Fair one. I always appreciate price for performance cards but get lured by those super duper buggers.
-
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
Fair one. I always appreciate price for performance cards but get lured by those super duper buggers.
Price + HBM2 (expensive!) = Not likely
I suppose their's a reason that nVidia are waiting til Volta to implement it...
Ah yes but I did not say cheap, I said the right price
Soon these 'predictions' will become the Bible around here and dissenters will quickly be swarmed. Can already see the groundwork being laid. It's the 480 Polaris thread all over again where it was 'confirmed' by way of pure imagination that it'll comfortably beat a 980Ti and everyone jumped on the bandwagon after it being repeated enough to allegedly become fact. And funnily enough, it's the usual suspects again
I predicted just this a few pages back. And some think me as the crazy homeless man screaming 'its the end of the world'. Well it's already been the end of the world a few times at this rate lol. I'm telling you... sites like WCCFtech will jump on the hype and post nonsense. And we here will argue whether it's legit or not.
Unless it's like the RX 480 again, with very few cards actually selling at the announced/intended $200 RRP. Would be nice for it to be priced like a (current price-drop) 980ti and perform like one too. But the absurd pricing (and thusly a potential clash) of 8GB 480s and the 1070 will see to it costing more. I bet in the typical letdown fashion, it will slot in around the now existing cards, instead of causing a stir like people want it too. If it's slower than a 1070, it will be cheaper. If it's faster, it'll cost a bit more and so forth. That's my first prediction.
That sorta makes sense and fits in a bit with my prediction. It will cost more than a 1080 if it beats it. And if Nvidia bring out a 1080ti at the same prices as big Vega... then I might finally be getting an upgrade. Something that would be capable of 4k60 (without having to reduce settings, exception of AA which has less effect at higher resolutions, in my eyes at least) is exactly what I'm looking for. Though I still need to buy a new monitor first... and double monitor wall mounts are much worse cost than GPUs could ever be.
There was loads on here expecting it to be a Titan killer after that, it was hyped to absolute buggery, and so was the 480, was a £200 1070 that thing.
All that hype was from the rumour mill, not amd though.
I don't feel this way, not sure why you thought I do. The reality however is AMD are behind currently, they need to gain market share. They are not going to get that by releasing cards that are the same performance, cost the same or more than the competition (who has had them out for year at that point) who are quite a bit more popular and has better marketing.
The reason you seem to have got confused in my opinion is because you are seeing Vega as Pascal's competition only. But by the time Vega is out, Pascal will be way past half it's life cycle. Vega by the looks of it will be coming out a whole year after Pascal. Therefore it needs to be providing better price for performance, which is what happens as time moves on, is it not? Using this logic is how I came to my decision of Big Vega needing to be at least as fast as Titan XP and cost in the range of £500-600 for ME to be have any interest at all.
And
But you did not like what I said and we have been debating about a bunch of stuff not even related to my original post which you replied to
So what exactly is it you are suggesting they should do then?
I told you what it would take from AMD for me to buy a Vega card. Which you took issue with, hence this debate
So far from what you have said, you think they should charge £50 less than the competition, so £1050 or something then? Not sure how this helps them in any shape or form in their current position.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
All I said was what I expect and what it would take for me to buy Vega.
They are not going to gain market share by competing at the top/ highend first, the top/ high end is the smallest market and least profitable outside of the professional market, unless you can charge large markups hence why NV charge so much and hence why AMD are starting at the low end first as it easier to gain market share at that the low end.
People have been saying what AMD needs to do for a long time and that goes for the CPU side as well compete in performance and price but its clearly not that simple and when AMD had the better CPU than Intel, Intel still out sold them.
Basically this is purely about what you want and nothing to do with whats better for AMD and there marketshare because NV can afford to undercut them like they did many times before at that price segment, great for you bad for AMD, You say AMD need to beat the TXP and the next top and card from NV with less resources and then make less profit per card compared to NV and then have even less resources for the next Big card but then again still out do NV again..
NV rarely has better price to performance and the majority still buy NV.
