NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on Radeon VII: "Underwhelming (...) the Performance is Lousy"; "Freesync Doesn't Work"

[FordGT90Concept]

Discreet Vega did really well by that chart.

 

[mindbomb]

Sorry but no. There are terrible monitors with Gsync too. Has nothing to do with VRR and everything with the panel and board behind that.

Tftcentral has it all in case you are curious. Not once has Freesync been considered related to ghosting or artifacting. The only gripe is limited ranges.

No, since the gsync boards have very fine control of overdrive as the refresh rate changes, they will likely have better response times than freesync or gsync compatible monitors, since those tend to have coarse control of overdrive. The amount of overdrive needed changes depending on the refresh rate, so that's why this technology is important.

There is nothing stopping monitor companies from making sure their freesync monitors have finer control, but only one freesync monitor has implemented this, the nixeus edg27 (they call it adaptive antighosting).

So you could do the experiment, find a gsync and freesync ips monitor that uses the same panel, and you'll see that the gsync monitor will end up with better response times with a variable refresh rate, due to a better overdrive system, which was mandated by nvidia.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

you mean feels as in "it good enough to go out to the market" ?
yhe sure it can work in gaming, first vegas proved that , im saying it like that becouse wrong chip for the wrong purpose, mybe better to augment polaris ?
you right AMD is better becouse they use the open standards approach, that's not the problem. for me the problem is that they are not doing it for good reasons, for us, it becouse they are doing it for themselfs...
thanks man that very elaborate response, you cleaned up a few things
I didn't know the freesync problems are becouse of the monitors not AMD or the freesync system itself
everyone are liers today about the nm eh ?

YES THEY ARE , Laptops had a version of freesync for years(its what freesync was based on) before haungs crew decided to reinvent the wheeL and charge for it , at Least AMD dont charge, and Vegas fine for gaming in first or second edition, most games can manage to run at 4k with uLtra or very high settings with a few not a Lot of exceptions but those exceptions do matter to some ,me incuded.

 

[mtcn77]

Have not heard of this: source link, please?

Hehe, I bet you never heard about this one:[You can guess what the topic is, imho.]

 

[Valantar]

According to this 2018 was the boom to RTG group

Well, considering Vega launched in mobile and desktop APUs in 2018, it's not really any wonder that there was a significant boost to Vega revenue - even if adoption of said APUs by OEMs was slow. Laptops move a lot of volume, after all, and both the 2200G and 2400G seem to have been very successful.

Other than that, I see no trace of a "boom" - all other market segments are more or less static, after all. The growth in Vega sales is understandable, and Polaris sales are only slightly up. Still, quite impressive that there's no drop in semi-custom revenue considering how far into the current console cycle we are.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Pretty sure embedded GPUs (dark gray) include APUs.

 

[hat]

As I said in the other thread, wouldn't it be natural for an opposing CEO to say such things? What CEO in their right mind would ever openly admit the competition has the better product? Especially when you've been charging through the nose for yours...

Supporting freesync though is a good move, finally. A lot of people are already salty because nVidia has stupid high prices, but now you gotta pay another stupid high price for the gsync screen? Jensen isn't THAT stupid... he must have realized that supporting freesync would be a good move and potentially get him more sales form the crowd that might be interested in buying nVidia right now, but not paying the price for gsync. They can keep gsync for the extreme high end crowd with the money and the will to spend it on that, and allow freesync for everyone else... rather than handing sales to AMD because they don't support freesync.

 

[mtcn77]

As I said in the other thread, wouldn't it be natural for an opposing CEO to say such things? What CEO in their right mind would ever openly admit the competition has the better product? Especially when you've been charging through the nose for yours...

Supporting freesync though is a good move, finally. A lot of people are already salty because nVidia has stupid high prices, but now you gotta pay another stupid high price for the gsync screen? Jensen isn't THAT stupid... he must have realized that supporting freesync would be a good move and potentially get him more sales form the crowd that might be interested in buying nVidia right now, but not paying the price for gsync. They can keep gsync for the extreme high end crowd with the money and the will to spend it on that, and allow freesync for everyone else... rather than handing sales to AMD because they don't support freesync.

Hey, he got coaxed into signing it.

In fact the lack of DisplayPort availability in displays overall is a big part of why RTG has pursued this. According to numbers from RTG, only about 30% of all monitors sold include a DisplayPort, while the other 70% are only implementing HDMI or HDMI + DVI. Consequently FS-DP is an inherently limited market and the majority of monitor buyers will never be able to use FS-DP. Meanwhile from what I hear the actual cost of implementing variable refresh rate support on a TCON is very low, which means that RTG could get far greater penetration for FreeSync by extending it to support HDMI, not to mention bringing down the overall cost of entry-level FreeSync monitors. We’re still talking about a highly price sensitive commodity market – after all, there’s a reason that most monitors don’t ship with a DisplayPort – but if the costs of adding FreeSync are as low as RTG hints, then there is a market for consumers who would spend a bit more on a variable refresh rate monitor but don’t know anything about display I/O standards beyond HDMI.

 

[Valantar]

Pretty sure embedded GPUs (dark gray) include APUs.

From what I've read, Embedded and semi-custom is an entirely separate business unit that deals solely with customers outside of AMD. Embedded APUs (such as embedded Epycs and the like) are AFAIK handled by this unit (though neither designed by nor produced specifically for them; they're just re-using existing silicon in those cases), but consumer-oriented APUs are not. If anything, consumer APUs don't fall within RTG at all, but I'm willing to bet the iGPUs in those count towards some of the growth for Vega in this graph (likely through some sort of "sale"/licencing of IP to the Ryzen group.

As I said in the other thread, wouldn't it be natural for an opposing CEO to say such things? What CEO in their right mind would ever openly admit the competition has the better product? Especially when you've been charging through the nose for yours...

You seem to not quite understand the possible nuances of language. The distance between what Huang said and "openly admit[ting] the competition has the better product" is vast. How about a respectful acknowledgement of competition while underscoring belief in the superiority of one's own products? There are countless ways of doing this without acting like a condescending ass and still do his job in terms of promoting his company, yet he chose the "be an asshole" tactic. Not that Intel is much of an example of anything much positive, but how many "LOL, Ryzen SUX!!!11!1!!!" statements have you heard or read from C-level executives in that company? Yeah, exactly. Treating people with respect in public is quite fundamental, and not doing so certainly doesn't reflect well on the person acting like an ass. It just makes you look insecure, lashing out, not trusting in your own (or your company's) ability to stand on your own merits.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

From what I've read, Embedded and semi-custom is an entirely separate business unit that deals solely with customers outside of AMD. Embedded APUs (such as embedded Epycs and the like) are AFAIK handled by this unit (though neither designed by nor produced specifically for them; they're just re-using existing silicon in those cases), but consumer-oriented APUs are not. If anything, consumer APUs don't fall within RTG at all, but I'm willing to bet the iGPUs in those count towards some of the growth for Vega in this graph (likely through some sort of "sale"/licencing of IP to the Ryzen group.

RTG is about as independent from AMD as Xbox is from Microsoft (that is, not). AMD doesn't license anything from itself.

The Vega integrated in Ryzen APUs are embedded GPUs. An example of "semi-custom" is consoles, which are also embedded GPUs. AMD's graph is quite clear in this distinction: integrated (many architectures), mainstream discreet (Polaris), and high performance discreet (Vega).

 

[Valantar]

RTG is about as independent from AMD as Xbox is from Microsoft (that is, not). AMD doesn't license anything from itself.

The Vega integrated in Ryzen APUs are embedded GPUs. An example of "semi-custom" is consoles, which are also embedded GPUs. AMD's graph is quite clear in this distinction: integrated (many architectures), mainstream discreet (Polaris), and high performance discreet (Vega).

While what you're saying is technically true, that still doesn't mean that the embedded and semi-custom business unit provides designs for internal partners. Embedded means for embedded applications, not embedded designs, i.e. industrial PCs, digital signage, and so on. Semi-custom is (mainly) consoles. It's about who they sell to (and thus what SKUs, firmware, drivers and support they provide).

Also, if AMD didn't do internal licensing, Vega APUs wouldn't affect this graph at all, as they would then fall entirely under the purview of the CPU division.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What does that have to do with anything? The chart shows what AMD shipped sans CPU-only products. It's basic accounting and inventory.

Hades Canyon is a semi-custom embedded GPU too.

AMD owns all of the Radeon and x86 IPs/licenses. As long as it has an AMD sticker on it, AMD's legal team takes care of it. There's no "internal licensing" because RTG exists in name only.

 

[Valantar]

What does that have to do with anything? The chart shows what AMD shipped sans CPU-only products. It's basic accounting and inventory.

Hades Canyon is a semi-custom embedded GPU too.

AMD owns all of the Radeon and x86 IPs/licenses. As long as it has an AMD sticker on it, AMD's legal team takes care of it. There's no "internal licensing" because RTG exists in name only.

While in theory I agree with you that "discrete" divisions inside the same company are still the same company (and that this is one of the most BS tactics of the corporate world in terms of shuffling money around, dodging taxes, laundering money, and generally being asses), that's not how these things are handled in terms of economics or management.

I have misread the charts a bit, though. After checking how AMD organizes this, Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-custom is one division, while Compute and Graphics is another, where RTG is roughly half. It seems they've stopped reporting RTG earnings separately, at least from the latest earnings announcements. What that does tell us, without a doubt, is that "embedded" does not include APUs, at least not outside of embedded-only APUs - even if these are identical silicon to consumer ones, just with a different name and slightly different microcode. They still get silicon from the same wafers, through the same binning process, with the same designs, but they're separate business units, and thus have separate money. You can't have one pay the costs and the other earn the revenue without a matching payment in-between. In other words, the only way consumer Vega APUs fit into this is in the red block at the top - which is also marked with the same logo as the retail boxes for those chips are. Crypto likely represents the majority of that growth, but it'd be surprising if APUs didn't also add to that.

 

[INSTG8R]

Hey, he got coaxed into signing it.

Except that Freesync over HDMI has been possible for awhile now granted it’s not on all monitors but it’s been available for at least a generation of monitors I suspect a lot of the low range (45-75)monitors are mostly HDMI equipped because of the lack of need for any extreme bandwidth requirements. My monitor can do HDMI 100hz Freesync or 144hz on DP.

 

[mtcn77]

Except that Freesync over HDMI has been possible for awhile now granted it’s not on all monitors but it’s been available for at least a generation of monitors I suspect a lot of the low range (45-75)monitors are mostly HDMI equipped because of the lack of need for any extreme bandwidth requirements. My monitor can do HDMI 100hz Freesync or 144hz on DP.

Granted, I have researched into this subject, that I have subjective bias against disbelievers and green goblins, it still strikes me as much as it does that I have skipped over Anandtech on 2 occations and a forumer on the next just because some other publisher expresses more enthusiasm.
Thanks Camm & Valantar, this would make for a big reception in 2015!

The use of vendor specific extensions is perfectly legal within the HDMI standard, but it does mean that FS-HDMI is proprietary - a.k.a proprietary FreeSync

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, until HDMI 2.1, FreeSync over HDMI is proprietary; however, it's something most display manufacturers got behind because very little is different compared to DisplayPort as far as FreeSync is concerned. As far as I know, there's nothing legally stopping NVIDIA from mimicking the signals AMD sends to tell the monitor an adaptive sync signal is coming. There may be technical limitations though.

Blame the HDMI Forum for being really slow on the uptake, not AMD for making adaptive sync support available in the Xbox One.

 

[Valantar]

Granted, I have researched into this subject, that I have subjective bias against disbelievers and green goblins, it still strikes me as much as it does that I have skipped over Anandtech on 2 occations and a forumer on the next just because some other publisher expresses more enthusiasm.
Thanks Camm & Valantar, this would make for a big reception in 2015!

Can't say that I understand why you're mentioning me here - but then again I really can't make sense of your post whatsoever. Hm. This brings back some memories.

Yeah, until HDMI 2.1, FreeSync over HDMI is proprietary; however, it's something most display manufacturers got behind because very little is different compared to DisplayPort as far as FreeSync is concerned. As far as I know, there's nothing legally stopping NVIDIA from mimicking the signals AMD sends to tell the monitor an adaptive sync signal is coming. There may be technical limitations though.

Blame the HDMI Forum for being really slow on the uptake, not AMD for making adaptive sync support available in the Xbox One.

Yep, the HDMI Forum is really quite slow, but they've been lagging DP pretty much forever. Have to wonder why - is DP pushing the technological envelope more; is HDMI engineered for cost savings; or is there some other reason?

Also, while you're right that Freesync over HDMI is a proprietary extension to the HDMI standard, AFAIK it's still part of the open (as in free-to-implement) FreeSync standard, and should as such not be any problem for Nvidia to adopt even before HDMI 2.1 comes knocking. If HDMI 2.0 is anything to go by, it'll still be a few years before we see displays adopting it, after all.

 

[mtcn77]

Can't say that I understand why you're mentioning me here - but then again I really can't make sense of your post whatsoever. Hm. This brings back some memories.


Yep, the HDMI Forum is really quite slow, but they've been lagging DP pretty much forever. Have to wonder why - is DP pushing the technological envelope more; is HDMI engineered for cost savings; or is there some other reason?

Well, there happens to be one other person that doesn't read its own links, maybe I'm not too alone in oversight:

In fact the lack of DisplayPort availability in displays overall is a big part of why RTG has pursued this. According to numbers from RTG, only about 30% of all monitors sold include a DisplayPort, while the other 70% are only implementing HDMI or HDMI + DVI. Consequently FS-DP is an inherently limited market and the majority of monitor buyers will never be able to use FS-DP. Meanwhile from what I hear the actual cost of implementing variable refresh rate support on a TCON is very low, which means that RTG could get far greater penetration for FreeSync by extending it to support HDMI, not to mention bringing down the overall cost of entry-level FreeSync monitors. We’re still talking about a highly price sensitive commodity market – after all, there’s a reason that most monitors don’t ship with a DisplayPort – but if the costs of adding FreeSync are as low as RTG hints, then there is a market for consumers who would spend a bit more on a variable refresh rate monitor but don’t know anything about display I/O standards beyond HDMI.

 

[Valantar]

Well, there happens to be one other person that doesn't read its own links, maybe I'm not too alone in oversight:

Does that quote apply to anything I've discussed here? I think you might be confusing me with someone else.

Edit: damn autocorrect.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yep, the HDMI Forum is really quite slow, but they've been lagging DP pretty much forever. Have to wonder why - is DP pushing the technological envelope more; is HDMI engineered for cost savings; or is there some other reason?

https://hdmiforum.org/about/hdmi-forum-board-directors/

AMD had a lot of people there to convince. I'm sure NVIDIA was resistant in the name of defending G-Sync.

 

[mtcn77]

Does that quote apply to anything I've discussed here? I think you might be confusing me with someone else.

Edit: damn autocorrect.

Well, it was your qoute that shed light to mine and besides, market penetration is a stupendous force which Nvidia is well-known for.