AMD & RayTracing

[Jackie Paper]

With last gen AMD and NVIDIA, how much of a difference could you tell between the ray tracing of AMD's top card and let's say it's equivalent of an NVIDIA card?

Do you think it will be easy to tell the difference between the 7900XTX and a 4080?

[Komarimaru]

Unless they step it up with the 7900, they are still an entire generation behind. Meaning if you enjoy ray tracing, expect to ruin at lower settings for AMD. They are great at normal raster performance though.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Jackie Paper:

Do you think it will be easy to tell the difference between the 7900XTX and a 4080?

Disclaimer that this is my guess, but in ray tracing performance, yes you notice a difference, but in rasterization performance, less so.

The RTX 4080 will probably be markedly to substantially faster than an RX 7900 series in ray tracing.

I can't speak personally, but the rule of thumb I've seen many others use (sometimes users here who did apparently have experience with both) was that the RX 6000 series was often equivalent to between a tier or two lower on nVidia's side when it came to ray tracing performance, but comparable in rasterization performance.

For example, An RX 6800 would be far faster than an RTX 3060 Ti naturally, but it might slow down to near it or RTX 3070 levels of performance with ray tracing enabled.

nVidia simply offers better ray tracing performance tier for tier right now. AMD is roughly a generation behind, but also implemented it a generation later, and some say they had a slightly more impressive first attempt at it than nVidia did. I don't think anyone expects AMD to catch up to, or perhaps not even close the gap, on this one with this generation though.

[A&A]

I don't know which would be best...

RTX 4080 have 59MB more than RTX 3080. Is this because of DLSS 3.0 or is it because of something else like BVH? I do not know. Nobody says anything about it, but cache will likely be the biggest factor here.

[JohnMars78]

Judging by how things evolved over the past two GPU generations, it's probably safe to assume top AMD cards to be somewhere between RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 in rasterization performance with something of an RTX 3080/ RTX 3090 level of RT.
Given the MSRP pricing for 7900XT/XTX, I expect them to fall closer to the 4080.
If they come anywhere close to the 4090, I'd be shocked and in awe of the mighty AMD for at least a week after reviews come out.

So, yeah, I think it'll be easy to see the difference between 7900XT and RTX 4080 with RT on.

[skOsH♥]

The 7900XTX vs the RTX 4080 there is maybe 10fps less you'll get in cyberpunk

Every other game it beats the 4080 or does about the same

[UserNotFound]

The only game with RT that matters to me is Metro Exodus, dunno about The Calisto Protocol as I've not gotten it yet, though I've heard it's riddled with performance issues. The talk is that RT performance on the next gen AMD cards would be similar to those of the high end RTX 3000 series cards, with FSR2.x and upcoming FSR3, RT performance should be decent enough.

My RX 6900 XT barely scrape by with RT just about maxed out with Metro Exodus PC Enhanced (at 3840x1080, maxed out available RT settings, framerate around 30+ fps lows to >60fps highs), I'm expecting far better.smoother gameplay with an RX 7900 XTX.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Well if you do have RTX 4080 on your radar what-so-ever. Just wait. NVIDIA is going to lower all of the 4080 MSRP later this month.

[Cathulhu]

They've already reduced them.
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-is-lowering-geforce-rtx-4090-4080-pricing-in-europe-by-5

[Jackie Paper]

Originally posted by Bad 💀 Motha:

Well if you do have RTX 4080 on your radar what-so-ever. Just wait. NVIDIA is going to lower all of the 4080 MSRP later this month.

Then we get to buy from scalpers, yay lol.

[DeadBeat]

Originally posted by Jackie Paper:

Then we get to buy from scalpers, yay lol.

Why would you want to do that?

[Jackie Paper]

Originally posted by DeadBeat:

Originally posted by Jackie Paper:

Then we get to buy from scalpers, yay lol.

Why would you want to do that?

I would never want nor would I do that lol

[DeadBeat]

Originally posted by Jackie Paper:

I would never want nor would I do that lol

That is good.

[emoticorpse]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Originally posted by Jackie Paper:

Do you think it will be easy to tell the difference between the 7900XTX and a 4080?

Disclaimer that this is my guess, but in ray tracing performance, yes you notice a difference, but in rasterization performance, less so.

The RTX 4080 will probably be markedly to substantially faster than an RX 7900 series in ray tracing.

I can't speak personally, but the rule of thumb I've seen many others use (sometimes users here who did apparently have experience with both) was that the RX 6000 series was often equivalent to between a tier or two lower on nVidia's side when it came to ray tracing performance, but comparable in rasterization performance.

For example, An RX 6800 would be far faster than an RTX 3060 Ti naturally, but it might slow down to near it or RTX 3070 levels of performance with ray tracing enabled.

nVidia simply offers better ray tracing performance tier for tier right now. AMD is roughly a generation behind, but also implemented it a generation later, and some say they had a slightly more impressive first attempt at it than nVidia did. I don't think anyone expects AMD to catch up to, or perhaps not even close the gap, on this one with this generation though.

I've only recently heard of rasterization when it comes to gpus and gaming. What's the difference? I know I could Google it but a simple explanation might be enough instead of skimming through a bunch of links and pages to find something I can easily comprehend.

[Jackie Paper]

Originally posted by emoticorpse:

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Disclaimer that this is my guess, but in ray tracing performance, yes you notice a difference, but in rasterization performance, less so.

The RTX 4080 will probably be markedly to substantially faster than an RX 7900 series in ray tracing.

I can't speak personally, but the rule of thumb I've seen many others use (sometimes users here who did apparently have experience with both) was that the RX 6000 series was often equivalent to between a tier or two lower on nVidia's side when it came to ray tracing performance, but comparable in rasterization performance.

For example, An RX 6800 would be far faster than an RTX 3060 Ti naturally, but it might slow down to near it or RTX 3070 levels of performance with ray tracing enabled.

nVidia simply offers better ray tracing performance tier for tier right now. AMD is roughly a generation behind, but also implemented it a generation later, and some say they had a slightly more impressive first attempt at it than nVidia did. I don't think anyone expects AMD to catch up to, or perhaps not even close the gap, on this one with this generation though.

I've only recently heard of rasterization when it comes to gpus and gaming. What's the difference? I know I could Google it but a simple explanation might be enough instead of skimming through a bunch of links and pages to find something I can easily comprehend.

Same lol

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Cathulhu:

They've already reduced them.
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-is-lowering-geforce-rtx-4090-4080-pricing-in-europe-by-5

Are there other sources of a price drop on the RTX 4080? Because from this line...

"The company was forced to lower the prices due to increasing value of the Euro compared to US Dollar. This means that the price cut is likely not a result of the upcoming Radeon RX 7900 launch."

...It seems more like a regional adjustment due to currency valuation changing rather than an actual price adjustment of the product. Which makes sense, because it also applies to the RTX 4090, and because a 5% reduction to the current price in the US is nowhere near enough to change the poor value of it (that would bring it from $1199 to $1139).