This is the reality whether we like it or not when it comes to moving forwards and what you are getting for your money..https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/mid-range-has-turned-into-high-end.2485258/#post-38451055
Last edited:
Here we are again you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say they will be gaining market share by competing at the high end first? You keep doing this over and over. Lol. AMD have already addressed the low end market with Polaris have they not? So what is it you are saying?
You did not even answer my question and went of on a tangent about unrelated stuff once again.
Yes this is about what I want. What else would it be about? I posted what my prediction and expectation is, not to give AMD advice on how to run the company. If AMD do what you are saying they will not get a penny out of me. I am not paying £1k for a graphics card, sorry. I want technology to move forward. What is it that you want? You don't seem to like the idea of AMD making improvements in price for performance which is what they have been very good at until recently, hence why for a very long time I only ever purchased AMD cards. Click my GPU History link in my sig and see.
I don't get it. What exactly do you think AMD need to do that NV cannot beat them either on price or by selling more? Go on enlighten us... I will get Matt to bring your ideas to the attention of Lisa Su
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,210
- Location
- Solihull
If the pro duo was reasonably priced, we'd at least have a stop gap on the high end.
Should be <= 600.
Should be <= 600.
The 1080 is around 290x xfire performance and you could have got one on release for £525..
At stock, the 1080 is delivering in the region of 180% performance of the RX480 with 135% the diesize, ~140% the clockspeed and ~100% power. (Techpowerups RX480 launch day review)
So approx 33% more performance per mm2, for which they clearly rely being able to achieve higher clockspeeds with their arch/physical design to get the lead they do.
However this is slightly skewed by the fact that being a smaller die relative to the GP104, Polaris 10 will have a greater proportion of its die dedicated to hardware for multimedia/display/pcie and memory interface. Not to forget the often touted hardware scheduling, although you could argue it is integral to AMD's performance in their current design so should remain in the calculation but it would require additional power and the added complexity likely impedes clockspeed. It also doesn't account for future games that may play to AMD's arch or for AMD to workout how to get extract better utilisation. Considering the limited info available that's an argument for another day between those who care enough to argue it!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 5,849
At this point in the game, if Nvidia supported Freesync i would buy an Nvidia card, yep i said i would never buy their products, but in all honesty im fed up with waiting for AMD to actually produce something thats an upgrade to my 290 that does not have some form of out of the box gimpage associated with it.
So yeah, if NVidia could be bothered to support Freesync i'd be all over one of their overpriced cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,010
- Location
- Billericay, UK
The 14nm issues are overblown IMO, you just need to look at Doom to see where AMD's issues are. Driver overhead and CPU latency, in Vaulkan these were no longer issues and AMD cards could show what they are capable of.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,082
Nope, 22 pages of utter twaddle. As expected. I keep returning every so often to check if there is any, actual, news but I'm always disappointed.
Nah they aren't - never mind performance you only have to look at the core size v power use, voltages and thermal properties to see that 14nm at GF is dragging behind where it should have been - also the whole mess with the power profile on launch largely suggests an expectation of something closer to TSMC's 16nm where that configuration wouldn't have been an issue at all.
Vulkan in Doom hasn't even been properly optimised for nVidia cards, due to a number of issues none the less that you can't just throw async work at it like AMD cards, which somewhat skews the comparison there (though probably not by much). So far its the only title I think that sees that huge a difference in other DX12/Vulkan stuff so far the delta has been much smaller.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I'd be happy to get a card that matches the 1080 in DX11 and has the usual DX12 features and maybe tiled resources if possible as Nvidia will obviously be pushing for DX12 games they help develop to use it as it's what AMD lack in DX12.
If they do that it'd be great, If they can do it for around £500 that'd be great too.
If they do that it'd be great, If they can do it for around £500 that'd be great too.
Indeed, and I probably would have were it not for my Freesync monitor.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
I wouldn't let FreeSync stop you, ive got FreeSync and going Nvidia, which is what quite a few have done already, and they ain't missing it.
Last edited:
Does suck losing adaptive sync whichever sort though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,251
- Location
- UK.
Ha, got a sneaky feeling the full fat Vega will smoke the Titan XP by a fair amount (;
I am putting some pennies aside...
AMD doesn't really have much excuse if it doesn't - nVidia are taking the mick trickling out performance on 16nm.
- Status