From the last few gens? Not even close to best. Certainly not more than Radeon 9000 series, HD4000 series, HD5000 series, HD7000 series, and R9 200 series.
7900 XTX, one year later is at 0.19% on Steam.
A year after 6900 XT released, 6900 series was at 1.19%.
Given their last high end before 6900 was 390X, which there is no steam hardware survey on, but 7970 was ahead… Yeah, not even close.
Their last “high end” before the RX 6900 XT was the Vega VII and before that Vega 64, yeah they only were able to compete with the RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 respectively but so does the RX 7900 XTX that can only compete with the RTX 4080…
PS.: Also the high end AMD GPU before Vega 64 was the R9 Fury X (R9 390X was a 290X refresh that launched in the same period), that was quite competitive with the GTX 980 Ti but it’s 4 GB of HBM and and the necessity to be water cooled limited its sales…
The Fury X was an instant no-buy for high-end 4K gamers, due to the measly 4GB of VRAM.
Just as the RTX 4080 should be a no-buy for high-end 4K gamers, due to the measly 16GB of VRAM. In a year’s time, AAA RT-enabled games will suck up >16GB at 4K.
Surely the 4080 might not age very well but it’s very likely it’s RT performance will be insufficient before VRAM becomes an issue, even Alan Wake II limits its use of path tracing at max settings and still uses a decent amount of raster.
Sadly they weren’t that impactful besides the Vega 56 - competed very well with the GTX 1070 and Nvidia launched the GTX 1070 Ti because of it - they consumed too much power at stock because of overvoltage and they launched way too late…
Yep, they were honestly decent cards, but wrong time to launch. Same issue nVidia had with 400 series, without the whole “overpriced to fuck, trying to scam customers” kinda deal they had with the benchmarking requirements for reviewers.
loved my Vega 56, performed well, and a little undervolting fixed the power issue big time… didn’t feel like I were missing out for “not buying Nvidia”
It really was a good GPU, sadly the 1st impression Vega gave wasn’t good stacked with being one year late, overvolted and barely could reach the GTX 1080 at launch…
I would’ve gotten one if they weren’t quite uncommon in my country, even Navi was a lot more easy to find in the used market so I ended up getting a RX 5700 that’s serving me very well!
Again with the steam numbers it’s not accurate as the data is gather from a pool of people who opts in to the survey that pool could be 500/5000 people we wouldn’t known
Steam is also heavily biased towards Nvidia users. I’d like to see stats which discount China, which is flooded with Nvidia GPUs, especially in their internet cafes. The other issue is that Steam seems to count the same cafe PC twice, if two survey opted-in gamers log onto that same PC.
From the last few gens? Not even close to best. Certainly not more than Radeon 9000 series, HD4000 series, HD5000 series, HD7000 series, and R9 200 series.
7900 XTX, one year later is at 0.19% on Steam.
A year after 6900 XT released, 6900 series was at 1.19%.
Given their last high end before 6900 was 390X, which there is no steam hardware survey on, but 7970 was ahead… Yeah, not even close.
Navi21 wasn’t high end, GA102 was just weak, also 6900 XT was not at 1.19% in late 2021,that’s 🧢
A 520mm^2 die on 7nm is pretty high end
Their last “high end” before the RX 6900 XT was the Vega VII and before that Vega 64, yeah they only were able to compete with the RTX 2080 and GTX 1080 respectively but so does the RX 7900 XTX that can only compete with the RTX 4080…
PS.: Also the high end AMD GPU before Vega 64 was the R9 Fury X (R9 390X was a 290X refresh that launched in the same period), that was quite competitive with the GTX 980 Ti but it’s 4 GB of HBM and and the necessity to be water cooled limited its sales…
The Fury X was an instant no-buy for high-end 4K gamers, due to the measly 4GB of VRAM.
Just as the RTX 4080 should be a no-buy for high-end 4K gamers, due to the measly 16GB of VRAM. In a year’s time, AAA RT-enabled games will suck up >16GB at 4K.
Surely the 4080 might not age very well but it’s very likely it’s RT performance will be insufficient before VRAM becomes an issue, even Alan Wake II limits its use of path tracing at max settings and still uses a decent amount of raster.
forgot about vega’s existence tbh
Sadly they weren’t that impactful besides the Vega 56 - competed very well with the GTX 1070 and Nvidia launched the GTX 1070 Ti because of it - they consumed too much power at stock because of overvoltage and they launched way too late…
Yep, they were honestly decent cards, but wrong time to launch. Same issue nVidia had with 400 series, without the whole “overpriced to fuck, trying to scam customers” kinda deal they had with the benchmarking requirements for reviewers.
loved my Vega 56, performed well, and a little undervolting fixed the power issue big time… didn’t feel like I were missing out for “not buying Nvidia”
It really was a good GPU, sadly the 1st impression Vega gave wasn’t good stacked with being one year late, overvolted and barely could reach the GTX 1080 at launch…
I would’ve gotten one if they weren’t quite uncommon in my country, even Navi was a lot more easy to find in the used market so I ended up getting a RX 5700 that’s serving me very well!
Looks sadly at radeon VII by my feet
Again with the steam numbers it’s not accurate as the data is gather from a pool of people who opts in to the survey that pool could be 500/5000 people we wouldn’t known
Steam is also heavily biased towards Nvidia users. I’d like to see stats which discount China, which is flooded with Nvidia GPUs, especially in their internet cafes. The other issue is that Steam seems to count the same cafe PC twice, if two survey opted-in gamers log onto that same PC.