AMD RX Vega 64/56 was a fail

AMD is selling every Vega they make at above MSRP. Pretty sure most companies would love to have a 'failure' like that.

Granted it is due to the cryptominers, but a sale is a sale.

Attached: CACrbs7VEAA2bDq.jpg (600x800, 71K)

Thats why niggervideo released the 780ti because the r9 290x killed the titan
Yeah sure tard go disinform somwhere else

still got my Fury X

plays 4k PUBG fine

Not amd but the retailers sell it above msrp you degen kid

>AMD is selling every Vega they make at above MSRP

AMD or Nvidia sell card card above MSRP, resellers or makers Cards do it.

Expensive chip and memory make profit Vega very small on consumer chips.

as a card vega is clearly ahead no questions asked the problem was never on the hardware

the problem is amd just started to make money and their drivers teams are at best OK if they had a bigger team they might would have pulled the primitive shaders feature off as automatic but no..it was too big of a deal for them to be able to do it in a decent time span hence why they decided to let developers take control of it

AMD doesn't even sell the card, they sell the GPU to partners who produce cards. AMD probably has had the same tiny margins throughout.

Also

>500mm^2 die + HBM2
>$500

They're making like 2 bucks from this to make sure partners can turn a profit at MSRP

>Nah, Vega work out just fine.

it hasn't at all, vega wouldn't even be selling a notable amount if it weren't for the mining boom

>When the first official white pages of Vega micro-architecture came out. It became clear that it could never realistically outpace Pascal at gaming. It could merely match it at best.

vega doesn't even match pascal, it's a huge chip that's barely competitive with gp104.

>The same retarded fanboys are going to be tilted when customer-tier Volta/Ampere isn't going to be significantly faster than Pascal.

maybe, but i have a hard time believing nvidia won't get at least a 20% increase in perf in each tier like they did with maxwell and pascal.

I was referring to the fury and the 200/300 series as the "already bad cards, since it was maxwell that really outclassed AMDs graphics cards. I meant vega with "worse", since it is not a significant improvement and it certainly did not close the gap, quite the opposite desu.

t. owner of a r9 290

Unrelated to topic, but do you guys reccomend an RX580 or GTX1060?

neither, wait for ampere

if you want to use a freesync monitor, 580, if you want this doesn't matter to you, 1060.

just make sure you get the 6 or 8gb versions

LOL these retarded questions every time
AMD always will be better in the long run+ it has 2gb more vram so the choice should be easy

>2100 h/s on cryptonight7
>A fail
The absolute state of /v/

Attached: 20180107_164854.jpg (1280x720, 376K)

That is not the important part. The problem is that AMDs vega gpus are that big chips and have such high calculation power(and power draw too) that they should wipe the floor with their nvidia counterparts(not including the titan and 1080ti). A vega 56 has almost the same flops as a 1080, yet it struggles to deliver the same performance. It's also not possible to archive similar clockspeeds with anywhere near the same power draw, forcing amd to produce even bigger and more expensive chips, reducing their margins even further. GCN should have been replaced years ago but amd is too broke to afford to develop a new architecture rn.

Let's see, which one of the almost two year old graphics card should you buy for at least 30% more than the msrp....

If you can't figure this out on your own perhaps you should just donate the money.

What a horrid sight, my friend.

>form over function
Back to

It's efficient like the 480/1060?

at msrp the 56 is good, sadly that's it
at launch I believe the 7000 was competing with the 600 and the 200 was competing with the 700, both of these cases the and card outclassed its competition, the 900 is paired with the 300, which I would have likely gotten over the 900 if I was in the market at the time due to more vram and not seeing the 980ti as worth the money as its a stopgap, not powerful enough at the same time to powerful.

>AMD is selling every Vega they make at above MSRP
>Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price
>Retail Price
>AMD is selling

Attached: 543106233.jpg (499x399, 142K)

vega sells for 100$ or vega sells for 2000$, amd only sells the chip at let's say 200$, regardless of what the price becomes, amd never makes more money.

5 cards, 10000h, 900w @ wall. Thats about 150w per card plus 150w system
May be able to drop it to 120w/card with furder undervolting. Currently at 900mv

Further*

>demand and supply has no impact on manufacturer
Well aren't you a special kind of retard?

At msrp amd is not making any real money with vega 56. The hbm alone has a value of ~150$, so only 250/350$ left for a 484mm^2 chips and all the rest of the card. Meanwhile nvidia is selling the 1080/1070(ti) chips that only are 314mm^2 and use the much cheaper (appr. 1/3 of hbm cost) ddr5(X). Did i already mentioned that nvidia pulls this off with much lower power consumption?

Also the 200 series did compete only for a short period of time with the 700 series and for most parts of its lifetime with the much much better maxwell based 900 series.

With maxwell nvidia went far ahead and while amd did catch up a bit with polaris they are still years behind and won't be competitive until they got a new architecture in 2020/21/22.

>insert i_wont_believe_your_life_barack_obama_you_wicked_wicked_devil.webm
>alex jones turns ssj

>Not surprising that the gap widens when you haven't got any money to improve your products.
AMD didn't fail us. We failed AMD. Or rather, gaymers killed the gaming industry by buying nvidia exclusively. Enjoy the ass fucking from your favorite company Nvidia with drawn out releases, exorbitant MSRP, and other shenanigans.

Really depends on the game, sometimes it can't even keep up with the 1070

Attached: 1523303918340.jpg (617x720, 217K)

this is so fucking true. i got a 7990 back then for like 800GBP and i loved it. it was big and bad and furious and it did run everything so well, i loved it.

Hey idiot, there are long term contracts that amd cant change like they wont, so when they did a contract with the manufacturers before the mining boom they wont see shit of the extra 300 or 500€ retailers make, they only benefit from the high numbers they sell but that doesnt change much since the margin on the vega cards is low. Also thanks to the miners nivea sells more cards then amd does

>still have 7950 running everything I throw at it
>feelsgoodman.jpg
The phenom ii x6 1055t is a bottleneck now...

Ye man i know the power of the 7950
Had an nvidia faggot crying on me cuz his 760 couldnt play gta 5 on high because of vram bottleneck and the 7950 which i build in my friends pc could
>was a warm and nice feeling
Also i cant help myself either with cpu buy
Should i go with 140€ for r51600, b350 and then go full power with ryzen 2 or buy ryzen 2000 and chill a bit

I'm thinking of upgrading the cpu and mobo, too. I feel like even an r3 would be an improvement over what I currently have.

Dude if you are really on a budget just go with the 1600 its a no brainer for 140€$¥¢whatever 12 threads is superb mate, the problem with the ryzen 3 is the low core count, in new games like aco the ryzen with less than 6 cores suck dick just like the 7700k and in rendering the ryzen 5 will crush both of them combined
I also have neaely the same Situation, i have a q8300 rn and everything would be an upgrade over thaz lvl3 cacheless shit

Well, the thing is I only play csgo, civilization, FTL, and stuff like that. I don't even make videos or render. I watch movies, read/write documents, browse the internet. But if the difference between r3 and r5 is 20-30€ then yeah, I'd go with r5.

I just looked it up and r5 1600 is double the price of r3 1200, 1177dkk vs 661dkk.

And for 536kr I get ASRock AB350M. So for the price of r5 1600 I can get a cpu+mobo. In fact, I'm glad I looked it up. 1200kr is super affordable. I think I'll buy it next month.

Yeah you are right if you talk about the 1200 with 4c4t but the difference from 1400 to 1600 is only 27€ and i would go for the 6c if you ask me you wont regret it
Also buy from germany or austria then geizhals.de/?cat=cpuamdam4

My 16GB of HBM2 doesn't give a shit what you think.

Shit load of low latency high bandwidth VRAM right next to the fucking die.

Attached: thumb-1920-332666.jpg (1920x1080, 447K)

The prices seem very similar. The r5 1600 is 150€ on that site. Well, I figure with an AM4 motherboard, I can always upgrade the CPU. So r3 for now and then something better a few months down the line.

>amada poster
>mouthbreathing retard
shocking

Yeah mate its your choice but if you plan to uprade to something stronger then be carefull with shitboards with low vrm count buy at least 8 to be safe
Also you might consider the 2200g since it clocks higher supports faster ram and has a built in gpu

>We failed AMD. Or rather, gaymers killed the gaming industry by buying nvidia exclusively
stop sucking indian dick.
we WOULD buy AMD if they had ANYTHING to complete with 1070/1080. since 390X they didnt even bother with higher end so guess what? people also didnt bother with AMD.

Because before that, even when AMD produced superior products, all the casual gaymers bought nvidia anyway because it's the way it's meant to be played. Nvidia had the mindshare of all the normtards. Now AMD is like fuck it even if they produce a better graphics cards the normtards will still buy nvidia like fucking zomboids.

Oh ok. Will look into the 2200g.

So the asrock ab350m isn't good? Been a while since I bought new PC parts.

Faggot die from torture u fucking retarded kid
This

Note the only flaw i forgot to mention is that the 2200g has only 16x pcie3 lanes instead of 24x on the 1200 if it matters to you
Just pick the stuff you need from the board and watchout for a good vrm Layout, i cant tell you a specific board since i also wasnt into the stuff the last months and generally didnt look for a b350, the prime b350 should do but its on the expensive side
Just ask in a good it forum they will help you further for sure

>all the faggots in this thread forgetting about mining
It's like you're all from THAT website

With Ryzen printing shekels for AMD, i can't wait for them to get out of the GPU market. The gay men retards will end up paying insane amount of money for "muh premium graphics".

alright, Navi/Volta when? Should I expect it to go 144FPS at 1440p? Or should I just upgrade my 970 to a 1080ti?

Also forgot to say buy fual channel ram for your apu

Okay, no. If you'd know anything about the market in the last years you would not write garbage like that.

Amd did fail us. Yes, we consumers are the ones making bad decisions, but it still is AMDs fault. Here is why: Nvidia managed to outsell amd by a lot even with weaker products because they had way better marketing. Amd miscalculated, they released products in the assumption the consumers would act rational, but they missed that the target customer is young and stupid. In fact the customers were retarded enough to value some marketing higher than actual performance, benchmarks etc.
Amd should have realized sooner that the majority of computer part customers are absolute morons who eventually will buy shit because it's labeled as a "gaming" version or has rgb lights on it.
Yeah of course we could try blaming a vague group of partially underaged morons for making bad decisions but in the end it should have been amd who should have realized sooner that their marketing wasn't effective enough.

But they have learned:
Look at zen: The desktop platform is called "ryzen", a pretty bad pub desu. and their high performance platform is called "threadripper". These namsa are edgy as fuck but boy they did sell good. Even though the ryzen chips were still worse than intels chips in almost ever regard amd managed to pull it off(ipc, clockspeeds, efficiency, latencies... were all worse than intels chips).

AMD has learned to sell their products, but at this point tgeir graphics cards are that "bad" in comparison there's nothing really that marketing can fix.
They are using the same architecture since 6 years after all(GCN).
Until they have the money to release a new one there's absolutely nothing we can expect from AMDs graphics department (rtg). And yes, that's AMDs fault.

AMDs market cap is too low for me to ever want to buy their products, it feels like anything they make is more temporary than what their competitors produce

unless you want to confirm hbm prices besides one person speculating it, amd was able to pull profit from it at 400$ at least at the time of launch.

Ok, lets have a little fun here.
amd is on a 14nm node, and apparently all of gf 14nm are 300mm wafers
and vega is 20.25x24 (fits perfect in the disclosed die size mm2 so im going with this)
caly-technologies.com/en/die-yield-calculator/

I Ok had to do a bit looking up for this, but GF die fuck ups are sub .1, but we are going with .1 for the sake of an easier number to just say fuck it.

this allows each wafer to allow 66 perfect vega gpus, wafer prices are hard to find, but lets estimate 7000$ based on the ramp up from 90 to 28 which I can find numbers for, this would put vega at 106$ for vega, and even at estimated hbm prices of 150$ it comes in at 256$ and this is for both 56 and 64, so amd now has an inbetween price of 144-244$ on each cpu depending on what they sell the package for.

you have to realize these things leave quite a bit of wiggle room at least at msrp and what hbm was estimated to cost.

and this is a worst case scenario for good dies.

The market is always right

>ANYTHING to complete with 1070/1080
Vega 56 > 1070, so much so that Nvidia released the 1070 Ti in response.
Vega 64 is very competitive with 1080.
>since 390X they didnt even bother with higher end
Fury was just straight up better than the 980.

The 56 is irrelevant now for casual buyers because of price/miners

>pubg
onions

Not always but it's hard to blame underaged faggots and retards when a company fails at marketing their products.

All amd needs to do is sell it directly to consumers like nvidia. I would LOVE to see that as an ayymd stock hodler

>since 390X they didnt even bother with higher end
They did.
They were called the fury series of graphics cards, but they obviously failed because AMD allready ran out of money at that point.
It was allready too late back then, it's just that the effects of it are clearer and more noticeable now.
AMD will get away with vega because XMR is both mooning and had it's difficulty reduced drastically due to asics beeing killed, making mining a lot more profitable and guaranteeing vega sales.
Navi is starting to look like polaris all over again, so it's likely that they still don't have anywhere near enough money to blow on the engineering necessary to compete with Nvidia.
"gl hf" to you /v/ tards having to deal with Nvidia on your own now.

5850 was the last good card ATI made.

I think AMD has over promised and underdelivered with Vega, turning away customers

yea i still have 5770 crossfire and its probably the most well optimized sli/crossfire card to date

Nah, Raja lied his ass off that he would be able to solve GCN's front end bottleneck in software, but then it turned out that the software teams hadn't even STARTED developing that driver based solution by the hard launch date and actually he and RTG as a whole had spent the whole Vega development cycle stroking their dicks.

And now Navi is DOA because they don't have time to make it not based on GCN, so it will be half hearted dogshit while RTG gets rebooted Zen style to design a new architecture from the ground up.

Wait tuning

My RX Vega 56 is doing fine at 1480Mhz (Ignore what stupid 3DMark says) @ 820mV.

Attached: Result_-_2018-04-12_18.33.27.png (980x909, 82K)

>poor volta

Attached: Game of Thrones.webm (1920x1080, 1.99M)

>Faster than the GTX 1080 ti in blender
>400$
No, you apologize.

>anything AMD makes is more temporary than what their competitors produce
>A chipset a year
>A socket a year
Goy you in fear?

Attached: 1409CF96-57DE-4CC2-AE6E-AA66855E31BF.jpg (250x250, 14K)

people don't bother with amd because
1. they're not cheaper like they are in the USA when looked at globally
2. nvidia, like apple and all big brands, have their name associated with every big game or big product release in some form or the other (e.g if corsair is releasing a new hot lineup of cases it is almost guaranteed to have an nvidia gpu in the advertisement photos of a complete build)
3. its pretty common knowledge that amd performs worse in the games people actually care about. it's one thing performing well in games like hitman and aots however most people play games like overwatch, gta, witcher, pubg etc and nvidia is almost always leading in benchmarks for these games upon release and it's these benches that people see
4. even thought it's pretty meme stuff, software like shadowplay and "nvidia highlights" are big selling points for these wannabe pro gamer kids. it has a catchy name to it which everyone remembers. i actually don't even know the name of AMD's recording software.
5. nvidia has better perf/watt and when people are looking at benches, things like power consumption effect purchasing decisions greatly.
6. and this is the BIGGEST point. marketing. nvidia has dominated in marketing for over a decade, on par with the likes of apple, samsung, microsoft etc. they have the know how to attract customers. if i didn't regularly browse tech news and forums i probably wouldn't even know amd bought ati and that they still make gpu's. the last ati/amd gpu i owned was an ati x1950 pro from some prebuilt 10 years ago. amd has literally NO marketing anywhere.

>Le Jews
Stale bait, 2/10 made me reply

This desu. Only soibois care about game performance, making money is where the benchmark's at
Vega currently makes 2x what a 1080ti does at half power

fpbp

games make for an unfair benchmarking comparison, a former nvidia dev even bothered to spell out why that is (see this excellent post by Promit here gamedev.net/forums/topic/666419-what-are-your-opinions-on-dx12vulkanmantle/?do=findComment&comment=5215019), but to summarize, games only run faster on nvidia cards most of the time, because nvidia writes a lot more game specific patches to fix all these games that ship broken.

also amd is remarkable in the fact that they actually listened to the few and released open source drivers that are on par with the proprietary ones. nvidia discourages and actively hindered the open source noveau movement.

and then there is GeForce Experience 3.0 (read Generally Fucked Experience 3.0), need I even say more

This x1000