|
Measly Twerp posted:This is literally the worst product launch I've seen, and I still can't figure out who the product is for. I wouldn't put it past them. The Frontier Edition is for the shareholders. AMD management promised to launch Vega in 1H 2017 and this is now launched half a week before the deadline. Hopefully this will keep the shareholder lawsuits at bay.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
repiv posted:Full specs with triangle throughput are at at the bottom of this page. It also confirms Vega is a 1/16th rate double precision design, which was only rumoured before. Right but is it just 4 tri/s times clockrate? So 1.5 GHz x 4 = 6 GT/s basically? 1/16th FP64 surprises no one though, you would absolutely advertise full-speed FP64 in your uarch previews if you have it, and AMD didn't advertise it (unlike FP16). Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Right but is it just 4 tri/s times clockrate? So 1.5 GHz x 4 = 6 GT/s basically? Yeah it's as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Okay, so I owned nVidia cards from 2010-2016. I plan to buy another one with the profit made selling an RX470 to a miner. I have no preferences between these companies and their practices. Why does AMD's ability to continue as an ongoing concern seem such an issue here? There's a lot of laughter directed at them in this thread, and I realize they haven't been able to compete with the 1070/1080 in the past year, and Vega FE looks to be a 1070 at 1080ti prices. BUT... How critical is the $500+ end of the GPU market? How many people are buying those? How many 4K gamers are there who they have no options for? People seem to laugh at AMD because they'll never be the pick of "PC master race" types. But master racers represent maybe 10% of the global gaming market. AMD provides hardware for both PlayStation and Xbox and has competitors in the non-ultra wide, non-UHD market. Shouldn't that prop them up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Okay, so I owned nVidia cards from 2010-2016. I plan to buy another one with the profit made selling an RX470 to a miner. I have no preferences between these companies and their practices. It's simple. The people buying $500+ GPUs in this thread want competition in that end of the market so NVidia doesn't tighten the grip they currently have on their balls going forward. They're afraid those $500 GPUs will turn into $700 GPUs just because NVidia can mostly charge whatever they want to high-end gamers with plenty of disposable income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Yeah, I basically wonder if the high end of the market isn't overstated here. I went almost seven years without buying a Radeon but that was because I installed Linux and was really unpleased by their driver support. But I also never thought "guys dual-booting Ubuntu" was an important market either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I basically wonder if the high end of the market isn't overstated here. I went almost seven years without buying a Radeon but that was because I installed Linux and was really unpleased by their driver support. I don't think anyone is ever trying to say that the high end is mainstream. It's just Good and Useful to have strong competition at every tier of product. I would literally never buy an AMD graphics card solely out of personal experiences across like 5 GPUs (and definitely not because Nvidia is a good company because holy poo poo are they not) but I absolutely want AMD to have +-10% competitors to my 1080ti because I don't want the 1180ti or whatever to be some chip that is 30% slower and 30% more expensive than what they could have put out solely because they know AMD doesn't have an answer to it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
The $500+ market is smaller but the ~$300 market is big, the 970 was the top card on the Steam HW survey for a long time. AMD currently doesn't even really have a card competing in that space, their best card matches a 1060.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:That was the Voodoo 5 6000, and it was never released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:17
|
|
at the idea back then of $600 for a video card being ~completely ludicrous~.
