The AMD Vega overhype begin

obligatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZMOn0X6jw&list=WL&index=6

>>60064925
1080 < Vega 10 < 1080ti

What else can it mean besides vague non answers? He can't tell you until NDA

As long as the GPU gives me at least 100+ fps in games like Witcher 3, GTA V and other demanding games at a 1440p, I'll buy the one who gives me the most FPS per Dollar.

He saying vega had RGB led on it

>>60067077
Even Fury had a tachmeter

So is Vega going to be 8GB of VRAM? Wish they would include at least 10, or 11 like the 1080ti. Not that I need that much today, but it might give the card some more longevity.

>>60067283
Stick more VRAM is a pretty shitty way of going at it, I'd rather engines use VRAM smarter instead of allocating 6GB while only using 3GB

Keepa cost, size and power down

>>60064925
If Vega doesn't have 16GB of HBM2 VRAM, then it's trash.

>>60067431
16gb why

I would be happy if they releases 4gb with cheap price

>>60067431
>novidia now care about VRAM after 3.5GB meme

...my almonds...wew

>>60067498
16gb is probably stupidly much

But 4gb is not enough today, assuming you play games. Lots of games use more than 4gb, 8gb is a minimum.

>>60067509
>3.5 maymay still going on
>after NVIDIA settled it in a class action suit and made sure to never repeat that same mistake again
AMDrones sure love holding onto the past, huh?

>>60067498
4GB isn't enough for even ultra settings on a 1080p monitor. The 1080 Ti has 11GB of memory. If Vega wants to be competitive, it should at the very least top it in terms of memory. That's why 16GB of HBM2 should be the minimum amount of memory it has.

>>60067283
>>60067407
There are rumors that the small Vega will use perhaps only 4GB of VRAM, but I think also 16 GB may be possible (in the big variant).

What's even the point of having 8GB+ in a video card when no games will use it and the card will be obsolete in a year?

>>60067542
>MOAR EVERYTHING
you have to go back >>/v/

>>60067519
4gb is enough, since amd hyping that new cache controller

>>60067569
You mean like how some games even at 1080p try to use 5+GB of ram? Many games are unoptimized garbage whose bloat is only beaten by windows itself. 6GB vram should be a minimum by now. If AMD doesnt have a card with minimum 10GB ram, I'd be disappointed.

>>60067592
The only video game I play is League of Legends and that's only because I've been in the top 100 of players in North America since it was released.

>>60065180
i doubt it will be much faster than a 1070 if we're being honest with ourselves.

>>60064925

>Wait™

>>60067680
I'll take an AMD card with 1070 performance. I'm on a 980ti and while it still performs, their forced Nvidia account required to use shadowplay and other features is fucking bullshit.

File: Vega Final Presentation-19_575px.png (690KB, 955x537px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 955x537px

>>60067283
Apparently AMD is throwing a decent amount of die space at logic for a new "cache controller" that just makes some or all of the HBM just a fuckhuge L3 to the host's DDR and even NVMe.

It's not clear how much software support it will take, but the promise is that it will be relatively easy to support obscene texture and mesh asset sets and only keep render targets and currently used assets on the HBM. They're throwing around a 2x factor difference in recent games between what's allocated on the GPU vs. what's actually used in any given scene.

There scheme will probably actually work, but you better get used to 300 GB game installs with unique art assets for every piece of debris or navel lint.

I would like to see a high memory 4k model and one specifically designed for high refresh gaming with lower memory and perhaps other optimizations. I feel like going for 4k 60fps is so much easier than shooting for 144fps at lower resolutions as you don't have to fight with engines. i had to buy fucking $160 3600 cl16 ram because my most played game needed it to go from ~110 to ~140fps

>>60064925
The rumor mill is so Goddamn worthless

I hope it will be good

>>60067719
ITS FAKE NOOOO WE NEED MORE VRAAAMMMMM

>>60067719
I actually wouldn't be upset if game installs shot up that large but there needs to be a better solution to using flash storage as a cache for spinning rust. A 500gb SSD should be enough to cache a couple of terabytes of HDD storage and have it all be seamless and feel as though it's all "fast" storage. I have a decent raid array in my machine but I would love to drop down to 2 4tb drives in raid0 cached to a 500gb nvme.

>>60067719
it should easy to make it work, only few game using more then 4 gb anyway

if not, what the fuck

>>60067714
So you would rather spend money to sidegrade than install an older version of GFE?

File: Raja.jpg (97KB, 694x454px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 694x454px

>>60064925
>Why he did not say it faster but ''looks really nice''? What did he mean by this?

My bet is that it's gonna be beating the Titan Xp but ONLY in 4k due to having HBM memory.

Which is great because i'm getting my 4k IPS panel next week.

>>60067842
Titan Xp has more memory bandwidth than Vega though.

>>60067827
>side grade

Yes. I had an Intel processor and side graded to a Ryzen setup to get away from Intel. AMD has their relive (I.e. shadowplay clone). Plus then I can get a freesync monitor and take advantage of it.

>>60067842
It wont beat Titan Xp overall, maybe in vulcan and some dx12 that about it

>>60067804
>it should easy to make it work, only few game using more then 4 gb anyway

Rendering the frames in 4k requires fuckton of VRAM and bandwidth.
that's why even 1080ti barely scratches the 4k with it's GDDR5 overclocked till it catches fire and still not cutting it.

Vega will be the first actual 4K gaming gpu.

>>60067889
>Titan Xp has more memory bandwidth than Vega though.
>12GB of GDDR5X memory running at 11.4 Gbps
No, just no.

>>60064925
>That shitty English

Fuck off pajeet

>>60067761
SSD read caches for HDD only tend to work well with small parts of the data frequently accessed and the rest accessed infrequently and at low bandwidth.

Caching things like FS structures, text documents, image thumbnails, or the first few seconds of an audio file makes sense and works well. Caching entire video files is wasteful and does not.

Game data is in a weird spot where it takes a ton of space, doesn't necessarily get read out very linearly within and between scenes or sessions, and it needs to be gulped down as fast as possible for level loads etc.

I think we'd be better off if games just had better holistic compression or perhaps procedural generation/reconstruction of detail that ran at level load time. For example, Google made some proof of concept image compression scheme that downsampled pics by 2x and then used machine learning to reconstruct detail on the 2x upscale, and it has pretty impressive objective and subjective results.

