Soldato
Amen to that. Their best GPU indeed. Shame of the idiocy to have reference blower designs.
-
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
Amen to that. Their best GPU indeed. Shame of the idiocy to have reference blower designs.
Soldato
The prices are silly for gaming unless you plan to use the compute aspect but will point out, surprisingly OCUK are charging £100 more for the water cooled cards than other sites.
Soldato
Actually... you night have a point. Clearly what AMD have done with Ryzen and with Vega is try and bring to market products that are not just good in one thing but more balanced and rounded in many tasks. Ryzen was good in gaming but then was great at productivity too. And much the same with Vega. It's good at gaming but then has the added benefit of great compute performance too.
I just think that this strategy worked great on the CPU side, but hasn't been as well received on the GPU side. Ryzen sold it's self. It was disruptive to the market. It delivered what Intel starved us off. Competitive multi-core CPU's at affordable prices. Whilst Vega hasn't really disrupted the market in anyway which is why it's reception has been a little bit subdued. Prices are too high as well... so you have a product that hasn't disrupted the market, doesn't sell it's self and then you want more than your competition is selling for all the while consuming more power and generating more heat.
It doesn't add up to a great package.
Last edited:
What about if they do a review that compares both to a 1080 and 1080ti so people like you can be kept happy?
To me the king comparison is the pricepoint, the other factors are heat and power usage, but on the other 2 factors AMD are losing badly, so the only win was on pricepoint which is now a loss.
Somehow nvidia are now beating amd on performance per dollar even after having massively increased the prices on pascal vs maxwell, that says a lot. Everything has just fell right for nvidia this generation, I bet they cannot believe how much of a mess AMD have created for themselves. Of course the AMD cards have sold well so from a pure revenue standpoint its not a mess, but we dont know how much of those have gone to miners.
Amd and Nvidia set their cards at certain price points to each other like 1060 and 580 the 56 and 64 go against 1070 and 1080 on performance and price, and either company in the past had dropped the price of certain cards to line up with their competitor but not always.
Nexus had a video where he thinks Amd are not making much money on 56/64 that why they are doing bundles.
He has a good idea how much HBM2 costs I wonder if he tell us how much in a later video and with GDDR5 going up god help us.
Nexus had a video where he thinks Amd are not making much money on 56/64 that why they are doing bundles.
He has a good idea how much HBM2 costs I wonder if he tell us how much in a later video and with GDDR5 going up god help us.
Soldato
This is why the rumours are that Gaming Volta will be GDDR6. HBM2 is still too expensive.
Last edited:
Soldato
I remember when the 980 was released and the performance improvement was seen as disappointing but it was more power efficient. there were a bunch of people (I can only guess where the loyalty of most of them lay) that said they didn't care about efficiency they just wanted the most powerful card.
Now we have an AMD card that doesn't care about power efficiency but also isn't the most powerful card (or at least best performing in games) and people are defending this card.
I can't help but think if this was an Nvidia release and Nvidia released a card that performed around the level of AMD's 3 top card but cost as much as AMD's 2nd top card while being far less power efficient and 16 month late, that a lot of people defending this card would be crucifying it.
That said I suspect a lot of people criticising this card would be defending the Nvidia card...
I wonder if when Intel release the 6c/12t CoffeeLake CPU, if it performs at about Ryzen 1600X levels but costs 1700X price, which CPU will it get compared to? The one it performs like or the one it costs the same as? Or would it be compared to the 1800X because they both the top CPU in their release?
Or can we just arbitrarily choose which Ryzen CPU to compare it to depending on the point we want to make?
Now we have an AMD card that doesn't care about power efficiency but also isn't the most powerful card (or at least best performing in games) and people are defending this card.
I can't help but think if this was an Nvidia release and Nvidia released a card that performed around the level of AMD's 3 top card but cost as much as AMD's 2nd top card while being far less power efficient and 16 month late, that a lot of people defending this card would be crucifying it.
That said I suspect a lot of people criticising this card would be defending the Nvidia card...
I wonder if when Intel release the 6c/12t CoffeeLake CPU, if it performs at about Ryzen 1600X levels but costs 1700X price, which CPU will it get compared to? The one it performs like or the one it costs the same as? Or would it be compared to the 1800X because they both the top CPU in their release?
Or can we just arbitrarily choose which Ryzen CPU to compare it to depending on the point we want to make?
Soldato
Actually, 6c/12t CoffeeLake uses the old good optimised ring topology. Losing to 1600X it would be absurd in non gpu bound games.
Hell it would be stupid if it loses against the 7800X (mesh topology), because it would make the 8700K a pointless chip.
Caporegime
A lot of reviewers are actually very found of Ryzen and Threadripper, Jay and bitwit are actually swapping their X99 work stations not for X299 but Threadripper, other smaller ones who cared to say so are too.
Respect, love even... is very much on AMD's side when it comes to CPU's right now, while Intel are actually getting quite a lot of hate for their X299 shenanigans, i think as far as CoffeeLake goes reviewers are going to give AMD a fair deal, if Coffeelake still has Intel's traditional pricing structure it may not win them over.
AMD's Ryzen 1600 6 core for sub £200 is an impossible act for Intel to follow.
Its ironic, AMD have lost the architecture war with nVidia, but they are kicking Intel's ass.
Last edited:
Associate
agree
Soldato
kicking their ass seems to be going a bit far. core-for-core isn't the 7700K better? So it's just a number of cores thing really, and obviously a price thing, although this thread seems to be suggesting people care less about price as long as performance isn't terrible.
I don't do enough multimedia work to justify Threadripper or one of the big Skylake X chips. 8c/16t is probably as much as I'll really need and even then it's probably overkill.
It's sort of my point though, will people be as nice about an underwhelming Intel CPU as they are about an underwhelming AMD GPU?
Caporegime
Yes granted it is over the top and yes the 7700K is core for core faster, but only by a small amount and when you consider IPC Ryzen is actually way faster.
Average of 30 games, the 6 core Intel chip has exactly the same performance as the Ryzen 1600, yet the Intel chip is clocked 18% higher, so Ryzen has 18% higher IPC, Thats SkyLake-X which we know suffers a little with its Mesh in games.
But the 7700K is clocked at 4.9Ghz, 22% higher than Ryzen while its only 9% faster. judging by the 7800X performance compared to the Ryzen 1600 and the 7700K it doesn't look these games are using more than 4 Hyper Threaded cores, so the IPC on Ryzen is still a solid 10% higher than KabyLake, granted you need to be running 3200Mhz Ram on the Ryzen system to get this level of gaming performance out of it, never the less its ####'ing good.
If it wasn't for the massive clock differences between the 7700K and Ryzen.... Intel would look pretty bad. its that clock rate which saves them.
These were done @ 1080P on a GTX 1080TI.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Everytime Humbug talks about Ryzen, Ryzen gets faster.
Ryzen does absolutely not have better IPC than a 7700K.
Ryzen does absolutely not have better IPC than a 7700K.
Caporegime
I don't want to run this thread completley off topic by getting drawn into your 'the same arguments' with me over and over.... i don't need to. The slide speaks for its self.
Go troll me in by Email or something, it will get redirected as spam. leave the rest of the forum out of it.
I've just seen this. Funny how few have spoken of it here?
Caporegime
You're the one making outrageous claims.
That chart should never be accepted for such a ridiculous blanket statement. This coming from someone who dumped their i7 for a Ryzen!!
EDIT : I don't understand the audacity. Going on about Ryzen then giving it this BS when challenged. Challenged by people who own the CPU's! I imagine it'll be pretty hard telling someone how their CPU performs when they own one and you don't.
Last edited:
Feels like social media trending. Anything to create a new movement.
Caporegime
If so at least it would be a valid one.
Funny though. How most people quickly forget what got them to fame and or wealth.