AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

tommybhoy · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:09

If Amd make a slightly faster card than NV's fastest at the time(like final8y was talking about 6 months ago, and no that doesn't mean I agree

) and charge more than Nvidia-they'll still buy Nvidia.

A few thousand sales for BM bragging rights/feel good at the top moments won't make everyone and their dogs go out and buy an £800+ Amd gpu coz it's da fastest.

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:26

tommybhoy said:
If Amd make a slightly faster card than NV's fastest at the time(like final8y was talking about 6 months ago, and no that doesn't mean I agree) and charge more than Nvidia-they'll still buy Nvidia.

A few thousand sales for BM bragging rights/feel good at the top moments won't make everyone and their dogs go out and buy an £800+ Amd gpu coz it's da fastest.

Not many go out and buy a £800 card period.

And my point is about relative performance at any time.

If AMD latest matches NVs £800 card then selling for £750 or even £700 would not be unreasonable in comparison, if AMD brings that performance 6 months late then AMD will undercut to whatever the price of that NV card is 6 months later and not some fixed out of the air with well its 6 months late so they cant charge more than £400-£350 with no relation to how much the NV card is going for at the time.

If AMD keep it under £600 then i think it will do ok.

queamin · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:28

Yeah the quote about 50 less than titan x all depends on timing 6/9 months ago yes they more likely could charge that but with 1080ti out, they cannot now and so where it might have been right 6 months ago now it is not now, so something said months ago cannot be applied to now as markets change and so do products.

TNA · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:31

queamin said:
Yeah the quote about 50 less than titan x all depends on timing 6/9 months ago yes they more likely could charge that but with 1080ti out, they cannot now and so where it might have been right 6 months ago now it is not now, so something said months ago cannot be applied to now as markets change and so do products.

Yes it can, because if you go back and look at the debate I had already factored that in. The whole point was by the time Vega comes out they will not be able to charge Titan XP moneys for that performance, hence my expectation on price at the time. But he took issue with that and now to save face he is trying to be clever and turn things around the cheeky bugger!

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:33

queamin said:
Yeah the quote about 50 less than titan x all depends on timing 6/9 months ago yes they more likely could charge that but with 1080ti out, they cannot now and so where it might have been right 6 months ago now it is not now, so something said months ago cannot be applied to now as markets change and so do products.

So AMD cant charge £50 less than what the XP is going for now if they match xp performance ?

Its always about current prices not original prices in the context of undercutting a product.

labbby · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:34

Gregster said:
Why wouldn't they? They have the faster card, so would make sense to charge more than the competition. They can win back market share and earn some decent profits whilst doing so if they have the card that holds the crown.

Wow that's not really now it works... ok neutral gamers would pay the extra money but hey lets be honest most people are fan boys.. If AMD want to cut into nvidia's share of GPU sales they will need on par or above performace per GPU level at a better price... If the card is (as an example) 40 percent faster than the TI then great they could go above the TI price and probably draw customers away from nvidia..

If AMD do produce a card that is faster it isn't going to be by such a high margain

As you well know fan boys will not change to another company unless there is either a crazy performance gain or an amazing bang for buck price..

Just saying that if AMD produced a card that is faster than the Ti they should charge more is crazy in my eyes and it is also terrible for PC gamers at all levels..

we don't just need competition on performance we need it on prices as well.

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 10:40

labbby said:
Wow that's not really now it works... ok neutral gamers would pay the extra money but hey lets be honest most people are fan boys.. If AMD want to cut into nvidia's share of GPU sales they will need on par or above performace per GPU level at a better price... If the card is (as an example) 40 percent faster than the TI then great they could go above the TI price and probably draw customers away from nvidia..

If AMD do produce a card that is faster it isn't going to be by such a high margain

As you well know fan boys will not change to another company unless there is either a crazy performance gain or an amazing bang for buck price..

Just saying that if AMD produced a card that is faster than the Ti they should charge more is crazy in my eyes and it is also terrible for PC gamers at all levels..

we don't just need competition on performance we need it on prices as well.

Indeed AMD would have more to gain with a reasonable price even if its the fastest than to price for the few extremists.

fullmetaltony · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:08

Hype train gathering speed I see

EXxx · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:10

true that AMD needs to try a price war with nVidia.
Problem is 1070 and 1080 can probably still go down in price and nVidia would still make money. Not sure how much they can go down on the 1080Ti as that is quite a big chip.
Also I have a problem with the statement that amd can deliver a card with the same performance of a nVidia card.
Wait, hear me out on this one:
as DX12/vulkan stands, amd's architecture gains more than nVidia's architecture. this basically means that if amd and nvidia are on par @ DX12/vulkan, because of how drivers work, on dx11 (still the great majority) nVidia would still have an edge.
Also take into account the GameWorks stuff and how many games nVidia "help" build.
with this in mind, a amd card can only be faster or slower comparing it to a nVidia card.
My guess would be somewhere between 1080 and 1080Ti for the top card. I think that is a safe bet to have.
Now price wise we've seen AMD have pretty high prices on RX480 and FuryX, so I would think they are not going to be too lax on the prices. Also who knows how much HBM2 costs.

CHO CHO!

TonyTurbo78 · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:13

fullmetaltony said:
Hype train gathering speed I see

no idea why, we have no new news what so ever.

fullmetaltony · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:19

TonyTurbo78 said:
no idea why, we have no new news what so ever.

Not for months, yet everyone seems to have a good idea of performance, it's all speculation that's very likely to lead to disappointment.

