this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
368 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
72442 readers
2175 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My mind is still blown on why people are so interested in spending 2x the cost of the entire machine they are playing on AND a hefty power utility bill to run these awful products from Nvidia. Generational improvements are minor on the performance side, and fucking AWFUL on the product and efficiency side. You'd think people would have learned their lessons a decade ago.
they pay because AMD (or any other for that matter) has no product to compete with a 5080 or 5090
That’s exactly it, they have no competition at the high end
Because they choose not to go full idiot though. They could make their top-line cards to compete if they slam enough into a pipeline and require a dedicated PSU to compete, but that's not where their product line intends to go. That's why it's smart.
For reference: AMD has the most deployed GPUs on the planet as of right now. There's a reason why it's in every gaming console except Switch 1/2, and why OpenAI just partnered with them for chips. The goal shouldn't just making a product that churns out results at the cost of everything else does, but to be cost-effective and efficient. Nvidia fails at that on every level.
this openai partnership really stands out, because the server world is dominated by nvidia, even more than in consumer cards.
Yup. You want a server? Dell just plain doesn't offer anything but Nvidia cards. You want to build your own? The GPGPU stuff like zluda is brand new and not really supported by anyone. You want to participate in the development community, you buy Nvidia and use CUDA.
Fortunately, even that tide is shifting.
I've been talking to Dell about it recently, they've just announced new servers (releasing later this year) which can have either Nvidia's B300 or AMD's MI355x GPUs. Available in a hilarious 19" 10RU air-cooled form factor (XE9685), or ORv3 3OU water-cooled (XE9685L).
It's the first time they've offered a system using both CPU and GPU from AMD - previously they had some Intel CPU / AMD GPU options, and AMD CPU / Nvidia GPU, but never before AMD / AMD.
With AMD promising release day support for PyTorch and other popular programming libraries, we're also part-way there on software. I'm not going to pretend like needing CUDA isn't still a massive hump in the road, but "everyone uses CUDA" <-> "everyone needs CUDA" is one hell of a chicken-and-egg problem which isn't getting solved overnight.
Realistically facing that kind of uphill battle, AMD is just going to have to compete on price - they're quoting 40% performance/dollar improvement over Nvidia for these upcoming GPUs, so perhaps they are - and trying to win hearts and minds with rock-solid driver/software support so people who do have the option (ie in-house code, not 3rd-party software) look to write it with not-CUDA.
To note, this is the 3rd generation of the MI3xx series (MI300, MI325, now MI350/355). I think it might be the first one to make the market splash that AMD has been hoping for.
AMD’s also apparently unifying their server and consumer gpu departments for RDNA5/UDNA iirc, which I’m really hoping helps with this too
I know Dell has been doing a lot of AMD CPUs recently, and those have definitely been beating Intel, so hopefully this continues. But I'll believe it when I see it. Often, these things rarely pan out in terms of price/performance and support.
Then why does Nvidia have so much more money?
I have overclocked my AMD 7900XTX as far as it will go on air alone.
Undervolted every step on the frequency curve, cranked up the power, 100% fan duty cycles.
At it's absolute best, it's competitive or trades blows with the 4090D, and is 6% slower than the RTX 4090 Founder's Edition (the slowest of the stock 4090 lineup).
The fastest AMD card is equivalent to a 4080 Super, and the next gen hasn't shown anything new.
AMD needs a 5090-killer. Dual socket or whatever monstrosity which pulls 800W, but it needs to slap that greenbo with at least a 20-50% lead in frame rates across all titles, including raytraced. Then we'll see some serious price cuts and competition.
What do you even need those graphics cards for?
Even the best games don't require those and if they did, I wouldn't be interested in them, especially if it's an online game.
Probably only a couple people would be playing said game with me.
Once the 9070 dropped all arguments for Nvidia stopped being worthy of consideration outside of very niche/fringe needs.
Got my 9070XT at retail (well retail + VAT but thats retail for my country) and my entire PC costs less than a 5090.
Yeah I got a 9070 + 9800x3d for around $1100 all-in. Couldn’t be happier with the performance. Expedition 33 running max settings at 3440x1440 and 80-90fps
But your performance isn’t even close to that of a 5090…….
80-90 fps @ 1440 isn’t great. That’s like last gen mid tier nvidia gpu performance.
Not 1440 like you’re thinking. 3440x1440 is 20% more pixel to render than standard 2560x1440’s. It’s a WS. And yes at max settings 80-90fps is pretty damn good. It regularly goes over 100 in less busy environments.
And yeah it’s not matching a 5090, a graphics card that costs more than 3x mine and sure as hell isn’t giving 3x the performance.
You’re moving the goalposts. My point is for 1/4th the cost you’re getting 60-80% of the performance of overpriced, massive, power hungry Nvidia cards (depending on what model you want to compare to). Bang for buck, AMD smokes Nvidia. It’s not even close.
Unless cost isn’t a barrier to you or you have very specific needs they make no sense to buy. If you’ve got disposable income for days then fuck it buy away.
I assume people mean 3440x1440 when they say 1440 as it’s way more common than 2560x1440.
Your card is comparable to a 5070, which is basically the same price as yours. There’s no doubt the 5080 and 5090 are disappointing in their performance compared to these mid-high cards, but your card can’t compete with them and nvidia offer a comparable card at the same price point as AMDs best card.
Also the AMD card uses more power than the nvidia equivalent (9700xt vs 5070).
Most people do not use WS as evidenced by the mixed bag support it gets. 1440 monitors are by default understood to be 2560x1440p as it’s 16:9 which is still considered the “default” by the vast majority of businesses and people alike. You may operate as if most people using 1440+ are on WS but that’s a very atypical assumption.
Raytracing sure but otherwise the 4090 is actually better than the 5070 in many respects. So you’re paying a comparable price for Raytracing and windows dependency, which if that is important to you then go right ahead. Ultimately though my point is that there is no point in buying the insanely overpriced Nvidia offerings when you have excellent AMD offerings for a fraction of the price that don’t have all sorts of little pitfalls/compromises. The Nvidia headaches are worth it for performance, which unless you 3-4x your investment you’re not getting more of. So the 5070 is moot.
I’m not sure what you’re comparing at the end unless you meant a 9070XT which I don’t use/have and wasn’t comparing.
Sorry I thought I read you had the 9070 XT, which is better than the 9070 that you have. The 9070 and the 5070 are the same price, and are neck and neck in performance , so the nvidia card isn't "insanely overpriced" compared to AMDs offerings, is it? The 9070 isn't a "fraction of the price" of the equivalent nvidia card, it's the same price.
As you said, there are 40 series cards that are better than the 50 series cards apart from probably the 5090, and the prices on those is cheaper than the 9070.
Better bang for your buck, but way less bang and not as impressive of a bang.
Not all of us can afford to spend $3000 for a noticeable but still not massive performance bump over a $700 option. I don’t really understand how this is so difficult to understand lol. You also have to increase the rest of your machine cost for things like your PSU, because the draw on the 5xxx series is cracked out. Motherboard, CPU, all of that has to be cranked up unless you want bottlenecks. Don’t forget your high end 165hz monitor unless you want to waste frames/colors. And are we really going to pretend after 100fps the difference is that big of a deal?
Going Nvidia also means unless you want to be fighting your machine all the time, you need to keep a Windows partition on your computer. Have fun with that.
At the end of the day buy what you want dude, but I’m pulling down what I said above on a machine that cost about $1700. Do with that what you will
@RazgrizOne @FreedomAdvocate the reason why i decided for AMD after being nearly all my life team green ( aka >20 years ) , i feel like AI Frame Generation and Upscalling are anti consumer cause the hide the real performance behind none reproducable image generation. And if you look correctly ... this is how nvidia has a performance lead over AMD.
Calling DLSS "anti consumer" is one of the dumbest things I've read about PC gaming in a long time.
@FreedomAdvocate you remember the time when AMD was called out for even the smallest of difference from a default render ? Now since nvidia basically use some kind of statistic guessing method -> Noone is allowed to call them out ?
I call them out cause basically they removed the possibility for any consumer to compare other graphics card with themself. Or did i miss nvidia making dlss / frametime generation and all the features available on other gpu brands ?
Do you know AI Models behind all this and how they would perform on other hardware ? Do we want to talk about how they try to force media to have access to tests ? Yes imho there is alot anti consumer here ...
No, I don’t remember that. What are you talking about?
Why would Nvidia make DLSS work on other brands hardware? It’s hardware dependant btw - it needs their cuda cores.
@FreedomAdvocate ... this question is totally unimportant for the fact that their current behaivior is not very consumer friendly or harder expressed anti consumer.
Second cuda is not hardware dependend ;) https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA/tree/master | https://www.xda-developers.com/nvidia-cuda-amd-zluda/
"Imagine a world where noone needed a brand specific addition to have modern features" ... oh those ideas exist since centuries ( DX / OpenGL / Vulkan .... ) ... now ask yourself why nvidia always tries to operate outside of those api's ?
....
That's essentially an emulation layer. Nvidia make DLSS specifically for their GPUs, which have CUDA cores on them. It's the reason why DLSS doesn't work on their pre-CUDA core hardware.
Could they make DLSS work on AMDs hardware? Sure, they could - but it would not be DLSS as we know it, and again - why would they? They are allowed to make stuff exclusively for their hardware.
@FreedomAdvocate https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/ati-cheating-on-benchmarks.877565/
read about that when they got grilled in the early 2000s
And how much nvidia influences media ->
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Nvidia-significantly-influences-early-tests-of-the-GeForce-RTX-5060-10388613.html
But nvidia got dragged across the coals for using frame-gen in their performance benchmarks too. Did you miss that?
Also ATI wasn't owned by AMD then.....AMD aquired ATI in 2006. Your link is from 2001.
Also no one should be listening to official GPU manufacturer benchmark results. No one. Review companies do their own benchmarking, and you do know that you can turn off DLSS and DLSS Frame-Gen, don't you? I haven't seen any reviewers only compare DLSS+Frame-Gen on an nvidia card to native-with-no-frame-gen on AMD cards. You must have, so can you link to any?
I’m not even against tricks like upscaling and such to be honest. If it looks good I’ll take it lol. But I do agree they don’t feel like long-term, hardened solutions vs something more like “raw performance.” And there’s no doubt There is a certain elegance to AMD’s cards
What exactly do you mean by this?
Well, to be fair the 10 series was actually an impressive improvement to what was available. Since then I switched to AMD for better SW support. I know since then the improvements have dwindled.
AMD is at least running the smart game on their hardware releases with generational leaps instead of just jacking up power requirements and clock speeds as Nvidia does. Hell, even Nvidia's latest lines of Jetson are just recooked versions from years ago.
AMD could only do that because they were so far behind. GPU manufacturers, at least nvidia, are approaching the limits of what they can do with current fabrication technology other than simply throwing "more" at it. Without a breakthrough in tech all they can really do is jack up power requirements and clock speeds. AMD will be there soon too.
Cause numbers go brrrrrrrrr
But but but but but my shadows look 3% more realistic now!
The best part is, for me, ray tracing looks great. When I'm standing there and slowly looking around.
When I'm running and gunning and shits exploding, I don't think the human eye is even capable of comprehending the difference between raster and ray tracing at that point.
It absolutely is, because Ray tracing isn’t just about how precise or good the reflections/shadows look, it’s also about reflecting/getting shadows from things that are outside of your field of view. That’s the biggest difference.
One of the first “holy shit!” moments for me was playing doom I think it was, and walking down a corridor and being able to see that there were enemies around the corner by seeing their reflection on the opposite wall. That’s never been possible before, and it’s only possible thanks to raytracing. Same with being able to see shadows from enemies that are behind you out of screen to the side.
Yeah, that's what's always bothered me about the drive for the highest-fidelity graphics possible. In motion, those details are only visible for a frame or two in most cases.
For instance, some of the PC mods I've seen for Cyberpunk 2077 look absolutely gorgeous... in screenshots. But once you get into a car and start driving or get into combat, it looks nearly indistinguishable from what I see playing the vanilla game on my PS5.