AMD's New Graphics Engineer Pledges Yearly GPU Releases to Make PCs Fun Again

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,560
AMD's new graphics engineer, David Wang, is pledging to release GPU's yearly to make PC's fun again. Also, at Computex he showed the unchanged AMD GPU roadmap that shows a tick-tock like cadence for releases. However, while his statement is nice to hear, I'll withhold judgment until I see AMD do what he's promising. It's not that I don't trust him, but AMD has been a bit lethargic lately with their GPU releases. Anyway, I hope he's right because I'd like to see AMD push market leader NVIDIA a bit more. Thanks cageymaru.

Nonetheless, in a small roundtable following AMD’s presentation, Wang confirmed that AMD would be bringing out a new graphics product every year, via a new architecture, process changes, or "maybe incremental architecture changes."
 
Any news other than we have a 1080 ti killer at equal to or less than it's current actual can-buy-it-regularly retail price isn't very interesting. They really need to be on top again, been playing catch up for too long.
 
I recall when nvidia touted 6 month product cycle since the initial geforce days. They were supposed to apply that to Tegra, but that didn't happen.

While it may be possible for AMD and nvidia release GPUs each year, I don' think they would all be for gaming.

I think 2 years make probably make more sense today, but we are alredy behind schedule with 4k@120hz cards
 
Actions speak louder than words.
I'd rather they keep quiet and surprise us because anything that is spoken has to be ignored after what went before.
 
Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes.

Right now, the advantage that AMD has over nVidia is that the Freesync adaptive sync monitors are cheaper than G-Sync, and there are more Freesync monitors. Needless to say, I'm a big adaptive sync fan.

Are Team Red's cards better than Team Green's cards? You tell me. It's all dependent on the target resolution you are playing at and what framerate you want.
 
heatlesssun said:
Honestly I'd rather have my fun by not having to spend a ton of money every year to keep up. I think two year cycles are the sweet spot.
Click to expand...


When markets are more competitive new products come out more often, so yes you do have to upgrade more often, but they are also much much cheaper.

Essentially you get more for less.
 
If there are actual improvements, and not just refreshes with minor stock spec bumps, this will be a good thing. Still, making it as the goal will likely result in a better cadence of product releases, even if they don't quite meet the target.

arnemetis said:
Any news other than we have a 1080 ti killer at equal to or less than it's current actual can-buy-it-regularly retail price isn't very interesting. They really need to be on top again, been playing catch up for too long.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good for you, but I personally cannot justify paying those kind of prices for a video card. The "mid-range" cards that used to occupy the $175-$225 spot are what interest me the most. Maybe a new cadence of releases mean higher volume production and "normal" pricing? One can hope!
 
ehh this kinda scares me thinking how many junkie cards will be made and less fun we might have now.....can you just make badass cards for us to game on the first time right and not over and over i love you guys but cmon.........
 
jardows said:
If there are actual improvements, and not just refreshes with minor stock spec bumps, this will be a good thing. Still, making it as the goal will likely result in a better cadence of product releases, even if they don't quite meet the target.



That's all well and good for you, but I personally cannot justify paying those kind of prices for a video card. The "mid-range" cards that used to occupy the $175-$225 spot are what interest me the most. Maybe a new cadence of releases mean higher volume production and "normal" pricing? One can hope!
Click to expand...
If the top end doesn't move, the middle has nowhere to go. If these two start trading blows again, each generation the other taking the lead again, the mid range follows along. We have complete stagnation right now.
 
that's weird, because this makes it look like the whole roadpam disaster for desktop was a remenant of raja, while i was almost sure it was lisa.
anyhow, let's wait and see 2018 gpu is dead anyway, long live 2019.
 
White noise, crickets, elevator music, monotone, the wind, etc etc etc.

Man, can AMD just stop talking and promising. The shucking and jiving they are doing is legendary when it comes to GPU's.

It has literally been years since AMD raised any eyebrows. Years .....

Release a 1080 ti killer for $499 and then we can talk.

It's almost 2019. I'm not trying to put 1070 performance inside any PC I own period headed into 2019.
 
M76 said:
Yeah, regular NTSC is more than enough resolution and you don't need more than 25 fps either.
Click to expand...

He is quite correct. The eye's arc resolution is 1 minute

“The visual resolution of the human eye is about 1 arc minute. At a viewing distance of 20″, that translates to about 170 dpi" src: http://blog.eyewire.org/what-is-the-highest-resolution-humans-can-distinguish/

As RGB LCD monitors are 3 sub pixels per pixel, that's 67" wide for 3840 wide display That's if you are only 20" away. Any further and it gets worse.

