Captain_Yuri said:
Yea at lower resolutions, it's not as massive of a leap but who the heck is gonna buy this card to play games at 1080p? This a card that is clearly targeted towards 4k where it sees quite a massive improvement. So I wouldn't doubt it's less efficient in lower resolutions than 4k. And yea, the performance/watt gain vs Turing isn't very good but I'd like to see AMD bring better performance than what we are seeing with 3080 cause if all they end up doing is giving us a more power efficient card at lower performance, I couldn't care less. If RDNA 2 is more powerful though, then it would peak my interest. |
Come on, is that sort of thinking that yielded absolute computing 'gems' like Netburst, Fermi, or Vega. Great designs like Athlon 64, Maxwell, or Zen, began by increasing efficiency. It's one of the main drivers of innovation in just about any market, after all. So, I'd say that's very relevant.
Much like lower resolutions seem relevant in a context where less than 3% of people play at 4K according to the most recent hardware survey. And Nvidia surely wants to increase the adoption of DLSS, which will be rendering games at 1080p or even lower. In this context, it just feels weird that the architecture apparently chokes at lower resolutions - and looking at framerates it isn't CPU bottleneck either, so there's that.
