AMD RDNA 2 GPUs to launch on PC before next gen consoles

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for fedor
Fedor

6869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51  Edited By Fedor
Member since 2015 • 6869 Posts

@bluestars said:

@fedor:

3080 damage control..straight from the hermits mouths

HaH

“Bu bu bu when the 3080 comes out the XBSX will be mid gen”

Bless

Lol!!! Its mid range, not mid gen... Which the XSX will be. The RTX3080 won't even be the best GPU on the market, and a RTX3070 will easily beat the XSX. These are just simple facts that you're going to have to get through your deluded lem brain.

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
Grey_Eyed_Elf

7202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 Grey_Eyed_Elf
Member since 2011 • 7202 Posts

@organic_machine said:
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

A 5700 and XT both have smaller die size than Turing but draws more power in their performance range and that is against GPU's at 12nm while Navi is on 7nm.

Also as we have seen with X1X TDP on the console was custom tuned, the PC varient was 50-60w higher with a smaller die size in Polaris RX 480/580/590, so if a 52 CU chip in a XSX required all that PC like case design and more power to manage... Its not a good sign for the PC variant of that GPU let alone one with more CU's... We can be looking at another 64 CU 295w GPU from AMD with heat issues.

Die size is the same as TFLOPs it can only be measured against the same family of processors... Outside that is has little to no weight.

You're absolutely right. Especially on the bolded.

I have three thoughts, however:

1) Polaris was never meant to be high end. When Polaris was first introduced, it was meant to be mid-range running at significantly less power. Funny how that turned out.

2) Having the XSX compare to the RTX 2080, which is a $700 card (often sells for much higher on Newegg), puts it ahead of anything Polaris ever achieved.

3) The leaks. Take them with a grain of salt. The leaks that "Big Navi" being up to 30% faster than the RTX 2080 TI have big implications. We've had leaks like this before, but they've always flown in the face of AMD's own tech demos (Remember When Vega 64 was revealed and it was at best on par with the GTX 1080 in AMD's OWN demos?).

What do I think? I am not sure. Can RDNA 2 REALLY be that significantly more efficient than RDNA 1? Is that even possible? I don't know, to be honest. But I consider myself cautiously optimistic, especially considering everyone thought Ryzen was going to be at best on par with Ivy Bridge (I remember people saying that before Ryzen Gen 1 launched).

Ryzen was a new architecture so it was all guesses.

RDNA2 is improvement on RDNA architecture so it wont have the same performance increase.

As for the Polaris conversation, Polaris that was mid range but it matched high end i.e 390X to Fury cards and cost $400-550 that came out 2 years before it... Same thing is happening now, your comparing a console with a GPU that came out in 2018, by the time the PS5 and XSX come out you will get RTX 2080 performance in a RTX 3060, a mid range GPU and the AMD equivalent will be the same.

When the new GPU's come out from AMD and Nvidia we will see just how much of a high end experience those consoles will actually be... As I am sure AMD will release a $350-400 card to replace the RX 5700 with 52 CU's like a RX 6700 and a PS5 will be matched with replacement 5600 XT a $250-300 GPU like a RX 6600 XT with 40 CU's.

Its like me saying I'm getting $600 worth of performance form a $200 1660 because im comparing it with a GPU from 3 years ago... It doesn't work like that, the performance you get vs price is only relevant to what is available when it comes out otherwise their is no point to it because hardware always moves forward.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53  Edited By organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

Ryzen was a new architecture so it was all guesses.

RDNA2 is improvement on RDNA architecture so it wont have the same performance increase.

RDNA 1 is said to still have some legacy GCN in it's design whereas RDNA 2 is supposed to have gutted those completely. Or so I've heard.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
As for the Polaris conversation, Polaris that was mid range but it matched high end i.e 390X to Fury cards and cost $400-550 that came out 2 years before it... Same thing is happening now, your comparing a console with a GPU that came out in 2018, by the time the PS5 and XSX come out you will get RTX 2080 performance in a RTX 3060, a mid range GPU and the AMD equivalent will be the same.

