Is 7nm Vega on the way for gaming?

[jigger]

Being an old timer this graph is very interesting. At the start you can see how the brave new world of nvidia FX got slammed by a simple ATI 9700 card that just pushed pixels and did not push the envelope. Nvidia took that on the chin, the FX 5800 Ultra being the laughing stock of the entire world and got Dyson where he is today...

nVidia came back well with 6800 series, to at least get back into the ball park. It took them till the mighty 8800GTX, one of the best nvidia video cards of all time, to start the trend to what we have today. (As an aside, for the enthusiast the 4200ti is the best video card of all time bang per buck,if you are too young to have missed it blame your parents ball bag and vagina).

And being an old timer of 50+ years I do hope ATi, sorry AMD, pull off another 9700 with the latest card which is fast and cheap and sells loads. And makes the red and green tribes sling arrows at each other as it has always been.

Amen.

What about the blue tribe who will shoot at?

 

[D.P.]

At the back of my mind was the thinking that Intel might see console space as a leapfrog into desktop gaming market as well - the same way as some say AMD's dominance there would have an impact (yet to be seen) for discrete GPUs.

I'm not sure Intel care so much about leveraging consoles for the PC market, just simply if Intel want to maximize revenue quickly then a console contract would be the easiest way to do it. MS and Sony probably will always want an APU solution to minimize costs and ultimate performance is less of an issue compared to cost and power limits. Intel have a much better chance of having something competitive with AMD console SoCs

 

[subbytna]

What about the blue tribe who will shoot at?

They will be sitting at the side of the arena charging people 800 quid entrance fee to see the spectacle.

 

[Gerard]

They will be sitting at the side of the arena charging people 800 quid entrance fee to see the spectacle.

Wonder if they'll use solder or tim on the gpu

 

[LePhuronn]

Hmm...V II or VII? Because them be totally different things! Although I think VII being 7 and therefore referencing "Vega 7nm" is a bit too vague and largely redundant in the datacentre. Would be very interesting if there really is something above the rumoured 3080 to take on the 1080 Ti/2080 and above.

Half Life 3 confirmed?

I said back in November that AMD would bring us a consumer 7nm Vega card and I got shouted down for suggesting it.

I felt similar for a while but changed my mind. People were telling me that you couldn't cut down a Vega 20 die and its 32GB HBM2. Plus the new additions to Vega 20 being purely datacenter based, the "gaming" bits would only see a 15% or so boost from shrinking to 7nm, and with the 3080 allegedly performing 15% more than Vega 64 then you'd have zero reason to do a gaming Vega 20.

But who knows! Bring on CES, that logo has got to go somewhere

 

[EsaT]

At the back of my mind was the thinking that Intel might see console space as a leapfrog into desktop gaming market as well - the same way as some say AMD's dominance there would have an impact (yet to be seen) for discrete GPUs.

I'm not sure Intel care so much about leveraging consoles for the PC market, just simply if Intel want to maximize revenue quickly then a console contract would be the easiest way to do it.

If Intel wants lots of revenue quickly, then they don't even think about consoles.
MS and Sony will never pay any big profit margins from their console chips.
Because their customer base won't accept Intel/Nvidia product pricing model.

And Intel's management has already enough "job security" worries, without starting to compete from such lower profit margin product.
Guess Intel could offer giving MS and Sony lots of money...
I can't see Intel even having anything else to answer what AMD can offer:
With strong power efficient CPU architecture, chiplet tech and first rate fab, AMD is simply in even better position than last time.

 

[FoxEye]

Careful he is going to think I batphoned the support group.

i can almost see the RTX logo in the sky from here!

Top kek

Welcome to the focus group, Rroff. We have cake and everything. Some of us occasionally break free of the spell and post negative things about nV, but somehow jigger is never around to witness it. Anway, hold up, I've got to give you your badge. Initiation is at 0600.

 

[subbytna]

Half Life 3 confirmed?

Stop teasing....

 

[D.P.]

If Intel wants lots of revenue quickly, then they don't even think about consoles.
MS and Sony will never pay any big profit margins from their console chips.
Because their customer base won't accept Intel/Nvidia product pricing model.

And Intel's management has already enough "job security" worries, without starting to compete from such lower profit margin product.
Guess Intel could offer giving MS and Sony lots of money...
I can't see Intel even having anything else to answer what AMD can offer:
With strong power efficient CPU architecture, chiplet tech and first rate fab, AMD is simply in even better position than last time.

You don't seem to understand the difference between revenue and profit.

 

[LePhuronn]

Stop teasing....

But imagine the massive shift in market share if Valve made Half Life 3 AMD only?

 

[EsaT]

You don't seem to understand the difference between revenue and profit.

No matter the terms, what Intel is interested on is having that big positive number in end line.
Sure their bank account could afford heavy subsidy to console makers.
But Intel's management might have problems in preventing big shareholders going nuclear from that, with AMD already jeopardizing Intel's profit margin in its core markets.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

No matter the terms, what Intel is interested on is having that big positive number in end line.
Sure their bank account could afford heavy subsidy to console makers.
But Intel's management might have problems in preventing big shareholders going nuclear from that, with AMD already jeopardizing Intel's profit margin in its core markets.

Small profits are still made off consoles and it allows lower buy prices for all of your parts in GPUs. So if you did only breakeven it would still improve your overall business.

Whether Intel could convince Sony or MS to go with them over their tried and trusted partner is a whole other matter.

 

[D.P.]

No matter the terms, what Intel is interested on is having that big positive number in end line.

But not necessarily in the short term. The reason Intel might go after a console deal is the exact same reason AMD does, despite the extremely low margins. The console space wont be attractive to every company, partly why Nvidia have not pursed it aggressively because they aren't interested in the low margins. However Intel have no hop of addressing the higher margin mid to high end for at least 10 years. Intel wants an APU that beats AMD in terms of CPU and GPU performance with less or similar power that is cheaper to make. If they succeed then they can bid on a console contract. Note also that Intel would fab the console APU, which is very different to AMD, so profit margins could be higher, and there are auxiliary benefits to the whole company.

Of course, this is all hypothetical since Intel liekly don;t have a competitive GPU and their 10nm fab sucks, but in the future if things work out they could be in a stronger position than AMD with a better console product and be able to gain more benefits form a console deal than AMD.

Sure their bank account could afford heavy subsidy to console makers.
But Intel's management might have problems in preventing big shareholders going nuclear from that, with AMD already jeopardizing Intel's profit margin in its core markets.

Intel's pursuit of a discrete GPU is going to be a massive loss maker in the short term so providing a cost competitive APU for consoles liekly has little impact on the project financing.

Contrary to what a lot of AMD biased sources are saying, Intel's margins are extremely high right now and only going upwards. Sales have problems meeting demand and company profits are beating analysts predictions. The share holders are quite happy with that https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/profit-margins

 

[D.P.]

Small profits are still made off consoles and it allows lower buy prices for all of your parts in GPUs. So if you did only breakeven it would still improve your overall business.

Whether Intel could convince Sony or MS to go with them over their tried and trusted partner is a whole other matter.

I expect Intel would need a differentiator and ray tracing is like going to be that. If Intel can make a console appropriate APU that can do 4K 30/60FPS ray tracing and AMD can;t then Intel would snag at least one if not both. And that is much more liekly than Intel ever being competitive in high end GPU rasterization in the sort term as there is far less hardware IP, the necessary hardware is actually somewhat simpler and both AMD and Intel are at similar points with hardware RTX.



But getting back to the original point, which is whether AMd or Nvidia are in a weaker position, AMD has a much greater risk. Nvidia has massively better revenue, profits, market share in overlapping domains, and healthy bank bank balances. nvidia are seeing exponential growth in HPC markets. AMD are trying to fight 2 battles with limited resources against much bigger competitors. They did great with CPUs but that came at the cost of the GPUs. They also just aren't seeing the sales figures Nvidia is enjoying in the high margin HPC, DL and productivity markets. Nviia don't have strong sales in automotive yet but are well positoned and have strong OEM partnerships while AMD is no where to be seen.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

I expect Intel would need a differentiator and ray tracing is like going to be that. If Intel can make a console appropriate APU that can do 4K 30/60FPS ray tracing and AMD can;t then Intel would snag at least one if not both. And that is much more liekly than Intel ever being competitive in high end GPU rasterization in the sort term as there is far less hardware IP, the necessary hardware is actually somewhat simpler and both AMD and Intel are at similar points with hardware RTX.

But getting back to the original point, which is whether AMd or Nvidia are in a weaker position, AMD has a much greater risk. Nvidia has massively better revenue, profits, market share in overlapping domains, and healthy bank bank balances. nvidia are seeing exponential growth in HPC markets. AMD are trying to fight 2 battles with limited resources against much bigger competitors. They did great with CPUs but that came at the cost of the GPUs. They also just aren't seeing the sales figures Nvidia is enjoying in the high margin HPC, DL and productivity markets. Nviia don't have strong sales in automotive yet but are well positoned and have strong OEM partnerships while AMD is no where to be seen.

Doesn't raytracing tech take away the amount of shader space available and as a process slow everything down? From my limited understanding I've read that's why it won't be in the 2060 and why AMD aren't using it in Navi. It's not like they can't do it but that they don't want to compromise the product. If that all holds weight I can't see Sony/Microsoft going for a tech that limits their system as a whole. That and the fact it's new tech that is maybe what is causing Nvidia cards to break then I Sony/MS don't really want everyone returning their broken consoles. They want the reliability of a long term tried and tested partner with the latest tech and the 7nm custom APU offers that. Intel have no pedigree to offer Sony/MS here. As it is I expect Sony have chosen AMD for PS5 because it will have been devised for a long time.

Nvidia is obviously in a better position than AMD in the GPU market. But AMD certainly have some 7nm Aces up their sleeves which should see them win back some market share from both Intel and Nvidia. And really that's what gamers should want. For every company to look to innovate and be profitable enough to keep investing. It is critical that Navi is a success because if Nvidia continue to drastically outsell AMD with inferior products we'll see less AMD investment and Nvidia will offer worse value in hand. If rumours are true AMD will be offering 2070 performance for £250 and 2060 performance for £200. If Navi isn't highly profitable future offerings will be worse and prices will rise.

 

[Shaz12]

Doesn't raytracing tech take away the amount of shader space available and as a process slow everything down? From my limited understanding I've read that's why it won't be in the 2060 and why AMD aren't using it in Navi. It's not like they can't do it but that they don't want to compromise the product. If that all holds weight I can't see Sony/Microsoft going for a tech that limits their system as a whole. That and the fact it's new tech that is maybe what is causing Nvidia cards to break then I Sony/MS don't really want everyone returning their broken consoles. They want the reliability of a long term tried and tested partner with the latest tech and the 7nm custom APU offers that. Intel have no pedigree to offer Sony/MS here. As it is I expect Sony have chosen AMD for PS5 because it will have been devised for a long time.

Nvidia is obviously in a better position than AMD in the GPU market. But AMD certainly have some 7nm Aces up their sleeves which should see them win back some market share from both Intel and Nvidia. And really that's what gamers should want. For every company to look to innovate and be profitable enough to keep investing. It is critical that Navi is a success because if Nvidia continue to drastically outsell AMD with inferior products we'll see less AMD investment and Nvidia will offer worse value in hand. If rumours are true AMD will be offering 2070 performance for £250 and 2060 performance for £200. If Navi isn't highly profitable future offerings will be worse and prices will rise.

There is no way the AMD 3000 is coming at that price. Its been 2 years of riding the AMD hype train by me before I went RTX and it has always been complete disappointment. AMD would be stupid to price it that low considering Nvidia's pricing. They would also increase prices to increase their margin as customer literally has no choice.

 

[LePhuronn]

AMD would be stupid to price it that low considering Nvidia's pricing. They would also increase prices to increase their margin as customer literally has no choice.

But AMD would also be stupid to match Nvidia's pricing so closely. If AMD drop the RX 3080 about £50 less than the RTX 2070 it's aimed at, nobody will buy it because for only a couple quid more you have the promise of Ray Tracing and DLSS.

There has to be a balance between undercutting Nvidia to gain marketshare, making a healthy profit, positioning brand value accurately and appeasing shareholders.

 

[dragonslayer]

Honestly i don't see AMD competing for the high end i think for the next few years they'll keep staying competitive at the mid/low end of things until they can build up the money for R&D to then compete against Nvida in the high end everyone seems to be forgetting AMD are still recovering from being borderline bankrupt for years they can't and won't be able to pull out a magical super high end card as well as fighting in the CPU section at the same time

 

[Beren]

Vega 7nm for Gamers appears to be a very hard no. It has been said multiple times by multiple people, it is too expensive to be a consumer GPU.

Why there wasn't a cheaper version created for consumers I have no idea. Unless we are watching the most amazing piece of gamesmanship ever from AMD it just isn't happening though.

The Vega II trademarking was a brain fart of the guy who has just 'retired' after being out of the game for months.

 

[D.P.]

Cross p[osting:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...rtg-senior-leadership-heads-rolling.18840362/

He presented suggestions that werent really feasible such as ‘Radeon VII ‘ which was to be a Vega 20 based consumer facing part that cost $750 to build and would barely tie in with an [NVIDIA] GTX 1080 Ti.

You can scratch that idea