yeah but its about yields for a big part, if e.g. 20% of the fabric is useable for 64s but 50% is useable for 56s then the 56s are much cheaper to produce.
-
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.
Poll: The Vega Review Thread.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
yeah but its about yields for a big part, if e.g. 20% of the fabric is useable for 64s but 50% is useable for 56s then the 56s are much cheaper to produce.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,295
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,295
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Lmfao.
But at the end of the day, you can't have constantly increasing pricing of tiers.
The 580 is already a massive problem price wise, even at its stable £300 it's crap. You could have gotten a 480 for ~200 with an aftermarket cooler.
But at the end of the day, you can't have constantly increasing pricing of tiers.
The 580 is already a massive problem price wise, even at its stable £300 it's crap. You could have gotten a 480 for ~200 with an aftermarket cooler.
All 1080's perform within a few % of each other, they all boost so similar numbrers regardless of cooling etc.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
nVidia have been doing it for a while and people have been swallowing it, it would be unreasonable imo not to expect AMD to follow. They are a business after all, not our friends.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,295
- Location
- Dormanstown.
While I don't agree with it, Nvidia are at a higher level than AMD at the moment. It's a bit different when second best starts having crap prices too.
At the moment it's still hard to recommend an upgrade for those on 290X's.
And AMD have a whole tier missing essentially too. As the 580 is like 290X performance, so where's Fury/Fury X performance at lower price points?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Yup, it's AMDs way of showing us that they're no longer the 'budget' brand
But yes you're right, the stagnation (within segments) is getting a little silly now. Hell, the 290X is still good for 1440p at Medium settings, esp if you're running Freesync!
Not sure if joking?? If 56 is 400 for 50 quid more You get 1080.... Aib 1080 yhats in stock TODAY!
Maybe, but I think retailers are taking advantage.
Well it must be doing some sort of forward planning considering the demo we saw when AMD was running the cards with 2GB of VRAM, otherwise the difference between the two would be minimal. Also not sure if AMD has implemented software support, but if they got it working on an engine level it would be incredibly easy (in certain situations) to know what is needed in advance.
Not a game, just a 3D render. He doesn't mention but my guess is faster than a CPU (not sure about the 1950x or epyc) which in turn is faster than Nvidia offerings since it wouldn't load
Also you dodged the main point. Sticking large amount of RAM in a GPU is not always the best way.
Topical card though. No VVR support, no async and big questions hanging over the level of Vulcan and DX12 support. For this kind of money I want those bases covered as much as possible.
The cheapest 1080 AIB on ocuk I can see is £500
Was hugely over-hyped by a sizeable section of AMD fans based on early graphs showing a large performance per watt increase from the previous generation. Most of these people expected it to be between 980 and 980 Ti/1070. In the end it only managed to match the 970 with higher power consumption.
I remember some AMD die-hards having meltdowns in the review thread.
In retrospect the card was not bad at all. It was just a case of AMD fans over-hyping their team to oblivion as usual.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
^ Was hilarious that 
Why did you let yourself become hyped?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,264
- Location
- Cornwall
I'll admit I was only thinking of the card from a gaming point of view. I'd imagine this scenario means it's harder to fetch the data before it's needed as it's harder to predict what will be needed (I'd imagine the really immediate stuff will be in the onboard VRAM?)Well it must be doing some sort of forward planning considering the demo we saw when AMD was running the cards with 2GB of VRAM, otherwise the difference between the two would be minimal. Also not sure if AMD has implemented software support, but if they got it working on an engine level it would be incredibly easy (in certain situations) to know what is needed in advance.
Not a game, just a 3D render. He doesn't mention but my guess is faster than a CPU (not sure about the 1950x or epyc) which in turn is faster than Nvidia offerings since it wouldn't load
Also you dodged the main point. Sticking large amount of RAM in a GPU is not always the best way.
From that point of view not sure what good being able to render a 50GB scene is unless it can do it in 1/60th of a second or faster.
I think the other problem with Polaris was it could only compete with the lower tier 1060 card and was simply performance from a few years ago recycled.
However as a standalone card at launch prices there was nothing wrong at all wit Polaris it offered good vfm.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Yup, it'd be even better on a quality process. What the hell is it with AMD making bad and bad partnership? Is it something rotten within the company or something? Or just bad luck.