this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8556 readers
565 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Can I state that this is in my opinion the best move to make. AMD can go and throw a crap tonnes of money for the title of slightly faster or almost as fast as Nvidia's 5090 TI Super, where both cards will retail $2000 and very few will buy them, or it makes a bang for buck, focusing on the $200-$500 market where most are waiting for basically a generational leap in performance to make the commitment to upgrade. The RX range like the 480-580 from AMD used to be the plan and even Intel has seen a gap in the market there.

[–] NaClKnight@kbin.run 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The issue i think is that it reinforces the belief that Nvidia cards are faster and that AMD cards are cheap/budget,

AMD cards being just as fast (besides RT) with good/better value is one thing, but AMD being slower is a harder misconception to unravel

[–] NaClKnight@kbin.run 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Do we have any reasonable/substantive speculation about why they canceled the bigger die in the 8000 series?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

Presumably just cost and yield.