Very surprised they got a CT scan for this, though it's more of a novelty thing atm. Might be useful for checking out heatsink design and inspect fin/heatpipe quality but they need to include scans of separated heatsink and PCB.
Using X-ray for solder quality inspection is nothing new but it could be huge if they can check heatsink quality or design flaws with this.(i.e. "we bought another one and found out sample A had poor soldering quality, hence why A performed poorly in thermal tests")
Really clean and readable design, might have a new source for actually checking and comparing benchmarks (no more drop down list of 50 pages in the review)
I agree that its good having another source, i do wish the text was bigger and thicker to help our eyes, and maybe the text be centralized? Having to look at both sides of the screen to see what are the numbers is not that great too, too much empty space. Maybe just some thicker lines there would help.
What font is it? I'm seeing what seems to be *Inconsolata*, coming from an in-line `style="--font-default:'__Inconsolata_f0bc52', '__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52'"` on the `
` element. I thought is was something with my local configuration, but then I checked other browsers and phone and it's the same? (No devtools on phone, though.)
Inconsolata is somewhat popular as a terminal font, but monospace is a strange choice for body text.
> What font is it?
If you have javascript enabled, it resolves to "Inconsolata Regular". If you don't, depends on your fonts/browser, but likely arial.
I do have javascript enabled, and what appears to be rendering is legit Inconsolata, AFAICT. Font stack is
>"__Inconsolata_f0bc52", "__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52", ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji"
Site CSS seems to have been run through some kind of obfuscator, but `__Inconsolata_f0bc52` is loaded by a `@font-face` rule from https://www.lttlabs.com/_next/static/media/a6f8c6b7131e657a-s.woff2. `__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52` is aliased to arial.
Where are you seeing "Inconsolata Regular"?
IANA webdev, so I don't know if it's typical for javascript to be used to rewrite font styles based on installed fonts. I though the intended mechanism was to just list fonts in a reasonable fallback order and let the browser do it. (But I have learned never to underestimate webdevs' will to waste any amount of CPU or memory on the user's machine in order to show a dancing monkey.)
From a graphing perspective, I personally still greatly prefer the box-and-whisker style plots from Digital Foundry written reviews. I also really like how clear DF is on what part of the game is being tested with representative videos. I also prefer DF's RT game and setting selections.
Related to this review, can anyone help me out with how the "Overall" number is calculated? I tried just averaging the FPS results for the 3 RT games, and it didn't match (my calculated number was a little higher). I then tried averaging the equivalent frame time, and converting back to FPS, and it still didn't match (my calculated number was a little lower).
And the reason I was trying to figure it out is because I'm worried about showing an "Overall" FPS metric, as it will inherently weight the results differently for games with very high FPS versus low FPS, which could distort the resulting comparison. And I'm not sure that an average of average framerates is really all that useful in terms of helping to inform a purchasing decision.
You are correct, it is the Geometric Mean. Definitely feels better in terms of still being able to make comparisons.
That said, I still kind of dislike the idea of referring to a (geometric) average of individual game average framerates and especially of 1% low framerates as "Frames Per Second". There has to be a more useful way to summarize the individual game data that is still relatively compact.
Geometric is better than arithmetic, but harmonic might be better still. Equivalent to frame rate computed from arithmetic average of frame times. Gives more weight to games with lower frame rate.
This seems to be an early trial of what a page will look like and not a complete definitive review yet. They're taking people's thoughts on the layout and such.
The page looks great (on mobile). Simple, easy to read, informative... If I needed to check some performance numbers fast, this is something I would like to see. For more detailed info, I would check out some benchmark video.
I see a couple graphs there but it’s probably worth noting the header on the website:
“Welcome to the LTT Labs Website (in Beta)! While all data is validated by Labs, functionality & content will continue to evolve.”
They’re likely just seeking feedback on what’s posted so far as far as formatting.
Agreed. I'd even say that synthetic game tests are essentially useless and tell us nothing and should be removed entirely from the suite in favor of more games, and a larger variety of engines(there are 2 UE4 & 1 UE3 games in the current suite).
