Retailers are Buying AMD RX Vega 64 at $675 Each

And miners are buying them at $800 each.

When will mining craze just die already?

>>62069753
The city of amd

>>62069753
HBMeme was a mistake

>Have to order from MA Labs a lot...this price can be completely ignored its just a FUD article.. as stated before MA Labs is basically just B2B and prices reflect that...its no different than using Newegg Business or Tigerdirect B2B or anyone else if you have a EIN.
>Sometimes there is a decent enough discount but its otherwise the same or worse than retail channel.

It's another big fat nothingburger.

>>62070131
>leddit quote from redteam

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6vp17k/retailers_are_buying_amd_rx_vega_64_at_675_each/

>>62069753

Oh wow! Business to business transaction for a high volume of two (2!) whole cards. How will AMD ever recover? Retailers must be crying that they get to sell cards for $100-300 above MSRP, they even have to buy marked up cards from each other to satisfy demand.

It's fucking nothing. Another attempt by retailers to cover their asses in the eyes of the public while they roll in the dosh. They blame AMD for their own greed and market conditions. I wouldn't be suprised if Nvidia or Intel had a hand in this.
There is no scandal. All stand alone cards got bought at MSRP, any left have the price jacked up due to demand (because why wouldn't you want more money) and the bundles are just not what some people are looking for.

AMD should have done what Nvidia did. Initial release cards that come with better coolers and a higher price to bump up margins. Limited edition what ever you want to do. Let miners and people buy those cards with much higher margins, then release the regular cards in a month with the aftermarket people.

>>62069753
It's the second time today you've made this thread, pajeet.

Quit advertising your click-b8 website.

>>62071069
>linking from reddit
please leave.

And its sold out.

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

>>62069786
When there are no more bitcoins.

>>62071943
Reminder to report shitposters.

File: Comb23082017023226.jpg (255KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1280x1440px

>>62071943
>vega selling out left and right
>shitting all over the 1080ti in games with AA disabled
>primitive shaders not even turned on in drivers
>this means bankruptcy
Are you mentally and physically retarded

>>62072037
Dirt is an AMD optimized game you retarded fuck, I dont even have a graphics card or do pc gaming and know that.

File: oiK8Bb9.jpg (906KB, 793x877px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 793x877px

>>62072295
No. It. Isn't.

Dirt 4 is just shader compute heavy, no AMD specific optimizations included. Check out all the other benchmarks with games on ultra with AA disabled.

Once primitive shaders are enabled vega will curb stomp nvidia even with 8x msaa

AMD just finished defiling intel's corpse and now it's set its sights on nvidia.

>retards are now so hysterical over vega pricing they're posting business invoices as if it's proof of some grand conspiracy on AMD's part

Holy fuck, get a life already. This is reaching Pizzagate levels of stupidity. I can't wait to see what happens when Vega 56 launches.

>>62072337
My favorite part is when the Beyond 3D Suite shows those exact results for list culled polygons for Fiji and Vega regular path and people still argued it didn't mean prim shaders weren't enabled.

>>62072337
WHAT THE FUCK, vega is going to eat geometry when this is enabled. why did they release this card without this feature enabled, this will change everything. rip gameworks

did you buy that from an your mechanic ?

I never see invoices look like that anywhere else.

>>62072337
And when Vega gains a measly 2% what are you going to do then?

>>62069753
Not too different from Nvidia launching a $349 card for $500.

>>62072766
pro drivers got priority over gaymen ones

>>62072817
We'll have to wait™ and see, maybe like a month though. See pro benchmarks though, 1080ti looks like garbage

>>62072822
The pricing isn't even AMD's fault. Most of the info points nothing at AMD and in fact the only thing we know is that AMD was offering rebates to retailers to sell at MSRP. It's most likely that distributors and retailers are just marking things up on their own to get a taste of that sweet MUH MININGCOINS meme money and AMD is losing money trying to counteract their bullshit.

Distributors, factories, and retailers sell cards by the pallet fulls to miners before it's even listed for normal people to buy. It's pretty fucking clear who's bringing up the price, and scumbags like Gibbo, who just happened to hear a rumor of 100MH/s mining and decided to share it days before launch, are trying to pin the blame on AMD because they don't want to lose the faith of their customers.

That's how the economy works, everyone jews everyone.

>>62069753
Fuck off. Even Kyle fucking Bennett has gone on the record saying Gibbo is a fucking liar and wholesale prices to retailers have NOT changed, and MSRP has NOT changed, and AMD IS restocking stand alone card SKUs.

https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-video-card-review-h.1941804/page-12#post-1043171460

>>62069753
>/r/AMD is still saying it's 100% on the retailers
just wow.

>>62073496
>>62072891
>OP provides proof retailers are getting the short end of the stick
>NUH UH it's dem wetailers mang.

>>62073541
Who gives a fuck anymore? In the end all this means is we have to settle with nvidia 3rt rate garbage because all of tye fucking cards are being swiped by miners and ebay scalping scum before they even hit retail.

God fucking damnit, why didn't everyone just settle for cash transactions? There's like 100 different types of buttcoins now too.

>>62073586
Buttcoin and Co. have nothing to do with retail stock.
Miners buy directly from AIB's.

>>62073541
>Cards a retailer buys from a scalper are evidence of anything.
Kill yourself you knowing and deliberate liar.

>>62069834
Must be a pretty great city where you can sell a card that's objectively worth $3-400 for $675

>>62071903
Yeah better link 4chan.. pajeet /ourguy/ finished bankrupt frogposting certain combinations of zeros and ones icons on his desktop
So great.

File: IMG_0933.png (321KB, 372x539px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 372x539px

Cool. Only miners want that card anyways.

>>62073946
If 4chan is so awful, why are you here? We don't want you. Reddit clearly doesn't want you, or you wouldn't be here. Your parents probably don't want you. Might as well become an hero.

>>62073946
>>>/LGBT/

>>62072337
Geometry isn't typically a heavy load on games. The hi-poly models in a AAA title are probably like 40-80k polys (characters, maybe vehicles, bosses, etc). Environment assets probably range from the low thousands to several hundreds. You could have a dozen high poly models and a hundred environmental models and it'll only be a few million polys (I guess about 3 million triangles) and that's an extreme case for mesh variety in a single scene. With tessellation it does go up, which is why some games that didn't have nearly as many models on screen had as much as 3-5 million tris on screen at a time but even then I don't think it should be a problem looking at the chart. A giga is a billion, it's a massive amount of geometry data and I don't see why even Fiji would choke even at 1000FPS. And geometry data is very light generally. A 10k poly character is going to be like 700KB of data as an .obj. A colorful 1024x1024 .tga will be several megabytes.

If primitive drivers help bring the Vega up to the 1080TI's level I'll be pretty surprised.

>>62074760
>Geometry isn't typically a heavy load on games.
I mean it shouldn't be. Unless you have a case where you have a bunch of different models and you're on DX10 or something and it chokes on drawcalls. I recall Unity choking in pretty simple scenes just from having a bunch of models and lights in the level but that was a long time ago.

File: 1503561450718.jpg (437KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2560x1440px

>>62072037
>dirt 4
Hue hue hue hue

AMD should use Polaris with GDDR5X and moar coars

>>62076146
Wait Navi!

>>62069753
isn't vega supposedly inefficient for mining? why miners still buying it?

File: 7.jpg (13KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x200px

>>62069753
gibbo go back to review some nvidia cards

>>62076991
But that's Steve.

>>62076983
There was a rumour before release that it got SICK hashrates. And so truth is irrelevant.
This time though there's another factor: Scalpers. People are buying them at RRP en masse to sell to miners for a profit.

>>62076996
i know but his face is more funny

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9SLzgvNjkzMDQ0L29yaWdpbmFsLzAzLUNyZW8tU2NvcmUucG5n.png (37KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 711x533px

>>62072766
they are enabled on pro drivers but they arent really doing everything they are suppose to do tho
this shader can do
1)frustrum culling
2)back face culling
3)contribution culling
4)occlusion culling
all together
right now its doing only frustrum and back face but its enough to shit on quadro p6000(note this is rendering 4k on x8 msaa..and those shaders arent using occlusion culling something nvidia is good at it)

>>62077041
It also can calculate shadowmaps and separate vertex data.
It's silly flexible.

>>62073541
a retailer bought vega from another retailer and expected msrp while the cards are out of stock and nowhere to be found

you remember 480 launch?
or 1070 launch?
or 1060 launch?
the retail price came down tot he msrp after 2 to 3 months
but yet no one was shitting on nvidia why? oh yes because nvidia gives them free cards

>>62077051
yeah its flexible as fuck but also its highly fucking complex

i love the amd ideas they always seems to find new fucking ways to fuck the industry but the driver team needs a complete rework
i hope now that they are going to get shit load of money they will be able to find decent programmers..

>>62077063
give us free cards

just like tweaktown shitted on amd about the ssg saying it was stuttering "right before his eyes" (no proofs ofc) and when the RED ceo came publicly out with a demo somehow the article went into a black hole

>>62069786
I hope Peter Schiff is right and all crypto coins plummit to 0

>>62077110
his predictions worth so much as barclays about amd..

he has said so far that bitcoin is going to crash 4 times (since 2015)
and yet bitcoing is rising like a motherfucker LOL no suprising tho since his company will make a lot of money if this happens

>>62077135
>>62077110
Value will probably stay high, but eth is getting a large difficulty increase in a couple of months, and that will probably be the end of GPU mining and we'll go back to regular pricing. Maybe the used market will even get flooded with cheap GPUs, if you're into that.

>>62072337
>benchmarks with games on ultra with AA disabled.
YES THANK YOU
FUKIN FINALY

File: 1496252026564s.jpg (5KB, 250x177px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x177px

>>62069753
Buying 2, you a retailer now

>>62077159
>that will probably be the end of GPU mining
Or you know, GPU demand will double

>>62077108
No, that article was probably the most elaborate way to beg for review sample.

>>62072857
>We'll have to wait™ and see,
by that time nVidya will have announced another release

>>62077167
Most effect should disable by default, Dof, motion blur, lens flare, grain

>>62077187
Volta is Q2 2018 at best.
Volta = piss poor margins, NVIDIA does not want that.

>>62077207
Cut down version should be early, should perform well

>>62069753
>only 2 units

>>62074760
are you sure you are talking about real time rendering? because polygons is what takes up most of bandwidth in games as far as I know
textures aren't taking up bandwidth
bandwidth= ~ops
vega now does 4 polygons per op as fiji
it can do 17
nvidia does about ~10 on titanxp roughly counting, there is not enough tests about that

>>62077187
maxwell 5.0 is even bigger than maxwell 4.0 they even rebranded some cuda cores to tensor cores
like literally instead of saying we just added a single ISA for a.i no they had to spin it as a new tech LOL
nvidia is trying to pull a 3dfx they are about to lose the g sync war with freesync2 with 0.3 ms response time
they are about to lose the shitworks battle since no one cares about their abstraction layer for vulkan
shit is going so south we will hit space mexico

File: tdDOS5t.png (71KB, 1113x928px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1113x928px

>>62077255
3.75 currently

>>62077265
market parity, that would be the day
honestly though, GPU/CPU patents should go public to spawn more companies, maybe only one company will happen in 10 years but that would be enough to kill this duopoly

>>62077174
No. GPU cost relative to mining is a function of how long the ROI is. The ROI depends on difficulty, which is exponential. That means ROI is logarithmic over time, and that means that beyond a certain point, it's no longer possible to make money at a given hash rate. There's a point where you could buy ten million GPUs and never make any money.

>>62077329
meh, new memecoin will happen and more getichschemers will spawn out fo nowhere
before the thing gets taxed to hell

>>62077329
And as so long as there's a positive ROI, people will eat GPUs.

>>62077345
im 100% certain that amd is behind some of those coins

>>62077347
No, you don't understand. The ROI is always positive. The time required to reach ROI rapidly approaches an infinite. That alone is enough to stop GPU miners, but there are also ongoing costs associated mining that I didn't even mention.

>>62077345
I don't think that's going to happen. It was a long time before eth became a popular mining coin and people were pushing lots of coins after the bitcoin bubble. Most of them are irrelevant now. If I had to guess, I'd say eth is only popular because someone realized that if they inject enough money into eth, it would take off. It's a risky thing to do, but if you have enough money to kick start one of these markets, you stand to gain a lot. Especially if you've already mined a lot of coins before others join in. If that did happen, maybe we will see other coins take off as well. On the other hand, every time a coin gains significant value, all other coins will be devalued.

>>62077447
if by ongoing you mean power bills
as far as i can see it after china started to sub miners if they use solar or wind power it seems that iceland does it too and norway and finland
countries are building power farms from renewable using bitcoins in exchange for free out of nothing tax on bitcoins

>>62077527
>china started to sub miners
woah, are they preparing to fuck them all over soon? bait and rob is what they usually do

File: tidus.jpg (30KB, 475x343px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 475x343px

>>62069753
>THE DILAPIDATED SHANTY CITY OF AMD

>>62077527
I doubt anyone is building power farms on the backs of GPU miners.

>>62077719
yes as if countries dont see the potential of the coins already and want to exploit that as much as they can...

korea literally has a system that you can exchange game currency for real money and you think that coin mining isnt profitable enough to justify building small power farms?

File: economics5.gif (7KB, 302x223px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 302x223px

>/g/ in charge of understanding economics

AMD could be giving the cards away for free to retailers and retailers would still be charging $700 for each card.

This is first year, first lecture economics basics.

>>62070090
This isn't just a meme, we've reached high bandwidth meme leaves here

>>62077393
amd got fucked over hard by coin miners because they flooded the market with used cards and amd could not sell new ones anymore, I wouldn't be shocked to see both vendors do something to kill coin mining in their gpus, because when that bubble bursts they get dicked fucking hard.

>>62069753
Fuck ot I don't care anymore. I am buying a 1080ti for a whole $30 more than the cheapest vega 64 in stock anywhere. Fuck amd and their lies.

>>62080815
Who would buy a miners abused card? Maybe if it was like a vega 64 for 100 burgers but otherwise I don't think I'd take the risk

>>62078151
What do you expect from /v/ermin retards that can barely read a cherrypicked bar graph of FPS averages?

>>62069753
>>62069834
>>62071943
>>62073520
>>62073541
>>62076826
>>62077393
>>62077705
This board is shit.

>>62082977
Is this your first day

>>62082977
It was always like that.
Obvious lack of moderation doesn't help either.

>>62071532
I work at a very small business with my Father.

Should I be buying all my pc parts through our business account? We have an EIN number.

What kind of deals could I get?

Or am I better off wating for NewEgg promotional deals and such?

>>62082977
Yea, way too many obvious shills. I only use AMD cards after Nvidia's silence on locked LUTs but I have to constantly call out paid AMD shills making empty promises about huge performance boosts if you just buy and wait. It's clear RTG's advertising team is full of scumbags

File: Screenshot_20170822_at_9.55.12_AM.png (71KB, 607x615px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 607x615px

>>62083518
>Empty promises
Please stop trolling. It's been confirmed that Vega launched with at least one of its core uarch features not enabled yet in drivers. Without primitive shaders Vega is massively front end bottlenecked to the point that Vega 56 is just as fast as 64 at the same clocks.

>>62083612
Unless you have documented proof, ie an analysis of the bottlenecks in a workload simulating modern titles and that primitive shaders will fix it, then yeah I'd say it's an empty promise. You've been posting that graph every chance you get for the past week as if it's a fucking graph of average performance in games.

>>62083764
>http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Grafikkarte-266623/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-1235445/3/
Ughh.
Here, catch.

>>62083780
Their benches also show Vega had significantly weaker pixel and texel throughput, and almost half the bandwidth of the pascal Titan. I'm not telling you to show me that geometry needs improving I'm telling you to prove fixing the geometry throughput will boost the performance beyond something trivial like <5%

>>62083879
what happens when you can do more things per op?

>>62083879
FIllrates on GP102 are silly overkill.
>and almost half the bandwidth of the pascal Titan
Only for something monocolored, which is almost never.

File: bVobYT.jpg (489KB, 1188x909px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1188x909px

>>62083612

>>62083764
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1997699/
>Quick note on primitive shaders from my end: I had a chat with AMD PR a bit ago to clear up the earlier confusion. Primitive shaders are definitely, absolutely, 100%not enabledin any current public drivers.
That is Ryan Smith (the editor in chef of Anandtech) confirming on the record directly from AMD that primitive shaders are not enabled yet in Vega drivers.

Oh and:

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Vega-GPU-Architecture-Preview-Redesigned-Memory-Architecture/Primitive-Sh

"AMD gives an example from a 4K scene in the latest Deus Ex that starts with 220M polygons of data though only 2M of which are viewable."

That shows just how important front end culled geometry performance is to modern games.

>http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-volta-gv100-gpu-ai,35297.html
B I G G E R D I E S
Anyway, 3U, but bretty dense.

>>62083879
>a feature that saves bandwidth as a side effect doesn't save bandwidth
(You)

>>62083904
Things go faster, but if the task being improved only takes 1/100th the time of the entire workflow in the the first place even an infinite improvement will only produce a 1% improvement in the total. Which is why I'm asking you to prove that improving geometry throughput will actually boost the performance and not just geometry throughput

>>62083998
I already know it's not active. I'm asking you to prove that activating it will actually boost performance instead of giving vague talking points like "WOW look at these numbers they're big so they must be important!" It's really clear you guys are shills trying to sell people on Vega with promises of future improvements with no actual evidence or analysis. It's such a disgusting, slimey snake oil salesmen tactic that I'm even inclined to believe you're false flag advertisers from nvidia, or retailers like gibbo who don't care about selling on rumors

>>62083998
Probablem is a month after lunch we still don't have working drivers no dsbr no prim and God knows what else missing.

>>62084182
You're implying that GP102 has not overkill fillrates?
Because you do.

>>62084209
I'm pointing out there are a multitude of areas where Vega is falling behind, not just geometry throughput. Also, like the other guy said if you do more per op then the entire process should speed up so how are nvidia's rops overkill?

Also, you've stopped speaking proper English so I guess you're a confirmed pajeet shill. Guess AMD is gaslighting 4chan

>>62084284
>I'm pointing out there are a multitude of areas where Vega is falling behind
YOU
DONT
NEED
OVERKILL
FILRATES
OF
GP102
AT
FUCKUNG
ALL
Like really you sound like cheap taiwaneese nVidia shill.

Real talk it's 100% certain that the Vega 64 will beat the 1080ti in due time but until drivers and aibs fix these huge cooling power draw and low performance issue to card is basically a paperweight especially for playing Vidya and even more so for certain games like pubg where the 64 comes in at 50% worse fps for 150% more power usage and this is the case with many other games as well.

Ironically a 1080ti is cheaper cooler and a more mature card with a arguably better vram config and more of it despite being inferior to Vega on paper it shits on it in the real world.

>>62084284
>I don't know what a bottleneck is: the post

Also the 1080ti handed in amazing performance out of the gate and Nvidia had decent drivers from launch.

Yes I know the 1070 and 1080 had their issues but they where not 18 months late and charging 900usd for a 500usd card

>>62084182
>task being improved only takes 1/100th the time
the heck do you think GPU processing power used for in games most of all?

https://videocardz.com/72234/a-shortage-of-amd-vega-cards-could-last-until-october
ayy

>>62084301
Except it still clearly helps by the same logic that improving geometry throughout helps. You can do the task faster if you can do more per second.

>taiwaneese
>eese
I'm not the one speaking broken English despite phone posting. AMD is resorting to some nasty tactics, at least use American shills for an American website.

>>62084315
I know perfectly what it is, I'm asking you to prove it's actually a bottleneck in games. If you could actually understand English you'd understand my point by now.

>>62084390
>Except it still clearly helps by the same logic that improving geometry throughout helps.
That's pretty elaborate shitposting.
Have a (You).

>>62084357
What?

>>62084378
I'm done I'll let a 1080ti and flip it for $400 more than I paid for it

$1k aud is nothing for a gpu these days

>>62084409
a 1080ti will be better unless the magical drivers actually fix the gaming performance

>>62082977
>>62072037
>>62072016
kek i love it when pajeets and autists try to defend AMD, go fuck yourselves hypocrites

>>62084427
They won't.
According to local shitposter, that is.
>>62084432
>le pajeets
Hacpи в штaны плec.

>>62084427
A 50fps gain from drivers alone? I mean fuck nothing can run pubg at ultra 4k above 30fps not even a oc Titan xp pascal.

Maybe a roided out Quadro and or a volta nv100 but that's ages away

>>62084437
i actually don't see the difference between slavniggers and pajeets, you're both in the bottom barrel of society:)

>>62084406
it's not elaborate though, fillrate doesn't take up calculations and not relevant to IPC directly
geometry is
bottom line is still the same though, nobody can actually predict how it will perform with prim shaders
I think fine tuning voltage profiles and AIB cards will do more for performance than drivers for now.
Still the fact that 56=64 without throttling tells you something.

>>62084437
>Hacpи в штaны плec
Nice Google translate

>>62084463
And all shitposting niggers are the same to me.
>>62084462
>Maybe a roided out Quadro
Literally Titan Xp.
>volta nv100
These are only available headless.
>>62084483
Гoвнa пoeл?

>>62084483
do you know the heck плec is?

>>62084485
>And all shitposting niggers are the same to me.

they are same to you? :O

>>62084494
All niggers are the same.
(You) too, DeShawn.

>>62084501
but i'm not a slav or african? how can i be a nigger you dumb slavshit

>>62084508
(You) are literally a nigger, Jamal.

>>62084521
how am i a nigger if i am not slavic, like you? please answer the question instead of dodging it. i know slavs struggle to use their pea sized brain

>>62084508
so are you halfbreed of polack and a jew then?

>>62084485
Ok but getting back to what I was saying a 64 has 13.7tf vs 10.3 for a Titan x Pascal/80ti and yet in the real world the Nvidia card is twice as fast for half the power

What the fuck? Even the fury and 290 where not this bad at launch and fucked up big time.

I remember pulling amazing numbers with my old 290/390 compared to other cards from Nvidia at the time

>>62084536
(You) are literally a nigger.
>>62084545
You should start by reading the thread.
Then reading some paper on how GPUs work.
There's more to GPU than pure shader math.
That's why Fiji was bad.

>>62084545
290 wasn't a new arch
gcn 1.0 wasn't good for a whole year, then it gained 30% out of nowhere

>>62084545
also 390 had exact same margins to 970 as 64 has to 1080 now

>>62084565
Why are you
Adding a space
Like this
You dumb pajeet/ruski

>>62069786
Never you nocoining luddite

>>62084574
I never owned a gcn 1.0 or used one but the jump was insane.

WTF why would and release the card half crippled? Even the 7970 was better at launch.
>>62084586
Didn't the 390x jump to 980/480 level of perf tho

>>62084600
Because
i
want
to
format
my
fucking text
however
i
want.

>>62084612
>Didn't the 390x jump to 980/480 level of perf tho
not until they started taking drivers seriously with crimson

>>62084182

>I already know it's not active. I'm asking you to prove that activating it will actually boost performance

People have been talking about GCN’s front end bottle


https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/is-amd-mismanaging-fiji-it-cant-be-rop-ratio.2466766/


https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/gcn-performance.2503977/


https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=115821


Etc. Everyone knows that is why Fiji falls further behind Maxwell the lower the resolution, since geometry throughput becomes increasing emphasised as resolution decreases and framerates increase.

>>62084666
My 390x pulls crazy numbers when it's not CPU bottlenecked.

Some anons in the other thread wondering why we didn't get big Polaris aka Ellesmere xlt as a rx590 but I can see why.

The same GPU is in the Xbox one x and it chokes on 4k

>>62072037
>>62072337

delusional. or just a fanboy. or maybe both. and that's coming from someone who has owned 3 amd cards consecutively (6950, r9 290, fury x)

stop lying to yourself, it's not happening

>>62084672
In dirt 4 vega56 falls behind the 1070 as resolution goes up

>>62084749
DiRT4 is an outliner for both vendors.
>>62084741
Is this denial, or something? >>62084672

>>62084749
Dirt 4 is not representative of the general picture, but if you insist on being obtuse, fine I'll fucking go dig up multigame averages at multiple resolutions. Ugh.

>>62084760
Explain why though. Wins bigly at 1080p but loses badly at 4k

>>62084788
>Explain why though.
I don't really know how DiRT4 engine is built.
The only thing i know is that is VERY shader-heavy.
Especially their illumination.

>>62069753
Why would anyone want this when you can get a 1080Ti for $699?

>>62069753
>AMD sells to board partners
>Board partners sell to distributors
>Distributors sell to retailers
>Retailers sell to consumers
>Demand is too high at every level
>Result is $100-$300 higher than MSRP
This happens with literally every GPU, why are people going full retard over it now?

>>62084898
/g/ is retarded, more news at 11.

>>62084760
why would it be denial? if primitive shaders were their trump card then it would have been enabled since day 1

I'm tired of AMD hyping up products that aren't as competitive as they want us to believe

I am HOPING that enabling primitive shaders will suddenly boost the performance of vega to 1080 ti levels (and I want AMD to kick nvidia's ass in performance), but my gut tells me it won't

the ryzen CPU I own is great, the fury X GPU I own is great, but vega is a piece of shit from everything I've seen, and if this keeps up my next GPU purchase will be an nvidia card

File: 1491881780545.gif (974KB, 476x253px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 476x253px

>$750 gpu

>>62069753
>QTY : 2
oh my god its fucking nothing
congrats on another round of fake news reposted by tech media who is too retarded to check facts
>100mh/s on vega

>>62084924
>if primitive shaders were their trump card then it would have been enabled since day 1
You do understand that AMD launches three Vega lineups at once and driver implementation for them is extremely complex?
I mean you're tech illiterate moron but whatever.

File: doom.png (364KB, 1463x815px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1463x815px

This is the future you chose.

>>62084957

>I mean you're tech illiterate moron but whatever.

great way to put your point across, you passive aggressive jackass

>>62085013
Then stop being fucking retarded and finally understand that RTG is *only* some three thousand people that are busy launching THREE lineups at once.
And the gayming one is totally not the focus.

>>62084898
AMD's only selling point for a long time now has been price:performance. If you have to pay far more, there is zero reason to buy it other than being a brand loyal fanboy faggot

File: Vega_Pascal_Fiji_4k_1080p.png (94KB, 1374x456px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1374x456px

>>62084924
Here are average benchmarks in percent from ComputerBase.de that show how Vega and Fiji's performance relative to Pascal increases at 4k vs. 1080p. This happens because Fiji and Vega without primitive shaders become increasingly geometry bottlenecked at lower resolutions and higher framerates.

>>62085040
>Then stop being fucking retarded

another fantastic way of getting your point across, you really are doing a great job at convincing me, and a lot of other people, that them not implementing support for a feature that's advertised as boosting performance big time at launch is a sign of competence :)

thanks to your posts I am now more inclined to buy a product which doesn't function as intended at launch

instead of making up excuses for an awful launch, being incredibly flustered & getting overly personal, how about you try to engage with people in a civil manner?

>>62085101
gb2 lebbit

>>62085061
>AMD's only selling point for a long time now has been price:performance.
That's kinda the selling point for any CPU/GPU.

>>62085111
you sound like a child

I don't even browse reddit, you're just an arrogant idiot

>>62085154
gb2 ribbit please.

>>62085180
aspie

>>62084924
>>62085067
https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=115821
>Why does GM200 outperform Fiji at lower resolutions?
>So we can see from the table, and anyone who's been paying attention already knows, Fiji has a very wide shader array capable of 8.6TFlops which surpasses the capabilities of Maxwell which is rated at up to 6.5TFlops. So we have to look elsewhere for potential bottlenecks as an explanation why 980 Ti outperforms Fury X by larger margins at lower resolutions.
>David Kanter's answer to the question: polygon throughput. TR doesn't have a transcript up so I can't quote DK precisely but I'll paraphrase here: "As your resolution increases you shift the bottleneck to things like texturing and shading (bandwidth as well). At the opposite end of the spectrum your triangle throughput becomes more of a bottleneck."
>Now, I've heard this explanation before, probably from someone more knowledgeable than I about graphics at Beyond 3d. The basic explanation is that geometry doesn't scale with resolution but pixel count does. So, at lower resolutions you're spending relatively more amount of time drawing triangles than shading pixels and that makes triangle throughput your most latent portion of the graphics pipeline.

>>62085253
That just means as you go up in resolution resolution becomes the bottleneck. Problem here is Vega still loses by a mile at 4k so the relationship no longer holds true

>>62085392
The bottleneck is still there even if you increase the resolution.
That's why throwing moar ALUs at Maxwell was so good: there was no inherent bottlenecks in architecture.

File: city-trees-water-mesh-620.jpg (291KB, 620x496px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 620x496px

>>62085392
>That just means as you go up in resolution resolution becomes the bottleneck.
It also means the converse: That when you observe Pascal's performance relative to Vega improve at lower resolutions and Maxwell's performance relative to fiji at lower resolutions, it clearly supports the conclusion that GCN is front end geometry bottlenecked. This is so well known that AMD GPU owners have been accusing game devs of including unecessary geometry in games deliberately to slow down AMD cards, (e.g. the orgy of invisible tessellation in Crysis 2).

>Problem here is Vega still loses by a mile at 4k so the relationship no longer holds true
The bottleneck is still there at 4k, it just becomes less emphasized relative to 1080p and thus you see the shift in relative performance between Fiji, Vega, Maxwell and Pascal.

>>62085442
Why would Vega be bottlenecked even worse than fiji? Geometry throughput scales with core frequency

>>62085510
The rest of the core is also clocked higher.
Vega is nothing using a double-pumped front-end lmao.

