Read more.Quote:
Leakers say that the GPUs will thus feature chips twice the size of the Radeon RX 5700 XT.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Leakers say that the GPUs will thus feature chips twice the size of the Radeon RX 5700 XT.
Cyberpunk was delayed until November
Let's see.. an Xbox series X has what, 52CUs? So this should be about 50% faster. Series X is targeting 60fps 4k standard (though in practise, will no doubt have some 30 fps and some sub-4k resolution trickery). That's roughly 2080 territory once optimisations are taken into account. So big navi should end up somewhere between a 3080 and 3080 ti... nice.
Edit:in rasterisation performance of course. All bets are off for RT since I've not seen how RDNA2 does that yet.
Depending on performance, power consumption and price, when I next upgrade my GPU, it could be the first time in many years that I will have both a CPU and GPU from AMD. Last time that happened was when I had an Athlon 64 with a Radion HD 3470.
"So this should be about 50% faster"
It bloody well better be, otherwise with the consoles and their expected performance, gaming on a PC get more or less a thing of the past.
BUT ! interesting times ahead, a new GFX generation always made me giddy,even if i have not been able to join in the fun.
do I feel hope ?
Consoles have a many-year life-cycle so I wouldn't be surprised if they match upper-mainstream GPU performance on release - by end of life even budget PC cards will be more powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentle Viking
Games is built mainly for consoles now a day it would the the target for the developers to aim at.. which means to be competetative in the future you severe need to dump prices on game hardware... though I think they leave the prices up there for the bitcoin mining era we had.... back in the day topend GFX would cost you 500 or less, unless a special beefed variant.
If you're anything like me, it was just a little wee.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevDrake
I just read some guesses here and there, from what i found the XBox S X is going to be about 600$
which is a middle-high GPU cost ground.
If the assumption (52 CUs) is true, then we probably will be able to buy exactly that many standalone. Meaning we will get worse performance for the same money as the architecture on the console will give it slight boost vs PC.
The games will be around 70$, so for me - person that plays 3-4 games a year it is no brainer to go console...
I just hate you...
Will she let you, or do you have to pay like everyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by DevDrake
Purely performance is not the only difference in console games, the are made for slower players, have auto-aiming mostly on everything, inventories that just make you mad how stupidly they are implemented, you need to use the worst control scheme there is, all in all quite limited or more simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentle Viking
Granted, those are still games, but not at all what we had on PC years ago, let alone today (if it is not a port from consoles). And if you played older PC games, I don't see how you can just wave it off like there is no difference...
Sounds like my graphics card choices ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Hear similar last week, not coming this year tho apparently and maybe not at all due to power requirements etc
80 CUs sounds good to me, lets hope AMD agrees and the CFO enjoys PC gaming
Correction: Ampere was delayed until November and CDPR agreed to delay Cyberpunk 2077 to coincide with Ampere's release ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah