GN: How AMD Sabotages Itself & Its Partners

[cesh me inside b0z]

AMD are shit with their GPU launches these days, they had plenty of opportunity, but decided to put all the money into CPU's instead.

[porina]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Hey! No. Naughty, market is not happy to pay for. Has to pay for 

They're not unhappy enough to not pay for it right? #marketing

[JediFragger]

1 hour ago, cesh me inside b0z said:

AMD are shit with their GPU launches these days, they had plenty of opportunity, but decided to put all the money into CPU's instead.

Good job they're not screwing that up!!!

[PHYLO]

12 hours ago, IrshaadH said:

They really need to step up their GPU game. Bring back the days of the 7970!

My first computer was a Sager laptop with a 7970m in it. Was an absolute beast for a laptop, on stable drivers...

 

That thing a headache whenever updating drivers. Every single time I wanted to update the drivers, i would NEED to use DDU or else major issues would happen. And even then sometimes DDU wasn't the savior, the drivers were just completely faulty.

[IrshaadH]

5 minutes ago, PHYLO said:

My first computer was a Sager laptop with a 7970m in it. Was an absolute beast for a laptop, on stable drivers...

 

That thing a headache whenever updating drivers. Every single time I wanted to update the drivers, i would NEED to use DDU or else major issues would happen. And even then sometimes DDU wasn't the savior, the drivers were just completely faulty.

True, but those cards (especially the desktop variants) aged like fine wine

[Doobeedoo]

It was potentially a last resort move because they'd probably have this vbios set up and maybe unlock extra performance via driver? Either way yeah a bit messy, but hey can get extra performance flashing it. 

[cj09beira]

10 hours ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

So does this mean they intentionally held back on releasing this vBIOS at launch? I wonder if Nvidia hadn't priced their 2060 down so much if AMD would have bothered with it and left us with a GPU that was not even being properly utilized to its full extent.

amd would be instead selling the card at higher efficiency at the cost of ~10% extra performance

9 hours ago, Derangel said:

Nah. The old vBIOS was designed with the base specs in mind. Pre-OC'd cards would likely have been around the updated specs, especially those already using GDRR6 validated at 14Ghz. It would have been up to AIBs to set limits in their own custom vBIOS. AMD panicked and used the fact that a lot of AIBs were already overbuilding their 5600's to push this out. They really should have expected Nvidia to counter by lowering prices.

amd announced the prices and specs 2 weeks ago, nvidia waited to the last second to change its prices, meaning amd had to either lower prices too or change the specs somewhat, they choose the latter, this is a very dynamic market, the only other option for amd is direct launch with available parts, but  for some reason they haven't done any of those in quite some time, maybe its harder to change things if needed that way

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hey! No. Naughty, market is not happy to pay for. Has to pay for 

Maybe not happy, but they're willing.

 

And besides, the market was willing to buy high-end cards inflated by $100-$200 from scalpers.

[thechinchinsong]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

It also doesn't matter how bad AMD behave, It only matters how controlling Nvidia are with AIB, false advertising, GPP etc.  I wonder how many people will conveniently forget all about this when they are next shitting on NVIDIA because they have the audacity to release a highly priced GPU that the market is happy to pay for.

I think it definitely matters. As long as the information outlets to the people out there report on this, its okay. What's worse is that when both companies have this bad behavior, it becomes a race to the bottom as each anti-consumer move by one company only pushes the boundaries for the other to do even worse.

 

It also matters more for Nvidia, because they have a larger audience to please. So of course when they do something unpopular, they will naturally get more flak, simply cause they have more customers.

Edited January 27, 2020 by thechinchinsong
Added a relevant comment

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

I think it definitely matters. As long as the information outlets to the people out there report on this, its okay. What's worse is that when both companies have this bad behavior, it becomes a race to the bottom as each anti-consumer move by one company only pushes the boundaries for the other to do even worse.

 

It also matters more for Nvidia, because they have a larger audience to please. So of course when they do something unpopular, they will naturally get more flak, simply cause they have more customers.

I was being facetious, there is a lot of biased anti Nvidiia rhetoric on these forums regarding stupid things like this, I was just highlighting the lack of insults toward AMD over this that we almost definitely would have seen thrown at NVidia had they done this.

 

10 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Well, Turing sales point to most of the market not being happy to pay what Nvidia is selling. At least until the Super cards showed up, which seem to be selling pretty well compared to where they were at.

But they are paying, and people are buying. 

 

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/288080-nvidia-turing-sales-revenue-up-45-percent-over-pascal

 

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

Hey! No. Naughty, market is not happy to pay for. Has to pay for 

Like all companies, they try to price as high as they can before too many people won't buy.

[Jeppes]

Interesting to see the most expensive cards having worse memory in them. Asus Strix is 110€ and Msi Gaming x 90€ more expensive than Powercolor red dragon, and Red Dragon has no problem with the updated specs. Same goes for Sapphire Pulse. A lot cheaper, almost unaudible and no problems with updated vbios.

 

Ok I think I was wrong about Red Dragon. Red Devil has the faster mem spec and higher clock speed listed on their site. Its still 70€ cheaper than Strix.

[thechinchinsong]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

I was being facetious, there is a lot of biased anti Nvidiia rhetoric on these forums regarding stupid things like this, I was just highlighting the lack of insults toward AMD over this that we almost definitely would have seen thrown at NVidia had they done this.

I still feel as if it's because people don't care about AMD graphics as much. There will always be bias toward the underdog company because they are an underdog, just as there is always bias toward the industry leader simply because they are leaders. Here in this thread specifically we can see the anti-AMD rhetoric going along just fine (just less populated). It's just that in recent times, AMD hasn't been in the spotlight simply (at least up until the past 3 years or so) because they weren't anywhere near good enough for people to notice. Now that people actually take AMD seriously, criticism against them is going to become more serious, similar to what we already hold Nvidia and Intel to. It will take time, just as it took 3 generations of Ryzen for AMD to finally start moving product again.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

I was being facetious, there is a lot of biased anti Nvidiia rhetoric on these forums regarding stupid things like this, I was just highlighting the lack of insults toward AMD over this that we almost definitely would have seen thrown at NVidia had they done this.

 

But they are paying, and people are buying. 

 

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/288080-nvidia-turing-sales-revenue-up-45-percent-over-pascal

 

Like all companies, they try to price as high as they can before too many people won't buy.

Nvidia's financials actually pointed to Turing selling 1-2 billion USD less than Pascal in year 1. As they entered year 2, it's come back up, but that's why Jensen seemed really pissy in a lot of interviews in H1 2019. Nvidia massively overproduced 1060s, but they couldn't flood the market with the stock for fear of collapsing Turing sales as well. They hid it, but they ate a massive amount of delayed sales because of it.

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Nvidia's financials actually pointed to Turing selling 1-2 billion USD less than Pascal in year 1. As they entered year 2, it's come back up, but that's why Jensen seemed really pissy in a lot of interviews in H1 2019. Nvidia massively overproduced 1060s, but they couldn't flood the market with the stock for fear of collapsing Turing sales as well. They hid it, but they ate a massive amount of delayed sales because of it.

Either way, people are still buying it.   It's nvidia's job (like any company) to manage it's product releases in order to maximize sales.  The whole reason this is even a thing for AMD is because they were trying to maximize sales and failed.

[dalekphalm]

On 1/27/2020 at 1:08 AM, Dabombinable said:

*minus the heat

... GCN 1.0 didn't run hot at all. Perhaps you're misremembering and thinking about GCN 2.0 w/ Hawaii?

[5x5]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

... GCN 1.0 didn't run hot at all. Perhaps you're misremembering and thinking about GCN 2.0 w/ Hawaii?

I owned a 7950. Pretty cool card all things considered. Hawaii reference cooler is what gives GCN such an exaggerated bad rep.

[cesh me inside b0z]

6 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

I owned a 7950. Pretty cool card all things considered. Hawaii reference cooler is what gives GCN such an exaggerated bad rep.

Same as Fermi.

 

[5x5]

40 minutes ago, cesh me inside b0z said:

Same as Fermi.

 

No, there is no base for comparison. The 290X was got but AFM coolers alleviated it. The 480 was literally locked down to blower only designs and had a nasty tendencies of melting itself due to running above 100*C

[cesh me inside b0z]

3 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

No, there is no base for comparison. The 290X was got but AFM coolers alleviated it. The 480 was literally locked down to blower only designs and had a nasty tendencies of melting itself due to running above 100*C

That's bullshit, i had 2 for 4 years in SLi on stock coolers.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

No, there is no base for comparison. The 290X was got but AFM coolers alleviated it. The 480 was literally locked down to blower only designs and had a nasty tendencies of melting itself due to running above 100*C

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/gigabyte-gtx-480-soc.b804

 

Oh hi.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, 5x5 said:

I owned a 7950. Pretty cool card all things considered. Hawaii reference cooler is what gives GCN such an exaggerated bad rep.

I also had a 7950 - damn good card. Probably the best GPU I've ever owned, when considered against it's competition. I always wanted a 7970 GHz Edition but it was too expensive for me back in the day.

1 hour ago, cesh me inside b0z said:

Same as Fermi.

Fermi had a much more deserved bad rap for heat. Certainly wayyyyy more than GCN 1.0 like the 7970 or 7950 - none of GCN cards ran hot.

 

Sure if you got a third party one with a beefy cooler, it probably ran alright - same as Hawaii. The launch GF100 could reach 98C - which would be hot even by Hawaii standards.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-fermi-gf100-gpus-too-little-too-late-too-hot-and-too-expensive/

[Dabombinable]

12 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

... GCN 1.0 didn't run hot at all. Perhaps you're misremembering and thinking about GCN 2.0 w/ Hawaii?

My 7970Ghz made my room noticeably warmer. 

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

My 7970Ghz made my room noticeably warmer. 

On average they ran quite cool. Were you overclocking it?

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/16

Idle temps are 4th best out of tested GPU's at 34C

 

Load temps (Gaming) are in the middle upper range at 81C - that's certainly warm, but for a GPU running full load, that's not crazy at all.

 

Load temps using synthetics are smack dab in the middle at 83C. Comparison to Fermi is 88, 90, and 95C (580, 590, 470 respectively).

[RejZoR]

18 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I also had a 7950 - damn good card. Probably the best GPU I've ever owned, when considered against it's competition. I always wanted a 7970 GHz Edition but it was too expensive for me back in the day.

Fermi had a much more deserved bad rap for heat. Certainly wayyyyy more than GCN 1.0 like the 7970 or 7950 - none of GCN cards ran hot.

 

Sure if you got a third party one with a beefy cooler, it probably ran alright - same as Hawaii. The launch GF100 could reach 98C - which would be hot even by Hawaii standards.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/nvidia-fermi-gf100-gpus-too-little-too-late-too-hot-and-too-expensive/

The HDxx50 cards were always great value. They were often cut very little and with overclocking you could really push them beyond HDxx70 series. Especially HD7950 models. I also had one and I custom modded its BIOS. It could run at 1.2GHz which was insane speed. It was also insanely hot with voltages I needed for that, but it worked. Really nice card.

[Rancidpunk]

If AMD want to fix this they need to make sure they supply memory chips rated for 14gb/s to their partners but I feel it's pretty typical of them to just release software that might be ok but might not. 

 

I know we aren't allowed to criticize AMD in any way, ever, but this kind of cluster**** just makes them look unprofessional at best and a bunch of disorganized morons that don't give a damn about the end users at worst.