7
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)
Hardware
5671 readers
11 users here now
This is a community dedicated to the hardware aspect of technology, from PC parts, to gadgets, to servers, to industrial control equipment, to semiconductors.
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to electronic hardware
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That is actually somewhat usual, isn't it? Just compared previous gens high end with entry to mid on nvidia like 1080 vs 3060 and 2080 vs 4060. They paint the same picture.
We are far away from the times where every single generation, marks a significant performance increase. For CPU or GPU performance.
I disagree on the CPU front, halving my CPU cores from AMD 5000 to 9000 series resulted in only gains or equivalence
Can you specify which CPUs you are talking about? Also we are not talking about cores. "Halving cores" means basically nothing when you compare across different architectures.
Yes that's the point, same for GPUs. Don't need as many compute units if the architecture is better
5950x to 9800x3d for example. Cost me about half the price, half the cores, much faster architecture. Equivalent or faster in pretty much every workload.
Apply the same back to GPUs, over a few generations there has not been any appreciable upgrade option at reduced cost with equivalent performance or better to the 6900XT
No. The point is the performance. You cannot compare the number of cores or frequency or else across architectures. That is pointless. That is not what i have said at all.
Lmao you're just out here to argue, the point is there's nothing cheaper, better than the 6900XT worth upgrading to