So that's a few examples but the majority of the time they still price correctly.. They have adapted as a company and I doubt we see Vega priced out of its own market..
So that's a few examples but the majority of the time they still price correctly.. They have adapted as a company and I doubt we see Vega priced out of its own market..I hope you're right but:
A. Pre-release prices are often incorrect.
B.http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
That $799 at launch AMD CPU was getting beat by the 2500K that launched 3 years earlier for $216
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
The FuryX launched for the same price as 980Ti even though it had lower performance and 50% less VRAM
We will know soon enough now..Seems like pixel fillrate was derived from "base clock" (1400 MHz) and peak performance [TFLOPS] was derived from boost clock (1600 MHz)
Ugh, this tired argument again. Fury X was no where close to GTX 980Ti in performance.
This was a crushing landslide.
This isn't a debate this is a fact.
Fury X was terrible perf per dollar, otherwise ya'll would have gotten it, however, even used at GTX 1070 prices, ya'll wouldn't touch it. So many of you love AMD cards for Price/Perf, so don't pretend like Fury X was great Price/Perf, otherwise many of you would have it, instead of STILL having R9 290s.
maybe if they make another great card like 5850 reviews will be better.To be honest Nv since kepler was always way better at launch.GTX670 was 400usd vs 550USD 7970 and have lower TDP and same performance.No brainer.NVIDIA: I have great performance and I'm efficient! Buy me!
Forums/Press/Reviews: Fantastic!
AMD: I use more power and give better overall performance, but not as efficiently! Buy me!
Forums/Press/Reviews: Performance is good, but TDP!
NVIDIA: I can beat your performance - watch me OC! Buy me!
Forums/Press/Reviews: You've got to expect TDP to increase with performance like this! Amazing!
AMD: ... but..?
Forums/Press/Reviews: Shame it can't OC as high due to all that TDP.
It's the same ol' shifting goalpost argument every time.
Oh so you were the same person who compared reference 290s with reference Nvidia cards?Yepp... Fixed that for you, using your own linked data.
Its summertime after all, so maybe it's time to get a new pair of less green sunglasses ?
Just a thought
Oh so you were the same person who compared reference 290s with reference Nvidia cards?
You're joking right? You can easily extrapolate the oc performance. We're all people who know the exact performance of these cards oced. Fury x has barely any headroom. 980ti has a ton.Comparing oc performance vs reference performance using reference price and power for both?
The pricing has nothing to do with consumer editions so the difference is with the warranty, support etc. on a card that could have more issues.Rumor - Frontier Edition pricing:
http://techreport.com/news/32105/rumor-retailers-reveal-radeon-vega-fe-pricing
$600 upcharge for water cooling? WTF?
Well one can hope that this time around it won't be a cheapo CoolerMaster unit with coil whine issues. But then, the Wraith heatsinks use CoolerMaster fans so who knows?Rumor - Frontier Edition pricing:
http://techreport.com/news/32105/rumor-retailers-reveal-radeon-vega-fe-pricing
$600 upcharge for water cooling? WTF?
That's not more perfromance. The Titan Xp doesn't have Quadro drivers. When compared against Quadro, that Vega is slower than GP104.
You're joking right? You can easily extrapolate the oc performance. We're all people who know the exact performance of these cards oced. Fury x has barely any headroom. 980ti has a ton.
You're either purposely pretending to be ignorant now or are extremely late to the party.
Well one can hope that this time around it won't be a cheapo CoolerMaster unit with coil whine issues. But then, the Wraith heatsinks use CoolerMaster fans so who knows?
On the average, minus the hyperbole, you are correct. Plenty of games were on equal footing, however. Dirt Rally, Ashes, Witcher 3, Division, Hitman, for example were within 5%, slower or faster. Of course, this is stock vs stock. The 980Ti's OC abilities were/are insanely good, which is why it proved to be the superior purchase at $649.Ugh, this tired argument again. Fury X was no where close to GTX 980Ti in performance.
Well the shroud is gold colored!For $600 one can hope it's gold plated!
AMD's professional GPUs (Radeon Pro WX series) will launch later on in Q3. The Frontier Edition is more like a "prosumer" card and that's why AMD is comparing it to the Titan Xp and not a Quadro.Looking around the web, Vega FE latest comparisons in professional apps to Titan Xp and power consumption are getting raked through coals. Apparently the GTX 1070 equivalent Quadro beats Vega FE's canned benchmarks for less money and at a 150w TDP (at least half Vega's TDP)? I'm reading this at multiple sites. Also, wasn't Vega supposed to be 225w? If true, this is going to be an awful launch.
I hope you're right but:
A. Pre-release prices are often incorrect.
B.http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
That $799 at launch AMD CPU was getting beat by the 2500K that launched 3 years earlier for $216
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
The FuryX launched for the same price as 980Ti even though it had lower performance and 50% less VRAM
Despite my disdain for the product if I was working at amd, I can guarantee without a doubt they could have sold 2 times the amount of fury x cards (assuming there wasn't a production bottleneck). The card was worse at $650, but I can guarantee you I could make a freesync case, work with reviewers to show it, and get the partnerships necessary to move the card.On the average, minus the hyperbole, you are correct. Plenty of games were on equal footing, however. Dirt Rally, Ashes, Witcher 3, Division, Hitman, for example were within 5%, slower or faster. Of course, this is stock vs stock. The 980Ti's OC abilities were/are insanely good, which is why it proved to be the superior purchase at $649.
The TDP numbers for the cards are simply the max power draw, not the actual power usage. There's nothing to gain from those power numbers in specifications, actually wait for people testing them.Also, wasn't Vega supposed to be 225w? If true, this is going to be an awful launch.
Maximum Thermal Output, that the shrouds are able to dissipate. Not the actual power draw numbers.The TDP numbers for the cards are simply the max power draw, not the actual power usage. There's nothing to gain from those power numbers in specifications, actually wait for people testing them.
I'm not sure what you're correcting me on here.Maximum Thermal Output, that the shrouds are able to dissipate. Not the actual power draw numbers.
Sure, but air cooled version also has dual 8 pin connectors for 375W power delivery. TBP for it is 300W, however.I'm not sure what you're correcting me on here.
375w = 2x8 pin + PCIe slot. Simply the rated wattage of what the plugs and slot.
And it's designed to run with 6+8pin as per Raja, but ended up with dual 8-pin for overclocking headroom.Sure, but air cooled version also has dual 8 pin connectors for 375W power delivery. TBP for it is 300W, however.