Now that the death of intel is on the horyzen is Nvidia next in line?

Now that the death of intel is on the horyzen is Nvidia next in line?

I'm not seeing the same sort of hype for the vega even though the release date announcement is tomorrow at GDC.

radeon.com/en-us/gdc-2017/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fqhEvg02-fY
youtube.com/watch?v=w8fQ15_6eNM
babeltechreviews.com/titan-x-vs-gtx-1080-25-games-tested-4k-2k-1440p/3/
pcgamer.com/best-graphics-card-deals-today/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>for the vega even though the release date announcement is tomorrow
highly doubt it, it's going to be another polaris kind of event like last year - nothing interesting
Nvidia launching boring Pascal 1080ti nobody cares about except for hardcore Nvidia consumeers
GPUs will be boring for a while at least until 2019

Not really.

The 1080Ti or whatever is next will be competitive with Vega. Vega will just keep it from costing more than like $600 while the 1080 and 1070 will be price dropped about 30% each.

Vega will poop on last year's $1000 Titan XP for like $450-$600 just like the 7970 pooped on the 590. But the next Pascal will make people regret buying a 1070/1080/Titan XP just the same.

But this is just how the cycle goes. Nvidia CAN offer a competitive card at decent prices. They didn't lose money when they had to cut prices when GCN launched by 30% and the cards were still 30% slower because fanboys still bought them and plenty already bought them at the overpriced prices before the 7000 series launched.. They just gouge when they can on top of that.

It's to be expected. AMD have been bullied for years and now they're out for blood.

Why don't you think it'll be interesting?

They'll be showing games like SW Battlefront and Doom running at 4k 60fps minimum. Maybe some 3440x1440 ultrawides at 100fps, too?

I think that's pretty exciting. Those games look great. Graphics and power needed isn't improving much, so to be able to run pretty much every game for the next few years at 4k 60fps min, not average, is pretty exciting.

And they'll have the RX580. Maybe as fast or faster than the 1070 for cheaper? That's exciting.

It's the biggest architecture change since GCN. Very future-proofed.
Just like my 7970 I got 6 years ago that runs just about every game at 1920x1200 at 60fps, now I can buy this new card and probably not need to upgrade again for 6 years.

Most of the hype is focused on the processor line considering that the release date is just a few days away.

Well the Vega and 1080Ti(or whatever it is) event is tomorrow.

It's questionable what Nvidia is going to announce.
The Titan XP is already 11TFLOPS while the mainstream enthusiast Vega is going to be 12.5TFLOPS. It's doubtful the 1080 replacement or 1080Ti will be more powerful than the Titan XP. So I have a feeling they might be showing a new architecture with tiled rendering, gpu occlusion, etc, similar to Vega.

>is Nvidia next in line
I don't think so, while NVIDIA has been in the lead for a while now Radeon cards were always quite close to them and often better value too. I doubt NVIDIA underestimates Radeon like Intel underestimated AMD's capacity to make a decent CPU. NVIDIA was never allowed to get such a comfortable lead over Radeon like Intel got over AMD CPUs.

>Sheer FLOPs
AMD always loses on optimization and wins on sheer power, that's why their GPUs have aged better. So don't expect 12 FLOP Vega to beat a Titan XP.

All the Vega demos provided by AMD themselves and leaks we've seen put it around 1080 level, where are you getting numbers above a Titan XP?

Yeah, to expand on this; the RX 460, 470 and 480 are all compelling and competitive purchases right now. They may not have a "Titan killer" but mid-range GPUs are a highly competitive market.

You can't say the same about the pre-Ryzen CPU lineup. Nobody in their right mind would have bought an FX chip in the last year. APUs had some niche uses but never took off.

See
It's totally believable Vega kicks more raw data around than a Titan XP while being slower. And just like the 1060/480 competition, the Vega chip will age better.

