• Vik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I can agree that the tweet was completely unnecessary, and the naming is extremely unfair given both variants have the exact same brand name. Even their direct predecessor does not do this.

    The statement that AMD could easily sell the 16 GiB variant for 50 dollars less and that $300 gives “plenty of room” is wildly misleading, and from that I can tell they’ve not factored in BOM at all.

    They blanketly state that GDDR6 is cheap and I’m not sure how they figure.

    • Dnb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      They’ve had same sku different vram for a while. 480 4gb and 8gb.

      As long as the core counts and such are the same it’s fine.

      If vram isn’t a bottleneck performance should be equal

      • Vik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        As some commentators have mentioned, that was mostly fine at the time of Ellesmere (2016ish?) where games wouldn’t so frequently shoot past that limit. In today’s environment, we find that a much higher proportion of games will want more than 8 GiB of VRAM, even at lower resolutions.

        Notably, the most recent predecessor in this sort of segment (RX 7600 series) used the XT suffix to denote a different SKU to customers, though it’s worth mentioning that the XT was introduced quite a bit later in the RDNA3 product cycle.