Radeon Pro Duo drops down to $800 MSRP

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, redtute said:

Linus could redo 7 Gamers 1 CPU.
With 14 Gamers 1 CPU

i dont think you can do that, but you could do 7 crossfire setups one system 

[Wolther]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

i dont think you can do that, but you could do 7 crossfire setups one system 

I think the server case would melt 

[cj09beira]

Just now, Wolther said:

I think the server case would melt 

nahhh, it would be fineee :-p

[vanished]

3 hours ago, cj09beira said:

i dont think you can do that, but you could do 7 crossfire setups one system 

Actually that would be an interesting question... could you assign each of the individual GPUs to a VM, or would you be limited to giving a whole Pro Duo to each VM, so each of the 7 gamers just has crossfire?  Hm...

[cj09beira]

6 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Actually that would be an interesting question... could you assign each of the individual GPUs to a VM, or would you be limited to giving a whole Pro Duo to each VM, so each of the 7 gamers just has crossfire?  Hm...

i believe we wouldn't be able to assign each gpu because they probably cant be turned off or started separately of each other. 

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

i believe we wouldn't be able to assign each gpu because they probably cant be turned off or started separately of each other. 

You're probably right, but I'm still curious to see for sure  

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Actually that would be an interesting question... could you assign each of the individual GPUs to a VM, or would you be limited to giving a whole Pro Duo to each VM, so each of the 7 gamers just has crossfire?  Hm...

AMD actually has a number of professional/server cards that support hardware GPU virtualization, SR-IOV. It's also likely all future cards will support this including Vega, not sure if they will firmware lock it out of the consumer cards though.

 

Using SR-IOV is much better than Nvidia's method of GPU virtualization through drivers, you can get more users per GPU and SR-IOV being an open standard it's much easier to support.

http://techreport.com/news/29666/firepro-s7100-graphics-cards-bring-hardware-gpu-virtualization-to-life

http://www.amd.com/Documents/Multiuser-GPU-White-Paper.pdf

 

You could take the 7 gamers 1 CPU to the next level and do 7 gamers 1 CPU and 1 GPU, 1080p CS:GO or equiv ofc .

[TheRandomness]

On 21/01/2017 at 1:23 AM, leadeater said:

Well they could have made the memory interface on the GPU larger and doubled the number of HBM stacks to get 8GB of vRAM. It wasn't a technical limit it was a sanity limit as to accommodate the use of more HBM stacks at the time would have made the total card price so insanely high none would have been sold.

 

A technical limit is something like the maximum addressable memory space in a 32bit application. AMD imposed a design limit which is self chosen rather than a technical limit which is an impossibility to exceed due to factors outside of your control.

I mean, how hard would a 8192 bit bus be to implement?

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You could take the 7 gamers 1 CPU to the next level and do 7 gamers 1 CPU and 1 GPU, 1080p CS:GO or equiv ofc .

Very interesting.  Although I think we all know what Linus would do... he'd throw a 24 core Xeon in there with the full 7 card load anyway and do 49 gamers 1 CPU  

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

I mean, how hard would a 8192 bit bus be to implement?

We landed on the moon in 1969, surely we can do 8192 bit bus by now damn it 

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Very interesting.  Although I think we all know what Linus would do... he'd throw a 24 core Xeon in there with the full 7 card load anyway and do 49 gamers 1 CPU  

Don't you mean 24 core Xeons?

[Space Reptile]

On ‎21‎.‎01‎.‎2017 at 2:43 AM, Mr.Meerkat said:

First world problems with reference PCBs, you can fry dem VRMs too easily  

according to STRIXX my 290´s VRM is bearly above core temp , not even getting to 80c under load , I might just have a good card tho  

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

according to STRIXX my 290´s VRM is bearly above core temp , not even getting to 80c under load , I might just have a good card tho  

Nawh, the VRMs fried not because of temps but just too much stress...

[TheRandomness]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Nawh, the VRMs fried not because of temps but just too much stress...

Considering the 290's VRM can push 500A at 90 Celsius... you'd have to stress it hard to kill it..

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

Considering the 290's VRM can push 500A at 90 Celsius... you'd have to stress it hard to kill it..

Hmmmm...maybe something short circuited killing one of my 290Xs with a bang and the other one actually more likely being a failure of the vRAM chips...

[Fetzie]

10 hours ago, Wolther said:

I think the server case would melt 

With those 4000 rpm server fans? Unlikely. Those things can shift a hell of a lot of air.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

We landed on the moon in 1969, surely we can do 8192 bit bus by now damn it 

that would mean that all the data path would be 8192 bit wide, and would consume a lot of space, its better to increase frequency

[Necrodead]

I know the MSRP has come down, but can someone actually find one for that price? I can't seem to. Would also help if it shipped to canada.

[ZestyJalapeno]

I don't need an OP GPU for 1200p

 

I don't need an OP GPU for 1200p

 

I don't need an OP GPU for 1200p

 

I

 

I NEED IT!

[crystal6tak]

$800 still too high lol

 

By my paper math, (assuming 100% scaling), dual 1070 would cost the same but perform 30% better...

 

So really, it should cost like $650 to be worth it.

[Masada02]

1 hour ago, crystal6tak said:

$800 still too high lol

 

By my paper math, (assuming 100% scaling), dual 1070 would cost the same but perform 30% better...

 

So really, it should cost like $650 to be worth it.

BUT, you can put 2 Pro Duo's next to each other and only take up 4 slots, lol.

 

That's all I'd use them for. A SFFish quad gpu build. And even then I don't want to drop $1600 on 4 gpu's with only 4GB of memory.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, crystal6tak said:

$800 still too high lol

 

By my paper math, (assuming 100% scaling), dual 1070 would cost the same but perform 30% better...

 

So really, it should cost like $650 to be worth it.

First thing's first: The $650 price figure for dual GTX 1070 is optimistic at best. Going onto NewEgg and looking at the regular products, some of which are on-sale, others not, the average price seems to aim towards $400 each. The cheapest ones seem to be around $380, and the most expensive ones around $450.

 

So we can conclude that best case, we get dual GTX 1070 for $760, and worst case for $900. Big difference.

 

If we look at the Fury X, there's, frankly, a terrible selection. The cheapest is $390 (And since they're all reference design, buy the cheapest). So a dual Fury X build would be of similar price to a dual GTX 1070 build.

 

Now, of course, the GTX 1070 is still better then an R9 Fury X. But my point was, you cannot compare a dual GPU card to two GPU's, without first comparing a dual GPU card to two of it's single GPU counterparts.

 

Dual GPU cards are more expensive - period. Doesn't matter, generally speaking, which one. So if you compare two GTX 1070's against a Radeon pro Duo, you should instead, compare the 1070's against two R9 Fury X's, or two R9 Nano's.

[crystal6tak]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

First thing's first: The $650 price figure for dual GTX 1070 is optimistic at best. Going onto NewEgg and looking at the regular products, some of which are on-sale, others not, the average price seems to aim towards $400 each. The cheapest ones seem to be around $380, and the most expensive ones around $450.

 

So we can conclude that best case, we get dual GTX 1070 for $760, and worst case for $900. Big difference.

 

If we look at the Fury X, there's, frankly, a terrible selection. The cheapest is $390 (And since they're all reference design, buy the cheapest). So a dual Fury X build would be of similar price to a dual GTX 1070 build.

 

Now, of course, the GTX 1070 is still better then an R9 Fury X. But my point was, you cannot compare a dual GPU card to two GPU's, without first comparing a dual GPU card to two of it's single GPU counterparts.

 

Dual GPU cards are more expensive - period. Doesn't matter, generally speaking, which one. So if you compare two GTX 1070's against a Radeon pro Duo, you should instead, compare the 1070's against two R9 Fury X's, or two R9 Nano's.

I'm saying the fury pro duo should be at $650, not dual 1070's.

 

You can get dual 1070's for $800, which is why I compared it with the fury pro duo.

 

Dual fury X vs dual 1070 wouldn't make sense either as the 1070 has a solid 28% lead. (despite them costing the same)

 

And frankly, imo, if you got 800$ to spend, just get a 1080 + waterblock (nvm, that's too expensive, get one of those AIO cooled cards) and OC the crap out of it. It'll perform pretty damn close to the fury pro duo. And you won't have to worry about CFX support, driver support, frame pacing issues, vram bottleneck, basically a more consistent and stable experience all around.

 

So, what I'm saying is, both the fury X and fury pro duo are overpriced. (although from what I understand, they aren't dropping in price since the die itself is so massive it's expensive to make them)

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, crystal6tak said:

I'm saying the fury pro duo should be at $650, not dual 1070's.

 

You can get dual 1070's for $800, which is why I compared it with the fury pro duo.

 

Dual fury X vs dual 1070 wouldn't make sense either as the 1070 has a solid 28% lead. (despite them costing the same)

 

And frankly, imo, if you got 800$ to spend, just get a 1080 + waterblock (nvm, that's too expensive, get one of those AIO cooled cards) and OC the crap out of it. It'll perform pretty damn close to the fury pro duo. And you won't have to worry about CFX support, driver support, frame pacing issues, vram bottleneck, basically a more consistent and stable experience all around.

 

So, what I'm saying is, both the fury X and fury pro duo are overpriced. (although from what I understand, they aren't dropping in price since the die itself is so massive it's expensive to make them)

Oh I agree that dual Fury X's wouldn't make sense - the price right now of a Fury X is stupid. It makes no sense in the current lineup of available cards. I honestly think AMD has abandoned the Fiji based cards, at this point.

 

I don't believe any dual GPU setup is worth it, for gaming. Sure, some people don't have issues, but a single GTX 1080, Titan XP, or Vega based card (Assuming they were available) would be a better idea.

[Masada02]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Oh I agree that dual Fury X's wouldn't make sense - the price right now of a Fury X is stupid. It makes no sense in the current lineup of available cards. I honestly think AMD has abandoned the Fiji based cards, at this point.

 

I don't believe any dual GPU setup is worth it, for gaming. Sure, some people don't have issues, but a single GTX 1080, Titan XP, or Vega based card (Assuming they were available) would be a better idea.

I doubt they are still making those chips. My guess is they are just depleting stock of what was already made. Either that or they've recouped the cost of developing that chip and can afford to sell it for a lot less than originally.