A 15% jump over the existing 2070 is not too far fetched. It has increased clock speed along with more CUDA cores. Add in that most AiB partners will increase clock and memory speeds along with better cooling for better sustained boost clocks it could be a decent jump over the original 2070.The Final Fantasy XV benchmark is notorious for being terribly broken, and isn't even representative of performance in the actual game. The benchmark heavily utilizes Nvidia's gameworks features to gimp performance on AMD's graphics hardware, and does so in ways that don't even make sense, for example by applying hairworks to objects far outside the scene...
Just look at where the Radeon VII appears in that chart, down below the 1660 Ti. In reality though, the VII performs similar to a 1080 Ti on average, or around 50% faster than a 1660 Ti. That should be a red flag to anyone looking at this data that the results are complete nonsense.
It's possible that the 2070 Super could end up slightly faster than a 5700XT, but there is no way the difference would be anywhere near as large as what's shown here.
this^^ very well stated and very true"It should be taken into consideration that test systems' specifications and testing environment are unknown to us. Additionally, Nvidia was part of Final Fantasy XV's development, so the title favors the Green team. With everything considered, take the numbers with a bit of salt. "
This should be in bold at the top of the article. The fact that Tom's still refers to this benchmark for anything other than comparing Nvidia cards speaks volumes. Also, if you don't know the test system specifications and testing environment, then the data is literally meaningless.
I'm not sure what your definition of "marginally better" is in the real world, but in the world of tech for GPUs and CPUs, a 38.5% performance boost is massively significant:So the far more expensive card is marginally better. Well if that isn't news.
I'm expecting the same thing from Intel, once they get their crap together. Money does speak volumes, and Intel also has bigger pockets than AMD. They should provide some nice competition in the gpu market.I'm not sure what your definition of "marginally better" is in the real world, but in the world of tech for GPUs and CPUs, a 38.5% performance boost is massively significant:
"In comparison to its AMD rivals, the RTX 2070 Super is 38.48% faster than the Radeon RX 5700 XT. "
Then there's the fact that the 5700 XT is a 225W TDP card vs. the 175W for the 2070 (mistakenly referenced in the chart here as "TBD"). Regarding pricing, that remains to be seen, but Nvidia is way ahead of the 5700 XT just based on performance and lower power consumption (which also means running cooler which means higher overclock capability with proper cooling). But all of that is neither here nor there. The people will decide on which card is the better card for them, and based on what I see here, it will not favor AMD. Again. I want competition but AMD has many irons in the fire between CPUs and APUs for consoles and they have nowhere near the deep pockets that Nvidia does which has a very broad range of products and services outside of the GPU and Shield that the general consumer doesn't even know exist.
Finally, as we slowly move to more GPU demanding games, specifically regarding higher resolutions and moving from 1080p to 1440p and 4K being the main stream resolution in the coming years, AMD is going to have to kick it up a notch. I want to support them, but I'm not paying less for an inferior performing card. I'd rather spend another $100 on a card that guarantees what I am targeting on FPS for my resolution and monitor Hz capability. I work hard for my money and I want the best for it and am willing to pay for it. I have not owned an AMD video card since the HD 4870 circa 2009-2010, and there's a reason for that. I have however bought two desktop computers for family members with Ryzen 2-series chipsets because they were much better than Intel's comparable offerings and performance.