lol My point still stands.
The argument was about hardware not being used. Not everyone is going to use it. Period!
Gamers using dGPUs don't need the IGP, but they buy K chips anyway. How many people are using PhysX hardware? Where are those whiners? Or the Onboard audio whiners? Or the QuickSync whiners?
#stopwhining
I believe I clearly explained the difference between maybe 90 percent of people using their iGPU on their chip costing less than $360 and the difference between buying a chip costing
at least $699 and potentially having a lot of silicon on it doing nothing much of the time.
You're paying a big premium for RTX features, but not for the iGPU.
When it's there and a vast majority of people use it all the time, nobody will complain. But when it's there, few people use it often and you're paying a big premium for it, people may end up thinking twice.
Not sure what else you needed to be made clearer. The implications after this are self explanatory but I can always indulge, right?
I hope that the parts are fast and there are other uses for these RT areas on the chip. Otherwise you may indeed see a negative reaction to this technology if software support is not excellent.
AMD could potentially build a smaller chip as fast or faster in conventional games lacking RTX features, with a die size much smaller and therefore also with much lower prices. Then we would see where the consumer leans. Example: $400 AMD chip as fast or faster in every other game minus the effects, or $700 Nvidia chip to have the extra features in say a mere couple dozen titles.
It's a risk for Nvidia, albeit calculated.
