Personal computing discussed

Moderators: morphine, SecretSquirrel

 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:33 pm

LostCat wrote:
I really don't get people saying Freesync locks you to AMD cards. Sure, I can't use it right now on my 1070, but it's hardly a necessity if you can keep your framerates up anyway.


Because if you want to use it, yeah, it does. Otherwise you forgo the feature. Likewise, you can use G-sync monitors with AMD cards too, you just don't get the benefit and you paid even more money to not get the benefit.

Could Nvidia change its mind? Sure, but the real reason G-sync is proprietary and Freesync is not is because Nvidia is dominant and therefore can get away with it, whereas AMD is not dominant and therefore competes by being open.

In other words, no, things aren't likely to change anytime soon. Nvidia can get away with it right now and for the foreseeable future, and so they do.

So, for the time-being, yeah, even though one is open and the other closed, they still "lock" you into their respective vendors.
 
Airmantharp
Emperor Gerbilius I
Posts: 6126
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:37 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
With the mining craze, AMD should have increased production to meet increased anticipated demand, right? No? That's on them. See, I can actually buy a GTX1070, GTX1080, or GTX1080Ti, for inflated but reasonable prices.

cynan wrote:
How exactly was AMD supposed to increase production on Vega?

They're not 'supposed' to increase production now. They're stuck. And that's true for all of their products and limitations. Point is, they can't make enough for the very meager demand that exists, and the ones they can make are expensive.

Airmantharp wrote:
If you want to talk about margins, well, you admit that they're worse off than Nvidia by a long shot- but evidence would be needed either way. I'm betting that the best anyone can do is infer.

cynan wrote:
Yup. Gaming Vega is almost, if not exactly, a loss-leader for AMD. But it was never intended to be competitive with Nvidia on a profit basis. It was a stepping stone to Navi (which AMD will have a chance to be competitive with) to retain mindshare in the high end gaming sector while AMD launched Ryzen. In the short term, AMD will take a hit due to gaming Vega. But gaming Vega will serve AMD's long term strategy just fine, at least as long as HBM2 supply ramps up sooner rather than later.

Link for Vega never intending to be 'profitably competitive'?

And AMD's long-term GPU strategy- which hasn't changed since they bought ATi- is to be hotter and slower (and usually louder) than Nvidia, while operating on thinner margins because the absolute largest GPU they can make ith HBM2 is only competitive with Nvidia's aging half-GPU?

Airmantharp wrote:
And hooray, FreeSync is free! Except it isn't, comes attached to lower-end monitors, and that's okay because AMD simply cannot make a card that's fast enough to warrant a high-end gaming monitor.

cynan wrote:
You don't consider this a high end monitor? Or this? I wish G-sync montors had 3840x1600 panels


I do; now compare the maximum refresh rate. Still 75Hz on these as on the 1440p 21:9 FreeSync monitors, whereas the 1440p G-Sync monitors are good to 100Hz. [H]ard|OCP did a comparison between Vega and 1080Ti, and they got the monitors as close as they could- because they couldn't get the exact same monitors save for variable v-sync tech.

I will say that this is on the monitor makers. They could do it, but they don't, and if one has to asks why they don't push the limits with FreeSync monitors, AMD's lack of ability to compete on the top end for gaming has very likely been influential.
Canon 6D|24-105/4L |70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|50/1.4 USM|50/2.5 CM|50/1.8 STM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8|24/2.8 IS|Sigma 150-600 | C
Canon EOS-M|11-22 IS|22/2|EF-M 18-55
 
ptsant
Gerbil Team Leader
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:45 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:47 pm

Kretschmer wrote:
ptsant wrote:
...either by powersaving on the 56 or overclocking the 1070) probably narrows the power difference even further.


If you're going to hand tweak your cards, though, it would seem to make sense to either lower the voltage on the 1070 (for similar performance) or overclock the 1070 for another 10+% performance. It seems odds to compare apples and oranges.


See the quote above. I specifically mention tweaking both cards by hand. Overclocking the 1070 will narrow the performance gap with Vega, or even surpass it, but at the cost of more power, bridging the difference in power consumption. I have no experience with undervolting the 1070. The GCN cards are notorious for the amount of undervolting they can tolerate (10% or more is almost universal). I can't say if that stands for the 1070. Also, note that the gains from the power saving profile are not "hand tuning". All you have to do is tick a box. A Vega 56 running the powersave profile is "stock", in that sense.

Anyway, my general point is that the Vega 64 is a bad card for gaming, but the 56 is (would be) a viable choice at MSRP. I have been saying for months that Vega is a failure for gaming (I even said that someone must fire Raja, but I then heard that Vega was in the pipeline before he came on board). Despite the above, I can see some reasons for buying the Vega 56 but the discussion is purely academic at these prices.
Image
 
LostCat
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Alphanumeric symbols.

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:02 pm

Glorious wrote:
Because if you want to use it, yeah, it does. Otherwise you forgo the feature. Likewise, you can use G-sync monitors with AMD cards too, you just don't get the benefit and you paid even more money to not get the benefit.

Could Nvidia change its mind? Sure, but the real reason G-sync is proprietary and Freesync is not is because Nvidia is dominant and therefore can get away with it, whereas AMD is not dominant and therefore competes by being open.

In other words, no, things aren't likely to change anytime soon. Nvidia can get away with it right now and for the foreseeable future, and so they do.

So, for the time-being, yeah, even though one is open and the other closed, they still "lock" you into their respective vendors.

I could've bought a normal monitor for about the same price. But IMO there's no significant reason not to own a Freesync monitor. Sure, it's a feature I can't use, but they're pretty good gaming monitors anyway. I just can't consider it a lock rather than a good feature add.

G-Syncs price premium on the other hand makes it so that I would pretty much immediately dismiss it for use on an AMD card as a normal monitor.
Last edited by LostCat on Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meow.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:03 pm

airmantharp wrote:
Link for Vega never intending to be 'profitably competitive'?


Haha, you are taking his nonsense too seriously.

He's literally saying that since they aimed to lose money( :roll: ), they can still be said to be doing an admirable job.

Of course, as you note, this is a long-standing pattern and so we can't even pretend that we're dealing with a short-term stop-gap kind of band-aid "plan"

Anyone lacking fanboyitis (I am someone who has owned a Nvidia 970 <- AMD 7850 <- Nvidia 460 <- AMD 4850 <- Nvidia 8800GTS <- ???, so I've switched colors every single time for at least the past decade) should be able to see this.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Grand Admiral Gerbil
Posts: 10876
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:09 pm

LostCat wrote:
I could've bought a normal monitor for about the same price. But IMO there's no significant reason not to own a Freesync monitor. Sure, it's a feature I can't use, but they're pretty good gaming monitors anyway. I just can't consider it a lock rather than a good feature add.

G-Syncs price premium on the other hand makes it so that I would pretty much immediately dismiss it for use on an AMD card as a normal monitor.


I noted outright that yeah, you're paying a lot more for G-sync. That's true enough, and as I said, that's simply because Nvidia can get away with it. :cry:

Here's the thing though: once you've bought that new monitor with Freesync, regardless of whether or not it's comparable to another model without Freesync, you're not very likely to go and buy *another* monitor with G-sync, right?

Hence, when you purchase a new monitor, you're locking in one GPU vendor by *not* choosing G-Sync, if that particular formulation helps you understand where people are coming from. :wink:

It's a pretty big deal, I've had the same gaming monitor for literally a decade now, so if I was going to choose my next monitor and I wanted some sort of adaptive sync, yeah, I'm locking myself in.
 
cynan
Gold subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:21 pm

Glorious wrote:
airmantharp wrote:
Link for Vega never intending to be 'profitably competitive'?


Haha, you are taking his nonsense too seriously.

He's literally saying that since they aimed to lose money( :roll: ), they can still be said to be doing an admirable job.

Of course, as you note, this is a long-standing pattern and so we can't even pretend that we're dealing with a short-term stop-gap kind of band-aid "plan"

Anyone lacking fanboyitis (I am someone who has owned a Nvidia 970 <- AMD 7850 <- Nvidia 460 <- AMD 4850 <- Nvidia 8800GTS <- ???, so I've switched colors every single time for at least the past decade) should be able to see this.


Nope. I'm saying that there is a difference between short-term and long-term business strategies. And I never said that AMD intended to make no profit on Vega. Just that, with the HBM2 situation, so far, Vega is turning out to be a bit of a loss-leader, or at least moreso than previous gaming GPUs. And yes, AMD probably decided that it was better to get a product in that market segment that wasn't very profitable (but again, not necessarily, over the life of Vega, not profitable at all than have people forget that they make high-end gaming GPUs by the time something much more competitive comes around (hopefully Navi).

