![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Last time I checked, AMD has nothing to compete against Nvidias top end. Like not even remotely close in performance.
At least Nvidia has released pretty much all of their new products. Can't say the same for the supposed competition.
Not just lose market share, but deliver consistently weaker hardware at equally inflated prices as Nvidia. And they still have the balls to complain about Nvidias pricing when the competition has fuck all to compete with.
Don't tell HU that.
Average remains the same but 1% lows and visual quality is 20-30% better as it doesn’t suffer from the texture swapping issues the 8gb model does.
And I am not sure testing with a 13900k is realistic in that regard (you can probably stream texture on the fly quite well with that kind of cpu) and mass down the lack of vram more than a more realistic match for a xx60 card like a 5600x-12600k type of system, but there was significant recent patchs to that game (went from 1.0x to 1.1 last month), from vram management to texture streaming option-capability added, we would need to see how much it is an issue
That's a 1440p chart. I was considering It's 4k performance increase. If it goes on sale it would be appealing to a lot of gamers. The 3060Ti is not even a consideration for 4k because of It's small VRAM right? (is the 3060ti 8 or 12gb? )Personally the 4070Ti performance is more my target because It's about equal to a 3080Ti maybe a bit faster.
not sure how relevant is native 4k for 60s series card (the stronger 3070 in absolute and more so relative to the game of 2020 was not seen much as a native 4k card), but seem quite modest and the argument struggling to beat the $350 3060TI / $330 6700xt would hold:
Seemed like clown Steve from hardware unboxed got much better results in his 4k tests of the 16GB version?
A 1080p card working well with 1080p?! No waySo the assertion that 8GB isn't enough for 1920x1080 anymore was a lie. Here is my shocked face
. Just media sensationalism as usual claiming otherwise.
Wait, that game is on PC? I thought our SSD's aren't fast enough?
Microsoft fixed that with DirectStorage 1.2 which gave it up to a 40% boost over 1.1 on the same hardware.
Oh good, it runs just fine on Linux. Actually runs faster on Linux, but a good deal. What's that about DirectStorage?
I don't think that's at play here.
The game would be using Vulkan since it's using VKD3D.
Here’s where this get really fucked up,
Please post some screenshots. It was painfully obvious the last time I saw it.
When was that? Dlss has been great for years at this point. It also looks different in motion on a 4k screen. Frame generation works spectacularly well if your base fps isn't too low by all accounts from actual owners.
I was referring to the part about frame generation. Lower power cards aren't going to have high base rates and I'd like to see it since they said it was flawless.
Usually depends of the resolution-setting you use, a 4060 run Jedi Survivor at 1080p around 66-68 fps with max details, that a really good range-case for DLSS3.
They both use GDeflate, which is an open standard in DirectStorage. The NVIDIA and AMD specific interfaces are to optimize how GDeflate runs on their specific hardware.
