Rumor: AMD RDNA 4 Architecture Gets redesigned the Ray Tracing block - Comments (2024)

Kaarme:

Nvidia's development from RTX 3000 to 4000 was lackluster, mostly just made of higher clocks and larger cache. And the lies of frame gen only working on the 4000 hardware, whereas AMD could make it "mysteriously" work on the previous gen as well, with modders making it work on even Nvidia's old GPUs and Intel's card, to boot. So, I imagine Nvidia will want to make some real progress again with RTX 5000. Competition will be tough.

Some key features of RTX4000 ray tracing are not being widely utilized yet, e.g. Shader Execution Reorder (only used in CP2077 and Alan Wake 2) and Neural Radiance Caching. RTX4000 hardware are way ahead of software, just like RTX2000 were (DX12 Ultimate features)

Kaarme:

Nvidia's development from RTX 3000 to 4000 was lackluster, mostly just made of higher clocks and larger cache. And the lies of frame gen only working on the 4000 hardware, whereas AMD could make it "mysteriously" work on the previous gen as well, with modders making it work on even Nvidia's old GPUs and Intel's card, to boot. So, I imagine Nvidia will want to make some real progress again with RTX 5000. Competition will be tough.

I disagree with this. The 4000 series are an huge leap forward compared to the 3000 cards, with an amazing performance/energy needed ratio. The problem are the horrible prices.

Undying:

That is actually true. In CPU space we could say AMD gained share and support from gamers only becouse Ryzen became the fastest but in GPU space i think its little different.GPU are expensive. Midrange cards with alot of compromise like the 4070 cost 600$. I think another Polaris generation could be a good thing. Rx580 8gb was one of the most popular gpu of the last dacade.If AMD offers decent close to nvidia RT and some nice rasterization performance at the great price gamers wont give a damn if they dont have a flagship card that competes with 5090.

The big problem for AMD is that Nvidia is not like Intel. Intel had no problem in resting on their laurels and milking their customers while Nvidia is a very different beast, they are always competing with themselves, trying to make better cards to entice their user base to upgrade to their latest and greatest. They don`t succeed everytime but at least they try. Were they match Intel is that they also like to milk their customers dry... I`m starting to think that AMD needs something special to turn around this situation.

VaultDweller:

"And the lies of frame gen only working on the 4000 hardware" - you have physical evidence for this? as far as I am aware frame gen uses hardware specific to the 4000 series and while others have written the equivalent of frame gen for lower series cards - that is what it is - an equivalent where they have emulated the 40xx series hardware on a lower version card - show me a 1080Ti using nVidia's frame gen in native mode - that will do as proof.

I'm not saying Nvidia couldn't have put in there something making it impossible for anyone to get Nvidia frame gen out of RTX 3000, but if AMD frame gen could be made to work on the previous gen and even on competitors' cards, then frame gen itself is nothing so extraordinary that Nvidia couldn't have made it work for older customers. In the end Nvidia did give up in the past and allowed its cards to use the standard adaptive sync (and thus Freesync screens), not only the more expensive special hardware-reliant G-sync. Nvidia frame gen very much looks like another G-sync in many ways, though this time only used to boost RTX 4000 sales, not also the sales of external hardware (a monitor). In that it does differ from G-sync: In a reasonable time all Nvidia customers will move on from older generations and the situation will fix itself.

H83:

I disagree with this. The 4000 series are an huge leap forward compared to the 3000 cards, with an amazing performance/energy needed ratio. The problem are the horrible prices.

Well, I'm not going to deny I'm a little bit biased due to my RTX 4070 not even able to beat 3080, despite the price not being exactly cheap. But of course 4070 is, in reality, 4060 Ti, just relabeled as 4070, as a result of AMD failing to meet expectations, making Nvidia feel like it's okay to take it exceedingly easy.

Well, it's not a surprise they have to redesign something that works poorly. The question is, how much closer they can get in heavy RT games where ad104 (4070ti) beats n32 (7800xt) by 40-90%https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-RTX-4070-Super-Grafikkarte-280116/Tests/Release-Preis-kaufen-Specs-vs-RTX-4070-vs-7800-XT-1437772/3/In HW Lumen games like Desordre 4070Ti is twice as fast, and games are only going to get heavier RT with time.IMO they'll have a hard time keeping up with Lovelace, let alone Blackwell, but it's a step in good direction. They have several years of RT R&D to make up for, I think it's a good choice to invest money into architectural advancements for mid ranger cards rather than designing another high end flop like n31 was.

H83:

I disagree with this. The 4000 series are an huge leap forward compared to the 3000 cards, with an amazing performance/energy needed ratio. The problem are the horrible prices. The big problem for AMD is that Nvidia is not like Intel. Intel had no problem in resting on their laurels and milking their customers while Nvidia is a very different beast, they are always competing with themselves, trying to make better cards to entice their user base to upgrade to their latest and greatest. They don`t succeed everytime but at least they try. Were they match Intel is that they also like to milk their customers dry... I`m starting to think that AMD needs something special to turn around this situation.

Yeah, the performance was there, but prices were insane (again, because of lackluster competition)

Kaarme:

Well, I'm not going to deny I'm a little bit biased due to my RTX 4070 not even able to beat 3080, despite the price not being exactly cheap. But of course 4070 is, in reality, 4060 Ti, just relabeled as 4070, as a result of AMD failing to meet expectations, making Nvidia feel like it's okay to take it exceedingly easy.

This is the problem. Nvidia just moved all their GPUs one tier up and priced them accordingly...

While I'm a little annoyed getting a 7000 series GPU knowing that its RT pipeline is basically going to become neglected, I have to remind myself that the only way to get desirable framerates is with a flagship GPU, which I'm not going to buy. I believe AMD can close the performance gap with Nvidia, but Nvidia also has a long way to go before enabling RT is worthwhile for reasonably priced GPUs.

Krizby:

Some key features of RTX4000 ray tracing are not being widely utilized yet, e.g. Shader Execution Reorder (only used in CP2077 and Alan Wake 2) and Neural Radiance Caching. RTX4000 hardware are way ahead of software, just like RTX2000 were (DX12 Ultimate features)

Makes me wonder why nobody is taking full advantage of the available features. I get how in many (perhaps most) examples of RT-enabled games, it was a last-minute retrofit, but in my experience, Nvidia makes development for their hardware surprisingly easy. I get the impression RT as a whole isn't all that complex in a software standpoint considering open source drivers managed to implement it relatively quickly without much documentation or examples to work with, which achieving decent performance (relative to the Windows drivers)

NGGJimmy:

Thing is, AMD has some wins in RT compared to Nvidia (mostly in AMD sponsored titles and light RT works ala RE4). However, in heavy scenarios, you need upscale to get RT running smoothly, and AMD upscaler is just bad. 75-80% of Nvidia but with the same upscaler won't help it, because people will see the quality reduction, shimmering, flickering, etc.If rumors are true that AMD won't compete in flagship GPUs next gen, then what is the point of mid-range improved RT when all and all it probably won't exceed the likes of 4060Ti RT capabilities, because right now 7900XT/XTX are around that performance in RT (atleast in Cyberpunk)

CP2077 is one of less than a handful of games where the 7900xt/xtx does poorly, piss poorly (Alan Wake 2 CP2077 is holding your beer)this is a very unfair comparison.i have both the 7900xtx and xt - and for the majority of the time i engage RT i get a

of 60 fps @ 4k with RT, with the xt i get a minimum of 70ish fps @ 1440p x 3440

AuerX:

"AMD is not going to win over the hearts and minds of gamers without a competitive flagship GPU."

who are you talking about? ...the media?...eSports?reality time: halo products only generate interest in one third of enthusiasts, half of which cannot afford it.hearts and minds are won over by a competitive product smartly priced. not by transcendent specs and prices.i'm speaking as a person with more experience in the consumer electronics sphere than most of the forum combined, from street level to the E suites, from the E.E.'s design to the marketing glow-up, to RMA's, competitive analysis, and creating a training syllabus.when i worked for one of the Japanese "big 3", i was shocked at the reality that folks don't care half as much as i did.despite the fact that this company invented "home theater", hi-fi car audio, and has been the largest Dolby licensee since 1974 - so many people didn't even know we had a high end line despite both being in the same stores.i can guarantee you less than 10% of sales in every category were driven by Halos.