Reputator

Do you have to be up-to-date on the Super series to see this? I've only watched the Golden Frieza arc and that's it.

It's a spoiler for dumb people.

That's a damn good guess.

It's the microwave in the breakroom. Again.

Good lord, such idiocy.

Yeah that ain't going anywhere.

This is very good news.

Good read. Makes me wring my hands just a little.

Kinda, but the more nuanced part: "And again, for the same price, wouldn't most high-end gamers preference the one with Ray-Tracing available? If the AMD card out-priced the RTX 2080, I would see the argument for it, certainly. " I didn't see. But regardless, I added a lot more detail to it.

@Spork3245 Also you kept editing your posts and I didn't see that you had already made some of the points that I made later.

No that actually is my argument.

Well the FE MSRP is $100 higher.

I think AMD thought they were undercutting the 2080 by $100, without actually looking at reality. A lot of people are disappointed this wasn't Navi. I'm a bit more on the lukewarm side. I like the idea of a refresh, and I don't think the industry has seen a REAL refresh in the old sense of the word for a very long time. This is a die shrink of the existing architecture, with a few enhancements and a decent little bump in speed, before they take a big plunge on the new process with a new architecture. It's smart in a way, and it should be noted that while NVIDIA started a sort of "beta" program with support for Freesync, from their own booth at CES, the results were hit or miss. And they're basically leaving the testing in the hands of users, needless to say without much incentive to improve how well Freesync monitors work on their cards with much expediency. This is probably why Jensen recently made comments about how Freesync "doesn't work". If you want GOOD support for your 4k Freesync monitor, you'll probably still need to buy a Radeon VII.

The price will hurt it more than features. AMD had a chance to really undercut NVIDIA, and they didn't, which is unfortunate given how long it took AMD to reach this performance level. I have to imagine it has something to do with that expensive HBM2 memory (gee, isn't that a familiar problem?) but then why in the hell did they need 16GB of it? I mean, I already know the answer, and it has more to do with hitting the bandwidth target they were aiming at, but without giving AMD a significant advantage, 1TB/s is more a bragging point than anything else. A month ago I'd call this a big win because of all the 4k Freesync monitors out there needing a card that can power them, but NVIDIA just stole that thunder too.

I like how this guy thinks.