Radeon VII

Calin Banc · 12 Jan 2019 at 18:23

Sargatanas2511 said:
I understand that. It might make sense when the full reviews come out. If it does best the 2080 then $699 makes sense for them compared to the competition and might end up causing the 2080 to come to which will bring the VII down.

We will have to wait and see if they got the price right.

I hope they ddidn't planned to again deceive everyone with a lower price during reviews period and soon after increase it as already the price seems to be way too high.

aoaaron · 12 Jan 2019 at 18:33

I feel like the GPU-space is simply very boring, overpriced and depressing. This is for both NVIDIA and AMD.

The blame seems to consistently be falling on Nvidia for how crappy the situation is but AMD really have not helped the situation at all, by releasing products which just fall in line with the over-priced NVIDIA cards, normally 6-12 months late. Sadly its just a really sad time to be a PC-gamer if your target is 4k. If its not 4k, then a 1070, 1080, 1060, 2060, or the AMD equivalents should do you well.

By the time consoles do start hitting native 4k 30fps or checker-boarded 4k 60fps (PS5, Xbox One X) the pricing situation will be a lot better IMO from both companies.

Secretly we all hoped the 7nm GPUs would be the holy grail which force NVIDIA to drop their prices. However I always suspected if AMD do release anything which rivals the performance of the RTX card, they will not considerably undercut them (aka offering 2080ti performances at £600-700) and I was right. AMD seem content to reap their share of the profit margins too, rather than force NVIDIA's hand with their crazy horrible pricing structure.

In other words, we're ******.

But if you're not playing on a 4k screen, I honestly don't see the rush in touching the Radeon VII or the RTX series of cards. I think the people who are in trouble are people with much older generation cards who are due an upgrade (This was me, going from a GTX 670 to a 2080; I knew I was getting taken advantage of but I had limited options given I game on a 4k TV now).

Raelgun · 12 Jan 2019 at 18:50

aoaaron said:
I feel like the GPU-space is simply very boring, overpriced and depressing. This is for both NVIDIA and AMD.

The blame seems to consistently be falling on Nvidia for how crappy the situation is but AMD really have not helped the situation at all, by releasing products which just fall in line with the over-priced NVIDIA cards, normally 6-12 months late. Sadly its just a really sad time to be a PC-gamer if your target is 4k. If its not 4k, then a 1070, 1080, 1060, 2060, or the AMD equivalents should do you well.

By the time consoles do start hitting native 4k 30fps or checker-boarded 4k 60fps (PS5, Xbox One X) the pricing situation will be a lot better IMO from both companies.

Secretly we all hoped the 7nm GPUs would be the holy grail which force NVIDIA to drop their prices. However I always suspected if AMD do release anything which rivals the performance of the RTX card, they will not considerably undercut them (aka offering 2080ti performances at £600-700) and I was right. AMD seem content to reap their share of the profit margins too, rather than force NVIDIA's hand with their crazy horrible pricing structure.

In other words, we're ******.

But if you're not playing on a 4k screen, I honestly don't see the rush in touching the Radeon VII or the RTX series of cards. I think the people who are in trouble are people with much older generation cards who are due an upgrade (This was me, going from a GTX 670 to a 2080; I knew I was getting taken advantage of but I had limited options given I game on a 4k TV now).

If the new consoles achieve high resolution with 60 FPS in most games, I have no reason to stick to PC gaming, the only excuse PC gamers will have is 120 FPS gaming which only exists on older titles or extremely high end hardware which falls to the tiniest of population.

Pc gaming once had a place where it had a wide breadth of unique games, but a lot of these titles have gone console too, there are even mmos on consoles now.

The only true big title thats not on console is World of Warcraft.

Illuminist · 12 Jan 2019 at 18:58

aoaaron said:
I feel like the GPU-space is simply very boring, overpriced and depressing. This is for both NVIDIA and AMD.

The blame seems to consistently be falling on Nvidia for how crappy the situation is but AMD really have not helped the situation at all, by releasing products which just fall in line with the over-priced NVIDIA cards, normally 6-12 months late. Sadly its just a really sad time to be a PC-gamer if your target is 4k. If its not 4k, then a 1070, 1080, 1060, 2060, or the AMD equivalents should do you well.

By the time consoles do start hitting native 4k 30fps or checker-boarded 4k 60fps (PS5, Xbox One X) the pricing situation will be a lot better IMO from both companies.

Secretly we all hoped the 7nm GPUs would be the holy grail which force NVIDIA to drop their prices. However I always suspected if AMD do release anything which rivals the performance of the RTX card, they will not considerably undercut them (aka offering 2080ti performances at £600-700) and I was right. AMD seem content to reap their share of the profit margins too, rather than force NVIDIA's hand with their crazy horrible pricing structure.

In other words, we're ******.

But if you're not playing on a 4k screen, I honestly don't see the rush in touching the Radeon VII or the RTX series of cards. I think the people who are in trouble are people with much older generation cards who are due an upgrade (This was me, going from a GTX 670 to a 2080; I knew I was getting taken advantage of but I had limited options given I game on a 4k TV now).

You could probably guess that AMD and Nvidia work together the entire time

TNA · 12 Jan 2019 at 21:24

ICDP said:
Since Titan and 780 GTX Nvidia have been doing all they can to push mid and high end prices to stupid levels. They have finally succeeded and have now pushed the "mainstream" RTX 2060 to what use to be mid tier prices.

The fact AMD have been able to use failed Instinct cards to supply the enthusiast gaming market is down to Nvidia's greed. Had RTX 20x0 been priced at realistic levels then AMD would have had nothing to counter with unless they were prepared to make a massive loss. Fortunately for AMD Nvidia's greed knows no bounds. Despite the prices of RTX 2080Ti Tom's Hardware idiotically said "just buy it", the ******* ********. I mean the moron tech press are even declaring RTX 2060 as a great card for the price compared to it's bigger brothers. How idiotic are these people that would fall over themselves to believe RTX 2060 is a great price just because the bigger Turing cards are stupidly expensive?

Thankfully there are still some in the tech press who have some principles (HardOCP). The fact RTX 2080 cards are available at cut down prices so soon most likely points to the fact the average consumer are finally catching on to the con job Nvidia have pulled.

Mainstream GPUs used to cost ~$200 - $230. One down from top tier cost ~$350 - $400 (GTX 570, GTX 670, HD 7950, GTX 980, R9 290), yet now Nvidia are pushing RTX 2060 at these prices and the tech press are calling it awesome.

I bought my Vega 64 at £450 and felt it was at least a good bargain over 980Ti/Fury X. Yet now if I want an upgrade of any measurable amount I have to pay £700. 30% -50% extra performance used to be at a similar price point. Now we actually have to pay 70% extra for the privelage of "upgrading".

Rant over

I feel you man. I used to wait for around 50-100% boost in performance in the same price range (around £200-250) and it would happen every year or two. Now it is getting very silly. I remember about 5 years ago I used to think paying £300 for a graphics card was crazy. With our currency going down the toilet coupled with greed from Nvidia, prices are now crazy

ICDP · 12 Jan 2019 at 22:13

TNA said:
I feel you man. I used to wait for around 50-100% boost in performance in the same price range (around £200-250) and it would happen every year or two. Now it is getting very silly. I remember about 5 years ago I used to think paying £300 for a graphics card was crazy. With our currency going down the toilet coupled with greed from Nvidia, prices are now crazy

The only thing that has saved me spending money on GPUs is the fact I bought a Freesync monitor. I had a 980Ti and wanted a large size 4K IPS Adaptive Sync monitor but there was nothing in G-Sync that fitted the bill. I do content creation hence the requirements mentioned. In the end I sold my 980Ti and got a Fury (non X) but despite it being 20% slower OC v OC, it played 4K much smoother.

My own testing showed that 40 FPS at Freesync felt smoother and more fluid than 60 FPS without. So I knew a "upgrading" from a Vega 64, to a 1080Ti or equivalent was a waste of money as I would end up with an overall worse experience. Isn't it funny how review sites never test with Adaptive Sync monitors. I could just image the conclusions, "yeah this GPU is 10% faster but with Adaptive Sync you wont see a difference between 50 and 55 FPS at 4K".

Now Nvidia have adopted Freesync, and AMD are releasing a viable alternative I am open to upgrading again without losing Freesync. I genuinely can't believe I am contemplating paying £650 for a GPU.

Damn this Pimax 5K+ HMD and it's much higher GPU demands

markoboyo11 · 12 Jan 2019 at 23:07

That's exactly how I feel aoaaron.

Think I will keep this pc the way it is to play the games I've got and work stuff and just get one of the next gen consoles when they come along.

Illuminist · 13 Jan 2019 at 10:57

ICDP said:
The only thing that has saved me spending money on GPUs is the fact I bought a Freesync monitor. I had a 980Ti and wanted a large size 4K IPS Adaptive Sync monitor but there was nothing in G-Sync that fitted the bill. I do content creation hence the requirements mentioned. In the end I sold my 980Ti and got a Fury (non X) but despite it being 20% slower OC v OC, it played 4K much smoother.

My own testing showed that 40 FPS at Freesync felt smoother and more fluid than 60 FPS without. So I knew a "upgrading" from a Vega 64, to a 1080Ti or equivalent was a waste of money as I would end up with an overall worse experience. Isn't it funny how review sites never test with Adaptive Sync monitors. I could just image the conclusions, "yeah this GPU is 10% faster but with Adaptive Sync you wont see a difference between 50 and 55 FPS at 4K".

Now Nvidia have adopted Freesync, and AMD are releasing a viable alternative I am open to upgrading again without losing Freesync. I genuinely can't believe I am contemplating paying £650 for a GPU.

Damn this Pimax 5K+ HMD and it's much higher GPU demands

You have a pimax?

Jono8 · 13 Jan 2019 at 11:06

aoaaron said:
I feel like the GPU-space is simply very boring, overpriced and depressing. This is for both NVIDIA and AMD.

The blame seems to consistently be falling on Nvidia for how crappy the situation is but AMD really have not helped the situation at all, by releasing products which just fall in line with the over-priced NVIDIA cards, normally 6-12 months late. Sadly its just a really sad time to be a PC-gamer if your target is 4k. If its not 4k, then a 1070, 1080, 1060, 2060, or the AMD equivalents should do you well.

By the time consoles do start hitting native 4k 30fps or checker-boarded 4k 60fps (PS5, Xbox One X) the pricing situation will be a lot better IMO from both companies.

Secretly we all hoped the 7nm GPUs would be the holy grail which force NVIDIA to drop their prices. However I always suspected if AMD do release anything which rivals the performance of the RTX card, they will not considerably undercut them (aka offering 2080ti performances at £600-700) and I was right. AMD seem content to reap their share of the profit margins too, rather than force NVIDIA's hand with their crazy horrible pricing structure.

In other words, we're ******.

But if you're not playing on a 4k screen, I honestly don't see the rush in touching the Radeon VII or the RTX series of cards. I think the people who are in trouble are people with much older generation cards who are due an upgrade (This was me, going from a GTX 670 to a 2080; I knew I was getting taken advantage of but I had limited options given I game on a 4k TV now).

Agreed. Everyone is bored of seeing the same level of performance that we have had for years , released at the same price.

No progress in price/performance is being made, so what is the point in anyone upgrading?

New cards from a new generation , that perform better should replace the existing price points of the old stuff, not just sit on top. If that carries on an XX80 card from Nvidia in 5-10 years time could cost ~£2k or something silly.

ICDP · 13 Jan 2019 at 11:36

Illuminist said:
You have a pimax?

I do yes, a 5K+ and it is just about playable at OK(ish) settings in VR on my Vega 64, but a performance boost would be welcome.

Darujhistan · 13 Jan 2019 at 13:11

Jono8 said:
Agreed. Everyone is bored of seeing the same level of performance that we have had for years , released at the same price.

No progress in price/performance is being made, so what is the point in anyone upgrading?

New cards from a new generation , that perform better should replace the existing price points of the old stuff, not just sit on top. If that carries on an XX80 card from Nvidia in 5-10 years time could cost ~£2k or something silly.

It won't take 5-10 years to get to 2K at the rate they're going.

aoaaron · 13 Jan 2019 at 13:35

Raelgun said:
If the new consoles achieve high resolution with 60 FPS in most games, I have no reason to stick to PC gaming, the only excuse PC gamers will have is 120 FPS gaming which only exists on older titles or extremely high end hardware which falls to the tiniest of population.

Pc gaming once had a place where it had a wide breadth of unique games, but a lot of these titles have gone console too, there are even mmos on consoles now.

The only true big title thats not on console is World of Warcraft.

Yeah, I think consoles approach to 4k gives it a slight advantage. Hopefully they offer two modes as standard in all games (one 30fps high resolution, one 60fps optimised for performance).

humbug · 13 Jan 2019 at 15:51

Buildzoid's thoughts on the AMD Radeon VII

Darujhistan · 13 Jan 2019 at 16:22

Hard to disagree with much of that, excellent point made about people buying Titan's for gaming which has in turn led to the destruction of the GPU market for all. That's why your broken 2080ti cost you £1300.

Darujhistan · 13 Jan 2019 at 16:48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7oAexwUu8E

TGOG on Harware Unboxed getting refused a 2060 review sample by NV.

:rolleyes:

Raelgun · 13 Jan 2019 at 17:18

aoaaron said:
Yeah, I think consoles approach to 4k gives it a slight advantage. Hopefully they offer two modes as standard in all games (one 30fps high resolution, one 60fps optimised for performance).

I personally think the new consoles can do high res at high FPS, console optimisation on the new projected hardware is gonna be something.

TNA · 13 Jan 2019 at 17:31

Raelgun said:
I personally think the new consoles can do high res at high FPS, console optimisation on the new projected hardware is gonna be something.

Sure, even the one's now could do that. It all depends on how much you push the graphics of games. They may very well still target 30fps and make graphics better at 4K.

Illuminist · 13 Jan 2019 at 18:36

TNA said:
Sure, even the one's now could do that. It all depends on how much you push the graphics of games. They may very well still target 30fps and make graphics better at 4K.

You guys are forgetting that 4k on console is not with max settings you can run 30fps or even 60fps 4k on a 1060 or 580 if you dial the settings down, there is always a market for high Fidelity no compromise graphics that's what drives us as pc enthusiasts to upgrade when you can no longer run the game at 1080p ultra or even high settings you look for an upgrade Likewise we now have 4k which we all would wish for so it follows that ultra settings with that drive the need for hardware to go with it..consoles are selling it all on 4k,but if you could see the graphics settings they would be much much lower than you would run at home you would just turn down to 1440p and crank them up.

Nasher · 13 Jan 2019 at 18:50

It's not even native 4K, it's upscaled. So you lose a lot of sharpness in the image.

TNA · 13 Jan 2019 at 20:21

Illuminist said:
You guys are forgetting that 4k on console is not with max settings you can run 30fps or even 60fps 4k on a 1060 or 580 if you dial the settings down, there is always a market for high Fidelity no compromise graphics that's what drives us as pc enthusiasts to upgrade when you can no longer run the game at 1080p ultra or even high settings you look for an upgrade Likewise we now have 4k which we all would wish for so it follows that ultra settings with that drive the need for hardware to go with it..consoles are selling it all on 4k,but if you could see the graphics settings they would be much much lower than you would run at home you would just turn down to 1440p and crank them up.

Nasher said:
It's not even native 4K, it's upscaled. So you lose a lot of sharpness in the image.

I get all that, but it has nothing to do with my reply to the Raelgun

My point is they may again target 30fps in most games and the rest with go into graphics. That is what they have been doing for a long time now after all? You telling me they could not have had PS4 and Xbone running 1080p 60fps? Sure they could, but then you get graphics very similar to last gen as the consoles new found grunt mostly goes into brining the fps up. All depends on the developers goals. Nothing to do with how powerful the console is.