And I also stand by "profitably competitive". Simply put, relative to the profit margins on Pascal, Vega is surely not, and probably never could - with it's large die, HBM2, interposer, generate as much profit, regardless of current HBM2-constrained supply.
 
cynan
Gold subscriber
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:36 pm

Airmantharp wrote:

I do; now compare the maximum refresh rate. Still 75Hz on these as on the 1440p 21:9 FreeSync monitors, whereas the 1440p G-Sync monitors are good to 100Hz.


Nonsense. The Samsung C34F791, for one, is a 100Hz 3440x1440 Freesync monitor. This was the monitor in the Vega bundles...

With Freesync 2, you are going to see higher and higher end monitors. That's precisely why AMD needs to keep a dog in this fight. Even if, for now, gaming Vega really is a dog for AMD profit wise.
 
LostCat
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Alphanumeric symbols.

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:22 pm

Glorious wrote:
It's a pretty big deal, I've had the same gaming monitor for literally a decade now, so if I was going to choose my next monitor and I wanted some sort of adaptive sync, yeah, I'm locking myself in.

Well, not to me anyway. Monitor tech is changing so fast I'm on track to spend more on displays than I did on this PC so far, assuming I get another one.

Whee. I'm not planning on it, til next year anyway.

At any rate, either way I do intend to go back to AMD for Freesync 2 next year. G-Sync can go die in a fire.

(I still think HDMI 2.1 will make both of them irrelevant, but we'll see.)
Meow.
 
Kretschmer
Gerbil XP
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:36 am

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:48 pm

cynan wrote:
The Samsung C34F791, for one, is a 100Hz 3440x1440 Freesync monitor. This was the monitor in the Vega bundles...

Yeah, and AMD FINALLY fixed FreeSync on the CF791 recently (after almost a year). Be careful to do your research before buying a FreeSync 1 monitor, because a lot of them are dogs (adaptive sync issues, anemic adaptive sync range, et cetera).

Since you have to choose, I'd rather pay $100-$200 more to lock myself into Nvidia's ecosystem for the next 5 years, because they have a proven track record of delivering new generations of cards. If you buy into Vega/FreeSync now, you might be waiting another 3.5 years for the next competitive-ish generation (e.g. 290X->Vega 56). That said, FreeSync (with research) is a nice option for budget buyers. I just chuckle when people pay over MSRP for a Vega, pay to upgrade their PSU, and then talk about the GSync tax.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 18066
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:26 pm

i7-8700K, H100i v2, RoG Strix Z370-G Gaming, 16 GiB, RX Vega64, 960Pro SSD, 5TB HDD, Define Mini-C, SS-660XP2, C32HG70, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
Krogoth
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5410
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:57 pm

Airmantharp wrote:
They're not 'supposed' to increase production now. They're stuck. And that's true for all of their products and limitations. Point is, they can't make enough for the very meager demand that exists, and the ones they can make are expensive.


Vega line-up has very strong demand for it as much you would expect from a high-end performance GPU. It is about same demand as 1080 and 1080Ti. If demand was practically non-existent as you claim, then there should be Vega 64 and 56 boxes collecting dust on etailer/retailer shelves.

cynan wrote:
Yup. Gaming Vega is almost, if not exactly, a loss-leader for AMD. But it was never intended to be competitive with Nvidia on a profit basis. It was a stepping stone to Navi (which AMD will have a chance to be competitive with) to retain mindshare in the high end gaming sector while AMD launched Ryzen. In the short term, AMD will take a hit due to gaming Vega. But gaming Vega will serve AMD's long term strategy just fine, at least as long as HBM2 supply ramps up sooner rather than later.


Gaming Vega is quite profitable per unit but only a small quantity of units are sold. The problem is that high-end GPU market have never been big money. Just ask 3Dfx. It has always been mid-range cards via sheer volume. Nvidia gets the bulk of its gaming GPU revenue from 1070 and 1060. 1080 makes some change while 1080Ti and Titan are low-volume, halo products. ATI used to make bulk of its reveune via mid-range and low-end discrete cards back in its heyday. iGPUs have pretty much killed the low-end discrete market and are beginning to erode away at mid-range discrete.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC3-12800, Sapphire RX Vega 64, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
 
blahsaysblah
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:35 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:46 pm

Not quiet, the 1070 + 1080 are 5% of the 17% that just Pascal has of Steam survey.

Im going to also counter that Vega has any demand, considering it has similar profile as RX and the RX cards are 1-3/4% of Steam survey share.

I had same view as you until a few days ago when i checked Steam HW survey for past several months. AMD is not tied with Nvidia, the cheaper RX cards havnt taken over the low end market at all. From all the review sites youd think they were fighting evenly. Not even close.
 
NoOne ButMe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:57 pm

First big problem for AMD:
OEM love, love, love, pref/watt for mobile. If Vega does get 80-90% of Pascal, than probably good enough. It's a matter of showing up to the fight.

Second:
Mindshare, ask 10 'casual'/'average' gamers about graphics cards, I bet at least half don't think of anything besides Nvidia for GPU.

Third:
power draw (hence heat). We can see it with Vega, we saw it with Hawaii, and with Polaris 10/20. AMD needs to stop making cards use an extra 10-30% power for 1-5% performance gain on default. Do dual BIOS, set the default to "lower power" mode. Clearly label there is a "high performance" mode on the box.

Fourth:
noise, lower power can help as means less fan speed, but if AMD is not going to cut power by defaulting to "barely slower but way less power" mode, than stop making a blower reference design.

As for money on Vega, for 56 gross profit, net profit (factoring in driver teams, engineering it, mask costs and more) is close to zero if not negative.


I'm really bummed that AMD crippled themselves again, 3072b memory bus would mean cheaper for them to make and faster... and given HBM problem seemed in part due to clockspeeds, delayed launch/availability also. Nice to see their issues with HBM1 memory controller were fixed for HBM2. =]
 
Airmantharp
Emperor Gerbilius I
Posts: 6126
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:02 pm

Kretschmer wrote:
cynan wrote:
The Samsung C34F791, for one, is a 100Hz 3440x1440 Freesync monitor. This was the monitor in the Vega bundles...

Yeah, and AMD FINALLY fixed FreeSync on the CF791 recently (after almost a year). Be careful to do your research before buying a FreeSync 1 monitor, because a lot of them are dogs (adaptive sync issues, anemic adaptive sync range, et cetera).

Since you have to choose, I'd rather pay $100-$200 more to lock myself into Nvidia's ecosystem for the next 5 years, because they have a proven track record of delivering new generations of cards. If you buy into Vega/FreeSync now, you might be waiting another 3.5 years for the next competitive-ish generation (e.g. 290X->Vega 56). That said, FreeSync (with research) is a nice option for budget buyers. I just chuckle when people pay over MSRP for a Vega, pay to upgrade their PSU, and then talk about the GSync tax.


Exactly.

Nvidia fixed the whole problem with having to choose between V-sync with input lag and stutter or outputting tearing on the first try, and dialed it in on the hardware. By the second gen, you could get monitors that had everything.

We're still extremely wary of FreeSync monitors. Well, I would be, anyway, if AMD produced a card worth buying. Which is why I picked G-Sync, and agree with the above: you're locked in either way, and you're better off locked in with Nvidia.
Canon 6D|24-105/4L |70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|50/1.4 USM|50/2.5 CM|50/1.8 STM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8|24/2.8 IS|Sigma 150-600 | C
Canon EOS-M|11-22 IS|22/2|EF-M 18-55
 
Kretschmer
Gerbil XP
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:36 am

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:05 pm

Krogoth wrote:
Vega line-up has very strong demand for it as much you would expect from a high-end performance GPU. It is about same demand as 1080 and 1080Ti. If demand was practically non-existent as you claim, then there should be Vega 64 and 56 boxes collecting dust on etailer/retailer shelves.

Actually, the latest Steam survey found the GTX 1050 (2.17%) more often than the RX 480 (0.92%), RX 470 (0.34%) and RX 460 (0.53%) combined. Ditto for the 1050 Ti (3.30%), 1060 (6.37%), 1070 (3.41%), and almost 1080 (1.74%). This suggests that there is a platform preference and that demand is not the same per a given pricing tier between vendors.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

The problem is that high-end GPU market have never been big money. Just ask 3Dfx. It has always been mid-range cards via sheer volume. Nvidia gets the bulk of its gaming GPU revenue from 1070 and 1060. 1080 makes some change while 1080Ti and Titan are low-volume, halo products. ATI used to make bulk of its reveune via mid-range and low-end discrete cards back in its heyday. iGPUs have pretty much killed the low-end discrete market and are beginning to erode away at mid-range discrete.

