|
Yeah, Bulldozer isn't going anywhere. There will even be new AM3+ FX CPUs when Piledriver comes out. But the next version beyond that seems to drop the AM3+ desktop CPUs, according to the roadmap.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Is this necessarily true? I didn't think AMD ever had a chip competitive with the Core i5 series at any price point and that was one of their problems. They were created to be in the same space as AMD's Black Editions. That is, to be otherwise normal CPUs with no multiplier lock. If AMD leaves, then we may be back to the Ultimate Edition being the only unlocked chip, but without the ability to overclock the locked chips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Real World Tech has their own AMD Analyst Day article up with their take on things. On the graphics front, SemiAccurate has an article saying GK100 (Kepler), aka the Geforce GTX 780, has taped out. This puts it on-track for a late Q3 release, though some feel that is overly optimistic and it may even slip to 2013. It's a huge GPU, just like its predecessors, coming in at ~550mm^2, compared to 365mm^2 for the Radeon HD 7970. Remember that SemiAccurate article that basically said GK104 would win versus the Radeon HD 7800-series by every metric? Well, Charlie spent a lot of words to essentially retract that, clarifying that GK104 will wipe the floor with the AMD cards in games optimized for nVidia, particularly PhysX. I'm betting that he saw some benchmarks in cherry-picked games and unfortunately was a bit too credulous. The big win seems to be performance while PhysX is enabled, and there's lots of mumblings that there may be some dedicated physics hardware. I doubt that, but nVidia cards have always been particularly bad at running a compute task while doing rendering, so it's entirely reasonable that if they built a compute-focused GPU and fixed the multi-tasking issue, you could see some incredible gains in PhysX-enabled games. The issue remains, of course, that PhysX does essentially dick even in the few games that support it. Alereon fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
So, if that's accurate, AMD will have the high-performance market dominated for six months with a more power-efficient architecture that has a bright future, and their main competitor in the space is having issues bringing an enormous chip to market which might outperform AMD's product under ideal settings, but more and more is looking like it might not compete in raw power and will use more electricity at that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
O slay. Well, gently caress. Q3? Q goddamned 3? Come on, nVidia, they could have a refresh out by then. Kepler's going to be Fermi the second, improving compute and rendering at the cost of being a loving warthog of a card... And late to market at that. We're reliving the 3000/4000 vs. 200 all over again. I don't know, I might just get a second 580 under the "gently caress it" clause, this is ridiculous. 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:So, if that's accurate, AMD will have the high-performance market dominated for six months with a more power-efficient architecture that has a bright future, and their main competitor in the space is having issues bringing an enormous chip to market which might outperform AMD's product under ideal settings, but more and more is looking like it might not compete in raw power and will use more electricity at that? Which was essentially the assumed worst-case scenario for NVIDIA, and is a little bit of history repeating. What the gently caress, NVIDIA? That said, AMD could use all the help they can get right now, to help prop up their not-so-great CPU side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I don't know, I might just get a second 580 under the "gently caress it" clause, this is ridiculous. You've probably already done this, but look into how that would impact your CUDA work. I know with dual-card AMD setups that you can't do GPGPU on two cards when CF is enabled. It looks like this holds true for SLI, as well, so there might be some hassle involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
I truly want to like AMD's graphics cards. But I simply cannot. With Nvidia it doesn't matter what OS I run -- Windows, FreeBSD, Linux -- the drivers are there and they just work. And I mostly run Windows/FreeBSD right now. Nvidia's blobs have always been simple and their nvidia-settings utility a bliss to use. I can guarantee I'll get full accelleration on these platforms without much  while the thought of fighting AMD/Radeon drivers again like I've done for friends makes me want to commit suicide.Please Nvidia, figure your poo poo out. I know you're the big green monster, but I need you to not fall behind and die 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:You've probably already done this, but look into how that would impact your CUDA work. I know with dual-card AMD setups that you can't do GPGPU on two cards when CF is enabled. It looks like this holds true for SLI, as well, so there might be some hassle involved. Yep, you'd have to remove the bridge when you want to use CUDA for work if you go that route. (I'm not going that route, just frustrated that nVidia's repeating the same scenario that happened with Fermi.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to the eventual Intel/AMD monopolies!