Strange Brigade

Strange Brigade - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Strange Brigade - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Strange Brigade - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Strange Brigade - 99th PCTL - 3840x2160 - Ultra Quality

Strange Brigade - 99th PCTL - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality

Strange Brigade - 99th PCTL - 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality

Metro Exodus Total War: Three Kingdoms


View All Comments

  • CiccioB - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    I just wonder what you have seen.
    NAVI gets the same perf/W that Pascal has and the same exact features.
    No RT, no tensor, No VSR, no geometry shading, no Voxel acceleration (that was already in Maxwell), no doble projection (for VR).
    7nm and 10 billions transistor to be just a bit faster than a 1080 that is based on a 5.7 billion transistor chip. And using more power do to so.

    Don't bother reading. It is clear you can't understand what's written.
  • Zoolook13 - Friday, July 19, 2019 - link

    1080 has 7,2 Billion trans, and 1080 Ti has 11,7B IIRC, so your figures are all wrong and there is a number of features on Navi that isn't in Pascal, not to mention it's vastly superior in compute. Reply
  • ajlueke - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    At the end of the day, the 5700 is on the identical performance per watt and performance per dollar curve as the "advanced" Turing GPUs. From that we can infer that that "advanced" Turing features really don't amount to much in terms of performance.
    Also, the AMD RDNA GPUs are substantially smaller in die area than the NVidia counterparts. More chips per wafer, and thus lower production costs. AMD likely makes more money on each sale of Navi than NVidia does on Turing GPUs.
  • CiccioB - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    So having "less features is better" is now the new AMD fanboys motto?
    The advanced Turing express its power when you use those features, not when you test the games that:
    1. Have been optimized exclusively for GCN architecture showin
    2. Use few polygons as AMD's GPUs geometry capacity is crap
    3. Turn off Turing exclusive features

    Moreover the games are going to use those new feature s as AMD is going to add them in RDNA2, so you already know these piece of junks are going to have zero value in few months.

    Despite this, the size is not everything, as 7nm wafer do not cost as 12nm ones and being small is a need more than a choice:in fact AMD is not going to produce the bigger GPUs with all the advanced features (or just a part of them that fit on a certain die size, as they are going to be fatter than these) on this PP until it comes to better costs, the same is doing Nvidia that does not need 7nm to create better and less power hungry cards.
    These GPUs are just a fill up waiting for the next real ones that have the features then next console will enjoy. And this will surely include VRS and somewhat a RT acceleration of some sort as AMD cannot be without to not be identified as being left in stone age.
    You know these piece of junk will be soon forget as they are not good for nothing but to fil the gap as Vega tried in the past, The time to create a decent architecture was not enough. They are still behind and all they are trying is to make a disturbance move just by placing the usual discounted cards with not new features exploiting TSMC 7nm granted allocation for Ryzen and EPYC.

    It does not cost AMD anything stil making a new round of zero margin cards as they have done all these years, but they gain in visibility and make pressure to Nvidia with it features rich big dies.
  • SarruKen - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    Last time I checked the turing cards were on 12nm, not 16... Reply
  • CoachAub - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link

    The article states in the graphic that Navi has PCI-e 4.0 Support (2x bandwidth). Now, if this card is paired with the new X570 mobo, will this change benchmark results? I'd really like to see this card paired with a Ryzen 3000 series on an X570 mobo and tested. Reply
  • CiccioB - Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - link

    No, it won't. Today GPUS can't even saturare 8x PCIe-3 gen bandwidth, do having more does not help at all. Non in the consumer market, at least. Reply
  • peevee - Thursday, July 11, 2019 - link

    They absolutely do saturate everything you give them, but only for very short periods necessary to load textures etc from main memory, which is dwarfed by loading them from storage (even NVMe SSDs) first.

    BUT... the drivers might have been optimized (at compile time and/or manual ASM snippets) for AMD CPUs. And that makes significant difference.
  • CiccioB - Friday, July 12, 2019 - link

    Loading time is not the bottleneck of the GPU PCIe bandwidth, nor the critical part of its usage. Lading textures and shade code in .3 secs instead of 0.6s does not make any difference.
    You need more bandwidth only when you saturate the VRAM and the card starts using system memory.
    But being much slower than VRAM, having PCIe 2, 3 or 4 does not change much: you'll have big stuttering and frame drops.
    And in SLI/cross fire mode PCIe 3 8x is still not fully saturated. So at the end, PCIe 4 is useless for GPUs. It is a big boost for NVe disk and to increase the number of available connections using half of the PCIe 3 lines for each of them.
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, July 25, 2019 - link

    "Today GPUS can't even saturare 8x PCIe-3 gen bandwidth, do having more does not help at all. "

    It is a sad reflection on the prevailing level of logic, that this argument has gained such ~universal credence.

    It presupposes that "todays" software is set in stone, which is absurd. ~Nothing could be less true.

    Why would a sane coder EVEN TRY to saturate 8GB/s, which pcie 2 x16 was not so long ago when many current games evolved their DNA?

    The only sane compromise has been to limit game's resource usage to mainstream gpu cache size.

    32GB/s tho, is a real heads up.

    It presents a competitive opportunity to discerningly use another tier in the gpu cache pool, 32GB/s of relatively plentiful and cheap, multi purpose system ram.

    We have historically seen a progression in gpu cache size, and coders eager to use it. 6GB is getting to the point where it doesnt cut it on modern games with high settings.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now