- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,926 (0.79/day)
Processor | AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS |
Cooling | Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock |
Memory | Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1333 MHz |
Video Card(s) | MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB |
Storage | Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB |
Display(s) | Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24" |
Case | Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2 |
Audio Device(s) | Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus |
Power Supply | Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2 |
Mouse | Razer Abyssus |
Keyboard | CM Storm QuickFire XT |
Software | Ubuntu |
Market share is not the issue due to the console market. Right now there are more way optimized games for AMD hardware than their counterpart, in fact many games are developed initially exclusively for AMD hardware and then ported to PC.1. A GPU-manufacturer needs to have marketshare to give others a reason to optimize for its products.
Bulldozer was a faulty design, only suitable for specific workloads which doesn't map well with consumer software. It's not a lack of "optimizations" as people keep claiming.4. Same fault like the Bulldozer-idea... meh in some couple of month it could be widely adopted and optimized bla bla. How with inactive/broken engines and nearly no marketshare to get wide adoption and optimization?
Because they have a much more efficient design which is able to divide the workload and keep the cores fed.2. Why is nvidia able to push that much FPS with the 150W GTX1070 having only 3 GPC, where we wait and wait to see AMD doing equal with GCN with 4 Engines with equal Watts?
Vega10 will remain roughly where it is today.5. being not to rigorous: if the 200W state of Vega does anytime in the future (month or years) beat the OC-Variants of the GTX1080 with same Watts, okay, better late then never. But if Vega in that state EVER gets near the FPS of 1080Ti i will be an idiot.