Last time this happened AMD lost out on sales because consumers (gamers) couldn't get cards; and then when Bitcoin's price crashed the miners put their cards up on auction sites and people bought those instead of buying new.
I agree it just doesn't make any sense either. AMD and their partners would just be thrilled to sell every single card they can produce.
AMD has never said anything about launching Vega in 2016 - that's speculation based on a very vaguely labeled roadmap image where the dot for "Vega" is slightly to the left of the text "2017", but with no indications of when years actually begin or end.What if rev 02 or whatever was supposed to be the late June launch was found to not have enough usable chips per wafer in March?
A few tweaks refining chip and process and rev 03 becomes volume batch in September/October?
Wasn't the original launch for this supposed to be Q4 last year? Its not like they quit working on them once they launch or make engineering samples, would make sense to me to launch with the higher margin prosumer or professional (but lower volume) parts.
If they launch with low yield chips with a high volume part they risk enraging the fans and getting the "phantom edition" bad press.
Last time this happened AMD lost out on sales because consumers (gamers) couldn't get cards; and then when Bitcoin's price crashed the miners put their cards up on auction sites and people bought those instead of buying new.
I agree it just doesn't make any sense either. AMD and their partners would just be thrilled to sell every single card they can produce.
Its impossible for AMD to have lost out on sales if people were buying them used, as that means AMD had already sold the card.
What hurts them is the cards price skyrocketing while the retailers are getting the money and not AMD charging more. So the price is higher than they want and thus worse on price/perf while they don't benefit from the extra income (retailers do)
AMD doesn't care if they sell the cards to salvage yards wanting to melt them down for scrap metal, sales are sales.AMD spent a lot of time and money marketing Polaris to gamers and releasing it at a pricepoint for those gamers.
How are you unable to see that a completely different market, with a completely different price/marketing/etc. is different than if AMD sold out that target market to gamers?
You're completely ignoring the customer acquisition cost AMD is incurring only to be taken advantage of by savvy entrepreneurs looking to make a good profit.
There's no point of having a conversation regarding business if you're going to take such a short sighted approach to the analysis of the situation.
AMD selling 10k GPUs to miners vs 10k GPUs to gamers is equal revenue, but signals COMPLETELY different things.
This as well, and this is assuming the retailers are able to react fast enough. Almost all AMD cards are sold out right now. Think that's because of gaming?
That is not how power draw scales.Remember: If AMD can make a 250W Vega card that performs at a level X, a dual GPU version will need to be a 500W card to potentially perform 2X with perfect scaling (which doesn't happen).
Didn't spot that this was a reply directed at me. This doesn't qualify as a board shot, though. Sure, it shows the PCB extending the length of the shroud. It also has a matte rubberized cover, not the brushed metal aesthetic shown in their renders, not to mention the 6+8 power delivery rather than 8+8. Engineering sample? Non-final board? No matter what, the core of it is that we don't know anything about what's on the board. From what we know of Vega's die/package size, that board could be 1/3 or more bare PCB to make room for a honking huge cooler.
We have no indication that Vega has the capability of having multiple GPUs act as one over Infinity Fabric. While this is theoretically possible with the technology, and no doubt something AMD is working towards, there is unfortunately nothing indicating that this is ready for Vega. Navi, on the other hand, might have it - who knows? And as has been stated by multiple people above: a fast interconnect does not make two GPUs appear or act like one to the OS and software. That's an entirely different ball game.
Please explain how you know this. Please. I've been asking you this for months, and you seem entirely unable to come up with an argument. Do you have any basis for this outside of your own gut feeling?
Really? You seem to have a very limited grasp of how tech enthusiasts think, and how new games are always ever more demanding. The way you're talking, everyone would stop looking at new GPUs if one were to appear on the market capable of fulfilling their wishes. That's bull, plain and simple. There's always a new, hot, game with amazing graphics launching in a few months that promises to crush even the fastest GPUs. Thus, gamers and tech enthusiasts are always looking for the next piece of shiny silicon.
Slightly OT here, but as someone who does textual analysis for a living, I find it fascinating that you consistently use language that conveys belief rather than knowledge. Your writing has striking similarities with the manners of speech used in various charismatic religions. Makes me wonder whether this is conscious or not, and regardless of this, what your thinking behind your way of expressing yourself is. As you seem singularly unwilling to answer critical questions with anything but reiterations of your unfounded statements, unfortunately we're not getting any closer to this. But nevertheless, it's truly fascinating.
Yeah, I'm sure NVIDIA will have a lot of difficulty competing with GloFo churning out those 500mm^2 Vega dies...? Not seeing the advantage.Show us where Infinity fabric doesn't scale. Please...
Vega x2 is real, & I know this through a trusting friend. I am not new to the industry, I just don't play in it anymore. I am sure AMD doesn't like my knowledgeable posts and would rather keep trolling Nvidia with beliefs. But we all know AMD just spend their entire Companies fortune on fabric. So Dr Su is going to leverage that against Intel and Nvidia.
Whether fanbois like it or not. You do not have to believe me at all, I don't expect you. But you don't even have to take what I am saying with a grain of salt, just look at what AMD's engineers have said already. (As a matter of fact and to your point: Does it really matter of Vega isn't X2, but Navi would be..? The outcome is still the same, isn't it... Nvidia getting rolled over in 2018? Because they can't compete on economy of scale.)
Saying you don't believe in Vegax2, is like saying you don't believe in ThreadRipper... it leaves you kinda of in the dark.
This is 100% wrong and you have no business doing or commenting on financial analysis with comments like that.AMD doesn't care if they sell the cards to salvage yards wanting to melt them down for scrap metal, sales are sales.
The same can be said of NVIDIA and Intel.
They marketed to gamers at that price point because gamers would pay more for the product than cubicle farms, and their competition in the gamer market charged that for that level of performance.
Anything else is PR speak, salesmanship.
Raja doesn't care if you can "be proud of your card", but he can't tell you the real reason the cards aren't here because his first concern is the stock price.
Can you expand on this, as accepting your statement, implies a degree of faith. Maybe, it's just your opinion. I see a lot of speculation [not bad] that some are claiming as truths [bad]. We can all fabricate what if scenarios, but this is all guesswork at the end of the day.This is 100% wrong and you have no business doing or commenting on financial analysis with comments like that.
Uh, yeah, it does scale that way with two independent dice. Of course, 500W would be nutz - that's a different story.That is not how power draw scales.
No. The way he intended, it does not worl this way. Nobody ever told or even thought that AMD's goal with a dual GPU card would be _200% performance_, his post lacks any real life meaning. To keep this thread about decent discussion and not about trolling over semantics, I'd propose that we all try to avoid w3rd's insanity and keep in mind that in case of dual GPU graphics cards, power draw NEVER scales this way.Uh, yeah, it does scale that way with two independent dice. Of course, 500W would be nutz - that's a different story.
Hopefully, AMD will give us some data @ Computex, but we'll have to wait and see.
Really? A single-die card is 250W. How would a card with two of those dice at the same clocks and with the same memory per die not be 500W? A graphics card can roughly be divided into four power consuming parts: power delivery, GPU, RAM, and I/O. Outside of the I/O, which is by far the lowest power draw of those four, everything would need to double (unless they purposefully used inefficient VRM components on the 250W card...).That is not how power draw scales.
I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've let w3rd to steer you off the course of reality, but then you reply to me with this biased nonsense. I don't think I should add anything, it would just make it personal, instead I just rest my caseReally? A single-die card is 250W. How would a card with two of those dice at the same clocks and with the same memory per die not be 500W? A graphics card can roughly be divided into four power consuming parts: power delivery, GPU, RAM, and I/O. Outside of the I/O, which is by far the lowest power draw of those four, everything would need to double (unless they purposefully used inefficient VRM components on the 250W card...).
The solution to this is usually to clock the twin-die card lower, which gives you the silly scenario where your $1000 graphics card ends up performing worse than a $500 card in a majority of games (especially in launch reviews, which is what matters most in terms of sales). Which is downright embarrassing. Of course, with modern clock scaling tech it would probably be trivial to bump up clocks on the core with the most utilization if the headroom is there/the utilization delta is above X% - but that's just putting a band-aid on a turd.
I see, no, dual GPU cards don't run @ double the TDP or provide 2x the performance. I have some ppl on ignore - so I miss out on context sometimes.No. The way he intended, it does not worl this way. Nobody ever told or even thought that AMD's goal with a dual GPU card would be _200% performance_, his post lacks any real life meaning. To keep this thread about decent discussion and not about trolling over semantics, I'd propose that we all try to avoid w3rd's insanity and keep in mind that in case of dual GPU graphics cards, power draw NEVER scales this way.
Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk
Sorry, biased? For or against what, exactly? Didn't I go through AMD's actual previous dual GPU cards in my previous post? I was replying to a comment stating that "that's not how power scaling works", which is utterly false - which I showed. If you have an issue with my reasoning, argue for it. Of course a 500W GPU is insane (it was insane with the 295X2, even more so now), and I don't believe AMD would make another one, but that means lowering clocks, and brings back the issue of games without profiles performing worse than a far cheaper single GPU card. Even though rather small clock speed drops can yield big power savings, that's an undeniable truth. Of course, again, it can be mitigated as I suggested above, but then you're still left with an overpriced GPU unless the main games you play are ones with gold Crossfire profiles.I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've let w3rd to steer you off the course of reality, but then you reply to me with this biased nonsense. I don't think I should add anything, it would just make it personal, instead I just rest my case
Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk
If you truly believe that a sale in which I trash the GPU is equivalent to a sale in which I use the GPU, potentially review the GPU, etc. etc. then there really isn't a point in me bothering to explain it. It's just a hopeless endeavor since the basic principles are beyond the grasp of the person attempting to understand.Can you expand on this, as accepting your statement, implies a degree of faith. Maybe, it's just your opinion. I see a lot of speculation [not bad] that some are claiming as truths [bad]. We can all fabricate what if scenarios, but this is all guesswork at the end of the day.
You're adding other conditions to the equation.If you truly believe that a sale in which I trash the GPU is equivalent to a sale in which I use the GPU, potentially review the GPU, etc. etc. then there really isn't a point in me bothering to explain it. It's just a hopeless endeavor since the basic principles are beyond the grasp of the person attempting to understand.
That's why financial conversation sucks to have on here, because something this basic is apparently hard to grasp. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
If you think a sale to JayZTwoCents is equivalent to a sale in which I buy the GPU and dump it in the trash. I can't even begin to have an intellectual conversation with you on this matter.
Lets just move on to tech stuff.
They'd likely underclock it to fit in a 375W TDP or so. On the other hand, the 295x2 drew 430-500W. Nonetheless, if we do get a dual Vega, it won't be using an interposer/infinity fabric interconnect.Uh, yeah, it does scale that way with two independent dice. Of course, 500W would be nutz - that's a different story.
Hopefully, AMD will give us some data @ Computex, but we'll have to wait and see.
No, I'm not adding other conditions. Conditions isn't even the right term, which again is why this is pointless and is the last post I'm making on the topic because we're simply not having an equivalent conversation. This is a similar conversation to a person who claims the world is flat because that's all they can see. Without being able to understand how to make that next mental leap to understand anything beyond the initial thing you first see, there really is no hope for further education on this matter.You're adding other conditions to the equation.
You don't think miners recommend cards to each other? Scrap metal people might recommend them as well.
My point was AMD isn't on some serve the gamers altruistically mission. They're just a company trying to make as much money as they can, where they can. They probably "like" video cards and gaming about as much as your accountant likes your W2s.
My experience is that anytime someone uses this statement, they really can't explain their theory or belief. No problem however.If you truly believe that a sale in which I trash the GPU is equivalent to a sale in which I use the GPU, potentially review the GPU, etc. etc. then there really isn't a point in me bothering to explain it. It's just a hopeless endeavor since the basic principles are beyond the grasp of the person attempting to understand.
That's why financial conversation sucks to have on here, because something this basic is apparently hard to grasp. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
If you think a sale to JayZTwoCents is equivalent to a sale in which I buy the GPU and dump it in the trash. I can't even begin to have an intellectual conversation with you on this matter.
Lets just move on to tech stuff.