Radeon VII neck and neck with RTX 2080 in rumored 3DMark leak

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Recently the new RTXs were all tested comparing the 6gb variant to the 8gb variants.  Only 1 game on the market took over 6gb so 8 isn't being fully utilized at all (I think it was using 7.1gb, haven't read the article in a few days).  Every other game was 5.6gb or so or lower.  (I understand this is all inside that specific testing environment etc)

 

So that 16gb is useful for some....but for my use case wouldn't ever be utilized as a gamer.

Also:

USAGE is not the same as ALLOCATION.

Games allocate more than they actually need and use. 

The test you mention was done by Hardware Unboxed. They tested 36 games and only 4 even allocated more than 6gb of VRAM, and NONE used more than 6gb.

They found zero performance drops going down from 8 to 6gb of vram.

 

That being said: R7 has 10gb more,... and i stand by this: The GPU would be AMAZING if it had 8gb VRAM and was 150 bucks cheaper due to that. It would clearly beat out NVIdia and provoke price drops.

Yet, AMD screws up again and goes for the big VRAM that is useless for gamers, just to have a selling point. When they could have just made a great GPU,...

[Drak3]

7 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

That’s if you completely disregard the 16GB vs 8GB VRAM.

That's like arguing you need a vehicle to drive to and from your office job, so you buy a Ford F650.

 

16GB isn't useful to gamers, and won't be for quite some time.

[schwellmo92]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's like arguing you need a vehicle to drive to and from your office job, so you buy a Ford F650.

 

16GB isn't useful to gamers, and won't be for quite some time.

Versus RTX that also isn’t useful for gamers at the moment and may never be. They each have their own niche.

[Tristerin]

2 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Also:

USAGE is not the same as ALLOCATION.

Games allocate more than they actually need and use. 

The test you mention was done by Hardware Unboxed. They tested 36 games and only 4 even allocated more than 6gb of VRAM, and NONE used more than 6gb.

They found zero performance drops going down from 8 to 6gb of vram.

 

That being said: R7 has 10gb more,... and i stand by this: The GPU would be AMAZING if it had 8gb VRAM and was 150 bucks cheaper due to that. It would clearly beat out NVIdia and provoke price drops.

Yet, AMD screws up again and goes for the big VRAM that is useless for gamers, just to have a selling point. When they could have just made a great GPU,...

We can get into the meat and taters later, just speculating and putting information out (especially for those that were unaware these tests were made, and yes, 1 game did, I think it was Rise of the Tomb Raider but 1 game used and allocated more than 6gb VRAM) for those unaware how useless this 16gb actually is to a majority of the users on this forum (I see more gamers than people doing scientific computation for sure).

 

Agreed, drop half that VRAM and give us a lower price and huge competitor to NVIDIA.  Biggely like. 

 

Makes me speculate whether or not the 16gb HBM2 is because they are in the process of HBM3 and need to deplete stocks. 

[Drak3]

Just now, schwellmo92 said:

RTX that also isn’t useful for gamers at the moment and may never be.

RTX is just Nvidia's implementation to run DXR.

It's another tool to improve graphics moving forward, it might not be that useful now, but it'll become useful as we move forward.

[illegalwater]

2 hours ago, Tristerin said:

At a much smaller price tag

 

From a company that has never been ahead

 

And is now neck and neck

 

This is only good for us consumers!

Much smaller price tag? What? They both have the same $699 MSRP. Also Radeon VII prices will undoubtedly sky rocket post launch just like with Vega due to limited stock.

 

They aren't ahead here. Also AMD has been ahead numerous times in the past.

[Tristerin]

3 minutes ago, System32.exe said:

Much smaller price tag? What? They both have the same $699 MSRP. Also Radeon VII prices will undoubtedly sky rocket post launch just like with Vega due to limited stock.

 

They aren't ahead here. Also AMD has been ahead numerous times in the past.

I do have to take in account the prices may be similar due to the 16gb v 8gb however it has to sell.  If it doesn't (the 16gb is only good for scientific compute, not gaming at all, it will not be used for years) price will drop

 

I can also agree that the Vega launch may be indicative of this launch, given the limited quantity.  Cant deny it.

 

Speculation is fun. 

 

Never said they were ahead, not sure why everyone reads so quickly to get to that damn Submit Reply button.

 

I love how no one has given prime examples of how often AMD has been ahead of NVIDIA though.  They just keep espousing they have been.  Everyone knows its maybe like 5% of the time.  Then the next launch by NVIDIA crushes what AMD had to offer.  Im glad things are changing NOW however as these deltas are not so significant compared to other generations.

[Madgemade]

46 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Makes me speculate whether or not the 16gb HBM2 is because they are in the process of HBM3 and need to deplete stocks.

This has been done to death.

They can't go 8GB because they need 4 stacks to get the 1TB/s memory bandwidth. Vega 10 (Vega 56/64) has two stacks and has 512 MB/s bandwidth.

If they had two stacks it would mean no better bandwidth than old Vega. From tests and memory overclocking results it is well known that Vega 10 is bandwidth starved.

They can't use 4x 2GB stack because they don't come in that size.

 

So there will never be an 8GB 7nm Vega, if there was it would barely be any better than Vega 64!

[Murasaki]

2 hours ago, WikiForce said:

Ray tracing is a gimmick, not worth the performance loss with only 1 title in the market rn supported. It will just turn out like physx.

We used to have dedicated PhysX cards now we can have some dedicated RT ones in the future

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, Madgemade said:

This has been done to death.

They can't go 8GB because they need 4 stacks to get the 1TB/s memory bandwidth. Vega 10 (Vega 56/64) has two stacks and has 512 MB/s bandwidth.

If they had two stacks it would mean no better bandwidth than old Vega. From tests and memory overclocking results it is well known that Vega 10 is bandwidth starved.

They can't use 4x 2GB stack because they don't come in that size.

 

So there will never be an 8GB 7nm Vega, if there was it would barely be any better than Vega 64!

AHHHHHH yeah I do remember reading that.  Hence...the discussion.

 

 

 

[Suika]

3 hours ago, Tristerin said:

And is now neck and neck

Depending how you define "neck and neck."

 

If you were to define it as the flagship offerings versus each other, which is how I typically do it... AMD is still behind by a good margin.

 

If you go exclusively by price, it's not like AMD has been behind, just not especially enticing in their offerings.

[Mira Yurizaki]

The RTX 2080 performs about the same as the GTX 1080 Ti, which is what some of us speculated the Radeon VII would perform at when AMD hinted at its performance delta over Vega 64.

 

So... no surprises here.

[Tristerin]

6 minutes ago, Suika said:

Depending how you define "neck and neck."

 

If you were to define it as the flagship offerings versus each other, which is how I typically do it... AMD is still behind by a good margin.

 

If you go exclusively by price, it's not like AMD has been behind, just not especially enticing in their offerings.

Phrase, turn of words, etc.

 

Neck and Neck for AMD (My definition on AMD vs Intel, not applicable to everything) is even clawing at the top tier consumer GPUs NVIDIA produces. 

 

That's a huge success for AMD imho.  Are they Neck and Neck as the phrase is meant to be taken - nope, still way behind the 2080ti.

 

Probably a little of my Team Red showing in my description of Neck and Neck

 

[nick name]

The Fire Strike graphics score is about 4000 points higher than my best 1070 ti score.  So that's nice.  

[Suika]

1 hour ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

That being said: R7 has 10gb more,... and i stand by this: The GPU would be AMAZING if it had 8gb VRAM and was 150 bucks cheaper due to that. It would clearly beat out NVIdia and provoke price drops.

Yet, AMD screws up again and goes for the big VRAM that is useless for gamers, just to have a selling point. When they could have just made a great GPU,...

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

An 8GB Radeon VII is a trash idea.

 

Sorry, just wanted to make sure I nailed that Radeon VII with 8GB is a trash idea. The absolutely insane memory bandwidth is the reason we have a Radeon VII and not just a refreshed Vega 64. Cut the memory, you cut like 75% of the performance uplift, and suddenly AMD has to cut the price down to $500 to compete with a lower tier card (that $150 savings means nothing at that point).

 

Radeon VII exists for publicity while we're all waiting for big Navi. NVIDIA launched shiny new things so AMD had to pony something up.

[maartendc]

4 hours ago, Ithanul said:

So far I only seen that stated over on Techpowerup, and even then, that probably a guessed price.

The card is a stop gap till Navi drops.  Currently though, if anyone looking to upgrade to a higher performing card then what they have, it at least gives a choice at that price range (especially for folks with freesync monitors). 

No that price was confirmed at the unveil at CES?

 

Everyone is reporting $699, also reputable media:

 

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/01/09/ces-2019-amd-radeon-vii-price-specs-release-date/

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-unveils-next-gen-radeon-vii-launches-february-7-for-dollar699/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13832/amd-radeon-vii-high-end-7nm-february-7th-for-699

https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-radeon-vii

[Guest]

5 hours ago, exetras said:

RTX is like 3D movies, looks nice but add nothing much in terms of value. For now.

RTX is like those Lynx/Axe boxes everyone gets for Christmas. Looks and smells great, but you aren't attracting anyone with them. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

... and i stand by this: The GPU would be AMAZING if it had 8gb VRAM and was 150 bucks cheaper due to that. It would clearly beat out NVIdia and provoke price drops.

I don't think cutting the VRAM in half would result in that much of a price drop. The RX 580 8GB was $30 more than the 4GB model. At best I would expect the price to drop $50 fewer, which wouldn't prompt a price drop anyway because NVIDIA can claim the RTX cards have more features, therefore, it's worth more.

 

EDIT: Before someone tries to claim the RTX 2080 is way more expensive than the Radeon VII's supposed price of $700 anyway... that's for the FE price. The RTX 2080's base MSRP is $700: https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=08G-P4-2080-KR

[Ithanul]

25 minutes ago, maartendc said:

No that price was confirmed at the unveil at CES?

 

Everyone is reporting $699, also reputable media:

 

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2019/01/09/ces-2019-amd-radeon-vii-price-specs-release-date/

https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-unveils-next-gen-radeon-vii-launches-february-7-for-dollar699/

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13832/amd-radeon-vii-high-end-7nm-february-7th-for-699

https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-radeon-vii

At the time of my post I only knew of Techpowerup's articles.  Plus, I didn't watch nor kept up with CES as I was busy with other matters.

 

But, by the looks of some new info, the price going to be a tad higher than thought for outside the States:  

https://bit-tech.net/news/tech/graphics/uk-gets-just-100-radeon-vii-cards-claims-ocuk/1/

https://www.techpowerup.com/252283/radeon-vii-priced-739eur-in-the-eu-france-and-spain-only-have-dozens-of-cards

[pas008]

price will prolly be alot higher if there is this quantity is this low

 

guess 850 to 1k even in us i'm sure they will sell out fast too

[ouroesa]

What's the difference between the two firestrike ultra tests? Both Using 2700x and one GPU but the one test is almost double the other.

[ZacoAttaco]

5 hours ago, Tristerin said:

So if you want to quote me, to argue your opinion vs mine, send me a message to my profile where we can joust 1 v 1.

En Garde!

5 hours ago, Madgemade said:

In my opinion though, it prices do go higher than RRP then AMD is still to blame in the end for rushing the launch and not stockpiling. If stock is better in a few months then it will be too late the damage will be done. I don't want to see that but it's looking likely.

My understanding was the 16GB of HBM2 memory contributes to over 50% of the price tag. So the high amount of memory on the card definitely plays a factor.

4 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Recently the new RTXs were all tested comparing the 6gb variant to the 8gb variants.  Only 1 game on the market took over 6gb so 8 isn't being fully utilized at all (I think it was using 7.1gb, haven't read the article in a few days).  Every other game was 5.6gb or so or lower.  (I understand this is all inside that specific testing environment etc)

 

So that 16gb is useful for some....but for my use case wouldn't ever be utilized as a gamer.

It's definitely a 'future proof' card in that regard. There will be a time when 16GB a GPU Memory will be useful, just not now...or soon. 

[Tristerin]

4 minutes ago, ZacoAttaco said:

En Garde!

My understanding was the 16GB of HBM2 memory contributes to over 50% of the price tag. So the high amount of memory on the card definitely plays a factor.

It's definitely a 'future proof' card in that regard. There will be a time when 16GB a GPU Memory will be useful, just not now...or soon. 

See now this is a great attitude to facilitate a discussion - appreciate your candor good sir!  Im the bro on the left btw.

 

Someone pointed that out to me on Page 2 or 3 I had forgotten that bit...makes sense and how they cannot remove that 8gb or it cuts the bandwidth down that allows it to currently perform near 2080 performance or at, to keep the card well under the 2080 price tag. 

 

After discussing this and remembering they said they were only doing a limited run - I like the direction the Company AMD is going but more of me is thinking this card wont go down in price at all just based off things they have said (that I had forgotten)

[COTG]

6 hours ago, Velcade said:

I want this to be true.  I'd never buy an AMD card but competition with NVidia is a good thing.

well you are part of the reason nvidia can now fuck their customers

[Mira Yurizaki]

9 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Someone pointed that out to me on Page 2 or 3 I had forgotten that bit...makes sense and how they cannot remove that 8gb or it cuts the bandwidth down that allows it to currently perform near 2080 performance or at, to keep the card well under the 2080 price tag.

Removing 8GB resulting in lost bandwidth is partially true, if they actually remove the memory layers themselves. The memory topology is that each chip is its own channel and the whole thing works like a massive n-channel memory system (or to spin it another way, a massive RAID-0 setup with memory chips).

 

However, you can also use less dense memory. The GTX 1060 3GB and 6GB launch models both had the same bandwidth. The RX 580 4GB and 8GB models both had the same bandiwdth.

 

I don't believe however that halving the amount of VRAM will also drastically lower the price, as in the case of those two GPUs above. In the case of the RX 580 specifically, the 8GB model was only $30 more than the 4GB model.