No Nvidia Killer? Big Navi's best could match the RTX 2080 Ti, fall short of the RTX 3080...

[Shadowboxer]

Yep.
Price is always the focal point, for AMD supporters.
But when you are speaking about a little difference (here in Europe is around 130€ between a 2070 Super and a 5700XT) for a tech enthusiast is not the primary concerning factor.

If you are considering CPUs, where AMD solutions are faster and cheaper, it is a different matter.

Not for games they aren’t. If like me and you’re upgrading from a fast Intel quad then AMD 3xxx offers half as much extra as Intel’s 10xxx stuff but for 75% of the money.

 

[MaxSmarties]

AMD said 7nm supply is tight. So making very big Navi would mean there is not enough capacity to make other 7nm products that sell much more than big Navi. Not harder than that.

AMD said they were limited in designing a bigger chip ?
NO. NOPE. NONE.
Not a single official statement about that.
You said that, not AMD.

Like usual, you just don't understand what is difference between something could be done and making something makes no sense. Intel could have made 8 core 10 nm chips long time now. Problem is that if yields are super bad, $500 CPU could cost $1000 to manufacture. Could do? Yes. Makes sense? No.

Lol... trying to put Intel into the question, even if it has nothing to do with the matter. So typical for an apologist
Intel screwed up everything they could.
We are speaking about AMD and Nvidia here.

You say AMD couldn't design any bigger GPU that time? Radeon VII hmm... Please stop trolling.

Aaah the famous Radeon VII. What a successful product !
C’mon...
They weren’t able to design anything better. That’s a fact.

Faster vs transistor count. On GPU's more transistors = more speed, simple as that. Tensor cores are still mostly useless, after two years of launch. Better to spend those transistors for raw speed.

More transistors = more expensive to manufacture = higher price for consumer.

the added transistors are for added functionalities, not just performance.
Tensor cores are useless on your AMD card because you don’t have it.
I used RT and enjoyed Shadow of The Tomb Raider. I’m enjoying Battlefield V. I’m going to enjoy Cyberpunk 2077...
But I know, grapes are sour...

This rumor has nothing else info than single number.

I wonder why this kind of crap is even worth news item. No specs, nothing else than single number. I just heard from "reliable sources" that big Navi is 250% faster than GTX 2080 Ti. I don't have any specs or more info so that rumor is just as good as one said on this news item.

A rumor is a rumor.
We know it could be totally inaccurate, but if you think so, you should avoid commenting under it.
But you feel the need to defend the loved brand here, under a rumor that you don’t believe.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Well, Nvidia screwed up something very bad with Ampere and so they try review sites to use DLSS so they can be competitive vs AMD. DLSS is basically only way Nvidia can do to make "claims" they are still on "top".

That is because whole DLSS makes zero sense from Nvidia's perspective. You have 4K display and want games to run smoothly? Instead buying our $1500 card, buy $500 card instead and turn on DLSS. That way we get less money.

Sabotaging own high end card sales makes no sense at all. Unless Nvidia knows they have no chance other way.

Lol... you were able to write that Nvidia screwed up with Ampere (that will be FOR SURE much faster than 2080 Ti) under a rumor where AMD is said barely to reach the 2080 Ti...

 

[Shadowboxer]

Lol... you were able to write that Nvidia screwed up with Ampere (that will be FOR SURE much faster than 2080 Ti) under a rumor where AMD is said barely to reach the 2080 Ti...

Don’t waste your energy. HardReset won’t give up. Just wait for big Navi to come out and to use 450 watts and perform worse than a 2080 Ti, or a 2070S with DLSS on and watch him start telling everyone that whatever AMD is making next will be amazing. Or that big Navi will get a magical update or something.

 

[Fobus]

AMD just didn't bother to make big enough chips because it's quite expensive.

5700XT is only 251 mm² while GTX 1080Ti is almost double 471 mm². Not to mention 2080 Ti that is 775 mm².

If AMD just have bothered to make around 400+mm² RDNA chip "bigger 5700 XT", it would have been miles faster than 2080 Ti. AMD decided it wasn't worth it. So much about "NVIDIA is always a whole generation ahead"

We can start with their Linux drivers, but they were focused on CPUs previously, not GPUs. They have a solid architecture, they just need to expand on it. As someone pointed out previously, big Navi is rumored to be around half the size of the 2080ti die.

I'm sure everyone is going to sh*t all over my post because this is a tech forum and gamers are, well, gamers. However, the midranged market is always the biggest seller. If it wasn't then consoles wouldn't exist. Hell, even TV's come with freesync now and AMD has a GPU in both the new Xbox and PlayStation. Nvidia might have a name that gamers recognize, but AMD is still killing them in sales.

While big Navi might not be an "Nvidia killer" it still hits where it counts.

But it's not smart to cede top range. Halo products drive consumer hive-mind, they absolutely do buy lower tier products, if Nvidia has the best GPU. And it's not that long term thinking not getting your drivers in order. This generation I bought new tower 3900x/5700xt, and had to buy midrange laptop 3750H aswell, both running AMD CPUs and GPUs. I experience a lot more crashes, a lot more bugs than Nvidia/Intel solution I used to own. So much so that I'm seriously debating if even better price/perf from AMD is worth it for my next purchase

 

[tom111]

I like AMD's Interface much better than NVIDIA's one.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I like AMD's Interface much better than NVIDIA's one.

I don’t. It’s definitely prettier but they change it about too much. So if you need to fix a problem or whatever then the forum post from two years ago has completely different options and screenshots than they do now. Nvidia’s is uglier but at least it’s consistent.

 

[Rdmetz]

Completely agree with you on the price thing. I’m so fed up of tech sites and reviewers slamming a product for being superior but more expensive because it doesn’t work out as better value. I don’t care! I’m an enthusiast, I want to spend my money! Not only that but prices change. Offers happen, game bundles come along. Half the time I see a chip on offer I go watch a review of it and find the reviewer just slamming it for its price which is frustrating as you just want to know if it’s a decent product or not. A good example is this sites comparison of the 2070s vs 5700XT. In the review they had the 5700XT at $400 and the 2070S at $500. But when I looked the cheapest 5700XT was £430 here and the 2070S was £460. And then I ended up buying an RTX 2080 for £512! Which is better value than both!

Dude don't even sweat it the videos get made by people for the clicks and the clicks come from the broke people spending all their time desperately trying to find validation in the mediocre hardware purchase and a feeling that just cause it's slower its OK cause it was cheaper.

Some of us DON'T CARE some of us are ACTUAL ENTHUSIASTS and WE CAN and DO BUY THE BEST!

But the internet video influencers say what's going to get them the clicks so they can get the bucks and or fame so that they too can get the really nice stuff themselves (typically for free).

They say one thing and do another and that just because they want to see their business thrive.

The people who are the saddest to me aren't them at least they working to get that money!

No the worst are the fanboys who love their brand so much that they've become delusional to app the sacrifices they must make in sticking with them just because they "think" they are getting the best deal by going with the "underdog"!

The truth is if they opened their eyes and shopped around better and for real "valuable" hardware they'd find themselves able to have much better hardware newer and more often without spending anymore and heck maybe even spending even less.

I've had the literal fastest consumer level gaming PC you could have at any one moment since 2012 and on average my cost to always stay this up to date has been around $300 a year.

Less than the cost of most of their gpu's and I've stayed in systems with sli 780's 1080's 1080ti's even every time there was a new "best" I had it and not only 1 but 2 of them.

All the way to today where I've upgraded to a 10900k that's oc'd to 5.2 all core and "upgraded" for less than $220 from a 7700k meanwhile my $1150 2080ti just sold for $1000 and along with left over $250 from selling my 1080ti's I've got the next gpu already bought and paid for.

Like I've said been doing this since 2012 or so and have always remained on top and yet my total spend on average has been about $300 a year.

Think about the guy who spends $1000 to build a box deals with mediocrity the whole time and gets like 3 years of work out of it before his next upgrade well I spent about the same and enjoyed top tier gaming 5he entire same time and yet at the end of the day he has mediocre parts to sell and I've sold mine on much earlier for much more of their original value and have something even newer today.

 

[Rdmetz]

Well certainly the AMD cards are getting pushed to the side at the end of this generation. Nvidia came out with their super series and, frankly, I don't think AMD can't respond with a price drop. But I will stand by what I said, AMD has a good long game. Navi was solid, but built for gamers with a midranged budget. Then we have, "big Navi". Big Navi will compete on what I will call the high-end budget market. And while it is totally my opinion, my opinion is that AMD cards will sell very well. Unless someone is willing to pay excruciating amounts of money for ray tracing, Nvidia really doesn't have much to offer. We haven't been at a point where graphics make great leaps since around 2010. I game at 4k, but I do it on a 1070ti at roughly med-high settings. Unless you have a super expensive display and a budget to drive it, these high-end cards don't matter to you. Right now, we're at a 1440p60 mainstream high-end budget. If AMD can meet those performance requirements in a price that matches what Nvidia has to offer then they're solid.

And, again, it's my opinion that AMD will do a fantastic job in the GPU market not only immediately, but in the long term. There was a nothing wrong with Nvidia's approach to making massive dies, they're Basically going for raw horsepower. What Nvidia is doing is cool as ****. However, I believe that AMD will pull ahead. Even if they don't hold the performance crown, the will hold the sales crown. And as an AMD investor, I put my money where my mouth is.

The fact that you are in investor proves your biases not only in what you promote but what you buy. As someone with no skin in the game but my own enjoyment I'm always going with the more powerful further pushing brand as I always want more from my gaming experiences. If we didn't we'd just still be gaming at 640x480 and 256 color.

The company pushing the industry forward is where I'm putting my cash as it know it's what's going to lead to me having the better experiences and trust me ray tracing and DLSS 2.0 are "game changing" I've been experiencing them for almost 2 uesrs and could never go back to not having them as an option heck I want even more and demand more.

AMD is always competing with what Nvidia did 2 years ago while their fanboys think they got 2 steps in front of what Nvidia is doing "just around the corner". The tech most and fanboys are dreaming about is 4 years away and hh the time it gets here Nvidia will be 2 years in front of that.

Until Nvidia can't deliver anything and I mean 0 performance while amd grows 2 generational leaps this will never change.

AMD lost ground around 2011-2015 and they've never gained any of it back.

You may think that being just OK and mid range is fine but hive mind will always send most clamoring for the best brand and of the best brands best is too much they'll typically settle for the best brands lesser part in the ballpark because... Well.. Come on if they lead at the top you know they lead in the middle.


True or not they will see it this way. And the fact is like others have said even in the middle amd doesn't have the ability to offer you what Nvidia can and the ONLY place they can ink out a W is buy selling to the person who somehow wants amazing performance hut also doesn't care about next gen technology.

Maybe you're one of those people maybe a few around sites like this feel that way too but I can promise you to the majority of people if $50-$100 more will get them amazing things like ray tracing or game changers like DLSS 2.0 they going to go that way.

They'd be stupid not to.

 

[Rdmetz]

AMD didn’t kill Intel.
Intel committed a suicide

Say what you want and I know the hive mind has started leaning this way but there's no arguing that for a pure gaming build (which is what 85% of people discussing this stuff is actually doing) the Intel cpu's still fair better and get your more fps per dollar.

All other numbers( just like when comparing amd and Nvidia gpu transistor and such) don't matter if your goal is to get the most gaming performance out of your cpu.

There's also the insane resale value of Intel parts vs ryzen which must be weighed in on when deciding how to upgrade both from and to.

For example -

My recent sell of my 7700k from 2017 (4c/8t) vs my buddy who went ryzen 1800x (8c/16t) at that same time.

Today we both want to upgrade.

I sell my $340 2017 cpu for $300 on the used market meanwhile he sells his $500 2017 cpu for $125.

The value benefit of him going ryzen is he wouldn't need to buy new mobo but would you look at that his perfectly fine at the time board is only showing so so support for 3000 series and has 0 chances of support of 4000 series so he's buying new once again.