All we know is an early development card held it's own against a 1080 on Doom, the most AMD helpful game out there. Not a great deal more than that really.
It's everyone's prerogative to draw from that what they will. Me, I'm trying to keep myself grounded and the lack of news since doesn't pump me full of confidence.
I really hope I am wrong, as I need something better than my 290 to appreciate my freesync screen, but then 1080 performance will do quite nicely in that respect

Griffildur · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:26

fullmetaltony said:
Hype train gathering speed I see

haha, indeed, seems to be the same way before every launch. And then reality strikes ...

EXxx · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:28

under the belt

queamin · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:32

Final8y said:
So AMD cant charge £50 less than what the XP is going for now if they match xp performance ?

Its always about current prices not original prices in the context of undercutting a product.

Yes but people were quoting your price of 1150 of titan x before 1080ti was out so that price needs to drop,saying charging 50 less than a titan X is a blanket statement which in most cases is ok but not when 1080ti is just launched as now you got card 100's of pounds less than a titan X at about the same speed as that changes what you can charge for Vega as it is going against the 1080ti now not just the titanX.

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 11:55

queamin said:
Yes but people were quoting your price of 1150 of titan x before 1080ti was out so that price needs to drop,saying charging 50 less than a titan X is a blanket statement which in most cases is ok but not when 1080ti is just launched as now you got card 100's of pounds less than a titan X at about the same speed as that changes what you can charge for Vega as it is going against the 1080ti now not just the titanX.

£1150 was not my price, i quoted someone else saying that price, the titan XP is not £1150 is it so clearly that cant be my point, and just as you say the 1080TI is out so the price of the XP has dropped as well, so the point is charge £50 less than what the XP costs now, not when the XP was new, its always about the current cost of the XP not about what the XP cost 6 months ago because it does not matter what it costs 6 months ago AMD has to price based on how much the XP costs now if AMD has XP performance now and undercut by £50 and that has always been my point hence relative at the time which means when AMD release the card.

You cant release a card with the same performance as a card 6 months or more ago and charge the original price of the other card, you charge in relation to the current price (that is simple business and should not need to be spelled out) of the card minus £50, that has always been my point.

triss · 31 Mar 2017 at 12:03

Final8y said:
£1150 was not my price, i quoted someone else saying that price, the titan X is not £1150 is it so clearly that cant be my point, and just as you say the 1080TI is out so the price of the XP has dropped as well, so the point is charge £50 less than what the XP costs now, not when the XP was new, its always about the current cost of the XP not about what the XP cost 6 months ago because it does not matter what it costs 6 months ago AMD has to price based on how much the XP costs now if AMD has XP performance now and undercut by £50 and that has always been my point hence relative at the time which means when AMD release the card.

You cant release a card with the same performance as a card 6 months or more ago and charge the original price of the other card, you charge in relation to the current price of the card minus £50.

£ 1179 Is the current Titan X price still ..
I'd assume most would buy a 1080 TI today instead but that is the titan price i presume most are working "your price" off

queamin · 31 Mar 2017 at 12:20

I know it was not your price but someone quoted that price and that is what I had a problem with not your 50 less quote as goal posts move over time and with the launch of the 1080ti the price of Vega has to drop even more.

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 12:21

triss said:
£ 1179 Is the current Titan X price still ..
I'd assume most would buy a 1080 TI today instead but that is the titan price i presume most are working "your price" off

I was going off the price of the 1080 which was when i originally started this convo with TNA.
But that does not change anything As its still about price to relative performance XP or 1080 TI, it does not matter, which ever AMD is closest to then undercut them by a minimum of £50.

Final8y · 31 Mar 2017 at 12:28

queamin said:
I know it was not your price but someone quoted that price and that is what I had a problem with not your 50 less quote as goal posts move over time and with the launch of the 1080ti the price of Vega has to drop even more.

Well thats the thing only the 1080 was around when i started the convo, that's the price i have been currently looking at hence i said the price is half that because i was talking about 1080 prices and that was the card AMD had to beat or match if AMD card matches the XP or TI it changes nothing in regards to pricing to relative performance of what cards are out at the time of AMDs card release.

Yes the price of vaga has to drop even more is its got slightly better than 1080p performance.

D.P. · 31 Mar 2017 at 12:36

Final8y said:
I was going off the price of the 1080 which was when i originally started this convo with TNA.
But that does not change anything As its still about price to relative performance XP or 1080 TI, it does not matter, which ever AMD is closest to then undercut them by a minimum of £50.

If Vega is close to TXP or even slightly faster people won't pay 50quid less for an AMD card when they could pay much less and get the 1080ti. Now being cheaper than the 1080ti and faster than the TXP will generate sales. That is possible but it is a small market. AMD really need 1070 and 1080 market sales but things are much harder is as so many people already purchased one of these, and Nvidia have a lot of leverage on price. Nvidia would win a price war of sales figures dictated they had to. This is especially true if Vega needs expensive HBM2 to have a competitive 1080 rival.
But I'm assuming big Vega with HBM2 is somewhere 1080ti performance and the small Vega around 1080 performance with GDRX5.

Being so late to the party means.sales won't be great for AMD bit my hope is there is a significant evolution of the microarchitecture that significantly reduces the technological advantage Nvidia currently enjoys. Them follow up architectures (there is already talk of Vega20) will be highly competitive. This is like Ryzen,I think it's a great CPU but it's not necessarily the best depending on your uses. However, Ryzen is generation 1, Intel is now on it's 7th generation core architecture. AMD have lots of great optimizations to do with Ryzen. Intel also still not a process node advantage that could well disappear by next year. 2nd or 3rd gen Ryzen on a smaller.node could well beat Intel's offering.