| JEMC said: Ok, let me start with this: RDNA 3 rumors? Already? C'mon, give me a break! Ok, with that out of the way, let me say that I don't belive it. At least not unless AMD is stupid, insane or the MCM design doesn't really work well. After all, the whole concept is to break down the monolythic chips into smaller parts that make it not only more scalable, but also cheaper to produce because you can get more of them from each waffer, right? Well, if that's the case, why, oh, why, would they go with a chiplet the size of the full Navi 21 chip? Where's the benefit of that? How can you scale it down from there to the x600 and x500 series? As I said, it doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, and until someone proves me wrong, I'll think that this is false. |
It would be built at 5nm TSMC, it should be half the size, if everything else is kept equal of course.
A large part of the chip is cache and logic which could continue to be built at 7nm and likely live as it's own wittle chippy.
| WoodenPints said: From a raw hardware point I think RDNA2 already showed us AMD can compete again in high end GPU's but the problem is they haven't got their own answer to DLSS where Nvidia cards can pull away from them by large amounts in games that support it. AMD got one thing right by offering a good chunk of vram which I feel Nvidia messed up with the low vram on the 3000 series cards especially the 3070 at 8GB isn't going to age very well infact if both had stock and I could buy now at MSRP the 6800 would be pretty tempting over the 3070 due to how I think they will age. |
AMD isn't going to push it's own DLSS alternative.
Rather they are throwing their support to the more GPU-Agnostic technology known as DirectML from Microsoft...
Of course AMD also has Radeon Image Sharpening as well.
| Captain_Yuri said: In Raster I agree but there's more to GPUs these days than Raster and AMD really needs to get Ray Tracing improvements with RDNA 3. Once they do that I am confident they will have a pretty big leap in RT performance in RDNA 3 vs RDNA 2, then I'll be impressed and consider them a true competitor as more and more games are getting Ray Tracing support. The Vram is always a bit of an interesting thing as there's always more to Vram than capacity. The recent DF analysis with Hitman 3 showed how important memory bandwidth can be at high resolutions. Imo having 16GB of slow Vram is no different if not worse than having 10GB of very fast Vram cause for all of the games that don't use the extra capacity, it's useless. Maybe there will be a game at some point that will show a difference but I have a hunch that far more games will need the bandwidth that G6X provides over the capacity that RDNA 2 cards have. But I do agree that 8GB on a 3070 feels too low. |
AMD has typically always had higher VRAM capacities... Especially as they usually had cheaper/narrower buses than nVidia. (I.E. No 384bit/320-bit.)
AMD's approach was they weren't willing to compromise VRAM capacity for speed like nVidia, hence the infinity cache to make up that ground.
8GB is not future proofed or forward looking... For most of us it's irreverent as we would upgrade before it ever became a true issue, but some users hang onto hardware for many years.
| vivster said: It's time for a new GPU. My 1080 is now struggling even at 1080p on new games. I'm playing Immortals Fenyx Rising and I'm not getting stable 60fps on 1080p ultra. Games is cell shaded but it has lots of particles and is probably poorly optimized. Most of the issues are probably with the crazy view distance. |
It's a Ubisoft game, there is no "maybe" about poor optimization on PC. :P
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
