| Conina said: PS5 "raytracing" compared to PC raytracing: |
Reasons to go Nvidia increases
Chazore said:
Ngl, I just read PCGamer's article on it a few mins ago and lul'd, mainly because of the editor trying to use the news as a means to big up AMD. Using words like "worrying" and Concerned, as if AMD's got some gigaton bitchslap ready to dish out lol. We've seen this song and dance for years now, and if AMD truly aren't going to bring that A game, then PCgamer's going to look like your typical fanboy twitter hype account (which I already see them as anyway).
|
Lol yea I wouldn't doubt PCgamer saying nonsense. Ironically they aren't very care worthy despite their name. I remember them spewing out all that nonsense when consoles were being announced and how they made all them doom and gloom nonsense. In reality, as more games continues to get Ray Tracing implemented, the consoles continue to perform similar to a 2060 where as they perform like a 2070 Super/2080 when there's little to no Ray Tracing involved.
The hilarious part is that in the past, reviewers have always set settings to ultra when reviewing games. But since AMD GPUs are so terrible when it comes to Ray Tracing, you have reviewers setting them to Raster Ultra which is effectively Medium compared to Ray Tracing Ultra in most RT enabled games just so AMD GPUs don't look like an utter joke. And then there's the whole, muh power efficiency... Where again they skip demanding Ray Tracing titles where a 220 Watt 3070 is able to compete against a 300 watt 6900XT. I would be more forgiving if they priced their GPUs better but their higher end GPUs are priced like Nvidia GPUs while not having the feature sets while their budget GPUs are a laughing stock.
But as the saying goes... There's always next time...
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
