What will be AMD'S next Move?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
1) TDP != power consumption
2) why probably mid 2015, the 290x was release nov-oct 2013 why keep the product for so long?
3) AMD has little to n relevance in mobile dgpus, I dont see that chaning even with maxwell or without, if anything intel will just gobble up that share.
4] when did high end pc gaming get this lame? when did everything become power consumption as AMD started using more power? [puts on tinfoil hat]beautiful nvidia marketing at work.

1. Even that TH link you presented, 970 = 168W. R290X = 242W. That is much more than 20%.

2. Because they just released Tonga, they have yet to release the full Tonga R285X, AND they are planning to release a 550mm2 big-Tonga with LC, which wont be out according to Asetek until 2015. These are all based on GCN 1.1 (or 1.1.1 whatever), old tech basically. For them to release it now and coming soon, means their real next-gen GCN2.0 is a long way away.

3. They used to own the notebook discrete segment with very high marketshare. That's all gone and GCN has made it worse. NV dominates mobile discrete due to better efficiency (primary reason).

4. It's not just power use, its perf/w that matters. When you have to use significantly more power to deliver 15% less performance, is when its TOO MUCH.
 

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
1
0
3) AMD has little to n relevance in mobile dgpus, I dont see that chaning even with maxwell or without, if anything intel will just gobble up that share.


That's just great - give up on highest margin business,
because they forgot/won't admit that perf/W=perf and are refusing to change their mind half-way.

Mobile discrete pre-Kepler, it was ~65% vs 35%, AMD lead.
I've read one Nvidia analysis claiming Kepler will reverse that in few months.
I thought Really...how is that even possible.

One gen. It took only one gen to reverse it.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,885
4,873
136
You have a 165W card matching or beating a 250W card.

That s wrong, there s a fallacy that consist to extend the chip power efficency to the higher power drains, that s not true, the higher the throughput of the card the lower the efficency, at max throughput its efficency is about the same as the 780/780ti.

Let say that it s the most efficient with a lazy and slow gamer, the more the gamer is efficient the more the card become innefficient, the more it is maxed out the less the efficency.

103-Overview-Power-Consumption-Torture.png


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-13.html
 

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
1
0

between the two of you, you guys have posted that THG's pic 3x times on last two pages. haha. we've seen it. it even has its own thread.
theres always flavor of the day review site.

heres the aggregate from several review sites.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/lau...ch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-980-seite-3

I could be wrong, but I bet that's THG learning their way through new equipment.
Sometimes being too clever, but not clever enough is detrimental.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
BTW did anyone see this
"Can you name our first product that processed graphics independently of the CPU?"
AMD asking.
 

tviceman

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2008
6,734
514
126
www.facebook.com
Monstercameron's admit defiance is akin to the moon landing truthers. In the face of insurmountable evidence they continue to defy all logic and stick with their guns.

Warning issued for member callout.
-- stahlhart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Monstercameron's admit defiance is akin to the moon landing truthers. In the face of insurmountable evidence they continue to defy all logic and stick with their guns.

What are you referring to? what defiance? Is it because I don't subscribe to your doom and gloom BS? show me quotes baby.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Plz dont flame is this topic.....
Discuss peacefully

yes massa, now do you want to tell me more how AMD is screwed and about to go out of business?

that is all you have been doing all thread. So dont tell me that I am flaming this topic because I disagree.

Infraction issued for racist language.
-- stahlhart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wild Thing

Member
Apr 9, 2014
155
0
0
There's only one reason the GTX970 has been released at a decent price(for a change).
Competition from AMD video cards.
All those predicting AMD's demise may do well to reflect on that.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,885
4,873
136
between the two of you, you guys have posted that THG's pic 3x times on last two pages. haha. we've seen it. it even has its own thread.
theres always flavor of the day review site.

heres the aggregate from several review sites.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/lau...ch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-980-seite-3

I could be wrong, but I bet that's THG learning their way through new equipment.
Sometimes being too clever, but not clever enough is detrimental.

Exemple is the R290 at Hardware.fr wich is pointed at 246W, it just happen that the reviewer said that is was the peaks and that its actual average comsumption is 207W, the chart from THG say that for a 970 to get the perfs that a 290 deliver at 281W it must use close to 240W, that s no more than 17-20% better perf/watt but there are people here that believe that to do so it needs only 165W, wich is completely wrong, if this was the case there wouldnt be spikes up to 250W+, these are the, rare, moments in a game where throughput is maxed out.

On the technical side of things AMD still has the perf/hertz advantage even counting for Hawai s 10% bigger die while their architecture is intrinsicaly more advanced when looking at raw numbers.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-3/performances-theoriques-pixels.html
 

f1sherman

Platinum Member
Apr 5, 2011
2,243
1
0
@Abwx

  • AMD still having "perf/hertz advantage"
  • Maxwell having "no more than 17-20% better perf/watt"


I'm sorry, but I'll pull out of this discussion.
I feel that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to all the way to basics just to prove you wrong.
 

