• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
drunkenmaster said:
IT was an 8 core regardless of if you believe it to be so.
Click to expand...
Yea, this isn't gonna lead anywhere. It wasn't an 8 core CPU regardless if you believe it so.

Clearly your standards for belief, based on my previous experience, are pretty binary - if it's something pro-AMD, you argue for it, if it's anti-AMD, or even *perceived* to be anti-AMD(even if it really isn't), you argue against it.

And what's even more hilarious is that is if you do agree it was an 8 core CPU, it completely halves the already terrible performance figures.

It's a no-win situation in this case.
 
Seanspeed said:
Yea, this isn't gonna lead anywhere. It wasn't an 8 core CPU regardless if you believe it so.

Clearly your standards for belief, based on my previous experience, are pretty binary - if it's something pro-AMD, you argue for it, if it's anti-AMD, or even *perceived* to be anti-AMD(even if it really isn't), you argue against it.

And what's even more hilarious is that is if you do agree it was an 8 core CPU, it completely halves the already terrible performance figures.

It's a no-win situation in this case.
Click to expand...

No, you just won't actually discuss any points being made, you go off on tangents and bring up daft things.

Why does the entire computing industry agree it's an 8 core. Why has Intel never come close to challenging that it's an 8 core, why did legal cases in which industry experts(non AMD obvious) all said it was an 8 core.

You are disagreeing with literally the entire industry, every major player and major competitors of AMD who all say it's an 8 core.... but I'm wrong because I'm pro AMD?

I'm not trying to win anything so this isn't a no win situation. You made a point, I made my point, you decided to not discuss why the comparisons are different and you've failed to address how a 8 core zen can compete with an 8 core Broadwell-E if single threaded performance is far down all while you are trying to argue a completely and utterly ludicrous point in which you disagree with an entire industry of people much smarter than you or I.

If it's such a slam dunk obvious point that it's not a real 8 core, why were the lawsuits thrown out?

Oh you also failed to address how Bulldozer '8' core without really having 8 cores is uncompetitive in single threaded performance but can compete with quad core Intel chips when running 8 threads... If AMD had 4 slower cores than Intel's faster 4 cores, then the 2500k and 2600k would be as far ahead in 1 thread as in 4 or 8 threads.
 
Last edited:
Seanspeed said:
The *reality* is that you dont need a high end machine to somehow leave behind the benefits of DX12.

It's most useful in unbalanced systems(weak CPU especially), but it does not mean the savior of the general poor rig. If you have an old rig with both an old CPU and GPU, it's not going to make much difference cuz your old GPU is going to be a bottleneck all the same.

I mean, this kind of thing goes to show even more how people, even many supposed 'enthusiasts', just DONT UNDERSTAND what DX12 actually is. Nor do they understand what it entails and why it's not going to be some universally adopted standard.
Click to expand...

Actually my system is still pretty balanced in dx11. I don't really have many problems running most games around Ultra in dx11. Dx12 just lets me extract the full capabilities of my 290. It's not like games are bringing my i7 to it's knee's at 4.0ghz, it's more like it needs a little help to get the extra out of the 290 which dx12 provides. A really unbalanced machine would be an Amd apu with the 290 or something along the lines.
 
drunkenmaster said:
No, you just won't actually discuss any points being made, you go off on tangents and bring up daft things.

Why does the entire computing industry agree it's an 8 core. Why has Intel never come close to challenging that it's an 8 core, why did legal cases in which industry experts(non AMD obvious) all said it was an 8 core.

You are disagreeing with literally the entire industry, every major player and major competitors of AMD who all say it's an 8 core.... but I'm wrong because I'm pro AMD?

I'm not trying to win anything so this isn't a no win situation. You made a point, I made my point, you decided to not discuss why the comparisons are different and you've failed to address how a 8 core zen can compete with an 8 core Broadwell-E if single threaded performance is far down all while you are trying to argue a completely and utterly ludicrous point in which you disagree with an entire industry of people much smarter than you or I.

If it's such a slam dunk obvious point that it's not a real 8 core, why were the lawsuits thrown out?

Oh you also failed to address how Bulldozer '8' core without really having 8 cores is uncompetitive in single threaded performance but can compete with quad core Intel chips when running 8 threads... If AMD had 4 slower cores than Intel's faster 4 cores, then the 2500k and 2600k would be as far ahead in 1 thread as in 4 or 8 threads.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Maybe you would be better off discussing Ryzen and bulldozer vs intel chips etc in the CPU section and leave this for Vega and gpu news ty :)
 
Got a feeling these could still be 3-4 months away, so decided to hang onto my GTX 1070 for a while longer.

