Yeah overpriced (hence why i was secretly hoping it was £500 especially after seeing the benchmarks) Story of graphics cards just lately.
$699 was never going to be a £500 price point, £650 was expected and that's what it turned out to be for the sapphire cards at least.
-
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 VII
- Thread starter DragonQ
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,055
- Location
- Rutland
The 16GB of HBM has pushed this into being too expensive to appeal.
This performance at £500 would be acceptable. At £650 it's unpalatable. Especially with noise, cooling and driver issues.
A shonky release to say the least. They release a card with driver issues, a cooler going into overdrive mode, broken overclocking and limited availability.
I don't know how they managed this seeing as its just a die shrunk Vega..
It's a decent card overall and as mentioned by a few reviews the drivers are torpedoing this launch. The cooler is an issue thanks to this one sensor that seems to crank the fans up hard despite the thermals of the rest of the gpu being lower.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2017
- Posts
- 6,206
- Location
- In the Masonic Temple
I bought one, and I don't understand it either it's hair is messy and it smells you think they would have made them selves presentable to show the world
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 2,498
- Location
- west sussex
tweak town says 445w when over clocked 380w when under full load standard 
are there figures off or can you toast and dry hair at the same time. that's gonna get hot, no wonder it sounds so loud.
are there figures off or can you toast and dry hair at the same time. that's gonna get hot, no wonder it sounds so loud.tweak town says 445w when over clocked 380w when under full load standard
Is that total system power or just the gpu? Seems overboard if its just the gpu.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,055
- Location
- Rutland
I'm also confused why a major die shrink hasn't seen an increase in transistor count and stream processors. In fact the latter has gone down.
I wonder why AMD didn't make a larger GPU and clocked it lower as this usually results in better efficiency. Rather than a small GPU clocked to the limit. Yield issues in their 7nm?
I wonder why AMD didn't make a larger GPU and clocked it lower as this usually results in better efficiency. Rather than a small GPU clocked to the limit. Yield issues in their 7nm?
Would have added more to power consumption which was already a bit on the high side so they just seemed to do a die shrink and not much else.
Because AMD haven't made an explicit gaming card. This is a repurposed MI50 PR stunt to fill a window of opportunity left open by Nvidia.
Got dragged through a hedge backwards before release
Before hyperventilating and passing out?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,055
- Location
- Rutland
How much power is added clocking this GPU so high though?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,055
- Location
- Rutland
I suspect this is the case, a hackjob made possible because of silly pricing trends.
295 watts for vega 64 vs 300 for this. Though given the 7nm power savings i would wonder what type of power this would draw at vega 64 clocks vs the radeon 7 clocks.
And underwhelming raster performance on RTX, i.e. no improvement.
NO, RTX and ML/DL has no need for FP64 support at all, quite the opposite, all about FP16 and INT8