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.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.
Nvidia's power draw is ludicrous never mind the power connector debacle.Very underwhelming launch. If I was in the market for the best raw performance GPU I would go for an RTX card when Nvidia fixes their power connector.
This launch was disappointing.
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.I think everything you wrote here is a big miss.
Hmmm. I wonder what the folks who made fun of Nvidia will say now.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.
Who shut down your post?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.