Being able to push more raw FLOPS in theory isn't the same as what was claimed, namely that
>Vega will poop on last year's $1000 Titan XP for like $450-$600
I seriously doubt AMD has a Titan XP-tier GPU and instead showed demos putting it squarely in 1080 territory. Theoretical performance is largely irrelevant if it doesn't manifest as actual performance in games.

>shilltel and nvidijew simultaneously holocausted
what a time to be alive.

>Theoretical performance is largely irrelevant
Not really, because future drivers and less optimized games (software gets less optimized as processing power grows) will run better on a fatter chip than a leaner chip if they have similar launch speeds

Also so far all our benchmarks for Vega are early engineering boards. Ryzen went up about 20% from the first benchmarks.

>high TFLOPS shit on everything nvidia for computing and datacenters
>games get 0 benefit from this so shills will shitpost about it 24/7

We have VEGA numbers from multiple, official AMD demos, not unsubstantiated rumors from ages ago. Ryzen did not go up 20% from AMD's own demos to release.

Engineering sample or not, I doubt AMD would show VEGA demos displaying frame rate if the demo wasn't representative of the actual performance the product is capable. They always showed very carefully-chosen demos that put their products in a good light, doing literally the opposite with VEGA by showing an early version with unrepresentative performance would make absolutely no sense.

In Doom the RX480 to 1060 comparison does roughly match the TFLOPS. Fillrate is another important metric, but those are hard to compared since Polaris has a much better cache.

Um, no? The 1080 gets 60fps average in doom at 4k. The Vega gets 60 fps minimum, and was averaging in that early demo more around 70-80. And that was on beta drivers.
The Titan averages 90. So unless the 1080Ti is, yes, around or greater than the performance of the Titan, then it's not going to be edging out the top end Vega card much either.

We don't have many VEGA numbers.
There was a Doom video on hacked together drivers and small optimizations in the game months ago.

Now, with Vega still probably months away (March is likely), the only recent demo was from a few days ago is what, SW Battlefront?
There it also gets a 60fps minimum compared to the 43 minimum of a 1080 and the Titan XP gets a 64fps minimum.

>Ryzen did not go up 20% from AMD's own demos to release.
Except they did.
The original Ryzen Demos which were what, early January? It's gone up more than 10% since then. They were only at 3.15ghz clocks then as they were being very conservative about yields.
Back then the 1700X roughly matched the i7-6900k, and now it's 9% faster. And there is also the 1800X that's even faster when the 1700X was going to be the high end.

I love when someone says something to disprove a point but they missed a detail and instead help prove the point.

>There was a Doom video on hacked together drivers and small optimizations in the game months ago.
There was a DOOM demo that AMD considered to be worthy of showing with a frame rate counter on the screen. Anything else is speculation.

They also showed SWBF running 60FPS 4K, which is pretty much on par with a 1080. Not sure where you're getting that 43FPS minimum.
youtube.com/watch?v=fqhEvg02-fY

We have Vega in DOOM Vulkan within 10% of a 1080, SWBF showing pretty much identical performance and leaks from the official AotS benchmark database also showing pretty much identical results. Feel free to construct whatever narrative you please, but the numbers are what they are.

The first demo was way earlier IIRC, when they ran Blender on a 3GHz Ryzen CPU and a 3GHz 6900K, which showed them to be essentially equivalent. Pretty sure release Ryzen isn't 20% faster in the same setup, or even running stock clocks against a stock 6900K. Point here is that they devised a benchmark to show their product in a positive light. There was no "1700X" at that time and that specific CPU wasn't running at 1700X clocks, it was purely a demo of IPC. Ryzen IPC has not improved by 20% since then and no stock Ryzen CPU is 20% faster than a stock 6900K either.

youtube.com/watch?v=w8fQ15_6eNM

AMD cant do shit

>I've never overclocked before

maybe they should stop making bad products. just because it's cheap isn't an excuse.

and most games can't even make use of 8 cores anyways.

an unlocked i7 is literally the sweet spot for gaming.

Thanks for showing such a useless benchmark in an attempt to make a point.

I hope vega is good enough to convince nvidia to go full gp102 on the 1080ti and release it with 3840 cuda cores.
I just bought a 1080 and im gonna step it up with evga. hopefully will only have to pay like $100 more at most. if vega ends up being better than the 1080ti then i can just sell it at an inflated price since nvidia cards are always under-supplied at launch and buy the vega equivalent instead (probably with some cash left over too).

oh please, like everyone isn't aware that even AAA games don't make use of 6-8-10 cores. 4 is the max, and some can't even make use of hyperthreading/SMA

as far as GPUs go, a 1080 can keep stable 60fps in 4k, minus a few exceptions (hairworks, for one) so why would anyone need anything otherwise?

i just don't get the hype behind Ryzen/Vega. they're walking straight into an established market with a mindset that somehow they're going to create a rift with unfounded products. from what i've noticed in /pcbg/, the vast majority of people building computers nowadays are building them for gaming, and what is the point of skipping on a 6700/7700 for Ryzen if the hardware can't really be utilized?

you guys can post the passmarks and the cinebench and whatever else, but realistically this whole thing will be pointless if a Ryzen/Vega build can't get 100fps of high-level detail in any AAA game like an i5/1070 build can do with ease.

>There was no "1700X" at that time and that specific CPU wasn't running at 1700X clocks, it was purely a demo of IPC. Ryzen IPC has not improved by 20% since then and no stock Ryzen CPU is 20% faster than a stock 6900K either.
Okay fair point, but your comparison is still unfair.

GPUs are so different from CPUs. CPUs don't have drivers except to control power efficiency.

GPUs, on the other hand, do get performance improvements from drivers.
AMD will likely be pushing(paying) developers to optimize to have more games hit 60fps at 4k on Vega as that seems to be really what they're pushing for. All they've shown so far has been games getting a minimum of 60fps on their upcoming flagship card.

>They also showed SWBF running 60FPS 4K, which is pretty much on par with a 1080
I said minimum fps, not average. I got it from a review.
Here's the link: babeltechreviews.com/titan-x-vs-gtx-1080-25-games-tested-4k-2k-1440p/3/

>oh please, like everyone isn't aware that even AAA games don't make use of 6-8-10 cores. 4 is the max, and some can't even make use of hyperthreading/SMA
is this 2012?

>comparing r7 with mainstream i7
>retard keeps repeating the same mistakes

Has AMD said how often they're going to updating the Ryzen line of CPUs?

nope it's 2017, and we're still seeing i7's at the top of the piles for gaming.

so you're saying that more threads are beginning to matter. otherwise, you would have been saying that for the i5 instead of the i7

Except we're not. A number of reviewers have done averages and found the i7-6900k and i7-6850k beating the 4 cores when you average the scores of games from the past 3 years.

Go fuck yourself, misinformative moron.

I'll pick up a Vega/Navi when I can get Pascal Titan performance out of it for $300

So in like 2 years

no. unlike intel, nvidia actually releases good competitive products at good prices globally and they have big performance gains from gen to gen unlike intel.

amd matching intel whilst being cheaper was good enough to create hype. hell, amd could have matched intel and priced it just 10% cheaper rather than 100% and still created hype because people are already fed up of being charged insane prices for like dual core i3's.

amd would have to totally btfo nvidia whilst being significantly cheaper if they want to create hype. amd has hardware generally just as good as nvidia but their software and sponsorships are lacking and this is what the media picks up on.

The meme that
>Amd is better at dx12/vulkan
Is that they're just really shit at dx11/opengl, so the raw compute power of their cards is actually utilized

4 cores and 8 threads is the sweet spot, but even some games like R6:siege can't make use of hyperthreading. And considering how lazy game developers are becoming, I expect this trend to continue.

source?

Yeah, the best part about that retard's posts is that he doesn't realize the 7700k is 8 threads, not 4.

