I love it when Nvidia pulls out the Raytracing argument; "but we have raytracing, take an unacceptable hit to fps to get better lighting!". Most people who are interested in effects and layers such as raytracing, or improved PP effects overall, are also of a mind to get high fps counts, and these wishes sometimes collide with one another. At present, Nvidia doesn't really have a GPU that allows full raytracing and other effects and any impressive resolutions and anywhere near impressive fps counts. This is like the first "4K-capable" GPU's, where the fps would hover around the 30 mark in most games, dip into slideshow territory for some and then spike into the 40's or 50's for others when a slew of PP effects and AA were more or less turned off.
This is why I generally don't like to buy hardware that are introduced along with new rendering effects or demanding visual coating; the intro chipsets are usually unable to implement the very technology they're selling in an acceptable manner. Better to wait one iteration, at least.
That said, I have a Nvidia card now and and I really love it, despite its cost at the time of purchase, and I'm not in a hurry to get back to AMD unless they give me a really good reason. Upping the memory and touting HBM2 as a (literal) game changer doesn't do all that much on their own, they're still lagging where it counts the most in the premium segment; sheer performance. I'm glad they've addressed overheating issues and that driver issues are more rare though, I find AMD cards overall to be a much more stable alternative today than they were a few years back.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
