AMD Radeon Pro Duo Announcement @ [H]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the sort of person who buys this product will almost certainly run some benchmarks and post the results on the internet, that doesn't seem like a very smart attitude. People are eventually going to figure out how it performs, and either crow than spending $1500 was worth it, or kvetch that it was overpriced.
I guess our work is done here then. Time to shut down HardOCP and forums and move on.
 
I will *never* buy a card with included liquid cooling. I live temps of hell in the summer. No need to be adding to that.

What's the difference? Its still generating the same amount of heat and dumping that heat into your room. The question is whether or not the core will remain cool while doing so.
 
I just can't see the excitement in this announcement. Isn't it just 2 Fury X downclocked in CF? Performance probably is going to be the same with 2 way Fury X (give or take a few percentage) so pretty much we don't even need to wait for any review, do we?
 
What's the difference? Its still generating the same amount of heat and dumping that heat into your room. The question is whether or not the core will remain cool while doing so.
Yes, you are 100% correct. I think his point however is that he will not buy another card that produces enough heat to "require" liquid cooling.
 
I've bought both AMD and Nvidia cards. I'll buy the best brand that works for me. I will *never* buy a card with included liquid cooling. I live temps of hell in the summer. No need to be adding to that.

With Fiji this type of cooling ensures the GPU can it its "Up To" 1000MHz clock rate. Otherwise, with its dynamic clocking it would perform like the Nano does, around the 800MHz region. Therefore, this cooling ensures the best performance the GPU is capable of, and gives us some play room for overclocking.
 
I just can't see the excitement in this announcement. Isn't it just 2 Fury X downclocked in CF? Performance probably is going to be the same with 2 way Fury X (give or take a few percentage) so pretty much we don't even need to wait for any review, do we?

No, re-read the article. It is two Fury X's on a single PCB in CF at the same specs and clock speeds.
 
No, re-read the article. It is two Fury X's on a single PCB in CF at the same specs and clock speeds.
Look like we're having some confusion here: fury x gpu is 1050 whereas the fury pro duo is 1000 Mhz, right? Or am I missing something?
 
"The World's Fastest Graphics Card Not For Consumers"

That's a helluva marketing campaign you got going there, AMD. That's really going to turn things around.
 
It might have been a more compelling product for gamers if it had been released around the holiday season. With Polaris and Pascal on the horizon, I'm not sure there will be much of a gaming market for these cards. Whether AMD needed this much time to harvest enough low power dies or simply waited for VR headsets to enter the market, I think the sweet spot for enthusiast sales of this card has come and gone.

But if these cards can be transformed into a semi-professional level product simply through drivers then they may prove to be a bargain for people using software such as Autodesk, Maya, and Blackmagic Davinci Resolve.
 
Why do they want to avoid sites like HardOCP reviewing this? Are they just worried that the verdict is going to be "Meh, buy two 980Tis and a keg of beer instead?" Or is just they're not on amicable terms with [H] in particular for some reason?

They are scared of their sauce being found weak too early.
They might get away with more pre orders before the trusting souls get wind.

Even if it can perform well in a best of scenario, it will have dual card issues.
I fell foul to AMDs support of this, never again.
Driver updates are late as well.
 
It might have been a more compelling product for gamers if it had been released around the holiday season. With Polaris and Pascal on the horizon, I'm not sure there will be much of a gaming market for these cards. Whether AMD needed this much time to harvest enough low power dies or simply waited for VR headsets to enter the market, I think the sweet spot for enthusiast sales of this card has come and gone.

But if these cards can be transformed into a semi-professional level product simply through drivers then they may prove to be a bargain for people using software such as Autodesk, Maya, and Blackmagic Davinci Resolve.

That will never happen, professional software is built with hardware in mind, the features of the hardware. This is why Quadro has been so successful. Doing a dual GPU cards for professionals, that just doesn't make sense because the software most of them don't need dual GPU processing, can't really use it......

So its left to the gamer side only.
 
But if these cards can be transformed into a semi-professional level product simply through drivers then they may prove to be a bargain for people using software such as Autodesk, Maya, and Blackmagic Davinci Resolve.

This is already the case, FirePro drivers work with this card! It is a hell of a deal!
 
Edit: I guess my feeling is that availability of the hardware might have more to do with AMD not providing review samples than a fear of bad reviews. Especially for a $1500 graphics card, I'd imagine they don't actually even make that many of them. Maybe I'm just naiive[SIC], though.
You got the last part of that correct, although it is spelled wrong. ;) There have been HardOCP readers posting pictures here of cards they have for weeks now. AMD wants you to see the card, it just does not want HardOCP.com to show it to you.
 
Meh.
AMD needs to get over themselves and sample out their stuff for review.
That and multi-GPU support has been pretty crappy across the board lately.
I'll spend my 1500 dollars on something else thank you.

Always have to be skeptical of anything you can't back up in the real world.

That Maingear set-up is real pretty though.

Why? How many hardware sites are testing VR anything? Not many, if any. Anyone benchmarking 3ds? Maya? I agree this is an ill timed announcement, but I do not see why they should be obliged to hand out ANY cards to reviewers. The Nano was a different story all together. This would be (sort of) like sampling an M6000 to [H]...why would Nvidia do that?
 