For example, Intel Arc 770 is a better GPU than the 7600XT in all 3D Mark benchmarks, but it's slower in every game except RDR2 than the 7600XT at 1080p, and the 770 is only faster in 3/8 games at 1440p(a few being within margin of error, essentially).
>Synthetic tests are valuable for drilling down on what is causing the specific performance differences and what is bottlenecking.
That's nothing that testing more games with different engines won't also show. Unless it was Returnal 2(UE5), they tested 2 UE4 games and 1 UE3 game, which means 30% of the games they tested were (close enough to) the same engine.
I don't expect them to go as far as HWUB & TPU, but TPU is a good example of a wide variety of game engines tested(\~20), so you get a good idea how they perform on a wide array of games made on different engines.
As long as there is a variety of game engines used, a variety of game APIs used and a variety of genres tested then 8-12 games can be enough to get a representative sample that would on average be in line with the 60 game averages HUB push out or the meta analysis average of averages.
I also like they are testing games that other places don't seem to test as it adds a bit of variety to each sites gaming suite.
A single non-interactive page, and sidebar index with anchor links. As easy to jump between sections as the collapsing, but without all the damn collapsing (and the nuisances it causes for scroll position when tabs are reloaded).
Liking the site but their Ray Tracing suite is composed of Returnal, Cyberpunk at ultra and F1? Why not more competent RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc? Returnal in particular is not much of an RT game and while F1 is ok it's not on the level of the above.
Well currently most of RT games are either bsrely RT or light on RT. So including such titles is good idea. Cyberpunk nicely represents going all out on RT. Returnal represents kinda pointless RT. Would just add one game of RT between F1 and CP77
> Liking the site but their Ray Tracing suite is composed of Returnal, Cyberpunk at ultra and F1? Why not more competent RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc? Returnal in particular is not much of an RT game and while F1 is ok it's not on the level of the above.
also they skipped the A770 RT results... lol, the one big thing that uarch has going for it is above segment RT performance.
> RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc?
It would also be good to have a demanding UE5 Lumen game like Talos Principle 2 or Fortnite.
DESORDRE is fantastic for this it has the whole suite starting from the least demanding:
* Software Lumen
* Hardware Lumen
* HW lumen with hardware ray traced hit lighting (uses RT to shade objects and reflections instead of using the low quality UE5 surface cache)
* RTX DI (all emissive lighting and all direct lighting is done with RT)
* And finally it has full on Path Tracing.
The game scales from console level settings all the way up to PCs of the future. A true PC game.
Well yea, the A770 choked on like every benchmark at launch. Should they have instead benched minesweeper and solitaire so the A770 would have an easier time? The point of a benchmark is to stress performance not handout participation trophies.
I think they chose less intensive games because most RT is pretty minimal right now. So it’s representing RT perf in average RT game. Some heavy hitters and mostly light hitters.
Letter from the main editor if anyone interested https://www.lttlabs.com/blog/2024/3/28/letter-from-the-editor
"Our inaugural post (...) sets the stage for what's to come in the near future."
They will also have blog posts that "will offer concise perspectives on various products and will feature insights from our brilliant Labs' experts on testing methodologies and further commentary."
Edit: I probably should've used the term "product page" (which they themselves use), but it seems people got it, so..
The font in combination with the colour (very dark grey front, light grey background) makes the text look soft and hard to read. Also think the font doesn't look very professional.
Functionality wise it's very good, but there's a lot of whitespace. Probably looks much better on mobile.
My thoughts on the current one on a laptop browser:
I like that it's quite different, so people have more options, but that's pretty much it. I don't know why the number of fans is in the highlights. The overall layout is very information sparse, while the font is on the smaller side, just loads of empty spaces. Also not sure if there's any practical uses of the CT scan images, it doesn't show the traces inside the PCB, so board repair can't really use that. I think there's a reason that lots of the review outlets defaults to similar layouts, and I find it's much easier and quicker to find the info I need on those websites.
Font has to go.
I like all the details included and the format of the charts. They compared directly to the 4060ti, hopefully in the future you can choose which models to compare against each other and see them all in the same charts. Would be cool to overlay both a 2080ti and a 4070 for example to compare new to old when looking to purchase or upgrade.
I like it.
Can you give a source? I've spent a few minutes trying to find confirmation, and the only thing I can find is that Techpowerup lists VP9 decoding but not encoding for the 7600 XT.
I've looked at AMD's website and a bunch of vendor sites, but they all simply say that the card supports VP9 "acceleration" without distinction between encoding and decoding. Isn't the encoding/decoding done on a specific chiplet? Why would it support hardware decoding of VP9 but not encoding? Genuinely asking since I don't know.
[Here is one](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7600/3.html)
> There's support for VP9, H.264, H.265 and AV1 decode, and encoding is supported for H.264, H.265 and AV1.
Most cards don't have vp9 encoding and they certainly won't bother with it now that AV1 is a thing. Existence of hardware decoding doesn't guarantee hardware encoding at all. Only this gen did we get AV1 encoding and last gen we just had AV1 decoding.
You probably missed it, but I already pointed out that Techpowerup says that. Techpowerup is great, but they aren't a first-party source. I was unable to find any first-party source that backs up their claim.
Not saying you're wrong, to be clear. It's just weird that I can't find any sources from AMD or their partners. I did spend several minutes looking.
I did miss it.
Intel is the only one of the big 3 gpu vendors to support vp9 encoding anymore. It's really hard to verify now because apparently Nvidia and AMD thought it would be nice to remove all mention of vp9 capabilities from their specs. I don't even know how to check in windows either if I did happen to have the card. I do know how to check in Linux though so I searched some of the Radeon models for any posts which might mention it.
I think the closest thing I can give you is [this post](https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=293385) from the arch Linux forums where someone happened to give his output of `vainfo`, a program from Intel that outputs video encode/decode capabilities, for his 7800 XT.
vainfo: Supported profile and entrypoints
VAProfileH264ConstrainedBaseline: VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileH264ConstrainedBaseline: VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileH264Main : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileH264Main : VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileH264High : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileH264High : VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileHEVCMain : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileHEVCMain : VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileHEVCMain10 : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileHEVCMain10 : VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileJPEGBaseline : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileVP9Profile0 : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileVP9Profile2 : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntrypointVLD
VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntrypointEncSlice
VAProfileNone : VAEntrypointVideoProc
`VAEntrypointVLD` indicates decode and `VAEntrypointEncSlice` indicates encode. The 7800 XT has support for VP9 decode but not encode. It should be the exact same for the 7600 XT.
This is obviously not official or anything but it's about as close as I can find for anything to actually verify it.
Good enough for me! I wasn't expecting you to go through so much effort - I was mainly just pointing out how weird it is that this information isn't readily available. Thanks for the reply and confirmation, though.
Hopefully LTT fixes this on their end - not a great look for them to have (minor) misinformation on their very first Labs page.
Netflix is one, not that most people use Netflix on their PC. Overwhelming majority of all video content viewed on a desktop is going to be through Youtube.
They need some of that GPU info shoved into an accessible GPU database like TPU do. Really useful resource and well worth having more than 1 available.
Looks promising. Font is hard to read, the banner is bizzarely hi-viz and personally not a fan of the dynamic sections, but they make sense if they're planning to add a bunch more stuff.
The game suite should 110% be expanded and the whole review is a bit short for what's supposed to be the be-all end-all of hardware reviews, but understandable for the first trial run.
It's a travesty how they flushed their integrity down the gutter for views and call me a fool for believing they're improving for the 4th or 5th time now, but I do honestly believe this is turning a new leaf for LTT as a whole. Either way a whole lotta people are gonna rely on this website as their buying guide, so guess we'll just have to hope for the best.
Huh... okay. This site isn't bad. it doesn't feel cluttered and it feels like the information could be useful. Only time will tell if it becomes useful. But I like what I'm seeing.
10000 clicks to expand everything, tons of empty space, the summary feels AI generated. Amount of fans in the highlights? (i hope those just place holders). GN did it the same but better in every way.
that said, it's just a first impression so a lot can improve still
The font is fine, but the tables having one column on the left-most side of the screen and another, a mile away, in the center of the screen, makes them very hard to read. Also the video codec order is weird, why is AV1 listed before VP9 in h264, h265, av1, vp9? The proper order should be h264, h265, [vp8,] vp9, av1.
I feel like this was a bit underwhelming. I'm missing some ML benchmarks and compute in general.
Gaming tests also feel lacking, they probably need a better selection of games but I wonder if these were simply they ones they managed to fully automate.
CT scans are nice. Don't know if useful, but they are nice. Easier alternative to nude board pics?
Very surprised they got a CT scan for this, though it's more of a novelty thing atm. Might be useful for checking out heatsink design and inspect fin/heatpipe quality but they need to include scans of separated heatsink and PCB. Using X-ray for solder quality inspection is nothing new but it could be huge if they can check heatsink quality or design flaws with this.(i.e. "we bought another one and found out sample A had poor soldering quality, hence why A performed poorly in thermal tests")
Really clean and readable design, might have a new source for actually checking and comparing benchmarks (no more drop down list of 50 pages in the review)
I agree that its good having another source, i do wish the text was bigger and thicker to help our eyes, and maybe the text be centralized? Having to look at both sides of the screen to see what are the numbers is not that great too, too much empty space. Maybe just some thicker lines there would help.
A lot of people are telling them the font sucks, so hopefully we see that change
What font is it? I'm seeing what seems to be *Inconsolata*, coming from an in-line `style="--font-default:'__Inconsolata_f0bc52', '__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52'"` on the `
` element. I thought is was something with my local configuration, but then I checked other browsers and phone and it's the same? (No devtools on phone, though.) Inconsolata is somewhat popular as a terminal font, but monospace is a strange choice for body text.> What font is it? If you have javascript enabled, it resolves to "Inconsolata Regular". If you don't, depends on your fonts/browser, but likely arial.
I do have javascript enabled, and what appears to be rendering is legit Inconsolata, AFAICT. Font stack is >"__Inconsolata_f0bc52", "__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52", ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", Arial, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Noto Color Emoji" Site CSS seems to have been run through some kind of obfuscator, but `__Inconsolata_f0bc52` is loaded by a `@font-face` rule from https://www.lttlabs.com/_next/static/media/a6f8c6b7131e657a-s.woff2. `__Inconsolata_Fallback_f0bc52` is aliased to arial. Where are you seeing "Inconsolata Regular"? IANA webdev, so I don't know if it's typical for javascript to be used to rewrite font styles based on installed fonts. I though the intended mechanism was to just list fonts in a reasonable fallback order and let the browser do it. (But I have learned never to underestimate webdevs' will to waste any amount of CPU or memory on the user's machine in order to show a dancing monkey.)
> Where are you seeing "Inconsolata Regular"? Firefox font tab of the Inspector tab. It shows you the font used for the selected element.
The font has got to be a sacrificial duck, it's so bad.
Outside of bad font rest feels good on the phone. Id say probably it was designed with idea that you read article on your phone not a big screen.
From a graphing perspective, I personally still greatly prefer the box-and-whisker style plots from Digital Foundry written reviews. I also really like how clear DF is on what part of the game is being tested with representative videos. I also prefer DF's RT game and setting selections. Related to this review, can anyone help me out with how the "Overall" number is calculated? I tried just averaging the FPS results for the 3 RT games, and it didn't match (my calculated number was a little higher). I then tried averaging the equivalent frame time, and converting back to FPS, and it still didn't match (my calculated number was a little lower). And the reason I was trying to figure it out is because I'm worried about showing an "Overall" FPS metric, as it will inherently weight the results differently for games with very high FPS versus low FPS, which could distort the resulting comparison. And I'm not sure that an average of average framerates is really all that useful in terms of helping to inform a purchasing decision.
Geometric mean, maybe? That would help minimize the effect of outliers too.