AMD published a slide some time in the past year that isolated the enthusiast segment as the majority of revenue (e.g. RX 480+). I can't find the link.
 
Krogoth
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5410
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:10 pm

blahsaysblah wrote:
Not quiet, the 1070 + 1080 are 5% of the 17% that just Pascal has of Steam survey.

Im going to also counter that Vega has any demand, considering it has similar profile as RX and the RX cards are 1-3/4% of Steam survey share.

I had same view as you until a few days ago when i checked Steam HW survey for past several months. AMD is not tied with Nvidia, the cheaper RX cards havnt taken over the low end market at all. From all the review sites youd think they were fighting evenly. Not even close.


Steam HW only covers NA/Eastern EU markets. Besides, Vega just came out a few weeks ago. Give it least six months or so before jumping the survey gun. It took time for 1070 and 1080 to reach that figure in that limited survey.

Vega has demand simply because people are going out of their way in getting the damn cards despite their massively inflated prices from cypto-currency crazy. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Lack of demand would mean that cards would still on shelves collecting dust and retailer/etailers would do price cuts in hope that it will move inventory. This clearly isn't happening.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC3-12800, Sapphire RX Vega 64, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
 
NoOne ButMe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:10 pm

biggest margin for GPU is workstation/mobile workstation.
Than Server probably.
than "prosumer" cards (Titan lineup, Frontier Edition)
Followed by consumer gaming laptops
followed by HEDT cards
followed by midrange dGPUs,
far below that you have the low end (GP108, Pascal 12 (22?)) and OEM parts.

the 5-7 million "gaming laptops" that are likely to sell in 2017 probably will make as much profit as the other 20-25 million consumer GPUs Nvidia will sell.
AMD has two, I think, laptops with dGPUs using anything over a Polaris 11/21. If they've shipped more than 10-20K units I would be shocked.

MXM GTX 1080 probably in the $400+ for laptops, and packaged die <$200 cost to AIB. Add another $100 or so for the G5X.
 
Airmantharp
Emperor Gerbilius I
Posts: 6126
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:18 pm

Krogoth wrote:
Vega has demand simply because people are going out of their way in getting the damn cards despite their massively inflated prices from cypto-currency crazy. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Lack of demand would mean that cards would still on shelves collecting dust and retailer/etailers would do price cuts in hope that it will move inventory. This clearly isn't happening.


The cards are flying off the shelves with very limited demand simply because there are so few available to satiate what little demand there is. And aside from the occasional zealot, the miners are the ones picking up the cards.
Canon 6D|24-105/4L |70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|50/1.4 USM|50/2.5 CM|50/1.8 STM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8|24/2.8 IS|Sigma 150-600 | C
Canon EOS-M|11-22 IS|22/2|EF-M 18-55
 
NoOne ButMe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:24 pm

Kretschmer wrote:

The problem is that high-end GPU market have never been big money. Just ask 3Dfx. It has always been mid-range cards via sheer volume. Nvidia gets the bulk of its gaming GPU revenue from 1070 and 1060. 1080 makes some change while 1080Ti and Titan are low-volume, halo products. ATI used to make bulk of its reveune via mid-range and low-end discrete cards back in its heyday. iGPUs have pretty much killed the low-end discrete market and are beginning to erode away at mid-range discrete.

AMD published a slide some time in the past year that isolated the enthusiast segment as the majority of revenue (e.g. RX 480+). I can't find the link.

Image
^
FAD 2017, Raja's presentation.

Image
^
FAD 2017 Lisa's presenation

Wonder if the faster Vega is dual-Vega, or the "Vega 20".
 
blahsaysblah
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:35 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:19 pm

I say the 1.75% RX cards vs 17% GTX 1xxx cards will continue with Vega because it's a year late and has only one slight advantage.

Why would you shell out $400-$600 of today dollars for:
- performance from a year ago
- missing a year of experience for the drivers
- missing a year of devs/engines getting optimized/comfortable for it
- strength in numbers for your bug/issue (pick 5% or 17%, both are way bigger than 1.74%)
- tech that still cant scale to 1080 ti or Titan levels.

I bought the we are aiming for mass market PR spin for RX and left it at that. But fool i am, because no one else bought it. Same with Vega spin. Its a year late. It's still not good enough tech to scale to 1080 ti/Titan. Majority of folks will not choose Vega.

Its false equivalence to say Vega and GTX 1070/80 are equals. They clearly do not have same number or quality of cons and pros.

Nothing against AMD/ATI, especially because you cant discount the 100+ million Polaris/Vega in console space today.
 
NoOne ButMe
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:46 pm

blahsaysblah wrote:
Its false equivalence to say Vega and GTX 1070/80 are equals. They clearly do not have same number or quality of cons and pros.

That depends completely on how long you're holding the card, and how much longer it will take for Vulkan/DX12 to hit the market in mass.
For the RX 56 that is.

With power saving mode, it seems to be a GTX 1070 with similar performance, slightly higher power, and more forward looking features. Overclock the RAM to the 945Mhz, and you get 4-5% performance on average and maybe it takes 1-2W more of power, I think someone reported zero watts power increase even.
 
CScottG
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:53 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:00 am

..with respect to the next cards and availability:

I don't think AMD has anything new anytime soon, at least nothing more than a re-badge a'la Polaris (..480 to 580).

Nvidia on the other hand might release a Volta-based "1160" in the first quarter of next year (..I see more and more midrange-priced laptops being released with the 1060 which tends to foreshadow a new processor release; plus - the 960 (as a potential interval-match) was released in January (2015)). Remember, the 1060 beat the 970, so my guess is that an "1160" will beat a 1070. So in about half-a-year's time there should be a Nvidia-based card that costs about $275 and performs a bit better than Vega 56 as far as consumer/gamers are concerned. And a card that's actually available at those prices (and released en masse).


(..just my "meta" thought for the day.) :P
 
Jigar
Maximum Gerbil
Posts: 4905
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:19 am

I follow Raja on Twitter and yesterday he was actively positing his views about Vega. Two clarifications that took my notice was that Raja says there lot of features still not enabled in Vega. Second point, infinity fabric in Vega is responsible for huge die size but it also gives them ability to scale in ENTERPRISE segment. Apart from these 2 points, other points were all corporate BS, which i choose to ignore.
Image
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:19 am

At this point I'm not sure why they're even still talking about Infinity Fabric. It's interesting, and it makes sense why they used it. At least at the moment it seems like big monolithic chips are starting to end up on the wrong side of diminishing returns. The story so far just makes me wonder how long they're going to keep banging the drum about it.

Hey, you know that thing in Ryzen which has confused and pissed off a whole lot of people, and given rise(ryze?) to the whole "Ryzen sucks for gaming" thing? Yeah, we've got big plans for that.

I suppose though if their CPUs stay competitive, and miners keep snatching up the cards, then AMD can say just about anything they want.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
LostCat
Gerbil Jedi
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Alphanumeric symbols.

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:12 am

Redocbew wrote:
At this point I'm not sure why they're even still talking about Infinity Fabric. It's interesting, and it makes sense why they used it. At least at the moment it seems like big monolithic chips are starting to end up on the wrong side of diminishing returns. The story so far just makes me wonder how long they're going to keep banging the drum about it.

If it makes it easy for them to scale from low end to insane chips (Epyc) on multiple product lines then it makes sense they'd be happy about it.

Maybe it's a lot more useful than when it was just Hypertransport...I don't know that much about it yet.
Meow.
 
CScottG
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:53 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:52 am

Redocbew wrote:
At this point I'm not sure why they're even still talking about Infinity Fabric..


Because it's the under-pinning of the market share analysis, they want that "Top End of the Market" that represents that "66%" margin.


In other-words they are interested in making real money by selling super-computers - ie. "Big Data" has "Big Money".


https://semiaccurate.com/2017/01/19/amd ... will-make/


It's a smart plan moving forward, it's just that it isn't focused on the consumer, at least not with the way games are currently being made (..though they may get a multi-card "crossfire" implementation that actually works out of it anyway, though I don't know who would want that with cards that suck-down that much power). Still, I believe that yields are pretty low for the stuff that will end-up in super-computers, so they end-up selling the "left-overs" on the consumer-side.. given time yields should get much better and more super-computers will be available for purchase: making them more money.

