Former Nouveau Lead Developer Joins NVIDIA, Continues Working On Open-Source Driver

[bhptitotoss]

Huh? You're so full of manure...lol.... how is the power consumption better than a 4070 Ti Super? What are you looking at?

No one in their right mind would try to argue a 7900 series even the 7900 GRE has better or more efficient power consumption than a 4070 Ti Super - maybe you meant the 4070? It's about even with that card on his graph.

Even most AMD fans will concede that the 4070 series is more power efficient than any AMD 7900 RDNA 3 card.

AMD gpus still suck in Blender and only use HIP - which is slower than the hacked ZLUDA - and the 7900 xtx is slower at rendering than the 4070 series - whether it's the 12gb vanilla card or a 4070 Super also at 12gb of vram or the 16gb 4070 Ti Super - yes, those cards are able to use optiX so a bit unfair but then it's AMD and Blender's fault - one or both of them - that haven't been able to use the OPEN SOURCE ray tracing element of HIP-RT.

So, stop smoking all those drugs you have.

I have a questions ........

How can someone be full of manure? Sorry English isn't my first language and so I don't understand.

[tenchrio]

Huh? You're so full of manure...lol.... how is the power consumption better than a 4070 Ti Super? What are you looking at?

image.png
7900 GRE | Min : 6 | Avg :200.15 | Max :240
4070 TI Super | Min 10.47 | Avg 228.6 | Max 284.93

Now I might not be a mathematician but I think 228 is a bigger number compared to 200 and 284 is a bigger number compared to 240.
Seems my previous message had a typo and was meant to say "better power consumption and performance per dollar", normally I would say my bad but commenting to you is such a draining chore as you seem to barely be able to read any of the articles you link yourself and honestly writing them feels like a waste of time.

The 7900GRE is rated for 260W TDP, the 4070 TI Super is 285W TDP. But I guess that would require explaining TDP to you.
Again you commented on that article, the least you can do is actually read the articles you comment on. Oh wait you don't really do that, do you; still evident as you point towards 60HZ V-sync and power spikes not understanding that power spikes are not an actual benchmark of any sort and in that case specifically came from running the Furmark as evident from using your eyes on the literally graph on the top of the page of the techpowerup article you linked. While during Gaming and Video Playback this spike wasn't there at all. And of course Vsync is outdated, not to mention optional and generally speaking looked down upon, if you need to enable 60HZ Vsync, you don't need a new GPU, you need a new monitor.

AMD gpus still suck in Blender and only use HIP

It amazes me how every time, you showcase how absolutely little you know about Blender.
The Eevee render engine, again the default render engine for Blender, uses OpenGL. So does Workbench, the render engine used for the viewport during modeling, sculpting and animation preview. Eevee-next, Blender's upcoming Render engine that uses Ray Tracing will use Vulkan (and most likely will become the default in the near future). And I have shared you countless benchmarks where AMD has proven they have decent performance in one and absolutely excel in the other compared to Nvidia.

- which is slower than the hacked ZLUDA - and the 7900 xtx is slower at rendering than the 4070 series - whether it's the 12gb vanilla card or a 4070 Super also at 12gb of vram or the 16gb 4070 Ti Super - yes, those cards are able to use optiX so a bit unfair but then it's AMD and Blender's fault - one or both of them - that haven't been able to use the OPEN SOURCE ray tracing element of HIP-RT.

And again all those performance metrics you mention are for Cycles without OIDN and the benchmarks files are un-optimized, they have been for a long time (note how this guy talks about 400 samples and I linked a thread in the post you quoted where someone was using 4 samples in Blender 4.1 and that 400 isn't even the default for the BMW27_GPU benchmark, if you download it today, BMW27_GPU still has 1225 samples). And as said before AMD has their own Render engine, that can be used inside of Blender, that uses RT acceleration, so there is that option if you want RT acceleration so dearly (you even get a free Material Library).

If I run the BMW benchmark at 1440P with about 12 Samples but turning the denoiser and adaptive sampling on (as they are off since they did not exist back in 2016, but are now on by default whenever you make a new project) and disable Tiling + BVH, I get a render time of 06.3 seconds. Meanwhile someone compared Optix and CUDA on the RTX 4090 using BMW at 1440P clearly kept the default settings ("Sample x/1225" during rendering) and achieved a time of 41.64s on Cuda and 28.46s on Optix, I must have some kind of insane futuristic graphics card to pull of 06.3s, a whopping 1/4th the render time of an RTX 4090 using Optix!! Or I know how to optimize render settings and have been around long enough to know that BMW is outdated and is also present in the test suite of the Blender Opendata benchmark to calculate the samples/min. And this isn't even mentioning the ways the actual materials in the scene can be optimized as well (the benchmark's last update dates from 2016 after all). Add Shaders nodes that can be replaced by the Principled BSDF, Mixed Shader Nodes for the roughness which could be baked on the already existing UVs etc etc
Screenshot from 2024-05-04 02-36-59.png

Not to mention that I told you countless times (even linking to articles of multiple sites on that topic, which aren't made by techreviewers but actual Blender artists) that depending on your use case it is very likely you won't ever need Cycles and by extension HIP/HIP-RT, I think I asked you a million times about what it is you wish to make in Blender but it seems you care more about Blender as a benchmark compared to the amazing 3D tool that it is, because the absolute truth is that you are incredibly biased and hate AMD, I have linked to everything so many times and each time you bring up the same points in the same disingenuous and untrue way. You don't care, you're not going to use Blender, that much is clear. You just need something to bash AMD on, and since it can't be gaming you need to find the next most popular thing (which is funny as for the 7900GRE you point to a lot of gaming focused articles).

and the 7900 xtx is slower at rendering than the 4070 series - whether it's the 12gb vanilla card or a 4070 Super also at 12gb of vram or the 16gb 4070 Ti Super.

Remember the Blender 3.6 Deepdive I linked you before; where the RT acceleration barely affected performance in one of the Cycles benchmarks, remember how the RTX 4070 performed slightly worse than the RX7900XTX and RX7900XT in both RT on and off, remember the comment you quoted just now and how I told you that Blender 4.0 and 4.1 has performance regression on every Nvidia card but AMD with the RX7900XTX is seeing performance increases on both versions. Heck I would ask you if you remember the Blender Rookie video on how the RTX 3060 12GB beat the RTX 3070 (8GB) because the benchmark in question was VRAM intensive so system/normal RAM had to be used for the 307 and that it took the RTX 3070 more than double the time (4 min 52 seconds) compared to the RTX 3060 12GB (2min 9seconds) showing the absolute importance VRAM can have (and 24GB is double that of 12GB). So saying "the 7900 xtx is slower at rendering than the 4070 series" is plain wrong, it's more along the lines of "the 7900 xtx is sometimes slower at rendering with Cycles than the 4070 series depending on the scene (and 4070 card) in question".

AMD works with Blender, for some usecases it is faster, for some it is not, HIP-RT Is not a requirement not even for Cycles.
If your usecase or workflow benefits from Nvidia you go with Nvidia, if your usecase or workflow benefits from AMD you go with AMD (and yes quite a few do, not all, but enough that AMD is viable). What you don't do is focus on a benchmark that is barely representative of 1 workflow all while not even using the software in question and pretending as if you're an expert while only referencing techreviewer benchmarks (which tend to be lazily done to begin with) and on top of that disregarding any fact or knowledge coming from someone with actual experience in said software just to bash a singular GPU manufacturer, as that would be pretty pathetic.

So, stop smoking all those drugs you have.

Maybe you need to start taking the ones the doctor is prescribing to you, because the memory loss is getting quite bad.

[Panix]

Man if only there was a Linux site for this Linux centric forum that did Benchmarks and showed the 7900GRE having better power consumption and performance on Linux compared to the RX 7900XT(X) and 4070 TI super. Oh wait.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-radeon-rx7900-gre/7

And the peak power is even lower compared to the benchmarks you provided, hot damn.
Also isn't it hilariously that a benchmark you actively commented on is one you don't link since it of course doesn't fit your narrative.

Gaming performance, Vulkan compute, more RAM, video editing in both Davinci Resolve and Adobe Premiere Pro, 3D sculpting and modeling while using a rasterized based engine to render like Eevee or Beer. Seems like there is more than just the FOSS aspect.