>>60067912
Vega is going to have 2 stacks of HBM2, that's 512GB/s. Titan Xp has 548GB/s.

>>60064925
>http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-performance-gtx-1080-ti-titan-xp/
WC tech.

>>60067894
1080Ti's bandwidth is 480 GB/s vs. Vega's presumed 512 GB/s.

Vega's not exactly gonna be head and shoulders above 1080Ti at 4k unless a shit-ton of games get shader patches that rely heavily on double-rate fp16 and are more limited by shader throughput than memory.

>>60067959
>Vega is going to have 2 stacks of HBM2, that's 512GB/s.
>Vega's presumed 512 GB/s.

That's same exact value as Fury X
And that is assuming it's going to run at same exact 500MHz.
For starters Fury X could reach higher 570 MHz on memory, and dog only knows how fast the Vega's memory will be.
I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be slower.

>>60067077
Ewww that's fucking disgusting

>>60068078
>That's same exact value as Fury X
Yes, Fury X has 4 stacks. They downgraded to 2 stacks of HBM2 this time
>For starters Fury X could reach higher 570 MHz on memory, and dog only knows how fast the Vega's memory will be.
The spec for HBM2 is already published, it's not some arcane mystery. The spec says 256GB/s per stack, Vega has 2 stacks. Maybe they'll OC it, but you can OC Titan Xp as well and it has a lead in any case at stock, according to the spec. There's not going to be any big difference in memory bandwidth between Vega and Titan Xp either way.

>>60065180
lmao you are just prepping yourself to be disappointed

>AMDrones will have Just Waited™ for Vega for longer than the gap between Vega and Volta
>three to six months after Vega comes out, Volta will come out on a 12nm process and with proper async compute

>>60068209
Well considering Vega provides at least 60 solid FPS in Battlefront and Doom it must be way above 1080 performance on the level of Titan Xp.

If it's priced competitively, and it just fucking must be, it's fucking great.

>>60068322
>>three to six months after Vega comes out, Volta will come out on a 12nm process and with proper async compute

Citation needed.
Sounds more like Nvidia is spreading rumors in hopeless panic hoping to discourage people from getting Vega when it comes out.

Soon you'll be the one waiting, lol.

>>60068322
> Volta 12nm

you know that's just a TSMC marketing name for a tweaked variant of their 16nm process, right?

>>60068322
Volta isn't coming before 2018. mid-late 2018 if they are actually waiting for 12nm.

>>60068326
Based on the DOOM demo it's like 10% above a 1080 at best and that's in Vulkan. 1080 does 60FPS in Battlefront too and the leaked AotS benchmark results puts it right at the same level. Literally nothing points to Vega 10 being Titan Xp level.

I hope you're right, might make NVIDIA reduce their high-end pricing a bit, it's been slipping out of control since AMD decided not to compete with them.

>>60068371
Isn't 14nm just 20nm with finfet or something? I was watching a lecture on YouTube about Moore's law from before 14nm launched, and the lecturer said 14nm is just going to be 20nm with finfet and some other "boosters".

>>60068349
If it comes out in early 2018 like originally planned, then the gap between Vega and Volta will still be smaller than the gap between Polaris and Vega in terms of launch times.

>>60068322
which will cost a shitton and age like milk. no thanks, I'll take that value finewine.

>>60068418
>cut down engineering sample on GCN 1.2 drivers
>already faster than 1080
Titan XP is only 30% faster than a 1080. Vega can easily reach that.

>>60068455
Die shrinks make things cheaper. Pascal is 16nm (except the 1050 and 1050ti, which are 14nm). Going down to 12nm would make cards with the same level of performance as Pascal cheaper.

>>60068322
>with proper async compute
lmao

>>60068425
They're all bullshit marketing terms at this point, but 12nm is even more so than usual.

They literally just renamed in November a previously announced lower-leakage 16nm FinFET variant as 12nm. Magically, Volta and a couple other customers' chips will now be "12nm" instead of "14nm" from the competitor...

>>60068474
>Die shrinks make things cheaper.
Unless the yields are 1.7-tier.
>>60068481
Fermi will be back. Someday.

File: aaa.jpg (232KB, 1162x778px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1162x778px

>>60068499
>the fire rises

>>60067894
The GTX 1080 was the first actualy 4K gaming GPU.

>>60068518
>40 fps in Witcher
Hardly

>>60068471
That's pure baseless conjecture at this point, I'll judge it when I see a real benchmark.

>>60068509
>You merely adopted the fire. I was born in it, molded by it.

I'm wondering how much of a range vega will cover in terms of performance... it's semi-confirmed theres going to be 3 vega cards right?

>>60068481
Nvidia has been working on Volta for a long time. They planned for it to come after Maxwell, but decided to put out a die shrunk Maxwell (Pascal) first to give them more time on Volta. I wouldn't judge Volta based on the fact that Pascal doesn't bring much new to the table architecturally.

>>60068530
40fps at max settings is good. You can easily get 60fps by turning a few settings down to medium.

>>60068547
Probably two. But only one, full Vega10-based is confirmed.

File: CIA.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>60068541
>if i pull that fan off, will you die?

>>60068562
>I wouldn't judge Volta based on the fact that Pascal doesn't bring much new to the table architecturally
They can slap hardware scheduling back and give us our lovely housefires. That's what, it?

>>60068547
Two chips (Vega 10, Vega 11), which means probably 4 or 5 cards

>>60068574
It would be extremely hot.

>>60068589
>for you

>>60068588
>Vega11
We know nothing about it though.

>>60068547
There's only a hard confirmation that there will be two Vega chips, the Vega 10 with 2 HBM2 stacks and 4096 ALUs, and a smaller Vega 11 that nobody has any clue about that may or may not even ship at the same time.

Between laser-cut binnings and potential different cooling solutions, there will likely be at least 3 variants of Vega 10 shipped eventually. (Fury X, Fury, and Nano style)

>>60068596
>not 'you're a big card'
Fag.

>>60068623
> :|

>>60068623
For you

File: 1482164916128.jpg (144KB, 618x597px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 618x597px

>>60068581
>Nvidia has a proper hardware scheduler
>LOL HOUSEFIRES!!!

>Nvidia uses software for more power efficiency
>LOL NO ASYNC COMPUTE!!!

