Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

fatslob-:O said:

JEMC said:

I don't know, it's true, but we know that AMD has been using the 1080 in all its Vega demostrations, which gives us an idea of what segment of the market they're going after.

Also, do you really, really think that AMD has the power to get into a battle with Nvidia using propietary tech? C'mon, they're in a position where, if they do that, it could cause them more harm than good... while losing a lot of the goodwill they've gotten promoting the open formats over the years.

The 680/7970 case was an oddity. The 7xx0 cards were the first GCN cards and AMD had a lot of work to do with their drivers, and it also needed an extra bump in speed to 1,000 MHz to top the Nvidia card.

You're overthinking it ... (It's HOW you use the silicon that matters and from that perspective Vega 10 does not even begin to compare with the GP104 in that department, 314mm^2 vs 484mm^2) 

Sure AMD has the power to get into battle with Nvidia in terms of proprietary tech usage ... (take a look at this list of hardware features) 

(These are just official DX12 extensions, this doesn't even count other hardware features that are inaccessible in most APIs.) 

Goodwill ? I think AMD is playing dumb with it's most loyal followers when HARDWARE FEATURES such as Async Compute or Rapid Packed Math (double rate FP16) are by the very definition proprietary! 

Nobody seems to have an issue with the above features being used so I don't know why people are so against the idea of AMD bringing their own competitor to gameworks when they could stand to make their competitor's top performer look slower by as much as 30% on a good day depending the gains or performance characteristics of these features ... (Is Quantum Break DX12 not a good example of this where AMD's competitor Maxwell's architecture cratered in performance in comparison to their own microachitecture ? If every modern AAA game engine was built and designed like the Northlight Engine we wouldn't have to bear seeing AMD agonizing so much.) 

Why stop at Async Compute or FP16 for AMD when there are lot's of possibilities out there ?! (This frown upon 'proprietary' technology mentality is just an excuse to make AMD's offerings less competitive and then people wonder why they don't follow up on buying AMD hardware when their less than impressed with the performance of current software.) 

I mean how many of you guys would be buying Nvidia hardware today if AMD was able to consistently deliver above GTX 1070 performance TODAY with Polaris 10 by using their 'proprietary' technology that everyone shames ? (It's clear enough that nobody wants AMD to deliver the goods tomorrow when we want the goods NOW as seen with Ryzen even though it's arguably less future proof with it's half rate AVX while Skylake-X will get AVX-512.)

You accuse me of overthinking? You, that write a whole post making Microsoft's DX12 look like some kind of AMD propietary tech? Yeah, right...

The only thing AMD has done is provide their architectures with enough capabilities to support DX 12 better than Nvidia. And now that we talk about it, we've had DX 12 for over two years now and neither AMD nor Nvidia have made a product that's fully DX 12 capable. They don't seem to have much interest in it.

And what AMD needed to do was make 480/Polaris 10 a 40 CU part to give it a proper edge over the 1060 and the 470. They focused so much on the "mainstream" market that all their products overlapped with each other, and launching 4 and 8GB versions was an even dumber move.