>>62069786
I hope never. I started investing in cryptocurrencies a while back. Instead of letting my money sit in my bank account, it's now multiplying.

Feels fucking good man.

>>62085524
Yea exactly, so why are we supposed to believe that geometry performance didn't scale up exactly the same? Its clocked 50% higher so shouldn't performance be 50% higher?

>>62085494
>That mesh
Devs need to stop.

Devs need to learn how to optimize shit.

>>62085615
That was done specifically to murder AMD cards.

File: Vega_Culled_Polygon_Throughput_Test.png (71KB, 1113x928px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1113x928px

>>62085594
It is, but since Vega has other rendering pipeline improvements that are being wasted behind the front end geometry bottleneck--such as Polaris' Primitive Discard Accelerator and DSBR), Vega is bottlenecked even worse than Fiji was, relatively speaking.

>>62085494
You are a LIAR

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/31.html

Vega loses performance as resolution goes hp. The bottleneck isn't just not there it's the very opposite situation you're talking about

>>62085620
Well, yes. But games these days are terrible across the board.

Rising Storm 2 has no excuse to run as shittily as it does, but it does. It has magic shrinking and growing bushes because of tech decisions.

Devs these days are fucking lazy.

>>62085626
No, I'm saying that Vega should at a minimum perform like overclocked fury x but it doesn't. If there were improvements then then they actually made it worse because instead of acting like a card running 50% faster it acts like something 30% faster

>>62085654
> Rising Storm 2
Well fuck that's Tripwire for you.
>>62085594
50% over 4 tris is only 6 tris.
That's not enough to feed 4k highly clocked ALUs.

File: Vega_Pascal_4k_1440p_1080p.png (756KB, 1653x1194px) Image search: [Google]

756KB, 1653x1194px

>>62085633
>You are a LIAR
>
>https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/31.html
>
>Vega loses performance as resolution goes hp. The bottleneck isn't just not there it's the very opposite situation you're talking about
The absolute STATE of knowing and deliberate liars on /g/.

>miners paying up to $100 for bots so they can get overpriced card

cant wait till US gov steps in and BTFOs weebcurrency out

>>62085710
Youre proving me right retard. 1080ti's performance goes from 25% better to 33% better as resolution goes up. You said the bottleneck changes to shaders as resolution goes up but vega's performance is DECREASING

File: vega-vs-furyx-mll-1080p.png (19KB, 907x377px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 907x377px

>>62085666
>No, I'm saying that Vega should at a minimum perform like overclocked fury x but it doesn't
Vega FE performs exactly the same as Fiji at the same clocks in games.

>>62085743
God fucking dammit are you fucking retarded?

>>62085743
>Pretending you can't see the 1070 and 1080 in the graphs
Fuck off, you knowing and deliberate liar.

File: 1503372725648.png (765KB, 1001x1001px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 1001x1001px

>>62069786

Why you are so angry, poorfag?

>>62085752
Except it doesn't at 1600. Fiji at 1600 would perform 1.5x better. The only reason it wouldn't would be if memory or cache was a bottleneck

>>62085807
Show me Fiji at 1600.
The best LN2 result was 1450.

>>62085774
They have half the shader performance vega does, of course they follow the pattern kantor describes. But Vegas has the highest performance and it starts losing worse to the 1080ti, which has performance just a little less than Vega.

>>62069786
whats the current "hot to mine" currency? Because there is no way that you can mine bitcoin anymore with GPU's only

>>62085807
>Except it doesn't at 1600. Fiji at 1600 would perform 1.5x better.
You realize there are trade-offs for increasing clocks right? Primitive shaders, primitive discard and DSBR are intended to overcome those trade-offs.

>>62085814
Im looking at an article about a fury at 1400/1000 scoring over 10000 in firestone extreme. Which is about the same as a Vega

http://wccftech.com/asus-radeon-r9-fury-overclocked-10-ghz-hbm-1400-mhz-gpu-clock-fully-unlocked-fury-features-1-tbs-bandwidth-ln2/

https://videocardz.com/71771/final-radeon-rx-vega-64-3dmark-performance

>>62085971
That's nice.
But as the other anon said, pipelining the GPU comes at at very steep cost.
Uarch features in Vega were supposed to offeset that but at least once is not even fucking enabled yet.
The RX Vega launch is a fucking disaster.
But you can't buy one anyway so who cares.