How big of chance this product will be an actual succes?
Well lets see
when has AMD ever made anything that met people's expectations?
It's AMD, dude. They haven't delivered anything but disappointment for the last decade
>>54989729
What disappointment? My 7770 Is going strong in the gaming computer. Granted I also have a 2gb 960, but that's not in my gaming pc.
Why do you think that is?
>>54989743
That's the tail end of ATi
>>54989729
But this time they presented something which at least on paper seems very decent and competetive.
>199$
>roughly the performance of a 970 gtx, maybe approaching a 980
>VR/dx12 support to catch the eye of your basic gaymur autist
It's not a high-end product but it reminds me a bit of the 5950/5970 which performed so well against fermi. I don't see people still keeping fermi cards in their build, but you'll find some with 5970s.
>>54989749
My HD4990 was ATi.
>>54989749
These goalposts sure are mobile tonight.
>>54989754
They do this EVERY TIME
Then the product comes out and it's like
'oh'
>>54989776
HD4890*
>>54989790
Okay, I'll change my goalposts to this:
AMD haven't produced anything but disappointment since the 7000 series
Which is like 6 years ago
>>54989823
Maybe today technology and architecture is on their side? Remember the 7 series had great performance but were powerhungry as fuk, while the rx 480 boasts a pretty decent 150tdp.
If it turns out as good as the announcements would indicate, then it's a no-brainer at the 200-250$ range. On the other hand, I feel if they fuck this up then their goose is cooked.
>>54989823
But every card since then has been a 7xxx Rebrand except for fury, and now 380x and up.
So really it's not disappointment. Just outdated.
>tfw you just want amd to quietly die so that the love you once had for them is only a distant memory.
>tfw consoles and poor fags will never let it die.
>>54989693
100%
The death of AMD would be a very bad thing. Just imagine the humongous shilling and shekelling nvidia would drop on the world -- already they're pushing it to the limit but with AMD gone they would be able to pull a "3,5g" meme all the time and people would be force to buy a new card every 8 months.
>>54989693
>those cheeky-breeky shopped "shilling" laptops on both sides of Mr. Raja Koduri
>>54989693
I really hope it'll be good because I'm planning on getting a rig soon with a very limited budget
>>54989867
How is releasing 6 years of rebrands not disappointment
I mean I was moving the goalposts but you're redefining reality
>>54989882
>they would be able to pull a 3.5 gb meme all the time
>Steam survey says the 970 is still the most used card on steam
What exactly did AMD do to make it less so?
>AMD doesn't release a 'new' card every 8 months!
Yeah they just put a new sticker on it slap on more ram, push the factory overclock to the limit then sell it for $100 extra.
But Nvidia are the jews!
>>54989922
300 tdp down to 90tdp After 6 years is not an improvement..? Clock speeds remain relatively the same, but memory clock has improved. The only thing that remains in these rebrand is the actual chip, which needs no improvement. So they work on the other things like memory, power draw, cooling, and general pub improvements. You do know that right?
>>54989958
Not exactly but I lol'd none the less. Heres your (you)
>>54989958
What did nvidia improve? Both companies follow the same pattern, reducing tdp, going for smaller architecture etc. Nvidia introduced a few gayworks thingies, AMD installed hbm memory -- all in all, whether nvidia or amd, they both try to make small little adjustments here and there and that's pretty much it. The processor market is pretty similar -- clock rate have been stagnating for like 5-6 years while power draw, efficiency and temps have been falling.
>>54990013
>clock rate have been stagnating for like 5-6 years
More like 14 but thanks for playing.
Also this thread reeks of /v/ teenage faggotry
>>54990110
>clockrate has been stagnating for 5-6 years
>Nvidia GPUs are pushing 2GHZ while AYYMD housefires can only go up to 1GHZ without spontaneously combusting
>>54990137
The newest high end nvidia gpu Pushes 2ghz. All the others are stuck at 1,400-1,500 mhz just like amd. When amd releases their new high end line, you really think it's only going to be 1ghz?
>>54990145
>pushing 2ghz easy
>Fermi
>Housefire
Yeah, fuck off kike.
>>54990167
>Fermi
Who's talking about fermi?
The Pascals are clocking 2.1 ghz boost clocks. What sort of moron are you?
>>54990160
>I'm a fucking moron
The GCN architecture has a much shorter pipeline than Maxwell or Pascal, it is only 8 stages. Its not a high clocking arch.
The RX 480 has a stock clock that tops out at 1200mhz.
Thinking that one arch needs to hit 2ghz just because another does if beyond stupid. Look at the A9X vs S820.
>>54990160
>All the others are stuck at 1,400-1500mhz just like AMD
No it's not, the new generation of Pascal cards literally just came out. They're advertising a stock clock of 1,700mhz with boost clocks of up to 2100
And the the average 1070 clockspeeds are on average 1700+mhz on the stock standard reference card.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/06/06/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_founders_edition_review
>>54990110
>thinking clock rates matter at all
no i think you are the teenaged faggot
Daily reminder that Async compute meme is dead
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/06/06/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1070_founders_edition_review/8
>>54990243
Reminder that the $370 GTX 1070 beats the $650 Fury X
>>54990218
The stock boost clocks are in the 1700 range, and its possible to overclock them to 2100, your information is correct but your interpretation is retarded.
OEM reference clocks generally are targeted to provide a certain range of power draw across all the chips they make at a certain range of lifespan. No two chips OC the same, draw the same power naturally, or will last as long at any setting.