>>60068474
>Die shrinks make things cheaper
nYidia isn't a charity. they'll continue to ask a thousand shekels for their flagship consumer cards because there are enough dumb gaymer kids who will spend their parents money on it.
AMD isn't a charity either, but they can't pull this level of jewry simply because that doesn't work with their "good value" public image.

>>60065180
if you believe this youre a fucking retard
"looks really nice" means its a good price to performance ration compared to the 1080 ti and titan Xp. It could be comparable to a 1050 but be cheaper to balance it out.
name the last time amd ever made anything comparable to nvidia in performace, you can't.

>>60068623
>>not 'your a big card'
even bigger faggot

>the performance they have seen is very good when compared to the competition.

This literally says nothing

>>60068611
I'm just wondering if there will be a "low end" vega thats somewhere in the 1070 ballpark of performance, or if it'll start at the 1080's range and go beyond that, which will be pretty insane.

>>60068635
It's up to novideo to properly balance their architecture to implement hardware scheduling without core temps reaching 100 degrees celsius.

>>60068672
Vega11 is supposed to compete with 1070.

>>60068703
>novideo
>>>/r/ayymd

Volta isn't even out yet, how do you know their architecture isn't balanced and that it's a housefire?

>>60068641
>AMD isn't a charity either, but they can't pull this level of jewry simply because that doesn't work with their "good value" public image.
They never did that even when they had superior cards.
>>60068726
Because Titan Xp already eats 250watts without fucking hardware scheduling.

>>60068672
AMD needs something smaller than Vega 10 (500-550 mm^2) they can shove on an enterprise MCM APU, and a half-Vega 10 with 1 HBM stack would fit the bill pretty well and probably come in around 1070 perf levels as well.

>>60068596
>>60068589
>>60068574
>>60068541
>>60068509
You've been samefagging this in threads all day
It's not even remotely funny

>>60068791
t. butthurt nvidiacuck

File: amdesignated.jpg (540KB, 1100x1002px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 1100x1002px

>>60068811

>>60068740
The highest end cards have never been the most power efficient. Nvidia cards are still leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in the efficiency department. And the 1080ti is a different architectures than Volta.

File: 1492573533249.jpg (159KB, 796x805px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 796x805px

>>60068824

File: le amdoofus bait.png (1MB, 2000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1200px

>>60068853

>>60068322
>with proper async compute
They're too terrified to try that again since they aren't capable of making an efficient GPU with hardware scheduling like AMD are

>>60068841
>The highest end cards have never been the most power efficient.
No fucking shit, Sherlock.
>Nvidia cards are still leaps and bounds ahead of AMD in the efficiency department.
Considering each GCN design is FAR denser, nah.

File: 1464643781158.png (2MB, 3508x4961px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3508x4961px

>>60068861

>>60068866
Compare the TDP of AMD and Nvidia cards in the same price/performance class. The 1060 consumes less power than the 580. The 1050ti consumes less power than the 570.

>>60068841
>The highest end cards have never been the most power efficient
Lol no they aren't, they use software scheduling and have lower shader counts in general.

>>60068893
Look at how empty the 1060 PCB is and you'll see why it consumes less power overall.

>>60068893
>Compare the TDP of AMD and Nvidia cards in the same price/performance class. The 1060 consumes less power than the 580. The 1050ti consumes less power than the 570
What fucking part of 'denser design' did you not understand? Anything GCN simply packs more compute per mm^2, hence why they are fucking hotter.

>>60064925
It means that it will have 20% lower performance but cost 35% less. Then Nvidia does a price drop and it'll only cost 20% less.

>>60068899
What I'm saying is true no matter the vendor. Top of the line AMD cards were always less power efficient than their mid range counterparts. Top of the line Nvidia cards were always less power efficient than their mid range counterparts. It's disingenuous to point to the top of the line card as proof that the whole architecture is not power efficient.

>>60068893
>The 1060 consumes less power than the 580. The 1050ti consumes less power than the 570.
lower performance cards consume less power than a higher performance card, gee who would have guessed

>>60068936
>bigger die with costly memory
>costs less
Nah.
>>60068944
Kekler&Co are only efficient due to moving everything's possible to drivers.

>>60067283
They have some ram compression black magic there since Fiji, which had 4gb but did not slow down in games that used closer to 8gb vram.

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9IL0QvNTk1NDg5L29yaWdpbmFsLzIzLU92ZXJ2aWV3LVRvcnR1cmUucG5n[1].jpg (46KB, 727x450px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 727x450px

>>60068893
RX 480 has 5.8 TFLOPs
GTX 1060 has 3.6 TFLOPs

Now compare the power draws and tell me who has the more efficient card.

>>60068955
Nah, true magick starts with Vega. HBCC is some tricky shit.

>>60068911
I don't give a shit about how the PCB looks as a consumer. I care about how well it performs in games, and if it's cool enough to work in my ITX case.

>>60068913
Well then AMD is less efficient and translating compute performance into real world performance. The end performance I experience and the power draw and heat are all I care about, not what the card theoretically has on paper.

>>60068950
The 1060 and the 580 are roughly equal performance though.

>>60068979
>Well then AMD is less efficient and translating compute performance into real world performance.
That was the case before Vega. Also
>le ITX meme

>>60068979
>games
Hi /v/

>>60068969
Also for what it's worth the Fury Nano is the most power efficient GPU on the market especially when undervolted

>>60068954
Why is that an illegitimate approach to improving efficiency? You guys attacked Nvidia when their cards ran hot for having a hardware scheduler, so Nvidia responded by removing it to improve efficiency. Now you criticize them again for doing what you wanted?

>>60068969
Again, I don't care about specs on paper. I care about real world performance.

>>60069006
Good binds and HBM works like charm in tandem.

>>60068954
Nvidia overcharges on cards due to no competition, so yeah.

>>60068970
Vega has tiled rendering, that's what will make it super fast.

>>60069008
>I care about real world performance.
In DX11 maybe, but that's because NVIDIA force the CPU to work more to push out performance.

>>60068986
Some people like compact systems. Get over it.

>>60068989
This thread was never about work station GPUs. It was about GPUs that are marketed exclusively at gamers from the beginning. Maybe try not going into threads you aren't interested in just to complain.n

>>60069008
>You guys attacked Nvidia when their cards ran hot for having a hardware scheduler, so Nvidia responded by removing it to improve efficiency. Now you criticize them again for doing what you wanted?
Because it's a fucking bandaid. They panicked. They went backwards. B A C K W A R D S. Instead of actually improving efficiency.

>>60069008
AMDrones will always bitach at the competition while igonoring amd's faults. They are still trying to spin that zambezi was god for fucks sake and that 220W vishera doesn't exist to them.

>>60069031
Well the end result still works out well for me as a consumer.

>>60069029
Next time try going to a board that was made for discussion of video games and not things you don't understand and clearly do not care for.

>>60069022
>Vega has tiled rendering
Oh, yes? That was the primary reason Maxwell was so 'efficient'.

>>60069037
This thread is about GPUs. Let's not mention presshots or fucking Tejas god forbid it passed tapeout before cancellation.

>people actually think that Vega's performance will be in between that of the 1080 and 1080 Ti
>for cheaper
>when Vega uses god-awfully expensive HBM2 instead of GDDR5X
Vega 11 is going to have performance in between the 1060 and 1070 at most.

AMD doesn't even have a current response to the GTX 1070!

>>60069064
>i have no idea what did they change in GCN so i spout random buzzwords
Okay. Now learn to read. Also read some Maxwell specs.

>>60069044
Multiple fields intersect. Do you go into the watch threads to tell people to fuck off back to /fa/? Graphics cards are technology. We're not discussing video games, we're discussing the hardware that enables them. This site is almost entirely made up of 20 something males, the biggest gaming audience.

>>60069064
>Vega 11 is going to have performance in between the 1060 and 1070 at most.

Then they'll undercut their own products. It will have to be at minimum between 1070 and 1080. But it's more likely to be a binned Vega 10 (lower clocks, less shaders, maybe only 1 hbm stack).

>>60069056
ATi went tits up after the acqusition. AMD survived because of them and in the end turned them into poo in loo mediocre brand. Fuck amd.

>>60069064
A Fury X that isn't ROP-starved with HBM2 could easily compete and beat a 1070, the Fury X already matches it in some titles like DOOM. If they are really lazy enough to just do this with Vega then you may be right.

>We're not discussing video games, we're discussing the hardware that enables them
Since you know nothing about said hardware, why the fuck are you here?

>>60069095
Wait, Tahiti/Hawaii was bad? Wtf my man.

>>60069095
>AMD survived because of them and in the end turned them into poo in loo mediocre brand. Fuck amd.
Except AMD are responsbile for the 4000 and 5000 series, ATi's saving grace.

What's with these gamer kiddies who didn't know what a GPU was before Maxwell came out?

>>60069117
970 is babbys first videocards for like half of this board.

>>60068979
the 480 and 1060 were, the 580 isnt

>>60069077
>>60069098
I'm baiting for (You)s. Thank you! :^3

>>60069086
I meant to say Vega 10. I'm so drowsy because of my meds.

>>60069098
>replying to the wrong person
>le just because with me you don't know anything meme
You're the one claiming AMD is more power efficient when they have a higher TDP for the same real world performance when used for what the cards are exclusively marketed for.

>>60069156
>pure compute is not performance
Just end yourself Ramesh.

File: NEVER.jpg (263KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 800x601px

>>60068322
>proper async compute
>the same thing they said about Pascal after the Maxwell fiasco
I'll believe it when I see it.
Hell, I'm willing to bet Nvidia may never have proper Async because they feel nothing is wrong with their current "implementation" of Async.

>>60069168
buttcoin compute isn't real world performance poojeet

File: Raja-Koduri (1).jpg (71KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x768px

>>60069168
Correct. Nobody buys mid range GPUs for pure compute performance when AMD is less efficient at turning that pure compute power into real world performance. People who care about pure compute aren't buying these cards, they're buying work station cards.

>>60069213
It is, Ramesh. Compute is compute.

File: 332.jpg (43KB, 805x818px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 805x818px

>>60069222
>"Operator, get me trips"
Kek wills it.

>>60069222
That anon is right
being able to mine virtual currency isn't indicative of how well you'll be able to render effects in premiere or play your favorite waifu sim

>>60069295
>compute isn't compute
Okay

>year earlier
>poojeet shtreetshitters shill en masse how 480 will destroy 980ti and reach 1070 after OC
>cards only deliver housefires and are out of stock for months
>now
>poojeet streetshitters shill en masse vega
I see a pattern here.

>>60069303
>Hey these wheels work better in snow
>What the fuck wheels aren't wheels?
kill yourself

>>60068726
Because Nvidia abandoned hardware scheduling to achieve the lower TDP advantage over AMD to begin with.

As soon as Nvidia tries to re-introduce hardware scheduling it'll instantly be back to literal housefire TDP territory again.

>>60069314
>i still have no idead about GCN changes so i'll shitpost
Okay, Rajeet.

>>60069323
>compute performance still isn't compute performance
Smiley face with a karat nose

>>60068893
Yes but the advantage isn't big enough to be more than offset once Nvidia is forced to re-introduce hardware scheduling.

>>60069351
You are seriously a fucking retard aren't you

>>60069314
>believing tards on the internet
That's your own fault

>>60069351
>Quadros designed purely for compute
>Suck shit in games
>cards designed purely for games
>suck shit in compute
do you really not see how big of a moron you're being

>>60069351
>ASICS are better than my CPU because they excel at certain compute tasks
This is how retarded you look.

>>60068824
To be honest, I have never seen an obese Indian man in all my life. Weird.

File: juice.png (7KB, 377x330px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 377x330px

>>60069363
No, just fishing for (You)s off the back of some other anons shitposts

>>60069382
>Quadros designed purely for compute
>Suck shit in games
>cards designed purely for games
>suck shit in compute
Same dies with novideo artificially gimping compute on gaymen cards because, well, reasons.

>>60069396
It's hard to be obese when the food you eat shoots out of your ass at mach 7 every night

>>60069370
>believing
Where did my post imlpy that I believed anything.

>>60069409
>I was only pretending to be retarded
>>60069418
they don't artificially gimp compute of gaming cards you're just making shit up

>>60069428
>listening to tards on the internet
Better?

>>60069351
The compute performance of cards intended for gaming isn't the most important aspect of those cards. People who really need compute performance aren't buying gaming cards. People like you who care about the compute performance of cheap graphics cards so you can run the most cost effective Bitcoin mining machine are irrelevant.

>>60069438
>they don't artificially gimp compute of gaming cards you're just making shit up
They fucking do.

>>60069452
nah sorry detective
literally no proof for any of your claims

>>60069438
I wasn't pretending to be retarded, I was just shitposting

There's a difference. But it's okay if you want to call me names, after all you did waste time replying EVERYTIME like some sort of Ribbitor

>>60069471
>no proof
>same dies are not same dies
Okay, Rajeet.

>>60069485
>He thinks they are the same dies
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>60069419
What's with Indian people excretory system?

>>60064925
>Why he did not say it faster but ''looks really nice''
It's likely that VEGA won't be faster , just competitive at the same price-point or a slightly lower price-point compared to the 1080.

We'll see soon enough, VEGA is not that far away. I base that on the mesa code,
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/commit/?id=18e760346aab10affd6e9ff129f800d90fa28456

It's already possible to do off-screen rendering with VEGA10 on GNU/Linux. For those who are not aware: AMD has a tendency to have working support prior to launches of both GPUs and CPUs so end distributions either have support at launch or support soon after launch.

>>60067283
It's a matter of cost. Just compare the price of the 4GB and 8GB variants of RX 470 and RX 480, going full 16GB would likely push the price higher than AMD would like.

>>60067569
Even GPU accelerated Chrome can fill 4GB. I know it shouldn't leak memory like crazy and that this isn't really an argument, but.. if you turn on the experimental settings for using GPU-acceleration for just about everything (you can essentially run the whole thing off your GPU now) then you'll see wild amounts of memory being occupied.

>>60069441
>your niche case is irrelevant!
Sounds like something a Winblows baby would say.
>caring about the gaming performance of a graphics card
Oh wait, you are.

>>60069497
>Eat poopoo foods
>Don't poo in the loo
that's it
that and the one time a twister went through india and because everyone shits in the street it picked up all the crap and flung curry shit for miles
it rained poop for a day

File: holy fuck.png (4KB, 236x176px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 236x176px

>>60069557
>that and the one time a twister went through india and because everyone shits in the street it picked up all the crap and flung curry shit for miles
>it rained poop for a day
My sides

>>60069517
>caring about the gaming performance of a gaming card
ftfy
Why are you amdrones so retarded?
>what is tesla
>what is quadro
Maybe if ayyymd weren't retarded poojeets and didn't try to enter the enterprise market with gaymen gpus and abysmal software support, nvidia wouldn't be a monopoly there.

>>60069593
>buying gaming cards
>>/v/

>>60069601
then all amdrones should be banned on sight and send to /v/ because amd has no enterprise market

>>60069517
Why would you care about consumer level graphics cards exclusively marketed at gamers that don't even fully support Linux if you hate windows users and gaming? Are you, perhaps, pretending that you don't care about games in order to defend your purchasing decisions?

File: riley.jpg (9KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x200px

>>60069624
>amd has no enterprise market

>>60069064
>AMD doesn't even have a current response to the GTX 1070!

What is an 1070?
Overkill for 1080p
Underwhelming for 1440p let alone 4k.

1070 has no niche.
>580 takes 1080p
>Vega 11 takes 1440p
>Vega 10 takes 4k

That would be the only reasonable way to do it.

>>60069673
>firepoo used in bollywood
>enterprise
pick one

>>60069673
They really don't
go to a movie studio, server room, any sort of creative building really
you won't find a single AMD CPU or GPU

>>60069670
>Caring about games
>>>/v/

>>60069678
>AMD FOR ALL RESOLUTIONS
lmao fuck off shill

>>60069704
>you won't find a single AMD CPU or GPU
>making an appeal to majority use
That's not an argument

>>60069726
that is the market
and AMD is not in it

Hence AMD has no enterprise market
retard

>>60067519
>Lots of games use more than 4gb, 8gb is a minimum.
meaningless statement. it all depends on rendering reslution
4gb is plenty for 1080p. 6 is plenty for 1440p. 8 is good for 4k.

when games come out that will require more vram per resolution standard, those cards also will not be strong enough to perform at those resolutions; i.e a 4gb rx480 won't be able to run 5gb vram requiring 1080p games at 60fps and a 6gb 980ti won't be strong enough to run 7gb vram requiring games at 1440p 60fps

>>60069156
They are more efficient, FPS/Watt is not a measure of power efficiency. Compute/Watt is.

>>60069725
Lol what are you on?
Assuming Vega 10 is aimed at 4k and 580 is aimed at 1080p where the fucki Vega 11 is supposed to go except laptops?

There's no fucking point in replacing Polaris with Vega because Polaris is engineered and designed around CHEAPNESS it's a tiny die that is easy to make.

Vega in the same time is a massive die with expensive HBM. Who the fuck can possibly need it in Polaris segment?

>>60069708
>refusing to admit workstation cards are for compute performance while gaming cards are for gaming
>caring about Bitcoin
>>>/biz/

File: faglord.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>60069739
>still makes an appeal to majority
Next time, specify that you mean market SHARE rather than market options

>vega won't be twice as powerful as my 980ti
>it still will only be 90% capable of 4k gaming like the 1080ti and Xp are
why must I wait another fucking year to play games from 2015 at 4k60fps?

>>60069779
>games
>>>/v/
>
>
/v/

>>60069704
>go to a movie studio, server room, any sort of creative building really
>you won't find a single AMD CPU or GPU

What is Apple?
Surprise surprise they use AMD GPUs EXCLUSIVELY
And there's a lot of prefessional video/photo/engineering and other indispensible software exclusive to Apple.

Hell my university bought the CNC machines and micrometers that work exclusively with iMacs gues what? No Nvidia there.


What is Open CL?

>>60069752
Your argument would hold up if it was marketed as a raw compute card. Look at AMD's marketing. https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-580
>gaming
>gaming
>gaming


Also, the GTX 1070 has 6.5 teraflops and a TDP of 150W. The RX 580 has 6.2 teraflops and a 185W TDP. AMD isn't even the most efficient in teraflops/watt.

>>60069841
>What is Open CL?
Shit. They desperately need to bring it on par with CUDA.

>>60069800
>>>/biz/

File: insta crash.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>60069841
>he fell for the apple meme
I'm so sorry for you rameesh

>>60069869
580 is a smaller die clocked waaaay past the optimal clocks for 14nm LPP.

>>60069897
>he wastes his life away playing vidya memes
>>>/v/

>>60069924
>he wastes his life shitposting on /g/ about getting rich quick by mining bitcoins in your garage full of rx480s

>>60069915
The lower clocked 480 still has a tdp of 150W, which makes it less efficient in terms of teraflops/watt than the 1070.

>>60069890
>Shit. They desperately need to bring it on par with CUDA.
Oh dont worry they will do it, and it will be easy.
Right now they just dont have a high performance GPU to work with.
Fire PRO are based on what exactly? 290? Polaris? That's weak.
But they are about to get one and Vega's cache controller and ability to allocate space on an SSD will be indispensable for deep learning and self driving cars as well as running massive finite element simulations.

>32 core Naples
>Vega based Firepro that can eat SSDs for VRAM

Oh boy is enterprise going to love it? (it will)

>>60070000
It's still a smaller die.

>>60069977
>he ALSO wastes his life shitposting on /g/ but about shitty games he should be posting about on /v/

>>60067894
>Rendering the frames in 4k requires fuckton of VRAM and bandwidth.
Currently playing Overwatch in 4k with a 7970, it takes about 1.3GB VRAM according to the overlay thing

>>60070007
There are no FirePros anymore. Just Radeon Pro.

>>60070023
It heavily varies between games, people are retarded for making blanket statements.

>>60070023
Tell me your performance/settings PLZ.
I have a 380x and wanna know what to expect.

>>60068106
then dont use it :^)

>>60070007
>Oh dont worry they will do it, and it will be easy.
I've been hearing this for years. Nvidia pushed cuda since g80, that's 10 years.

>>60070023
Overwatch is lightweight as fuck. I can play on medium-high settings at 1440p with my gtx 1050 (NOT the ti) at 60fps.

>>60070045
Auto settings, most stuff got set to mid-low. I manually set the Render Scaling to 100% though to get true 4k. Averaging about 35-40FPS which is good enough since I mostly play Arcade and QP.

For the odd comp game I set the render scale to 50% to get 60FPS

>>60069327
>>60069352
>As soon as Nvidia tries to re-introduce hardware scheduling
They won't as long as they can get away with offloading this to the CPU. And guess what, it doesn't really matter.

I know it should, having a hardware scheduler on the graphics card should in theory make games less CPU-demanding. Game engines are optimized for nvidia and ignore specific AMD hardware so the sad truth is that it doesn't matter for the vast majority of games.

>>60070048
OpenCL was hot as fuck when 290 hit the market.
It fallen behind only because 290 is still their most powerful GPU way outclassed by Tesla.

>>60070088
Well shit, doesnt sound like I would like it.
At least 1080 upscales to 4k with exact 2x ratio which means it wont get blurry.

>>60070102
It's still nowhere near as easy to use as CUDA. And a lot of professional software is CUDA-only.

>>60069396
Strange, obesity and diabetes are endemic among indians because their diet uses a shitload of sugar.

Is there a projected release date and estimated price for this? I'm not planning on upgrading my GPU for another 6 months.

File: HNI_0027.jpg (26KB, 502x458px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 502x458px

>>60069314
ahh, where does the time go?

Omg, crossfire vegas will like, totally compete with a 980Ti

Take that Nvidipoors!

>>60070131
>And a lot of professional software is CUDA-only.
And another lot isn't.
Anything from Adobe to start with, or anything remotely compatible with Apple.
Apple doesn't have a strong grip on engineering but there certainly is something.

>>60069441
>compute performance of cheap graphics cards so you can run the most cost effective Bitcoin mining machine are irrelevant.
Nobody has been mining BTC with GPUs since 2013. People do mine other cryptocurrencies with GPUs and that market is totally relevant. It's actually a rather large portion of AMDs sales. Why do you think the RX480's were sold out all the time when they were initially released?

I'll give you some hints in case you still don't or can't get it: When you make ROI on 50 RX480's in 3 months then you're probably going to be buying more.

>>60070155
Computex.

>>60070098
Nvidia will eventually be forced to face the music by DX12 and/or Vulkan. Sooner or later, they are going to have to bring back hardware scheduling, and then they do the will be doing so basically from scratch with all the housefires and growing pains that entails.

Vega being really good would help to bring forward the day of reckoning.

>>60070195
Nah, Navi will bring the day of reckoning. MCMing GPUs sounds so funny.

>>60070195
>>60070208
funny how for years amd destroying nvidia is always in future tense
MADrones are running joke at this point.

File: IMG_1600-e1478026213740.jpg (747KB, 1512x2016px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1512x2016px

>>60069213
>>60069222
>isn't real world performance

bitch, please.

>>60069869
>TDP
We're talking about measured power draw here, not thermal figures.

>>60070279
What was TeraScale2 and Tahiti & Hawaii?

>>60070177
Or maybe, get this, the RX 480 offered the best price/performance in gaming at the time.

>>60070304
No because that isn't reflected in gaming survey statistics.

>>60070285
And AMD still draws more power than equivalent Nvidia cards.

>>60070295
>housefires
Did they destroy nvidia? No
Now fuck off

>>60070336
You can't 'destroy' part of duopoly.

>>60070329
see >>60068969

>>60067714
shadowplay isn't a thing anymore.

>>60070357
>AMDrones are this illiterate
Your own graph shows the 1070 consuming less power than the 480. The 1070 has more pure compute power. Nvidia wins in both teraflops/power consumption, and gaming performance/power consumption.

>>60070329
The most made up issue of the day. Burning to death cards like GTX 480 are a thing of the past.

The difference in power draw will NEVER consume the price difference between the cards during it's life cycle even if you're living on the moon.

>>60070385
>The 1070 has more pure compute power.
With bigger die? No fucking shit.

>>60070385
>software scheduling

>>60070387
But I bet it matters when Ryzen consumes less power than Kaby lake :^)

>>60070401
>shifting the goal posts
AMD is not more power efficient than Nvidia. Just admit it cuck.

>>60070401
>bigger die
>uses less power
>performs better
really makes you think

>>60070428
It is.

>>60070410
>Kaby lake
because it's literally the last product on the market that actually can fry itself to death rather than being limited by the maximal safe voltage.

>>60068969
more impressively the 1070 manages 6.5 tflops at a lighter draw than the 480. why would you ever buy the 480.

>>60070434
Ye, density is a thing.

>>60069673
Sadly its close to zero

>>60069147
the 580 is a 480 with a different cooler and a factory overclock, don't kid yourself.

>>60069215
nobody buys mid range amd cards period. the market numbers will show that.

>>60070467
>the 580 is a 480 with a different cooler and a factory overclock, don't kid yourself.
Good luck overclockin a 480 to 1550Hz

>>60070279
First of all, I wasn't actually making a pro AMD argument. I was merely pointing out that Nvidia's cards have a lower TDP because they got rid of hardware scheduling, and that eventually Nvidia will have to re-add it and they will be more than lose their TDP advantage at that point.

Secondly, I know this might be too nuanced an argument for you to understand, but I only care about Vega being good in as much as it may help force Nvidia away from the dead end strategy of DX11 and software scheduling which unduly rely on serial CPU performance.

If Nvidia finally bites the bullet and moves to a hardware scheduled, DX12/Vulkan approach that is better able to take advantage of CPU multicore performance it would help to align the interests of productivity and gaming consumers in an environment where future single core performance gains are becoming increasingly physics limited.

File: Red Alert.png (531KB, 1016x800px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1016x800px

>>60064925
He meant it'll be like Ryzen. 90% of the performance for 50% of the price. Actually Ryzen whoops Intel in multithreaded workloads but you get the picture.

Currently got an RX 480 giving me plenty of FPS at 1440p but very much looking forward to Vega.

>>60070428
BECAUSE NVIDIA DOESNT HAVE HARDWARE SCHEDULING MORON. You are comparing apples to oranges.

>>60070532
Is hw sheduler the new async meme fed by amd marketing slides?

>>60070550
(You)

>>60070550
Hw scheduler is why Fermi was Fermi you newfag

>>60070492
good luck doing that with 580 as well

i just want a 350$ vega model
i dont care for titan xp performance i can't afford such a card.

>>60070567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBjx1QYAt1Q

>>60070584
Double that.
It's a massive die and fucking HBM2

>>60070584
>350$
>big die
>HBM2
wew

File: assad.png (90KB, 238x276px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 238x276px

>>60070594
>nitro plus limited edition binned chip

>>60070584
>$350
>for a Fury X successor
who are you kidding, go buy a 1070

>>60070637
1070 has $200 gsync tax

>>60070532
And even without hardware scheduling, the 1070 consumes less power than the 480 and has more compute power.

>>60070645
then try to find stock of a fury nano/x

>>60067607
You mean like the ones that allocate the space and use it only for caching while actively using only a tiny fraction of that? Do tell us about those, retard.

>>60070594
>1530MHz
>not stable

>maxed out at 1500mhz stable

Your own video just disproved your narrative AMDrone.

Go enjoy your 1080Ti power draw card that can't beat a 1060.

>>60070518
And would also incentivize Intel away from MOAR GIGAHURTZ, MOAR TDP, MIE BIBELINES, MOAR SINGLE COAR! Which is a dead end strategy at this point.

>>60070655
That's BECAUSE it lacks hardware scheduling it consumes less power you brainlet.

>>60070610
>>60070613
There are at last 3 models of vega and there will be more. But what ever if im not getting what i want i will simply buy gtx 1070 and amd will lose next customer. From all the gpus i had so far i bought nvidia only once back in 6000 series and soon it seems i will buy my second gforce.

>>60070655
>And even without hardware scheduling
>And even without
that's not how it works, that is the reason why Kepler V2 Refresh Nodeshink Edition is 'efficient'

>>60070629
So what?
A 480 would never hit that no matter how binned it was.

>>60070677
So are you finally admitting AMD cards consume more power for a given amount of compute performance than an Nvidia cards of equivalent compute performance does?

>>60070645
I don't give a shit about memesync.

>>60070684
>There are at last 3 models of vega
500$ 600$ and 700$ is THE BEST possible scenario

why can't AMD just give me an $800 card that is 40% faster than the latest xp

>>60070688
I don't care about how this shit works on paper. If I only care about power consumption and compute performance, I would go with Nvidia. If I only cared about gaming performance and power consumption, I would go with Nvidia. AMD only starts to look good when you factor in price, which is not what this argument is about. The end experience for me as a consumer is better with my Nvidia card. If you have different priorities and go with AMD, that's great. But you come across like you're trying to delude yourself into believing AMD cards are more power efficient in more than just on paper specs in order to justify your purchasing decision.

>>60070702
>thinking adaptive sync is a meme
call yourself an actual gaymer?

>>60070195
The way you type is really giving away your neckbeard. You amd fanboys are sad.

>>60070710
so good by amd and welcome nvidia.
Leaving mine stream gpu market with glowing gap is retarded movie it would be better for them to have gpu in this price range than to have
>next performance king
for 800-1000$ that will get owerthrown by nvidia in 3-4 months any way because thats haw it always was and will be.

>>60070742
>I don't care about how this shit works on paper
Then go back to /v/ already

>>60070719
Not worth the investment and it will cost way more than you are ready to pay.

They sould simply make a massive fucking die and slap 16gb of hbm on that but nobody's gonna buy it at the price it would cost.

From marketing point of view Polaris was the best thing they ever did.

>>60070770
if i'm willing to buy a pro duo at retail i think i'd be alright with such a card

>>60070761
>/g/ is for technology that has no real world application
Just like it's posters I guess.

File: Goku.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

HYPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>60070782
/g/ is for technology not video games

let me guess you base cpu performance on video game benchmarks too

>>60070779
>if i'm willing to buy a pro duo
oh you're a retard ok

>>60070719
No one will buy it. No one buys AMD anyways. Mindshare works incredible in NVIDIA's favor.

>>60070526
>480
>1440p

EL

OH

EL

>>60070752
See:
>>60070518
>>60070676

>>60070779
>if i'm willing to buy a pro duo at retail
Are you for real?
Well it looks like AMD really loves dual cards expect a Vega Duo.

They probably make them and hand them over to gamedevs to convince them to optimize crossfire in their games.

Actually I have no idea why the fuck do they even exist considering you can just stick two polaris cards is.

>>60070841
a 480 can easily do 1440p at 1400mhz

File: face palm .png (92KB, 200x194px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 200x194px

>>60070841
dunno where all the retards saying 480/580 is 1440p card crawled out from but they are obnoxious and retarded as fuck.

Suddenly medium settings is all you need, suddenly 40fps are ok, suddenly "minor" stutter is ok ,suddenly screen terring is not a problem

FFS people just buy ps4 and a laptop

>>60070865
its
>pro
card not for games

its for people who need 24gb of ram on their polaris crossfire gpus

>>60070841
I don't play many AAA games because they are generally shite, so it works fine. Currently playing Overwatch (80-120 FPS @ very high) and Borderlands 2 (50-140 FPS @ max, not a well optimised game). Running at 1300/2100 MHz and it hovers in mid-60s with fans @ 50% (near-silent).

>>60070885
If I was to play The Witcher 3 then yeah I'd probably need medium settings to get 60+ FPS, but I'm not playing it. I bought an RX 480 cos I got a great deal and I got bored waiting for Vega. Maybe I'll switch it out if Vega ends up being great but right now it suits my needs well.

>>60067842
>My bet is that it's gonna be beating the Titan Xp but ONLY in 4k due to having HBM memory.

This is what I figure.
Above the Titan Xp @ 4K in most DX12/Vulkan games.
But often below the 1080Ti in 1080p and DX11.
And the cut down Vega around 1080 performance, bit higher especially at 4K, at $400-$450.

>>60070885
>ps4 and a laptop
But neither of those gives you 60 FPS @ 1440p on custom settings with Ultra everything except shadows and AA

>>60070929
Neither does amd crap. Learn to read.

>>60071009
It does though.

>>60064925
Well, I think it's safe to say that this confirms it™

>>60070795
/g/ isn't for buttcoins either.

File: lau 3.jpg (168KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1024x576px

>>60070929
> 60 FPS @ 1440p on custom settings with Ultra everything except shadows and AA
in cs go

>>60069775
Vega 10 isn't aimed at 4K you fucking inbred imbecile of an Indian mongoloid, it's aimed at 1440p 60 FPS.

Vega 11 is aimed at 1080p 144+ FPS, and the 580 is aimed at 1080p 60 FPS.

NVIDIA literally has no competition in the 4K realm.

Just wait™

File: 1480179129905.png (135KB, 438x444px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 438x444px

>>60070023
>doesn't have all settings on ultra
>doesn't get 60+ FPS
>we're supposed to be impressed by his old shitter card being able to run a game with shit quality and framerates

>>60071518
This
Just wait™

>>60071446
>4k shader design with HBM2 is not aimed at 4k
Lmao.

>>60071446
>Vega 10 isn't aimed at 4K you fucking inbred imbecile of an Indian mongoloid, it's aimed at 1440p 60 FPS.
lol? No it's not. All their demos so far have had it running 4K Vsync'd down to 60fps, showing it never dropping below 60fps.
It'll be getting 120+ in 1440p for those games.
Vega has been exclusively marketed as a 4K card so far.

And Vega 11 has no evidence of existing. Not even an engineering sample. It'll likely be the RX600 series next year and not a 1070 competitor this year.

>>60071446
The RX580 8GB does 1440p 60fps in almost every game at vh/maxed, you retard.
How dumb do you have to be to think that Vega is just going to be RX580 level of performance?

>>60071550
>>60071549
What is your excuse going to be when vega ultimately underperforms with 4K?
Gonna claim "I-It was never aimed at 4K nobody said that".
Same shit happened with Ryzen, it was advertised as a gaming cpu and when it underperformed everyone said "I-It's not a gaming CPU nobody ever said that"

>>60071560
Nope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX_uR4gCQes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vueti5RHNQ

>>60071567
Man that's some low quality bait.

File: 1488602881080.png (496KB, 945x469px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 945x469px

>>60071595
Not even bait, it's exactly what happened

>>60071602
Low quality bait.

File: sieghail.webm (1MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x480px

>>60068969
>5.8
How can Radeon have much lower performance with such high TFLOP value?
This makes no sense.

>>60071610
>being so new you can't even come up with a slight retort and instead fake news it out

>>60071623
GCN has severe shader underutilization. Vega is about to fix that.

>>60071640
Vega is about to fix that?
source?

>>60071658
>Vega is about to fix that?
>source?
>spoonfeed me pls i cant google January Vega teaser

>>60071567
>What is your excuse going to be when vega ultimately underperforms with 4K?
It was already demoed to do 4K 60fps minimum in Doom and SWBF both on max settings. It already delivered.

By comparison, the GTX 1080 dips to 43 FPS in SWBF 4k. http://www.techspot.com/review/1174-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/page4.html

The 1080Ti is what.. 25-35% better than the 1080? Vega is at least 40% better in that game if it's the same benchmark.
It could be a less strenuous demo they did, as it wasn't side-by-side like the Doom demo, but it's very clearly going to beat the 1080 at least in DX12 and Vulkan.
You'll cry "muh AMD benchmarks" but they're always been accurate numbers for what is tested and not just made up, even if they pick some favorable map or something.

>>60071663
>teasers
not a source
>>60071671
source for the demo?

>>60071702
>not a source
>slides with explanation what did RTG do to GCN are not a source
I smell ribbit.

>>60071713
>Self lubrication to please investors is a source

>>60071722
>source is not source
O-okay.

File: Screenshot_6.png (172KB, 3838x1869px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 3838x1869px

>>60071722
>>60071730
>>60071702
>>60071713
Don't worry I found it

>>60071752
Now that's some quality shitposting.

>>60071752
i hate you but i laughed so you deserve this (You)

File: Screenshot_7.png (195KB, 3833x1828px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 3833x1828px

>>60071762
>>60071775
Why wasn't this shit made public?
The evidence here is solid

>>60071663
>teasers
People thought the RX 480 was going to out perform a GTX 980 based on the teasers.

>>60071834
But both 1060 and 480 are in vanilla 980 range.

>>60071857
The 1060 actually has 980 Ti performance...

>>60072036
1070.

Only thing I care about is its benchmarks on ryzen since nvidia cards still have issues with it

>>60071702
>hur dur I doubt anything anyone says while I'm a moron that can't even good "vega swbf 4k"

https://youtu.be/fkvj-uij42M?t=16s

This was back from December. That's far better performance than a 1080 right there on immature drivers.

>>60072263
But what are the settings? I highly doubt everything is on ultra.

>currytech
How did this shit get so many replies?

[spoiler]s[/spoiler]

>>60072319
it is
>I highly doubt
nvidiots everyone

>>60071834
it did though

>>60071446
>Vega 10 (is) aimed at 1440p 60 FPS.
>Vega 11 is aimed at 1080p 144+ FPS
these are the same performance metrics in case you didn't know lmao

>>60069126
>tfw a 1080ti will be your first babby videocard at the age of 20

What a time it is to be alive.