GTX 1070 3DMARK results leaked

And this is the same reason that the Fury X was so expensive (and still is). Everyone justified that because of the high cost of HBM, ultimately creating a card that was not as competitive as I should have bee.

Were AMD being greedy too then?

I don't condone any company artificially hiking prices above what they should be, but it happens. I don't complain either that I cant afford a new Aston Martin because it is expensive, I couldn't afford the last one either. Yet a price hike of 10k+ isn't questioned for little gain in performance. So why is the tech sector any different.

Ultimately, slating any company for doing what they do is pointless. Let's all hope that one day that all tech is affordable with good market competition.

Too greedy? No. I think it was more of building the hype and having that sell it. Unforuntaly for them, they failed in many areas that people wanted. So the only thing left that as a good point was HBM, but memory of any type alone cannot make the entire performance of a GPU.. Add on the fact it was very pricey, didn't help them much.

Everything AMD does is flowers and sunshine, everything nvidia does is evil, lies and greed. Sure going midrange is a smart move for AMD, but they don't have much of a choice either. I am myself in the market for either a 1070 or whatever toprange product the Polaris lineup offers and considering the price surge nvidia had i am currently leaning towards AMD, so i am by no means anti-AMD, i'm merely criticizing their performance of the past few years. It's a lot easier to conquer the midrange market than the high end market, it's not like nvidia is just going to leave that to them uncontested.

They have a choice, hence Vega. It's just taking a little bit longer. It's not as bad as it used to be. At least this time they releasing much sooner than before compared to what was it.. 18months?? Polaris is still using the same IP block as Fiji, it's merely evolved slightly. Vega is using an all new IP block, so it's going to take longer and is aimed squarely at the high end. Let's just hope it's a real rival.
 
They have a choice, hence Vega. It's just taking a little bit longer. It's not as bad as it used to be. At least this time they releasing much sooner than before compared to what was it.. 18months?? Polaris is still using the same IP block as Fiji, it's merely evolved slightly. Vega is using an all new IP block, so it's going to take longer and is aimed squarely at the high end. Let's just hope it's a real rival.

Trailing 6 months without releasing anything isn't a choice they can afford to make, hence Polaris. I've said this before when the 290x released, being a rival is not good enough if you join the competition 6 months late. It has got to beat whatever nvidia is offering by a decent margin, there can't be a 1080ti which just wrecks their offering two weeks after release again.
 
Trailing 6 months without releasing anything isn't a choice they can afford to make, hence Polaris. I've said this before when the 290x released, being a rival is not good enough if you join the competition 6 months late. It has got to beat whatever nvidia is offering by a decent margin, there can't be a 1080ti which just wrecks their offering two weeks after release again.
This may not be in any way true, but maybe they can't afford to beat the 1080ti, even with Vega 11 (not Vega 10) their supposed flagship. Maybe they need Polaris—a midrange architecture that will sell by the bucket loads—to recoup years of lagging behind economically. Along with Zen, maybe Polaris will help give AMD the money and reputation they need to push towards the top-end, a market that might be harder and less fruitful to control. Come Navi, maybe we'll see AMD compete handily against Volta, and not just in isolated benchmarks or in the midrange sector. All I need Vega to do is give me 1080 performance across the board. If it's not as competitive as nVidia, that's not the end of the world.
 
This may not be in any way true, but maybe they can't afford to beat the 1080ti, even with Vega 11 (not Vega 10) their supposed flagship. Maybe they need Polaris—a midrange architecture that will sell by the bucket loads—to recoup years of lagging behind economically. Along with Zen, maybe Polaris will help give AMD the money and reputation they need to push towards the top-end, a market that might be harder and less fruitful to control. Come Navi, maybe we'll see AMD compete handily against Volta, and not just in isolated benchmarks or in the midrange sector. All I need Vega to do is give me 1080 performance across the board. If it's not as competitive as nVidia, that's not the end of the world.

Would be interesting to know how AMD's RnD fund compares to nvidia's. My guess would be that one successful mid range generation won't suffice to bridge the gap.
If Vega only has 1080 performance across the board it would probably net them a loss, wouldn't it?
 
Aye, not just GPUs, but CPUs, APUs, SoCs, FirePros, SSDs, Memory.. so they have quite the catalogue.
 
Remember AMD hold the contracts with all the console providers which probably brings in a nice profit

AMDs most profitable(actually the only thing) they have are SoC designs, and with the PS4 selling so freaking well(just broke over the 40million unit mark) they are making a lot of money. However as they lower prices on consoles, AMD make less money. Because yields go up and cost/wafer falls. So with AMD securing another 3 contracts for SoCs(most likely consoles), it should help keep them profitable yet again. They made so much last quarter from consoles that instead of losing hundreds of millions, they were able to only lose a total of $68million. Pretty impressive. Also with all there selling in stocks and securing other contracts, they are really getting in some strong cash flow over the next year and more. So yeah, consoles are saving AMD atm.
 