They are going to need more than just friendly hardware sites to make it in the long run...

Oh and only pictures supplied by AMD, and slides provided by AMD.

When some real actual performance numbers and comparisons are released, I'd be interested. AMD has popped my hype bubble way too many times.

They would rather generate their own charts and comparisons and call them marketing materials, then slather them all over Twitter and the tech sites. Most tech sites will just regurgitate whatever they are fed, anyhow, so this is working for them.
 
Why? How many hardware sites are testing VR anything? Not many, if any. Anyone benchmarking 3ds? Maya? I agree this is an ill timed announcement, but I do not see why they should be obliged to hand out ANY cards to reviewers. The Nano was a different story all together. This would be (sort of) like sampling an M6000 to [H]...why would Nvidia do that?

And I agree with this statement, but if that is the purpose of the product, why is not branded "FirePro" and why would AMD be talking about "World's Fastest Graphics Card?" This product is grouped with AMD Radeon Desktop Graphics Cards on its site, and I think these are very much consumer products that fall directly into our realm of testing. AMD is doing whatever it can to keep these out of the hands of the people that are truly qualified to evaluate desktop performance.


upload_2016-4-26_15-1-16.png
 
By the way, it is power throttled not temperature throttled, the Chinese review shows this. Then again, not surprising
 
They don't want to sample to reviewers because other than AAA games where AMD and developers work together, CF is iffy. Even then, there are regressions in drivers or game updates. When you review it, some benchmarks will show slightly less than Fury X performance at 2.5 times the price. No one should be buying these dual GPU cards.
 
Well, it's time to hit up our old pal Roy Taylor on twitter and see if he can clarify things.

Didn't he say something dumb and get fired? I remember his Twitter or something disappeared after saying something dumb but didn't keep up with it.
 
Didn't he say something dumb and get fired? I remember his Twitter or something disappeared after saying something dumb but didn't keep up with it.

Nah, I think he just got muzzled and a slap on the wrist. His twitter is still showing AMD-related activity.
 
I think the real takeaway from this is that AMD is not enough of a believer in their card to submit it to testing. By avoiding testing, they can continue to justify their $1500 price tag for a short while longer until some of these are in the wild.

The flip side, is if they feel that gaming sites are unfair to their cards, in which case part of the reason why we have forum members having the cards before H staffers is they hope that those who actually use the card will report positive things about it, to potentially diffuse "reviewer bias" if AMD feels that is the issue, and in this case H is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, because to AMD, all review sites are lumped together.

Or maybe its a mix of the two? Who knows? I think though there's potentially a lot of truth to the above. The only thing I'd caution AMD on is if they really think that there are review sites on NVidia's payroll so to speak (and in this day an age, I'd believe it about a lot of websites), they need to learn to have a better discerning eye and then gift the sites who are fair with cards and cultivate those relationships. How they are going about it is wrong.
 
I think the real takeaway from this is that AMD is not enough of a believer in their card to submit it to testing. By avoiding testing, they can continue to justify their $1500 price tag for a short while longer until some of these are in the wild.

The flip side, is if they feel that gaming sites are unfair to their cards, in which case part of the reason why we have forum members having the cards before H staffers is they hope that those who actually use the card will report positive things about it, to potentially diffuse "reviewer bias" if AMD feels that is the issue, and in this case H is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, because to AMD, all review sites are lumped together.

Or maybe its a mix of the two? Who knows? I think though there's potentially a lot of truth to the above. The only thing I'd caution AMD on is if they really think that there are review sites on NVidia's payroll so to speak (and in this day an age, I'd believe it about a lot of websites), they need to learn to have a better discerning eye and then gift the sites who are fair with cards and cultivate those relationships. How they are going about it is wrong.
I think most of the real nvidia bias simply comes from the games tested running better on nvidia hardware, I imagine as new games are added (like aots and hitman) it will seem less biased
 
I think most of the real nvidia bias simply comes from the games tested running better on nvidia hardware, I imagine as new games are added (like aots and hitman) it will seem less biased
AotS and Hitman, you mean games that does nothing to showcase actually graphical quality that could be pushed forward by DX12 and look like they were produced 3 to 5 years ago? These are not games that bode well for giving gamers a reason to buy a new graphics card at all.

But let's save that discussion for another thread please. Let's stay on topic here and keep on point about the specific card.
 
From PCGamer:

Dual-GPU cards have always been a niche market, and the Pro Duo takes that to a new level. The last dual-GPU card from AMD, the R9 295X2, was roughly equivalent to CrossFire R9 290X (with lowered clocks unless you overclocked), and it was priced at $1499, compared to $549 for individual 290X cards. It also launched six months after those cards, and the market was still languishing in 28nm land. Radeon Pro Duo targets that same price, $1499, but this time the R9 Nano has already dropped to $499. Perhaps more problematic is that we're nine months after the Fury X, but we're also about two months before the 14nm FinFET Polaris parts are rumored to arrive.

