Only good thing that you can taken from that WRT AMD is how well the 290(X) has held up in modern games
-
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.
@Gibbo - Vega Preorders?
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
- Status
Only good thing that you can taken from that WRT AMD is how well the 290(X) has held up in modern games
Caporegime
No doubt. 290X was a very good card, but it's also getting dated with the advancements in monitors. With the 4K push, AMD has had nothing really capable for it etc.
Still remember fury x being billed as a 4k card when it was a 25x14 card tops.
Caporegime
Fury X was capable at 4K, but it was possibly one of the worst launches I've seen.
Go on, explain how AMD has been squandering their ability to compete with NVIDIA.
You're forgetting they axed the rx490, which was co developed with the Project Scorpio.
So back in dec I said that, AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1 let's hope they revise for a 4608 5120.
Because they cannot afford to compete or to gain much needed growth, against a smaller more efficient and cheaper to produce laptop chip which is nearing eol.
Caporegime
The Fury and Fury X became EOL without a replacement. The 480 release had no follow up and the rebranded 580 was pointless, all while Nvidia were killing it with their 9XX and then launched the 1XXX.
They probably axed it because of how the rx480 turned out, if hardocp is to be believed it was meant to be a much better performer with much higher clock speeds but it didn't turn out that way. So they started this "disruptive product" campaign and sold it at a lower price.
From what i've read this was suggested:
So presumably it was axed as it couldn't reach those targets.
Well that just basically falls into the "they cant pull a gpu out of nowhere" point i raised. Nothing was ready so there wasn't much they could do besides focus on the mid-range.
Caporegime
They had a GPU, the Fury and Fury X, in performance AMD went backwards for a year.
The 580 has no reason to exist.
oh wow guess ill try have my lunch break then
Agreeded, but that just defines the fact Amd were sat on 480/hawaii perfomance for another year, whilst Gp104 did the damage in mobile and desktop at inflated prices. Gp104 has already done the damage Amd cannot fight against it.
Rx490 in my eyes was axed because of power consumption getting a 3072 cu polaris onto a 384 bit bus,which is a similar trait since Tonga to Fury vs the size of the chip and as you say performance it didn't reach the targets and Hbm couldn't be justified for a 3072 core Polaris.
Well presumably there was some reason it was canned, maybe that lawsuit filed against coolermaster regarding the aio had something to do with it?
Caporegime
They didn't allow aib models of fury x for some reason. I'm well aware fury was air-cooled, maybe it had something to do with hbm cost or something along those lines? Doubt they would just drop it for no reason.
Production wise there never seemed to be a great amount of the nano, fury or fury x doing the rounds at any point.
Caporegime
I want to see whether Vega64 is memory bandwidth limited during the reviews- I suspect part of the reason why the specs seem to not deliver the performance we expected,is the reduced bandwidth over the Fury X.
Caporegime
Either way, performance regressed.
Because they then shifted their focus on the mid-range with how Polaris turned out, and could do nothing for the high end until now. They could have possibly done an x2 Polaris variant but that doesn't seem to have been in the plans at all.
'dat boost....
At least one things for sure, clocks have significantly jumped past what fury x was capable of, be interesting to see how the performance scales with the clock boost.
- Status