** The AMD Navi Thread **

[4K8KW10]

Pretty much what Vega was to Pascal, but you never called that a fail and that was much later than 4 months... I really don’t get why people are so bias one way or the other. Just say it as it is, it is just a graphics card end of the day.

Too much bias on this forum, all from fully grown men, some even grandpa’s

Unfortunately, I did call Vega a fail

RX Vega 64 is the second worst graphics processor AMD/ATi have ever had, after the HD 2900XT.
HD 7970GHz was ~35% slower than 780Ti but also just 62% of its size. Vega is bigger than 1080Ti.

 

[TNA]

Unfortunately, I did call Vega a fail

Ah fair enough

Navi and Arcturus cannot come soon enough for AMD. With Nvidia releasing the 1660 and recently throwing in the towel and supporting Freesync, they are in a much better position now. Even though their RTX range has been a bit of a fail imo, it is something they have been afforded due to a lack of competition.

 

[james.miller]

It might be 4 months late and the same price but it'll also be cheaper to manufacture, meaning more profitable, and vastly more efficient so less heat to dissipate . Next to the 590 it's just a better card and that is no failure.

 

[Rroff]

It might be 4 months late and the same price but it'll also be cheaper to manufacture, meaning more profitable, and vastly more efficient so less heat to dissipate . Next to the 590 it's just a better card and that is no failure.

£300 odd (even if some cards are £260) for not even GTX1070 performance nearly 3 years on... can't say I'm too impressed.

 

[Brazo]

It might be 4 months late and the same price but it'll also be cheaper to manufacture, meaning more profitable, and vastly more efficient so less heat to dissipate . Next to the 590 it's just a better card and that is no failure.

It is.

When vega launched it was very late, inefficient, noisy, hot and wasn’t as good as Pascal although it’s now 2% ahead of a 1080 according to tech power up.

It’s only the ridiculously low pricing that has made vega more popular, I even bought one myself but the fire sale prices of vega 56 are now impacting upon AMD’s own lower tier GPUs.

 

[Poneros]

Vega on release was the best release in the history of GPUs. You had cards which had great performance but could also MAKE you money hand over fist, unlike any others. Moment in time? Sure & so what, they're all moments in time. Judge in context!!

From the myopic perspective of people staring at perf/w on TPU, it was a fail, yes - but fail on their part for their own ignorance.

Too many people unfortunately completely lack in perspective.

 

[Brazo]

Vega on release was the best release in the history of GPUs. You had cards which had great performance but could also MAKE you money hand over fist, unlike any others. Moment in time? Sure & so what, they're all moments in time. Judge in context!!

From the myopic perspective of people staring at perf/w on TPU, it was a fail, yes - but fail on their part for their own ignorance.

Too many people unfortunately completely lack in perspective.

Maybe go back and read the launch day reviews and refresh your memory?

 

[4K8KW10]

It might be 4 months late and the same price but it'll also be cheaper to manufacture, meaning more profitable, and vastly more efficient so less heat to dissipate . Next to the 590 it's just a better card and that is no failure.

Which one is cheaper to manufacture? TU116 is the bigger die.

GTX 1660 6144 MB TDP 110 W
12nm TSMC, 284 mm2, 48 ROPs|88 TMUs, 1408 shaders, 96.2 GPixels/s, 176.4 GTexels/s, 192-bit, 240 GB/s
Price: 200 pounds

RX 590 8192 MB TDP 200 W
12nm GlobalFoundries, 232 mm2, 32 ROPs|144 TMUs, 2304 shaders, 51.5 GPixels/s, 231.8 GTexels/s, 256-bit, 288 GB/s
Price: 200 pounds, including with 3 games

 

[TNA]

Vega on release was the best release in the history of GPUs. You had cards which had great performance but could also MAKE you money hand over fist, unlike any others. Moment in time? Sure & so what, they're all moments in time. Judge in context!!

From the myopic perspective of people staring at perf/w on TPU, it was a fail, yes - but fail on their part for their own ignorance.

Too many people unfortunately completely lack in perspective.

Huh?

 

[james.miller]

@Brazo I wasn't talking about Vega, I was talking about the 1660

£300 odd (even if some cards are £260) for not even GTX1070 performance nearly 3 years on... can't say I'm too impressed.

Me neither!

Which one is cheaper to manufacture? TU116 is the bigger die.

Half the power draw, less complex board designs, fewer components, smaller heatsinks. Same retail price?

 

[4K8KW10]

Half the power draw, less complex board designs, fewer components, smaller heatsinks. Same retail price?

Fewer components means disadvantage when it comes to the quality of the execution of the boards.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Which one is cheaper to manufacture? TU116 is the bigger die.

GTX 1660 6144 MB TDP 110 W
12nm TSMC, 284 mm2, 48 ROPs|88 TMUs, 1408 shaders, 96.2 GPixels/s, 176.4 GTexels/s, 192-bit, 240 GB/s
Price: 200 pounds

RX 590 8192 MB TDP 200 W
12nm GlobalFoundries , 232 mm2, 32 ROPs|144 TMUs, 2304 shaders, 51.5 GPixels/s, 231.8 GTexels/s, 256-bit, 288 GB/s
Price: 200 pounds, including with 3 games

not really 12nm its Samsung's "old" 14nm node running at GF and so relativity mature. When you factor in the more complex PCB needed to support the bigger VRM (due to much more power needed) cooler etc I would'nt thing there be much difference in BOM of a average 1660/1660ti and a RX590 I would think.

 

[james.miller]

Fewer components means disadvantage when it comes to the quality of the execution of the boards.

[Citation required]

Absolute codswollop.

 

[4K8KW10]

Also, the RX 590 can be undervolted, which means the power consumption drops 20-25 W to 175-180 W.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/a646nr/undervolting_the_rx_590/

Hi! I forgot about the screenshot. Not at home right know, but currently I'm using Wattman and, at stock frequencies, those are my voltages:

P7: 1100v

P6 and P5:1090v

P4: 1080v

The rest at default values. The card consumes between 15 to 20 watts less and works great.



Also tried undervolting to 1080v the P7, 6,5 and 4. It reduces about 25 watts the power consumption, at a slightly reduction in performance.

 

[Brazo]

@Brazo I wasn't talking about Vega, I was talking about the 1660

I know mate I was just using the first part of your post to launch my real manifesto

 

[subbytna]

Anyway, back to Navi chat in the thread.

Anyone foreseeing a liquid cooled version? Or will the 7nm Navi be cool enough to be on air again?

Will Navi be HMB or GDDR6? Any leaks on that? GDDR6 will be cheaper to use and could drop the price down more at launch than if it used HBM2

When Navi drops I'll probably do my 5 year upgrade. Ryzen 8 core 3600 (perhaps) and a mid range Navi, or just keep my vega56 instead.

 

[Poneros]

Maybe go back and read the launch day reviews and refresh your memory?

Case in point. No ability to think for oneself, just always deferral to others.

 

[Scougar]

The 590 is a stretching of the architecture. They need to have high quality components and circuitry in order for it to perform, it isn't just the die size and cost.

The 590 is absolutely the more expensive card to manufacture. The 1660 isn't even breaking a sweat it seems, so can be much more simplified, with reduced cost.

 

[Scougar]

Case in point. No ability to think for oneself, just always deferral to others.

This was the other person who's name I couldn't remember, who is unable to take the blinkers off...

ON LAUNCH, Vega was a failure for a GRAPHICS CARD. It was too expensive, too hot, too much power consumption and didn't perform well enough compared to the competition. It got much better over time however. Miners liked it, gamer's didn't.

 

[Poneros]

This was the other person who's name I couldn't remember, who is unable to take the blinkers off...

ON LAUNCH, Vega was a failure for a GRAPHICS CARD. It was too expensive, too hot, too much power consumption and didn't perform well enough compared to the competition. It got much better over time however. Miners liked it, gamer's didn't.

Compared to the competition Vega destroyed them in perf/$, because it could make MANY MORE $s. Very simple point. It was and still is a phenomenal gaming card and taking that into account as well that makes it the BEST graphics card that has ever existed at launch. Too hot? Buy another fan, you can afford it now. Too much power consumption? No problem, you can pay it off. Performance? On par with 1080 (direct competitor). Done, done and done.

Again, for people whose only understanding of a product is to stare at perf/w charts, it isn't a good card. For smart people, there has never been a better GPU launch.

Edit: Finally, if you are not able to compare a card except by pointing out it has higher X number and not understand what it means in consequence, you are not thinking - you are just finger pointing.

What does "too hot" mean? Does the PC not function anymore because it has x more degrees? No? Then how is it a problem?

What does "too much power consumption" mean? Is there no PSU that can run the system? Is it too expensive? Is that what 80w-100w extra means? Or does it just translate into a $ number, in which case you have to contrast that to the money making capacity of the card.

Simply pointing to these things IS NOT ENOUGH to constitute an analysis, and ignoring its mining capability even for a GAMER is not smart analysis, because the PC will have time it isn't being used so it will make you MONEY, which will help judge the cards value which is the determining factor for ANY purchase.