That really depends on how you consider a GPU. Is it a card that can handle both 2d and 3d acceleration on board (like the S3 virge or the voodoo banshee) or a single chip that can handle both 2d and 3d acceleration (just like the 256)? The latter definition makes the GeForce 256, the very first “GPU”, but not the first card that does both 2d and 3d. That can be attributed to a myriad of cards including the ATI rage series, the banshee, the S3 virge and savage, Nvidia’s own riva TNT and TNT2, and even matrox g200 series.

Yeah if VRAM usage goes beyond 4gigs then 390X and 8gb variants of 480 and 580/590 pulls ahead.

AMD must concentrate on making a good mid range product, just like the 7770, the r9 270/280, Rx 480 and Rx 5700 XT.

Of course flagships are cool and all, but who bought the fury x, r9 295x2, Vega 64 LC and Radeon VII brand new?

That’s completely stupid at this point. But there’s a reason here. We’re paying the price of GCN being basically the same architecture from the very first HD 7000s, which came out in 2012. The only changes we see are from the first generation GCN to the second, and also from Polaris to Vega. Polaris is basically the same refined arch as the 200 series, except less power hungry. I didn’t understand why they previously dropped support for up to GCN 3, when in fact GCN 3 and GCN 4 are on par feature wise, and the r9 390x just beats the 480, let alone the Radeon fury series with HBM memory!

I want to see how the Radeon VII, rx5700xt and rx6700xt compares in this title. It will tell us if it is the asynchronous compute that helps in this game or is it simply the fact that RDNA1 do have all the hardware to run mesh shaders, but lacks per primitive output, so it has to do essentially the same work as any GCN GPU. That’s really interesting how the 5700xt outperforms a 1080ti here!!!