AMD RX 400 series (Polaris) MegaThread! FAQ & Resources

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
GGR5x could be a stopgap measure to put the lower Vega on the market. I am sure AMD was hoping to have HBM2 sooner. I also think the fabs are not where they hoped.
I would prefer them to just wait for HBM2, but as we can all read.. they are under a lot of pressure to have something in the 1070/1080 range.

 
With the way HBM2 is integrated into the GPU itself, I don't think they can change from it to GDDR5X on the fly. The external connections are no longer there and, if I'm right, would take some major redesigning to change.
 


Standard rumor mill speculation / click bait imo. I wouldn't pay too much attention to any release dates until AMD specifies something.
 


the thing with AMD is their architecture is not as power efficient as nvidia. it depends on how "big" Vega is. just look at Fury X. without HBM the card will not fit into 300w limit. even with RX480 it seems AMD is quite aggressive to limit the power of their reference design. MSI RX480 Gaming X for example will use around 200w even on typical gaming session.
 


just be careful with it. note that they never hinting about "when". and sometimes they can be misleading like what happen like this one:

http://wccftech.com/amd-announcing-generation-product-25th-septemeber-runs-pills-required-marketing-campaign/
 


Yeah but the MSI is overclocked. Just like how a GTX 1070/1080 will surpass 200W, the aftermarket ones, or get very close if not. But yeah Nvidia is still more efficient.
 


At least in that case it's clear that he's talking about Vega, so it can't just turn out to be some crap about (already launched) Firepro cards coming to a particular country.

But I'm definitely going to remain sceptical of this October rumor. If it's out by Christmas, I'll still consider that great, and if it's Q1 2017 that's alright too (as long as Vega is actually any good).
 
If it's May 2017 it better blow the 1080ti(if it even will exist) out of the water. By May 2017 nVidia will be announcing their HBM2 lineup and I don't think AMD will like that one bit.
 


I wouldn't consider that ruled out yet, but I couldn't agree more about dual-GPU being a bad idea.
 


Totally agree...it's go big or go home. This time around AMD has got a good foothold with Polaris...though they are loosing a lotta sales with this crap 480 availability, baiting and partner/etailer price gouging. If they move the Vega launch up, they'll have to pull a rabbit out of their @ss and make sure there's enuff of them esp with xmas looming. Hopefully they'd skip the ref cards only launch this time around.
 
(Moved from the 470 4GB review thread.)

Could someone please help me with my understanding of this huge GPU business? I have a theory that the amount of money per board sold that AMD (and Nvidia) make doesn't vary based on what the final retail price is and I would appreciate if someone with an economics background could assist.

As far as I know, in the simplest scenario:
Theory:

    ■AMD sells 4xx chips to the board manufacturers for a set fee per chip.
    ■The board manufacturers create boards, attaches the chips and then either sends the boards to their regional distribution warehouses (I guess it's officially "channels" but I want to use the word "warehouses" for simplicity sake) or sells the boards to other companies who would then send the boards to the other companies' regional distribution warehouses.
    ■The regional warehouses would distribute the boards to each country's warehouse or state/province's warehouse.
    ■Those smaller warehouses would then sell the boards to big retailers in bulk for a set fee per board.
    ■Each big retailer would then either distribute the boards to their own shops or little independent shops would buy from them, for a slightly higher fee per board.
    ■Each of the big retailer's local shops would then sell the boards for MSRP or around there. In a similar way, each little independent shop would sell the boards for MSRP or around there - but with a smaller profit margin compared to the big retailer's local shops.


Example with made up numbers (because it's an example!):

    ■AMD sells 480 chips to EVGA for a $100 per chip.
    ■EVGA creates the Super Ultra 480 board, attaches the chips and then sells the boards to Mega International Distributors for $125 who send the boards to Mega International Distributors regional distribution warehouses.
    ■Mega International Distributors' regional warehouses in Africa (Because I live here!! Even though we might have to order from the US or the UK in reality 🙁 ) would distribute the boards to South Africa's Mega International Distributors' national warehouse.
    ■Mega International Distributors' national warehouses would then sell the boards to South African General Computers for $150 respectively.
    ■South African General Computers distributes the boards to their own shops, and sells the boards to My Local Computer Store for $200 respectively.
    ■South African General Computers sells the boards to the public for $250, and
    My Local Computer Store sells the boards to the public for $275.


Assuming it costs AMD $50 to make each chip:
    ■AMD makes a profit of $50 per chip sold to EVGA.
    ■EVGA makes a profit of $25 per board sold to Mega International Distributors.
    ■Mega International Distributors makes a profit of $25 per board sold to South African General Computers.
    ■South African General Computers makes a profit of $100 per board when selling to the public and $50 per board when selling to My Local Computer Store.
    ■My Local Computer Store makes a profit of $75 per board.


HOWEVER, if South African General Computers and My Local Computer Store start selling boards to the public for $350, the only people making more money is themselves.

Admittedly, this is an EXTREMELY simple model, and if agreements are in place like each step up in the value chain gets a percentage of the selling price of each card sold then things could be different, but this is how my mind currently sees it. Could any of the economists here provide some input please?

Thank you.
 
It's a little simpler than all that.

AMD sells to board partners (i.e. ASUS, Sapphire, XFX) for a set bulk price

Board partners customize their board and sell to retailers for a set bulk price

Retailers get the shipment at distribution centers and send them to their stores or ship them directly to customers (i.e. e-tailers like Newegg and Amazon). Some warehouses have small stores attached, like Newegg in California. But they sell it for whatever price they deem is right based on the supply/demand ratio. Anything over their bulk/wholesale price is pure profit to them and no one else sees anything extra.
 
Usually AMD/Nvidia have contracts negotiated before the chips are 1st shipped with minimum quantities and re-oreder terms. The Chips are sent to the board partners who make their versions and they sell to Distys and Retailors and etailors. The Disty usually will provide fulfillment of those contracts to the big retails and Etailors (e.g. ASI supplies or used to supply Microsoft Software to Amazon). The Distys are given the price they have to invoice the fulfillment contracts for and are given back-end money to compensate if needed. Then the Distys sell to other Distys and resellers. And it trickles on down to the public.
 
Here is MY experience updating to an RX 480!

System: Core i5-6600K, at 4.0 GHZ, 16 GB DDR4-2800 MHz RAM, 254 GB SamSung 850 PRO SSD, 1.5TB Western Digital HD, Viewsonic 1920x1080 144Hz monitor with Freesync. Win 10 64-bit.

My old graphics card was a Sapphire Dual-X R7 265, the new one is the Sapphire Nitro RX 480 4 GB. I ran the benchmarks with the old drive, installed the new drive with the same settings, and ran them again.

Furmark Score: 1832 to 4004
Furmark FPS: 30 to 66

Resident Evil 6 benchmark: 6787 to 15287

Dragon Age:Inquisition Benchmark: Min 35 Avg 41 to Min 77 Avg 90

Tomb Raider (the 2013 one): 28 Min 50 Max 37 Avg to 74 Min 118 Max 96 Avg

Bioshock Infinite 27 Min 50 Avg to 60 Min 168 Average (!)

Fallout 4 (average of 3 runs from a certain save for 1 minute in FRAPS): 35 Average to 76 Average

Witcher 3 (average of 3 runs from a certain save for 1 minute in FRAPS): 33 Average to 53 Average (80 to 85 FPS on High+settings now, I had hairworks on for some stupid reason).
 


96 AVG in Tomb Raider? Weird. I've got a 1060 and I get 78 AVG nad 96 MAX. I thought this was an nVidia title. What settings did you use in those games?
 
[/quotemsg]
96 AVG in Tomb Raider? Weird. I've got a 1060 and I get 78 AVG nad 96 MAX. I thought this was an nVidia title. What settings did you use in those games?[/quotemsg]

Note that the settings gave playability with my old R7 265!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom