News AMD Announces Radeon VII

[Hitman928]

More info to come. . .

 

[zinfamous]

Small and not very meaningful, but for clarity, it is MI50, not M150.

well, there I go again

Based on what?

I was thinking MI50 was the full chip, and that 60 CU on the Radeon VII meant it was cut down from that. MI60 is the full chip, though.

 

[DXDiag]

At equal price points, the 2080 has the advantage here: more gaming oriented, consumes 70w less power, has ray tracing, DLSS, Ansel, GameWorks, VRWorks (and better VR performance overall), not to mention Variable Shading and Mesh Shading, better streaming features, supports both FreeSync and G.Sync, and it's the same price 700$.

The Radeon VII only has the 16GB advantage, that's not enough in the face of all those features that it lacks, especially now that it has no PCIe 4.0 or enough FP64 performance.

While some of those NVIDIA features may not be of interest to several people, the fact of the matter here is, they should be counted when we are comparing two products that are of the same price value.

 

[antihelten]

each card is going to be sold at a loss considering these are just repurposed Instinct MI50 parts that could’ve been sold for much higher prices to the HPC sector.

That is not what "sold at a loss" means. Selling at a loss means that you are selling below cost, not that you are selling below some hypothetical higher price that you might otherwise have gotten. And $700 is almost certainly above cost, so no selling at a loss here.

What you could argue is that radeon 7 is going to lower the ASP of Vega 20, and thus the overall profit margin of Vega 20, but that's a different thing altogether.

 

[stockolicious]

As numerous others have said time and time again, we already know what happens to sales when AMD charges the same price as NVidia.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be the case, but NVidia has mindshare that AMD doesn't, and brands do have value. It's why Apple can sell phones for $1000 when other companies can barely get by selling equivalent hardware for half the price.

$700 is already a niche market. It doesn't really matter what AMD does here as they're not planning on shipping massive numbers of these cards. An extra $50 may not even result in an additional quarter million dollars in revenue if some of the rumors regarding the limited supply of these cards are to be believed.

If this card happens to fit your niche needs and represents a good value, by all means purchase one. I think that most of us would rather hold out for Navi and hope that AMD has made significant improvements to their architecture and that they sell them at prices that represent a similarly significant improvement in value to the consumer.

Just a thought on "Mindshare" that is a popular term for NVDA and their dominance. I believe that is basically a Myth and ill explain why IMHO. INTC never had any incentive to lean in and use AMD dGPU's as they are also a competitor so it made more sense to go NVDA (Even when AMD had better performance nobody cared and that is why) AMD is a competitor to both companies. INTC even went so far as to license NVDA graphics so they had a strong alliance and also controlled the supply chain. For some reason the last year or so we see AMD market share actually increasing - this has nothing to do with "mindshare" either. It has to do with Ryzen - Every Ryzen CPU they sell has a higher attach rate meaning OEM's and Customers pair an AMD dGPU with it. If AMD continues to gain CPU share they will also increase GPU share due to their attach rate. AMD is pairing a CPU and GPU at much lower prices that provide very good performance - and that is really their advantage to having both. AMD's last competitive CPU was out in around 2006 and they didnt even buy ATI by then. We are just seeing the beginning of this dynamic and that is why JHH is slamming AMD so hard recently. IMHO

 

[garagisti]

Gameworks is advantage to Nvidia, but not as much to us consumers.

Power savings are relevant and so is price, but i didn't see any triple fan version lower than $730 last i checked 2-3 days ago. I prefer keeping my cards and am sure not everybody upgrades every year and most would get one with better than average cooling. 16gb may work well with 4k and ultrawide resolutions.Then

buy whatever you want, for once you have a choice, and you can pick 1 based on requirement.

 

[darkswordsman17]

At equal price points, the 2080 has the advantage here: more gaming oriented, consumes 70w less power, has ray tracing, DLSS, Ansel, GameWorks, VRWorks (and better VR performance overall), not to mention Variable Shading and Mesh Shading, better streaming features, supports both FreeSync and G.Sync, and it's the same price 700$.

The Radeon VII only has the 16GB advantage, that's not enough in the face of all those features that it lacks, especially now that it has no PCIe 4.0 or enough FP64 performance.

While some of those NVIDIA features may not be of interest to several people, the fact of the matter here is, they should be counted when we are comparing two products that are of the same price value.

I've been critical of RTX, and Gameworks, and don't care about most that other (and I'd expect AMD to adopt some features like probably the shading, aren't those part of some DX12 iteration too?), but AMD doesn't have much to match up now that Nvidia is enabling some support for Freesync. At least for gamers. People looking for compute got some good (but that seems to keep lessening, and by the time of launch I'll be surprised if its better than Vega 64 for those users other than in memory bound situations).

I think the RTX cards are overpriced and meh feature wise, but this makes them more appealing. I'm glad that its priced enough that seemingly they can make them and not lose money even at this price, and that there are users that are keen for this performance level even at this price point, but I hope we can move in performance and especially in perf/$.

Just a thought on "Mindshare" that is a popular term for NVDA and their dominance. I believe that is basically a Myth and ill explain why IMHO. INTC never had any incentive to lean in and use AMD dGPU's as they are also a competitor so it made more sense to go NVDA (Even when AMD had better performance nobody cared and that is why) AMD is a competitor to both companies. INTC even went so far as to license NVDA graphics so they had a strong alliance and also controlled the supply chain. For some reason the last year or so we see AMD market share actually increasing - this has nothing to do with "mindshare" either. It has to do with Ryzen - Every Ryzen CPU they sell has a higher attach rate meaning OEM's and Customers pair an AMD dGPU with it. If AMD continues to gain CPU share they will also increase GPU share due to their attach rate. AMD is pairing a CPU and GPU at much lower prices that provide very good performance - and that is really their advantage to having both. AMD's last competitive CPU was out in around 2006 and they didnt even buy ATI by then. We are just seeing the beginning of this dynamic and that is why JHH is slamming AMD so hard recently. IMHO

Eh, I think JHH has been this way for years so I don't think that's actually driven by anything other than his personality. I feel about the same as him. This is an underwhelming product and doesn't really bring anything new for AMD other than upped their highest performance some, but it comes at a cost. That its taking 16GB of 1TB/s memory combined with not exactly low power draw on the most efficient process to date, to achieve even that, well Nvidia's not gonna be worrying about it too much (doubly if the rumors about limited production run turn out to be true), since their GPUs on an older process are offering similar power consumption, aren't terrible at compute (except where they intentionally gimp them for market segmentation), and offer similar or better gaming performance, while having more feature support. And they have more software support (meaning they work with developers to provide better quality for owners of their products), are a step ahead in VR, Ray-Tracing and many other graphics focused areas.

AMD's marketshare did go up, and I'm sure attach rate, especially via OEMs played a significant role (which is why AMD has said they don't mind taking lower margins if it means substantial volume especially sustained like what OEMs tend to), but I think its simply, they had competitive products. Polaris was outright competitive and while it used a bit more power than the similar Nvidia cards, it wasn't enough to make much difference and was a step up for a lot of people either just getting into PC gaming or that were on a budget and were coming from midrange cards from like 3-5 years prior. A competitive product in the biggest market segments is of course going to lead to increased market share, even if your competitor is dominant and has a similarly competitive product in that same market segment. Same with Vega in the Ryzen APUs, it was competitive with Intel, so it was going to increase. And Ryzen of course had was competitive (gave up some areas, but had core count advantage especially for the price).

Now, hopefully AMD can build on that and can leverage 7nm. I expect that Zen 2 and Navi will do quite well for them, especially with OEMs (who in turn I hope make some better products using AMD's stuff). I think we need more than just competent from AMD though. But I also think they can deliver on that. And hey, if you've got the money and use case for this, great. But I'm going to be critical of AMD similarly to Nvidia when I feel less than impressed with their stuff (especially at the elevated prices).

 

[AtenRa]

 

[PeterScott]

Just a thought on "Mindshare" that is a popular term for NVDA and their dominance. I believe that is basically a Myth and ill explain why IMHO.

Mindshare is real. Call it consumer perception, if the term bothers you, but the impact is real. It's why if you sell AMD GPUs for the same price/performance as NVidia GPUs, most people will buy the NVidia GPU. You can look ownership rates to GTX1060 and Polaris to see it in action. It has little impact on the strategic moves of companies making the next part erroneous from multiple angles.

INTC never had any incentive to lean in and use AMD dGPU's as they are also a competitor so it made more sense to go NVDA (Even when AMD had better performance nobody cared and that is why) AMD is a competitor to both companies. INTC even went so far as to license NVDA graphics so they had a strong alliance and also controlled the supply chain.

First, this has nothing to do with mindshare. Second there is no alliance between NVidia and Intel. Intel only licensed NVidia tech to settle a giant lawsuit between the companies. A lawsuit settlement is NOT an alliance. Also NVidia is a more fierce competitor in the datacenter, where NVidia dominates GPGPU and Deep learning. Areas vitally important to Intel.

We are just seeing the beginning of this dynamic and that is why JHH is slamming AMD so hard recently. IMHO

I'll agree with previous poster, that was JHH being JHH. Do you seriously think he is worried about a Vega die shrink, at this point? He isn't.

 

[stockolicious]

"Mindshare is real. Call it consumer perception, if the term bothers you, but the impact is real."

Peter - Its fine to disagree and its not personal - and nothing bothers me, but here is my point - NVDA doesn't make a product - they make a part that goes into a product. They have control over OEM's due to a monopoly position but their chips are just a commodity if there is competition. One of the first things INTC did when Ryzen came out was to end the INTC branded TV commercials. So Its like saying people fell in love with a part in a TV.

also, and as important is that AMD was the competitor to both NVDA and INTC so there was no reason for either company to work with AMD. Even if the 290 was better then NVDA cards back in the day why would INTC help them? they wouldn't. There is the "Mindshare" Myth.

INTC and NVDA have 90% share approx so OEM's are not jumping at the chance to leave as they feel they could be punished. just saw something on this today (follow link)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1086686603072995328

That was from MSI CEO - although talking about INTC but NVDA has the same leverage in the OEM supply chain.

So if Mid year AMD does get Navi out the door at the prices that have been rumored I would expect AMD to claw even more share back going forward.

 

[Mopetar]

Peter - Its fine to disagree and its not personal - and nothing bothers me, but here is my point - NVDA doesn't make a product - they make a part that goes into a product.

I'm not quite sure if what you're suggesting works though, because unlike other industries where an auto manufacturer might use an engine or other parts from other companies, people still talk about buying NVidia graphics cards.

Forums don't have boards for ASUS, EVGA, etc. They have boards for AMD and NVidia. People talk about being loyal AMD or NVidia customers/fans, but they'll buy one card from Sapphire and the next from MSI without much thought but might never consider buying a card that wasn't AMD/NVidia.

So if Mid year AMD does get Navi out the door at the prices that have been rumored I would expect AMD to claw even more share back going forward.

But that ignores the original argument that at price parity, NVidia has a brand advantage. If Navi comes out at those prices that everyone called too good to be true, then we're not facing the situation we've described. You can't say anything about the veracity of an implication if the premise is not met.

If a company can't expect to see sales increases if they're at price parity, then the only logical move would be to offer better value for money. AMD releasing Navi at lower prices would seem to suggest that even they believe that NVidia has better mindshare.

 

[DrMrLordX]

So if Mid year AMD does get Navi out the door at the prices that have been rumored I would expect AMD to claw even more share back going forward.

First, I must say that the MSI CEO is saying some interesting (and sad) things about Intel there. He almost begs and scrapes. It's kind of embarrassing.

That aside, while I would be very pleased with AMD launching Navi sooner than later, I would not bet any money on it. Navi is still probably a Q4 product.

 

[Greyguy1948]

AMD 66A0:00 (eng sample?)
AMD eng sample

Could this be Radeon VII?

 

[krumme]

Thanx. Ok she is specific about Vega 7nm being intended from the start as a gamers gpu also.
I think we can be certain we can take that at face value.

 

[Qwertilot]

So if Mid year AMD does get Navi out the door at the prices that have been rumored I would expect AMD to claw even more share back going forward.

Sure they might get some back, but its worth being aware that even those rumours aren’t remotely market breaking.

The rumoured mid range Navi is seemingly ~$200/1070 performance. Well, look at the 2060 (350/>1070ti), and project where the utterly inevitable (and imminently pending) chips beneath that from NV are going to land.

Very similar ball park.

 

[stockolicious]

I'm not quite sure if what you're suggesting works though, because unlike other industries where an auto manufacturer might use an engine or other parts from other companies, people still talk about buying NVidia graphics cards.

Forums don't have boards for ASUS, EVGA, etc. They have boards for AMD and NVidia. People talk about being loyal AMD or NVidia customers/fans, but they'll buy one card from Sapphire and the next from MSI without much thought but might never consider buying a card that wasn't AMD/NVidia.



But that ignores the original argument that at price parity, NVidia has a brand advantage. If Navi comes out at those prices that everyone called too good to be true, then we're not facing the situation we've described. You can't say anything about the veracity of an implication if the premise is not met.

If a company can't expect to see sales increases if they're at price parity, then the only logical move would be to offer better value for money. AMD releasing Navi at lower prices would seem to suggest that even they believe that NVidia has better mindshare.

"Forums don't have boards for ASUS, EVGA, etc. They have boards for AMD and NVidia. "

That is because the barrier to entry in dGPU market is ridiculously high but the fact remains you cant buy a dGPU from either company and sit in a room with it by itself (Its a part -not a product) . The debunking of the Mindshare Myth will be proven if AMD can capture a decent CPU share from INTC. Then "Mindshare" for NVDA dGPU's will somehow fade - but lets see how it plays out as proof.

your thoughts on pricing makes little sense - AMD might want to take a competitive product and offer a better price to gain market share as NVDA has the lion share - this is not an admission that their product is inferior.

 

[Mopetar]

The debunking of the Mindshare Myth will be proven if AMD can capture a decent CPU share from INTC. Then "Mindshare" for NVDA dGPU's will somehow fade - but lets see how it plays out as proof.

But that isn't what we're talking about. If you undercut the competition, you're competing on price, not mindshare or brand perception.

It's a bit like claiming that if two MMA fighters compete at a game of checkers, the underdog winning that game would dispel the myth that the other was a better fighter.

That's not a perfect analogy, but it gets at the point. If AMD comes in with lower prices (and has an equivalent product) the most you can say is that NVidia's mindshare (or brand value, or whatever you want to call it) isn't worth a price difference of $X to many consumers.

 

[stockolicious]

But that isn't what we're talking about. If you undercut the competition, you're competing on price, not mindshare or brand perception.

It's a bit like claiming that if two MMA fighters compete at a game of checkers, the underdog winning that game would dispel the myth that the other was a better fighter.

That's not a perfect analogy, but it gets at the point. If AMD comes in with lower prices (and has an equivalent product) the most you can say is that NVidia's mindshare (or brand value, or whatever you want to call it) isn't worth a price difference of $X to many consumers.

"But that isn't what we're talking about. If you undercut the competition, you're competing on price, not mindshare or brand perception."

No - I was a pricing manager for years - there are many reasons to have strategy on price - In AMD's situation they need market share to scale up volume. They have already covered fixed costs and have a cost advantage to begin with. they need to ramp volume and gain share. Ill elaborate on their situation

AMD has very little presence in laptops and servers due to the bad CPU's they brought to market so OEM's are not running to them even now to give them "design wins" which is what the name of the revenue game is. AMD needs to get as many design wins as possible to grow their partner presence with OEM's. INTC and NVDA control the OEM's in a big way so AMD needs to cut prices to make their products compelling enough for an OEM to get in trouble with the incumbents.

 

[Stuka87]

"But that isn't what we're talking about. If you undercut the competition, you're competing on price, not mindshare or brand perception."

No - I was a pricing manager for years - there are many reasons to have strategy on price - In AMD's situation they need market share to scale up volume. They have already covered fixed costs and have a cost advantage to begin with. they need to ramp volume and gain share. Ill elaborate on their situation

AMD has very little presence in laptops and servers due to the bad CPU's they brought to market so OEM's are not running to them even now to give them "design wins" which is what the name of the revenue game is. AMD needs to get as many design wins as possible to grow their partner presence with OEM's. INTC and NVDA control the OEM's in a big way so AMD needs to cut prices to make their products compelling enough for an OEM to get in trouble with the incumbents.

The CPU bit may have been true years ago, but isn't currently true. Ryzen has changed everything on that front, and they are being used a lot more than in years past. The same goes for desktops. You can now get big gaming systems with Ryzen CPUs in them.

 

[Mopetar]

No - I was a pricing manager for years - there are many reasons to have strategy on price - In AMD's situation they need market share to scale up volume. . . . AMD needs to cut prices to make their products compelling enough for an OEM to get in trouble with the incumbents.

Everything you've said may be true (and I agree with it), but it's still missing the point of what @PeterScott and I were saying. Everything that AMD should do according to you is exactly what a company that lacks mindshare should do.

 

[Thrashard]

Saw this posted, never heard of Navi 16 -



Navi family is big, including navi 9, Navi 10, Navi 12, Navi 16. 2019 will be great year for AMD

 

[DrMrLordX]

If I had to guess:

Navi 9: iGPU/console?
Navi10: Polaris RX 590 replacement
Navi12: Navi20?
Navi16: Navi30?

 

[Thrashard]

Long wait, 1 more week till earnings report. I think we'll be getting a handful of new info

 

[DrMrLordX]

Back to Radeon VII:

The 3-games bundle is supposed to be for people that pre-order Radeon VII. So where are the pre-orders? It's only slightly more than two weeks before the official launch date.

 

[Thrashard]

I believe Radeon VII is lumped together with current RX 590 and Vega card promo that started after last one ended in November. I'm not sure if Division 2 is even playable right now unless offline ?


AMD unveil new three free games bundle for RX 590 and Vega graphics cards

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...es-bundle-for-rx-590-and-vega-graphics-cards/

 

[positivedoppler]

Saw this posted, never heard of Navi 16 -


View attachment 2620
Navi family is big, including navi 9, Navi 10, Navi 12, Navi 16. 2019 will be great year for AMD

Not sure. By July Nvidia should be only a few months away from launching their own 7nm since the 2080 was launched Sep-Oct