Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
So AMD shouldn't release lower tiers anymore because they're old yet it's okay for Nvidia to do so?
-
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
So AMD shouldn't release lower tiers anymore because they're old yet it's okay for Nvidia to do so?
In my 22 years of mucking around with pc (Amiga prior to that) I have never locked myself into one party.
But I have until my V64 purchase 2 years ago always had a strict budget on gpu's, that was just £250, or 350 for something special.
The good value Amd cards I bought were 4870, 6950,7850/7950, Rx470. I skipped Hawaii and when waiting for Fiji Nano I swapped over to a 2nd hand Gtx970 £180 and sold it after 2 years or so for £150.
Why is it important for Amd to compete in the high end? Amd were making losses on a big chip Fiji and they made the same manufacturing mistake with Vega.
Polaris failed on 3 revisions to hit it's intended performance targets and also failed to get into the mobile sector and right now we are seeing the effects of price fixing and performance-cost stagnating, as the competitor artifically props up the pricing tiers.
As someone with a strict budget I don't understand how you cannot see how Amd being weak in the last 2-3years has influenced the mid range-high end market.
So we'll see how things are when Navi launches and most importantly look at the price-performance metric.
Remember though a Gtx1070 could be bought for £270 before last christmas, and now it's £230 oc'd thats pretty close to stock Vega 56 performance +/- depending on game etc.
A Gtx 1660 when overclocked pretty much matches a 1660ti, this for £200-£230 is a great price considering the Rx590 was £230-£270 prior to it's release. Oc'd it's not far off a stock Vega 56.
Why didn't you purchase a Vega 56 from ocuk when they hit the all time low with games too?
Edit funny no response from you as always
Last edited:
I'm not even sure what you are saying.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Ah right, you're just trolling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,840
In comparison to Nvidia and Intel, a lack of resources and cash so I guess more of a 'work in progress'. That said, if they can keep going the way they have over the last two years, then great.
Yes exactly. AMD's competition have perhaps 10x the budget? Perhaps more? Yet only 30% more performance at the high end? (I'm guessing without checking) It doesn't compute in my opinion. A fraction of the resourses yet only a generation behind. I think that's pretty good going.
Obviously if you want an ultra high end GPU then Nvidia is your best option because they make fantastic GPU's but I dont know why AMD get so much grief at the mid end.
Did I say that tho? People here assume that you must be "team green" or "team red", and I'm neither, because it's silly.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
It's called playing catch up
keep using R&D to stock up on future tech - play the slow game until competition catches up to maximize profits.
After all, a business would prefer to make good money each year, rather than blow it's load all at once for massive single year profits.
Which is why I don't think you can compare Nvidia and AMD GPU budgets and say AMD is only 30% behind. If Nvidia really wanted to, it could be making 2500+Mhz Turing cards on 7nm right now, then price it so low that AMD's GPU division just goes bankrupt - and who know else other R&D they are still holding onto.
Last edited:
That makes no sense to me. If you did not get the performance you wanted, why buy the card in the first place? The assumption is when someone buys a card they are happy with the performance and the price they are paying for it.
Again, had you got the extra performance off the bat, they would have charged you more. The only reason you end up getting for free is because they are unable to unlock that performance off the bat. If they did they would charge you for it. Hence your argument does not hold up imo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
Ignoring the bickering above,
I guess it’s too early for any leaked performance/benchmark data?
I guess it’s too early for any leaked performance/benchmark data?
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
It depends on how credible the 'leaks' are. Many people have faith in AdoredTV who claimed the following:
3060: 580 performance
3070: Vega 56 performance ($200)
3080: Vega 64 +10-15% performance ($250)
He then claimed they'd decided to add a few higher tiers.
We got a mystery benchmark of what appeared to be a 20 Compute Unit AMD GPU hitting Vega 56 graphical performance. So doing the same performance at less than half of the compute units. We don't know if this is fake or not.
We then saw a photo of a bemouth 295 Watt AMD GPU with gddr6. This unit could be anything from a test unit to a compute card to an actual GPU. We don't know.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
There's no way AMD are releasing a vega 64 + 10% at 250 dollar with a Vega 56 performer being 200 dollar.
Unlikely yes, but it is possible. Depends on how good or bad the yields will be perhaps. Also isn't RAM prices coming down? GDDR6 might not be as expensive as it was 6 months ago.
Some exceptions aside like the cards pitted against the 1060 it hasn't really been meaningful though - the 200 series were generally priced against the Kepler cards but couldn't match them for performance in a lot of cases until around 2 years after release when they started to overhaul them - partly thanks to Kepler architecture falling down badly in some newer games. Fury cards were priced close to faster nVidia cards IIRC Fury X was same price as the 980ti for quite awhile and it is only in recent games it can compete with that card. Same again with the Vega cards - the 56 was generally priced around 1070 money or for awhile it was around £100 more but only overhauled it around 2 years after the 1070 was released.
Last edited:
They're not. AdoredTV's latest rumour has more Navi SKUs in it making the range a lot more granular (and unnecessary in places IMO).
RX 3060 is now $140 (4GB, RX 580 perf)
RX 3070 still $200 (8GB, Vega 56 perf)
RX 3070 XT is new at $250 (Vega 64 perf)
RX 3080 is now $280 (8GB, Vega 64 + 10% perf)
RX 3080 XT is new at $330 (about RTX 2070 perf)
RX 3090 is new at $430 (about Radeon VII perf)
RX 3090 XT is new at $500 (about Radeon VII + 10% perf)
So the Vega 56 performer is $200 and the Vega 64 +10% performer is $280. But your statement is still valid towards other cards in the stack:
Vega 64 perf for $250 but Vega 64 +10% for $280?
Vega 64 +10% for $280 but about RTX 2070 for $330? Isn't Vega 64 +10% about RTX 2070 anyway?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Personally I don't really overly invest on the AMD "Fine Wine" belief, however if there's any additional performance to be have later after the initial release in new and future titles, it is definitely a welcomed "bonus".
The issue I have with Nvidia is pricing aside, they consistently being stingy about the vram capacity for their cards; the 2060 6GB should not have happened, especially considering a £350ish card from 2016 already had 8GB vram, but now a £350ish card in 2019 only have 6GB vram it is just ridiculous.
If people want to address or criticise graphic cards, do it objectively and criticise both sides equally. One should not criticise about the shortcoming of one side, and then proceed to give free-pass for shortcoming of the other side calling it non-issue etc.
Yeah. The FineWine thing is not something they go out of their way to provide, it just works out that way due to them not being able to get the best out of their cards on release. It also happens as they use the same architecture for longer, so where Nvidia changes all the time and older cards no longer get optimisations, AMD cards continue to benefit.
If AMD had the r&d money to make a new architecture with every generation instead of being on GCN forever and had a bigger driver team, there would be no FineWine and we would not need to read all the illogical FineWhine arguments of how people prefer the full performance on release which makes no sense. Lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Indeed. The "FineWine" is sort of a side-effect of GCN
It's a double-edged sword that means AMD cards won't have the same efficiency as Nvidia new architecture, but what people get in return is that the GCN cards continue to excel for years to come even after EOL (unlike Nvidia).
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
This sounds very unlikely, because:
1. Vega 64 is about 10% faster than a Vega 56 - so 25% extra for 10% bump
2. Then a card that is another 10% faster
3. Vega 64 is about 10% slower than a 2070, so the RX 3080 and 3080 XT are different how exactly?
4. Shouldn't it be RXI?
5. That many tiers kind of ruins economies of scale. With Vega weren't they using the same cards with a different BIOS disabling compute units on the 56? And they did this because it was more cost effective than manufacturing 2 different cards. So are they really going to have that many tiers? Because it's 2 more than they currently have.