Let's be honest now, will Vega be able to actually compete

When is the last time amd composted when it came to the highest speeds. There goal has always been price/performance.

>>59331534
The last benchmark they ran for VEGA, it wasn't even running its own drivers. It was running hacked up Fury drivers.
Wait for Vega to at least get some proper benchmarks out first, because if it even comes close to the same performance of the 1080Ti, it might turn out to be a much better buy in terms of the price.
If its within 5% performance but costs £/$100 less, I'd much rather get the Vega over Pascal myself.

>>59331551
2012 and arguably 2013

>>59331534
Vega 10 is a 4096 shader design running above 1500mhz, with a brand new shader architecture and a completely redesigned scheduling system that relies on finely distributed control units to avoid scaling problems beyond 3000~ shaders like GCN had.

>>59331534
amd is fucking finished

>>59331616
>Implying they didn't re-release the Titan X(p) because they were scared of Vega

>>59331616
>>59331618
Please go away. Let's keep this civil.

>>59331618
Titan X P was just to get retarded children to buy defective Quadro P6000s

1080 Ti is the pre-response

>>59331534
they not going to sell it for 400, they called it vega=>500-600

so they either have to give giant performance or hang themselves

honestly worried, you either go 1080ti now which becomes deprecated in 1.5 years or overpay for constant but not highest of high end performance

can anyone compare Tflops numbers between titan and instinct slides?

>>59331605
So it's gonna take devs years to optimize for it

>>59331639
I am keeping it civil, its a perfectly rational response. AMD are set to release something that, with hacked drivers, beats out the 1080. Nvidia wants to be performance king, so what are they to do? Re-release their strongest consumer card and drop the price.

>>59331656
Exactly what I thought. This also seems to be the case for Ryzen in a lot of games.

>>59331534
I'm a big fan of AMD products, (I have an entirely AMD PC with two RX 480s) but I just don't see it. AMD have a history of providing honest but cherrypicked benchmarks that display their products in the best light they can and if that's true here... That Doom benchmark just isn't enough, a minor improvement over the GTX 1080 a full year later, with a giant GPU die packed full of presumably expensive HBM2 memory? I don't see how it can compete on price and I don't see how it can compete on performance.

I hope they provide, I don't know, super charged Polaris or Vega with the stupid memory chopped off or something that will compete in the gaming high end and not just go for the datacenter, but looking at what they've shown us I'm not hopeful.

>>59331618
Nvidia always release titan and ti cards. AMD is a fucking joke at this point. Nobody will bother with expensive vega because of HBM2 when you can get 1080 for cheap or wait for volta.

>>59331668
It's AMD support will always be spotty.

Look what happened to vulkan and mantle

>>59331680
>Nobody will bother
If its a worthwhile upgrade from my Fury X, I might, thought it has to be a very worthy upgrade because I'd also have to get a custom waterblock for it too.

>>59331684
AMD fag here I have a 390x and I love it to death but if they can't match or exceed the 1080 or 1080ti for a cheaper price I'm making the switch

>>59331534
we dont know how vega will compete because it has nothing to do with the previous gcn uarchs

before we could estimate a perf based on past exp

but now we simply cant.. and the fact that raja told us that the base clock will be 1500mhz says a lot

>>59331645
Instinct had 25 TFlop FP16, what games actually use, FP32, would be 12.5 TFlop, this works out to 1536~mhz at 4096 shaders. No idea if a consumer card would clock higher, but typically AMD workstation cards are 10% lower clocks than consumer counterparts.

1080 Ti has 10.6 baseclock and 11339 at average boostclock. Typically Nvidia is more efficient per teraflop but the variable width SIMD units on NCU might make a difference.

>>59331534
> Didn't the benchmarks show that Vega basically beat 1080 by a low margin?
Vega isn't out yet, it's pointless to compare and hype it. When it's out, it's out.

>>59331699
I have a 390 as well. I'm contemplating getting a 1080 now or waiting until April for the aftermarket 1080tis. Also whether I should wait for a new 1440p 144hz ips monitor or getting the Acer xb1. Thoughts?

Might get a 2nd gen ryzen CPU and 1180 next year I'm sick of waiting for GPUs from AMD that don't deliver going on 3 years now.

>>59331703
they got really good with GCN drivers recent couple years, still probably will fuck something up yet again
ie 480 -solid hardware, rushed release
ryzen - very solid hardware, fucked up marketing

It's unlikely that anything Vega will beat the 1080Ti, that card is a fucking monster.
However, there may be some kind of 1080 equivalent card at a hundred dollars or so cheaper than the 1080. That's what I'm hoping for.

But knowing AMD, we'll be seeing a 1070 equivalent at 1070 prices.

>>59331656
Nah all that shit I said is driver and microcode side. The memes that devs will have to optimize for are primitive shaders (can be done driver side as well) and the HBM cache, which basically treats the HBM as a giant L4 cache, which works because it's low latency.

>>59331668
Ryzen's primary issues aren't exactly with games themselves, but with bad launch BIOS and Windows 10 being an eldritch horror of barely functioning code. Windows actually thinks the god damn thing has something like 128mb of L3 and keeps allocating across CCX's which increases cache latency by a third or so. Games are very cache sensitive. The core parking and SMT scheduling issues are secondary to that.

>>59331680
The first Titan is only 4 years old.

>>59331740
what is worse 3 year titan gets beaten by modern 200 cards

>>59331727
>fucked up marketing
This is bullshit. They consistently benchmarked it against an eight core workstation chip in professional workloads, then briefly mentioned "It's also good at games" and everyone went "YOU TOLD ME THIS WAS A GAMING CHIP!".

>>59331731
GP102 is actually not that large, 471mm2. Now GM200 on the other hand was 601mm2.

In a year or two, probably Volta, there'll be another 600mm2 range monster.