They want to provide this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqF8m65r8g
And instead they are *trying* to supply this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXjvoNta_1Y

As for consumer/gamers: shine them on to purchase reject silicone.
 
Krogoth
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5410
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:43 am

Airmantharp wrote:
Krogoth wrote:
Vega has demand simply because people are going out of their way in getting the damn cards despite their massively inflated prices from cypto-currency crazy. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Lack of demand would mean that cards would still on shelves collecting dust and retailer/etailers would do price cuts in hope that it will move inventory. This clearly isn't happening.


The cards are flying off the shelves with very limited demand simply because there are so few available to satiate what little demand there is. And aside from the occasional zealot, the miners are the ones picking up the cards.


Please just stop and drop the green-tinted shades.

You sound just as foolish as AMD zealots claiming that nobody was getting 1080 FEs and 1070 FEs back in their launch when it was next to unobtainum for a few months at inflated prices until supplies stabilized and AIB SKUs came out. Please learn what demand actually means and come back again. It seems like you are confusing mind-share with "demand".

Miners aren't the crowd who really getting them en mass either. It is primarily scalpers trying to make a quick buck and a small number of enthusiasts who have a Freesync mointor who were looking for something more powerful than a Fury/480 to drive their monitors. The real issue is that aren't many Vegas to begin with (probably in ten thousand of units worldwide). Miners are just a convenient scapegoat to cover supply issues.

Wait a couple of months until the dust settles and we will see if demand continues to hold up or Vega boxes start to accumulate on etailer/retailer shelves collecting dust.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC3-12800, Sapphire RX Vega 64, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
 
Krogoth
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5410
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:51 am

blahsaysblah wrote:
I say the 1.75% RX cards vs 17% GTX 1xxx cards will continue with Vega because it's a year late and has only one slight advantage.

Why would you shell out $400-$600 of today dollars for:
- performance from a year ago
- missing a year of experience for the drivers
- missing a year of devs/engines getting optimized/comfortable for it
- strength in numbers for your bug/issue (pick 5% or 17%, both are way bigger than 1.74%)
- tech that still cant scale to 1080 ti or Titan levels.

I bought the we are aiming for mass market PR spin for RX and left it at that. But fool i am, because no one else bought it. Same with Vega spin. Its a year late. It's still not good enough tech to scale to 1080 ti/Titan. Majority of folks will not choose Vega.

Its false equivalence to say Vega and GTX 1070/80 are equals. They clearly do not have same number or quality of cons and pros.

Nothing against AMD/ATI, especially because you cant discount the 100+ million Polaris/Vega in console space today.


Because it is the fastest Freesync-capable GPU on the market right now that happens to be a very powerful customer-tier GPGPU. Vega 64 easily matches fully enabled Titan XP at most GPGPU stuff (most recent drivers for Titan) for less $$$$. Not everything revolves around silly games. The tech does scale up to Pascal/Maxwell levels on a hardware level. The problem is that difficult to translate that into games. Vega 10 is pretty much AMD RTG's GF100. Hot, somewhat to completely underwhelming gaming performance but blew most of the competition away at GPGPU stuff.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC3-12800, Sapphire RX Vega 64, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
 
Airmantharp
Emperor Gerbilius I
Posts: 6126
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Vega Meta Analysis

Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:59 am

Krogoth wrote:
Because it is the fastest Freesync-capable GPU on the market right now that happens to be a very powerful customer-tier GPGPU. Vega 64 easily matches fully enabled Titan XP at most GPGPU stuff (most recent drivers for Titan) for less $$$$. Not everything revolves around silly games. The tech does scale up to Pascal/Maxwell levels on a hardware level. The problem is that difficult to translate that into games. Vega 10 is pretty much AMD RTG's GF100. Hot, somewhat to completely underwhelming gaming performance but blew most of the competition away at GPGPU stuff.


You do realize that 'the tech scales for compute not games!' is literally what AMD does every generation, right?
Canon 6D|24-105/4L |70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|50/1.4 USM|50/2.5 CM|50/1.8 STM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8|24/2.8 IS|Sigma 150-600 | C
Canon EOS-M|11-22 IS|22/2|EF-M 18-55

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests