AMD almost worth a quarter of what it paid for ATI

[Ashaira]

Guess it make sense cos they only have low-end CPUs and that the Fury series was destroyed by the 980 Ti 

You might argue that watercooling will help with multi-GPU systems, but the tubes are hard to route due to being separate units and OCability is pretty much non-existent 

Funny thing. Leap computing the company that is offering a PC renting service (takes a while to explain look them up) is offering 2 options for high end machines.

 

An Nvidia based one with a titan x or for the same price and config but with an AMD GPU you can get a dual fiji machine.

 

Also funny is the fact that these were planned before the 980ti even began to have leaks. So either Nvidia came with the 980TI literaly out of their butt or nvidia refused to offer discounts for this company on anything less than a titan x (perhaps for marketing?) while AMD offered the dual fiji card (before there was any mention about the fiji cards the page at leap computing said something along the lines of "Unspecified AMD 8 GB GPU")

[H4nn3s]

I personally don't think they will or if they did they would not be aggressive about it, I think that could/would be construed as antitrust given there aren't any other real players in the discrete GPU segment.

But if Intel will do a discrete GPU, they probably ask someone to help, and i don't think the would ask AMD, due to that they are making processors as well.

[H4nn3s]

Funny thing. Leap computing the company that is offering a PC renting service (takes a while to explain look them up) is offering 2 options for high end machines.

An Nvidia based one with a titan x or for the same price and config but with an AMD GPU you can get a dual fiji machine.

Also funny is the fact that these were planned before the 980ti even began to have leaks. So either Nvidia came with the 980TI literaly out of their butt or nvidia refused to offer discounts for this company on anything less than a titan x (perhaps for marketing?) while AMD offered the dual fiji card (before there was any mention about the fiji cards the page at leap computing said something along the lines of "Unspecified AMD 8 GB GPU")

I think i heard something about that before, but Nvidia doesn't have to make discounts, they already own over 75% of the market.

[Ashaira]

I think i heard something about that before, but Nvidia doesn't have to make discounts, they already own over 75% of the market.

A cloud computing service buys hardware in bulk not at store prices. Generaly these things are made with discounts in mind due to high volume

[H4nn3s]

A cloud computing service buys hardware in bulk not at store prices. Generaly these things are made with discounts in mind due to high volume

Yes that is true, but when more people choose the Nvidia option over the AMD option Nvidia has higher sales again

[Ashaira]

Yes that is true, but when more people choose the Nvidia option over the AMD option Nvidia has higher sales again

but due to branding not actual performance. Yeah 980Ti is a bit faster than a fury x but for the leap computing case the only reason to get the titan x option is if you need the 12 GB of Vram for something specific or want PHYSX since FPS wise the dual fiji will perform better and acording to leap computing the AMD cards offer better latency for their service.

[NinjaTitan]

2013 should have been a good year for AMD due to that both new consoles as well as the new Mac Pro use AMD graphics, but not even that helped. Now we can just hope that Nvidia and Intel don't team up.

Console margins are spectacularly bad and Apple is bending AMD over a barrel on the FirePro pricing. AMD isn't getting buckets of money from those guys and people here seem to think that AMD can solve their financial problems by making cheaper Fury cards and 14 core FX chips.

Both Intel and Nvidia have huge, biblical HPC income. That's what funds everything else they do. AMD is not a player in supercomputing. They don't make money. They have TWO of the Top 500, none of which are even in the upper 100.

IBM does not care about consumer products, they sell POWER systems to financial institutions and what not. Intel and Nvidia soak up the rest with their Phi and Tesla powered systems. That's a spectacular amount of income that AMD will never have.

It's a terrible downward spiral for them.

[patrickjp93]

But if Intel will do a discrete GPU, they probably ask someone to help, and i don't think the would ask AMD, due to that they are making processors as well.

Actually, asking AMD for help and paying them more than they usually make in GPU revenues could be lucrative for both parties.

[AlwaysFSX]

 

970 ghz > 680  7900 > 690 295x2 > titan z (Dont talk about power problems, if you read the manual it says clearly you must check psu). The drivers are fixed. 

Lol, okay buddy. Keep living a dream world. They only think you're right about is the 295 being better than a Z, but that's because they used a water cooler.

[ACatWithThumbs]

AMD can compete easily with Intel, They are with their iGPU's to some extent, with better CPU's it'll be easy to compete. 

 

No they aren't you have to realize that the majority  of consumer Intel CPU's are actually low end-mid range CPU's that are getting sold as high end products with huge Apple like profit margins.

The i7 series k could just as easily get 6/8 cores with 12/16 HT at the same price if they wanted to the only reason why they're still selling CPU's for $300-400 with 4 cores is AMD not keeping up.

AMD in it's current position can't compete on any level with Intel as they simply lack the money to do so for every engineer AMD highers Intel can put 2 for the same job and give them way more resources to work with.

And let's not even start with marketing where Intel is on a complete different world.

 

[Nakano2k1]

Jesus christ... The number of kool aid drinkers on this forum is pathetic. Honestly, a "AMD not as good as NVidia, 4% slower" or "AMD earnings low" or "AMD going out of business" appears, and the tables over trolls and NVidia/Intel fan boys rise 6 inches.

 

Instead of actually going to sample the product, they take people's word for it. Not only that, but seeing how the majority of people still game at 1080p and lower resolutions you'd think that EVERYONE games at 4K if you read the forums here. 

 

This is honestly the iPhone effect all over these forums. I'm better than you because I own this. It's so pathetic...

[patrickjp93]

No they aren't you have to realize that the majority of consumer Intel CPU's are actually low end-mid range CPU's that are getting sold as high end products with huge Apple like profit margins.

The i7 series k could just as easily get 6/8 cores with 12/16 HT at the same price if they wanted to the only reason why they're still selling CPU's for $300-400 with 4 cores is AMD not keeping up.

AMD in it's current position can't compete on any level with Intel as they simply lack the money to do so for every engineer AMD highers Intel can put 2 for the same job and give them way more resources to work with.

And let's not even start with marketing where Intel is on a complete different world.

No, the reason Intel isn't selling 6/8-core chips for a Z-series platform is lack of demand. Consumer software just doesn't demand enough threads to need more cores, and that's not going to change any time soon. And before you say that would change if we had more cores, it wouldn't. We've had the frameworks to build scalable code for 15 years since OpenMP was first created. We've had C++ threads practically since the language was created even farther back in time. Intel has been the one adding instruction set extensions to let their individual cores do more as well. Intel provides exactly what the market majority demands and then segments products accordingly.

[Nakano2k1]

Multi-threading for content creation is great and well supported. Once the code is written, it works on multiple projects and doesn't have to be so massively rewritten like games. 

 

When AMD said that they would introduce 8 core cpus with only four thread schedulers at a 32nm process, most people knew that it would be a disaster. IPC would be horrid and power consumption would be high to say the least. 

 

What I don't get is why they wanted to use bulldozer as a general use chip when it clearly, given it's design, neither excels at gaming nor content creation.

[othertomperson]

Well first off...

 

380 =/= 280x..

 

The 380 launched at the same price as the R9 285, the card it was supposed to replace. Not the 280x.

 

The 390 performs significantly better than the 290 at 1440p, and bronco busts the 970. It exists to replace the 280x at a 330 dollar price point.

 

Im not a fan of the R9 300 series, but 60 percent of that series only exists because of AMD's inability to produce an entire series with HBM due to manfacturing difficulties. They had to give consumers SOMETHING. the Nano, Fury, Fury X, and Fury X2 or whatever its called would have never been enough for a full fledged series. The R9 300 series is a filler, it just exists to satisfy people at the lower end of the AMD spectrum that want to get those extra frames at nice price points that the R9 390 provides,

 

The 380 doesn't replace a 285, it is a 285. It's literally the same card. The point is most people on this forum are (rightly) still recommending a 280X because the 285 never made any sense because the 280X is better unless you need the new features. Just like the 270X is still the price-to-performance card because it's much better than the 370. Did the 265 even make sense over the 260X when both were "current" (ie, only been rebranded once).

 

As for the 390 out-performing the 290. Yeah, it's overclocked. Overclock your 290, it's the same exact card otherwise. it doesn't "bronco bust" the 970. At stock it's slightly better (because it's overclocked), but if you overclock the 970 it will dominate the 390.

 

The 390 isn't meant to replace the 280X. It's meant to replace the 290, otherwise it would be the 380X. It probably should have been a 380X. Usually when Nvidia or AMD rebrand a card it comes back as a lower tier. This generation has seen every card come back either as the same tier, or move up a tier.

[H4nn3s]

Console margins are spectacularly bad and Apple is bending AMD over a barrel on the FirePro pricing. AMD isn't getting buckets of money from those guys and people here seem to think that AMD can solve their financial problems by making cheaper Fury cards and 14 core FX chips.

Both Intel and Nvidia have huge, biblical HPC income. That's what funds everything else they do. AMD is not a player in supercomputing. They don't make money. They have TWO of the Top 500, none of which are even in the upper 100.

IBM does not care about consumer products, they sell POWER systems to financial institutions and what not. Intel and Nvidia soak up the rest with their Phi and Tesla powered systems. That's a spectacular amount of income that AMD will never have.

It's a terrible downward spiral for them.

Yes that is true, but AMD didn't really launch anything spectacular in the last ~2 years, which is especially these days too long.

[H4nn3s]

Actually, asking AMD for help and paying them more than they usually make in GPU revenues could be lucrative for both parties.

But you have to think that AMD is doing Cpus as well, but Nvidia not.

[Spoonfull]

The 380 doesn't replace a 285, it is a 285. It's literally the same card. The point is most people on this forum are (rightly) still recommending a 280X because the 285 never made any sense because the 280X is better unless you need the new features. Just like the 270X is still the price-to-performance card because it's much better than the 370. Did the 265 even make sense over the 260X when both were "current" (ie, only been rebranded once).

 

As for the 390 out-performing the 290. Yeah, it's overclocked. Overclock your 290, it's the same exact card otherwise. it doesn't "bronco bust" the 970. At stock it's slightly better (because it's overclocked), but if you overclock the 970 it will dominate the 390.

 

The 390 isn't meant to replace the 280X. It's meant to replace the 290, otherwise it would be the 380X. It probably should have been a 380X. Usually when Nvidia or AMD rebrand a card it comes back as a lower tier. This generation has seen every card come back either as the same tier, or move up a tier.

 

Thats the whole point of a rebrand, isn't it now?

 

 

 

As for the 390 out-performing the 290. Yeah, it's overclocked. Overclock your 290, it's the same exact card otherwise. it doesn't "bronco bust" the 970. At stock it's slightly better (because it's overclocked), but if you overclock the 970 it will dominate the 390.

 

Not everyone overclocks...Alot of people dont do it, like me. ALOT OF PEOPLE rely on stock performance and based their purchase off that. I, personally, could care less which one is better when overclocked because I wont be overclocking.

 

 

 

The 390 isn't meant to replace the 280X. It's meant to replace the 290, otherwise it would be the 380X. It probably should have been a 380X. Usually when Nvidia or AMD rebrand a card it comes back as a lower tier. This generation has seen every card come back either as the same tier, or move up a tier.

 

They dropped the entire 280x concept from their series. Look at the price of the 390. It was put out there to replace the 280x. And thats what it has done. The 390 is the GTX 770 of the R9 300 series. Its a legitimate refreshed card. Same architecture, just on steroids. 

Its probably the only quality card in the entire series, and it does beat the GTX 970 pretty badly in 1440p benchmarks. Go ahead, watch the video. It maintains a 10 FPS difference in alot of the benchmarks.

[othertomperson]

Thats the whole point of a rebrand, isn't it now?

 

 

Not everyone overclocks...Alot of people dont do it, like me. ALOT OF PEOPLE rely on stock performance and based their purchase off that. I, personally, could care less which one is better when overclocked because I wont be overclocking.

 

 

They dropped the entire 280x concept from their series. Look at the price of the 390. It was put out there to replace the 280x. And thats what it has done. The 390 is the GTX 770 of the R9 300 series. Its a legitimate refreshed card. Same architecture, just on steroids. 

Its probably the only quality card in the entire series, and it does beat the GTX 970 pretty badly in 1440p benchmarks. Go ahead, watch the video. It maintains a 10 FPS difference in alot of the benchmarks.

 

The point of rebrands is so that the price can return to what it was when it was launched two (or four) years ago, you can dupe the uneducated into spending more money then they need to on something, and that you get to pretend that you are still relevant, while all of the R&D gets offloaded onto the board partners.

 

If you buy the 390, you are overclocking. Or rather, you're buying a card that has been overclocked for you. If that is worth the price difference over just buying a 290 a month ago, then that's up to you. It's good that you care about overclocking performance, because it's free performance. In the case of the 970, it's a 980 or 390X for £265, which isn't bad. Mind you, a 290X is also a 390X for £265, so make of that what you will.

 

They haven't dropped the 380X, any more than Nvidia have dropped the 960 Ti. They'll get around to releasing it at some point. The 285 was never a fully enabled chip.

 

I don't know why you keep repeating that an overclocked 290 is beating a 970. Yeah. It's overclocked. Overclock the 970 and it beats the 390 again.

[patrickjp93]

But you have to think that AMD is doing Cpus as well, but Nvidia not.

Nvidia does SOCs like the Tegra and expressed interest in x86 long ago. I'd love to see AMD get split up and given cross-wise to Nvidia and Intel and let them duke it out. With Denver and Jim Keller, Nvidia could pose a serious threat on the CPU side. With Papermaster, Koduri, and its superior fabrication tech and larger production scale than TSMC, Intel could wipe that smug grin clear off Jen Hsun Huang's face in two years flat.

[Prysin]

hbm was a flop as it is, the fury hardly performs better than the 390x in a few benchmarks. amd need to pull their finger out and make powerful yet efficient cpus, they might be making cpus and gpus for low end gaming but wheres the stuff for enthusiasts 

 

 

There you go. According to Linus, TRULY ENTHUSIAST.

 

well, if you aint doing it right with that GPU, it gunna burn yer house down, so thers that

[Sammael]

The forum is not green, Just because people acknowledge when a company isn't doing well doesn't make them anti that company.  If that was case everyone on the forum must absolutely hate Atari and Nintendo.   As I have said so many times before, if you want to know how biased or unbiased a forum is go look at what is being recommended in the planning sub forum.  I am guessing all these people who constantly claim this forum to be green don't spend any time down there.

 

Also for your information AMD have been at or higher than a 72% chance of bankruptcy for the last 6 years. 

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/261053/a-bankruptcy-analysis-of-amd-groupon-and-radioshack-

 

This means that regardless of what they have in the bank, it won't save them from liquidation if things turn sour. 

 

 

Nobody disputes amd is not doing well financially.  The dispute is over amd products are garbage and unworthy of peoples money, which incidentally has a direct relationship over how well amd does finnacially.  That last is what you see puked all over the place.  People often don't even care if a 970 has less performance than a 390, they will still recommend the 970 because nvidia makes it.  When they don't have the performance per dollar argument they will shift to drivers, or point to power draw, or gameworks.  These same people almost certainly were not buying a 7970 GHz edition when it was the best card for the money, if nvidia was a bit under amd all these people would do is wait to upgrade until nvidia had a better alternative or choose the weaker nvidia alternative to stay green.  And that's fine by the way, but they sit here and LIE to my face and everyone else and try to pretend as if they don't favor nvidia over amd because of brand.  They think they are some purely logical deciders that only care about facts.  They can lie to themselves all they want in private, but I won't let them lie in front of me without some push back.

[mr moose]

Nobody disputes amd is not doing well financially.  The dispute is over amd products are garbage and unworthy of peoples money, which incidentally has a direct relationship over how well amd does finnacially.  That last is what you see puked all over the place.  People often don't even care if a 970 has less performance than a 390, they will still recommend the 970 because nvidia makes it.  When they don't have the performance per dollar argument they will shift to drivers, or point to power draw, or gameworks.  These same people almost certainly were not buying a 7970 GHz edition when it was the best card for the money, if nvidia was a bit under amd all these people would do is wait to upgrade until nvidia had a better alternative or choose the weaker nvidia alternative to stay green.  And that's fine by the way, but they sit here and LIE to my face and everyone else and try to pretend as if they don't favor nvidia over amd because of brand.  They think they are some purely logical deciders that only care about facts.  They can lie to themselves all they want in private, but I won't let them lie in front of me without some push back.

 

Again, you obviously don't spend much time in the sub forum where GPUs are recommended because the 390, 380, and just prior to the 300 series the 270, 280 and 290x where recommended as much if not more than the 970. 

 

You can't argue that AMD CPU's are worth recommending at the moment,  and because their GPU's are being recommended your claims that lies are being "puked all over the place" is simply a fallacy.   Recommendations are made based on the OP's desires, budget and use case.   And for your information, not everyone games at or above 1440, therefore cards that can handle gameworks, tessellation at a lower price bracket is a legitimate rationale for looking at nvidia. 

 

And finally, AMD are not doing well because 1. They are not producing products consumers want to buy and 2. They are not making enough profit out of each product,  I don't know why you think it is for any other reason.  You seem to think AMD's financial position is a result of fanboys not recommending their products, this is also a fallacy.

[Fobok]

I can't really keep up on the market or hardware discussions... I've always been mainly a software guy, I've always trusted my local store to recommend parts to me. (Until recently. Now that the store is closed down, I'm looking into things myself.)

 

However, I remember when Intel had control, back in 1999. I had two Intel CPUs fail on me in as many months, (the second being the warranty replacement for the first), and I was getting frustrated. I was in college at the time, away from my hometown store, and needed the computer for school. Now, the fault probably wasn't Intel, it was probably lack of cooling in my case, but at the time I blamed Intel quality control. So it was recommended to me by the tech at Future Shop to give this new CPU called an Athlon a try, but they didn't sell them there. I finally tracked down a store that sold Athlon CPUs and compatible motherboards... but I had to ask for it specifically, and they had to sell it to me in an unmarked box, as Intel had apparently made it clear without officially saying it that stores that sold AMD chips would lose the support of Intel. 

 

Whether or not the CPU failures were an Intel quality control issue, I don't want to see Intel return to the near-monopoly it had back then, to be able to bully small businesses like that.

[mr moose]

I can't really keep up on the market or hardware discussions... I've always been mainly a software guy, I've always trusted my local store to recommend parts to me. (Until recently. Now that the store is closed down, I'm looking into things myself.)

 

However, I remember when Intel had control, back in 1999. I had two Intel CPUs fail on me in as many months, (the second being the warranty replacement for the first), and I was getting frustrated. I was in college at the time, away from my hometown store, and needed the computer for school. Now, the fault probably wasn't Intel, it was probably lack of cooling in my case, but at the time I blamed Intel quality control. So it was recommended to me by the tech at Future Shop to give this new CPU called an Athlon a try, but they didn't sell them there. I finally tracked down a store that sold Athlon CPUs and compatible motherboards... but I had to ask for it specifically, and they had to sell it to me in an unmarked box, as Intel had apparently made it clear without officially saying it that stores that sold AMD chips would lose the support of Intel. 

 

Whether or not the CPU failures were an Intel quality control issue, I don't want to see Intel return to the near-monopoly it had back then, to be able to bully small businesses like that.

 

Intel were guilty of some unethical practices* back then But it was not with retail shops and had nothing to do with motherboards,  I dare say they just wanted to clear out some old or demo stock and didn't have a retail box for it. 

 

*compiler gimping for AMD and anti trust practices with the PC makers.

[othertomperson]

There you go. According to Linus, TRULY ENTHUSIAST.

 

well, if you aint doing it right with that GPU, it gunna burn yer house down, so thers that

 

I find it a bit sad that slapping an off the shelf AIO on something is considered "truly enthusiast".