• 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.

Vega Rumors

Anarchist4000 said:
To what end though? Create a superior product and not ultimately sell very many? Those 40+ margins are likely insufficient in this case. The problem being GPUs aren't inherently high margin!


It's still essential to their current processor model so I don't know why anyone would consider killing it off. Far more useful in the future, just not this moment.


The issue isn't about losing money, but not making as much.


That's part of it, but more that only the pro cards have margins currently warranting production. Market demands 1k CPUs and 1k GPUs and you can produce 1k chips. CPUs sell for 1k and GPUs for 500. Which chips do you make? That's the whole point of GPU performance currently being irrelevant for gamers. Even if the cards worked well, gamers couldn't find them for a reasonable or competitive prices without Pascal sucking big time.

GF isn't building fabs because AMD is going out of business. The issue isn't that Vega sucks, but that Ryzen/Threadripper/Epyc are kicking Intel's butt. Just think about that BoA analyst report with AMD going from 11% to 40-50% CPU market share. Unless GF was happily operating at less than 20% capacity there's a likely problem. The CPUs and GPUs use the same fab. Makes sense with GF expansion, WSA renegotiations, Mubadala raising cash, product releases, etc. A supply side constraint makes perfect sense. Until that eases, GPUs don't have sufficient margins.
Click to expand...

Volume vs profit margins is what its all about. Its not so one sided or simple as you put it, there is much more to it then just that. This is economics 101, and if you ever taken higher level business courses, you will understand having marketshare leadership can increase your margins greatly, there are many reasons for this (not just monopolistic tactics, but B2M relationships). Something Intel and nV have been capitalizing on to improve their margins.

Why do you think 3DFx failed where AMD and nV succeeded?

Right now AMD is not in a position to still take on Intel, they have DECENT products that match up with Intel both winning some and loosing some it varies. (what you say is KICKING ASS, is equality in the market place, pretty one sided thinking if you can't see that) They are no where in the graphics card markets any of them and Gaming they are losing marketshare, where currently gaming is VOLUME sales. They loose gaming, they lose game dev support, then modeller dev support because why buy two different products when one can do it all? Then they lose semi custom just like what happened with wii. All of these are interrelated. After that, well they start loosing OS support (not support from an API side since they do that, but influence of API features in upcoming API's).

What you miss is nV created the markets besides the gaming market (even that they had a really big hand in it), they were the innovators and creators of those markets, and it took years to make those markets, it didn't happen over night. AMD is along for the ride when they don't have the funds to push into those markets and by the time they do have the funds (maybe 2 or 3 years down the road, if they keep up with Intel), by then its a much tougher road then it is now.

Can't forget history and the metrics these companies are built on and try to lay a new foundation based on whimsical explanations of one product makes more margins than another while having 1/10 or less of the volume, its actually much less than 1/10. This is the type of thinking management at 3Dfx failed, they lost their OEM's and lost their consumer base and tried to build a beast of a graphics card with multiple processors which on paper looked better than anything nV or AMD had, but that is failure when you lose your volume sales. Who are they going to sell it to? The hobo around the corner who doesn't have the software to run it? That is where Vega is right now for anything in HPC or DL markets, NO DAMN software. So how are they going to sell at higher margins?

Might look good in compute benchmarks, but benchmarks aren't software.

Did you get to the part of that video when JHH stated, the toughest times to keep nV going? It wasn't after making a good product or making the next product, its when they needed to create a new product for a new market. That is when risk outways potential. Because there is no defining those markets, once the markets are defined its easy to see which is the best way to go, but before that its all risk. AMD without the software components to drive those higher margin products is NO WHERE. They need to make their own market just like nV did with CUDA, of course they might get a helping hand with the other companies that are pushing with Open CL, RoCm, HSA, but right now they are not there yet.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
What about the "building stock hence the delay" BS?
Click to expand...
Well if the fab was busy with