DominionSeraph

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2009
8,386
32
91
There's only one reason the GTX970 has been released at a decent price(for a change).
Competition from AMD video cards.

No, the 700 series and the 200 series were priced together. AMD did not reduce the price of the 290X to $250 to cause Nvidia to price the 970 at $329, Nvidia released the 970 at $329 into $500 and $600 290X's. (and into their own $600-700 780 Ti's)
 
Last edited:

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
Exemple is the R290 at Hardware.fr wich is pointed at 246W, it just happen that the reviewer said that is was the peaks and that its actual average comsumption is 207W, the chart from THG say that for a 970 to get the perfs that a 290 deliver at 281W it must use close to 240W, that s no more than 17-20% better perf/watt but there are people here that believe that to do so it needs only 165W, wich is completely wrong, if this was the case there wouldnt be spikes up to 250W+, these are the, rare, moments in a game where throughput is maxed out.

On the technical side of things AMD still has the perf/hertz advantage even counting for Hawai s 10% bigger die while their architecture is intrinsicaly more advanced when looking at raw numbers.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/928-3/performances-theoriques-pixels.html
so all the reviews about GTX 970 per watt is false?
 
Last edited:

ChuckFx

Member
Nov 12, 2013
162
0
76
In the long term, license G-Sync or close their doors. In the short term, cut prices by 50% on existing stock.

They will not cut 50%, just no way. We will most likely see a good drop on black friday and at xmas season but they will not cut in half, they would kill their own buisness.
 

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,148
256
136
Hat's off to Tom's hardware. AMD is not back into a corner, they are just fine it turn out. Nvidia achieved lower power numbers by matching the GPU load, something AMD does with PowerTune, but probably not as good. The numbers are not as lopsided in Nvidia's favor as most people think.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-13.html

Look at the chart. "Power Consumption Gaming" (Heated Cards)
970 at 168 Watts
980 at 173 Watts
R9 290 at 231 (uber Mode)
R9 290X at 242 (Umber Mode)

Seems hopeless right?
Now look at
285 168 Watts
280 210 Watts
AMD achieved a 42 Watts saving going to Tonga. If you extrapolate the same power saving numbers to 290 and 290X then the Tonga version of would be
Tonga 290 = 231 - 42 = 189 watts
Tonga 290X = 242 - 42 = 200 watts

Still not as great as Nvidia's number anymore, but I sure doesn't look like GG for AMD if they release the Tonga version of 290 or 290X

Next graph Power Consumption Torture(GPGPU)
970 at 240 Watts
980 at 280 Watts
R9 290 at 281(uber Mode)
R9 290X at 305 (Umber Mode)

Not that big of a difference to begin with. Now lets look at Tonga
285 187 Watts
280 241 Watts
That's a difference of 54 Watts!
If you extrapolate the 290 and 290X performance to Tonga suddenly
R9 290 at 281 -54 = 227
R9 290X at 305 - 54 = 251

The Tonga version would be very comparable to Maxwell all of a sudden. If AMD comes with a water cooler on it, watch out.

I think Nvidia did a tremendous job with Maxwell, but after careful thinking, all this talk about AMD being done for is a bit premature. I'm just really happy that there are two outstanding graphics card companies upping each other back and forth to bring the best value to consumers. My advice would be hold off on the 970 and 980 purchase until you see AMD's response a few week. Worst thing that can happen is a Nvidia/AMD price slash.

I kind of theorize that AMD and Nvidia are diverging paths a little. Nvidia going after the best performance/watts crowd while AMD going after the best performance period. While Nvidia won't be running away from AMD in the power efficiency area, AMD won't be running away from Nvidia in the best performance area either. In the end, it just ends up giving people better choices, lower prices.
 
Last edited:

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Hat's off to Tom's hardware. AMD is not back into a corner, they are just fine it turn out. Nvidia achieved lower power numbers by matching the GPU load, something AMD does with PowerTune, but probably not as good. The numbers are not as lopsided in Nvidia's favor as most people think.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,3941-13.html

Look at the chart. "Power Consumption Gaming" (Heated Cards)
970 at 168 Watts
980 at 173 Watts
R9 290 at 231 (uber Mode)
R9 290X at 242 (Umber Mode)

Seems hopeless right?
Now look at
285 168 Watts
280 210 Watts
AMD achieved a 42 Watts saving going to Tonga. If you extrapolate the same power saving numbers to 290 and 290X then the Tonga version of would be
Tonga 290 = 231 - 42 = 189 watts
Tonga 290X = 242 - 42 = 200 watts


Still not as great as Nvidia's number anymore, but I sure doesn't look like GG for AMD if they release the Tonga version of 290 or 290X

Next graph Power Consumption Torture(GPGPU)
970 at 240 Watts
980 at 280 Watts
R9 290 at 281(uber Mode)
R9 290X at 305 (Umber Mode)

Not that big of a difference to begin with. Now lets look at Tonga
285 187 Watts
280 241 Watts
That's a difference of 54 Watts!
If you extrapolate the 290 and 290X performance to Tonga suddenly
R9 290 at 281 -54 = 227
R9 290X at 305 - 54 = 251

The Tonga version would be very comparable to Maxwell all of a sudden. If AMD comes with a water cooler on it, watch out.

I think Nvidia did a tremendous job with Maxwell, but after careful thinking, all this talk about AMD being done for is a bit premature. I'm just really happy that there are two outstanding graphics card companies upping each other back and forth to bring the best value to consumers. My advice would be hold off on the 970 and 980 purchase until you see AMD's response a few week. Worst thing that can happen is a Nvidia/AMD price slash.

I kind of theorize that AMD and Nvidia are diverging paths a little. Nvidia going after the best performance/watts crowd while AMD going after the best performance period. While Nvidia won't be running away from AMD in the power efficiency area, AMD won't be running away from Nvidia in the best performance area either. In the end, it just ends up giving people better choices, lower prices.

aside from the fact that you cant extrapolate like that, atleast you are trying to use logic and not trolling. Also how much of the power usage is that 512b bus taking?
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Tonga was not a major improvement in perf/w, I never trust TH for any hardware review, its not time to start using them as a reliable source.

Tonga's Perf/W
perfwatt_1920.gif


Tonga's average power use in gaming load
power_average.gif


970 average power use in gaming load
power_average.gif


Tonga is not better than Tahiti in perf/w, in some cases, worse. That isn't from one site either, most of the reviews found the same thing for Tonga & Maxwell. TH is the only one I've seen that seems to think R285 uses massively less power than the R280/7970, which we know to be false.

ps. I don't care that GPU compute puts Maxwell load higher, its not relevant to me, nor would it be if you show Mining power load for radeons and claim its absurd. Gaming load matters for gaming cards.
 
Last edited:

positivedoppler

Golden Member
Apr 30, 2012
1,148
256
136
aside from the fact that you cant extrapolate like that, atleast you are trying to use logic and not trolling. Also how much of the power usage is that 512b bus taking?

True, but I did take the Uber version. And one thing I did not account for is 280 to 285 is GCN 1.0 to 1.2 Were as 290 and 290X is already at 1.1.

Still, looking at Toms number even when not extrapolating to Tonga, the 290X is only 69 watts higher than the 980. The 290X has a advertised TDP of 290 Watts and obviously it's nowhere near that unless you use it for mining.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
True, but I did take the Uber version. And one thing I did not account for is 280 to 285 is GCN 1.0 to 1.2 Were as 290 and 290X is already at 1.1.

Still, looking at Toms number even when not extrapolating to Tonga, the 290X is only 69 watts higher than the 980. The 290X has a advertised TDP of 290 Watts and obviously it's nowhere near that unless you use it for mining.

For some of us, that do distributed computing on video cards nearly 100% of the time (when not gaming), those "mining" numbers are equally important.

I myself am looking at a possible GTX960 for doing DC, depending on what the price comes out to. But it's interesting to find out that Maxwell isn't as efficient for "mining" as for gaming.
 

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,885
4,873
136
@Abwx

  • AMD still having "perf/hertz advantage"
  • Maxwell having "no more than 17-20% better perf/watt"

970/980 are clocked at about 1200Mhz on average, do the maths.

I stand by the perf/watt number, if perf/watt was intrinsicaly better, that is due to architectural superiority, then it would have the same max throughput for half the power comsumption but there s only 17% difference at peak throughput, what you fail to understand is that its efficency is not at a fixed value, it varies hugely with the GPU loading, it s not like an efficency gained from a node shrink where the power comsumption curve would be simply translated 30% lower, in this case the GPU more or less manage to gate off its non functional parts at very high speed within the flow of datas but if the flow is sustained and is close to max throughput then the GPU has to let all the parts supplied to process the bottlenecked datas in the waiting, comsumption will then reach what it is supposed to be at this node level.

Thg used the word compression as an analogy, what is compressed actualy is the size of the GPU in function of the computation needs, in a game this will translate in gated off unities when the scene is not demanding, and games are rarely, if ever, getting close to max throughput.


Tonga is not better than Tahiti in perf/w, in some cases, worse.

This chip adressed a few of the remaining thing to improve in Hawai s pipelines but it cant be considered next gen.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.