The fact is that most AAA games now days use *dozens* of threads, not just 2-4. They let the scheduler assign them over the threads available. For Honor, GR Wildlands, and many other newer games have nearly equal usage even over 16 threads.

Seriously go kill yourself.

>I expect this trend to continue
You literally contradicted your own argument, though. Considering that 4c4t is no longer the sweet spot while the 4c8t is, this means that games have started to utilize more threads. Besides, the r7s aren't even meant to compete with mainstream i7s.

That disabling hyperthreading shit is just a rumor about the game crashing. Lots of people saying that doing so didn't fix it for them, so whatever, moron.

Are you going to respond after you messed up comparing average fps to minimum fps?

That benchmark is in line with the average you were thinking: 60 fps /average/ on a 1080. But 60 is not the minimum.

It's looking like the flagship Vega will be at least 25% more performant than the 1080, which puts it at least 95% the performance of the Titan XP. Just as I said from the start.

>nvidia is going to die!
>because AMD, who can't make graphics drivers that work worth a damn, is releasing another new card!
my sides are leaving orbit. if ATI/AMD learned how to make drivers that worked, then nvidia would have competition. but that's a miracle that's a long way off, if it's even possible.

nvidia matters because their drivers work. untill your favorite shilling target manages the same, it's not going to change.

AMD graphics drivers have been great for years except for that fan bug that was fixed quickly.

Will it be CLC like the fury X?

So far we just have Zen+, Raven Ridge APUs, and the raven ridge with Vega after Zen+ all for sure confirmed. And a new architecture again for the new socket when DDR5 launches.

So I would say it's safe to say that annual updates and refinements.

Nvidia hasn't released a DX12 optimized card yet.

So they are objectively shit at it.

AMD GCN cards are built with DX12 in mind.

Do you think the prices will drop tommorow cause Im itching to buy the 1080 when it drops

Good, I was hoping this wasn't another bulldozer and it doesn't sound like it will be.

Bulldozer was a dead end.

Zen is actually showing promise and giving AMD hope.

their dx11 drivers still has overhead compared to the nvidia dx11 drivers is what i think he means

>Now that the death of intel is on the horyzen is Nvidia next in line?
Nah, Nvidia isn't full of incompetent management at the top
They might get raped for the 2017Q2 and Q3, but they will have something for 2018 that will go head to head with Vega, or be better

Maybe if they announce MSRP for the new cards they could drop.

But for the 30%+ price drop on 1080 you'll have to wait for Vega and 1080Ti(or whatever) to actually come out.

Their DX11 drivers doesn't "have overhead". NVidia does more to modify instructions to be intrinsic and perform better which worked for DX11 but not a new API.

What NVidia did with their drivers is make DX11 work more like DX12: more to the metal of the GPU. Outside of the CPU advantages of DX12, that is.
Since DX12 and Vulkan already do this, there's not much that can be done with drivers to edge out more performance as DX12 and Vulkan already utilize them closer to their fullest while DX11 was heavily abstracted.

>tfw you realize the R5 is what's are going to kill the i7 and massacre the i5.

GTX 1080/1080 Ti will already go head to head with Vega.

the "cheap" and "budget" shit is a dead giveaway that you're reading from a scenario

nobody who's not retarded thinks $500 chips are "budget"

>ZTheir DX11 drivers doesn't "have overhead". NVidia does more to modify instructions to be intrinsic and perform better which worked for DX11 but not a new API.

What NVidia did with their drivers is make DX11 work more like DX12: more to the metal of the GPU. Outside of the CPU advantages of DX12, that is.
Since DX12 and Vulkan already do this, there's not much that can be done with drivers to edge out more performance as DX12 and Vulkan already utilize them closer to their fullest while DX11 was heavily abstracted.


Source?

>source

Common fucking programming and graphics library sense.

>entire selling point for the entire lineup is that it's a better performer for the price
>not budget
>moves the goalposts to the $500 chip only
fuck you retard

im fine with this.