>>59331722
Well considering the 390 and 390x lick the 1060 6gb oc and 1070 stock respectively it's much of a muchness and you need a very fast 8 core or better i7 or Zen to get the most out of a 1080ti at 1440p or below

Get a 1080 oc
>>59331733

Some games will never run right on AMD hardware though drivers aside I'm just sick of fucking waiting for AMD GPUs that never Come.

If they fuck up the pricing and marketing which they did with Zen with Vega I'll just get a ryzen 1800 and a 2nd gen am4 Mobo and shove a 1180 in there next year

>>59331745
Original Titan would actually be around the 280X, which is a rebranded 7970 that was originally weaker than the 680.

Kepler architecture aged like soggy milk.

File: Capture.png (294KB, 924x1352px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 924x1352px

>>59331534
It doesn't really matter because AMD can't even compete with their low priced cards.

>>59331749
It could've been handled better. Youtube is plainly evil, they should've not send them samples at all - want views buy them.

>>59331751
600mm2 at 10nm

don't know if that would work

>>59331763
Lol ironically the 970 is one of the worst cards Nvidia made yet it's the most popular.

Did the same thing with the ti with shit memory bandwidth and 11gb wew

>>59331778
Isn't there 7nm?

File: b3d-pixel-fill.gif (5KB, 518x211px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 518x211px

It depends how much AMD have improved GCN's performance per clock in Vega compared to Polaris. What we think we know about Vega so far is:
>It will run at 1500Mhz~ with 4096 shaders
Assuming that:
>Performance increases from clock speed scales linearly
>It has the same number or ROPs or the same ROP throughput as Fiji (Fury X)
If these things are true, and performance per clock is exactly the same, Vega will be 50% faster than Fiji, which will put it's performance a bit higher than the 1080, but slower than the Titan X Pascal. This can be considered the worse case scenario for performance. (It also lines up with the performance in nu-Doom AMD showed off, but we don't know if that engineering sample was running at full clock speeds.)

However, there are a few things to consider:
>Fiji had a 1:1 CU to ROP ratio, (64 CU, 64 ROP). This isn't optimal, and caused the Fury X to be ROP bottlenecked. This is demonstrated quite well by the image. If Vega has more ROPs or a higher ROP throughput, then that could also increase performance.
>Polaris had some minor performance per clock gains vs older GPUs, these need to be taken into account
>Fiji's memory controller couldn't effectively use all 512GB/s of memory bandwidth HBM provided, Fiji was actually memory bottlenecked in a lot of situations. Vega should resolve this
>Vega has a lot of minor a Nd architectual changes which we don't know the full performance impact of. One of the biggest is implementing hybrid tile based rasterization, similar to what nVidia uses on Maxwell and Pascal. Tile based rendering is a lot more efficient
All of these improvements could potentially add up and allow Vega to be as fast or even faster than the 1080ti... Or they might not

>TL:DR: We haven't got a fucking clue

>>59331778
TSMC 12nm, like some faggots meme that Volta will be on, is just an optimized TSMC 16nm process that they're renaming because Samsung/GloFlo named theirs 14nm which is smaller than 16nm.

In reality both have a 20nm backend so it doesn't fucking matter.

Samsung 10nm has a 14nm backend btw.

>>59331761
pricing is fantastic for zen, what are you on about?

>>59331761
>CPU bottlenecking 1080ti
Yes after looking at benchmarks, I was fearful of that.
>Using a stock clock i7 4790k and a 1080 oc'd
How would that fair with 1440p 144hx gaming at very high, ultra? Any aftermarket card in mind?

>>59331790
desu tile based rendering isn't as big a deal as the scheduler changes.

Of course this is all cocktease for Navi. If Nvidia fucks up with Volta and doesn't do MCM then welp.

>>59331781
It was insane price/performance at the time. I had an AMD card die on me around that time and I hunted high and low for a competitive option on both sides of the fence, there simply wasn't anything.

>>59331656
FINE WINE

but seriously though I don't mind by hardware aging well. I don't buy a new graphics card every other year, only when an upgrade is actually needed.

>>59331815
290 was cheaper and faster

Unless you're a dirty un-american communist.

I get proper OGL drivers with nvidia.
inb4 vulkan
Vulkan is not a replacement of OGL for serious applications, you fucking gaymen faggots.

>>59331683
Vulkan is not an AMD product, it is an open API defined by the Khronos Group, an industry consortium. It just happens to be based off Mantle.

>>59331821
Everyone was saying that at the time, but I couldn't find anywhere that was true. I think maybe people had already been through and bought them all out (many of them were out of stock or in low supply) or it was something to do with my being in Europe.

>>59331813
As someone who has an i7 4790k + Fury X @ 2560x1440~144, it depends on the game, but a 1080/Ti should handle it quite well.

>>59331813
You could struggle to get over 100fps but it would be a GPU bottleneck in most games especially with slow ddr3 RAM
>>59331819
My 390x only struggles in siege but I know it's a RAM and CPU bottleneck and ubisofts shit optimization since it's only spasmodic fps drops and only on that game

>>59331827
Legitimately curious, what are these serious applications of OpenGL that aren't gaming? It's a fucking graphics API.

Bonus question: What's wrong with AMD's OpenGL support? I've developed two OpenGL render engines on AMD hardware, never encountered a problem.

>>59331841
DDR3 vs DDR4 isn't that big a difference in most games.

Fallout 4 is not most games.

>>59331846
He's a Linux hipster

>>59331853
I did it on Linux! I'll take the AMD drivers any day over that garbage NVIDIA calls Linux support.

>>59331851
Ubisoft optimization is non-existent

>>59331853
If he was then he'd be riding AMDs dick right now.

Coreboot confirmed, finally the secnuts can upgrade from Core 2 Quads.

>>59331862
I must admit the rare times I dualbooted lincuckx amd had better drivers desu

>>59331839
What monitor do you have? Acer or Asus?

>>59331872
Acer, XG270HU freesync.

>>59331862
>>59331871
It's because they open sourced it.

Nvidia still keeps everything under chastity cage and fucks the open source guys. For fucks sake they even required all firmware to be signed recently so anything Maxwell and newer only runs at full clocks constantly on the open source drivers.

>>59331883
Any dead pixels? how's the Blb?

>>59331699
390x here, same boat. have a 1600p 60hz and looking to up the refresh rate to 100hz+

>>59331905
No dead pixels, uniform lighting so no blb issues, viewing angles are perfectly fine so long as you aren't retarded and expecting to use it from a non-standard angle.
I've heard the colour calibration needs some work, and I noticed it looked different to my old screen, but its not something I've had issues with as such. Doesn't bother me at all but you'd need to get a calibrator if you were looking to do colour perfect work (but why would you on a TN?).
The ONLY issue I find is with Freesync, because its an older model monitor, the freesync has an issue where if you go below 45fps (I think that's the limit for this monitor?) or it could be 30, it starts to flicker -- and once that starts, you often need to tab out and tab back into your game or whatever to stop it from flickering white.


But yeah, I ordered the monitor way back when and when I first got it, I'd heard some horror stories and was really worried, so I put it through its paces straight away but found no issues. Its now been something like three years I guess and I've not had any issues arise either, so I'm happy.

File: nvidia-geforce-gtx-game-ready-driver-378-78-directx-12-performance.png (62KB, 1414x792px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1414x792px

>7000 series destroyed by 500 and 600 series
>200 and 300 series destroyed by 700 and 900 series
>400 destroyed by 1000 series in everything except DX12.
>NVM lol
>VEGA WILL BEAT NVIDIA YOU WILL SEE!

And that's with objectively comparing inferior AMD hardware. Even AMD releases a solid product (like Ryzen) they still struggle to sell it because of how everything I mentioned above and more ruined their reputation.

>>59331895
what about when linux kernel dude threw hissy fit about drivers not being up to standard or something, it got resolved?

>>59331751
I meant performance-wise.

File: 1482764279433.png (27KB, 679x419px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 679x419px

>>59331946
and here are actual numbers

>>59331946
>7000 destroyed by 600 series
Miracle patch lol, AMD had the performance crown there for roughly a year. Power consumption was near identical as well

>200 series destroyed by 700 series
290Xs were sold out for six months straight. There were scalpers raising the price to $800

>300 series destroyed by 900 series
Fair, AMD bet on 20nm and lost.

>400 series destroyed by 1000 series
Only at the high end. 470 is value king. 1060 3gb is a cuck card, and 1060 6gb is too overpriced to compete with the 480 8gb. Normies gonna normie though.

>>59331946
>7000 series destroyed by 500 and 600 series
Was it? That's news to me.

>200 and 300 series destroyed by 700 and 900 series
EVERYONE was shilling the 200 and 300 series back then, I can't remember the benchmarks but it sure as shit didn't seem like a stomp, people don't usually shill AMD hardware.

>400 destroyed by 1000 series in everything except DX12.
Largely by more expensive cards.

>VEGA WILL BEAT NVIDIA YOU WILL SEE!
Probably not sadly.

File: 1488997990696.jpg (460KB, 979x832px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 979x832px

>>59331985
>Hitmang has 13% improvement
>slide says 23%
>average 16%

>>59331534
VEGA will be at BEST 1070's level.

>>59331946
please tell me how 7000 was destroyed by 500 and 600 series

>hd7970, 230w tdp, 50,7 fps in Crysis
>gtx680, 195w tdp, 51,1 fps in Crysis

gtx580 is not even fucking close to these two, but let's compare it to hd6970
>hd6970, 250w tdp, 37,5 fps in Crysis
>gtx580, 244w tdp, 38,5 fps in Crysis

let's go older
>hd5870, 188w tdp, 33,8 fps in Crysis
>gtx480, 250w tdp, 32,8 fps in Crysis

even older?
>hd4890, 190w tdp, 21 fps in Crysis
>gtx285, 204w tdp, 21,3 fps in Crysis

>>59331534

Real answer is no one knows yet.
But the 1080ti releasing this early with such a price drop leaves me suspicious. It's still not cheap in the slightest mind you, but Vega is still a couple months away at least, and with the leverage they had with the TitanXP pricing, they could have priced the Ti higher and get away with it, but they didn't. Leaves me wondering if Nvidia knows something about Vega we don't.

>>59332069
Judging by amount of shaders and clock speeds Vega will be AT LEAST at 1080's level.

>>59332069
It's already been demoed above that.

>>59332085
and with real benchmarks it will be shit, it's always like that.

>>59332094
...No it isn't. AMD's Polaris and Ryzen benchmarks have been recreated in the real world, they are truthful. AMD cherrypicks aggressively to show their products in the best light they can, but they don't lie.

>>59332094
I'm basing my calculations on real benchmarks of Fury X with the same amount of shaders and 1GHz core clock. Vega will be clocked at 1.5GHz, so it will be at least 50% faster than Fury X ( I'm not taking the Vega and Polaris optimizations into account), and therefore at least at 1080 level.

>>59332011
read the small text, nvidia used the 1080 launch driver as the reference, which is a year old almost

>>59332107
That's why their plebbit mods on a payroll delete anything that can hurt ayyymd reputation?

>>59332165
I don't know what that's supposed to mean or what that has anything to do with benchmark accuracy.

>>59332165
Who gives a flying fucking shit about plebbit

>>59331534
>Vega be able to actually compete against the 1080ti?
No, the titan xp is not even the full gp102. (Quadro p6000 is faster)

File: 1487463821177.png (2MB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x900px

>>59331534
>Let's be honest now, will Vega be able to actually compete against the 1080ti?
No. Vega will compete against Volta which isn't even coming out for a year.
Vega is not made to compete with the plebeian 1080Ti.

>>59331551
It took Nvidia 3 years to only somewhat catch up with GCN.

