lolno.
you're only setting this up here to go back later and quote yourself, to "prove" how you predicted a failure. please.
I think it would be expected for Vega to beat Pascal after the 13 months Nvidia's high end has been on the market.
If they don't beat a gtx1080ti by 20 or 30% the Vega is a failure IMHO, especially
with Volta 6 months away from the June Vega release.
lolno.
you're only setting this up here to go back later and quote yourself, to "prove" how you predicted a failure. please.
Well heck if it is 20-30% faster, it should cost $2000 more right? I mean people are buying up Titan Xp which is $200 per 1% so 20-30% faster for only $2000 would be a bargain! That's only $100 per 1%. But no, if its not 20-30% faster and 20% cheaper it will be yet another AMD overhyped failure.
so do you know anything or are you just pulling things out of your ssa?
lolno.
you're only setting this up here to go back later and quote yourself, to "prove" how you predicted a failure. please.
If they can't beat 11 month old performance, they better price very very low.
We I'm not saying that it should be 20 or 30% faster because of JUST Volta.
I'm also saying they will a have 2 years since Fury. They have had a nice node bump, and are almost a year late to the next generation high performance segment market.
If they can't beat 11 month old performance, they better price very very low.
WhyCry I'm surprised you haven't posted that Vega TimeSpy leak yet. I would expect that Videocardz is the first to post performance leaks of Vega and not troll sites like wccftech.
Or is that leak simply fake?
WhyCry said:I could post 20 different 3DMark scores of Vega, yet I won't, because they are all over the place and do not represent the final product performance.
AMD's "Vega" GPU architecture is on track to launch in Q2, and has been designed from scratch to address the most data- and visually-intensive next-generation workloads with key architecture advancements including: a differentiated memory subsystem, next-generation geometry pipeline, new compute engine, and a new pixel engine.
AMD unveiled that its "Vega"-architecture based GPUs have been selected to power LiquidSky's cloud gaming platform, enabling gamers to enjoy the power of "Vega" from virtually anywhere, and affordably through LiquidSky's low-cost and free subscription models.
I think its laughable that you would need to know how to plan, develop, and execute a product, just to know AMD does it much slower than Nvidia and that's my entire point.you clearly have less than zero clue how planning, the developement and execution of a product is. its laughable.
Its more than obvious that AMD's Vega is at least 11 months behind the high end gpu tech curve and needs a product that represents a NEW IMPROVED mid 2017 high end, not just something that matches last years Pascal performance.
AMD needs to be 20 to 30% faster than "last years" high end Pascal to catch up, thats what I'm saying, not just " as good as" last years 2016's high end Pascal.
If the New Vega gpu just matches last years Pascal tech, they should, and I expect AMD to price it very very cheap, mabe like $549.99 for big Vega.
I mean at least make it a "worth the wait" price, otherwise for $150 more ,most people could have bought the same performance from a gtx1080ti for 3 or 4 months now.
If I were a Fury/ r9 290/390 owner for the past 2 or 3 years and was waiting for the new high end AMD card for over a year now instead of buying a gtx1080 ,I would be pretty pissed if they just offered me a card 5% faster than a gtx1080 for $75 less.
That would suck!
Wtf are you talking about? No one gives rats ass if something is just 5% faster than 2yr old product or if the new product is not xx% faster than the competitor or if the competitor has had nearly similar product over a year. Consumer logic is just price/performance ratio. Basic GPU features are pretty much the same, FreeSync is maybe one of the most important AMD features, Nvidia has own alternatives but usually proprietary solutions. If someone like us is patient enough to read the reviews and find the best bang for the buck solution he would currently choose AMD on middle-tier and Nvidia for high-end needs. Vast majority is however buying OEM or prebuilt systems where no one again gives a <redacted>about GPU history or what kind of technology/architecture is used. It's only a fraction of already small self-builder segment who "wait for Vega/Volta/xxx" and thereafter can have any feelings about the new product announcements. The normal consumer just buys a gaming pc meeting their budget from their local store.I think its laughable that you would need to know how to plan, develop, and execute a product, just to know AMD does it much slower than Nvidia and that's my entire point.
Its more than obvious that AMD's Vega is at least 11 months behind the high end gpu tech curve and needs a product that represents a NEW IMPROVED mid 2017 high end, not just something that matches last years Pascal performance.
AMD needs to be 20 to 30% faster than "last years" high end Pascal to catch up, thats what I'm saying, not just " as good as" last years 2016's high end Pascal.
If the New Vega gpu just matches last years Pascal tech, they should, and I expect AMD to price it very very cheap, mabe like $549.99 for big Vega.
I mean at least make it a "worth the wait" price, otherwise for $150 more ,most people could have bought the same performance from a gtx1080ti for 3 or 4 months now.
If I were a Fury/ r9 290/390 owner for the past 2 or 3 years and was waiting for the new high end AMD card for over a year now instead of buying a gtx1080 ,I would be pretty pissed if they just offered me a card 5% faster than a gtx1080 for $75 less.
That would suck!
Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator
.
Not that I'll be buying anything, but the mystery is becoming unsettling, and I'd like for the mystery to be solved. AMD sure is the master of silence lately, for better or worse.
For $150 more? No.... For $1000+ more. Because you're not factoring in Gsync.I think its laughable that you would need to know how to plan, develop, and execute a product, just to know AMD does it much slower than Nvidia and that's my entire point.
Its more than obvious that AMD's Vega is at least 11 months behind the high end gpu tech curve and needs a product that represents a NEW IMPROVED mid 2017 high end, not just something that matches last years Pascal performance.
AMD needs to be 20 to 30% faster than "last years" high end Pascal to catch up, thats what I'm saying, not just " as good as" last years 2016's high end Pascal.
If the New Vega gpu just matches last years Pascal tech, they should, and I expect AMD to price it very very cheap, mabe like $549.99 for big Vega.
I mean at least make it a "worth the wait" price, otherwise for $150 more ,most people could have bought the same performance from a gtx1080ti for 3 or 4 months now.
If I were a Fury/ r9 290/390 owner for the past 2 or 3 years and was waiting for the new high end AMD card for over a year now instead of buying a gtx1080 ,I would be pretty pissed if they just offered me a card 5% faster than a gtx1080 for $75 less.
That would suck!
Insulting other members is not allowed.
Markfw
Anandtech Moderator
.
For CPUs if you expect developers and especially the Linux kernel people to have something ready for your launch, you have to give them details of the microarchitecture.Before Ryzen was released, AMD did two big events when almost everything about the Zen microarchitecture was revealed.
So I say be very negative about everything and hope we get pleasantly surprised
I would rather have no card than a 1080Ti without Gsync. I'm dead serious. If you gave me a 1080Ti without a Gsync monitior and wouldn't let me sell the 1080Ti, I'd throw it away. I'm not using some useless monitor without Async. Pointless. To me anyway.