razor1 said:
Volume vs profit margins is what its all about. Its not so one sided or simple as you put it, there is much more to it then just that. This is economics 101, and if you ever taken higher level business courses, you will understand having marketshare leadership can increase your margins greatly, there are many reasons for this (not just monopolistic tactics, but B2M relationships). Something Intel and nV have been capitalizing on to improve their margins.
Click to expand...
So you propose building more fabs overnight? Or forgoing profits to gain market share in a lower margin market? Really hard to increase volume when you lack the capacity to increase volume. Anyone with even an introductory lesson in business, or common sense quite frankly, would understand maximizing profits in that situation. You can make x items, do you make the ones that make more or less? Pretty simple decision. Vega doesn't have to be competitive for gamers as AMD is chasing a more lucrative opportunity for the time being. Eventually that will change. And yes 11 to 50 percent share is kicking ass if the only thing holding you back is the ability to make more product.
 
lol I had setup a notificaion for the msi model that was 499.99 on launch day. Newegg sent me a notification it was back in stock. Just for kicks I checked it out and it is 719.99 now. ROFL! They are counting on the crazy to buy the low stocks they have.
 
Anarchist4000 said:
Well if the fab was busy with


So you propose building more fabs overnight? Or forgoing profits to gain market share in a lower margin market? Really hard to increase volume when you lack the capacity to increase volume. Anyone with even an introductory lesson in business, or common sense quite frankly, would understand maximizing profits in that situation. You can make x items, do you make the ones that make more or less? Pretty simple decision. Vega doesn't have to be competitive for gamers as AMD is chasing a more lucrative opportunity for the time being. Eventually that will change. And yes 11 to 50 percent share is kicking ass if the only thing holding you back is the ability to make more product.
Click to expand...


Do you know what GF's current volume production limits are for the chips AMD is making currently? Without knowing that you are assuming that AMD is the sole company that will be using that volume. Again assumptions are the mother of all F ups.

Common sense since Intel opened up their fabs to others, TSMC is purely and always have been that way, Samsung is doing the same as well. Common sense is GF is doing the same thing. GF's purpose is not to make AMD only happy, cause AMD sure can't keep GF's happy. We saw that with the negotiations a year ago.

Quite recently GF has won quite a few contracts........
 
That was the point of RX470, RX480, RX570, RX580 -- to build up their install base among the general mid-tier PC enthusiast and they were successful. AMD could really just keep releasing those four cards till the cows come home and assuming there is profit there - just keep selling them for the next year without fail. An RX470-RX580 is plenty for most gamers and miners as well --- at least until Eth goes Proof of Stake. I hosted a LAN party a month ago for 16 friends. The most common card at the LAN party - Nvidia 970. These are the gamers enthusiastic enough to drag their computer to someone else's house - (gamers for YEARS - decades in most cases) and the majority had a single 970 card. They could still play any game they wanted with a single 970. (Star Wars Battlefront, Doom, Overwatch, etc) The RX 4 and 5 series card from AMD are superior to the 970 - especially in DX12. -- There's still a lot of life in those cards for mainstream gamers at 1080p. Even at $300 per card - It's a better value proposition than $500 for a RX Vega 56 to the masses. If AMD is losing money on every Vega sold at $500 -- or just breaking even - then why bother? Just re-assign the fabs to pump out RX570, and RX580.
 
Archaea said:
That was the point of RX470, RX480, RX570, RX580 -- to build up their install base among the general mid-tier PC enthusiast and they were successful. AMD could really just keep releasing those four cards till the cows come home and assuming there is profit there - just keep selling them for the next year without fail. An RX470-RX580 is plenty for most gamers and mines well --- at least until Eth goes Proof of Stake. I hosted a LAN party recently for 16 guys. The most common card at the LAN party - Nvidia 970. These are the gamers enthusiastic enough to drag their computer to someone else's house - and the majority had a single 970 card. They could still play any game they wanted with a single 970. The RX 4 and 5 series card from AMD are superior to the 970. -- There's still a lot of life in those cards for mainstream gamers. Even at $300 per card - It's a better value proposition than $500 for a RX Vega 56 to the masses.
Click to expand...