You guys fell for the old marketing trick..it has more so it must be better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, im im thinking the faster upgrade cadance means faster price drops, so that would be awesome. There is no need for AMD to have a halo card, it would be cool, but no need. 1080ti is more than Vega 64, so why keep comparing it? ( At least i think its more, quick searches showed screwy prices still)
 
What could they possibly do every year? They're still stuck on the old GCN and have not even made an IPC increase in what nearly a decade? And then we're at the point where process advancements going to slow down hugely so what in the hell could they possibly come out with every year that would be worth upgrading to?
 
misterbobby said:
What could they possibly do every year? They're still stuck on the old GCN and have not even made an IPC increase in what nearly a decade? And then we're at the point where process advancements going to slow down hugely so what in the hell could they possibly come out with every year that would be worth upgrading to?
Click to expand...

Scalable architecture.

As Lisa said and on another site they list infinity fabric improving multi chip communications. This is not sli/crossfire. It's all coming down as I predicted
 
Great, we already put up with software that regurgitates itself with sequels every year. Now we have to put up with it from hardware manufacturers doing the same thing. If they really think this is a good thing that people want there dumbasses. They seriously can't be thinking that's good can they?!
 
Competition is good for the consumer. I hope AMD does start releasing competitive GPU's. They seemed to have sparked Intel into motion again with Ryzen.
I remember having at ATI All-in-wonder card (don't remember the model) - but it was actually a good card way back in the day.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Well, im im thinking the faster upgrade cadance means faster price drops, so that would be awesome. There is no need for AMD to have a halo card, it would be cool, but no need. 1080ti is more than Vega 64, so why keep comparing it? ( At least i think its more, quick searches showed screwy prices still)
Click to expand...
Yeah, seems like this would result in a lot of SKU turnover. Plus, nobody buys a new card every year (especially when the performance increase between tick-tock cycles probably wouldn't justify upgrading)
 
deton8 said:
Yeah, seems like this would result in a lot of SKU turnover. Plus, nobody buys a new card every year (especially when the performance increase between tick-tock cycles probably wouldn't justify upgrading)
Click to expand...
Early adopters buy ticks, people who wait for the more refined editions, buy tocks. works for me.
This also would suggest more of a 2 year cycle. Incremental upgrades are fine, as long as they are frequent and positive.
 
So he's saying they are going to get back to renaming and rebadging their gpus on a yearly cadence amirite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTDEW
like this
I enjoy reading about new hardware as much—or even more—than I do buying and using it. These days there isn't much new stuff to read about except VR, which is in its exciting new embryonic stage like the GPU once was.
 
B00nie said:
4k is just dumb unless you happen to run a 75" gaming monitor.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm pretty happy with my 40" 4k monitor on my desktop. Things look better to me than lower res at that size. 4k isn't noticeable to me on a 27" screen though. Except for making text really small. Which can be good for productivity if your eyes can handle it, but useless to me for games.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
He is quite correct. The eye's arc resolution is 1 minute

“The visual resolution of the human eye is about 1 arc minute. At a viewing distance of 20″, that translates to about 170 dpi" src: http://blog.eyewire.org/what-is-the-highest-resolution-humans-can-distinguish/

As RGB LCD monitors are 3 sub pixels per pixel, that's 67" wide for 3840 wide display That's if you are only 20" away. Any further and it gets worse.

You guys fell for the old marketing trick..it has more so it must be better.
Click to expand...


Only reason, I am aware of, to differentiate at the subpixel range is the tricks to make resolution look higher sacrificing color accuracy on edges.

If you don't need to do that, 4k, then 170dpi comes in at ~22" with that view distance. I couldn't tell a difference at that range between 2560 and 4k, but I sure can with a 40" monitor.
 
Lol, his name is David Wang. Lets hope his performance lives up to his... name.

U4d1Nlm.gif
 
I wouldn't put a ton of weight into Wangs promises. Whether he has honest intentions or not, the entire product release doesn't hinge on one man's wishes.
 
heatlesssun said:
Honestly I'd rather have my fun by not having to spend a ton of money every year to keep up. I think two year cycles are the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

But then one year cycles also help those who upgrade every two years - it's win-win.
 
heatlesssun said:
Honestly I'd rather have my fun by not having to spend a ton of money every year to keep up. I think two year cycles are the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

focbde said:
But then one year cycles also help those who upgrade every two years - it's win-win.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand how this is a bad thing. Hypothetically, I'd rather have a 10% performance bump once a year with new GPU releases than just a 20% bump every two years. You don't have to upgrade every year, but at least if you need or want to, you actually get better performance.
 
ND40oz said:
Yeah, I don't understand how this is a bad thing. Hypothetically, I'd rather have a 10% performance bump once a year with new GPU releases than just a 20% bump every two years. You don't have to upgrade every year, but at least if you need or want to, you actually get better performance.
Click to expand...
Yep - also, if it leads to increased competition, you might well get a 40% bump every two years, with a 20% per year bump available to those willing to lay out the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top