1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:07,200 The RTX 3090 or BFGPU as NVIDIA's CEO 2 00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:12,800 called it has been nicely toppled by a card that costs a nice 23 as much. At 3 00:00:10,320 --> 00:00:18,960 least that's what the nice guys at AMD would like us to believe. And this is 4 00:00:16,240 --> 00:00:27,119 it. The RX6900 XT. It looks nice. It feels nice. It 5 00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:32,480 even smells nice. But can it really be that simple? Just tack a few more 6 00:00:29,439 --> 00:00:35,440 compute units onto the 6800 XT and 7 00:00:32,480 --> 00:00:41,559 suddenly you're the top dog. Well, that would be nice, but it's also not quite 8 00:00:38,239 --> 00:00:41,559 that easy. 9 00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:54,160 After the announcement, we hoped that AMD was doing more under the hood than 10 00:00:52,160 --> 00:01:01,199 just increasing the number of compute units because the RX6900 XT, at least on 11 00:00:58,239 --> 00:01:08,000 paper, is otherwise exactly the same card as the RX6800 XT. Same RDNA2 12 00:01:05,439 --> 00:01:14,799 architecture, same core clocks, same memory, same power draw. Hey, wait a 13 00:01:11,119 --> 00:01:17,360 minute. AMD pulled a fast one here. The 14 00:01:14,799 --> 00:01:23,920 rated graphics power is the same, but the recommended power supply is 100 15 00:01:20,479 --> 00:01:26,320 watts higher for the 6TN00 XT. So, it 16 00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:31,360 seems that in spite of those extra compute units and the cooler being 17 00:01:28,799 --> 00:01:37,920 identical, barring what AMD calls minor tweaks, the sixtyn00 XT is in fact being 18 00:01:35,040 --> 00:01:42,799 pushed quite a bit harder in boost than its sibling. Well, okay, mystery solved 19 00:01:40,479 --> 00:01:48,240 then. That's exactly what AMD says is happening. And the sixtyn00 XT is in 20 00:01:45,759 --> 00:01:53,280 fact a highly binned part capable of overclocking much more reliably than the 21 00:01:50,640 --> 00:01:58,479 6800 XT can. It's an impressive feat considering just how fast some of those 22 00:01:55,360 --> 00:02:01,040 cards can go. Of course, we can't just 23 00:01:58,479 --> 00:02:05,600 take AMD at their word. This is Lionus Tech Tips. We've got to test it for 24 00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:09,440 ourselves. So, we grabbed the three fancy new Radeons and their 25 00:02:07,439 --> 00:02:14,160 corresponding GeForce cards and took them all for a spin. As you might expect 26 00:02:11,599 --> 00:02:17,599 by now, AMD crushed it in traditional rasterization, coming close to the 27 00:02:16,080 --> 00:02:23,040 RTX3090 in Shadow of the Tomb Raider despite 28 00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:26,080 costing $500 less. Though, they fell 29 00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:28,160 well short of even the RTX3080 when it 30 00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:32,800 came to real-time rayraced lighting. Minecraft RTX tells a similar story with 31 00:02:30,480 --> 00:02:37,519 AMD choking hard enough here that the sixt 32 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:40,080 managed only half of the RTX3080s 33 00:02:37,519 --> 00:02:44,400 performance. To be fair though, ray tracing wasn't AMD's focus for this 34 00:02:42,319 --> 00:02:49,840 generation. And as much as we keep pointing it out, and it is the future, 35 00:02:46,800 --> 00:02:52,080 path tracers like this aren't common 36 00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:55,440 yet. So, turning back to more traditional rendering, Wolfenstein Young 37 00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:59,920 Bloodood looks like a win for the RTX3090, 38 00:02:57,120 --> 00:03:05,120 except that given the six-t managed numbers halfway between the 3080 and 39 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:09,599 3090, the price difference makes AMD's offering look very compelling here. 40 00:03:07,519 --> 00:03:16,159 Microsoft Flight Simulator didn't do AMD any favors. Yeah, the SixT is a better 41 00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:20,560 value than the 3090, but then the 3080 makes both of them look like a ripoff, 42 00:03:18,319 --> 00:03:25,519 and Counterstrike is nearly a win across the board for Team Red with the RTX3090 43 00:03:23,519 --> 00:03:30,799 only pulling ahead in minimum frame rates. Of course, all of this changes if 44 00:03:28,319 --> 00:03:36,159 you're willing to accept DLSS upscaling as a viable option. And in these cases, 45 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:43,440 the NVIDIA cards unquestionably