# AMD Radeon Vega in the League of GTX 1080 Ti and TITAN Xp



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2017)

In an AMA (ask me anything) session with Tom's Hardware community, AMD desktop processor marketing exec Don Woligrosky answered a variety of AMD Ryzen platform related questions. He did not shy away from making a key comment about the company's upcoming high-end graphics card, Radeon Vega, either. "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice," Woligrosky stated. This implies that Radeon Vega is in the same league of performance as NVIDIA's two top consumer graphics SKUs, the $650 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, and the $1,200 TITAN Xp.

It is conceivable that AMD's desktop processor marketing execs will have access to some privileged information from other product divisions, and so if true, this makes NVIDIA's recent memory speed bump for the GTX 1080 a failed gambit. NVIDIA similarly bumped memory speeds of the GTX 1060 6 GB to make it more competitive against the Radeon RX 580. Woligrosky also commented on a more plausible topic, of the royalty-free AMD FreeSync becoming the dominant adaptive v-sync technology, far outselling NVIDIA G-Sync.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## EzioAs (Apr 26, 2017)

"Actually, Vega is much slower than the GTX 1080 and Titan Xp, so don't hold your breath."

Yeah, you're not going to see an AMD marketing exec answer that in an AMA on an unreleased product


----------



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2017)

EzioAs said:


> "Actually, Vega is much slower than the GTX 1080 and Titan Xp, so don't hold your breath."
> 
> Yeah, you're not going to see an AMD marketing exec answer that in an AMA on an unreleased product



They generally say "I cannot comment on unreleased products."


----------



## EzioAs (Apr 26, 2017)

Well, let's hope they deliver


----------



## Frick (Apr 26, 2017)

I bet it will be that quick ... in certain scenarios.


----------



## PowerPC (Apr 26, 2017)

> the royalty-free AMD FreeSync becoming the dominant adaptive v-sync technology, far outselling NVIDIA G-Sync.


This definitely rings true, and a big win for AMD. Nvidia will have to adapt to FreeSync or be left behind. Right now they are probably thinking hard on how to make that move and still maintain face in the process.

On the topic of whether Vega will compete with 1080ti, I'm pretty sure it will, at least in Vulkan or DirectX 12 games. Might even be faster, honestly. And for much cheaper? If they can do this, people will flock to the AMD platform in masses. They know this, so I hope they are not planning to disappoint. This is the biggest test for AMD after they proved themselves in the CPU market against Intel, and might be the biggest test for them yet, whether they can also beat Nvidia? I really hope they can make Vega what people want and show it to Nvidia after they (kinda) beat Intel.

The good part is that Intel is now announcing consumer 6 cores for their next gen CPUs and even going to release them sooner than they "planned". But in reality, would they have done it if AMD didn't kick their asses in multi-core? Same for Nvidia, would they be making HBM2 and releasing it sooner now if AMD wasn't able to kick their asses in Graphics? I bet Nvidia already smelled or even knows for sure that Vega will be a threat. Otherwise, they would never announce Volta for so much sooner, wouldn't they?


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

I just can't understand why people keep applying same things to Vega as they've seen in the past, entirely ignoring EVERYTHING we've learned so far about actual Vega.

R9 Fury X was such a "fail" (it wasn't really) because it was essentially a really beefed up R9 290X with Tonga's framebuffer compression and HBM memory. It simply relied on brute force to render its way through games using existing tech.

RX Vega on the other hand sports same brute force, but with a finesse of advanced technologies underneath. It uses same basic units (shaders, TMU's and ROP's) configuration as Fiji core if I remember correctly, but EVERYTHING else is entirely new from pixel rendering to triangle processing.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I just can't understand why people keep applying same things to Vega as they've seen in the past, entirely ignoring EVERYTHING we've learned so far about actual Vega.


Vega looks great on paper, but we haven't learnt anything about actual Vega, as there is no actual Vega. 
Actual Vega isn't released. It all comes down fps, tech preview slides mean nothing.

Bulldozer was great on paper too. Not saying Vega will fail, as I'd love to have one in my future Ryzen build, but theres nothing to say at the moment if Vega will be successful or not.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Ryzen was great on paper and it's also great in real life. If we go with comparisons...


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Ryzen was great on paper and it's also great in real life. If we go with comparisons...



It has it's limitations - I have one.  Ryzen's slower clocks do make a tangible difference at 1080p res with moderate settings.  I ran the Superposition bench at 1080p Extreme and got the 4th highest score (got Ryzen into the charts).  Ran it at Medium and GPU usage plummetted to 70-80% average (from 99% at Extreme).

Clocks.  It'll all be in the clocks for Vega and with all that hardware...... Time will tell.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Eeeeerm, no. And comparing a 16 threads octacore CPU to 8 threaded quad core at crazy clocks just feels disingenuous. And bloody EVERYONE is doing that. Stop it. People should stop obsessing over stupid framerate like it's god of everything. It's not.

Do games run smoothly on max settings? If answer is yes, why do you care?


----------



## PowerPC (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> It has it's limitations - I have one.  Ryzen's slower clocks do make a tangible difference at 1080p res with moderate settings.  I ran the Superposition bench at 1080p Extreme and got the 4th highest score (got Ryzen into the charts).  Ran it at Medium and GPU usage plummetted to 70-80% average (from 99% at Extreme).
> 
> Clocks.  It'll all be in the clocks for Vega and with all that hardware...... Time will tell.


I don't get it. Was the slower clock of Ryzen blocking your GPU to only 70-80%? How does that work?


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Eeeeerm, no. And comparing a 16 threads octacore CPU to 8 threaded quad core at crazy clocks just feels disingenuous. And bloody EVERYONE is doing that. Stop it. People should stop obsessing over stupid framerate like it's god of everything. It's not.
> 
> Do games run smoothly on max settings? If answer is yes, why do you care?



The rough 3.9-4.1Ghz limits of Ryzen (whether it's 8 cores or the 4 core versions) is a limiting factor for some.  I game at 1440p so it doesn't matter to me.  I also dont need 144fps so again - no biggy.  But the fact is pretty blatant and refusing to see it is obvious contrary.  *Ryzen clocks slower, therefore, in situations where raw clocksped is king, Ryzen loses some of those fights*.  It's simple.  So for Vega, again, clockspeeds will be the determining factor, not so much the hardware.  AMD have put more hardware into their chips for a while now but the clocks have kept them back (or is the chatter about RX580 clocking higher meaningless fluff for it's performance?  No, of course not - it's fundamental to it's increase over the RX480).



PowerPC said:


> I don't get it. Was the slower clock of Ryzen blocking your GPU to only 70-80%? How does that work?



As fps increases, the CPU needs to feed the GPU.  If both chips (Intel and AMD) have comparable 'IPC' but the Intel chip is faster, it can feed the GPU better.  That's my understanding and it is borne out in reviews and theory as well.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 26, 2017)

I don't believe 314mm2 1080 can be overall (GameWorks surely does wonders) faster than 500mm2 Vega.  

Oh, and wceeimakethingsup site reported smaller Vega using GDDR and not HBM, so 1070 competitor would be nice to see too.



btarunr said:


> looks really nice


Can mean pretty much anything.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Apr 26, 2017)

EzioAs said:


> "Actually, Vega is much slower than the GTX 1080 and Titan Xp, so don't hold your breath."
> 
> Yeah, you're not going to see an AMD marketing exec answer that in an AMA on an unreleased product



Yeah it's shocking news.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

For me it's like 
Vega card 4k 60 fps in modern games, Free-sync monitor lower price point than NV's cards and I'm golden.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

People are skeptic about Vega, but I have confidence. They aren't just making it "more of everything", Vega is a more clever design. You'll see I was right. Also be aware that certain new things on Vega do require specific programming, like Primitive Shaders, so those will show benefits over time and not from get go. There are other things that will work straight away without extra coding, like advanced surface removal and tile based rendering...


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

"Looks really nice" in marketing speak means it's 5-10% slower. Give or take.
That's not an issue (outside of benchmarks), but we'll have to wait for the rest of the details. RX480's performance also "looks really nice" next to the GTX1060, but the power usage, not so much.

Once more, I'm ignoring speculation and marketing talk and I'm waiting for the actual product instead.

@RejZoR Netburst was also "a more clever design". On paper.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> This definitely rings true, and a big win for AMD. Nvidia will have to adapt to FreeSync or be left behind. Right now they are probably thinking hard on how to make that move and still maintain face in the process.


VESA embedded DisplayPort adaptive sync.  It's an open standard Intel and NVIDIA have access to.  I wouldn't be surprised in NVIDIA already has a working implementation of it ready to go but corporate needs to decide if/when to discontinue the G-SYNC program.  I doubt they will until monitor manufacturers stop cooperating.



PowerPC said:


> On the topic of whether Vega will compete with 1080ti, I'm pretty sure it will, at least in Vulkan or DirectX 12 games.


We already know it does in compute and that's likely what he was talking about.  Graphics workloads get a lot more complicated and much of that is not in AMD's hands.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> VESA embedded DisplayPort adaptive sync.  It's an open standard Intel and NVIDIA have access to.  I wouldn't be surprised in NVIDIA already has a working implementation of it ready to go but corporate needs to decide if/when to discontinue the G-SYNC program.  I doubt they will until monitor manufacturers stop cooperating.


NV will not discontinue G-sync. They get money from it and quite a lot so there's no point moving to F-sync when they have NV cards supporting G-sync. Look at the price tags of the 2 technologies. Monitors with equal specs are separated with a huge price difference.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Apr 26, 2017)

no proof of physical chip for the rest of the world to compare, means it didn't happen. AMD needs to stop pushing hypes that leaves many enthusiasts disappointed.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> no proof of physical chip for the rest of the world to compare, means it didn't happen. AMD needs to stop pushing hypes that leaves many enthusiasts disappointed.


I don't know what you are after but i'm not disappointed. Actually I'm moving to AMD gear soon cause I can see way more potential in this than NV's and the price difference is noticeable


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> no proof of physical chip for the rest of the world to compare, means it didn't happen. AMD needs to stop pushing hypes that leaves many enthusiasts disappointed.



Right, and when NVIDIA releases same info, everyone jumps on it as absolute fact...


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Apr 26, 2017)

if you count the number of hype AMD failed to deliver, I think it's quite obvious compared to Nvidia, especially in the GPU department.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

And when has AMD failed to deliver? Their last gen R9 290X was so fast they could just rebrand it to R9 390X and still compete with brand new GTX 980. That's more a definition of pwnage than fail. The RX480 was a mid end economy targeted product. They literally targeted segment where most profit is made. They literally didn't even bother to compete with top end products. And the card is far from bad. FAR FROM IT. Even the R9 Fury X which many consider as fail is not one at all. Sure, in some games it's beaten by GTX 980Ti by a lot, but in others, it almost matches GTX 1080 and certainly goes past GTX 1070. For a card that targeted GTX 900 series as competition, that's again hardly a fail. But whatever...


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Right, and when NVIDIA releases same info, everyone jumps on it as absolute fact...


NVidia announces/showcases a new card and 1-2 weeks later boom, it's on the shelves. AMD anounces a new card 6 months before release, and then gives you a couple of videos, some PR crap, a shitload of slides, more videos, "leaks", demo previews running game1, more slides, video, demo running game2 and so on...
That's the only thing I love about nVidia...


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> if you count the number of hype AMD failed to deliver, I think it's quite obvious compared to Nvidia, especially in the GPU department.


Well Hype is what users create. AMD or any other company is just presenting a product. So please stop being a user and put yourself together. I'm tired of this Hype this Hype that. It is so boring. Every time somebody has a different point of view or disagrees with something there must be a Hype hypothesis in the content of people who's wishful thinking that what they already bought is better no matter what. Disappointing really.



ShurikN said:


> NVidia announces/showcases a new card and 1-2 weeks later boom, it's on the shelves. AMD anounces a new card 6 months before release, and then gives you a couple of videos, some PR crap, a shitload of slides, more videos, "leaks", demo previews running game1, more slides, video, demo running game2 and so on...
> That's the only thing I love about nVidia...


you think that's lovable? Maybe same thing that we should love intel for introduction of new gen CPU's with 2% IPC gains over previous with a tremendously high price point. I can see similarities with those 2.   
That's what I see in NV strategy, which last year shows flawlessly.
1070, 1080, Titan X(pascal) 1080TI, Titan Xp new. Think of the price tags on those when released.


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 26, 2017)

I'm looking forward to Vega release. 

I'm optimistic Vega will indeed perform as well as the title says. If AMD plays there cards right and price it in the under $500 mark its a win win for use the consumer. 

I'm rooting for ya AMD so bring on the power and its OK if power usage is higher then some want. I can afford the extra dollar a month running it lol


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

fullinfusion said:


> I'm looking forward to Vega release.
> 
> I'm optimistic Vega will indeed perform as well as the title says. If AMD plays there cards right and price it in the under $500 mark its a win win for use the consumer.
> 
> I'm rooting for ya AMD so bring on the power and its OK if power usage is higher then some want. I can afford the extra dollar a month running it lol


I mostly agree with everything what you wrote.
Vega doesn't have to surpass 1080ti in performance. It has to keep the good FPS level in 2k,4k screens with modern games. Low power has practically no value for me since I can afford to pay for it where I live. Low price and performance delivered is what matters here. At least for me. And of course future potential which I can see in better colors than NVidia's cards.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

btarunr said:


> They generally say "I cannot comment on unreleased products."


or.. that statement is true, but on one title at one res and set of settings... cherry picking.

Anyhoo, thats good news if true as i pegged it to be between 1080 and 1080ti...



RejZoR said:


> And when has AMD failed to deliver?


wait... what? Was that a joke???? You must be new... im earthdog...great to meet you... now look around the forums a bit and see the pleathora of dissapointment from amds marketing we have seen.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Exactly. People just expect Vega to be 2x better than GTX 1080Ti. Why? It's a card meant to compete with that, not to be next generation. People got spoiled of products releases of both vendors within time of 1-2 months. Times have changed and frankly, it's nothing wrong with competition releasing similar product later. Some just prefer one over another based on metrics other than just raw performance. And yeah, AMD does have many things better than NVIDIA and aren't necessarely performance bound directly.


----------



## OneCool (Apr 26, 2017)

"looks really nice" but don't hold your breath


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Exactly. People just expect Vega to be 2x better than GTX 1080Ti. Why? It's a card meant to compete with that, not to be next generation. People got spoiled of products releases of both vendors within time of 1-2 months. Times have changed and frankly, it's nothing wrong with competition releasing similar product later. Some just prefer one over another based on metrics other than just raw performance. And yeah, AMD does have many things better than NVIDIA and aren't necessarely performance bound directly.


who expects that??? Rej, you ok this morning??


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Are you? Just read some posts back. Everyone be like "OMG WHAT, JUST GTX 1080 LEVELS OMG OMG OMG".


----------



## EzioAs (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Are you? Just read some posts back. Everyone be like "OMG WHAT, JUST GTX 1080 LEVELS OMG OMG OMG".



Actually, I don't see any post insinuating that. You're just blowing things out of proportion a little bit.  A lot of people are actually waiting for Vega and hoping it will deliver comparable performance to Nvidia's top GPUs. It's just that this news isn't really anything much to go by. That's it.


----------



## Krzych (Apr 26, 2017)

Not much point in this release if it is on Pascal level a year after Pascal launch, this makes this release and all the waiting irrelevant. It was rather obvious from the beginning but still you could suspect that if Vega is releasing year after Pascal and likely 6 months before Volta, it will be notably more powerful than Pascal. All the hype and "wait for Vega" only to get the same a year later, how hilarious


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

EzioAs said:


> Actually, I don't see any post insinuating that. You're just blowing things out of proportion a little bit.  A lot of people are actually waiting for Vega and hoping it will deliver comparable performance to Nvidia's top GPUs. It's just that this news isn't really anything much to go by. That's it.



Except posts 8, 18 and 21, I couldn't be bothered to look further...


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Are you? Just read some posts back. Everyone be like "OMG WHAT, JUST GTX 1080 LEVELS OMG OMG OMG".



Yeah I'm confident it won't be just gtx 1080 levels, heck that is _old_ gpu released 27.05.2016, so almost year old gpu(=~ year old if vega really be released 25.05.2017).

Rumored die size makes it bigger than gp102 and it's on a little bit denser manufacturing process of GF, so there's more transistors/mm² too. But that does not tell much, vega might just have fatter shaders for fp64 and compute(If amd have not take nvidia way to make two chips one vega for compute and other vega for gaming).

Well we can only wait and see(and try to filter hype out of the rumors).


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Except posts 8, 18 and 21, I couldn't be bothered to look further...


lolololol...smh..


----------



## EzioAs (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Except posts 8, 18 and 21, I couldn't be bothered to look further...



What?! Those posts didn't imply anything about how Vega performance may/could sucks. They just, I'm assuming (like me) find that there's not much to proof to go on other than what Don Woligrosky stated "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice,".


----------



## Polglass (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> It has it's limitations - I have one.  Ryzen's slower clocks do make a tangible difference at 1080p res with moderate settings.  I ran the Superposition bench at 1080p Extreme and got the 4th highest score (got Ryzen into the charts).  Ran it at Medium and GPU usage plummetted to 70-80% average (from 99% at Extreme).
> 
> Clocks.  It'll all be in the clocks for Vega and with all that hardware...... Time will tell.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 26, 2017)

EzioAs said:


> What?! Those posts didn't imply anything about how Vega performance may/could sucks. They just, I'm assuming (like me) find that there's not much to proof to go on other than what Don Woligrosky stated "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice,".


And really nice is a fairly broad term as well. Could be 10% slower, could be between the Ti and TXP. Could have better price/perf than nV...


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Are you? Just read some posts back. Everyone be like "OMG WHAT, JUST GTX 1080 LEVELS OMG OMG OMG".


Well, 1080 is last year's tech, Vega is 2017. And only expected to be "in the league of".

To me, what happens at the top is rather irrelevant, I'm only interested in what trickles down to midrange. But for someone buying high-end, judging by this guy's words, high-end Vega isn't going to be an upgrade reason.


----------



## Polglass (Apr 26, 2017)

I often become frustrated when there is a cpu or gpu comparison. It's always seems to be i7 6700k or i7 7700k compared to every AMD Ryzen cpu that has been released. Doesn't Intel manufacture anything else or must these comparisons always rely on Intel's best clocking cpu against AMD's least powerful to their best. Is there pressure from Intel for analysts to do this? We all know that these two Intel CPU's clock to almost 5.0 ghz so it's a win straight away on single core fps comparisons. Then there is the Nvidia comparisons. We all know that Radeon GPU's don't clock as high as Nvidia's 10 series of cards. But when I see a GTX1070 compared to the RX480 or RX580 clocked up to 2,000 ghz to prove that their card can achieve 300 fps compared to 200 fps for the Radeon. Who the fuck cares. Sure, Nvidia wins, but do they really. The maximum card speed should be no more than the monitor clock speed. The maximum these days is 144 mhz and both AMD and Nvidia shoe it in. Then there is Radeon Chill for the AMD card which allows users to set maximum and minimum fps speeds for the game. What a fantastic addition to the card with such finesse and control. The GPU is slowed down, power and heat are both reduced. Amazing tech.   

Then there was the Nvidia fanboy who bragged about how his GTX 1080 which he overclocked to 2,000+ mhz was better than the AMD Radeon RX Vega. What a fuckwit. Who in their right mind would run their GPU clock so fast on a continuous basis. The Vega card was an engineering sample most likely running with a conservative clock playing Doom. I saw 70-80 fps continuous with an occasional dip to 60 fps running 4k on ultra settings. Not shabby at all.

I can go on and on particularly on how DX12 and Vulkan favour AMD and how DX11 favours Nvidia. Just more absolute rubbish.


----------



## Polglass (Apr 26, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> NVidia announces/showcases a new card and 1-2 weeks later boom, it's on the shelves. AMD anounces a new card 6 months before release, and then gives you a couple of videos, some PR crap, a shitload of slides, more videos, "leaks", demo previews running game1, more slides, video, demo running game2 and so on...
> That's the only thing I love about nVidia...



At least AMD give a full breakdown of the technology and methodology they have used. Nvidia give you nothing.


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 26, 2017)

*My Official Subject Matter Expert analysis tells me that....*

AMD RX Vega could either...

Perform amazing on par or exceed the GTX 1080ti

or NOT!

End Analysis!


----------



## I No (Apr 26, 2017)

Is it me or AMD's at the point of falling 1 gen behind Nvidia? If VEGA is any good I'm pretty sure Volta will be out to counter it by the end of this year. Can't see AMD pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one though either way...


----------



## Deuz (Apr 26, 2017)

"Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice,"

When AMD's Raja Koduri took to the stage during the unveiling of the RX 480 to say that, with two of them in Crossfire, they were faster than Nvidia's GTX 1080 _and_ would cost far less. Everyone was intrigued.

Maybe two VEGA gpus can looks really nice compared to 1080Ti and Titan?


----------



## Polglass (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Is it me or AMD's at the point of falling 1 gen behind Nvidia? If VEGA is any good I'm pretty sure Volta will be out to counter it by the end of this year. Can't see AMD pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one though either way...


Once again, how good is Volta going to be. AMD has stated "poor Volta" in their advertising. They don't do it without a reason. Time for you to re-think your response.


----------



## I No (Apr 26, 2017)

Polglass said:


> Once again, how good is Volta going to be. AMD has stated "poor Volta" in their advertising. They don't do it without a reason. Time for you to re-think your response.


They also said that Bulldozer would kick the crap out of the i7. Or how was that "Overclocker's Dream" thing? I'll stick by what i said earlier thank you.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Is it me or AMD's at the point of falling 1 gen behind Nvidia? If VEGA is any good I'm pretty sure Volta will be out to counter it by the end of this year. Can't see AMD pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one though either way...



Not quite a full generation behind on mid-range. RX 480 is competition for the 1060 3GB and was released 2 months earlier than the 1060. The RX 580 is competition for the 1060 6GB. 1070 released June of last year and 1080 released May of last year. Vega is almost guaranteed, from what I see, to counter those two. If Vega brings something to compete with 1080 Ti then that was only released last month.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Is it me or AMD's at the point of falling 1 gen behind Nvidia? If VEGA is any good I'm pretty sure Volta will be out to counter it by the end of this year. Can't see AMD pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one though either way...


Polaris is competitive with Pascal, it just lacks the streaming processors to compete with high end NVIDIA cards.  AMD's focus lately has clearly been selling cards in volume rather than trying to be king.  I suspect that's because of GloFo more than anything.

Navi will follow Volta.


----------



## Polglass (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Is it me or AMD's at the point of falling 1 gen behind Nvidia? If VEGA is any good I'm pretty sure Volta will be out to counter it by the end of this year. Can't see AMD pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one though either way...


Unfortunately, AMD do not have the same billions of dollars for R&D and staffing numbers. They have been extremely inventive currently and in the past and have put to notice both Intel and Nvidia.


----------



## I No (Apr 26, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Polaris is competitive with Pascal, it just lacks the streaming processors to compete with high end NVIDIA cards.  AMD's focus lately has clearly been selling cards in volume rather than trying to be king.  I suspect that's because of GloFo more than anything.
> 
> Navi will follow Volta.



Fair point but if it took them all this time to let the high-end to Nvidia which btw is raking in the money following this "venture". Can they afford to pull this thing again next gen?




Polglass said:


> Unfortunately, AMD do not have the same billions of dollars for R&D and staffing numbers. They have been extremely inventive currently and in the past and have put to notice both Intel and Nvidia.




Unfortunately this isn't Nvidia or Intel's fault. It's their business decisions that led to this. The ideas they have are indeed something that they should focus on and hope that this time around they would actually work (HBM1 was a flop, their venture into ARM was a flop as well, Mantle was a flop and so forth)


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

Polglass said:


> ...The maximum card speed should be no more than the monitor clock speed. The maximum these days is 144 mhz and both AMD and Nvidia shoe it in....



Q: Then why do we care about FreeSync vs GSync?
A: Because they don't actually "shoe it in".


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 26, 2017)

VEGA is gonna fail. Higher cost due to larger size and HBM2, weaker performance than 1080Ti. AMD is in an awkward situation which is why they have not released the card. 

Tons of talk and no solid hardware/software to back it up.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Unfortunately this isn't Nvidia or Intel's fault. It's their business decisions that led to this. The ideas they have are indeed something that they should focus on and hope that this time around they would actually work (HBM1 was a flop, their venture into ARM was a flop as well, Mantle was a flop and so forth)



Actually, Intel has already been fined and settled outside the court for their business practices, so part of the severe R&D deficit AMD has is partly to blame on Intel.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> They also said that Bulldozer would kick the crap out of the i7. Or how was that "Overclocker's Dream" thing? I'll stick by what i said earlier thank you.



Putting words in AMD's mouth about BD, eh (and the latter was a retarded marketing idiot)?

Revisionist history. Have you seen nvidia slides and graphs? Lolololol


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> VEGA is gonna fail. Higher cost due to larger size and HBM2, weaker performance than 1080Ti. AMD is in an awkward situation which is why they have not released the card.
> 
> Tons of talk and no solid hardware/software to back it up.



You have this based on what information? Some leaked junk on a Chinese web page? 

Wait till the card releases before you all have your little BS parades. Everything is just FUD at this point.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> You have this based on what information? Some leaked junk on a Chinese web page?
> 
> Wait till the card releases before you all have your little BS parades. Everything is just FUD at this point.



So much salt b/c AMD has a chance to beat nvidia. They're pathetic.


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 26, 2017)

As someone who has never bought a nvidia card(yet). As a FuryX owner who received "great" support from AMD, yeah I am biased.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> As someone who has never bought a nvidia card(yet). As a FuryX owner who received "great" support from AMD, yeah I am biased.



What did they not give you? Xfire profiles are up to date and the card still shows improvements with each driver update. Do they need to fly out and give a blowie?


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 26, 2017)

AMD simply don't have the resources to tackle both CPU and GPU and be the best. They can produce some OK mid-low end GPU, but expect them to compete with TitanXp or 1080Ti is just wishful thinking.

Kill the hype!


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> VEGA is gonna fail. Higher cost due to larger size and HBM2, weaker performance than 1080Ti. AMD is in an awkward situation which is why they have not released the card.
> 
> Tons of talk and no solid hardware/software to back it up.



Even if that turns out to be the case (which I highly doubt, but whatever), you don't know at this point.



Brusfantomet said:


> Actually, Intel has already been fined and settled outside the court for their business practices, so part of the severe R&D deficit AMD has is partly to blame on Intel.



I'm blaming that on AMD's amateurish management: they messed with the bull and had no contingency plan when they got the horns.
(Of course what Intel did was illegal, I'm not disputing that.)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2017)

I No said:


> Fair point but if it took them all this time to let the high-end to Nvidia which btw is raking in the money following this "venture". Can they afford to pull this thing again next gen?


CPUs are about 90% of AMD's business.  GPUs have always been small by comparison.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> AMD simply don't have the resources to tackle both CPU and GPU and be the best. They can produce some OK mid-low end GPU, but expect them to compete with TitanXp or 1080Ti is just wishful thinking.
> 
> Kill the hype!



What hype the fury X competed with the 980/980ti depending on game just fine. This is a redux of designs it isn't anything unfathomable to think that it'll compete in a top end position just fine. DX11 around the 1080Ti and DX12/Vulcan around the titan wouldn't surprise me or probably anyone else. 

Remember as far as amd goes normally they do brute force through everything and leaked vega specs hint very well at that happening again.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> What did they not give you? Xfire profiles are up to date and the card still shows improvements with each driver update. Do they need to fly out and give a blowie?



Its kind of gotten to the point where his post on AMD sound like a bitter break-up and wants to get revenge by letting the world know about this self induced HYPE at every opportunity.


----------



## Slizzo (Apr 26, 2017)

ratirt said:


> 1070, 1080, Titan X(pascal) 1080TI, Titan Xp new. Think of the price tags on those when released.



Price tags were in line with previous generation despite having to "compete" in a vacuum.

Not positive about the 1070, as that may be a little more expensive, but 780 released at $650, and then bumped down to $500 when the 780Ti was launched at $700. Titans have always been over $1k, while it sucks for those that buy them that they went up by $200, that's such a small segment it really doesn't matter.


----------



## notb (Apr 26, 2017)

btarunr said:


> AMD FreeSync becoming the dominant adaptive v-sync technology, far outselling NVIDIA G-Sync.


How do they measure this?
Obviously, there are more NVIDIA chips sold for desktops. It's even more obvious in case of notebooks.

Is it about LCDs? It's very likely that there more FreeSync monitors sold - simply because it's also implemented in cheap models. But as a result a huge majority of FreeSync LCD owners is not using it.


----------



## ERazer (Apr 26, 2017)

SWEET! need cheaper 1080ti's i want to sli


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

notb said:


> How do they measure this?
> Obviously, there are more NVIDIA chips sold for desktops. It's even more obvious in case of notebooks.
> 
> Is it about LCDs? It's very likely that there more FreeSync monitors sold - simply because it's also implemented in cheap models. *But as a result a huge majority of FreeSync LCD owners is not using it*.



Is there any data on that ?

Why would the majority of users buy a VRR monitor when a Non-VRR monitor will be suitable at a lower price.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Exactly. People just expect Vega to be 2x better than GTX 1080Ti. Why? It's a card meant to compete with that, not to be next generation. People got spoiled of products releases of both vendors within time of 1-2 months. Times have changed and frankly, it's nothing wrong with competition releasing similar product later. Some just prefer one over another based on metrics other than just raw performance. And yeah, AMD does have many things better than NVIDIA and aren't necessarely performance bound directly.



Wrong, it's expected to compete with volta, not pascal, because it comes a year later, when volta comes out (supposedly) and AMD themselves aimed at volta with the "POOR VOLTA-GE" thing in their horrible marketing clip.


With this i'm not saying it HAS to destroy Pascal, and be on par with Volta (that for all we know could be not even that much better than Pascal), but be at least on par with 1080ti at the same price, (we already know its efficiency would be well behind Pascal, they couldn't have done much of a big jump from Polaris in those terms), if they manage around Polaris efficiency, with 1080ti performance, is a big thing, otherwise i see it as a failure.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Wrong, it's expected to compete with volta, not pascal, because it comes a year later, when volta comes out (supposedly) and *AMD themselves aimed at volta with the "POOR VOLTA-GE" thing* in their horrible marketing clip.



It could also be a jab at VOLTA for being "re-shuffled".







Who knows what it really means and reading too much into something is entertaining


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> It could also be a jab at VOLTA for being "re-shuffled".
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what it really means and reading too much into something is entertaining



Knowing AMD it's meant to volta, come on! Green background VOLTAGE with GE partly covered, it's clearly aimed at that.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Knowing AMD it's meant to volta, come on! Green background VOLTAGE with GE partly covered, it's clearly aimed at that.



Your reading too much into it.

Maybe it was a moment of honesty and your going to need good voltage to run it.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Your reading too much into it.
> 
> Maybe it was a moment of honesty and your going to need good voltage to run it.



Yeah, sure


----------



## renz496 (Apr 26, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> This definitely rings true, and a big win for AMD. Nvidia will have to adapt to FreeSync or be left behind. Right now they are probably thinking hard on how to make that move and still maintain face in the process.




there is no holding monitor maker to make much cheaper Gsync monitors but "nvidia" itself was associated with "premium" so many monitor maker just take advantage of that. i still remember when nvidia mention that they want the fist gsync based monitors to cost no more than $400 but in the end it end up being nvidia own pipe dream when partners still charge way more than that. and that licensing fee also makes sure all gsync panel to work the same regardless of the maker. even AMD themselves thinking about charging "premium" with freesync 2. because they are very aware to make sure all freesync 2 monitors out there work as they intended to be they need to dedicated more resource into it and they are thinking to past the cost to consumer. 



PowerPC said:


> On the topic of whether Vega will compete with 1080ti, I'm pretty sure it will, at least in Vulkan or DirectX 12 games. Might even be faster, honestly. *And for much cheaper?* If they can do this, people will flock to the AMD platform in masses. They know this, so I hope they are not planning to disappoint. This is the biggest test for AMD after they proved themselves in the CPU market against Intel, and might be the biggest test for them yet, whether they can also beat Nvidia? I really hope they can make Vega what people want and show it to Nvidia after they (kinda) beat Intel.



they might be able to compete with nvidia on performance but to be cheaper at the same time is definitely not. HBM2 is expensive than GDDR5 module. if the performance is very competitive the price will will directly reflect that. just look at the recently released RX580 and RX570. some people expect AMD will set RX580 MSRP at $200 and RX570 at $150. but in the end RX580 MSRP is only $10 lower than RX480 and RX570 MSRP is the same as current RX470 MSRP. many people forgot that while it is important for AMD to recapture their market share it is more important for them to get more profit or else they can't further fund their R&D. to me this refresh is more like giving the chance for board partner to "re-inflate" the price back up. remember some of new custom RX580 cost around $260-$280 right now. but if you're lucky you can will be able to get great deal on existing RX400 series. last time i saw some custom RX480 8GB can be had much less than $200 on newegg. 



PowerPC said:


> The good part is that Intel is now announcing consumer 6 cores for their next gen CPUs and even going to release them sooner than they "planned". But in reality, would they have done it if AMD didn't kick their asses in multi-core? Same for Nvidia, would they be making HBM2 and releasing it sooner now if AMD wasn't able to kick their asses in Graphics? I bet Nvidia already smelled or even knows for sure that Vega will be a threat. Otherwise, they would never announce Volta for so much sooner, wouldn't they?



nvidia not using HBM2 on consumer grade cards is not because AMD not competing with performance. it is because of economic reason. also their architecture is much more power efficient than AMD that they still able to get away using more power hungry GDDR5/GDDR5X. and nvidia for their part never underestimate AMD regardless AMD being competitive or not. after that HD4800 moment nvidia never really let their guard down when it comes to AMD.


----------



## Gasaraki (Apr 26, 2017)

Polglass said:


> I often become frustrated when there is a cpu or gpu comparison. It's always seems to be i7 6700k or i7 7700k compared to every AMD Ryzen cpu that has been released. Doesn't Intel manufacture anything else or must these comparisons always rely on Intel's best clocking cpu against AMD's least powerful to their best. Is there pressure from Intel for analysts to do this? We all know that these two Intel CPU's clock to almost 5.0 ghz so it's a win straight away on single core fps comparisons. Then there is the Nvidia comparisons. We all know that Radeon GPU's don't clock as high as Nvidia's 10 series of cards. But when I see a GTX1070 compared to the RX480 or RX580 clocked up to 2,000 ghz to prove that their card can achieve 300 fps compared to 200 fps for the Radeon. Who the fuck cares. Sure, Nvidia wins, but do they really. The maximum card speed should be no more than the monitor clock speed. The maximum these days is 144 mhz and both AMD and Nvidia shoe it in. Then there is Radeon Chill for the AMD card which allows users to set maximum and minimum fps speeds for the game. What a fantastic addition to the card with such finesse and control. The GPU is slowed down, power and heat are both reduced. Amazing tech.
> 
> Then there was the Nvidia fanboy who bragged about how his GTX 1080 which he overclocked to 2,000+ mhz was better than the AMD Radeon RX Vega. What a fuckwit. Who in their right mind would run their GPU clock so fast on a continuous basis. The Vega card was an engineering sample most likely running with a conservative clock playing Doom. I saw 70-80 fps continuous with an occasional dip to 60 fps running 4k on ultra settings. Not shabby at all.
> 
> I can go on and on particularly on how DX12 and Vulkan favour AMD and how DX11 favours Nvidia. Just more absolute rubbish.



It's by price and stock speeds. If I spend $230 on an Intel processor what can I get for $230 on the AMD camp. I could care less about the raw MHz rating.


----------



## HD64G (Apr 26, 2017)

BTW, to anyone who doesn't remember well, Volta should be on sale since 2016 (info taken from nVidia future release graphs from 2014)...  

And you complain about Vega being late before the Q2/17 ends, which is where it was to launch from start... 

And finally, imho, being late at a party isn't bad if your entrance makes everyone look upon you...


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> The rough 3.9-4.1Ghz limits of Ryzen (whether it's 8 cores or the 4 core versions) is a limiting factor for some.  I game at 1440p so it doesn't matter to me.  I also dont need 144fps so again - no biggy.  But the fact is pretty blatant and refusing to see it is obvious contrary.  *Ryzen clocks slower, therefore, in situations where raw clocksped is king, Ryzen loses some of those fights*.  It's simple.  So for Vega, again, clockspeeds will be the determining factor, not so much the hardware.  AMD have put more hardware into their chips for a while now but the clocks have kept them back (or is the chatter about RX580 clocking higher meaningless fluff for it's performance?  No, of course not - it's fundamental to it's increase over the RX480).



I believe that is a misconception by the community, AMD isn't "suffering" from a clock speed defecit, they are suffering from a lack of efficient software. They cram so much hardware into their chips that a great portion sits idle, consuming power...

Just look at their GPU history since hd 7xxx, did the hardware magically 're-fab' itself for more performance? No. It just took the industry that long to make use of what they were given, the 7950 I have was the best PC purchase I ever made! $330 and it keeps getting better, although it is loooooooooong in the tooth now 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Polaris is competitive with Pascal, it just lacks the streaming processors to compete with high end NVIDIA cards.  AMD's focus lately has clearly been selling cards in volume rather than trying to be king.  I suspect that's because of GloFo more than anything.
> 
> Navi will follow Volta.



I doubt GloFo was the sole reason, they went after the best part of the pie. With limited resources, they have to be extremely efficient at maximizing ROI.



Polglass said:


> Unfortunately, AMD do not have the same billions of dollars for R&D and staffing numbers. They have been extremely inventive currently and in the past and have put to notice both Intel and Nvidia.



Considering their competition, it's a miracle they're still producing new tech and trying to spark/innovate software. All these people talking on forums about how/what AMD could/should do are a joke! They wouldn't last 5min in that hot seat.

Intel/nVidia are happy to milk the industry with status quo.



I No said:


> Unfortunately this isn't Nvidia or Intel's fault. It's their business decisions that led to this. The ideas they have are indeed something that they should focus on and hope that this time around they would actually work (HBM1 was a flop, their venture into ARM was a flop as well, Mantle was a flop and so forth)



Unfortunatley it was a perfect storm, anti compete tactics from BOTH Intel & nVidia coupled with poor management.

HBM1 is/was not a flop, neither is/was Mantle. How's nVidia doing with DX12 & Async shaders?


----------



## renz496 (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> And when has AMD failed to deliver? Their last gen R9 290X was so fast they could just rebrand it to R9 390X and still compete with brand new GTX 980. That's more a definition of pwnage than fail. The RX480 was a mid end economy targeted product. *They literally targeted segment where most profit is made*. They literally didn't even bother to compete with top end products. And the card is far from bad. FAR FROM IT. Even the R9 Fury X which many consider as fail is not one at all. Sure, in some games it's beaten by GTX 980Ti by a lot, but in others, it almost matches GTX 1080 and certainly goes past GTX 1070. For a card that targeted GTX 900 series as competition, that's again hardly a fail. But whatever...



the mainstream hardware might have the most volume. but did the segment also have the most profit? no. most profit coming from high end segment where profit margin obviously bigger.

https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/pc-gaming-hardware-market-minting-billions

those hawaii is really nice (and lets's face it AMD hardware in both major console also help more games to be tweaked more for their hardware) but fury not so much. the card suffer from imbalance design. to be honest if the person only play on 1080p i have much harder time recommending the card. it is no joke when 1060 capable of beating Fury X at some titles at 1080p:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/6.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/7.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/10.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/13.html
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Armor/16.html


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> ...



Same old story, which sounds so politically correct from a couple of years, nVidia and intel are to blame for AMD or ATi failures. Yeah, keep telling that to yourself


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Same old story, which sounds so politically correct from a couple of years, nVidia and intel are to blame for AMD or ATi failures. Yeah, keep telling that to yourself



Clearly you fail at reading comprehension. Thanks for coming out!


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Clearly you fail at reading comprehension. Thanks for coming out!



Maybe, my understanding isn't that good, but the last part of your post sounded pretty clear to me, correct me if i'm wrong!


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Maybe, my understanding isn't that good, but the last part of your post sounded pretty clear to me, correct me if *I*'m wrong!



??? I did. LoLoLoL


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> I believe that is a misconception by the community, AMD isn't "suffering" from from a clock speed defecit, they are suffering from a lack of efficient software. They cram so much hardware into their chips that a great portion sits idle, consuming power...
> 
> Just look at their GPU history since hd 7xxx, did the hardware magically 're-fab' itself for more performance? No. It just took the industry that long to make use of what they were given, the 7950 I have was the best PC purchase I ever made! $330 and it keeps getting better, although it is loooooooooong in the tooth now
> 
> ...



Ryzen does clock slower. I don't mean IPC, I actually think it's better than Skylake at the same clocks. It's not a community thing, it's a real, evidentially based thing. Skylake and Kabylake clock higher than Ryzen. Even the 4 core Ryzens seem to be topping out at 4.1Ghz.
But I firmly believe a refresh and process maturity will allow higher clocks #thats why i bought the platform. I'd like to think in 2 years time i can upgrade to an 8 core Ryzen at 4.2-4.4Ghz.  That would be pretty cool.
I am a Ryzen fan, it's working great for me.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> ??? I did. LoLoLoL



Alright now i get you...


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Ryzen does clock slower. I don't mean IPC, I actually think it's better than Skylake at the same clocks. It's not a community thing, it's a real, evidentially based thing. Skylake and Kabylake clock higher than Ryzen. Even the 4 core Ryzens seem to be topping out at 4.1Ghz.
> But I firmly believe a refresh and process maturity will allow higher clocks #thats why i bought the platform. I'd like to think in 2 years time i can upgrade to an 8 core Ryzen at 4.2-4.4Ghz.  That would be pretty cool.
> I am a Ryzen fan, it's working great for me.



Yes it's absolute max frequency is less than Intel, but like you yourself said their IPC is equal to or greater than Intel - at the same freq. How does Intels 8/16 compare to Ryzen 8/16??? 

I'm not interested in high Mhz ST perf on a 4c CPU. I've had that since 2012, thank you very much.

Now imagine, for a second, an ecosystem designed to make best use of AMDs designs, where would that leave Intel/nVidia???

I see it coming, and I'm embracing it...


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

HD64G said:


> BTW, to anyone who doesn't remember well, Volta should be on sale since 2016 (info taken from nVidia future release graphs from 2014)...
> 
> And you complain about Vega being late before the Q2/17 ends, *which is where it was to launch from start*...
> 
> And finally, imho, being late at a party isn't bad if your entrance makes everyone look upon you...



Well, AMD planned to have HBM2 parts in 2016: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9233/amds-2016-gpu-roadmap-finfet-high-bandwidth-memory
If that wasn't Vega, I don't know what is. Like you, I don't really care when it's released. But if it only offers last year's performance, I'm not impressed. Last year's performance at half the price would be an entirely different story


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Alright now i get you...



Nobody "Gets me". I'm retarded, and proud of it


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

bug said:


> Well, AMD planned to have HBM2 parts in 2016: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9233/amds-2016-gpu-roadmap-finfet-high-bandwidth-memory
> If that wasn't Vega, I don't know what is. Like you, I don't really care when it's released. But if it only offers last year's performance, I'm not impressed. Last year's performance at half the price would be an entirely different story



Lack of HBM supply has nothing to do with AMD, you need to put SK Hynix in the deep fryer for that 1. Where are all of nVidias HBM equipped cards?


----------



## renz496 (Apr 26, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Well Hype is what users create. AMD or any other company is just presenting a product. So please stop being a user and put yourself together. I'm tired of this Hype this Hype that. It is so boring. Every time somebody has a different point of view or disagrees with something there must be a Hype hypothesis in the content of people who's wishful thinking that what they already bought is better no matter what. Disappointing really.
> 
> 
> you think that's lovable? Maybe same thing that we should love intel for introduction of new gen CPU's with 2% IPC gains over previous with a tremendously high price point. I can see similarities with those 2.
> ...



then what about RX480? the card is even much slower than 390X that it should replace. and if you look at it closely there isn't really much difference between nvidia and AMD when it comes to performance improvement over the year. nvidia still coming up with 10%-15% performance increase each year and for AMD while we got much bigger performance jump from their previous flagship to new flagship you also need to wait longer for it because of their 2 year cadence in upgrading their flagship. also pricing wise it is not much different since 2013. you mentioned 1080ti for example but 780ti also cost $700 back in 2013. the only mistake that nvidia did with 1080/1070 was the FE pricing. because it encourage the board partner to price their card near or even exceed the FE base price instead of the actual MSRP.


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Lack of HBM supply has nothing to do with AMD, you need to put SK Hynix in the deep fryer for that 1. Where are all of nVidias HBM equipped cards?


Short attention span? I was responding to the guy's claim that Vega was always meant for a 2017 launch.

Nvidia's HBM2 cards are Teslas, available for almost a year now.


----------



## renz496 (Apr 26, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Yeah I'm confident it won't be just gtx 1080 levels, heck that is _old_ gpu released 27.05.2016, so almost year old gpu(=~ year old if vega really be released 25.05.2017).
> 
> Rumored die size makes it bigger than gp102 and it's on a little bit denser manufacturing process of GF, so there's more transistors/mm² too. But that does not tell much, vega might just have fatter shaders for fp64 and compute(If amd have not take nvidia way to make two chips one vega for compute and other vega for gaming).
> 
> Well we can only wait and see(and try to filter hype out of the rumors).



it seems Vega 10 will be configured the same way as fiji when it comes to DP. i heard it will be vega 20 that will be AMD next true DP card replacing their current Hawaii.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Yes it's absolute max frequency is less than Intel, but like you yourself said their IPC is equal to or greater than Intel - at the same freq. How does Intels 8/16 compare to Ryzen 8/16???



It completely depends on application. There is still a large number of workloads that the 5960x wins not only clock for clock, but in maximum clockspeed.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Nobody "Gets me". I'm retarded, and proud of it



Watch out, someone could take you seriously


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

bug said:


> Short attention span? I was responding to the guy's claim that Vega was always meant for a 2017 launch.
> 
> Nvidia's HBM2 cards are Teslas, available for almost a year now.



Yeah, and? I got ADHD so what LoLoLoL

Maybe you should have messaged him/her in PM if you wanted a private convo, this is a public forum after all 

The question was rhetorical, but please tell me, how is availability of those cards?

AMD in all it's sadness has been giving us HBM for how long now?


----------



## xkm1948 (Apr 26, 2017)

I do hope AMD can compete in high end. But seriously I am not getting my hope high this time. NCU sounds great on paper. However the 64CU with 4096SP sounds awesfully close to a tweaked FijiXT core instead of a built-from-ground-up design. With so many resources poured into RyZen I don't believe RTG have enough brain power to get something new from the ground up.  Best case scenario it will be an optimized FijiXT with a lot higher clock speed(1500MHz maybe for the AIO version)


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Right, and when NVIDIA releases same info, everyone jumps on it as absolute fact...


The difference here is that nvidia pulls through reliably - and then tells you it's available monday.

Vega is already climbing a steep hill if competing with  1080ti is it's target, because 1080 ti's are already in gamers hands. 

Vegas target market is shrinking every time a 1080 ti is sold.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> I do hope AMD can compete in high end. But seriously I am not getting my hope high this time. NCU sounds great on paper. However the 64CU with 4096SP sounds awesfully close to a tweaked FijiXT core instead of a built-from-ground-up design. With so many resources poured into RyZen I don't believe RTG have enough brain power to get something new from the ground up.  Best case scenario it will be an optimized FijiXT with a lot higher clock speed(1500MHz maybe for the AIO version)



AMD's platform iteself didn't change, everything they build is an expandable design. It also sounds like two RX480 cores with HBM added.


----------



## m1dg3t (Apr 26, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It completely depends on application. There is still a large number of workloads that the 5960x wins not only clock for clock, but in maximum clockspeed.



Considering the price of that platform and the fact that software has been geared to that -Intel- process for so long it does not surprise me. So 5960x routinely clocks higher and costs more, yet can't maintain a lead in all areas. Gotcha.

Good thing they have AVX/AVX2 I guess, eh?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 26, 2017)

m1dg3t said:


> Considering the price of that platform and the fact that software has been geared to that -Intel- process for so long it does not surprise me. So 5960x routinely clocks higher and costs more, yet can't maintain a lead in all areas. Gotcha.
> 
> Good thing they have AVX/AVX2 I guess, eh?



Q3 of 2014 was release date for the 5960x. I mean there are two ways to look at that, AMD still can't maintain a complete win over a 3 year old CPU or AMD can somewhat beat old tech with a cheaper product. 

If price is the argument, it also beats the P4 EE chips that were released many moons ago at a higher cost. It is great that AMD is making leaps and bounds forward in performance, but I would hope 3 years later for a product that was not only as stable as the 5960X was on release date, but had the performance crown it carried.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 26, 2017)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> The difference here is that nvidia pulls through reliably - and then tells you it's available monday.
> 
> Vega is already climbing a steep hill if competing with  1080ti is it's target, because 1080 ti's are already in gamers hands.
> 
> Vegas target market is shrinking every time a 1080 ti is sold.



Are they? I'm a gamer and I don't have GTX 1080 or GTX 1080Ti. Not because I don't like NVIDIA, just because 1080 series, despite their speed are so dull they just don't make my geek thingies tingle.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Ryzen does clock slower. I don't mean IPC, I actually think it's better than Skylake at the same clocks. It's not a community thing, it's a real, evidentially based thing. Skylake and Kabylake clock higher than Ryzen. Even the 4 core Ryzens seem to be topping out at 4.1Ghz.
> But I firmly believe a refresh and process maturity will allow higher clocks #thats why i bought the platform. I'd like to think in 2 years time i can upgrade to an 8 core Ryzen at 4.2-4.4Ghz.  That would be pretty cool.
> I am a Ryzen fan, it's working great for me.


From all the tests I saw, Ryzen has IPC on par with Sky/Kaby if not a bit better, and has better multithreading. It's really held back by clock speed. Ryzen 2 with matured process and architectural refinements will be amazing.


----------



## notb (Apr 26, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Is there any data on that ?


I guess not. But there most likely isn't any data supporting AMD's claim either. Even if they know that a client has a FreeSync LCD and AMD GPU, they can't assume he uses this tech. And even if they collect this data (via their software), how would they get these figures for G-SYNC?



Xzibit said:


> Why would the majority of users buy a VRR monitor when a Non-VRR monitor will be suitable at a lower price.


Are you sure?
I checked the current ASUS offer of 4K LCDs and you know what? The cheapest available one (MG24UQ) has FreeSync.  It's also the only 24" in this group.

In general, most people choose monitors based on manufacturer, resolution, size and looks - other properties (even matrix tech) being less important. By all means it is very likely that people buy FreeSync LCDs without knowing what it is and how to use it.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 26, 2017)

Excellent News! but... nVidia is already thinking GTX2096... i really hope AMD can hasten their products and be ready for Volta. Otherwise AMD will not be able to compete for a whole year again.


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

notb said:


> *I guess not*. But there most likely isn't any data supporting AMD's claim either. Even if they know that a client has a FreeSync LCD and AMD GPU, they can't assume he uses this tech. And even if they collect this data (via their software), how would they get these figures for G-SYNC?



So there is no data you were just speculating



notb said:


> Are you sure?
> I checked the current ASUS offer of 4K LCDs and you know what? The cheapest available one (MG24UQ) has FreeSync.  It's also the only 24" in this group.



So according to you the majority of FreeSync monitor buyers are 4K buyers now.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 26, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> It has it's limitations - I have one.  Ryzen's slower clocks do make a tangible difference at 1080p res with moderate settings.  I ran the Superposition bench at 1080p Extreme and got the 4th highest score (got Ryzen into the charts).  Ran it at Medium and GPU usage plummetted to 70-80% average (from 99% at Extreme).
> 
> Clocks.  It'll all be in the clocks for Vega and with all that hardware...... Time will tell.



Well Ryzen is a good 7-8% behind* in regards to IPC and a whole 25% behind too* in regards to Clock Speeds... no wonder 7700k is* almost 30% ahead* in 1080p. If Ryzen would had just arrived with 4.5 Clock speeds... if only...