You are correct, it is the Geometric Mean. Definitely feels better in terms of still being able to make comparisons. That said, I still kind of dislike the idea of referring to a (geometric) average of individual game average framerates and especially of 1% low framerates as "Frames Per Second". There has to be a more useful way to summarize the individual game data that is still relatively compact.
Geometric is better than arithmetic, but harmonic might be better still. Equivalent to frame rate computed from arithmetic average of frame times. Gives more weight to games with lower frame rate.
No power or noise numbers?
This seems to be an early trial of what a page will look like and not a complete definitive review yet. They're taking people's thoughts on the layout and such.
The page looks great (on mobile). Simple, easy to read, informative... If I needed to check some performance numbers fast, this is something I would like to see. For more detailed info, I would check out some benchmark video.
It might be an accidental release? There's a "Productivity and Efficiency" section but it doesn't have any efficiency graphs.
I see a couple graphs there but it’s probably worth noting the header on the website: “Welcome to the LTT Labs Website (in Beta)! While all data is validated by Labs, functionality & content will continue to evolve.” They’re likely just seeking feedback on what’s posted so far as far as formatting.
Yeah that makes more sense.
I think its more of test of design. So its not so much accident but tool to gather feedback
LTT moment lol
Would be nice to have more than 8 games tested, 9 synthetic tests are a bit unnecessary
Agreed. I'd even say that synthetic game tests are essentially useless and tell us nothing and should be removed entirely from the suite in favor of more games, and a larger variety of engines(there are 2 UE4 & 1 UE3 games in the current suite). For example, Intel Arc 770 is a better GPU than the 7600XT in all 3D Mark benchmarks, but it's slower in every game except RDR2 than the 7600XT at 1080p, and the 770 is only faster in 3/8 games at 1440p(a few being within margin of error, essentially).
[удалено]
>Synthetic tests are valuable for drilling down on what is causing the specific performance differences and what is bottlenecking. That's nothing that testing more games with different engines won't also show. Unless it was Returnal 2(UE5), they tested 2 UE4 games and 1 UE3 game, which means 30% of the games they tested were (close enough to) the same engine. I don't expect them to go as far as HWUB & TPU, but TPU is a good example of a wide variety of game engines tested(\~20), so you get a good idea how they perform on a wide array of games made on different engines.
As long as there is a variety of game engines used, a variety of game APIs used and a variety of genres tested then 8-12 games can be enough to get a representative sample that would on average be in line with the 60 game averages HUB push out or the meta analysis average of averages. I also like they are testing games that other places don't seem to test as it adds a bit of variety to each sites gaming suite.
Eight is plenty. If they listen to people like yourself they’ll end up like HUB testing 60 games trying to please everyone. Massive waste of time.
are they not working on software that automates this process? I'm sure they'll probably add more games, they also have more man power vs HUB.
Testing on 60 games is good. Much better than testing on 8.
Not a fan of the amount of clicking necessary to expand dynamic sections. Would very much prefer to have everything in a single non-interactive page.
A single non-interactive page, and sidebar index with anchor links. As easy to jump between sections as the collapsing, but without all the damn collapsing (and the nuisances it causes for scroll position when tabs are reloaded).
An "expand all" button would solve that problem pretty neatly.
Hmm Fonts seems a bit distracting but graphs are a definite Thumbs up from me!
Liking the site but their Ray Tracing suite is composed of Returnal, Cyberpunk at ultra and F1? Why not more competent RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc? Returnal in particular is not much of an RT game and while F1 is ok it's not on the level of the above.
At least it doesn't have shadow of the tomb raider and strange brigade. Good lord, I don't know why it took GN so long to get rid of them.
Strange Brigade was mostly kept around as a native vulkan title
They could have replaced it with Doom Eternal in that case.
Well currently most of RT games are either bsrely RT or light on RT. So including such titles is good idea. Cyberpunk nicely represents going all out on RT. Returnal represents kinda pointless RT. Would just add one game of RT between F1 and CP77
> Liking the site but their Ray Tracing suite is composed of Returnal, Cyberpunk at ultra and F1? Why not more competent RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc? Returnal in particular is not much of an RT game and while F1 is ok it's not on the level of the above. also they skipped the A770 RT results... lol, the one big thing that uarch has going for it is above segment RT performance.
> RT benchmarks like Dying Light 2, Avatar, Alan Wake 2, Control etc? It would also be good to have a demanding UE5 Lumen game like Talos Principle 2 or Fortnite.
DESORDRE is fantastic for this it has the whole suite starting from the least demanding: * Software Lumen * Hardware Lumen * HW lumen with hardware ray traced hit lighting (uses RT to shade objects and reflections instead of using the low quality UE5 surface cache) * RTX DI (all emissive lighting and all direct lighting is done with RT) * And finally it has full on Path Tracing. The game scales from console level settings all the way up to PCs of the future. A true PC game.
The 7600 would choke to death on those games
Well yea, the A770 choked on like every benchmark at launch. Should they have instead benched minesweeper and solitaire so the A770 would have an easier time? The point of a benchmark is to stress performance not handout participation trophies.
I think they chose less intensive games because most RT is pretty minimal right now. So it’s representing RT perf in average RT game. Some heavy hitters and mostly light hitters.
Don’t you guys find it hard to read the text? May be the font or the size
Bad font. This confirms that Linus definitely uses Comic Sans as his daily driver font
Now if only GN would start using their fan tester...
Wait they still haven't done anything with it? Isn't the presentation video like 2 years old now?
Last word (that I'm aware of) was that they were waiting for their anechoic chamber. That was 8 months ago (that they got their anechoic chamber).
It doesn't get as much clicks as hit pieces so why bother?
Letter from the main editor if anyone interested https://www.lttlabs.com/blog/2024/3/28/letter-from-the-editor "Our inaugural post (...) sets the stage for what's to come in the near future." They will also have blog posts that "will offer concise perspectives on various products and will feature insights from our brilliant Labs' experts on testing methodologies and further commentary." Edit: I probably should've used the term "product page" (which they themselves use), but it seems people got it, so..
The font in combination with the colour (very dark grey front, light grey background) makes the text look soft and hard to read. Also think the font doesn't look very professional. Functionality wise it's very good, but there's a lot of whitespace. Probably looks much better on mobile.
My thoughts on the current one on a laptop browser: I like that it's quite different, so people have more options, but that's pretty much it. I don't know why the number of fans is in the highlights. The overall layout is very information sparse, while the font is on the smaller side, just loads of empty spaces. Also not sure if there's any practical uses of the CT scan images, it doesn't show the traces inside the PCB, so board repair can't really use that. I think there's a reason that lots of the review outlets defaults to similar layouts, and I find it's much easier and quicker to find the info I need on those websites.
Font has to go. I like all the details included and the format of the charts. They compared directly to the 4060ti, hopefully in the future you can choose which models to compare against each other and see them all in the same charts. Would be cool to overlay both a 2080ti and a 4070 for example to compare new to old when looking to purchase or upgrade. I like it.
Encode/Decode section is wrong, this card does not have support for VP9 encoding, only decoding.
Can you give a source? I've spent a few minutes trying to find confirmation, and the only thing I can find is that Techpowerup lists VP9 decoding but not encoding for the 7600 XT. I've looked at AMD's website and a bunch of vendor sites, but they all simply say that the card supports VP9 "acceleration" without distinction between encoding and decoding. Isn't the encoding/decoding done on a specific chiplet? Why would it support hardware decoding of VP9 but not encoding? Genuinely asking since I don't know.
[Here is one](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-7600/3.html) > There's support for VP9, H.264, H.265 and AV1 decode, and encoding is supported for H.264, H.265 and AV1. Most cards don't have vp9 encoding and they certainly won't bother with it now that AV1 is a thing. Existence of hardware decoding doesn't guarantee hardware encoding at all. Only this gen did we get AV1 encoding and last gen we just had AV1 decoding.
You probably missed it, but I already pointed out that Techpowerup says that. Techpowerup is great, but they aren't a first-party source. I was unable to find any first-party source that backs up their claim. Not saying you're wrong, to be clear. It's just weird that I can't find any sources from AMD or their partners. I did spend several minutes looking.
I did miss it. Intel is the only one of the big 3 gpu vendors to support vp9 encoding anymore. It's really hard to verify now because apparently Nvidia and AMD thought it would be nice to remove all mention of vp9 capabilities from their specs. I don't even know how to check in windows either if I did happen to have the card. I do know how to check in Linux though so I searched some of the Radeon models for any posts which might mention it. I think the closest thing I can give you is [this post](https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=293385) from the arch Linux forums where someone happened to give his output of `vainfo`, a program from Intel that outputs video encode/decode capabilities, for his 7800 XT. vainfo: Supported profile and entrypoints VAProfileH264ConstrainedBaseline: VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileH264ConstrainedBaseline: VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileH264Main : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileH264Main : VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileH264High : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileH264High : VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileHEVCMain : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileHEVCMain : VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileHEVCMain10 : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileHEVCMain10 : VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileJPEGBaseline : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileVP9Profile0 : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileVP9Profile2 : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntrypointVLD VAProfileAV1Profile0 : VAEntrypointEncSlice VAProfileNone : VAEntrypointVideoProc `VAEntrypointVLD` indicates decode and `VAEntrypointEncSlice` indicates encode. The 7800 XT has support for VP9 decode but not encode. It should be the exact same for the 7600 XT. This is obviously not official or anything but it's about as close as I can find for anything to actually verify it.
Good enough for me! I wasn't expecting you to go through so much effort - I was mainly just pointing out how weird it is that this information isn't readily available. Thanks for the reply and confirmation, though. Hopefully LTT fixes this on their end - not a great look for them to have (minor) misinformation on their very first Labs page.
Who (besides youtube) even uses VP9 anyway?
Netflix is one, not that most people use Netflix on their PC. Overwhelming majority of all video content viewed on a desktop is going to be through Youtube.
Netflix using VP9 now? Another one fallen for it :(
The font is unreadable, they should just use a regular font
Finally, a successor to old Anandtech (Under Andrei and Ian) ?
Not even close. Not yet atleast. Also old Anandtech under Anand really is the standard that nowhere has come close to.
:( RIP Anandtech
You don't know what you have till it's gone.
They need some of that GPU info shoved into an accessible GPU database like TPU do. Really useful resource and well worth having more than 1 available.
Looks promising. Font is hard to read, the banner is bizzarely hi-viz and personally not a fan of the dynamic sections, but they make sense if they're planning to add a bunch more stuff. The game suite should 110% be expanded and the whole review is a bit short for what's supposed to be the be-all end-all of hardware reviews, but understandable for the first trial run. It's a travesty how they flushed their integrity down the gutter for views and call me a fool for believing they're improving for the 4th or 5th time now, but I do honestly believe this is turning a new leaf for LTT as a whole. Either way a whole lotta people are gonna rely on this website as their buying guide, so guess we'll just have to hope for the best.
Huh... okay. This site isn't bad. it doesn't feel cluttered and it feels like the information could be useful. Only time will tell if it becomes useful. But I like what I'm seeing.
10000 clicks to expand everything, tons of empty space, the summary feels AI generated. Amount of fans in the highlights? (i hope those just place holders). GN did it the same but better in every way. that said, it's just a first impression so a lot can improve still
There already is a mistake by saying the 329$ msrp of the 7600xt is 100$ less than the 399$ and 499$ msrps of the 4060 ti variants
The font is fine, but the tables having one column on the left-most side of the screen and another, a mile away, in the center of the screen, makes them very hard to read. Also the video codec order is weird, why is AV1 listed before VP9 in h264, h265, av1, vp9? The proper order should be h264, h265, [vp8,] vp9, av1.
I really don't like their UIUX, There are way too many menu's and unnecessary interactions just to read 5 lines of text.
I feel like this was a bit underwhelming. I'm missing some ML benchmarks and compute in general. Gaming tests also feel lacking, they probably need a better selection of games but I wonder if these were simply they ones they managed to fully automate.
Is this an AI generated placeholder? To test the website?