Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Krogoth wrote:The rendering pathways are comically parallel so scalability isn't that much of a problem unlike rasterization.
It will begin to make more sense to make specialized chiplets if the industry wants to continue the pathtracing/ray-tracing route.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:As a co-processor. Or maybe like the physX. RayX.
Redocbew wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:As a co-processor. Or maybe like the physX. RayX.
Maybe, but the most important part of physX is the software, by far. This is a bit different since performance is trash without the hardware, and since it's already being used to promote GPUs it's probably going to stay that way.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Redocbew wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:As a co-processor. Or maybe like the physX. RayX.
Maybe, but the most important part of physX is the software, by far. This is a bit different since performance is trash without the hardware, and since it's already being used to promote GPUs it's probably going to stay that way.
I don’t know what I’m talking about, but is the hardware for Raytracing the same as what is needed for conventional graphics?
Krogoth wrote:Actually, CF/SLI might make a big comeback if the gaming industry takes a serious turn towards pathtracing/ray-tracing. The rendering pathways are comically parallel so scalability isn't that much of a problem unlike rasterization. The economic realities of monothic chips are catching up. It will begin to make more sense to make specialized chiplets if the industry wants to continue the pathtracing/ray-tracing route.
AMD RTG didn't throw infinity fabric into the Navi architecture for a quick laugh. I wouldn't be surprise if they end-up making a dedicated ray-tracing chiplet and GPU-hybird solution as their full answer to Turing dynasty.
btarunr wrote:It turns out that AMD's claim of the Radeon RX 5700 XT being faster than the GeForce RTX 2070 wasn't just specific to the odd super-optimized game title, but a whole selection of games, many of which come with GameWorks varnish.
JustAnEngineer wrote:https://www.techpowerup.com/256422/amd-radeon-rx-5700-xt-beats-geforce-rtx-2070-in-a-spectrum-of-gamesbtarunr wrote:It turns out that AMD's claim of the Radeon RX 5700 XT being faster than the GeForce RTX 2070 wasn't just specific to the odd super-optimized game title, but a whole selection of games, many of which come with GameWorks varnish.
StuG wrote:Do we suspect a Navi based card which will replace the Radeon VII as the crown jewel of the line up or will the Radeon VII with its shrink down to 7nm be their top card until the series after the 5700XT? Thoughts?
StuG wrote:Do we suspect a Navi based card which will replace the Radeon VII as the crown jewel of the line up or will the Radeon VII with its shrink down to 7nm be their top card until the series after the 5700XT? Thoughts?
Waco wrote:I wouldn't expect a RVII replacement for a while - it competes well enough with the 2080 in gaming and slaughters it in anything compute. It was a "free" development since it's basically a neutered Instinct card. "Big" Navi, if it is a thing, is probably not happening this year.
Fonbu wrote:With the rumor of the Nvidia Super RTX gpu's release, on July 2. and AMD's on July 7.
AMD may have to re-adjust the sale price of these cards, even before their official release.
This competition is great stuff!
Freon wrote:In the case of the GeForce RTX2070SUPER, they've done essentially that. While GeForce RTX2070 uses a Turing 106 GPU, the new GeForce RTX2070SUPER uses a more-crippled version of the larger Turing 104 GPU from the GeForce RTX2080 and GeForce RTX2080SUPER.NVidia seems to have plenty of profit in reserve to shift pricing and maintain market share. The Super cards seem like a "good enough" solution from Nvidia's perspective to avoid having to shift their prior non-Super lineup down a tier to compete with Navi.
JustAnEngineer wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-vYu89W4AAl2xw.jpg
Radeon RX 5700: $349
Radeon RX 5700XT: $399
ptsant wrote:$350 is a price I can stomach. This looks like a good deal for people who can't afford the new normal of $500 midrange GPUs.
DancinJack wrote:ptsant wrote:$350 is a price I can stomach. This looks like a good deal for people who can't afford the new normal of $500 midrange GPUs.
If >30 FPS @ 4K is what we're calling "midrange" now, then well, I'm very confused. I am however very pleased that prices in some cases are going down.
ptsant wrote:where I live the #1 selling CPU in the biggest e-shop is the 9900K and the #1 selling GPU is the Asus 2080 Ti. So there's also that.
ptsant wrote:the fact is that where I live the #1 selling CPU in the biggest e-shop is the 9900K and the #1 selling GPU is the Asus 2080 Ti. So there's also that.
ptsant wrote:Nah mate.If I remember correctly, the most popular resolution for readers of this site was 1440p. I'm certainly filthy rich compared with some hundred million Chinese and Indians, but the fact is that where I live the #1 selling CPU in the biggest e-shop is the 9900K and the #1 selling GPU is the Asus 2080 Ti. So there's also that.
The Egg wrote:This is the reason that we should all continue to root for underdog AMD to continue to compete in both of their markets, even if we end up buying from the competition. Intel cut desktop processor prices by 15% in response to the launch of the new Ryzen CPUs.Mid-High video cards just went down across the board by $100-200. Crazy how a little competition can do that.