>AMD GPU's aren't as good

Do people still believe this?

I wonder what it'll take. RDNA3's soon and should be interesting to see happen.

I'm looking for something that performs on par or a bit better than nVidia 1080Ti, at about the same price point (~300€) and I just can't find any. Significantly newer Radeon RX 6600 cards have 10-20% worse performance according to benchmarks, for a similar price point (300€). 6900XT outperforms it by 30% but costs ~1000€.

I just want to connect 3 screens, play Team Fortress, and have my GPU not die in the next 2 years on the cheap ;-;

Comparing a used to a new card never a 1:1 comparison though. A RX 5700XT performs better than a 1080Ti and is priced around the same.

Do you mean RX 6700XT? 5700XT performs worse than 1080Ti in two benchmarks I checked and I can't even find any to buy :/ Cheapest 6700 I can find is 470€ and does perform slightly better. I just might get that when the prices come down a bit further, thanks.

Edit: Also, 2017 level performance in 2022 shouldn't cost 2017 level prices.

The 1080Ti was not a $300 card, tho ;)

Orly: I paid over A$1200 for a Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080 "Tai" back in 2017.

Still works stellar today, in son's PC.

Did you factor in electricity costs?

It's a common narrative and doesn't really have a counter, but those who actually bother to look know that AMD are actually really fast (just like the old days when it was Intel v AMD)

I run Linux at home. I have heard people say over and over that AMD is king on Linux.

I have a 6900XT and while it performs well, the driver is actually shit. I have had issues with one or more of my three displays not starting on boot, or not waking up from monitor poweroff.

Pinning the kernel to an older version seems to keep things stable. I was dealing with that sort of breakage what seemed like once a month for a year.

Should have contacted bridgman from RTG on Reddit. He's very helpful with driver issues, and if what you are seeing is a bug, he will collect the info on it and study it with the team.

Seriously, one of the best things about the AMD Linux drivers is that you have direct access to the developers including a public bug tracker [0] and IRC [1]. Maybe not the kind of customer support people are used to but I honestly prefer this.

[0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues (I think this is the correct one now that FDO migrated away from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/)

[1] #radeon on OFTC - https://people.freedesktop.org/~cbrill/dri-log/?channel=rade...

> I run Linux at home. I have heard people say over and over that AMD is king on Linux.

Idk about that, I’ve never believed it. My N=1 anecdata over 12 years of using Linux with the binary nvidia blob says ive generally had a good time. I only have used it on a desktop though.

It’s not like I leave the card alone either as I game on Linux, do dynamic card binding with kvm passthroughs etc.

Aren't AMD GPU drivers known to be unreliable on linux at launch and stabilize later on?

I have similar issues with my 1080Ti by the way, it just wont recognize one or two screens and will mess up the display configuration if I turn one of them off. Going into display settings, applying a new configuration and reverting it usually helps.

GCN took a bit to stabilize but my RX 6900 XT worked fine on launch (well, about a week after launch when I managed to get one) with the newest drivers - if you are on a slow distro then you might lag behind what is available upstream though.

I have a 6900xt. It's like 3% slower than a 3090 at 1440p. Which means that it is "not as good" as Nvidia GPUs. I did not mean to imply that they aren't good, but simply that Nvidia ultimately holds the crown. If you are only looking at the absolute #1 slot, yes, Nvidia is "better".

The 3090 also uses ~20% more power. [0] 3% seem such a small difference considering that in reality a card's performance is not just a single number.

[0] https://www.tomshardware.com/features/geforce-rtx-3090-vs-ra...

3090 also costs 50% more at MSRP (not going to pretend to know the current state of post-ethereum GPU prices).

But ultimately, people who buy halo tier cards generally don't have a budget set, which means PSU, cooling options, and electricity bill aren't an issue. If you buy either a 6900xt or 3090 and can't afford an adequate PSU and electricity bill, you're probably better off with a completely different tier of GPU, so I get why "raw performance" is the crown that gets chased. MSRP of 3090 is roughly double that of 3080, but obviously it's not double the speeds. There's too many things to consider when you consider "best' GPU so "highest performing" is easiest to refine down to.

I don't fully agree, but I get it. And I opted for the 6900xt so you don't need to convince me of the benefits (for me, Linux open source drivers were on the list as well). But I'm not going to pretend like there is a super readily approachable alternative.

userbenchmark.com notoriously changes their benchmark ratings every time AMD releases a CPU because "AMD bad, Intel good". The core i3 9100f is rated higher than the Threadripper 2990wx [0]. And I don't just mean "on the subjective aspects". They put the i3 as rank #167 in all CPUs and the threadripper at #231. Yes, they claim the i3 is faster than the threadripper, because they don't count ANY scores over "8 cores", and Im pretty sure that it means "8 threads" and not 8 cores. Because "no workload needs more than 8 threads, so we're just going to ignore that." They also release a "review" of new AMD products every time they come out claiming that AMD is garbage for made up reasons.

All this just to say that the second any subjectivity is introduced into the mix, you'll wind up with people skewing tables to show the "real fair metrics" that favor their team. I'd rather just say "yeah, nvidia holds the crown and is technically 3% faster, but 3% isn't enough for me to care". I'm not going to start a debate over "Well actually, Nvidia is better because FPS is the only metric that matters!"

[0] https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-TR-2990WX-vs...

I know I'm very atypical in this but I like to game as well as run the occasional machine learning stuff. Nvidia has a hard lock on the latter, basically giving me no choice.

At least on HN I think machine learning and CUDA in generally is a big part of it. For that to change ROCM needs to be "better" than CUDA and easy to swap in.

Yes when I said very atypical I meant compared to the average consumer, not the HN crowd. Much more common here for sure.

> Nvidia blacklisted Hardware Unboxed for giving the 3090 positive reviews, but they didn't talk about the proper talking points (8K gaming capability).

erm, more like they got blacklisted because they have continually refused to talk about DLSS or raytracing, not because of 8K. Steve has outright said he doesn't think either of those are valuable features and he won't take them into consideration in the reviews. And DLSS 2.0 was well into the public consciousness at that point too, everyone knew it was much higher quality than the first iteration or other alternatives available on the market (still is better than FSR 2.0 too).

So yeah, I imagine that NVIDIA wasn't too happy about an outlet who flaunted the fact that they were choosing to ignore a 30-40% performance and perf/w gain on what was slated to be a pretty broad selection of titles. That basically is a whole performance-segment worth of gain that HUB managed to downplay and minimize and spin.

Similarly, on raytracing, even first-gen NVIDIA cards are twice as fast as AMD for a given performance segment. "Hybrid" titles tend to downplay this performance gap due to Amdahl's Law, if only half of your workload is RT then a 2x speed advantage only yields a 50% lead. But, for path-traced retro titles where the workload is 100% raytracing and 0% raster, NVIDIA performs about twice as fast, as do synthetic measurements of raytracing ability (and 3D rendering etc).

They quickly walked back the blacklisting, probably someone had a bad day and snapped and committed the worst crime of all: saying what they really think.

Because, to be honest this is nothing new for HUB, Tim's content is great but Steve is a bit of an AMD fanboy and it strongly leaks into the editorial positions and the things he chooses to review, which shape the numeric results as well. DLSS was persona-non-grata until FSR 2.0 came out and then it's "well DLSS is great but why not FSR!?". If he'd been saying the "dlss is great" for the preceding year then maybe it would have come off as good-faith, but, it was a shitty low-quality gimmick that nobody should use, up until AMD did something similar and wow it suddenly is great!. And that's just how Steve is, it'll be the same for raytracing... raytracing is just a fad, until AMD finally gets around to a proper high-performance implementation and then it'll be all raytracing all the time. He's constantly downplaying NVIDIA's work, and minimizing and spinning the weaknesses of AMD hardware, which has to be tremendously frustrating for the people at NVIDIA who are supposed to work with him.

It's not a popular sentiment with the pro-AMD crowd, but, even among the enthusiast world in general there's growing sentiment that Steve is not on the level, in a way that few other prominent reviewers exhibit. But, you just flat-out won't review the card doing what it's designed to do? Yeah, not sure why NVIDIA would pay to give you a sample of that product, then.

"Wow this semi truck sure has shitty track times, and I won't review the hauling capacity because that's just a gimmick, everybody uses minivans".

(also, for the record, AMD has a history/pattern of blacklisting reviewers for critical reviews as well... happened to Kitguru a couple years ago, as well as TechOfTomorrow, for similar reasons... he wouldn't benchmark the hardware the way AMD wanted, so no hardware for him. he made a video about that too. Curiously, nobody keeps bringing that up, though...)

https://www.kitguru.net/tech-news/announcements/zardon/amd-w...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qflrf6UiWk

> erm, more like they got blacklisted because they have continually refused to talk about DLSS or raytracing, not because of 8K.

Forgive me, but what is the problem here? Reviewers of all kinds focus on different things. Some GPU reviewers care more about FPS for certain games. Some care more about fidelity. Some care about power efficiency. People follow reviewers who focus on the stuff they care about. So this one guy was reviewing stuff which he and his audience cares about. Because this didn’t make Nvidia look good (this time), it’s okay to blacklist him?

Sorry, no, that’s crazy. If reviewers focused on the things manufacturers told them to, they’d be terrible reviewers. Manufacturers don’t have a right to favourable reviews.

I agree, Steve is very much an AMD fanboy. When I called them out with him complaining about AMD not supporting certain models of motherboards such as the B350s and cheaper hardware, I pointed out that AMD never said they would and their wording was only for current X570/X470 and B550 and B450 boards at the time. Not the older stuff cause it just wasnt doable. He lost his shit at me in the comments of the video and proceeded to say how wrong I was and AMD had promised him that they would support all mother boards into the next generation (Zen 3). I still watch their channel but that argument left me some bitter moments with Steve.

I agree with his take on Userbenchmark as that site is a piece of shit but it also seems that Steve is turning into Userbenchmark AMD version given his numbers always seem to be topping intel over compared to other reviewers like GN. He claims he is unbiased but his review titles and thumbnails say otherwise. The guy just seems like an overall douchebag who gets butthurt when anyone critizes his favorite brand. (P.S I own an AMD system lol, 3700x here.)