 |
|
|
|||||
AMD has finally done it. For years it's tried to undercut NVIDIA with slightly cheaper, but less capable, video cards like the Radeon 6700 XT and 7900 XT. And sure, it's still following that same strategy with the new Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT. This time around, though, AMD has produced far more capable hardware, especially when it comes to 4K and ray tracing performance. And there's hope that it could finally catch up to NVIDIA's DLSS AI upscaling with its new FidelityFX Super Resolution 4 (FSR4) technology. These aren't perfect video cards, to be clear. But for $549 and $599, the Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT are far more compelling than AMD's previous lineup. That's particularly true since the 9070 XT is $150 less than NVIDIA's RTX 5070 Ti, and in our testing it's sometimes faster than that card. AMD still has to prove that it can catch up to NVIDIA's DLSS, which has had several years to steadily improve its AI upscaling capabilities. In particular, AMD needs to match the performance of NVIDIA's multi-frame generation in DLSS 4, which has led to some surprisingly high fps figures while testing the RTX 50-series GPUs. AMD's Fluid Motion Frames technology is a start, but it's not nearly enough at this point. Hardware The Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT are AMD's first RDNA 4 GPUs, a new platform sporting more powerful and efficient compute units, third-generation ray tracing accelerators and second-generation AI accelerators. There isn't a huge technical difference between the two cards: The RX 9070 features 56 compute units, 56 ray accelerators and 112 AI accelerators, whereas the 9070 XT has eight more compute accelerators and 16 additional AI processors. The XT model is clocked slightly higher, as you'd expect, and it also draws more power (304W vs 220W). Notably, both cards also ship with 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM, whereas NVIDIA skimped a bit and only put 12GB of RAM in the $549 RTX 5070. Devindra Hardawar for Engadget As I was comparing our XFX-built review units, though, it was practically impossible to tell the RX 9070 and 9070 XT apart without reading the fine print on their labels. This is fairly typical for AMD cards with XT variants, and it makes sense since they're technically so similar. The XFX Swift GPUs I tested came in an elegant frost white case, with three large fans and surprisingly massive heatsinks. They're both 3.5-slot cards, so they also take up more room than the RTX 5090, which is a dense two-slot beast. Thanks to AMD's efficient RDNA design, you also don't need to rely on complex power dongles to drive these cards. They both take two PSU connections directly, and XFX recommends 800-watt power supplies at a minimum. That's significantly higher than AMD's minimum 650W spec though, so it could be that XFX is just trying to play it safe with its massive cooling setup. (If you're planning to overclock these cards, though, you'll likely want more than a mere 650W PSU.) Devindra Hardawar for Engadget In use: A big step up for AMD I knew AMD was onto something special when I learned the Radeon RX 9070 averaged 60 fps in Cyberpunk 2077 in 4K Ray Tracing Overdrive mode. Sure, it needed FSR 3 upscaling to get there, but it was still better than the 50 fps I saw on the Radeon 7900XT a few years ago. The game occasionally dipped below 60 fps, but it was still very playable. 1440p was much smoother overall, averaging 117 fps. The Radeon 9070 XT, meanwhile, averaged 68 fps in 4K and 130 fps in 1440p. Sure, these numbers are far behind the raw figures from NVIDIA's RTX 5070, which used the magic of multi-frame generation to deliver 115 fps in 4K with ray tracing and maxed out graphics. That card also hit 205 fps in 1440p. But as impressed as I was by the 5070, most of those frames were just meant to deliver the illusion of smoothness. During actual gameplay, I had a hard time seeing much slowdown with either Radeon card in 4K, and the difference between the NVIDIA card was practically erased in 1440p. Remember, fps figures aren't the entire story, even though NVIDIA wants you to believe otherwise. I kept that idea in mind as I tested FSR 4, which surprised me when it averaged around 20 fps less than FSR 3 in Call of Duty: Warzone on both GPUs. The Radeon 9070 XT reached 250 fps in 4K with FSR 3, cranked up graphics and frame generation, whereas it hit 229 fps in FSR 4. AMD tells me thats no error, its to be expected since FSR 4s AI upscaling is more focused on delivering higher quality graphics rather than a pure frame boost. I couldnt really see a huge difference while dodging bullets in CoD, but I did notice that finer textures like chain-link fences looked a bit clearer in FSR 4. (I also saw a few random glitched textures, something that was common in DLSS upscaled games early on. They werent a major problem, but AMD clearly has to refine its upscaling model further.) At the moment, enabling FSR 4 is a bit counter-intuitive as well. You have to turn it on in AMDs driver software, and then flip on FSR 3.1 in a compatible game. Warzone also required a reboot to fully enable the feature, but the game didnt prompt me to do so. And if you want frame generation, thats another option that has to be toggled on outside of the game. Hopefully this process will be smoothed out over time, along with wider availability for FSR 4. In addition to Black Ops 6, its supported in the newly launched FragPunk, Civilization 7, Marvel Rivals and a handful of PlayStation 5 ports like the Spider-Man games. But its nowhere to be found in Avowed or Dragon Age: The Veilguard, where youll be stuck with FSR 3. Devindra Hardawar for Engadget For games that dont work with FSR at all, AMDs Adrenaline software also has a HYPR-RX mode that enables features like Radeon Super Resolution upscaling (a separate driver-level technology) and AMDs Fluid Motion Frames generation. Altogether, they led to me seeing 200 fps in Forza Horizon 5 using the RX 9070 XT in 4K with maxed out graphics settings, up from 85 fps natively. But again, those are just fps figures AMD points out Radeon Super Resolution may not look as clear as FSR alternatives. (I didnt notice any weirdness in Forza, but I may have been distracted by the beautiful racing vistas in Mexico.) GPU 3DMark TimeSpy Extreme Geekbench 6 GPU Cyberpunk (4K RT Overdrive DLSS) Port Royal ray tracing AMD Radeon 9070 10,997 113,012 60 fps (DLSS 3 w/ frame gen) 15,888 AMD Radeon 9070 XT 13,060 130,474 68fps (DLSS 3 w/ frame gen) 17,959 NVIDIA RTX 5070 10,343 178,795 115 fps (4x frame gen) 13,920 NVIDIA RTX 5070 Ti 12,675 238,417 153 fps (4X frame gen) 19,309 AMD Radeon 7900XTX 12,969 N/A 55 fps (DLSS 3) 14,696 When it comes to benchmarks, the Radeon RX 9070 and 9070 XT hold their own against NVIDIAs 5070 and 5070 Ti in most of 3DMarks tests. In the Steel Nomad benchmark, the 9070 scored 1,100 points higher than the 5070, and the 9070 XT beat out the more expensive 5070 Ti by almost 3,000 points in Timespy Extreme. I was also surprised to see the RX 9070 scoring almost 2,000 points higher than the RTX 5070 in the Port Royal ray tracing benchmark. Previously, ray tracing of any kind was AMDs Achilles heel. Both of our XFX cards also stayed surprisingly cool during benchmarks and extended gaming sessions. They never went beyond 65C under load, and they typically idled below 40C. And since they never got very hot, I could barely hear their fans spinning up. Devindra Hardawar for Engadget Should you buy the Radeon RX 9070 or RX 9070 XT? On paper, both of AMDs new GPUs are compelling alternatives to NVIDIAs midrange cards for 1440p gamers who occasionally dabble in 4K. The RX 9070 XT is particularly interesting, since its noticeably faster and still comes in $150 less than the RTX 5070 Ti. But were also dealing with a chaotic time in the PC gaming world, where GPU stock can disappear quickly and prices can rocket up quickly. If you can nab either Radeon card at their listed prices, theyll be good deals. But its not worth overpaying by too much for now. It also remains to be seen how the Trump administrations combative tariffs will affect pricing for PC hardware and electronics. Prices could easily jump by 20 percent or more to cover those costs. While NVIDIAs DLSS 4 technology is more mature and leads to higher interpolated frame rates, theres also a good argument for going with AMDs cards since they have 16GB of VRAM. Theyll be better suited to handling larger textures in games down the line, and theres also the potential for FSR 4 to improve as well. Devindra Hardawar for Engadget Wrap-up Its clear now why AMD was focused on upgrading its mid-range Radeon cards first. Theres not much point competing with NVIDIA at the extreme high end, like it did with Radeon RX 7900 XT and XTX. It makes more sense to focus on cards people can actually buy. The Radeon 9070 and 9070 XT also solve many of the problems Ive had with AMDs GPUs in the past. They can go toe-to-toe with NVIDIA's cards, they have better ray tracing support and finally, they have AI upscaling. It remains to be seen if AMD will actually build on the promise of those features, but these cards are a hopeful start.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/pc/amd-radeon-rx-9070-and-9070-xt-review-hitting-nvidia-where-it-hurts-140014376.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Apple has introduced its latest update to the MacBook Air, bringing the M4 chip to its lightweight laptops at long last. Even though the Air lineup is getting more powerful, it's also getting cheaper. The smaller base model of the M4 MacBook Air will retail at $999, down $100 from the previous starting price. Pre-orders begin today, and the machines will be available starting on March 12. Last year's Air models were quite good but didn't do anything revolutionary, and the same seems true for the 2025 versions. There are still two size choices, 13-inch and 15-inch. RAM for the M2 and M3 laptops is 16GB by default, and the M4 model matches that standard. Apple is promising up to 18 hours of battery life, and the Airs will have support for Apple Intelligence. There's also a new look in the lineup, with the addition of a sky blue color to the now-familiar choices of silver, midnight and starlight. The company's current chip has been available in MacBook Pros, the Mac mini and the iMac for awhile now, so the power levels of the M4 have been pretty well established. But the boost for Apple's ultralights is still welcome. Apple says the new chip can make the latest Airs up to twice as fast as the M1 versions. The M4 is kitted out with a 10-core CPU and a GPU with up to 10 cores. It supports up to 32GB of unified memory. The new prices might be the most exciting part of today's Air announcements. The 13-inch M4 Air starts at $999, or $899 for buyers in education, while the 15-inch model starts at $1,199, or $1,099 for education. This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/laptops/apple-unveils-the-m4-macbook-air-with-a-price-drop-140012109.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Apple just unveiled its latest Mac Studio desktop PC promising improved performance over the previous model thanks to the long awaited M3 Ultra, the company's highest performing processor to date. The new machine is primarily aimed at content creators, so on top of the faster chips, it offers the latest high-speed SSD storage, Thunderbolt 5 technology and an updated Neural Engine. It's been a bit of a wait for a new Mac Studio as the last one came out at WWDC 2023, nearly two years ago. As before, you can think of it as like a Mac mini Pro, a bigger and significantly more powerful version of Apples budget desktop. Like the last two models, it comes in two configurations with either the M3 Ultra or M4 Max chips and physically looks the same as the previous M2 model. Apple The M4 Max version is aimed at "video editors, colorists, developers, engineers, photographers and creative pros," according to Apple. To that end, it comes with up to a 16-core CPU and 40-core GPU, from 36GB to 128GB of RAM, four Thunderbolt 5 ports with 15 GB/s throughput (triple the previous model's speed) and over 500 GB/s of unified memory bandwidth. It also includes Two USB-A ports (up to 5Gb/s), an HDMI port, 10Gb ethernet and a 3.5mm headphone jack. All that makes it up to 3.5 times faster than the original Mac Studio M1 Max. Apple noted that with the M4 Max chip, the latest Mac Studio is the first with Apple's advanced graphics architecture that allows features like hardware-accelerated mesh rendering and a second-generation ray-tracing engine to boost content creation and gaming. For AI processing, it offers triple the speed of the M1 Max version. The M3 Ultra model ups the ante considerably with a 32-core CPU with 24 performance cores, "50 percent more than any previous Ultra chip and the most CPU cores ever in a Mac," Apple said. Meanwhile, the GPU packs up to 80 cores, another record for Apple silicon, along with a 32-core Neural Engine for on-device AI and machine learning. It also supports from 96GB to a record 512GB of unified memory, plus up to 16TB of SSD storage. Apple You may be wondering why Apple is just now releasing the M3 Ultra chip when every other Mac (including the all-new MacBook Air) has some kind of M4 processor. The answer is that it's apparently not easy to design and build the Ultra processors because they're effectively two chips mated together using Apple's "Ultrafusion" bridge technology. Despite not having "M4" in the name, though, the M3 Ultra is still approximately twice as fast as the best M4 Max processor under taxing workloads and 2.5 times quicker than the Mac Ultra M1, according to Apple. Considering its power, the Mac Studio with an M4 Max chip is reasonably priced starting at $1,999 with 32GB of memory and 512GB of storage. The Mac Studio with M3 Ultra is another story, though, doubling that to $3,999 base, with 96GB of unified memory (up from 64GB before) and 1TB of storage. Orders are now open with shipping set to start on March 12th. This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/apples-new-mac-studio-comes-with-the-long-awaited-m3-ultra-chip-140005216.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||