This is the first time AMD has actually been behind Nvidia in a long time, and it's only because they've put all their focus into not delaying Vega instead of trying to compete with Nvidia on 7 year old architectures.

>>59331749
It will become a good gaming chip.
Many games are maxing out a 7700k at under 144fps. The only way to get 144fps for many games will rely on them optimizing for 6 and 8 core CPUs instead.

>>59333189
Holy shit

>>>/r/amd

File: 1488886295968.png (208KB, 425x430px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 425x430px

>>59333189
>(you)

>>59331771
That GamersNexus dude was literally clickbaiting for DAYS with Ryzen. Free popularity I guess.

>>59333189
>It took Nvidia 3 years to only somewhat catch up with GCN.
this sounds retarded but it's true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGIDMJThto

async is in use for development in consoles since 2009, I think it's the biggest reason why consoles went AMD

>>59333443
yea, but his review now is holy grail of reviews everyone should listen to even though it's been wrong for 5 days

>>59331946
>7000 series destroyed by 500 and 600 series
>> Seriously comparing godlike GCN to Fermi in 500 series
KKKK.
>200 and 300 series destroyed by 700 and 900 series
Nod really, 290X did good against 780 and 970.
> >400 destroyed by 1000 series in legacy API
Who cares.

Anyway, there's one major problem with Nvidia: those cards die after a warranty period. AMD cards can die, but they do it after a month or so, you can RMA them. With Nvidias it looks like a setup.

>>59333581
Who the fuck listens to any youtuber besides fucking Wendell? They are a bunch of incompetent morons, just watch last Tech City episode.

>>59333556
Consoles want AMD because they are cheaper. AMD didn't make alot money with consoles. The profit margins are very low.

>>59332075

The real cash is in machine learning and Radeon instinct solutions are very impressive on paper this far.

Imho Vega didn't surpass the 1080Ti and it's delayed to optimize enterprise VR solutions, I really don't see Vega having the same meteor impact as Ryzen although that would be impressive if it happens. The nature of the market in the GPU industry (gaming being cornered and so diverse) differs so much from pure processing

>>59333640
No, consoles went AMD because only AMD can offer decently powerful complete package of CPU+GPU.

>>59331790
The RX 480 also has a pixel fill rate defecit, yet performs well above the 1060 that has twice its pixel fill rate at higher resolutions.
This is down to the RX 480's superior cache that's improving even more with Vega.

File: 1484078379030.jpg (88KB, 1192x856px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1192x856px

>>59333606
>there's one major problem with Nvidia: those cards die after a warranty period

>>59333654
But the fact is AMD don't make money with the PS4/Xbone, look their financial quarter

>will Vega be able to actually compete against the 1080ti?
Probably no, but literally zero fucks given in my use case. I'll probably end up buying it anyway. While Nvidia locks its shit down tighter than a chastity belt while the king is on crusade, AMD keeps it open. It was so much fun playing around with tweaking and BIOS editing the RX480 that Vega can't come soon enough.

>mfw just passed on buying a brand new GTX1080 for 390€, because got no use for it

>>59333639
>They are a bunch of incompetent morons
>just watch last Tech City episode

isn't it a bit contradicting?

>>59333606
>Anyway, there's one major problem with Nvidia: those cards die after a warranty period
>t. ayyymd

>>59333700
Last Tech Lounge episode had Wendell+3 aussie retards. It was hilarious.

>>59331946
Radeon 7k was one of the best series AMD made, you had to be a fool to choose Geforce. Nvidia was better than Radeon only with their 800, 900 and now 1k series. Stop spreading bullshit.

>>59333640
look nvidia didn't have async at a time in hardware
amd did, console APIs are much more mature and flexible than what PC has it can sue hardware however it likes
but you are right it all boils down to price, amd managed to give the MOST performance out of cheapest offering => AMD superior to NVIDIA

>>59332070
Why are you comparing the Nvidia cards to AMD ones that came out 10-20 months earlier?

The 7970 came out soon after the GTX 480 did, but you compare it to a 680.

>>59333714
oh, tempted.

>>59333736
because it would be unfair to nvidia with their shitty cards ? sure they are the king now, but they had some terrible years

File: q2 2015.png (228KB, 2367x591px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 2367x591px

>>59333753

i hate that i bought a 970 GTX and months later they announce they dont do driver improvements to 900 series. Fucking jews man.

>>59333753
Everyone had terrible years.

imo if vega is a 1080 + 10-20% @ $350 its a much smarter buy since the 1080ti in a year or two wont beable to run AAA games at 4k/60 fps thats where volta comes in...

if you want to game at 4k wait for volta if you need a card now for 1080/1440 high frame rate go with vega, why would you blow $700+ on a card that has a 1 year shelf life

>>59333770
yup 970 broke it, all memes aside it was amazing card for 10 months

>>59333788
>if vega is a 1080 + 10-20% @ $350
nope, it's going to be 600 for top model
they named it rx vega it means it's dead for 80% of the market

I don't have the cash to consider buying the highest end stuff so I'm more concerned about the €200-300 range. I bought a 380X for €230 and I'm very happy with it

What's next for AMD cards in that price range? I don't care if it's a rebrand as long as the performance is decent, otherwise guess I'll go nvidia

File: jpr_q3_2016_amd_vs_nvda_SHIPMENTS_575px.png (17KB, 678x491px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 678x491px

>>59333718
>Radeon 7k was one of the best series AMD made, you had to be a fool to choose Geforce
Most people are fools.

Yep, you had to be a complete pants-on-head retard to buy a 500 or 600 series geforce. (or 400 series for that matter) But most people are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.

Nvidia just has better marketing. You can see it here on /g/ where people still gobble up their shit.

>>59333808
There might be a Vega11 RX590 with GDDR5X.

>>59333808
if it cost $600 then its DOA

>>59333707
Seen it a few days before here, been a victim of such behavior myself a few years ago. The solder balls melted even under an Accelero Xtreme cooler.

>>59333815
RX480 is currently roughly there, so probably RX580.

>>59333822
Why?

>Wait until X is released.
>Compare X and Y.
>Make informed decision.
>???
>Profit

Why is this so hard for /g/
Why do you need to make "product that is released v. product that is released someday" threads and ask for consumer advice.

Fucking consumer threads should be banned T B H.

Gib mod rights moot.

>>59333839
Because that's out of most peoples price range, and it's been entrenched in peoples minds that Nvidia has the top end. If it's $600 Vega and $700 for 1080 Ti you can bet your ass people will buy the Nvidia option even if Vega is faster.

>>59331551
7900 series dominated for like a year and then still matched/surpassed the 680 for another year. the 290x was slower than the 780ti upon release but after a few months caught up. since then though, the fury x has been a failure and the 480 obviously isn't meant to compete.

File: r2ean-caau-d4vluead.png (26KB, 773x371px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 773x371px

>>59331551
>There goal has always been price/performance.

Oops

>>59333819
No it'll be HBM only.

But it does look like there will be 2 different Vega cards at least this year.
Probably one at $350-$450 and one at $500-$650.

>>59333822
>if it's $100 cheaper than a 1080Ti but cheaper and less power hungry it's DOA!!!
>only a moron would pay any more for AMD whose cards always age better

My 7970 non-reference card was like $540. Well worth it. Still better than the 780 that came out years later. Anyone who bought a 580, 680, or 780 around the same time period got a card that became hopelessly obsolete after a few years while my 7970 still runs almost every new game at 1920x1200 @ 60fps.

>>59333867
Fuck off, you imbecile. If you can't figure out why that image doesn't apply to this discussion you shouldn't even be on this board.
Goddamn.

>>59333875
7970 was such a killer card. I hope Vega will be something like it.

I'm just hoping that AMD can get their Linux support on the same level as Nvidia. I don't even care if they are some % weaker at all.

>>59333866
sad but true, i really hope vega is a budget card but with 1080 performance if they ever fix ryzen or the r5 6/12 comes out with better performance in games but at a i5 price tag that would be a pretty sweet budget build

>>59333815
they going to make 1350mghz Polaris on improved process and call it rx580

it is going to be better than 1060 out of box, might be even correct decision on their side to renew it
OCed xfx 480s are fantastic

>>59333866
Some of the non-reference 7970 models were still better than the 780. And they overclocked much better to further surpass it.
It took the 780Ti to finally surpass the 7970 Ghz edition

>>59333898
OC for OC RX480 and 1060 6GB is pretty damn close of each other. Polaris' biggest downfall is memory bandwith. If all they do is increase clocks... Well, it's going to improve performance, but it's still not going to show its full potential.

>>59333792
The 970 was horrible value, actually. It was cheap, that's all it had going for it.
A 970 is only 30% as good as the 1080Ti. That's pretty pathetic for a midrange card that came out 1.5 years ago.

The big deal about the 970 was its low power usage. We were on 300+ watt cards for a long while and reviewers started hitting AMD hard on their power consumption that was lagging behind for a while and Maxwell was the final nail in the coffin.

>>59333921
Polaris cache makes up for its memory bandwidth, actually.

The RX480 does better at 1440p than the 1060 thanks to that.

>>59333898
As much as I hate refreshes... that's a good point.

Very few reviewers went back and updated their reviews that showed, after a few months, driver updates made the RX480 surpass the 1060 and do so at a 20-30% cheaper price.

They should have done this sooner, then, though.

>>59333955
>They should have done this sooner, then, though.
year is usual timing, fabs take time to adjust, there is no point doing it on same process they'd get bashed for it hard

>>59333879
Go ahead and explain why Ryzen's price-performance is so bad, if AMD is supposed to be a budget gaming company.

>>59333983
anon, you may as well use avatar now

>>59331534
BUT VEGA IS THE NEW ZEN THAT JUST OBLITERATED EVERYTHING.

>>59333983
What the fuck did I just read? Budget? Gaming? Company? The fuck.

>>59333887
>7970 was such a killer card. I hope Vega will be something like it.
It will be close to that launch, and potentially become even better over the years.

The architecture of Vega is insane.
It might not do amazing with some older games, as the 7970 was only slight even or better than the 580 on some games, but it will continue to run games years later great as they actually catch up and use its hardware while the 1080Ti falls behind year after year.

Hopefully Prey really does show a hint of how well a game can use the new architecture.

>>59333983
>go ahead and explain how a $500 CPU beats a $1050 CPU means it has bad price/performance
Oh no, it's retarded.

>>59331699
If they somehow managed to make it faster than the 1080ti, why the fuck would they sell it at a lower price? Fucking millennials

>>59333692
>BIOS editing the RX480
Can you fix the Sapphire Fury Nitro OC edition with your voodoo magic so it doesn't crash on bus reinitialisation so GPU passthrough works?

File: 1489028725360.png (65KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 300x240px

>>59331534
waitfags are so funny

>>59334029
>if they somehow managed to make it as faster and faster in some cases than 6900K why the hell would they sell it at lower price? fucking retards

>>59334008
It's actually a $240 Intel CPU that beats a $500 Ryzen CPU

Really makes you think

>>59333997
Vega will probably obliterate everything in machine learning market. Gaymen, probably no.
>>59334069
(you).

File: polaris memory scaling.png (123KB, 2528x452px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 2528x452px

>>59333947
Wouldn't know. All of my testing was on 1080p.
AMD messed up with VRAM timings as well. You can very easily get an increase in performance without, technically, overclocking anything, but just changing a few timings.

pic related

>>59333983
I told you to fuck of you retard. Go ahead, post a chart comparing it to Intels HEDT lineup, you waste of oxygen.

>>59334078
I think it will sell for servers, maybe APUs/low-power applications (Atom could use a kick in the arse), IF they can scale Zen really.

Or they can do good in 4 core market.
If they can.

Because so far we have seen promises, slides and lies. The reality is fucking gruesome as Zen delivered nothing. No performance breakthrough, and no cheap prices.

>>59334091
You seem really upset that Ryzen is a really bad value CPU.

>>59334128
The only thing I'm upset is you retards not seeing that Zen made the whole intel HEDT range pretty much obsolete overnight.

>>59334113
329 burgers chip actively competes with 1100 burger chip. What's wrong with prices? Cheaper 4 and 6-core Zen chips are incoming. Not everyone should buy octacores. And yes Naples will be as destructive to Intel's server market as were the first Opterons.

>>59334128
factor in board and it suddenly becomes equal with 7700K

>>59334029
Because AMD are consumer-friendly.

You have to understand that the 1080Ti costs at most like $150 to make. Vega will be around the same cost to make.

The only reason the 1080Ti costs $700 is to sell more 1070s at $350+, which are only about $50 cheaper to manufacture.

>>59334167
>Vega will be around the same cost to make.
nope, don't forget HBM
I'm all for cheaper high end GPUs, but let's be realistic

>>59334147
They BTFO Intel in a CPU niche that nobody even bought.

Then in gaming they get destroyed, which is where the majority of their fanbase was.

AMD killed themselves with Ryzen.

>>59334148
> Cheaper 4 and 6-core Zen chips are incoming.
Well, that was my point.
IF the 4 cores will be faster AND cheaper than the competing i5 processors, I will buy them. Simple as that.

> Prices
Currently the 1700 costs more than the 7700K.
And performs worse 99% of the time except CineBench... yeah.
If it was like 50% of the price, maybe it would warrant the loss of performance.
But why pay more or the same to have less performance?

Just to sponsor one mega-billionaire company instead of the other? They don't care. It doesn't matter. The console sales mean a lot more than a few shitty chips here or there.

>>59334189
How so? Ryzen 7 is a testbed for Naples and nothing else. They give 0 (zero) shits about consumer market when they can get all the sweet datacenter bucks.

>>59334200
>Currently the 1700 costs more than the 7700K
worst case it is same price per CPU
boards are more expensive on intel side though

What's the next generation of Nvidia cards going to be called? I don't think they'll keep the trend of adding 100 to the previous gen's number
>GTX 1180
Just doesn't sound right

>>59334189
>nobody
Me. I buy them. It's litteraly twice the performance for my use case for the same amount of money I payed for my current CPU two and a half years ago.

You do realize there's a board for gamers, right?

>>59334232
GAY TAY EKS 129129310 TiTiTi

>>59334200
>99% of the time
So, gaymen. Back to /v/ kiddo.

>>59334232
>gee tee ex eleven eighty
Sounds fine to me.

>>59334232
100 GTY Series

>>59334054
>in some cases.
You aren't exactly bright, are you.

>>59334184
11Gb of GDDR5X is not that cheap.

Even still I think you overestimate the cost to make these cards.

>Let's be honest now, will Vega be able to actually compete against the 1080ti?

the only honest is for everyone to admit that AMD kept vega launch much closer to it's chest than anything before. Anyone venturing any guesses is letting empty out of their collective asses, last month I was almost convinced that vega would be coming out together with Ryzen or closely after, now I'm starting to think that june doesn't looks that far fetched, but it could still happen later this month, fuck if I know.

And also there's no data point to substanciate any speculation in terms of performance, the best thing we have thus far are 15 sec demos from press shows mired in uncertainty that could hold reasonable arguments for those trying to hype up the prognosed figures or dish them alike.

>>59334680
There is this.

https://videocardz.com/67242/amd-vega-with-64-compute-units-spotted

>Can we have a proper discussion please?

You know we can't, stop asking.

IT'S HAPPENING

>>59334737

>>59334737

>>59334737

>>59334680
They made it clear months ago that it's not coming with the Ryzen launch and that it's coming "H1 2017".

>>59331534
I really hope so. I recently went from a 290X to 1070 because my old card died and the store had a sale on 1070s and now I would really like to switch back to AMD

>>59334200
>>59334200
>Currently the 1700 costs more than the 7700K.
it costs less; 329,99 vs 348,99.
and the mobos are way cheaper.

>>59334698
nice, but
>we are looking at weeks, rather than months.
7 and and a half weeks is still not "months", but mid april sounds good.

>>59334769
they've made nothing clear. Besides, if they did it got buried in the recesses of my mind bellow several 100+ pagers of threads filled with empty speculation.

>>59334828
>they've made nothing clear
Raja said it. You're just a fucktard that wasn't listening, who thinks anything you didn't personally read or hear never happened.

>>59331680
Anything new on Volta?

Heard everyone is expecting it to drop this year but not much else.

>>59333646

I can see Vega & co. creating a splash in the enterprise market, but in that case I don't get why Nvidia would preemptively target the domestic one instead.
Another theory I have is that maybe we're looking at the wrong indicator, Nvidia's early response to Vega may not be the 1080ti itself, but rather the 1080 price drop (and the 1080ti was just priced this low to avoid being cannibalized by the non-ti). Right now it's improbable Vega can trade punches with the Ti, but the fact is it doesn't need to. Just like Ryzen, all it has to do is target a specific product range at disruptive prices. If they manage that, they get a lot more room to breathe.

>>59335022
Nvidia are secretive cucks.
But it's almost surely not coming out for a year, and by then Navi is coming and Nvidia apparently has no plan.

Anyone expecting Volta to drop this year has no clue.
"Past 2015" was the original roadmap for Volta, but then they added Pascal, K1, and so on.

>>59333646
lmao Vega wasn't delayed. All indications are that it's still on track for a Q2 release as was intended.

>>59335079
Thats what I figured. All I've been seeing is a bunch of speculation.

>>59335079
>lmao Vega wasn't delayed

I think he means the very early reports of Q4 2016 for the enterprise market.

