Why AMD always disappoint

[Bbfabbna]

you do know this is the graphics card version of "participation award" right?

'cuz 699usd for 2080 bracket in performance (presumably) isn't new at all. it's what we call a "1080ti but 2 years late and for the same launch msrp"

Well, If you put it that way, isnt 2080 even worse since it msrp is 799 and its just 8gb (1080ti is 11gb)... and you cant even find it for 799....more like 850

Also when was 1080ti close to usd699?? More like 800 too.

 

[Ferolare]

Well, If you put it that way, isnt 2080 even worse since it msrp is 799 and its just 8gb (1080ti is 11gb)... and you cant even find it for 799....more like 850

Also when was 1080ti close to usd699?? More like 800 too.

yep. that's why i sh!tp0st all rtx cards except for 2080ti

 

[Crooni]

cpu side is outstanding

just 2 years ago fastest consumer chip is only 4c8t. i9 8/10c costs thousands

now mainstream is 6c/12t. tr 32c/64t can be had at a similar price


gpu is harder cos it's specialised

nvidia is market/tech leader and they didn't stagnate like intel; they keep pushing for their tech/hardware to be adopted (like ray tracing now) to lock down the entire industry, from tech to hardware to software to sales to aib manufacturers.

brand bias also doesn't help amd in both cpu/gpu market


anyway radeon 7 isn't really a gaming card. it's in between gaming and workstation. amd knows they can't sell and get market share even if it's faster/cheaper without getting the industry behind it. so they slap on 16gb hbm and market it as a premium product. i don't think they're expecting high sales volume from it.

 

[Bbfabbna]

you do know this is the graphics card version of "participation award" right?

'cuz 699usd for 2080 bracket in performance (presumably) isn't new at all. it's what we call a "1080ti but 2 years late and for the same launch msrp"

There was no real replacement for 1080ti.... 2080ti is suposed to replace it but the price is.... ahem......

2080 cost more as well....

 

[Zink00]

They should offer a 8gb variant of vii at lower price. Gamers dont need 16gb. Thats more for creators.

 

[shiodong]

2014 AMD stock USD2. 2018 AMD stock >USD20. Didn't disappoint but too bad for me, poor as a pauper then and now, so buy kaveri apu and still in service today, still happy with it.

 

[watzup_ken]

you do know this is the graphics card version of "participation award" right?

'cuz 699usd for 2080 bracket in performance (presumably) isn't new at all. it's what we call a "1080ti but 2 years late and for the same launch msrp"

The same applies to Nvidia’s RTX 2080 if I go along with what you said. In fact Nvidia is charging us 100 USD more than the Vega 7, also performing close to a GTX 1080 Ti. While DLSS can make it faster, the current state of games that adopted it is still miserably low. Personally, I am more inclined to buy a GTX 1080 Ti recently over a RTX 2080.

 

[watzup_ken]

They should offer a 8gb variant of vii at lower price. Gamers dont need 16gb. Thats more for creators.

I suspect cutting the HBM2 memory will result in a 2x decline in memory bandwidth. I am not 100% sure. I am fine with 16gb, but will be good to have a competitor for the RTX 2070 where RTX is not a strong point.

 

[Tan Gee Ming]

i will buy graphics card in year 2020.

 

[watzup_ken]

cpu side is outstanding

just 2 years ago fastest consumer chip is only 4c8t. i9 8/10c costs thousands

now mainstream is 6c/12t. tr 32c/64t can be had at a similar price


gpu is harder cos it's specialised

nvidia is market/tech leader and they didn't stagnate like intel; they keep pushing for their tech/hardware to be adopted (like ray tracing now) to lock down the entire industry, from tech to hardware to software to sales to aib manufacturers.

brand bias also doesn't help amd in both cpu/gpu market


anyway radeon 7 isn't really a gaming card. it's in between gaming and workstation. amd knows they can't sell and get market share even if it's faster/cheaper without getting the industry behind it. so they slap on 16gb hbm and market it as a premium product. i don't think they're expecting high sales volume from it.

