• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

How often does AMD release flagship gpus?

T

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,763
It feels like it's been almost two years since AMD has released a new flagship gpu. The lower end models did not make a splash the way the 290(x) did, and once nvidia released the 970/980 it stole the holiday thunder for 2014.

Nivdia seems to release a fake flagship like the 780, wait for amd to release a new version of their cards, then release a ti version to match or best that to retain the high end market.

To combat this I think amd needs to release a new flagship on a yearly cadence. Thoughts? I remember when gpu makers seemed like they were releasing new hardware every 6 months. Product is what AMD needs to claw some marketshare back, and 2 year gaps are not going to cut it.
 
Process tech has slowed greatly and costs have increased drastically.
Moore's Law is not something that can be relied upon anymore.

It hasn't even been 1.5years since AMD released Hawaii.
 
Every time a new uArch is ready, typically, or when a new process node is.

New processes have been extremely delayed and both NVIDIA and AMD have had to come up with stopgap designs since everyone expected to be off of 28nm like 2 years ago and yet here were are in 2015 with no 20nm GPUs yet.
 
Anyone ever look at Intel's GPU power efficiency? It's be pretty neat if they got into the game... I also have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this topic. :)

But they are vertically integrated and there seems to be decent margin in discrete GPUs (nVidia is at 60% GM... that's fantastic).

More on topic, what do you consider a flagship? Some people consider the flagship the maxed out die and others just the fastest card.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually happy Nvidia/AMD have slowed down...makes new cards last longer and hold more value...
 
I'm not happy about it. We badly need new cards that can deliver 4K + 60 FPS reliably with all settings put at Ultra.

Maxwell and the 200X series is still too weak for perfect 4K gaming, even when you use multiple units in a lot of titles it's still hard to hold a stable 60. And then of course when display manufacturers get their s*** together and put out a 4K display with DP1.3 and 120 Hz input... definitely gonna need some revolutionary new GPU tech.
 
Xizer said:
I'm not happy about it. We badly need new cards that can deliver 4K + 60 FPS reliably with all settings put at Ultra.

Maxwell and the 200X series is still too weak for perfect 4K gaming, even when you use multiple units in a lot of titles it's still hard to hold a stable 60. And then of course when display manufacturers get their s*** together and put out a 4K display with DP1.3 and 120 Hz input... definitely gonna need some revolutionary new GPU tech.
Click to expand...
To push the highest resolutions you will always need multiple GPU's.
The day 1 GPU can power 4K 60fps is the day 8K+ becomes more accessible and people start whining about needing 2 GPU's to power it.

That's the way sli/xf has always worked, the only thing that has changed are the amount of pixels. 4K monitors are like $1,000, neither AMD nor Nvidia care about releasing a GPU that no one can afford to power a monitor that no one can afford.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
To push the highest resolutions you will always need multiple GPU's.
The day 1 GPU can power 4K 60fps is the day 8K+ becomes more accessible and people start whining about needing 2 GPU's to power it.

That's the way sli/xf has always worked, the only thing that has changed are the amount of pixels. 4K monitors are like $1,000, neither AMD nor Nvidia care about releasing a GPU that no one can afford to power a monitor that no one can afford.
Click to expand...
You can easily get a decent 4K panel for $500 now, same price as most 27" 1440p panels.
 
seem like releases in the last 2 years just arent massive gains like the old days, now its a little noise saving here, or a little heat or power savings there and marginal performance improvements..most people wont spend 500+ on those types of things unless they come across a game or setup where they need too
 
Putz said:
seem like releases in the last 2 years just arent massive gains like the old days, now its a little noise saving here, or a little heat or power savings there and marginal performance improvements..most people wont spend 500+ on those types of things unless they come across a game or setup where they need too
Click to expand...



Lets talk about that for a second.

the 9800 pro was released with a Single 4 pin molex connector. Everything beyond that point started to consume more and more power.

They discovered there was a market for power hungry cards as long as the performance gains were there. This held true until around the Nvidia 480 launch. The 480's pretty much set the bar where consumers didn't want anymore heat or power consumption. We have been riding that since. So the only real gains come from uarch, and process node improvements.

The whole industry has shifted into performance per watt. The desktop pc is a dying market, with mobile and smaller form factors getting all the focus.

but back to the original topic We normally see a new High end gpu every year or two.
 
TheGamerZ said:
Must be nice to have money, lol
Click to expand...

I paid a grand for the first card last year, then got the 2nd 295x2 from Newegg for $599 after the MIR, so not to bad. My Titans paid for most of both cards, it only cost me $350 out of pocket.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
To push the highest resolutions you will always need multiple GPU's.
The day 1 GPU can power 4K 60fps is the day 8K+ becomes more accessible and people start whining about needing 2 GPU's to power it.

That's the way sli/xf has always worked, the only thing that has changed are the amount of pixels. 4K monitors are like $1,000, neither AMD nor Nvidia care about releasing a GPU that no one can afford to power a monitor that no one can afford.
Click to expand...

4K seems to be the point of diminishing returns. I see a huge difference between 720p and 1080p, but from 1080p to 4K, even though it is 4X the resolution of 1080p, the difference is noticeable but not so vast. 1080p is a lot easier to put up with than 720p ever was, even after being accustomed to 4K, going back to playing stuff at 1080p doesn't feel like nearly as much as a downgrade as going back to playing stuff at 720p after being used to playing games at 1080p.

I find playing PS4 and Xbox One games very bearable, even though I'm used to 4K PC gaming now, because they run at 1080p resolution and 1080p still holds up surprisingly well even when you have access to a display with 4x the resolution of it. This simply wasn't the case when consoles were stuck at 720p resolution and when I was used to 1080p PC gaming. I literally cannot play PS3 or Xbox 360 games without it driving me nuts; the 720p resolution is simply too low and distracting.

4K is the resolution point I'll be comfortable with for at least a decade I suspect. And this is with a 65" screen that I sit super close to.

So I don't think 4K -> 8K is going to be even as noticeable as 1080p to 4K is. If we can get the power to drive 4K locked down solid we'll be good.
 
Xizer said:
4K seems to be the point of diminishing returns. I see a huge difference between 720p and 1080p, but from 1080p to 4K, even though it is 4X the resolution of 1080p, the difference is noticeable but not so vast. 1080p is a lot easier to put up with than 720p ever was, even after being accustomed to 4K, going back to playing stuff at 1080p doesn't feel like nearly as much as a downgrade as going back to playing stuff at 720p after being used to playing games at 1080p.

I find playing PS4 and Xbox One games very bearable, even though I'm used to 4K PC gaming now, because they run at 1080p resolution and 1080p still holds up surprisingly well even when you have access to a display with 4x the resolution of it. This simply wasn't the case when consoles were stuck at 720p resolution and when I was used to 1080p PC gaming. I literally cannot play PS3 or Xbox 360 games without it driving me nuts; the 720p resolution is simply too low and distracting.

4K is the resolution point I'll be comfortable with for at least a decade I suspect. And this is with a 65" screen that I sit super close to.

So I don't think 4K -> 8K is going to be even as noticeable as 1080p to 4K is. If we can get the power to drive 4K locked down solid we'll be good.
Click to expand...

on my 1440p monitor, even going to 1440p when the video is shot well looks pristine:


Look at this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmpDsnJ7z8k
 
Dayaks said:
Anyone ever look at Intel's GPU power efficiency? It's be pretty neat if they got into the game... I also have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to this topic. :)

But they are vertically integrated and there seems to be decent margin in discrete GPUs (nVidia is at 60% GM... that's fantastic).

More on topic, what do you consider a flagship? Some people consider the flagship the maxed out die and others just the fastest card.
Click to expand...

Flagship is the cream of the crop, the Fastest available. Since the 295x2 is to 290x's

The Flagship card is a 290x, and Nvidia's is the 980
 
LordEC911 said:
It hasn't even been 1.5years since AMD released Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Hawaii wasn't really a new uArch though. It was tahiti++

To the original question we have
Radeon 8500 Aug 14, 2001
Radeon 9700 Pro July 18, 2002
Radeon X800 XT PE May 4, 2004
Radeon X1800 XT Oct. 5, 2005
Radeon HD 2900 XT May 14, 2007
Radeon HD 3870 Nov 19, 2007 <- arguably the 2900XT done right
Radeon HD 4850 Jun 25, 2008
Radeon HD 5850 Sep 30, 2009
Radeon HD 6950 Dec 15, 2010
Radeon HD 7970 Jan 9, 2012

These are the ones I would consider new uArch changes. Looks like 1 to 2 years to me which makes this revision quite a long one.

Edit:
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
 
Darakian said:
Hawaii wasn't really a new uArch though. It was tahiti++

To the original question we have
Radeon 8500 Aug 14, 2001
Radeon 9700 Pro July 18, 2002
Radeon X800 XT PE May 4, 2004
Radeon X1800 XT Oct. 5, 2005
Radeon HD 2900 XT May 14, 2007
Radeon HD 3870 Nov 19, 2007 <- arguably the 2900XT done right
Radeon HD 4850 Jun 25, 2008
Radeon HD 5850 Sep 30, 2009
Radeon HD 6950 Dec 15, 2010
Radeon HD 7970 Jan 9, 2012

These are the ones I would consider new uArch changes. Looks like 1 to 2 years to me which makes this revision quite a long one.

Edit:
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
Click to expand...

Who said anything about architectures? He was talking about flagship GPUs.

Anywho, Hawaii is a pretty decent evolution of GCN.
You also have a lot of none flagship cards in your list.

You might want to do more research before trying to correct me.
 
LordEC911 said:
You also have a lot of none flagship cards in your list.
Click to expand...
He was talking about the architectures so maybe the mid-range GPU's launched before the flagship in their series. That doesn't sound right but honestly I don't care enough to look it up.
I'm pretty sure the 4000, 5000, and 6000 series mid and high-end parts launched on the same day.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
He was talking about the architectures so maybe the mid-range GPU's launched before the flagship in their series. That doesn't sound right but honestly I don't care enough to look it up.
I'm pretty sure the 4000, 5000, and 6000 series mid and high-end parts launched on the same day.
Click to expand...

That was his "answer" to the "original question" which was about flagships, not architectures...
 
I don't remember what I was talking about, all I know is AMD can't afford to have their main card stand alone for almost 2 years. If process shrinks are slowing down, so be it, ramp up redesigns that don't involve those.

That said it sounds like arctic islands might hit next near so that would at least be a faster turn around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top