• 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.

Not much excitement for RDNA3, compared to the RTX 4000 series

muon said:
What are you talking about. Turing was the consumer card and it wiped the floor with AMD. It is a perfect example of AMD hype that failed.

Don't need revisionism of history.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? You referenced "Poor volta", show me a geforce card with a volta gpu in it. They don't exist, they were too expensive to produce despite everyone expecting it to be the next geforce gpu.

Maybe read the post first before going off on some random amount of gibbering thats not even referencing the point?
 
Gerard said:
WTF are you talking about? You referenced "Poor volta", show me a geforce card with a volta gpu in it. They don't exist, they were too expensive to produce despite everyone expecting it to be the next geforce gpu.

Maybe read the post first before going off on some random amount of gibbering thats not even referencing the point?
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what the Poor Volta reference is. It was an attempt by AMD to say it was rubbish and Radeon would be better.

I'll help you out. Vega was rubbish in the end with AMD releasing about 5 of the cards globally.

Volta was a good professional card and the Turing architecture (consumer version of the arch) wiped the floor. So some history lessons needed. Are you Koduri in disguise? I could bring up some his comments at the same time.

phn0bwnobq7y.jpg
 
Last edited:
muon said:
I don't think you know what the Poor Volta reference is. It was an attempt by AMD to say it was rubbish and Radeon would be better.

I'll help you out. Vega was rubbish in the end with AMD releasing about 5 of the cards globally.

Volta was a good professional card and the Turing architecture (consumer version of the arch) wiped the floor. So some history lessons needed.

phn0bwnobq7y.jpg
Click to expand...


Yeah i don't know what it is despite being around at the time and this single image being fapped over at length in thread after thread....


It was one company taking a sly dig at another, hardly anything new, and you're reading way too much into a promo video. At the time volta was widely expected to be the next geforce gpu, then word got around about how much the gpu actually cost to make into a working card, so amd put that little dig into the video. Probably not the smartest thing in the world to do considering how Vega turned out but companies will do things like that to get people talking regardless if it bites them in the ass down the line.

The entire reason volta never became a geforce was cost, the card supposodly cost around $1000 to put together which even Huang commented on as being "an extraordinary cost". Turing was based on volta but had a lot of changes, so not the same thing, they did away with HBM for one, the "titan" volta cost over £2k vs a starting price of £949 for 2080ti.

BTW, vega had decent availability on launch for a couple of hours at least, you're thinking of fury x which had basically no stock.
 
Last edited:
Nah, even Vega took ages for non-reference cards to appear, with poor availability for weeks. The MSRP was live for a limited batch. Ultimately, it was a massive PR fail given both images like that and what Koduri was saying in live announcement videos and twitter.

Framing it as a sly dig with merit, is revisionism. AMD hyped their cards up and then didn't deliver.

We can hypothesise all we want, but I don't believe a 815mm^2 die (GV100) was ever intended as a Geforce card. The die name is a give away as well (see GP100, GA100, GH100).

I'm glad AMD don't end up doing the same here. Even Zen 4, especially at their current prices look precarious.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Nah, even Vega took ages for non-reference cards to appear, with poor availability for weeks. The MSRP was live for a limited batch.

Framing it as a sly dig with merit, is revisionism. AMD hyped their cards up and then didn't deliver.
Click to expand...


Makes little difference, on launch day it took a couple of hours minimum for cards to sell out, fury x is the launch you're thinking of which had basically zero stock and the standard big markup because of the almighty "supply and demand" mantra, even reviewers had to pass samples back and forth as there was barely anything available. I think ocuk had in the range of 20 or so cards for launch, possibly even less. Fury x throughout the life of the product had very sporadic availability, which was supposed to be due to HBM being in it's infancy and having a lot of failures in manufacturing.


And no the sly dig isn't "revisionism". It's not like they didnt know the performance of their own cards, they're gonna put something out there to get people talking and shift the focus, thats the point of marketing be it good or bad.

AMD have had some pretty weird marketing, do you remember the vega nano for example that Tim Sweeney got presented with? He was asked abvout it on twitter once and said he got to hold the card on stage and when amd took it to put it in a box to deliver it to him he never seen it again, probably a mock up card for a pr stunt.
 
Last edited:
Lol Vega were trash.
Anybidy defending it is delusional and definitely loyal to their wallet.

I had a Fury and people would tell me the 4GB Vram means it has no vram issues because it is HBM.

LOL!
 
Last edited:
gpuerrilla said:
My vega was ok. Not perfect but it beat the 1070 which cost more at the time and still going in a mates pc.
Click to expand...

I had the vega strix with the wonky thermal pad that didn't contact some of the components properly making it a throttle monster, had to replace the pad which then voided the warranty due to the incompetence of Asus.
 
Asus never did treat the AMD hardware right back then anyway. Slapped any rough cooler that would fit on them and still claim the asus tax. Didn't HU highlight the shocking 5700XT blatant carelessness.
 
gpuerrilla said:
Asus never did treat the AMD hardware right back then anyway. Slapped any rough cooler that would fit on them and still claim the asus tax. Didn't HU highlight the shocking 5700XT blatant carelessness.
Click to expand...

Yup, then the fiirst iteration of the "tuf" card had numerous issues they pointed out, cant recall if that was the amd or nvidia variation but since that the tuf cards are very solid.
 
r22snapper said:
Undervolted mine was fine, even good for the price and considering the competition, but out of the box it was a dreadful card.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got it later into the cycle when it dropped under £300. It seems fine wine had started kicking in a lots of info on how to tweak the settings were out which helped.
 
Twinz said:
Nvidia tried to push 8k gaming but 8k might as well be 16k or 32k as its getting to the point where we can't see the difference unless the screen is two stories high and you sit 2ft from the screen.

With VR, you are effectivly holding a magnifying glass up to the screen so higher resolutions offer a more noticable improvement.
Click to expand...

8K is nothing more than a marketing tool to part idiots from their money.
 
Tired9 said:
Lol Vega were trash.
Anybidy defending it is delusional and definitely loyal to their wallet.

I had a Fury and people would tell me the 4GB Vram means it has no vram issues because it is HBM.

LOL!
Click to expand...

Some even said 4GB was enough for 4K apparently :p:cry::D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom