AMD Zen marketing hype

[Lathais]

2. Nvidia and AMD never magically release their lines days after each other. Dismissing the 390/390x because of its release date is stupid, especially when the 390x is very likely going to beat out Nvidia's closest competitor (980) by over 50%. This is good for AMD, don't be ignorant for no apparent reason.

The 390x's competition is not even the 980, it's the 980ti, which is rumored to be ~50% faster than the Titan Black. The Titan black and the 980 are pretty close in performance, with the 980 being slightly ahead. However, they are close and both the 390x and the 980ti will be approximately 50% faster than those cards. According to some reports, nVidia is just waiting for the release of the 390x to put the 980ti out. The two cards will likely be very similar in performance and price, meaning no change in what currently goes on. Pick your camp and stick with it.

[BicycleMafioso]

Pick your camp and stick with it.

Nononono. No brand is your friend. Not now, not ever. No company (in the high-end hardware business at least) puts out products to help you and not take a profit.
In a true open and fair world without bias where two companies compete, one should always take what can give you the best of what you want with the budget you have to work with.
This is not it, since market-bias is heavily nVidia favoured and so is the performance-crown (at least as of now) albeit not pricing.
This hopefully will change. Until then, the best idea for the market is to go with AMD, if not to make the underdog survive and let us have a healthy future market.
Going with AMD today is a good and non-crippling alternative today, especially considering prices and priceerformance, albeit not if you want the highest performance crown (I'm disregarding the 295x2 here)

[Deleted]

Very curious about that performance, betting that the 980 ti would have similar performance offerings to the 390x at 1080p, but something is telling me AMD are designing that card to sustain high performance at the high resolution.

Think we saw this with the 680/7970 battle, these cards traded blows until you cranked up the resolution and the 7970 just sustained better performance.

With 4 k screens coming down in price and the realm of affordable prices for a lot of people now, this could be where the 390x flexes it muscles, if I was AMD this is what I would be doing and focusing on.

Have to be honest, with a lot of games having a lack of hardware AA support I am tired of 1920x1080 p, it is old now.
Reasonable sized screens with high resolutions or downsampling should be what PC users be looking at more these days, buy a high end card, actually crank up the details to match.

Any of the GPU lineup from the 290/780 series upwards perform very well for a lot of games at high resolutions, can see this being a trend with more support for down sampling at the least so can see defo the 390 x takes the crown at 1440 and beyond.

[Stormspark]

In fairness I did say process nodes, not performance, 10 NM is a struggle at the moment from what I read, but yes it will be interesting, what we need to see more is that gap closing performance wise, thats really all that needs to happen and hopefully the combined result of new architecture and smaller process nodes will address this.

At 10nm, quantum tunneling becomes SIGNIFICANT and has to be planned for and designed around. That's the reason it's so complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer

Technically speaking, manufacturing on a 10nm process is considered the beginning of nanotechnology. So we're getting there. :P

[fixx]

They never made claims about IPC with Bulldozer

They showed a bar graph where FX-8250 was far above i5 and close to i7 in performance and that's what got everybody hyped. That bar graph actually did happen, but only in tasks that use integer math only and all 8 cores ie. crypto and winzip tests.

That's not how it works. 40% over Excavator, not Bulldozer. Throw in gains from shrinking the chip and you're above Haswell/Haswell E.

See here to understand further: http://wccftech.com/amd-officially-r...admap-zen-k12/

Both you and the writer of that piece seems to be confused over chip shrinking's benefit to performance which is pretty small overall. So far we've seen about 10% improvements from Intel for a shrink. AMD moved from 45nm of PhenomII's to 32nm (same as Sandy Bridge) for FX chips and gained about 5% performance from it.

[ComputerNerd]

Another important thing to keep in my mind is that 40% figure is for IPC, they also list improvements for multi threaded workloads, which combined with DX12 and game creators being used to 8 core consoles, might allow Zen to match Intel in gaming, where IPC was holding them back before.

But DX12 and general multi-threading support relies on the developers bothering to do that in the first place.
So far it isn't happening much.
DX12 multi-thread support is from my understanding tied to the drawing, but the rest of the game could be taking advantage of that.
Most just aren't.

[Deleted]

Both you and the writer of that piece seems to be confused over chip shrinking's benefit to performance which is pretty small overall. So far we've seen about 10% improvements from Intel for a shrink. AMD moved from 45nm of PhenomII's to 32nm (same as Sandy Bridge) for FX chips and gained about 5% performance from it.

Don't forget that intel keeps on using the same architecture when they shrink.
Phenom to FX was a whole new architecture as well, which as we all know was not the best one for single treads.

[Afrospinach]

Don't forget that intel keeps on using the same architecture when they shrink.

That is not really true, they are always tweaking. There is not much innate performance to be had from a die shrink.

If Haswell was a 45nm chip it would be 1.5-2 times larger than nehalem(take up much wafer and make it expensive to produce) and maybe use ~260w of power. These are the main benefits of a die shrink. Assuming you could keep it cool you would be getting close to the same clock speeds and therefore performance as you do now.

It is actually easier to cool the larger process chips, speaking of which. The smaller process has a heat density issue which offsets the lower power usage. Probably why nehalem is able to still clock so high while being such a hungry chip.

[Lathais]

Nononono. No brand is your friend. Not now, not ever. No company (in the high-end hardware business at least) puts out products to help you and not take a profit.
In a true open and fair world without bias where two companies compete, one should always take what can give you the best of what you want with the budget you have to work with.
This is not it, since market-bias is heavily nVidia favoured and so is the performance-crown (at least as of now) albeit not pricing.
This hopefully will change. Until then, the best idea for the market is to go with AMD, if not to make the underdog survive and let us have a healthy future market.
Going with AMD today is a good and non-crippling alternative today, especially considering prices and priceerformance, albeit not if you want the highest performance crown (I'm disregarding the 295x2 here)

First you say go with best for budget and say nVidia has performance-crown(so is best) then say to buy AMD because they are not as good. You confuse me.

[glo]

First you say go with best for budget and say nVidia has performance-crown(so is best) then say to buy AMD because they are not as good. You confuse me.

Best for budget doesn't =! $1,100 for a Titan X unless your budget is $1,100.

[Lathais]

Best for budget doesn't =! $1,100 for a Titan X unless your budget is $1,100.

I pretty much ignore the Titan line. It's never worth the price. What does AMD currently have that beats the 980 though? Nothing. The 980 is currently the second best card on the market with the Titan X being slightly better for double the cost.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The top 8 cards on that list are nVidia. Granted, some are not worth the price, but it shows nVidia has the tech. The top of the line new tech is always going to pricey. The 290x is currently AMDs best card and it's not as good as even a 970, not to mention 980. The 290x and 970 are even priced about the same.

You can go on about how this 390x will beat the 980 but you are still ignoring the 980ti which will likely be roughly equivalent in performance and price.

As I said before, pick your camp. You've obviously chosen yours and that is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. I have chosen the other camp. Nothing wrong with that either.

[Noctifer616]

The 290x is currently AMDs best card and it's not as good as even a 970, not to mention 980. The 290x and 970 are even priced about the same.

Actually it depends on resolution. At 1440p it can match and beat the 970 and at 4k it can match the 980. Also there is the 295X2 which isn't that much more expensive than the 980 but offers a lot more performance. Granted it is a dual GPU card so that might be a problem for some users.

- - - Updated - - -

You can go on about how this 390x will beat the 980 but you are still ignoring the 980ti which will likely be roughly equivalent in performance and price.

I wouldn't go and judge the performance of cards that aren't even out yet. Sure, the rumors could be true, but you never know.

[Lathais]

Actually it depends on resolution. At 1440p it can match and beat the 970 and at 4k it can match the 980. Also there is the 295X2 which isn't that much more expensive than the 980 but offers a lot more performance. Granted it is a dual GPU card so that might be a problem for some users.

At 1440p it matches the 970?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1056?vs=1355

Yup. Sure enough. However, it does it with less resources. Therefore, IMO, the 970 is the better choice.

Comparing the 290x and the 980 is not really fair as they are not in the same price range. 980 is significantly more expensive. However, the 980 beats the 290x at 1440p AND 2160, so how is the 290x gonna beat it at 4k when it can't even keep up at 1440 or 2160?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1056?vs=1351

I wouldn't go and judge the performance of cards that aren't even out yet. Sure, the rumors could be true, but you never know.

Hence the word likely in there. It is likely that they will be about the same and about the same price, because look at all the other cards. The 290x and the 970 are roughly equal and roughly the same price. It is very likely that that trend will continue, as it has for years.


Edit: Oh, and I forgot, if you want to bring the 295X2 into this, compare it fairly to dual 970's.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/...4k-gaming-and/

Dual 970s match it, and in some cases beat it, and would cost you less. What do you think dual 980s would do?

[Noctifer616]

Hence the word likely in there. It is likely that they will be about the same and about the same price, because look at all the other cards. The 290x and the 970 are roughly equal and roughly the same price. It is very likely that that trend will continue, as it has for years.

The thing is that the 300 series is not the same architecture as the 200 series. Tonga was already more advanced than Hawaii, so the 300 series is either going to be on the level of Tonga or higher. Also HBM might make a difference, we have yet to see that in action.

[Lathais]

The thing is that the 300 series is not the same architecture as the 200 series. Tonga was already more advanced than Hawaii, so the 300 series is either going to be on the level of Tonga or higher. Also HBM might make a difference, we have yet to see that in action.

ok, then what about Pascal?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/28981...8-way-sli.html

nVidia always has an answer for AMDs new stuff and then AMD has an answer for that. It's gonna go back and forth like that until someone new comes on the scene or one of them just stops getting better. They will likely remain neck-to-neck with each other, so it really comes down to personal preference. Pick your camp.

[Vash The Stampede]

Except that this magical "leak" that you think that prompted Intel to "leak" their roadmap in June wasn't an actual leak, it was a statement officially made at a conference: http://wccftech.com/amd-fx-series-co...ence-roadmaps/

Sorry was wrong link. It was a recent roadmap of Intels 2015 and 2016. Can't find it now for the life of me.

1. Nvidia and AMD both rebadge older hardware every single generation, this has how it's been for over a decade now. If you expect them to magically shit out 15+ new cards every year and throw R&D costs to the wind, you're out of your element.

The Radeon HD 7850 is a R9 265 and now a 390. Yea Nvidia does it too but do we want to accept this as normal business practice? Four plus years of selling the same product?

2. Nvidia and AMD never magically release their lines days after each other. Dismissing the 390/390x because of its release date is stupid, especially when the 390x is very likely going to beat out Nvidia's closest competitor (980) by over 50%. This is good for AMD, don't be ignorant for no apparent reason.

No I'm dismissing it because it's going to be a $500+ card with all the new tech. The fact that it's released after the Nvidia's 970/980's we expect the performance to be better.

3. Who owns Titan X? People own it, it's out there. The fact that AMD is beating it at half the price is a good thing for them, again, don't be ignorant for no apparent reason.

Yes it's a good thing but we're starting to see a war between AMD and Nvidia where they must have the best graphics card. Cause they feel this will indicate to consumers the rest of their lineup is going to be this awesome too. It's like the Corvette for Chevy or the Ford GT for Ford. Just cause that one car is awesome doesn't mean the rest will also.

But realistically the price of a Titan X is more than most of us spend on an entire PC. So I tend to disregard those cards.

[Noctifer616]

ok, then what about Pascal?

Pascal is coming next year and is going to compete against the 400 series.

[BicycleMafioso]

I pretty much ignore the Titan line. It's never worth the price. What does AMD currently have that beats the 980 though? Nothing. The 980 is currently the second best card on the market with the Titan X being slightly better for double the cost.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The top 8 cards on that list are nVidia. Granted, some are not worth the price, but it shows nVidia has the tech. The top of the line new tech is always going to pricey. The 290x is currently AMDs best card and it's not as good as even a 970, not to mention 980. The 290x and 970 are even priced about the same.

You can go on about how this 390x will beat the 980 but you are still ignoring the 980ti which will likely be roughly equivalent in performance and price.

As I said before, pick your camp. You've obviously chosen yours and that is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. I have chosen the other camp. Nothing wrong with that either.

No, the 295x2 is the best. But not worth its price due to being a CFX solution.
The Titan X is the best single GPU-card, however, but not worth its price either - as you say.
The 980 is not worth its price.
The 970 is <= to the 290x at 1080p. (3.1%~ behind overall)

The 980 Ti looks to be a Titan X clocked higher. The 390x looks to be 20-30% faster than a Titan X. These figures are completely irrelevant until either is launched.

I think you are confusing "trying to be unbiased" and "keeping an open mind" with "I'm aligned with AMD". It appears as though glo has a 780 Ti, so since you are trying to say that you are in the nVidia camp and that you are in two different camps, I am having trouble untangling your thought process here.

[Lathais]

No, the 295x2 is the best. But not worth its price due to being a CFX solution.
The Titan X is the best single GPU-card, however, but not worth its price either - as you say.
The 980 is not worth its price.
The 970 is <= to the 290x at 1080p. (3.1%~ behind overall)

The 980 Ti looks to be a Titan X clocked higher. The 390x looks to be 20-30% faster than a Titan X. These figures are completely irrelevant until either is launched.

I think you are confusing "trying to be unbiased" and "keeping an open mind" with "I'm aligned with AMD". It appears as though glo has a 780 Ti, so since you are trying to say that you are in the nVidia camp and that you are in two different camps, I am having trouble untangling your thought process here.

If you are going to bring the 295x2 into the discussion as the best card, since it is a dual card, compare it fairly to Dual 970's which are cheaper and perform equally or better.

Seeing as the 980 beats out the 290x at 1440p and 2160, I would say if it's within your budget, it is worth the price. If the 980 beats the 290x at those resolutions, it would also be a good contender for 4k, so worth the price there.

I do not see how you can say the 970 is behind the 290x when benchmarks prove differently. Please provide proof. I have posted my proof earlier in the thread. Here it is again since you apparently missed it. First there is this:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

970 has a signifigantly higher passmark score.

then this:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1056?vs=1355

The cards are neck-to-neck. Some games favor one card over the other of course, but the numbers overall are very close. It really comes down to power consumption and noise in which the 970 wins.

I did not look at what he had, but the way he keeps going on about how great the 390x is going to be and it will beat all nVidia has to offer while completely ignoring the fact that the 980ti is coming out to compete with it screams fanboyism. Until both cards are out, you are right, we will not be able to tell. However, if things continue as they have, both companies will have cards that cost about the same that perform about the same.

[Noctifer616]

Seeing as the 980 beats out the 290x at 1440p and 2160, I would say if it's within your budget, it is worth the price. If the 980 beats the 290x at those resolutions, it would also be a good contender for 4k, so worth the price there.

2160p is 4k.