• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Honest ray-tracing performance?

Zathalus

Member
Jul 16, 2020
598
1,360
395
That’s 19%. 118/99. Which changes almost nothing.
PS5: 1
XSX: 1.19
3080: 2 to 2.14

It would need 2.23GHz on 80 CU’s and a linear increase of 2x to the rest and even still, it probably wouldn’t match a 3080. Good luck with that.

I was using the Asus numbers as it compares coolers with the same performance. I'm also not using any of the even better AIB models such as the Sapphire version, because that narrows the gap by a view more percent. But sure, the 1% difference doesn't really alter my point significantly.

I'm also not sure why you are putting 1 and 1.19 for the console performance against the 3080, as they do not take any RDNA 2 IPC gains into account. Which we know exists.

So even using the metric of 19% the 3080 is still only a hair over twice as fast as the stock blower 5700 XT. The target for desktop big Navi RDNA 2 to match the 3080 is twice the 5700 XT. So if we break this down a bit.

The 5700 XT is running 40 CUs at roughly 1900Mhz with 448 Gbps memory that is achieved over a 256 bit bus and 14Gbps GDDR6. Working it out, it is 9.7 TFLOPs.

A hypothetical 80 CU 6900 XT at 2090 Mhz (+10% frequency) with 864 Gbps memory that is achieved over a 384 bit bus and 18Gbps GDDR6. Working it out, it is 21.4 TFLOPs. This meshes with the increased clock speeds RDNA 2 is supposed to have. Historically the frequency gains for AMD have generally been around the same when moving to a better process node. RX 480 -> RX 580 -> RX 590 for example, and that was the exact same architecture.

Thus a 2.2 straight boost over the 5700 XT in raw TFLOP numbers, and and 1.92 boost in memory bandwidth.

Assuming a rather meager 6% IPC bump to be in line with Turing(and the assumed Gears 5 performance numbers), that 21.4 TFLOPs number becomes the equivalent of 22.7 RDNA 1 TFLOPs. So 2.34 times the 5700 XT in raw numbers.

Obviously I doubt RDNA would scale perfectly, but assuming only 87% scaling you end up with a card as fast as the 3080. Which is hardly surprising as the rumors and leaks have all pointed to the goal of Navi 2x to be twice as fast as the 5700 XT.

It could of course scale better or worse and that will likely determine if it's just under the 3080 as the 5700 XT was just under the 2070 Super, or over it as the 5700 XT was over the regular 2070.

If we assume (as you did) a perfect 100% scaling and 2.23Ghz (neither of which is likely), then the 80 CU card would be 2.35 times as fast as a 5700 XT or roughly 17% faster then the 3080 assuming a zero IPC increase. Add on a 6% IPC increase and you have the card being 25% faster then the 3080. But I believe this to be unlikely.

Which is too bad because that’s the point of this thread.

I originally hopped in to discuss the XSX = 2080 statement and that AMD is doomed discussion. For what its worth, I believe Ampere is going to have better RT performance, just based on what I can see from the PS5 reveal so far. That is just a wild guess though.

DF straight up said they were comparing it to GCN.
Which, once again, makes zero sense. If you take that figure at face value, then RDNA 2 is slower then Polaris.
Why would you use benchmarks from a costlier overclocked version of the 5700xt. Seems a bit disingenuous and has nothing to do with improved drivers.
Because the blower style card sucks? Even then the difference is only 1%. The original review had drivers so bad the card couldn't even be overclocked.
 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
9,942
7,915
935
60-80% according to DF

So, 100% according to Jensen The Leather Man.
60-80% according to guys who do not see DLSS upscaling eating details and heavily artifacting, later on getting wonderful exclusive preview of Ampere.
2080Ti + 20-30% according to TPU in Doom benchmark.

Yeah right, right?
 

Thugnificient

Banned
May 29, 2020
948
3,270
405
So, 100% according to Jensen The Leather Man.
60-80% according to guys who do not see DLSS upscaling eating details and heavily artifacting, later on getting wonderful exclusive preview of Ampere.
2080Ti + 20-30% according to TPU in Doom benchmark.

Yeah right, right?
numbers don’t give a fuck about your opinion.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
24,293
30,178
1,845
The new nvidia cards launch in 2 weeks, what's the point of all this speculation about how they will perform in RT enabled games when we will know for sure so soon?
 

iJudged

Member
Sep 14, 2013
2,495
1,282
715
i am a simple man, give me a 3080, show me where the RTX ON switch is, i play a game @4k 60fps and see some nice reflections here and there and i am happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

namekuseijin

Nintendo is for soys and kids. But my tears about them are for men.
Jun 10, 2020
2,917
3,198
615
it's blast processing and bits all over again

remember back when we counted bits? 8, 16, 32... then at some point it was becoming increasingly more crazy with 256-bits chips etc. where we are today? back to 64-bits Lol
 

Zathalus

Member
Jul 16, 2020
598
1,360
395
Nope 3070. I will be surprised if it gets to 3080.
Ampere TFLOPs are not a linear increase over Turing. The 30 TFLOP 3080 is only 70% faster then the 10 TFLOP 2080. Its not out of reach for the rumored big Navi. 3090 will very likely be top dog however.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: hyperbertha