AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT

[Moonister]

all this doesn't matter as you can't buy it anyway

[ik9000]

For what it's worth, I did voice my concerns on our sample's coil whine. AMD actually came back with a statement:

'High-end graphics cards like the Radeon™ RX 6900 XT draw higher levels of power, requiring the use of high-performance inductors that may oscillate during workloads with high FPS and game load screens, potentially causing a high-pitched sound. While this behaviour is not uncommon on high-end graphics cards, the amount of oscillation will vary from part to part and not all graphics cards will exhibit this issue. FRTC functionality can be enabled on Radeon™ graphics cards, which can be used to limit extremely high FPS (800FPS) rates and mitigate this issue.'

I think that is a poor excuse. From what I can gather it should be possible to design it out - it would appear they just aren't willing. To say it's not uncommon is akin to "everyone else was doing it so why shouldn't we?" Raise the bar don't settle for status quo or you quickly end up like intel with only 4C8T 14++++++ to show for your efforts.

[Tunnah]

Until they boost ray tracing it's just a no-go unfortunately. I thought ray tracing was a joke for the longest time, but games are really showing what it can do and it is very much a game changer. It feels almost weird to buy a card now that can't do it well, it feels like buying something not up to the function it's primarily for.

The sooner AMD get that side sorted and on par or close with nvidia the better.

[QuorTek]

3090 review: (Asus Tuf) £1600+

Pro's -Excellent build quality
Tasteful RGB
Dual BIOSes
DECENT RRP
Superb thermals

6900 review: £999
Con's
Stock issues
Ray tracing not up to RTX levels
No DLSS-like tech from the off
Noticeable coil whine on our sample
VALUE PROPOSITION NOT GREAT.

6900 @ £999 = poor value.
3090 @ £1600 = decent RRP.
Both cards perform similarly, give or take a % or two

Wtf??

I don't think the review does them any favours. Factor in a couple of years and DLSS and ray tracing will help the 3090 whilst the Radeons will suffer, if you want raytracing and 4k/8k especially.
Also RTX enables some nice goodies, and I hate to say it but for a few things (live streaming) NV are miles ahead of AMD right now
See the LTT reviews and he says AMD have dropped the ball big time on productivity

It plays up to the Nvidia cards without those features though, gotta take my hat off for that... uh

[lumireleon]

AMD is still hiding the TOPS performance of the tensor cores in these RX cards, AMD is up-to something.

[Terbinator]

$999 is a lot for a card you can't turn on the latest bells and whistles without dropping below a 3070.

I've said it on another forum, but the best value card out of any of these at the minute is the one you manage to actually get your hands on and can afford.

[[GSV]Trig]

AMD gave brought out a card thats got decent power in games without specific features, maybe this is the first card and they're going to take 2 step at a time, raw power, then add features that bring everything else up to scratch.

Thats kinda why I ended up going Nvidia this time round, their cards are better supported and have a more mature rounded supported feature set.



And as an edit, and for future reference..
There is no such thing as tasteful RGB...


Prove me wrong

[kompukare]

I don't think the review does them any favours. Factor in a couple of years and DLSS and ray tracing will help the 3090 whilst the Radeons will suffer, if you want raytracing and 4k/8k especially.

But what about those who don't buy all the hype of DLSS 2.0?
That Eurogamer article Death Stranding PC: how next-gen AI upscaling beats native 4K sounds impressive but they are comparing 1440P DLSS upscaled against native 4K with TAA. Not against native 4K without AA, or 4K with SMAA.

So it is possible that DLSS just looks more pleasing to the eye than TAA.

I remember decades ago a group review of sound cards in, I think, Computer Shopper where they did all the usual comparisons and concluded something along the lines, that the Creative Labs SoundBlaster actually distorted the sound quite a bit on purpose and failed at the strict comparison but sounded more pleasing to the ear.

Point being: when using RT with DLSS 2.0 I wouldn't consider the resolution to be actually 4K or 8K any more, but would almost call them fake4K and fake8K.

[kalniel]

AMD is still hiding the TOPS performance of the tensor cores in these RX cards, AMD is up-to something.