And that, in a nutshell, is why AMD isn't sampling the card to reviewers—they can guess what we would say: "too little, too late, and too expensive." They're pretty much right. Other than occupying a single slot and using a single closed loop liquid cooler, it's not any faster than a pair of R9 Nano cards. But AMD is throwing a bit of a curve ball here as they're touting this as a professional card rather than just a gaming monster.

I do agree with the train of thought that AMD dropped the ball on not getting this out for reviewers and in a few other areas like price. But I don't think this is another round of AMD singling out Kyle/HardOCP
 
At risk of derailing the thread, that's my big beef with games nowadays. They almost all look like they could have been made 3-5 years ago. No one is trying to push the envelope anymore.
Its becoming harder and harder to do it, you have think about it as this, even though GPU's have been going up in performance a little bit less than before, we are running across a problem of increasing fidelity needs much more computational power. Also artwork is harder to make as well, animations and what not are more complex cost more to do, etc. The cost of making games are becoming more and what we need from GPU' performance for more advanced lighting techniques the performance isn't going up as quickly. If a developer really wants to push things they can, but the cost of it is going to be higher and the end results, might not run well on today's systems. Look at the consoles, what we have in there, crap GPU's (to what is available on the PC), if developers are focused on console develop. All art assets are going to be focused on them first. Are they going to redo the artwork for PC's? Probably not.
 
But I don't think this is another round of AMD singling out Kyle/HardOCP
FWIW, HardOCP was not singled out last time either, several sites that you would expect to get samples were left out. This is AMD's new plan for controlling the spin.
 
Its becoming harder and harder to do it, you have think about it as this, even though GPU's have been going up in performance a little bit less than before, we are running across a problem of increasing fidelity needs much more computational power. Also artwork is harder to make as well, animations and what not are more complex cost more to do, etc. The cost of making games are becoming more and what we need from GPU' performance for more advanced lighting techniques the performance isn't going up as quickly. If a developer really wants to push things they can, but the cost of it is going to be higher and the end results, might not run well on today's systems. Look at the consoles, what we have in there, crap GPU's (to what is available on the PC), if developers are focused on console develop. All art assets are going to be focused on them first. Are they going to redo the artwork for PC's? Probably not.


Used to be though PC was the domain of pushing that envelope. You had games driving the technology, being the reason to get that next graphics card.

I think its actually different, because while assets are indeed more complicated, tools are also more advanced to help cope.

No, my opinion is that we're at a point now where most of the smaller companies have been absorbed by larger publishers who, like Hollywood, are more interested in risk management and idea recycling than something that truly innovates but might flop. And part of me doesn't blame them, but at the same time, you learn to appreciate those who take the risk, and they end up creating something wonderful. (FYI, Pre Alpha UT is the first game in a while to really make me happy I played it - perfect mix of new and nostalgia, and damn if it isn't the most fun I've had in a long time).
 
I almost asked if they think we are that stupid...but then I watch Josh Earnest controlling the spin (as they have since day one with the new administration)...they might actually think we are that stupid. We are not, and see right through the mumbo jumbo double talk. If that is indeed the thought process. Who knows? I still see it as a card for developers. As there is not a developer level review site, for people who really care about the drivers and can utilize them. Why?? It might make the card look bad, as it is not the intended use. Cert drivers are expensive, that's why M/K/W series cards cost so dang much. That and the RAM. AMD has created a card specifically for developing VR, I do not believe they are lying when they say it is the most powerful graphics card. 16.3Tflops performance crushes anything else out there, so they have their halo card and it happens to game - M series can too! - as well.

Anyway, odd card (kind of, I guess like a Titan Black?) and odd timing. I just doubt anything malicious is the intent here. More like, ineptness possibly.

While I think it is a powerful card, just how many games are gonna leverage that power? CrossFire and SLI supports have been pretty subpar from both camps lately so chances are you are not getting the best experience you can get for the price you are paying. Even if this is a halo card, it is a poor one at best.

If this was for developers, just called it FirePro from the beginning so there is no damn confusion, I swear AMD Marketing comes up with hodgepodge ideas and hope it works.
 
When I looked at what was needed for Adobe Premiere accelerated encoding of 4K footage 4GB of GPU ram was the minimum. As soon as filters, layers and effects got applied the GPU would need to have greater than 4GB. This card barely can accelerate 4K recordings because the data is mirrored to each GPU ram (idiotic 8GB branding). VR rendering I can assume is working with significantly more data than 4K (4k per eye, then all the data for the full 360 sphere), so this card appears completely worthless for the advertised use. Someone enlighten me please.
 
Why do we need the soft-touch surface?
You can replace it...they released CAD data previously for other cards.

Granted, Xfire support has not been the best, I have always avoided two cards of either camp unless if just. Makes. Sense. As in, the games I am playing have profiles and have been benched, plus I do not have to upgrade PS or it is cost prohibitive.

I always hope two cards on one card will be much faster than Xfire or SLI, I mean that would make sense wouldn you think? But usually does not, which probably translates to poor driver/dev support. The power is there, utilize it! Anyway, this IS a card for develops, LiquidVr man. One GPU per eye, now THAT makes sense! Hope it works out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top