nguyenIt means to get >60fps in single player game with your GPU, you are mostly playing with Low setting at 4K.
Or you actually never play any game and just decide that everyone need high FPS.

Vya DomusI am going to have to gather a team of researches to try and figure out what it is that you are saying.

Why say that 60 FPS is enough for single player games, there is absolutely no logic to that. You think someone who has a higher refresh display will think to themselves that they need the highest possible frame rate in a multiplayer title but when switching to a singe player one suddenly they no longer need more than precisely 60 ? How the hell does that work, truly mind boggling.

nguyenno point in downgrading visual just to get >60FPS.

Vya DomusStill can't figure out that this is a purely subjective conclusion ?

nguyenHow about AMD release COD Modern Warfare, BF5, SOTR with DXR benchmark number then ? make it easier to gauge RX6000 RT capability.

nguyenTell me which editorial who would recommend downgrading visual to get >60fps ? You ?

nguyenNow switching to competitive games like PUBG, Modern Warfare, Overwatch and I lower every setting just to get the highest FPS, why wouldn't I ?

nguyenTell me which editorial who would recommend downgrading visual to get >60fps ? You ?

mysteraThat's like asking: How do AMD cards perform in games that make heavy use of ®HairWorks???

The RTX you refer to is nVidia's proprietary implementation of Microsoft's DirectX raytracing. How (and why) do you expect AMD hardware to perform better than nvidia hardware in ®RTX games? It makes no sense for AMD to even attempt that. Especially since, going forward, most games will implement AMD's (proprietary or open) version of raytracing, and only "some" of them will ship with ®RTX support along the console version of raytracing.

And based on how well AMD's raytracing looks and performs, nvidia's ®RTX may (in time) become a niche feature for select sponsored games... To keep ®RTX relevant, nvidia will have to invest more than it's worth on hardware and software (game dev partners) development, and given nvidia's new focus on enterprise, it may be a hard sell (to investors).

DristunGood day everyone, I'm the person geniunely excited about raytracing. At least a third of the people I'm playing games with are excited too. Why? Because when implemented like in Control or Quake 2 it's legitimately the only eye candy tech that looks fresh to my eyes and makes me want to spend 700$ on a goddamn videocard. There are shite examples (Watch Dogs, WoW: Shadowlands, Dirt 5, BFV, etc.) where there are just some reflections or just some shadows and it doesn't make a difference but when it's all-out or close to it - man it looks amazing!
Hey, I'm also excited about 6800XT. I wanna know if it can do what I want it to do. Absolutely tired of people shouting that nobody cares. Where's your market research, mate?

Vya DomusI really don't know in what world do you live but almost everyone recommends turning down visuals to hit your monitor's native refresh rate. Not that it matters because that's still a subjective recommendation.

However, buying a high refresh monitor and then trying to convince yourself or others that you should actually play at 60 because "there is no point" sounds like a really intelligent conclusion, I gotta say. Because that's why most people buy a high refresh monitor, to then play at 60hz, right ?

arbiterThis sounds like typical AMD excuse for why their card sucks with what was/is a standard.

lynx29dragons dogma

mysteraThat's like asking: How do AMD cards perform in games that make heavy use of ®HairWorks???

mysteraAnd based on how well AMD's raytracing looks and performs

DristunGood day everyone, I'm the person geniunely excited about raytracing. At least a third of the people I'm playing games with are excited too. Why? Because when implemented like in Control or Quake 2 it's legitimately the only eye candy tech that looks fresh to my eyes and makes me want to spend 700$ on a goddamn videocard. There are shite examples (Watch Dogs, WoW: Shadowlands, Dirt 5, BFV, etc.) where there are just some reflections or just some shadows and it doesn't make a difference but when it's all-out or close to it - man it looks amazing!
Hey, I'm also excited about 6800XT. I wanna know if it can do what I want it to do. Absolutely tired of people shouting that nobody cares. Where's your market research, mate?

arbiterAMD excuse for why their card sucks with what was/is a standard.

R0H1TYou mean the DXR standard as opposed to Nvidia's proprietary RT

When DXR is enabled by a Game Ready Driver, targeted for April (2019), the supported GeForce GTX graphics cards will work without game updates because ray-traced games are built on DirectX 12’s DirectX Raytracing API, DXR. This industry standard API uses compute-like ray tracing workloads that are compatible with both dedicated hardware units, such as the RT Cores, and the GPU’s general purpose shader cores.

nguyen60FPS is enough to enjoy single player game at the best visual fidelity you can get.
I bought the very first 144hz 1440p display, but I played The Witcher 3 at 60fps with the best visuals, no point in downgrading visual just to get >60FPS.
Same with Metro Exodus, Control, why would I sacrifice visual when I have ~60FPS already ?

Now switching to competitive games like PUBG, Modern Warfare, Overwatch and I lower every setting just to get the highest FPS, why wouldn't I ?

kapone32I can say with confidence that the Division 2 feels much smoother at 120+ FPS and looks beautiful. One of the differences between 60 FPS and 120+ FPS in that Game (and I suspect a few more) allows you to aim easier. To keep it simple in the Division 2 with a automatic rifle (900+ round) you can get headshot kills vs having the shots go all over the place. I love how from reading most of what you post that you are undeniably in favor of Nvidia GPUs. It is kind of foolish though that after you yourself bragged about the 3090 being unassailable for AMD. That you now make the ridiculous argument that 60 FPS is enough in Games period with the benchmarks that AMD has released? I suppose you will now remind me of the joy of DLSS (Which the 6000 series does not need for high......FPS) and RTX Ray tracing which may go the way of beta. You see beta was better than VHS but VHS is what the consumer market adopted. After about 5 years you could not find a beta version of popular culture anything. Which brings me to my last point....You don't have to downgrade anything to enjoy those same Games you mentioned at high FPS using 6000 series GPUS though. I am objective enough to say that Nvidia's 3000 series are nice cards but the way Nvidia is so relentless in trying to control mind share is desultory.

RedelZaVednoI must admit 3080XT and 3090 look impressive performance and pricewise. But 6800 disappoints big time. Not because of it's performance, but because of the price. 10-15% more rasterization performance for 16% more money offers slightly worse price/performance ratio than 3070 which is a BIG SHAME. 3070 would look utterly silly if AMD had chosen to price 6800 at $499. At $579, 3070 remains viable alternative. 3070 minuses are less vram, poorer standard rasterization & pluses better driver support, CUDA cores (for Adobe apps), AI upscaling (DLSS), probably better looking ray tracing. I'd say it's a draw. BUT given that Nvidia has much better brand recognition when it comes to GPUs, AMD will have hard time selling 6800 at the given MSRP IF Nvidia can actually produce enough Ampere GPUs to satisfy demand, which might not be the case in the near future.

Chrispy_The vanilla 6800 is actually looking really strong in the first few of those benchmarks.

It's great that yesterday's $1200 performance is now half price, but what the overwhelming majority have needed for two years is yeserday's $600 performance for $300.

RedelZaVednoI must admit 3080XT and 3090 look impressive performance and pricewise. But 6800 disappoints big time. Not because of it's performance, but because of the price. 10-15% more rasterization performance for 16% more money offers slightly worse price/performance ratio than 3070 which is a BIG SHAME. 3070 would look utterly silly if AMD had chosen to price 6800 at $499. At $579, 3070 remains viable alternative. 3070 minuses are less vram, poorer standard rasterization & pluses better driver support, CUDA cores (for Adobe apps), AI upscaling (DLSS), probably better looking ray tracing. I'd say it's a draw. BUT given that Nvidia has much better brand recognition when it comes to GPUs, AMD will have hard time selling 6800 at the given MSRP IF Nvidia can actually produce enough Ampere GPUs to satisfy demand, which might not be the case in the near future.

RedelZaVednoI must admit 3080XT and 3090 look impressive performance and pricewise. But 6800 disappoints big time. Not because of it's performance, but because of the price. 10-15% more rasterization performance for 16% more money offers slightly worse price/performance ratio than 3070 which is a BIG SHAME. 3070 would look utterly silly if AMD had chosen to price 6800 at $499. At $579, 3070 remains viable alternative. 3070 minuses are less vram, poorer standard rasterization & pluses better driver support, CUDA cores (for Adobe apps), AI upscaling (DLSS), probably better looking ray tracing. I'd say it's a draw. BUT given that Nvidia has much better brand recognition when it comes to GPUs, AMD will have hard time selling 6800 at the given MSRP IF Nvidia can actually produce enough Ampere GPUs to satisfy demand, which might not be the case in the near future.