AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[Journey]

AMD is on record as saying they don't want to be the budget brand and will need to be more careful with profit margins in order to have healthy R&D. hence the FuryX had equal RRP as the 980ti despite being unambiguously slower on release. I wouldn't expect a change form that strategy. With HBM2 their margin will already be lower than Nvidia's at equal price points so there is onyl so much under cutting they could do.

With BREXIT then UK pricing might disappointing people who seem to ignore forex issues when blaming Nvida's pricing (which in USD has barely changed in decades when accounting for inflation)

That's completely wrong, it wasn't until after 2008/9 when Nvidia launched the GTX 260 & GTX 280 (notice the distinct lack of a 270) initially they tried to raise the prices the newly introduced cards to $649 for the 280 and $399 for the 260. The price was dropped after a few weeks when the ATI/AMD 4870 came out, so the GTX 260 was only $299, and the GTX 280 then $499. They were the two top tier cards, it was not until later when Nvidia introduced a new tier, in the GTX *70 versions that the prices started to creep up. So even factoring today's exchange rate and inflation you don't get a £700 card, the lack of competition has allowed them to raise prices, full stop, nothing to argue about.

 

[Seanspeed]

That's why it isn't a game changer. You are just offering slightly better picture quality that most people won't even notice.

If good HDR isn't a game changer, then nothing ever is a game-changer. I dont know what to say with that kind of standard of judgement. TV's are just gonna be TV's and monitors are gonna be monitors and nothing will ever actually matter that much.

A totally ridiculous stance, but hey, you're free to hold it. I'm on a hardware enthusiast board talking to other hardware enthusiasts. I wasn't really talking about the 'average consumer' here. I guess I made the mistake of thinking people here, the likes of which spend £600+ on GPU's, would care about image quality. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

 

[TNA]

If good HDR isn't a game changer, then nothing ever is a game-changer. I dont know what to say with that kind of standard of judgement. TV's are just gonna be TV's and monitors are gonna be monitors and nothing will ever actually matter that much.

A totally ridiculous stance, but hey, you're free to hold it. I'm on a hardware enthusiast board talking to other hardware enthusiasts. I wasn't really talking about the 'average consumer' here. I guess I made the mistake of thinking people here, the likes of which spend £600+ on GPU's, would care about image quality. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

It might well be dude. Most people here are on TN panels and on a potato resolution.

It seems to me for most people here fps and hz is king. I will take image quality any day personally

 

[nashathedog]

If good HDR isn't a game changer, then nothing ever is a game-changer. I dont know what to say with that kind of standard of judgement. TV's are just gonna be TV's and monitors are gonna be monitors and nothing will ever actually matter that much.

A totally ridiculous stance, but hey, you're free to hold it. I'm on a hardware enthusiast board talking to other hardware enthusiasts. I wasn't really talking about the 'average consumer' here. I guess I made the mistake of thinking people here, the likes of which spend £600+ on GPU's, would care about image quality. Maybe that's a bad assumption?

Obviously most people on forums like this do care about image quality and maybe after spending time with HDR opinions will change,
but it's not something I'm missing not having now, that's probably because I haven't yet had a face to face meet and great with it.
I like eye candy and if HDR brings something to the table that isn't a direct resource hog I imagine it'll slowly become one of the
bits of the puzzle in the search for the ultimate gaming imagery. But being a monitor based tech the uptake will be pretty slow.

 

[D.P.]

That's completely wrong, it wasn't until after 2008/9 when Nvidia launched the GTX 260 & GTX 280 (notice the distinct lack of a 270) initially they tried to raise the prices the newly introduced cards to $649 for the 280 and $399 for the 260. The price was dropped after a few weeks when the ATI/AMD 4870 came out, so the GTX 260 was only $299, and the GTX 280 then $499. They were the two top tier cards, it was not until later when Nvidia introduced a new tier, in the GTX *70 versions that the prices started to creep up. So even factoring today's exchange rate and inflation you don't get a £700 card, the lack of competition has allowed them to raise prices, full stop, nothing to argue about.

Alternative facts

 

[Journey]

Alternative facts

LOL in CAPS!!!!

Notice they didn't bother to put the GTX 280 and GTX 260 in the graph? The 780Ti was the first card they introduced at the new silly 'lets see how much people will pay' price since AMD launched the 290X and had nothing to offer above it, so they dropped the 780 and hit back with a $699 card.

Actual facts :roll all the eyes as much as you want:

 

[eyetrip]

It would be interesting to see that graph with pounds - not just a straight conversion, but what was actually paid at the time.

Imagine there would be a steep curve towards the right side

 

[D.P.]

LOL in CAPS!!!!

Notice they didn't bother to put the GTX 280 and GTX 260 in the graph? The 780Ti was the first card they introduced at the new silly 'lets see how much people will pay' price since AMD launched the 290X and had nothing to offer above it, so they dropped the 780 and hit back with a $699 card.

Actual facts :roll all the eyes as much as you want:

The 8800 was $800 inflation adjusted back in 2007. $700 is less than $800, that is a hrad fact.

The 280 was released at $650in 2008, That is around $750 in today's money. The current $700 1080ti RRP is less than the 260 launch price.

So where exactly are these magical price increases coming from?


LOL all you want, you're speaking garbage.

 

[elmuzzy66.]

It might well be dude. Most people here are on TN panels and on a potato resolution.

It seems to me for most people here fps and hz is king. I will take image quality any day personally

You make it sound like people are still on 17" displays @720p. What would say is a potato resolution.?
I like image quality above all too

 

[TNA]

You make it sound like people are still on 17" displays @720p. What would say is a potato resolution.?
I like image quality above all too

Anything under 2160p in this day and age is potato to me sir!

Once you see a proper calibrated 2160p panel and you are someone who likes their image quality above all, it is very hard to go back. Considered going back to 1440p on two occasions, both did not happen. On one of them I got an Asus mg279q and it looked so poor next to my P2715Q, not to mentioned it had backlight bleed galore, so I sent it back straight away.

 

[Journey]

The 8800 was $800 inflation adjusted back in 2007. $700 is less than $800, that is a hrad fact.

The 280 was released at $650in 2008, That is around $750 in today's money. The current $700 1080ti RRP is less than the 260 launch price.

So where exactly are these magical price increases coming from?


LOL all you want, you're speaking garbage.

That random made up graph by some bloke on some forum someplace is garbage, it doesn't have half the launch cards on there, no 8800GTS/GTX and no GTX 260 or GTX 280 etc.

Also you clearly don't know your GPU history as the 8800 Ultra was an attempt by Nvidia to launch a premium card, and it flopped as it was just a higher clocked 8800GTX which a lot of cards could hit anyhow, I don't think it got a single good review, basically everyone said hey Nvidia are treating people like cash machines, just get an BFG (or insert good vendor here) 8800GTX, and get the extra performance for free, and co-coincidentally it was that era again that ATI didn't have a card that could touch the 8800GTX.

Also you probably want to read what I already said, the GTX 280 was $649 for about 1-2 weeks, then it dropped to $499 as Nvidia realised they couldn't rip people off since the AMD 4870 was much cheaper and as fast, so do your calculations again matey.

Nvidia have admitted in the past they wanted to increase base pricing for cards, they are a business that is what they do maximise profits, if you can't see that then do your own research and you will soon see that Nvidia have always been brought back into line by ATI/AMD, when they have had a suitable competitor.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

lol @ this thread

 

[Seanspeed]

It might well be dude. Most people here are on TN panels and on a potato resolution.

It seems to me for most people here fps and hz is king. I will take image quality any day personally

That's fine. But by the same argument he was making, the 'average consumer' doesn't give a flying damn about framerate, either. In fact, I'd say that IQ is more important than performance for the 'average person'.

In terms of people here, it seems to be a pretty split base from what I've seen. Plenty of people running 1440p and 4k displays that require 980Ti's and 1070's and above. If these people didn't care about IQ, they'd have 1080p/144fps displays and save themselves some money.

Obviously most people on forums like this do care about image quality and maybe after spending time with HDR opinions will change,
but it's not something I'm missing not having now, that's probably because I haven't yet had a face to face meet and great with it.
I like eye candy and if HDR brings something to the table that isn't a direct resource hog I imagine it'll slowly become one of the
bits of the puzzle in the search for the ultimate gaming imagery. But being a monitor based tech the uptake will be pretty slow.

Like you say, you dont feel like you're missing out because you dont know what you're missing. That goes without saying.