My board was pretty nice one from the time and sells for $250 (originally $400) and yet his board was only $199 originally and sells for $80 today.

I buy a 10900k and $300 board and spend around $250 to upgrade to a 10c/20t Intel cpu that does 5.2 GHz all core and never goes over 65c even on air. My total out of pocket $257

My friend got back $200 roughly from his old parts and is looking at between 700-1000 for his parts (minus the $200) so anywhere from $500-800 in build cost and that's with 0% chance he beats my chip in gaming.

He's so frustrated with it he said he might as well just take the money buy Intel an and be done with it cause atleast his gaming experience isn't hampered at all AND when it comes time to sell and upgrade again his parts aren't worth diddly squat.

 

[Rdmetz]

Except the vast majority of pc gaming consumers are 1080p or below.

He's an often quoted fact that comes from the fact that all pc's are "capable" of being a "gaming" pc if they've had steam installed and that includes millions upon millions that definitely are not or should not be considered gaming Pc's.

The fact is even with that in mind 1080p is still very much the most used res in the world but amount) among your audience for a site like this things lean a little more towards the higher end stuff than what would show in a global survey like that.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Rdmetz are you ok mate - what are you ranting on about? - I read comments more often than I comment . With regards to AMD vs Intel - yes there is a lot of Fan boy comments. But all of us know you want a great all round PC buy a AMD - if you have top Nvidia GPU you play PvP on some particular FPS at 1080p then get a Intel - if you are worried for future trends - most likely get a AMD as cores start to count .
As for AMD vs Nvidia - where are all these butthurt AMD fans you say that claim AMD will kick Nvidia's butt ? all I've had seen is people hoping AMD can get a bit more competitive in the top end to put downward price pressure on Nvidia . Most of on here think $2000 is crazy just to play games on slightly better settings - NVidia knows and most of us know -these players will keep spending that dosh & more . Most of the times I see Nvidia fans ( paid trolls ) coming into every thread about AMD cards and raving how bad the drivers are - least with the Quantum guy who keeps mentioning his great gear it seems like a running gag .
As I have stated earlier in this post I have a RX2060 and before a 1060 so I'm the kind of guy that dominates steam surveys . Most of us don't care about you 1% ranters - and silly people who pay way too much for old Intel chips - I resell nothing - I just give them - like probably most of us to family and friends who are poor or don't care or who might buy some already made PC that is cheaply made with flashy lights .
So basically stop making imaginary Strawmen to knock down - just about no one claims AMD will overtake Nvidia - who unlike Intel are improving their stuff

 

[Lew Zealand]

Below 1080p must be notebook gamers.

Some. My kids game on 1440x900 75Hz monitors on desktop PCs using GTX 1060 and 1660S. When I gamed with my NUCs I'd frequently be at 900p or 768p, on a 3440x1440 monitor. Ya make do with whatcha got.

 

[Lew Zealand]

FYI for the people who like to argue AMD vs. Nvidia drivers and hardware problems, they seem comparable at this time. I'm not saying anything about people having problems early in the 5700/XT cycle as I have to assume that was a problem based on HUB's poll which showed about 2x the problems with AMD vs Nvidia cards.

I switched from a GTX 1080 to a 5600XT and after a few weeks of getting used to the differences in software and how I like to control my GPU, the performance and stability is the same with both cards. It helps that both have the same performance so the actual differences in-game come down to stability, which is similar in both. Best thing is, if I have crashes I can compare to the same game that other cards in the house use and compare there.

And I can swap the 1080 back in whenever I want, but I haven't yet felt the need to do so. It helps that my 1080 has a crap cooler while my 5600XT has a great one but that's on the board partner, not the GPU itself.

 

[PlissandrO]

Vega, RX 5000 series all over again. AMD should Just go out and publicly state that they're not going for the top tier again and only fight in the mid-tier

 

[yRaz]

DLSS is what Nvidia has to offer. So many games support it and more are coming. It’s a revolutionary step and I believe that games will use technologies like it for years to come. And AMD has no answer, they need to do a bit more than release a sharpening filter to counter it at this point. With DLSS, budget RTX cards will deliver smoother 4K playing experiences than AMDs current flagships. You say you game at 4K on a 1070ti. I believe you will soon have the option to increase that performance level at 4K with Nvidia and DLSS for half the money that AMD will charge for big Navi.

Personally, I can’t see how AMD will compete. Unless they slash prices hard.

yeah, DLSS is a really interesting tech. I'm not sure how AMD will compete in the long term in that market. However, I do still believe in AMD's long game and I do put my money where my mouth is. We'll see how this plays out, most people don't play above 1440p anyway so I'm not really concerned about how necessary DLSS is

 

[MaxSmarties]

AMD said that 7nm capacity is tight. That follows: big chip is out of question. Simple as that.

AMD said NOTHING about difficulties in production of GPUs. 5700XT were readily available and never suffered shortage.
You are making things up.

Trying to tell you what is difference between something could be done and making something make sense, but it seems you are just trolling.

You are just worshipping the beloved AMD.
They did what they were able to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
According to this rumor things aren’t changed much.

Radeon VII is much bigger than 5700XT.

You are either very stupid or trolling.

Radeon VII is the clear demonstration AMD couldn’t do any better than they did.
BTW reported for insulting dude.

Tensor cores are so far useless for anything else than useless DLSS.

And the grapes are sour...

That applies to everyone here. Must keep balance.

I know: fanboys usually things they have a “mission”.

Whole DLSS thing makes no sense for Nvidia if Ampere is not badly screwed.

Again fox and grapes...

 

[MaxSmarties]

I like AMD's Interface much better than NVIDIA's one.

I don’t like AMD nor Nvidia’s UI.
Nvidia is too old, AMD is too complex and intrusive. And too buggy.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Say what you want and I know the hive mind has started leaning this way but there's no arguing that for a pure gaming build (which is what 85% of people discussing this stuff is actually doing) the Intel cpu's still fair better and get your more fps per dollar.

All other numbers( just like when comparing amd and Nvidia gpu transistor and such) don't matter if your goal is to get the most gaming performance out of your cpu.

There's also the insane resale value of Intel parts vs ryzen which must be weighed in on when deciding how to upgrade both from and to.

You are absolutely right.
I’m planning to upgrade from a 9600K to a Ryzen 9 3900X and I know that gaming performance aren’t going to be any better.
I will upgrade just for the curiosity to try an AMD setup (I still have another gaming rig with 9700K + 5700XT).
But I know that I can easily sell my 9600K + Z390.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Rdmetz are you ok mate - what are you ranting on about? - I read comments more often than I comment . With regards to AMD vs Intel - yes there is a lot of Fan boy comments. But all of us know you want a great all round PC buy a AMD - if you have top Nvidia GPU you play PvP on some particular FPS at 1080p then get a Intel - if you are worried for future trends - most likely get a AMD as cores start to count .
As for AMD vs Nvidia - where are all these butthurt AMD fans you say that claim AMD will kick Nvidia's butt ? all I've had seen is people hoping AMD can get a bit more competitive in the top end to put downward price pressure on Nvidia . Most of on here think $2000 is crazy just to play games on slightly better settings - NVidia knows and most of us know -these players will keep spending that dosh & more . Most of the times I see Nvidia fans ( paid trolls ) coming into every thread about AMD cards and raving how bad the drivers are - least with the Quantum guy who keeps mentioning his great gear it seems like a running gag .
As I have stated earlier in this post I have a RX2060 and before a 1060 so I'm the kind of guy that dominates steam surveys . Most of us don't care about you 1% ranters - and silly people who pay way too much for old Intel chips - I resell nothing - I just give them - like probably most of us to family and friends who are poor or don't care or who might buy some already made PC that is cheaply made with flashy lights .
So basically stop making imaginary Strawmen to knock down - just about no one claims AMD will overtake Nvidia - who unlike Intel are improving their stuff

It’s not paid trolls ranting about AMD drivers, it’s just normal members of the tech community. I mean the idea that Nvidia would pay randoms to sh1tpost about AMD is absurd anyway. They’d be in a lot of water if caught so why bother.

No, AMD drivers are garbage, they have a lot of issues and many of them never get fixed. I’ve just come off 7 years of using Radeon cards and the last 6 months on Nvidia drivers have been the most problem free of all.

The fact is, if people want AMD to succeed then it’s the drivers that need to be fixed first. People don’t notice 10fps less than a competitor in a game but they will remember if say the screen goes black randomly mid game, or the boost clocks don’t work (just 2 examples of issues I and thousands of others have endured). But the fanboys try and shut down anyone complaining about it. Which doesn’t really solve the problem. People make purchasing decisions on their own experiences before anything else. And if you buy a 5700XT because so & so told you that they don’t black screen and that’s just made up by people who hate AMD and then it black screens you aren’t ever going to buy AMD again.

 

[Burty117]

AMD drivers are garbage, they have a lot of issues.

Hopefully this comment won't get deleted as it's nothing to do with HardReset.

I recently built a full AMD rig (B550, 3600, 5700XT) and the Graphics Drivers are a bit crap, it's the first time in maybe 10-15 years I've actually had an issue (black screens, blue screens during gaming etc...) With the drivers.

It's a shame really as the 5700XT is actually a damn good card, running a 1440p 75Hz freesync monitor it's basically perfect.

 

[redgarl]

Latest leaks showing 80 CUs for Big Navi which will crush the 2080 TI if 52 CUs at 1.7 GHz is already almost matching it.

Expected frequency around 2.2 GHz, Big Navi could be even faster than the 3090 by a good margin, up to 20%.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Leaks showing 80 CUs which will crush the 2080 TI if 52 CUs at 1.7 GHz is already almost matching it.

Good luck to AMD at getting 80 CUs running on a consumer grade graphics card. The 5700XT has 40 and uses more power and produces more heat than a 2080ti already. But hey, you never know, it wouldn’t surprise me if AMD made the first graphics card with 4 power connectors and a 4 slot cooler!

 

[neeyik]

The 5700XT has 40 and uses more power and produces more heat than a 2080ti already.

Techpowerup directly measure actual power consumption of the graphics cards they test (not system draw or sensor based) and reported the following for the RX 5700 XT:


(Source)

That’s a 62W difference between the two, and even if all of that electrical power is transferred into heat, the 5700 XT is still producing 21.8% less heat than the 2080 Ti. However, what one can claim is that the AMD GPU has a higher power per transistor value than the Nvidia one - 21.65 watts per billion transistors compared to 15.3 W/bTrans - although such power figures include DRAM consumption and board loses.

For reference purposes, the 1080 Ti is roughly the same as RX 5700 XT at 22.6 W/bTrans, the Radeon VII is 26.5, and the Vega 64 they tested would be 24.7 - this suggests that AMD went with the goal for getting the die as small as possible, to improve wafer output, as well as overall performance (it's notably better performing in games than the Vega 64), rather than outright power efficiency.

With no architectural changes whatsoever, an 80 CU 'Navi 10' would be possibly be hitting 450 to 500W, and while it wouldn't be the first graphics card they've released with that kind of power consumption, it would certainly be their first single GPU card at that level. That said, larger GPUs can't and don't need to run at high clock speeds, so some of that excessive power requirement would be clawed back that way. Also, an 80 CU next-Navi chip wouldn't be just 2x Navi 10s - it's not going to have double the number of ROPs and memory controllers, for example, so again, that will be bring the consumption down. We may still be looking at a 300-350W 'big Navi' card, though this also assumes that (a) AMD haven't streamlined the current requirements for their design and (b) TSMC haven't refined the N7 process by then.

 

[LuckyMenace]

AMD has nearly zero market share in the $500+ GPU market this generation, of which Nvidia has 6.34% on Steam hardware surveys. This is the sum of RTX 2070/S, and RTX 2080/S/Ti. People say “price/performance ratio” is important, yet more people own 2080 or 2080Ti than 5700XT. Those cards can cost 2-3X as much as the 5700XT.

AMD need to compete with the high end the next generation or risk losing even more ground to Nvidia. Price/performance can’t win when so many people simply want the best money can buy.