I feel 1660 non ti is currently the best value card from Nvidia,better than the Ti model. AMD would need a slighly faster card than 1660 non ti at $199 soon to comepte although as of now 570 and 580 are getting the job done.
And you know it runs hotter how ???
Well 1905 MHz boost clock suggests they are running the card close to its clockspeed limits whereas Nvidia traditionally leaves ~20% of clockspeed left on the table in order to hit a lower TDP. So really as far as we know the 2070 could be faster than Navi when both cards are OC'ed to 2000 MHz.
Well 1905 MHz boost clock suggests they are running the card close to its clockspeed limits whereas Nvidia traditionally leaves ~20% of clockspeed left on the table in order to hit a lower TDP. So really as far as we know the 2070 could be faster than Navi when both cards are OC'ed to 2000 MHz.
That may be the case with RTX GPUs(standard).The only way it works is if NV is dumping stock. Cut off supplies of the 2060 and sell at prices below MSRP but above liquidation/disposal.
Well 1905 MHz boost clock suggests they are running the card close to its clockspeed limits whereas Nvidia traditionally leaves ~20% of clockspeed left on the table in order to hit a lower TDP. So really as far as we know the 2070 could be faster than Navi when both cards are OC'ed to 2000 MHz.
They also have a card boosting to 2 GHz boost out of the box. 2 GHz and higher won't be uncommon on Navi. As for nvidia's tradition of clock speed, from what i've read and understood the Turing cards have very little clock headroom; they max out at ~80 Mhz or thereabouts.
https://forums.evga.com/2080-Ti-Stable-247-Overclock-Results-m2870614.aspx
Looks like 2080Ti owners under water are hitting anywhere from 100-160 MHz extra GPU clocks. Radeon VII can hit GPU clocks 300-400 MHz higher than base with watercooling. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Navi hits speeds in the 2.1-2.2 GHz range under water. On air? Hard to say.
I agree Navi is nowhere near good enough, but PLEASE stop with the less features bullcrap. It doen't have RtT, whuch is a moot point, as the 2070 is just not strong enough to be playable with any game with rtx on. It's not a feature when you can't use it. And DLSS? Until we see a comparison between DLSS and the image sharpening on navi, please don't count it as a non-feature...please let's just stay at what really counts or what is actually true. In that, I agree, Navi is just not good enough for $450.We crapped a lot on Nvidia when they launched the 2070 and to a lesser extent 2060 as well. Now AMD actually deserves more crap for these two cards than the Nvidia ones not only because it has less features, no RTX, higher power draw and higher/similar price than Nvidia but also launching 10 months later. Absolute disaster for AMD. Two back to back failures. VEGA and NAVI. Well atleast there's still hope for a true RX570 and 580 replacement for around $200-250.
Thinking about it a bit, AMD doesn't really deserve too much crap for this. I think its the kind of people that bought RTX 2070 for $600 that deserve more.I agree Navi is nowhere near good enough, but PLEASE stop with the less features bullcrap. It doen't have RtT, whuch is a moot point, as the 2070 is just not strong enough to be playable with any game with rtx on. It's not a feature when you can't use it. And DLSS? Until we see a comparison between DLSS and the image sharpening on navi, please don't count it as a non-feature...please let's just stay at what really counts or what is actually true. In that, I agree, Navi is just not good enough for $450.
The cards above are preoverclocked highend none reference cards that have about 10% clock advantage over reference already. If the cards are getting to 2100mhz and beyond under water and are stable there, that a 20% + increase over stock.
Also you have to consider the die size and power consumption with those 2100+ overclocks on Radeon VII on water which have a power mode on it have absolute insane power consumption.
At those clocks, we are talking about 500+ watts of power. This is not unheard of for larger dies but not something 330mm2.
Overclocking to 2100mhz + on a die 331mm2 with 500+ watts is 100% impractical and almost certain to cause quick degradation even with temps being controlled with water.
Add in the 1 year warranty with many of those reference designs from AMD direct(including yours I remember) and it's super reckless.
Thinking about it a bit, AMD doesn't really deserve too much crap for this. I think its the kind of people that bought RTX 2070 for $600 that deserve more.
Why are AMD delivering a bad product?
RX 5700 is 10% faster for 5% more. Sure its poor value, it's nothing that is going to make people jump up and throw money at AMD to get it
From AT's own review of the 2070, they only got a 4-5% increase in performance by doing the OC, and that includes memory, for a pretty big 30W increase. Every game they tested did run above the stock advertised clock of 1710 Mhz already though but not anywhere near 2 Ghz, mostly in the 1800s.
Is it mind blowing? No, but its still better value than Nvidia.
RX 5700 is 10% faster for 5% more. Sure its poor value, it's nothing that is going to make people jump up and throw money at AMD to get it, but it is an alternative to Nvidia.
With low volume it will be hard recuperating R&D costs regardless of margin.
I really don't get it. The pricing only makes sense if:
1. 7nm yields are that bad (but then the Radeon VII not really be possible)
2. Cartel...
3. Supply limit due to high Zen 2 chiplet demand
. . . there are no bad products. Just bad prices. Anand said that, methinks.
AMD should recover R&D costs from PS5 and Project Scarlet (Xbox 2).
AMD only sells chip not whole card and there is the cheaper version) that's $135 per card sold. At $100Mio design cost that would mean >740k cards sold.
We cry about how people still buy 9900K chips when Ryzen is pretty good.
We have to try to get out of the enthusiast mindset and see how average people are.
Fair enough. But will they recuperate the mask/process costs?
At $100Mio design cost that would mean >740k cards sold.
740K units is nothing though. The total volume sold for GPUs is in the 60 million range. AMD at 18% sells 11 million of them. It'd take most maybe a year to recuperate the costs and using the base uarch to make different versions will result in net profits.
Who does that? AMD has seized a fair amount of desktop CPU marketshare among DiY buyers, even when Intel still has the overall performance crown with the 9900k. It didn't take long for the market to swing AMD's way in the CPU market.
60 million of what, though? How many of those cards sold are dGPUs, and among those, how many of them cost more than $400?
If you keep up in the forums, you'll see such comments. Both for Ryzen and EPYC.
60 million dGPUs!
They are not going to end Navi with the 5700/5700XT, they'll make more versions.