like 4 years old, LMAO and 4080 still beats 9070 XT with ease.
You get a crappy software suite and crappy features, FSR 4 needs work still and support is too low. AMD frame gen is meh (simple interpolation for the most part)
Why do you think AMD is cheaper? Because its worse.
On the CPU side, AMD is on a roll. X3D is the best gaming CPUs but on the GPU side, AMD is barely competing. They don't even hold 10% GPU marketshare on Steam when you remove iGPU share. Nvidia at 80%
You did not get a 5070 Ti by buying a 9070 XT, stop joking please. You got a worse card than 5070 Ti.
5070 Ti is faster than 9070 XT, even in rasterization. Same link, go have a look. 5070 Ti is 5-10% faster but what people that buys 5070 Ti pays extra for, is the RT and PT performance and the option for best in class upscaling and frame gen, where AMD does not even come close.
9070 XT is priced lower for a reason, logic 101. Uses slow GDDR6 memory. Low bandwidth. Bad upscaling. Bad frame gen. Drivers are not better, overall most games tends to run better on Nvidia, as most dev's prioritize Nvidia. This is reality for you.
3080 to 9070 XT is a terrible "upgrade" - I can't stop laughing. My 4 year old 4090 takes a big dump on 9070 XT and AMD still don't have anything that comes close. They won't have anything with this kind of GPU power before 2028 probably - or should I say, sadly.
I usually takes AMD 5-6 years to beat Nvidias top card or release something that deliver similar raster perf, while sucking in terms of features.
RDNA 1, 2 and 3 aged like milk compared to RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000.
Resell value on the AMD cards, total crap as AMD lowers price accordingly over time and 9 out of 10 people won't want to buy an AMD GPU. That is reality for you.
AMD also uses more power.
AMD GPU is cheaper for a reason. For many reasons really.
The software suite is amazing. Way more customizable, way more control. I view Nvidia like I view apple. Its for people that just are casuals and not true enthusiasts. Not as much customization, the power is there sure but what can you really do with it. You cant change much. Nvidia app is bad. Their drivers are bad. Their cables are bad. Cards lighting on fire, fps drops because of drivers, screens blinking. AMD sees real progress with their drivers, actual gains. A premium product.
Last edited:
Ehh, are you blind? Literally all reviews conclude that 5070 Ti is the faster card. With much better features as well. AMD has plenty of work to do.
9070 XT sells because its cheaper, and thats it. 5070 Ti sold better anyway.
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.
Brand new review, using newest drivers and newer popular games.
5070 Ti is faster than 9070 XT in pure rasterization across tons of popular and newer games.
It is faster in Ray Tracing and especially Path Tracing as well.
Has superior upscaling, with vastly better support in actual games and also has much better Frame Gen / MFG that actually works well, with low input lag.
Also uses less power.
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.
Proof after proof, after proof. Yet you deny reality.
The only reason 9070 XT sells, is because it is alot cheaper right now. No-one would choose 9070 XT over 5070 Ti if they were offered to choose one for free. And neither would you.
No matter how much you want it to be real, 9070 XT is not a massive upgrade over a 3080 (a card that is over 6 years old at this point). Rule of the thumb is that you want at least 50% increased raster perf for an upgrade to be worth it. 9070 XT brings like 35% and is 5 years newer. Very disappointing really.
Then again, nothing about Radeon 9000 series is high-end. It's mid-end stuff. AMD said that officially, when they left the high-end market.
In like 1 month, 7900 XTX 24GB will be AMDs best card again, due to 7000 series getting FSR 4 support. Radeon 9000 was a downgrade in so many ways compared to 7000 series. Smaller chip, smaller bus, less VRAM, everything was lower. 9000 even re-used GDDR6 because they were cheaper.
9000 would look bad if FSR 4 was not exclusive to this series, at least at launch. This is the real reason why AMD did not allow FSR 4 support on Radeon 7000 series from day one. Because it would make 9000 series look bad. Meanwhile DLSS 4 was supported day one, even on RTX 2000 series from 2018.
3080 with DLSS 4 will easily look better than 9070 XT using FSR 4 in most games. FSR 4 still needs work to hit DLSS 4 level of visuals and motion. Techspot, Techpowerup, all big sites concluded that FSR 4 still lags behind DLSS 4, but still it was a big upgrade over FSR 3.1 and older, which sucked (Main reason that most people hate upscaling, because they tried FSR 1, 2 or 3 which works on all GPUs) - DLSS 4 is the best upscaler by far, and has the broadest support, with pretty much support in all new games. Don't like upscaling? No problem, use DLAA, looks vastly better than Native. FSR Native is not that bad either.
Calling 3080 bad and 9070 XT good is cringe. Both are mid-tier options today. 9070 XT is 5 years newer and still only 35% faster, AT THE SAME PRICE POINT, with worse features on top.
RDNA 5 aka UDNA can't come soon enough. Current generations from both brands are miserable. Worst generation in decades.
RTX 6000 vs RDNA 5 is going to be a true next gen battle. This is when AMD will need to have nailed FSR quality and support in games. DLSS does vastly better overall in quality/support and AMD is years behind.
RTX 5000 and Radeon 9000 were both joke generations. Brought nothing over last gen. Only card to bring something new, was RTX 5090. RTX 4090 shits on everything else in current gen, even RTX 5080. 4090 very easily beats 5070 Ti and 9070 XT.
Last edited:
Ehh, are you blind? Literally all reviews conclude that 5070 Ti is the faster card. With much better features as well. AMD has plenty of work to do.
9070 XT sells because its cheaper, and thats it. 5070 Ti sold better anyway.
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.
Brand new review, using newest drivers and newer popular games.
5070 Ti is faster than 9070 XT in pure rasterization across tons of popular and newer games.
It is faster in Ray Tracing and especially Path Tracing as well.
Has superior upscaling, with vastly better support in actual games and also has much better Frame Gen / MFG that actually works well, with low input lag.
Also uses less power.
Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse Review
The Sapphire Radeon RX 9070 GRE Pulse is the quietest card we've reviewed today. Even at full load it runs whisper quiet, yet still packs enough punch for a great 1440p gaming experience. Priced at $550, the GRE is shaping up to be a decent alternative to NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5070.www.techpowerup.com
Proof after proof, after proof. Yet you deny reality.
The only reason 9070 XT sells, is because it is alot cheaper right now. No-one would choose 9070 XT over 5070 Ti if they were offered to choose one for free. And neither would you.
No matter how much you want it to be real, 9070 XT is not a massive upgrade over a 3080 (a card that is over 6 years old at this point). Rule of the thumb is that you want at least 50% increased raster perf for an upgrade to be worth it. 9070 XT brings like 35% and is 5 years newer. Very disappointing really.
Then again, nothing about Radeon 9000 series is high-end. It's mid-end stuff. AMD said that officially, when they left the high-end market.
In like 1 month, 7900 XTX 24GB will be AMDs best card again, due to 7000 series getting FSR 4 support. Radeon 9000 was a downgrade in so many ways compared to 7000 series. Smaller chip, smaller bus, less VRAM, everything was lower. 9000 even re-used GDDR6 because they were cheaper.
9000 would look bad if FSR 4 was not exclusive to this series, at least at launch. This is the real reason why AMD did not allow FSR 4 support on Radeon 7000 series from day one. Because it would make 9000 series look bad. Meanwhile DLSS 4 was supported day one, even on RTX 2000 series from 2018.
3080 with DLSS 4 will easily look better than 9070 XT using FSR 4 in most games. FSR 4 still needs work to hit DLSS 4 level of visuals and motion. Techspot, Techpowerup, all big sites concluded that FSR 4 still lags behind DLSS 4, but still it was a big upgrade over FSR 3.1 and older, which sucked (Main reason that most people hate upscaling, because they tried FSR 1, 2 or 3 which works on all GPUs) - DLSS 4 is the best upscaler by far, and has the broadest support, with pretty much support in all new games. Don't like upscaling? No problem, use DLAA, looks vastly better than Native. FSR Native is not that bad either.
Calling 3080 bad and 9070 XT good is cringe. Both are mid-tier options today. 9070 XT is 5 years newer and still only 35% faster, AT THE SAME PRICE POINT, with worse features on top.
RDNA 5 aka UDNA can't come soon enough. Current generations from both brands are miserable. Worst generation in decades.
RTX 6000 vs RDNA 5 is going to be a true next gen battle. This is when AMD will need to have nailed FSR quality and support in games. DLSS does vastly better overall in quality/support and AMD is years behind.
RTX 5000 and Radeon 9000 were both joke generations. Brought nothing over last gen. Only card to bring something new, was RTX 5090. RTX 4090 shits on everything else in current gen, even RTX 5080. 4090 very easily beats 5070 Ti and 9070 XT.
I dont even know why you are arguing anymore. With the rate we are going, Nvidia wont be releasing GPU's for gaming. Might as well change teams at some point. AMD is partnered with Sony and Microsoft, so they are here to stay. Intel, I give them some leeway as they are still figuring it out.
Because you insist that 9070 XT is faster than 5070 Ti but it's not. Slower in raster, worse in features and support, hence cheaper. AMD would sell close to zero 9070 XTs if it was priced at 5070 Ti level. That is just reality. AMD is the cheaper alternative.
