AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[LoadsaMoney]

After that Poor Volta statement NOBODY will take AMD seriously if it isn't significantly faster than a 1080ti. Worse than overlockers dream.

Yup, it should smash the Ti.

Talking of pricing, what about the 480/70/60s, those have been out for nigh on a year now, and in a couple of weeks, their prices are getting whacked up, as said by Gibbo, so grab em while yer can!

 

[Rroff]

Do we actually know the poor volta thing - though it would be rather a coincidence - was a statement and not some kind of wry acknowledgement of Polaris's failures and a suggestion that with Vega they would do better?

 

[Gregster]

Do we actually know the poor volta thing - though it would be rather a coincidence - was a statement and not some kind of wry acknowledgement of Polaris's failures and a suggestion that with Vega they would do better?

Just marketing really and taking the term "Warning Poor Voltage" as a means to advertising, although knowing how pernickety tech fans can be, if it doesn't beat Volta, expect lots of shots fired

 

[TNA]

But my point was it would not be unreasonable for AMD to charge just £50 less than whatever the Titan XP costs If the XP is still the top performance from NV.
There was no mix up from my original point back in september, with people saying AMD has to offer top end performance for half the price as if they should not be allowed to ask for more just because they are AMD, AMD has near enough matched top performance for half the price before and people still bought NV, but the difference this time is NV prices have gotten to the point many may just be feed up enough to going AMD this time for there high end fix as i said in another thread NV's own actions may be doing more for AMD this time, the only mixup was on the dates and current prices, is NV offering you Titan XP performance for £500-£600 ?, its about £700.

To be honest I have made it as clear as I can, you just seem to not be able to see/understand why your reply back then to me does not fit with what you are saying now. If that is how you felt originally, I do not think you would have taken issue with my post as it is clear to anyone who knows their graphics cards that price for performance improves with time. My prediction and expectation took that into account. But all you chose to see was "why do AMD need to offer the same performance 50% cheaper" which is just lol. I even went on to explain how I came to that conclusion, but you was not having any of it. See what I mean yet?

 

[Final8y]

To be honest I have made it as clear as I can, you just seem to not be able to see/understand why your reply back then to me does not fit with what you are saying now. If that is how you felt originally, I do not think you would have taken issue with my post as it is clear to anyone who knows their graphics cards that price for performance improves with time. My prediction and expectation took that into account. But all you chose to see was "why do AMD need to offer the same performance 50% cheaper" which is just lol. I even went on to explain how I came to that conclusion, but you was not having any of it. See what I mean yet?

I was continuing with where i left off, my comment back then was a general statement, if it does not fit with now then you should not have referenced me now.
I feel the same, even if AMD do offer 100% performance for half the price it does not make AMD unreasonable in relation to NV if they didn't give 100% performance for half the price. If people think that what NV is offering is reasonable for the price then it should be reasonable for AMD that was my point, yes you said about what you are willing to pay personally which was besides the point i was making.

From another thread
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/30211464/

Final8y, post: AMD is gaining market share while NV is gaining all the profits.
AMD could have 50% market share and not even make half the profits that NV is making, it would likely be a 75% 25% profit split at best.
It would take many generations of having good market share to start gaining the profits.

So AMD comes out with a good high end that competes for one gen, undercuts hard gets some market share from the high end back then NV uses it resources to fight back, then next NV gets ahead of AMD as is the norm but because AMD undercut so much with its current card has not the resources to counter back in any meaningful time scale and we are back to where we are right now, but AMD may have a bit more market share and then start bleeding marketshare again at the high end for another gen until they can make another competing card at the high end.

Its going to be 2 steps forwards and 1 step back for AMD for a while yet, because its not just about the price, AMD has to overcome brand loyalty, perception and good marketing which one high end at an incredible price card from AMD will not overcome long term.
If anything Its from what NV is doing themselves which could help accelerate AMDs gains if AMD does not keep missing the opportunities.

And AMD has to make sure they don't end up like this.

Indeed the first impressions and reviews are so important.

But i don't want AMD to be in this situation.

To get a feel for what’s going on, click back and forth between the two views—market share and profit share. With 17.2% of the smartphone market in 2015, Apple captured 91% of the profit. Samsung, with 23.9% of the market, took 14% of the profit.

That is the power of marketing and perception right there 91% of the profit and yet they didn't even sell the most 17.2% but charged the most in relation to cost of the product to make and im sure there are plenty of Apple loyalists in denial that marketing and perception had nothing to do with being able to charge so much.

Sharp-eyed readers will note that Apple and Samsung shared 105% of the profit last year. That’s because so many of their competitors lost money.

http://fortune.com/2016/02/14/apple-mobile-profit-2015/
And thats with Apple with only 17.2% marketshare, now imagine if Apple had 70% share which is where NV is about at the moment.

 

[tommybhoy]

£350, that would really be pushing it as i was paying £400 top tier in 2006. If its £350 then it will be unlikely be there top end card.

Hopefully it wouldn't be their top tier, again, it's about if they can fill the performance void bellow £350, it's an instant winner.

It'd then become immaterial how negatively vocal fanboys get if there is nothing higher performing than a 1080 as long as AMD gain mind/market share to help get future products out quicker.

 

[Final8y]

Hopefully it wouldn't be their top tier, again, it's about if they can fill the performance void bellow £350, it's an instant winner.

It'd then become immaterial how negatively vocal fanboys get if there is nothing higher performing than a 1080 as long as AMD gain mind/market share to help get future products out quicker.

To the majority the £350 price point matters the most but many who buy above that price point maybe just be genuinely annoyed that they can only buy from NV.

 

[TNA]

I was continuing with where i left off, my comment back then was a general statement, if it does not fit with now then you should not have referenced me now.
I feel the same, even if AMD do offer 100% performance for half the price it does not make AMD unreasonable in relation to NV if they didn't give 100% performance for half the price. If people think that what NV is offering is reasonable for the price then it should be reasonable for AMD that was my point, yes you said about what you are willing to pay personally which was besides the point i was making.

But how is my point beside the point when you was the one originally who replied to my point that started the debate?

The reason I brought it up recently was just a bit of harmless fun as it seemed like people were slowly changing their opinions on what Vega will deliver. I also quoted Loadsamoney, he never took offence to my post and clearly saw it for what it was. You got all upset and condescending over nothing. Anyway, it seems you do not want to understand what I am saying, so it is becoming like beating a dead horse. Lets just agree to disagree shall we?

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

So 351 pages of waffle and we know nothing? Is that a fair summary?

 

[Final8y]

But how is my point beside the point when you was the one originally who replied to my point that started the debate? it seems you do not want to understand what I am saying, so it is becoming like beating a dead horse. Lets just agree to disagree shall we?

Because a lot of people say AMD has to offer more for less for them to consider buying AMD, that was the point i was making.

Well thats the point i disagree, but you are taking it as if i'm disagreeing because i don't understand which it is not so yeah ill agree to disagree.

And back on ignore

 

[Random Guy Esq.]

So 351 pages of waffle and we know nothing? Is that a fair summary?

We know who is being ignored by who. Essential info.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Just marketing really and taking the term "Warning Poor Voltage" as a means to advertising, although knowing how pernickety tech fans can be, if it doesn't beat Volta, expect lots of shots fired

Yeah i though it was 'Poor Voltage', but with them putting their Radeon sticker over the G and E, it does leave it reading as 'Poor Volta'

Unless thats just a reference to it being 2018, and not about its performance.

**** knows, i clearly need to get out more.

 

[Rroff]

So 351 pages of waffle and we know nothing? Is that a fair summary?

We know that they are moving some intrinsic functions from discrete blocks on the core to being processed on the shaders - which assumabley frees up some die space, especially on smaller cores as those bits would be the same size regardless of tier and also means that performance of those sub-systems would scale with the number of shaders as well as clockspeed instead of just clockspeed.

 

[TNA]

Because a lot of people say AMD has to offer more for less for them to consider buying AMD, that was the point i was making.

Well thats the point i disagree, but you are taking it as if i'm disagreeing because i don't understand which it is not so yeah ill agree to disagree.

Ah I see, so you assumed I was like other people and wanted to pay less for the same performance. That is where you went wrong with that assumption. My prediction and expectation simply took in factors such as price for performance over time and competition. I do not think I was far of or unreasonable with my expectation. We will see soon anyway won't we?

Oh and for the record if two cards were out (one radeon one geforce) with very similar performance and identical price, I would actually go with the AMD card without hesitation personally. Not only are they innovating with HBM2 and HBCC, but I would like to buy a Freesync 2 monitor which would save me money over G-Sync (though I may get something else in the meanwhile as they seem far away).

We know who is being ignored by who. Essential info.

Breaking news, we just found out he had a change of heart and stopped ignoring the said individual. lol

 

[silversurfer]

You've got it completely backwards and obviously spend way too much time on boards like this thinking they represent the average PC gamer.

Look at the valve survey for the average gamer. Its a 60hz monitor and 4gb main memory [actually its 8gb thankfully but GFX 1gb is the most common]. I believe 4 core cpu is now mainstream however, a good move forward and hopefully ryzen pushes us to 6 core by the next gen of cards
This Vega release doesnt even apply to average, 480 is already there. Price range would be around 200 which is low as every year the worth of £200 is growing less and less however tech is advancing its unfortunate if peoples budgets are perhaps getting smaller.

Even the lower vega card wont come close to average, it'll be 1070 level? If thats the case I got to agree the higher Vega card is going to be in competition with the 1080 both price and performance. The pricing of 1080ti is near the top end of the scale in what can be justified for performance, there is a kinda drop off where numbers of customers just dont justify the R&D and scales of economy mean certain failure. So I dont see AMD pushing in that direction if its not even profitable for them especially.

Vega does require that shock and awe effect where people reevaluate if they are on the right train. We already seen from this thread, a lot of high performance users feel they are locked to nvidia by their monitor choice. So AMD is going to need a card so new and amazing it can jump that Nvidia train and its passengers off its rails onto their business path with impressive features and advances.
I can see why they target VR when its so hard to win a race already in motion and also I hope AMD is pushing Vulkan forward and we see more of open standards allowing for innovation by either team not all this bias in games to one card or the other

 

[nashathedog]

I love my Rift but it is mainly gathering dust at present purely because lack of content. )

This isn't a surpise, It's a niche product and after the initial push from brands to get games made for it is over I'm betting we'll see less and less exclusives due to the lack of sales and those who are going to buy one already have already. I predict they'll be selling for half the price in a couple of years, After all who wants to spend 600 quid on something that get pushed aside to gather dust when it's not even a year old?

 

[TNA]

This isn't a surpise, It's a niche product and after the initial push from brands to get games made for it is over I'm betting we'll see less and less exclusives due to the lack of sales and those who are going to buy one already have already. I predict they'll be selling for half the price in a couple of years, After all who wants to spend 600 quid on something that get pushed aside to gather dust when it's not even a year old?

I think only game I really would have really liked to play so far with it is Resident Evil 7. Would not mind Elite Dangerous, but I know I would get bored quickly with that game so it would just sit there gathering dust like Gregster's Rift

Ideally I will wait for one with higher resolution which has no screen door effect, also one with no wires with a cheaper price. Will probably grab one when Star Citizen comes out if it supports it properly.

 

[TNA]

And back on ignore

I see you made use of the now bigger ninja editing window. lol.

 

[Gregster]

We know who is being ignored by who. Essential info.

Made me laugh too much

 

[Gregster]

I think only game I really would have really liked to play so far with it is Resident Evil 7. Would not mind Elite Dangerous, but I know I would get bored quickly with that game so it would just sit there gathering dust like Gregster's Rift

Ideally I will wait for one with higher resolution which has no screen door effect, also one with no wires with a cheaper price. Will probably grab one when Star Citizen comes out if it supports it properly.

Star Citizen will be epic in VR and we will have retinal VR inserts by that time