Thats not enough, 27% marketshare down from 29% the prior quarter, and they are definitely losing money still in RTG.

This is why creating the biggest chip first was always done, because that technology and its cost is spread over the entire line. R&D is spread. Doing smaller chips RTG can stay afloat, but its hard to innovate and push back into the larger chips without the funds to do so.

After 4 smaller chip designs 3xxx, 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx AMD finally came back to the big chips but that was because of nV sticking around with Tesla for 3 generations and the birthing troubles of Fermi. That is what got AMD back in market share, and clearly making money again in the graphics division. Not to take anything away from AMD, their chips were good (last 3 of that list), but without the perspective of what nV did to themselves in that time frame we have nothing to judge AMD on.
 
razor1 said:
Do you know what GF's current volume production limits are for the chips AMD is making currently? Without knowing that you are assuming that AMD is the sole company that will be using that volume. Again assumptions are the mother of all F ups.
Click to expand...
No idea, but I do know a 500% increase in market share likely means an increase in chips produced. As for other fabs, it takes time and money to create product elsewhere. Or just wait a month for the market to stabilize a bit. I'm also assuming Intel isn't fabricating AMD CPUs without flying pigs, falling skies, or the like.
 
NKD said:
lol I had setup a notificaion for the msi model that was 499.99 on launch day. Newegg sent me a notification it was back in stock. Just for kicks I checked it out and it is 719.99 now. ROFL! They are counting on the crazy to buy the low stocks they have.
Click to expand...
yep Newegg taking advantage , charging $130 over MSRP for pack..e-gouging at it's finest

Edit. looks like stocks coming in slowly another batch showing in newegg and Amazon taking orders
 
Last edited:
Anarchist4000 said:
No idea, but I do know a 500% increase in market share likely means an increase in chips produced. As for other fabs, it takes time and money to create product elsewhere. Or just wait a month for the market to stabilize a bit. I'm also assuming Intel isn't fabricating AMD CPUs without flying pigs, falling skies, or the like.
Click to expand...

Do you know there is a 500% increase in marketshare, btw AMD has had ~20% marketshare for how many years now in the CPU side, 500% means 100% of the market........ Where are you getting these numbers from, from people testing their CPU's on a website? See how that doesn't correlate with reality.

Intel will make whom ever chips they want to that isn't the point. And AMD can make it in Intel fabs if they were so inclined to, but GF has them by the balls anyways so going away from GF isn't really advantageous for AMD that was the entire restructuring of the contract was about, AMD needs to pay GF if they use another Fab. Either way GF gets their cut. Having said that the only advantage for AMD is now they can go to other fabs if they feel GF doesn't deliver on nodes.
 
Last edited:
They can't really go to other fabs without incurring huge penalties for not running X amount of product through GF if going by their previous conference calls. Maybe they got smarter with their contracts?
 
cageymaru said:
They can't really go to other fabs without incurring huge penalties for not running X amount of product through GF if going by their previous conference calls. Maybe they got smarter with their contracts?
Click to expand...


Well they just have to pay GF upfront on a per wafer cost with the new contract, so not huge penalties, but it will increase AMD's manufacturing costs, to can't be anywhere near buying a full wafer, probably in the neighborhood of like 10% of the wafer cost. Still a nice chunk of money when its all said and done.
 
Sorry, but ya'll motherfuckers are crazy.

Vega will live in every Zen APU, desktop or laptop. I have a feeling that will be a more noticeable chunk of computers compared to Bulldozer, especially since a Zen APU with 50% more CU's than the current ones can actually play modern games at 720p/1080p with low/medium settings. Keep in mind, this APU looks to have 11 functional CU's, making it about halfway between an RX550 (8) and a RX560 (16) in compute power, that's enough for low end gaming.

This will help them sell this chip in laptops and iGPU-only low cost home desktops (especially laptops). This will help their CPU marketshare and help them stay on the game developer's radar.

Where will they be for this massive consumer market without that iGPU provided by RTG?

Nowhere.

