News AMD's 32GB Radeon W6800 Drives 'Outstanding' Performance

ginthegit

Distinguished
BANNED
Nov 15, 2012
201
31
18,610
0
More subjective tests on a test suite.

Does this actually mean all that much? Wouldn't it be better to get Average benchmarks from games and then make an Objetive rating.
 
May 7, 2021
1
4
15
0
If Tomshardware believes at all in journalistic excellence, it will not publish any "ratings" from the garbage website userbench.

When comparing RX 6000 series GPUs to RTX 3000 series GPUs the Radeon cards are consistently given lower scores despite better or equal performance to the Nvidia cards.
 

Gam3r01

Titan
Moderator
More subjective tests on a test suite.

Does this actually mean all that much? Wouldn't it be better to get Average benchmarks from games and then make an Objetive rating.
I dont see a point in mentioning games for a card not intended or manufactured with gameplay in mind.
That being said, still a pointless comparison "Unfortunately, UserBenchmark gives absolutely no idea about performance of the graphics card in professional applications. "
So lets look at a professional card in an unreliable suit for an application load its not tested for.
 

roblittler77

Commendable
Aug 19, 2018
6
8
1,515
0
I hope this article is intended purely as a jib at Userbenchmark for having something made by AMD topping thier charts.

An outstanding result from a single benchmark is known as an outlier, which you disregard, particularly if that benchmark is Userbenchmark.

Stop posting garbage, this arcticle tells us nothing.
 

kaalus

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2008
31
14
18,535
0
It takes just 128MB of video RAM to hold two HDR framebuffers at 4K. Versus 32MB for 1080p - an increase of 96MB. Or about 1% of RAM in a standard mid-range GPU of today.
I fail to see why people are constantly banging on about 16GB of RAM will help with 4k gaming. Even a 128MB low-end card from 15 years ago would have plenty enough memory to display in 4k.
 
May 8, 2021
1
2
15
0
Comparing mainstream performance for a specialized card like the W6800 is more than a little absurd. A CAD/CAM benchmark would be much more relevant to any potential W6800 buyers.
 

ginthegit

Distinguished
BANNED
Nov 15, 2012
201
31
18,610
0
I hope this article is intended purely as a jib at Userbenchmark for having something made by AMD topping thier charts.

An outstanding result from a single benchmark is known as an outlier, which you disregard, particularly if that benchmark is Userbenchmark.

Stop posting garbage, this arcticle tells us nothing.
though my point was slightly irrelevant, this is what I meant
 

ginthegit

Distinguished
BANNED
Nov 15, 2012
201
31
18,610
0
It takes just 128MB of video RAM to hold two HDR framebuffers at 4K. Versus 32MB for 1080p - an increase of 96MB. Or about 1% of RAM in a standard mid-range GPU of today.
I fail to see why people are constantly banging on about 16GB of RAM will help with 4k gaming. Even a 128MB low-end card from 15 years ago would have plenty enough memory to display in 4k.
I guess it gives more room for multiple things and also more complex algorithms.

I tend to use cards like this for Electronics apps, but in reality, AMD benching high in a niche market is about the only praise AMD generally gets in THG. But these cards are fully capable as Graphics cards with certain things changed on the card and the drivers.
 

thGe17

Prominent
Sep 2, 2019
68
23
535
0
"'Outstanding' Performance"
is between Nvidia's GeForce RTX 2080 Super (138%) and GeForce RTX 3070 (152%) ??? ;)
The "outstanding" is only applicable inside of or relative to AMDs own portfolio, and the main reason is because their Pro-series is completely outdated. The latest, most powerful addition is the Radeon Pro VII with Vega 20, a chip from the end of 2018.
AMD lacked the money an resources to promote the Pro-series in the past to compete with Nvidia's Quadro's on the same level. The cards are often only a buget tip and in a lot of cases there is no way around a Quadro in the professional segment.
 
May 8, 2021
1
2
15
0
You completely lost me at "Userbenchmark".... a 10 year old child playing Minecraft with shaders turned on would have been a much more weighty opinion for your review.
 
Reactions: Jim90 and Nick_C

waltc3

Prominent
Aug 4, 2019
148
71
660
0
I'm seeing a disturbing trend here of citing the userbench site as if it had some value--it's a site dedicated to misleading n00bs, as no one else is misled by the site...;)
 
Reactions: Makaveli

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Mar 16, 2013
142,712
8,278
174,690
22,075
Man, everyone's seem to be ripping UserBenchmark here, what's going on? I feel like there's some info / news I'm not privy of about UB
Its a junk tool.

The exact same part, in the same test, same system, can be both "Outstanding - 162%" and "Performing below expectations" at the same time.
Which is it?

And thats not even mentioning their weighting of the thing to favor one brand over the other.
 
Reactions: Makaveli

Makaveli

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2001
1,083
184
19,470
4
Yup sorry immediately disregard this article as soon as it mentions user benchmark. Glad to see we have some advanced users on this site that are aware of that site and its shenanigans!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS