-
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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Selling good products like the RX480.
I really like the card as they are solid and reliable.
+1
All the console contracts must help their bottom line as well.
Xbox One S and Sony about to launch a slim version of current PS4 and an upgraded model soon too. Using AMD tech. Although not big margins (According to some, I have no idea how much AMD make) it must be good for AMD to be pumping out millions of these chips.
Nope. Intel spend a crazy amount of money on improving their CPU's. They are not holding back. They are simply driving through hard crust right now trying to find what gains they can.
There is not some magic 50% improvement waiting there if they simply got off their butts like you seem to think.
Man of Honour
GPUs for processing power do it all over intel CPUs.
intel are selling outdated products.
Even if they only make £1 on each chip made for the consoles each console makes them millions each year considering how many have sold.
Soldato
They do all of their banking at Gringots
Just one thing that a lot of you don't seem to have picked up on about Vega.The Quote in the Slide said "Will Launch Vega for the enthusiast market in H1 2017" Vega is two chips...Vega 10 and Vega 11. Now I cannot remember which is going to be the bigger of the two but isnt the smaller of the two going to be high-end and NOT enthusiast?
Small Vega (RX490?) is high-end and going to be competing against 1070/1080. Big Vega (Fury replacement?) is enthusiast and going to be competing against Titan X(P).
So saying that Enthusiast Vega is launching H1 2017 may still mean that High-End Vega could surface Q1 2017.
Well that is the way my red tinted spectacles see this at the moment with small Vega using GDDR5X and big Vega using HBM2.
Time will tell, it always does.
IMO big/enthusiast Vega will struggle against the 1080. Titan Pascal won't have an AMD equivalent, AMD don't have firepower to compete at that level of Titan
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,837
No, but they have retained some very talented chip designers and engineers. Just makes you wonder what they can do on a massively reduced R&D budget though....
Soldato
My understanding was its not part of the HDMI spec/standard and is simply something that can be added to work over HDMI with manly Samsung implementing it.
Last edited:
Associate
And you know this how?
Two RX480s based on Polaris beat a 1070 quite comfortably and sit just under the 1080. How can you say that AMD just haven't got the firepower to take on the Pascal Titan X without providing the detail on why they havent got the firepower. Do you know something we don't?
We all know that AMD/RTG havent got the financial firepower....is that what you were refering to ?
Engineering wise, I think they have got the power to take on Nvidia. After all, the engineering on AMD's cards since the 290 (2013) is proving to me that they were right all along with those cards and the reason that they didn't prove so good against competition then was that Nvidia had the brand clout to skew the devs into not going in that Asynchronous/Parallel direction. So I believe it is more down to software development over the last few years rather than just pure card engineering.
Last edited:
Associate
I think it is more likely to be an optional addition to the HDMI spec rather than a hardcore standard. It would certainly throw a spanner in the works for Nvidia if it was made part of the standard for a new HDMI spec. But you never know.
i dont think they would want to but who knows, i dont see why they would want to ignore potential sales to people with freesync monitors or like above, if hdmi or dp becomes freesync standard they may have to like it or not
Associate
To be honest I think Nvidia would probably gain more out of adopting freesync than not adopting it.
The extra cost of the gsync module on top of what are expensive monitors in the first place probably put a lot of people off, myself included. Over a year ago I would have considered a 980Ti if it were not for the fact that I already had a freesync monitor and wanted to keep using variable refresh technology.
The extra cost of the gsync module on top of what are expensive monitors in the first place probably put a lot of people off, myself included. Over a year ago I would have considered a 980Ti if it were not for the fact that I already had a freesync monitor and wanted to keep using variable refresh technology.
Soldato
And you know this how?
Previous AMD releases over the last 4 years have been so bad that it's almost predictable....almost...
Two RX480s based on Polaris beat a 1070 quite comfortably and sit just under the 1080. How can you say that AMD just haven't got the firepower to take on the Pascal Titan X without providing the detail on why they havent got the firepower. Do you know something we don't?
I'm talking single card you mention two cards. Two 1070s beat anything AMD have...your point about 480s is moot.
We all know that AMD/RTG havent got the financial firepower....is that what you were refering to ?
No, I'm talking about how they haven't got anything in the pipeline that will hurt Nvidias cards (1080 or Titan P)- sad but more than likely true. Look at the Furyx hype and how that failed. Look at the fact they rehashed the same chip for the last few releases of 7970, 290 and 390 etc. Doesn't bode well for any new tech that will hurt Nvidia (I'm all for Nvidia getting walloped by AMD btw)
Engineering wise, I think they have got the power to take on Nvidia. After all, the engineering on AMD's cards since the 290 (2013) is proving to me that they were right all along with those cards and the reason that they didn't prove so good against competition then was that Nvidia had the brand clout to skew the devs into not going in that Asynchronous/Parallel direction. So I believe it is more down to software development over the last few years rather than just pure card engineering.
Nvidias cards have so much more grunt that anything AMD release now that it's horrible to see...horrible us customers getting bent over by Nvidia and lubeless ramming done with the 10**gen cards and don't get me started on £1200 for a Titan pascalI just want AMD to "hit back" at Nvidia but I can't see it happening. Yes it's all hearsay from me and I've no evidence to prove anything but going by previous experience, AMD don't look like they can do Nvidia any damage. I'll be delighted if big Vega does pour the pain on the 1080...would be about time too)
To be honest I think Nvidia would probably gain more out of adopting freesync than not adopting it.
The extra cost of the gsync module on top of what are expensive monitors in the first place probably put a lot of people off, myself included. Over a year ago I would have considered a 980Ti if it were not for the fact that I already had a freesync monitor and wanted to keep using variable refresh technology.
Just looking at the amount of freesync monitors compared to gsync on the ocuk store, one would hope nvidia will do it soon.
Soldato
And you know this how?
Two RX480s based on Polaris beat a 1070 quite comfortably and sit just under the 1080. How can you say that AMD just haven't got the firepower to take on the Pascal Titan X without providing the detail on why they havent got the firepower. Do you know something we don't?
The problem is a single RX480 uses as much power as a single GTX 1070 (sometime more) so unless Vega is much better on the PPW on the same node, (which can be done looking at Kepler to Maxwell) they might end up being power limited keeping a high end Vega to a sensible TDP.
HBM2 will help in that regards but it can only do so much going by HBM1 on the Fury X.
Caporegime
All these power consumption limiting performance arguments have been made over and over again with past AMD cards, they have always been proven wrong.
The fact is to take one card and then scale everything about it up to draw a conclusion from that is idiotic, to put it politely, its why people who consistently do that are always proven wrong.
Its a classic case of people think they know what they are talking about, are convinced of their own understanding, but in reality everything they think they know is fundamentally flawed.
The fact is to take one card and then scale everything about it up to draw a conclusion from that is idiotic, to put it politely, its why people who consistently do that are always proven wrong.
Its a classic case of people think they know what they are talking about, are convinced of their own understanding, but in reality everything they think they know is fundamentally flawed.
Man of Honour
The only thing I can say about your post is it is about 100% right.
Has it not occurred to anyone that the reason we do not have Vega yet is because it is going to be very different and improved over Polaris.
Soldato
Fact of the matter at the high end power limits performance regardless of opinion , look at the power hungry cards of the past. Im talking the GTX 480's,GTX 280, 2900pro 290/390's, Fury's. All cards on the high end with very high power consumption/power limited at stock. You could overclock and get loads more performance out of them but then power consumption would get to insane levels which is why they where clocked and as they where at stock.
In the midrange/low end you have much more freedom to push performance at the expense of power consumption.
In the midrange/low end you have much more freedom to push performance at the expense of power consumption.
Last edited:
- Status