You're way wrong on Polaris. It did NOT in any way match high end cards. Way off on the mark. I have an R9 Fury. It was significantly better than the RX 480 and the RX 580 and traded some blows (but still overall performed slightly better than) with the RX 590.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-590-vs-AMD-R9-Fury-X/4033vs3498

The R9 390 was a 290 refresh, and the 290 was a great card...in 2013. Of course Polaris was better than a 2013 refresh.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
When the new GPU's come out from AMD and Nvidia we will see just how much of a high end experience those consoles will actually be... As I am sure AMD will release a $350-400 card to replace the RX 5700 with 52 CU's like a RX 6700 and a PS5 will be matched with replacement 5600 XT a $250-300 GPU like a RX 6600 XT with 40 CU's.

Its like me saying I'm getting $600 worth of performance form a $200 1660 because im comparing it with a GPU from 3 years ago... It doesn't work like that, the performance you get vs price is only relevant to what is available when it comes out otherwise their is no point to it because hardware always moves forward.

My point in including the price is to suggest that even when the RTX 3000 series comes out, the RTX 2080 cannot be considered mid-range. That would be ridiculous. Not saying you said that, but people around these parts have been suggesting that and it's insane. Even the 1080 is still high end today. Not the highest. Something like the 1060 or the RX 570 I would consider mid range.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
PC_Rocks

3921

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#54 PC_Rocks
Member since 2018 • 3921 Posts

@bluestars said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf:

Boom?

That was the sound of hermits arses when the true power of series x was revealed

DF it’s doing things that pc can’t.... OOOF, experts keeping it real

HaH

Bu bu but 3080

What are those things?

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts

Why do you guys keep engaging that lame troll @bluestars? This guy will be in banhalla soon. Don't respond to his shit bait.

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
Grey_Eyed_Elf

7202

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56  Edited By Grey_Eyed_Elf
Member since 2011 • 7202 Posts

@organic_machine said:
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

Ryzen was a new architecture so it was all guesses.

RDNA2 is improvement on RDNA architecture so it wont have the same performance increase.

RDNA 1 is said to still have some legacy GCN in it's design whereas RDNA 2 is supposed to have gutted those completely. Or so I've heard.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
As for the Polaris conversation, Polaris that was mid range but it matched high end i.e 390X to Fury cards and cost $400-550 that came out 2 years before it... Same thing is happening now, your comparing a console with a GPU that came out in 2018, by the time the PS5 and XSX come out you will get RTX 2080 performance in a RTX 3060, a mid range GPU and the AMD equivalent will be the same.

You're way wrong on Polaris. It did NOT in any way match high end cards. Way off on the mark. I have an R9 Fury. It was significantly better than the RX 480 and the RX 580 and traded some blows (but still overall performed slightly better than) with the RX 590.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-RX-590-vs-AMD-R9-Fury-X/4033vs3498

The R9 390 was a 290 refresh, and the 290 was a great card...in 2013. Of course Polaris was better than a 2013 refresh.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
When the new GPU's come out from AMD and Nvidia we will see just how much of a high end experience those consoles will actually be... As I am sure AMD will release a $350-400 card to replace the RX 5700 with 52 CU's like a RX 6700 and a PS5 will be matched with replacement 5600 XT a $250-300 GPU like a RX 6600 XT with 40 CU's.

Its like me saying I'm getting $600 worth of performance form a $200 1660 because im comparing it with a GPU from 3 years ago... It doesn't work like that, the performance you get vs price is only relevant to what is available when it comes out otherwise their is no point to it because hardware always moves forward.

My point in including the price is to suggest that even when the RTX 3000 series comes out, the RTX 2080 cannot be considered mid-range. That would be ridiculous. Not saying you said that, but people around these parts have been suggesting that and it's insane. Even the 1080 is still high end today. Not the highest. Something like the 1060 or the RX 570 I would consider mid range.

You have no concept of tiers then.

RTX 2060 is current mid range... Mid range is has nothing to do with price its the performance, as you can see below the RX 580 was mid range.

As for your R9 Fury business... Erm the Fury and Polaris traded blows, especially the 580.

That's a $550 GPU vs a $250 in 2 years.

RTX 2080 is a 2018 high end GPU, like the Fury and 980 where in 2016... In 2017 they were replaced with RX 580 and GTX 1060, a mid range GPU.

In 2020 when the RX 3060 comes out it will be card in the middle of the benchmarks i.e. midrange and will according to leaks/rumours match or beat a 2080.

Its really not hard to understand at all.

Old high end is new mid range performance.

Like seriously 1080 high end... 570 mid range?...

The 570/1060 is literally low end and the 1080 is right in the middle with a 2060 of current cards you can buy new.

I swear for a second I thought I was talking to someone with a brain cell.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#57 organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

You have no concept of tiers then.

RTX 2060 is current mid range... Mid range is has nothing to do with price its the performance, as you can see below the RX 580 was mid range.

As for your R9 Fury business... Erm the Fury and Polaris traded blows, especially the 580.

That's a $550 GPU vs a $250 in 2 years.

RTX 2080 is a 2018 high end GPU, like the Fury and 980 where in 2016... In 2017 they were replaced with RX 580 and GTX 1060, a mid range GPU.

In 2020 when the RX 3060 comes out it will be card in the middle of the benchmarks i.e. midrange and will according to leaks/rumours match or beat a 2080.

Its really not hard to understand at all.

Old high end is new mid range performance.

Ah, yes. A cherry picked benchmark versus the conglomerate combination of benchmark results I provided via user benchmark. Very nice.

We seem to have very different definition of what "mid range" actually means. Tiers don't mean much to me, especially when what you call mid range tiers still cost over $300. To me, that makes no sense. It's all about price and performance. Who cares about release date and "tiers"? If I said "I want to buy a mid range card gaming system" there's no way I'm spending $300 to $400 dollars on the GPU. That flies in the face of what I'd even try to be doing. "But it's middle of the benchmark stack! That's an OBJECTIVE fact" you might say. Well yes, middle of the stack in comparison between other $400+ cards... of course it's bloody middle of the stack. But as a buyer, who has a great deal more than your stack of cards to choose from, what's REALLY mid range? On the contrary, the 2060 is QUITE high end if you are looking at all new cards available for purchase right now. You're not playing at medium settings on a 2060, you're playing at medium settings on an RX 570.

The point of my post, my thesis that we're getting off track of, is this: there's precedent to believe the rumors about Navi, unlike the rumors about Vega. We won't know FOR SURE until we get an actual, real-time demo of Navi running. That will tell us a great deal, like it did with Vega 64.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@organic_machine said:

Ah, yes. A cherry picked benchmark versus the conglomerate combination of benchmark results I provided via user benchmark. Very nice.

We seem to have very different definition of what "mid range" actually means. Tiers don't mean much to me, especially when what you call mid range tiers still cost over $300. To me, that makes no sense. It's all about price and performance. Who cares about release date and "tiers"? If I said "I want to buy a mid range card gaming system" there's no way I'm spending $300 to $400 dollars on the GPU. That flies in the face of what I'd even try to be doing. "But it's middle of the benchmark stack! That's an OBJECTIVE fact" you might say. Well yes, middle of the stack in comparison between other $400+ cards... of course it's bloody middle of the stack. But as a buyer, who has a great deal more than your stack of cards to choose from, what's REALLY mid range? On the contrary, the 2060 is QUITE high end if you are looking at all new cards available for purchase right now. You're not playing at medium settings on a 2060, you're playing at medium settings on an RX 570.

The point of my post, my thesis that we're getting off track of, is this: there's precedent to believe the rumors about Navi, unlike the rumors about Vega. We won't know FOR SURE until we get an actual, real-time demo of Navi running. That will tell us a great deal, like it did with Vega 64.

Your arbitrary definition is irrelevant. The 2060 is in the "Mainstream" segment of the market aka mid-range. You need at least a 70 to get into the enthusiast bracket which is where the high-end can be argued to start depending on whether or not there is an 80 Ti model at the top.

2060 has never been a high-end GPU and has never been marketed as such. And yes mid-range has costed in the $300 range for quite some time. High-end is is usually $500+ these days.

And to finalize, a 2060 is in the same performance bracket as a 1080 as @Grey_Eyed_Elf pointed out. The 1080 was high-end in 2016. Arguing the 2060 is high-end is akin to arguing the 1080 is high-end which is silly. A GPU doesn't remain in the same bracket for 4 fucking years.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59  Edited By organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Juub1990 said:

Your arbitrary definition is irrelevant. The 2060 is in the "Mainstream" segment of the market aka mid-range. You need at least a 70 to get into the enthusiast bracket which is where the high-end can be argued to start depending on whether or not there is an 80 Ti model at the top.

2060 has never been a high-end GPU and has never been marketed as such. And yes mid-range has costed in the $300 range for quite some time. High-end is is usually $500+ these days.

Marketed "midrange" by nVidia, costing $300 to $400. A high end price for 1440p ultra settings performance. Only appears mid-range against other high end cards benchmarks.

Yup, that sounds mid-range to me.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@organic_machine said:

Marketed "midrange" by nVidia, costing $300 to $400. A high end price for 1440p ultra settings performance. Only appears mid-range against other high end cards benchmarks.

Yup, that sounds mid-range to me.

Yes and it's always been like that. GPU's are pricey, who woulda thunk? Mid-range is accurate when high end sets you back $700 and top-tier asks $1200. Of course it's NVDIA price gouging the **** out of the high-end because of a lack of competition. Top tier should really be $800 and high-end $600 but that's a different discussion.

Avatar image for rmpumper
rmpumper

998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 rmpumper
Member since 2016 • 998 Posts

@bluestars said:

@fedor:


“Bu bu bu when the 3080 comes out the XBSX will be mid gen”

Bless

When 3080 comes out, XBSX will not even be released yet.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#62  Edited By organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@organic_machine said:

Marketed "midrange" by nVidia, costing $300 to $400. A high end price for 1440p ultra settings performance. Only appears mid-range against other high end cards benchmarks.

Yup, that sounds mid-range to me.

Yes and it's always been like that. GPU's are pricey, who woulda thunk? Mid-range is accurate when high end sets you back $700 and top-tier asks $1200. Of course it's NVDIA price gouging the **** out of the high-end because of a lack of competition. Top tier should really be $800 and high-end $600 but that's a different discussion.

I understand your argument. But my point is, regardless of tiers, a 2060 is getting you ultra settings at 1440p. That's high end performance. A GTX 1080 is still going to give you high end gaming. It's still giving you ultra 1440p. That's just not mid range to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, that's most certainly possible (and probable).

But this whole discussion is based off of a side comment from the original argument I was making, which doesn't have very much to do with what we're talking about.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
BenjaminBanklin

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 BenjaminBanklin
Member since 2004 • 5957 Posts

@BassMan said:

Your trolling is shit. Why would a hermit fear any console? It makes no sense. LOL

It's really fucking dumb. He thinks the entire gaming industry should fear the XSX when Xbox put all their games on PC years ago. All MS is doing at this point is making a walled-garden lesser PC with controllers they're going to eat the cost on, and he figures that's worth dick-wagging about.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@organic_machine said:

I understand your argument. But my point is, regardless of tiers, a 2060 is getting you ultra settings at 1440p. That's high end performance. A GTX 1080 is still going to give you high end gaming. It's still giving you ultra 1440p. That's just not mid range to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, that's most certainly possible (and probable).

But this whole discussion is based off of a side comment from the original argument I was making, which doesn't have very much to do with what we're talking about.

1440p is no longer high-end resolution. 4K is. The Xbox One X and PS4 Pro both target 1440p+ resolutions and are cheap consoles released over 2-3 years ago.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#65  Edited By organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@organic_machine said:

I understand your argument. But my point is, regardless of tiers, a 2060 is getting you ultra settings at 1440p. That's high end performance. A GTX 1080 is still going to give you high end gaming. It's still giving you ultra 1440p. That's just not mid range to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, that's most certainly possible (and probable).

But this whole discussion is based off of a side comment from the original argument I was making, which doesn't have very much to do with what we're talking about.

1440p is no longer high-end resolution. 4K is. The Xbox One X and PS4 Pro both target 1440p+ resolutions and are cheap consoles released over 2-3 years ago.

But according to the "Tier" argument, 8K monitors exist, now 4K must be mid-range and 1440p is low range.

But the reality is that the tiers are silly. 63% of primary display resolutions according to the Steam survey are 1080p. That to me makes 1440p a high end experience. 1080p high refresh-rate mid tier, and 1080p 30FPS low-end.

Do we have different definitions of high end? Probably. But Tiers just don't mean anything when we're only looking at the highest end of high. Of course a $400 card looks low-end when we're are comparing it against the best of the best. Of course 1400p looks low end when 8K exists. But is 8K what everyone is gaming on? Lol, yeah right. So it's useless to even throw tiers into the argument.

Avatar image for bluestars
Bluestars

1020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#66  Edited By Bluestars
Member since 2019 • 1020 Posts

@fedor:

Denial is futile x b s x had hermits in bits and still has

The 3080,better than night nurse for giving pc gamers a good night s sleep

HAH

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@organic_machine said:

But according to the "Tier" argument, 8K monitors exist, now 4K must be mid-range and 1440p is low range.

But the reality is that the tiers are silly. 63% of primary display resolutions according to the Steam survey are 1080p. That to me makes 1440p a high end experience. 1080p high refresh-rate mid tier, and 1080p 30FPS low-end.

Do we have different definitions of high end? Probably. But Tiers just don't mean anything when we're only looking at the highest end of high. Of course a $400 card looks low-end when we're are comparing it against the best of the best. Of course 1400p looks low end when 8K exists. But is 8K what everyone is gaming on? Lol, yeah right. So it's useless to even throw tiers into the argument.

Kinda irrelevant. 4K isn't marketed as high-end or anything. Was just my way of explaining that 1440p isn't exactly an impressive resolution in this day an age. Mainstream, Enthusiasts and all that jazz are actual marketing terms.

Avatar image for bluestars
Bluestars

1020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#68 Bluestars
Member since 2019 • 1020 Posts

Hermits pretending XBSX reveal didn’t get them all hurt in the butt

Bless

HAH

#denialisfutile

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Juub1990 said:

Kinda irrelevant. 4K isn't marketed as high-end or anything. Was just my way of explaining that 1440p isn't exactly an impressive resolution in this day an age. Mainstream, Enthusiasts and all that jazz are actual marketing terms.

1440p is not impressive if you're comparing it to 4K, and it's a joke when you compare it to 8K.

1440p is impressive when your comparing it to 63% of the userbase.

That's my point. As I type my responses to you, I can see the frustration you may be feeling because my argument is inherently relative. Sorry about that. But that's just where I'm coming from.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@organic_machine said:

1440p is not impressive if you're comparing it to 4K, and it's a joke when you compare it to 8K.

1440p is impressive when your comparing it to 63% of the userbase.

That's my point. As I type my responses to you, I can see the frustration you may be feeling because my argument is inherently relative. Sorry about that. But that's just where I'm coming from.

Which is why my interpretation on high-end isn't based on my arbitrary definition but on the marketing being used. 2060 is said to be a mainstream card. Not my own words. Ultimately it matters not to me because it's semantics.

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#71 organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@organic_machine said:

1440p is not impressive if you're comparing it to 4K, and it's a joke when you compare it to 8K.

1440p is impressive when your comparing it to 63% of the userbase.

That's my point. As I type my responses to you, I can see the frustration you may be feeling because my argument is inherently relative. Sorry about that. But that's just where I'm coming from.

Which is why my interpretation on high-end isn't based on my arbitrary definition but on the marketing being used. 2060 is said to be a mainstream card. Not my own words. Ultimately it matters not to me because it's semantics.

But marketing is arbitrary. It's literally the definition of arbitrary!