>>59335025
>it's improbable Vega can trade punches with the Ti
I don't see why.
it's a bigger and beefier gpu, with superior memory, higher bandwidth and many other new things. It might not, due to arch limitations or assorted miscelaneous stuffs, but to say that it's improbable is showing your bias.

>>59335127
That shit was just rumor.

Videocardz and currytech are nothing but rumors.

>>59335025
if I say that I WANT it to roflstomp the 1080Ti will you be a good anon and say you WANT it to fail?

my heart bleeds in red as much as yours oozes out that green stuff.

>>59335251
The best thing about HBM is its size

It has potential to clean house in the mobile market, assuming yields improve fast enough and it does not burst into flames.

>>59335251
>>59335270
>if I say that I WANT it to roflstomp the 1080Ti will you be a good anon and say you WANT it to fail?

No, because I want Vega to suceed as much as you do. Difference is I can tell reality from my fantasies, and doesn't seem likely it can outpace the ti based on what we saw so far. But like I said it doesn't need to, offering the same performance for less is all it needs to do.

>>59334079
WOW 2-3 fps.

small vega won't compete with the 1080ti at all. NVIDIA is quickly becoming the only choice for highend graphics, eventually AMD will just be stuck competing for the scraps at the low end with Intel.

>>59335353
>what we saw so far
dontcha mean what (you) saw?

>>59336040

>(you)
>(you)
>(you)
Ah yes, the classic

>He doesn't have the same opinion as me, must be a paid shill

>>59336768
since you decided to be wise to reverse the narrative pointing out to me exactly what I was emphasizing from your speech, chances are you are indeed a shill.

>>59333606
7970 and a 680 are pretty even now.
290 and a 970 are pretty even now.
390x and a 980 are pretty even now.
480/8 and a 1060/6 are pretty even now.

AMD had no real answer for the 700 series, I'll give you that,

>>59336879

Well where's your argument then? You haven't provided me with a single counter yet, I'm starting to believe you are a shill yourself

>>59331534
If the new benchmarks are legit and a 1.2 GHz Vega comes between 1080 and 1080 Ti, the 1.5 GHz release model will completely rape the 1080 Ti.

> after drivers are decent a year later

>>59338011
>1.5 GHz release model will completely rape the 1080 Ti
no

>>59337191
It wasn't the 700 series so much as the 780Ti.

>>59331534
Don't wait for new GPUs unless you want to buy the old cards at a discount.
Generally, AMD beats Nvidia in the long term since Nvidia gimps their old cards.

If you have money to buy a brand new card every year - Nvidia.
If you want performance in a longer time span - AMD.

Now go back to >>>/v/

>>59338168
A 1.5 GHz Vega will have 15% higher raw FLOPS, and NCU will actually be a fundamentally more efficient architecture than Polaris and earlier retreads of GCN.

I don't think NCU is going to change much for games.

What is going to make it far faster than you'd expect for its given TFLOPS and memory bandwidth is the new memory/cache controller, tiled rasterization, and parallel discard shader(though this depends on whether it's done automatically or if developers must optimize for it...).

>>59331534
AMDead

File: 1489183369993.png (339KB, 710x863px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 710x863px

Nvidia always win baby

>>59331946
t. newfag /v/ babby

>>59334189
keep telling yourself that, AMD had a initial batch of 1 million cpus and they are sold out fucking everywhere

amd also outsold most of the intel exterme lineup in less than a week

>>59331534
lets be clear here AMD will re-lease the Polaris Architecture refresh before vega for 2 reasons

1. to get HBM cache bios update and to get customer feedback.

2. Vega is high end only this is the reason for the Polaris Architecture refresh to help extend the line up don't expect price of vega parts to be lower than ~400USD

btw the leak is from Polaris Architecture refresh lol.

>>59331534
>people cry about AMD cherry-picking benchmarks
>Nvidia says 1080 Ti is 35% faster than the 1080
>it is... in ONE game
>no one says anything

I know that the 1080 Ti is the new king, especially is you want a top-of-the-line gaming PC, but I don't understand how some people like >>59331677 can still call AMD out for cherry-picking when everyone does that in every industry ever.

I feel like AMD just gets a lot of shit for being AMD at this point, like how it got crapped on for the 1800x being slower than the 7700k when those same anons ignored that the 7700k was faster than Intel's own $1,100 CPU.

AMD needs to do more than just compete with Nvidia at this point. If they're neck-in-neck, people will choose Nvidia every time.

>>59331534
Probably not, it'll slightly edge out a 1080 for $350. Which would have been great if it were to have been released a few weeks ago, or hell, right now. But RTG is fucking way behind. I really wanted to support AMD this round, but bought a 1080Ti to go with my 1700.... not a chance in hell I'm waiting another couple months for Vega. Also

>since mine is getting old (6950)

Upgrading from my unlocked Sapphire 6950. Let's be honest brother, this cards been old for a long time now. The 69xx was a shit series and aged like spoiled meat in comparison to the GCN cards.

the fact that nvidia is charging 700 for the 1080ti when they could easily squeeze 900 shows how scared they are of vega

>>59335752
10% perf increase without touching the core at all is pretty good, you dummy.

>>59340617
>parallel discard shader
?

>>59342821
>the leak is from Polaris Architecture refresh

You're out of you mind if you think AMD would make a new Polaris beefy enough to outperform the 1080. At absolute best, such a chip would have to be the little Vega.

>>59331534
>will Vega be able to actually compete against the 1080ti?
WE DON'T KNOW

>>59331534
>wonders if Vega will be able to compete with the 1080ti
>he actually thinks lots people are going to spend $800 on an nVidia GPU over $500 on an AMD

File: a9Jm9Vs1YjHW-fVmcDC0mvN4LaMCcaTGgeNzGppywdo.jpg (112KB, 1024x503px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1024x503px

>>59340944

>>59331835
the 290 when it was launched had a 3-6 month lead on nvidia for performance, the issue was passed weak one you couldn't find one for under 900$ due to coin miners.

File: 1700_vs_7700k.png (441KB, 1670x1250px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1670x1250px

>>59333983

>>59334184
how much does hbm cost? because the markup from third parties on ram chips is 10$ a gb, it could be within a range that amd just eats the cost so third parties dont fuck consumers over.

>>59334167
>>59334029
While they are consumer friendly, lets be real. they are cheaper then nvidia because no one buys amd, when amd was better no one bought them, when they were better and cheaper no one bought them, and that is how it will always be.

Once amd goes into mcm with their gpus, they will be able top make full product lineups off one sweet spot die, and will be substantially better then nvidia by a non ignorable amount, and cheaper.

vega, If I am right and I believe I am, are going to be failed to meat power demands pro cards that trickle to consumers, because amd needs market share in consumer areas, they are going to sell it at a VERY low markup, the range for vega will be 350 and 550, and if some of the tech the put in it does what it sounds like it does, the card will have little issue fully saturating itself, making it potentially more powerful then a 1080ti, and if amd fucks it up by even 20% they still come out more powerful then at least the titan.

>>59343061
if amd is 3 times as powerful and nvidia charges a grand for their gpu and amd puts it out for 300, people will still ignore amd and go nvidia.

>>59331534
Not calling it a 490 is a huge mistake.

>>59331700
not really, what it says is the 14nm process got more refined, remember, higher binned 480s get close to if not 1500ghz and really never got the best binning due to enterprise and embedded, but now the process got better, so the minimum binning got better too.

>>59331763
Amd is very competitive, the only issue is no one wants to buy amd cards, the people have spoken, they want a monopoly on gpus and they get what they deserve

"I wish amd would be competitive so my 1080 would cost less"

If amd was competitive, they still wouldn't even consider them an option.

>>59343895

but muh 720p benchmarks

>>59332075
simple, last time amd put a high end gpu out, nvidia price matched them, made the gpu look like crap value, and that was that, even though the fury, fury x and fury nano are fantastic cards.

amd simply baited nvidia long enough nvidia pulled the trigger, and pushed it for 700$,

now, amd can simply go 650 or more likely 550 undercut nvidia, and potentially out perform keep in mind, we are getting scraps left over from enterprise that weren't good enough, they could easily price it closer to at cost price just to gain market share, its why I believe we could see a cut vega for 350-400$ and see full vega as low as 500$, with a 600-700$ higher binned nano version because does nvidia have an answer to the nano? you need the performance you need the performance, and if you want the form factor you have little to no options besides the nano.

File: 16s-ase-adderage.png (61KB, 1306x1646px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1306x1646px

>>59343895
Lol that's literally a rigged benchmark by Joker, he had to completely redo it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWarC_Nygew

Pic related is what reality looks like

>>59344179
AMD is not a fucking charity that you give money to, they are a company who is supposed to serve the customer, not the other way around.

If AMD can't get their shit together, they deserve to die a horrible death.

>>59335025
The main issue with amd and gcn has been saturation of shaders, vega seems to be the answer to that problem. if vega can get the shaders saturated the card is a fucking monster.

>>59331781
That's not even close to true, the 970 is a great card, even with the gimped memory.

>>59344255
nigger, from the 4000-7000 series amd was clearly better than every nvidia card that it went up against, the 200 series was better than the 700 in both price and performance but coin miners fucked the price part for everyone.

by the time the 300's came along, you got 8gb of memory for a modest increase in price, and a higher clocking card that didn't require higher binning, and at this point, it was trading blows with nvidia, and today can play games at max texture sizes due to the increased memory pool.

the 480 is better than most nvidia's lower end offerings, along with the 470 dominating price performance.

But no one bought them.
The people have spoken, they demand a monopoly because they refuse to even look at amd as anything but a means to get nvidias prices lowered.

>>59343581
polaris if clocked up could make you question getting a 1070, if the process matured and allows higher clocks, or if amd is finally selling higher binned polarises to consumers, that's a question we don't know.

>>59343160
the 6000's were a price performance reduction more then power increase, they took performance that cost 500$ and brought it down to 350.

The reason for this was gcn was coming and they wanted something out. they aren't bad cards, and considering how well my 5770 still performs when you reduce settings, shit aged real fuckin good. The only issue was there was no untapped hardware in it that years down the line is getting utilized.

>>59343641
literally every single amd vs nvidia gpu since the 4000 series.

>>59331551
the 4000 series
the 5000 series
the 7000 series
the 200 series

these were all clear win generations for amd, the only reason the 6000 isn't there is because it was a price reduction series, not really a performance gain one.

>>59344247
https://youtu.be/bIbwuLdHbMg?t=22m20s

not trusting Wendel, what are you gay?

>>59344247
how were they rigged, no one ever explained that other then he uses a non asus motherboard so his benchmarks are invalid.

>>59344535
they weren't, techcity guy even apologized for overeacting or whatever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li00SePkRp8

File: 1489085225096.png (1MB, 2484x3052px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2484x3052px

>>59344247
Why is Ryzen better in gaymen then?

>>59332007
at stock 200 and 300 kick nvidia's ass, overclock you need golden silicon to beat out nvidia, little brother has a 290x that will hit around 1400 mhz stable, shit is about as golden as silicon can get, and he regularly beats out oc'ed 980's and in some games 980ti's

This wasn't the norm by any means, but goddamn is that a good gpu he has.

price performance was better with the 200 series, and later with the 300 the future proofing that 8gb of ram gets you was worth the price uptick.

as for vega and nvidia, amd won't beat nvidia till mcm gpus, at that point amd can put shit out that shits on entire nvidia lineups with one die, then develop an improvement and put it out across all skus 6-9 months later, and just keep doing it till nvidia mcms if they even can.

File: uEW7PCL.png (27KB, 533x442px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 533x442px

>>59333983