re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

quote:

---

Idc what your excuse is, that is what the tech sites still use and why every major tech site had that article the other day. Like I said, Nvidia can't compete at that level, AMD OC's too well. I can only imagine if RDNA3 with dual chips still OC's even near 3GHz. Sheeeesh.

---

Seriously, what are you talking about? It’s not an excuse. Firestrike was released in 2013 and is built around DirectX11. Timespy was released in 2016 and is built around DirectX12. If I wanted to be cute, I would be trumpeting Port Royal ray tracing scores in which Nvidia embarrasses AMD. AMD does fine in Timespy, and even does better than Nvidia in the 1080p version (standard) with Nvidia topping the charts in the 4k version (extreme).

Saying that Nvidia “can’t compete” with AMD because it performs better on an older feature set is nonsensical. But it’s good clickbait, as your odd aggression on the subject is showing

ETA: To reiterate, the 6900xt dominating the TimeSpy Graphics leaderboard is vastly more impressive than it dominating the Firestrike board: LINK

Nvidia still has TimeSpy Extreme and Port Royal, but the competition is genuinely awesome for the industry. I sincerely don't understand why you're interpreting my posts as though I'm some Nvidia fanboy

i have no idea what y'all are fighting about, but i'm here for it.

quote:

---

He prefers timespy, and for some reason doesn't like that the tech sites and all the OCers still use the 3 Firestrike Versions for all these runs and records.

The DX12 API is still kinda shite so I get why they don't use it as much.

---

OCers run all of the benchmarks. OGS and biso biso, your two knights in shining armor, also have the top two Port Royal scores with 3090s, and biso is at the top of the Timespy Graphics chart with a 6900xt as well as the top of the TimeSpy Extreme Graphics chart with a 3090. The articles you linked are geeking out over the clock hitting 3.3. The fact that it's topping Firestrike charts is an aside, which is clear from actually reading the articles. Or do you think anyone actually gives a shite that a 6900xt beat Kingpin's two year old x4 1080 SLI Firestrike basic score?

This is seriously one of the weirdest conversations I've ever had on here. I have an AMD cpu and an Nvidia gpu. I don't have loyalty to either of them, and I'm certainly not shilling for them. But pretending as though Firestrike is the "preferred" benchmark of extreme overclockers simply isn't reflective of reality. Hell, a simple google search illustrates that Port Royal scores get exponentially more fanfare than every other gpu benchmark combined.

ETA: I just went and checked the leader boards to see how far down the list I need to get to get to the last ln2 score (while an imperfect metric, I'm defining as where the temperatures goes from a legitimate value to N/A):

Port Royal: 39

Firestrike Ultra: 2
Firestrike Extreme: 14
Firestrike: 2

Timespy Extreme Graphics: 9
Timespy Graphics: 10

ETA2: And again, absolutely fricking none of this is meant to denigrate AMD's gpu offerings. The 6900xt is an absolutely stellar card. My objection is to using a single benchmark, and an older one at that, to try to claim that AMD is blowing Nvidia away, or anything of the sort. It's simply not. But we can absolutely all rejoice in Intel rejoining the land of the living in cpus and AMD finally competing in the gpu space. That's good news for everyone

quote:

---

i have no idea what y'all are fighting about, but i'm here for it.

---

Mostly Hog making up conflict in his own mind

Absolutely—I was clearly very bothered by it all.

I just posted the news all the tech sites posted of the record breaking stuff and 3.3GHz OC. The results they used were firestrike, firestrike extreme, and firestrike ultra.

Nothing against Nvidia, but they simply aren't at that level. They're not going to beat or top or come close to those records this Gen. We have simply never seen OC's to this level. First time we've ever even seen 3GHz much less 3.3GHz.

If you like timespy more that's fine, but again the sites and all that reported on it used the 3 firestrike scores.

And to clarify, if your statement that Nvidia "simply aren't at that level" is in reference to the core clock: obviously. AMD has been been pushing significantly higher clocks across their product stack for generations. This isn't new.

But if your argument is that AMD cards are significantly better, or hell, even objectively better outside of very specific use cases, I disagree.

Looks like the 6950XT RDNA2 refresh card will be stealing all the records again here soon anyways. 2.5GHz reference stock clocks?! Good lord. 3TFLOPs of performance over the 6900XT.

quote:

---

If the AMD Radeon RX 6950XT with a few optimizations on the RDNA 2 Refresh Navi 21 XTXH GPU can hit reference boost clocks of over 2.5 GHz, then we can expect custom models for the same chip to offer even higher boost clocks. The current custom variants are clocked around +250 to +300 MHz over the reference specs to if we use the same numbers, we can expect 2.8 or 2.9 GHz from the new model. This would prove to be a bigger performance uplift in combination with the 18 Gbps memory dies which are also rumored for the upcoming lineup. But it will come at the cost of higher power consumption.

---

The 3080ti's 2FPS advantage on their refresh will again lose to the AMD refresh.

Mid-April launch is around the timeline for the 5800X3D too, suppose one could go all in on an upgrade and grab a 5800X3D+6950XT and go ham. I just feel like that with refreshes, you're ~8 months from the next gen gpus and possibly ~6 for Zen 4 might as well just wait.

saw this on the AMD subreddit:

they're easier to get via bstock than any 30 series card on the market.


there's a drop every tuesday night seems like.