When AMD price too close to Nvidia based on their Raster performance , everyone screams they need to lower prices because RT and feature set can't compete... 'they'll never gain market share' , 'Distrupt the market' , etc etc.
AMD come in undercutting Nvidia significantly:
"Something's wrong"
"it must be even slower than the 4080 in rasterization"
" should be renamed and be dropped to $949"
You guys are funny.
.......
Bit of a reality check people.. Raster perf and perf/watt is looking fine. Not amazing, not matching the random rumors started my morons, sure. but all things in the real world considered.. Fine.
Price is great for that raster performance and raster is also good. I don't think there is a need for additional price cut.
If AMD doesn't plan any stronger chip, which they most likely don't, then I don't think It matter If N31 will stay as RX 79** or RX78** series.
As for the chip/architecture itself. The only thing that's "wrong" is the RT performance. Yet everyone's fixated on the clock speeds not being through the roof, not beating the s**t out of 4090 (even at a mere 355w) and therfore it must have been botched. It's a Fermi, it's an R520...
Hello? , since when is a 50% increase in perf/watt, and 60% increase in performance vs a predecessor "Botched"
It's still a huge uplift over RDNA2 at the end of he day. It's also the first Gen Chiplet architecture, which no doubt has presented a host of challenges, and wouldn't come without some compromise..
Comparing to Nvidia's Gen on Gen - They've gone from an inferior 8nm SS process, to a Superior custom '4nm' process , so you can't even draw any parallels there either. It was always going to be a challenge to maintain status quo with Nvidia this gen because of this fact.
That 54% perf/W was comparing 6900XT vs 7900XTX at 300W.
If they compared 300 vs 355W, then It would be less, but to be fair, AMD could have compared 6950XT(335W) vs 7900XTX(355W) and It would probably be similar to 54%.
Even If the increase was only 40% ISO power, I couldn't say It was botched.
Ok, I would expect a lot more based on 54% increase with RDNA->RDN2 and Zen4's >15% perf. improvement, but that's my fault.
RT is weak, no surprise there, but It's also due to relatively low number of CU(WGPs) and clocks.
Based on leaks, not sure how accurate, there really is a problem, which is affecting the clockspeed and having 3GHz or 2.5GHz as the final clockspeed would mean up to 20% higher performance.
I am still a bit sad, they didn't make a bigger GCD.
Based on Locuza's table posted by
DisEnchantment I made a table for bigger GCDs. Keep in mind, It is still only 384bit GDDR6 + 96MB IC, so the interconnects in the GCD which use up a lot of space stayed the same.
GCD size | CUs(WGPs) | SHADERs | TMUs | ROPs |
300mm2 | 96(48) | 12288 | 384 | 192 |
360mm2 | 128(64) | 16384 | 512 | 256 |
410mm2 | 160(80) | 20480 | 640 | 256 |
I personally like the middle one the best.