AMD Radeon Fiji XT Spotted in Shipping

[LukaP]

Truth be told it's known how NVIDIA got some of those contracts - they gifted/bribed researchers with hardware (at least with hardware) and when such researchers used funds to fill big orders they would got for NVIDIA hardware.

I'm not saying this is wrong. It's a way of doing things, and they are not alone in this kind of pratices.

its the best way of doing it

[MEC-777]

Just a quick question for you guys, LukaP, MEC-777 and mr moose...

I was thinking about what that Patrick guy was talking about, how businesses building servers and supercomputers or whatever would choose Nvidia over AMD because of the higher efficiency of Nvidia, reducing electricity costs in the long run or something...

We all know that AMD is pretty much always cheaper than Nvidia. We've also found out recently that the impact that the lower power consumption actually has little impact on your power bill. Was it something like $30 a year between an R9 290 and a GTX 780? I can't remember.

 

Now he was saying that when you have thousands of GPUs, the power bill goes through the roof and that difference in power consumption makes a big difference on a larger scale. My question is:

With Nvidia's GPUs being much more expensive than AMD GPUs (with the difference in price sometimes being larger than the difference in power consumption), wouldn't the price difference between the two on a larger scale be bigger than the power bill difference? Don't a lot of corporations have special deals with electricity companies or something, just like with ISPs?

The more I think about it, the more I think that there's more to the whole server/supercomputer side of the argument that's being left out. Then again, I'm just an idiot with a computer. I know nothing about this stuff.

I hope that makes sense, I don't really know what I'm talking about

 

There is some merit to that side of the argument, yes. Even though the upfront cost might be significantly higher with one brand over the other, in the long term you end up spending less due to lower running costs.

 

Looking at it from a gaming/PC enthusiast perspective, the cost difference over time is far less significant and isn't really too much of a concern to many. Though people are becoming more conscience of it.

 

The problem with patrikjp93's argument is that all he was primarily looking at was efficiency and compute capability and nothing else, ignoring the whole PC enthusiast/gamer side of it. Its gaming performance that most of us here are interested in and he was dismissing that almost entirely. 

[bogus]

its the best way of doing it

That's arguable to claim "it's the best". In some countrys such practice is illegal, specially with public funds for example.

It's just a way.

[UnbendingNose]

I had a 290, bought it for $309, sold it for $309. Now waiting for something worth my while.

Bought my reference R9 290 for $199. Upgraded from a gtx 760. Love the 290 and the performance I get from it. Went from just over 30fps in unigine valley, to 62 fps on a mild over clock with the 290. Such a beast, its faster than my friends EVGA gtx970 SSC, which gets 57fps in unigine valley.

[MEC-777]

Bought my reference R9 290 for $199. Upgraded from a gtx 760. Love the 290 and the performance I get from it. Went from just over 30fps in unigine valley, to 62 fps on a mild over clock with the 290. Such a beast, its faster than my friends EVGA gtx970 SSC, which gets 57fps in unigine valley.

 

This is what I was trying to point out earlier. I was among those very excited about the 970 when it was released, and that was understandable considering it's price vs. 290 prices at the time. I decided to wait it out a little until more testing and benchmarks had been posted. What we actually see, according to the numbers, is that the 290/X's still hold up really well against the 970/980's in terms of pure performance, especially at higher resolutions. 

 

Really happy with my HIS 290 for what I paid ($285 CAD). All this healthy GPU competition is great for us as consumers when you consider what kind of performance you can get for such low prices.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

~sniip~

Yeah I only care about the gaming side of things, as do most on here eh

[Humbug]

I decided to wait it out a little until more testing and benchmarks had been posted. What we actually see, according to the numbers, is that the 290/X's still hold up really well against the 970/980's in terms of pure performance, especially at higher resolutions. 

While this is true, it hasn't been a big performance jump compared to previous generations.

But the 970 / 980 release has still been good for the market because it has pushed down the asking price needed for that performance which helps the PC ecosystem as a whole.

[MEC-777]

While this is true, it hasn't been a big performance jump compared to previous generations.

But the 970 / 980 release has still been good for the market because it has pushed down the asking price needed for that performance which helps the PC ecosystem as a whole.

 

For sure! I mean never before have we seen a high-end GPU released with that level of performance (GTX 970) that STARTED as low as $329 US ($369 CAD). No wonder they can't keep them on the shelves.

 

Let the GPU battle rage on! B)

[kacper]

For sure! I mean never before have we seen a high-end GPU released with that level of performance (GTX 970) that STARTED as low as $329 US ($369 CAD). No wonder they can't keep them on the shelves.

 

Let the GPU battle rage on! B)

Mostly due to matured 28nm process and r290 being cheap. I don't think we'll see something like this for quite some time.

[mr moose]

Just a quick question for you guys, LukaP, MEC-777 and mr moose...

I was thinking about what that Patrick guy was talking about, how businesses building servers and supercomputers or whatever would choose Nvidia over AMD because of the higher efficiency of Nvidia, reducing electricity costs in the long run or something...

We all know that AMD is pretty much always cheaper than Nvidia. We've also found out recently that the impact that the lower power consumption actually has little impact on your power bill. Was it something like $30 a year between an R9 290 and a GTX 780? I can't remember.

 

Now he was saying that when you have thousands of GPUs, the power bill goes through the roof and that difference in power consumption makes a big difference on a larger scale. My question is:

With Nvidia's GPUs being much more expensive than AMD GPUs (with the difference in price sometimes being larger than the difference in power consumption), wouldn't the price difference between the two on a larger scale be bigger than the power bill difference? Don't a lot of corporations have special deals with electricity companies or something, just like with ISPs?

The more I think about it, the more I think that there's more to the whole server/supercomputer side of the argument that's being left out. Then again, I'm just an idiot with a computer. I know nothing about this stuff.

I hope that makes sense, I don't really know what I'm talking about

 

Apart from what has been pointed out already, there is a lot more to it than just the cost of power and the cost of the cards, they also have to consider which software they are using, will there be extra setup and planning time, will reliability be an issue for the size of the room they are running it all in (I have seen small servers crash because the air con failed in the server room).  There is also long term support and price of power over time.

 

So essentially there is no way we mere enthusiasts can account for all that and effectively use it as an argument in this type of discussion.  It would be like trying to argue what brand truck is best for a courier when we don't know the load size, route taken, cost of fuel on that route or the length of the transport contract.

 

I remember a thread a while ago talking about office computers and why a thin client or baytrail has an advantage,  I think we worked out for 1000 computers running 8 hours a day at 10c a Kwh, the company could save about $2000 a year (I would need to check the math again).  Which is quite the saving assuming the company already needs to upgrade 1000 computers otherwise it becomes a false economy and a false argument.

[kacper]

I don't think electricity bill is that important in servers/supercomputers . Taxes tied to it - more likely . In some countries enviroment friendlier companies get lower taxes. UPS's are also important factor.

AMD's r290/X had shitty reference cooler - and if I'm wrong, please correct me - the only one that wasn't blowing air inside the case . Nvidia's was much better at that.

[boboman342]

Sigh. My point I guess is AMD really shouldn't be caring so much about gamers. There's just not enough money in the gaming community to keep AMD afloat. AMD not focusing on larger markets will eventually make it impossible for them to bring innovations to the gaming market.

lol you go from facts to complete ignorance and BS. I'm pretty sure Apple uses all amd gpus, and arn't macs used as work stations? I have not seen anyone game on a mac.....so amd can't be only focusing on gaming, as you stated. Hell, they are even expanding into the ssd market.

 

Like @LukaP said, calm yourself and try not to ignore when you make a mistake/are wrong or be a total hippocratic

[boboman342]

This should be very interesting, cant want for the holiday deals to roooooooooool out!

[patrickjp93]

lol you go from facts to complete ignorance and BS. I'm pretty sure Apple uses all amd gpus, and arn't macs used as work stations? I have not seen anyone game on a mac.....so amd can't be only focusing on gaming, as you stated. Hell, they are even expanding into the ssd market.

 

Like @LukaP said, calm yourself and try not to ignore when you make a mistake/are wrong or be a total hippocratic

Apple uses Nvidia in its MacBooks, and AMD gives them a cheap deal for FirePros, which is the only reason they're used in Mac Pros.

 

Also, I dual-boot on my MBPr and play games.

 

Also, AMD is not expanding into the SSD market. They re-skin existing OCZ/Toshiba SSDs. 

[kacper]

Anyway AMD is just fine , they don't really need to be biggest and most innovative ones in industry. As long as smart management is keeping everything under control they will be good.

[patrickjp93]

From Kitguru, apparently Ubisoft did something right. They confirmed the specs with an engineering sample. http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/amds-radeon-r9-390x-fiji-xt-may-feature-4096-sps-extreme-memory-bandwidth/

[boboman342]

Apple uses Nvidia in its MacBooks, and AMD gives them a cheap deal for FirePros, which is the only reason they're used in Mac Pros.

 

Also, I dual-boot on my MBPr and play games.

 

Also, AMD is not expanding into the SSD market. They re-skin existing OCZ/Toshiba SSDs. 

But you dont pay that about of $$$ on a MBPr to game on it....thus it not being "made for gaming"

 

Amd is selling ssd's manufactured my someone else. So? I dont see Nvidia with an ssd?  Samsung makes most apple/amd tech....

[patrickjp93]

But you dont pay that about of $$$ on a MBPr to game on it....thus it not being "made for gaming"

 

Amd is selling ssd's manufactured my someone else. So? I dont see Nvidia with an ssd?  Samsung makes most apple/amd tech....

No, I bought a versatile machine with a powerful set of hardware that I could externally connect to more if needed, but not have to carry if I don't need. It's for application development AND gaming.

 

Samsung makes most AMD/Apple tech? Oh that's rich. Both have most of their foundry operations in Global Foundries. Only recently did Samsung begin sending 14nm foundry technology, and it'll be 1.5 years minimum to get it all set up and running at good yields on something more complicated than NAND flash. Also, Nvidia may not have an SSD, but it has Teslas which are the 2nd most popular supercomputer accelerator card, Tegras which crush AMD's APUs for gaming, and the most power-efficient mobile GPUs on the planet worth owning. 

