5 ms·

The 3090 is priced at $1500 because it is designed for whales who want the best regardless of price.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
snvzz 6y ago
Except it isn't the best. AMD performance is on par or slightly higher. Power efficiency is much higher. And costs $500 less. A slower card that uses way more power and costs $500 more is really hard to sell, even with NVIDIA marketing team being as strong as it is. At those prices, few people are going to automatically buy the product without exploring their options.
- jl6 6y ago
  > AMD performance is on par or slightly higher. Power efficiency is much higher. Are there benchmarks showing this?
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  Their benchmarks dont show settings. I want to know if they were using Ray Tracing and other high end effects. The FPS by itself is meaningless
  - snvzz 6y ago
    I've watched their presentation, and they do show which Presets (ultra, extreme, whatever) they used. And they've obviously used the same preset for both their cards and the competitors'. There's some more details in the press kit, but I do agree with the principle that decisions should be withheld until NDAs expire and third party benchmarks are available. What's clear is that, with the information in hand, buying NVIDIA Ampere cards is simply not sensible. Waiting for RDNA2 reviews is.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      My bad on the specs, I was following along in a live thread, not watching the stream.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Don't make the mistake of even thinking about perf/dollar for top tier cards cost an additional $350-$800 for ~10% more improvement. Like the parent comment said, being the fastest is the reason these cards get bought not how good a deal they are. That being said I think the 6900 XT is far better than Nvidia were hoping it'd be. The 1st party benchmarks shown today had it on par with the 3090 (with "rage mode" and "smart access memory" in the comparison) which is certainly something unexpected from AMD. Still it's more of a Zen 2 moment than a Zen 3 moment. From the lack of comments on RT performance compared to the competition (just that it was added to the hardware) it seems extremely unlikely the RT performance is at the same level. The cards also lack the dedicated inference hardware for features like DLSS or voice/video filtering. And the card still has less VRAM than the 3090. These are all minor but if you put them together it seems really unlikely we'll call the 6900 XT the absolute best performing GPU of the generationjJust like Zen 2 didn't topple Intel's claim of "best gaming CPU". We'll have to see 3rd party reviews and benchmarks to find out for sure though. What it does represent though is a huge upset in the 3070/3080 area where most cards are sold and a hint that there may be an Zen 3 moment coming for GPUs in the next generation where AMD really drives top tier performance to a new level after long stagnation instead of "just" coming close to taking the crown dead even. Personally (and this part isn't going to be reflective of the average person) I was going to be a 3090 whale and I probably would still be if it weren't for Nvidia's shit stance on open drivers in Linux (one of my biggest gripes with my 2080 Ti). However with AMD being so close this round and me not having liked DLSS or RT on the 2080 Ti I'm willing to trade off for the 6900 XT. The $500 is a nice bonus but not really what's coming into play, like I said if I were trying to get perf/dollar the 6800 XT makes WAY more sense. This is similar to what happened with Zen 2, I was planning on getting the better Intel CPU for the couple extra FPS but I was fed up with meltdown type issues and Zen 2 was really damn close. Now I'm really excited for Zen 3 though :).
  - csdreamer7 6y ago
    I definitely agree with you on the drivers. I will not even consider Nvidia. I have the same Electron breaking bug in two different Nvidia cards (my now dead 970 and the still alive 650 Ti). It makes both VSCode and Atom almost unusable for me.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Except it isn't the best. AMD performance is on par or slightly higher. Power efficiency is much higher. And costs $500 less. A slower card that uses way more power and costs $500 more is really hard to sell, even with NVIDIA marketing team being as strong as it is. At those prices, few people are going to automatically buy the product without exploring their options.

jl6 6y ago
> AMD performance is on par or slightly higher. Power efficiency is much higher. Are there benchmarks showing this?
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
Their benchmarks dont show settings. I want to know if they were using Ray Tracing and other high end effects. The FPS by itself is meaningless
- snvzz 6y ago
  I've watched their presentation, and they do show which Presets (ultra, extreme, whatever) they used. And they've obviously used the same preset for both their cards and the competitors'. There's some more details in the press kit, but I do agree with the principle that decisions should be withheld until NDAs expire and third party benchmarks are available. What's clear is that, with the information in hand, buying NVIDIA Ampere cards is simply not sensible. Waiting for RDNA2 reviews is.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    My bad on the specs, I was following along in a live thread, not watching the stream.
zamadatix 6y ago
Don't make the mistake of even thinking about perf/dollar for top tier cards cost an additional $350-$800 for ~10% more improvement. Like the parent comment said, being the fastest is the reason these cards get bought not how good a deal they are. That being said I think the 6900 XT is far better than Nvidia were hoping it'd be. The 1st party benchmarks shown today had it on par with the 3090 (with "rage mode" and "smart access memory" in the comparison) which is certainly something unexpected from AMD. Still it's more of a Zen 2 moment than a Zen 3 moment. From the lack of comments on RT performance compared to the competition (just that it was added to the hardware) it seems extremely unlikely the RT performance is at the same level. The cards also lack the dedicated inference hardware for features like DLSS or voice/video filtering. And the card still has less VRAM than the 3090. These are all minor but if you put them together it seems really unlikely we'll call the 6900 XT the absolute best performing GPU of the generationjJust like Zen 2 didn't topple Intel's claim of "best gaming CPU". We'll have to see 3rd party reviews and benchmarks to find out for sure though. What it does represent though is a huge upset in the 3070/3080 area where most cards are sold and a hint that there may be an Zen 3 moment coming for GPUs in the next generation where AMD really drives top tier performance to a new level after long stagnation instead of "just" coming close to taking the crown dead even. Personally (and this part isn't going to be reflective of the average person) I was going to be a 3090 whale and I probably would still be if it weren't for Nvidia's shit stance on open drivers in Linux (one of my biggest gripes with my 2080 Ti). However with AMD being so close this round and me not having liked DLSS or RT on the 2080 Ti I'm willing to trade off for the 6900 XT. The $500 is a nice bonus but not really what's coming into play, like I said if I were trying to get perf/dollar the 6800 XT makes WAY more sense. This is similar to what happened with Zen 2, I was planning on getting the better Intel CPU for the couple extra FPS but I was fed up with meltdown type issues and Zen 2 was really damn close. Now I'm really excited for Zen 3 though :).
- csdreamer7 6y ago
  I definitely agree with you on the drivers. I will not even consider Nvidia. I have the same Electron breaking bug in two different Nvidia cards (my now dead 970 and the still alive 650 Ti). It makes both VSCode and Atom almost unusable for me.