AMD, Roy Taylor, the Nano, and the Press @ [H]

Vicey said:
I really hope 2016 is a turning point for AMD with their Zen architecture but based on the past 10 years or so I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

AMD really reminds me of Creative Labs. Fat with Apple lawsuit money they had a real chance to carve themselves out a real chunk of what was then still a viable product line. MP3 players. Their fans waited for an eternity and instead of giving them what they wanted launched stupid product after product.
Not to say that some of them weren't good products, they just weren't competitive.

They were in a very comfortable place with loads of cash and they just wasted away.

It all started with the ZEN line. Perhaps ZEN is a bad thing?
 
atom said:
Awe now why did you have to go and bring that up again? I was enjoying the threads turn of picking on Linus.
Click to expand...

In a no holds barred cage match, I'd take Kyle over Linus. Sure, Linus would likely be quicker and have more endurance, but Kyle's got old man brute strength and he's as mean as a badger.
 
HardUp4HardWare said:
AMD really reminds me of Creative Labs. Fat with Apple lawsuit money they had a real chance to carve themselves out a real chunk of what was then still a viable product line. MP3 players. Their fans waited for an eternity and instead of giving them what they wanted launched stupid product after product.
Not to say that some of them weren't good products, they just weren't competitive.

They were in a very comfortable place with loads of cash and they just wasted away.

It all started with the ZEN line. Perhaps ZEN is a bad thing?
Click to expand...

The biggest difference is that Creative had the opportunity to make some really killer onboard audio solutions when the market was largely transitioning from the AT platform to the ATX platform. Realtek stepped up. OPTi stepped up. Hell, even nVidia stepped up. Creative chose to remain as an add-in provider, even in the face of integrated providers, like Realtek, stepped it up even further. Creative does have a pseudo-onboard solution, but it's really nothing more than their tech being software-based and licensed to operate with Realtek hardware...too little, too late. Plenty of times the writing was on the wall for the past 20 years, and each time they chose to ignore it.

AMD, otoh, has continued to innovate products to meet a wide array of solutions across many segments from mobile, desktop/workstation, server, and everything in between and everything else. Sure, they've struggled to hit the mark in many of these segments since the Athlon, XP, A64, and X2-3-4 days, but at least their product portfolio remains diverse. Creative...not so much. They still insist on trying to convince every customer that $60+ is a necessary expenditure for viable computer audio.
 
Vicey said:
erformance, no real overclocking after being described to us as an "overclockers dream".

I feel that they went the wrong way with HBM, not because the technology is bad, HBM is the future and is better than what we had, but they pulled the trigger on it just a little too soon. Had the Fury X came with 6 or 8GB of memory that would have made it more competitive to me and something to consider.
Click to expand...

HBM1 is capped at 4GB of memory on a single-GPU graphics card application. Larger capacity memory won't be available until HBM2 launches.
 
KrylonArt said:
HBM1 is capped at 4GB of memory on a single-GPU graphics card application. Larger capacity memory won't be available until HBM2 launches.
Click to expand...

incorrect. But he was talking about had it come with GDDR5, which would've been the smarter move for this round of cards.
 
I wonder what kind of review Nano is going to get at this point. Is it going to be [H] Fail or Double [H]Fail?!

FAIL_250-Forum.jpg
 
KrylonArt said:
HBM1 is capped at 4GB of memory on a single-GPU graphics card application. Larger capacity memory won't be available until HBM2 launches.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that which is why I said they pulled the trigger too soon.

I think they should have stuck with GDDR5 for one more round and then used HBM2. You can't really release a 4GB product as your flagship when your competitor is doing 6GB for the same price and 12GB on their flagship.

I mean even the R9 390X is an 8GB card and that is priced lower than Fury X and it's meant to be a lower end card.

For me as a consumer when I look at this situation and I see Fury X, 4GB. Same price as GTX 980 Ti with 6GB and they are very close in performance and the 980 Ti OC's like gangbusters to a 25% performance lead..

It's a tough sell the Fury X is. Now had the Fury X, Fury and Nano come out against the GTX 980, even 3-6 months before the 980 Ti showed up we'd be praising it heavily but that's just not the reality we're in is it, the GTX 980 Ti came out sooner and is a better proposition.

It's tough talking about AMD in this way because inevitably it sounds like bias. But honestly I'm really in AMD's corner I want them to do well and compete and I do want to buy their products, I just wish they'd stop making silly mistakes.

Anandtech UK had a piece up I think yesterday where they went over this roy debacle but also looked at AMD's technology moonshots. They always seem to reach for the best planning for a far off future which is fine and proper except they try to sell us that future today when stuff just isn't ready. You can't sell cards on a DX12 future when there's no DX12 titles. You can't sell memory aggregation today when it's a DX12 feature. You can't sell us on HBM being the future today when it doesn't have enough capacity for the high end gaming that the card is priced for.

They did this with their 8 core CPU's as-well. Betting on a future where all our demanding software is efficiently multithreaded. Of course that's going to give Intel the edge in the present where most applications benefit much more from high single thread performance.

And really they should be focusing on single thread performance anyway and then taking that superfast single thread core and duplicating it over the die like Intel does. Coming at it from an angle where 8 slow cores is worth the same as 4 fast ones like Intel is doing is just bad.

AMD needs to stop aiming for the moon and try instead to tackle near term goals that we can benefit from today.
 
Vicey said:
I'm aware of that which is why I said they pulled the trigger too soon.

I think they should have stuck with GDDR5 for one more round and then used HBM2. You can't really release a 4GB product as your flagship when your competitor is doing 6GB for the same price and 12GB on their flagship.

I mean even the R9 390X is an 8GB card and that is priced lower than Fury X and it's meant to be a lower end card.

For me as a consumer when I look at this situation and I see Fury X, 4GB. Same price as GTX 980 Ti with 6GB and they are very close in performance and the 980 Ti OC's like gangbusters to a 25% performance lead..

It's a tough sell the Fury X is. Now had the Fury X, Fury and Nano come out against the GTX 980, even 3-6 months before the 980 Ti showed up we'd be praising it heavily but that's just not the reality we're in is it, the GTX 980 Ti came out sooner and is a better proposition.

It's tough talking about AMD in this way because inevitably it sounds like bias. But honestly I'm really in AMD's corner I want them to do well and compete and I do want to buy their products, I just wish they'd stop making silly mistakes.

Anandtech UK had a piece up I think yesterday where they went over this roy debacle but also looked at AMD's technology moonshots. They always seem to reach for the best planning for a far off future which is fine and proper except they try to sell us that future today when stuff just isn't ready. You can't sell cards on a DX12 future when there's no DX12 titles. You can't sell memory aggregation today when it's a DX12 feature. You can't sell us on HBM being the future today when it doesn't have enough capacity for the high end gaming that the card is priced for.

They did this with their 8 core CPU's as-well. Betting on a future where all our demanding software is efficiently multithreaded. Of course that's going to give Intel the edge in the present where most applications benefit much more from high single thread performance.

And really they should be focusing on single thread performance anyway and then taking that superfast single thread core and duplicating it over the die like Intel does. Coming at it from an angle where 8 slow cores is worth the same as 4 fast ones like Intel is doing is just bad.

AMD needs to stop aiming for the moon and try instead to tackle near term goals that we can benefit from today.
Click to expand...

4GB isn't handicapping Fury X at all. FuryX crossfire slaughters 980TI SLI and TitanX.
 
DeadSkull said:
4GB isn't handicapping Fury X at all. FuryX crossfire slaughters 980TI SLI and TitanX.
Click to expand...

If by slaughter, you mean it wins some and loses some benchmarks with stock clocked 980 Ti SLI - then yes, it does. Fury X scales better, though, in multi-card setups.
 
DeadSkull said:
4GB isn't handicapping Fury X at all. FuryX crossfire slaughters 980TI SLI and TitanX.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you're spending all that money on two cards to game at 1080p. But lets face it, 4K and above in titles that need the memory it just isn't good enough.

I'd rather buy the 980 Ti's and have the memory breathing room. Not to mention, two Fury X's in one system with those water coolers? that's gonna be annoying mounting them and such. GTX 980 Ti's have nice air coolers.

I think this tells the story really, from HardOCP.

rq7eDij.png


GTX 980 Ti just edges out the Fury X with more settings on Very High. The ones that increase memory usage.
 
Vicey said:
Maybe if you're spending all that money on two cards to game at 1080p. But lets face it, 4K and above in titles that need the memory it just isn't good enough.

I'd rather buy the 980 Ti's and have the memory breathing room. Not to mention, two Fury X's in one system with those water coolers? that's gonna be annoying mounting them and such. GTX 980 Ti's have nice air coolers.
Click to expand...

The reference 980 Ti coolers are barely adequate. I'm overclocked, and to keep temps 75 and below requires a decent amount of noise. Nothing headphones cannot solve, and even tolerable with normal speakers, but it's still noise. I have plenty of room for AIO rads, but like noise, everyone has different tolerances.

If AMD had not been so tight lipped on Fury X, and the Fury X had undercut the 980 Ti price by 100$ or even $50 - I likely would have purchased two.
 
SilverSliver said:
If by slaughter, you mean it wins some and loses some benchmarks with stock clocked 980 Ti SLI - then yes, it does. Fury X scales better, though, in multi-card setups.
Click to expand...

Vicey said:
Maybe if you're spending all that money on two cards to game at 1080p. But lets face it, 4K and above in titles that need the memory it just isn't good enough.

I'd rather buy the 980 Ti's and have the memory breathing room. Not to mention, two Fury X's in one system with those water coolers? that's gonna be annoying mounting them and such. GTX 980 Ti's have nice air coolers.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you guys are getting this crap from. Does nvidia pay you guys?

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/an-epic-fury-x-review-quad-fury-x-vs-quad-titan-x.214231/

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...re-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160/index.html

http://www.eteknix.com/amd-r9-fury-x-4gb-graphics-card-crossfire-review/

http://www.techspot.com/review/1033-gtx-980-ti-sli-r9-fury-x-crossfire/page2.html
 
Vicey said:
Maybe if you're spending all that money on two cards to game at 1080p. But lets face it, 4K and above in titles that need the memory it just isn't good enough.

I'd rather buy the 980 Ti's and have the memory breathing room. Not to mention, two Fury X's in one system with those water coolers? that's gonna be annoying mounting them and such. GTX 980 Ti's have nice air coolers.

I think this tells the story really, from HardOCP.

rq7eDij.png


GTX 980 Ti just edges out the Fury X with more settings on Very High. The ones that increase memory usage.
Click to expand...

This is your example?! Behold, absolute slaughter of DX12 incapable nvidia cards.


94_400_amd-radeon-r9-fury-crossfire-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160.png
 
SilverSliver said:
The reference 980 Ti coolers are barely adequate. I'm overclocked, and to keep temps 75 and below requires a decent amount of noise. Nothing headphones cannot solve, and even tolerable with normal speakers, but it's still noise. I have plenty of room for AIO rads, but like noise, everyone has different tolerances.

If AMD had not been so tight lipped on Fury X, and the Fury X had undercut the 980 Ti price by 100$ or even $50 - I likely would have purchased two.
Click to expand...

Both cards at stock though? - I have two GTX 780's which have the same TDP of 250 Watts as the GTX 980 Ti and I believe the same cooler (correct me if I'm wrong they look identical). My cards were practically inaudible while gaming at stock, not when OCing.

But the Fury X doesn't really OC all that well so I think it would be fairer only to compare the cards when it comes to stock clocks, stock coolers etc

For me the problem with the AIO thing is it would look really ugly and it would be hard to mount them in most peoples cases, it decreases the market share for the cards when people think, well the cards shorter so that's great but the cooler wont mount in my case if I buy two of them.

Had the card been longer AMD could have fit more heatsink and brought out an air version that kept performance the same as the watercooled version, the nano as we all know runs at lower clocks to keep temperatures down.
 
DeadSkull said:
This is your example?! One freaking game?! Hahahaha, oh brother. Behold, absolute slaughter of DX12 incapable nvidia cards.


94_400_amd-radeon-r9-fury-crossfire-triple-4k-eyefinity-11-520x2160.png
Click to expand...

That's great dual card performance, but in the same graph a single GTX 980 Ti handily beats a single Fury X. And that is just one title. If you look at HardOCP's review of the Fury X under 4K it shows the GTX 980 Ti in-front in almost every test and the ones it doesn't come ahead in, it matches.

Another way to spin that screenshot would be the Fury X on its own, 20 Min FPS. Unplayable, but the GTX 980 Ti, 33 FPS. So you need to buy two Fury X's to play that game at that resolution at playable framerates while a single GTX 980 Ti can do it at playable FPS.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Please, Brent, or your GPU reviewing minions--post the Nano review! Save us from ourselves....
Click to expand...

We are getting components together, I have a few pieces of the build so far. Kyle is on it. Going to be a completely new build just for SFF.

I will begin the Nano review after these CF reviews, which is much more interesting IMO. Fury CrossFire? Fury X CrossFire? 390X CrossFire? compared to 980 Ti SLI, 980 SLI, and using a new game, I'm having fun :)
 
Vicey said:
That's great dual card performance, but in the same graph a single GTX 980 Ti handily beats a single Fury X. And that is just one title. If you look at HardOCP's review of the Fury X under 4K it shows the GTX 980 Ti in-front in almost every test and the ones it doesn't come ahead in, it matches.

Another way to spin that screenshot would be the Fury X on its own, 20 Min FPS. Unplayable, but the GTX 980 Ti, 33 FPS. So you need to buy two Fury X's to play that game at that resolution at playable framerates while a single GTX 980 Ti can do it at playable FPS.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about single card performance here but dual card performance.

Maybe if you're spending all that money on two cards to game at 1080p. But lets face it, 4K and above in titles that need the memory it just isn't good enough.

I'd rather buy the 980 Ti's and have the memory breathing room. Not to mention, two Fury X's in one system with those water coolers? that's gonna be annoying mounting them and such. GTX 980 Ti's have nice air coolers.
Click to expand...
From the data I provided FuryX matches and destroys 980 TI SLI in performance at 4K proving that FuryX 4Gb is more then enough for high resolution gaming.
 
the last gpus i purchased were the 7970 and 290 based off the hardforum reviews... Dafaq... im also not readying 16 pages of comments. I trust [H]
 
DeadSkull said:
I am not talking about single card performance here but dual card performance.

From the data I provided FuryX matches and destroys 980 TI SLI in performance at 4K proving that FuryX 4Gb is more then enough for high resolution gaming.
Click to expand...

Although Multi-GPU performance may be the pinacle to you, it's not what drives the majority of sales. We are having a discussion about AMD in general terms as a company and while having the best Multi-GPU performance is nice, it's sadly a niche of the market and consumers main focus is single GPU performance where the Fury X is priced too high compared to its competitors.

It's a sad reality but the reality nonetheless.
 
DeadSkull said:
From the data I provided FuryX matches and destroys 980 TI SLI in performance at 4K proving that FuryX 4Gb is more then enough for high resolution gaming.
Click to expand...

Again, the Fury X wins some in Crossfire and loses some. That's versus stock clocked 980 Ti, also.

Here are some 4k benchmarks from various websites and various games. The second set of benchmark links compares Fury X to overclocked 980 Ti in SLI and gets hammered by the overclock.

GTAV3Way_3840x2160_OFPS.png


BF4_3840x2160_OFPS_1.png


GRID2_3840x2160_OFPS.png


http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...cf-vs-gtx-980-ti-sli-overclocked.html?start=5

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...cf-vs-gtx-980-ti-sli-overclocked.html?start=6

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...f-vs-gtx-980-ti-sli-overclocked.html?start=10

http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...f-vs-gtx-980-ti-sli-overclocked.html?start=11
 
AMD did bill the Fury X as an "overclockers dream" and well it just isn't.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We are getting components together, I have a few pieces of the build so far. Kyle is on it. Going to be a completely new build just for SFF.

I will begin the Nano review after these CF reviews, which is much more interesting IMO. Fury CrossFire? Fury X CrossFire? 390X CrossFire? compared to 980 Ti SLI, 980 SLI, and using a new game, I'm having fun :)
Click to expand...

Well, this set of tests should prove crucial in sorting out the wheat from the chaff in all the graphs posted below yours. Can't wait!
 
It should be quite illuminating, looking forward to it.
 
Vicey said:
Although Multi-GPU performance may be the pinacle to you, it's not what drives the majority of sales. We are having a discussion about AMD in general terms as a company and while having the best Multi-GPU performance is nice, it's sadly a niche of the market and consumers main focus is single GPU performance where the Fury X is priced too high compared to its competitors.

It's a sad reality but the reality nonetheless.
Click to expand...

If you're worried about what drives the majority of sales, then shouldn't we limit this discussion to cards that cost under 300 (or even under 200)?
 
nilepez said:
If you're worried about what drives the majority of sales, then shouldn't we limit this discussion to cards that cost under 300 (or even under 200)?
Click to expand...

Well perhaps that's where Fury X should be priced at considering what the GTX 980 Ti can do.

Of course I jest. And no I'm not worried about it, just multi-GPU is an incredible niche and harping on that one feature is ridiculous. The SLI performance of NVIDIA cards often sees huge gains in each driver update so making those comparisons is foolhardy anyway.
 
Brent_Justice said:
We are getting components together, I have a few pieces of the build so far. Kyle is on it. Going to be a completely new build just for SFF.

I will begin the Nano review after these CF reviews, which is much more interesting IMO. Fury CrossFire? Fury X CrossFire? 390X CrossFire? compared to 980 Ti SLI, 980 SLI, and using a new game, I'm having fun :)
Click to expand...

Any chance you can throw a few OC'd SLI/CF comparisons in there? Also, and more importantly, what is the new game?
 
DeadSkull said:
Curious, how is [H] getting such high fps at 4K ?!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Colorful/iGame_GTX_980_Ti/18.html

[SNIP]http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Colorful/iGame_GTX_980_Ti/images/gta5_3840_2160.gif[/IMG]
Click to expand...

GTA V is very sensitive to where you record your FPS - in the city/indoors results in much higher FPS than driving out in the country. Also, our settings are presented as best playable settings in that chart, meaning we have a good gaming experience. Looking at the numbers on the link you referenced, they're running all settings on very high (and unsure if they're running the advanced settings or not). That can easily account for the difference.
 
David_Schroth said:
GTA V is very sensitive to where you record your FPS - in the city/indoors results in much higher FPS than driving out in the country. Also, our settings are presented as best playable settings in that chart, meaning we have a good gaming experience. Looking at the numbers on the link you referenced, they're running all settings on very high (and unsure if they're running the advanced settings or not). That can easily account for the difference.
Click to expand...

David, do you ever post videos of your test runs? It'd be nice to see what's considered playable vs unplayable (as I suspect different players have different standards). Note this really has nothing to do with this specific thread.

Thanks
 
Brent_Justice said:
We are getting components together, I have a few pieces of the build so far. Kyle is on it. Going to be a completely new build just for SFF.

I will begin the Nano review after these CF reviews, which is much more interesting IMO. Fury CrossFire? Fury X CrossFire? 390X CrossFire? compared to 980 Ti SLI, 980 SLI, and using a new game, I'm having fun :)
Click to expand...
What cases are you using for the 390X and 980 SLI systems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top