I might just skip my gaming monitor and go full TV gaming.
https://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-oled65cxpua-oled-4k-tv
OLED, 4K, 120Hz, G-Sync, HDR. If the response time is as good as they claim it might even be good enough for Rocket League.

And the best part is I'm gonna buy that TV no matter what I do with my PC because I wanted a new TV anyway and that one happens to be the best TV that currently exists.

Well the thing with AMD vs Intel is, for AMD to have won, Intel needed to have stopped progressing... And that is exactly what they did. This is speculation but Intel was so focused on trying to get 10nm and FX left AMD so out of the picture that Intel never bothered to pursue anything else. They figured that if AMD were to make another CPU, they wouldn't be able to catch up to Intel's IPC lead so it wouldn't matter. And if AMD went for the high core count aspect, the yields would be similar if not worse compared to Intels.

What they didn't account for is something like the infinity fabric which gave AMD the ability to have high yields and high core count while having really good performance. There are some performance penalty compared to Intel's approach but it's mainly a non issue.

Nvidia however has been progressing and hasn't stopped. Yea the Value of 2000 series is shit but it was more of a hold off until 7nm was ready. If you look at a pessimistic point of view from what the 5000 series is by comparison... AMD had everything going for them. Nvidia had shit pricing because 2000 series had ray tracing and tensor cores before they were ready to do anything meaningful and the game performance wasn't that different from Pascal other than 2080 Ti. Yet some how, the 5000 series not only had similar pricing to 2000 series, it couldn't compete against Nvidia's high end while not having Ray Tracing or Tensor Cores. And the biggest kicker is that the 1080Ti is still more powerful in average than 5700 XT and they still had driver problems.

It's hard for me to recommend a 5000 series to anyone cause people say that 2000 series is gonna age like milk due to having Ray Tracing and Tensor cores before it was ready... Shit where does that leave the 5000 series that doesn't even have it while costing the same?

Anyway, unless AMD can pull a magic trick out of it's hat and I do want them to, the only way they will catch up to Nvidia is if Nvidia stops progressing or makes a big woopsie... A bigger one than the 2000 series...

AMD went from competting with the 1060 with their best mainstream cards, the 480/580, to compete with the 2070 with the same replacement cards, so much so that Nvidia was forced to lower the prices of their cards to make them attractive and launch the Super versions to beat AMD.

If AMD can bring up the competition once again and fight head to head with Nvidia's 3080 or even better, launch a card that sits between that card and the 3080Ti, that will already be a big improvement and bring some sense to the pricing of both camps.

Just because they won't launch the fastest/most powerful card of the world doesn't mean that they suck and their products are shitty. Some of you need to stop thinking only in the high end and pay a bit of attention to the rest of the range which, coincidentally, is where most of the money is made.

I think that applies to most regulars here in this thread. Consoles simply have limitations that make it impossible to really compete with PC, especially outside of the launch window.

AMD needed during the FX days to sell whatever they produce, and in sufficient quantities. That meant concentrating on mainstream chips, and those kept AMD afloat at the time. Additionally, the development of Ryzen dried up much of the ressources for the graphics department, hence why Vega was such a limited release and it took so long until Navi to finally release. And even then, they only released 2 chips based upon Navi/RDNA1 so far, simply because they didn't have much money to develop them back when they were designed in 2016/2017.

But with Ryzen being the success that it became, AMD finally could start developing more and broader again, and I think RDNA2 will reflect this with broader GPU launches. Because the last time that AMD had a full stack launch for any GPU generation was all the way back in 2012 and the launch of the original GCN architecture, and that was also the last time AMD could really financially afford to develop so many different dies at once - until now.

However, I don't think RDNA2 will already be a full stack launch just yet, that will come with RDNA3. Instead, AMD will finally tackle the high-end again with cards that fight with the 2080Ti and 3080Ti while letting RDNA1 pull it's duty below this - though possibly with an added chip to fill the gap between the 5700 and 5500 or a new entry-level chip to replace Baffin/Lexa (outside of OEMs) and thus put Polaris finally at rest.

I do think that's a pretty faulty comparison.

The reason? Microsoft has asked for severely clocked down GPU parts to address potential heat issues, RROD anyone? On the other hand, the GPU in the PS5 is much smaller, but also runs at much higher speed. Since both are the same architecture, you should at the very least take the XSX GPU and take the PS5 clock speed to determine potential raw performance of a big(ish) RDNA2. At that clock speed for instance, the XSX GPU would be at 15 TF, which is nothing to sneeze at, and a full 64CU GPU at that speed certainly could also threaten Ampere.

That's be nice for sure, as it'd give me some options to look at.

I only pay attention to the high end, because that's what I seek in a GPU. I don't want to settle for mid to low end upgrades time after time, and I do use my GPU for rendering as well, so there's that use for high end that I have. 

Yeah, low to mid range is always where the money is, but really, so is mobile gaming. Normies in any industry make anyone the most money, as that is just the way things are and always will be. 

Do you think XSX is going to be a far bigger threat to an unreleased GPU line?. I dunno, I'm finding that a bit hard to believe. For the longest time, PC's have managed to outpace console performance, even out the gate, albeit a years time if not 2. I just don't expect the gap to suddenly widen from the console side to PC.

"severely clocked down GPU parts"

Do we know this for sure cause I wouldn't call 1.825GHz severely clocked down. If anything, it's a pretty good base clock. But we will see how it performs since increasing the frequency might sound great on paper but the performance you get back isn't proportional.

Keep in mind that the 5700XT is a mid range GPU meant to replace Polaris which was at 36CU...
And when comparing the 5700XT... It manages to match the RTX 2080, but nVidia is still stuck at 12nm (Which is an enhanced 14/16nm process, which in turn is based on 20nm), things will really get interesting when there is fabrication parity between AMD and nVidia.

AMD is enjoying some good profit margins on RDNA though.

Plus RDNA1 is a hybrid GPU architecture, it's not purely RDNA, it's built on top of Graphics Core Next and comes with some of it's pro's and con's.
RDNA2 should be a significant departure from that and should bring forth a slew of efficiency enhancements... Touch wood.

I think it's clear from this point that it's going to take a few years for AMD to do what it did to Intel... To nVidia. - nVidia hasn't stopped innovating and bringing in new features and enhancements, so it's a much harder task.

RDNA2 and Ampere should be starting to trickle onto the market, putting the PC ahead of the consoles at around the same time frame.

It's like when the Playstation 3 launched using a "high-end" Geforce 7 class GPU, nVidia dropped the Geforce 8000 a month or two prior which made the Geforce 7 series seem highly antiquated.

Looks like with the 3000 series they also upgraded Jensen's sense of humor.

I got a good laugh out of this, but as soon as the clip was over I thought to myself, if he had been wearing his leather jacket, with an apron over top of it, now that would have been the icing on the cake!

Your Moe pic here is just so spot on!

In this case it's not about the limitations. It's about console developers' unwillingness to sacrifice visual fidelity for performance. The consoles are plenty strong to deliver solid 60fps on 4K, but developers refuse to go there or even give the option of a performance mode. It's the same thing from the last two gens where consoles had plenty power to run all games on 1080p60, but developers opted to not go there. And why would they, when they have a rabid fanbase of people who don't even know how it is to have more. Console developers live in luxury and they won't give it up.

That why it was so easy to predict that games wouldn't run at 60fps, no matter how fast the consoles will be.