Would be interesting to know how AMD's RnD fund compares to nvidia's. My guess would be that one successful mid range generation won't suffice to bridge the gap.
If Vega only has 1080 performance across the board it would probably net them a loss, wouldn't it?
I saw this mathematical—and purely hypothetical—performance chart for everything except big Pascal the other day. Vega 10 could be the 490 while Vega 11 could be 490X. The numbers don't make sense to me as there is too much of a gap between the 480X and the 490, but if the 490 is just that little bit more powerful than a 1080, and it's $550/€600—similar to the initial price ratio of the 290 to the 290X and Fury—that's a winner in my book. If the 490X is $650/€700 but doesn't quite compete with the 1080ti—which might be, say, 32,000—it won't matter because if nVidia are scaling things as they always have done, the 1080ti could cost $700-750/€750-800. €550 for slightly overclocked 1080 performance, 8GB HBM2, better overclocking than Fiji, and lower power consumption? Yes, please. The 490X might have more memory and more power, but I won't need it.

https://youtu.be/6TLwiLfrpOU

kRBlauP.jpg
 
I saw this mathematical—and purely hypothetical—performance chart for everything except big Pascal the other day. Vega 10 could be the 490 while Vega 11 could be 490X. The numbers don't make sense to me as there is too much of a gap between the 480X and the 490, but if the 490 is just that little bit more powerful than a 1080, and it's $550/€600—similar to the initial price ratio of the 290 to the 290X and Fury—that's a winner in my book. If the 490X is $650/€700 but doesn't quite compete with the 1080ti—which might be, say, 32,000—it won't matter because if nVidia are scaling things as they always have done, the 1080ti could cost $700-750/€750-800. €550 for slightly overclocked 1080 performance, 8GB HBM2, better overclocking than Fiji, and lower power consumption? Yes, please. The 490X might have more memory and more power, but I won't need it.

https://youtu.be/6TLwiLfrpOU

kRBlauP.jpg

But by the time it releases 1080 prices will have gone down significantly, like they've done in the past and drivers will have improved, potentially putting the 1080 in front again. It would be a winner in my books if they released Vega with specs like that next month, but end of the year is a bit late.
 
Regardless of the fact that they built the founders edition with a cooling solution that maintains boost clocks only long enough to run a canned benchmark or not, they are still only mid range cards. Granted 85% of the world only pays around $350 or less for GPU, I'm not excited yet :-)
 
But by the time it releases 1080 prices will have gone down significantly, like they've done in the past and drivers will have improved, potentially putting the 1080 in front again. It would be a winner in my books if they released Vega with specs like that next month, but end of the year is a bit late.
Yeah, that's fair enough. But when the 290 was released—though it wasn't six months after the 780—nVidia had had their GPU's out for many months. Yet, the 290 sold well and was an excellent GPU for the money. For $400 you had a card that could compete with a $500 780. And it lasted a lot longer as well. Yes, the 780 prices had dropped by then and AIB partners had worked their magic, eking out additional performance through overclocks, but it was still a highly sort after GPU that remained relevant almost three years later.

I just don't feel AMD needs to be better than nVidia when all they need to do is release a card I like at a price I like. Whether nVidia has something more powerful is, to me, a moot point. The problem with that attitude, I would wager, is it is not shared by 99% of the PC gaming community. Most want to see AMD beat or match their competition, because competition—healthy competition, at least—spurs innovation.

So, speaking purely for my own hopes, I want another Fury; but with more memory, better overclocking and lower power consumption. If it is less powerful than a 1080, even at a cheaper price, that would not interest me; not because nVidia then have a better card but because I need 1080 performance at the very least. If the 490X costs $650/€700 and only just beats the 1080, that would suck. I would consider selling my Freesync monitor and going back to nVidia if that happened. But the 290 consistently matched or beat the 780, the Fury consistently matched or beat the 980 and I imagine the 490 will match or beat a 1080.
 
Of course you are not going to see cards with proper cooling solutions for less than the founders edition cards, but there are always a few manufacturers who offer a cheap card with a blower cooler even AMD would be too ashamed to use.

I stand corrected, EVGA GTX 1080 SC Gaming ACX 3.0 popped up for 729€ and the Palit GTX 1080 Jetstream popped up for 699€ on Mindfactory. That's borderline acceptable.
 
Back
Top