Lol as if you would every do anything with productivity software. Your only understanding of it comes from Benchmarks and even there you need to cherry pick whatever floats your boat, for example you don't bring up that currently the Nvidia cards have had a performance regression in Blender 4.0. And while no one seems to have done this for Blender 4.1, the Opendata benchmark site would suggest that Nvidia cards regressed even further with 4.1 while AMD actually saw an increase in their score.

So oh no, terrible news right? Don't use Blender 4.1 with Nvidia! Except no, since Blender 4.1 comes with a ton of features that makes the performance regression in those benchmarks negligible, one of my favorite ones being Geometry node Baking which has doubled the performance in a lot of my scenes for both Cycles and Eevee with the click of a button. And if you actually learned anything from my previous explanations on VRAM to you before, you might remember that Baking is where you precalculate something increasing VRAM but also increasing performance which has now been added to Geometry nodes.

Meanwhile an absolute madman on the Blender subredit used the new Intel Open Image Denoiser's GPU acceleration that came with Blender 4.1 to render a video in Cycles at 5FPS by lowering the sample count to 4 with an RTX 4070 TI super. So while the RTX 4070 TI super also saw a 10% drop in performance in the Blender benchmark since 3.6, it has better actual rendering performance when actually rendering as OIDN is on by default and now is significantly faster due to GPU acceleration being added.
As a small side node the denoiser also uses VRAM, and the tooltip even warns you that the bigger the scene the more VRAM is required. From my own testing the OIDN still uses less VRAM than the Nvidia Optix denoiser while offering better results and to top it off it works on all 3 GPUs unlike the Optix denoiser.

But neither of these performance gains are visible on the benchmark, as most of the benchmark scenes used by opendata are older and still use particle systems where these days tutorials would suggest and use geometry nodes and OIDN is technically post processing to get a clearer image from lower samples (in the above case single digits which is pretty nuts) while the open data benchmark score is the estimated number of samples per minute, summed for all benchmark scenes. So while the card now produces less samples in the latest Blender version, it still actually renders faster not to mention a ton of other great features like Light Linking.

Huh? You're so full of manure...lol.... how is the power consumption better than a 4070 Ti Super? What are you looking at?

No one in their right mind would try to argue a 7900 series even the 7900 GRE has better or more efficient power consumption than a 4070 Ti Super - maybe you meant the 4070? It's about even with that card on his graph.

Even most AMD fans will concede that the 4070 series is more power efficient than any AMD 7900 RDNA 3 card.

AMD gpus still suck in Blender and only use HIP - which is slower than the hacked ZLUDA - and the 7900 xtx is slower at rendering than the 4070 series - whether it's the 12gb vanilla card or a 4070 Super also at 12gb of vram or the 16gb 4070 Ti Super - yes, those cards are able to use optiX so a bit unfair but then it's AMD and Blender's fault - one or both of them - that haven't been able to use the OPEN SOURCE ray tracing element of HIP-RT.

So, stop smoking all those drugs you have.

[tenchrio]

I hear you but I am talking about the overall superior card - both software-related and hardware-related and afaik, the Nvidia side is better when comparing the 7800 xt and 7900 gre - if you want more vram, then, sure, you will have to pay for it - that's where Nvidia are 'bastards' - the 4070 Ti Super - has 16gb but power consumption is still more efficient - so what about your argument, huh? 288w vs 304w

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-radeon-rx-7900-gre-tuf/39.html

Power spikes and vsync 60 hz - major power differences there, too - with the gre consuming even more power than its 7900 'siblings.' Wow.
It's also better for gpuCompute and other productivity tasks (with a few exceptions):

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-review/5

Man if only there was a Linux site for this Linux centric forum that did Benchmarks and showed the 7900GRE having better power consumption and performance per dollar on Linux compared to the RX 7900XT(X) and 4070 TI super. Oh wait.

https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-radeon-rx7900-gre/7

And the peak power is even lower compared to the benchmarks you provided, hot damn.
Also isn't it hilariously that a benchmark you actively commented on is one you don't link since it of course doesn't fit your narrative.

The FOSS aspect is the ONLY reason to even CONSIDER the amd gpu - and if explicit sync 'solves' some issues - then there's even more incentive to pick the nvidia card -whichever it is.

