First DX12 gaming benchmark shows R9 290X going toe-to-toe with a GTX 980 Ti.
Shaz from GL writes: "AMD could spur the beginning of a new era in handheld gaming with their upcoming APUs"
To me the most important hardware is the battery. Doesn’t matter how powerful the chips are.
Eh…. It’s a combination of multiple things.
The battery is hugely important as it allows you to have ideally 4 - 5 hour gaming sessions.
The more powerful the processor the more games developers can share to the handheld, nd of course the better said games perform.
From there display, software, and ergonomics matter, as a good display/software will allow games to be more vivid, run at variable fps 30/40/60 ideally, and good ergonomics means it’s comfortable to play for said 4 - 5 hours. Everything else is gravy at that point.
I know we all want more power. But it’s sad that 4-5 hours is considered good now. It really shows how batteries have progressed at a much slower pace than hungry components.
Of course it matters how powerful the chips are for it to be future proof. Don't you want to be able to play new games?
the Switch proves that you don't need the most cutting edge power out there to be successful.
@Neonrdr that doesn't prove anything because only Nintendo could get away with that. Their games aren't the most complex/graphically ambitious and Nintendo fans don't care.
@Neonridr
If anything, the Switch proves the exact point "redrum06" was making. Yes, it might be successful, but it's definitely not future-proof. Just look at how many games and franchises completely skip the platform.
I have a Switch, and recently got the Legion Go. I havent touched the Switch ever since, purely because of its inability to play even older games at a decent frame rate. For anyone wanting to play multiplatform games as well, people should skip the Switch.
There’s no way you’re getting that 40CU 16-core APU in a handheld. That’s too hot and power hungry for that. The highest end APU they’re suggesting is going to end up in gaming laptops that can cool a 100W chip.
I think these articles get things a little out of perspective, Steam Deck has sold around 3 million and Switch has sold 140 million. But if you are browsing certain parts internet you'd think the Steam Deck had sold over 100 million. If articles are going to continue to circulate like this and continue to put the Steam Deck in the same arena then I'm comfortable calling the device a flop.
Steam Deck, while considerably more popular due to it's lower barrier of entry, is still a niche device with the likes of the ROG Ally and others.
I own one and it's really nice to be able to play some games on the go or in bed, but it'll never fully compete with a system like the Switch.
Especially when they're not in the same price range, the Switch is considerably cheaper.
sure but theres still a limit to what u can put in there ha. power consumption would be the biggest hurdle. and cooling.
I wana try out a pc handheld but I would like to experience a steady framerate etc I don't wana have to keep going into my settings trying to make things smoother in gameplay, that's the only thing that's been keepin me from getting one I've heard others having to go into the settings time from time that'll be annoying
Poor Xbox sales have affected AMD’S bottom line
Oh wow. How surprising! Nvidia overpriced their RTX cards by +100% and AMD instead of offering real competition, decided to join Nvidia in their greedy approach, while not having the same mindshare as Nvidia (sadly) does. The 7900 launch was a marketing disaster. All the reviews were made while the card was not worth the money at all, they lowered the price a bit later on, but not only not enough but also too late and out of "free marketing" window coming along with the new card generation release. Then the geniuses at AMD axed the high-end SKUs with increased cache etc, cause "nobody will buy expensive cards to play games" while Nvidia laughed at them selling their 2000€ 4090s.
Intel had all the mindshare among PC enthusiasts with their CPUs. All it took was a competetive product and good price (Ryzen 7000 series and especially 7800x3d) and guess what? AMD regained the market share in DYI PCs in no time! The same could've have happened with Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000 and Radeon 7000.
But meh. Why bother. Let's cancell high-end RDNA 4 and use the TSMC wafers for AI and then let the clueless "analysts" make their articles about "gaming demand dwingling".
I'm sure low-end, very overpriced and barely faster if not slower RDNA4 will turn things around. It will have AI and RT! Two things nobody asked for, especially not gamers who'd like to use the PC for what's most exciting about PC gaming (VR, high framerate gaming, hi-res gaming).
8000 series will be slow, overpriced and marketed based on its much improved RT/AI... and it will flop badly.
And there will be no sane conclusions made at AMD about that. There will be just one, insane: Gaming is not worth catering to. Let's go into AI/RT instead, what could go wrong..."
That's a complicated question. Depends on what you mean. The pricing at the release date or the pricing planned ahead. They couldn't just suddenly end up in a situation where their existing stock of 6000 cards is suddenly unsellable, but if it was properly rolled out, the prices should be where they were while PC gaming industry was healthy. I recognize the arguments about inflation, higher power draw and PCB/BOM costs, more expensive wafers from TSMC etc. but still, PC gaming needs some sanity to exist and be healthy. Past few years were very unhealthy and dangerous to whole PC gaming. AMD should recognize this market is very good for them as they have advantage in software for gaming and other markets while attractive short term, may be just too difficult to compete at. AI is the modern day gold rush and Nvidia and Intel can easily out-spend AMD on R&D. Meanwhile gaming is tricky for newcomers and Nvidia doesn't seem to care that much about gaming anymore. So I would argue that it should be in AMDs interest to even sell some Radeon SKUs at zero profit, just to prevent the PC gaming from collapsing. Cards like 6400 and 6500 should never exist at their prices. This tier was traditionally "office only" and priced at 50$ in early 2000s. Then we have Radeons 7600 which is not really 6-tier card. Those were traditionally quite performant cards based on wider than 128-bit memory bus. Also 8GB is screaming "low end". So I'd say the 7600 should've been available at below 200$ (+taxes etc.) as soon as possible, at least for some cheaper SKUs.For faster cards, the situation is bad for AMD, because people spending like $400+ are usually fairly knowledgable and demanding. While personally I don't see any value in upscallers and RT for 400-700$ cards, the fact is that especially DLSS is a valuable feature for potential buyers. Therefore, even 7800 and 7900 cards should be significantly cheaper than they currently are. People knew what they were paying for when buying Radeon 9700, 9800, X800, 4870 etc. They were getting gaming experience truly unlike console or low-end PC gaming. By all means, let's have expensive AMD cards for even above $1000, but first, AMD needs to show value. Make the product attractive. PS5 consoles can be bought at 400$. If AMD offers just a slightly better upscalled image on the 400$ GPU, or their 900$ GPU cannot even push 3x as many fps compared to cheap consoles, the pricing acts like cancer on PC gaming. And poor old PC gaming can endure only so much.
I appreciate your rant sir, but it has very little to do with gpus. It is the fact that the PS5 and Xbox are in end cycle before a refresh.
Yes, but also no. AMD let their PC GPU marketshare to shrink by a lot (and accidentally helped the whole market shrink in general due to bad value of PC GPUs over the years) and while their console business may be important here, I'd still argue their profits from GPU division could've been much better if not for mismanagement.
This is something many have argued over the last few years when it comes to AMD. The days of them selling their cards at a slight discount while having a similar offering are over. Its not just a matter of poor drivers anymore, they are behind on everything.
Great post. I went for a Nvidia RTX 3060Ti which was insane value for money when I look at the fidelity and frame rates I can push in most games including new releases. Can't justify spending 3 times what my card cost at the time to get marginal better returns or the big sell of "ray tracing", which is a nice to have feature but hardly essential given what it costs to maintain.
Replies(1)
Well that's gonna happen when you don't really try. I want to support AMD so badly and give Nvidia some actual competition but they don't very much seem interested in challenging, by their own accord. I been waiting for them to attack the GPU segment the same way they took over CPU, but they just seem so content with handing Nvidia the market year after year, and it's happening again this year with their cancelled high end card.
I think you're going to see almost zero interest from AMD or Nvidia on the gaming GPU market. They are all in on AI.
What are smoking? Got to layoff your way to those bonuses. Fire 500 employees right before Christmas. That should get you there.
Well, if you are 48% down in Q4 in your Gaming sector as they are, which in absolute money terms is north of 500M USD, then you are not likely to get at least your quarterly STI, but can be applicable for annual STI. The LTI may be something you are still eligible for, such as RSUs or other equity and benefits, especially if they are based on the company total result rather than your unit. All depends on your contract and AMD's reward system.
Lisa Su took AMD from bankruptcy to one of the best semiconductor companies on the planet. AMD from 2 dollars a share to 147. She can take whatever she wants.
You are not wrong about what she did for AMD and that is remarkable. However, MNCs' Rewards schemes do not work like "take whatever you want, because you performed well in the past".
AMD prcied their cards thinking that they will sell out just like in the mining craze. I suspect reality has hit home when they realized most gamers cannot afford to spend over $500 for a gpu.
AMD has long been the best value option if you're looking for a new GPU. Now even their latest Radeon RX 7000 series is getting cheaper.
In the past yes but last gen amd has gotten cheaper and there new cards are on the horizon making 6k even cheaper.
The arc cards are no longer made by intel but asus/asrock has some the next line battlemage is coming out prices tbd.
Do to the longer software development its always best to go amd over intel if its not to much more money even though intel is a strong gpu i own 2/4 card versions.
The only reason I don't buy AMD cards is because of power consumption. Unfortunatly thats one important part of my choice.
I would consider going amd if their freesync gave me a big enough advantage vs the money, maybe 15 fps I'm not sure.
I don't have a Gsync monitor but I wonder if there is not value there. If I could gain 15 or so fps just by a monitor that would be nice.
I've had a titan for years and several 4k tvs, but would like to see an affordable vsync solution in a 4k tv. If all things being nearly equal a vsync option would push me in 1 direction for my next setup.
I like the extra features GeForce brings to the table. This benchmark is the first game made with dx12 and it's not even the final version. Team green has engineers working round the clock on some new drivers.
I'm willing to wait and see.
Way too early to give a win to anyone or flame the NVidia AMD fanboy wars. Let's wait for optimization and games before declaring a winner. From the article the only thing DX12 accomplished was increasing AMD GPU's to NVidia levels. I hope DX12 does more than that.
Nvidia do great driver support so I expect them to be working overtime enhancing dx12 on their cards.