With AMD's Ryzen + Vega, and Intel's CPUs + Vega, what's left for nvidia?

[Genx87]

Feel like we are back in 2010 when AMDs APU were giving Nvidia just 12-18 months to survive. I'm sure this time an intel + AMD graphics will demolish Nvidia in 12 months or less.

 

[piesquared]

AMD didn't have a competitive CPU to add to the equation in 2010, nor did they have the best mobile APU on the market. And, intel and AMD didn't have a semi custom partnership, which would also indicate closer cooperation, which means more AMD GPUs in intel SKUs, which is a completely different landscape than when intel avoided AMD GPUs like the plague, most likely due to the "bitter rival" mentality. Intel also had a licensing agreement with nvidia in 2010, which they no longer have.

 

[PeterScott]

Feel like we are back in 2010 when AMDs APU were giving Nvidia just 12-18 months to survive. I'm sure this time an intel + AMD graphics will demolish Nvidia in 12 months or less.

Exactly. Forum speculation is disconnected from reality.

Each new product release brings a bunch of doomsayers, speculating that whatever was just released is going to destroy their inadequate competitor.

Today, AMD is going to destroy NVidia with one new Mobile GPU part.

Within a couple of months details for Ryzen Zen+ clock speed bump will be revealed, and with news of a couple hundred more Megahertz, the Doom of Intel will be proclaimed.

Within that same period NVidia releases it's next scheduled GPU architecture, then there will be a bunch of doomsayers. Telling us that AMD is doomed because of how awesome the new NV GPUs are.

At some futher point, Intel ships a decent 10nm CPU, and more AMD doom will be predicted.

Then AMD ships Zen 2 on 7nm and Intels doom is predicted again.

....

And so on into infinity.

 

[piesquared]

No. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that nvidia faces competition in many lucrative markets it hasnt even had a competitor in for many years. There is no way to know the outcome of that. There have been many companies fall from glory in very recent history it is not in the least unprecedented, its practically guaranteed to continue happening. I dont think anyone expects nvidia to roll up the carpet in 12-18 months. But they have serious credible competition now in 80- 90% of the market and all of the high volume market. How valuable do you think the Vega brand is going to be now that it will be plastered on many intel laptops. With Vega tied to intel as well, how much optimizing is going to be done for Vega and features by developers. Vega is going to be everywhere. Sure nvidia will be releasing some new products and so will AMD and the intel Radeon relationship will remain strong. Nv are pobably going to try branching off again into another walled garden somewhere in their glorious quest of having as many users locked in as possible.

 

[happy medium]

How fast are the graphics part of these chips?
I'm hearing slower than a rx 550 over in the cpu section thread.
Is this correct?
These chips seem as fast as a Intel i3 8100 and a real slow discreet card at about the same price.
This is no where near mid range performance. Its slower than a gt1030.
Am I reading this right?

Edit: never mind these are the 2400g
APU's.

 

[PeterScott]

How fast are the graphics part of these chips?
I'm hearing slower than a rx 550 over in the cpu section thread.
Is this correct?
These chips seem as fast as a Intel i3 8100 and a real slow discreet card at about the same price.
This is no where near mid range performance. Its slower than a gt1030.
Am I reading this right?

Lower part is faster than Laptop GTX 1050.

The Top end GPU part is similar to GTX 1060 Max-Q, and least on a couple of cherry picked benchmarks Intel showed.

The GTX 1060 Max-Q is a slower version of the Laptop GTX 1060, which is a slower version of the Desktop GTX 1060.

 

[happy medium]

Thanks,, I see now
So basically rx 560 / 570 range or gtx950/970 for the Nvidia side.

The gtx970 will be low end this year and the gtx950 will be outdated as a gaming card.

That's the problem with these Intel\ Radeon chips, every year they will become faster but so do discreet cards. So unless they get much faster every year , they will be stuck in the low end, Minecraft type gaming cards or older games.
A discreet card this year with gtx970 performance will be well under 100 watts.

 

[piesquared]

It'll probably go to 9000!
RX 560/570? Thats impossible obviously, but definitely fast enough for anyone buying into that price range and casual gaming use and likely monitor size.

 

[PeterScott]

No. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that nvidia faces competition in many lucrative markets it hasnt even had a competitor in for many years. There is no way to know the outcome of that. There have been many companies fall from glory in very recent history it is not in the least unprecedented, its practically guaranteed to continue happening. I dont think anyone expects nvidia to roll up the carpet in 12-18 months. But they have serious credible competition now in 80- 90% of the market and all of the high volume market. How valuable do you think the Vega brand is going to be now that it will be plastered on many intel laptops. With Vega tied to intel as well, how much optimizing is going to be done for Vega and features by developers. Vega is going to be everywhere. Sure nvidia will be releasing some new products and so will AMD and the intel Radeon relationship will remain strong. Nv are pobably going to try branching off again into another walled garden somewhere in their glorious quest of having as many users locked in as possible.

Again, nothing but typical forum over-reaction. There is massive inertia in the market, many people just keep buying what they have always bought.

It really takes continuous, superior execution over time to really move the market, and/or a competitor that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. Unfortunately for AMD, they are on the wrong side of both of those markers.

Back before the Mining craze when RX-480 vs GTX-1060 were selling as gaming cards. AMD had slightly better perf/dollar, yet IIRC NVidia outsold them something like 10:1. Check Steam HW Survey. 14.9% of the entire Steam User base in running a GTX 1060, and 0.3% is running an RX 480. That is 50 Times more GTX 1060s! vs the "competitive" RX 480.

Check Ryzen, AMDs first competitive CPU in a decade, with big core count advantage over Intel. Check Steam HW survey, during the whole year since Ryzens release, AMDs CPU market share had a continuous gentle decline. Mindshare and inertia at work.

NVidia has a massive mindshare advantage that won't be overcome by AMD finally having a competitive product.

The assumption that a couple of products swing the market is simply wrong.

 

[piesquared]

Again, nothing but typical forum over-reaction. There is massive inertia in the market, many people just keep buying what they have always bought.

It really takes continuous, superior execution over time to really move the market, and/or a competitor that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. Unfortunately for AMD, they are on the wrong side of both of those markers.

Back before the Mining craze when RX-480 vs GTX-1060 were selling as gaming cards. AMD had slightly better perf/dollar, yet IIRC NVidia outsold them something like 10:1. Check Steam HW Survey. 14.9% of the entire Steam User base in running a GTX 1060, and 0.3% is running an RX 480. That is 50 Times more GTX 1060s! vs the "competitive" RX 480.

Check Ryzen, AMDs first competitive CPU in a decade, with big core count advantage over Intel. Check Steam HW survey, during the whole year since Ryzens release, AMDs CPU market share had a continuous gentle decline. Mindshare and inertia at work.

NVidia has a massive mindshare advantage that won't be overcome by AMD finally having a competitive product.

The assumption that a couple of products swing the market is simply wrong.

That's nonsense. The many people buy what is on the shelf. The masses aren't going out with "oh i got to get me a nvidia!", on their brain. The only mindshare they have are from fanboys. This a world with the attention span of single cell with yesterday practically forgotten. Nvidia's brand means nothing to the average consumer. Nvidia was popular because thats what OEMs put on the shelf. Now they will have to share a large part of that shelf with Vega because of the strength of Ryzen APUs, Ryzen mobile APUs, Vega M and KL G. You keep talking desktop while the biggest market of concern for nvidia is mobile.

 

[24601]

Again, nothing but typical forum over-reaction. There is massive inertia in the market, many people just keep buying what they have always bought.

It really takes continuous, superior execution over time to really move the market, and/or a competitor that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. Unfortunately for AMD, they are on the wrong side of both of those markers.

Back before the Mining craze when RX-480 vs GTX-1060 were selling as gaming cards. AMD had slightly better perf/dollar, yet IIRC NVidia outsold them something like 10:1. Check Steam HW Survey. 14.9% of the entire Steam User base in running a GTX 1060, and 0.3% is running an RX 480. That is 50 Times more GTX 1060s! vs the "competitive" RX 480.

Check Ryzen, AMDs first competitive CPU in a decade, with big core count advantage over Intel. Check Steam HW survey, during the whole year since Ryzens release, AMDs CPU market share had a continuous gentle decline. Mindshare and inertia at work.

NVidia has a massive mindshare advantage that won't be overcome by AMD finally having a competitive product.

The assumption that a couple of products swing the market is simply wrong.

People know perfectly well that for the PC games (not console ports) that most people play on PCs, Nvidia has been better for just about forever, for the simple reason that Nvidia is at minimum 2x as fast in CPU limited games that aren't console ports (AKA just about every single popular game on PC that people play all the time/spend the most actual time playing).

AMD has never bridged that driver overhead gap and it doesn't look like they intend to ever do so.

Take a look at hours played per week / concurrent players on steam charts and it is obvious that almost every single game on this list is CPU limited (most of them by draw calls specifically).

http://steamcharts.com/top
(add every single 3D blizzard game ever made)
(add 99.999999999999% of RTS games ever made [excluding benchmark of the singularity])
(add 100% of MMOs ever made)


This fact gets even worse with time, not better, since GPUs have always advanced in performance faster than single threaded CPU performance.

We're literally at the point where Titan V is currently even CPU bottlenecked on maximum overclocked top of the line CPUs playing vapid console ports in resolutions that people actually play at.

 

[Krteq]

AMD has never bridged that driver overhead gap and it doesn't look like they intend to ever do so.

What are you talking about? What driver overhead? That's an old story mate.

 

[24601]

What are you talking about? What driver overhead? That's an old story mate.

Denying reality doesn't make it magically not exist.

It's been the case since DX8 (You read that right, DX8) at the very least.

Try playing any CPU limited game ever made on "comparable" Nvidia and AMD hardware.

It's been true for so long (15+ years) that even the average casual MMO and RTS PC gamer knows it at this point.

 

[Krteq]

Can you please show me some proof? This is the same urban myth like worse frametimes etc.

 

[24601]

Can you please show me some proof? This is the same urban myth like worse frametimes etc.

Been spoonfeeding this exact proof for 6 years here and the forum is immune to it, but i'll try again.

Lets look at a game that is basically brand new and even a console port (Literally Call of Duty) to give AMD as much of a handicap as we can:

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-wwii-2017-test-gpu-cpu-222

Call of Duty WWII 1080p Max Settings:
GTX 1080:
Intel Core i5 2500K 3.3 GHz
Minimum: 105
Average: 123

Vega 64:
Intel Core i5 2500K 3.3 GHz
65
79

Here is a chart that elucidates on this the most clearly:

 

[Krteq]

Huh, single performance graph from single game from gamegpu.ru site, are you serious?

There are lots of performance reviews showing Vega cards are on par or better performing in Call of Duty, same for other cards. For example:
ComputerBase.de
Guru3D
TechPowerUp
PCGH.de
etc.

Spoiler: WWII

So, what exactly leads you to your flawed conclusion? Can you please show that proof of "driver overhead" in more games? Or how exactly is that "driver overhead" indicated?

//oh man

 

[24601]

And thus the AMD reality distortion bubble strikes again.....

"WHY DOES NO ONE BUY AMD CARD!??!?!?!?"

when told why

"LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Beer4Me]

Exactly. Forum speculation is disconnected from reality.

Each new product release brings a bunch of doomsayers, speculating that whatever was just released is going to destroy their inadequate competitor.

Today, AMD is going to destroy NVidia with one new Mobile GPU part.

Within a couple of months details for Ryzen Zen+ clock speed bump will be revealed, and with news of a couple hundred more Megahertz, the Doom of Intel will be proclaimed.

Within that same period NVidia releases it's next scheduled GPU architecture, then there will be a bunch of doomsayers. Telling us that AMD is doomed because of how awesome the new NV GPUs are.

At some futher point, Intel ships a decent 10nm CPU, and more AMD doom will be predicted.

Then AMD ships Zen 2 on 7nm and Intels doom is predicted again.

....

And so on into infinity.

This guy^ gets it.

Forum speculation and fanboy-ism run amuck with these AMD announcements. As an AMD shareholder, seeing announcements like this is great. But I also know that this is a long term play for AMD, and something that is much needed to keep them viable. NVidia and Intel have for far too long owned their respective spaces without any viable competition. It is good to see AMD bring the fight back. That being said, NVidia has been unstoppable over the last 2-3 years. I mean just look at their stock price.

 

[Muhammed]

How valuable do you think the Vega brand is going to be now that it will be plastered on many intel laptops. With Vega tied to intel as well, how much optimizing is going to be done for Vega and features by developers. Vega is going to be everywhere.

I laughed so hard at this, Vega isn't any where to be found on the desktop, and developers make their games based on the market share of dGPUs not some weak niche integrated GPUs.

Been spoonfeeding this exact proof for 6 years here and the forum is immune to it, but i'll try again.

EuroGamer has a nice collection of articles detailing this, basically everytime you pair an AMD GPU with a Core i3/Core i5 CPU, the equivalent NVIDIA GPU will always perform significantly better, because the AMD GPU is CPU limited all the time. This happened in games like GTA 5, OverWatch, FarCry Primal, Just Cause 3, Rise Of The Tomb Raider, Fallout 4, Witcher 3, The Crew, and Call Of Duty Advanced Warfare and dozens of other games, including Assassin's Creed Origins, PUBG, FortNite ..etc recently.

Here is a collection of all the pieces of articles about this:
https://www.araboverclockers.net/dx12-case-study-references/2/

 

[kondziowy]

And thus the AMD reality distortion bubble strikes again.....

"WHY DOES NO ONE BUY AMD CARD!??!?!?!?"

when told why

"LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

No lies, true but it's already "fixed" in DX12 after 15 years and the situation is completly opposite. The fix (dropping DX11) is just not utilised by developers yet

 

[24601]

No lies, true but it's already "fixed" in DX12 after 15 years and the situation is completly opposite. The fix (dropping DX11) is just not utilised by developers yet

We were told the same when DX9 came out.
We were told the same when DX10 came out.
We were told the same when DX11 came out.
We were told the same when Mantle "came out"(lol).

Nvidia always turned out faster due to god tier driver team.

(+ the fact that next to no one can afford the dev team required to make a mainly DX12 game except for AAA console devs)

 

[Muhammed]

No lies, true but it's already "fixed" in DX12 after 15 years and the situation is completly opposite. The fix (dropping DX11) is just not utilised by developers yet

You pretty much used the worst example of DX12 to date, ALL GPUs and I mean ALL of them (AMD or NVIDIA) drop fps and have worse performance in DX12 than DX11 in that game.

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/star-wars-battlefront-ii-test-gpu-cpu

This game is an example of why DX12 has been useless so far.

 

[kondziowy]

And DX12 also has a ton of stutters in BF1-need a lot of work. It will not be chosen as main renderer because there is too much to lose on Nvidia hardware... Otherwise we would see RX580 on par with GTX1080Ti very often. http://pclab.pl/art75785-5.html <- this game uses DX12 well and runs smooth.
Looks like the issue is fixed after all.

 

[Muhammed]

And DX12 also has a ton of stutters in BF1-need a lot of work. It will not be chosen as main renderer because there is too much to lose on Nvidia hardware.

No because it causes problem on both AMD and NVIDIA hardware. These issues are not exclusive to NVIDIA alone.

Otherwise we would see RX580 on par with GTX1080Ti very often. http://pclab.pl/art75785-5.html <- this game uses DX12 well and runs smooth.

That was with an old NVIDIA driver, this situation has been long rectified. NVIDIA is faster than AMD in this game.

http://techreport.com/review/32766/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-ti-graphics-card-reviewed/3
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Forza-Motorsport-7-Performance-Preview-Vega-vs-Pascal
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/10/16/forza_motorsport_7_video_card_performance_update/3

 

[kondziowy]

I don't think so, pclab tested with updated drivers in the same spot and 1080Ti sill didn't beat Vega, and they also compared cpus in test showing AMD advantage.
i7-5960X will definitely not show cpu bottlenecks.