|
Craptacular! posted:Okay, so I owned nVidia cards from 2010-2016. I plan to buy another one with the profit made selling an RX470 to a miner. I have no preferences between these companies and their practices. Probably comparable to what happened with Intel when AMD stopped making good CPUs. We are approaching (arguably just arrived at) the point where its up to the grace of Nvidia to compete with themselves, innovate for the sake of innovation. This doesn't really work well for this sort of industry. But at the end of the day, in my opinion, a lot of people are mad and exasperated at this point because they liked AMD. AMD used to trade blows or outright beat Nvidia AND Intel at the same time for years and years, usually for less money. A lot of us grew up with that and so a lot of us were real deal fanboys. I jumped ship to the rage train a little earlier than others but I was definitely one of those people. It's just very disappointing to see it all unravel like this. Also AMD was considered the honest company of the three which makes the last few years even harder to swallow. Everytime I think I run out of steam to criticize AMD they one up themselves. At this point its downright difficult to do worse than they have been and yet look... well, I guess I will say "at least it cant realistically be worse next time  " again.As for the market, the $400+ market for discrete GPU's has exploded. The $200-$300 range still reigns but just barely. If you combine 1070 and 1080 units they actually outnumber 1060's, which is the current top spot for Pascal cards. 970's were the beginning of that shift even though that was realistically a $350 card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
lmfao @ amd sending the cute marketing grill to calm down the raging incels at r/amd
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The $500+ market is smaller but the ~$300 market is big, the 970 was the top card on the Steam HW survey for a long time. AMD currently doesn't even really have a card competing in that space, their best card matches a 1060. Yea, fursonally I'd only be interested in a vega equivalent of the 1070, but cheaper edit- and hopefully it'll be REALLY bad at mining
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
3peat posted:fursonally the gently caress is this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Enos Cabell posted:the gently caress is this poo poo? freudian slip
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
so we know big vega is coooooooomplete trash, what about igpu small vega? This gloflow proccess seem to be poo poo for high clock rates but good on low to mid clock rates for power and everything, and when you glue the small chips together zen style you get something drat nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
If you want a look at what no competition looks lile just look at the price difference between the 6950k and the 7900x thats why people want competition
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
A $600 GPU usually doesn't cost that much more to manufacture as a $200 GPU, the margin is just so much bigger (Most of the cost is in R&D of the family as a whole). So despite being a small part of the market it's still really important. AMDs margin on a single part of a $300 console is not nearly as good. AMD is still doing fine, but giving up the high end isn't very good business sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Nvidia's made it pretty clear lately in its investor meetings that the high end GPU market is a primary reason why their profitability has been so great these last few years. Mid-range products can keep the lights on, but the high end is where you'll make the money to invest back into R&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
wargames posted:so we know big vega is coooooooomplete trash, what about igpu small vega? This gloflow proccess seem to be poo poo for high clock rates but good on low to mid clock rates for power and everything, and when you glue the small chips together zen style you get something drat nice. I'd be more optimistic if AMD hadn't sold off Adreno to Qualcomm, because we could at least be reasonably certain that what's wrong with Vega is that it doesn't scale well up past X, and that it's target was much lower for purposes of packing into Raven Ridge in the first place. (that's a lovely direction to go with in the first place, but beside the point) But really, I think we should all just start counting the days until AMD cleansheets a new GPU architecture, no amount of GCN derivation is going to do poo poo. SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
the top rated answer to a /r/amd thread titled "Meta: AMD Vega release is a mess" is: wait for NAVI
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Probably comparable to what happened with Intel when AMD stopped making good CPUs. We are approaching (arguably just arrived at) the point where its up to the grace of Nvidia to compete with themselves, innovate for the sake of innovation. This doesn't really work well for this sort of industry. I think we were there last generation too. Fiji wasn't particularly competitive, other than the 290 it was mostly just NVIDIA dunking on some GCN 1.0 designs from 2012. AMD needs to be careful slinging that stone, their last 2 flagship launches have been a disaster and they cancelled the Fat Polaris flagship, which might have gone better. Not too many years ago their own leadership thought discrete GPUs were going away entirely. They are not exactly strong competitors nor particularly insightful leadership. We've been hearing about Mantle and high-core-count console APUs leading us into a glorious AMD future for what, 5 years now? And it's only just barely beginning to happen now. Fortunately JHH actually seems to be good about pressing forward and not getting complacent like Intel. Maybe they're not pushing ahead as hard as they can, but the 1080 Ti is 56% faster than the 980 Ti, and the 980 Ti is 37% faster than the 780 Ti, and the compute market is very happy with their own special toys. A sale is a sale, and Intel has killed their market because they're not producing hardly anything worth upgrading over except at 5+ year intervals. quote:As for the market, the $400+ market for discrete GPU's has exploded. The $200-$300 range still reigns but just barely. If you combine 1070 and 1080 units they actually outnumber 1060's, which is the current top spot for Pascal cards. 970's were the beginning of that shift even though that was realistically a $350 card. Absolutely, by dollar volume high-end computers are the largest segment (high-end hardware is expensive and the margins are ridiculous). Over time the trend has been shifting upwards as low-end users switch to iGPUs/laptops, consoles, and smartphone/tablet gaming, which has caused the high end to be increasingly important (the remaining desktop users are dedicated power-users). Which may be accelerated now that the midrange segment has been absolutely gutted by miners. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
The guy who posted the Firestrike benchmarks posted a couple of Witcher 3 screenshots at 1080p/Ultra/NoHairworks: https://imgur.com/a/OmYdp How does that stack up to other cards? I still haven't got around to playing TW3 lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
repiv posted:The guy who posted the Firestrike benchmarks posted a couple of Witcher 3 screenshots at 1080p/Ultra/NoHairworks: That looks like Toussaint, so DLC 2. Average fps back at launch for the DLC was 94ish on a 1080 with a 6700k or 99 with a 1070 and a 5960x. So it totally depends on where you are taking screenshots at. edit 2: So yeah what Paul said. Reference 1080 speeds. edit 3: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/witcher-iii-blood-and-wine-cpu-benchmarks-moar-cores.2483002/ http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/The-Witcher-3-Blood-Wine-Preview-1196452/ MagusDraco fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
repiv posted:The guy who posted the Firestrike benchmarks posted a couple of Witcher 3 screenshots at 1080p/Ultra/NoHairworks: Reference 1080-ish performance. Cities are typically a little slower than the rest of the game (mostly a CPU bottleneck IIRC) so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the 10 fps when comparing against the benchmark average. Or - just a bit under double RX 480/580 performance. 31% faster than the Fury X if you read that number as 100fps (what it actually says) or 44% faster than Fury X if you assume 110fps average (because the screenshot is in a city). Which is also just about the difference in clock rates. (there is an argument that you should literally view Vega as just Fury but clocked faster, and this is another datapoint in favor of that argument) https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_1080_Aorus_Xtreme_Edition/25.html https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/25.html I mean, I guess that's not necessarily all that bad, it looks like higher clockrates get you farther away from the high-refresh geometry bottleneck (since it's tri-per-clock times clockrate) as long as it doesn't have other mystery performance issues in other titles like GCN sometimes does. At $350 it would be a really nice deal especially with FreeSync. At $400+, gently caress no, buy a 1080. You would absolutely want aftermarket cards though, or the water cooled edition, this blower appears to be 290 Redux: Thermal Boogaloo. Either that or it's TDP throttled but either way... (or the real comedy option: clocks are jumping around because the geometry bottleneck is kicking in and it can't fully occupy the shaders at boost clocks) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I basically wonder if the high end of the market isn't overstated here. The "low end" in graphics cards is basically dead, with IGP's killing everything sub-$150ish. The $150-200 market isn't really gangbusters either, the 1050Ti is the dominant card there and gets outsold like 2-1 by the biggest volume area, the $200-300 range of the 1060 and 480. This is the only range where AMD is competitive straight up, but they are still getting outsold like 4-1 by the 1060. And until RX Vega launches, AMD doesn't even compete at anything above that range. They