[–] therealkrispy ago
It's impossible to directly compare the two, as price and performance don't line up between any of their opposing SKUs, and so it makes more sense to look at individual parts, as the architectures alone don't even tell the whole story. They're not on the same lithography, they're not using the same VRAM, and much of the die size on Turing is consumed by tensor and RT cores. On top of that, Vega isn't dead yet, and is likely to be iterated on for years to come.
[–] therealkrispy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
That's entirely fair, but the article and its contents do not make it a good title.
[–] PsyOp 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
It's amazing what these companies can build at the nanoscale. Unfortunately, most games aren't optimized to take advantage of these hi-end architectures. I have a $5,500. computer and I'm getting around 20-25 fps, on medium settings, in my Xcom 2 game...that fucking game is 4 years old! I sent an email to Nvidia telling them that I wouldn't be buying their hi-end cards anymore because of the shoddy state of video games these days. My rig does great with GIMP and Blender, and just about everything else, but video games? Forgetaboutit!
[–] fightknightHERO 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
what's the point to it all?
Vidya is so fucking pozzed that we'll never see any advancements due to Shitskin Affirmative Action quotas