dominate AMD in terms of raw FPS. Love or hate 46 00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:46,720 it, DLSS is here. Customers are using it 47 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:48,879 and it looks pretty darn good. So AMD, 48 00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:54,159 you guys need to get on Fidelity FX Super Resolution and stat. In our review 49 00:03:51,440 --> 00:03:59,599 of the RX6800 series, we noted that AMD's productivity performance lagged 50 00:03:56,239 --> 00:04:01,920 behind, and it's no different here. AMD 51 00:03:59,599 --> 00:04:06,959 says they focused first and foremost on gaming performance, and that's fair 52 00:04:04,319 --> 00:04:10,959 enough, but it did cost them. It's not like it's bad at productivity if you 53 00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:15,760 find the right workloads. I mean, just look at how it handles the more memory 54 00:04:12,720 --> 00:04:18,479 intensive Specview perf subtests. But 55 00:04:15,760 --> 00:04:24,240 there is one glaring exception where AMD firmly falls short, and honestly, I 56 00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:29,120 consider it unacceptable. Radeon Pro Render. We called out AMD's poor 57 00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:32,960 rendering quality in the 6800 series review. And in response, they gave us a 58 00:04:31,280 --> 00:04:39,280 tweaked version of the tests to play around with, and okay, it's fast, but 59 00:04:37,280 --> 00:04:45,440 the problem is that it still looks like hot garbage. This is useful maybe as a 60 00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:50,560 preview, but it is not good enough for a final render. So, sorry AMD. Until you 61 00:04:48,560 --> 00:04:55,120 get hardware ray tracing support baked into the Blender cycles renderer like 62 00:04:52,479 --> 00:05:01,199 NVIDIA's optics engine, this is not even remotely a fair fight. Unlike our prices 63 00:04:58,320 --> 00:05:04,479 at ltstore.com, they're always fair. Oh, and we've got the ABCs of gaming in 64 00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:08,960 stock. Once again, smart access memory, while 65 00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:12,960 arguably the star of the show for gaming that pushed them into their competitive 66 00:05:10,479 --> 00:05:18,240 position, continues to do little or nothing for productivity. AMD reasons 67 00:05:15,759 --> 00:05:22,080 that while NVIDIA and Intel are both working on enabling the resizable bar 68 00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:26,320 feature that makes up smart access memory's core functionality, there is 69 00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:30,800 far more that goes into the special sauce. Specifically, they claim that 70 00:05:28,880 --> 00:05:35,120 significant driver optimization is required to help smart access memory 71 00:05:32,880 --> 00:05:39,520 reach its full potential. If that's true, then there is significantly more 72 00:05:37,039 --> 00:05:45,120 work ahead for team blue and team green than just toggling a switch. Or at least 73 00:05:42,479 --> 00:05:49,840 in theory. ASUS has apparently already enabled this functionality in their 74 00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:54,720 Intel Z490 motherboards, and early performance looks about as good as what 75 00:05:52,320 --> 00:05:57,840 we might see on an AMD platform. So, I suppose we're going to have to 76 00:05:55,520 --> 00:06:03,840 investigate that. Get subscribed so you don't miss our coverage. Thermally, the 77 00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:05,919 RX6900 XT is similar to, but on average 78 00:06:03,840 --> 00:06:10,560 a smidge hotter under load than the RTX3090 with the notable exception of 79 00:06:08,639 --> 00:06:15,199 those memory bandwidth intensive tests at the end that we pointed out in our 80 00:06:12,479 --> 00:06:20,800 6800 series reviews. Compared to the 6800 XT, the bigger card doesn't take as 81 00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:25,600 long to heat up, but they both end up in roughly the same thermal envelope by the 82 00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:30,080 end of the test. At 2.6 6 GHz. The sixtyn00 XT's core clocks are 83 00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:35,199 consistently 100 MHz higher than the 6800 XT. And like that card, these 84 00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:39,759 clocks appear to be quite stable. This hints that tinkerers might get great 85 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:44,240 results from an undervolt, either to reduce power consumption and heat or to 86 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:48,720 potentially improve thermal or power headroom for better boost behavior. As 87 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:53,360 for power consumption, this is becoming a bit of a pattern this generation. On 88 00:06:51,199 --> 00:06:59,199 average, power consumption is usually lower than the RTX3090, 89 00:06:55,840 --> 00:07:02,240 but the sixtyn00 XT experiences spikes 90 00:06:59,199 --> 00:07:05,680 that can go much higher. Check out this 91 00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:07,759 462 W spike. These kinds of 92 00:07:05,680 --> 00:07:11,280 instantaneous loads can trip up sensitive power supplies, and we 93 00:07:09,599 --> 00:07:16,880 actually had to swap out our test bench's CSIC 1,000 W unit for a Corsair 94 00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:22,160 one to avoid tripping the overcurren protection during benchmarking. Compared 95 00:07:19,199 --> 00:07:26,720 to the RX6800 XT, at least, it looks to average just about 50 watts higher under 96 00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:30,639 load at any given point in time. This is pretty crazy considering that it's got 97 00:07:28,479 --> 00:07:36,319 exactly the same cooler design as the 6800 XT, although it does have a beefier 98 00:07:34,240 --> 00:07:40,479 16-phase power delivery setup to go along with the 14 layer PCB that they 99 00:07:38,479 --> 00:07:45,360 share. Of course, AMD goes out of their way to point out that they're using 100 00:07:42,479 --> 00:07:49,280 standard sizes for their coolers and standard dual eight pin power 101 00:07:47,039 --> 00:07:53,120 connectors, which sounds like it shouldn't be something to brag about, 102 00:07:50,639 --> 00:07:58,080 but turns out to be a sick burn on the 3090 with its behemoth size, not to 103 00:07:56,080 --> 00:08:05,520 mention proprietary 12pin power connector. Oh, and the sixtyn00 XT has 104 00:08:01,120 --> 00:08:07,680 RGB. Checkmate, NVIDIA. Before I close 105 00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:12,400 out, I can't talk up AMD's promise of overclocking without actually doing some 106 00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:13,840 overclocking, can I? Yes, I can. You'll 107 00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:19,840 just have to wait for us to pit the RX6900 XT against the RTX3090 in a 108 00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:25,599 head-to-head overclock off to see who can pull off 8K gaming the best. Stay 109 00:08:22,479 --> 00:08:29,680 tuned. For now though, make no mistake, 110 00:08:25,599 --> 00:08:32,800 the RX6900 XT is a powerful card, and at 111 00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:35,120 $999, it undercuts NVIDIA's best by a 112 00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:40,640 significant margin, even if it doesn't always beat or even meet it, and falls 113 00:08:38,159 --> 00:08:45,760 well short in productivity. This card looks like another classic AMD look for 114 00:08:43,519 --> 00:08:51,519 the gap in the market and fill it move. And given how expensive the RTX3090 is 115 00:08:48,800 --> 00:08:56,160 and how relatively uncommon ray tracing still is in gaming, having a 116 00:08:53,519 --> 00:09:02,800 ballsto-wall fast card that while not optimized for real-time ray tracing, can 117 00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:04,720 do it is still a pretty big deal. It 118 00:09:02,800 --> 00:09:08,720 would just really be nice if there were any to buy because if you've waited this 119 00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:14,640 long to pull the trigger, I can almost guarantee that they are gone by now. How 120 00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:16,399 do I know? Well, the RX6800 series was 121 00:09:14,640 --> 00:09:22,320 weaponsgrade unoptanium when it launched. And uh 3 weeks later, supply 122 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:27,920 still hasn't caught up with demand. Then given that 6900 XTs are pretty much 123 00:09:25,040 --> 00:09:31,040 cherrypicked 6800 XTs, I think it's pretty safe to say that for the few of 124 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:39,200 you who will be able to get your hands on it at MSRP in 2020, well, enjoy it, 125 00:09:35,360 --> 00:09:41,200 you lucky so. For the rest, maybe next 126 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:44,080 year will be better. Thanks for watching, guys. If you 127 00:09:42,480 --> 00:09:50,080 enjoyed this video, go check out our review of the RX6800 series to learn a 128 00:09:47,279 --> 00:09:53,760 little more about the whole RDNA2 thing that makes this card tick.