So you have no source?

tomorrow you will all be witness to the death of volta

>playing video games
>playing some shitty battlefield game
>using an 8c processor for playing some shitty battlefield game
I'd normally tell you to go to the board for video games, but maybe /s4s/ or Sup Forums are a bit more your speed

They fucking better be aiming at Volta competitor, no reason to release Vega if it will compete with Pascal ONE YEAR after.

they are

only way id buy AMD gpu's is if they did anything like nvidia is doing with linux drivers.

yes, i can dual boot, but id like to be able to play some games on linfucks

AMD always does this shit ALWAYS, they said the same about FX Bulldozer and Sandy Bridge, that shit only impresses kids and retarded fanboys.

You think when a company undercuts another company on pricing it's because they're targeting the budget market segment? Jesus fucking christ you're such a trained consumer whore that you don't even understand how competition works.

You have no idea how technological progress upsets the market value of a given product or service. Please don't act like you do. For one of the single biggest value upsets in human history, pay close attention to self driving cars and how it leaves transport workers destitute. Five years from now when you get into a self-driving taxi to get to work, are you going to also say that only people on a budget don't pay extra for a human driver?

Idiot

There is no such thing as a dx12 card

Games are optimized on a per card basis. Gears of War 4 runs better on Nvidia than AMD

...

""""""""""""no"""""""""""""""

Why is there always 2 Vega threads and 7 Ryzen threads?

people are sick of intel and nvidia charging absurd prices

There is nothing absurd about them.


You could build a perfectly adequate computer for very little money these days. You just feel you are entitled to certain levels of performance at low costs. I'm not sure where the entitlement or victimhood comes from but it is rather amusing.

...

Wow, even up to 10 cores? That 3.0 base is really pulling its potential down, if that was overclocked to some 4.2..

>all these faggots talking about Vega when ZERO information has been released about it

I heard Vega will suck your dick and transmute lead into gold, please give me all the (you)s

I'll just leave these here

...

those are some shit returns considering that they have far more cores.

games are optimized towards 4 cores, deal with it.

I see no Nvidia GPU on the best value chart nigger

pcgamer.com/best-graphics-card-deals-today/

the first one is an nvidia 1070?

Use more power, bigger die, better node and cant overclock for shit. Amd still behind

>not Simultanious multi-track(SMT) drifting
fix that immidietly

>death of intel and nvodya
>all the while absolutely no word about low and mid range amd cpus or gpus
when will this meme end

>muh power
Several cents per year, how awful!
>muh die
Literally nobody cares if it works.
>muh overclock
Normies don't care.

>oh please, like everyone isn't aware that even AAA games don't make use of 6-8-10 cores. 4 is the max, and some can't even make use of hyperthreading/SMA

It's 2017, for fucks sake. Most AAA games demand 4 threads available MINIMUM.

GOD DAMN IT WHAT A FAGGOT

"You stand up and take it like a man" - Vito Corleone

I've been waiting for the 1080Ti, but if Vega really does fuck it in the ass for a lower price I will jump from this GTX 760.

i wouldn't be surprised, but i do doubt it

Scroll down to best value GPU faggot.

VEGA WILL PIERCE THE HEAVENS

I'm not waiting anymore, buying 1060 today

When do the presentations start today and where can I stream them?

vega is not for low end builders anyways, enjoy your gpu.

>intel worth $36
>nvda worth $100 (overvalued)

AMD is taking both these jew fucks on head to head and is severely undervalued.

Get in. NOW

>And they'll have the RX580. Maybe as fast or faster than the 1070 for cheaper? That's exciting.

RX580 will be a rebrand.
It, as well as the 570, will go on sale April 4th.

10:30am PT which is roughly 3 hours and 7 minutes away and there'll be a stream on twitch under /amd.

What's with all of the shilling on Sup Forums lately? Does AMD have a new advertising budget?

Do they really need to use rx580 for rebrand, just use rx485 for god sake

underrated