WYP
News Guru
AMD will deliver ray tracing when the time is right.
Read more about Radeon's RDNA Ray Tracing vision.
Read more about Radeon's RDNA Ray Tracing vision.
AMD details their Radeon Ray Tracing Vision with RDNA
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
The only part of RT I like the look of is the reflections on metal, Water, Glass etc... not too bothered about accurate shadows, Ambient occlusion etc...
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
The time is next year. When 2077 comes out. Hope they got something by then
Well if AMD pull it off and can do some trickery like Crytek did, I don't care how Ray tracing is pulled off if its real time or fake. As long as I can enjoy 2077 with all the bells and whistles then great.
Also AMD could force Nvidia to be more competitive. Its worked for Intel. I know people say this time and time again. I know for a fact AMD can never bring out a giant killer flagship that will dominate Nvidia, but for those who always buy flagship models, it can help improve price v performance if they did go for the next RTX card.
Also AMD could force Nvidia to be more competitive. Its worked for Intel. I know people say this time and time again. I know for a fact AMD can never bring out a giant killer flagship that will dominate Nvidia, but for those who always buy flagship models, it can help improve price v performance if they did go for the next RTX card.
I think there's definitely going to be a big die Navi by the first few months of next year but I'd say it's up in the air whether they'd bring RTRT with it given their previous comments of wanting it across the stack. But then I'd definitely expect PC RTRT cards before the consoles set for the end of next year, by that point they must have shipping silicon that still performs well in ~30-40CU configurations so they could roll it out across the stack, it's just whether it'll come in their next top end die refresh or mainstream die refresh first that dictates it. Logic says the high end cards should get it first due to the hit but then their release schedule and past comments say otherwise imo, could be this time next year at least if so.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
My only concern is that Ngreedia may have some deal in place that doesn't let any other vendors use RT in these specific titles, I wouldn't put it passed them.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
If they are using DXR it wouldn't matter as it's a 3rd party from MS and both have access to it. Now that doesn't mean they won't have specific optimizations for Nvidia, as they should. They are the only RT product available for the foreseeable future.
After looking at the more detailed slides from AMD on the RDNA architecture, it seems like a huge amount of work went into reducing the architectures reliance on high memory bandwidth(Particularly for gaming/rasterisation workloads) with DCC now used across the board. This probably won't have much bearing on the 5700 cards in any realistic use case but for APUs this would be a godsend, while for 64CU parts it should make a 384-bit GDDR6 bus viable, allowing them to comfortably compete in the high end gaming segment without the pricing & supply woes of HBM again.
I don't expect them to abandon HBM entirely though, still many workloads where it's very useful and with Navi die sizes and other changes to RDNA regarding overall layout & internal bandwidth & latency so far I doubt 64CU's is likely to remain their limit once EUV matures.
I don't expect them to abandon HBM entirely though, still many workloads where it's very useful and with Navi die sizes and other changes to RDNA regarding overall layout & internal bandwidth & latency so far I doubt 64CU's is likely to remain their limit once EUV matures.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
They also had a slide talking about they made it less compute oriented and focused more on well... Everything to do with gaming.
AlienALX
Active member
Been talking about Navi over the past few days on various forums. I think what one of the guys said hits the nail on the head. AMD don't give a crap whether you buy Navi or not, hence the Nvidia like prices.
Basically if you buy a PC then yeah, they make a sale. However, if you buy a console or get into any streaming service then they make a sale there too, and a more important one (because it gets you away from Nvidia).
AMD dominate pretty much everywhere else now, and will make their money and stay afloat away from PC gaming. And this is something Nvidia simply have not managed, leaving them in a much more vulnerable position.
For many years consoles dominated the PC with sheer sales and user numbers. However, over the past decade that has changed. PC gaming has become far more popular (it was the ginger stepchild for ten years prior to 2008) and it's the consoles that are actually hurting right now. Given AMD are at the helm of two of those consoles (the Xbox and PS4) then it would be kind of daft to sell uber cheap GPUs to hurt their own interests. I reckon with the prices Nvidia are charging now the next run of consoles (PS5 and whatever MS are calling their console this week) being far more powerful than now that it would actually be quite stupid to bother with a gaming PC.
It did strike me as kinda odd that AMD would sell their CPUs at rock bottom prices yet inflate the cost of their GPUs to Nvidia levels. That isn't even bothering to compete they may as well hand the money to Nvidia.
And what have Nvidia done? well, they have reacted to it desperately trying to protect their main interest. If AMD started knocking out cheap GPUs they would sell by the bucket load, but hurt their main interests.
Just some food for thought I figured I would jot down before heading out today.
Basically if you buy a PC then yeah, they make a sale. However, if you buy a console or get into any streaming service then they make a sale there too, and a more important one (because it gets you away from Nvidia).
AMD dominate pretty much everywhere else now, and will make their money and stay afloat away from PC gaming. And this is something Nvidia simply have not managed, leaving them in a much more vulnerable position.
For many years consoles dominated the PC with sheer sales and user numbers. However, over the past decade that has changed. PC gaming has become far more popular (it was the ginger stepchild for ten years prior to 2008) and it's the consoles that are actually hurting right now. Given AMD are at the helm of two of those consoles (the Xbox and PS4) then it would be kind of daft to sell uber cheap GPUs to hurt their own interests. I reckon with the prices Nvidia are charging now the next run of consoles (PS5 and whatever MS are calling their console this week) being far more powerful than now that it would actually be quite stupid to bother with a gaming PC.
It did strike me as kinda odd that AMD would sell their CPUs at rock bottom prices yet inflate the cost of their GPUs to Nvidia levels. That isn't even bothering to compete they may as well hand the money to Nvidia.
And what have Nvidia done? well, they have reacted to it desperately trying to protect their main interest. If AMD started knocking out cheap GPUs they would sell by the bucket load, but hurt their main interests.
Just some food for thought I figured I would jot down before heading out today.
I don't think these forum musings are based in reality, this bit is explicitly false:
AMDs prices are super easy to explain.
Ryzen was slower than Intel, technically at every price segment, so they made it cheaper than Intel. They couldn't beat them on gaming or single threaded performance, so they slashed prices & added features.
Navi is not slower than NVidia in every segment. Navi competes very well in its segments revealed so far. So they compete on pricing too. They're still faster & cheaper than Nvidia, so they don't need to let NVidia gobble up an unjustifiable price premium. The actual prices themselves are not static, NVidia will respond, they will drop. AMD will undoubtedly drop them in response, they have a lot of room to.
What you're seeing is the difference between close competition between two roughly equally matched companies, AMD & NVidia, with the subtle pricing wars of fair competition(Thanks to both companies being well known as gaming/GPU companies), against the absolute slugfest that is the David vs Goliath battle of AMD and Intel, where they are fighting against a company with a long history of convicted monopolistic tendencies, who essentially created and became synonymous with the market they're fighting in, and for much of history could invest more R&D than all their competitors combined.
But more critically, Intel are selling tiny pieces of silicon for upto many thousands of $'s, their profit margins will be huge compared to even the most "rip-off" Nvidia parts. GPUs are several times larger & more expensive than CPUs and that gap is far wider with high end parts, NVidia's pricing is incredibly reasonable & close to reality compared to Intels(And NVidia's pricing actually scales linearly & fairly with the size/cost of their parts, as opposed to Intels exponential rises), and AMD simply doesn't have that much room to undercut them while making profit.
AMD get essentially no money from consoles at this stage in the contract. They'd much, much, much rather you bought their high margin GPUs, they get orders of magnitudes more money per unit.
This is very much the opposite of reality again. AMD get chicken feed from their consoles agreements at this point, and are entirely reliant on desktop & server markets for the bulk of their income over the last 4 years. In contrast, NVidia has successfully branched out to be the main player in AI and a leading player in the automotive industries push to self driving cars amongst many other lucrative secondary markets. NVidia get far more revenue from non-gaming sources than AMD do in both absolute and percentage terms.
Consoles & PC gaming are both far bigger than they ever were before, and both have almost exactly equal marketshare & revenue spent. Both are significantly overshadowed by mobile gaming. They're all giant parts of the biggest & most lucrative media industry there is (Roughly 25% Consoles, 24% PC, 51% mobile at end of 2018).
AMDs prices are super easy to explain.
Ryzen was slower than Intel, technically at every price segment, so they made it cheaper than Intel. They couldn't beat them on gaming or single threaded performance, so they slashed prices & added features.
Navi is not slower than NVidia in every segment. Navi competes very well in its segments revealed so far. So they compete on pricing too. They're still faster & cheaper than Nvidia, so they don't need to let NVidia gobble up an unjustifiable price premium. The actual prices themselves are not static, NVidia will respond, they will drop. AMD will undoubtedly drop them in response, they have a lot of room to.
What you're seeing is the difference between close competition between two roughly equally matched companies, AMD & NVidia, with the subtle pricing wars of fair competition(Thanks to both companies being well known as gaming/GPU companies), against the absolute slugfest that is the David vs Goliath battle of AMD and Intel, where they are fighting against a company with a long history of convicted monopolistic tendencies, who essentially created and became synonymous with the market they're fighting in, and for much of history could invest more R&D than all their competitors combined.
But more critically, Intel are selling tiny pieces of silicon for upto many thousands of $'s, their profit margins will be huge compared to even the most "rip-off" Nvidia parts. GPUs are several times larger & more expensive than CPUs and that gap is far wider with high end parts, NVidia's pricing is incredibly reasonable & close to reality compared to Intels(And NVidia's pricing actually scales linearly & fairly with the size/cost of their parts, as opposed to Intels exponential rises), and AMD simply doesn't have that much room to undercut them while making profit.
Last edited:
Similar threads
