Nedded 7nm to that lol... it just shows they are way behind yet and not matching so my comments is true.
That's EARLY 7nm vs mature 12nm.
Yeah... but nope, 5700 beats both 2070 and 2060 super at 99th percentile.False... it has worst mins fps but of course you will say it is drivers
Indeeds lol.
They should be cheaper... they're coming almost a year later and with less features.
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 7nmThat's EARLY 7nm vs mature 12nm.
That's the way AMD acted most of its history, that's the way nvidia acted (waiting for process to mature and get cheaper) most of the time.
VII was also 7nm, simple die shrink doesn't cut it.
Yeah... but nope, 5700 beats both 2070 and 2060 super at 99th percentile.
5700 also beats 2060, 2060super, 2070, 2070super at power efficiency
Indeeds lol.
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 look at The Last Word and llien examples
So was Vega VII.
Eh, nope, that's not how comparing chips of different sizes and different number of transistors work.
Supers are rebranded savaged higher tier chip. 2060 super is savaged 2070, etc.
I normally compare perf/power consumption and price, but that's me.
You mean "I don't get what/how it does it"?
What on planet earth is this supposed to even mean?
It means that your comment was a joke... nothing related with AMD.
Yeap look at The Last Word and llien examples
It means that your comment was a joke... nothing related with AMD.
You laughable tried to make 12nm better than 7nm to fit your agenda
So are you saying that because Vega VII wasn't more efficient than Vega 64 that 7nm isn't more efficient than 12nm? lmao Vega VII has 2x more memory than Vega 64.. not to mention higher clocks.
I misread a graph... fixed my post... thanks.
No. AMD was behind, despite 7nm.
Ok "PSN" rofl
Actually, it consistently beats the year old parts at the same or cheaper price. nVidia did a refresh, which is still beaten in performance per dollar.
A GPU using less power than an RX 590, while basically matching the Radeon VII with the same clock speed, 33% less compute units, at a $399 price point is nothing impressive... Uhuh...
Which is what they got when they released Maxwell, and Pascal, and Turing while AMD was still on GCN... If you want to use that argument, nVidia got a triple advantage there. Not exactly great if AMD can catch up with one upgraded architecture...
The super cards also came a year later. So what?
Sounds like you're repeating yourself just so that you yourself can start believing it.
Oh so you do admit that they are competitive. Also, what I learned is that the ones that are the quickest to call others fanboys are most of the time fanboys themselves.
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
I'd love to continue to argue with you.. but I can't deal with this separately quoting every sentence bullshit.Actually, it consistently beats the year old parts at the same or cheaper price. nVidia did a refresh, which is still beaten in performance per dollar.
A GPU using less power than an RX 590, while basically matching the Radeon VII with the same clock speed, 33% less compute units, at a $399 price point is nothing impressive... Uhuh...
A 1080 Ti at a $399 price point is nothing impressive... Uhuh...
5% less performance than the 2070 Super for 25% less money is nothing impressive... Uhuh...
Those are definitely not objective facts... You're definitely the most rational person around here...
Which is what they got when they released Maxwell, and Pascal, and Turing while AMD was still on GCN... If you want to use that argument, nVidia got a triple advantage there. Not exactly great if AMD can catch up with one upgraded architecture...
The super cards also came a year later. So what?
The process node is immature at this point, so that really is not THAT big of an argument. The Radeon VII was also on a new process node. That didn't help it, now did it?
Sounds like you're repeating yourself just so that you yourself can start believing it.
Oh so you do admit that they are competitive. Also, what I learned is that the ones that are the quickest to call others fanboys are most of the time fanboys themselves.
Still completely ignoring that the Radeon VII was also on a new node, and ignoring that Turing is also a new architecture...
Radeon 7 being a flop had nothing to do with 7nm. There's distinct advantages of being on a smaller process node. It's hilarious that you're trying to downplay them because.... Vega 7 sucked.
It's not about the hating on the cards for what they are... it's about people acting like AMD is ahead.. when they're really that far behind that barely matching another company's old stuff despite having distinct advantages is considered impressive.
Yea, it was. It was also around 20% faster than their previous Vega card and had 2x the memory... Something which couldn't happen with Vega on 14nm...
Typical... Blaming others for one's own behavior... Know what that's called? Narcissism.
*On a smaller process node with less features, almost a year later. Call it what you want... Just don't call it impressive.
Which you won't notice and is completely irrelevant, when you buy the card for cheaper than the competition, install it, and actually play games with it.
Yep.. while completely ignoring the implications of it.. yet you seem to love arguing on online forums about it.
this thread. PC hardware warriors are just as bad as console warriors.
Let me get this straight...
Yes. Does that not make sense to you? The next release AMD won't have a process node drop to fall back on.
You see no difference as the end user, and there's nothing to suggest you should care about those details. The lower process node like 7nm means that the chips can be smaller, produce less heat, and clock higher than if the same product was made at 12/14nm. But as an end-product, it really does not matter at all. The product is what it is. Get what satisfies your needs for the money you are willing to spend.
No it's not. Am I sitting here telling people they shouldn't buy these GPUs?? Or am I sitting here calling people out who are bragging that these GPUs are competitive cheaper GPUs with less features almost a year later like as if it's some sort of huge accomplishment for AMD?
Are saying that you don't want a monopoly from Nvidia cards? How unpretentious of you....
AMD has been behind in performance per mm2 since the GTX 970 launched in 2014. The Vega 64, which launched a year late, was a 495 mm2 chip, and could barely beat Nvidia's 314mm2 1080. Given this, I don't think it would have been reasonable to expect them to shoot past Nvidia in a single generation. What they've done is eliminate the gap, so the 5700 series and 2070 have a similar number of transisters and similar performance. (Yes, the 5700 XT can clock higher thanks to the new process, but it's also faster as well, so it evens out).
AMD fans can look forward to RDNA 2 next year, since AMD isn't going to be a year late with their new architecture this time. Hence, the comparison will be between AMD's new architecture and Nvidia's new architecture, not Nvidia's new architecture and the first generation of RDNA.
