• 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

r7slayer said:
I was saying this a while ago with a lot of people arguing with me. I said that high end does not make AMD money like mid range does. It's why AMD have been solely focusing and putting more effort into mid range instead of the high end enthusiast end. With people responding like well look how well the 1080s and 1080tis sold. Lol just because it appears to be a lot on this forum does not mean diddly squat compared to the amount sold world wide vs the mid range products. With AMD taking time out to focus on Vega and ryzen it means that they can come in competitively on high end and make them seem more attractive again.
Click to expand...

So why did AMD release Ryzen 7 before 5 :) ?
Although I don't disagree with you, the top end matters a lot, it helps with marketing and showing of potential. What I mean is, people like to buy something in the range when they know the company has the best available, it's partly why Formula 1 exists for example, it helps sell their road cars. The problem with AMD's mid-range is that they currently are not making enough coin per item, their margin's are rubbish. Top end could give them bigger margin's if they can sell enough of them, and for that, AMD themselves could do with a top end premium brand to disguish them from the rest of the range and especially the mid-range.
AMD have to sell items for less than similar competitor products and with lower market share that means less £ on both counts (margin per item and number of items sold). To break free from that they could do with a new brand or something, where they can compete with Nvidia and even Intel on pricing - but they need to invest in it to also make it the best too from all angles, ie, not just a grand name with the same old AMD product flaws.

A reason why some buy a 1060 over a 480 is probably because they know the 1060 is based on the same architecture that's created the stonking Titan XP. Polaris starts and ends with the 470//480 now rebranded to 580, so it's not so appealing
 
Last edited:
spoffle said:
The ones who completely blank the detrimental things with malintent that nVidia does are the real crazies.
Click to expand...

nVidia are ********. We know they're ********, they know they're ********. But it's business and they make a ton of $$$$ so I don't think they're that bothered, they sold their souls a looooooooong time ago!!
 
DarrenM343 said:
So why did AMD release Ryzen 7 before 5 :) ?
Although I don't disagree with you, the top end matters a lot, it helps with marketing and showing of potential. What I mean is, people like to buy something in the range when they know the company has the best available, it's partly why Formula 1 exists for example, it helps sell their road cars. The problem with AMD's mid-range is that they currently are not making enough coin per item, their margin's are rubbish. Top end could give them bigger margin's if they can sell enough of them, and for that, AMD themselves could do with a top end premium brand to disguish them from the rest of the range and especially the mid-range.
AMD have to sell items for less than similar competitor products and with lower market share that means less £ on both counts (margin per item and number of items sold). To break free from that they could do with a new brand or something, where they can compete with Nvidia and even Intel on pricing - but they need to invest in it to also make it the best too from all angles, ie, not just a grand name with the same old AMD product flaws.

A reason why some buy a 1060 over a 480 is probably because they know the 1060 is based on the same architecture that's created the stonking Titan XP. Polaris starts and ends with the 470//480 now rebranded to 580, so it's not so appealing
Click to expand...

But the cost on developing and putting out a CPU is no where near that of a GPU. For AMD to compete on the high end with nividia costs them a lot more money and sometimes like with fury ends up not benefiting them what so ever.

AMD need to concentrate on making money now. Mid range is where that money is. Nvidia make sure they keep the crown for fastest gpu so it trinkles down and people think nvidia make better and faster cards. But nvidia can do this but AMD could not at the time. So they made sure they did well at mid range and kept off high end to provide them with more time to get it right at high end so they can compete with nvidia. It's paying off so far so im sure Vega will do well. But that does not change the fact mid range is more profitable to AMD and nvidia than what high end is.
 
spoffle said:
The ones who completely blank the detrimental things with malintent that nVidia does are the real crazies.
Click to expand...
As are those who make up all kinds of heinous crimes that Nvidia supposedly did or believe that AMD is in anyway different.
 
Having the 'top' card matters hugely, seeing AMD or NVIDIA at the top of benchmarking sights is golden marketing, particularly for AMD, people still bash AMD without ever even owning an AMD card, just because 'NVIDIA is better'. AMD has made huge strides in driver improvement and the way it's has been implemented, plus reLive is excellent. AMD are on the up, but they do need a benchmark topping card to prove it
 
DarrenM343 said:
So why did AMD release Ryzen 7 before 5 :) ?
Although I don't disagree with you, the top end matters a lot, it helps with marketing and showing of potential. What I mean is, people like to buy something in the range when they know the company has the best available, it's partly why Formula 1 exists for example, it helps sell their road cars. The problem with AMD's mid-range is that they currently are not making enough coin per item, their margin's are rubbish. Top end could give them bigger margin's if they can sell enough of them, and for that, AMD themselves could do with a top end premium brand to disguish them from the rest of the range and especially the mid-range.
AMD have to sell items for less than similar competitor products and with lower market share that means less £ on both counts (margin per item and number of items sold). To break free from that they could do with a new brand or something, where they can compete with Nvidia and even Intel on pricing - but they need to invest in it to also make it the best too from all angles, ie, not just a grand name with the same old AMD product flaws
Click to expand...

