Next-gen GPUs look big and hungry, and that's bad news

[scavengerspc]

Why did you act like a guru then, if you have no experience with the cards in the first place

Maybe you missed the link I posted. Wouldn't be surprised if you did.
I read the posts and got curious, so I went out looking for info, which I found and posted. Then Geralt and a few others showed me how those numbers can get jacked. Then I thanked them. Does the internet really surprise you? Are you really that confused?

 

[Bawlsdeep]

Maybe you missed the link I posted. Wouldn't be surprised if you did.
I read the posts and got curious, so I went out looking for info, which I found and posted. Then Geralt and a few others showed me how those numbers can get jacked. Then I thanked them. Does the internet really surprise you? Are you really that confused?

Nah not that confused, just tried of people making stuff.

 

[scavengerspc]

Nah not that confused, just tried of people making stuff.

Oh, ok. Well, that explains your fury. It's curable though, just read thoroughly and read the posts afterwards.

 

[Bawlsdeep]

Oh, ok. Well, that explains your fury. It's curable though, just read thoroughly and read the posts afterwards.

I agree.

 

[hwertz]

It's amazing how much speed you can get WITHOUT sucking down like 500W though. I got a Dell recently with a Ryzen 5 3450U and Vega 8 and it's nice to play games on (I'm running Linux though, a few native games + Steam and Epic Games Launcher, so I may be getting better framerates than you'd get in Windows... probably not substantially higher though.) Given the performance it'd probably be pretty bad for 4K or 8K gaming, but it's got like a 15" or so screen so it's not 4K it's 1920x1080. Per ryzenadj, short-term TDP is 30W, medium (about 5 minutes) TDP is 25 W, and long-term TDP is 15W on there, counting both the quad cores *and* GPU

Just saying, those 500W GPUs are bad news... for those who feel they need them. But there's a lot of room in between sub-15W (8W maybe?) and 500W+ for GPUs that have good performance even at 4K and 8K without being an utter space heater.

And BTW the video with the test of the RTX 4090 is hilarious!

 

[Bawlsdeep]

It's amazing how much speed you can get WITHOUT sucking down like 500W though. I got a Dell recently with a Ryzen 5 3450U and Vega 8 and it's nice to play games on (I'm running Linux though, a few native games + Steam and Epic Games Launcher, so I may be getting better framerates than you'd get in Windows... probably not substantially higher though.) Given the performance it'd probably be pretty bad for 4K or 8K gaming, but it's got like a 15" or so screen so it's not 4K it's 1920x1080. Per ryzenadj, short-term TDP is 30W, medium (about 5 minutes) TDP is 25 W, and long-term TDP is 15W on there, counting both the quad cores *and* GPU

Just saying, those 500W GPUs are bad news... for those who feel they need them. But there's a lot of room in between sub-15W (8W maybe?) and 500W+ for GPUs that have good performance even at 4K and 8K without being an utter space heater.

And BTW the video with the test of the RTX 4090 is hilarious!

Nah, you won't be getting higher framerates haha - overall gaming performance is pretty much terrible in Linux compared to Windows. No focus from AMD/Nvidia or game dev's. Lets be real here .. No true gamer uses Linux as a daily driver.

 

[hwertz]

Except it's not, I was surprised to find reviews showing games getting higher frame rates in Linux, but some do.

Nah, you won't be getting higher framerates haha - overall gaming performance is pretty much terrible in Linux compared to Windows. No focus from AMD/Nvidia or game dev's. Lets be real here .. No true gamer uses Linux as a daily driver.

Except it's not terrible, I was as surprised as anyone when (within the last few years) tests started showing some games getting higher frame rates in Linux (running through Wine no less!), but they have. Nvidia has paid Linux full attention for a long time (previously for embedded use, but more recently Valve pushing for driver improvements.) Now AMD has been too. Plenty of true gamers use Linux daily, in some cases simply because they had a far easier time getting their multi-monitor setups running.

 

[Bawlsdeep]

Except it's not, I was surprised to find reviews showing games getting higher frame rates in Linux, but some do.

Except it's not terrible, I was as surprised as anyone when (within the last few years) tests started showing some games getting higher frame rates in Linux (running through Wine no less!), but they have. Nvidia has paid Linux full attention for a long time (previously for embedded use, but more recently Valve pushing for driver improvements.) Now AMD has been too. Plenty of true gamers use Linux daily, in some cases simply because they had a far easier time getting their multi-monitor setups running.

No they don't haha. I know several hardcore Unix guys that dualboot Windows to get decent performance in AAA games.

You might be able to run indie games and a few other games with decent performance in Linux but performance is not better than Windows, the end.

Linux marketshare is sub 1% and will never be a focus.

Why would you even use an OS for gaming that barely has any games. All PC games come to Windows, barely any come with Linux support. Hell even MacOS gets more attention from the gaming scene (why? Because of 10 times higher marketshare, minimum) and Apple users are often willing to actually pay for stuff, while Linux users won't pay a dime for anything.

Zero reason to focus on Unix/Linux for gaming dev's.

 

[hwertz]

No they don't haha. I know several hardcore Unix guys that dualboot Windows to get decent performance in AAA games.

You might be able to run indie games and a few other games with decent performance in Linux but performance is not better than Windows, the end.

Linux marketshare is sub 1% and will never be a focus.

Why would you even use an OS for gaming that barely has any games. All PC games come to Windows, barely any come with Linux support. Hell even MacOS gets more attention from the gaming scene (why? Because of 10 times higher marketshare, minimum) and Apple users are often willing to actually pay for stuff, while Linux users won't pay a dime for anything.

Zero reason to focus on Unix/Linux for gaming dev's.

And I know several hard core UNIX guys that *don't* run Windows, and run AAA games.

Just making a statement and saying "the end" is pretty pointless -- I've seen the benchmarks, some games were running higher framerate in Linux than Windows. Some weren't. I wouldn't switch OSes over it to chase framerates or anything. But the graphics stack internals, the drivers themselves, and Wine and Proton's direct3d and Vulkan support, have all improved drastically in the last 5 years and especially within the last 2-3. Even the Intel graphics chips finally have had the bugs worked out (not that I recommend gaming with them, most of them are still a real dog performance-wise, but they now will run the games (or "walk" them depending on how bad the framerate is....) rather than crashing or showing a corrupted screen.

Valve has focused on Linux for years, because a few years ago they thought they'd ship out all these steam boxes, and now for shipping the handheld. They don't want to spend $50 a console on Windows, so they've spent on developing Wine into Proton, and improving Linux's video stack, for the last several years, and it's seriously paid off.

Why would you use an OS for gaming that barely has any games? Well, games run fine through steam and wine so there's plenty of games. So some people don't want to deal with Win10's telemetry; they build a system or mod it too much, find Win10 didn't activate and don't want to pay or pirate Windows when they don't have to; some have hardware that worked better in Linux (the multi-head example for one), and some just don't like Windows so they don't have to deal with it.

My main point though, no matter what OS you run, there's plenty of room for fine gaming to be done somewhere in between the 8W or so the mobile Vegas use and the 400-500W these new cards will suck down.

 

[Bawlsdeep]

And I know several hard core UNIX guys that *don't* run Windows, and run AAA games.

Just making a statement and saying "the end" is pretty pointless -- I've seen the benchmarks, some games were running higher framerate in Linux than Windows. Some weren't. I wouldn't switch OSes over it to chase framerates or anything. But the graphics stack internals, the drivers themselves, and Wine and Proton's direct3d and Vulkan support, have all improved drastically in the last 5 years and especially within the last 2-3. Even the Intel graphics chips finally have had the bugs worked out (not that I recommend gaming with them, most of them are still a real dog performance-wise, but they now will run the games (or "walk" them depending on how bad the framerate is....) rather than crashing or showing a corrupted screen.

Valve has focused on Linux for years, because a few years ago they thought they'd ship out all these steam boxes, and now for shipping the handheld. They don't want to spend $50 a console on Windows, so they've spent on developing Wine into Proton, and improving Linux's video stack, for the last several years, and it's seriously paid off.

Why would you use an OS for gaming that barely has any games? Well, games run fine through steam and wine so there's plenty of games. So some people don't want to deal with Win10's telemetry; they build a system or mod it too much, find Win10 didn't activate and don't want to pay or pirate Windows when they don't have to; some have hardware that worked better in Linux (the multi-head example for one), and some just don't like Windows so they don't have to deal with it.

My main point though, no matter what OS you run, there's plenty of room for fine gaming to be done somewhere in between the 8W or so the mobile Vegas use and the 400-500W these new cards will suck down.

Steam OS failed hard because most games ran like crap on linux and Steam itself lacks tons of games.

No serious gamers use Linux for gaming, lol. Casual gamers maybe.

Even with Steam OS, Linux has 1% marketshare on Steam HW Survey. Many people using Steam app on Linux uses it for CHATTING, BUYING GAMES ETC. Then Dual Boot to run the games well.

Neither AMD, Nvidia OR the game developers cares about Linux at all. Nothing but trouble.

 

[hwertz]

Steam OS failed hard because most games ran like crap on linux and Steam itself lacks tons of games.

No serious gamers use Linux for gaming, lol. Casual gamers maybe.

Even with Steam OS, Linux has 1% marketshare on Steam HW Survey. Many people using Steam app on Linux uses it for CHATTING, BUYING GAMES ETC. Then Dual Boot to run the games well.

Neither AMD, Nvidia OR the game developers cares about Linux at all. Nothing but trouble.

SteamOS failed because the steam box failed (not surprising, if I wanted a gaming PC I'd just buy a gaming PC, and back then the compatibility and performance were not as good as they are now); and anyone running Linux can just install Steam on their existing distro. I can check "Enable Steam Play for all other titles", and that's that -- so far I've had *ONE* game not work.

I can't say how people use Linux Steam client; I find it unlikely someone would bother buying a game in Linux, then reboot to play it but I don't have any info to the contrary.

AMD and Nvidia most definitely care about Linux (or less specifically, non-Windows support in general); in the high end they are chasing the supercomputing market, and in the lower end there's millions of embedded systems for the taking by whoever has better drivers and suport. Right now, you've got the Steam Deck coming out, that's a lot of GPUs, and those sales may well have gone to NVidia if AMD didn't have their drivers in shape (I point out Techspot has an article just in the last day or two about AMD and Valve investing in further speeding up the AMD drivers.)