• 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.

Dark days, AMD share price at lowest ever.

humbug said:
They need to be a lot better than Pascal, the sad truth is the card its self is less important than the brand, AMD must get their market share back to 40%, for that to happen it must be 40% better at 80% of the price.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think it's too late for AMD.
Lisa isn't cutting it. Her "AMD aren't the budget brand" strategy isn't working. It's like MS and the Surface RT.
 
bru said:
What is this nonsense about the 970 not being a 256bit card, due to it memory configuration. can we have some links to back this up please, as it seems like nonsense to me.
Click to expand...

It is a 256-bit card, but the arrangement is 224bit that can be used all at the same time with an extra 32bit that it operates seperately through the crossbar controller, which makes it slower to access (but still much faster than pcie)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8931/nvidia-publishes-statement-on-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation
 
Martini1991 said:
The same way in which a 670 has the same VRAM as a 680 etc?

Obviously more R&D, which is why they went the route to give the 4GB on the 970, rather than just 3.5GB.
Click to expand...

670 had the same number of memory controllers as the 680 and the same amount of l2 cache, that made using the same amount of ram very easy. I'm guessing nVidia didnt have that luxury with the 970.

Nobody likes the way nVidia handles the situation, but at least they tried to make the best 4gb cards they could at that price point, i cant grumble at that. And for all the non-owners still complaining about stuttering; if it was a wide-spread problem, it would not be the number #1 most used discrete card on steam. The truth is stuttering is a much much bigger problem for the 970 when more than one card is used. for single cards, its a whole load of noise about nothing.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
AMD don't number their architecture like that, thats an Anand invention.

I'm not entirely sure what was dubbed GCN 1.2 because of Delta Colour and Texture Compression was not enabled in the 285's Drivers now also available on Hawaii and Fiji.

To test it all we need is the paid version of 3DMark Vantage, a Tonga and Hawaii GPU. Reviewers being completely useless these days didn't test any of this.

The ~15% performance jump in Hawaii with the last two drivers came from somewhere.
Click to expand...

GCN1.2 is a clear improvement over the GCN1.1 architecture you only have to look at tessellation performance to see that, the trouble is AMD are just overridding tessellation factors via drivers now so GCN1.2 improvements are not as apparent.
 
james.miller said:
670 had the same number of memory controllers as the 680 and the same amount of l2 cache, that made using the same amount of ram very easy. I'm guess nVidia didnt have that luxury with the 970.
Click to expand...

So, it's a design issue, which didn't need to exist in the first place

Nvidia had a precedent in play already, for both creating a product with VRAM parity, and removing the VRAM (570/580)
Instead what they did was just silly.
 
Martini1991 said:
The same way in which a 670 has the same VRAM as a 680 etc?

Obviously more R&D, which is why they went the route to give the 4GB on the 970, rather than just 3.5GB.
Click to expand...

R&D doesnt come in to it. Until you start making a chip in volume you don't neccesarily know where the yields and faults are going to be. R&D in this case could have meant a full respin and a huge delay to launch. They made the best they could have a bad situation and it paid off massively in terms of sales in the target market.
 
andybird123 said:
R&D doesnt come in to it. Until you start making a chip in volume you don't neccesarily know where the yields and faults are going to be. R&D in this case could have meant a full respin and a huge delay to launch. They made the best they could have a bad situation and it paid off massively in terms of sales in the target market.
Click to expand...

Best of a bad situation was just making it 3.5GB.

I don't think that engineering a dodgy 500mb VRAM solution helped them in terms of sales, I don't think it did anything, it'd have sold just as well as a 3.5GB VRAM, without the bad PR.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
I'm starting to think it's too late for AMD.
Lisa isn't cutting it. Her "AMD aren't the budget brand" strategy isn't working. It's like MS and the Surface RT.
Click to expand...

Being the budget card doesn't work either, being as fast or faster with more VRAM and also cheaper saw them in a declining market share.

At least by pricing their card around the same as Nvidia they can make some money on the cards they do sell.

Its not about any of that, its all about branding.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
It is a 256-bit card, but the arrangement is 224bit that can be used all at the same time with an extra 32bit that it operates seperately through the crossbar controller, which makes it slower to access (but still much faster than pcie)

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8931/nvidia-publishes-statement-on-geforce-gtx-970-memory-allocation
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, just how is that link suppose to help? the term 224bit or even the numbers 224 do not even appear on that page at all.
 
Martini1991 said:
Best of a bad situation was just making it 3.5GB.

I don't think that engineering a dodgy 500mb VRAM solution helped them in terms of sales, I don't think it did anything, it'd have sold just as well as a 3.5GB VRAM, without the bad PR.
Click to expand...

Even with the PR it hasn't really effected sales, as the Nvidia camp keep reminding us, its the best selling card.

Martini1991 said:
They're worse off now though, as shown by their share price.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be any different with lower prices, only they would have less money from sales.
 
humbug said:
Is that architecture or Drivers ^^^ thats what i'm asking.



Its 265Bit but has 56 ROP's not 64 and 1.7MB of L2 not 2MB

Updated Specs

Original Specs
Click to expand...

Yes I know the ROP count was incorrect and the memory allocations were not as originally thought, but it is still a 256bit card, not a 224bit card as andybird was saying.
Even both the links you have posted up say the same thing, 256bit memory interface.
 
bru said:
Yes I know the ROP count was incorrect and the memory allocations were not as originally thought, but it is still a 256bit card, not a 224bit card as andybird was saying.
Even both the links you have posted up say the same thing, 256bit memory interface.
Click to expand...

If you read my post you would see i don't disagree with you on the bus :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom