AMD Radeon VII 33-Game Benchmark: "It Makes the GTX 2080 Look Pretty Good"

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,573
it maybe a good 500 dollar card.

The RTX 2080 is a good $450-$500 card. The VII is a poor card all around even at that price unless you are doing certain kinds of more workstation oriented processing but can't or won't shell out for a real workstation card.
 

Bahn Yuki

n00b
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
54
Well glad I kept my GTX 1080ti. Two years and a die shrink that they tout as the first 7NM "Gaming GPU", AMD brings me nothing new to the table. It's a sad day that I have to look to Intel to give Nvidia any competition.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,389
That's false.

Navi is intended to replace Vega.

Also, the only reason AMD would price it that low is if NVIDIA release the next generation that offers Geforce RTX 2070 performance for $300

I thought AMD was the one who was supposed to keep GPU (and CPU) prices in check, not the other way around.
 

chaos4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
349
The RTX 2080 is a good $450-$500 card. The VII is a poor card all around even at that price unless you are doing certain kinds of more workstation oriented processing but can't or won't shell out for a real workstation card.


so umm where do i find these 400 - 500 dollar rtx 2080 cards ??
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
What method are you using to load 19.2.1?
Vega FE single card, load Pro Drivers 19.Q1, Load Pro Gaming Drivers 18.8.1 (most recent supported gaming driver), switch to 18.8.1 gaming drivers and update to 19.2.1 using EZ setup. I have 19.2.1 installed and gaming on them. Installed second card, CFX with two Vega FE's which broke CFX with Far Cry 5 but is working with Metro 2033 Redux (playing currently). Looking forward to playing Far Cry 5 New Dawn but without CFX will be disappointing.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
Wow! That just made this card worth it particularly for the content creators, Cad users, Medical and the list goes on with gaming around a 2080 level. What is super neat is you can load either the Pro Drivers or the gaming drivers separately, Vega FE was more restricted making you have to load Pro Drivers. My interest has perked up some now. Great news!
 

STEvil

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
2,819
Vega FE single card, load Pro Drivers 19.Q1, Load Pro Gaming Drivers 18.8.1 (most recent supported gaming driver), switch to 18.8.1 gaming drivers and update to 19.2.1 using EZ setup. I have 19.2.1 installed and gaming on them. Installed second card, CFX with two Vega FE's which broke CFX with Far Cry 5 but is working with Metro 2033 Redux (playing currently). Looking forward to playing Far Cry 5 New Dawn but without CFX will be disappointing.

hm, tempted to try. Never had luck with any of the gaming drivers installing without using Pro to do it though. 18.9.3 is latest I have in Pro options.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,709
hm, tempted to try. Never had luck with any of the gaming drivers installing without using Pro to do it though. 18.9.3 is latest I have in Pro options.
I did not have 18.9.3 as an option, highest was 18.8.1. When I installed 19.2.1 gaming driver it came up as 18.9.3 in the driver choices but then says when loaded 19.2.1. Some weird stuff. 18.9.3 maybe better for Far Cry 5 CFX, 18.9.1 worked flawless there.
 

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
That's false.

Navi is intended to replace Vega.

Also, the only reason AMD would price it that low is if NVIDIA release the next generation that offers Geforce RTX 2070 performance for $300

*Sigh*

This is all going over your head.

YES, Navi from a technical standpoint is replacing Vega.

But from a price point standpoint, Navi is allegedly taking over the low-to-mid price points, which is where Polaris is currently.

When Navi is released, they will wean off the Polaris brand.

I really shouldn't have had to spell it out like that ...
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,308
But, but, but...what about 4k?

;)

Okay, I'm still waiting for Navi. The Radeon VII is an obvious stopgap. I say that as an AMD fan (check the sig: Vega 56 and R9 390, and very old Nvidia's).

Holiday Season 2019 will change everything. Feliz NAVI-dad...indeed.

I finally gave up waiting for any AMD GPU.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
*Sigh*

This is all going over your head.

YES, Navi from a technical standpoint is replacing Vega.

But from a price point standpoint, Navi is allegedly taking over the low-to-mid price points, which is where Polaris is currently.

When Navi is released, they will wean off the Polaris brand.

I really shouldn't have had to spell it out like that ...

The supposed "rumor" you keep citing from FakeTV makes no sense.

If the video card is 15% faster than Radeon RX Vega 64, why would AMD sell it for $250?
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,940
The supposed "rumor" you keep citing from FakeTV makes no sense.

If the video card is 15% faster than Radeon RX Vega 64, why would AMD sell it for $250?
Why would any modern gpu cost less? I don't know if it'll be $250 or perform similarly to vega 64, but if it costs less to produce I see no reason for the price not to come down some. At least to a similar level of revenue or to match a the price of a card from the competition if the performance is there.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Why would any modern gpu cost less? I don't know if it'll bee $250 or perform similarly to vega 64, but if it costs less to produce I see no reason for the price not to come down some. At least to a similar level of revenue or to match a the price of a card from the competition if the performance is there.

1.

Vega wasn't exactly profitable

The point of Navi is to make Vega cheaper so that AMD can finally make some money from the design.

2.

Market dictates the prices, not the manufacturing cost.

If AMD can sell it at, let's say, $450, it doesn't make sense to sell at $250.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,940
1.

Vega wasn't exactly profitable

The point of Navi is to make Vega cheaper so that AMD can finally make some money from the design.

2.

Market dictates the prices, not the manufacturing cost.

If AMD can sell it at, let's say, $450, it doesn't make sense to sell at $250.
Right, which is why I said I don't know if it'll be $250. I don't see why it would have to be the same price as vega 64, though, especially if a similarly performing chip from nvidia costs less.

That said, they could also lower the vega price.
 

R_Type

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
213
HBM may be more efficient, but how about the fabric connecting that memory to the GPU? Also, we're talking about almost double the memory. It may be more efficient, but 100%?
A wide but slow bus will always be more efficient than a narrow but fast one. A lot of engineering hoops have to be jumped through to make a high speed bus (voltages + signifigant extra logic) and that comes with a hefty penalty in terms of power consumption.
Honestly hbm holds all the cards vs GDDR x/y/z except cost. Although cost is a trump card 9 times out of 10.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Right, which is why I said I don't know if it'll be $250. I don't see why it would have to be the same price as vega 64, though, especially if a similarly performing chip from nvidia costs less.

That said, they could also lower the vega price.

What I am saying is this: It will be priced base on how it performs compare to the competitor's (NVIDIA's) product.

Don't expect insanely low prices.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
What I am saying is this: It will be priced base on how it performs compare to the competitor's (NVIDIA's) product.

Don't expect insanely low prices.

They lose money on every card. How many do you want them to sell so they can "buy" market share?

They are not jacking up prices $200-300 for profit. If that was the case they could just lower the card $200 and gain alot more market share.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
They lose money on every card. How many do you want them to sell so they can "buy" market share?

They are not jacking up prices $200-300 for profit. If that was the case they could just lower the card $200 and gain alot more market share.

I think you intended to quote someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this

Bawjaws

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
446
1.

Vega wasn't exactly profitable

The point of Navi is to make Vega cheaper so that AMD can finally make some money from the design.

2.

Market dictates the prices, not the manufacturing cost.

If AMD can sell it at, let's say, $450, it doesn't make sense to sell at $250.
Just to expand on the bolded part for a second: the prices are a combination of what the market will support, the cost of manufacturing and the R&D cost of the product. AMD, Nvidia, Intel, and everyone else are looking to maintain as large a margin on sales as possible, so there's no way that AMD will sell a product that competes with an Nvidia equivalent at a price that's way lower. You might find that competition leads to lower prices in time as the two companies compete on price to drive sales, but it would be financial suicide for AMD to lead with drastically lower prices right out of the gate, mostly because they need to recoup the massive R&D costs (and this is true of all new tech products).

There's also the issue of perception: if Nvidia's GPUs are more expensive than AMD's then you shouldn't underestimate the number of people who might assume (subconsciously or otherwise) that that implies that Nvidia's products are higher quality. Hell, it works for Apple ;)

But basically, I'd imagine that anyone hoping that AMD will come in with an equivalent product at a much lower price is going to be disappointed.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
Well, there's the Geforce RTX 2060 and Radeon RX Vega 56 for $350

Yea they give me hope that if my card dies, i can replace it using the same amount of cash, and get the same amount of performance. At least its not like it was 9-12 months ago, where if your 2-3 year old card died, you just put your gaming rig in a box because you couldnt afford to fix it.
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,582
Just to expand on the bolded part for a second: the prices are a combination of what the market will support, the cost of manufacturing and the R&D cost of the product. AMD, Nvidia, Intel, and everyone else are looking to maintain as large a margin on sales as possible, so there's no way that AMD will sell a product that competes with an Nvidia equivalent at a price that's way lower. You might find that competition leads to lower prices in time as the two companies compete on price to drive sales, but it would be financial suicide for AMD to lead with drastically lower prices right out of the gate, mostly because they need to recoup the massive R&D costs (and this is true of all new tech products).

There's also the issue of perception: if Nvidia's GPUs are more expensive than AMD's then you shouldn't underestimate the number of people who might assume (subconsciously or otherwise) that that implies that Nvidia's products are higher quality. Hell, it works for Apple ;)

But basically, I'd imagine that anyone hoping that AMD will come in with an equivalent product at a much lower price is going to be disappointed.
AMD is going to be trying to regain market share. If the profit margins are there then they should shake up the market. They've done it in the past.
With low cost/high perf parts it would do them no good for them to be a Nvidia me-too. Ya they would make more per card, but would gain nothing overall in the market mind-share dominated situation that they currently find themselves a distant second in.
It's the art of war. If they don't attack when they have an advantage (7nm) when should they?
You don't think the market is smart enough to quickly sway towards an incredible bargain? LOL. After the crypto inflation I think the savvy consumer is ready to pounce.
Make Nvidia slash their prices. Their larger node and bulkier cores are ripe for undercutting. But the window will be small grass-hopper.
 
Last edited:

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
The supposed "rumor" you keep citing from FakeTV makes no sense.

If the video card is 15% faster than Radeon RX Vega 64, why would AMD sell it for $250?
Aggressive market share. it's a tactic AMD has done before. So there is a history there. Sorry your feelings are hurt by a rumor.
 

nightanole

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,013
$699, comes with all 10 AAA titles coming out in the next 6 months, please buy our stuff and replace our stuff every year, we cant lower the price any more and cant bump performance to the point it shows on the butt dyno.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Aggressive market share. it's a tactic AMD has done before. So there is a history there. Sorry your feelings are hurt by a rumor.

Do you know AMD has to pay the bills too?

Aside from the cost of manufacturing, profit for for AIBs and retailers, etc. etc., AMD also has pay for research and development and those aren't cheap.
 

Zion Halcyon

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
2,108
Do you know AMD has to pay the bills too?

Aside from the cost of manufacturing, profit for for AIBs and retailers, etc. etc., AMD also has pay for research and development and those aren't cheap.

Well aware. However as I said, there is a history here of AMD doing exactly what the rumor suggested.

Sometimes you take an immediate loss in order to grab more market share.

Not to mention, you don't know if under the navi technology, if certain parts are cheaper to make and if production costs are less thus allowing them to lower the price.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
Well aware. However as I said, there is a history here of AMD doing exactly what the rumor suggested.

Sometimes you take an immediate loss in order to grab more market share.

Not to mention, you don't know if under the navi technology, if certain parts are cheaper to make and if production costs are less thus allowing them to lower the price.

If you haven't noticed by now, under Su, AMD has been about grabbing money from enthusiasts who are willing to drop the big bucks on hardware.

Also, since AMD has been losing money with Vega, it doesn't make sense to lower prices with Navi when AMD can keep the prices the same and pocket the profit (assuming that Navi is competitive with Touring).
 
Last edited:

Bawjaws

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
446
Not to mention, you don't know if under the navi technology, if certain parts are cheaper to make and if production costs are less thus allowing them to lower the price
BoM is only a fraction of the cost, though. A very large part of it is R&D and those costs will be significant for a new architecture.

Also, I don't think we know anywhere near enough at all about Navi to be able to suggest that it will somehow be cheaper to produce than its predecessor (and if it's on a smaller node then it'll probably be more expensive if anything).

In short, I think it's wishful thinking to hope that Navi will be significantly cheaper than its Nvidia comparator. It would be great if it was, but AMD have to pay the bills just like Nvidia do (and are almost certainly sitting on far smaller cash stockpiles).
 
Top