Go Back   OC3D Forums > [OC3D] General Forums > OC3D Reviews & Videos
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 23-08-17, 05:55 AM
Linchpin Linchpin is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 7
And as time goes on packing in more cores at competitive prices will not be an issue for Intel. It'll take Intel a bit of time to get off their ass sure but once they do it's back to obscurity for AMD because they just do not have the resources to go punch for punch with Intel in the CPU market every year. Much like they can occasionally close the gap to Nvidia only to then fall behind for years and years.

I get that it's fun to root for the underdog but the level of overhype around the internet when AMD releases something that doesn't suck and is actually competitive is ridiculous.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23-08-17, 06:13 AM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is online now
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 13,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linchpin View Post
And as time goes on packing in more cores at competitive prices will not be an issue for Intel. It'll take Intel a bit of time to get off their ass sure but once they do it's back to obscurity for AMD because they just do not have the resources to go punch for punch with Intel in the CPU market every year. Much like they can occasionally close the gap to Nvidia only to then fall behind for years and years.

I get that it's fun to root for the underdog but the level of overhype around the internet when AMD releases something that doesn't suck and is actually competitive is ridiculous.
This isn't rooting for the underdog.

The only hype is made up by consumers. People thought Vega was a 1080ti killer, good joke. People thought Polaris would challenge the 980ti, yep another good joke. AMD don't hype much with the only exception being Zen. But that is because it deserves it and is ahead of Intel and will be for some time. It'll be a while before Intel can make something as cheap as Epyc that is as fast or faster in multi core performance.
__________________
"I would have followed you, my Captain, my King."
- Boromir's last words.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 23-08-17, 06:59 AM
Dicehunter's Avatar
Dicehunter Dicehunter is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ye Olde England
Posts: 11,556
Send a message via Skype™ to Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
they need to design a super cheap powerful chip without all that extra unneeded crap(HBM/interposer/etc) and stick with GDDR5 and make something that Nvidia can't beat at a $300 price point and just stick to that market.
This right here !

If AMD dropped that HBM etc... which is all unnecessary and used GDDR5X I bet they could shave a huge chunk off the price, Then and only then would the extra power draw be acceptable when it's MUCH cheaper than the competition but as it stands now, A Vega 64 with AIO which is the balls to the wall Vega card, Is £50 more expensive than a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080Ti Gaming OC BLACK which is an aftermarket 1080 Ti and seeing as a 1080 Ti is a damn big chunk faster than Vega 64, Someone would have to be clinically insane to buy the Vega 64 AIO version.

AMD screwed the pooch this time around, The only people who will buy Vega are the people who don't know about the cheaper faster competition or people who just hate Nvidia.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 23-08-17, 08:59 AM
AlienALX's Avatar
AlienALX AlienALX is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linchpin View Post
And as time goes on packing in more cores at competitive prices will not be an issue for Intel. It'll take Intel a bit of time to get off their ass sure but once they do it's back to obscurity for AMD because they just do not have the resources to go punch for punch with Intel in the CPU market every year. Much like they can occasionally close the gap to Nvidia only to then fall behind for years and years.

I get that it's fun to root for the underdog but the level of overhype around the internet when AMD releases something that doesn't suck and is actually competitive is ridiculous.
The overhype is created by idiots online. People who don't understand science and allow themselves to be carried away. With computer products the information you need is always out there. But all it takes is some pleb with no understanding of science to start saying "Vega is going to beat the 1080Ti !" and that's it, idiocy ensues.

I tried my level best to keep people grounded both on the 400 series launch (expect 980 perf max) and Vega (expect 1070). But all it takes is one video from AMD and uh oh, it's gonna have the 1080Ti's head on a stick God I wish the roll eyes emoticon was better on here.

As for your other comments about AMD not matching Intel on IPC? actually they have. They got as far as Broadwell E which was more than far enough. They have superior multi threading too, so clock per clock their CPUs are actually better than Broadwell E. What they do not have *yet* is Intel's clock speed. But you pay an incredibly heavy price for that, and it's mostly a waste of money.

You can now quite easily buy a 1700 for £270. Compared to the £999 Intel launched the 5960x for I would say that is amazing value for money. Right now that is all you need noting that I have put emphasis on need. Need as in, it's good enough for games, it's good enough for video encoding and rendering and has more cores than you can use right now if you are just a basic desktop user. If you need more (like really need them like I do) then there is Threadripper. Are Intel CPUs quicker? yes, but you are now paying a stupid price for them (well, you were before, but at least you didn't look quite as stupid because AMD had nothing).

Given that I would say 99% of people buy computers based on what they need rather than what their green eyes want? I would say AMD have hit a home run. Intel have Coffee lake coming so that's another 3-5% but you will pay a very high price for it. And again, we come back to what you need and whether it will be worth it.

Intel could have done some damage to AMD with Coffee lake. Some serious, serious damage. But the fact is they won't because they have pretty much alienated every one on Z170 and Z270 so that they can't just buy a CPU upgrade. God, if they'd done that then yes, AMD may have gotten a little sweaty but as it stands? haha, no damage.

Remember, for about £60 you can buy a board that you can drop a R5 1600 into and happy days. Let's see what Z370 boards cost shall we?

Intel know its audience. They know they are so brand loyal they would never buy AMD so they treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. And it works, but any one with half a brain will buy AMD. They've had their "honeymoon" period now, now they can drop Ryzen prices. They even made a comment recently saying how cheaply they were making them. Not cheaply as in poor quality, cheaply as in cheap to make. That's probably why the 1700 has dropped about £60 already.
__________________
He used to do surgery
For girls in the eighties
But gravity always wins




Young man ya too girly girly, you're just a Cadbury's Curly Wurly
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 23-08-17, 10:19 AM
Thelosouvlakia's Avatar
Thelosouvlakia Thelosouvlakia is offline
Classy-Fried-Chicken
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Greece
Posts: 2,914
@NBD you make a fair point but that's what I'm saying, I was talking about vega specifially, ryzen is a major success and AMD did deliver on the promises (although it took them quite a while).


And as long as they are experimenting (yes even though it's hbm2.0 its still an experiment) with HBM and they can't still beat the cards that have "older gen" technology in terms of memory should ring a bell that memory bandwidth isn't the one thing that has that much impact on gaming cards...


And they claim that HBM is "more efficient" in terms of power consumption because they compare it with the bandwidth per watt however IRL they have failed to demonstrate that. And of course I personally didn't expect the vega to beat the 1080ti that would be insane.


AMD brought out vega to be matched with their ryzen cpu architecture and they keep saying it will work better if they are paired together and I find that quite hard to believe. If you pair a threadripper with a 1080 and then try that on the vega the results are going to be pretty comparable to that on a x299 cpu. Unless they are talking about servers and really really specialized workloads that will use all the HBM bandwidth...
__________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Theory is when you have the "know how" but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined: Nothing works and no one knows why
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 23-08-17, 01:27 PM
Kaapstad's Avatar
Kaapstad Kaapstad is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Skaro visiting family
Posts: 1,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
This right here !

If AMD dropped that HBM etc... which is all unnecessary and used GDDR5X I bet they could shave a huge chunk off the price, Then and only then would the extra power draw be acceptable when it's MUCH cheaper than the competition but as it stands now, A Vega 64 with AIO which is the balls to the wall Vega card, Is £50 more expensive than a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080Ti Gaming OC BLACK which is an aftermarket 1080 Ti and seeing as a 1080 Ti is a damn big chunk faster than Vega 64, Someone would have to be clinically insane to buy the Vega 64 AIO version.

AMD screwed the pooch this time around, The only people who will buy Vega are the people who don't know about the cheaper faster competition or people who just hate Nvidia.

People need to see HBM for what it is and not what they want it to be.

As you know from OcUK I have never been a fan of HBM from day one, the memory system is not bad at all it is just not suited to gaming cards.

Worse still there are people like DM who post text walls of technical waffle which other people take seriously, yet DM has not had any first hand experience of using the memory, he just thinks he knows better than everyone else.

HBM is actually very good but on professional cards that use its strengths in ways that are not needed on gaming cards.
__________________
OC3D Overclockers Club Member
#041

GTX 960 owner and proud of it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 24-08-17, 04:55 AM
MacLeod's Avatar
MacLeod MacLeod is offline
OC3D Crew
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 938
I don't get the HBM craze either. It bombed with the Fury cards and it's kinda bombed with Vega in that it's very expensive and runs the price up on these cards and it doesn't appear to be needed. I know these things are deep in the pipeline and can't be changed on a whim but after the Fury cards I would think AMD would go back to GDDR5 which works just fine on Nvidia cards not to mention working just fine on the 290 and 390 cards which coincidentally was the last time AMD was competitive in the GPU market.
__________________

AMD FX-8350 @ 4.815 ••• Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev 1••• Corsair H100
Corsair 500R ••• EVGA Supernova G2 750 ••• Corsair Vengeance 8GB
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB x2 ••• MSI R9 290x Lightning
Samsung 840 Evo 250GB ••• BenQ XL2720Z
Logitech G710+ ••• Logitech G502
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 24-08-17, 05:25 AM
NeverBackDown NeverBackDown is online now
AMD Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 13,246
They should just have kept the HBM class cards for pro's and HPC. The gamer card should just have been a bigger Polaris that can crank clock speed up and use G5X instead of HBM. We would have had much cheaper cards and have them out much sooner to boot.
__________________
"I would have followed you, my Captain, my King."
- Boromir's last words.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 24-08-17, 06:58 AM
Kaapstad's Avatar
Kaapstad Kaapstad is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Skaro visiting family
Posts: 1,618
If GDDR5X is good enough for the fastest gaming card available it should be ok for any of the new AMD cards.



Unfortunately as said by Macleod above the decision what memory to use is taken long before the finished card turns up.
__________________
OC3D Overclockers Club Member
#041

GTX 960 owner and proud of it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 24-08-17, 07:53 AM
Excalabur50's Avatar
Excalabur50 Excalabur50 is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,674
Maybe now that Raja has taken over he can start with a clean slate and maybe go that way with GDDR instead although ATM there isn't a price difference between HBM and GDDR so it won't make the cards cheaper but it should definitely help with performance if implemented correctly
__________________
DRAGON'S MIST
NZXT Phantom 630 White=Intel 5930K=MSI X99A Gaming Pro Carbon=32gig 2400Mhz GSkill Trident RGB= MSI GTX1080 Seahawk X=NZXT Kraken X62=Asus ROG Swift=Corsair K95 RGB=Corsair Force LS 960GB=Cougar 700M=Samsung 950 Pro M.2 512GB=Corsair AX1200i=White Sennheiser Game One=NZXT Hue+ with Aer RGB fans and RBG strip=Pioneer BDR-209D=Windows 10 Pro=Creative Soundblaster ZXR=Thrustmaster T16000M HOTAS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump










All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.