This reads like an Nvidia paid for hit piece on AMD I thought we were past this stuff now after the early 2000s but apparently not

Quote from: GeorgeS on March 04, 2025, 19:27:56The 'low end' is mostly a crap shoot however just about ANY dedicated GPU card can outperform most any iGPU's.

Of course, because the low end dgpu market is dead. Right now the only dgpus being produced are midrange. With strix halo, likely most of midrange will die too. Not now of course because it is still expensive, but within the next 5 years X70 if not X70 TI would probably be the minimum for a dgpu

No one said anything about the artifacts in the cyberpunk footage for DLSS4 that digital foundry mentioned. Nobody put any articles like this out. And this is like the 3rd one I have seen parroting the same rubbish. Probably soon to be shown as wrong when the gameplay rolls in. I mean the display at the game awards with ratchet and clank looked amazing so. No one mentioned that though did they. Because it doesn't fit a narrative. Again this is what drives me away from Nvidia. I could make a decent profit in my 3080 super right now. They are double the price of what I paid. So tempted to ditch Nvidia after 3 months lmao.

These tech reporter people that keep repeating this narrative are misleading you. Yes it was a tech demo. Even Nvidias tech demo had artifacts and look how DLSS4 turned out a game changer. I am waiting for actual gameplay before deciding wether to chop in my 4080 super and go back to AMD. I always was AMD up till 3 months ago. And tbh I prefer the community over there are the software and now hopefully the hardware too. And bias reporting like this just drives me away from Nvidia and it's probably why I stayed away for 15 years. Lol I have high expectations for FSR 4. And this tech demo looked ok to me anyway. I do like DLSS4 though. It's just everything else Nvidia that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Or my PC.

Quote from: Cooe on March 05, 2025, 01:47:46🤦 The ghosting artifacts you are complaining about have literally NOTHING to do with ray-tracing performance... They are due to using frame generation, and guess what? NVIDIA CARDS HAVE THE EXACT SAME VISUAL ARTIFACTS WHEN FRAME GEN IS ON!!!

This article is full of so much uninformed stupid it hurts. 🤷

The noise and dots on the cars are definitely a result of poor path tracing. It was a pretty terrible video by AMD and it's kind of strange so many people are defending it. I expect them to still be well behind Nvidia is ray tracing quality as well.

🤦 The ghosting artifacts you are complaining about have literally NOTHING to do with ray-tracing performance... They are due to using frame generation, and guess what? NVIDIA CARDS HAVE THE EXACT SAME VISUAL ARTIFACTS WHEN FRAME GEN IS ON!!!

This article is full of so much uninformed stupid it hurts. 🤷

So a single path tracing benchmark using an unspecified path tracing engine gets bad performance on a specific line of cards. Rt and Ai don't have CUDU code language optmization. Yall are acting like rt and and ai aren't brand new. Don't need years of development. All yall believe is NVIDIA sales pitch. If rasterization is dead... cuda is dead.

Quote from: A on March 04, 2025, 15:15:09

Quote from: punmeistervstheworld on March 04, 2025, 07:16:28No really, then they wonder why AMD only had 10% marketshare, a far cry from the days of say the HD 7970.

AMD's for a long time gave up on trying to compete on top end in consumer market, most of their focus was low end which was cannibalized by their igpus. So on paper, their dGPU marketshare fell, but in reality their gpu marketshare grew.

Of course it didn't help AMD that they missed the AI boat for the last few years.

Sure.

The current Laptop market is populated with a smattering of AMD & Intel iGPU's and Nvidia dGPU's.

Desktop market is generally Nvidia on the high end (and for those that feel RT is more than a 'gimick') and AMD filling in the 'best bang for the buck'.

The 'low end' is mostly a crap shoot however just about ANY dedicated GPU card can outperform most any iGPU's.

YMMV.

Quote from: punmeistervstheworld on March 04, 2025, 07:16:28No really, then they wonder why AMD only had 10% marketshare, a far cry from the days of say the HD 7970.

AMD's for a long time gave up on trying to compete on top end in consumer market, most of their focus was low end which was cannibalized by their igpus. So on paper, their dGPU marketshare fell, but in reality their gpu marketshare grew.

Of course it didn't help AMD that they missed the AI boat for the last few years.

Quote from: Bragii on March 04, 2025, 12:45:11"Nvidia had a significant advantage with ray tracing effects in games"

Why, oh why, are you comparing AMD's Path Tracing Demo with Nvidia's Ray Tracing ?
How about you compare AMD's Ray Tracing with Nvidia's Ray Tracing ?

"Some AMD defenders argue that path tracing quality shouldn't be a primary buying factor. While the feature isn't used in every game, it's a major reason to upgrade from previous-generation GPUs."...
Err no it isn't.

What you're doing here is comparing oranges to apples... whilst both are fruits, they are totally different.

Path Tracing being used for something realtime is a feat on it's own and that's why it's used generally for offline rendering... there's a few titles with mods to enable PT but it's RT that games generally use.  Raytracing is used for realtime scenario's like gaming.
The reason ? Ghosting and texture issues on fast moving objects in realtime rendering.

And before anyone jumps in with AMD fanboi accusations... I'm still running an eVGA 3090 FTW3.
I just prefer fair comparisons and am disappointed that Adam hasn't researched what he's published.

You are correct, and that was poor word choice at the end. I did make the distinction between path tracing and ray tracing earlier in the article. I made a few corrections to the article to avoid confusion.

I do take issue that ray tracing isn't a reason to upgrade from the previous gen. It's one of AMD's major marketing points with the RDNA 4 series. With the new Nvidia and AMD cards, most of the improvements come down to AI-enhanced upscaling with FSR 4 and DLSS 4. And more efficient rendering of lighting effects like ray tracing- so it doesn't tank FPS to the same degree.

If you read more of my articles, I've been plenty critical of Nvidia when it comes to recent product launches and have been flamed by owners of those GPUs as well.

Quote from: punmeistervstheworld on March 04, 2025, 07:16:28AMD fanboys are bad for AMD's GPU division. Change my mind.

No really, then they wonder why AMD only had 10% marketshare,

Yeah, this 100%. When I and everyone else goes to buy a GPU the very first thing we do is to check what random unknown people on the internet say - the AMD fanboys in this case - in order to base our decision. Nothing else and I repeat absolutely nothing else matters, silly things as general value, cost per frame, intended usage/workflow, availability, power efficiency of a GPU etc., none. Only what #AMDfanboys say.

Fucking lol.

This article reeks of Nvidia fanboyism. Ray tracing is a gimmick. It tanks performance on ALL cards.

Can the 4070 Ti Super (which is actually faster than the 5070 Ti) use Ray Tracing without issues? No, it can't. Same game, RX 9070 25 fps 1440p with RTX on, 4070 Ti S 41 fps. Sure that's quite a difference but, but, but... Both are still literally unplayable. So who cares? Seriously, who cares? Spend 5-8x as much money and enjoy barely noticeable difference with RTX with a 5090.

"Nvidia had a significant advantage with ray tracing effects in games"

Why, oh why, are you comparing AMD's Path Tracing Demo with Nvidia's Ray Tracing ?
How about you compare AMD's Ray Tracing with Nvidia's Ray Tracing ?

"Some AMD defenders argue that path tracing quality shouldn't be a primary buying factor. While the feature isn't used in every game, it's a major reason to upgrade from previous-generation GPUs."...
Err no it isn't.

What you're doing here is comparing oranges to apples... whilst both are fruits, they are totally different.

Path Tracing being used for something realtime is a feat on it's own and that's why it's used generally for offline rendering... there's a few titles with mods to enable PT but it's RT that games generally use.  Raytracing is used for realtime scenario's like gaming.
The reason ? Ghosting and texture issues on fast moving objects in realtime rendering.

And before anyone jumps in with AMD fanboi accusations... I'm still running an eVGA 3090 FTW3.
I just prefer fair comparisons and am disappointed that Adam hasn't researched what he's published.

RT might be cool but too expensive for how few games use it and nvidia GPUs are scalped to high heaven. I'm good.