Also with the RX 480's being £250 / £300, I can't see these higher end cards coming at bargain prices. Might be wiser to keep my card for the long haul until we get pricing on these..
 
chroniclard said:
If its anywhere near 1080 performance it will be £600+ guaranteed. :)
Click to expand...

If it is then they're bigger rip off merchants than what many think Nvidia are :). Why? Technology gets cheaper, R&D too to reach a certain performance level. By the time it arrives the 1080 would have been on the market for about a year which is quite a long time really - kind of old tech by mid-2017. It should be much cheaper and easier to reach 1080 level performance by mid-2017 and that should be reflected in the price. Or if it does end up being £600, NVidia could just drop their prices massively to burn them because they would have already made loadsa £ by mid-2017 on pascal anyway and their new stuff will be just around the corner = higher prices again.


AMD know this and I think they will have to price competitively otherwise only the die hard fans willing will be buying....nobody else will be buying a card at £619 when the competitors product has been on the market for the past year at the same price and performance level.

Personally, I'm hoping the extra R&D time AMD have had actually causes their top end product to be 20%+ faster than the TXP. That's what will attract people, even if the price is pretty high, with a different branding too
 
Last edited:
drunkenmaster said:
No, you just won't actually discuss any points being made, you go off on tangents and bring up daft things.

Why does the entire computing industry agree it's an 8 core. Why has Intel never come close to challenging that it's an 8 core, why did legal cases in which industry experts(non AMD obvious) all said it was an 8 core.

You are disagreeing with literally the entire industry, every major player and major competitors of AMD who all say it's an 8 core.... but I'm wrong because I'm pro AMD?

I'm not trying to win anything so this isn't a no win situation. You made a point, I made my point, you decided to not discuss why the comparisons are different and you've failed to address how a 8 core zen can compete with an 8 core Broadwell-E if single threaded performance is far down all while you are trying to argue a completely and utterly ludicrous point in which you disagree with an entire industry of people much smarter than you or I.

If it's such a slam dunk obvious point that it's not a real 8 core, why were the lawsuits thrown out?

Oh you also failed to address how Bulldozer '8' core without really having 8 cores is uncompetitive in single threaded performance but can compete with quad core Intel chips when running 8 threads... If AMD had 4 slower cores than Intel's faster 4 cores, then the 2500k and 2600k would be as far ahead in 1 thread as in 4 or 8 threads.
Click to expand...
Courts literally agreed with arguments that it was not 8 core. Just because something is argued doesn't make it true. Obviously.

The 'entire' industry did not agree with this. You are speaking purely of AMD's arguments, which are clearly going to be one-sided.

The rest, man, this is just.....old stuff really. I cant honestly believe these arguments are still around, but I forget where I am sometimes. A forum where GPU fanboyism is rampant and AMD fans in particular are super vocal. I'm sure you'll spin my avoidance of arguing specifics as a win, but I'm doing so because it's tiring and a complete waste of time when the reality of things is obvious to anyone who doesn't have an agenda.

One quick example is the idea that Bulldozer was competitive in any/all multi-threaded tasks. Not true. As we saw going forward, tons of applications/games saw Intel's CPU's pull ahead with the same or lesser amount of cores/threads.
 
Last edited:
Seanspeed said:
~guff~
Click to expand...

Just becasue it shares a front end between 2 integer units does no mean that it is a 4 core and not an 8 core.

By your logic you can define a Fiji part as only being a 64 core GPU since within a CU, 4 groups of 16 ALU's all share a front end. instead of it being a 4096 core part.

If each integer unit can independently process a thread, then it is considered a separate core. So with the bulldozer derived parts having 8 integer units it is considered an 8 core processor.

There is no definition to what the layout of a CPU should be, only to its basic functionality.
 
Mauller said:
Just becasue it shares a front end between 2 integer units does no mean that it is a 4 core and not an 8 core.

By your logic you can define a Fiji part as only being a 64 core GPU since within a CU, 4 groups of 16 ALU's all share a front end. instead of it being a 4096 core part.

If each integer unit can independently process a thread, then it is considered a separate core. So with the bulldozer derived parts having 8 integer units it is considered an 8 core processor.

There is no definition to what the layout of a CPU should be, only to its basic functionality.
Click to expand...

To be fair that architecture almost needs to be put in a category of its own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom