7th Generation AMD PRO

[Citadelen]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

-snip-

 

I think we can both agree here that that post was simply an attempt at poking a jibe at AMD and serves no purpose. You should probably just stop, you come off as highly obnoxious.

[Doobeedoo]

It's a solid APU lineup to kick off new platform until we see Zen on AM4 with X370 chipset. But yeah, I guess not many will care, aside those that build such super budget.

I just hope we see something high end by end of year. It was said some builds will be available so, yeah.

[NumLock21]

Saw their product page when they released the consumer A12. Those run on ddr4. Amd pro A12 runs on ddr3. 

[Dabombinable]

So. Another 28nm APU based around the highly inefficient CMT architecture....

[Spongy141]

I am confused, so after seeing this I decided to run the same benchmark as AMD did. Is the benchmark broken? 
 

I never thought my 270x could somehow outperform 2 980s in SLI...

[RexinOridle]

So this is a CPU, GPU or APU?

[Notional]

24 minutes ago, Spongy141 said:

I am confused, so after seeing this I decided to run the same benchmark as AMD did. Is the benchmark broken? 
 

I never thought my 270x could somehow outperform 2 980s in SLI...

It's a CPU benchmark silly. Your GPU's are irrelevant. Reason why the I5 scores higher is due to the big overclock it has, while the I7 isn't even running boost clock.

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, RexinOridle said:

So this is a CPU, GPU or APU?

This is a new series of Bristol Ridge APU's - but these particular ones are going to be used in more semi-custom environments, most likely.

 

From a consumer viewpoint, these are products we don't care much about, since you're not gonna go to NewEgg and buy em. Maybe we'll see them in some custom/smaller form factor PC's and laptops though - as well as embedded stuff.

[Spongy141]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

It's a CPU benchmark silly. Your GPU's are irrelevant. Reason why the I5 scores higher is due to the big overclock it has, while the I7 isn't even running boost clock.

Thanks for the info

[Prysin]

13 hours ago, Enderman said:

Pro Duo

was a damn good product for what it was.

Just because a product is not for you, nor me, doesnt mean it is bad. 

[Prysin]

8 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

So. Another 28nm APU based around the highly inefficient CMT architecture....

depends on power envelope. Excavator likes low power and performs better (perf per watt wise) then equivalently priced intel offerings. Intel seem to favor a slightly higher power envelope then the 15-45w area that Excavator v2 operates in. 

 

Please do not that this is "v2" and not OG excavator. It has some production tuning done to it to run at higher clocks and much lower power then before. Leakage seems to be better too, as performance metrics suggest the "power to perf drop" that we saw compared to Kaveri (aka, the more power the worse perf per watt for excavator) has been improved drastically.

 

I would not be surprised if a A12 Pro can match a i5 ULV or maybe even a last gen i7 ULV... As for i5HQ, i dont think so, then again HQ SKUs from Intel sits at a much higher price point then even AMDs "PRO" offerings, so naturally you should expect more from a more expensive SKU.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Oh bruh, this aint gonna be gud

[TotaLInsanity]

 

15 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

-snip-

 

Zen Desktop chips should be landing any time in the next 2 months, so AMD needs to make sure they can handle that.

 

-snip-

AMD Zen will launch "In the first half of 2017"

[Enderman]

6 hours ago, Prysin said:

was a damn good product for what it was.

Just because a product is not for you, nor me, doesnt mean it is bad. 

If a product is so overpriced and niche that 12 people buy it, then it's bad.

 

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

If a product is so overpriced and niche that 12 people buy it, then it's bad.

 

That's a generalization, and not strictly true at all.

 

SpaceX has had not many more than 12 customers with their Falcon 9 rocket. Is that a bad product? No.

 

It's all about the balance between cost of the product (Both hardware and R&D) + how many people expect to buy it.

 

The Pro DUO was pretty niche, but being niche doesn't really mean a damn thing, as long as they find a market for it.

 

With that in mind, I have no idea what the sales numbers are for the Pro DUO, and I suspect you don't either - but if you do happen to know those numbers, please post a source.

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

That's a generalization, and not strictly true at all.

 

SpaceX has had not many more than 12 customers with their Falcon 9 rocket. Is that a bad product? No.

 

It's all about the balance between cost of the product (Both hardware and R&D) + how many people expect to buy it.

 

The Pro DUO was pretty niche, but being niche doesn't really mean a damn thing, as long as they find a market for it.

 

With that in mind, I have no idea what the sales numbers are for the Pro DUO, and I suspect you don't either - but if you do happen to know those numbers, please post a source.

1) for a company that's struggling for 20% of market share, it shouldn't be making near-useless unprofitable products.

I called it before release that it was gonna be a failure, and it was.

 

2) the "market" AMD claimed it was for was for professionals, but no professional is stupid enough to buy a GPU with 4GB of vram.

Professionals buy quadros, firepros, and titans because of the 12, 16, 24GB of vram or more.

 

3) I have not seen a single person show or say that they bought a pro duo, on here or on reddit which is where people usually show off their new purchases.

However, the 295x2 which was a success, I saw plenty of posts about when it was released.

 

4) I have also seen more people with firepros and quadros than pro duos.

$1500 for a GPU with 4GB of vram doesn't appeal to any kind of "professional".

[Tomsen]

18 minutes ago, Enderman said:

1) for a company that's struggling for 20% of market share, it shouldn't be making near-useless unprofitable products.

I called it before release that it was gonna be a failure, and it was.

 

2) the "market" AMD claimed it was for was for professionals, but no professional is stupid enough to buy a GPU with 4GB of vram.

Professionals buy quadros, firepros, and titans because of the 12, 16, 24GB of vram or more.

 

3) I have not seen a single person show or say that they bought a pro duo, on here or on reddit which is where people usually show off their new purchases.

However, the 295x2 which was a success, I saw plenty of posts about when it was released.

 

4) I have also seen more people with firepros and quadros than pro duos.

$1500 for a GPU with 4GB of vram doesn't appeal to any kind of "professional".

1) What makes you think it was near-uselss and unprofitable?

Good thing you called it, but who is to back it up? Only AMD knows if it actually was worth it.

 

2) Not quite. It was specifically tailored towards VR/game devs. Those do not really buy quadros, firepros.

 

3) Because it was not targeted towards consumers. It was targeted towards game dev studios.

The 295x2 was targeted towards consumers.

 

4) Yeah, it is not the highest volume product, so what?

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

1) What makes you think it was near-uselss and unprofitable?

Good thing you called it, but who is to back it up? Only AMD knows if it actually was worth it.

 

2) Not quite. It was specifically tailored towards VR/game devs. Those do not really buy quadros, firepros.

 

3) Because it was not targeted towards consumers. It was targeted towards game dev studios.

The 295x2 was targeted towards consumers.

 

4) Yeah, it is not the highest volume product, so what?

It's pretty obvious it was not worth it to anyone, neither game developers, gamers, or professionals.

Go around and ask all the game developers you want about what GPU they use, I can guarantee you that it is not a pro duo.

 

My point is AMD wasted a ton of money developing a product which is now out of date and outperformed by a ton.

They waited way too long to release it. They also didn't give out review samples because they didn't want people to know that their $1500 GPU gets outperformed by two $500 ones they make themselves.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

If a product is so overpriced and niche that 12 people buy it, then it's bad.

 

overpriced?

1500 USD

 

please, enderman, go look up the cost of Quadros and Firepros, because the Pro Duo has FIREPRO DRIVERS AND RADEON GAMING DRIVERS. Meaning it can work as either one by just installing a different driver.

 

Now please tell me the most powerful FIREPRO you can get for 1500 USD.

[Prysin]

21 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's pretty obvious it was not worth it to anyone, neither game developers, gamers, or professionals.

Go around and ask all the game developers you want about what GPU they use, I can guarantee you that it is not a pro duo.

 

My point is AMD wasted a ton of money developing a product which is now out of date and outperformed by a ton.

They waited way too long to release it. They also didn't give out review samples because they didn't want people to know that their $1500 GPU gets outperformed by two $500 ones they make themselves.

AMD AND NVidia also doesnt give out Quadros and Firepros to "gaming review sites" because they know gamers dont buy those, and the people who DO buy those cards doesnt use em for gaming.

 

your point is weak and moot

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

overpriced?

1500 USD

 

please, enderman, go look up the cost of Quadros and Firepros, because the Pro Duo has FIREPRO DRIVERS AND RADEON GAMING DRIVERS. Meaning it can work as either one by just installing a different driver.

 

Now please tell me the most powerful FIREPRO you can get for 1500 USD.

One fury X costs less than $500, so yeah, $1500 is 3 times that much.

You can get firepros for less than $2k which have 12GB or more vram.

 

If a game developer needed to install different drivers every time he wants to test something he would probably kill himself.

Also, idk about you, but I haven't heard of a game that requires firepro drivers to run.

 

4 minutes ago, Prysin said:

AMD AND NVidia also doesnt give out Quadros and Firepros to "gaming review sites" because they know gamers dont buy those, and the people who DO buy those cards doesnt use em for gaming.

 

your point is weak and moot

Linus reviewed some...

And my point is I see many people with quadros and firepros, and 0 with a pro duo.

 

You either are a professional, or are not.

If you are, you need a GPU with more than 4GB of vram, and since it's your job you can probably easily afford a 24GB quadro or firepro.

If you are not, then you're a consumer and 300% price for not even 200% performance of a fury X doesn't make any sense.

 

So as you can see, this card neither fits consumers nor professionals and is a niche product.

It's pretty simple honestly...

If there are two markets, A and B, and this card fit in neither of them, why did AMD waste money making it??? Exactly.

[Tomsen]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

It's pretty obvious it was not worth it to anyone, neither game developers, gamers, or professionals.

Go around and ask all the game developers you want about what GPU they use, I can guarantee you that it is not a pro duo.

 

My point is AMD wasted a ton of money developing a product which is now out of date and outperformed by a ton.

They waited way too long to release it. They also didn't give out review samples because they didn't want people to know that their $1500 GPU gets outperformed by two $500 ones they make themselves.

No, it is not "pretty obvious". There are no signs suggesting such, and no signs suggesting otherwise. You can't draw conclusion if you don't actually got any information.

I can, and I wouldn't ask many before reaching the first one. Crytek studio would be a quick one.

 

Your point is build on nothing. You don't know how much money they "wasted" (how much of the R&D of regular polaris fiji could be reused with old dual-GPU tech), so the cost is down quite a lot. The release was on point. No need to release something, when there aren't a market for it. They specifically waited for VR to release the pro duo. Why give out review samples if they don't review what the product is supposed to cover? 

[Citadelen]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

-snip-

Just a heads up, AMD is currently sitting at 29.9% according to Jon Peddie (or 34.2% according to Mercury Research) markek share.

Regarding the Pro Duo, yes two Fury X is cheaper but the benefit would be an extra PCI slot and much lower power consumption than two Fury Xs.

About its uses, developers from the film industry were rather interested in it, I can't say for game developers though.

[Tomsen]

18 minutes ago, Enderman said:

If a game developer needed to install different drivers every time he wants to test something he would probably kill himself.

Also, idk about you, but I haven't heard of a game that requires firepro drivers to run.

Jesus. You quite clearly don't understand how the titan works then?

Game devs use the gaming drivers, content creators can use pro drivers for certified software.

 

Quote

And my point is I see many people with quadros and firepros, and 0 with a pro duo.

 

You either are a professional, or are not.

If you are, you need a GPU with more than 4GB of vram, and since it's your job you can probably easily afford a 24GB quadro or firepro.

If you are not, then you're a consumer and 300% price for not even 200% performance of a fury X doesn't make any sense.

 

So as you can see, this card neither fits consumers nor professionals and is a niche product.

It's pretty simple honestly...

If there are two markets, A and B, and this card fit in neither of them, why did AMD waste money making it??? Exactly.

First of all; Quadros and firepros are series of products going over multiple generations, the pro duo is a single product (so far). Quadros and firepros covers more than pro duo does.

 

What about semi-professional? What if I'm a professional VR content/gaming creator?

Not necessarily. Cool you think all companies have the money lying around buying buying quadros/firepros to all their developers.

 

What about prosumers? What is the titan?

If you only see 2 markets, you have to visit a ophthalmologist.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours ago, Prysin said:

depends on power envelope. Excavator likes low power and performs better (perf per watt wise) then equivalently priced intel offerings. Intel seem to favor a slightly higher power envelope then the 15-45w area that Excavator v2 operates in. 

 

Please do not that this is "v2" and not OG excavator. It has some production tuning done to it to run at higher clocks and much lower power then before. Leakage seems to be better too, as performance metrics suggest the "power to perf drop" that we saw compared to Kaveri (aka, the more power the worse perf per watt for excavator) has been improved drastically.

Well, you know how it is: AMD launches an iteration of Excavator, no die shrink, better performance per watt, and it is an embarrassing waste of effort. Intel launches an iteration of Skylake, no die shrink, better performance per watt, and it is a milestone in R&D ¯\_(ツ)_/¯