Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
i would go for Vega 64 or Radeon V, much better than nvidia cards
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
14% running AMD and the last 10% running Intel videochips.
Yes, AMD videocards are only 50% higher than those running on integrated videochips!
Three out of four users are using nVidia. They may be expensive, but they provide the best performance and aren't such power hungry hogs.
Consoles use AMD because it's the cheaper budget option. There's no other reason. No seriously stop. No other reason.
300 Watt for the Radeon VII vs 230 Watt for the RTX 2070 which it competes with.
That is a difference of 70 Watt for about the same performance in games (depends on the game).
Never ever is it the RAM causing that difference.
If you have no idea what you are talking about, maybe you should inform yourself before you enter a discussion.
I like AMD, especially their CPUs. But their videocards are still woefully inadequate to compete with nVidia and the Radeon VII was pretty much a disappointment. It isn't cheaper, faster or more efficient than the card it is supposed to compete with.
I'm pretty sure. They only have 2 options. If they don't pick one of those they're foolish.
Like others said they could've picked Nvidia but it would've been more expensive. And better. Proportionally better by Price per Performance or how ever you want to measure it? Probably not.
Just because you don't agree that you should have to pay that much for slight performance boosts doesn't mean that's how it should be. Our economy doesn't scale like that for anything, especially tech. Just take cars for example, you'll pay ALOT more for those final HPs... performance is expensive at the highest levels.
X one X is good, I have one, but it could be better, and the most demanding games STRUGGLE ON IT. So it needs more. AMD is not enough. The End.
The Radeon VII is 800. So no, 2 Radeon VIIs are not a better investment then a single 2080 Ti.
Also barely any game supports Crossfire/SLI nowadays.
Dual cards are a complete waste of money.
And if you want the strongest single chip GPU the only option is NIVIDIA.
This is just fact.
ALSO, the RTX 2080 is already better then the Radeon VII. Its beats it by an average 15% in gaming benchmarks. The RTX 2080 is down to 650 here, i should know, i just bought one.
So its better AND cheaper then the Radeon VII.
Soo... how is that tinfoil hat? Sitting too tight? Getting enough air up there?
Basically you just make stuff up to suit your arguments and ignore things that does not.
Got you.
Have fun discussing, i have better things to do.
Tons of individuals have benchmarks showcasing better performance on RTX 2080 Ti when compared to Radeon VII. It was a disappointment.
Ridiculous to brown nose a company, and then attempt to refuse benchmarks because anything that doesn't tickle your fancy must have been paid off by the rival company.
Also, while to echo dual-GPU being a bad option in terms of gaming for the most part,
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ai3u39/radeon_vii_no_plans_for_crossfire_support/
The only reason consoles use AMD is because Nvidia don't make APU's anymore.
AMD does the same thing. Remember TressFX for the 10 seconds it was relevant?