-
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.
** The AMD Navi Thread **
- Thread starter subbytna
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
It's not even close.
Ryzen 1XXX was a true return to form.
Navi 5700XT is a decently performing mid range price at top tier pricing.
Ryzen had price and performance.
Navi has neither as it's not the highest part of the stack either. There's better performing GPU's and it doesn't represent better value either
It would be the same I'd Ryzen was basically Intel performance parity with parity pricing.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Because the opinion is wrong.
There's almost no similarity.
I say this as someone who bought into Ryzen 1 and 2 and will be getting ryzen 3 products when they launch next Sunday
If it beats a 2070 FE which is what it was made to do, then it does have price/perf in that pointless regard, but the Super kinda kills it, still costs more mind you.
Honestly i think they're just releasing it because they need to do something before the Full RDNA arch is on a chip.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Trouble is the same arguement could be applied that RTX is like Zen (1000 series), similarly laying the groundwork forging a new path forward (as both companies take the **** now re: pricing so that aspect isn't for compare).
Let 's honest here, we all can make the facts bend to our own 'truth' however twisted.
At least nVidia are providing better features at the same pricepoints, and have the excuse of a large die to consider. AMD have no such excuse, this is a Polaris replacement.
Let 's honest here, we all can make the facts bend to our own 'truth' however twisted.
At least nVidia are providing better features at the same pricepoints, and have the excuse of a large die to consider. AMD have no such excuse, this is a Polaris replacement.
I mean its categorically not the same price point it moved up a tier. While Ryzen has stayed the same while offering something legitimately tangible, raw Cores shouldn't really be compared to a mostly useless feature that barely has anything to show it off.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
5700XT is better price/performance than a 2070 I'll accept that. But that in itself does not make this release anything like Ryzen 1XXX lol
I have a sneaking suspicion that, should AMD achieve a near monopoly, some commentators here would be cheering and whooping.
Despite for years saying how awful it is that Intel or nV have had a near monopoly.
It's bound to be mildly amusing when that day comes.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Yes as enthusiasts we know better, but Joe Bloggs will see 'RTX' as a must have when games really start to show it off (probably starting with Cyberpunk). I really like AMD as a company and their cards but Navi just doesn't seem to have the feature-set to compare imo and the pricing in this respect is a joke. But at least if you start high you can always come down a little...
edit - As mad as it sounds I'll probably be interested in a 5700XT when the custom cards hit. The Vega Nitro for instance was a cracking card, I miss it's utter silence!!!
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 686
The last thing we all want in the PC market is one company dominating. It doesn't benefit anyone, and certainly not us, the consumer.
Also, AMD aren't dominating anything. Sure they have their tech in a lot of the console market, where most of it's sales are generated in the West, the PC market on the other hand is bigger ( the Chinese market for example, is to surpass the entire U.S population by 2023 when there will be 354 million PC gamers and that's just one country) most of which doesn't have AMD GPUs.
Plus with Intel coming into the scene within the dGPU market in 2020, along with Nvidia continuing to be aggressive, i can't see anything changing next gen.
You're not wrong.
IPC on Ryzen 1000 was still a few % short of Coffeelake and there was a huge clock speed difference, what made Ryzen 1000 good is it doubled the core count with fairly decent single core performance for a lot less money than Intel.
Intel have been stagnating for years, nVidia are a very different animal, they haven't, it's a much bigger ask for AMD to do to nVidia what they did to Intel but they have some advantages that they can draw on, their market dominance, changing their architecture not only to be as efficient as nVidia but completely diverge from architectural design and optimization requirements, that's where AMD are being aggressive because the default optimization is for AMD. They are making nVidia work harder for it.
Its a longer game than Zen and now Zen 2 vs Intel where Intel are on the back foot nVidia are not, With Intel all AMD had to do was make near as good as and now better CPU's, nVidia's GPU's are very very good so AMD need to sort their own GPU's out, Job mostly done, now they need to get game developers diverging away from nVidia, they do that by making it more difficult to optimize for nVidia when they own the architecture that games are developed for.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
AMD are gonna have a good couple of years with their CPU line then Intel are gonna come back *strong* (with a few underhand practises too!), they better make it count!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
You're not wrong.
IPC on Ryzen 1000 was still a few % short of Coffeelake and there was a huge clock speed difference, what made Ryzen 1000 good is it doubled the core count with fairly decent single core performance for a lot less money than Intel.
Intel have been stagnating for years, nVidia are a very different animal, they haven't, it's a much bigger ask for AMD to do to nVidia what they did to Intel but they have some advantages that they can draw on, their market dominance, changing their architecture not only to be as efficient as nVidia but completely diverge from architectural design and optimization requirements, that's where AMD are being aggressive because the default optimization is for AMD. They are making nVidia work harder for it.
Its a longer game than Zen and now Zen 2 vs Intel where Intel are on the back foot nVidia are not, With Intel all AMD had to do was make near as good as and now better CPU's, nVidia's GPU's are very very good so AMD need to sort their own GPU's out, Job mostly done, now they need to get game developers diverging away from nVidia, they do that by making it more difficult to optimize for nVidia when they own the architecture that games are developed for.
Ryzen 1000 offered performance that couldn't be close to matched at the same price point.
This isn't even close and it's embarrassing to suggest otherwise. You're doing yourself a disservice considering you tend to bang the drum about pricing.
Being pro AMD shouldn't come at the expense of logic.
If the 5700XT was $350 I'd be all up in agreement with you. But it's not. It's $450.
AMD have better price/performance parts out now.
That wasn't the same with CPUs as Piledriver was too inferior. Vega from a performance point isn't
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Well on that i do agree with you, they are too expensive, or at least AMD are asking too much, i suspect the price will come down quickly after launch, i think the 5700 is a very good GPU at £330.
The thing is AMD have a lot of R&D ahead of them and they don't want to be picking up the low margin scraps, if they continue along that vain they are not going to realize the result's of what they started.
Having said that i think there is room to manoeuver in their GPU pricing, i think maybe that's why they are so high to start with, they know nVidia will react and that will give them some room to move in.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Stipulations are no good when you've compared it to Ryzen 1XXX. The similarities just aren't there.
It's either like it or it isn't. And it isn't.
How is the 5700 very good at £330? It's basically just beating the 2060 on price/performance. You can already do that with a Vega 64 etc.
I have no problems with the performance on offer by the Navi parts, just the prices as they're too high.
Of course we have to wait for reviews but the 5700 look's significantly quicker than the RTX 2600 and for now at least at £330 similarly priced, also it's a lot like the 7950 vs 7970, the 5700 is a slightly cut down 5700XT but with much lower clocks, once you clock them the same the difference between a 5700 and a 5700XT is going to be sub 10%.
I think AMD are contentiously going back to that, where the top end card is expensive but for the savvy in the know is the step down card is the great value option if you just tweak it in the way you would anyway.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,290
- Location
- Dormanstown.
AMD's own figures have the 5700 on average at around ~10% better really. But it also costs more.
That's just not good enough for the consumers to be positive about.
If we're being positive about these cards then logic would dictate we'd have to be positive about the Turing cards because they came first at those price points with that performance months ago. But I know you're not.
They're all crappy price/performance offerings and we should call it as it is
Only costs more in comparison to the EOL cost, release is literally the same and the 64 was more expensive than the XT will be (sans EOL pricing).
I'm not entirely sure what these companies run against (pricing wise), but i'm sure the business logic made sense at the time.
