Perhaps that is when ATI slowly started to improve. The Rage 128 Pro was the first thing they released that I started to see they were making progress, and then the first Radeon showed even more promise. It wasn't until the Radeon 9700 Pro that they released something Amazing.

I'd guess that very few people out there honestly remember Glaze3D, and about 90% of them post here, haha.

It's not a badge of honor, it was utter vaporware. We were all skeptical, but their claims were unique and I wanted them to be true. AMD acquired them, haha. Or ATI, back then, I forgot which.

Oh...I was running a 3D accelerator web publication during the 90's. I was married, with a child, and in the Air Force. I was really ONLY into 3D cards back then. Those days were much more exciting then today, as there was dozens of competitors in the 3D market, and new features came out left and right. It is amazing how far we come, but if you had told me only ATI (AMD), and Nvidia would be left standing 25 years later, I would have thought you were nuts...especially that ATI(AMD) would still be around, because they were terrible! I was super sad then 3Dfx went under and was bought up by Nvidia. I also liked Rendition. Technically Intel is still around, but they were not a player in that market really, and PowerVR is also still around, but they are only in the mobile market now. GL-Quake on my Voodoo1 changed my life!

Gen3D wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 20:52:
You would have had to be around during the 1990's to get the Bitboys, Glaze3D reference. I so wanted the Glaze3D to have actually been made, but I don't think it ever got pass the simulation phase of development.

I was definitely around in the 90s, however the world was different place then. The internet was just getting off it's feet and I was more into guitar, girls and metal/alternative rock and only starting to get into Doom, Quake etc.

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 21:53:

jacobvandy wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 19:08:

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 19:00:
I like how conclusions state this isn't really a 4K card but the next gen consoles somehow are touting 4K/60 no sweat with lesser HW?

They're touting 4K/60 in the same way NVIDIA is touting 8K. Which is to say, it's marketing drivel. The games won't hit that target unless sacrifices are made somewhere, in native resolution or graphical detail.

We'll no soon. This is the oddest HW release period ever. We have next gen consoles coming out shortly. I don't think I've ever seen a generation come in so silently and not because the HW is bad, just odd.

If they are being conservative with the hype, it's probably since it's been such a struggle for them to launch at all this year. There's a shortage of the hardware as well as the big-name games that were supposed to launch at the same time, but they really don't want to miss out on whatever blood they can squeeze from the stone this holiday shopping period. And it's the same sort of situation for NVIDIA because they want to rain on AMD's parade as much as they possibly can, despite how much it's pissing off early adopters.

At any rate, it's already confirmed that many AAA titles are targeting 30fps rather than 60. Every developer of an upcoming game is made to choose no more than two out of the following three: 4K resolution, higher framerate, or next-gen levels of detail (ray-tracing, etc). Some are supporting more than one configuration, to let the player choose whether they prefer quality or performance, and others are setting different targets for different game modes. But 4K/60 as a standard across the board isn't here yet.

jacobvandy wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 19:08:

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 19:00:
I like how conclusions state this isn't really a 4K card but the next gen consoles somehow are touting 4K/60 no sweat with lesser HW?

They're touting 4K/60 in the same way NVIDIA is touting 8K. Which is to say, it's marketing drivel. The games won't hit that target unless sacrifices are made somewhere, in native resolution or graphical detail.

We'll know soon. This is the oddest HW release period ever. We have next gen consoles coming out shortly. I don't think I've ever seen a generation come in so silently and not because the HW is bad, just odd.

This comment was edited on Oct 27, 2020, 23:06.

You would have had to be around during the 1990's to get the Bitboys, Glaze3D reference. I so wanted the Glaze3D to have actually been made, but I don't think it ever got pass the simulation phase of development.

So are the resource constraints from nV constraining supply or are the bitcoin miners still blitzing GPUs?

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 19:00:
I like how conclusions state this isn't really a 4K card but the next gen consoles somehow are touting 4K/60 no sweat with lesser HW?

They're touting 4K/60 in the same way NVIDIA is touting 8K. Which is to say, it's marketing drivel. The games won't hit that target unless sacrifices are made somewhere, in native resolution or graphical detail.

I like how conclusions state this isn't really a 4K card but the next gen consoles somehow are touting 4K/60 no sweat with lesser HW?

Wallshadows wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:33:

Ozmodan wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:16:
What most of these challenged reviewers don't get is that very few of us play games at 4k. First off a decent 4k monitor cost more than the computer, 2nd, FPS is far more important than resolution in most games and 3rdly, how many of us are going to spend $550+ on a graphics card, when less expensive ones do the trick?

4k is this weird beast which has become the go-to metric in spite of the fact that very very few people use it and, as Steve from GamersNexus said, the posts are continuously being moved with each generation. They still include trickle down benchmarks for 1440p and 1080p so that's always great but the big selling point in the case of the 3070 is that it's able to do what the 2080 Ti could (roughly) do for $700 less across the board so they really want to put emphasis on the cost to performance.

It's important because that is the standard now for TV's and the consoles will be doing 4k/60 on AAA games from what I'm reading today.

I'd like for 8k not to happen for a long long time, because even 4K puts a ton of stress on games. I'd love to have more going on in game than just bumping up resolution and that eating up all the performance. Sometimes I wonder if I only get a small amount of baddies on screen because they are concerned about all the HW being able to play it satisfactorily. I've felt we've been held back in better game play because of say last gen consoles.

Ozmodan wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:16:
What most of these challenged reviewers don't get is that very few of us play games at 4k. First off a decent 4k monitor cost more than the computer, 2nd, FPS is far more important than resolution in most games and 3rdly, how many of us are going to spend $550+ on a graphics card, when less expensive ones do the trick?

To the last question there are a lot of people that will spend $700 and more, they can't make them fast enough. People spend money on their pc's. I'm either a 3070/3080 someday or Big Navi, but I suspect whatever I buy will be $450+.

VaranDragon wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 11:50:
So it's 500$. Yeah, if AMD can match that performance and undercut it by say 50$ it's game over man, game over!

If that were the case then how does one value DLSS and better overall compatibility? Then the obvious availability. I'm wanting to hear beyond just the raw numbers the other things AMD can do that Nvidia can.

Beamer wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:52:

VaranDragon wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:02:

Beamer wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 11:57:

VaranDragon wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 11:50:
So it's 500$. Yeah, if AMD can match that performance and undercut it by say 50$ it's game over man, game over!

And if the bitboys can release glaze3d with twice the performance for half the price it's really game over, unless intel releases larrabbee with thrice the performance for a third the price!

Not sure what the reference is, but you're making it seem like it's going to be impossible for AMD to compete with Nvidia while at the same time making fun of me? On another note I just noticed that the 3070 features GDDR6 memory, and not the high speed 6x of the 3080.

I'm just laughing at the two ifs. IF they can match and IF they underprice THEN NVIDIA is in trouble.
Two "ifs" kind of make me laugh, because at the most simple case, it's one of 4 scenarios.

And IF they can do it without making a card that sounds like a jet engine taking off, and IF they can do without making a card that's secondary function is a furnace... then yes, NVIDIA is in some serious trouble!

I'm rooting for AMD though, but their cards usually have some serious drawbacks.

AMD's newer Ryzen's are awesome though, so hopefully they can finally work the same magic on their GPU department.

Beamer wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:52:
I'm just laughing at the two ifs. IF they can match and IF they underprice THEN NVIDIA is in trouble.
Two "ifs" kind of make me laugh, because at the most simple case, it's one of 4 scenarios.

Right now, though, all AMD has to do is ship anything in quantity and nVidia is beaten soundly...;)

VaranDragon wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 14:51:
I guess we will know more tomorrow, and while Beamer and Redeye believe that AMD simply matching Nvidia's price/performance will be enough for them to take the crown they are not taking into account that Nvidia has been king of the hill for years. Depending on availability, I think that most people will still stick with Nvidia if that happens to be the case.

No no no, that wasn't what I was saying.
I was just commenting that you had two Ifs. One If is something you can bank on. Each additional If makes a statement kind of funnier.

If I go to the store tomorrow and If I remember to buy a lottery ticket and If the prize is over $2B and If I win and If no one else wins I'm a billionaire.
Yours only had two, but it still struck me as a kind of funny statement, is all.

My PC has an NVIDIA right now, my last PC had an NVIDIA, and my next will probably have an NVIDIA, unless your two Ifs come to play, and then it won't. I don't really prefer either vendor, I just go with whichever has the best in the price range I'm aiming.

theglaze wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 15:10:
4K monitors aren't that great either, and you gotta spend big bucks to get under 5ms.

I have a $385 Samsung 4k monitor that's 1ms, 60Hz. As long as I'm not playing AAA games, I can run just about everything at full detail at 4k, 60fps with my 1080TI. It's substantially better than my secondary 1440p monitor for about 85% of what I play.

I'm primarily playing Strategy games and Indy games, tho. No chance I could play RDR2 or AC Odyssey at full res/detail, so they get played on the 1440p screen.

Ozmodan wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:16:
What most of these challenged reviewers don't get is that very few of us play games at 4k. First off a decent 4k monitor cost more than the computer, 2nd, FPS is far more important than resolution in most games and 3rdly, how many of us are going to spend $550+ on a graphics card, when less expensive ones do the trick?

Check out the BenQ EW-3270U HDR10 4k...about ~$440 Amazon. Worth every penny...;) I really like mine.

RedEye9 wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 12:36:
I may be wrong, but that would make it the first time in my life I was ever wrong, but the point I think Beamer is trying to make is why does AMD have to be cheaper by any amount if it performs as well or better than an Nvidia product.

Because they have a fairly bad reputation driver-wise? (deserved or not, depending on who you listen to)

It would take a decent discount over nVidia for the "same-ish performance card" to get me to consider switching to an AMD GPU.
CPU? I'm already on board with AMD and applaud their advancements. But their GPU department needs to put out some good faith (Discount + Solid drivers for a good length of time) in order to get some of nVidia's market.

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Oct 27, 2020, 14:42:
TVs > Monitors and monitors are crazy expensive for some stupid fucking reason.

Input lag and response time. TVs are slow, with at least 10ms of lag and low Hz.

The TV does a lot of correction via post-processing to provide smooth, clear, and vibrant images. That increases latency from your mouse/controller to the screen from 10ms to 30, 60, or even 100ms. Most TVs have a "Game Mode" for that reason, improving latency, but with significant image degradation. RTINGS considers this Samsung to be one of the best budget 4k TVs, but all 4K TVs I've used are still too laggy for 2D platformers like Dead Cells or Noita, and the lag in FPS gaming makes me feel drunk.

4K monitors aren't that great either, and you gotta spend big bucks to get under 5ms.