So WHEN is the next big thing for the high end happening?

[Yotsugi]

I really dont belive this based on last 4years of AMD launches.

Good, you're not supposed to.

AMD pretty much dont compete with nvida at all

What do they sell then, GPU-shaped candies?

I bet navi will be once again same performance for same money.So if its 2070 level it will cost 500usd.If its 1660TI level it will cost 280usd

And AMD would sell you a 8c for $1000 because Intel does so too.

 

[ozzy702]

Why is everyone assuming that Navi is purely low end cards? From the hints we've gotten from Lisa Su and people at AMD it seems like it is a full range of GPU's. Will there be a RTX 2080ti competitor? Maybe not, but from all of the info and hints it seems to me that Navi is a full product range, from low end to high end, with MAYBE the exception of a 2080ti type performance. Maybe we'll see Navi scale to RTX 2080 only, but even that seems strange since Radeon 7 is already competing with the 2080, so I think they will have a GPU that is going to compete with the RTX 2080ti.

Everyone needs to understand that Navi is a new architecture and its been in development for 3 years and it is on the latest 7nm process, I expect a huge jump in performance, much the same way Polaris was going from 28nm to 14nm.

Yeah AMD are late to the party, but if they are able to utilize 7nm properly and in their sweet time really optimized their architecture, they are going to come out very strong. In fact I expect every single GPU they release to be about 10% faster than their Nvidia alternative for the same price.

OP asked about "at least 2X a 1080TI". That's WAY out there for NVIDIA let alone AMD/INTEL. We won't see a Navi GPU get anywhere near that mark so it will need to be whatever Navi's successor is. I hope AMD does extremely well with Navi and it's not a disappointment like Polaris/Vega, we'll see.

 

[Yotsugi]

I hope AMD does extremely well with Navi and it's not a disappointment like Polaris/Vega.

Both Polaris and Vega did really well in the market, by Radeon standards anyway.

 

[jpiniero]

Both Polaris and Vega did really well in the market, by Radeon standards anyway.

Because of mining, yes.

 

[Yotsugi]

Because of mining, yes.

They were selling pretty decent before mining, too.
That's a bad excuse, given that Nv benefitted from mining the same, if not more than AMD.

 

[jpiniero]

They were selling pretty decent before mining, too.

Not really, and it was pretty obvious because prices of boards fell so far so quickly after Polaris' launch. That is until mining kicked in.

nVidia only started to benefit once mining got so hot that miners went after their GPUs since there was no more AMD GPUs to buy.

 

[Yotsugi]

Not really, and it was pretty obvious because prices of boards fell so far so quickly after Polaris' launch

GPUs tend to drop in pricing over time.

nVidia only started to benefit once mining got so hot that miners went after their GPUs since there was no more AMD GPUs to buy.

They also benefitted more due to simply having more GPUs in the channel.

 

[Head1985]

And AMD would sell you a 8c for $1000 because Intel does so too.

AMD CPUs ≠ AMD GPUs.Like i said just look at past 4 years launches.All they do with GPUs was match NV cards 1-2years later with same price and performance.
So with navi they are like:hey look our past 4 years gpu sucks lets make navi like HD 4800!Yeah right

 

[Yotsugi]

AMD CPUs ≠ AMD GPUs

The very same thing.

All they do with GPU was match NV cards 1-2years later with same price and performance.

And AMD is still behind 4 years old SKL core.

So with navi they are like:hey look our past 4 years gpu sucks lets make navi like HD 4800!Yeah right

HD 4k was really bad for ATi financials so that isn't happening.

 

[Head1985]

The very same thing.

nope they are not.When ryzen launched its actually undercut competition you know?And even was faster in MT.
last 4years GPU launches they didnt undercut NV.Not single time.

 

[Yotsugi]

When ryzen launched its actually undercut competition you know?

It was very much a tradeoff, more cores for less ST.
No undercutting involved.

last 4years GPU launches they didnt undercut NV not single time.

Finding a nice balance between volumes and margins is necessary.
Radeon wasn't moving volumes for almost a decade so they went for margins.

 

[Head1985]

When ryzen launched 1800x was 499usd and was similar performance as 6900k for more than 1000usd.Thats i call good competition.2700x then launched for only 320usd
In GPU space they didnt do anything close to that.
So cpu and gpu divison are not even close or same thing.
I wish navi was cheap and good, but it will end up like all others GPU launches past 4 years same price for same performance year later than NV cards.Tell me 1 reason why they should undercut NV because they seems dont care about GPUs.They just matching nv prices and thats all.

 

[Yotsugi]

Whenryzen launched 1800x was 499usd and was similar performance as 6900k for more than 1000usd

Somewhat similar performance, on a totally different platform.
HEDT isn't your usual client stuff.
Intel client 8 cores are priced very sanely.

In GPU space they didnt do anything close to that.

Intel HEDT pricing never applied to GPUs, nothing to undercut there.

Tell me 1 reason why they should undercut NV because they seems dont care about GPUs

They're not undercutting anything, Navi is just plenty of perf for each xtor spent.

 

[Guru]

Polaris was in fact underwhelming. It's even now barley faster than Hawaii. Yeah it uses less power but the the jump NV did form 28 to 14 was far bigger. Thing is with polaris you could buy a hawaii card for <$250 already in 2013 so 6 years ago. The performance/$ increase is marginal at best.

What are you even talking about?

RX 570 beat the R7 270x/380, RX 580 beat the R9 290/390 in terms of performance at a way lower price points.

R9 390 was priced at $330, the RX 480/580 is about 15% faster. Comparing the mid to mid range, the R380 was $225(4GB) the RX 480/580(4GB) debuted at $200 and it was DOUBLE the performance!

I really don't know what you were smoking when you made your comment, it is most certainly NOT based in reality.

How is cheaper, faster, more energy efficient a dissapointment? You'd not talk the way you are talking if you worked for Nvidia as their PR manager, it would be dumb to write that. So I don't know how anyone can make such ridiculous statements. Heck if you owned $1 million worth in stock in Nvidia, it would still be absurd to post such nonsense.

 

[Yotsugi]

I really don't know what you were smoking when you made your comment, it is most certainly NOT based in reality.

He compared street pricing to MSRP and that's roughly all you need to know about it.

 

[jpiniero]

R9 390 was priced at $330, the RX 480/580 is about 15% faster.

Went back and looked at AT's review; the 390 was the same or faster than the 480 in almost every game they tested at the time.

Now the post second mining crash 290's (near $230), that was a good deal.

 

[Leadbox]

When ryzen launched 1800x was 499usd and was similar performance as 6900k for more than 1000usd.Thats i call good competition.2700x then launched for only 320usd
In GPU space they didnt do anything close to that.
So cpu and gpu divison are not even close or same thing.
I wish navi was cheap and good, but it will end up like all others GPU launches past 4 years same price for same performance year later than NV cards.Tell me 1 reason why they should undercut NV because they seems dont care about GPUs.They just matching nv prices and thats all.

They did the whole undercutting Nv thing and it didn't work.Nv just adjust their pricing and the masses flock there. The 290X was 2% faster(uber mode, AT review) than the OG Titan, AMD priced it at $100 cheaper than the $650 gtx780. Nv dropped the 780 price to match 290X pricing and they stuck a 780ti at the 780's old price point. Selling OG Titan level perf at a little over half it's price didn't do much for AMD, undercutting Nv does not benefit AMD at all, so asking the same amount of money for similar perf is not the worst stratergy for them. Afterall, it's not as if everyone is on the same upgrade cycle.

 

[Guru]

Went back and looked at AT's review; the 390 was the same or faster than the 480 in almost every game they tested at the time.

Now the post second mining crash 290's (near $230), that was a good deal.

Anandtech is a really poor option to look at performance really, they only test a very limited number of games and usually lingering older titles. But drivers and game optimizations were there for R390 when the RX 480 released. Either way the RX 480 beat the R390 and GTX 970 in most games according to most tech sites.

Second you can't really look at sales price, otherwise why aren't we comparing current RX 580 pricing at as low as $150? The R9 390 was never that low, even when selling used. If you want to compare lowest sale prices, then its $30 dollars RX 580(2x$60 games, so $120 value worth games) at 15% faster performance vs $230 R9 390 at 15% slower performance.

Can't we just be objective and look at facts for a second?

There is no case to be made that the RX 400/500 series weren't a major improvement over R200/300 series.

 

[linkgoron]

Anandtech is a really poor option to look at performance really, they only test a very limited number of games and usually lingering older titles. But drivers and game optimizations were there for R390 when the RX 480 released. Either way the RX 480 beat the R390 and GTX 970 in most games according to most tech sites.

Second you can't really look at sales price, otherwise why aren't we comparing current RX 580 pricing at as low as $150? The R9 390 was never that low, even when selling used. If you want to compare lowest sale prices, then its $30 dollars RX 580(2x$60 games, so $120 value worth games) at 15% faster performance vs $230 R9 390 at 15% slower performance.

Can't we just be objective and look at facts for a second?

There is no case to be made that the RX 400/500 series weren't a major improvement over R200/300 series.

The RX 480 was barely faster than the R9 390 at 1080p. Perf/watt was much much better than the R9 390, but it was still a bit worse than Maxwell perf/watt (just matched the 970 and lost vs 980/980ti). Polaris essentially failed to move the bar performance-wise and barely matched Maxwell perf/watt-wise.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html
RX 480 was about ~4% faster than the R9 390 at 1080p, and 0% faster at 1440p.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/
RX 480 and R9 390 are exactly the same at 1080p, "MAX" is 3% faster than the R9 390 at 1080p.

I assume that today, with driver improvements, the RX 480 would give a better showing.

 

[ozzy702]

The RX 480 was barely faster than the R9 390 at 1080p. Perf/watt was much much better than the R9 390, but it was still a bit worse than Maxwell perf/watt (just matched the 970 and lost vs 980/980ti). Polaris essentially failed to move the bar performance-wise and barely matched Maxwell perf/watt-wise.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/RX_480/24.html
RX 480 was about ~4% faster than the R9 390 at 1080p, and 0% faster at 1440p.

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-06/radeon-rx-480-test/5/
RX 480 and R9 390 are exactly the same at 1080p, "MAX" is 3% faster than the R9 390 at 1080p.

I assume that today, with driver improvements, the RX 480 would give a better showing.

That's how I remember things at launch for the 480 as well. Same performance as a 390 with a lower price and lower power consumption but compared to the NVIDIA competition not spectacular. 480s sold like trash until mining took off and 580s sold well because of mining. I'm curious to know how things are broken down but I'd bet that the majority of 480/580 were purchased for mining. I don't have a single friend that bought one for gaming but including me I know of hundreds that were purchased for mining.

 

[jpiniero]

Second you can't really look at sales price, otherwise why aren't we comparing current RX 580 pricing at as low as $150?

It wasn't a sales price.

To me, it looks like the post-mining-crash 290 that I mentioned was the last AMD GPU that sold decently to actual gamers and not miners.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Polaris was in fact underwhelming. It's even now barley faster than Hawaii. Yeah it uses less power but the the jump NV did form 28 to 14 was far bigger. Thing is with polaris you could buy a hawaii card for <$250 already in 2013 so 6 years ago. The performance/$ increase is marginal at best.

I think it was November 2014 when Hawaii went on fire sale. $200 aftermarket R9 290 still has to be the greatest gpu deal I have ever seen for the time.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Didn't Polaris sell well enough that it led to double digit gains in market share within like the first quarter after its release? I was honestly surprised at how well it sold since it wasn't spectacular (was solid, but not amazing), wasn't priced that aggressively, and then had the PCIe related issue. But then I don't know why that's even the primary discussion happening in this thread.

OP, next year probably at the earliest, but even then I'm not sure how much I'd expect and kinda doubt you'll get a doubling of 1080Ti that isn't a doubling of its price as well. But Nvidia's 7nm GPUs should be out, and maybe Navi 20. Kinda doubt either doubles 1080Ti performance but might in some specific cases, especially if its something that Nvidia gimps the 1080Ti on (like some new VR feature that they only enabled on their newest gen even though the older ones could do it too).

Unless we get a resurgence of Crossfire/SLI performance, high end GPUs are gonna be $$$ and nowhere close to what we used to get in performance gains (where we might see doubling of performance in a year).

 

[Yotsugi]

Unless we get a resurgence of Crossfire/SLI performance

Modern engines hate mGPU like nothing else so don't bet on it.

 

[Flayed]

2 times the performance of a 1080 ti? I don't think we will see that until 5nm