This having the top card hasn't worked for AMD ever, in fact the two most successful years that AMD has had are when they released the 4xxx cards and last year when they released Polaris. When AMD had one of the most successful cards of all time they still lost money and Market share to Nvidia. The sales didn't trickle down to lower end cards at all.

AMD has lost money hand over fist trying to compete at the high end. They have done nothing but lose market share and money. That strategy had to change and with Polaris they tried something different. So, while they didn't sell as many cards as Nvidia, Polaris did sell very well and did claw back some marketshare.

So all you guys saying that AMD must release a high end card and must smash the top end aren't making any sense. The road to recovery for AMD is going to be long and slow. They have to use the little resources they have wisely. And certainly can't risk it on a winner take all card. No, it's going to baby steps all the way. Ryzen and Polaris have been both been good starts to that recovery.

AMD have worked hard on the software side of things too, getting fixes out quickly. Look at how quickly they solved the launch issue with Polaris or how fast they are releasing microcode for Ryzen. Compare that to the black screen issue with the 290 cards or how slow they were getting the best performance of the 7 series cards. Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.

Slow and Steady is the way forward for AMD. They have to keep releasing solid products and keep up the good work on the software side of things. Changing mindsets is going to take years.
 
melmac said:
This having the top card hasn't worked for AMD ever, in fact the two most successful years that AMD has had are when they released the 4xxx cards and last year when they released Polaris. When AMD had one of the most successful cards of all time they still lost money and Market share to Nvidia. The sales didn't trickle down to lower end cards at all.

AMD has lost money hand over fist trying to compete at the high end. They have done nothing but lose market share and money. That strategy had to change and with Polaris they tried something different. So, while they didn't sell as many cards as Nvidia, Polaris did sell very well and did claw back some marketshare.

So all you guys saying that AMD must release a high end card and must smash the top end aren't making any sense. The road to recovery for AMD is going to be long and slow. They have to use the little resources they have wisely. And certainly can't risk it on a winner take all card. No, it's going to baby steps all the way. Ryzen and Polaris have been both been good starts to that recovery.

AMD have worked hard on the software side of things too, getting fixes out quickly. Look at how quickly they solved the launch issue with Polaris or how fast they are releasing microcode for Ryzen. Compare that to the black screen issue with the 290 cards or how slow they were getting the best performance of the 7 series cards. Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.

Slow and Steady is the way forward for AMD. They have to keep releasing solid products and keep up the good work on the software side of things. Changing mindsets is going to take years.
Click to expand...
'Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.' yet the AMD Drivers thread begs to differ, interesting....
 
hyperseven said:
'Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.' yet the AMD Drivers thread begs to differ, interesting....
Click to expand...

Well Nvidia's also are not perfect. Latest set are giving me a silly error when launching GFE. Not ground breaking but software development will always be big prone.
 
Last edited:
r7slayer said:
But the cost on developing and putting out a CPU is no where near that of a GPU. For AMD to compete on the high end with nividia costs them a lot more money and sometimes like with fury ends up not benefiting them what so ever.

AMD need to concentrate on making money now. Mid range is where that money is. Nvidia make sure they keep the crown for fastest gpu so it trinkles down and people think nvidia make better and faster cards. But nvidia can do this but AMD could not at the time. So they made sure they did well at mid range and kept off high end to provide them with more time to get it right at high end so they can compete with nvidia. It's paying off so far so im sure Vega will do well. But that does not change the fact mid range is more profitable to AMD and nvidia than what high end is.
Click to expand...
True :). As I think someone else said, it will be slow progress especially with their low margins, although maybe Vega will help with that who knows.
hyperseven said:
'Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.' yet the AMD Drivers thread begs to differ, interesting....
Click to expand...
It's hard to shake off a reputation, it takes a lot of time, especially with the internet and everyone willing to give an opinon (sometimes stated as fact). There's also the sheep mentality - some probably say it without ever own an AD card. I've had bad experiences of their drivers in the past and the memory has stuck with me too :).
I'd try one of their top end cards if they managed it, and I mean real top end. I have no interest in the mid-range though, personally.
 
Last edited:
hyperseven said:
'Their drivers have improved too, and are now rock solid.' yet the AMD Drivers thread begs to differ, interesting....
Click to expand...

Just in comparison to how flaky Nvidia drivers have been over the past year or so.

And Opethdisciple said what he said probably because you never make any snarky comments when people say how solid and good Nvidia drivers are.
 
melmac said:
Just in comparison to how flaky Nvidia drivers have been over the past year or so.

And Opethdisciple said what he said probably because you never make any snarky comments when people say how solid and good Nvidia drivers are.
Click to expand...
:confused: you say they are rock solid, many posts say otherwise. I highlighted that fact. Simples.
 
I've had FAR more Nvidia driver issues than AMD. Maybe because I've not owned an AMD card since my beloved 5850.

Good post melmac, I definitely agree. I still remember so many people waiting for the FX5800 even when the 9700 PRO was such a beast, and then waiting out the 5870 for the GTX480 (gotta love how that turned out for them, hahaha!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom