AMD's best Big Navi GPU may only be a match for Nvidia Ampere's second tier

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,033
I heard AMD is going to repurpose the Vega introduction video and replace the V with an N:


Since Raja is gone, the Capsaicin spice isn't needed anymore. It's going to be a Navi 2x Creamfest ™ . Jensen better watch out..Navi 2x is coming...Navi 2x Creamfest 2020-2021 ™ , book your tickets now.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,559
You're trying to put words into my mouth. What I'm saying is that people typically can't afford to buy every machine. That's why you have fanboys. That's why you have Genesis vs Super Nintendo fanboys. Obviously the best thing to do is buy all the gaming machines but obviously people usually don't have that kind of disposable income. Some do, most don't.

You don't think that wasn't a problem at some point for AMD?

Businesses have done it in the past. Ask Intel, they're experts at it.

Putting words in my mouth again.

It shouldn't work that way but history has shown that it has.


I don't have any evidence other than personal experience. Not all 3rd party games were ported to PC and what got ported was terribly done. I believe Batman Arkham Knight has turned things around for PC ports. Games like Dark Souls had terrible ports and made it seem like PC gamers were second class citizens. This is why Dark Souls Remastered left a bad taste in my mouth since From Software didn't want to fix the mess that was Dark Souls back in 2012.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. The Switch is too weak to get some 3rd party titles that you see on PS4/XB1/PC. Hence, it isn't directly competing in that market.

I feel that it is very relavent, and Switch owners will know what I mean once the PS5 and Xbox Series X are released.


If the money was greater on console they would. But Nvidia owns the majority of the discrete GPU market. Nvidia probably wouldn't see console gaming a lucrative enough business to let it effect their other sources of income. AMD on the other hand is barely scratching the discrete GPU market.


Because Nvidia wasn't all that much better than Qualcomm and Samsung's SoC's and costed more. It isn't exactly hard to build an ARM SoC. Just ask China and all the Allwinner and etc chips they just fart out.

Nvidia hasn't had the best history when it comes to working with others.
You've stated more than once that I've put words in your mouth and then turned around in your response to essentially say what you 'just denied'. I'm putting words in your mouth about what "Microsoft and Sony enforce", and then you turn around and say history shows that it has (or that they do).
Your whole premise is bunk and now we're way off course morphed into having a discussion about things that weren't even your original point.
The idea that Sony and or Microsoft has any control over what AMD does in the desktop space is ludicrous. You have zero evidence and you don't even have annecdotal evidence to prove your position. Other than to say "Intel has done it" a passive aggressive statement that apparently you feel you can apply to any company carte blanche.

Arguments against the Switch are tertiary at best. And talking about its power is side stepping the entire idea of a substitute good. People are using it as their only and primary gaming device. It matters literally not at all that other machines likely eclipse its power by 8-10x. The only way you can discount it is simply if you say Switch gamers are irrelevant. You're trying to put them into another category and you can't. They operate in the same space as the other consoles. Third party software matters far less than first party software.

If the money was greater on console they would. But Nvidia owns the majority of the discrete GPU market. Nvidia probably wouldn't see console gaming a lucrative enough business to let it effect their other sources of income. AMD on the other hand is barely scratching the discrete GPU market.
Citation needed. I dare you to spend the time to figure out the percentage of money AMD makes on discrete GPU's versus consoles. This is such an absurd statement. Console sales allow AMD to enjoy another source of income, but it pales in comparison to what they make on the desktop. Even being significantly smaller than nVidia.

AMD is just going to make a high end GPU that'll be around $700 with maybe a slightly cheaper and slower version. We've seen AMD do this before with the R9 290, Fury, and Radeon VII. But if Nvidia's RTX 3070 costs $400 and performs like a RTX 2080 Ti then AMD is in big trouble. That would be intentional by Nvidia as I believe Nvidia is aware that they don't want PC gamers to buy these consoles, but instead buy their GPU's.
What you're describing is competition. In no way has this hasn't been an issue. Again, AMD has no problem with being bang for the buck and tier 2 in a two horse race. They still sell every chip they make. nVidia can be ahead by 100%. That doesn't invalidate a second option if properly priced.
But linking AMD's position in second place to anything that is happening on consoles is absurd. You have zero evidence of this, quite the contrary as has been shown multiple times.
And to repeat a second time, AMD doesn't care if zero consoles are sold. They make their money on contract either way. And they'll go about selling parts on desktop just fine.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,947
I love this quote:
Thanksgiving launch: This is big for obvious reasons, but AMD being able to be inside of the next-gen Xbox Series X, the next-gen PlayStation 5, and have an NVIDIA Killer with Big Navi -- all for thanksgiving? What better gift can AMD bring to the table for Thanksgiving than that?!
Who wants to say grace?
 

os2wiz

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
571
"Coreteks' AIB sources also suggest there will be a pair of Big Navi GPUs at launch, based on the same Sienna Cichlid silicon. That's not much of a stretch as this is classic AMD graphics card practice; it's very own rule of two. This typically sees a cut-down card launching alongside the full-fat option. Just think about the RX 5700 XT and RX 5700 last year, RX 580 and RX 570, R9 390X and R9 390… and on and on.

And traditionally we usually end up recommending the lower-spec one as its lower price, and generally only-very-slight specs cut, end up making it a better value card by comparison, offering often very similar performance.

It looks like those two Sienna Cichlid cards will be the only Big Navi GPUs we see this year too, if this report is to be believed. A second fish-based codename, Navy Flounder, has been tied to the new RDNA 2 architecture, and is reportedly a mid-range version of the Big Navi GPU slated for release in the first three months of 2021.

With only the high-end market set to be served at the tail-end of this year, it seems almost certain that most of us are going to have to wait until next year to see anything more affordable than the ultra-enthusiast, ultra-expensive GeForce and Radeon cards."


https://www.pcgamer.com/amd-big-navi-rdna-2-aimed-at-rtx-3080/
This post has been to a large extent been discrediterd by the latest reports from Kamachi and another equally reliable leaker Ro maine. Coreteks report assumed a cu count of 60-64. It actually has a 80 cu count. It also has a higher IPC than the 5700XT and a higher clock speed. Coreteks leak was not about the flagship product by much cut down product, probably the 3rd best offering from AMD, definitely NOY its 2 best models of RDNA2X gpus.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,901
This post has been to a large extent been discrediterd by the latest reports from Kamachi and another equally reliable leaker Ro maine. Coreteks report assumed a cu count of 60-64. It actually has a 80 cu count. It also has a higher IPC than the 5700XT and a higher clock speed. Coreteks leak was not about the flagship product by much cut down product, probably the 3rd best offering from AMD, definitely NOY its 2 best models of RDNA2X gpus.
Coreteks got duped.
 

Marees

Gawd
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
584
Coreteks report assumed a cu count of 60-64. It actually has a 80 cu count. It also has a higher IPC than the 5700XT and a higher clock speed. Coreteks leak was not about the flagship product by much cut down product, probably the 3rd best offering from AMD
As per past leaks 60 CU would be the second best product, the Navi 22 ?

This is what I believe credible:

Navi 21 = 80 CU
Navi 22 = 60 CU
Navi 23 = 40 CU
Navi 10 refresh (without ray tracing) lower down

The last time AMD did a 3 stack launch, it was a doubling all the way thru

Tahiti 79xx = 2x Pitcairn 78xx (R7 270x) = 2x Cape verde 77xx
 
Last edited:

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,091
If people haven't realized yet, but AMD has no interest in competing in the PC GPU market. This is just to make investors happy that AMD is trying. AMD is in a unique situation in that anything they do in one market is a conflict of interest in another. That's why in 2013 AMD has the R9 290 and just recycled their previous gen products by moving them one tier down. They did it again when the released the R9 390 along with the R9 Fury. It wasn't until the RX series where AMD actually released new mid and low range products that wasn't a rebranding. AMD being dominant in the console market means Sony and Microsoft won't be happy seeing AMD making better priced GPU's for the PC market.

Nvidia on the other hand has no problem destroying the console market, like they did with the GTX 970. Once the GTX 970 was released it made the PS4 and XB1 look like toys by comparison. No doubt Nvidia is looking to recreate that difference with the RTX 3000 series. Wouldn't shock me that Nvidia has a RTX 3070 that performs like a RTX 2080 Ti for about $400, while AMD was planning to release RDNA2 for $700 that performs like a RTX 2080 Ti. If the rumors are true about RDNA2 then the PS5 and Xbox Series X's Tflops maybe a terrible metric to determine their performance, and may actually be a lot slower than we anticipated. Look at Halo Infinite graphics on the Xbox Series X. Not looking too different than Halo 3.

View attachment 265859

Pshhh to using Halo Infinite as a judge of what graphics will look like on a next gen console. Since when has Halo had top tier graphics? Not since the original.

Use Unreal 5 engine to judge and here it is running on a PlayStation 5 which is 20% plus slower than Xbox series X. I’m an almost exclusive PC Gamer with a RTX card and we don’t have anything currently that looks this good in the realm of PC gaming right now. Halo Engine has NOTHING on the Unreal Tournament 5 engine which as you can see plays great on PS5 hardware.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,426
This alone should signal that you do not know what you are talking about.
What I was saying if you break the card down into the individual parts (thousands of them) than the actual GPU itself does not generally make up the bulk of the cards cost, less than half in most cases. It was not a comment towards the profits derived towards the cards themselves. But as I worded it poorly and didn't quote it in context with the rest of the conversation that is an error on my part 100%. I should be more clear in my writings.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,426
Pshhh to using Halo Infinite as a judge of what graphics will look like on a next gen console game. Since when has Halo had top tier graphics. Not since the original.

Use Unreal 5 engine to judge and here it is running on a PlayStation 5 which is 20% plus slower than Xbox series X. I’m a Almost exclusive PC Gamer and we don’t have anything currently that looks this good.
There is something to be said when not having to code towards a lowest common denominator to reach a wider audience.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,994
In order for your position to make sense what you say about AMD would also have to hold true for nVidia. It's also not like nVidia didn't try to get those contracts. They do sell (essentially Shield) to Nintendo. Is nVidia concerned that if you buy a video card you won't buy a Switch? Really? The only reason why they didn't land those contracts and AMD did is because AMD can design CPU's and GPU's in the form of APU's. Which, nVidia cannot, meaning that console manufactuers would've had to have an extra supplier, complicating their supply chain (and also increasing cost). Otherwise both contracts could've just as easily gone nVidia's way.
Not the only reason and not just as easily. Nvidia had burned a lot of bridges with console manufacturers.

Use Unreal 5 engine to judge and here it is running on a PlayStation 5 which is 20% plus slower than Xbox series X. I’m an almost exclusive PC Gamer with a RTX card and we don’t have anything currently that looks this good in the realm of PC gaming right now. Halo Engine has NOTHING on the Unreal Tournament 5 engine which as you can see plays great on PS5 hardware.
That is a tech demo, not a game.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,091
That is a tech demo, not a game.
We had tech demos for each of unreal engine versions before and games on the platform ended up looking BETTER than each of the initial tech demos. Let me dig up a video that shows this.

For instance
Unreal engine 4 tech demo launch
 
Last edited:

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
10,091
Yes, at <720p and/or <30 FPS.
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that we won’t see that level of graphics from triple A games on the next gen consoles??? That is unjustifiable.

I’m saying we will see better than this tech demo on next gen consoles by end of cycle. History is on this side of the disagreement. That is as drivers and engine optimizations continue to improve over the next five years. That UE5 engine demo was already running now on PS5 dev hardware. So it can’t get worse. We won’t see that level of graphic quality on many games (because of dev cost) - but there will be a few that beat it.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,994
What are you talking about?

Are you saying that we won’t see that level of graphics from triple A games on the next gen consoles??? That is unjustifiable.

I’m saying we will see better than this tech demo on next gen consoles by end of cycle. History is on this side of the disagreement. That is as drivers and engine optimizations continue to improve over the next five years. That UE5 engine demo was already running now on PS5 dev hardware. So it can’t get worse. We won’t see that level of graphic quality on many games (because of dev cost) - but there will be a few that beat it.
I'm saying be careful with expectations of graphics quality and performance and don't put too much faith in tech demos.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,881
Pshhh to using Halo Infinite as a judge of what graphics will look like on a next gen console. Since when has Halo had top tier graphics? Not since the original.

Use Unreal 5 engine to judge and here it is running on a PlayStation 5 which is 20% plus slower than Xbox series X. I’m an almost exclusive PC Gamer with a RTX card and we don’t have anything currently that looks this good in the realm of PC gaming right now. Halo Engine has NOTHING on the Unreal Tournament 5 engine which as you can see plays great on PS5 hardware.
Wow did some just base graphics performance on halo engine? Lol.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,881
Not the only reason and not just as easily. Nvidia had burned a lot of bridges with console manufacturers.


That is a tech demo, not a game.
Yes it’s a tech demo but it’s a live tech demo. Meaning it’s not CG that you are watching. Halo has never really been about graphics. Although they do have better graphics now but it’s the lighting that is throwing people off. In direct light there is a great detail on items but if they are in shadow it looks washed out. There is a great video on it that someone did breaking it down.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,791
AMD doesn't necessarily need to compete with Nvidia's fastest GPU. They just need to compete at most tiers. If they can compete with the **70s and put out something competent at $450, Nvidia wouldn't be able to price the **70 at $550-600. Likewise, lets say they have a competitor to the **70 at $500 and Nvidia matches that price (or close to it). A $900 **80 would be a tougher sell. A lot of people on the fence may just go with the slower card because a $400 increase for ~20% performance increase may not be worth it to them.

The more tiers they compete the better, but they don't need to compete at the ****ti or Titan Xwhatever to keep prices in check.

AMD's problem in recent years is they haven't been competing against anything above the **60s, and when they do they tend to be late or have some supply issue. The 5700 series is nice, but almost a year late. They need to be on time, have cards to sell and compete in the upper end just slightly. Now if they can compete with the **80s or Tis, that is even better.
 
Last edited:

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,033
I don't give much credence to any of the nearly daily rumors.

I just look at facts, and do reasonable extrapolation.

We know for a Fact that "Big Navi" is coming this year. AMD has repeatedly said this.
Big Navi will Be RDNA 2, RDNA 2 will have RT-DXR support.
AMD has access to the same world class process technology as NVidia, and is no longer saddled with the Global Foundries albatross limiting its GPUs.
RDNA 1 a big gain in GPU gaming transistor efficiency. Vega was hopeless. AMD need massively more transistors than NVidia to offer the same performance. There was no chance AMD could compete for the top end, even if they wanted to. The deficit was just too great. But with RDNA, they are now close to equal. I won't quibble about who is in front. They are now close enough, that AMD can compete for the top end if they want to. For the first time in a long time.

So this is where we are, AMD has fixed the two things (process and architecture) that practically prevented them for competing for the high end. AMD has access to the same process tech, a GPU architecture with essentially near transistor parity, so for the first time in a long time we have real potential for competition at the top end.

So what can we extrapolate from that?

IMO If they were to each build a 700mm2 chip, they would perform similarly on the same process.

The biggest difference will end up being who will make the biggest chip. Given recent history, NVidia is usually usually pushes chip boundary farther.

