-
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
He makes perfect sense and I bet he is spot on. There is nothing fantastical or unreasonable about anything he says... it's mostly reading between the lines and deduction. Assuming he is wrong means you think what exactly? That VEGA is a 1080Ti beater? Err no, not a chance, not one shred of evidence anywhere or official architecture specs would suggest that is even a remote possibilty. Or it's actually worse than he says, only 1070 performance at best? Rather unlikely, and again no evidence pointing to that. Think about it, he's right.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- kintyre
del
It's not all guesswork... if you watch the whole video he's done a lot of analysing of what AMD have put out there. There is a difference between 'guessing' and 'deducing'. He's being very logical.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- kintyre
del
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 1,492
- Location
- kintyre
Too late, even when AMD was competing with nVidia, even more than just competing with cards just as fast or faster for less money nVidia still out sold AMD 3 to 1.
Now as a result of that AMD have no R&D to remain competitive so their days on the consumer market are numbered.
I mean, they don't really have susstainable numbers of pepole to sell cards to do they? we know that from all those number gleefully quoted around here at every available opportunity.
Last edited:
i dont understand why people expect from AMD not only to beat Nvidia but also to be cheaper, and if they dont then they failed...
all of this while knowing how hard and how cash constrained AMD has been for the last decade.
if AMD manages to put Vega 10% faster than a GTX1080, that would be good enough for now, they will have the next segment up to 500$ to offer an alternative GPU.
they dont need to be in 500$-1000$ segment.
and seeing how gamers flock to nvidia anyway, i do understand why AMD would dedicate significant portion of the silicon to add stuff for Pro market rather than stuff it with more CUs and shaders to boost it's gaming.
just not enough money to do both, so we have to settle with what we get, or infuse ourselves with green blood...berk!
all of this while knowing how hard and how cash constrained AMD has been for the last decade.
if AMD manages to put Vega 10% faster than a GTX1080, that would be good enough for now, they will have the next segment up to 500$ to offer an alternative GPU.
they dont need to be in 500$-1000$ segment.
and seeing how gamers flock to nvidia anyway, i do understand why AMD would dedicate significant portion of the silicon to add stuff for Pro market rather than stuff it with more CUs and shaders to boost it's gaming.
just not enough money to do both, so we have to settle with what we get, or infuse ourselves with green blood...berk!
Back to Vega... When I was reading these slides, I got to admit that I was a bit enthusastic about that 'high bandwidth cache memory controller' thing;
http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/01/AMD-VEGA-VIDEOCARDZ-15.jpg
** Do Not Hotlink images **
You can see it can interact with system ram, SSDs, etc. Apparently it's meant to be used with SSDs and System RAM for professional applications, but it's also enabling for APUs.
Obviously everyone is expecting the big APU with Ryzen + Vega and some HBM stacks that doubles as the system ram / video ram, but I was thinking that if AMD could make some sort of on-chip memory (like Intel uses eDRAM in their GTe series) acting as the local cache to regular DDR4 instead of HBM.
They could have APUs with solid CPU + GPU performance, without the cost of HBM (though on-chip memory like eDRAM is also quite expensive). If a small (say, 512KB?) on-chip cache speeds things up enough while lowering the cost to HBM it'd be a very interesting laptop chip.
http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2017/01/AMD-VEGA-VIDEOCARDZ-15.jpg
** Do Not Hotlink images **
You can see it can interact with system ram, SSDs, etc. Apparently it's meant to be used with SSDs and System RAM for professional applications, but it's also enabling for APUs.
Obviously everyone is expecting the big APU with Ryzen + Vega and some HBM stacks that doubles as the system ram / video ram, but I was thinking that if AMD could make some sort of on-chip memory (like Intel uses eDRAM in their GTe series) acting as the local cache to regular DDR4 instead of HBM.
They could have APUs with solid CPU + GPU performance, without the cost of HBM (though on-chip memory like eDRAM is also quite expensive). If a small (say, 512KB?) on-chip cache speeds things up enough while lowering the cost to HBM it'd be a very interesting laptop chip.
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately better and cheaper is the only way AMD can sell anything, and your right no one can operate like that for long.
Good enough at a good price will outsell the best at a high price. VEGA does not have to be the best to be profitable. I hope it's priced under £600 as I don’t think I can pay that, I have the cash but it’s just too much and the card I have is more than I need anyway.
Last edited:
If AMD put out a 1080 performance level GPU, that helps AMD more than anyone else... AMD stockholders and AMD management. They make bank. YAY! People who can't afford a 1080 but want an affordable GPU for the same/similar performance will also win (short term only though). YAY! Everyone else LOSES! Nvidia remain dominant of the top tier, do the bare minimum to stay ahead (easy if AMD are coasting), control pricing and before long will have a £1K GPU on the market... just watch this space.
I don't doubt for one second that VEGA will do well and be a profitable GPU for AMD. But the bigger picture is that if it fails to really bring it hard to Nvidia and hit them where it hurts, they will continue to dominate the top end of the marketplace and prices are only going to keep rising. If anything, AMD will just piggyback on that and anyone who thinks of AMD as the budget friendly brand may get a nasty surprise as things move forward. Ultimately, no one wins unless you're an AMD/Nvidia shareholder! There's a lot of shortsightedness going on here.
Last edited:
If AMD and NVidia’s performance is around 10% of each other, competition should keep the prices under control unless they have an unspoken deal. XtremeSystems forum news section are saying that wafer prices are going up by 20% because of a shortage of the silicon used to fab chip, if this is true I will not be upgrading for some time.
I'll back you up mate, Ive seen your posts and seen you have been Pro for AMD doing well. And i'm in the same boat i want some good competition because it benefits us all. But at the moment if feels if AMD have been some what lagging in the enthusiast end meaning nVidia have been the only choice and prices IMO reflect that. Competition usually brings better performance and usually better prices. Why would anyone not want this.
Because of image quality man. People just assume nVidia are better because they hold the crown at enthusiast end and when the not so knowledgeable pc builder is looking for a upgrade in the gfx department they tend to look at what vendor is better and they see nVdia there in popular high end benchmarks so believe this reflects all the way down to mid and low end where they may be looking to buy a card. Even if a similar performing card costs more they will take the nvidia route. Not to mention the whole nvidia drivers is better is still floating about. So like i said its the image of the brand. Game works did a lot for nVidia aswell too. Nvidia appearing in a lot more popular games and making them appear to perform better.
AMD do need to beat nvidia on performance and come in cheaper so it then entices a lot more people to switch over to AMD so people can then see AMD do produce great hardware too. But AMD need to deliver this first. And then get ontop of promoting them selfs better which they have started doing. RTG is getting there IMO but still needs to delivery with Vega.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,008
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Because people want to be able to reconcile paying top end prices for effectively what should be midrange hardware.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
The problem is now that prices have been elevated like they are they're unlikely to go down much, AMD have watched Nvidia push prices up with the 10 series and they will want a piece of the pie so they'll follow suit, They may undercut Nvidia but not by much..
It all depends on who plays what card. If nvidia fully launch the Ti for £700 weeks before VEGA and drop the prices of current pascal cards to compete AMD could be in trouble.
I can't see the VEGA GPU going for any less than £600 myself. But if AMD price competitively then it will certainly roll in their favour if it's between 1080/1080Ti performance.
One thing I do agree with is people's bias though. Unfortunately many will buy nvidia even when the opposing AMD card is faster and cheaper. One of my friends asked which card I had. He said he would prefer nvidia too. Even though he has never bought a gpu in his life.
Last edited:
- Status