 

AMD has heat, inefficiency, and power. That and the HSA standard will buy you AMD's horrible financial mess.

[boboman342]

No, I bought a versatile machine with a powerful set of hardware that I could externally connect to more if needed, but not have to carry if I don't need. It's for application development AND gaming.

 

Samsung makes most AMD/Apple tech? Oh that's rich. Both have most of their foundry operations in Global Foundries. Only recently did Samsung begin sending 14nm foundry technology, and it'll be 1.5 years minimum to get it all set up and running at good yields on something more complicated than NAND flash. Also, Nvidia may not have an SSD, but it has Teslas which are the 2nd most popular supercomputer accelerator card, Tegras which crush AMD's APUs for gaming, and the most power-efficient mobile GPUs on the planet worth owning. 

 

AMD has heat, inefficiency, and power. That and the HSA standard will buy you AMD's horrible financial mess.

So you acknowledge my point amd is invested in other markets different from gaming, as you said wasn't the case.

Thankyou

[patrickjp93]

So you acknowledge my point amd is invested in other markets different from gaming, as you said wasn't the case.

Thankyou

No, AMD isn't investing in anything enterprise with any real effort or engineering. AMD has to take skin-of-the-teeth margins on FirePros to sell them to Apple. You pay a premium on top of already expensive OCZ/Toshiba drives to buy AMD's re-skin. That's not investment or development. It's just sad.

 

I'll defend AMD when they produce something of caliber to actually compete and make Intel less appealing for the price.

[Opcode]

I would love to see something really kick ass from AMD.

 

Honestly I doubt it, but if AMD could pull something out of their ass then that would be spectacular.

 

If not then I guess I'll be picking up a 970.

The R9 390X should be the single fastest card on the market, it's rumored specs are quite impressive (4096 SPU @ 1 GHz [20nm], 4 GB 4096-bit HBM @ 1.25 GHz 640 GB/s). Also keep in mind it should be based on the latest GCN 3.0 architecture which provides lossless memory compression and higher tessellation performance. The biggest question is pricing, if AMD can price this card around the GTX 980 current owners are going to be quite disappointed. The fact that you're aiming for a GTX 970, your budget won't accommodate one of these new cards so I would just get the GTX 970 now.

[boboman342]

No, AMD isn't investing in anything enterprise with any real effort or engineering. AMD has to take skin-of-the-teeth margins on FirePros to sell them to Apple. You pay a premium on top of already expensive OCZ/Toshiba drives to buy AMD's re-skin. That's not investment or development. It's just sad.

 

I'll defend AMD when they produce something of caliber to actually compete and make Intel less appealing for the price.

Profit is profit? It's better than not selling them. That is the definition of investment and development. Making money off nothing, its great! 

 

The only 8 core cpu's that wernt server grade were amd. Amd has offered 8 core cpus on the mainstream socket for 5-10 years....intel had 6 cores..... Let me tell you, those amd chips and motherboards are waaaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper than the intel ones. 

[mr moose]

The biggest question is pricing, if AMD can price this card around the GTX 980 current owners are going to be quite disappointed.

 

And this is one of the reasons why I never buy a card within a year of it's release.  I may never have the premium product, but I have also never paid a premium for a product that got "one up'd" 3 months later.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Apart from what has been pointed out already, there is a lot more to it than just the cost of power and the cost of the cards, they also have to consider which software they are using, will there be extra setup and planning time, will reliability be an issue for the size of the room they are running it all in (I have seen small servers crash because the air con failed in the server room).  There is also long term support and price of power over time.

 

So essentially there is no way we mere enthusiasts can account for all that and effectively use it as an argument in this type of discussion.  It would be like trying to argue what brand truck is best for a courier when we don't know the load size, route taken, cost of fuel on that route or the length of the transport contract.

 

I remember a thread a while ago talking about office computers and why a thin client or baytrail has an advantage,  I think we worked out for 1000 computers running 8 hours a day at 10c a Kwh, the company could save about $2000 a year (I would need to check the math again).  Which is quite the saving assuming the company already needs to upgrade 1000 computers otherwise it becomes a false economy and a false argument.

 

Yeah we're not all CEOs of big companies eh

I hear $2000 isn't much for a big business though. Didn't Linus say he'd go through $60k in a flash on the WAN show a while back?

[mr moose]

Yeah we're not all CEOs of big companies eh

I hear $2000 isn't much for a big business though. Didn't Linus say he'd go through $60k in a flash on the WAN show a while back?

 

I would say $2000 is pocket change for most companies, however, having worked for a few smaller companies specifically making things more efficient, one of the things that makes a company successful is attention to detail.  That is, not dismissing $20 here and $40 there.  You should see the how quickly a managers ears spring up when you say you've identified a potential $100's or $1000's per year saving.  This is because just like a small problem or issue that goes unresolved can snowball into a big issue that costs money, a small financial saving/investment can just as easily snowball into a huge saving/growth.