WYP
News Guru
Last edited:
AMD Radeon Navi 23 XT GPU Pictured - Specs Detailed
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Hopefully they price this more competitively than the 6700XT. The 6700XT is not great value in my opinion.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
No AMD card is great value at MSRP. You could get a weaker Nvidia card, turn on dlss, and same or better performance. No reason to use AMD for GPUs, but given current shortages it's better than no card.
So I would 100% agree it needs to be priced correctly against the competition with their full performance on like dlss, no priced as if comparing straight rasterization performance.
So I would 100% agree it needs to be priced correctly against the competition with their full performance on like dlss, no priced as if comparing straight rasterization performance.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, AMD finally caught up in raster performance and performance-per-watt and are competitive in price, but now they're leagues behind in critical software and features. And instead of keeping the MSRP to reflect that, they match Nvidia in price because they knew they would sell whatever they could make. I get it from a business standpoint, but it's not what I wanted to see. They always seem happy picking up the scraps left from failed Nvidia sales.
KingNosser
Well-known member
It's the middle men and retailers pushing the price up.
AMD are not far behind once FSR is out you might well be using it on your Nvidia card.
As for all the other features Nvidia offer, as someone that had many cards the one thing i noticed is the generational locking on them when they worked on older cards take RTX voice for example, imho none of what Nvidia offer is anything special feature wise.
The only part where even with FSR AMD is behind is DXR and if you look at 3dmark it's really not by much, take into account Nvidia had 2 years with DXR and it's still in few games and not optimised for AMD.
An example for me with my 6800XT is metro exodus in the original version i was getting 35fps in the new enhanced version I get almost 70fps, i'd hardly call that unplayable at max settings.
FSR could be a real gamechanger and the fact most of the Nvidia users will end up using it and most likely enjoying it's benifits is it really so bad that AMD are slightly behind and i mean slightly such a bad thing, Nvidias marketing and RND is massive by comparison.
I'd say Nvidia have more to worry about than AMD do longer term, still least you can play marbles at low fps on your nvidia cards, personally i have no regrets switching to AMD sure i won my card but i was more than happy to try and get one and your not see me saying i have a lack of vram.
99.9% of all games out need rasta and AMD are ahead on that side things, something everyone seems to have forgotten about or choose not to give at least basic credit for AMD's advances.
AMD are not far behind once FSR is out you might well be using it on your Nvidia card.
As for all the other features Nvidia offer, as someone that had many cards the one thing i noticed is the generational locking on them when they worked on older cards take RTX voice for example, imho none of what Nvidia offer is anything special feature wise.
The only part where even with FSR AMD is behind is DXR and if you look at 3dmark it's really not by much, take into account Nvidia had 2 years with DXR and it's still in few games and not optimised for AMD.
An example for me with my 6800XT is metro exodus in the original version i was getting 35fps in the new enhanced version I get almost 70fps, i'd hardly call that unplayable at max settings.
FSR could be a real gamechanger and the fact most of the Nvidia users will end up using it and most likely enjoying it's benifits is it really so bad that AMD are slightly behind and i mean slightly such a bad thing, Nvidias marketing and RND is massive by comparison.
I'd say Nvidia have more to worry about than AMD do longer term, still least you can play marbles at low fps on your nvidia cards, personally i have no regrets switching to AMD sure i won my card but i was more than happy to try and get one and your not see me saying i have a lack of vram.
99.9% of all games out need rasta and AMD are ahead on that side things, something everyone seems to have forgotten about or choose not to give at least basic credit for AMD's advances.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Maybe this isn't entirely aimed at me and my comment, so I could be off base. Anyway, I don't want to discredit what RTG have done. They've advanced themselves tremendously and are committed to continuing to do so. That's what I find frustrating. Instead of flaunting what they had achieved, they allowed Nvidia to dictate the market. Nvidia made an overpriced beast; AMD made one too. Nvidia made a 1440p/144hz card for $500 when it could have been $400; AMD made one too. Nvidia released DLSS; AMD made one... well, not yet. RDNA2 has been out for a long time and we're still months away from their alternative. Nvidia upped their RT game; AMD did that... well, we're still waiting for AMD to be competitive in DXR. Nvidia offered Nvenc; AMD offered VCE which most people seem to say is adequate at best. AMD could have made this their 'Maxwell' moment, but it wasn't. Even just slightly lower prices would have made it a powerful statement.
Like I said, this isn't from a business standpoint. This is purely from my insignificant eyes as an AMD fan.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Saying Rt games aren't optimized for AMD is a bad take though. It's all built off of DX12 DXR. AMD has the same foundational software to optimize for. Their RT just isn't good enough. Nvidia packages their own software suite on top of it and it gives them a massive performance improvement.
Nvidia is killing AMD on software and RT performance. AMD just matched them with raster performance. Yet Nvidia just changed the game and brought RT to the market, making AMDs performance catch up negligible. AMD are still behind.
Nvidia has money and software expertise. That's what sets them apart and always has. They have all their tools and technology integrated into many engines, even the biggest ones. Doesn't matter if FSR is great or not if nobody implements it. They already invested into Nvidia, not much reason to reinvest.
Besides that I'm not buying AMD on the hopes FSR is good. That's a bad investment and purchase. Just like 2000 series RTX was a bad one too since only what 4 games had RTX after a year. Ampere isn't having those issues which makes them good. Just unattainable.
If AMD can wow us and deliver good software then I'll completely be all for them. But I want results first. Also hope this doesn't come off in any negative way, I've slept 2 hours in over 30 hours, so forgive me if I come off harsh it's not intentional
Nvidia is killing AMD on software and RT performance. AMD just matched them with raster performance. Yet Nvidia just changed the game and brought RT to the market, making AMDs performance catch up negligible. AMD are still behind.
Nvidia has money and software expertise. That's what sets them apart and always has. They have all their tools and technology integrated into many engines, even the biggest ones. Doesn't matter if FSR is great or not if nobody implements it. They already invested into Nvidia, not much reason to reinvest.
Besides that I'm not buying AMD on the hopes FSR is good. That's a bad investment and purchase. Just like 2000 series RTX was a bad one too since only what 4 games had RTX after a year. Ampere isn't having those issues which makes them good. Just unattainable.
If AMD can wow us and deliver good software then I'll completely be all for them. But I want results first. Also hope this doesn't come off in any negative way, I've slept 2 hours in over 30 hours, so forgive me if I come off harsh it's not intentional
Last edited:
KingNosser
Well-known member
It's more of a general comment I made not really directed at anyone tbh but general.
I'm not an Nvidia fan or AMD fan I'm a gamer but as many cards as i've owned over the years i've gotten really tired of Nvidia i dislike the branding and i also don't see the need to create stuff that doesn't even run well on their own cards.
Sure DLSS is the hot topic for most everything i hear Nvidia but it's hardly in that many games and only just recently gotten engine support, while Nvidia are ahead in software they sure have taken a long time to do it all over the last few years.
Even with DXR there isn't that many games i own most of them, they all run fine on my 6800XT, but i'll admit i really hate RTX branding with Nvidia the need to take credit for something and brand it their own, sure they will have worked alongside Microsoft but i'd be pretty sure Microsoft done the real leg work.
Then comes games and fine they pay devs to impelment tech into the games but imho opinion it's only to make it harder for anything to be redo on AMD it's as bad as exclusives on launchers.
The pricing is mainly retail and such, but AMD were always going to price acordingly they have no desire in being a budget brand, they need the money just as much as all the other companies if they are ever going to try to keep up with Nvidia or Intel.
I do find it frustrating online in lots of places when AMD don't seem to get a fair opinion and i base mine on my own experience with my card, it's an absolute monster of a card it is a huge step from where they were, this is more like the older 5000 series from years back.
FSR i'm not expecting to be perfect, but i am expecting it to be decent otherwise why bother.
DXR is actually pretty good i find and i can only see it improving over time, thou it'll be overshadowed by the newer cards but the benifits on older cards is my feeling.
I honestly feel Nvidia as far as they are ahead in some aspects software wise are starting to lose the battle in raw power, the rasta performance is so dam good.
A game I play alot black desert online, on my old sli 970's I'd get around 40fps 1080p my 6800XT 1440p can do 120+fps not just at max settings, but on settings that are designed for screenshots the old sli 970's were getting a whole 8fps on that setting lol
People will always have a preference and as much as they can or can't be fans it's often very frustrating just having any interaction with them at all and sometime the claims are so far from the reality that you just end up not saying anything at all most of the time.
least on oc3d i feel i can speak my mind without anyone getting to upset, but i'm only stating my view not trying to change others.
I'm not saying DXR isn't optimised for AMD I'm saying the games are not optimised for AMD when they were in development at least in the last few years cause since the 6000 series launched there has only been a few DXR titles and they all work far better.
Either way it's going to get a lot more intresting over the next few years, and from what i've been hearing FSR is out in the next month or so. So time will tell how it pans out, but AMD haven't exactly been in the topend sector of the GPU market for a fairly long ass time, i just don't feel they are getting a fair crack of the whip imho.
I'm not an Nvidia fan or AMD fan I'm a gamer but as many cards as i've owned over the years i've gotten really tired of Nvidia i dislike the branding and i also don't see the need to create stuff that doesn't even run well on their own cards.
Sure DLSS is the hot topic for most everything i hear Nvidia but it's hardly in that many games and only just recently gotten engine support, while Nvidia are ahead in software they sure have taken a long time to do it all over the last few years.
Even with DXR there isn't that many games i own most of them, they all run fine on my 6800XT, but i'll admit i really hate RTX branding with Nvidia the need to take credit for something and brand it their own, sure they will have worked alongside Microsoft but i'd be pretty sure Microsoft done the real leg work.
Then comes games and fine they pay devs to impelment tech into the games but imho opinion it's only to make it harder for anything to be redo on AMD it's as bad as exclusives on launchers.
The pricing is mainly retail and such, but AMD were always going to price acordingly they have no desire in being a budget brand, they need the money just as much as all the other companies if they are ever going to try to keep up with Nvidia or Intel.
I do find it frustrating online in lots of places when AMD don't seem to get a fair opinion and i base mine on my own experience with my card, it's an absolute monster of a card it is a huge step from where they were, this is more like the older 5000 series from years back.
FSR i'm not expecting to be perfect, but i am expecting it to be decent otherwise why bother.
DXR is actually pretty good i find and i can only see it improving over time, thou it'll be overshadowed by the newer cards but the benifits on older cards is my feeling.
I honestly feel Nvidia as far as they are ahead in some aspects software wise are starting to lose the battle in raw power, the rasta performance is so dam good.
A game I play alot black desert online, on my old sli 970's I'd get around 40fps 1080p my 6800XT 1440p can do 120+fps not just at max settings, but on settings that are designed for screenshots the old sli 970's were getting a whole 8fps on that setting lol
People will always have a preference and as much as they can or can't be fans it's often very frustrating just having any interaction with them at all and sometime the claims are so far from the reality that you just end up not saying anything at all most of the time.
least on oc3d i feel i can speak my mind without anyone getting to upset, but i'm only stating my view not trying to change others.
I'm not saying DXR isn't optimised for AMD I'm saying the games are not optimised for AMD when they were in development at least in the last few years cause since the 6000 series launched there has only been a few DXR titles and they all work far better.
Either way it's going to get a lot more intresting over the next few years, and from what i've been hearing FSR is out in the next month or so. So time will tell how it pans out, but AMD haven't exactly been in the topend sector of the GPU market for a fairly long ass time, i just don't feel they are getting a fair crack of the whip imho.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I agree. AMD are behind (and with a node advantage if that matters at all) and should have priced their cards to reflect that. $25 less is effectively just a marketing tactic; it's not a definitive strategy. In the low-end, $25 is a decent percentage. In the mid to high-end where AMD is currently only competing, $25 is basically what people pay for slightly flashier lights.
The prices that would fit better in my opinion are not hugely different but don't need to be: for the 6700XT, $400 (that's the biggest one); 6800, $500-525; 6800XT, $600; 6900XT, $800. Percentage-wise, the 6800XT I think is the most fairly positioned GPU in the line-up as it is, but at $650 it's still slightly too expensive. Even $625 would have marginally buffered the lack of a DLSS competitor or inferior DXR. The 6800XT is effectively slightly behind the 3080 in a large game average in raster performance, way behind in DXR, and way behind in software features. A $50 deficit over the 3080 doesn't quite cut it in my opinion. If I were buying a card in that league, I would favour the features and overall performance of the 3080 for only slightly more money.
I get why AMD couldn't undercut Nvidia with Fiji or Vega because the cards were too expensive to manufacture, but RDNA2 should not be anywhere near as costly, and many rumours point to it being cheaper for AMD and the fabricators than previous architectures. Instead of being aggressive, they were just pushy enough to be beyond criticism from the majority of consumers and the press. To be more aggressive with the pricing wouldn't designate them as a budget brand; it would be being ballsy. If AMD were competitive across the board as they have been years ago, the prices would be fine. Because they're not, I think the prices are 'playing it safe'.