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

11975

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 141

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By BassMan
Member since 2002 • 11975 Posts

@bluestars said:

@BassMan:

The meltdown since the XBSX DF reveal and leaks beforehand say otherwise

Denial is futile,I know it,you know it,we all know it

DF experts confirming the series x version of gears 5 was doing stuff pc couldn’t do must have had you all emotional n shit

HaH

What meltdown? XSX isn't out yet. It won't even beat a 2080 Ti which came out 2 years before it. It will be similar to a mid range PC when it releases. The new GPUs coming later this year are just going to widen the gap between consoles and PC again. Why would a PC gamer be worried about the XSX or any other console?

What stuff was added to Gears 5 that PC couldn't do? Just because they decided to work on additional features to showcase the XSX, does not mean the PC can't do them. Those features may be added in a later patch on PC.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@BassMan said:

What meltdown? XSX isn't out yet. It won't even beat a 2080 Ti which came out 2 years before it. It will be similar to a mid range PC when it releases. The new GPUs coming later this year are just going to widen the gap between consoles and PC again. Why would a PC gamer be worried about the XSX or any other console?

What stuff was added to Gears 5 that PC couldn't do? Just because they decided to work on additional features to showcase the XSX, does not mean the PC can't do them. Those features may be added in a later patch on PC.

He knows all of that but is a troll. Why do you bother?

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

11975

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 141

User Lists: 0

#74 BassMan
Member since 2002 • 11975 Posts
@Juub1990 said:
@BassMan said:

What meltdown? XSX isn't out yet. It won't even beat a 2080 Ti which came out 2 years before it. It will be similar to a mid range PC when it releases. The new GPUs coming later this year are just going to widen the gap between consoles and PC again. Why would a PC gamer be worried about the XSX or any other console?

What stuff was added to Gears 5 that PC couldn't do? Just because they decided to work on additional features to showcase the XSX, does not mean the PC can't do them. Those features may be added in a later patch on PC.

He knows all of that but is a troll. Why do you bother?

It's fun. :)

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
NoodleFighter

10901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75  Edited By NoodleFighter
Member since 2011 • 10901 Posts
@organic_machine said:
@Juub1990 said:
@organic_machine said:

1440p is not impressive if you're comparing it to 4K, and it's a joke when you compare it to 8K.

1440p is impressive when your comparing it to 63% of the userbase.

That's my point. As I type my responses to you, I can see the frustration you may be feeling because my argument is inherently relative. Sorry about that. But that's just where I'm coming from.

Which is why my interpretation on high-end isn't based on my arbitrary definition but on the marketing being used. 2060 is said to be a mainstream card. Not my own words. Ultimately it matters not to me because it's semantics.

But marketing is arbitrary. It's literally the definition of arbitrary!

But it's how it is marketed so that's how it goes. I understand what you're saying. With the performance you get from a RTX 2060 it shouldn't count as "mid range". But even mid range is a spectrum think of cards like the RTX 2060 and GTX 1060 as lower end spectrum of high end but higher end spectrum of mid range. Basically like the border between high end and mid end. Just enough power to play contemporary games at the highest settings or 2nd to highest with 60fpish at 1080p or 1440p. Also the gap between the RTX 2060 and cards higher than it becomes more discernible when ray tracing is involved especially with DLSS off the RTX 2060 becomes a 1080p card. When it comes to 4k gaming the RTX 2060 can only play contemporary high end games at highest/high settings with 30-40fps in most of them.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#76 organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@NoodleFighter said:
@organic_machine said:

But marketing is arbitrary. It's literally the definition of arbitrary!

But it's how it is marketed so that's how it goes. I understand what you're saying. With the performance you get from a RTX 2060 it shouldn't count as "mid range". But even mid range is a spectrum think of cards like the RTX 2060 and GTX 1060 as lower end spectrum of high end but higher end spectrum of mid range. Basically like the border between high end and mid end. Just enough power to play contemporary games at the highest settings or 2nd to highest with 60fpish at 1080p or 1440p. Also the gap between the RTX 2060 and cards higher than it becomes more discernible when ray tracing is involved especially with DLSS off the RTX 2060 becomes a 1080p card. When it comes to 4k gaming the RTX 2060 can only play contemporary high end games at highest/high settings with 30-40fps in most of them.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

A very good point, my friend. Fair enough.

Avatar image for davillain-
DaVillain-

42467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#77  Edited By DaVillain-  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 42467 Posts

@organic_machine said:

I understand your argument. But my point is, regardless of tiers, a 2060 is getting you ultra settings at 1440p. That's high end performance. A GTX 1080 is still going to give you high end gaming. It's still giving you ultra 1440p. That's just not mid range to me. Maybe I'm way off base here, that's most certainly possible (and probable).

But this whole discussion is based off of a side comment from the original argument I was making, which doesn't have very much to do with what we're talking about.

I want to point out my 2070 puts a wear and tears when I play Red Dead Redemption 2 in high settings 1440p/60+fps and even I can say its in the mid-range. Both 2060 & 2070 do go neck to neck. If anyone's gonna buy high-end GPU like 2080Ti, they are doing it to game in 4K/60fps or Ultrawide monitors.

Hell even the 1660 Super (screw the Ti version) is mid-range if you are aiming for 1080p/144Hz but that's another story. My daughter is still using my old 1080Ti.

Edit: I'm only saying, it all depends on the resolution you are aiming for.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

9890

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 9890 Posts
@davillain- said:

I want to point out my 2070 puts a wear and tears when I play Red Dead Redemption 2 in high settings 1440p/60+fps and even I can say its in the mid-range. Both 2060 & 2070 do go neck to neck. If anyone's gonna buy high-end GPU like 2080Ti, they are doing it to game in 4K/60fps or Ultrawide monitors.

Hell even the 1660 Super (screw the Ti version) is mid-range if you are aiming for 1080p/144Hz but that's another story. My daughter is still using my old 1080Ti.

So your daughter is using a better card than you are?

Avatar image for davillain-
DaVillain-

42467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#79  Edited By DaVillain-  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 42467 Posts

@Juub1990: I spoiled her too much I supposed :P

I must admit, 1440p is the res I'll be staying for a long time, so 2070 is more then enough I'll need...for now at least ;)

Avatar image for organic_machine
organic_machine

10056

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#80 organic_machine
Member since 2004 • 10056 Posts

@davillain- said:
Edit: I'm only saying, it all depends on the resolution you are aiming for.

Solid point.

When people ask me "What GPU should I buy?" My first question is always "What setup do you have? What monitor are you using?" If they're using a 1080p 60Hz monitor, a 2080 Ti is going to be a waste of money. Unless they are planning on getting a better monitor (usually if they are asking me that question, they likely aren't).

Avatar image for flashn00b
flashn00b

3783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#81 flashn00b
Member since 2006 • 3783 Posts

If they can get a mid-range RDNA2 GPU for a sub-$400 Canadian price, I think i'm going red again.

Avatar image for svaubel
svaubel

4271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 133

User Lists: 0

#82  Edited By svaubel
Member since 2005 • 4271 Posts

Im excited for RDNA 2. Most likely going all AMD next PC build.

Avatar image for bluestars
Bluestars

1020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#83 Bluestars
Member since 2019 • 1020 Posts

@pc_rocks:

The DF video,watch and find out

HaH

Avatar image for bluestars
Bluestars

1020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#84  Edited By Bluestars
Member since 2019 • 1020 Posts

@BassMan:

Denial is futile

Hermits got rattled by da power

Funny watching the bu bu buts though

HaH

Avatar image for BassMan
BassMan

11975

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 141

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By BassMan
Member since 2002 • 11975 Posts

@bluestars said:

@BassMan:

Denial is futile

Hermits got rattled by da power

Funny watching the bu bu buts though

HaH

At least come back with something truthful. You are full of shit. It is just lame trolling. When PC gamers troll console gamers, we have something to back it up. You are trolling with nonsense. We are not going to get rattled.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
PC_Rocks

3921

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#86 PC_Rocks
Member since 2018 • 3921 Posts

@bluestars said:

@pc_rocks:

The DF video,watch and find out

HaH

Already watched it and didn't find any such thing.

HaHa