Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Chazore said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Yea it's hardware unboxed so they try their best to make AMD look good. But their data is pretty legit and it continues to show how much better getting Ampere really is this generation. Even at the area where RDNA 2 was supposed to dominate (Raster), Ampere really is the best choice. I think the only time it makes sense getting RDNA 2 is a 6800 vs 3070 Ti. Every other time though, getting RDNA 2 is a mistake.

In terms of feature set, AMD needs RDNA 3 to match what Nvidia offered in Turing.

Like I get what happened to him with nvidia was shit and we all gave Nvidia shit for it (including Linus), but this just seems like a personal grudge being used to make money, and well...that's shit and should have been kept under wraps, but I guess youtubers aren't gonna do that so easily. 

Yea pretty much. I have seen some reviewers purposefully adjust Ray Tracing settings to make AMD look better instead of setting it all to Ultra. It's quite hilarious cause then Radeon fans will link their Ray Tracing comparison and say, oh look, it's not that bad. When in reality if you read the individual reviews, uhh no, they are making Nvidia look bad while making AMD look better than they should be.

Luckily as more and more games get Ray Tracing and such, the reviewers can't keep hiding behind their dumb biases and will need to adjust their benchmarks to showcase Ray Tracing. It's quite shameful that the reviewers didn't realize how forward thinking Turing was and they bet on the assumption that Turing won't be able to keep up in the era of Ampere vs RDNA 2 so getting Turing Ray Tracing/DLSS was pointless. Now you have a situation where Turing is aging like Fine Wine and RDNA 1 is left in the dust. RDNA 2 will be in a similar situation against Ampere but lets see if AMD gets it right on their third attempt.

Last edited by Jizz_Beard_thePirate - on 20 March 2022