If I were to place odds, the would be NVidia having a bigger chip and eeking out the top end win again, but AMD will be much closer behind. Both cards will offer significant gains over 2080ti.

I expect AMDs top part will be significantly ahead of 3080 (not Ti), but will likely fall short of what ever crazy train, giant die 3090/titan NVidia release for $1500+...

This is definitely shaping up to be the best competitive launch in ages. I just hope we get some good perf/$ gains. While this be the best aligned launch in ages, I don't expect anyone wants to really wants to a price war to give us a big perf/$ boost.
Most of this sounds reasonable except you can’t extrapolate Navi 2 performance based on Navi 1. Reason is the missing dxr transistor count and performance which is a complete mystery right now. AMD usually fumbles on large chip designs with a bottleneck and I fully expect to see this happen with Navi 2. I predict that Navi 2 at best will match 3080 but not get close (eg 5-10% across the board) to 3080 ti/3090 whatever.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,864
You have zero evidence and you don't even have annecdotal evidence to prove your position.
You know that's how speculation works right? You use what little evidence that exists and you extrapolate based on it.
Other than to say "Intel has done it" a passive aggressive statement that apparently you feel you can apply to any company carte blanche.
Intel did it because Intel was in a position of power, and right now Sony and Microsoft dominate the console market, using AMD hardware. It just makes sense that AMD doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them, and that maybe Sony and Microsoft. We don't know if AMD is limiting their PC market, but where is the PC RDNA2 GPU? Won't be out for months, and even then it'll be expensive. Especially compared to PS5 and Xbox Series X. The irony is that rumors suggest it won't be as fast as Nvidia's fastest RTX 3080 or 3090.
Arguments against the Switch are tertiary at best. And talking about its power is side stepping the entire idea of a substitute good. People are using it as their only and primary gaming device.
So wait, you argued that people buy multiple hardware and now tell me that people use it as their primary gaming device? Kinda flip flopping there.
It matters literally not at all that other machines likely eclipse its power by 8-10x.
It will when 3rd party games require 8-10x the Switch.

Citation needed. I dare you to spend the time to figure out the percentage of money AMD makes on discrete GPU's versus consoles.
Obviously you and I don't know the answer to that but I do know that when console sales dropped it hurt AMD's revenue. So if console revenue was no big thing then why is the lack of console sales hurting AMD?

What you're describing is competition. In no way has this hasn't been an issue. Again, AMD has no problem with being bang for the buck and tier 2 in a two horse race. They still sell every chip they make. nVidia can be ahead by 100%. That doesn't invalidate a second option if properly priced.
You're not getting what I'm saying. AMD's Big Navi RDNA2 based GPU maybe be priced at $700 with HBM memory and etc, but might find itself competing against Nvidia's $400 GPU. Hilarious as a consumer, and beneficial since that means we're going to see some cheap fast GPU's, but not something I think AMD was expecting. All this hype over RDNA2 and Big Navi and we've yet to see any leaked numbers. Leaks are not by accident, and I'm sure the person leaking it broke a NDA and is in some serious trouble. We're not seeing any performance leaks lately, are we?
 
Last edited:

Ready4Dis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,761
AMD doesn't necessarily need to compete with Nvidia's fastest GPU. They just need to compete at most tiers. If they can compete with the **70s and put out something competent at $450, Nvidia wouldn't be able to price the **70 at $550-600. Likewise, lets say they have a competitor to the **70 at $500 and Nvidia matches that price (or close to it). A $900 **80 would be a tougher sell. A lot of people on the fence may just go with the slower card because a $400 increase for ~20% performance increase may not be worth it to them.

The more tiers they compete the better, but they don't need to compete at the ****ti or Titan Xwhatever to keep prices in check.

AMD's problem in recent years is they haven't been competing against anything above the **60s, and when they do they tend to be late or have some supply issue. The 5700 series is nice, but almost a year late. They need to be on time, have cards to sell and compete in the upper end just slightly. Now if they can compete with the **80s or Tis, that is even better.
You do realize the VII is only 5% slower than the 2080 right? So, they've been competing at 2080 levels for a year and a half now at $700. Don't let facts get in the way though ;).
In all seriousness though, I do agree, they need to compete better.. seems they are slowly getting closer to the top end and they left a lot of room with rdna. A 5700xt only has 40 CUs... While the VII has 60. Seems they could have packed more transistors and made a 5800 XT with 60 CUs that could have completed well. Either they felt it wasn't worth it or the scaling wasn't good enough. If we get a slight better IPC and slightly higher clocks with more CUs, there is no reason to think they can't at least close this gap some. Whether they do or not we will have to wait to see.
 

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
930
You do realize the VII is only 5% slower than the 2080 right? So, they've been competing at 2080 levels for a year and a half now at $700. Don't let facts get in the way though ;)
That’s the thing. The VII was competitive in price and raw FPS and was still a non-factor. There just wasn’t enough positive buzz.
 

Mylex

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2018
Messages
249
That’s the thing. The VII was competitive in price and raw FPS and was still a non-factor. There just wasn’t enough positive buzz.
The RX580 was a better performing card than the more expensive 1060 but people still went green. Sad thing is people did and will continue until AMD releases a winner at the top. People want the best but are cheap so they get the strip down version to say they have something made from the people that make the best.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,947
I think Ryzen has helped. For the longest (and probably still to some people) AMD is equated with a lower quality brand. For CPUs, at least, that is no longer the case.

If they can go head to head with Nvidia on RDNA2, even with high prices on the high-end, they might have a chance to turn that around.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,627
I am not being political but I think the meme fits...

This claim is akin to saying that ..... Trump was going to lose in 2016 by a landslide back in 2016 and that he is going to win/lose by a landslide in 2020.

Put it this way no one knows shit until the damn cards launch.

So ..... Fake News
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,881
I am not being political but I think the meme fits...

This claim is akin to saying that ..... Trump was going to lose in 2016 by a landslide back in 2016 and that he is going to win/lose by a landslide in 2020.

Put it this way no one knows shit until the damn cards launch.

So ..... Fake News
well Hillary was a shit candidate. Look at Bernie vs Hillary in Michigan in 2016 and then Look at Bernie vs Biden in 2020. People voted for Bernie because they hated Hillary it was so close lol. This time Bernie got destroyed vs Biden. Hillary was just hated to the moon, rightly so.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,411
That’s the thing. The VII was competitive in price and raw FPS and was still a non-factor. There just wasn’t enough positive buzz.
And the VII was only in production, and in limited volume at that, for 3-4 months. I still hold that the VII is/was a highly-underrated card and the superior card to 2080 in a few important ways, but it didn't have the momentum to make a dent. Ultimately, it was always a limited-run card meant to offload M150s and keep AMD's toe in the high-end water.

RDNA 2 is s different proposition altogether that stands to seriously disrupt the market share balance at the high end.
 

Ready4Dis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,761
That’s the thing. The VII was competitive in price and raw FPS and was still a non-factor. There just wasn’t enough positive buzz.
I don't disagrees just pointing out they have released something at 2080 levels. They didn't make much push for it and the used prices are still rediculous due to limited supply and being able to get a decent compute card with 16gb without paying workstation prices. I was just hoping they'll be up back up in the performance levels and with a bit more effort.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,881
And the VII was only in production, and in limited volume at that, for 3-4 months. I still hold that the VII is/was a highly-underrated card and the superior card to 2080 in a few important ways, but it didn't have the momentum to make a dent. Ultimately, it was always a limited-run card meant to offload M150s and keep AMD's toe in the high-end water.

RDNA 2 is s different proposition altogether that stands to seriously disrupt the market share balance at the high end.
Agree. I think their focus was all on RDNA2. Rightly so I sort of liked that fact that they didn’t jerk around too much and rolled with RDNA mid range and focused on RDNA2 for high end. VII was just a short lived card. It made sense because most of the time at Lower resolutions 5700xt was really close in performed to VII.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,864
The RX580 was a better performing card than the more expensive 1060 but people still went green. Sad thing is people did and will continue until AMD releases a winner at the top. People want the best but are cheap so they get the strip down version to say they have something made from the people that make the best.
I own a RX 480 and I love the card but when the Bit Coin market boomed the price of RX 580's skyrocketed. This left Nvidia cards like the GTX 1060 as the better bargain during the Bit Coin boom. RX 580's and 570's are starting to creap up in the Steam Hardware Survey, suggesting that people are now starting to pick up these bargains. But as an owner of a Vega 56 and Fury card I can say that AMD doesn't deserve the same money as Nvidia. OpenGL performance is still shit on Windows, but perfectly fine on Linux. For a while people had serious stability problems, particularly on Radeon VII. Until AMD fixes these things, they don't deserve the same money Nvidia is asking for.


RDNA 2 is s different proposition altogether that stands to seriously disrupt the market share balance at the high end.
The high end market is not the market. Looking at Steams Hardware Survey the market is the GTX 1060, 1050, 1050 Ti, 1070, 1650, and 1660 Ti. In that order from high to low. Meaning anything $250 or less. RDNA2 will disrupt shit. The RX 480 was a market disrupter. The GTX 970 was a market disruptor. Not the GTX 1080, or RTX 2080, or the Radeon VII. Unless AMD plans to release a RDNA2 based card at $250 with Ray-Tracing support, then nothing will change. The graphics card that Nvidia and AMD need to beat is the RX 580, as of right now it stands as the single best performance per dollar card on the market. The second card to beat is the GTX 1060.

I have more faith that Intel will be a bigger market disruptor than AMD. Intel has to try really hard if they want any market share.

 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,627
I own a RX 480 and I love the card but when the Bit Coin market boomed the price of RX 580's skyrocketed. This left Nvidia cards like the GTX 1060 as the better bargain during the Bit Coin boom. RX 580's and 570's are starting to creap up in the Steam Hardware Survey, suggesting that people are now starting to pick up these bargains. But as an owner of a Vega 56 and Fury card I can say that AMD doesn't deserve the same money as Nvidia. OpenGL performance is still shit on Windows, but perfectly fine on Linux. For a while people had serious stability problems, particularly on Radeon VII. Until AMD fixes these things, they don't deserve the same money Nvidia is asking for.



The high end market is not the market. Looking at Steams Hardware Survey the market is the GTX 1060, 1050, 1050 Ti, 1070, 1650, and 1660 Ti. In that order from high to low. Meaning anything $250 or less. RDNA2 will disrupt shit. The RX 480 was a market disrupter. The GTX 970 was a market disruptor. Not the GTX 1080, or RTX 2080, or the Radeon VII. Unless AMD plans to release a RDNA2 based card at $250 with Ray-Tracing support, then nothing will change. The graphics card that Nvidia and AMD need to beat is the RX 580, as of right now it stands as the single best performance per dollar card on the market. The second card to beat is the GTX 1060.

I have more faith that Intel will be a bigger market disruptor than AMD. Intel has to try really hard if they want any market share.

Rdna2 is not just big navi. Its an architecture that will apply to all ranges up and down the tiers. Hence it may actually be a market disruption. Intel hasnt shown anything but a fancy fan shroud. Thats about it for Chintel so far.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,411
I have more faith that Intel will be a bigger market disruptor than AMD. Intel has to try really hard if they want any market share.

I wholeheartedly agree we need another competitor in this space. nV and AMD have effectively fixed prices and stagnated progress. Whether complicit or incidental, the consumer has been losing out.
 
Top