AMD, with Polaris, is gambling big on VR

[Paragon_X]

ok call me an idiot but if you manage to release a GPU that runs VR at the recommended settings 1440p @90Fps then you have a badass GPU that would boost sales imho. I dont know about the 300 USD price but even at 400 that would be really good performance / $

[zMeul]

19 minutes ago, alamox said:

AMD lost market share not because of desktop, but because they had no GPU for Mobiles, OEMs

au contraire

AMD lost the mobile sector because OEMs themselves lost faith and/or trust in AMD's products

AMD had chips for the mobile segment - my own HP laptop is equipped with a Radeon dGPU

 

Intel ... Intel already dominated presence in the mobile sector

 

22 minutes ago, alamox said:

and seriously you should be happy that AMD is going to provide high performing card for under 300$ mark

why?! I already have a video card and I don't plan upgrading it unless it breaks

as for high performing card .. I'm laughing - Polaris 10 is not a high end product, Vega will be

 

25 minutes ago, alamox said:

and soon enough you will find 200$ chinese VR headset

I sorry .. what!?

and what about compatibility?

[Delicieuxz]

So, the great news is that Polaris is going to offer a lot of power per dollar. I don't think AMD can go wrong with that - and neither can PC gamers.

 

zMeul, your OP makes it sound as if betting on VR means the power of the upcoming Polaris isn't going to do anything for non-VR. The reality is that that power is going to be present for all PC gamers, and for a lower price point. Which means that the upcoming card is going to be a great buy for non-VR gamers as well as VR-gamers. So, there's not really a gamble there, because there isn't a lost sales market if people don't use VR.

 

Quote

the only viable VR alternative that has the potential to kickstart the VR is SONY, with their PS4 system - the rumored price (I think it was actually confirmed, not sure) of the system was ~800$ including the HMD

and this is where AMD is going - the new PS4 UHD "4K", with upgraded APU that will most likely include a Polaris 10 or 11 GPU

 

and the forecast for VR adoption was cut by 20% after the troublesome Rift and Vive launches

 

 

gambling on VR .. not a good deal, not right now anyways

 

You have completely ignored the explicit point made, that AMD recognizes that there isn't big incentive for VR uptake right now, and that is exactly what they're aiming to address.

[Delicieuxz]

9 minutes ago, zMeul said:

au contraire

AMD lost the mobile sector because OEMs themselves lost faith and/or trust in AMD's products

AMD had chips for the mobile segment - my own HP laptop is equipped with a Radeon dGPU

 

Intel ... Intel already dominated presence in the mobile sector

 

why?! I already have a video card and I don't plan upgrading it unless it breaks

as for high performing card .. I'm laughing - Polaris 10 is not a high end product, Vega will be

 

I sorry .. what!?

and what about compatibility?

Dude, seriously, just shut it. You continue to be as gross and aggressive of an Nvidia fanboy as possible, and you aren't anything close to being smart about your arguments:

 

>"you should be happy that AMD is going to provide high performing card for under 300$ mark"

>>"why?! I already have a video card and I don't plan upgrading it unless it breaks"

 

Uh, OK, so in your perspective the gaming world isn't going to care about a high-powered, inexpensive graphics card, because you own a sh!tty Nvidia card? Did that really sound like an effective retort to you before you typed it out?

 

You should be banned from the forum for abusive commercial propaganda, which is the only thing you contribute to AMD discussions. You aren't even hiding that your intention is to steer sentiments based on inane, misconstruing and misinformed statements.

[zMeul]

10 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, the great news is that Polaris is going to offer a lot of power per dollar. I don't think AMD can go wrong with that - and neither can PC gamers.

 

zMeul, your OP makes it sound as if betting on VR means the power of the upcoming Polaris isn't going to do anything for non-VR. The reality is that that power is going to be present for all PC gamers, and for a lower price point. Which means that the upcoming card is going to be a great buy for non-VR gamers as well as VR-gamers. So, there's not really a gamble there, because there isn't a lost sales market if people don't use VR.

 

one: you misunderstood my points entirely

 

two: Roy Taylor hinted at a cheap product and not of a price/performance product in the same category as R9 290X or GTX970

let's recap on what he said:

Quote

I don't know what the price is gonna be, but let's say it's as low as £500/$600 and as high as £800/$1000. That price range is not going to expand the TAM for VR. We're going on the record right now to say Polaris will expand the TAM. Full stop.

if you expect Polaris 10 to be on the same performance as GTX970 or R9 290X for 300$ or under .. oh boy you're gonna be disappointed 

[ThinkWithPortals]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

one: you misunderstood my points entirely

Can you rephrase them in a way we can understand then?

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

if you expect Polaris 10 to be on the same performance as GTX970 or R9 290X for 300$ or under .. oh boy you're gonna be disappointed 

You're in no position to say that. We have no idea what the performance is going to be like.

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Uh, OK, so in your perspective the gaming world isn't going to care about a high-powered, inexpensive graphics card, because you own a sh!tty Nvidia card?

since when do we get from "me" to what the market thinks?

he asked me. not what the market thinks

 

you don't agree with my perspective? so what!! move on

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

You're in no position to say that. We have no idea what the performance is going to be like.

but I am, AMD already classified Polaris 10 as mainstream desktop and hi-end notebook GPU

---

 

as for rephrasing, can't be bothered - I'm already beeing misquoted

[ThinkWithPortals]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

but I am, AMD already classified Polaris 10 as mainstream desktop and hi-end notebook GPU

 

I know that they classified it that way. What I mean is you can't say that they won't deliver on their claim of very high performance for $300 or under, as you said here:

 

15 minutes ago, zMeul said:

if you expect Polaris 10 to be on the same performance as GTX970 or R9 290X for 300$ or under .. oh boy you're gonna be disappointed 

 

[vanished]

Maybe they are willing to sell the cards cheaper and then follow it up with a VR product of their own... that's the only way it makes sense to me that they are going to try and profit off the combo of cheap GPUs + VR

[Dietrichw]

It's seems like everyone is assuming that this is directly related to the 490 class card for a super low price. It seems more reasonable for them to expand the market with a 480X for under $300 as that card "should" slightly out perform or match a 970 or 290. It also would seem like Nvidia would do the same with a 1060 when it comes out later than the 1080/1070 if it is like the 900 series. If this happenes AMD would be unopposed at the VR threshold point for a while as Nvidia's closest pascal card at launch will be a $400-600 card.

[zMeul]

30 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

I know that they classified it that way. What I mean is you can't say that they won't deliver on their claim of very high performance for $300 or under, as you said here:

again with the misquoting ...

 

for AMD to make a step in mainstream VR they need a cheap product

a cheap product cannot be at the same perf level of a R9 290X or GTX 970; not even if they die shrink existing designs

a new process node doesn't deliver a good number of usable chips / wafer - the fab needs to finetune the manufacturing process and that doesn't happen overnight

 

I believe Polaris 10 will be around the performance level of a R9 380X - and with the appropriate tweaks it could drive a VR headset

the PS4 APU has a much much lower performing incorporated GPU and can drive SONY's VR

 

----

 

here's what VideoCardz.com said: http://videocardz.com/59445/amd-polaris-aiming-at-vr-capable-graphics-cards

Quote

Polaris 10 will likely aim at Radeon R9 480 series where prices normally don’t exceed 350 USD

he has the exact performance evaluation as me

[samcool55]

Don't care about what it can do with VR, it's nice that they market it as VR-ready and it would be even better if they can get it VR-certified which they probably can.

And it's a zMeul post again, so ignoring what he said, i think it's a good idea. VR is a big deal and AMD is not the only one that knows that.

It will probably take a while before it will become more mainstream, but i believe it will get there eventually.

 

This time a new technology doesn't only look cool, but it is cool and it has proven itself multiple times it is refined and decently designed, it actually works as you would expect which is a big deal for new tech.

[Ivo]

It's exiting too see 980 ti performance in such a cheap package! Granted there is no reason for 980 ti to be expensive as it is in a first place. Glad to see AMD going aggressive on VR especially with the low cost, something that is much needed. Hopefully NVIDIA follows up and improves on their poor dx 12 performance, but knowing them they will shaft 9xx series as soon as 10xx comes out. This reminds me of when Sandy Bridge came out, AMD was about to launch bulldozer I believe and Intel got scared so they gave us Sandy which is to this day very competitive chip. Would be cool to see same thing in response to zen from Intel side and with Polaris from Nvidia side. yaay for competition.

[alamox]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

au contraire

AMD lost the mobile sector because OEMs themselves lost faith and/or trust in AMD's products

AMD had chips for the mobile segment - my own HP laptop is equipped with a Radeon dGPU

 

Intel ... Intel already dominated presence in the mobile sector

 

why?! I already have a video card and I don't plan upgrading it unless it breaks

as for high performing card .. I'm laughing - Polaris 10 is not a high end product, Vega will be

 

I sorry .. what!?

and what about compatibility?

ok you have a laptop with radeon GPU, a GPU made in 2012, they lost mobile and OEMs because they didnt make low/mid range GPU with the right power envelope, what did they release since 2012 ? after 7970, 290 after it 295, Fury, rebrands, and tonga was still too much tdp for mobile.

AMD isnt releasing a new line up for zMeul, alot of ppl who have 750/950/960/970/250/260/270/280/290 etc would be happy to upgrade to a Fury like perf for 300bucks, that is a huge market in the desktop 100times bigger than 980ti/TitanX/Fury owners that would be disapointed at polaris10, beside the money is not where enthusiasts are, the margin is but the market share and the volume sales are on low mid range

VR headsets are simple displays, there is a workaround, steamVR isnt just for Vive and oculus, look they already hacked the Vive to work on oculus home

[SteveGrabowski0]

So much for Polaris 10 being anything close to the 980 Ti. 

 

Straight out of AMD Roy's mouth, this is a mainstream card targeting VR specs with a price cut to try to expand the VR userbase. Sounds like it'll be something like 970 performance for $250-$270, which isn't that great a deal since you could already get that with an aftermarket R9 290 for $220-$260 from November 2014 until maybe June 2015. So AMD will have nothing to come close to GP104 until Vega.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Targeting VR this year with mainstream cards is stupid. Someone is paying $600 for a Rift or $800 for a Vive and then won't spend $420 for at least a 1070? I don't see it.

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

but I am, AMD already classified Polaris 10 as mainstream desktop and hi-end notebook GPU

So...? It's expected for tech that was top tier to become mainstream the next year (that's how it was before, with a higher difference until last few years). If you expect top tier to be as powerfull as 290X/970, then there's your problem.

And mainstream is not necessarily cheap. For them everything below the mentioned cards is mainstream, and there is where for instance 380X lies. I don't see that as a cheap card, but if it's successor can beat the 290X/970, which I'm sure it will w/o a problem, then I don't see a problem here. Polaris 10 beating 980Ti... is far-fetched in my opinion, and I don't believe them, but if it's between 980 and 980Ti I'll be more than happy. 

 

I personally don't see them focusing on VR as a bad thing. VR may not be alive yet, but if their cards can run VR stuff easily, imagine what they'll do in "normal" games. I'm fine with that as well. I say bring it on. 

[Energycore]

5 hours ago, zMeul said:

you didn't bothered reading the OP? did you ...

of course not, we all know it's very insightful without having to read it.

[Prysin]

5 hours ago, zMeul said:

AMD needs to sell shit, marketshare or not - for couple of years now, they are hemorrhaging money left and right

no they dont. They need to KEEP selling shit. Which they will only do if their products are so good that people talk about em to others.

How do you make people talk about your products? Either be ridiculously cheaper then your competition while still offering equal performance OR simply have more vendor specific features to completely overwhelm the buyer with buzzwords.

AMD doesnt have the cash to invent more and better stuff then Nvidia can, so they can only undercut Nvidia with products performing well.

 

 

Also, do you know why Twitter and Facebook is valued at billions of dollars despite NOT producing even remotely enough money in revenue to justify their value?

It is because said companies has a HUGE ASS "Potential" customer base.

Same with LTT, Linus Media Group is VERY attractive because it has POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. 

 

Thing is, aslong as the potential has actual merit, the investors are going to accept a loss of revenue if it means a gain in market share.

 

Higher market share is "free PR". Being able to show that you are on the rise, or are the biggest player is enough for people in the street to buy your product.

 

Anyway, your original post is so full of irrelevant bullshit it doesnt really have any relevance or merit.

[alamox]

25 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Targeting VR this year with mainstream cards is stupid. Someone is paying $600 for a Rift or $800 for a Vive and then won't spend $420 for at least a 1070? I don't see it.

lol seriously....

you misunderstood the whole argument from his quote, or you didnt pay attention to it, the guy said they were doing this to expand the base of minimum spec required for VR, which in return will encourage vendors to lower the price of their headsets, and Devs to create software.

i dont know how to embed videos, so go to youtube and search for "Oculus Rift Price and Hardware at CES 2016"  and at 12:00minute when palmer is asked, will the price ripples down, he answered for the rift the biggest barrier is the cost of the PC, because mainstream doesnt have the spec needed, and providing cheaper headset wouldn't help mainstream to get into VR.

so in short this little dance should start at the GPU performance going mainstream, when the prospects are there, vendors will subsidize and cut the price of the headsets to make it mainstream, then Devs will dive both feet first into VR.

[SteveGrabowski0]

20 minutes ago, alamox said:

lol seriously....

you misunderstood the whole argument from his quote, or you didnt pay attention to it, the guy said they were doing this to expand the base of minimum spec required for VR, which in return will encourage vendors to lower the price of their headsets, and Devs to create software.

i dont know how to embed videos, so go to youtube and search for "Oculus Rift Price and Hardware at CES 2016"  and at 12:00minute when palmer is asked, will the price ripples down, he answered for the rift the biggest barrier is the cost of the PC, because mainstream doesnt have the spec needed, and providing cheaper headset wouldn't help mainstream to get into VR.

so in short this little dance should start at the GPU performance going mainstream, when the prospects are there, vendors will subsidize and cut the price of the headsets to make it mainstream, then Devs will dive both feet first into VR.

So the argument is since you can get 970 performance for maybe $50 less, that's going to get so many users to buy VR ready machines that Occulus will sell their headsets at losses like Sony with the PS3 or Microsoft with the XBox 360?

[SteveGrabowski0]

Or are they going to sell 970 performance for say half the price of a 970?

[Okjoek]

I don't care about VR, I just want AMD to continue providing me with the traditional PC quality equipment at cheaper than the competitor. It doesn't have to be super high end or overpriced like Nvidia as long as I see progression.

[alamox]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

So the argument is since you can get 970 performance for maybe $50 less, that's going to get so many users to buy VR ready machines that Occulus will sell their headsets at losses like the PS3 or XBox 360 did?

the argument is taking the performance of a segment that sold alot less, and put it in a segment that sell alot more, thats basicaly the difference from mainstream and high end,

but yea thats pretty much how it works