6 ms·

The reception has been quite poor over at reddit.com/r/Hardware. I don't understand why. These cards are excellent improvements over the previous generation. Th

The reception has been quite poor over at reddit.com/r/Hardware. I don't understand why. These cards are excellent improvements over the previous generation. They compete well with all but the top of the line Nvidia GPU, and cost much less. There is also a reasonable expectation that performance will improve over time, as it has for all previous AMD cards. The only bugbears are some niche professional applications, ray tracing, and DLSS. I don't consider any of these to be factors in my decision to purchase one of these. I certainly don't consider them to be worth $200 + tax. My only gripe is that, despite these being better value than Nvidia, GPU prices are still creeping up. The technology future I was sold was one where technology becomes cheaper over time, not more expensive.

Cloudef 4y ago
The reception is mainly bad due to the pricing. The GPUs are seen as overpriced, especially 4080 and 7900 XT which are less bang for a buck than the 4090 and XTX counterparts.
Sakos 4y ago
It's the high price and missing features compared to nVidia. The 4080 is a terrible deal, but its RT, DLSS3, ML/compute, etc. makes it a far better option than the XTX despite costing more. The XTX really should be 200-300 cheaper. I don't know who's going to buy it at its current price when the 4080 is already selling abysmally.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  DLSS3 looks horrible. Just stick with DLSS2.
  - mmis1000 4y ago
    Hardware supportted frame generation is on AMD cards until the 5xx series. And not many people actually use them. AMD dropped them since the rdna series. And it is suddenly a hot cake now because nvidia introduced dlss3??? It's so confusing from my perspective. In my opinion. Frame generation only looks good when use with texture without too much detail, it looks shitty when use with complex(realistic) textures.
- Gareth321 4y ago
  > The XTX really should be 200-300 cheaper. The RRP of the XTX is $1000, while the 4080 is $1200. The delta is at least $200, but more once tax is included. Sales tax is 25% here in Europe, so the delta is even higher.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    I don't think we'll see the XTX at a significantly cheaper price here in Europe. And seriously, I don't think a choice between a 1300 or 1500 Euro card is a real choice. It's like choosing between a shit sandwich or a giant douche.
- dhruvdh 4y ago
  What do you mean "4080's ML/Compute"? 4080 is nowhere close to 7900 XTX in flops or bandwidth or VRAM. 4080 is terrible for ML. People need to get over "NVIDIA = AI" hasn't been true for at least a year.
qball 4y ago
>The technology future I was sold was one where technology becomes cheaper over time, not more expensive. Contrary to popular belief, high-end cards actually are priced appropriately. It's the low to midrange cards that are ludicrously overpriced; their price-performance ratios make them terrible investments. The RTX3050 (250) is 2 times more expensive than the 1070 (125) and is 10% faster than that card. The RTX3060 (400) is 3 times more expensive than the 1070 (125) and is 40% faster than that card. The RTX3080 (750) is 3 times more expensive than the 3050 (250) and is 300% faster than that card. The RTX4090 (1600) is 2 times more expensive than the 3080 (750) and is 200% faster than that card. The high-end GPUs are currently vastly cheaper per unit of performance than the midrange cards and have been for the last 2 years (the 3080 was twice the price of the 3070, but had twice the performance). And that completely destroys the value proposition (and PCMR cache) of PC gaming over just buying a console (IIRC both the newest ones have the functional equivalent of an RTX2060). And so it shouldn't be a surprise that people continue to bitch about "yet another overpriced card". What the builder market needs is a 3080 competitor at the 500-dollar price point to forcibly correct the pricing of the cheaper cards down to the 200 dollars the secondary market reveals they're actually worth; once that happens, the pricing structure will likely begin to return to normal. (It's also weird that nobody talks about this.) Of course, there's always the possibility that the RTX 5000 series doubles in speed (and price) again; after all, not only have gamers proven they'll pay for 3080s at massive markups, but companies training ML models will pay top dollar to cut the time that takes in half. Intel seems to have bet on it; taking advantage of in-house fabrication + that market gap is what Arc was made to do, but it only survives provided current price/performance ratios stay the way they are for a little while longer.
- Gareth321 4y ago
  > The RTX4090 (1600) is 2 times more expensive than the 3080 (750) and is 200% faster than that card. Just for the sake of clarity I understand you to mean "200% as fast as," (as in twice as fast) and not "200% faster than." I agree with your premise that cheaper cards are even worse value, but taking this example of the best value of this generation, it's not cheaper per unit of performance. It's exactly the same as the last generation. GPUs (and indeed most technology) has been getting cheaper per unit of performance over the years. To me, this marks a radical departure from my expectations.

Cloudef 4y ago

The reception is mainly bad due to the pricing. The GPUs are seen as overpriced, especially 4080 and 7900 XT which are less bang for a buck than the 4090 and XTX counterparts.

Sakos 4y ago

It's the high price and missing features compared to nVidia. The 4080 is a terrible deal, but its RT, DLSS3, ML/compute, etc. makes it a far better option than the XTX despite costing more. The XTX really should be 200-300 cheaper. I don't know who's going to buy it at its current price when the 4080 is already selling abysmally.

philliphaydon 4y ago
DLSS3 looks horrible. Just stick with DLSS2.
- mmis1000 4y ago
  Hardware supportted frame generation is on AMD cards until the 5xx series. And not many people actually use them. AMD dropped them since the rdna series. And it is suddenly a hot cake now because nvidia introduced dlss3??? It's so confusing from my perspective. In my opinion. Frame generation only looks good when use with texture without too much detail, it looks shitty when use with complex(realistic) textures.
Gareth321 4y ago
> The XTX really should be 200-300 cheaper. The RRP of the XTX is $1000, while the 4080 is $1200. The delta is at least $200, but more once tax is included. Sales tax is 25% here in Europe, so the delta is even higher.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I don't think we'll see the XTX at a significantly cheaper price here in Europe. And seriously, I don't think a choice between a 1300 or 1500 Euro card is a real choice. It's like choosing between a shit sandwich or a giant douche.
dhruvdh 4y ago
What do you mean "4080's ML/Compute"? 4080 is nowhere close to 7900 XTX in flops or bandwidth or VRAM. 4080 is terrible for ML. People need to get over "NVIDIA = AI" hasn't been true for at least a year.

qball 4y ago

>The technology future I was sold was one where technology becomes cheaper over time, not more expensive. Contrary to popular belief, high-end cards actually are priced appropriately. It's the low to midrange cards that are ludicrously overpriced; their price-performance ratios make them terrible investments. The RTX3050 (250) is 2 times more expensive than the 1070 (125) and is 10% faster than that card. The RTX3060 (400) is 3 times more expensive than the 1070 (125) and is 40% faster than that card. The RTX3080 (750) is 3 times more expensive than the 3050 (250) and is 300% faster than that card. The RTX4090 (1600) is 2 times more expensive than the 3080 (750) and is 200% faster than that card. The high-end GPUs are currently vastly cheaper per unit of performance than the midrange cards and have been for the last 2 years (the 3080 was twice the price of the 3070, but had twice the performance). And that completely destroys the value proposition (and PCMR cache) of PC gaming over just buying a console (IIRC both the newest ones have the functional equivalent of an RTX2060). And so it shouldn't be a surprise that people continue to bitch about "yet another overpriced card". What the builder market needs is a 3080 competitor at the 500-dollar price point to forcibly correct the pricing of the cheaper cards down to the 200 dollars the secondary market reveals they're actually worth; once that happens, the pricing structure will likely begin to return to normal. (It's also weird that nobody talks about this.) Of course, there's always the possibility that the RTX 5000 series doubles in speed (and price) again; after all, not only have gamers proven they'll pay for 3080s at massive markups, but companies training ML models will pay top dollar to cut the time that takes in half. Intel seems to have bet on it; taking advantage of in-house fabrication + that market gap is what Arc was made to do, but it only survives provided current price/performance ratios stay the way they are for a little while longer.

Gareth321 4y ago
> The RTX4090 (1600) is 2 times more expensive than the 3080 (750) and is 200% faster than that card. Just for the sake of clarity I understand you to mean "200% as fast as," (as in twice as fast) and not "200% faster than." I agree with your premise that cheaper cards are even worse value, but taking this example of the best value of this generation, it's not cheaper per unit of performance. It's exactly the same as the last generation. GPUs (and indeed most technology) has been getting cheaper per unit of performance over the years. To me, this marks a radical departure from my expectations.