For me, I feel the state of AMD GPU is as a result of their misstep on the CPU side of things for close to 7 to 8 years. Recall they have been in the red in terms of profit and only turned profitable in recent years. As a result, I suspect the R&D Budget isn’t good. Since they started on GCN, they have been stuck with it for a very long time. With each iteration of GCN, it was just incremental improvements. For them to be truely competitive, they really need to invest and either build something from scratch, or do a major overhaul of GCN to match the performance/ power efficiency of Nvidia chips. Nonetheless, AMD will try to match from a value standpoint, but only if you are ok with the power inefficiency as compared to Nvidia.

 

[flam4eva]

According to adoredtv's source, Vega 7nm for consumer side not meant to compete with rtx lineup.
Only meant to clear stock from enterprise Vega bad bin so around 200k chips nia
Not surprise if only 200 guys come to Singapore before no stock again

 

[watzup_ken]

According to adoredtv's source, Vega 7nm for consumer side not meant to compete with rtx lineup.
Only meant to clear stock from enterprise Vega bad bin so around 200k chips nia
Not surprise if only 200 guys come to Singapore before no stock again

I don't know how true this is, but I do feel AMD is well aware that their existing stack of GPUs are completely not competitive with the newer RTX series. Instead of losing market share drastically due to no product, they probably decided to just launch the Vega 7. It is likely going to be a costly decision since I believe the cost of the card is quite high using cutting edge fab and HBM2 memory.

 

[Bbfabbna]

I suspect cutting the HBM2 memory will result in a 2x decline in memory bandwidth. I am not 100% sure. I am fine with 16gb, but will be good to have a competitor for the RTX 2070 where RTX is not a strong point.

Yes, it will result in 1/2 the bandwidth

 

[cscs3]

AMD started in the old day emulating x86 code so they can run the same Windows as Intel did.
By emulating, this means extra "translation" is required and hence extra CPU cycle. In order to run faster then Intel, so they started to use higher clock speed and hence very good in term of benchmark result. Once you started to use in real life, you start to feel the different.
Then they have power management issue which generally take more power then Intel and started to loss out in laptop business.

Believe this has been improved over the recent year, but they already loss out most of the market in laptop area.

 

[Ferolare]

AMD started in the old day emulating x86 code so they can run the same Windows as Intel did.
By emulating, this means extra "translation" is required and hence extra CPU cycle. In order to run faster then Intel, so they started to use higher clock speed and hence very good in term of benchmark result. Once you started to use in real life, you start to feel the different.
Then they have power management issue which generally take more power then Intel and started to loss out in laptop business.

Believe this has been improved over the recent year, but they already loss out most of the market in laptop area.

driver support is still a clusterF until they deliver on the unified support across the (consumer) radeon stack in q1'2019

 

[Mystyque]

AMD started in the old day emulating x86 code so they can run the same Windows as Intel did.
By emulating, this means extra "translation" is required and hence extra CPU cycle. In order to run faster then Intel, so they started to use higher clock speed and hence very good in term of benchmark result. Once you started to use in real life, you start to feel the different.
Then they have power management issue which generally take more power then Intel and started to loss out in laptop business.

Believe this has been improved over the recent year, but they already loss out most of the market in laptop area.

eh? AMD started in the old days running exactly the same thing as Intel. It was only after two decades that they started designing their own chips.

 

[peterchan75]

What IBM's skunk work - Personal Computer started, they chose Intel's processor and they insisted on a second source partner. Intel chose AMD and license to AMD to manufacture their processor. The key to produce a compatible CPU is the micro code. This was the subject of long litigation between Intel and AMD. It was settle during the 486 time. AMD's Athlon Thunderbird was the first CPU is past the 1GHz clock speed.

 

[Bbfabbna]

eh? AMD started in the old days running exactly the same thing as Intel. It was only after two decades that they started designing their own chips.

Ironically, it was intel who forced amd to design its own chips....

 

[5star_pundit]

Amd ftw by making 7nm smallest chip it saves space and the card van fit in small itx casing

 

[Audiology93]

I'm gonna wait for Black Friday to get R7 lol. Looking at the BF price for Vega 64 for the previous BF, safe to say that it will be pretty cheap.

Sent from HUAWEI Mate 20 using GAGT