AMD releases detailed Radeon RX 6000 series benchmarks - 10 Games Tested
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
g0ggles1994
Active member
Hmm, I'd like to see how much that Smart Access Memory boosts performance
AlienALX
Well-known member
1-10% apparently. I think it will all make more sense when the new CPUs come out and we get tests.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Wow, the 6800XT actually is really close to the 3090. Not many have been talking about the new Smart Access Memory and how much it helps these new cards.
Excalabur50
Well-known member
Can't wait to get my 6800XT and my 5000 series CPU!
Dawelio
Active member
I have a question for you all, since you all seems to be much more educated than myself at this and yes, I'm sorry, but I've gotten ill and have no energy these days, so don't bother looking up on Google, since won't have energy to read through it all. So excuse me on that front and apologies if anyone gets offended by me asking here.
But as many have pointed on these new AMD GPUs, especially in comparison to the Nvidia cards, DLSS - What does it really do and do you really need it? As in I'm wondering if it's worth enough to get your hands on a 3000 series card due to this technology, or if it's not essential and hence go with AMD?
Also, as far as I'm aware, most monitors these days that supports G-Sync, also supports FreeSync. Since not many monitors today have a physical module for G-Sync, due to being more competitive with FreeSync. But how much of a difference is there between the two today? Thinking regarding the LG 27GN950 and between an 3080 and 6800/6900XT?
But as many have pointed on these new AMD GPUs, especially in comparison to the Nvidia cards, DLSS - What does it really do and do you really need it? As in I'm wondering if it's worth enough to get your hands on a 3000 series card due to this technology, or if it's not essential and hence go with AMD?
Also, as far as I'm aware, most monitors these days that supports G-Sync, also supports FreeSync. Since not many monitors today have a physical module for G-Sync, due to being more competitive with FreeSync. But how much of a difference is there between the two today? Thinking regarding the LG 27GN950 and between an 3080 and 6800/6900XT?
AlienALX
Well-known member
DLSS is very clever. Let's say you use 4k and use DLSS. It basically renders the game at a lower resolution (for example 1440p textures) and then up samples and sharpens those textures so they look as good or better than the 4k ones.
It uses the tensor cores to do this. I am sure I could spend hours researching it, but the upshot is that it basically helps increase FPS massively, whilst looking pretty much as good, only the performance jumps massively.
For the most part you don't particularly *need* DLSS for normal rasterization. I mean, it will still increase performance but it's truly pretty critical with Ray Tracing because of the performance penalty. It makes the unplayable playable.
Quite probably the most impressive display of it yet was in Death Stranding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMi3JpNBQeM&ab_channel=NVIDIAGeForce
Seriously as much stick as I give Nvidia DLSS 2.0 (ignoring 1.0 as it made everything a smudgy mess) is absolutely balls to the wall incredible. And, IMO, AMD desperately need an answer for it going forward which is the only thing I am a little bit nervous about with the 6000 series as they have been eerily quiet so far.
It only really sorta majorly matters at 4k or with RT on, but yeah it is amazing.
IMO Death Stranding actually looks better with DLSS on. It's much crisper and clearer.
Korreborg
Member
I really hope most reviewers won't "fall for it" and upgrade the test rig to 5000series cpu.
Most people won't change both CPU and GPU at the same time, so the "Smart Access Memory" is a gimmick in my book. Of course it is awesome for the future, but as with raytracing on Nvidia 2000 series cards, it's pretty much "useless" right now.
When comparing gaming performance, you need the fastest gaming combo of MB, RAM and CPU, to make sure you are comparing actual GPU vs GPU, and not being hold back down by something.
Most people won't change both CPU and GPU at the same time, so the "Smart Access Memory" is a gimmick in my book. Of course it is awesome for the future, but as with raytracing on Nvidia 2000 series cards, it's pretty much "useless" right now.
When comparing gaming performance, you need the fastest gaming combo of MB, RAM and CPU, to make sure you are comparing actual GPU vs GPU, and not being hold back down by something.
Greenback
Active member
I think Tom said he'd test both and Jayz has said he'd test both so it'll be worth checking the reviewers, but for an honest test you'd need to test a non 5000 as a base line to see the improvement
AlienALX
Well-known member
It could and would only be a gimmick if it offers negatable performance and doesn't get supported.
If it works? and Intel are still three years behind? it could well turn out to be a very valuable feature that offers more performance.
Ray tracing on 2000 series cards is subjective. With DLSS it definitely works, but IMO all it does to enhance the image it ruins by being gritty. AMD apparently have a method of getting rid of that, so I will be interested to see if Nvidia can "de noise" it too.
Personally I am not fussed about RT right now. However, if I were building a whole new rig I would definitely be interested in gaining up to 10% more performance in games. Especially when that is how far ahead Intel were before and every one still used them for gaming. If R3 offers higher FPS at stock and then another 10%? it could be a jump well worth having.
Dawelio
Active member
I salute you sir for taking your time and trying to give me an explanation on the subject, much appreciated!
AlienALX
Well-known member
I salute you sir for taking your time and trying to give me an explanation on the subject, much appreciated!
No problem dude. If you are into Ray Tracing? go Nvidia. I hate saying that, but I fear that AMD may be quite poor at it, especially if they have no DLSS alternative.
Every one seems to be saying that the Radeons will offer around the same RT performance as the 2080ti. Which sounds impressive? but without DLSS the 2080Ti is equally as useless. It can't even run max settings at 1440p with RT on full without DLSS to boost it back up.
These Radeon cards will likely be fantastic for competitive gamers, who need brutal performance for things like Fortnite and so on. Less so for those who like all the bells and whistles. Well, at least from what I have seen so far.
Dawelio
Active member
Umm that is a bit where my question comes from to be honest. I'm not really sure on the whole Ray Tracing aspect of them.
I'll be honest here Alien, we might not always have seen eye to eye on things, but one thing I've tried learning from you is seeing the real usefulness in something, for myself. Such as these new GPUs and their respective technologies. Which will be most useful for me and where will I gain the most value for my money?
I mean sure, it's a nice and cool feature, and is/will undoubtely be the future in games. And sure, it looks nice in games, such as Control when looking at videos of it.
But when I ask myself the questions; will I be able to see it in games when playing? Maybe/probably. Will I notice it during gameplay? That is a hard one to answer and hence me being uncertain of this technology today.
It's the same with the remastered Need for speed game. Sure it looks nice(r) and all, but will you actually be able to see all of that when you're speeding through the streets in the game? Will you be able to notice it, when you're focused on actually driving the car etc and focusing on the gameplay at hand? Doubt it.
Do you see my point here when it comes to/with Ray Tracing? I'm struggling to see the point of it for myself in games. Especially since I play games such as Battlefield for the most part. Which is a fast phasing game, where you're focused on the gunfight, not on certain reflections in the water.
And as for DLSS? I'm on 1440p and not sure how much of an impact DLSS does at this resolution really? As people have said that the difference between 1440p and 4K isn't that massive on a 27" (which I'm on) and that 1440p is the sweetspot for this resolution. So with this said, it raises the question: Is DLSS even something for me?
Last edited:
Tolemac
Active member
AMD are working on an alternative but how good it is nobody knows.
https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/joao-silva/amd-is-developing-an-alternative-to-nvidias-dlss/
AlienALX
Well-known member
I'm a grumpy old git. Once you get used to that though there is plenty of knowledge in this brain of mine. Somewhere...
You can definitely see Ray Tracing. For sure. It can be quite impressive. However, you have answered your own question about gameplay. Nope, it adds absolutely nothing. Unless of course one day it enables you to see behind you in real reflections in a game where it matters if someone is behind you. Kinda like rear view mirrors in a car.
1440p to me at least will always remain the sweet spot. Always. It's a better and cheaper spot to be in too, as it means you don't *have* to buy a new GPU every gen. Again this is just something I have learned from experience, and being poor all the time lol.
Is DLSS for you? depends on the GPU you have. Like, for example I still run a 2070 Super, so yes it's for me. Especially as next gen games start destroying frame rates, as we have seen with the new Watch Dogs. DLSS therefore will offer a boost, RT or not, and will help older RT cards. More so now than ever. DLSS is far more important than RT. Of course the two go well together, but DLSS is still IMO the best thing Nvidia have done in bloody years.
Indeed. But until we know? I am not counting on it. I should be good now for at least a couple of years. Weakest link being the 2070S, but I never bought that as a high end GPU it was always for 1440p 70hz from day one. So as long as it can stay there for a while I should be good.
I hear an awful lot of talk about Ray Tracing which is amazing quality but only has acceptable performance if you have 2080TI+ levels of perf from what I can gather? DLSS helps you turn on RayTracing by up sampling so if you have a 4K Monitor you play the game at 2K speeds with RayTracing for absolute quality by using DLSS?
But but but, up to last month you had to shell out €1K for a card to do it and you can only do it with 30 something titles? Am I missing something?
But but but, up to last month you had to shell out €1K for a card to do it and you can only do it with 30 something titles? Am I missing something?
Reason for more discussion of late is that from next month it will be on £250 consoles and almost all AAA games, and presumably from early next year we will see it on more sub-£200 GPUs too.
Going from the leaked RT performance of RDNA2 recently think we can guess the larger two consoles will have RT performance somewhere between an RTX2080 and a 2080Ti, so presumably that will be the target base level optimisation of games going forward for the next 7 years. XbSS will ofc have much less, so essentially a lot of optimisation should be coming, at least for AMD implementation for a few years.
Not just the compute kind of optimisation, when it comes to graphics tricks you have to optimise against human psychology too, what type of effects do we notice most, which ways to use them for most impact, what do we have good cheap alternatives for already or which old tricks blend well, what areas of a screen or environment do we notice less, ect, ect. So lots of low hanging fruit with RT optimisation through extended experimentation even with a constant compute budget.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, I think Ray-Tracing will become more about utilising techniques that are most visible, prominent, and even interactive. RT so far, at least in some games, has been somewhat superfluous, like in Battlefield, COD, Fortnite, and a couple of others. Going forward I can see games using the more vital elements, simply because the consoles don't have enough horsepower to push things everything like Nvidia is trying to do with their more powerful RT cores.
DLSS is great, but it's not supported by many games. If AMD implements something similar with RDNA2, the consoles, and Microsoft that works in ALL games, even if their implementation is inferior, it'll be a safer bet than DLSS in my opinion. It could become a situation where Nvidia will have the superior tech, but it'll come at a price and will be limited.
Personally super-sampling is incredible to me. I don't intend on ever buying a 4k monitor, but to have 4k fidelity and high FPS is dream come true. It's the best of all everything. I'm banking on AMD's implementation of it though, not Nvidia's. The game library is just too limited.
DLSS is great, but it's not supported by many games. If AMD implements something similar with RDNA2, the consoles, and Microsoft that works in ALL games, even if their implementation is inferior, it'll be a safer bet than DLSS in my opinion. It could become a situation where Nvidia will have the superior tech, but it'll come at a price and will be limited.
Personally super-sampling is incredible to me. I don't intend on ever buying a 4k monitor, but to have 4k fidelity and high FPS is dream come true. It's the best of all everything. I'm banking on AMD's implementation of it though, not Nvidia's. The game library is just too limited.
Similar threads
