• 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 **

Martini1991 said:
Fine wine is so cringeworthy.
Click to expand...

In many cases waiting almost 2 years to consistently match or beat the original roughly equivalent nVidia card is not something I'd generally be promoting - I'd rather have most of the performance my card should be giving me at the start of the cycle not when the card is almost on its way out.
 
BigBANGtheory said:
I fail to see how a 570 or Vega 56 represents good value for 4k gaming, there's your question.

I have zero interest in AMD disrupting the market for the 1080p and 1440p resolutions, couldn't give a damn if they offered GTX 1080-like performance for £200. Its the next tier, the 4k we need shaking up and let the performance filter down to lower resolutions.
Click to expand...

I mean Vega will game at 4k with some comprimises, which isn't ideal. I do want to go OLED myself at some stage, so I do see what you're saying. It's something to think about.

Having said that AMD is still the best value 4k card, because at 4k you'll need more than 8gb in the next couple of years.
 
Rroff said:
In many cases waiting almost 2 years to consistently match or beat the original roughly equivalent nVidia card is not something I'd generally be promoting - I'd rather have most of the performance my card should be giving me at the start of the cycle not when the card is almost on its way out.
Click to expand...

Why not though. Can you tell the difference between 70 and 80 fps? I can't. In 2 years time when your card has 20fps 1% lows you will notice though. People who bought a Fury X or 980ti are suffering because of their VRAM.

It depends how long you plan on keeping your card, if you plan on switching it every 2 years then fair enough. You would be in the minority in doing this. But at the moment most are struggling to find value in doing that anyway because of the slow progress and rising higher end pricing
 
CuriousTomCat said:
I'm an AMD loyalist and I'm looking forward to buying a new Navi card with my budget of approx £220. I'm expecting performance comparable to a GTX 1660 for that.

People with a similar budget to mine make up over 70% of the market, so why should it matter to me as a user if AMD aren't "competitive at the high end"?
Click to expand...
That's sheer madness.

The 1660 is barely faster than a 1060, which is currently £170 (ASUS 6gb, OCUK).

And you'd pay £220 for that, because... AMD?

Bonkers.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
Why not though. Can you tell the difference between 70 and 80 fps? I can't. In 2 years time when your card has 20fps 1% lows you will notice though. People who bought a Fury X or 980ti are suffering because of their VRAM.

It depends how long you plan on keeping your card, if you plan on switching it every 2 years then fair enough. You would be in the minority in doing this. But at the moment most are struggling to find value in doing that anyway because of the slow progress and rising higher end pricing
Click to expand...

Depends a lot on the game - some if you are talking the difference between 70 and 80 FPS average can mean the lows are dropping enough below 60 FPS to be noticeable. I tend to upgrade once I notice performance below optimal for the games I want to play at the resolution and settings I want to use - I'd rather upgrade a bit sooner and get better performance with newer games than drag an older card out when it is being more and more challenged by newer games.
 
Martini1991 said:
Fury X being poor today doesn't really do well for the "fine wine" rhetoric.

As far as performance goes, AMD's 580 is meant to be worse than a Fury X.
Click to expand...

But that's the VRAM limit and 580 does better in some games, worse in others, especially with 8gb vs 4gb, this is the newest video I could find which has a 590 vs Fury and while 5% faster than a 580, the 590 has quite a few wins.

 
FoxEye said:
So £30 off a 21 month old card?

Not a very high bar you're setting for AMD. Guess you have about as much faith in them as the rest of us ;)
Click to expand...

Yet Nvidia charging £249.95 for a 21 month old card is perfectly acceptable? Anyway, I didn't say there wont be higher tiers than my Vega 56 equivalant ;)
 
Last edited:
vapor matt said:
People expect to much of AMD and navi, if it reaches 1080 speed plus and at a good price then that is not so bad. I find it strange how people want 2080ti speed but for 25% of the price from AMD lol anything less and AMD are a failure.
far from a failure they have secured both next gen consoles. from that with key board and mouse support and Nvidia pricing a lot of gamers out of PC gaming will jump to consoles. Nvidia are looking like PC GPU's will not be there main focus
in coming years. developers will code games for consoles using AMD tech and PC games or ports of them games should run much better on AMD hardware.

Very few PC gamers buy high end hardware, and even fewer buy 1500 quid GFX cards, AMD might have the better outlook buy targeting the mid range gamer where they will sell more cards, if the consoles coming are real good then a lot
of those will go that way to.

I would say it looks worse for nvidia than AMD at the moment, AMD have ryzen 3000 about to land, with navi round the corner, intel have GPU's in development as well. yes nvidia have the speed crown in the RTX titan and 2080ti but that is only a few percent of the market, with sales falling and share holders unhappy. CEO under pressure.

AMD are looking good even if navi isn't a giant killer.
Click to expand...

Proper keyboard & mouse support will be a big plus for consoles & me, I grabbed a XIM to use with my PS4 but I can''t seem to get rid of some lag it has so I barely ever use it as I can't hit a barn door with a controller.
 
Rroff said:
In many cases waiting almost 2 years to consistently match or beat the original roughly equivalent nVidia card is not something I'd generally be promoting - I'd rather have most of the performance my card should be giving me at the start of the cycle not when the card is almost on its way out.
Click to expand...
I never understood this line of thinking. Surely you would have been happy with whatever performance the card offered the day you purchased it and also the price you paid for it?

If you want more performance you buy a higher tier card and pay more for it.

If later on you get free performance from drivers, that is a free bonus. Had you got the extra performance day one, you sure as hell would have been charged for it.
 
Rroff said:
In many cases waiting almost 2 years to consistently match or beat the original roughly equivalent nVidia card is not something I'd generally be promoting - I'd rather have most of the performance my card should be giving me at the start of the cycle not when the card is almost on its way out.
Click to expand...

Okay so didn't promote the GTX 1070 because the GTX 980Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the GTX 1060 because the GTX 970 had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the RTX 2080 because the GTX 1080Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?

All those people should have bought the high end card from the start instead of waiting 2 years? So all performance tiers should be scrapped?
 
Rroff said:
Yet people are championing "FineWine" as if a reason for not doing that in the first place.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand that line of thinking either.

Maybe you can explain what you mean.

As far as I am concerned it is free performance. You may or may not get it. But when buying you get what you pay for. If you want the extra performance offered by another card day 1, you pay more.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
Okay so didn't promote the GTX 1070 because the GTX 980Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the GTX 1060 because the GTX 970 had a similar performance 2 years previous?
Also you didn't promote the RTX 2080 because the GTX 1080Ti had a similar performance 2 years previous?

All those people should have bought the high end card from the start instead of waiting 2 years? So all performance tiers should be scrapped?
Click to expand...

You're conflating what he said.
But since you're coming off AMD biased I don't find that surprising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom