Quoting: ShmerlI think in a couple more GPU generations 4K will become feasible with good framerates without upscaling.

By that time they'll be marketing 16K may be, lol. But who cares ;)

4k runs just fine on current gen in most games, my 2070 super can hold 60fps in most games easily, even without DLSS. (though it's pretty borderline on many so I tend to keep it at 1440p to maintain 120+ fps) 3000/4000 series or 6800 series plus shouldn't have any issues for most unless you've got some config problems or the game just has terrible optimization.

VR with the index is 2880x1600 but requires 144fps to not be vomit inducing, so it actually takes a bit more power to render than 4k/60

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlNot sure if comparing tensor cores in the same mix really is helpful. Those are only useful for specialized workloads. So it's like comparing apples and oranges. But sure, number of cores is one way to mitigate weaker cores. That's what Intel is doing now in CPUs.

sorry, that was a mistype, it's cuda cores, I had tensor on the brain, been playing with AI lately.

(also I wouldn't say the tensor cores aren't really used, anything using DLSS2 is using them, so pretty much any modern AAA game)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlThat's not how I remember it. AMD had asynchronous compute and focus on parallelized workloads way before Nvidia and their hardware is better at it from what I know. May be something changed in the last generation, but I doubt AMD is planning to not compete in that area, it wouldn't make sense.

Yes and no, ATI IS better at parallelized workloads, which would make them much faster cards...but the nvidia cards while far less efficient have far more cores. The 4090 for instance uses 128 stream processors (similar to the 96 compute units on the 7900xtx) and 16384 general purpose tensor cores, compared to the roughly equivalent 6144 stream processors on the 7900 XTX. Historically ATI has been more efficient per-core, by quite a bit actually, nvidia literally just throws more hardware at the problem.

Direct comparison

               NV     |    ATI
Transistors    76.3B  |    58B
Cores          128    |    96
compute cores  16384  |    6528*  (ATI has multiple types, NV groups them as cuda cores, this is combined)
processing pow 82.6TF |    61TF

so you can kinda see just from this with around a third of the cores it's cores are MUCH more efficient and can do single precision operations pushing it to around ~75% the power of the NV card for around half the price, definitely the "most bang for the buck" out of the options on the market right now. Yeah it's not a direct comparison, there's more internal differences, but it shows why ATI gets such good performance for so much lower of a price.

I'm not really arguing for or against (I own Ati/Nv/and intel cards myself, I like ATI for HTPCs in particular), just analyzing that from previous card generations and the stats basically aligning the same in this card generation I expect to see about the same results. I'm basically calling right now you'll see pretty close in benchmarks at 1080/1440p high settings/current or last gen engine tech, possibly with ATI being faster, 4k/high settings without any newer vk1.3 features I think will be a dead heat, but as you scale to 8k/VR/newer features you'll start to see the drop off where NV pulls ahead.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: minfaerIt seems to me that the big deal here is actually the chiplet design. Sure, it's not several compute chiplets, but the whole point is they can build it cheaper by reducing chip surface in 5nm, having the memory controller separate.

It remains to be seen if that comes with a performance hit, I am highly curious :happy:

The 5nm is really the key to the lower price, 4nm is ABSURDLY expensive to produce and right now can only be done in extremely limited quantities, going 5nm and just sacrificing core count gives them a MUCH faster card than the last gen ATI but costs them less than 1/3 to produce. It'll be interesting to see what kind of coolers these cards get though, that's a big high wattage card for 5nm, it's going to need some beefy cooling. I hope this next gen in general we see more of the hybrid self-contained watercooling cards that were around in the 2xxx series, I love those, they run near silent...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlNot sure what that means. Compute units are compute units. They are either faster or not. More complex computation is going to be more taxing on any hardware. I think AMD was beating Nvidia already in RDNA 2 in their compute units throughput and efficiency though. The only advantage Nvidia had were better ray tracing ASICs.

ATI's design focuses more on fast, but fewer units, and a very thin/fast driver layer. They tend to beat nvidia in speed on a per-thread basis, but nvidia's approach is more of "tons of general purpose cores", basically the more parallel you can make the task the more advantage to nv's approach. You can see this in the 2xxx and 3xxx series benchmarks as well where the ATI cards tend to do better for a lot of operations but fall off hard once you start introducing newer engines/lighting/etc that can actually make use of the NV card properly. Obviously this won't affect everyone, if you want the best card for 1080p/1440p high settings for the price, the ATI will win hands down, but I fully expect VR/Ray Tracing/newer engines like UE5 for the NV cards to pull way ahead.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: raptor85Not sure why it keeps getting said that the 4xxx series is using a lot more power, it's the same average/max power as the 3xxx series just with a new connector

From what I've read, 4000 series bumped power supply requirements. So unless someone was mistaken, it means they do draw more power.

Official power specs from Nvidia show 3090 and 4090 have the exact same power requirements, but the 4090 actually has a better power curve (4nm process is far more power efficient than the 3xxx series 8nm process) meaning it'll draw less for like-operations as it ramps up. I think part of the confusion is right now they've only launched the 4090 and 4080 and they're being compared to the 3050/3070 which were FAR lower TDP cards than the 3080/3090

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlWhat's especially nice is that they didn't increase board power (so same TDP as before), unlike Nvidia. So no need for those humongous GPUs with power draw issues.

Not sure why it keeps getting said that the 4xxx series is using a lot more power, it's the same average/max power as the 3xxx series just with a new connector, to the watt (both the 3090 and 4090 are 450 watt cards, the other series also match wattage) the 850 watts is just recommended minimum in a common system setup, like the ATI one has a recommended minimum 800 watts. A lot of the overheat issues on the connectors are actually bend radius/cable stress issues, which is one thing I don't like about either ATI or NV, and I hope both new card series get a power buss adapter at some point to remove strain off the cables. 5nm process actually means this ATI card should be slightly LESS efficient, I would assume from posted specs the tradeoff is in mostly the core count and compute/RT capabilities. I would imagine in just raw raster this card will be damned good but once you get into more advanced lighting/higher resolutions or newer engines that can offload more calculations to the graphics card/render scenes from multiple threads this will quickly fall behind the nvidia cards, which is pretty in-line with previous card generations. That's my prediction based on the specs posted from both card series anyways, it'll be interesting to see some proper benchmarks.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'd be upset if there weren't dozens of other VERY similar (if not better, at least I liked 7 Days To Die a lot more) games that run perfectly fine on Linux.

7 days to die and Ark in particular are just "rust but better", and both have well supported linux clients. Rust was never that good, it was just pretty early in the survival game wave, half the shit in it is unimplemented or half-implemented because gary could never decide what he wanted the game to be so he kept ripping out everything and starting over.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Honestly the whole talk about horde games has me installing Ut2k4 again for some invasion, lol, I used to be able to play that for HOURS every night online.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: const

Quoting: RustyTo be fair to glibc, this is a problem on the part of Epic using the deprecated DT_HASH instead of DT_GNU_HASH. EAC's Linux implementation is frustratingly half-baked. It really feels like Epic is the biggest barrier to gaming on Linux now.

Question is: why does glibc constantly break the API(/ABI)? It's a damn c library and should be backwards compatible. If at all, functions should be altered on major releases, so distributions have a chance to handle such stuff. Couldn't they just have redirected that damn call? It's really infuriating they don't care for backwards compatibility at all and this hurts linux in many ways.

it doesn't constantly break though, things like this have been deprecated for over a decade before removal, everyone else stopped using it before EAC even began development.

View this comment - View article - View full comments