----------



## GhostRyder (Apr 26, 2017)

If it is, great!  But thats a big *IF*.  I hope that it will be as they really need to be in full on competition again and I really would be interested in it depending on the price and performance only because I still have not invested in a G-Sync monitor and still own a Freesync one.  Kinda miss using the tech as it does make a difference.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 26, 2017)

etayorius said:


> Well Ryzen is a good 7-8% in regards to IPC and a whole 25% behind in regards to Clock Speeds... no wonder they are almost 30% in 1080p. If Ryzen would had just arrived with 4.5 Clock speeds... if only...



Check windows 7 benchmarks. Everything is shit all the way around. With high ram speed those deficits are dwindling.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Apr 26, 2017)

AMD keeps comparing their "new" architecture against Intel & Nvidia's one year or older chips. It's that how comparison are done these days? =.=


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 26, 2017)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> AMD keeps comparing their "new" architecture against Intel & Nvidia's one year or older chips. It's that how comparison are done these days? =.=


Kaby Lake released in Jan/Feb or smth, only 2-3 months before Ryzen. Intel have literally nothing interesting throughout the year. Coffee Lake is the same chip as Skylake and will have 0% IPC improvements. They'll probably up the clock another 100-200MHz just as they did with Kaby.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 26, 2017)

Sorry, fixed my last comment and i was not paying too much attention to what i was typing. Yeah, Ryzen is in the same spot that PhenomII was back in 2009-2010 with same margin of performance behind it's main competitor, the i7 2600k. This time is not that far behind in regards to IPC since this time is only a 8% max IPC difference. But this time is a Clock Speed deficit. If only Ryzen would had been released with the same level of Clock Speeds as Kabby Lake it would had been a completely different story.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 26, 2017)

renz496 said:


> then what about RX480? the card is even much slower than 390X that it should replace. and if you look at it closely there isn't really much difference between nvidia and AMD when it comes to performance improvement over the year. nvidia still coming up with 10%-15% performance increase each year and for AMD while we got much bigger performance jump from their previous flagship to new flagship you also need to wait longer for it because of their 2 year cadence in upgrading their flagship. also pricing wise it is not much different since 2013. you mentioned 1080ti for example but 780ti also cost $700 back in 2013. the only mistake that nvidia did with 1080/1070 was the FE pricing. because it encourage the board partner to price their card near or even exceed the FE base price instead of the actual MSRP.


Dude. you have a price tag on those i mentioned changed within months not years. buy titan X pascal then TI comes around and then another Titan. Dont you think that's crazy and unfair. I would feel screwed like never. You can play the good guy here defending but for me that's the fact. And please dont compare rx 480 to 390X. Rx was for mid tier cards competing with 970 not 390x which was a high end back then


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Apr 26, 2017)

*#HYPE
*
"In an AMA (ask me anything) session with Tom's Hardware community, AMD desktop processor marketing exec Don Woligrosky answered a variety of AMD Ryzen platform related questions. He did not shy away from making a key comment about the company's upcoming high-end graphics card, Radeon Vega, either. "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice," Woligrosky stated. This implies that Radeon Vega is in the same league of performance as NVIDIA's two top consumer graphics SKUs"

or, OR, it doesnt. Vega performance looks really nice could easily imply that vega is a $400 card with 1080 performance, or anywhere else on the performance spectrum. (as such a card could be 70% the performance of a 1080ti for 60% the price. see? its performance looks really nice) This, in no way, means that vega is a titanXP level card. 

Why on earth would you believe anything out of a marketing director's mouth, ESPECIALLY when said marketing is AMD's? A talking alligator trading swamp gas is more reliable then AMD's marketing. 



etayorius said:


> Excellent News! but... nVidia is already thinking GTX2096... i really hope AMD can hasten their products and be ready for Volta. Otherwise AMD will not be able to compete for a whole year again.


This is the same AMD that decided to give nvidia more then half the GPU market, the end with super lucrative parts, on a silver platter while chasing scraps. 

Somehow, I doubt AMD is going to have navi (or VEGA 2) ready to fight volta anytime soon. VEGA will most likely be pascal level, and three months after vega releases nvidia will paper launch volta and completely derail the VEGA train. I'd love to be wrong, but there is no evidence to support vega being titanXP level.


----------



## efikkan (Apr 26, 2017)

If AMD knew Vega would beat GTX 1080 Ti, you can be sure they would brag about it. As we've seen in the past, they always make the products look better than they turn out to be. So the fact that they claim it "looks nice" compared to GTX 1080 Ti only means there is some aspect where they consider it comparable. This could mean two games, performance per dollar in a segment, etc. 

This is actually another article about nothing.



RejZoR said:


> Are they? I'm a gamer and I don't have GTX 1080 or GTX 1080Ti. Not because I don't like NVIDIA, just because 1080 series, despite their speed are so dull they just don't make my geek thingies tingle.


Well, I guess it's because you already own a GTX 980 and even gamers rarely upgrade every generation?


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 26, 2017)

64K said:


> Not quite a full generation behind on mid-range. RX 480 is competition for the 1060 3GB and was released 2 months earlier than the 1060. The RX 580 is competition for the 1060 6GB. 1070 released June of last year and 1080 released May of last year. Vega is almost guaranteed, from what I see, to counter those two. If Vega brings something to compete with 1080 Ti then that was only released last month.



LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out.  The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480.  It really is that simple.


By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out.  The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.



Proof of this, last i remember 480 was only faster than 1060 in dx12 and vulkan, and not even in all games, consuming much more, and with higher temperatures.


----------



## 64K (Apr 26, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out.  The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480.  It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.



I know the 480 came out first. That's what I said and I agree that the 480 was good competition for the 1060 3GB but not the 1060 6GB which also has more cores than the 3GB version.



Captain_Tom said:


> By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480



Not from any benches that I've seen that I trust unless you are basing it on the slower 1060 3GB.


----------



## efikkan (Apr 26, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out.  The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480.  It really is that simple.
> 
> By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.


You better be joking.
GTX 1060 clearly beats RX 480, unless you cherry-pick AMD-favoring games. It even does better with it's 6 GB than RX 480 with it's 8 GB. Even though GTX 1060 is the least efficient Pascal chip, it still is much more efficient than RX 480. RX 580 only manages to close some of the performance gap, at the cost of terrible efficiency. Only a fanboy would choose RX 480/580 over GTX 1060, which is clearly reflected in the sales where GTX 1060 crushes it.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 26, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> VEGA is gonna fail. Higher cost due to larger size and HBM2, weaker performance than 1080Ti. AMD is in an awkward situation which is why they have not released the card.
> 
> Tons of talk and no solid hardware/software to back it up.



Comments like this really make me laugh.

1) HBM2 costs vs GDDR5X? (Please provide link showing direct comparison)

2) Weaker than 1080 Ti?   (Based on what?  Link please)



They aren't losing marketshare anymore.  The midrange-only 400 series was calculated to maintain marketshare while costing AMD very little money since their main focus is Zen.

Now Zen is out, and they can go for the high end again.  Radeon typically only releases Halo Products every 1.5 - 2 years, and every time we come close to a product launch people act like AMD hasn't released anything "Because they can't!  AMDead!".  But *IT'S A CONSCIOUS BUSINESS DECISION.
*
We don't know _exactly _how good Vega will be.  But it is laughable to suggest that it won't match the 1080 Ti because it _couldn't._   It can, and most leaks point to it being able to at least trade blows.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 26, 2017)

64K said:


> I know the 480 came out first. That's what I said and I agree that the 480 was good competition for the 1060 3GB but not the 1060 6GB which has more cores than the 3GB version.
> 
> 
> 
> Not from any benches that I've seen that I trust unless, again, you are basing it on the slower 1060 3GB.



https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/bf1_2560_1440.png

^When you remove the Nvidia-nerfed games the 480 almost always wins, and btw the 3GB 1060 is lucky to be competition for the 470 4GB.  That is, unless you like stuttering on an outdated framebuffer size.



Even when you throw in the rarely working Gamesworks games, the 480 typically only loses by 5% or so.  I would say the extra VRAM and lower price MORE than make up for that.  The 1060 fell quite short of expectations (Like mose x60 cards have the past few years).


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/bf1_2560_1440.png
> 
> ^When you remove the Nvidia-nerfed games the 480 almost always wins, and btw the 3GB 1060 is lucky to be competition for the 470 4GB.  That is, unless you like stuttering on an outdated framebuffer size.
> 
> ...



I really suggest you go look at latest benchmarks from TPU and guru3d, almost nothing you're saying is there, i also suggest you check better your sources next time.


----------



## kruk (Apr 26, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You better be joking.
> GTX 1060 clearly beats RX 480, unless you cherry-pick AMD-favoring games. It even does better with it's 6 GB than RX 480 with it's 8 GB. Even though GTX 1060 is the least efficient Pascal chip, it still is much more efficient than RX 480. RX 580 only manages to close some of the performance gap, at the cost of terrible efficiency. Only a fanboy would choose RX 480/580 over GTX 1060, which is clearly reflected in the sales where GTX 1060 crushes it.



Actually, it is a *fact *that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the *brand name*. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. *doesn't matter at all *to them. They probably *don't read a single benchmark* before buying it, *they just want something that has GeForce *on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

kruk said:


> Actually, it is a *fact *that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the *brand name*. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. *doesn't matter at all *to them. They probably *don't read a single benchmark* before buying it, *they just want something that has GeForce *on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...



It's actually because nvidia has the better product overall, sometimes not even by much, but still, it's not that people likes more green than red, or likes more geforce than radeon label, stop with this nonsense guys seriously.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 26, 2017)

efikkan said:


> You better be joking.
> GTX 1060 clearly beats RX 480, unless you cherry-pick AMD-favoring games. It even does better with it's 6 GB than RX 480 with it's 8 GB. Even though GTX 1060 is the least efficient Pascal chip, it still is much more efficient than RX 480. RX 580 only manages to close some of the performance gap, at the cost of terrible efficiency. Only a fanboy would choose RX 480/580 over GTX 1060, which is clearly reflected in the sales where GTX 1060 crushes it.





oxidized said:


> It's actually because nvidia has the better product overall, sometimes not even by much, but still, it's not that people likes more green than red, or likes more geforce than radeon label, stop with this nonsense guys seriously.



Yeah, just like they all bought AMD CPUs from thunderbird through athlon X2...oh wait.


----------



## bug (Apr 26, 2017)

kruk said:


> Actually, it is a *fact *that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the *brand name*. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. *doesn't matter at all *to them. They probably *don't read a single benchmark* before buying it, *they just want something that has GeForce *on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...


Whereas AMD customers tend to hold at least a BSc in electronics (they usually hold a PhD, but they're not uptight), read everything about GPU design and trade-offs, are intimately familiar with developments at TSMC and GF and above all else are completely unbiased when making a choice. Puh-lease.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Yeah, just like they all bought AMD CPUs from thunderbird through athlon X2...oh wait.



You're actually right, a random day of early 90s people woke up and they all decided to hate AMD and ATi (of course) because blue and lime green are better than dark green and red, so they together decided that it was the moment to stop giving money to tech corporations that had red and dark green in their logos, and also because the font they used was inferior to those of blue, and lime corps.



Yeah.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Apr 26, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Are they? I'm a gamer and I don't have GTX 1080 or GTX 1080Ti. Not because I don't like NVIDIA, just because 1080 series, despite their speed are so dull they just don't make my geek thingies tingle.



Of course they are in gamers hands, I've had mine for weeks.

Just because *you* don't, doesn't change reality.


----------



## kruk (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> It's actually because nvidia has the better product overall, sometimes not even by much, but still, it's not that people likes more green than red, or likes more geforce than radeon label, stop with this nonsense guys seriously.



Some bestsellers:
Geforce 4 MX
GTX 260
Fermi

Do explain how these products were better products overall as the competition cards. Can't wait - other nVidia defenders can help too . If you can't, it just proves I'm right and you are not.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

kruk said:


> Some bestsellers:
> Geforce 4 MX
> GTX 260
> Fermi
> ...



Yeah, i know you're right indeed i explained a few posts up how that happened.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> I really suggest you go look at latest benchmarks from TPU and guru3d, almost nothing you're saying is there, i also suggest you check better your sources next time.



Right back at you buddy.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 26, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Right back at you buddy.



Alright if you really did that, i also suggest you go check your eyes 

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1060-gaming-x-plus-review,1.html


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_570_Pulse/


http://www.anandtech.com/show/11278/amd-radeon-rx-580-rx-570-review


http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2882-msi-rx-580-gaming-x-review-vs-gtx-1060/page-5


----------



## efikkan (Apr 26, 2017)

It's just a matter of weeks now before AMD fans are withdrawn to their last stand claiming Vega is still better due to a "newer" memory technology, better fp16 performance (which no games will use anytime soon), etc. We all remember such arguments from the past:
R9 390X vs. GTX 970: R9 390X is more "future proof" because it has 8 GB memory.
Fury X vs. GTX 980 Ti: Memory size suddenly doesn't matter, Fury X still more "future proof" with faster and "newer" memory.
RX 480 vs. GTX 1060: Memory size suddenly makes RX 480 more future proof again.
It all depends on the wind direction…

The only thing that really matters is real world performance, so let's end the "spec wars".



kruk said:


> Actually, it is a fact that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the brand name. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. doesn't matter at all to them. They probably don't read a single benchmark before buying it, they just want something that has GeForce on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...


Back when AMD(ATI) actually were competitive and in some segments actually had better products, they actually got large market shares, and even at one point had larger market shares than Nvidia. AMD's market shares has disappeared since it's been years since they really had a competitive product in a segment that matters. The market shares the last ~15 years has been more or less proportional to the competitiveness between the two.


----------



## notb (Apr 26, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> So there is no data you were just speculating


This is a hypothesis. Can we test it? Possibly yes, but since I'm just a guy writing on a forum, I just won't and... whatever.
But if I were a top-ranking employee of AMD talking with a journalist, I'd have some numbers to support my words.



Xzibit said:


> So according to you the majority of FreeSync monitor buyers are 4K buyers now.


I simply wanted to give a realistic example, why someone might buy a FreeSync LCD but not plan to use it.
It's you who said that this doesn't happen because LCDs without FreeSync are cheaper.


----------



## notb (Apr 26, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> Kaby Lake released in Jan/Feb or smth, only 2-3 months before Ryzen. Intel have literally nothing interesting throughout the year. Coffee Lake is the same chip as Skylake and will have 0% IPC improvements. They'll probably up the clock another 100-200MHz just as they did with Kaby.



But some benchmarks are very close and even the 5% IPC improvement could change the order on a chart. 

Also, what's the problem with Kaby Lake being released 2-3 months before? Just how long does it take for AMD to update a chart for a presentation?

And what's with your IPC fetish. Who cares? Isn't performance what we're after?
When AMD releases Ryzen+ - being just a refresh with fixed issues and higher clocks - will you write the same about it?


----------



## Xzibit (Apr 26, 2017)

notb said:


> This is a hypothesis. Can we test it? Possibly yes, but since I'm just a guy writing on a forum, I just won't and... whatever.
> But if I were a top-ranking employee of AMD talking with a journalist, I'd have some numbers to support my words.



Try'n to miss direct. 



notb said:


> I simply wanted to give a realistic example, why someone might buy a FreeSync LCD but not plan to use it.
> It's you who said that this doesn't happen because LCDs without FreeSync are cheaper.



One possible case scenario doesn't equal HUGE MAJORITY

Let me remind you what you said.



notb said:


> It's very likely that there more FreeSync monitors sold - simply because it's also implemented in cheap models. *But as a result a huge majority of FreeSync LCD owners is not using it*.



Still waiting on this huge majority proof you speak of.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Alright if you really did that, i also suggest you go check your eyes
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1060-gaming-x-plus-review,1.html
> 
> ...




In RX480 defense... GamerNexus is using both heavily OC Aftermarket gpus, and we all know the 1060 can OC way higher than the RX480.

In TPU own benchmarks the RX480 won 11 out of 22 games, and sometimes by a good margin, even in some DX11.

Anandtech scores regarding BF1 are way off the scale even contradicting TPU and Guru3D benchmarks. In their "tests" a reference 1060 6GB is a massive 30% ahead in BattleField1... i have no clue how on earth did that happen, and even if anandtech used DX11 the margins is extremely high.

From what i seen from both GPUs they are basically the same in avg Performance. RX480 winning in 8 out of 10 DX12 games and even winning some DX11 games such as RE7, DeusEx, Hitman and Call of Duty Infinite Warfare. The 1060 wins 8 out of 10 games in DX11 and even winning some DX12 games such as RotR and GoW4.

In 1080p DX11 the 1060 is only 2% ahead the RX480 while the 480 is 6% ahead in DX12. Consider that the 1060 is only 6GB while the RX480 is 8GB and AMD claims a 3x the DX12 titles for 2017 which AMD seems to have a definitive Advantage in that APU. Not denying the fact that nVidia has a healthy lead in DX11.


I would recommend you check these videos:

HardwareCanucks "GTX 1060 vs RX 480 | Who Wins NOW?"









DigitalFoundies "[1080p] Radeon RX 580/ RX 570 vs RX 480/ GTX 1060 Gaming Benchmarks"









Hardware Unboxed "Can the RX 480 Dethrone The GTX 1060? [Crimson ReLive Update]"










RX480 and 1060 6GB both seem to be on par. I would not even consider RX580, in my opinions is just a waste, better find an aftermarket RX480 and OC the heck out of it. If i were to choose between the 1060 6GB and 480, i would grab the 480 for two little reasons, DX12 and 8GB as it feels more future proof than the 1060 6GB. Time will tell, as always.

Regarding VEGA... even if it can match up the 1080Ti, nVidia will soon release a new series. Putting AMD back a whole year to answer. At this pace i don´t know if AMD will be able to compete in the high end market anymore, and that is the truth.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 26, 2017)

oxidized said:


> You're actually right, a random day of early 90s people woke up and they all decided to hate AMD and ATi (of course) because blue and lime green are better than dark green and red, so they together decided that it was the moment to stop giving money to tech corporations that had red and dark green in their logos, and also because the font they used was inferior to those of blue, and lime corps.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.



You seriously underestimate the power of marketing and bribing reviewers (rigging software, etc).

Some industries spend double and triple on marketing compared to R&D. They know how to fool the idiots.


----------



## renz496 (Apr 26, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Dude. you have a price tag on those i mentioned changed within months not years. buy titan X pascal then TI comes around and then another Titan. Dont you think that's crazy and unfair. I would feel screwed like never. You can play the good guy here defending but for me that's the fact. And please dont compare rx 480 to 390X. Rx was for mid tier cards competing with 970 not 390x which was a high end back then



seriously titan? we know the cheaper variant but just as fast will be coming out within 3 to 6 months down the line. we know this since the original titan back in 2013. and this is getting old. most people that complain about titan did not even buy the thing in the first place. one that did buy those cards most often they know what they get themselves into. and don't compare RX480 to 390X? why not? those 390X/390 also directly competing with 980/970 back in 2015.


----------



## efikkan (Apr 26, 2017)

etayorius said:


> Regarding VEGA... even if it can match up the 1080Ti, nVidia will soon release a new series. Putting AMD back a whole year to answer. At this pace i don´t know if AMD will be able to compete in the high end market anymore, and that is the truth.


Soon, meaning next year I presume?
Volta for consumers will arrive one year from now, probably starting with mid-range models as usual.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Some industries spend double and triple on marketing compared to R&D. They know how to fool the idiots.


Beats comes to mind.


----------



## Totally (Apr 27, 2017)

ratirt said:


> NV will not discontinue G-sync. They get money from it and quite a lot so there's no point moving to F-sync when they have NV cards supporting G-sync. Look at the price tags of the 2 technologies. Monitors with equal specs are separated with a huge price difference.



That point is covered with "until monitor manufacturers stop cooperating," once they stop releasing monitors with g-sync the money NV receives instantly disappears. It's a matter of time also considering how much of a headache NV users (they are a very vocal and whiney bunch apparently) are creating for them.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Apr 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Beats comes to mind.



Apple has stake in it. That's all you to know.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Apr 27, 2017)

I read this: "My Penis is on the same league as a pr0n star's" - Congrats for creating a bubble balloon hype....


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2017)

etayorius said:


> ...



Already seen those videos, at least 2 of them are way older than the benchmarks i posted, which are the newer i could find on those websites, but it's ok, let's say they're 50 50 (even if i'm actually pretty sure it's more 45 55, but whatever), as you said, 1060 overclocks way more than any 480, ofc the better custom card you get, the more, (with lower temps and voltage) you can overclock it, all this consuming LESS power than ANY 480, even at stock speeds/voltages, while overclocked, pretty sure you can max out any 1060 at around 2100/4300-4400 with something like 20W more? I don't remember, but it's something like that. And again with a slightly premium price (which is also to see, because it's become really hard to find any 480 at a good price, even after 580 arrival), so what's the better buy? We've already seen the +2 GB of memory rarely, if ever comes in handy,  and that nvidia has been "working" to improve dx12 performance, and they actually did improve a bit, via drivers ofc. Are you really sure a 480 is a better and more future proof buy?



TheGuruStud said:


> You seriously underestimate the power of marketing and bribing reviewers (rigging software, etc).
> 
> Some industries spend double and triple on marketing compared to R&D. They know how to fool the idiots.



Nah i'm not, it's you people overestimating it, they can't reverse market with those procedures, it's not how it works really. Stop bringing this up, and please please stop with AMD good guys, any other, bad guys, it's not like that, biggest part of the reputation these corps have is deserved, and then maybe there's what you say, but it's a very small percentage.


----------



## StellarShots (Apr 27, 2017)

At the end of the day. AMD has done some great things on both the CPU and GPU front working with a skeleton crew competing against CPU giant Intel and GPU giant Nvidia. If  it weren't for AMD we would be paying more than 2 to 3 times the price for any given product.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2017)

StellarShots said:


> At the end of the day. AMD has done some great things on both the CPU and GPU front working with a skeleton crew competing against CPU giant Intel and GPU giant Nvidia. If  it weren't for AMD we would be paying more than 2 to 3 times the price for any given product.



No doubts about this


----------



## Prima.Vera (Apr 27, 2017)

StellarShots said:


> At the end of the day. AMD has done some great things on both the CPU and GPU front working with a skeleton crew competing against CPU giant Intel and GPU giant Nvidia. If  it weren't for AMD we would be paying more than 2 to 3 times the price for any given product.


Exaggerations... You are already paying premium, like 2 or 3 times more that you should for a shitty 4 core CPU, not to mention the ridiculous and callous prices for 6 and 8 cores. AMD was out of the quality CPU game since Athlon days, so....

Idem for the GPUs.... Just look how nVidia managed to almost double the prices for top cards in less than 5 years. And I'm not talking about the Titan cards....


----------



## evernessince (Apr 27, 2017)

PowerPC said:


> This definitely rings true, and a big win for AMD. Nvidia will have to adapt to FreeSync or be left behind. Right now they are probably thinking hard on how to make that move and still maintain face in the process.
> 
> On the topic of whether Vega will compete with 1080ti, I'm pretty sure it will, at least in Vulkan or DirectX 12 games. Might even be faster, honestly. And for much cheaper? If they can do this, people will flock to the AMD platform in masses. They know this, so I hope they are not planning to disappoint. This is the biggest test for AMD after they proved themselves in the CPU market against Intel, and might be the biggest test for them yet, whether they can also beat Nvidia? I really hope they can make Vega what people want and show it to Nvidia after they (kinda) beat Intel.
> 
> The good part is that Intel is now announcing consumer 6 cores for their next gen CPUs and even going to release them sooner than they "planned". But in reality, would they have done it if AMD didn't kick their asses in multi-core? Same for Nvidia, would they be making HBM2 and releasing it sooner now if AMD wasn't able to kick their asses in Graphics? I bet Nvidia already smelled or even knows for sure that Vega will be a threat. Otherwise, they would never announce Volta for so much sooner, wouldn't they?



Unfortunately, even if AMD did crush Nvidia in performance they would not gain much marketshare.  Most people will always buy Nvidia simply because that's what they always bought.  Heck, I still see people spreading the falsehood that AMD drivers are junk even though they have gotten vastly better over the last 3 years and have had far less issues as of late.


----------



## etayorius (Apr 27, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Already seen those videos, at least 2 of them are way older than the benchmarks i posted, which are the newer i could find on those websites, but it's ok, let's say they're 50 50 (even if i'm actually pretty sure it's more 45 55, but whatever), as you said, 1060 overclocks way more than any 480, ofc the better custom card you get, the more, (with lower temps and voltage) you can overclock it, all this consuming LESS power than ANY 480, even at stock speeds/voltages, while overclocked, pretty sure you can max out any 1060 at around 2100/4300-4400 with something like 20W more? I don't remember, but it's something like that. And again with a slightly premium price (which is also to see, because it's become really hard to find any 480 at a good price, even after 580 arrival), so what's the better buy? We've already seen the +2 GB of memory rarely, if ever comes in handy,  and that nvidia has been "working" to improve dx12 performance, and they actually did improve a bit, via drivers ofc. Are you really sure a 480 is a better and more future proof buy?
> 
> 
> 
> Nah i'm not, it's you people overestimating it, they can't reverse market with those procedures, it's not how it works really. Stop bringing this up, and please please stop with AMD good guys, any other, bad guys, it's not like that, biggest part of the reputation these corps have is deserved, and then maybe there's what you say, but it's a very small percentage.




I definitely think 480 is a better buy. Both cards are around the same Level of Performance but 480 has a DX12 advantage (which is the future) and two extra GB of Ram that will be useful in the future. If someone is more on DX11 and older games just grab the 1060 as it is way superior in that regards. But if someone makes their buy with DX12 in mind the RX480 is the clear winner, since it has proven that it is indeed faster with DX12 titles. Even after the nvidia DX12 Driver the 480 is still ahead. It is very simple, DX11 goes to nvidia hands down. While DX12/Vulkan at the moment and with current titles AMD is the clear Leader. Maybe nVidia finds a way to perform faster with comparable GPU to AMD in the future, Who knows.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2017)

etayorius said:


> I definitely think 480 is a better buy. Both cards are around the same Level of Performance but 480 has a DX12 advantage (which is the future) and two extra GB of Ram that will be useful in the future. If someone is more on DX11 and older games just grab the 1060 as it is way superior in that regards. But if someone makes their buy with DX12 in mind the RX480 is the clear winner, since it has proven that it is indeed faster with DX12 titles. Even after the nvidia DX12 Driver the 480 is still ahead. It is very simple, DX11 goes to nvidia hands down. While DX12/Vulkan at the moment and with current titles AMD is the clear Leader. Maybe nVidia finds a way to perform faster with comparable GPU to AMD in the future, Who knows.



You kept out the overclocking part where the 1060 can reach same 480's DX12 levels and increase the gap there is in DX11


----------



## etayorius (Apr 27, 2017)

oxidized said:


> You kept out the overclocking part where the 1060 can reach same 480's DX12 levels and increase the gap there is in DX11



I never denied it, in fact i was first to bring that up. Not long ago i saw a reference RX480 8GB version on Sale in VisionTek site for $170 USD, and i even saw an article today that some RX480 8GB versions are selling for 180 after Rebate. At that price point is not even a contest. The thing is, the RX480 is cheaper most of the time and it seems more future proof than the 1060, this is the reason i would recommend the 480 over 1060 depending on what type of games you play. But i never said the 1060 was a crap card, in fact i was 1 inch close to get a GTX1060 6GB but i decided to wait for Volta or Vega to update my GTX780Ti. I like both Brands and i been on nVidia 95% of the time, but i like being fair to AMD and i see a lot of disinfo and baseless hate toward their products... and even some biased benchmarks from the Tech Press and to be honest, AMD does not deserve all the sh*t they been through. Being fair to both companies, is not too hard to understand that one of them is better at DX11 while the other is currently better at DX12, with the latter also having an extra 2 GB. But yes, you can just grab a 1060 and OC it pass beyond the 480 DX12 performance, it´s a very valid point.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Apr 27, 2017)

evernessince said:


> Unfortunately, even if AMD did crush Nvidia in performance they would not gain much marketshare.  Most people will always buy Nvidia simply because that's what they always bought.  Heck, I still see people spreading the falsehood that AMD drivers are junk even though they have gotten vastly better over the last 3 years and have had far less issues as of late.


Not entirely true. Is not a fanbuoy thingy. I was on ATI/AMD until 4870X2 and SLI HD 5870. And yes, the AMD drivers *were *utter crap, junk, especially for CrossFire. In the rare situation that the CF was working, the game was lagging and stuttering like hell.
My next card was a 780Ti, then 1080. No more ever CF/SLI for me.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 27, 2017)

While I stand by my claim that the 480 is a better buy, the 1060 outsells the RX480 4.5:1. Even tho it came out 2 months later and they are on the same level. The mindset people have can never be changed that easily. AMD will always fight an uphill battle. Even when AMD/ATI had a vastly superior product (in every tier) they could only get 50% market.


----------



## Leonardo Oscar Morellato (Apr 27, 2017)

i just need AMD around, i feel it in my bones, AMD needs to be or dark times will come.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 27, 2017)

efikkan said:


> It's just a matter of weeks now before AMD fans are withdrawn to their last stand claiming Vega is still better due to a "newer" memory technology, better fp16 performance (which no games will use anytime soon), etc. We all remember such arguments from the past:
> R9 390X vs. GTX 970: R9 390X is more "future proof" because it has 8 GB memory.
> Fury X vs. GTX 980 Ti: Memory size suddenly doesn't matter, Fury X still more "future proof" with faster and "newer" memory.
> RX 480 vs. GTX 1060: Memory size suddenly makes RX 480 more future proof again.
> It all depends on the wind direction…




omg buddy you are just so delusional.

390x VS 970 ?!?!?!

The 390X beat the 980, and in fact it nearly matches the 980 Ti in a lot of the newest games.   Fury X is generally in-between the 1070 and 1080 depending on what games you play (Worst case is it trades blows with the 1070).


But who are these Vega AMD fanboys?   Most people seem to be pretty conservative with their expectations...


----------



## ratirt (Apr 27, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> While I stand by my claim that the 480 is a better buy, the 1060 outsells the RX480 4.5:1. Even tho it came out 2 months later and they are on the same level. The mindset people have can never be changed that easily. AMD will always fight an uphill battle. Even when AMD/ATI had a vastly superior product (in every tier) they could only get 50% market.


Well, that's not our problem if people don't do a research on a product before buying it. Maybe at some point they will pay more attention to what's going on. If somebody is a slacker then this person will just go easy and buy the most commercial product even if it's not worth buying or you could get better for less or same price.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 27, 2017)

oxidized said:


> Alright if you really did that, i also suggest you go check your eyes
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1060-gaming-x-plus-review,1.html
> 
> ...



Are you reading like any of the links you just posted?

I am not surprised you linked Anandshill and gamersnexus as they consistently show laughably different results to the rest of the tech sights.  But let's throw one of your links in here:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1060_gaming_x_plus_review,41.html

^Well there you go the top 580 beats the top 1060 in the "Shoot out".   Meanwhile the 580's, 480's, 470's, and 1060 cards are all jumbled up in the list.


The techpowerup review also adds to what I am saying:

1) If you remove the BS  games people play FAR less than big games like BF1, Dishonored 2, and Tomb Raider (Among many others) - the 480 is generally above the 1060 (sometimes by 10%+).   

2) But let's humor you and include laughable things like a failed Assassin's Creed and Anon  - even then the 1060 wins by like 5%.   But again, I think we should be able to agree that more people care about BF1 performance more than Styx LMAO.

3) So even if we accept your BS "1060 is 5% stronger than 480" premise, no I do not believe it makes sense for anyone to take 5% more performance in exchange for 25 - 33% less VRAM and Nvidia's horrific long-term performance losses.


Check your eyes, Project Car's rigged benchmarks are probably in the way...


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 27, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> Fury X is generally in-between the 1070 and 1080 depending on what games you play (Worst case is it trades blows with the 1070).


How?
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/30.html

And bear in mind the 1070 can OC, Fury can't.


----------



## Captain_Tom (Apr 27, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> How?
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/30.html



I just saw you post a bench showing exactly what I said.  So I guess.... That's how?  Read your own link?















^There's several incredibly popular games with the Fury X in-between the 1070 and 1080 (With decent wins over the 1070).  And worst case, it trades blows with the 1070.

Pay attention to the performance summaries over time because they keep changing lol.   When the 1070 first came out it crushed the Fury X in TPU's summary, but then a few months ago the Fury X won on average.  Now they are pretty much tied, but it will change again...


----------



## notb (Apr 27, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Well, that's not our problem if people don't do a research on a product before buying it. Maybe at some point they will pay more attention to what's going on. If somebody is a slacker then this person will just go easy and buy the most commercial product even if it's not worth buying or you could get better for less or same price.


I would love to see how you do research on everything you buy: food, clothes, car windscreen wipers, pencils, plastic food containers... 

Just accept the fact that people want to just buy a graphic card, plug it into the PC (get it plugged in...) and play a game.
And they buy NVIDIA (and Intel, Logitech, HP etc), because they know these brands and they expect them to *just work*.
But the other side of this situation is that companies like NVIDIA and Intel... well... listen to their customers. They usually aim to make stuff that *just works*.
So sure, AMD's products are often more cutting-edge, but very likely also a bit less friendly to buy and own. People on this forum call this "exciting" but for most of the population it is just abstruse and tiresome.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 27, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> I just saw you post a bench showing exactly what I said.  So I guess.... That's how?  Read your own link?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This mostly depends how you look at it. The modern games sometimes perform better on fury than 1070. I assume this stuff will continue in the future. For me AMD is a best buy and honestly I been thinking about buying fury till Vega shows  up.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 27, 2017)

notb said:


> I would love to see how you do research on everything you buy: food, clothes, car windscreen wipers, pencils, plastic food containers...
> 
> Just accept the fact that people want to just buy a graphic card, plug it into the PC (get it plugged in...) and play a game.
> And they buy NVIDIA (and Intel, Logitech, HP etc), because they know these brands and they expect them to *just work*.
> ...


Dude. Read my post. Are we talking about food or cloths? I think not. Besides, don't judge the books by its covers. Which means cloths mean noting to me and food I make myself. Electronics is a different thing.
With your logic if you buy a car you just buy whatever you can drive or you look for something just for you that suits your needs? Or you just get any that can go and you are good? and don't tell me please that cars are expensive and that is why you being more careful with your purchase. Considering price and tech and what it does they are relatively cheap with their magnitude comparing to video cards which price can be astronomical for their purpose. That's my opinion.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 27, 2017)

etayorius said:


> I never denied it, in fact i was first to bring that up. Not long ago i saw a reference RX480 8GB version on Sale in VisionTek site for $170 USD, and i even saw an article today that some RX480 8GB versions are selling for 180 after Rebate. At that price point is not even a contest. The thing is, the RX480 is cheaper most of the time and it seems more future proof than the 1060, this is the reason i would recommend the 480 over 1060 depending on what type of games you play. But i never said the 1060 was a crap card, in fact i was 1 inch close to get a GTX1060 6GB but i decided to wait for Volta or Vega to update my GTX780Ti. I like both Brands and i been on nVidia 95% of the time, but i like being fair to AMD and i see a lot of disinfo and baseless hate toward their products... and even some biased benchmarks from the Tech Press and to be honest, AMD does not deserve all the sh*t they been through. Being fair to both companies, is not too hard to understand that one of them is better at DX11 while the other is currently better at DX12, with the latter also having an extra 2 GB. But yes, you can just grab a 1060 and OC it pass beyond the 480 DX12 performance, it´s a very valid point.



Alright, whatever we can keep ignoring all the facts, no problems.



Captain_Tom said:


> Are you reading like any of the links you just posted?
> 
> I am not surprised you linked Anandshill and gamersnexus as they consistently show laughably different results to the rest of the tech sights.  But let's throw one of your links in here:
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1060_gaming_x_plus_review,41.html
> ...



Hey i linked 4 sites i know over others, and still you keep cherry picking and saying "If we remove the BS games like...", can you even hear yourself? There were many other games tested, i could say the same about doom, about hitman, which are fare Clearly on AMD side, much more clearly than any of those you talked about, but it's not a thing we should do, those are the games, those are the tests, face the truth, the 1060 was and still is a bit better over a list of 20+ games. and is the overall better product, now if you completely don't care about consuming(costs) temperatures, and overclockability, fine get whatever you want, but the real facts are others.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 27, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> I just saw you post a bench showing exactly what I said.  So I guess.... That's how?  Read your own link?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are cherry-picking the results. GTA5, FO4 and the newest Ghost Recon are more popular than COD and DOOM, and the Fury losses in those or gets destroyed in some cases. I gave you the average across all 20 smth games from a review from 5 days ago. You replied with 3 games across 2 resolutions.
And all of that was a response to your "Worst case is it trades blows with the 1070"
If that was the worst case, the FuryX would be ahead on average


----------



## ratirt (Apr 27, 2017)

ShurikN said:


> You are cherry-picking the results. GTA5, FO4 and the newest Ghost Recon are more popular than COD and DOOM, and the Fury losses in those or gets destroyed in some cases. I gave you the average across all 20 smth games from a review from 5 days ago. You replied with 3 games across 2 resolutions.
> And all of that was a response to your "Worst case is it trades blows with the 1070"
> If that was the worst case, the FuryX would be ahead on average


Modern games are not cherry picking I think. This is the future indication of the performance for cards. if you go with older games which give your card better performance  that would be cherry picking.

BTW. IT is time to say that 1080p is not a good indication for V-cards performance. Even there's a huge amount of users still playing that resolution. 2k will be the lowest within a year. I myself plan to buy a new monitor with 2k possibility it's just I'm waiting for VEGA. I need to know the benefits and free-sync is way more cheaper than G-sync. Worth to wait.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 27, 2017)

Polglass said:


> At least AMD give a full breakdown of the technology and methodology they have used. Nvidia give you nothing.


what????


----------



## msroadkill612 (Apr 27, 2017)

I am not saying anything new, but the way understressed big picture  IMO is the potential magic of a vega zen combo pc.

gpu & cpu are 2 parts of a whole, a team, but only amd make both.

ATM they have a v.good launch of a new gen cpu, and an almost coinciding intro of a new gen gpu.

i.e the two projects have run in ~parallel. One campaign, two fronts.

so they have had the unique opportunity to really address the whole problem.

it beggars belief they cant come up with some important synergies.

Especially, since not only that, the next campaign is combining the two in a raven ridge apu. Now thats an integrated,  powerful ~SOC PC.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 27, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> VESA embedded DisplayPort adaptive sync.  It's an open standard Intel and NVIDIA have access to.  I wouldn't be surprised in NVIDIA already has a working implementation of it ready to go but corporate needs to decide if/when to discontinue the G-SYNC program.  I doubt they will until monitor manufacturers stop cooperating.




They are using it inside "gsync" notebooks.
I've recall "it's no big deal, there is a standard that allows that in notebook" several week before AMD announced FreeSync. It can't be that NV didn't know about it, ti's just, they couldn't vendor lock with it.



oxidized said:


> ..., so they together decided that it was the moment to stop giving money...



Oh, please. There is a thing called confirmation bias, bigger market share => more biased trash talk => more people fall victim to it.
And there was at least one clearly paid shill chizow who was always there to post shit about... oh, you know, one company. Who knows how many subtle ones are out there.


----------



## burebista (Apr 27, 2017)

btarunr said:


> "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice,"








Sorry but I can't resist.


----------



## bug (Apr 27, 2017)

medi01 said:


> They are using it inside "gsync" notebooks.
> I've recall "it's no big deal, there is a standard that allows that in notebook" several week before AMD announced FreeSync. It can't be that NV didn't know about it, ti's just, they couldn't vendor lock with it.



G-Sync is more capable (e.g. it does not restrict refresh rates to keep overdrive working), that' why Nvidia won't drop it. Though being able to milk it must also be part of the reason.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 27, 2017)

bug said:


> G-Sync is more capable (e.g. it does not restrict refresh rates to keep overdrive working)



I don't see inherent FreeSync problems with motion blur reduction. gsync chip has it built in and with freesync, vendors need to do their own solutions is the only difference, from what I see.


----------



## bug (Apr 27, 2017)

medi01 said:


> I don't see inherent FreeSync problems with motion blur reduction. gsync chip has it built in and with freesync, vendors need to do their own solutions is the only difference, from what I see.


Yes. And then you have to check the quality of the implementation before buying, because some vendors go overboard with overdrive.

To be clear, the technologies are similar for all intents and purposes. But since there are _some_ differences, by giving up on G-Sync, Nvidia would actually be dropping features. And this leads to user qq and even lawsuits.


----------



## Slizzo (Apr 27, 2017)

TheGuruStud said:


> Apple has stake in it. That's all you to know.



OT but, Beats was popular way before Apple bought it out. And yes, Apple owns them outright now. That's how Jay-Z got to be the richest rapper in the world. (i.e. a Billionaire)


----------



## efikkan (Apr 27, 2017)

Captain_Tom said:


> omg buddy you are just so delusional.
> 
> 390x VS 970 ?!?!?!
> 
> The 390X beat the 980, and in fact it nearly matches the 980 Ti in a lot of the newest games.


Grow up.
You are not even close to correct. Stock R9 390X was slightly ahead of stock GTX 970, but considering the majority of GTX 970s available were clocked much higher, nearly all GTX 970s sold would beat even custom versions of R9 390X. Also take into consideration that R9 390X was more expensive, GTX 970 was a superior choice in every way. That's not my opinion, but a fact.



ShurikN said:


> While I stand by my claim that the 480 is a better buy, the 1060 outsells the RX480 4.5:1. Even tho it came out 2 months later and they are on the same level. The mindset people have can never be changed that easily. AMD will always fight an uphill battle. Even when AMD/ATI had a vastly superior product (in every tier) they could only get 50% market.


GTX 1060 (stock) performs better unless you cherry-pick games, and is better in all aspects; performance, performance/price, efficiency, energy consumption, OC headroom, etc. If you take into account typical custom versions of GTX 1060 vs. custom RX 480, GTX 1060 looks even better.

There is nothing in GCN that makes it inherently better at Direct3D 12 as many claims, but simply the fact that many of the early Direct3D 12 games have been AMD sponsored and/or console ports.

It's sad to see AMD focusing so much of their resources on getting developers to optimize for their hardware, instead of spending those resources actually making _better_ hardware.


----------



## qisoed (Apr 27, 2017)

First I think Vega suppose to be faster than 1080TI or even Titan XP because it will become the benchmark for Nvidia for their new GPU (might be 2000 series) which usually they introduce on Q4. So how good is Vega perform will reflect on the 

Second is the speed bump on 1080 and 1060 Its pretty much an economical act, similar to what AMD did with their RX500 series so why not, as long as can bring money for them.

For me well, I just stick to what I can afford and to what game I want to play.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Apr 27, 2017)

Holy cow, it certainly doesn't take long for haters to fill just about any AMD thread with a veritable shitstorm!


----------



## notb (Apr 27, 2017)

Divide Overflow said:


> Holy cow, it certainly doesn't take long for haters to fill just about any AMD thread with a veritable shitstorm!


Sure, because Intel/NVIDIA threads are not filled with AMD fanboy's comments


----------



## notb (Apr 27, 2017)

ratirt said:


> Dude. Read my post. Are we talking about food or cloths? I think not. Besides, don't judge the books by its covers. Which means cloths mean noting to me and food I make myself. Electronics is a different thing.


It's not. It's just another product. Some people like to spend time choosing PC parts, some like trying shoes on.
There is nothing special about computers (or electronics in general).

And please don't call me "dude". It seems English is not your first language, so how did you learn to use possibly the worst word in it? :/


----------



## notb (Apr 27, 2017)

msroadkill612 said:


> gpu & cpu are 2 parts of a whole, a team, but only amd make both.


Actually, no. CPU is an essential part of a computer. It actually is THE computer - the rest is just there to help.
A GPU is optional. 

And of course all of the 3 big names: Intel, AMD and NVIDIA make both CPUs and GPUs.
What you were trying to say is that only AMD makes both for high-end gaming PCs.



msroadkill612 said:


> it beggars belief they cant come up with some important synergies.


OMG. The word "synergy" brings to mind some of the worst corporate nightmares.
And no, it's very unlikely there will be any "synergies". CPU and GPU communicate via a standardized interface and instruction set. Nothing like that has been documented in the last 10 years.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 28, 2017)

Stop multiple posting... edit to add!!!!


----------



## msroadkill612 (Apr 28, 2017)

notb said:


> Actually, no. CPU is an essential part of a computer. It actually is THE computer - the rest is just there to help.
> A GPU is optional.
> 
> And of course all of the 3 big names: Intel, AMD and NVIDIA make both CPUs and GPUs.
> ...



Good luck selling consumers PCs sans video.

Nit picking. amd & nvidia ~own the $100-$1000 gpu market.

In the inevitable scenarios where one or the other (gpu/cpu) is the limiting factor to better performance, amd is free to rob peter to pay paul, for a better net result.

good luck to nvidia asking intel or amd to make concessions to their cpu to make nvidias cards work better. amd only rigs can be treated as a whole more so by amd.

Its hardly news some processors work better than others,despite using same standards. its what u do within those boundaries that counts.


----------



## notb (Apr 28, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Stop multiple posting... edit to add!!!!


Wow. That's something new. Do we have that in forum's netiquette? You've been here for much longer, so I assume you know.
I'll apply for now, but that needs explanation.



msroadkill612 said:


> Good luck selling consumers PCs sans video.


I have 2. What's the matter?
5 minutes ago Ryzen was great for productivity task, now you say a PC without a video output is pointless...



EarthDog said:


> Nit picking. amd & nvidia ~own the $100-$1000 gpu market.
> [/QUOTE
> Which doesn't change the fact that a significant majority of consumers use Intel's GPU. Thankfully it costs less than $100.
> 
> ...


----------



## Slizzo (Apr 28, 2017)

notb said:


> Wow. That's something new. Do we have that in forum's netiquette? You've been here for much longer, so I assume you know.
> I'll apply for now, but that needs explanation.



Double/multiposting is against forum rules. You've just been lucky so far that you haven't been cited for it yet.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 28, 2017)

notb said:


> It's not. It's just another product. Some people like to spend time choosing PC parts, some like trying shoes on.
> There is nothing special about computers (or electronics in general).
> 
> And please don't call me "dude". It seems English is not your first language, so how did you learn to use possibly the worst word in it? :/




Some people like to put shoes on when they buy it?  assume you just burst through the door of a cloth store and get whatever checking the size. That's great.

And please don't mock my English. that's just rude and you have no idea where i am from really. Yeah English is not my first language I’ve learned but native. Not like yours I bet. I don't see DUDE worst word but that's just your opinion.

I simply disagree with you with what you said. Please stop being offensive with that little language scuffle cause that was really rude and not even about correcting (which is fully understandable where I live)but mock people with your opinion about words which you may have no idea what they actually mean?.  Anyway. its not a language lesson. so next time when you mock somebody with your ways of language understanding mind your tongue and stop mocking people


----------



## medi01 (Apr 28, 2017)

bug said:


> Yes. And then you have to check the quality of the implementation before buying, because some vendors go overboard with overdrive.


You need to check reviews of the monitor you are buying anyhow.
And the fact that all GSync monitors have wide adaptive sync range is simply a myth.




bug said:


> by giving up on G-Sync, Nvidia would actually be dropping features


Not true.
For starters, it doesn't have to be all or nothing and then, FreeSync seems to be superior on input lag front.




bug said:


> And this leads to user qq and even lawsuits


No way it could lead to lawsuits.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 28, 2017)

medi01 said:


> You need to check reviews of the monitor you are buying anyhow.
> And the fact that all GSync monitors have wide adaptive sync range is simply a myth.




I'm planning to buy a new monitor and it would be free sync for sure. I wanna go with the Vega card. I tried to get some info on both of those technologies but there are always 2 sides and hard to tell which one is better(if you can compare those in terms better and worse). I could go 1080 TI and gsync but the price is horrendous. Vega and Freesync seems more reasonable. if I get fsync monitor, any options that I should be concerned about? Vega should be freesync compatible knowing that AMD is using this open tech for other cards.

Still waiting for VEGA to show up and it's been hell. I'm so tempted to buy something new and move on from my current setup. I only hope, this VEGA will be as good as people say it might be


----------



## medi01 (Apr 28, 2017)

ratirt said:


> if I get fsync monitor, any options that I should be concerned about?


Low Framerate Compensation LFC is a must have (covers lower refresh rates by repeating frames)

List of monitors with ranges (doen't tell you if LFC is there or not)
http://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-of-freesync-monitors/

AMD's list (doesn't contain the newest ones available, select "monitors" tab on the bottom of the page):
http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync


FreeSync2 has been announced, it has stricter requirements and some HDR input lag magic, but I haven't seen FS2 monitors yet.


----------



## medi01 (Apr 28, 2017)

Compubench 2 numbers, possibly Vega:
https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=dGPU&hwname=AMD 687F:C1&did=45270653&D=AMD 687F:C1

Looks a bit better than 1080, but far from 1080Ti/Titan, I was told.




ratirt said:


> I heard about the freesync 2. Not sure how it would work exactly and when released but I'm sure it will bring some improvements over the freesync as well.


Well, that's easy, actually, it is technically just FreeSync, it mandates LFC and it can drastically reduce lag when communicating with HDR monitor.
There is work that needs to be done when using HDR monitors and what AMD has done is doing the needed calculations directly in GPU, so that monitor doesn't need to.

Apparently, that is completely irrelevant with normal monitors (and I haven't yet seen REAL HDR monitors that don't cost a fortune ).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2017)

Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in most, horrifyingly worse in one.
GTX 1080: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080

Worse across the board and often significantly.
GTX 1080 Ti: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080+Ti

Almost double across the board.
RX 470: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+RX+470+Graphics
RX 480: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+RX+480

Slightly better.
Radeon Pro Duo (2 x Fiji): https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=33282997&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+Pro+Duo&D2=AMD+687F:C1

Something is seriously wrong on "Catmull-Clark Subdivision Level 3."


Clockspeeds: 1000 (1200 boost)
Compute Units: 64


----------



## ratirt (Apr 28, 2017)

medi01 said:


> Compubench 2 numbers, possibly Vega:
> https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=dGPU&hwname=AMD 687F:C1&did=45270653&D=AMD 687F:C1
> 
> Looks a bit better than 1080, but far from 1080Ti/Titan, I was told.



Well people say things then withdraw stuff others say different and stick to it. I'm still gonna wait for Vega but it's definitely a great improvement over my 780 Ti. I saw that link  already but you know samples improvements before release and of course drivers. Who know what this vega will eventually be capable of.

Been looking through the sites for any information about the LFC's Got some of those which are pretty useful. Anyway when swapping my screen with a new one I will definitely seek advice on the TPU which monitor to pick. 2k would be an enormous improvement but maybe 4k is the way to go. Still you don't have to play 4k with that type of monitor. You can always settle at 2k which in my case would be hellishly awesome: D

I heard about the freesync 2. Not sure how it would work exactly and when released but I'm sure it will bring some improvements over the  freesync as well.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in most, horrifyingly worse in one.
> GTX 1080: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080
> 
> Worse across the board and often significantly.
> ...



For me what counts is the final product not some benches of a sample. It's not even out yet and there's a problem with it. I really doubt that bro  Besides I'm willing to change my monitor. Free sync is the way to go over G-sync which is so expensive not mentioning nv cards. Waiting for Vega is the way to go for me and when it's out, deciding which way I wanna go


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2017)

So... the new Radeon Pro Duo has 72 compute units, not 64.  Pretty confident it is Vega because Vega has 64, not 72.


----------



## ratirt (Apr 28, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So... the new Radeon Pro Duo has 72 compute units, not 64.  Pretty confident it is Vega because Vega has 64, not 72.



VEGA is a single gpu not dual so what you are talking about is irrelevant and it's totally new architecture so comparison with older dual polaris is not the way to go in MO bro


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 28, 2017)

Trying to identify what it is based on what clGetDeviceInfo returns.  More evidence: it matches what the GPU database says it should be.


----------



## EarthDog (Apr 28, 2017)

You are basing it on TPUs *guess* of what it 'should' be?


----------



## ratirt (Apr 28, 2017)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Trying to identify what it is based on what clGetDeviceInfo returns.  More evidence: it matches what the GPU database says it should be.


oh that so relevant  to bad I didn't see it  TPU should be careful what it puts on the database. Assumptions as always  when they score  wow


----------