What tensor cores? AMD uses CUs for RT, and they've already given the OPS performance.

[kalniel]

Point being: when using RT with DLSS 2.0 I wouldn't consider the resolution to be actually 4K or 8K any more, but would almost call them fake4K and fake8K.

We need to bring back meaningful image quality as part of reviews. It was a thing back when both companies were evolving AA methods, and it seems more relevant again now that we are upscaling results from a lower internal resolution. Console reviewers have been reporting internal resolutions for some time and in the short term it looks like PC gamers are going to have to put up with it until we have cards powerful enough to run RT.

I can't help but feel we've already hit most of the rasterised performance we need for a while, and would rather more silicon was dedicated to RT. I guess the neat thing about AMDs solution is it's not wasted silicon - if you're not using RT you can put it to improved rasterisation (for v high refresh rates perhaps).

Then we can get rid of offsite-based methods like DLSS - they're going to be inherently contemporary and will age horrendously - we're completely at the whim of nVidia/developers to support a game and generate the high quality stuff and NN models that get passed down in drivers, meaning it's likely to be out of the reach of small developers or old games.

[DanceswithUnix]

I remember decades ago a group review of sound cards in, I think, Computer Shopper where they did all the usual comparisons and concluded something along the lines, that the Creative Labs SoundBlaster actually distorted the sound quite a bit on purpose and failed at the strict comparison but sounded more pleasing to the ear.

I was going to say that sounded like the old valve amp thing, where they have lots of distortion but only of the pleasing to the ear kind not the harsh high harmonics.

[ilh]

I do. I actually object to the distasteful look of AIB cards and it's why I prefer the simple yet far more elegant designs of both Nvidia and AMD reference cards.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Once it's in the case I never look at it again. It's job is to produce pretty, not be pretty.

[Dribble]

But what about those who don't buy all the hype of DLSS 2.0?
That Eurogamer article Death Stranding PC: how next-gen AI upscaling beats native 4K sounds impressive but they are comparing 1440P DLSS upscaled against native 4K with TAA. Not against native 4K without AA, or 4K with SMAA.

So it is possible that DLSS just looks more pleasing to the eye than TAA.

I remember decades ago a group review of sound cards in, I think, Computer Shopper where they did all the usual comparisons and concluded something along the lines, that the Creative Labs SoundBlaster actually distorted the sound quite a bit on purpose and failed at the strict comparison but sounded more pleasing to the ear.

Point being: when using RT with DLSS 2.0 I wouldn't consider the resolution to be actually 4K or 8K any more, but would almost call them fake4K and fake8K.

Alternatively you could just accept DLSS works fine as the end result looks as good as not using it but with much better fps. It's a performance optimisation sure, but if you knew anything about renderering you would know all real time rendering is done with short cuts and optimisations, so it's no more fake then half the other things that are done behind the scenes.

[kalniel]

so it's no more fake then half the other things that are done behind the scenes.

Oh it absolutely is more fake. Almost every other rasterisation performance optimisation has no impact on final image quality. Newer things like VRS have a very marginal impact in the least important areas. Rendering at a lower resolution however impacts the whole scene.

But I agree - lets judge it on the final output, hence why image quality needs to come back to reviews.

[kompukare]

Then we can get rid of offsite-based methods like DLSS - they're going to be inherently contemporary and will age horrendously - we're completely at the whim of nVidia/developers to support a game and generate the high quality stuff and NN models that get passed down in drivers, meaning it's likely to be out of the reach of small developers or old games.

Hadn't even though about that. So 3dcandy's thinking that a card with DLSS will age better:

Factor in a couple of years and DLSS and ray tracing will help the 3090 whilst the Radeons will suffer, if you want raytracing and 4k/8k especially.

might be misplaced unless both the driver team and the game developers really puts in the extra work years from now.

[kalniel]

Well I think 'couple of years' is more like a near term prediction than a long term one. And it's a fair point if you're someone who changes cards regularly. So I'd agree that for the next two years, if you only play popular, new, AAA titles, then DLSS is great, especially at 4k/8k.

Long term, however, or if you play older or non AAA titles, then the case is less solid.