I have proof but it's not worth going into, it's just going to cause a big shit show.
This is trolling. Its not allowed.
Take your tin-foil hat conspiracy tales elsewhere.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director
Last edited by a moderator:
I have proof but it's not worth going into, it's just going to cause a big shit show.Eh, I doubt it.
Thats a pretty big accusation without much proof...
If you have proof then I strongly advise you to tell the mods ASAP.I have proof but it's not worth going into, it's just going to cause a big shit show.
I don't have proof that specific people here are AMD viral. I simply have proof that AMD viral marketing does exist. At least one shill has been found on ATF before. AMD is continuing their viral marketing program to this day. I would say to you that ATF would probably be one of their biggest targets. Heck, there was a huge "AMD zone" section on the AT main page some time ago, I assume paid for by AMD. In effect AT was AMD sponsored.If you have proof then I strongly advise you to tell the mods ASAP.
Both companies use viral marketers. This isn't new, revolutionary, newsworthy, or interesting.I don't have proof that specific people here are AMD viral. I simply have proof that AMD viral marketing does exist. At least one shill has been found on ATF before. AMD is continuing their viral marketing program to this day. I would say to you that ATF would probably be one of their biggest targets. Heck, there was a huge "AMD zone" section on the AT main page some time ago, I assume paid for by AMD. In effect AT was AMD sponsored.
nVidia's viral marketers make it clear who they work for. The AMD shills don't. Big difference. You may not care but I have seen them ruin multiple forums.Both companies use viral marketers. This isn't new, revolutionary, newsworthy, or interesting.
nVidia's viral marketers make it clear who they work for. The AMD shills don't. Big difference. You may not care but I have seen them ruin multiple forums.
Look, honestly, I think we should just leave this one alone. I can post you a bunch of proof but it's really not going to solve anything. I don't think the mods will appreciate it. It's going to create a real shit show.[citation needed]
I would say that the "poor Volta" thing was meant to build a hype around vega.
that's a stab in the darknVidia's viral marketers make it clear who they work for. The AMD shills don't. Big difference. You may not care but I have seen them ruin multiple forums.
and I swear I can lift a 200 kg rock, but I don't want to show it right nowLook, honestly, I think we should just leave this one alone. I can post you a bunch of proof but it's really not going to solve anything. I don't think the mods will appreciate it. It's going to create a real shit show.
Infinity Fabric is also their control system for things like clocking or power gating. You can almost bet that's the main use of the system in Vega.I am now wondering, just how is Infinity Fabric piped into Vega?
While Vega doesn't have a CCX per se, like found on Ryzen (at least, that we know of), AMD did say they are using it.
Would be curious to know if there is a latency penalty someplace in Vega?
http://www.pcgamer.com/doom-benchmarks-return-vulkan-vs-opengl/2/
DOOM 1440p Ultra, Vulkan. 5930k @4.3Ghz and GTX 1080 - Average 136.1fps
So we can presume the GTX 1080 was probably sitting at the 100Hz cap the entire time. Question is now, was Vega.
I don't like this.
We called for interested gamers to come by and give Radeon RX Vega graphics a spin before its launch in a few weeks. We wanted them to see for themselves how Radeon RX Vega graphics cut through a gorgeous-looking game like Battlefield™ 1, with the assistance of a curved, ultra-wide 1440p ASUS FreeSync™ monitor.
I'd advise you to look up the actual price of those monitors. It would make the RX Vega more expensive than the nVidia card.From that article again, we got this:
Asus MX38VQ retails for $1099. (MSRP) [http://www.anandtech.com/show/11018/asus-announces-designo-curve-mx38vq]
Asus ROG PG348Q retails for $1299 (MSRP) [https://www.pcmag.com/review/344451/asus-rog-swift-pg348q]. Gsync "tax" is $200.
A 1080 MSRP is $499, for a total of ($1299 + 499 = $1798)
They said the difference is around $300 between systems.
So, that Vega RX they had in that system will be $399. ($1099 + 399+ 300 = $1798).
Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.
Ah I must have gotten confused there, got it mixed up with the HardOCP test.I think you're being quite "presumptuous". Presuming they were using Doom, for example.
Rewarding "piss poor engineering" or saving yourself $300? If you have an unlimited budget, an aftermarket 1080Ti and a nice 21:9 G-Sync monitor look like the best bet right now but not many people have unlimited budgets.
Rewarding "piss poor engineering" or saving yourself $300? If you have an unlimited budget, an aftermarket 1080Ti and a nice 21:9 G-Sync monitor look like the best bet right now but not many people have unlimited budgets.
March is 8 months away. Isn't that the same logic you've been arguing against with waiting for Vega (i.e. why wait that long for the same or slightly better performance)? Besides the fact that you'd still have to cough up $300 or so extra benjamins to get a G-Sync monitor.
I'm as disappointed as everyone else if RX Vega performs like rumor suggests but I also recognize that there are logical reasons to buy Vega (many of which were outlined previously in a discussion you participated in).
Are you seriously going to suggest that the AMD marketing ploy of "blind testing" somehow represents functional equivalence between Vega and 1080 Ti?
When real people can buy a Vega (starting to wonder if that will be in 2017), there will be real tests, with real numbers, on a wide range to titles to get a real picture how it performs. I suspect at this point, this "blind testing" ploy will look even worse than it does today.
It's about the same. Both games average ~100fps @ 2560*1440. But this is an average from TPU. AFAIK TPU uses purely benchmarks if possible or a random game loop. They don't actually play the games.Ah I must have gotten confused there, got it mixed up with the HardOCP test.
How does a 1080 perform at 1440p in BF1 do we know? Would google myself but stuck on a coach on 3g data
As opposed to real game play. To each his own, as they say.Are you seriously going to suggest that the AMD marketing ploy of "blind testing" somehow represents functional equivalence between Vega and 1080 Ti?
When real people can buy a Vega (starting to wonder if that will be in 2017), there will be real tests, with real numbers, on a wide range to titles to get a real picture how it performs. I suspect at this point, this "blind testing" ploy will look even worse than it does today.
Lol "blind testing" is fundamental for the scientific method. You know, the procedure which smart people use to come to conclusions and make decisions. But you think it's about marketing...
Sounds as though you missed the lesson about objectivity if you're really starting to wonder if RX Vega will be out this year.
Keep it simple.Is it $300 less than an aftermarket, higher priced Nvidia card? This whole situation is AMD blowing smoke and mirrors, who knows how they're pricing these systems out. And furthermore, the $300 dollar includes a monitor purchase. I buy a new monitor once every 5+ years. How often do you buy a new monitor? People seem to forget Nvidia cards "work" on freesync monitors (and vice versa with AMD and gsync), too. If Nvidia trouncing AMD by 13+ months and AMD always coming in 3rd (or even 4th) in performance is the new norm, is artificially tying one's self down to freesync (or gsync) worth it?
Again, how often does someone get a new monitor? And (again), despite the features being exclusive, freesync and gsync monitors will show a picture on any GPU.
But even with a new monitor a gsync would cost an extra $200 vs. an equivalent freesync... correct? Five years with a gsync would cost an extra $3.25 / month vs. freesync during that five years. $3.25 / month to have access to the fastest, most efficient cards a year or more before the competition. (The cost per month is the same argument people use when saying an extra 100+ watts of power doesn't matter).
Similar obfuscation occurred with release of Bulldozer. They compared it to Intels top enthusiast chip, a $999 part to highlight the price/performance difference while completely ignoring the regular i7 performance part (about $340) which still beat the hell out of it in most benches. Quite clear RX is not up to the performance level they wished vs Pascal, hence their new controlled test conditions that can show it under a more favorable light. Why didnt they do that with RX580 vs 1070? Or RX470 vs 1060? Will they now do this with all their future releases? Or only when such testing may suit their purposes?I know what proper blind testing is (Ideally it should be double blind). But this isn't it. Hence why I used "blind testing" in quotes. This isn't proper blind testing.
Here it is being misused, to obfuscate and mislead.
We should use the real tested numbers to determine the actual performance of cards, that is object and clear data.
Then we can have subjective blind testing to determine a point after which more FPS don't matter, if that is important to you. I have long felt that there is a lot of placebo effect involved in the obsession for ultra high frame rates. So I would love to see some proper blind testing to determine where these points typically are for most people. But this lame marketing stunt is not that.
The way the this marketing ploy was applied, you could just as easily substitute the other way and use a GTX 1070 "blind" vs a Vega, and show similar results and then jump to the equally meaningless conclusion that Vega is equal to a GTX 1070.