Does AMD have an answer for top end GPU? or just not competiting there anymore?

[bluezero5]

people who knows me know I am not a fan boy of either side.
I have builds that I use both GPU

however as early as 2012 since 7970 towards 290 generations, I made a predication
"AMD just doesn't have a solution for Nvidia's tech advancement"
I quoted market revenue R&D issues and annual incomes of both companies.

of course, being a forum with AMD fans, my post was challenged by posters of all levels, claiming 'not true'.

well, a few years down now, now 2016.
Nvidia has been owning the crown of GPU king for the last 4 years.

and even AMD board is talking about the issue here
http://www.techpowerup.com/222398/radeon-aib-partners-frustrated-at-amd

So without turning this into a fanboy debate.

Is AMD simply 'not wanting' to fight Nvidia on that battle?
and looking for new archectitures (like multi-chip) to win instead? (dont think it can on a Watt v Performance ever that way.)

What's your view in AMD's direction?

I for one is frustrated that AMD hadn't been able to push their tech faster.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

I think they want to fight and don't have the resources.

They did move their Vega10 die up from early 2017 to October 2016, so we'll see what it does.
Even so, it will only compete with the 1070/1080 (possibly), and Vega11 is still a ways out.

 

[petteyg359]

Nvidia has been owning the crown of GPU king for the last 4 years.

Fury X seems to keep up with a GTX 980 Ti just fine and they trade top marks in various games. I'm quite sure all of AMD's other GPUs will do similar things to nVidia's equivalently priced GPUs, so you're going to need to provide some evidence to your claim. Fury X does fine in FC4, Metro, 4k Witcher 3, 4k Thief, and 4k Tomb Raider. Just because those aren't your favorite games or you don't have a 4k screen doesn't negate that. Your claim of "I'm not a fanboy and only fanboys tells me I'm wrong so don't do that" says something.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Fury X seems to keep up with a GTX 980 Ti just fine and they trade top marks in various games. I'm quite sure all of AMD's other GPUs will do similar things to nVidia's equivalently priced GPUs, so you're going to need to provide some evidence to your claim. Just saying "I'm not a fanboy and don't tell me I'm wrong" isn't going to cut it.

They're equal in a handful of games, the 980Ti leads by ~10% in most games though.
The FuryX also takes 25W more than the 980Ti, you must have room for a radiator, and on Newegg right now a 980Ti is $90 less than a FuryX...

Oh and it is only 4GB as well.

 

[wingman99]

+1 Fury x is close to a GTX 980ti however it looses. Here is a bench mark link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1513?vs=1496

 

[Robert17]

I think they want to fight and don't have the resources.

They did move their Vega10 die up from early 2017 to October 2016, so we'll see what it does.
Even so, it will only compete with the 1070/1080 (possibly), and Vega11 is still a ways out.

I also understand that the Vega 10 will have HBM2 which doesn't have the throughput as GDDR5X which was announced to be in mass production today by Micron, and is what NVidia has on the new 1070/1080 cards. So it looks like AMD will have that performance hit to deal with as well.

 

[Janus67]

I also understand that the Vega 10 will have HBM2 which doesn't have the throughput as GDDR5X which was announced to be in mass production today by Micron, and is what NVidia has on the new 1070/1080 cards. So it looks like AMD will have that performance hit to deal with as well.

GDDR5X is only on the 1080. The 1070 is normal GDDR5.


With regard to bluezero's post, I honestly don't know what to expect at this point from them. Their products tend to trade blows with nVidia at the various price points, but also tend to take more hits than they dish out. I expect Polaris to do decently well and Vega to be competitive with the 1080, but if that is pushed to October we may very well see a 1080ti at/around that time period which will put AMD behind the 8-ball yet again.

All things considered, my 290x(s if I decide to plug the second one back in... for xfire) handle pretty much everything I throw at them at 1440p, but it sure would be nice to have them run a bit cooler and have better drivers, although AMD's have come a long way from a few years ago.

 

[bluezero5]

Fury X seems to keep up with a GTX 980 Ti just fine and they trade top marks in various games. I'm quite sure all of AMD's other GPUs will do similar things to nVidia's equivalently priced GPUs, so you're going to need to provide some evidence to your claim. Just saying "I'm not a fanboy and don't tell me I'm wrong" isn't going to cut it.

hmmm. 980Ti is generally faster than FuryX from anywhere from 5-10%

you can look it up in most many site's comparison.
or you can see on hwbot for the scores on benchmarks too.

for example here in firemark, one of the more updated 3Dmarks.
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark_-_fire_strike/rankings?cores=1#start=0#interval=20#coolingType=2

I hope this speaks for itself for you.

- - - Updated - - -

GDDR5X is only on the 1080. The 1070 is normal GDDR5.


With regard to bluezero's post, I honestly don't know what to expect at this point from them. Their products tend to trade blows with nVidia at the various price points, but also tend to take more hits than they dish out. I expect Polaris to do decently well and Vega to be competitive with the 1080, but if that is pushed to October we may very well see a 1080ti at/around that time period which will put AMD behind the 8-ball yet again.

All things considered, my 290x(s if I decide to plug the second one back in... for xfire) handle pretty much everything I throw at them at 1440p, but it sure would be nice to have them run a bit cooler and have better drivers, although AMD's have come a long way from a few years ago.

Yeah, To be honest, I am hoping AMD's GPU gets more competitive to Nvidia.

for me, the last time I have a same Gen GPU where AMD is CLEARLY better than nvidia was HD7970 (the last one designed by the original ATI team)

 

[EarthDog]

I have seen some sites post up that AMD is considering moving Vega up in order to compete with the 1070 and 1080...depending on why that is... that may not be a good thing... or it can be a great thing. Only time will tell.

 

[magellan]

In DX12 benchmarks isn't AMD the undisputed king (well at least as of right now)?

 

[cdawall]

hmmm. 980Ti is generally faster than FuryX from anywhere from 5-10%

you can look it up in most many site's comparison.
or you can see on hwbot for the scores on benchmarks too.

for example here in firemark, one of the more updated 3Dmarks.
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark_-_fire_strike/rankings?cores=1#start=0#interval=20#coolingType=2

I hope this speaks for itself for you.

One benchmark? Doesn't speak for anything, but superior overclocking on the 980Ti. Stock vs stock they are pretty close especially when you stop playing at poverty resolutions and use DX12. The cards are admittedly a stop gap and an obvious one at that. Basically an old card modded to take HBM.

In DX12 benchmarks isn't AMD the undisputed king (well at least as of right now)?

DX12 and low price 4K. Two 390's are not very expensive and can play almost any title at good settings with 4k

 

[wingman99]

It won't be for long.

Benchmarking data was recently submitted to the Ashes of the Singularity benchmark leaderboard, comparing the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 with the Radeon R9 Fury X from AMD. Which graphics processor came out on top? Nvidia’s solution, with a score of 4,900 and an average framerate of 49.6 frames per second, compared to AMD’s score of 4,300 points and an average framerate of 44.4 frames per second. That’s a victory margin of about 13 percent.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-gtx-1080-directx12/#ixzz48UEGzUWP

 

[EarthDog]

In DX12 benchmarks isn't AMD the undisputed king (well at least as of right now)?

In the one benchmark, ashes of the singularity? Yes.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

In the one benchmark, ashes of the singularity? Yes.

Bingo. One benchmark.
Isn't the game still in alpha anyway??

 

[bluezero5]

One benchmark? Doesn't speak for anything, but superior overclocking on the 980Ti. Stock vs stock they are pretty close especially when you stop playing at poverty resolutions and use DX12. The cards are admittedly a stop gap and an obvious one at that. Basically an old card modded to take HBM.
DX12 and low price 4K. Two 390's are not very expensive and can play almost any title at good settings with 4k

Reasons I hadn't post for years in forums, often is from comments like this one.

alright. Feel free to list out all the benchmark out there, and see how much AMD and Nvidia does better.
you are also welcomed to go to sites like techpowerUp where they have game FPS, and add that data in as well.
go ahead and add in hashing rates from crypto mining.

then you can now catagorize which each card does better.

and if you don't want to do it yourself, let me tell you how it looks like:

Hashing alone: AMD has better Hash Rate per Dollar.
Gaming FPS 4k res: AMD FuryX and Nvidia 980 TI similar, though 980 ti has better overclock performance and stability.
Gaming FPS under 4k: Nvidia 980 TI will be a clear winner from res 2560 or under. lets call that for most games.
Benching : you will be able to see from hwbot, most of the top entries on more modern 3dMarks, Nvidia 980 TI.

I won't even go into driver issues, hardware issues, or performance vs power consumption.


Fanboys will be fanboys. I expected no less. I welcome proven to be incorrect.
and as always, disbelievers are welcome to stay within their bubble of trust as well.

 

[magellan]

One benchmark? Doesn't speak for anything, but superior overclocking on the 980Ti. Stock vs stock they are pretty close especially when you stop playing at poverty resolutions and use DX12. The cards are admittedly a stop gap and an obvious one at that. Basically an old card modded to take HBM.

"Poverty resolutions"

Those are the resolutions of the proletariat you capitalist running dog. Long live the proletariat!

 

[EarthDog]

Reasons I hadn't post for years in forums, often is from comments like this one.

alright. Feel free to list out all the benchmark out there, and see how much AMD and Nvidia does better.
you are also welcomed to go to sites like techpowerUp where they have game FPS, and add that data in as well.
go ahead and add in hashing rates from crypto mining.

then you can now catagorize which each card does better.

and if you don't want to do it yourself, let me tell you how it looks like:

Hashing alone: AMD has better Hash Rate per Dollar.
Gaming FPS 4k res: AMD FuryX and Nvidia 980 TI similar, though 980 ti has better overclock performance and stability.
Gaming FPS under 4k: Nvidia 980 TI will be a clear winner from res 2560 or under. lets call that for most games.
Benching : you will be able to see from hwbot, most of the top entries on more modern 3dMarks, Nvidia 980 TI.

I won't even go into driver issues, hardware issues, or performance vs power consumption.


Fanboys will be fanboys. I expected no less. I welcome proven to be incorrect.
and as always, disbelievers are welcome to stay within their bubble of trust as well.

you guys are saying the same thing really...

 

[cdawall]

you guys are saying the same thing really...

Literally the exact same thing... But using more words.

"Poverty resolutions"

Those are the resolutions of the proletariat you capitalist running dog. Long live the proletariat!

I can't hear you over the hum of 4k

 

[Dolk]

Hey guys, I have data points of one or zero, so I can make an assumption that AMD is going to fail in the next upcoming GPU war. Of which, Nvidia has already announced and released details on their cards.

 

[SF101]

In DX12 benchmarks isn't AMD the undisputed king (well at least as of right now)?

Yup. by a decent margin.

I wish you could say and look at the price but the last release of AMD cards were not exactly budget either