My point isn't about whether pre-orders are sales or not - my point is that they are actually fulfilling some moderate percentage of those pre-orders even though supply isn't abundant it isn't non-existent either you need to understand how supply and demand work in that regard and how at face value it doesn't reflect actual volume without a closer look.
-
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.
Radeon RX 480 "Polaris" Launched at $199
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
My point isn't about whether pre-orders are sales or not - my point is that they are actually fulfilling some moderate percentage of those pre-orders even though supply isn't abundant it isn't non-existent either you need to understand how supply and demand work in that regard and how at face value it doesn't reflect actual volume without a closer look.
$20K per chip? Different economies of scale in play. EOS.
I hate to be that person but... you want a spade with that?
Isn't that precisely the point about big die? You cut fewer of them from the same wafer therefore have to have higher sale prices.
Anyone with half a brain can see that there are severe supply chain issues. Supply & demand are not covering this inconvenient truth.
As we all know HBM1 performance can be updated to work entirely differently by drivers... so somehow it is still the HBM1 that is the problem.
From what I recall doesn't Fury X beat a 980ti at 1080p, and at every resolution and every setting except Hyper(de-optimised memory storage Nvidia are paying devs to use to hurt 4GB cards, both Nvidia and AMD ones) and lowest settings... funnily enough.
But still you know, HBM1 sucks, that it's beating the 980ti is irrelevant.
Fury is a not optimised overly large core built on an architecture not particularly designed for that number of shaders. It was more than anything a test bed for HBM so they could implement it, get the production chain for HBM1 established, start ramping that up, learn about HBM and how to optimise their next architecture that will use it and make improvements. Vega will bring chips with architecture tweaks designed for both HBM and a higher number of shaders.
Fury X is the reason AMD is able to bring HBM2 to higher volume and cheaper products than Nvidia will manage this generation.
512GB/s via GDDR5 is a split of 35W chips and 50W PHY layer, via HBM1 it's roughly 17W chip and 12W PHY. GDDR5x doesn't reduce the PHY layer power much at all, regardless of bus size or chip power moving X amount of data off a chip takes Y power without a huge amount of difference, 512bit with 6Gbps chips or 256bit bus with 12Gbps chips will use about the same PHY power. You'll save about maybe 10W at 512GB/s using less GDDR5x chips over GDDR5 as you use half the chips but the chips themselves run faster and use more power overall.
HBM2 makes this comparison even worse as it reduces chip power to achieve 512GB/s.
HBM will always use significantly less power, that 50W difference can't go away. That means a 250W high end chip which will probably use around 512GB/s or more, meaning 75W or so will be purely memory leaving 175W for the chip. AMD within the same power budget will use maybe 25W for the memory leaving 225W for the gpu.
The bandwidth achievable with gddr5/x is not a problem, it never was. The problem is the power it will take to achieve it. HBM will always use significantly less power than GDDR5.
The sole reason an older GCN architecture could remotely rival Maxwell a much updated one in performance/w was purely HBM using much less power. It saved 50W. With gddr5 Fury X would need to use over 300W or more likely, have 500-1000 less shaders, either way reducing performance/watt massively and making a Nano completely unachievable, not size but the compelling performance in that sized package or it would have been so loud and hot it wouldn't have worked.
HBM2 will do the same and be an even bigger difference vs even higher bandwidth high end chips this generation.
I am more inclined to go with what AMD and NVidia have done and not used HBM1 as there are better solutions available to them.
One disadvantage to using HBM anywhere near a gaming Pascal core could be heat build up. Although the 1080 does not use much power there is still a lot of heat in a very small area and the last thing the core needs is memory chips stacked right next to it which could negatively effect performance.
Try thinking outside the box for a change DM instead of defending stuff that even AMD has dropped.
The next card that I buy in the very near future will be an AMD one so please don't even think about calling me biased either.
Yes at $20K per chip it's all good. It doesn't scale back to the 1080 or 1070 though does it?
Anyone with half a brain can see that supply isn't meeting demand - but there is a lot more to the story than that.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
The only problem with a long NDA is the weeks of random arguing.
I am more inclined to go with what AMD and NVidia have done and not used HBM1 as there are better solutions available to them.
One disadvantage to using HBM anywhere near a gaming Pascal core could be heat build up. Although the 1080 does not use much power there is still a lot of heat in a very small area and the last thing the core needs is memory chips stacked right next to it which could negatively effect performance.
Try thinking outside the box for a change DM instead of defending stuff that even AMD has dropped.
The next card that I buy in the very near future will be an AMD one so please don't even think about calling me biased either.
Are you serious? LOL!
Not a month in - That excuse ran out of legs with peeps being on "preorder" status for more than 2 weeks.
Keep paddling tho.
They are if people pay up front. Obviously some may change their mind or select a different brand but most seem prepared to wait as AMD haven't produced a direct alternative.
Polaris is a price/perf/efficiency based part, HBM is still too expensive to put on a mainstream part.
The only person not thinking outside of his box is you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,207
Not this again. Reviewers did have there hands on the cards and reviewed them 2 weeks before they went on sale. It's a paper launch.
And your point would be ?
Yep, game reviews are what I'm waiting for.
You were the one claiming non-existent supply and a paper launch - cards are on pre-order status rather than "sold out" because they are getting some supply to fulfil pre-order just not fast enough to cover all pre-orders. Some cards are receiving stock earlier or in better quantities than others while some of the more exotic models are being held back for various reasons.
That isn't the definition of a paper launch. It isn't unusual to give reviewers cards a little before the actual product launch in time for them to release reviews coinciding with the launch as happened here and on the launch date there was some quantity of supply in the retail pipeline.
A paper launch is where the launch date coincides with a competing product (either around the same time or to beat it to market) where there is non-existent supply with only reviewers having the actual product.
Last edited:
That isn't a sale and it obviously confirms that supply is constrained. WTF were you disputing again?
The only problem with a long NDA is the weeks of random arguing.
Better than eastenders
A bit more, not significantly more.
Whether HBM2 will be worth any added costs or provide any meaningful performance benefit over GDDR5X might be debatable, though.