AMD's Vega architecture previewed at ve.ga

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, RKRiley said:

Not the exact same image, but same chip.

Hmmm... If I don't see a remake of the Nano I'm going to bitch everywhere.

[App4that]

34 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

Taking away market share is great. But I'm talking about profitability, the actual making money part. Nvidia makes so much more money on a 1070 than AMD does on a 480 that even if AMD were selling more of them, this would not be as significant as you apparently believe.

 

But they aren't, and won't be, selling more of them anyway.

I'm sure you have evidence of this, the profitability difference that is. I know you wouldn't make blind assumptions. 

[captain cactus]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

If there is a good roundup post I can add it to the OP if you would like?

Yo, someone took the time and made a nice roundup post here: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/717996-amd-unveils-more-info-about-vega/ 

 

Wanna merge it with this one?

 

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

I'm sure you have evidence of this, the profitability difference that is. I know you wouldn't make blind assumptions. 

I don't have any sources, but I'm sure nvidia makes more profit on a single 1070 than AMD does on a 480 (or than nvidia makes on a 1060).

[App4that]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't have any sources, but I'm sure nvidia makes more profit on a single 1070 than AMD does on a 480 (or than nvidia makes on a 1060).

Nah, Nvidia has the resources to lose more money than AMD, but you generally make more at a lower price point. People think you make more up top because they pay more. 

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Nah, Nvidia has the resources to lose more money than AMD, but you generally make more at a lower price point. People think you make more up top because they pay more. 

You make more on the low end as a whole. But on a unit by unit basis the higher end card is more profitable.

[App4that]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

You make more on the low end as a whole. But on a unit by unit basis the higher end card is more profitable.

Actually, you'd be surprised how often that's not so. Worked in dealerships for years, worked in china overseeing manufacturing of unit. Always made more down low, up top you have to cut the price to move the product. Not sure on the 1070 and 480 as I've never seen the costs. But I bet even the retailer makes more on a 480. 

[Morgan Everett]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

I'm sure you have evidence of this, the profitability difference that is. I know you wouldn't make blind assumptions. 

Quite right: it's not blind assumption, but common (business) sense. Generally speaking, higher value items attract greater profit margins than lower value ones. This is how companies like Ferrari are able to make their money, even though they sell relatively few cars. Companies like Volvo are able to make theirs by selling lower value cars, with much diminished margins, at considerably higher volumes.

 

The reason Nvidia is so successful is that they do both: sell high(er) value cards, with fat margins, at very high volumes. AMD is not going to be able to enjoy even vaguely comparable profitability (at least in their graphics division) unless they compete in that higher end market, since the volumes and margins in the mid range are simply not good enough. As it goes, the 480 is outsold by the 1070, which also has better margins. Imagine how quickly Volvo would struggle if they sold fewer cars than Ferrari!

 

The upshot of this is that Vega is focused on the higher end of the market, because that's where AMD needs to focus. Let's hope they're successful, no?

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

-snip-

So lets recap.

 

Making an assumption based on better memory, bad. making an assumption based off price, good?

 

And if you want to use cars, google the profit in a Corvette verses a Malibu. 

[leadeater]

41 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

Hate to say I told you so!

Well true over the last year it has shifted a great deal, but without knowing how the breakdown is any GTX card sold could be in the Gaming tally, even ones sold in pre-built systems to businesses.

 

From the date I mentioned and back the gaming category made up less than half the revenue which is how I thought it still was, even then it was closer to 50% than I thought it was.

 

What's even more interesting is what was mentioned in this article.

Quote

NVIDIA has had a pretty successful run since the introduction of their Maxwell products, and these results are all prior to Pascal even coming on the market in a consumer card

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10319/nvidia-announces-q1-fy-2017-results-strong-growth-in-all-segments

 

So all the numbers we have been looking at don't include any of the Pascal sales, meaning it will be even more aligned with what you said when those numbers come in.

[Morgan Everett]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

So lets recap.

 

Making an assumption based on better memory, bad. making an assumption based off price, good?

Unlike men, not all assumptions are made equal. Assuming that the 1070 attracts greater profit margins than the 480 is a reasonable assumption that occurs to anyone with a basic knowledge of business. On the other hand, your assumption that Vega will "beat" Pascal based merely on the fact at least one Vega card will sport HBM2 is, well...the less said about it the better.

 

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

Unlike men, not all assumptions are made equal. Assuming that the 1070 attracts greater profit margins than the 480 is a reasonable assumption that occurs to anyone with a basic knowledge of business. On the other hand, your assumption that Vega will "beat" Pascal based merely on the fact at least one Vega card will sport HBM2 is, well...the less said about it the better.

 

I'd wager my back ground would shock you. As I said, you want to use cars look at the Corvette verses the Malibu. 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

Unlike men, not all assumptions are made equal. Assuming that the 1070 attracts greater profit margins than the 480 is a reasonable assumption that occurs to anyone with a basic knowledge of business.

Yep pretty much. Products that have a higher unit cost generally have greater profit margins to account for potentially lower volume of sale, if you happen to sell them in a higher volume well then..

 

[Morgan Everett]

Just now, App4that said:

I'd wager my back round would shock you. As I said, you want to use cars look at the Corvette verses the Malibu. 

It's probably better to focus on GPUs; my reference to Ferrari and Volvo was just a learning aid.

 

Anyway, until you understand the basic principles I've outlined, there's little else to say. But I don't recommend a career in business strategy!

 

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well true over the last year it has shifted a great deal, but without knowing how the breakdown is any GTX card sold could be in the Gaming tally, even ones sold in pre-built systems to businesses.

 

From the date I mentioned and back the gaming category made up less than half the revenue which is how I thought it still was, even then it was closer to 50% than I thought it was.

 

What's even more interesting is what was mentioned in this article.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10319/nvidia-announces-q1-fy-2017-results-strong-growth-in-all-segments

 

So all the numbers we have been looking at don't include any of the Pascal sales, meaning it will be even more aligned with what you said when those numbers come in.

I imagine (though I'm not sure) that GPUs sold into pre-built systems would fall under the "OEM" category.

 

If those figures don't include Pascal, then I look forward to seeing how things have shifted still further.

 

 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Morgan Everett said:

It's probably better to focus on GPUs; my reference to Ferrari and Volvo was just a learning aid.

 

Anyway, until you understand the basic principles I've outlined, there's little else to say. But I don't recommend a career in business strategy!

 

LOL!!! I've done everything from clean the toilets to owning the dealership. 

 

But you have brought a smile to my face. 

[Morgan Everett]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

LOL!!! I've done everything from clean the toilets to owning the dealership. 

 

But you have brought a smile to my face. 

And you mine!

[DragonTamer1]

Did they live stream it or not? I've been trying to find the live stream where they talked about it but nothing comes up.

 

I'm so confused...

[captain cactus]

5 minutes ago, DragonTamer1 said:

Did they live stream it or not? I've been trying to find the live stream where they talked about it but nothing comes up.

 

I'm so confused...

Nope. The countdown was to an NDA lift (look at pcper or anandtech's articles), not a live stream.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Nope. The countdown was to an NDA lift (look at pcper or anandtech's articles), not a live stream.

they must have had something, because there were photos leaked of the vega die :-|.

[captain cactus]

22 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

they must have had something, because there were photos leaked of the vega die :-|.

Yeah, I don't know where those came from. Must've been a press-only event at which point why not stream the whole thing.

[Citadelen]

4 hours ago, roylapoutre said:

-snip-

The Vega chip shown was Vega 10 to my knowledge, which was faster than a 1080 in that test. The name scheme goes in the order of which was developed first. Polaris 10 was developed first, then Polaris 11, and more recently Polaris 12. Vega 10 in this instance is supposed to be the smaller chip with 4,096 shaders, while Vega 11 is the bigger chip rumored to contain 6,144 shaders. 

What excites me is the sheer number of shaders built on a new architecture built for high clock speeds and an even higher IPC than GCN already has.

[S w a t s o n]

1 hour ago, Citadelen said:

Vega 10 in this instance is supposed to be the smaller chip with 4,096 shaders, while Vega 11 is the bigger chip rumored to contain 6,144 shaders. 

What excites me is the sheer number of shaders built on a new architecture built for high clock speeds and an even higher IPC than GCN already has.

Yea, this is really the most important piece of information we need to find out. IF vega 10 is 1080 tier, vega 11 is probably going to stomp on the 1080ti, which may be why we've seen some talk of volta.

[Fetzie]

24 minutes ago, Swatson said:

Yea, this is really the most important piece of information we need to find out. IF vega 10 is 1080 tier, vega 11 is probably going to stomp on the 1080ti, which may be why we've seen some talk of volta.

Yeah, if this is "small Vega" that we've been seeing and hearing about, then AMD could be onto a real winner.

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, Swatson said:

Yea, this is really the most important piece of information we need to find out. IF vega 10 is 1080 tier, vega 11 is probably going to stomp on the 1080ti, which may be why we've seen some talk of volta.

Previously they shown a similar Vega card running Doom 4K at >60FPS and that card have 8GB of VRAM according to Doom overlay. This time they only show the FPS.

If that overlay display the correct VRAM value then it's probably a lower end Vega unless HBM2 is too expensive for anything over 8GB.

[79wjd]

6 hours ago, App4that said:

I'd wager my back ground would shock you. As I said, you want to use cars look at the Corvette verses the Malibu. 

In fairness, a car is different from a GPU core. A 1070 core is basically just a bigger 1060 (and only 50% bigger at that) core whereas a Corvette is an entirely different build/quality/construction/etc... compared to a Malibu.