Which is exactly where RTG is going in terms of relation to AMD.

PS This isn't even counting the repeated generations of console chips that have helped keep them afloat, hard to sell Microsoft and Sony a chip without a custom APU these days...
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Sorry, but ya'll motherfuckers are crazy.

Vega will live in every Zen APU, desktop or laptop. I have a feeling that will be a more noticeable chunk of computers compared to Bulldozer, especially since a Zen APU with 50% more CU's than the current ones can actually play modern games at 720p/1080p with low/medium settings. Keep in mind, this APU looks to have 11 functional CU's, making it about halfway between an RX550 (8) and a RX560 (16) in compute power, that's enough for low end gaming.

This will help them sell this chip in laptops and iGPU-only low cost home desktops (especially laptops). This will help their CPU marketshare and help them stay on the game developer's radar.

Where will they be for this massive consumer market without that iGPU provided by RTG?

Nowhere.

Which is exactly where RTG is going in terms of relation to AMD.

PS This isn't even counting the repeated generations of console chips that have helped keep them afloat, hard to sell Microsoft and Sony a chip without a custom APU these days...
Click to expand...

AMD and RTG both need to prove they can offer power consumption on par with Intel to get any notable mobile market share. Intel HD 630 graphics suck for gaming, however people appreciate the low power draw.
 
Ocellaris said:
AMD and RTG both need to prove they can offer power consumption on par with Intel to get any notable mobile market share. Intel HD 630 graphics suck for gaming, however people appreciate the low power draw.
Click to expand...

Look at 3ghz-3.5ghz voltage for Zen and power usage in that envelope, compare it to Intel offerings. They are competitive. Even Vega when running at 1000-1200mhz (APU ranges on the A12-9800) can run extremely efficiently with the process that's made for low power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Magic Hate Ball said:
Look at 3ghz-3.5ghz voltage for Zen and power usage in that envelope, compare it to Intel offerings. They are competitive. Even Vega when running at 1000-1200mhz (APU ranges on the A12-9800) can run extremely efficiently with the process that's made for low power.
Click to expand...


Vega as an APU just won't have an impact, both Intel and AMD's current APU's are limited by bandwidth, until that is lifted we won't see any change in performance @ playable resolutions.
 
razor1 said:
Vega as an APU just won't have an impact, both Intel and AMD's current APU's are limited by bandwidth, until that is lifted we won't see any change in performance @ playable resolutions.
Click to expand...

I would think that would eventually be the end game for using HBM.
 
Gideon said:
I would think that would eventually be the end game for using HBM.
Click to expand...


Too expensive, if its expensive for Vega, how are they going to do that with a 150 buck CPU? Maybe when HBM3 comes out, but by then Vega will be no more.

Also its all a balancing act, whats the use of upping the bandwidth with HBM type memories when most likely the bandwidth it will give will be well above and beyond what the CPU will need? It will be wasting resources with limited gains. I can see such a product for specialized uses, and high margin products but as a mass consumer product its just not there yet.
 
razor1 said:
Vega as an APU just won't have an impact, both Intel and AMD's current APU's are limited by bandwidth, until that is lifted we won't see any change in performance @ playable resolutions.
Click to expand...

Overwatch 768p through 1080p


Battlefield 1 768p "Fast RAM" DDR4 2400


COD: Infinite Warfare 720p


This is old Excavator crap running with old GCN core tech with 33% fewer CU's and running a less memory efficient GPU tech.

Not what I would want to play on, but certainly playable to low end gamers.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Overwatch 768p through 1080p


Battlefield 1 768p "Fast RAM" DDR4 2400


COD: Infinite Warfare 720p


This is old Excavator crap running with old GCN core tech with 33% fewer CU's and running a less memory efficient GPU tech.

Not what I would want to play on, but certainly playable to low end gamers.
Click to expand...



I'm not saying its not playable, I'm saying at playable settings they are still bandwidth limited. Upping the memory speeds you get performance increases at those reses lol. And its fairly linear ;)

Memory speeds for system memory has been going up much slower then what performance and IGP or APU can actual deliver. This is the only reason why the 460, and 1030's are still in the market. Specs alone on APU's and IGP they should be able to match them but with the bandwidth constraints, can't do it.
 
razor1 said:
if that was even possible that would change the dynamics of market place GREATLY!

Didn't we see what happened with the HD4xxx series against 2xx series? Or G80 vs r600? Lets see fx5800 vs the 9700 pro.

And this will never happen anyways.
Click to expand...

We've seen AMD with solid leads in GPU and CPU before yet fuck all people jumped ship because 'muh intvidia stronk'.
As long as they lose the PR battle and the shills in here and elsewhere bait and switch, AMD is going nowhere. That said, this time around the internet is making it harder to hide when AMD shines, Ryzen case in point - AMD has the top selling CPU on Amazon, period.
 
N4CR said:
We've seen AMD with solid leads in GPU and CPU before yet fuck all people jumped ship because 'muh intvidia stronk'.
As long as they lose the PR battle and the shills in here and elsewhere bait and switch, AMD is going nowhere. That said, this time around the internet is making it harder to hide when AMD shines, Ryzen case in point - AMD has the top selling CPU on Amazon, period.
Click to expand...


Hmm no they they don't they are in the top yeah number 3, but still better than before yeah.

This is too close to launch to make these assumptions of 500% or even a 5% gain in marketshare too. We don't know how much marketshare AMD has gotten from Ryzen at least not yet.

When ever AMD has had strong products at least on the GPU side of things they always gain marketshare.

Now CPU they did too but was subdued do to Intel's practices. But they still gained. BYO market they were up to 50%.

Coming from down is always harder, so I don't expect AMD to gain much unless they keep on going and fighting toe for toe with Intel, like they have done in the desktop market with Ryzen, for another 2 or 3 years. We will know more once we start seeing OEM's systems for Ryzen's mainstream chips though.
 
tybert7 said:
I don't think price hikes due to demand are inherently shady. Everyone here seems to keep forgetting the price situation for Pascal cards at launch and for a long time after.

379.99 1070? More like 450

599.99 1080?
699.99 1080 founders edition?

More like 700 dollars plus for damn near all 1080s

The high crime for amd is not just that there are price hikes, it's that the hikes are too high and there are CHEAPER AND FASTER cards on the market!

Pascal had nothing else in on it's level on the High end.

With that backdrop, AMD had One job, Either match the cost of a 1080 with higher overall performance, or match the performance of the 1080 at similar to lower cost.

What we are seeing now is them barely trading blows with a 1080 for 100 to 200 dollars more... that is so bad that even amd fanboys like me bought 1080s.

amd did this crap with the fury x too, lower performance to a 980 ti at launch, same price...

Unacceptable. Either provide a better value, or better performance. Pick one. AMD just gave BOTH metrics to nvidia, they need to do better.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The MSRP for Geforce GTX 1070 FE was $449 and for Geforce GTX 1080 FE was $699.

So, those cards were selling at MSRP.
 
_mockingbird said:
Wrong. The MSRP for Geforce GTX 1070 FE was $449 and for Geforce GTX 1080 FE was $699.

So, those cards were selling at MSRP.
Click to expand...


yeah the lower end 1070's stripped down with plastic blower style non FE 1070s were 389 MSRP, FE was 450
 
_mockingbird said:
Wrong. The MSRP for Geforce GTX 1070 FE was $449 and for Geforce GTX 1080 FE was $699.

So, those cards were selling at MSRP.
Click to expand...


Disingenuous clap, nvidia still talked about the NON FE cards MSRP being 379.99 for the 1070, and 599.99 for the 1080. Those prices did not materialize until awhile after launch, you still saw large price hikes and for some reason some of you want to pretend this is a new phenomenon. The FE was supposed to be the "inflated" price for buying from nvidia, but if even the standard cards are selling at the msrp of the inflated founders edition price and not the listed MSRP they showed on slides, that is still an increased price on what nvidia claimed would be the costs of non FE cards. You had partner cards that had vastly better cooling than the FE cards, in what world would a partner sell that for LESS than an FE edition (SLOWER) with constrained supply at launch?

Do you think because it was nvidia that inflated prices don't matter? Is that you Jay?

Anyway, as I said before, this is still worse for amd, because they don't have the high end to themselves, they don't have the performance crown, they don't have most objective measures for this round. They are basically asking people to wait longer, for the privilege of spending more money on a card, that has equal to or less performance than a card that is already on the market and a lower cost.

Not a good scenario. I do think prices will come down, I hope Vega eventually falls back to 499.99 once demand dies down, then it should have a better time. But for anyone that wanted to get a card now, there is just less reason to take the plunge there. They almost had me, just on impulse I would have spent a hundred more for a vega 64 at 599.99, but to have to wait AND spend more? For me there were just too many compounding negatives and a tiredness of waiting for more performance.

Keep Vega competitive, work hard on vega in the new notebook apus, and put more work into navi and launching a FULL SLATE of gpus.
 
tybert7 said:
Disingenuous clap, nvidia still talked about the NON FE cards MSRP being 379.99 for the 1070, and 599.99 for the 1080. Those prices did not materialize until awhile after launch, you still saw large price hikes and for some reason some of you want to pretend this is a new phenomenon. The FE was supposed to be the "inflated" price for buying from nvidia, but if even the standard cards are selling at the msrp of the inflated founders edition price and not the listed MSRP they showed on slides, that is still an increased price on what nvidia claimed would be the costs of non FE cards. You had partner cards that had vastly better cooling than the FE cards, in what world would a partner sell that for LESS than an FE edition (SLOWER) with constrained supply at launch?

Do you think because it was nvidia that inflated prices don't matter? Is that you Jay?

Anyway, as I said before, this is still worse for amd, because they don't have the high end to themselves, they don't have the performance crown, they don't have most objective measures for this round. They are basically asking people to wait longer, for the privilege of spending more money on a card, that has equal to or less performance than a card that is already on the market and a lower cost.

Not a good scenario. I do think prices will come down, I hope Vega eventually falls back to 499.99 once demand dies down, then it should have a better time. But for anyone that wanted to get a card now, there is just less reason to take the plunge there. They almost had me, just on impulse I would have spent a hundred more for a vega 64 at 599.99, but to have to wait AND spend more? For me there were just too many compounding negatives and a tiredness of waiting for more performance.

Keep Vega competitive, work hard on vega in the new notebook apus, and put more work into navi and launching a FULL SLATE of gpus.
Click to expand...

After launch, there were only Founder Edition cards. There were no aftermarket cards.

You can say that the Founder Edition is a rip-off, but it was selling at MRSP.
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
Overwatch 768p through 1080p


Battlefield 1 768p "Fast RAM" DDR4 2400


COD: Infinite Warfare 720p


This is old Excavator crap running with old GCN core tech with 33% fewer CU's and running a less memory efficient GPU tech.

Not what I would want to play on, but certainly playable to low end gamers.
Click to expand...


The problem is when I looked at an APU build around a year ago it was cheaper to go discrete gpu + cheap cpu and twice the performance IIRC.

APU with HBM would be neat. I'd probably buy one to play with. Remember they could probably fetch more than $150 if the GPU portion was actually worth a damn and not starved...
 
Dayaks said:
The problem is when I looked at an APU build around a year ago it was cheaper to go discrete gpu + cheap cpu and twice the performance IIRC.
Click to expand...

GPU-heavy APU's like AMD makes, being bandwidth limited, are only good for situations where space is limited and no external GPU fits. And when they're expensive, well...

I honestly think Intel has done well with their APUs. Their IGPs are slow and their drivers aren't the best, but they are certainly effective, and their CPUs are second to none.

