290/290X were very competitive cards when all was said and done - again though AMD kind of got screwed over by node related stuff being stuck then on 28nm for so long.
-
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.
have AMD stopped competing
- Thread starter robwigan
- Start date
290/290X were very competitive cards when all was said and done - again though AMD kind of got screwed over by node related stuff being stuck then on 28nm for so long.
Pot calling the kettle black!
Only are where GTX480 left AMDs really in the dust was amount of eaten power/produced heat.
Sure it took performance crown from HD5870, but at huge power consumption cost without no real idle mode.
But instead of AMD cards completely outselling NVidias like it should have been for technical merits lots of people were touting "power consumption doesn't matter".
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,383
- Location
- Oxford
Power consumption not an issue when its your preferred brand horrid PPW
Erm, lots of wrong in this post.
The last ATI cards were the 2xxx cards. AMD kept the ATI brand alive until the 6xxx cards but the 3xxx, 4xxx and 5xxx were all AMD cards. Remember the 3xxx cards were rushed to the market. It was a complete change of direction from their previous cards. Then the 4xxx cards came out of the blue with how competitive they were.
The 6870 was not a rebrand. They moved the numbering scheme up one because they had cost issue with the successor to the 5770 and had no card to fill that price point. So they rebranded the 5770 to 6770 and moved the scheme up one, the 5870 was replaced by the 6970, the 5850 by the 6950 etc. etc.
The 5870 successor was easily faster than the 480 and competed with the GTX 580. And don't forget the 6950, which was one of the best cards at the time, because of the dual bios switch and it could be unlocked to run at virtually the same performance as the 6970.
As for AMD not competing in the CPU space, where have you been for the last year? Ryzen has been hugely successful.
Not sure you really have the right to call anyone stupid after your previous post.
AMD have had lots of competitive cards in the last 8 years.
5870/5850, 6950, 7970/7950, 290/x(so underrated), 480/580(well until mining took over) Even Vega 56, despite all it's flaws, was competitive enough to make Nvidia release a 1070 Ti.
The Vega FE was also competitive enough with the more expensive Titan XP to force Nvidia to release new TXP drivers unlocking Quadro level compute functions. Another good example of how all users benefit from competition.
It is a lot more excusable though when you have the performance to show for it - PPW only really matters when you are comparing cards that can reach similar levels of performance - its a bit pointless what the PPW is of a lower end card is in comparison if it can't be scaled up to similar levels of performance.
I never really had any issues with idle power consumption with my 470s - it was pretty much the same as the GTX260s I had before it and the 8800GT before that and most cards of previous generations from both AMD/ATI and nVidia at that tier point used about the same. The load power consumption was a bit LOL - making me a bit concerned with my power supply at first as on paper it was pretty close to the max of my 700 watt PSU with the moderately overclocked clocks I was running but turns out the PSU was made by Impervio and specs were the same as a good 800 watt supply so I cranked up the clocks and never had an issue though it is a bit crazy actually utilising that amount from what was a reasonably high wattage PSU back then when gaming.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Apologies, I need to correct myself.
It's actually been 10 years since AMD were last able to compete with Nvidia... the last good release from them was the 4870.
Nothing since then has been any good. Nothing has brought the fight to Nvidia since then.
It's actually been 10 years since AMD were last able to compete with Nvidia... the last good release from them was the 4870.
Nothing since then has been any good. Nothing has brought the fight to Nvidia since then.
high power consumption if the performance is there is not much of an issue for a consumer as long as the cooler is decent. The problem is if you have high power requirements without the performance to show for it.
And the overall efficiency is a useful benchmark to see how architectures stack up and see where future generations might land. Vega is clearly a lot less efficient than Pascal, when looking at the next generation products AMD have a lot more catching up to do.
It is a very similar argument to die size and performance. As a consumer you don;t care about die size, you care about the performance and the cost. the bigger die will be more expensive to produce which might raise rpcies, but if the product is priced with respect to performance then merely the IHV sees smaller margins (which is a future R&D problem). However, if one IHV needs 30% larger core to remain competitive then it doesn't bode well for future generations.
It is much easier to scale a small low powered GPU to be bugger and fatser, than it is to improve upon a GPU that is very large and very inefficient and the practical power limits.
And the overall efficiency is a useful benchmark to see how architectures stack up and see where future generations might land. Vega is clearly a lot less efficient than Pascal, when looking at the next generation products AMD have a lot more catching up to do.
It is a very similar argument to die size and performance. As a consumer you don;t care about die size, you care about the performance and the cost. the bigger die will be more expensive to produce which might raise rpcies, but if the product is priced with respect to performance then merely the IHV sees smaller margins (which is a future R&D problem). However, if one IHV needs 30% larger core to remain competitive then it doesn't bode well for future generations.
It is much easier to scale a small low powered GPU to be bugger and fatser, than it is to improve upon a GPU that is very large and very inefficient and the practical power limits.
Eh?... Nothing has been any good? The 5870 done nothing? Apart from the botched Tessellation NVIDIA was screwing about with to bring the cards to its knees.
To be honest I was a little dissapointed in the fact that with Polaris, AMD seemed to be getting better at the efficiency in their cards. I was expecting even better efficiency with Vega, but we didnt seem to get it. I still think AMD would have been better off putting a Dual Pascal card out and improving the Xfire support as it seems that 2x480/580s would at least beat a 1080 in quite a few games. But instead they came out with a newer chip and it didnt quite live up to the expectations of many. 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,344
- Location
- Planet Earth
Big Vega seems to be more a GPU made for commerical use,then pushed to the edge to try and compete with the Nvidia cards. The Vega IGPs look reasonably efficient - I suppose once the Vega M GPUs are tested we can get a gist of whether a more consumer orientated model is fine.To be honest I was a little dissapointed in the fact that with Polaris, AMD seemed to be getting better at the efficiency in their cards. I was expecting even better efficiency with Vega, but we didnt seem to get it. I still think AMD would have been better off putting a Dual Pascal card out and improving the Xfire support as it seems that 2x480/580s would at least beat a 1080 in quite a few games. But instead they came out with a newer chip and it didnt quite live up to the expectations of many.
However,Nvidia could literally just grow the die in the GTX1060 a bit more,and AMD would utterly be screwed if they don't release a new midrange competitor this year. Around 30% extra performance would place it close to a GTX1070,and I can't see that as being a big ask,especially with an improved node,uarch improvements,etc.
Makes absurd inflammatory post, get's proven totally wrong by multiple posters with facts supplied, makes even more absurd inflammatory post lol.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Every release since then, Nvidia has trumped them easily.
To the point with the 680/780 era, they were so far ahead, they began releasing their mid-range parts first as the new high-end to milk the market.
Bad business practices by Nvidia... but they've only been able to do it because AMD/ATi can't keep up.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
If i were AMD i would just forget discrete graphics for a while, not because they cant do them but because as far as the internet is concerned it doesnt matter if they have great products in the majority of segments, as well as the console market and even Intel using there IP, along with the most compelling APUs about... no they utterly suck because the most expensive top of the top level GPU you can buy is Nvidia so that by default makes AMD crap.
Logic... not sure...
Logic... not sure...
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
bah double post.
I believe that is exactly what they are going to do in the interim. Look at what they have just released....The Ryzen APUs look quite good for a first outing. Granted they are not the greatest but they are good enough to play games at around 1080p on lower settings (See current reviews plastered on You Tube) and by the time they get to Zen2 I think AMD are going to hit the low to mid range graphics market with faster APU's and take over the most lucrative end of the market. If they can get the graphics chips to match what is currently 580/1060 speeds and integrate that on a CPU, then the Graphics market could well change overnight. They will let Nvidia take the High End for now and hopefully in that time they will be working on something to really compete with Nvidia at the top. They have also partnered with Intel which means they will get a small slice of their pie too. Interesting times ahead, especially considering the current cost of GPUs and the cost of those two Ryzen APUs ($99 and $169 IIRC).
If i were AMD i would just forget discrete graphics for a while, not because they cant do them but because as far as the internet is concerned it doesnt matter if they have great products in the majority of segments, as well as the console market and even Intel using there IP, along with the most compelling APUs about... no they utterly suck because the most expensive top of the top level GPU you can buy is Nvidia so that by default makes AMD crap.
Logic... not sure...
Yeah but anyone with half a clue would or should see the situation for what it is. AMD are ahead on the tech front and driving big segments of the industry forward. All AMD need to work on is reducing the release cycles but it seems they have put a lot of spade work in with deals at Global and TSMC across various nodes so maybe those types of problems have already been resolved.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2013
- Posts
- 9,916
- Location
- M28
So AMD would have to buy Nvidia GPUs to beat Nvidia, see that's how bad their own designs areTo be honest I was a little dissapointed in the fact that with Polaris, AMD seemed to be getting better at the efficiency in their cards. I was expecting even better efficiency with Vega, but we didnt seem to get it. I still think AMD would have been better off putting a Dual Pascal card out and improving the Xfire support as it seems that 2x480/580s would at least beat a 1080 in quite a few games. But instead they came out with a newer chip and it didnt quite live up to the expectations of many.
Glad you see sense to admit this.That is true, but we have some very clearly defined performance segments, 2mp 3.5 and so on. It's not performance Nvidia need to work on it's the underlying hardware. The last thing the industry needs is more DX11 designs. I can't see much appetite for another round of Maxwell. Nvidia need to get behind FreeSync DX12 and Vulcan.
Developers largely just aren't interested in DX12 or Vulkan - nVidia actually has a pretty big Vulkan resource https://developer.nvidia.com/Vulkan but uptake just isn't that great and that goes way beyond hardware support and/or lack of. Its just a complete misunderstanding of what approach the larger number of developers are actually looking for.
(Behind the scenes nVidia is actually making a lot more effort than I think people realise in pushing Vulkan albeit some of that is probably motivated by shaping it to their favour to blunt AMD's potential advantages but it isn't making that much traction really).
Currently there is even less reason for nVidia to get behind FreeSync - such is their position people looking at high end gaming displays will be almost certainly going nVidia.
(Behind the scenes nVidia is actually making a lot more effort than I think people realise in pushing Vulkan albeit some of that is probably motivated by shaping it to their favour to blunt AMD's potential advantages but it isn't making that much traction really).
Currently there is even less reason for nVidia to get behind FreeSync - such is their position people looking at high end gaming displays will be almost certainly going nVidia.