this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
699 points (98.3% liked)
Memes
45746 readers
2181 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For CPUs nothing beats AMD
For years, Intel's compiler, math library MKL and their profiler, VTune, really only worked well with their own CPUs. There was in fact code that decreased performance if it detected a non-Intel CPU in place:
https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49&v=f
That later became part of a larger lawsuit, but since Intel is not discriminating against AMD directly, but rather against all other non-Intel CPUs, the result of the lawsuit was underwhelming. In fact, it's still a problem today:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/302650-how-to-bypass-matlab-cripple-amd-ryzen-threadripper-cpus
https://medium.com/codex/fixing-intel-compilers-unfair-cpu-dispatcher-part-1-2-4a4a367c8919
Given that the MKL is a widely used library, people also indirectly suffer from this if they buy an AMD CPU and utilize software that links against that library.
As someone working in low-level optimization, that was/is a shitty situation. I still bought an AMD CPU after the latest fiasco a couple of weeks ago.
Honestly even with gpus now too. I was forced to team green for a few years because they were so far behind. Now though, unless you absolutely need a 4090 for some reason, you can get basically the same performance from and, for 70% of the cost
I haven't really been paying much attention to the latest GPU news, but can AMD cards do ray tracing and dlss and all that jazz that comes with RTX cards?
DLSS is off the table, but you CAN raytrace. That being said I do not see the value of RT myself. It has the greatest performance impact of any graphical setting and often looks only marginally better than baked in lighting.
It depends greatly on the game. I've seen a huge difference in games like Control where the game itself was used to feature that... Well... Feature! You can see it in the quality of the lighting and the reflections. You also get better illumination on darker areas thanks to radiated lighting. It's much more natural looking.
dlss is a brand name both amd and intel have their own version of the same thing, and they are only a little worse if at all.
Yes, but by different names. They use FSR that's basically the same thing, I haven't noticed a difference in quality. Ray tracing too, just not branded as RTX
There is analogous functionality for most of it, though it's generally not quite as good across the board.
FSR is AMD's answer to DLSS, but the quality isn't quite as good. However the implementation is hardware agnostic so everyone can use it, which is pretty nice. Even Nvidia's users with older GPUs like a 1080 who are locked out of using DLSS can still use FSR in supported games. If you have an AMD card then you also get the option in the driver settings of enabling it globally for every game, whether it has support built in or not.
Ray tracing is present and works just fine, though their performance is about a generation behind. It's perfectly usable if you keep your expectations in line with that though. Especially in well optimized games like DOOM Eternal or light ray tracing like in Guardians of the Galaxy. Fully path traced lighting like in Cyberpunk 2077 is completely off the table though.
Obviously AMD has hardware video encoders. People like to point out that the visual quality of then is lower than Nvidia's but I always found them perfectly serviceable. AMD's background recording stuff is also built directly into their driver suite, no need to install anything extra.
While they do have their own GPU-powered microphone noise removal, a la RTX Voice, AMD does lack the full set of tools found in Nvidia Broadcast, e.g. video background removal and whatnot. There is also no equivalent to RTX HDR.
Finally, if you've an interest in locally running any LLM or diffusion models they're more of a pain to get working well on AMD as the majority of implementations are CUDA based.
I disagree. Processing power may be similar, but Nvidia still outperforms with raytracing, and more importantly DLSS.
Whats the point of having the same processing power, when Nvidia still gets more than double the FPS in any game that supports DLSS
FSR exists, and FSR 3 actually looks very good when compared with DLSS. These arguments about raytracing and DLSS are getting weaker and weaker.
There are still strong arguments for nvidia GPUs in the prosumer market due to the usage of its CUDA cores with some software suites, but for gaming, Nvidia is just overcharging because they still hold the mindshare.
I had the 3090 and then the 6900xtx. The differences were minimal, if even noticeable. Ray tracing is about a generation behind from Nvidia to and, but they're catching up.
As the other commenter said too fsr is the same as dlss. For me, I actually got a better frame rate with fsr playing cyberpunk and satisfactory than I did dlss!
Researchers discover potentially catastrophic exploit present in AMD chips for decades
Are you just posting this under every comment? This isn't even a fraction as bad as the Intel CPU issue. Something tells me you have Intel hardware...