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's important to keep in mind that AMD will still be producing APUs for desktops, even while they refocus on mobile. The promise of Sandy Bridge's graphics was never really fulfiled, because Intel can't write a graphics driver to save its life. Until that changes AMD has a compelling opportunity to knock out Intel in the low-end and mid-range markets, they just can't offer anything competitive the i5/i7 series on the desktop. This. While I would love to see AMD come back with a great upper end desktop CPU that's not realistic right now. From what I can see their new roadmap is exactly what they need to be doing, pulling back from the somewhat disastrous Bulldozer release and focusing on expanding market share in their strong areas: APUs and low power chips and their GPUs. I hold out hope that they'll return to the desktop CPU market at some point, but I don't want to see the company kill itself trying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Huh. *Looks at his GTX 460* Guess you have to last another year*, buddy! * - at 2560x1600
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Agreed posted:O slay. Does anyone know how much in terms or revenue the compute market represents for nVidia? Tesla cards are stupidly expensive and everyone in the industry I'm in has huge projects deployed or in development where CUDA has been revolutionary. If they're at the point where a huge amount of revenue is coming from Compute rather than Gaming they might do the opposite of AMD did with Bulldozer and go 'gently caress the low end,' the low end being us gamers, to focus completely on CUDA/OpenCL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Is it just me or is there a mental disconnect between people earlier in this thread preaching "buy the best for your money" as a reason to go Intel and calling out AMD "fanboys" are now the same people who are holding onto to their Nvidia cards even though AMD has the better cards out now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 14:39
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Is it just me or is there a mental disconnect between people earlier in this thread preaching "buy the best for your money" as a reason to go Intel and calling out AMD "fanboys" are now the same people who are holding onto to their Nvidia cards even though AMD has the better cards out now? But AMD has always had great value graphics cards in the market. Not just now, not at all. Infact, the 7900 series as it stands are not even at a very attractive price point. If people thought ATI cards were not good for the money, they were deluded always. The last time it was a clear lose from the AMD camp was with the 2900 series. The Geforce 8800 series seemed to offer much more. (Although down the line we found out a huge amount of them failed due to die packaging issues, but that's besides the point. I actually bought a 2900XT and it still works fine to this day, but I would not have recommended it at the time. I built a friend's machine with my the then recommended 8800GTX). HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Is it just me or is there a mental disconnect between people earlier in this thread preaching "buy the best for your money" as a reason to go Intel and calling out AMD "fanboys" are now the same people who are holding onto to their Nvidia cards even though AMD has the better cards out now? I wouldn't go Intel because I play games (if I didn't game I would not even bother with a discrete GPU unless I needed more displays), but I won't go ATI/AMD because their drivers are awful compared to nvidia. Their Radeon 7500/8500 "drivers" left a very sour taste in my mouth. The gaudy, bloated CCC (do they still do that?) doesn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Is it just me or is there a mental disconnect between people earlier in this thread preaching "buy the best for your money" as a reason to go Intel and calling out AMD "fanboys" are now the same people who are holding onto to their Nvidia cards even though AMD has the better cards out now? AMD has the better cards now, and the price/performance crown, but my next video card will be Nvidia no matter what, because of CUDA. CUDA is an advantage for Nvidia that has no parallel in the AMD vs Intel CPU debate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
movax posted:I wouldn't go Intel because I play games (if I didn't game I would not even bother with a discrete GPU unless I needed more displays), but I won't go ATI/AMD because their drivers are awful compared to nvidia. Their Radeon 7500/8500 "drivers" left a very sour taste in my mouth. The gaudy, bloated CCC (do they still do that?) doesn't help either. That's really not fair. nVidia has had as many high-profile driver fuckups as AMD in the past two years at least. Catalyst 11 was not as bad (and was it really THAT much worse than the nVidia control panel?), and Catalyst 12 has been de-gaudied and brought to feature parity with nVidia's control panel. And EyeFinity just completely blows away nVidia's multi-monitor support, both on hardware and software.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:So, if that's accurate, AMD will have the high-performance market dominated for six months with a more power-efficient architecture that has a bright future, and their main competitor in the space is having issues bringing an enormous chip to market which might outperform AMD's product under ideal settings, but more and more is looking like it might not compete in raw power and will use more electricity at that? Remember that GK104 is nVidia's competitor to Tahiti, not the GK100, and the GK104 is what Charlie has been talking about. nVidia basically reversed the strategy they employed with the GF1xx GPUs by releasing the performance value variant first then moving on to the extreme high end GPU once they could iron out the manufacturing and validation issues that plagued the monolithic GF100. With a 550mm^2 die size, GK100 will be much more powerful and expensive than either Tahiti or GK104. A quick calculation shows that the 7970's performance per clock is incredibly similar to the GTX 580's, (Using TR's BF3 numbers, the 7970 renders 0.04 frames per Mhz to the GTX580's 0.0401; other games look similar), so nVidia should have little trouble matching the current 7970's performance with a die-shrunk GF1xx derivative, let alone a new GPU design. Tahiti XT has demonstrated incredible performance scaling with clockspeed, so I don't doubt AMD will be able to launch a higher performance variant come April should they choose to. Basically these 28nm GPUs look like they'll be another excellent generation for consumers and I'm happily waiting for April to upgrade my aging 4890.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
movax posted:I wouldn't go Intel because I play games (if I didn't game I would not even bother with a discrete GPU unless I needed more displays), but I won't go ATI/AMD because their drivers are awful compared to nvidia. Their Radeon 7500/8500 "drivers" left a very sour taste in my mouth. The gaudy, bloated CCC (do they still do that?) doesn't help either. Hey this driver thing isn't true anymore and hasn't been for a while! And anecdotally, the worst driver support I've ever had for any product was an nvidia 7950 GX2 that would literally take me 6+ hours to upgrade to a newer driver version. (PS. the Radeon 7500/8500? That was eons ago...)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
movax posted:I wouldn't go Intel because I play games (if I didn't game I would not even bother with a discrete GPU unless I needed more displays), but I won't go ATI/AMD because their drivers are awful compared to nvidia. Their Radeon 7500/8500 "drivers" left a very sour taste in my mouth. The gaudy, bloated CCC (do they still do that?) doesn't help either. Yep, it's you, you're the exact person Coredump was talking about. For what it's worth, I've never had an ATI card die because of a driver update...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:Hey this driver thing isn't true anymore and hasn't been for a while! And anecdotally, the worst driver support I've ever had for any product was an nvidia 7950 GX2 that would literally take me 6+ hours to upgrade to a newer driver version. AMD drivers are still horrible if you need OpenGL or run Linux. dad on the rag fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Is it just me or is there a mental disconnect between people earlier in this thread preaching "buy the best for your money" as a reason to go Intel and calling out AMD "fanboys" are now the same people who are holding onto to their Nvidia cards even though AMD has the better cards out now? Well, I already have the GTX 580 and despite occasional frustrated murmuring to the contrary I won't be doubling up on it, I just wish the pace wasn't quite so slow. I use CUDA acceleration in my work. Not as much as I used to, but I do use it. I also really like accelerated PhysX in games, and the GTX 580 can do that, too, it looks purty. I've got it performing nearly identically to a stock 7970 without overclocks at this point (largely because of the aforementioned ~rough per-clock parity in most games). A 7970 can take off from there with its own overclocking capabilities and outperform it, of course, but it just clearly isn't time for me to upgrade yet - no games need it - and I'm probably going to wait until Kepler because late-to-the-game and pricey or not, it's got the combined feature set that I can put to best use. See any mental disconnect there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
LiftAuff posted:AMD drivers are still horrible if you need OpenGL or run Linux. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
There's basically no reason to upgrade a GTX 580 unless you're gaming multiple monitors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:There's basically no reason to upgrade a GTX 580 unless you're gaming multiple monitors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Well, I already have the GTX 580... I don't think you're necessarily the person he had in mind. How about the guy that's going to wring another year out of his GTX 460. Why? Because nVidia is facing possible delays, and he apparently won't buy an ATI card because of a bad experience with a card that's 10 years old at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
To be fair, I wouldn't buy anything from AMD right now that's less than a 7950 or 7970, and those aren't at attractive price points. The mid-range market has been stagnant for a year now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
LiftAuff posted:AMD drivers are still horrible if you need OpenGL or run Linux. Or if you wanted to run Rage, BF3, or Batman last year at launch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
The midrange is very much stagnated. I got my 5850 for $260 over 2 years ago. The part to upgrade to right now would be the 6950 for about the same $$, and although it does have more performance, it's not appreciably enough so for me to drop ANOTHER $260. At least not right now. Because of AMD moving the 79xx up in price to 550/450, this means the 78xx will be slightly faster than the 69xx, while costing as much, or slightly more. Leaving me nothing to upgrade to at $260 that feels compelling. I'm hoping that the GK104 is as competetive with Tahiti as has been rumored, forcing AMD to lower prices to $415/$330 for the 79xx, making the 78xx probably $300/$240 or so. Maybe finally I'll be able to afford an upgrade. It's time to build a new computer this year to replace my E8400 box. So IVB + the best price/perfromance video card + 240/256GB SSD is what I want for this spring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Its like AMD is in a catch 22. "Hey you have poo poo cpus, we're not going to buy them. Hey you have good video cards, still not gonna buy them." I know there's more to it than this but this is the impression I'm getting from people talking online.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
I went from a Radeon 4850 to a 6850 to a pair of 6850s. Depends on what you're upgrading from. HD 5000 to HD 6000 was evolutionary, as was GeForce 400 to 500.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Its like AMD is in a catch 22. "Hey you have poo poo cpus, we're not going to buy them. Hey you have good video cards, still not gonna buy them." I know there's more to it than this but this is the impression I'm getting from people talking online. What? No. People are buying AMD GPUs, and have been for a long time. The 7970s have been selling, even at such high prices. Don't forget that their GPUs are also in the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from. Their CPUs on the other hand, yes, they are dire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Just from people's comments on various tech websites, this one included talking about how they are all waiting for Nvidia's gpu to come out with this latest AMD launch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Just from people's comments on various tech websites, this one included talking about how they are all waiting for Nvidia's gpu to come out with this latest AMD launch. That tech enthusiasts are speculatively interested in the 28nm process shrink competition between the two modern major graphics providers comes as a surprise? People are still buying 7970s, to the point that places have trouble keeping them in stock. AMD/ATI will enjoy a commanding lead in top-end graphics card performance for months, and people willing to spend $500+ on a graphics card have picked up on the fact that they overclock insanely well, too. They're selling like crazy. I think you're reading too many comments sections or something, those are always full of ignorant shitheads or outright shills and are basically irrelevant to what's really going on. Reputable tech sites have for the most part been duly praising ATI's significant win in the early launch, and it just so happens that what we're seeing has a historical precedent that sets it up as "look at this, happening AGAIN" with ATI being first to market with a superb contender and nVidia being late to market with a likely quite expensive but also probably brute performance crowning card. The latter is speculation, but it's an educated speculation based on all the information currently available. What about any of that is upsetting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Agreed posted:That tech enthusiasts are speculatively interested in the 28nm process shrink competition between the two modern major graphics providers comes as a surprise? The only difference is the last time this happened, AMD launched a far more affordable price. The HD5870 was faster than the GTX285 [new process vs old process] and then was subsequently slightly slower again than the 480 once it finally launched. Nvidia refreshed that part faster than AMD refreshed their part, and the 580 pleasently surprised people, whereas the 6970 was somewhat underwhelming [perception is reality]. This time AMD has the best overall part again, new process vs. old process. But instead of great 'bang for buck' they just priced it slightly higher than their competetion. That is where people are disastisfied. The pricing. Those people are dumb though. Why wouldn't you want AMD to get as much profit out of these chips while they can. In the long run that is better for all consumers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Coredump posted:Just from people's comments on various tech websites, this one included talking about how they are all waiting for Nvidia's gpu to come out with this latest AMD launch. Well... yes. People generally want to see what the competition is before paying around $500 for a video card.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
^^^^^ Exactly I'm sure they priced it so that what the market can bear == how much they can produce at their current yields. I mean, if I had a superior product I wouldn't sell it lower 'just because'. If Nvidia's part comes out and is performance competitive at a lower price point, I'm sure they'll match it then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
sethsez posted:Well... yes. People generally want to see what the competition is before paying around $500 for a video card. I actually am not sure you're completely right on this one. The type of person that spends $500 on a video card isn't the sort of person who cares about the best price/performance or any of that. They just want the fastest at that moment. I'd say the masses are waiting to see what Kepler delivers, and what the ATI mid-range can deliver, while holding on to their current cards. People who want the best are buying 7970s. If Kepler delivers, then they'll be reselling their 7970 CF setups and buying 680 SLI. 3DMark is serious business..
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
I wanted a 7970 because I need something that will drive the latest games well at 2560x1440 and it had to be a single GPU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 20:00
|
|