Nvidia will release RTX 5000 SUPER in Q1 next year and RTX 6000 in Q1 2028, AMD will have even less focus on gaming GPUs, which is why Radeon 9000 and RDNA 4 is so bad, with a low to mid-end focus and they even cancelled the biggest SKUs in the lineup. If AMD truly cared about selling gaming GPUs, they would have released these.
Nvidia supplies Tegra/RTX gaming SOCs to Nintendo, for Switch, you know the best selling console in recent years and Switch 2 sells faster than both PS5 and Xbox combined (where the latter is pretty much EoL and dead) - AMD had nothing that even comes close to Nvidia Tegra in terms of perf/watt which was Nintendos most important demand, it is a handheld after all - Switch 2 re-used Nvidia due to DLSS and backwards comp.
Just because Nvidia earns billions upon billions on AI and Enterprise does not mean they don't care about gaming. They outsell AMD like 10:1 in the gaming space and dominate the gaming dGPU market with ease. Nvidia sits at like 80-85% dGPU marketshare.
Nvidia is GPU first and it shows.
AMD is CPU first, and finally beats Intel overall here. Their bottleneck is TSMC and they prioritize CPU and APU output here, then enterprise GPUs. Hence why gaming GPUs is not a focus.
AMD makes great CPUs but their GPUs needs work. It probably won't be of much importance for AMD to do very well in the gaming GPU space. They would much rather do well in the AI GPU space, and maybe reap billions like Nvidia.
Last edited:
Nintendo chose Tegra because Nvidia had excess amount of them for no use and therefore gladly dumbed excess amount for NIntendo. Main difference is that while Sony and MS actually develop chips for their own systems, Tegra was just off the shelf chip.
As for best selling etc, NIntendo users are known fanboys that buy Anything Nintendo offer. Switch would have sold well with whatever chip inside. It just happened to be Nvidia chip and that had to do nothing about chip being superior or anything like that. In other words, AMD custom chip would have been much better for Switch than any Nvidia. There are reasons why Sony and MS have used AMD custom chips over a decade.
Endymio
Posts: 5,142 +4,803
You mean back when they produced cards on 130nm nodes, rather than the 3nm of their next-gen cards? Not even NVidia can circumvent the laws of physics.
But people aren't posting they're "unhappy". They're bleating puerile nonsense such as "DIY is dead forever!", "NVidia has abandoned gamers!", and "we need to ban AI!".
Stop spreading BS - Nintendo choosed (they actually begged) Nvidia to use Tegra because AMD had nothing that even comes close in terms of perf/watt. Switch 1 would not have been possible without Nvidia. No other company was able to bring this kind of perf/watt. If they had used AMD hardware, Switch would have been even slower or lasted 1 hour on the go.
For Switch 2, Nintendo wanted good upscaling and DLSS is vastly better than FSR, which was a major reason why Switch 2 went with Nvidia again. FSR 3.1 is just pure trash in comparison and FSR 4 was not going to happen as AMD was not ready or even close to deliver a SOC with Zen4/5 + RDNA 4 and the power usage would probably be too high anyway.
Steam Deck 2 is going to use an off the shelf chip too, what is your point? Like custom is better? Haha - Most go custom to keep prices down (compromized perf due to old arch) hence why Steam Deck uses a 7nm Zen 2 + RDNA 2 combo, cheap as F and sadly sucks alot of power. "CUSTOM" does not mean better. Custom typically means they compromised on perf to keep price down.
Sony, Microsoft etc. Goes to AMD say: "Hey, we have xx dollars for an APU, what can you build"
AMD says: "Ehh, we can give you 7nm and Zen 2 + RDNA 2" and they say "Fine" - DONE DEAL, that is CUSTOM APU for you. CHEAP, dated arch on dated NODES. Price is the most important factor.
Nintendo sells alot of games due to exclusives. Deck don't have any exclusives, it's just an extremely low-end PC with a limited game (steam) catalog (due to lacking hardware or no Linux support, but Windows can be installed to unlock more games)
The only reason Microsoft and Sony uses AMD is because Nvidia don't make APUs and really don't bother about dirt cheap APUs anyway. Sony and MS is the winners here, not AMD. Margins are low on these cheap APUs. Nvidia don't care much about peanuts.
So nah, AMD has nothing that even comes close to Nvidia Tegra with DLSS support and that is the real reason why Nintendo went with Nvidia again.
The funny thing is, Nvidia probably made more money on Switch than AMD made on PS5 and XSX - Sony and MS is the real winners here, not AMD. Nvidia did not care much about the Tegra order, Nintendo insisted, meaning price was high.
AMD will need Z3 with FSR 4 support to have any chance in the handheld market when Nvidias ARM/RTX APUs hit, or Nvidia will simply destroy them. Nvidia N1/N1X looks very good compared to what AMD offers right now and they launch SOON.
AMD Z3 is probably 2 years away still (this is what Valve expect) - And Nvidia already have N2X and N3X in the pipeline for 2027 and 2028.
Don't be so sure that consoles and pc handhelds will keep using x86.
However there will be Intel + Nvidia APUs too soon. Intel CPU paired with Nvidia GPU tile-based.
All this is the reason AMD keeps investing time and money into features, which they are lacking. Upscaling (including the built in AA and Sharpening), Frame Gen, MFG, RT, Path Tracing are features that will matter more and more.
What was AMDs focus with RDNA4? Better upscaling and RT perf. It was almost their sole focus. They officially said this multiple times. FSR 4 was the result, AMDs first upscaling that looked good. DLSS 4 is still better but at least FSR 4 is now actually useable, instead of that crappy FSR 2 and 3 solution. So freaking bad and blurry.
Now AMD just have to fix game support so you don't have to tinker/mod games to actually use FSR 4. Using DLSS 4 is much easier. Most games defaults to DLSS 4. FSR requires tinkering and 3rd party apps to a big degree and many new games don't even support FSR out of the box. DLSS/DLAA pretty much works in all games.
There like 1000+ DLSS games now + tons of DLSS mods on top.
With DLSS you are almost guaranteed support in new AAA games. With FSR 4 you can't be sure. Developers target the 80-90% of PC gamers, which use Nvidia. RTX dominate with ease. AMD has like 10% dGPU marketshare and like 1% of these, can use FSR 4 right now. Meanwhile, RTX 2000 owners, GPUs from almost 10 years ago, can use DLSS 4 no problem.
When AMD (finally) enable FSR 4 for RDNA 3, this might get developers to care about adding FSR. RDNA 2 owners will get it sometime in 2027 if they are lucky but perf hit will probably not be worth it due to lack of FP8 just like RDNA 3 but at least RDNA 3 has AI cores to tackle this, to some degree.
Good upscaling is gold. Bad upscaling is useless and this is why most of you say upscaling is bad, because your GPU can't do proper upscaling.
Garbage Upscalers: DLSS 1, FSR 1 + 2 + 3 and Intel XeSS all versions
Yeah, DLSS 1 was pure garbage too. Blurry crap. With DLSS 2, the magic was released and RTX owners have been using DLSS/DLAA pretty much since. This is almost 7 years ago - it took AMD 6 years to get good upscaling with FSR 4 but support is lacking bigtime and only 1% of AMD GPU owners can use it, for now.
Reality, accept it. Upscaling is not going anywhere from here on. Enabled as default in most new games too. Only people with old hardware complain.
Nvidia RTX has been a thing for 10 years. DLSS 4 is supported on all SKUs.
GTX owners and AMD GPU owners (apart from RNDA 4 owners) all hate upscaling.
RTX owners and Radeon 9000 / RDNA 4 owners, loves it. Because they have access to actually good upscaling.
Yap Yap. Make dime and replace your old hardware, then you will love it too. Game developers are not going back anyway.
Last edited:
That is total BS. First, Nintendo had to underclock Tegra because it ran too hot. In other words, it was far from "perfect" solution, even on perf/watt section. Second, Tegra was over two years old when Switch launched. You claim custom chip would lose against two year old "off the shelf" solution?
Better explanation: Nintendo could not be sure about how well Switch will sell (See: Wii U) so using custom chip was risky solution.
Backwards compatibility. Nothing else here.
Custom might mean better but consoles are usually optimized to be cheap.
Backwards compatibility again. Nothing else is needed here for reasons.
FYI there are quite many handhelds that have much better specs than Switch 2. And they use AMD or Intel. What else than Switch 2 use Nvidia?
Dude said the switch. Compare the switch to the ps5. PS blows switch out of the water. So much for that powerful Nvidia tech.
Nvidia is prioritizing their production lines to AI and downscaling their GPUs. Dont be upset at me about it, be upset at them. Pretty soon there wont be Nvidia GPUs to buy. Next thing you Nvidia borsa lickers will claim makes them superior is the AI data center bs.
You havent even used the AMD software suite, so your opinion and words about it are null and void. I have used both, and AMD just has a superior suite. It is actually customizable.
Nvidia is so good, then how come even the Steam Machine will be using AMD hardware? Maybe because Nvidia just isnt good enough.
Like I said before, just like with Apple products you can get standard overpriced equipment with some lame gimmicks, or you can get windows/linux based machines that are not as overpriced and you get more.
Similar threads
