I know it wouldn't, it's just that I'd prefer to save the money for now if it uses the same VRAM at the same settings. Running the 5070 ti at higher settings would cause the game to run out of VRAM and stutter/drop frames.
Everytime I see something about Intel having to cut jobs I think back to the 300 Million they put towards diversity initiatives in like 2015. I think they even gave money to Anita Sarkesian.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything until sometime next year. Probably like Q2-Q3
Could be as soon as Q4-Q1 since it has been leaky. SK Hynix is also jumping into 3 GB modules... sometime.
Fair enough. I don't need it now, gives me time to save some more shekels for ngreedia.
The internet says there's barely any difference between the cards in most games.
tbh the bigger problem is them spending the decade throwing money after shit like optane and then killing it. I think they wrote off something like $600 million just getting rid of optane inventory in 2020 alone and god knows how much was dumped into R&D without any return (although they also shared costs with Micron so who knows).
Just as a heads up, I have a 9060 XT 16GB and not a 9070 XT; which is how I got it open box for $300 ($50 cheaper than the currently out of stock new variant).
If intel had a spine and kept Optane they'd still have something right now that would give consumers a reason for buying intel. Its a shame because it seems like the are trying to hide in a corner and hope amd fucks up their momentum. It's especially evident with lip bu;'s "no more blank checks" quote and the constant layoffs. In a time where they are quickly losing their position in the industry this should be when they want to do everything they can to beat the competition.
typically it’s the opposite, RDNA is a less VRAM efficient architecture, there’s games where a 9070XT runs out of VRAM where a 5070ti doesn’t, this is due to Blackwell having more L2 cache which makes RDNA require more calls to vram
I haven't looked into that inefficiency, but 5070 and 5070 Ti have 48 MiB L2, while 9070 XT, non-XT, and GRE have 64 MiB L3 (branded Infinity Cache) that plays the same role. That has been reduced from the 96 MiB of the similarly performing 7900 XTX and 128 MiB of every Navi 21 card including the 6800 non-XT. RDNA3 has higher bandwidth for Infinity Cache than RDNA2, not sure if RDNA4 increases it again.
Stick with AMD. Intel has fucked up royally these last few gens.
Is there even a reason to buy Intel anymore aside from silly brand loyalty? Other than that, the only thing I can think of are the N100/N200 mini PCs which are actually quite decent (around i5-8250U performance), but that's a rather niche thing.
There’s Quicksync/AV1 encode. It’s why I keep going back and forth on a Core Ultra 7 265 (none K) home server build. AMDs support for that kind of thing is trash and the application support isn’t there either.
That depends - how wedded are you to upgrades? Core Ultra 265k handily beats the 7700x and they have the same MSRP and hover around similar discounts. 265k is $280 on Amazon right now versus the $240 for the 7700X.
The N100/N200/etc, Alder Lake-N, is Intel servicing the sub-$200 (complete system) x86 segment. AMD has chips that perform similarly, but have abandoned that segment. You usually have to go to around $300+ to find good AMD mini PCs. Intel may bring P-cores/hybrid to Atom with "Wildcat Lake" next year, boosting the performance of their cheapest chips tremendously.
Using DIMM slots for anything other than RAM has too high an opportunity cost to be useful outside an extremely limited range of applications. It sold very poorly, and that's why it's dead.
Much better power management in laptops.
I saw some Newegg deals last month where you could get a core 7 ultra 265k, mobo, aio cpu cooler, and 32gb of ram for like $300 or so (might've been higher, but it was cheaper than amd by a decent bit); I still went with a 9800 X3D for that extra cache tho.