I don't know if AMD will be able to build competitive APUs. I hope they do; there's something to be said for compact and effective systems, and the effort will encourage Intel to pack in a bit more GPU when they can and that benefits everyone. But they do have a tough road ahead having to compete with Intel and Nvidia where those two have spent a significant chunk of their focus these last few years that AMD has trailed them significantly: efficiency at speed.
 
razor1 said:
I'm not saying its not playable, I'm saying at playable settings they are still bandwidth limited. Upping the memory speeds you get performance increases at those reses lol. And its fairly linear ;)

Memory speeds for system memory has been going up much slower then what performance and IGP or APU can actual deliver. This is the only reason why the 460, and 1030's are still in the market. Specs alone on APU's and IGP they should be able to match them but with the bandwidth constraints, can't do it.
Click to expand...

Alright, another wager. Using DDR4 2400 you're saying any Zen+Vega APU* won't surpass the FPS of those provided demonstrations as they're purely memory bandwidth starved? And that no improvements on memory compression has improved since the GCN3 architecture for the A12-9800?
 
Dayaks said:
The problem is when I looked at an APU build around a year ago it was cheaper to go discrete gpu + cheap cpu and twice the performance IIRC.

APU with HBM would be neat. I'd probably buy one to play with. Remember they could probably fetch more than $150 if the GPU portion was actually worth a damn and not starved...
Click to expand...

This is true.

But if they launch in this current GPU miner whatever supply fuckfest of awful, a $150 APU that can perform maybe 3/4 as well as an RX560 as well as be an unlocked desktop CPU will be a killer start for any low end budget rig when things like the 1050 go for $120-140 alone.

If you're building a starter system, 4c/8t non-CCX split Zen with a solid low-end GPU part of the package, buying good RAM will be a long term investment. Awaiting a GPU upgrade at a later date is a wise decision. People could build a decent low-end gaming rig for $350 that can OC!
 
Magic Hate Ball said:
This is true.

But if they launch in this current GPU miner whatever supply fuckfest of awful, a $150 APU that can perform maybe 3/4 as well as an RX560 as well as be an unlocked desktop CPU will be a killer start for any low end budget rig when things like the 1050 go for $120-140 alone.

If you're building a starter system, 4c/8t non-CCX split Zen with a solid low-end GPU part of the package, buying good RAM will be a long term investment. Awaiting a GPU upgrade at a later date is a wise decision. People could build a decent low-end gaming rig for $350 that can OC!
Click to expand...
Also with HBM2 high bandwidth cache. Performance will be higher. Knew Vega was not all that,but as I GPU could be a winner.
 
One thing is clear, AMD is going to be in trouble next year unless it pull of a small miracle.

If history is to go by:

Geforce GTX 1070 --> Geforce GTX 1160

Geforce GTX 1080 Ti --> Geforce GTX 1170

If AMD can't even sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for $499 right now, how is it going to be able to sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for ~$300 in ~six months time?

Just to compete in the mainstream, AMD would need something with a much smaller die that can compete with the Geforce GTX 1160.
 
_mockingbird said:
One thing is clear, AMD is going to be in trouble next year unless it pull of a small miracle.

If history is to go by:

Geforce GTX 1070 --> Geforce GTX 1160

Geforce GTX 1080 Ti --> Geforce GTX 1170

If AMD can't even sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for $499 right now, how is it going to be able to sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for ~$300 in ~six months time?

Just to compete in the mainstream, AMD would need something with a much smaller die that can compete with the Geforce GTX 1160.
Click to expand...

There are some Vega64 in stock for $499? Could you link to them?
 
_mockingbird said:
One thing is clear, AMD is going to be in trouble next year unless it pull of a small miracle.

If history is to go by:

Geforce GTX 1070 --> Geforce GTX 1160

Geforce GTX 1080 Ti --> Geforce GTX 1170

If AMD can't even sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for $499 right now, how is it going to be able to sell Radeon RX Vega 64 for ~$300 in ~six months time?

Just to compete in the mainstream, AMD would need something with a much smaller die that can compete with the Geforce GTX 1160.
Click to expand...

When the GTX 1160 comes into stock and is comparable with a GTX 1070 in compute, how long will it last on the shelves at MSRP? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top