have bled their marketshare over the last few years to less than a quarter of Nvidia's in the discrete market, and are losing more and more every month. They really need Vega to be competitive, and apparently hosed it up. AMD's discrete CPU and GPU business has essentially swapped competitiveness. As someone who is shoppin' for an upgrade and was hoping for a competitive price war, this is Extremely Suck rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Vega guy #2 is livestreaming benchmarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuFG7pw_k50 He just got 6874 overall / 6785 GPU score in Time Spy, which a little slower than a reference GTX1080. edit: also that's an overclocked result, he's running it at 1650mhz. repiv fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
I love this thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The "low end" in graphics cards is basically dead, with IGP's killing everything sub-$150ish. If you have to spend as much as an Xbox One S on just the GPU to get sharp details... well, loving hell. I wonder how much of this is a result of mining and the used market? I'm that weirdo who always sells my last GPU to someone to fund the next one, but never considers buying used myself. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
I'm bummed if Vega is really barely faster than an OC'd 1070 but at least r/AMD is a really entertaining read right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
repiv posted:Vega guy #2 is livestreaming benchmarks: LOL he had to point extra fans at the card to maintain 1600 mhz
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Cygni posted:The "low end" in graphics cards is basically dead, with IGP's killing everything sub-$150ish. The $150-200 market isn't really gangbusters either, the 1050Ti is the dominant card there and gets outsold like 2-1 by the biggest volume area, the $200-300 range of the 1060 and 480. This is the only range where AMD is competitive straight up, but they are still getting outsold like 4-1 by the 1060. And until RX Vega launches, AMD doesn't even compete at anything above that range. They have bled their marketshare over the last few years to less than a quarter of Nvidia's in the discrete market, and are losing more and more every month. They really need Vega to be competitive, and apparently hosed it up. I believe the 460 and 1050 are notably faster than iGPU still and are sub $100. The 470/570 are also competitive in the $150ish range as well. This is of course before mining poo poo on prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
repiv posted:Vega guy #2 is livestreaming benchmarks: Pulling roughly 1080 FE frames in Witcher 3 4K with hair works off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Only mid 30s FPS in The Wicher 4k and I assumed hairworks was on but it's off 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Only mid 30s FPS in The Wicher 4k and I assumed hairworks was on but it's off Thought it shot up to mid 40s when he turned it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
I think we're pretty confirmed at this point of a 10% delta +/- of a FE 1080 -- this thing needs to launch at $399 to cause any relevant market disruption because going price to price with a 1080 while using 60% more power, on average isn't going to be appealing to anyone outside of the almost cult like group of people holding on to their 25hz of freesync range on ultra wides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
ill buy one if the supplemental fans are included
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Here's a summary of the live testing from reddit, you can tell by how quickly the temps ramp up that this thing draws a shitton of power. Live testing summary: Time Spy Graphics = 6875 pts Doom Vulkan 4K Ultra @ 55-65 FPS The Witcher 3 @ 28-35 FPS at 4K Hairworks on / 41-42 FPS with Hairworks off (80 C running the game) Troubles OCing past 1650 MHz with the blower Tried to OC HBM, starts at 945 MHz, managed 960 MHz stable and at 980 MHz it got too hot Tester says you won't be able to OC without additional cooling, thermal throttling (80-85 C) Tester put 2x 80 mm fans to help (open air case) and it was down to 75 C Tester doesn't think it will touch the 1080 Ti performance-wise, only 1070-1080s Mining: 30-35 MH/s Cinebench R15 OpenGL: 97.39 FPS Initial testing done using Pro drivers, then switched to the Gaming drivers and performance didn't change (37-42 FPS @ TW3 4K HW Off) Card operate at 1348-1528 MHz in gaming mode during The Witcher 3 testing >300W for the card
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
So it's Thermi 2.0 except 6 months more late, eats almost twice the power and not even beating the competitor's best small card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
AMD's CPU and GPU divisions have completely swapped places, RTG is now completely loving garbage and the Zeppelin cores are awesome. We live in the upside down timeline now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Vega FE is going to be crushed in performance and price by the 1180 isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2017 03:57
|
|
