Is ACC going to run worse on AMD cards?

That's what i did. Hope ACC will run fine on it, in full HD...

It wasn't really much more expensive than the RX 570 is, just 40 or 50 bucks, and, the performance seems to be quite a bit better, going by benchmarks.

 

Specially if you turn RTX whatever on.

 

Doesn't ray tracing require specialized hardware or can it be passed through via software or will it just run extremely poor on current gen GPUs?

 

Who cares, it will be just as important and just as broken as the rest of NVidia GameWorks junk like HairWorks, Soft Shadows, etc.
All those things you turn off first when start experiencing crashes of low FPS in games.

Disclaimer, long time NVidia user, never touched AMD in my life

 

Ray tracing is in DX12, all cards are capable of it from what i understand, they are just bad at it.

 

Doesmt everything run worse on AMD? Thats how Nvidia sets their prices as there is no real competition for them atm.

 

Depends on who you ask.

I wouldn't buy AMD anymore. neither graphics cards nor processors. But, that's my personal opinion.

 

The only thing I know for certain, is that AMD Ryzen CPUs are too slow for high refresh rate gaming (144hz and higher) at 1080p.

It's different at 2160p, but that's because the majority are GPU bound and barley reach 60 fps anyway unless they lower their settings.

 

That depends entirely on graphics card, game and settings. So as a broad sweeping statement it's wildly inaccurate.
Also, in reviews I have seen the Ryzen 2700X is within 4 to 10% of the 8700K. In most games that means that if the 8700K can deliver over 144fps so can the 2700K.

 

I think it really depends on the game, and how it manages multicore application. All Ryzen's are pretty bad in single core benchmarks, compared to the Intel CPU's.

 

I think the major difference between Intel/Nvidia and AMD, is that Intel/Nvidia aren't trying to make affordable products, they service the commercial market where the cost is secondary to reliability and features. Intel/Nvidia may have features that some people will never use and they have the option of shopping around with AMD, but most businesses just go Intel/Nvidia because they are industry standard. I'd say that market is fairly big and it's not worth Intels time making any other chips especially when they have the reputation for being the best and people are willing to pay the price.

 

TBH with you, I'll go full AMD on this...

 

I don't think you're going to suffer anything by going AMD. Their threadripper chips look really interesting. My PC spends more time as a work station than it does gaming but ACC performance in VR is still going to be it's main focus, and I've been informed many times that I should go intel (for high expectations VR), I've always bought intel so I feel comfortable with it and it's easy to justify it when the PC will be doing work stuff as well, but AMD aren't far off and in some cases better, so it's much of a muchness at this stage.

 

I guess running triples on my RX480 is close to hopeless. I'm in the AMD ecosystem as I have freesync monitors which have been absolutely amazing in how smooth games run. I even tried a 1080 and with higher frames, the result was much more stuttery than lower frames with freesync. The annoying thing is that there isn't really much of an upgrade path, unless I accept Vega's terrible power draw which may also require a psu upgrade. Anyway I guess no point getting too downhearted until we see some benchmarks on release. One thing I do know, is I can't go back to single screen racing. Had to try with PC2 and hated it.

 

Single-thread perf on Ryzen gen 2 is fine. Its just that Intel counterparts can boost 600~700mhz higher (with proper cooling), and you can feel the difference in VR. So for single-threaded games intel wins.

Likewise, the ring-bus topology in i7 and i5 also gives Intel cpus faster performance in multithreaded games. So for both aspects of gaming, its Intel i7 all the way, for now.


You mileage will vary depending on what you do or what you game. But Ryzens are freaking beasts for the price and its not like they are 30% slower, its maybe 5-10% at best. Except in very single-threaded games like AC, where a 5ghz 8700K is 16% faster than a 4.3ghz 2700x on account of pure clockspeed.

 

Not with the latest Ryzens - https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_2700x_review,9.html. Worst result is about 7%, IPC 5%. Also worth looking at the game results further through the review. The gap is definitely closing.

 

Wow, hadn't realised they had caught up on IPC. Nice...

 

Obviously depends on the benchmark and the site.

Check out the results here, both for single and multi core performance: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks

 

I remember the time when Athlon's where faster in games then the P4's . Except the P4's were better at encoding and watching HD (which was 720p back then). My, my have times changed.
AMD is indeed catching up. Another thing, which is just being addressed by MS is those pesky patches that have hindered Ryzen performance.

And the above is less then a month old. Hopefully, win10 will be fully compatible with AMD CPUs at some future point and more performance is etched out. With Zen 2 coming out next year its said that AMD will be on equal footing in single thread performance.

 

I don't think that's such a good idea (only speaking from experience) knowing that this game will feature a lot of Nvidia technology.