What's this HBCC or what ever its called in that video where it seems to bump average FPS by 50% and minimums by 100%?? That sounds amazing to me. Where they had Dues EX Mankind Divided running on side by side comparison and you could see one was smoother than the other.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Working on At Least Three Radeon RX Vega SKUs, Slowest Faster than GTX 1070
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
We'll keep gaming with the fastest cards available, and you can keep waiting for the second fastest cards unavailable.
Thats fine by me. You're more than welcome to keep paying extortionate prices to Nvidia and their g-sync tax, while I have more patience to wait a little longer and save a significant amount of money to play exactly the same games.
For example going the AMD route I purchased a;
34" IPS (3440x1440) Freesync UW monitor for £670
will happily wait for Vega, which even if priced the same as Nvidia cards of £500 for a 1080 / £650 1080Ti
Total = £1170 (with GPU @ £500) or
Total = £1320 (with GPU @ £650)
or go Nvidia route
closest equivalent monitor is the Acer X34A - £990
+ 1080 - £500
Total £1490
or with a 1080Ti - £650
Total £1640
I think I'd rather take the minimum £320 savings and go with AMD.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,080
- Location
- In a house
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,246
People said the same about Ryzen. AMD HAVE to force back market share. This is what people don't seem to get. Having a faster high end card at just a bit less than nVidia isn't going to do it for them. They need to be upsetting the current situation like they did with their 1800X. Being almost on par with a 6900K but for half the price.
Every time they've given nVidia a kick up the arse, they've come out with something faster or on par for substantially cheaper. That's the only way they're clawing back meaningful market share figures.
So you don't think something faster for £100 less will drive sales?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,080
- Location
- In a house
Doesn't help that AMD are about a year behind either, as when they eventually get their card out, Nvidia just drop the price of their year old one, thats the same performance, or faster.
You're thinking about yourself. It's not how it works. NVidia's biggest advantage is their very aggressive marketing campaign. A saving of £100 when talking about £700 graphics cards isn't going to make much difference. You and I would buy the cheaper card, but most people don't have a clue. They don't consider anything but nVidia as an option. Unfortunately there's a large amount of people like that on these forums.
So it's a case of people don't know better, or they're happy to pay the nVidia tax.
On top of that, they've pushed hard for years to make people feel like they're missing out if they don't buy nVidia. Missing out on things like PhysX, or Gameworks. They don't know or understand how toxic such programmes are to the PC gaming industry. They just feel like they have to have it so pay up on the nVidia tax.
So no, a saving of £100 is going to make no meaningful difference.
Well yeah, but then it doesn't really work like that anyway. With regards to Ryzen, you wouldn't say that they've "jumped ahead years". They've just done what they needed to do to be competitive.
I don't think AMD is struggling to actually make something that's fast enough in terms it ability. I think it's a matter of affordability of R&D costs.
I think any attempt to hit the high end world have been a token gesture that would have cost more money than it was worth, just to say you have a card that can do X.
The vast majority of sales aren't in the high end. They're in the medium range.
The way to look at the high end is that it's essentially a marketing tool that's used to make people remember the company and branding.
It's only worth them doing when they can actually do it properly. Hence Ryzen, and hopefully Vega. If they can't turn it around with Vega it'll be very disappointing.
I really don't want to have a 1080Ti as my only upgrade option as I think nVidia is an awful company who have done quite a bit to set the PC gaming industry back, or at least to stifle progression because they're incapable of seeing beyond their reach.
But if the 1080Ti is my only upgrade option, then it'll have to be an option I take. It's for this reason I've ended up with a 980Ti.
My feelings have nothing to do with AMD before anyone tries to make that connection. I judge nVidia on the actions it takes as a company. AMD are just less bad and destructive.
AMD just neeed to shut up and get it out now.
I'm starting to get really tempted by the 10x0 MSI sea hawk cards - nearly ordered of the 1070's this morning - at £399 with block already fitted, they were starting to look like good value, but perhaps I'm becoming brainwashed?
I'm really wanting 1080ti+ performance under £500. Considering what they gave us with Ryzen, I'm hopeful they can pull a double whammy in one year.
Just do it already!
I'm starting to get really tempted by the 10x0 MSI sea hawk cards - nearly ordered of the 1070's this morning - at £399 with block already fitted, they were starting to look like good value, but perhaps I'm becoming brainwashed?
I'm really wanting 1080ti+ performance under £500. Considering what they gave us with Ryzen, I'm hopeful they can pull a double whammy in one year.
Just do it already!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 24,292
- Location
- London
I'm in the same boat... but we've waited this long... every day we get closer.
With Vega we just don't know where they are, for all we know they could have something far better than Pascal.
Good post^^^^
AMD have been very clever with Ryzen, they have ignored the £1649 6950X and have gone after the intel CPUs that are more mainstream. It would have been possible to pack a Ryzen CPU with enough cores on launch day to compete with the 6950X but what is the point when it costs AMD time resources and money to do it for very little return.
I think we will see the same approach with Vega where the very high end Titan Xp will be ignored and the NVidia cards lower down will be targeted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,723
- Location
- Sol
I'm guessing that AMD's top end Vega card will be just about 1080 Ti performance but a little cheaper.
If it's faster most of the time it'll likely be £100 cheaper. If it's about the same, £150 cheaper.
Its is easy to sell CPUs cheap. look at the die size compared to a GPU, look at the sales volumes. There is no 8GB of HBM2 require, no complex circuit board with power regulators, no complex heat-sink. Yields are much higher and the same basic designs stretch over far more consumer products, no profit margin for the card manufacturer.
You simply can't sell mid and high end GPUs at anywhere near the same costs.
Well... they still have the 16 threader competing with the 6900K in performance and at less than half the cost.
I think i would say AMD have brought enthusiast level performance to mainstream......
That doesn't mean AMD would not do Enthusiast, wait for AMD's 32 Zen core 64 thread 8 channel workstation / server monsters to appear on a cleverly named X399 platform.
then you will see $1000 AMD CPU's again but they will be way beyond Intel's 6950K.Yes you read that right, AMD are skipping 4 channel, 6 channel and going straight to 8 Channel.
Last edited:
Wishful thinking.
with the FuryX and 980ti they both had identical RRP the 98-0to was faster and the FuryX street price was a little more.
+1 people are seeing ryzen figures and expecting 1080Ti perf for £300.
If it's faster than the Ti/1080/1070 i fully expect them to be in a similar same price range.