From ATI to AMD back to ATI? A Journey in Futility @ [H]

schizo said:
Most leaks place P10 at 390/390x-class performance. Not fury X. Not 980ti.
Click to expand...
That's typically worst case. Most I see are averaging around Fury which is smack bang between 390X and Fury X... between 980 and 980Ti. Depends on what it's benching on though.
If it is 390-390x it had better be cheaper or equal to... a clearance stock 970 ~ 980 ballpark....... >_>
 
schizo said:
Most leaks place P10 at 390/390x-class performance. Not fury X. Not 980ti.
Click to expand...

AMD has stated that more than once if I remember correctly. I also remember AMD claiming 480X prices will be less than $299. Why wouldn't a $279/$289 390X replacement not be welcomed? Waaay more efficient and possibly a strong overclocker. Other than fanboyism, why would it be mocked?
 
Last edited:
Sad to see [H] resort to pushing a tabloid like article to generate the clicks they weren't going to get from the AMD Polaris event but they got to pay the bills somehow I guess.

Also notice how many low post and recently created accounts coming to attack AMD once again just like in the rant post complaining about not being invited to the Macau event. Totally legitimate lol

P.S: I don't really want to sound like a pessimist but this course of action will lead to [H] not getting invited to any Zen event nor access to early engineering samples. Oh boy, will we see more smear articles when that time comes?.
 
Last edited:
Before dismissing KB's info, let's look at the past:
KitGuru had a similar issue with AMD

Now, it's easy to make immature " they are just crying for not getting invites/samples/demos" comments but these are old pros having an eerily similar experience with AMD.

FWIW, my 7950 was the best value video card I owned, even if I ignore the $$$ it made mining. A $309 card clocked to 1.25GHz and 1850 on memory beating out 90% of $499 680's.

Now if we can agree that there is truth to what KB wrote, everyone gloating about things being bad at AMD is a complete idiot. It is in everyone interest for AMD to compete. If only AMD had more competitive architectures since 2012, the x80 cards wouldn't have slipped from $499 to $699. As long as AMD could fire a shot at the high end segment, Nvidia cut down the TI from Titan where it hurt the least, 780TI and 980TI escaped but if AMD can't challenge Pascal even in the $300 range, wipe that smirk off your face.

That means, those of us who were waiting for a single 4K/60 card will have to wait a while longer, instead of getting the full GP100, we are likely to get a severely cut GP102 while paying more than for the past TI card.

AMD's absence from the high end segment competition gave NVIDIA the opening to raise the prices. $699 980 would have had people raging but now a $699 1080 is somehow "OK".
 
AMD might not be in the best state, but that's very sad if true, and it feels unnecessary to write an article like this. Nothing good will happen if Nvidia and Intel are the only ones left. I hope AMD will resolve whatever internal issues they have, and can move forward to a better state of affairs this year.
 
Why is this so bothersome to me? Why do I feel the need for ATI/AMD to succeed? Do I care more about the company itself or its employees? What does all this say about me?!.... :eek:

Thanks for filling my need for Drama, now back to drinking beer and preparing bbq for tomorrow! ;)

Side Note: Two thumbs up Kyle
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
AMD has stated that more than once if I remember correctly. I also remember AMD claiming 480X prices will be less than $299. Why wouldn't a $279/$289 390X replacement not be welcomed? Waaay more efficient and possibly a strong overclocker. Other than fanboyism, why would it be mocked?
Click to expand...

Because 390s and 290s have already been around that price during sales. It's not a new VR TAM/Budget proposition at all if so. Hell, I bought a lightly used 290X with warranty for just about that price last year, in New Zealand, where the 1080flounder is 900+USD..

Power usage and budget systems needing a smaller psu is the only main advantage then if worst case is true and they price around or just below $300.
 
Jesus Christ, Kyle you have gone full retard.

Hope you have something else to do or a job at NV, because there is no coming back from this bullshit. You are officially the webs first one horse GPU / CPU review site.

~shoa.....
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
What is unfortunate for us [H] fans is that Kyle has just crushed his reputation throughout the computer hardware sites/forums. We are now the laughing stock of every other site. Not my opinion, just browse through any of the top comp sites and see for yourselves...................
Click to expand...

Every forum has some vocal elements which think there are only two types of websites:

-those which write favourable about AMD
-biased Nvidia/Intel schills
 
Internal issues are internal issues.. the one thing it does not make a lick of sense to me is for Intel to partner or do anything with AMD (or any 'division') other than out right buy the company.
If the ATI team are so proud why the hell they just not 'work hard' at the products.. money can roll in later.
Sounds like they are more like dysfunctional assholes, about to destroy the company with their bullshit.

It never made sense to me, I can't see Intel not being able to do big ass powerful card all on their own, they probably don't because its peanuts market share, or of very thin margins if talking about consoles (the one thing with some more market share).
AFAIK Intel has the most market share in PC video anyway.
I can see the divisions, I can't see any partnership of any kind, or even a smell of a thought of this at Intel.
 
Geck0 said:
Jesus Christ, Kyle you have gone full retard.

Hope you have something else to do or a job at NV, because there is no coming back from this bullshit. You are officially the webs first one horse GPU / CPU review site.

~shoa.....
Click to expand...
While this may look like a total bust. Its Roy Taylor that started this crap. Things like that should be talked about behind closed doors. How on earth do you tell somebody. My product is not for your readers. One may look at this as though the product in question locks confidence of its makers. HardOcp has always been about overclocking and performance. While we may not totally agree with these guys all the time. They do take time to listen to your suggestions.
At the end of the day it all comes down to each and everyone's opinion. Anand Tech forums and everybody elses opinion matters little. We are here they are there. Sometimes you have to make choices in order to preserve your integrity.
The very integrity that those who like to question but, have not been able to preserve themselves.
 
PhoenixWings said:
I disagree. Apple users like to have a decent GPU inside their machine for Final Cut Pro X, Adobe Premiere, Adobe After Effects, Cinema 4D, Octane Renderer and other applications that can leverage GPU power. Also many Mac users like to dual boot Windows with Mac OS X, mostly for gaming when they want to disconnect from work. Most Mac users buy a Mac because OS X is a much more pleasant environment to work in than Windows, and because they also like the overall aesthetics of the machine. The only reason why Apple is buying GPUs from AMD is because they can get them cheaper than from NVIDIA, and because they don't want to be locked in any kind of NVIDIA proprietary tech like CUDA for example. Apple loves Open CL (okay, Open CL runs on NVIDIA cards as well, but CUDA doesn't run on AMD cards). So Apple doesn't really want CUDA for any GPU accelerated apps because they have no control over it.

Anyway, most folks in the Mac community are pissed about Apple's decision to go exclusively with AMD GPUs due to poor performance, poor energy efficiency and ... lots of heat output. Coupled with Apple's tendency to not provide proper cooling for any of their machines, it's not exactly an ideal solution to stick something like an M395X 4GB inside an iMac. As soon as you use that GPU for any kind of heavy video rendering, it will overheat. Regardless, Apple doesn't care, all they want to get out of their machines is 3+ years before they break and fill the landfills.

Lastly, AMD doesn't make custom GPUs for Apple. They just rebadge and downclock existing GPUs for Apple, like the D300, D500 and D700, all outdated GPUs that under-perform when compared to their PC counterparts.
Click to expand...


The Apple forum, the people that complain, are the people that are need GPU's, it is not the majority of the users.

How many different people complain there?

Do a run down of them I can tell you with out looking forum complaints are nothing compared to the total amount of users.

What are the amount of people that would be using imagining software vs the total number of users?

Apple PC's have a total of 7.4% marketshare of today's PC market. How many of those people are doing 3d, 2d, imagining, video editing?

This is the problem when people make statements like, "so many people complain on forums" so it must be everyone, the forum is subset of the total users.

Brackle said:
To be honest. You would not believe how many people buy apple MAc's and Imac's. You would think it would be a small market....But its shows how well marketing does.

Dude, you're getting a Mac
Click to expand...

Its a tiny market for people that what a dGPU in their Mac.

You guys make it sound like everyone and their mom does 3d, 2d , video editing, the don't, it might be 1 out of every 10 or 20 mac users probably even less.

Did you guys realize for most of last year if not all of last year and this year, outside of the MacPro tower, Imac there was no option for dGPU's on their other products? What are the major sellers for Apple? Its their notebook lines, the MacPro and IMac's are a fraction of their total sales.

So what do you have, a small % of the over all market and then a even smaller % of apples total sales and then the people that need dGPU's for the Imac's have to be factored in, so its even going to be less than this.

Edit:

I just checked Imac don't have dGPU's..... interesting those have been using Iris pro only now. so the only model that has dGPU's are mac pro towers......
 
Last edited:
Singularity_Survivor said:
Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but you are one of the most idiotic bullshit spewers on [H] forums. A majority of your posts are so bad I have to take a moment to clear my head just to move along.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is BS to people that have no thought process, please move on,

just FYI

6 indicators used to assess stocks | Stocks | GetSmarterAboutMoney.ca

how to access a stock if its good or bad

10 Factors to Consider When Selecting a Stock

Once you start looking at the stock price and total outstanding shares, you will see that AMD's stock price is still below its total asset amounts added to its cash amounts and cash equivalent amounts, another words the company is undervalued, why investors still don't have faith in it, its better than before, but its still crap.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
What is unfortunate for us [H] fans is that Kyle has just crushed his reputation throughout the computer hardware sites/forums. We are now the laughing stock of every other site. Not my opinion, just browse through any of the top comp sites and see for yourselves...................
Click to expand...


Look at the people's post history that are saying what, I can tell you your post history right here, 55 posts easy to go through lol, what it comes up with?
 
Arbit3r said:
Sadly writing has been on the wall last few years, even if AMD fans won't admit it it. Biggest tell with gpu not as good as hoped was fury cards mostly happened with the nano. AMD posted huge performance boosts which didn't pan out as much as they claimed and when nano was release a lot of review sites were left out of a review sample. I don't see why a case modder would get a card before a reviewer that likely help sell the card long before a modder will. That was latest things to happen, cracks were showing when after 7000 series cards it was pretty much 2 new cards with a new gpu then rest being rebrands of pervious card. Doing a rebrand once isn't really big deal but then it was done a 2nd time using same model numbers instead of least pushing them to a lower number. As much as people hate to see read this story, its very believeable thing as most people that will call it bull have 0 info or able to talk to any people head of a pretty good sized review site would have.
Click to expand...

Rebrands you say? Let me introduce you to the nVIDIA G92(b) GPU that never seemed to go away:
  • 8800GS
  • 8800GT
  • 8800GTS
  • 9600GSO
  • 9800GT
  • 9800GT "Green Edition"
  • 9800GTX
  • 9800GTX+
  • GTS150 OEM only
  • GT230 OEM only
  • GT240 OEM only
  • GTS250
  • GTS250 "Green Edition"

I bet you if you look hard enough, you would fine one in a G-Sync monitor near you. :ROFLMAO:
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
AMD has stated that more than once if I remember correctly. I also remember AMD claiming 480X prices will be less than $299. Why wouldn't a $279/$289 390X replacement not be welcomed? Waaay more efficient and possibly a strong overclocker. Other than fanboyism, why would it be mocked?
Click to expand...
At <$300, it wouldn't. Never implied it would.
 
VIC-20 said:
The "good old days" were expensive too. Sure, we didn't pay a grand each for a top end CPU and video card, but CD-RW drives, hard drives, RAM, sound, NIC, etc. all ran hundreds of dollars per component. My 286-25Mhz AMD system was $3000 and 386s were already out. My first 10baseT NIC was $350. This hobby has always been expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I paid a lot for my Magnum 68030 board for my Amiga 2000. Back then we still had only the SCSI option for hard drives ;) . So I know about spending money on it ;)
 
The kind of person that threatens to quit if they aren't promoted is the exact kind of person that you don't want to promote let alone even work at your company. Sounds like a terrible situation for all the employees that work there.
 
It's stuff like this that gives me special feelings in my no-no place for Kyle. :D
 
DukenukemX said:
AdoredTV has sources you can check. Half of it is opinion, but he states it. But opinion based on real sources. So far, lots of good things are going AMD's way. Given that AMD's claims prove true.
Click to expand...

Here is how it works if someone has a relationship with AdoredTV it might be very one sided. It would not be the 1st time that "press" (youtubers really not press at all) would be abused in this way. His sources can tell him everything and burn him as soon as he has no use. Youtube is rather fleeting way of reaching people not enough in depth and certainly easier to manipulate. For that spot to give out news about launches and propagate certain advantages is where you could get away with it since youtube has so many people doing the same thing. If this was website based no one would ever visit any of the youtubers because content that is web based has to has more substance then a fast video format.
There are thousands of people on youtube doing what AdoredTV does reading news articles and giving them their own "spin" on it. Yet there are no thousands of websites with decent enough knowledge about what there saying without copying the press kit 1:1 in their review.
 
sutyi said:
Rebrands you say? Let me introduce you to the nVIDIA G92(b) GPU that never seemed to go away:
  • 8800GS
  • 8800GT
  • 8800GTS
  • 9600GSO
  • 9800GT
  • 9800GT "Green Edition"
  • 9800GTX
  • 9800GTX+
  • GTS150 OEM only
  • GT230 OEM only
  • GT240 OEM only
  • GTS250
  • GTS250 "Green Edition"

I bet you if you look hard enough, you would fine one in a G-Sync monitor near you. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


Re-badges happen all the time, no problems with them if they are still competitive in all metrics, but it does fool people if they are the exact same thing as what they already have and if they don't do their homework.... its the consumers fault to fall into. It would be nice if this doesn't happen but gotta get rid of chips somehow lol, but AMD's recent rebrands were very disappointing, the only good thing about them were they provided more memory for most of them.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
What is unfortunate for us [H] fans is that Kyle has just crushed his reputation throughout the computer hardware sites/forums. We are now the laughing stock of every other site. Not my opinion, just browse through any of the top comp sites and see for yourselves...................
Click to expand...

Until June 29th I guess ;)
 
The issue is really context. Typically if you rebrand to a lower segment and price it is generally accepted especially if the alternative is the same. Notice that is was not an issue when AMD launched 2xx against Nvidia's 7xx series. Both sides rebranded to lower segments and prices along with new chips.

With 3xx the problem was that rebrands were done to the same perceived segment, it was actually to increase ASP, and the alternative had new chips. So people, and I admit myself in this category, were quite disappointed waiting for 3xx because of this as the release did not change the market landscape.
 
true but the r3xx chips were performance wise still competitive, power wise not so much which hurt them. I think AMD did a pretty good job of telling their customers they were the same *or close to it* chips with more memory.

Its those OEM rebrands that are a pain, cause most OEM's won't even go into telling their customers about them.
 
R9 380 and up they all got bumped core clocks, faster memory and/or double the VRAM compared to the prevoius series with more aggressive pricing. R9 370 below... well... I feel you, not much happened there in terms of performance and what not. AMD probably thought nVIDIA will do lower end 900 Series, but that obviously never happened, as to date the bottom end is the GTX 950 at the green camp.

I do hope that Polar 10 will turn out as a decent midfielder so it would present a good alternative to the upcoming 1060/1060Ti product range.
 
Rvenger said:
Samsung buying ATI IP and going after Nvidia? That would be some storm.
Click to expand...

Not a lot of money in selling dGPUs for a company as large as Samsung. There is money in playing fab for a wide range of products, including dGPUs, though, which is why Samsung seems to have gone all-in on trying to be a fab (on the logic side of things) rather than be a designer of products targeted for specific markets.
 
razor1 said:
The Apple forum, the people that complain, are the people that are need GPU's, it is not the majority of the users.

How many different people complain there?

Do a run down of them I can tell you with out looking forum complaints are nothing compared to the total amount of users.

What are the amount of people that would be using imagining software vs the total number of users?

Apple PC's have a total of 7.4% marketshare of today's PC market. How many of those people are doing 3d, 2d, imagining, video editing?

This is the problem when people make statements like, "so many people complain on forums" so it must be everyone, the forum is subset of the total users.



Its a tiny market for people that what a dGPU in their Mac.

You guys make it sound like everyone and their mom does 3d, 2d , video editing, the don't, it might be 1 out of every 10 or 20 mac users probably even less.

Did you guys realize for most of last year if not all of last year and this year, outside of the MacPro tower, Imac there was no option for dGPU's on their other products? What are the major sellers for Apple? Its their notebook lines, the MacPro and IMac's are a fraction of their total sales.

So what do you have, a small % of the over all market and then a even smaller % of apples total sales and then the people that need dGPU's for the Imac's have to be factored in, so its even going to be less than this.

Edit:

I just checked Imac don't have dGPU's..... interesting those have been using Iris pro only now. so the only model that has dGPU's are mac pro towers......
Click to expand...

You're right, not too many users use their Macs for creative work. Still, for what Apple is charging, their customers should get the best dGPUs in their Macs.
 
Man even fudzilla was invited to Macau...
This got my attention

This time around, we are hoping enough samples will be sent to every qualified site that asks for them without the “selectively unbiased” AMD marketing conundrum that has unfortunately occurred in the past.
Click to expand...
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
What is unfortunate for us [H] fans is that Kyle has just crushed his reputation throughout the computer hardware sites/forums. We are now the laughing stock of every other site. Not my opinion, just browse through any of the top comp sites and see for yourselves...................
Click to expand...


If you can't or are unwilling to link to specific examples on these 'top comp' sites then I'd kindly advise you to shut your pie-hole.
 
PhoenixWings said:
You're right, not too many users use their Macs for creative work. Still, for what Apple is charging, their customers should get the best dGPUs in their Macs.
Click to expand...


Well last time I a got a mac pro tower (2005) got it fully loaded outside of the ram and graphics card, I knew I was going to swap out the graphics card and put in 3rd party ram since it would have been much cheaper.

Problem with today's mac pro cylinder, you can't swap out the graphics cards unless you get them from Apple, and they charge an arm and leg and even a kidney lol.
 
schizo said:
I dunno, man. Not just finding the money, which would be billions of dollars, but also hiring enough skilled engineers, the production agreements, the sheer time to do all this while competing with Nvidia's NEXT generation... I don't see a new player coming in quite so easily.

I guess maybe a player like Qualcomm or Samsung could step up. I just don't know if they'd be interested.
Click to expand...

Qualcomm already designs its own GPU IP, but it is targeted specifically at mobile. There would be significant additional work required to scale this technology up from mobile to high performance desktop, but if Qualcomm thought it would have a reasonable chance of success, there's really nothing stopping them from going for it.

However, the market is fairly small, and the R&D intensity is quite high, so it's not clear to me if it would be worth it for Qualcomm, or some other company with mobile GPU IP (ARM, Imagination Tech, Intel, etc.) to jump into the ring.
 
Singularity_Survivor said:
What is unfortunate for us [H] fans is that Kyle has just crushed his reputation throughout the computer hardware sites/forums. We are now the laughing stock of every other site. Not my opinion, just browse through any of the top comp sites and see for yourselves...................
Click to expand...
You must be new here (and you are).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top