Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AMD Flavor' started by TheRookie, Jun 11, 2019.
Kinda irrelevant with Super's comming
Navi discussion thread is the title
First, I never mentioned profit margins. I mentioned image quality and how 150 million people don't care like you care about IQ. It's hard to argue that.
Second, I don't think you understand exactly how many 150 million units is compared to say 2080Ti sales. I can't imagine that Nvidia shipped 1 million units worldwide since release (and that's probably being generous). It's that niche of a product. Even if you combine all the flagship card sales since the release of the PS4/XB1 you might get to 1% of 150 million. The sheer volume makes up for the lack of profit margins in consoles.
Argument ad numerum...a fallacy.
Besides, you say they don't care...but have not mapped out the demographics and their available funds....so you are stacking fallacy on fallacy here
To bad NVIDIA and AMD's financial report don't jive with your alternate version of reality.
Making money for R&D is vital...and how come NVIDIA is making more money than AMD...despite the "150 million people owning a console"...see the non-value of that fallacy?
Then why did he bring NVIDIA cards into the graph?
I wonder how well Navi mines?
Hmm may have to buy several of them maybe.
Probably about as well as a slightly scaled-up Polaris? Maybe a little better?
5700 and 5700xt might be just good in terms of price to performance ratio.
Ray tracing is still better on RTX
Or may be nvidia cuts off prices on RTX then ?
Your "enlightened" routine about argumentum ad numerum is just that...a routine. 150 million people bought a current gen console for whatever reason. If they cared as much as you care about IQ, they might have not bought one. Whether that be because of exclusives, convenience, price, etc. is irrelevant. I think we both agree that they didn't buy it because IQ was a priority to them as you have correctly pointed out that PC has a potential for better IQ.
And I'll call you out on your false dichotomy since you want to play logic games. Nvidia doesn't only make graphics cards for PC and AMD doesn't only make console hardware. Why Nvidia and AMD have different financials isn't solely based on console sales and graphics card sales.
It's not like those 150 million people had much of a choice, unless they wanted to switch to PC.
It will most likely be just under the V64 with Memory timings, so about 46, 47 in ETH and 140 -150 Watts ...
Because that's currently what's out and available and has performance information available, can't extrapolate off of cards that haven't been officially announced with no performance data. This is a thread about Navi and I'm just trying to figure out where it will land based on what has been officially said.
Thread is not about super.
And what does your tolerance level got to do with what I wrote in my post? Suggest you read my post again because I am not talking about how things stand now.
Streaming will replace PC gaming... anyone that thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.
The high end GPU market has no long term viability. Intel and AMD know that... there is no point in trying to chase a silly king of the pile crown today. In 4 or 5 years it will be a completely dead market. There will still be top of the line GPUs of course but they will be aimed at workstation use first and as such will cost people even more. We have already seen high end pricing drift up... and that trend is not going to stop. AMD nor Intel is going to release a high end performing card and price it 100s of dollars cheaper. They are fine with those prices drifting up.. and we will get mid range cards from both and that is all. AMD is selling GPU server blades and... people not being able to afford high end rigs helps sell those. Intel I have no doubt will be looking for a big cloud streaming partner as well. I would very much expect Amazon to get in the game and I wouldn't be shocked if they announce they will be using Intels GPUs.
What the "but the LAG!!!" people are forgetting is game publishers decide what games are made >.< Game publishers WANT streaming to happen... its the ultimate DRM. Game developers themselves are being sold on the freedom they gain by not having to target 5 year old hardware all the time. Game designers have ALWAYS been held back by having to target a wide range of hardware so they can actually sell copies and stay in business. Cryis is the biggest example of what happens if you screw up and target high end hardware goals at launch. Only a few people end up being your potential market and your big expensive game doesn't sell.
So if you love twitch games.... get used to not seeing them anymore. Publishers are NOT looking for new twich properties right now. And developers looking to get funding are not trying to sell them either. I would expect the next 5 or so years we are going to see some of the most insanely wonderful traced games you can imagine (that home hardware simply won't be able to run). They won't however be first person shooters. They will be games that don't feature super twitch based game play. Then sometime around the mid 2020s-2030 expect a new wave of twitch shooters when the streaming backbone has matured.
Like it or not the big AAA publishers and developers are going to lean into the streaming stuff hard. Google won't be the last big name to announce game streaming.
Gaming industry is a lucrative market and google wants a piece of that pie. I just don't think it will ever replace the pc. It will coexist offering games that are made for the streaming industry proving that as you mentioned they will look great, but will be far from what will be possible on Pc. Ubisoft, EA … all of the big publishers will not leave the pc market. There is way too much money on the table. Google as big and wealthy as they are will not take over . Neither will Amazon or whoever else that has seemingly endless piles of $.
Developers will continue as usual simply because consoles are not going anywhere and they are always behind PC in terms of what,s possible
Nah, it'll replace console gaming. There will always be a market for a 'higher end' with better response times.
I remember the exact same arguments for blockbuster and the movie rental industry. Streaming will never look as good... can't replicate the experience... is going to kill peoples connections and the ISPs won't be having it.
I remember the exact same arguments when streaming music started up... everyone is still going to want to own a disc... people are still going to want their own digital copies. The phone network will never handle everyone listening to CD quality music all day.
I'm not suggesting developers will stop publishing their games tomorrow... but they are all looking forward to the day when they don't have to. That is what they will be working towards.
The will to remove user control is high with publishers. The few developers like say CDProjectRED that are willing to make a stand against DRM, will be sucked into streaming by the lure of being able to target server class gaming hardware for ALL. Just look at Cyberpunk that game looks like its going to have amazing eye candy... and they have announced they are adding tracing ect. Still very few players are going to see all that eye candy as no doubt 2080ti is going to be the only card capable of really turning it all on at launch. (and even that is an if... its possible 2080ti will struggle at ultra settings with tracing as well) So when google (or perhaps down the road amazon or some other player) says hey guys target 3 2080tis as the ONLY class of hardware you need to run on... and let the creativity loose. Its going for any game developer to not love that. Streaming will take the hardware handcuffs of creative developers.
PC gaming will die a slow death. Yes in 2030 you will still be able to build a gaming PC I have no doubt... but the highest end cards will cost 40-50% more then they do today. I would expect even more peoples gaming rigs will be mid range jobs.... and even the hardest core PC gamers will be streaming on decent fiber. Instead of spending $1000+ on a video card every year... people will be spending an extra 50-100 bucks a month on faster internet and stream subs.
Which features? I would be interested to learn more about any specific advantage Vega or Navi has in cloud server deployments.
Streaming will be the high end. Like it or not... things like Real time ray tracing are never going to really work well on home hardware. Streaming is going to be able to give you 60fps solid with ray tracing cranked to 11.
Lets all be honest there is only really one card capable of delivering 4k 60fps with current minimal levels of Ray tracing... and it retails for $1200. Anything less can't deliver 4k/60.
Oh you found a way to solve the problem that has stopped streaming games form working before?
Please do tell...I would like to hear all about the Nobel price in physics for breaking the speed of light?
But it is about the 2060, 2070, 2080 and 2080 Ti?
Can't eat your cake and have it too
That is almost signature worthy...for the lulz.
AMDs design is very modular. You can see that in say the recent Mac Pro dual radeon VII card. AMD has also done a ton of work for the professional market on graphics memory. They sell cards like the Radeon SSG which mix both traditional GPU memory with solid state storage.
What that means is a company Google has been hard at work... setting up GPU load balancing being able to have a single instance use more free hardware. (instead of running one game on one GPU) They haven't talked about it but I would also assume they are using some form of SSG storage for game textures. So Imagine if you would a cloud game server with 20 TB of connected graphics "SSG" memory. In that memory space they would load the ultra high res textures for every game on their service.... and single instance would read that out of that memory space. It would mean very little being loaded and moved around... everything would simply be addressable. (as I say they haven't talked about using SSG for stadia... but I would assume that is a logical use for AMDs SSG tech)
Your right ... Google is crazy, AMD is crazy. All their engineers have forgot the laws of physics. Lag can be reduced to min... and game developers will simply be TOLD by the big publishers to factor it in, and design games where a few milliseconds of lag aren't going to be noticed. As I said if you like FPS you can continue to like them... people serious about those games run them at the lowest possible graphical setting anyway. For single player games where people want the max eye candy. Streaming is going to be the superior option, even if you are on a 5k+ PC with the latest greatest king of the hill GPU.
GPU performance increased ~30x in the last 12 years. How far away is never ?
Show me even a 2080ti running any current tracing game at 4k with ultra settings and max tracing turned at anything over 30FPS average.
I don't expect the next generation will be any better. Streaming is going to be the platform that will bring 4k full ray traced content at 60fps to market first. I don't expect any consumer level GPU will be able to match that for years if ever. (as its more likely the masses will move to streaming before its possible.)
By this stretch of imagination. What is stopping Development studios to tell the big publishers to fuck off. It ain't that big of a deal to publish games now. Epic just realized that...
The PC Industry doesn't have 12 years to wait. Streaming is going to be offering the masses ray traced games at 60fps by the end of this year.
So by your predictions video games (AAA anyway) will be dead in five years time?
Either trolling super hard or your skull is made out of lead.
Game developers want streaming as much as the publishers do.
Game developers for years have had to guess what the mid range PC market would look like in 4 or 5 years. They start development on a game and have to use their crystal balls. Aim to low and their games will look old dated and not sell... aim to high and the market won't be able to play their game at a decent speed and they won't sell.
Streaming gives game developers the green light to forget targets and just go crazy creating the best game they can. You want to use 500 GB of textures... go for it. You want to really integrate Ray tracing as more then just a potential extra eye candy tick box. Sure go for it... use those shadows around the corner in your sneaking game, even someone playing on a tablet is going to see them.
The only people that don't want streaming... are current PC gaming nerds. (and I'm no exception... no doubt I'm building a new Ryzen next month, and likely shelling out more then I should on some new shiny GPU) lol
And uhm who's going to pay for the hardware time?
Not at all dead.... doing more business then ever. As google will be selling AAA titles on their phones. (data rates may apply lol)
High end PC gaming however... is already DEAD. NV is the only company trying to sell a super high end GPU. That isn't going to change either. AMD is more interesting in selling Radeon MI60. Intel is not going to be the GPU market saviours some people expect either. They are going to launch mid range cards.... AND MI60 competition.
NV is actually behind the curve design wise. They have one big piece of silicon with tensor cores on it ect for their AI ambitions. The future will look like AMDs RDNA and Intels Xe... modular designs. That can be sold for good value mid range cards.... or slaved and load shared on cloud / ai systems. Intel has already been talking about exactly that in PR for some super computer wins they have already picked up for Xe.
Some of these AAA titles bring in hundreds of millions of $ and most of them are twitch shooters. Im sure the big publishers will listen to google..
It will be as follows
1. Pc gaming
If they'll be only available to stream, they'll be dead. That means zero control for you as a customer and quite probably increased costs, something the industry has been pursuing for a while, to the detriment of quality.
I don't think you're wrong about streaming being the wave of the future but until bandwidth restrictions (be that lag or caps or even being able to have internet service) disappear there will be a desire to not stream everything.
I own many CDs; I subscribe to a streaming service so I can try out new music before I commit to a purchase. Games, other than WoW and Diablo, we don't play any streaming games (and even those two are a stretch with three bandwidth addicted adults in the house).
You will have to wait forever....suddenly it's not raytracing anymore....now you add additional "requirements"....I will sig you statement now...I will look really funny in 10 years.
Unless you fix it...you will have +150 ms lag.
Lag is dependent on the speed of light...a constant in the universe.
Not going to change.
What do you think Google and AMD have been working on ?
Ray tracing requires dedicated cores. Guess what works best for ray tracing..... Tensor Cores. No matter what nvidia wants to say RTX is simply using lower float precision tensor cores. Nvidias tensor cores are not unique...
Tensor cores are in fact a GOOGLE design.
Google hasn't really talked a ton about the stadia hardware. All I am going on is quotes from people like ID softwares Dustin Land who are saying Stadia is going to have eye candy features not possible any other way. However....
It should be clear to anyone that has been following Google for awhile.... Stadia isn't going to be just CPUs and GPUs. No doubt in my mind its going to have their Edge tensor TPU hardware in the mix as well. If you think Nvidias SOC tensor chip is great for games... just wait until developers (and users) see what is possible on purpose built tensor hardware.
Ray tracing isn't going to have the same type of performance hit people are seeing on a SOC chip design.
Google software wise will also be able to use speculative algorithms to share both GPU and TPU load for things like ray tracing. Optimising that is what they have been working on with AMD. It will likely be surprising to most people to see just how many game instances they will be able to squeeze onto relatively small servers.
Few people buy CDs anymore. (The music industry has seen CD sales drop 25-40% a year for 5 or 6 years now)
I heard the exact same argument about data caps and bandwidth and even lag when Netflix was the next big thing. The American ISPs will adapt. Will people pay more for their internet pipes.... probably. But those prices have been going up every year as physical media sales have dropped.
I guess at the end of the day consumers have X number of dollars to spend. Its easier to justify a $100 internet bill if your grabbing all your movies TV and music over that pipe. 20 years ago most people would never have spent 100 bucks on a ISP bill... but they where spending 40 or 50 bucks a month at blockbuster and buying a few CDs or DvDs every month.
I see game streaming right now about where Netflix was early days. Most people couldn't really enjoy it to its fullest... and most people where saying this isn't realistic. Now its ubiquitous, and most ISPs don't even count Netflix use against their caps. (granted money is involved there.. but those agreements will get hammered out when the money starts to flow)