Everybody's standards are only built on personal experience. My point is that once HDR proliferation commences, nobody who cares about this kind of stuff is ever going to want to go back. It really is that good *when done right*.

I just find it an absurd situation that I'm sitting here on a board where people regularly buy GPU's to push 1440p and beyond resolutions and are trying to say HDR isn't a properly meaningful enhancement.

If I'm being perfectly honest, I think a lot of people here dont even really understand what they're talking about or seeing on a proper, fundamental level. They like bigger numbers and spend money to chase those numbers and to turn up sliders, but at the end of the day, they'd be lost in a deep discussion about the discrepancies of MSAA vs SGSSAA or HBAO vs HBAO+ and whatnot. HDR is confusing to these folks because it's not based on 'bigger number is better', but on a proper eye test sort of level.

 

[nashathedog]

AMD is on record as saying they don't want to be the budget brand and will need to be more careful with profit margins in order to have healthy R&D. hence the FuryX had equal RRP as the 980ti despite being unambiguously slower on release. I wouldn't expect a change form that strategy. With HBM2 their margin will already be lower than Nvidia's at equal price points so there is onyl so much under cutting they could do.

With BREXIT then UK pricing might disappointing people who seem to ignore forex issues when blaming Nvida's pricing (which in USD has barely changed in decades when accounting for inflation)

+1

What we want them to do and what they can do are likely poles apart,
We can hope though.

 

[Klo]

That's fine. But by the same argument he was making, the 'average consumer' doesn't give a flying damn about framerate, either. In fact, I'd say that IQ is more important than performance for the 'average person'.

In terms of people here, it seems to be a pretty split base from what I've seen. Plenty of people running 1440p and 4k displays that require 980Ti's and 1070's and above. If these people didn't care about IQ, they'd have 1080p/144fps displays and save themselves some money.


Like you say, you dont feel like you're missing out because you dont know what you're missing. That goes without saying.

Everybody's standards are only built on personal experience. My point is that once HDR proliferation commences, nobody who cares about this kind of stuff is ever going to want to go back. It really is that good *when done right*.

I just find it an absurd situation that I'm sitting here on a board where people regularly buy GPU's to push 1440p and beyond resolutions and are trying to say HDR isn't a properly meaningful enhancement.

If I'm being perfectly honest, I think a lot of people here dont even really understand what they're talking about or seeing on a proper, fundamental level. They like bigger numbers and spend money to chase those numbers and to turn up sliders, but at the end of the day, they'd be lost in a deep discussion about the discrepancies of MSAA vs SGSSAA or HBAO vs HBAO+ and whatnot. HDR is confusing to these folks because it's not based on 'bigger number is better', but on a proper eye test sort of level.

But if they barely notice the difference, does it matter? All these technologies slowly increase image quality, but few are a big step change. 48fps films are an image quality improvement but most still prefer 24fps.

 

[nomadd]

lol @ this thread

This is OCUK, so lol at every thread.

 

[lumik]

That random made up graph by some bloke on some forum someplace is garbage, it doesn't have half the launch cards on there, no 8800GTS/GTX and no GTX 260 or GTX 280 etc.

Also you clearly don't know your GPU history as the 8800 Ultra was an attempt by Nvidia to launch a premium card, and it flopped as it was just a higher clocked 8800GTX which a lot of cards could hit anyhow, I don't think it got a single good review, basically everyone said hey Nvidia are treating people like cash machines, just get an BFG (or insert good vendor here) 8800GTX, and get the extra performance for free, and co-coincidentally it was that era again that ATI didn't have a card that could touch the 8800GTX.

Also you probably want to read what I already said, the GTX 280 was $649 for about 1-2 weeks, then it dropped to $499 as Nvidia realised they couldn't rip people off since the AMD 4870 was much cheaper and as fast, so do your calculations again matey.

Nvidia have admitted in the past they wanted to increase base pricing for cards, they are a business that is what they do maximise profits, if you can't see that then do your own research and you will soon see that Nvidia have always been brought back into line by ATI/AMD, when they have had a suitable competitor.

+1

 

[TNA]

I predict that someone is going to pop in shortly and ask again if there is any Vega news

 

[WYNIR0]

I predict that someone is going to pop in shortly and ask again if there is any Vega news

Is there?

 

[TNA]

Is there?

Nope