-
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.
- Status
Caporegime
A Titan P at the same clocks.
It's rx470cf performance.
Kyles hoping to have a video up tomorrow at some point showing some of the testing going on, he's also doing a blind test of types though probably not as cloak and dagger as amd's.
Interesting he's putting it against the ti, he says he hasn't got any pricing yet so from a performance standpoint he must feel its close enough to warrant the comparison.
Interesting he's putting it against the ti, he says he hasn't got any pricing yet so from a performance standpoint he must feel its close enough to warrant the comparison.
Is it possible that AMD are doing what they've done before and simply not going for the fastest product? Just make RX as fast as the 1080, but charge a lot less, and ignore the halo/vanity product at the top end as something they don't want to compete with.
Its possible but theres a difference between not wanting to compete and not being able to. Currently its hard to say what catagory this may fall under.
Soldato
Oh yea, raising min fps like that is everything. 200 or 220 fps on top end really isnt the most important thing. Just people doubt AMD have managed this or its enabled in most games
The box AMD design is deliberate to not compete with partners I guess
It is clear to me that they simply don't have the power efficiency to compete with Nvidia. It would be odd for a new card, die shrunk not to have more cores but i think, it is because anymore would just push the power usage too far. I think it will essentially be a Fury X at 1600mhz or thereabouts.
You need to remember that the 1070/1080 aka gp104 is a much more efficient and cheaper to produce laptop Chip whilst also able to cater for a desktop chip. In Dx11 Nvidia will be untouchable but in dx12 that will be where Amd will perform better.
The Fury X was barely behind the 980Ti though; here Vega looks to be 1080 performance; despite Die size and power consumption.
After a while that was, took a while for the drivers to catch up as usual. 6 months plus easily by which point nobody cared that much.
Soldato
It's all about price right now I have no issues with 1080 performance it's an upgrade for me. But I won't be mugged off with stupid pricing.
I understand though a water cooled version will have a premium price and I fine with that.
People just think because you have the fastest GPU on the market this makes the company its very wrong to think if it like that. Nvidia make a lot more money from the 1070 than they do with 1080Ti or Titan that market is a small percentage of nvidia.
Hell the 970 was one of Nvidia beat selling GPU all time hardly top of the line.
So I can see why Amd is targeting the 1080 this is nvidia high end customer satisfaction product everything after that is premium not mainstream.
Realistically we don;t really know what they're targeting and to a certain point they only know when they find out what clocks can be achieved. If it performs better than expected then they go into "high end" spiel, if its lower than expected they do a polaris. Regardless they will always present the final product like "this is how it was intended to be" even if thats obviously not the case, they twist the narrative to suit the final outcome.
Even on launch it wasn't far behind. Vega RX looks to be closer to the 1080.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
Yeah, they didn't even bother with a 490, I don't know if they can get away with that twice unless it's all just stopgap/stepping stones to Navi. They can't keep promising jam tomorrow.
Be interesting to see where Vega holds up for 4K performance as the FX (some issues related to "only" having 4GB aside) holds up well there.
- Status