Radeon VII

[Panos]

You sound like a Prophet come down from the mountain Gibbo. And he sayeth: "THERE SHALL BE NONE LEFT"!

Well that's how I heard it in my head (Charlton Heston perhaps?)...

PS You forgot to mention the shareholders Gibbo, they want and need that prophet... I mean, profit, for their dividends. A difficult tightrope for Dr Su to walk...

You forgot that there is no Vega 64/56 in production. Is already EOL, and what ever stock exists is the last bits. AMD has 0 Vega 64/56 stock.

And that I am not me saying it, but Gibbo yesterday, as was advised by AMD to hold stock if needed.

 

[Panos]

Let’s be honest vega has its quirks and is a nerds dream to play about with. Once you understand the quirks it works like a charm. Now seeing vega 64 regularly beating 1080 that fine wine tech should make the v7 an interesting prospect

Amen. Something I am saying since June. Vega 64 is the most fun card since the late 90s/early 00s. So many things to tweak and set and experiment with. eg lowering the temp threshold improves heavy overclocking and clock stability on benchmarks. Is crazy but it works.
And is the reason grabbing a RVII. New things to try and experiment with.

Not to quibble with you, but it doesn't come with 'professional level' drivers. They already have a pro line for that. Will it do the job? Most likely.

I would like one, but given 700 for what I assume will be a very short run product... I am extremely hesitant.

AMD doesn't have many locked things behind "Professional level" paywalls. Look at Vega 64 how well it went to everything. From content creation, to Machine Learning on the cheap, it even supports HBCC which is locked on Quadro cards also in Nvidia.

16GB HBM2 at 1TB/s at $700 is something of a hot cake bargain, if you go outside "gaming" forums. Like those using Blender for example, or 3DStudio, Maya etc.

 

[Freddie1980]

How are they not far out? Do you have access to Navi's specs and can assess the veracity of his prediction?

And to say Navi is a cut down version is again just a terminological mess. A cut down Vega is a cut down Vega. Navi is simply a new micro architecture and you have no idea what fundamental differences are made to it. So how could it be called what the two of you are saying unless you simply don't care about what words you use and what they mean?

Are you sure about that? I'd bet my house that Navi is a new revision to the GCN instruction set rather then a new micro architecture, we won't see the next micro architecture from AMD until at least Arcturus.

 

[Poneros]

Are you sure about that? I'd bet my house that Navi is a new revision to the GCN instruction set rather then a new micro architecture, we won't see the next micro architecture from AMD until at least Arcturus.

As of July 2017 the family of microarchitectures implementing the identically called instruction set "Graphics Core Next" has seen five iterations. The differences in the instruction set are rather minimal and do not differentiate too much from one another. An exception is the fifth generation GCN architecture, which heavily modified the stream processors to improve performance and support the simultaneous processing of two lower precision numbers in place of a single higher precision number.

Southern Islands family (1), Sea Islands family (2), Volcanic Islands family + Pirate Islands family (3), Arctic Islands-family (4), and Vega (5). Navi will be 6, but they are all "micro-architectures" because the are significant enough revisions with each iteration to qualify as such. GCN would more readily be called a macro architecture.

What we have here is the old Theseus' ship conundrum. i.e. semantic games. Which is why I didn't belabour the point.

 

[pingu666]

tbh i dont really care how something a card or chip does what it does, just how it performs...

 

[Poneros]

tbh i dont really care how something a card or chip does what it does, just how it performs...

Same!

Now I just need it to perform a price reduction...

 

[LePhuronn]

Amen to that! I dont understand why people expect AMD to be half the price of Nvidia when at the same performance level.

Because Nvidia's current prices are massively inflated, that's why. Nvidia's current performance level should not cost what it does right now, or to put it another way, do you really think that Vega 64 +15% performance should cost £450 near the end of 2019?

"RX 3080 performs like a GTX 2070 so of course it should cost £450!" um no, the RTX 2070 shouldn't cost £450+ to begin with. So much outcry about how overpriced Nvidia kit is these days, but a more representative and sensible price is dismissed "because AMD". Everybody who dismissed the leaked Navi prices as "unrealistic", or calling people idiots for it, are either have their perceptions skewed by the mining boom and Nvidia's successful attempt to capitalise on it, or retailers who will attempt to fleece and profit as much as they can. I've said before that the leaked Navi prices were on the low side and expected about a $50 uplift across the 3 cards, but I also said that if the RX 3080 went north of $400 then retailers were price gouging. And the notion of "AMD aren't a charity so of course they'll charge as much as possible" just strikes me as a deflection and rationale for a retailer to gouge the hell out of prices. There is just as much money to be made, if not more money, from low margin, high volume sales as there is to gouge the hell out of prices and sell a handful.

AMD will not win back market share and mind share if their latest graphics cards only cost a fraction less than the Nvidia equivalent and don't have the RTX shiny. DO AMD need to shed the stigma of being the "budget brand"? Yes they do. But not by selling slightly inferior or technically incomplete products at only a smidgen under Nvidia. You push the performance and you be aggressive on pricing and shout it from the heavens so even the brainwashed sheep can't ignore it.

If AMD really have bumped the prices up to be closer to Nvidia then they're idiots and have shot themselves in the foot (especially as they're not doing that with their CPUs). If AMD hasn't bumped the prices up to this extent then it's just pure greed from everybody in the supply chain.

Looks like my plans for "AMD3K" are preemptively cancelled because I'm not paying north of £450 for Vega 64 performance at the ass end of 2019.

 

[LePhuronn]

None of this makes any sense to me.

None at all, how can a Navi be a polaris replacement and replace the vega?
How can a 3070 replace the Vega 56 yet be the same price?

Because progress? or at least should be.

Nobody ever said Navi was replacing Polaris, all that has been said is Navi was pitched at the midrange segment. That is where Vega and the top Polaris cards sit. But what were you expecting? There's not that big a performance gap between the RX 590 and Vega 56, so you were thinking brand new Navi cards were just going to slot in there?

And no, a 3070 shouldn't be the same price as a Vega 56, it should be cheaper.

 

[JediFragger]

Wow, this Vega60 thread has some legs eh!

 

[Panos]

Because Nvidia's current prices are massively inflated, that's why. Nvidia's current performance level should not cost what it does right now, or to put it another way, do you really think that Vega 64 +15% performance should cost £450 near the end of 2019?

Yet people buy the Nvidia products at these inflated prices, and also justifying those prices in this very forum.
Until the drones wake up and stop buying don't expect AMD not wanting to capitalize on inflated prices.

 

[JCLDJB]

Because Nvidia's current prices are massively inflated, that's why. Nvidia's current performance level should not cost what it does right now, or to put it another way, do you really think that Vega 64 +15% performance should cost £450 near the end of 2019?

"RX 3080 performs like a GTX 2070 so of course it should cost £450!" um no, the RTX 2070 shouldn't cost £450+ to begin with. So much outcry about how overpriced Nvidia kit is these days, but a more representative and sensible price is dismissed "because AMD". Everybody who dismissed the leaked Navi prices as "unrealistic", or calling people idiots for it, are either have their perceptions skewed by the mining boom and Nvidia's successful attempt to capitalise on it, or retailers who will attempt to fleece and profit as much as they can. I've said before that the leaked Navi prices were on the low side and expected about a $50 uplift across the 3 cards, but I also said that if the RX 3080 went north of $400 then retailers were price gouging. And the notion of "AMD aren't a charity so of course they'll charge as much as possible" just strikes me as a deflection and rationale for a retailer to gouge the hell out of prices. There is just as much money to be made, if not more money, from low margin, high volume sales as there is to gouge the hell out of prices and sell a handful.

AMD will not win back market share and mind share if their latest graphics cards only cost a fraction less than the Nvidia equivalent and don't have the RTX shiny. DO AMD need to shed the stigma of being the "budget brand"? Yes they do. But not by selling slightly inferior or technically incomplete products at only a smidgen under Nvidia. You push the performance and you be aggressive on pricing and shout it from the heavens so even the brainwashed sheep can't ignore it.

If AMD really have bumped the prices up to be closer to Nvidia then they're idiots and have shot themselves in the foot (especially as they're not doing that with their CPUs). If AMD hasn't bumped the prices up to this extent then it's just pure greed from everybody in the supply chain.

Looks like my plans for "AMD3K" are preemptively cancelled because I'm not paying north of £450 for Vega 64 performance at the ass end of 2019.

I think you missed the point I was making.

To elaborate, here is something I posted somewhere else:
----------
The way I picture the complete RTX lineup is simple:
Nvidia thought (what price can we get away with for our 2080Ti?).
And they then proceeded to inflate the prices of the 2060-70-80 variants just to make the 2080Ti not seem like a total rip-off...because THAT is what the average consumer will think, they compare the 2080Ti to the next best thing (2080) and think ''for all the extra performance of going from the 2080 -> 2080Ti I 'only' have to pay this much more''.
It makes it's ridiculous price way more pallateable on a psychological level.
End result, they can get away wih upping the low end card at 350 and further segment the sub 300 range.
If you know what to look for you can see straight through their BS.
As for the 1660..Nvidia doesn't want to sell your these cards, theh want to make it look as unatractive as possible so you buy into the whole RTX branding, which is where they make their real money.
This is what an almost absolute monopoly looks like...
God help us gamers.
AMD, give me Navi pleeeease. :')
----------
I stick to my point on how I still do not understand how some people can think AMD should price their GPUs at (keyword) half the price of an Nvidia equivalent.

3/4 of the price, or at least somewhat cheaper, of course, this goes without saying, because as my (post-from-another-place) shows, I do believe that Nvidia are selling overpriced GPUs, for the reasons explained in this post (italicised paragraph).

Cheaper doesn't mean half-price, because there are so many cost factors to consider when making a GPU and comparing it to a previous generation (currency inflation / cost of materials / employee salary increases, especially in the Asian market most GPUs are made / cost of developing a new node / performance levels for GPU die-size..etc).

AMD needs to increase their market share, no doubt about that, but the last time they really tried to compete with Nvidia, they brought out a better product for less money but Nvidia's mindshare won the day.

Getting that mindshare back means more than just making a good product, they need to make a GREAT product and market/advertise the sh!t out of it (more costs..).

Then they actually have to price it better than their competitiors AND still make money (near impossible to do at half the cost...but cheaper than Nvidia's line-up? Damn right they should, can, and will with Navi).

So I think you may have misunderstood the reasoning behind my post - hope it's a bit more clear now.

And I believe the Navi leaked prices are doable if the yield rates really are that good, I believe they can make it really cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to take just a tiny bit bigger piece of the pie (while still making an incredibly competitive product at way more attractive prices than Nvidia).

 

[ICDP]

Because Nvidia's current prices are massively inflated, that's why. Nvidia's current performance level should not cost what it does right now, or to put it another way, do you really think that Vega 64 +15% performance should cost £450 near the end of 2019?

"RX 3080 performs like a GTX 2070 so of course it should cost £450!" um no, the RTX 2070 shouldn't cost £450+ to begin with. So much outcry about how overpriced Nvidia kit is these days, but a more representative and sensible price is dismissed "because AMD". Everybody who dismissed the leaked Navi prices as "unrealistic", or calling people idiots for it, are either have their perceptions skewed by the mining boom and Nvidia's successful attempt to capitalise on it, or retailers who will attempt to fleece and profit as much as they can. I've said before that the leaked Navi prices were on the low side and expected about a $50 uplift across the 3 cards, but I also said that if the RX 3080 went north of $400 then retailers were price gouging. And the notion of "AMD aren't a charity so of course they'll charge as much as possible" just strikes me as a deflection and rationale for a retailer to gouge the hell out of prices. There is just as much money to be made, if not more money, from low margin, high volume sales as there is to gouge the hell out of prices and sell a handful.

