They seem to be really good cards for the pricepoint and usually either beat or are very competitive against the 2060, 2060 Super and 2070. This is so weird, why are people like Remij and ethomaz having a meltdown over this? It's good to have competition, no?
Nedded 7nm to that lol... it just shows they are way behind yet and not matching so my comments is true.
They are forced to price cut.
False... it has worst mins fps but of course you will say it is drivers
The last commends makes no sense lol
In a lower process... that is not exactly matching.Computer base.de compared the 5700 and rtx2070 (they have the same number of shaders) with both gpus clocked at 1.5Ghz and they are neck and neck, the 5700 wins by 1%.
That means RDNA matches Turing at equal clockspeed and shader counts. Unfortunately they did not compare power consumption of this setup to see which was more efficient.
The process affects the clockspeeds that can be reached, not the performance per clock.In a lower process... that is not exactly matching.
Process node directly affect performance per clock.The process affects the clockspeeds that can be reached, not the performance per clock.
How does it affect performance per clock?Process node directly affect performance per clock.
You can even look at the famous case of Apple A9 made by TSMC process vs Samsung process.
Process node directly affect performance per clock.
You can even look at the famous case of Apple A9 made by TSMC process vs Samsung process.
There is performance difference.
And yes process node affect performance.
It does not affect IPC (instructions per clock)... I never said that.Someone posted a review from Tom's showing the performance differential was within margin of error. Even if there was a verifiable performance difference that does not mean the IPC is different it just means one version can clock higher before reaching thermal or power limits.
Node affects overall performance (although far less so now than in the past), it does not impact instructions per clock.
It does not affect IPC (instructions per clock)... I never said that.
It does affect performance per clock.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't even understand the term performance per clock, and yet pretends that he knows better... That seems to be very common among a certain crowd. The more fanatic they are, the more prominent this behavior.How does it affect performance per clock?
I had a quick look at the A9 case you mention, and it seems the only difference is due to power consumption?
"As expected, there's no discernible peak performance difference between the two different A9 models. All of the CPU, GPU, and system performance scores show less than a 2 percent difference, which lies within the margin of error for these tests. "
"Based on the results of our testing, it's clear that both versions of Apple's A9 SoC deliver the same level of performance, but Samsung's 14nm FinFET process appears to offer slightly better power efficiency, extending battery life between 3.5-10.8 percent. "
iPhone 6s: Samsung And TSMC A9 SoCs Tested
The A9 SoC inside the iPhone 6s comes from two different vendors (Samsung and TSMC) using two different FinFET processes (14nm and 16nm, respectively). We test both versions to see if there's any power or performance differences.www.tomshardware.com
Can't wait to see you try and explain the difference.It does not affect IPC (instructions per clock)... I never said that.
It does affect performance per clock.
They are not.Those two things are the same. That is why the OG PS4 and the PS4 slim perform the same.
As I said it can affect overall performance since generally smaller nodes allow for greater transistor density so you can fit more features in the same area as older designs.
Another interesting point is that the 5700XT and the 2070 have similar transistor counts. Looks like AMD used them to add more shaders (5700XT has more shaders than the 2070) and nv used them to add rtx features.
So with equal transistors, equal clocks, equal memory bandwidth and equal shaders the 5700 (vanilla) and 2070 are neck and neck on average. It is a shame that there were no power consumption figures with that setup to see if one was more efficient than the other but there are not.
Bang for buck is huge, but it can be more nuanced than that. Noise levels, heat, and power consumption are a big deal. Additionally overclocking performance and driver stability. I side-graded from a R9 390 to RX 480 and the difference in power consumption and heat was noticeable. I've had loud fans in the past that are way past annoying.The only thing that matters is performance and price.
What do you want to play? What kind of performance do you want? How much do you want to spend? That's all.
They are not.
IPC is basically how many instructions a chip can do per cycle of clock.
Performance per clock is the performance of chip can reach for determined task per clock (in our case a determined game).
A chip can better IPC can delivery lower performance because game performance is not solely based in IPC.
People often label Performance per clock incorrectly as IPC and seems like the case here.
A chip made in different nodes can have the same designed IPC but due how the electric current travel between the silicon it can be affect the overall performance of the chip so increasing or decreasing the performance per clock.
It is basically impossible the same chop A delivery the same performance with different process nodes.
Number of transistor differs from design to design... you can have widen transistors or more compacted... so the same node/process and with the same chip size can have more or less transistors based how it was designed... it is normal to have a smaller chip with more transistors than a big chip... it just means the design is different where one is using a more compact transistor while the other are using a more widen one.
Well, I don't keep track. So that's why I asked.whatyearitis.gif
Since at least Crimson release, better than nvs.
Nope.Still the same thing. IPC is a measure of work done in a given time frame (a clock cycle).
Process nodes do not impact the IPC of an architecture if no changes have been made. It does impact power consumption which in turn impacts thermals so if you are running a variable clockspeed part then the part on the better node can perform better due to running at a higher clockspeed but the IPC is constant for each given task.
When we talk about IPC we tend to mean the average over all workloads unless specifying a niche or specific piece of software / instruction set.
Performance per clock is some nonsense you have made up.
Nope.
Process node impact performance per clock like I said before.
I even showed a real example... Apple A9 have different performance per clock even being in similar process (just different manufacturer).
Nonsense is anybody that label performance per clock as instructions per clock lol
The two A9s don't have the same clock speeds, because the clock speed depends on the power consumption, which varies between the two chips.I even showed a real example... Apple A9 have different performance per clock even being in similar process (just different manufacturer).
Nonsense is anybody that label performance per clock incorrectly as instructions per clock lol
I'll be upgrading from RX 480 and GTX 1060 and 5700 is definitely an option I'm considering, if only because I'm wanting to stay under $400 and I'm expecting 5700-series AiBs(cards) to run $30-50 more depending on the config.So....is 5700 worth upgrading from RX 580 ?
If I benchmark my smartphone and the smartphone of my girlfriend (same models), we are having slightly different scores as well. That is within the margin of error dude. Look at every smartphone release thread, look at the different benchmark scores everyone gets. The difference is so small...Nope.
Process node impact performance per clock like I said before.
I even showed a real example... Apple A9 have different performance per clock even being in similar process (just different manufacturer).
Nonsense is anybody that label performance per clock incorrectly as instructions per clock lol
Even if turing was on 7nm, it would still be a larger die.7nm vs 12nm. Embarrassing.
This one's a very interesting video
The video above is coincidentally supported by this one;
Also, aside for Steve from GamersNexus, I can't say any of the reviews of Navi were overly harsh. JayzTwoCents, Pauls Hardware, and Hardware Unboxed actually talked a lot of good about Navi.
Steve was very hard on Navi for their choice of a blower and heat output.
So....is 5700 worth upgrading from RX 580 ?
Supers were no doubt NVs response to Navi. Pricing wise, it was the first time AMD "opened its cards" so early, and it looks like it has outplayed NV.I can tell you one thing that is absolutely NOT true: nvidia is not scared of Navi.
Early 7nm vs mature 12nm... what a joke kkkkk... next time you will say 12nm (that is actually 16nm++ marketed as 12nm) is better than 7nm
Yeap... yes.
Indeed.
Absolutely, 5700 beats the 2060 Super, the 2060, Vega 64, GTX 1080, Vega 56, 1070ti...….If you upgrade from a 580, you will have a pretty competent 1440p card...….So....is 5700 worth upgrading from RX 580 ?
Why not. My 8700k is still in a good shape, might buy a 5700xt for it. Only fanboys think it is not a good combination.Jensen's no fool, and he's not lying. I'm looking at getting a Ryzen 9 3900X to go with my 1080 Ti.
Here is a $350 Radeon 5700 vs a $400 RTX 2060 Super…...Paired with a Ryzen 3600, clocked at 4.2Ghz.
Hm, curious that in games like AC, GTA, quite notable 1080p difference is gone at 1440p.
RIS, yes. CAS, I'm not sure.Does RIS/CAS work at native resolution?