Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,710
You're conflating what he said.
But since you're coming off AMD biased I don't find that surprising.
So AMD shouldn't release lower tiers anymore because they're old yet it's okay for Nvidia to do so?
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.
You're conflating what he said.
But since you're coming off AMD biased I don't find that surprising.
I'm an AMD loyalist and I'm looking forward to buying a new Navi card with my budget of approx £220. I'm expecting performance comparable to a GTX 1660 for that.
People with a similar budget to mine make up over 70% of the market, so why should it matter to me as a user if AMD aren't "competitive at the high end"?
Okay so didn't promote the GTX 1070 because the GTX 980Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the GTX 1060 because the GTX 970 had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the RTX 2080 because the GTX 1080Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?
All those people should have bought the high end card from the start instead of waiting 2 years? So all performance tiers should be scrapped?
So AMD shouldn't release lower tiers anymore because they're old yet it's okay for Nvidia to do so?
I don’t understand that line of thinking either.
Maybe you can explain what you mean.
As far as I am concerned it is free performance. You may or may not get it. But when buying you get what you pay for. If you want the extra performance offered by another card day 1, you pay more.
In comparison to Nvidia and Intel, a lack of resources and cash so I guess more of a 'work in progress'. That said, if they can keep going the way they have over the last two years, then great.
Did I say that tho? People here assume that you must be "team green" or "team red", and I'm neither, because it's silly.Yet Nvidia charging £249.95 for a 21 month old card is perfectly acceptable? Anyway, I didn't say there wont be higher tiers than my Vega 56 equivalant
Yes exactly. AMD's competition have perhaps 10x the budget? Perhaps more? Yet only 30% more performance at the high end? (I'm guessing without checking) It doesn't compute in my opinion. A fraction of the resourses yet only a generation behind. I think that's pretty good going.
Obviously if you want an ultra high end GPU then Nvidia is your best option because they make fantastic GPU's but I dont know why AMD get so much grief at the mid end.
That makes no sense to me. If you did not get the performance you wanted, why buy the card in the first place? The assumption is when someone buys a card they are happy with the performance and the price they are paying for it.There is a fine line there between getting a free performance boost and not getting all the performance you should have done off the bat.
Ignoring the bickering above,
I guess it’s too early for any leaked performance/benchmark data?
Unlikely yes, but it is possible. Depends on how good or bad the yields will be perhaps. Also isn't RAM prices coming down? GDDR6 might not be as expensive as it was 6 months ago.There's no way AMD are releasing a vega 64 + 10% at 250 dollar with a Vega 56 performer being 200 dollar.
That makes no sense to me. If you did not get the performance you wanted, why buy the card in the first place? The assumption is when someone buys a card they are happy with the performance and the price they are paying for it.
Again, had you got the extra performance off the bat, they would have charged you more. The only reason you end up getting for free is because they are unable to unlock that performance off the bat. If they did they would charge you for it. Hence your argument does not hold up imo.
They're not. AdoredTV's latest rumour has more Navi SKUs in it making the range a lot more granular (and unnecessary in places IMO).There's no way AMD are releasing a vega 64 + 10% at 250 dollar with a Vega 56 performer being 200 dollar.
Personally I don't really overly invest on the AMD "Fine Wine" belief, however if there's any additional performance to be have later after the initial release in new and future titles, it is definitely a welcomed "bonus".I don’t understand that line of thinking either.
Maybe you can explain what you mean.
As far as I am concerned it is free performance. You may or may not get it. But when buying you get what you pay for. If you want the extra performance offered by another card day 1, you pay more.
Personally I don't really overly invest on the AMD "Fine Wine" belief, however if there's any additional performance to be have later after the initial release in new and future titles, it is definitely a welcomed "bonus".
The issue I have with Nvidia is pricing aside, they consistently being stingy about the vram capacity for their cards; the 2060 6GB should not have happened, especially considering a £350ish card from 2016 already had 8GB vram, but now a £350ish card in 2019 only have 6GB vram it is just ridiculous.
If people want to address or criticise graphic cards, do it objectively and criticise both sides equally. One should not criticise about the shortcoming of one side, and then proceed to give free-pass for shortcoming of the other side calling it non-issue etc.
Indeed. The "FineWine" is sort of a side-effect of GCNIf AMD had the r&d money to make a new architecture with every generation instead of being on GCN forever and had a bigger driver team, there would be no FineWine and we would not need to read all the illogical FineWhine arguments of how people prefer the full performance on release which makes no sense. Lol.
They're not. AdoredTV's latest rumour has more Navi SKUs in it making the range a lot more granular (and unnecessary in places IMO).
RX 3060 is now $140 (4GB, RX 580 perf)
RX 3070 still $200 (8GB, Vega 56 perf)
RX 3070 XT is new at $250 (Vega 64 perf)
RX 3080 is now $280 (8GB, Vega 64 + 10% perf)
RX 3080 XT is new at $330 (about RTX 2070 perf)
RX 3090 is new at $430 (about Radeon VII perf)
RX 3090 XT is new at $500 (about Radeon VII + 10% perf)
So the Vega 56 performer is $200 and the Vega 64 +10% performer is $280. But your statement is still valid towards other cards in the stack:
Vega 64 perf for $250 but Vega 64 +10% for $280?
Vega 64 +10% for $280 but about RTX 2070 for $330? Isn't Vega 64 +10% about RTX 2070 anyway?