AMD will not win back market share and mind share if their latest graphics cards only cost a fraction less than the Nvidia equivalent and don't have the RTX shiny. DO AMD need to shed the stigma of being the "budget brand"? Yes they do. But not by selling slightly inferior or technically incomplete products at only a smidgen under Nvidia. You push the performance and you be aggressive on pricing and shout it from the heavens so even the brainwashed sheep can't ignore it.

If AMD really have bumped the prices up to be closer to Nvidia then they're idiots and have shot themselves in the foot (especially as they're not doing that with their CPUs). If AMD hasn't bumped the prices up to this extent then it's just pure greed from everybody in the supply chain.

Looks like my plans for "AMD3K" are preemptively cancelled because I'm not paying north of £450 for Vega 64 performance at the ass end of 2019.

I agree for the most part. I hate Nvidia's business practices but can you blame them when people are still happy to pay over £1K for a gaming GPU with currently worthless and unsupported features? It is music to Nvidia's ears and their greed is only matched by people's continued stupidity to support the prices. The fact people are going to fall over themselves to purchase the ludicrously poor RTX 2060 which beats 2.5 year old tech (GTX 1070) by ~15% at the same price, yet has less VRAM. It is utterly bonkers right now and I blame the naivety of most consumers and the greed of Nvidia. AMD are not blameless either of course but mining craze aside, Nvidia have been the main driving force behind massive GPU price hikes over the past few years. The irony of some people's logical failure when they complain that AMD are not a competitor to Nvidia at the highend, while also blaming AMD for ever increasing highend GPU prices.

Let that sink in folks! Anyone considering an RTX 2060 are getting a GPU that has less VRAM, is similarly priced and only marginally faster than a GTX 1070 that was released 2.5 years ago. Please don't delude yourself that Ray Tracing on a 2060 is remotely doable at even 1080p.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2019/01/20/battlefield_v_nvidia_ray_tracing_rtx_2060_performance/8

Re your point about AMD wining market share. It was totally irrelevant when AMD had better prices for better performance, it still failed to win them significant market-share while ultimately hitting their profits. So they decided wrongly IMHO, it was more profitable to keep prices more in line with Nvidia and allow people to make informed choices based on the actual merits of the cards. So AMD were given a window of opportunity to release a GPU that undercuts RTX 2080 prices at similar performance. Had Nvidia released RTX 20x0 at realistic levels AMD would have nothing to counter with.

Look at 1060 vs 480/580 etc. 480/580 overall were better cards yet 1060 sold in higher numbers.

https://www.hardwarecanucks.com/for...945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

Personally I would be very wary of purchasing a lower priced RTX 20x0 considering that Nvidia are binning lower performing GPU dies for their cheaper cards. They basically removed the silicone lottery and you are guaranteed those cheaper 20x0 GPUs are non A chips and as such could be 5% - 10% slower OC vs OC. So when you see someone say "you can get the RTX 2080 for £650 now, Radeon VII is irrelevant", my first thoughts are "hmm, cheaper non A die Turon, "no thanks Nvidia and your latest dodgy practice".

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3386-nvidias-secret-gpu-tu106-400-vs-400a-2070-xc-ultra-review

Radeon VII at £650 with 3x games is looking far more palatable but still overpriced IMHO. Sell those games on and overall ~£600. It's still better than Nvidia and their "binned for crapness and cheapness" RTX 2080.

 

[LePhuronn]

I think you missed the point I was making.

I wasn't replying to you

I do largely concur with your point though, but I'll direct you to what I said yesterday.

But the thing I disagree with is the notion that AMD can't and shouldn't charge "half of Nvidia". That's a fallacy. And to be clear, there is a very important difference between "half of Nvidia" and "what the market rate should be".

The leaked Navi prices were a bit optimistic, but I was only expecting a correction of about $50 or so. But even with $50 added on, those leaked prices reflect what that level of performance should cost in 2019. It's just a coincidence that they're half the price of Nvidia's, and if anything it's a further damning of Nvidia taking the mick.

AMD will not gain market share if they price their "incomplete" products a little bit below Nvidia because you might as well pay the tiny bit more and get Nvidia's extra shiny things (e.g. RTX). AMD will not gain mind share if they have the "audacity" to expect the same money as Nvidia but not offer the same level of technology. AMD are seen as the "budget brand" because their stuff is cheaper and inferior. They stop being a "budget brand" the moment their core performance matches or beats Nvidia but at significantly lower cost. I've said this many times:

If AMD's raster performance was the same as the RTX equivalent but was only $50 less, would you just pay the premium for the promise of ray tracing and DLSS?
If AMD's raster performance was the same as the RTX equivalent but costs $100+ less, would you still make the same decision?

I don't care what people say about "but 7nm costs a fortune" because it doesn't if yields and usability are very high (as Zen 2 is alluding to), so it is entirely possible for AMD to make a profit from high yield parts sold in low cost products. I say again the leaked Navi prices felt a bit too low, but drop $50 onto the price and they'd have some serious market disruption power on their hands. Pitch them at the same prices as RTX as Gibbo alludes to, then there's no point in getting one, Nvidia continues to suck up the market and inflates prices further and further and AMD will be a direct contributor to insane GPU prices and the possible demise of the PC gaming market.

Unless that's the long-term plan

Imagine this crazy conspiracy: AMD have the console market wrapped up so they won't lose out and can continue to develop gaming processors, but if PC gaming dies then Nvidia lose a massive part of their business. Then after a couple of years AMD rekindle PC gaming with zero competition and the market to themselves

 

[LePhuronn]

https://videocardz.com/79847/hardocp-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-to-cost-279-usd

The RX 3070 can't be £299 then.

 

[ICDP]

I wasn't replying to you

I do largely concur with your point though, but I'll direct you to what I said yesterday.

But the thing I disagree with is the notion that AMD can't and shouldn't charge "half of Nvidia". That's a fallacy. And to be clear, there is a very important difference between "half of Nvidia" and "what the market rate should be".

The leaked Navi prices were a bit optimistic, but I was only expecting a correction of about $50 or so. But even with $50 added on, those leaked prices reflect what that level of performance should cost in 2019. It's just a coincidence that they're half the price of Nvidia's, and if anything it's a further damning of Nvidia taking the mick.

AMD will not gain market share if they price their "incomplete" products a little bit below Nvidia because you might as well pay the tiny bit more and get Nvidia's extra shiny things (e.g. RTX). AMD will not gain mind share if they have the "audacity" to expect the same money as Nvidia but not offer the same level of technology. AMD are seen as the "budget brand" because their stuff is cheaper and inferior. They stop being a "budget brand" the moment their core performance matches or beats Nvidia but at significantly lower cost. I've said this many times:

If AMD's raster performance was the same as the RTX equivalent but was only $50 less, would you just pay the premium for the promise of ray tracing and DLSS?
If AMD's raster performance was the same as the RTX equivalent but costs $100+ less, would you still make the same decision?

I don't care what people say about "but 7nm costs a fortune" because it doesn't if yields and usability are very high (as Zen 2 is alluding to), so it is entirely possible for AMD to make a profit from high yield parts sold in low cost products. I say again the leaked Navi prices felt a bit too low, but drop $50 onto the price and they'd have some serious market disruption power on their hands. Pitch them at the same prices as RTX as Gibbo alludes to, then there's no point in getting one, Nvidia continues to suck up the market and inflates prices further and further and AMD will be a direct contributor to insane GPU prices and the possible demise of the PC gaming market.

Unless that's the long-term plan

Imagine this crazy conspiracy: AMD have the console market wrapped up so they won't lose out and can continue to develop gaming processors, but if PC gaming dies then Nvidia lose a massive part of their business. Then after a couple of years AMD rekindle PC gaming with zero competition and the market to themselves

This is one of the best logical fallacies I have read in a very long time. The old AMD are worse so should charge significantly less fallacy. How can you say this with even a remote hint of sincerity?

"They stop being a "budget brand" the moment their core performance matches or beats Nvidia but at significantly lower cost".

How can you not see the massive contradiction in that statement? What you propose is the very epitome of "budget brand".

 

[JCLDJB]

I wasn't replying to you

Whoopsie...apologies.

<--- Proceeds to take slow steps backward while facing forward cautiously, hoping nobody saw/heard him interrupting the conversation.

 

[ltron]

Because Nvidia's current prices are massively inflated, that's why. Nvidia's current performance level should not cost what it does right now, or to put it another way, do you really think that Vega 64 +15% performance should cost £450 near the end of 2019?

"RX 3080 performs like a GTX 2070 so of course it should cost £450!" um no, the RTX 2070 shouldn't cost £450+ to begin with. So much outcry about how overpriced Nvidia kit is these days, but a more representative and sensible price is dismissed "because AMD". Everybody who dismissed the leaked Navi prices as "unrealistic", or calling people idiots for it, are either have their perceptions skewed by the mining boom and Nvidia's successful attempt to capitalise on it, or retailers who will attempt to fleece and profit as much as they can. I've said before that the leaked Navi prices were on the low side and expected about a $50 uplift across the 3 cards, but I also said that if the RX 3080 went north of $400 then retailers were price gouging. And the notion of "AMD aren't a charity so of course they'll charge as much as possible" just strikes me as a deflection and rationale for a retailer to gouge the hell out of prices. There is just as much money to be made, if not more money, from low margin, high volume sales as there is to gouge the hell out of prices and sell a handful.

AMD will not win back market share and mind share if their latest graphics cards only cost a fraction less than the Nvidia equivalent and don't have the RTX shiny. DO AMD need to shed the stigma of being the "budget brand"? Yes they do. But not by selling slightly inferior or technically incomplete products at only a smidgen under Nvidia. You push the performance and you be aggressive on pricing and shout it from the heavens so even the brainwashed sheep can't ignore it.

If AMD really have bumped the prices up to be closer to Nvidia then they're idiots and have shot themselves in the foot (especially as they're not doing that with their CPUs). If AMD hasn't bumped the prices up to this extent then it's just pure greed from everybody in the supply chain.

Looks like my plans for "AMD3K" are preemptively cancelled because I'm not paying north of £450 for Vega 64 performance at the ass end of 2019.

Exactly, Nvidia's prices are grossly inflated and following suit is not going to do AMD any favours. If £700 is the new price for the 2nd/3rd best card and you have to pay £1200+ for the best then that's the end of PC gaming. There was a time not that long ago when we'd be paying less than half that.

 

[LePhuronn]

This is one of the best logical fallacies I have read in a very long time. The old AMD are worse so should charge significantly less fallacy. How can you say this with even a remote hint of sincerity?

I don't. I dismiss it wholly and entirely because it's ridiculous. But that is the long-maligned perception of AMD.

"They stop being a "budget brand" the moment their core performance matches or beats Nvidia but at significantly lower cost".

How can you not see the massive contradiction in that statement? What you propose is the very epitome of "budget brand".

Well no, it's not.

"Budget brands" cut corners to bring their costs down; "budget brand" implies low cost at the expense of inferiority. Look at literally anything that is billed as a "budget brand" and you'll see the huge list of caveats and concessions that come with it. That is how consumers and the naive see AMD, isn't it. Their GPUs are slower and hotter so they have to be priced lower just so somebody will buy them. Their CPUs are slower and rubbish at gaming so they have to be priced lower just so somebody will buy them.

But if a GPU - and let's say Navi here - performs the same or better than Nvidia and at a significantly lower cost, then it's no longer a budget product, it's a superior product. You can't be a "budget brand" if you have a superior product.

 

[LePhuronn]

Whoopsie...apologies.

<--- Proceeds to take slow steps backward while facing forward cautiously, hoping nobody saw/heard him interrupting the conversation.

You interrupted nothing, dear sir!

 

[ltron]

This is one of the best logical fallacies I have read in a very long time. The old AMD are worse so should charge significantly less fallacy. How can you say this with even a remote hint of sincerity?

"They stop being a "budget brand" the moment their core performance matches or beats Nvidia but at significantly lower cost".

How can you not see the massive contradiction in that statement? What you propose is the very epitome of "budget brand".

You'd only be correct if both companies had roughly equal market share and Nvidia's prices were in any way reasonable.