Gaming performance, Vulkan compute, more RAM, video editing in both Davinci Resolve and Adobe Premiere Pro, 3D sculpting and modeling while using a rasterized based engine to render like Eevee or Beer. Seems like there is more than just the FOSS aspect.

I'm waiting to see if it does - as AMD doesn't look like it's fixing any of the productivity software problems - not even close or anytime soon so I have no choice.

Lol as if you would every do anything with productivity software. Your only understanding of it comes from Benchmarks and even there you need to cherry pick whatever floats your boat, for example you don't bring up that currently the Nvidia cards have had a performance regression in Blender 4.0. And while no one seems to have done this for Blender 4.1, the Opendata benchmark site would suggest that Nvidia cards regressed even further with 4.1 while AMD actually saw an increase in their score.

So oh no, terrible news right? Don't use Blender 4.1 with Nvidia! Except no, since Blender 4.1 comes with a ton of features that makes the performance regression in those benchmarks negligible, one of my favorite ones being Geometry node Baking which has doubled the performance in a lot of my scenes for both Cycles and Eevee with the click of a button. And if you actually learned anything from my previous explanations on VRAM to you before, you might remember that Baking is where you precalculate something increasing VRAM but also increasing performance which has now been added to Geometry nodes.

Meanwhile an absolute madman on the Blender subredit used the new Intel Open Image Denoiser's GPU acceleration that came with Blender 4.1 to render a video in Cycles at 5FPS by lowering the sample count to 4 with an RTX 4070 TI super. So while the RTX 4070 TI super also saw a 10% drop in performance in the Blender benchmark since 3.6, it has better actual rendering performance when actually rendering as OIDN is on by default and now is significantly faster due to GPU acceleration being added.
As a small side node the denoiser also uses VRAM, and the tooltip even warns you that the bigger the scene the more VRAM is required. From my own testing the OIDN still uses less VRAM than the Nvidia Optix denoiser while offering better results and to top it off it works on all 3 GPUs unlike the Optix denoiser.

But neither of these performance gains are visible on the benchmark, as most of the benchmark scenes used by opendata are older and still use particle systems where these days tutorials would suggest and use geometry nodes and OIDN is technically post processing to get a clearer image from lower samples (in the above case single digits which is pretty nuts) while the open data benchmark score is the estimated number of samples per minute, summed for all benchmark scenes. So while the card now produces less samples in the latest Blender version, it still actually renders faster not to mention a ton of other great features like Light Linking.

[oiaohm]

I hear you but I am talking about the overall superior card - both software-related and hardware-related and afaik, the Nvidia side is better when comparing the 7800 xt and 7900 gre - if you want more vram, then, sure, you will have to pay for it - that's where Nvidia are 'bastards' - the 4070 Ti Super - has 16gb but power consumption is still more efficient - so what about your argument, huh? 288w vs 304w
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a...re-tuf/39.html

You need to look at that again. There is a stock RX7900 GRE in there list. The ASUS is overclocked.

There is another thing DisplayPort 2.1 is on the AMD cards. Where as the Nvidia is only DisplayPort 1.4a. This is important for hooking up some monitors. Particular thinking you need Displayport 2.1 to use a Display-port to hDMI 2.1 dongle that works well.

Less ram worst connectivity you have with the 4070 Ti Super. Remember I said my target it to use card for 10 years. Poorer connectivity is a big factor.

[Panix]

The RX7800TX is a 16GB card RX7900RE 16G card. and the 4070Super is 12G card. Guess what running ram consumes power. The power difference between 4070 Super and RX7800TX and RX7900GRE is mostly ram.

4070 Super is not cheaper everywhere. That 4G of ram difference can be the difference if a compute workload works well or not. 16 G ram card is a lot more expensive from Nvidia.

Linux users like me build systems I run for at least a decade. AMD I will have driver updates for that time frame. Nvidia not so much. So do more Nvidia matter if in 5 years time I am going to have replace the Nvidia card because it drivers don't want to work with the current X11/Wayland solution of Linux by then or by the AMD card that going to be good for the 10+ years.

This is a factor of long term performance is driver support. It common for AMD developers to find something wrong current driver and see that the old driver had the same problem on Linux and fix that has well.

Me building a system to run for a decade I am compare the 7900GRE against the 7800TX the 4070 super from Nvidia does not come into it.

I hear you but I am talking about the overall superior card - both software-related and hardware-related and afaik, the Nvidia side is better when comparing the 7800 xt and 7900 gre - if you want more vram, then, sure, you will have to pay for it - that's where Nvidia are 'bastards' - the 4070 Ti Super - has 16gb but power consumption is still more efficient - so what about your argument, huh? 288w vs 304w

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/asus-radeon-rx-7900-gre-tuf/39.html

Power spikes and vsync 60 hz - major power differences there, too - with the gre consuming even more power than its 7900 'siblings.' Wow.
It's also better for gpuCompute and other productivity tasks (with a few exceptions):

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4070-ti-super-review/5

The FOSS aspect is the ONLY reason to even CONSIDER the amd gpu - and if explicit sync 'solves' some issues - then there's even more incentive to pick the nvidia card -whichever it is. I'm waiting to see if it does - as AMD doesn't look like it's fixing any of the productivity software problems - not even close or anytime soon so I have no choice.

[oiaohm]

The 4070 is a bit cheaper, here. Thus, when you compare tasks other than gaming, the 4070 Super is a much better choice. The only disadv. it has is lacking vram in comparison.

The RX7800TX is a 16GB card RX7900RE 16G card. and the 4070Super is 12G card. Guess what running ram consumes power. The power difference between 4070 Super and RX7800TX and RX7900GRE is mostly ram.

4070 Super is not cheaper everywhere. That 4G of ram difference can be the difference if a compute workload works well or not. 16 G ram card is a lot more expensive from Nvidia.

Linux users like me build systems I run for at least a decade. AMD I will have driver updates for that time frame. Nvidia not so much. So do more Nvidia matter if in 5 years time I am going to have replace the Nvidia card because it drivers don't want to work with the current X11/Wayland solution of Linux by then or by the AMD card that going to be good for the 10+ years.

This is a factor of long term performance is driver support. It common for AMD developers to find something wrong current driver and see that the old driver had the same problem on Linux and fix that has well.

Me building a system to run for a decade I am compare the 7900GRE against the 7800TX the 4070 super from Nvidia does not come into it.

[tenchrio]

Blah, blah, blah, more bs from you so that you can insult - as that is all you do. I agree with oiaohm and prefer discussing with him because he's above insulting unlike you.

LOL so you can give but can't take, typical hyprocite.
And a reminder that you started with the insults once again with your "reading comprehension" and "this site is full of delusional AMD fanboys so no chance of that happening" as you probably already knew you were wrong deep inside. And the best part is now you admit it !! You admit it is different but have to continue arguing about the name of a card while it is unrelated to the topic that was discussed previously, but hey progress I guess.

I do understand the chip difference but regardless, it doesn't change the fact the 7900 GRE was named under the 7900 series and is heavily gimped - your average consumer probably won't have any idea and might be assuming near-7900 XT performance - which it DOES NOT come close.

That was never relevant to this thread, you just randomly brought it up to thread hijack because once again you have to hate on AMD, regardless of the topic, regardless of the news being discussed, you have for some reason a burning desire to bring AMD up and to bash it. The thread here was about the open source nouveau drivers of Nvidia and how particularly confusing it is getting with the automatic re-clocking what is and isn't supported under Nouveau (all thanks to Nvidia being actively in the way of the open source driver) . The card is clearly named differently, how about you using that reading comprehension of yours to read the name.

The reason I didn't care much about the 710 and 1030 fiasco is because Nvidia is already not really compliant or known for supporting open source anyway - they're already hated for this - so, the chip thing isn't very surprising from them.

Except that this discussion right here is about Nvidia slowly given us this compliance at least somewhat for Turing and newer. Which leaves us with a weird spot of Nvidia GPUs that have automatic reclock but don't use the new GSP firmware. We need it for Kepler because it is EOL, we want it for Maxwell as it is reaching EOL hence why it is relevant in this thread about the open source nvidia driver.

I shopped for a GT 1030 a while ago when I had an old sff Dell - so, I was aware of what they did with it. Since, I was looking for used card and refused to buy new - partly because it was overly expensive for a small form factor gpu, partly because of what Nvidia DID - so, I was not contributing to Nvidia revenues and profit!

Okay, cool story.

It's basically a gpu to get video, imho - so, it's pretty pathetic they'd cripple that one and to save money further, use the wrong tech/chip with it. But, that's Nvidia? So, yes, the fact it's not a gaming chip - I think it is RELEVANT! More ppl will buy a gaming card so more ppl will likely be buying the 7900 'Rabbit card' - which is not really a 7900 series 'under the hood' - with defective chips, also - we all agree, right? The semantics of arguing it's 'still a 7900' notwithstanding. I already posted a number of ppl discussing it that proven without doubt, it's only a 7900 in name - since, there's a bunch of gimping done because it was silicon they could still savage.

Oh my god Argumentum ad populum, what you think the earth is also flat and Scientology is real because a bunch of people are telling you that is the case too?
It always amazes me how idiots try to flock together in the face of facts and go "wE cAn'T aLl Be WrOnG!".

As me and oiaohm have been saying the 7900GRE uses the same silicon as the 7900XT but a cut down version to salvage chips that came short.
The xda-developers you quoted even says so that "on paper it is extremely close to the 7900XT" (how about you read your sources for once), just less cores, less buswidth/bandwith and less VRAM. The 7800XT uses NAVI 32 , the 7900 GRE And 7900XT both use NAVI 31 and with Nvidia this naming behavior is also the same the RTX 4070 and 4070 TI both use AD104.... on launch as Nvidia starting March 2024 also began to ship RTX 4070 with a cutdown AD103 (RTX 4080 chips) and just like before you won't know if yours has AD103 or AD104 until you plug it in or take it apart entirely (the effects are also hard to measure as reviewers would have to get lucky and receive both an AD103 and AD104 and again they aren't sold as separate models, they are both put inside of the same RTX 4070 box).

But if you hate the 7900GRE because its performance is less than the other cards that it shares its die with (for some reason) wait until I hit you with this bombshell, Nvidia's 4000 mobile GPUs always use the silicon for one tier lower. So the RTX 4090 (and Dragon) uses AD102 but the RTX 4090 mobile uses AD103, the same as the RTX 4080, the RTX 4080 Mobile however uses AD104, the same one as the RTX 4070 and 4070 TI and this goes on until AD107 where finally the RTX 4050 and RTX 4050 Mobile are together at last (as are the RTX 4060 and 4060 Mobile. Well sort of as just like the RTX 4070 with AD103, nvidia started shipping RTX 4060's with AD106, again you can't know if yours does or not). [s]My god you must be livid!! How can Nvidia do this absolute crime of saying it is a 4080 (mobile) but use the 4070 silicon![/s]
And mind you this wasn't the case last gen where the corresponding mobile GPU did have the same silicon so the RTX 3070 had GA104, same as the RTX 3070 mobile.

Also originally there was a RTX 4080 12GB and if you look at the spec sheet like the AD104 silicon instead of AD103 like the RTX 4080 16GB, the 7680 shading units, the 240... TMUs, the 80 ROPS.... wait a minute that is identical to the RTX 4070 TI specsheet! Nvidia actually tried to sell a "4080" which in reality had 4070 silicon and way lower specs than the 4080 16GB, they then "unlaunched" this card and relaunched it as the 4070 TI which makes more sense since the RTX 4070 also uses AD104. Mind you that historically every xx70 and TI card had a corresponding silicon with 104 (3070 (TI)=> both GA104, 1070 (TI) => both GP104, 970 => GM204, Turing being weird and making the RTX 2070 TU106 but the RTX 2070 Super TU104). So uh Nvidia actually attempted and does what you accuse AMD of (wrongfully since the name stems less from performance and more from the silicon as it has done for ages and man finding out that stuff about the 4000 series mobile GPUs would not have been so hilarious if it wasn't for your ridiculous opinion).

And still: all of this was off topic as the original topic talked about was the state of nouveau drivers and how the GT710M users are in a coin flip predicament if they can use nouveau or must use the nvidia legacy drivers as the card is no longer supported by Nvidia, your terribly informed rant was never related and as usual the premise of it is your own delusion and a far cry from reality for people who actually do have knowledge on GPU manufacturing, naming and silicon.

I don't hate AMD - well, maybe somewhat -

No, you absolute do, you posted in a thread of which the article was already deleted for over a day and despite it being about a performance fix (on APUs but hey the article was deleted, how could you know) you immediately went to bash AMD for it (hell even if it was for GPU, wouldn't that be a good thing? That AMD fixes something that you find important?).That is clearly indicative of an unhealthy obsession. Here is the kicker; when Intel fixed an actual similar issue for their dedicated GPUs this month, you didn't randomly start posting there bashing Intel (or AMD, which wouldn't make sense but hey you are doing it here), despite that article still being up (and thus still accessible through the front page and most importantly readable).

because they refuse to support their hardware and neglect the software side - they don't support programs in the productivity sphere -

Oh god here we go again, I think we had this song and dance like what 4 times already?
I shared the benchmarks of Davinci Resolve and Premiere Pro before, the AMD cards punch well above their price in that department (compared to Nvidia).
So no you are wrong, per usual. AMD is behind with HIP-RT but that is less of "don't support" and more of "in development" and I have already giving you a dozen 3D use case where HIP-RT and Optix performance do not apply. AMD has also developed the current Blender USD Hydra plugin that is shipped with Blender that can be used as a render delegate for more advanced render engines like Dreamworks Moonray or Pixar's Renderman and it is usable for both Nvidia and Intel and as said multiple times before their own render engine that can also be used for Nvidia and Intel, so they do support the productivity sphere and their support of that sphere even benefits Nvidia and Intel (the things you know if you are actually in the productivity sphere).

so, yeah, they are like Nvidia in that they put profit and shortcuts above a good hardware/good software stack. Their processors are good - if I was buying a new PC or build, I'd definitely pick AM5 today.

...what? If there is one thing you need to hand to Nvidia it is that CUDA is a great (albeit be it closed source) software stack, being exceptionally well optimized compared to OpenCL and having good documentation. CUDA being that good is what helped Nvidia achieve its current dominance (not to mention the insane performance/value aspect of the Pascal line during a time when people were taking bets when AMD would be declared bankrupt), but ROCM Is slowly and steadily getting better and in some cases has proven to give a better value already which is great for the consumer, stronger competition leads to better products, just look at the CPU space before and after first gen Ryzen.

Several links detail the tech differences. I'd give the gpu a hard pass - most ppl just care about gaming performance and the price.

There is also a difference between the 7900XT and 7900XTX, and the 4070 and 4070 TI doesn't mean the name does not make sense.
And okay, sure I think most people are of that opinion on that card. Doesn't mean you need to randomly rant about it (or how about you do it in the Phoronix review about it, well you actually already did do that but clearly you need to get it out of your system).

[mrg666]

Wrong again, Mr. Oiaohm.... I know you are trying but this is more evidence that AMD just doesn't care about the consumer and is pricing their hardware way too high - and they're just like Nvidia. Everything I've read indicates that the 7900 GRE is geared towards being a 2k or 1440p card. It's going against the 4070 and 4070 Super - one could argue it's a 'better pick' than the 4070 but that can't be said with a 4070 Super comparison.

In my country, the 4070 Super is only $40 more. The cheapest 7900 GRE is $750 and the cheapest 4070 Super is $790.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2826-geforce-rtx-4070-super-vs-radeon-7900-gre/

vs 4070:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/rtx-4070-vs-rx-7900-gre-faceoff-which-mainstream-graphics-card-is-better

The 4070 is a bit cheaper, here. Thus, when you compare tasks other than gaming, the 4070 Super is a much better choice. The only disadv. it has is lacking vram in comparison.

This is a typical 'loss' for AMD though - with their gpus. It's the typical pattern.

As for the 7800 xt - $680.

https://tech4gamers.com/rx-7800-xt-vs-rx-7900-gre/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mFssoxlJHk

It seems like there's around a 7-8 fps gain for the 7900 gre. Anyway, I don't care too much about these 2 cards - they seem mediocre to me - worse power efficiency than the 4070 series cards and weaker, overall performance.

Well, the videos you linked are for Windows. As a Linux enthusiast, AMD is less trouble and as good (maybe better) performance on Linux. I would not buy Nvidia for Linux as it was a very frustrating experience for me. Just my 2c though, that is your money.

[Panix]

Also the 7900GRE AMD has priced as if it a updated 7800TX. So the price tag of the 7900GRE is not close to the 7900XT either.

RX 7900GRE is 599.99 USD card.
RX 7900TX is $936.71 USD card
$936.71 USD card
This is you amazon PowerColor Red Devil Hell hounds.
Had to go to a lower fighter class card to get
PowerColor Fighter AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT is USD $489.99 The fighter is a 100 USD cheaper heatsink than the Red Devils. Recommend retail has 50USD difference between the RX7900GRE and the RX 7800XT of the same type.

RX 7900GRE is performance from the benchmarks is on majority of the time slightly better than you RX7800. You would say the RX7900GRE is priced for the performance it in fact gives.

https://gamersnexus.net/gpus/amd-radeon-rx-7900-gre-gpu-review-benchmarks-vs-rx-7900-xt-7800-xt-rtx-4070-super

The gamersnexus write up is important.

7900 XT 17% faster than the 7900 GRE. But remember you are paying 1/3 less for the GRE. Performance per dollar 7900GRE is better buying than the 7900TX.
7900 GRE a 13% faster than the RX7800TX. At recommend retail price on performance vs price the 7900GRE is better buying than the RX7800TX. Now lot of cases you are not buying at recommend retail price so RX7800TX in some cases could be better buying in performance vs price.

Its kind of surprising for how much is cut out of the 7900GRE that is only a 17% performance loss from the RX7900XT back to it.. Think there is over a 20% between the RX7900TX and the RX7900XTX

In reality the 7900GRE performs good enough to be a historic non TX/XTX card. It would have been a lot worse if AMD had just label it RX7900 and called it done. Yes the card has the performance for that.

You are not thinking that its ~20% performance difference between the TX and the XTX with AMD and that it should be 20-30% back to the not titled card. We have not seen AMD releasing non titled cards in recent years.

Consumers would be more confused if AMD had just released a non titled card after all these years because people would over presume how much untitled card performs.. They created a new title the GRE.

Panix being near china I have seen different AMD cards for only the china market that don't have TX/XTX on them that are the 20-30% slower to the TX versions from older generations of course normally only in small batches(the duds). We have got use to not seeing the duds in markets outside china. Something really gone wrong with the 31 die production has to have had a lot of duds for the GRE to be coming into the Weston market. I say they suspected this case when they started making the GRE card this is why the GRE marking from the start instead of the normal nothing marking.

Yes the navi 31 die is the first time AMD has attempted to mass produce a multi chip GPU.

Yes the 7900GRE performance is lot closer to the 7900TX than one would suspect reading the specification sheet for what has been cut out. Also AMD priced as if RX7900GRE was 30% slower and turned out not to be. .

Wrong again, Mr. Oiaohm.... I know you are trying but this is more evidence that AMD just doesn't care about the consumer and is pricing their hardware way too high - and they're just like Nvidia. Everything I've read indicates that the 7900 GRE is geared towards being a 2k or 1440p card. It's going against the 4070 and 4070 Super - one could argue it's a 'better pick' than the 4070 but that can't be said with a 4070 Super comparison.

In my country, the 4070 Super is only $40 more. The cheapest 7900 GRE is $750 and the cheapest 4070 Super is $790.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2826-geforce-rtx-4070-super-vs-radeon-7900-gre/

vs 4070:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/rtx-4070-vs-rx-7900-gre-faceoff-which-mainstream-graphics-card-is-better

The 4070 is a bit cheaper, here. Thus, when you compare tasks other than gaming, the 4070 Super is a much better choice. The only disadv. it has is lacking vram in comparison.

This is a typical 'loss' for AMD though - with their gpus. It's the typical pattern.

As for the 7800 xt - $680.

https://tech4gamers.com/rx-7800-xt-vs-rx-7900-gre/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mFssoxlJHk

It seems like there's around a 7-8 fps gain for the 7900 gre. Anyway, I don't care too much about these 2 cards - they seem mediocre to me - worse power efficiency than the 4070 series cards and weaker, overall performance.