Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [Various] "Some" Reviewers Give Negative Bias towards Navi auth. by Nvidia Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-12-2019 09:51 AM
tpi2007
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
@ tpi2007

AMD claims only 20% of the 50% improvement is from moving to 7nm
Attachment 279536

And then factor in the power cost of GDDR6 instead of HBM2. Now add it all up and you end with something at 12nm that probably would draw in the region of Vega 64.
07-12-2019 09:51 AM
StAndrew The one point I've found missing in many reviews is the performance to die size comparison. Nvidia's Turing chips are about twice the size. I would think AMD has a lot of die size headroom for a future navi 5800 or 5900 card.
07-12-2019 09:03 AM
Alex132
Quote: Originally Posted by WannaBeOCer View Post
Didn't even bother watching the videos but they said Fermi was not good? Guess they don't know about Fermi's achievement training AlexNet on two mighty GTX 580s.

Also said Phenom II was a "true return to competition" and they insulted Sandy Bridge. No one insults Sandy Bridge
07-12-2019 08:55 AM
WannaBeOCer
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
First of all, this isn't news, it doesn't even qualify as rumour. It's just Youtube commentators putting forth insinuations and not backing them up. A lot of "Nvidia is behind the scenes as usual" and then they say exactly nothing to back it up. Zero.

The Navi reviews are weird? Why? Let's get one thing out of the way: AMD's Navi architecture is not as exciting as Zen 2, it simply isn't, I don't understand how Good Old Gamer can say the exact opposite, he just needs to look at the stats to know the facts. Moore's Law is Dead also doesn't understand or pretends not to, that Navi's 2.0 die size with ray tracing hardware will also be bigger, but instead prefers to convey that Turing on 7nm would still be bigger than Navi. And he makes a bunch of false claims, like Fermi was not as good as AMD's GPU arch of the time, it's false, the GTX 480 just had a terrible cooler, just like the 290X. When AMD had to catch up to Fermi 1.1 (aka GTX 580), AMD's power efficiency with the HD 6970 also went out of the door, and the GTX 580 was the fastest card of its generation, with a 244w TDP vs 250w TDP of the HD 6970. And come on, the Phenom II was a good deal, especially Thuban, but it didn't have the same performance as Intel.
Didn't even bother watching the videos but they said Fermi was not good? Guess they don't know about Fermi's achievement training AlexNet on two mighty GTX 580s.
07-12-2019 08:26 AM
ZealotKi11er
Quote: Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post
Buying either RTX 2060 is asinine now. RTX 2060 Super is a better buy than RTX 2060 until you look at RTX 2070 non-Super which has dropped to around RTX 2060 Super. RTX 2060 Super still has extra frame buffer for non-realtime raytracing : i.e. rendering purposes such as Octane.
"On average, these cards were 185% faster with RTX enabled" - https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...ce-Boost-1384/
"the RTX 2060 couldn’t render this scene at all" --- Sophie test on Autodesk Arnold
https://techgage.com/article/autodes...a-performance/

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...-vray-and-more

That's why AMD needed to price their cards at GTX 1660 Ti through RTX 2060 level. Instead they "jebaited" Nvidia

I am fairly certain if the RX 5700 was $299 (above GTX 1660 Ti which doesn't have RTX) and RX 5700 XT was $379 both would be selling better as the custom cards would have ~10% leeway to price their custom coolers , instead of having them at $350 and $400. RTX 2070 Super is essentially RTX 2080 for $500; RTX 2060 Super is essentially RTX 2070 for $400. Power delivery is decent enough that the cheapest of RX 5700 series should be adequate if all they did was use reference board and add a half decent cooler while keeping warranty (unlike changing the cooler yourself).

What is probably going to end up happening is that all the AMD exclusive partners will have to make more effort than the AMD+Nvidia ones. For example, ASUS, MSI, and Gigabyte can also copy coolers from their RTX 2080 series and put them on the RX 5700 series. They've done it before which is why die contact is poorer sometimes.

With ASUS announcing a September timeframe and MSI Launching a new EVOKE line for AMD, I would say wait for Sapphire Nitro. Sapphire was the only one to do Vega 56/Vega64 really properly. In its current state the best bet is an Arctic Accelero Twin Turbo III for ~$50 as it allows you to RMA (there's no thermal adhesive unlike the II).


------


@ tpi2007

AMD claims only 20% of the 50% improvement is from moving to 7nm
Attachment 279536
AIBs have room because their boards are usually more stripped down. If you look at reference AMD GPUs they have a lot of traces what are remanence of eng boards.
07-12-2019 08:12 AM
AlphaC
Quote: Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post
Yeah, cooler is crappy, drivers and not perfect, but what I didn't like is saying AMD doesn't have RT, so buy 2060. Who would use RT on a 2060 and lose half the frames?! And channels like Digital Foundry never pointed out NV doesn't have a-syn compute back in the day.
Buying either RTX 2060 is asinine now. RTX 2060 Super is a better buy than RTX 2060 until you look at RTX 2070 non-Super which has dropped to around RTX 2060 Super. RTX 2060 Super still has extra frame buffer for non-realtime raytracing : i.e. rendering purposes such as Octane.
"On average, these cards were 185% faster with RTX enabled" - https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...ce-Boost-1384/
Quote:
"Turing’s perks (possibly concurrent INT/FP) allows a mid-range card like the RTX 2060 to perform just as well as the last-gen Pascal-based Quadro P6000 (ignoring framebuffer limitations on the smaller card)."
"the RTX 2060 couldn’t render this scene at all" --- Sophie test on Autodesk Arnold
https://techgage.com/article/autodes...a-performance/

Quote:
Redshift is going to gain proper support for NVIDIA's RT core in a future release, but even right now, RTX cards deliver very impressive performance, with the RTX 2080 surpassing TITAN Xp, and the 2080 Ti yet again sitting comfortably on top.
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3...-vray-and-more

That's why AMD needed to price their cards at GTX 1660 Ti through RTX 2060 level. Instead they "jebaited" Nvidia

I am fairly certain if the RX 5700 was $299 (above GTX 1660 Ti which doesn't have RTX) and RX 5700 XT was $379 both would be selling better as the custom cards would have ~10% leeway to price their custom coolers , instead of having them at $350 and $400. RTX 2070 Super is essentially RTX 2080 for $500; RTX 2060 Super is essentially RTX 2070 for $400. Power delivery is decent enough that the cheapest of RX 5700 series should be adequate if all they did was use reference board and add a half decent cooler while keeping warranty (unlike changing the cooler yourself).

What is probably going to end up happening is that all the AMD exclusive partners will have to make more effort than the AMD+Nvidia ones. For example, ASUS, MSI, and Gigabyte can also copy coolers from their RTX 2080 series and put them on the RX 5700 series. They've done it before which is why die contact is poorer sometimes.

With ASUS announcing a September timeframe and MSI Launching a new EVOKE line for AMD, I would say wait for Sapphire Nitro. Sapphire was the only one to do Vega 56/Vega64 really properly. In its current state the best bet is an Arctic Accelero Twin Turbo III for ~$50 as it allows you to RMA (there's no thermal adhesive unlike the II).


------


@ tpi2007

AMD claims only 20% of the 50% improvement is from moving to 7nm
Attachment 279536
07-12-2019 06:55 AM
Alex132
Quote: Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post
Yeah, cooler is crappy, drivers and not perfect, but what I didn't like is saying AMD doesn't have RT, so buy 2060. Who would use RT on a 2060 and lose half the frames?! And channels like Digital Foundry never pointed out NV doesn't have a-syn compute back in the day.
But it's clearly Nvidia's fault that AMD made a product that is worse than theirs!
07-12-2019 01:20 AM
gonX Moved to NVIDIA from the news section's Rumors
07-12-2019 01:04 AM
magnek
Quote: Originally Posted by Wishmaker View Post
I am still waiting for that magical arch from AMD to give NVIDIA competition in the high end TI and TITAN cards. Should we both sit on the porch and open a brewski?
Lol the two situations are not even close to comparable but ok
07-12-2019 12:44 AM
tpi2007 It's not "highly opinionated", it's Super opinionated®.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off