Question Speculation: RDNA3 + CDNA2 Architectures Thread

Page 100 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,783
440
136
AMD simply went for efficiency and maximum profit based on chiplets. I think it shows that CPUs are their focus. Not a bad thing.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,404
2,099
136
So... not as fast as Ada, but much more reasonable power consumption and much better performance/price ratio. Honestly, I'm good with that.

Really curious what 7800/7700 is going to look like. 6800XT was in a really good position relative to 6900XT, 35% cheaper but only 10% slower, however given that N32 is going to be a separate die 2/3rds of the size of N31 I think it'll be that much slower than 7900. Decisions decisions...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and NTMBK

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,380
909
126
The Neo G9 announcement was the biggest hit to me as I picked up my Neo G9 just yesterday. :p I haven't had the chance to open it yet, and for what will likely be a 2xUHD setup (similar to how all current and past G9s are 2xQHD), the upcoming one will likely work better. Albeit, it will also likely cost more than what I had to pay (sale + work discount).
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

gdansk

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2011
1,304
1,285
136
But that's not good for the market and not good for AMD either to "ignore" RT. Which they do according to their own benchmarks.

This is def not as bad as the Vega disaster, but it's not good either. Still disappointing tbh.
Yeah maybe not. But if Nvidia had segmented the market appropriately I wouldn't be looking at AMD. I don't play RT games. Except Quake 2 and that's fine already.
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,396
5,863
136
I thought AMD would bring a bigger jump in RT. Maybe not match Nvidia, but close the gap a decent amount. It seems they haven't closed the gap here at all. Overall perf/$ looks great compared to the competition, but no competitive improvement in RT is disappointing.

I also fully expected AMD to copy NV's frame interpolation. Even if AMD doesn't believe in it, they need it in the feature list for marketing reasons.
 

tajoh111

Senior member
Mar 28, 2005
248
268
136
I think everything you wrote here is a big miss.
Looks like I got closest to the actual performance and things were hardly much of a miss. Same with power. Clocks being not much of an increase and performance perhaps a tad below my estimated.

With all the enthusiasm for post hyping things to the next level compared, my post was the most realistic considering the performance per watt claims and the simply common sense.

Did people really think, we were going to get over 3ghz clock, 2.4x shaders without some sort of penalty for gaming performance considering the die size?

The performance could have been seen a mile away simply because of the 1.5x performance per watt.

The fact that no one on this forums saw this and were expecting 2x as a minimum for raster and 2.5 being possible just showed how dyed red this forum is. Anything contrary to this was shutdown like my post.
 

poke01

Senior member
Mar 8, 2022
356
354
96
I also fully expected AMD to copy NV's frame interpolation. Even if AMD doesn't believe in it, they need it in the feature list for marketing reasons.
Hmmm. I wonder what the folks who made fun of Nvidia will say now.
Probably that AMD did it now they will herald it as the best innovation ever.



Trolling isn't allowed.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:

maddie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2010
4,447
4,091
136
Looks like I got closest to the actual performance and things were hardly much of a miss. Same with power. Clocks being not much of an increase and performance perhaps a tad below my estimated.

With all the enthusiasm for post hyping things to the next level compared, my post was the most realistic considering the performance per watt claims and the simply common sense.

Did people really think, we were going to get over 3ghz clock, 2.4x shaders without some sort of penalty for gaming performance considering the die size?

The performance could have been seen a mile away simply because of the 1.5x performance per watt.

The fact that no one on this forums saw this and were expecting 2x as a minimum for raster and 2.5 being possible just showed how dyed red this forum is. Anything contrary to this was shutdown like my post.
Who shut down your post?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
moonbogg Graphics Cards 501

ASK THE COMMUNITY