Modern design rules target a nominal 8-10 year lifespan before physical degradation causes a considerable fraction of chips to fail. Stock, reference clocks are a guaranteed speed all the chips can run at while staying within the target lifespan.
>>54990137
>>the processor market is pretty similar
>>clock rates have been stagnating for 5-6 years
Thats what I was replying to. Clock rates have been mostly stagnant (with respect to node shrinks) in the CPU space for a decade+
>>54990188
When msi gets their hands on that gx480, you really think they're going to leave it at 90tdp @ 1200mhz? Get out newfriend.
>>54990218
Comparing $800 Cards that were just released with $200 cards from last summer.
What do you think amd's $800 offerings will provide?
/g/ will take a bite out of an apple and ask why their orange is so fucking crunchy. Idiots.
>>54990277
>possible to overclock
The average clockspeed is 1700 Mhz you dumb dumb. The GPU will throttle based on the temperature range. It will reach 2.1 GHZ but the temperatures will throttle it down to the average speed.
This means that any/all tri-fan coolers will push up the average clockspeed.
>Nominal 8-10 year lifespan
top kek, the fans will die withing 24-36 months or 3-4 years if you're lucky.
The average clocks are used because of the way GPU boost 3.0 works which allows for the maximum possible clockspeed at any time based on the temperature target.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/17/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1080_founders_edition_review/5
>>54990304
then fucking specify fucktard, the GPU clockspeeds have not been stagnating and have steadily improved for years.
>>54990308
>$200 cards from last summer
>Fury X $650 at launch
Top memes.
>What do you think AMD's $800 offerings will provide?
Who knows? their new $200 is so super sekrit because they want to wait for the 1080/70 hype to die down so everyone will forget how BTFO their lineup is going to be.
>inb4 the new high end vegas are coming!
Yeah in 2017 when the high end Pascals will BTFO them too.
>>54990308
>overclocked cards with top binned dies disregarding reference TDP are totally indicative of the architectural average at a given target power
The fact that you lack this much self awareness is impressive. Ignorance is bliss.
>>54990327
I don't have to specify anything, you're the one who lacks reading comprehension.
>>54990310
You're just an idiot spouting bad troll bullshit.
>>54990395
>you're the one who lacks reading comprehension
Yeah, I'm sorry you're so retarded you bring in CPU clockspeeds into a GPU discussion.
>>54990403
When replying to an anon who made the statement
>" The processor market is pretty similar -- clock rate have been stagnating for like 5-6 years"
It should have been painfully obvious exactly what was meant.
You, are the idiot here.
>>549>>54990413
>clock rate has been stagnating for 5-6 years
The fact that you even think that the clockrate on processors has been stagnant for only 5-6 years points out that you're a retard.
>>54990433
But that is quite the case. We've seen little improvement in JUST the clock rates. Vishera processors hit like over 5ghz or Bulldozer, but you don't see home-grade processors with stock 6ghz now do you?
Improvements are carried out in different areas -- tdp, efficiency, multi-threading.
>>54990441
>but that's is quite the case
Clockrates have been stagnant since Pentium 4s were out fucktard.
>$199
oh boy
>>54990448
>slower than a 390x
Oh goy
>>54990446
and that's what I'm saying you autistic fucking mongrel
I'm still very content with my HD7850 so I have no problems buying AMD again if they bring out a good card.
The only reason I may get nvidia is for CUDA, but OpenCL is an alright alternative.
>>54990472
>Pentium 4
>5-6 years
Did you get lost for 6 years of your life?
>>54989729
*two years for gpu
*4 years for cpu
>>54989729
except having the best price/performance ratio the past two GPU cycles
>>54990243
Reminder that dx12 Tomb Raider is literally a dx12 port
>>54990275
>$370
Hahahahahahaha
your nickname better be good luck cuck
>>54989754
>roughly the performance of a 970
nice fucking meme, when will it stop? its got 1k points above a 980 and 200 below a fury
200-230$ for performance between 970 and 980 (some sources say more, but I dont want to go too optimistic, 970 level is fine too), basically proper mid-range card of new generation.
At the same time, "high-end" cards like 70s and 80s Nvidia line are like 15% of market.
They dont have to make beasts out of it to succeed. All they need - and what they are aiming for - is grabbing the market for mid-range cards, aka the most used ones. Avarage consumer is not maniac that absolutely need most powerful GPU on market for price of whole working PC.
Let Nvidia produce actually niche cards with max possible specs and absurd prices. Gates succeed when he realized that it is better to sell multiple copies for lower price than few copies for high price.
>>54990916
in a synthetic benchmark that means jack shit.
AMD already gave up the high performance market
they release mid tier shit now, vega delayed till Q1 2017
you only have nvidia to choose if you want good FPS
>>54990187
That's just blatantly wrong.
>tfw AMD was forced to focus on the efficiency meme because Nvidia brainwashed people into thinking it actually mattered
>>54989882
No, somebody with more resources would buy AMD's corpse and revitalize their graphics division. Even more likely is that multiple companies buy different parts of the company.
>>54990916
Even in Ashes of the Singularity, dual 980s with the same processor as the AMD demo destroy dual 480s. http://ashesofthesingularity.com/metaverse#/personas/32b2a706-b800-4d61-9ddb-1c80bfd51103/match-details/c60f7875-f7ef-4b2d-9d81-6c2f17181a6e Of course you have to subtract a few fps from the dual 980 scores because AMD used AA than in the standard benchmark.
>>54991960
Oh wait nevermind, I got my numbers mixed up. It is about exactly on par with a 980 in dx12. My bad.
>>54991392
>if you want good fps
>because amd is bad fps
>this is my world view
