AMD Radeon RX VEGA to Launch at SIGGRAPH 2017

[mr moose]

Just now, cj09beira said:

but they were there was 2 generations, (might be the gtx 260) were amd had a 250~ mm^2 chip getting 10 percent lower perf than nvidea's 400 mm^2 chip, and nvidea's chip consumed double the power and costed almost twice as much, but because they are nvidea they still outsold amd, go figure 

So basically we agree it has been about 4 years since AMD have been able to bring something to the table?

 

They outsold AMD becasue they are nvidia or because the cards performed slightly better, check your biases/assumptions. You do realize that majority of the gaming public do not care about die size or power consumption, they care about $$$ and performance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

Just now, mr moose said:

So basically we agree it has been about 4 years since AMD have been able to bring something to the table?

 

They outsold AMD becasue they are nvidia or because the cards performed slightly better, check your biases/assumptions. You do realize that majority of the gaming public do not care about die size or power consumption, they care about $$$ and performance.  

With extremely heavy weighting on performance.

[cj09beira]

Just now, mr moose said:

So basically we agree it has been about 4 years since AMD have been able to bring something to the table?

 

They outsold AMD becasue they are nvidia or because the cards performed slightly better, check your biases/assumptions. You do realize that majority of the gaming public do not care about die size or power consumption, they care about $$$ and performance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

did you even read what i said, 10% more perf for twice the price,

plus i was responding to you saying that nvidea never was behind in tech, if a die with 250~mm^2 is beating a 400 mm^2 one that is tech advantage.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

With extremely heavy weighting on performance.

Yep, most of the time the difference was $50 at best,  when your spending towards $1500 on a PC $50 slowly becomes less relevant.

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

did you even read what i said,

 

Yep you said:

 

Quote

but because they are nvidea they still outsold amd, go figure 

 

Because they are Nvidia is what you said, you said they sold because of the brand.   I'm not even going to attempt to talk to you about claiming they cost "almost twice as much".

[cj09beira]

@mr moose

if you want data here it is 

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/217/geforce-gtx-260

576 mm^2

450 usd

directx 10 -shader model 4.0 - OpenCL 1.1

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/219/radeon-hd-4870

256 mm^2

300 usd

directx 10.1 -shader model 4.1 - opencl 1.0

 

 

perf is neck a neck acording to techpowerup database

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

@mr moose

if you want data here it is 

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/217/geforce-gtx-260

576 mm^2

450 usd

directx 10 -shader model 4.0 - OpenCL 1.1

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/219/radeon-hd-4870

256 mm^2

300 usd

directx 10.1 -shader model 4.1 - opencl 1.0

 

 

perf is neck a neck acording to techpowerup database

That's amazing, I mean isn't it wonderful to have all that information and yet not understand how it relates to consumers.  They don't care about that shit, they look at FPS graphs and $$ tags.   Then they buy the biggest they can afford.  Over the last 4 years (even more) that has been Nvidia.  I'm sorry that causes you some sort of distress, but that is the way it goes.

 

Also this might cause you some distress, see if you can look at it without making assumptions about why people buy the products they do.  BTW that is 2002 to 2016 (14 years of market share, the only figures that actually matter to a company). 

 

[Valentyn]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They don't care about that shit, they look at FPS graphs and $$ tags.   Then they buy the biggest they can afford.  Over the last 4 years (even more) that has been Nvidia.  I'm sorry that causes you some sort of distress, but that is the way it goes.

Must be why AMD gained market share.

 

In Q2 2015 AMD had 18% marketshare.

 

By Q4 2016 they were at 29.5%, and all they released in 2016 was Polaris.

Damn shame they never managed to get Vega out at least Q4 2016 for the holiday period. It would certainly have helped them.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Valentyn said:

Must be why AMD gained market share.

 

In Q2 2015 AMD had 18% marketshare.

 

By Q4 2016 they were at 29.5%, and all they released in 2016 was Polaris.

Damn shame they never managed to get Vega out at least Q4 2016 for the holiday period. It would certainly have helped them.

If you look at the graph I posted you'll see both companies market share fluctuates regularly.  

[Taf the Ghost]

So much of Tech is having the right product in the right generation, then riding that to a massive profit return. That and having your competitor be run by some really bad Execs.  (The latter is probably more valuable. )

 

I also think AMD will be glad to be done with GCN, as it's kind of been a market share disaster.  Also, the GTX 970 was supposedly still one of the best sellers. It hit just the right performance, price & market environment.

[Valentyn]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you look at the graph I posted you'll see both companies market share fluctuates regularly.  

It does quarterly, and in 2016 AMD gained and held marketshare, despite no high end offerings at all.

Before that each major movement point was set at times of high end releases, AMD gaining despite that is impressive. Although highlights their failure to deliver.
It's now two years since the Fury X
 

Looking at projections AMD should be out of debt by the end of the year, and that should proper R&D for GPUs again.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

That's amazing, I mean isn't it wonderful to have all that information and yet not understand how it relates to consumers.  They don't care about that shit, they look at FPS graphs and $$ tags.   Then they buy the biggest they can afford.  Over the last 4 years that has been Nvidia.  I'm sorry that causes you some sort of distress, but that is the way it goes.

 

Also this might cause you some distress, see if you can look at it without making assumptions about why people buy the products they do.  BTW that is 2002 to 2016 (14 years of market share, the only figures that actually matter to a company). 

 

why are you assuming my intention, all i was doing is saying that amd also had periods where they had the superior technology/product, nothing more.

 

In a perfect world people would not have biases and would educate themselves before buying the card, but thats not what happens, what i see happening is people assume too much and don't check to see if the assumptions are true, then they spread those guess's with their friends and you end up with a nvidea camp and a amd camp.

now, amd did gain market share each time they had a good card: 4780, 5000 series, 7000 series was great too

 

[mr moose]

Just now, cj09beira said:

why are you assuming my intention, all i was doing is saying that amd also had periods where they had the superior technology/product, nothing more.

 

In a perfect world people would not have biases and would educate themselves before buying the card, but thats not what happens, what i see happening is people assume too much and don't check to see if the assumptions are true, then they spread those guess's with their friends and you end up with a nvidea camp and a amd camp.

now, amd did gain market share each time they had a good card: 4780, 5000 series, 7000 series was great too

 

I did not assume anything you said:

 

53 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

but they were there was 2 generations, (might be the gtx 260) were amd had a 250~ mm^2 chip getting 10 percent lower perf than nvidea's 400 mm^2 chip, and nvidea's chip consumed double the power and costed almost twice as much, but because they are nvidea they still outsold amd, go figure 

 

This is clearly you saying they only outsold AMD because they are nvidia, you are assuming the general population somehow bought products based on anything but the two main facets everyone asks for in when getting advice, $$ and performance.  

 

You have a whole paragraph there where you accusing people of making assumptions and not checking them, then spreading those guess with their friends.    I am afraid it is you who are making the assumptions here. 

[cj09beira]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I did not assume anything you said:

 

 

This is clearly you saying they only outsold AMD because they are nvidia, you are assuming the general population somehow bought products based on anything but the two main facets everyone asks for in when getting advice, $$ and performance.  

 

You have a whole paragraph there where you accusing people of making assumptions and not checking them, then spreading those guess with their friends.    I am afraid it is you who are making the assumptions here. 

well in that case amd was offering the same perf for 150 bucks cheaper, while being a more efficient chip, so unless i am missing something people should have mostly bought the amd card.

 

[Phentos]

I held out for over a year, skipping most of Pascal. I made my decision earlier this month to go green. 

 

Simply got tired of waiting.

 

If Vega is good enough to make the wait worth it, great. AMD needs that success. But it's been too long. 

[Bananasplit_00]

well then, Vega seems to be going in the bin for my plans, 1080 it is then it seems

[Devin92]

18 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Not necessarily !  To reuse the car example, you have quite technology advanced cars which aren't high end cars, but consumer grade cars and not enthusiast cars.

Nvidia has nothing comparable to freesync because their approach is more locked down. Same with HBC etc. As I said previously, both companies have their tech and amd clearly isn't behind as you seem to think.

 

No it's not. We don't know anything.

I am sure when you compare a Honda Accord V6 vs a Civic you will see Accord win over civic in every aspect. This is a more similar comparison say like gtx 1080 vs gtx 1060. Not Accord V6 vs Porsche 911 Spyder (which is focusing on different aspect and called truly enthusiast in car industry).

Sure freesync and HBC. But these advanced tech did not give AMD upper hand. AMD is still behind in GPU performance (either fps or thermal) for a few generations and this directly make their market share less. Sure if they can catch up in this area, freesynce and HBM will be very nice add on. So lets hope vega turns out to be a good product like rx 480 did comparing gtx 1060. But for now, with AMD not revealing any vega performance, all we know is they still have nothing compete in high end GPU yet.

 

[Humbug]

Every hardware website I visit I see the same comment. Basically to the effect of..

"I was waiting so long for Vega, but I've had enough, going green"

Should show AMD how badly they screwed up.

 

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 

I also think AMD will be glad to be done with GCN, as it's kind of been a market share disaster.

GCN is awesome.

But it is just an underlying architecture. AMD lost market share because they couldn't develop the right end products in a timely manner. This was a result of reduced focus on discrete graphics due to

-AMD making big losses which meant R&D slashed

- Period where AMD executives thought that APUs were the future and discrete graphics were done. This happened years ago but it is affecting the market now where AMD is not able to get products out in time because they lost product development focus years ago in discrete graphics.

 

Things have changed now, RTG is a thing, and AMD will make profits again this year, they have stopped bleeding market share at least and are actually gaining a bit.

But again due to the years long NPD process it probably won't by until Navi and later that we see the benefits of RTG. And until the gen after that we see the benefits of the improved cashflow.

 

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, Devin92 said:

I am sure when you compare a Honda Accord V6 vs a Civic you will see Accord win over civic in every aspect. This is a more similar comparison say like gtx 1080 vs gtx 1060. Not Accord V6 vs Porsche 911 Spyder (which is focusing on different aspect and called truly enthusiast in car industry).

Sure freesync and HBC. But these advanced tech did not give AMD upper hand. AMD is still behind in GPU performance (either fps or thermal) for a few generations and this directly make their market share less. Sure if they can catch up in this area, freesynce and HBM will be very nice add on. So lets hope vega turns out to be a good product like rx 480 did comparing gtx 1060. But for now, with AMD not revealing any vega performance, all we know is they still have nothing compete in high end GPU yet.

 

They're behind in high end, not mid range. That's the point. It's not because you don't make luxury cars that you can't produce good mid range ones. Same for GPU.

Nvidia has the upper hand since Maxwell, that's two generations. Even Maxwell was in competition with fury's which weren't bad compared to their counterparts, and that was last gen.

They consistently have better computing performance which are underutilized, which they understood with vega, which also explains bad gaming performances compared to what it's supposed to be.

People depict it as AMD being so bad it's becoming ridiculous...

 

[Spenser1337]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

So basically we agree it has been about 4 years since AMD have been able to bring something to the table?

 

They outsold AMD becasue they are nvidia or because the cards performed slightly better, check your biases/assumptions. You do realize that majority of the gaming public do not care about die size or power consumption, they care about $$$ and performance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 260 was 400 and amd had a card that beat the 280 for 400.

 

[Scruffy90]

So much for coming soon

[HJ1mech]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

Every hardware website I visit I see the same comment. Basically to the effect of..

"I was waiting so long for Vega, but I've had enough, going green"

Should show AMD how badly they screwed up.

 

GCN is awesome.

But it is just an underlying architecture. AMD lost market share because they couldn't develop the right end products in a timely manner. This was a result of reduced focus on discrete graphics due to

-AMD making big losses which meant R&D slashed

- Period where AMD executives thought that APUs were the future and discrete graphics were done. This happened years ago but it is affecting the market now where AMD is not able to get products out in time because they lost product development focus years ago in discrete graphics.

 

Things have changed now, RTG is a thing, and AMD will make profits again this year, they have stopped bleeding market share at least and are actually gaining a bit.

But again due to the years long NPD process it probably won't by until Navi and later that we see the benefits of RTG. And until the gen after that we see the benefits of the improved cashflow.

 

I am one of those folks. I'm building my first PC and I've been trying to wait on Vega but I just can't delay anymore. Ordering a EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3 or 1080 FTW2 next week. 

[Humbug]

18 minutes ago, HJ1mech said:

I am one of those folks. I'm building my first PC and I've been trying to wait on Vega but I just can't delay anymore. Ordering a EVGA 1080 Ti FTW3 or 1080 FTW2 next week. 

yep... launching about 1.5 years later than Nvidia's GTX 1070 and 1080.

That's ridiculous... unless it is way better product so that we can consider it a different generation.

 

At this point with such a late launch being competitive with Nvidia is not good enough. We could just laugh at them and say "so you are offering us the same performance levels that Nvdia gave 1.5 years ago?".

AMD now needs to win on performance hands down. Anything less would be lame...

[JoeCoke]

I'm not saying Vega will be horrible, but I've lost all interest in it at this point. I mean, come on. It's just too little too late. At this point only diehard AMD fans will wait for it. With Ryzen kicking so much ass I hoped Vega would be similar, but nope. At this point I'm skeptical if it'll even beat a 1080... And let's just say by some miracle that Vega actually competes with a 1080ti, that's still not good enough. The only way they can make a splash with Vega now is if it's priced significantly lower than the competition like Ryzen is doing, but I just don't think that's gonna happen. Another thing, even if Vega DID sooomehow beat the 1080ti for less money, well, Volta's around the corner too.

 

None of this looks good for AMD, they waited too fucking long. Sounds like to me HBM2 ended up hurting them badly.

 

Welp, it looks like my next system will be AMD+Nvidia, like my current one. :I

[Humbug]

5 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

I'm not saying Vega will be horrible, but I've lost all interest in it at this point. I mean, come on. It's just too little too late. At this point only diehard AMD fans will wait for it. With Ryzen kicking so much ass I hoped Vega would be similar, but nope. At this point I'm skeptical if it'll even beat a 1080... And let's just say by some miracle that Vega actually competes with a 1080ti, that's still not good enough. The only way they can make a splash with Vega now is if it's priced significantly lower than the competition like Ryzen is doing, but I just don't think that's gonna happen. Another thing, even if Vega DID sooomehow beat the 1080ti for less money, well, Volta's around the corner too.

 

None of this looks good for AMD, they waited too fucking long. Sounds like to me HBM2 ended up hurting them badly.

 

Welp, it looks like my next system will be AMD+Nvidia, like my current one. :I

Could also be drivers delaying them. Since this is the most radical gcn iteration so far apparently they had to rewrite a lot of code to get optimal gaming performance. And they don't want to launch without that...

 

Also agreed with you at this point the only way it can be considered a success is if it soundly beats the 1080ti, 1080 and 1070 at performance in all their respective price ranges. Merely matching them or being marginally ahead would be a failure. Cause Pascal has been around for a long time now.

[Agosto]

26 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Could also be drivers delaying them. Since this is the most radical gcn iteration so far apparently they had to rewrite a lot of code to get optimal gaming performance. And they don't want to launch without that...

 

Also agreed with you at this point the only way it can be considered a success is if it soundly beats the 1080ti, 1080 and 1070 at performance in all their respective price ranges. Merely matching them or being marginally ahead would be a failure. Cause Pascal has been around for a long time now.

That's a possibility, but I'm afraid it's because of HBM2 and the interposer. Glad to be contradicted in case it's for mature drivers at launch. I want a UHD Freesync monitor and I need Vega to run that.