Soldato
Never once did I state progress at the top end, or progress in performance per dollar. I said literally "progress is progress" so stop trying to change it to suit what you are trying to spout.
-
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.
Radeon VII
- Thread starter DragonQ
- Start date
Never once did I state progress at the top end, or progress in performance per dollar. I said literally "progress is progress" so stop trying to change it to suit what you are trying to spout.
Soldato
It's good to know we have someone one the inside at TSMC and AMD, because without people like you we'd never have any accurate information. Oh wait, sorry you are just completely guessing, as usual.
No-one said it wasn't faster than vega64. You should perhaps take a month off and go back and read the posts.
The only comparison made was with a 2 year old 1080ti
Disappointed in RAD 7 7nm
No faster than my 1080ti
Shame
I don't post much but all you ever seem to do is post about your Last Gen 1080ti - I know you are chuffed but I think everyone on the forums know by now...lol
Well if you are only concerned with absolute performance then AMD have done nothing, they finally caught up with a 2 year old 1080ti. Nvidia sell several faster cards that have improved absolute performance, even if the cost is absurd.
Either argument is completely false. AMD haven't improved absolute performance or performance per dollar for consumers.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,878
looks like my 1080ti will be in my system even longer now, soo wanted to fire in a amd card next.
Soldato
I can't see AMD gaining much market share with this unfortunately.
There's 2 rules when trying to gain market share.
1) Price the same as your competitor but blow it out the water with performance
2) Perform the same as your competitor but price it significantly cheaper
Vega 7 does neither
There's 2 rules when trying to gain market share.
1) Price the same as your competitor but blow it out the water with performance
2) Perform the same as your competitor but price it significantly cheaper
Vega 7 does neither
Soldato
I am concerned with progress and this is a good start for AMD. Competitive progress is progress, AMD advancing what they can deliver is progress, having more than one choice at the high end again is progress.
So why is it so amazing if AMD does this it if Nvidia does it they are terrible?
Why is the horrific pricing if Turing some how an excuse for.AMD to also have terrible pricing for the performance?
Soldato
In my view if its faster than my Vega 64 when I plug it into my system, its progress.
You again are making wild claims on very little information we have.
You been stating for weeks amd wouldn't release a Vega 7nm GPU, how wrong was you.
All you do around here is never post anything positive about amd and making them out like they facts.
I can't see AMD gaining much market share with this unfortunately.
There's 2 rules when trying to gain market share.
1) Price the same as your competitor but blow it out the water with performance
2) Perform the same as your competitor but price it significantly cheaper
Vega 7 does neither
Funny that neither of these requirements have been met by Nvidia with RTX 20xx. Remember marketshare is not gained at the highend.
AMD are releasing a GPU that is similar in performance to the RTX 2080 but $100 cheaper. I am not proclaiming it a great feat by AMD but at least it is competition and Nvidia will need to respond. Anyone decrying AMD releasing a competitive GPU to Nvidia's higher end GPUs needs to realise competition breads price drops.
Competition is absolutely needed for us as consumers and to decry the fact AMD are providing much needed competition as a failure is pure shortsightedness.
You mean like when gamers didn't need the 4GB of the 290X and the GTX780's 3GB was more than enough, or when gamers didn't need the 3GB of the HD7970 and the GTX680's 2GB was enough?
For reference in both those examples the cards with more VRAM lasted their owners longer.
It is Overpriced
They lost my attention at £699 for what it is
It doesn't matter if it is Green or Red - Prices after they saw what people will pay during the mining Crisis has changed things forever
I don't mind paying for things when they represent Value no matter the cost but I think they dropped the Ball here
£500-£550 they would have really put Nvidia in an awkward place but Greed got the better of them
They lost my attention at £699 for what it is
It doesn't matter if it is Green or Red - Prices after they saw what people will pay during the mining Crisis has changed things forever
I don't mind paying for things when they represent Value no matter the cost but I think they dropped the Ball here
£500-£550 they would have really put Nvidia in an awkward place but Greed got the better of them
Soldato
Posted today, how wrong you was once again. I bet if I could be bothered digging through threads, it was yourself that started amd wouldn't release 7nm Vega for gaming.
If it is direct competition to RTX 2080 then it will fuel the potential for price drops. This is good for us as consumers.
Exactly, that's why the 2080 is one of the worst cards Nvidia has ever released and people are very disappointed. Matching that card without having the impediment of dedicating die space to RTX for effectively the same price is not a worthwhile achievement.
Soldato
Just purchased a second hand Vega 64 for £300 , so I was very worried when I heard there was going to be a new Vega announcement today!
Seems like it's not the end of the world, I'm never going to be in the market for a £700 GPU. £350 is my max
Seems like it's not the end of the world, I'm never going to be in the market for a £700 GPU. £350 is my max