[Possibly fake] AMD losing 100+ dollars on every vega sold

[Coaxialgamer]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

You seem to not understand.  When Vega was being developed it wasn't intended to tackle a Titan or 1080ti.  AMD stated they were only going after the 1080 at most then people jumped on a hype train expecting more.  Vega does what it is intended to do, but ya AMD is not the best for power consumption control.

It doesn't actually matter what they were targeting .

What matters is the tech they actually brought out . If AMD had developed a gtx 1080 equivalent card at a comparable die size and power consumption , people wouldn't be complaining . It would have been a tad bit disappointing , but ultimately it would have been well received and would have sold well , especially at a lower price ( think of the r9 290x as an example here , cheaper and similar power to gk 110 ).

Problem is in terms of tech , they didn't do either of that . They brought out a chip that's larger than the tier-higher nvidia gpu ( gp102 ), and considerably larger than gp104 , even on a smaller process .

It costs more to produce and requires more power . It has a lot of drawbacks but none of the advantages . Effectively , they engineered a worse solution , a year late .

Sure , it has improvements over polaris , but that isn't enough . You can't look at it in a vacuum . You have to look at it on the technical levl , and how it fairs vs the existing competition.

[Coaxialgamer]

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Sad thing is this is caused by the business decisions made years ago, the newly formed RTG lead by Raga hasn't release a product that was made start to finish by them. I think Navi will be the the tipping point. If it is not a amazing card that beats the competition at a reasonable time frame then it will be very bad for the future of RTG.

Raja was in charge of the 4000 and 5000 series , some of AMD's bets gpu architectures ever made. They definitely do have the talent .

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, he made the RX originals then these cards.  The problem with Vega is that when they started the RND process the highest Pascal card was the 1080.  AMD doesn't have the RND budget that Nvidia or Intel has, so that's what they were trying to tackle.  Nvidia then responded to AMD's claims with the 1080 Ti.  At that point it was already too late, with their budget, to tackle a higher card.  So, ya the marketing and pr teams are making up lies to cover that up.  Navi should be a lot better platform, but I rather wait and see than ride hype trains from either side.

RTG was "formed" during Polaris and Vega Development, those projects was kicked off by the old management what decided to not prioritize high end gaming. and AMD should of know that the 1080 Ti would come out they saw the full P100 chip.

[Mr.Meerkat]

43 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

but i dare say that this is worse than Fermi

Well RTG had to make a major mistake some time Right? 

 

I mean up to now, RTG has made no notable mistakes just yet...

Lets take all the flagships/notable cards starting from the 79xx series as examples:

7970-traded blows/was slightly slower than the 680 at launch (now handily beats it), it did consume quite a bit more power but I remember it being cheaper so...

290X-Blew the 780/titan out of the water in terms of price to perf, was considerably faster (was closer to the 780ti than the 780/titan, now matches or beats the 780ti), was quite a bit cheaper, consumed similar amount of power. 

Fury X-Only consumed 25watt~ more power (compared to the 980ti), granted it was slower than the 980ti but it wasn't that much slower plus drivers helped to close the gap quite a bit.

Fury-Much faster than a 980 for the same amount of money as a mid-range priced 980 (i.e. you'd be mad to buy a 980)

390X-Slower than the 980 but the performance was comparable and it was $100+ cheaper from my memory so again, you were mad to buy a 980

(Included the Fury and 390X as their price to perf were excellent thus I feel they deserve a mention)

RX480-consumed a bit more power than the 1060, priced a little lower, a couple of months worth of drivers resulted in the performance gap to either 0% or the RX480 performed a lil better overall. 

 

So as you can see, Tahiti, Hawaii/Grenada, Fiji and Polaris 10 were all fine with no major issues. Performance were comparable, power consumption were close enough, prices were generally lower, generally the price to perf was better on AMD; I guess Vega was just a ticking time bomb, waiting to happen?  

[Princess Luna]

Meh VEGA is such a train wreck... Time to AMD to let go of Radeon Graphics because if Ryzen hadn't been the "success" it was they would be in a very delicate position right now.

[Coaxialgamer]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Well RTG had to make a major mistake some time Right? 

 

I mean up to now, RTG has made no notable mistakes just yet...

Lets take all the flagships starting from the 79xx series as examples:

7970-traded blows/was slightly slower than the 680 at launch (now handily beats it), it did consume quite a bit more power but I remember it being cheaper so...

290X-Blew the 780/titan out of the water in terms of price to perf, was considerably faster (was closer to the 780ti than the 780/titan, now matches or beats the 780ti), was quite a bit cheaper, consumed similar amount of power. 

Fury X-Only consumed 25watt~ more power (compared to the 980ti), granted it was slower than the 980ti but it wasn't that much slower plus drivers helped to close the gap quite a bit.

Fury-Much faster than a 980 for the same amount of money as a mid-range priced 980 (i.e. you'd be mad to buy a 980)

390X-Slower than the 980 but the performance was comparable and it was $100+ cheaper from my memory so again, you were mad to buy a 980

(Included the Fury and 390X as their price to perf were excellent thus I feel they deserve a mention)

RX480-consumed a bit more power than the 1060, priced a little lower, a couple of months worth of drivers resulted in the performance gap to either 0% or the RX480 performed a lil better overall. 

 

So as you can see, Tahiti, Hawaii/Grenada, Fiji and Polaris 10 were all fine with no major issues. Performance were comparable, power consumption were close enough, prices were generally lower, generally the price to perf was better on AMD; I guess Vega was just a ticking time bomb, waiting to happen?  

Exactly my thoughts. 

Tahiti and hawaii were definitely valid choices vs the competition .

Fury was late and didn't blow anything out of the water like hawaii or Tahiti did , but i could still find quite a few reasons to defend it , be it from an engineering or product standpoint.

Originally polaris was dissapointing , but after crimson , performance improved significantly , making it a valid choice vs the 1060.

[TheUzu]

I guess I cost AMD $500 then....

 

Thought I was helping them with my devotion turns out I'm killing them.

[Nena Trinity]

Just reduce it to 4GB HBM2 and make more cards!

[Princess Luna]

Just now, Nena360 said:

Just reduce it to 4GB HBM2 and make more cards!

Yeah because people wanting to buy high end cards with the latest tech totally will be using it on 1680x1050p/1920x1080p monitors.

[grimreeper132]

vega is a stepping stone for AMD in my eyes, it's shit compared to nVidea line (as it can make money, and only the 56 is worth considering not 64)  but AMD has been out the high-end game for a while and this is their stepping stone back into it. hopefully, as VEGA 2 or what ever it is could also be shit compared to Nvideas new offerings. Cause Ryzen was a fluke, AMD got lucky in their research meaning that they could make ryzen as cheap and as good as it is no, that happens rarely, that being said now AMD has two platforms to build on, and from them they can make better more powerful CPUs and GPUs which can preform as well as everyone wants them to too.

[Princess Luna]

1 minute ago, grimreeper132 said:

.

I frankly believe that AMD will throw the VEGA name and franchise in the garbage for marketing sake

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

The 1080 Ti wasn't announced until Nvidia saw that they had competition.  I'm pretty sure Raja knew they couldn't tackle something higher, so the head of the company has been having the PR and marketing teams make up lies.  lol  Like, they have the talent to do it, but they don't have the money to do it.

They knew that their was a bigger chip then whats in the 1080 due the the compute card announcement.

6 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Raja was in charge of the 4000 and 5000 series , some of AMD's bets gpu architectures ever made. They definitely do have the talent .

On September 11, 2015, AMD's GPU business was split into a separate unit known as Radeon Technologies Group, with Raja Koduri as Senior Vice President and chief architect.

 

Raga rejoined AMD from apple in 2013

 

GPU development cycle is 3-4 years Raga has only been in full control of the GPU division for 2 years. Management before him wanted to scale back high end GPU which is why Polaris was only aimed at mainstream, Vega was a "quick fix". Navi will be the first GPU that is Raga ideas from the ground up, which is why I think that is the deciding point of RTG.

 

basically Polaris/vega is the bulldozer generation of GPU segment.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Originally polaris was dissapointing , but after crimson , performance improved significantly , making it a valid choice vs the 1060.

Actually the 4GB RX480 was still the better option over the 3/6GB 1060, even at launch as its price to perf was just too irresistible  (has the same performance as the 8GB, assuming no more than 4GB of vRAM is utilised) 

 

4 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

Fury was late and didn't blow anything out of the water like hawaii or Tahiti did , but i could still find quite a few reasons to defend it , be it from an engineering or product standpoint.

At least it was comparable in power consumption and performance was closer to the 980ti than the 980, especially at 4K...

Problem with Vega 10 is its power consumption is not comparable and its performance is no where near the 1080ti so...ermmmm...

 

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

basically Polaris/vega is the bulldozer generation of GPU segment.

Oh come on, Polaris wasn't bad compared to the 1050/1060...not bad enough to call it "bulldozer" generation of GPUs...

 

4 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Vega 2 won't happen.  The most powerful Vega card is another fusion dance from DBZ done by ASUS.   2 Vega GPUs on one card.  I can only imagine the PSU you need for that.  The next step is Navi.

Come on, let the man dream! 

 

Maybe we can still get the full Phat Vega 11 as rumored which is supposed to be big Vega after all..

[Orangeator]

It just doesn't make sense to buy Vega 56 for me. I bought (right before the GPU mining craze) a practically never used GTX 980 TI Strix for $293 including shipping and tax... It overclock like a champ and outperforms most 1070's while OC'ed. Now what does a Vega 56 offer me over what I have now? AMD missed the mark hard with VEGA.

[Nena Trinity]

5 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Yeah because people wanting to buy high end cards with the latest tech totally will be using it on 1680x1050p/1920x1080p monitors.

But 144Hz gaming is a thing, also Raja himself said that HBCC makes it 2 to 3 times more so 4GB HBM2 = 8GB to 12GB GDDR! o3o

[The Benjamins]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

It's Raja, not Raga.  Raja Koduri

Oops. thats what I get for not looking it up. I blame my dyslexia.

[grimreeper132]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Vega 2 won't happen.  The most powerful Vega card is another fusion dance from DBZ done by ASUS.   2 Vega GPUs on one card.  I can only imagine the PSU you need for that.  The next step is Navi.

Explanation of the name Vega 2 was I didn't know what the next gen for their GPUs was called so like how we are calling ryzen 2 ryzen 2, I did the same for Vega. And the 1500W PSU finally has a use, which is almost sensible and even then they make no sense

[The Benjamins]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

 

Oh come on, Polaris wasn't bad compared to the 1050/1060...not bad enough to call it "bulldozer" generation of GPUs...

 

ok fair point, but it is going to be that period of lag from AMD we are dealing with like bulldozer.

[grimreeper132]

9 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

I frankly believe that AMD will throw the VEGA name and franchise in the garbage for marketing sake

I didn't know what the second gen of Vega was, so went with Vega 2 (I would quote my other comment explaining this, but it would literally take 3-5 mins to load the page to do that, even as I write this the page hasn't loaded fully, I am calling the time to actually post this and see it, will be 3-4 mins) 

 

EDIT:- holly shit this laptop was able to do it in about 40s, which is much faster than last time, it must of cached parts of the page)

[Princess Luna]

6 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

ok fair point, but it is going to be that period of lag from AMD we are dealing with like bulldozer.

the RX480 was the best card they made in quite a while indeed, from balance stand point, the 500 series rebrand was just dumb though in my opinion... it was less meaningful than Skylake -> Kaby Lake... I know that "refreshing" seems a good idea but when you change literally nothing it can be very frustrating to people.

 

Do think this way, people call TITAN X buyers stupid, but if you bought the Maxwell one right on release, you have been rocking for almost 3 whole years already the kind of power that AMD is bringing to the table only now with the V56...

[MrTiC]

52 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

This shouldn't matter in the end because I've yet to see a Vega card that is selling below $600 (or $649 for that matter), and that's in the US. God forbid you look on other continents. You can bet AMD is not losing money. 

Someone will correct me if the unicorn exists. 

Vega 64 is 699 euro here (the grey one is even 779 euro)

Vega 64 liquid is 899 euro

For comparison

GTX 1080 sea hawk is 699 euro and the 1080 ti sea hawk 899 euro

 

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, Princess Cadence said:

the RX480 was the best card they made in quite a while indeed, from balance stand point, the 500 series rebrand was just dumb though in my opinion... it was less meaningful than Skylake -> Kaby Lake... I know that "refreshing" seems a good idea but when you change literally nothing it can be very frustrating to people.

 

Do think this way, people call TITAN X buyers stupid, but if you bought the Maxwell one right on release, you have been rocking for 3 whole years already the kind of power that AMD is bringing to the table only now with the V56...

the difference was AMD admitted they changed barely anything, and what they changes was acceptable, as they priced it the same and gave everything a slight overclock, and the titans for maxwell made sense but the first titan for pascal didn't as that is just as good as a 1080ti, and also good luck when buying a second hand one on working out which titan card is which, cause stupid names is an understatement for the names, I would of went with

titan yy  where yy is the generation number and only released one per gen as you piss everyone off if you release 2, or go with titan yyx where yy is gen number and x is version number, just not the mess that you have now

[RagnarokDel]

1 hour ago, Bouzoo said:

This shouldn't matter in the end because I've yet to see a Vega card that is selling below $600 (or $649 for that matter), and that's in the US. God forbid you look on other continents. You can bet AMD is not losing money. 

Someone will correct me if the unicorn exists. 

They dont get a single penny more for a GPU sold at $600 instead of $400 or $500 for Vega 64. There's no way in hell this is real. If it was, Vega 56 would be losing them $200 per. If that was the case, that would mean that they lost over 5 million since Vega launched with the very limited supply.

[grimreeper132]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I feel like it is going to be the next Mars card.

till 1500W PSUs make sense, probably not they never will. AMD becomes competitive at high end, wouldn't be a bad idea to assume it will take about 3 more years, so yea, we will need to wait and seem but you never know, they might become competative before then, prob not, or not at all, well I anit saying that's definitely will happen but

[cj09beira]

53 minutes ago, Nena360 said:

But 144Hz gaming is a thing, also Raja himself said that HBCC makes it 2 to 3 times more so 4GB HBM2 = 8GB to 12GB GDDR! o3o

not exactly, the problem is that a single hbm2 stack delivers less than 256Gb/s, so it would only be usable for a 480 level card, and even then it would be limiting as the 480 is already very bandwidth limited at 256Gb/s,

and as many AMD new features it suffers from "needs dev support" disease 

20 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I mean I know it's not a direct AMD card, but one made by ASUS only.  Therefore, it's most likely the next card Mars card, and ya a 1500w would make sense.  

there was a rumor sometime ago about a vega chip with 4 hbm2 stacks but we haven't heard anything from it since.