Agree with most here except "If AMD is competitive, or have better products, on sale they still do not get those sales."
It's slow, but is happening, as the latest Peddle research shows. Can't expect a turnaround like Zen in all cases.
- Status
It's slow, but is happening, as the latest Peddle research shows. Can't expect a turnaround like Zen in all cases.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,001
- 3,357
- 136
First of all the conversation was for the retail RX570 being sold at lower price than the GTX1050Ti.
OEM/ODM prices are way different than Retail and we dont even know them.
Secondly, DIY consumers (Retail RX570, GTX1050Ti) may as well OC, Undervolt , Underclock etc.
Third, the 75W TDP argument is only valid for those gamers that only have a 200-250W PSU.
Fourth, RX570 is only comparable to GTX1050Ti because of the price, the RX570 is in a entirely different performance segment than GTX1050ti.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,001
- 3,357
- 136
I didnt say they are not that many users that currently have 75W TDP cards, I said I dont believe those 15-20% users CAN ONLY USE 75W TDP cards.
I would gather that nvidia has done a better job to claw mindshare than what intel did. Cpu purchases seem more brand agnostic IMO.
Eh. Remember when AMD's 4000 and 5000 (the og 5000) series were out? They sold boatloads of them. Because they were competitive. They even sold lots of 290's didn't they? Those sucked a lot of power but performed well. And they were priced great (especially the 4000 series).
They even seem to be selling lots of Radeon 7's, even though it's pricy. Because it's pretty good and most don't give a crap about the RTX features and it overclocks/undervolts well. And has lots of ram (good for some video projects and such).
But largely Vega has just been disappointing. The prices are okay but....prices on used Nvidia GPUs are okay too and they take less power. Drivers aren't an issue with either brand. Nvidia's opengl drivers in windows are better if you use stuff like CEMU but AMD's linux drivers are amazing, no biggie just dual boot if you need it--super easy. Both have fine DX and Vulkan drivers and are stable.
Nvidia's GPUs have just been more power efficient and faster. And Nvidia came in with freesync (excuse me, unlocked gsync for non certified displays, lol) at the right time.
These AMD gpus will sell well IF they are priced right and performed well. The performance seems good enough--granted it's based on AMD's talk so they have a reason to put it in a good light. But they haven't been over-hyping things like they did during the bulldozer days so I tend to believe them.
They need to be cheaper than the Nvidia GPUs though. Not just comparable. The rumored prices aren't quite good enough (the new rumors). But then again, they are just rumors. 2070 performance for $299 or $349? They'll sell a ton of them. For $449? People will just buy the 2070. Even if the Radeon is a few percent faster. I mean, why not? And nvidia can just lower their prices by fifty bucks. (Maybe they will and the new "supers" will be higher clocked versions at the existing price points?)
Most people aren't brand loyalists to a fault. But most people WILL tend to stick to brands they know and trust unless there is a good reason to switch.
I guess I am waffling here but eh. I'm just looking for something to be worth upgrading my 1070 to. The 2080/2080ti aren't it, too pricey. The Radeon VII isn't it either. Maybe when Navi 20 comes out or the 2080/2080 ti comes down in price.
They even seem to be selling lots of Radeon 7's, even though it's pricy. Because it's pretty good and most don't give a crap about the RTX features and it overclocks/undervolts well. And has lots of ram (good for some video projects and such).
But largely Vega has just been disappointing. The prices are okay but....prices on used Nvidia GPUs are okay too and they take less power. Drivers aren't an issue with either brand. Nvidia's opengl drivers in windows are better if you use stuff like CEMU but AMD's linux drivers are amazing, no biggie just dual boot if you need it--super easy. Both have fine DX and Vulkan drivers and are stable.
Nvidia's GPUs have just been more power efficient and faster. And Nvidia came in with freesync (excuse me, unlocked gsync for non certified displays, lol) at the right time.
These AMD gpus will sell well IF they are priced right and performed well. The performance seems good enough--granted it's based on AMD's talk so they have a reason to put it in a good light. But they haven't been over-hyping things like they did during the bulldozer days so I tend to believe them.
They need to be cheaper than the Nvidia GPUs though. Not just comparable. The rumored prices aren't quite good enough (the new rumors). But then again, they are just rumors. 2070 performance for $299 or $349? They'll sell a ton of them. For $449? People will just buy the 2070. Even if the Radeon is a few percent faster. I mean, why not? And nvidia can just lower their prices by fifty bucks. (Maybe they will and the new "supers" will be higher clocked versions at the existing price points?)
Most people aren't brand loyalists to a fault. But most people WILL tend to stick to brands they know and trust unless there is a good reason to switch.
I guess I am waffling here but eh. I'm just looking for something to be worth upgrading my 1070 to. The 2080/2080ti aren't it, too pricey. The Radeon VII isn't it either. Maybe when Navi 20 comes out or the 2080/2080 ti comes down in price.
As for pricing.
This is something thats interesting.
They are not really set in stone up to release, you cant really change the specs much or board designs , BUT you can change the price at the last moment.
So i really dont think we should read into leaked prices too much.They can be right, and they could be just plain wrong.
Although, SOME specs can be also changed at the last moment, which VII launch with the whole pcie 4.0 and Fp64 perf things proved.
This is something thats interesting.
They are not really set in stone up to release, you cant really change the specs much or board designs , BUT you can change the price at the last moment.
So i really dont think we should read into leaked prices too much.They can be right, and they could be just plain wrong.
Although, SOME specs can be also changed at the last moment, which VII launch with the whole pcie 4.0 and Fp64 perf things proved.
Glo.
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 5,722
- 4,584
- 136
https://www.amd.com/en/press-releas...ion-leadership-products-computex-2019-keynote
"Testing done by AMD performance labs 5/23/19, using the Strange Brigade @ 25x14 Ultra settings. Performance may vary based on use of latest drivers. RX-328 "
So I nailed the settings, and the detail levels. Pretty much confirms that demo on stage in SB was done with latest Nvidia drivers.
Quite interesting reading throught those footnotes, I have to say.
"Testing done by AMD performance labs 5/23/19, using the Strange Brigade @ 25x14 Ultra settings. Performance may vary based on use of latest drivers. RX-328 "
So I nailed the settings, and the detail levels. Pretty much confirms that demo on stage in SB was done with latest Nvidia drivers.
Quite interesting reading throught those footnotes, I have to say.
Trying to find a gold lining in AMD's canned and carefully selected benchmark.... The best and only logical way (for verification purposes) AMD could have demonstrated Navi was to compare it to their own existing cards. But they didn't. AMD has, time and again, tried their very best to show off their cards in the best possible exaggerated light before reviews destroy their narrative.
Fury X beats the 980 TI? Nope.
RX 480 in SLI getting 100% scaling in one game and therefore is the next greatest thing! Nope.
RX 480 has twice the perf/w as previous gen! Nope.
Vega 64 beats the GTX 1080! Nope.
Radeon VII is as fast as the RTX 2080? Nope.
Notice whenever Nvidia releases new products, they don't even mention AMD. They only compare their new products to the pre-existing products. That makes the benchmarks much more believable, and on the whole, makes Nvidia LOOK like the top dog.
Fury X beats the 980 TI? Nope.
RX 480 in SLI getting 100% scaling in one game and therefore is the next greatest thing! Nope.
RX 480 has twice the perf/w as previous gen! Nope.
Vega 64 beats the GTX 1080! Nope.
Radeon VII is as fast as the RTX 2080? Nope.
Notice whenever Nvidia releases new products, they don't even mention AMD. They only compare their new products to the pre-existing products. That makes the benchmarks much more believable, and on the whole, makes Nvidia LOOK like the top dog.
I disagree. Nvidia chooses things that make it so you can't even verify their claims or where it made no sense to compare it to begin with. Here let's compare our previous card doing something it wasn't meant to do that we also deliberately made games gimp even further and compare it to our new ones that we specifically are highlighting that aspect of.
Heck, even then don't they not even give you actual figures (like "it got __fps at ___ settings in ____ game") but stuff like "our new card is 1150420302x better at doing this specific thing that is only used by these certain games, oh and because we paid to black box it into the games, the sequels coming out the year after won't have it and will instead have a more generic one that performs better and looks as good, while performing well on our older stuff, our newer stuff, and even our competitor's stuff. Oh and the feature also makes performance not exactly playable to PC gaming standards so you probably won't even use it til years down the line anyway. But we'll have people talk it up like its "the holy grail" of graphics, and zoom in and highlight things that you normally wouldn't notice (if they're even visible at all, like sub-surface tessellation). Oh and we super duper ultra promise that you need this right now, and not you know in 3-5 years when games are built with this graphic effect in mind so it isn't tacked on and tank performance!
That's not to say Nvidia doesn't have plenty of valid stuff they could highlight (for instance, I hope Sony is big on VR and has pushed AMD to improve VR performance, as AMDs is not up to snuff for even similar market - the 1060 trounces the 480/580/590 in VR), but instead we get, in my opinion, even worse than AMD level of marketing BS. They both are practically worthless for basing general real world results on their claims.
I guess Nvidia does tend to do those charts showing the new gen compared to the previous across a variety of games (although AMD does those some too), but its often percentages and other things that don't tell us that much.
I think we're going to be quite disappointed moving forwards though as I think its becoming harder and harder to push GPU performance. And newer processes aren't offering easy fixes (increase chipsize at same ratio of targeted pixel processing power needed so going 1080p to 4K, you'd want 4x the chip). Cloud processing is going to be a necessity for ray-tracing and other high quality graphics rendering. Intel offering competitions I don't think is magically going to resolve this issue (instead we're going to get 3 companies blowing smoke up our backsides about why these new GPUs that cost so much more aren't really pushing things as far as we expected).
Heck, even then don't they not even give you actual figures (like "it got __fps at ___ settings in ____ game") but stuff like "our new card is 1150420302x better at doing this specific thing that is only used by these certain games, oh and because we paid to black box it into the games, the sequels coming out the year after won't have it and will instead have a more generic one that performs better and looks as good, while performing well on our older stuff, our newer stuff, and even our competitor's stuff. Oh and the feature also makes performance not exactly playable to PC gaming standards so you probably won't even use it til years down the line anyway. But we'll have people talk it up like its "the holy grail" of graphics, and zoom in and highlight things that you normally wouldn't notice (if they're even visible at all, like sub-surface tessellation). Oh and we super duper ultra promise that you need this right now, and not you know in 3-5 years when games are built with this graphic effect in mind so it isn't tacked on and tank performance!
That's not to say Nvidia doesn't have plenty of valid stuff they could highlight (for instance, I hope Sony is big on VR and has pushed AMD to improve VR performance, as AMDs is not up to snuff for even similar market - the 1060 trounces the 480/580/590 in VR), but instead we get, in my opinion, even worse than AMD level of marketing BS. They both are practically worthless for basing general real world results on their claims.
I guess Nvidia does tend to do those charts showing the new gen compared to the previous across a variety of games (although AMD does those some too), but its often percentages and other things that don't tell us that much.
I think we're going to be quite disappointed moving forwards though as I think its becoming harder and harder to push GPU performance. And newer processes aren't offering easy fixes (increase chipsize at same ratio of targeted pixel processing power needed so going 1080p to 4K, you'd want 4x the chip). Cloud processing is going to be a necessity for ray-tracing and other high quality graphics rendering. Intel offering competitions I don't think is magically going to resolve this issue (instead we're going to get 3 companies blowing smoke up our backsides about why these new GPUs that cost so much more aren't really pushing things as far as we expected).
Source needed. Just because you say this doesn't make it true.
Availability is also important and AMD has been lacking there albeit here it got a lot better in the last couple years but don't assume the Situation in US is the same for everyone else. And what follows is also directed at other comments in the last couple pages not just above quote.
In fact I do think power use is important and many buy a prebuilt which then needs an upgrade but is limited to a 75W card. Undervolting and clocking a 570 is hardly an argument for people buying prebuilts.
Stuka87
Diamond Member
- Dec 10, 2010
- 6,240
- 2,559
- 136
The RX480 DID have twice the perf:watt as the card it replaced.
Glo.
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 5,722
- 4,584
- 136
You do realize they have picked a game in which 2560 ALU GPU with GDDR6 is 10% faster than 2304 ALU GPU, with GDDR6?
They have selected Strange Brigade to not show any architectural differences versus previous version of AMD GPUs.
Did AMD also told you at all about to what they are referring to when they say about +50% better efficiency versus previous... what?
P.S. Fury beats GTX 980 Ti
, and RX480 had 50% higher effciency versus the card they compared it to . And Its funny you say that Vega does not beat GTX 1080, when in almost all games it actually is faster, than GTX 1080 .Vega 64 isnt faster than 1080 in almost all the games, it isnt even faster on average.You do realize they have picked a game in which 2560 ALU GPU with GDDR6 is 10% faster than 2304 ALU GPU, with GDDR6?
They have selected Strange Brigade to not show any architectural differences versus previous version of AMD GPUs.
Did AMD also told you at all about to what they are referring to when they say about +50% better efficiency versus previous... what?
P.S. Fury beats GTX 980 Ti
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-vega-64.c2871
Thats why its below 1080 in this graph, and it was even worse at launch.
BUT , its certainly faster in most newer games, thats why you may get this.
AND moreover custom aib vega 64`s in newer games pretty much trade punches with vanilla 2070.But custom ones have better cooling so they dont throttle as much.You can still see a result where v64 gets lower fps than 1070Ti.
^ This. 1050TI and 1650 sell because they require no pcie power pin. I've purchased countless 1050TIs and am now purchasing 1650s because it's the best you can get with no power pin. I can't believe this is even being debated.
Glo.
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 5,722
- 4,584
- 136
Let me quote it for you.
"You do realize that TechPowerUp's charts are easiest to fathom for average users, but at the same time, the worst of them all?
Their data usually does not cope well with other review sites. HardwareCanucks, Hardware Unboxed/TechSpot, Tom's Hardware reviews are showing similar results to each other. But vastly different to TPU's.
I find TPU to be outlier review site, which vastly differes in results to other sites(which most of the time updates their data sheets and redo all of the testing, with latest drivers, which TPU appears to not be doing). "
According to TPU results, RTX 2070 is 15% faster than GTX 1080. Whereas all other review sites show that it is 2-7% faster, in reality, than GTX 1080. They even have current benchmarks for RX V64... Maybe you should check them?
Lol, you are really all over the map.
Just a few pages back you were copy pasting techpowerup numbers just because they fit your narrative and now, boom, they are crap that nobody should pay attention to.
Fine. Lets look at the numbers.And not the TPU ones.
Techspot.
https://static.techspot.com/articles-info/1476/bench/Slide2.png 5% slower at 1440P
Computerbase:
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...-test/4/#diagramm-performancerating-1920-1080 few % slower at FHD, almost on par (but slower) on 2560x1440P.
https://pcper.com/2017/08/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-review-vega-64-vega-64-liquid-vega-56-tested/13/ about equal IF we remove gta V from equation.
https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Rade...6623/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-1235445/3/ ,again, slower.
And so on and so on. Most review sites cited almost 1080 performance at the same price and higher power consumption.In reality it was a BIT slower if you take into account all the games and sometimes heavy losses.It was also sometimes faster of course.And now, in new games and aib model, is for sure faster.The real plus for the vegas was freesync, and thats why amd pushed it so much even before the launch, where they were comparing gsync+1080 prices to vega + freesync prices.
Of course the you could skew the result either way if you took into account only high res results, or you would cherry pick the games.There even was some instances where vega 64 was fatsre than 1080Ti.But it doesnt mean it is on average.
Glo.
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 5,722
- 4,584
- 136
Why do you show launch reviews of Vega 64? Because it fits YOUR narrative?
Why don't you show how Vega performs with latest drivers vs GTX 1080?
Im fine with posting TPU power draw figure eve tho, they are mostly wrong as well, but not as much as their performance data, compared to other review sites.
No, i show launch benchmarks because @tviceman to whom you were replying was talking about launch/reveal events and corresponding marketing to it.So. Launch ones.Not 2 years later.Why do you show launch reviews of Vega 64? Because it fits YOUR narrative?
Why don't you show how Vega performs with latest drivers vs GTX 1080?
Im fine with posting TPU power draw figure eve tho, they are mostly wrong as well, but not as much as their performance data, compared to other review sites.
I did also tell that AIB MODELS in NEW GAMES is a different story.But you cant take this part of the results and claim it as an overall performance on all cards in question. Thats silly.
Also, there are also overclocked 1080 versions out there.
As for TPU results, if you believe they have misleading numbers for both performance and power consumption (as you say) then, dont link to them at all.Then i would firmly believe what you are saying.But now it looks like cherrypicking.
When vega 64 launched, it was mostly a bit slower than 1080, with few exceptions.
When ATI was smashing Nvidia at every metric when HD 5xxx just came around and Nvidia was still on GTX/S 2XX, the marketshare at most stayed 50-50. THAT is the effect of mindshare working at it's fullest.
Glo.
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2015
- 5,722
- 4,584
- 136
And I am talking about, what is the situation right now, between GTX 1080 and Vega 64.
IllogicalGlory
Senior member
- Mar 8, 2013
- 934
- 346
- 136
Thing is , it was a 280 replacement not 290X.They just didnt have hawaii replacement as it got canned.And for the 280 its pretty much double perf/watt.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter