Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Thinks AMD's Radeon VII Is 'Underwhelming'

[jimmysmitty]

First off Huang showed himself to be an unprofessional DB. I have always liked Nvidia GPU's over AMD, however him saying this makes me want to not purchase nvidia's hardware because of that type of behavior; he seems to be displaying some sort insecurity to me. Way to go trying to appeal to consumers (sarcasm, cough cough).

Except that I've mostly been an ATI/AMD guy, this is how I feel. My most powerful card, between my son's computers and my own, is a GTX 1080. Whatever complaints I have about Nvidia, when it comes to power efficiency and higher performance (my 3840x1600 monitor made my old card struggle a lot), Nvidia has the lead, without a doubt.

That they then said they'd allow their cards to use FreeSync's adaptive refresh rate made got rid of one of my complaints about them. I was happy with Nvidia for doing this, particularly since my monitor is FreeSync. I figured that the next time I'd do an upgrade for myself or my son, time to go Team Green, if they could get their price/performance a bit better.

This attitude from Huang, though, makes me want to hold out for AMD to step up their game. I don't think I'd've been in the market for a new card anytime soon, and while Nvidia performance/efficiency had me looking their way, their support for FreeSync would definitely have made me more likely to choose them.

But this? They're ahead of AMD, and they come off with this attitude? It's a turn-off.

Using Freesync will be nice. However I am sure its not going to work for all. In fact I know it wont. nVidia has already tested a lot of monitors and only 12 out of 400 have been able to qualify in terms of what they want it to support and not having issues:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2019/01/09/nvidia-brings-g-sync-support-to-freesync-gaming-monitors-but-theres-one-massive-problem/#648318f42d2b

That means that the monitors that will end up "GSYNC Compatible" are more than likely going to be the ones on the more expensive end of the market.

As for what he said, honestly this is not the first time a rival company has talked about their competitors product. I have been around long enough to see most every company do it. Why people are surprised is beyond me. They act like this is not common place when it actually is.

I care only about the performance though so from what I have seen recently nothing about the Radeon VII compels me to buy it over the 2080. Now give 95% of its performance and be $200 cheaper yea. That could persuade a lot of people to buy it over the 2080 (barring hard core fanboys that is).

 

[cryoburner]

It's a shame to hear freesync was so poorly implemented though... it shames the monitor manufacturers for not fully adhering to the standard. (Not 100% AMD's fault, although AMD could have strongly insisted.)

FreeSync wasn't "poorly implemented" though. It was implemented just fine. FreeSync is simply included with a much wider range of products. Nvidia pitched G-Sync as a premium feature to be found on $500+ monitors, but AMD said no, adaptive sync is something that everyone can benefit from, on everything down to $100 screens. In fact, adaptive sync is arguably most beneficial to those with lower-end to mid-range GPUs, where frame rates are more likely to be lower, but there are not really any budget options for G-Sync. Just look at this comparison of monitors with adaptive sync sold by Newegg...

G-Sync: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100898493%208000%204814%20600559797&PageSize=96&order=PRICE

FreeSync: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100898493%208000%204814%20600559798&PageSize=96&order=PRICE

Not only are there far more FreeSync screens available there (70 vs 12 as far as in-stock models go), but they cover a much wider range of prices. Most of the G-Sync screens they have available are priced in the vicinity of $800, with only a handful of TN panels for around $500. For FreeSync, on the other hand, they currently offer 15 screens in the $100-$200 range, 18 in the $200-$300 range, 13 in the $300-$400 range, 12 in the $400-$500 range, and another 12 screens for over $500. Just because the lower-end models might not meet Nvidia's arbitrarily-defined standards for G-Sync, doesn't mean they don't provide benefit to those shopping for a gaming monitor in that price range.

Now, on the topic of Radeon VII being underwhelming, I kind of agree. I was hoping they would announce something about their more mid-range Navi cards at the event, but instead we just got a Vega successor that is somewhat faster, but even more expensive to produce, with an excessive amount of expensive HBM2 memory that will likely be of little benefit to gamers for quite a while. If it launches for a similar price as the 2080, which now has some models that can be found around its $699 MSRP, but lacks anything to counter that card's new features and has greater power draw and heat output, it might be a bit hard to recommend.

 

[dranicus82]

Hating at its finest with your stock performance I would stay quiet very quiet.

 

[truthingraphics]

Even though he's quite arrogant and the pr**k, he's right. It's a 7nm chip, and its performance is parity to the GTX 2080 while utilizing 30% more power. In comparison, the GTX 2080TI uses ~ 280 watts and it absoultely obliterates the Radeon VII in benchmarks, at least from what AMD has supplied. And both GTXs are 12nm.

Any bets on what happens when NVIDIA shrinks these chips to 7nm? Even Intel has to be wondering what value "promise" they've bought into .

 

[LordVile]

It’s stull an old arc though. Would Nvidia have increased performance by 25% on the 1080 with 6% fewer cores?

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

If he wanted to discuss an "underwhelming" product, there's a much bigger, pricier target close at hand...

That having been said, the VII isn't exactly starting a revolution either, given the process advantage it has over the 2080.

As far as FreeSync goes when it works it's fantastic. When it doesn't, it's utterly infuriating. FreeSync flicker, and random fps tanking specifically. And AMD doesn't offer much by way of support according to the lack of response to users and game devs who've tried reaching out.

 

[darkomaledictus]

Jensen has lost all credibility. Wasn't he the one that said new cards (2080) were not going to be released in a very long time? Just a few months after RTX 2080 was announced. Shady is shady and I will never forget!

 

[darkomaledictus]

He shouldn't speak... I remember very vividly him lying outright and saying new graphic cards (2080) were not going to be released in a very long time. A few months after BANG, the RTX series got announced. Jensen, you lost all credibility, you shill!

 

[jimmysmitty]

It's a shame to hear freesync was so poorly implemented though... it shames the monitor manufacturers for not fully adhering to the standard. (Not 100% AMD's fault, although AMD could have strongly insisted.)

FreeSync wasn't "poorly implemented" though. It was implemented just fine. FreeSync is simply included with a much wider range of products. Nvidia pitched G-Sync as a premium feature to be found on $500+ monitors, but AMD said no, adaptive sync is something that everyone can benefit from, on everything down to $100 screens. In fact, adaptive sync is arguably most beneficial to those with lower-end to mid-range GPUs, where frame rates are more likely to be lower, but there are not really any budget options for G-Sync. Just look at this comparison of monitors with adaptive sync sold by Newegg...

G-Sync: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100898493%208000%204814%20600559797&PageSize=96&order=PRICE

FreeSync: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100898493%208000%204814%20600559798&PageSize=96&order=PRICE

Not only are there far more FreeSync screens available there (70 vs 12 as far as in-stock models go), but they cover a much wider range of prices. Most of the G-Sync screens they have available are priced in the vicinity of $800, with only a handful of TN panels for around $500. For FreeSync, on the other hand, they currently offer 15 screens in the $100-$200 range, 18 in the $200-$300 range, 13 in the $300-$400 range, 12 in the $400-$500 range, and another 12 screens for over $500. Just because the lower-end models might not meet Nvidia's arbitrarily-defined standards for G-Sync, doesn't mean they don't provide benefit to those shopping for a gaming monitor in that price range.

Now, on the topic of Radeon VII being underwhelming, I kind of agree. I was hoping they would announce something about their more mid-range Navi cards at the event, but instead we just got a Vega successor that is somewhat faster, but even more expensive to produce, with an excessive amount of expensive HBM2 memory that will likely be of little benefit to gamers for quite a while. If it launches for a similar price as the 2080, which now has some models that can be found around its $699 MSRP, but lacks anything to counter that card's new features and has greater power draw and heat output, it might be a bit hard to recommend.

Poor implementation is a poor choice of words. No control. How about that?

Yes wider range of products. Great. However the cheaper versions don't support all the features and tend to have a lower refresh rate. You want it to have the bells and whistles? Well get ready to pay up. That's the biggest issue that I see with it. That will and does lead to less educated people buying a cheaper version unaware that it might not run the way they think and getting a bad experience.

GSYNC has a consistent experience across brands. That's an advantage even though it makes the cost higher.

It’s stull an old arc though. Would Nvidia have increased performance by 25% on the 1080 with 6% fewer cores?

Minor enhancements. Majority of performance boost comes from the higher clock and boost speeds.

Any GPU shrunk down with a big clock speed jump will perform better than the larger process die.

 

[LordVile]

They could just not use the module and charge for certification.

 

[jimmysmitty]

They could just not use the module and charge for certification.

Again its about a consistent experience and it does need hardware in the monitor. Both require some hardware.

As I have told my fiance I don't buy just because something is expensive. I buy based on quality and if I were to look at both I would say GSYNC offers a better quality experience than the FreeSync, although that could change with FreeSync 2 if AMD has put tighter control on the features to make a more consistent experience.

 

[LordVile]

Or you could just read reviews?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Or you could just read reviews?

Thats the simple answer but not everyone does nor does every piece get reviewed.

Or AMD could implement some control to create a better user experience across the board. May add to the cost but its worth it when consumers are happy.

 

[LordVile]

Or you could just read reviews. If you don’t do your due diligence when spending a significant sum of money you can’t complain.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Or you could just read reviews. If you don’t do your due diligence when spending a significant sum of money you can’t complain.

So AMD should not have any responsibility in creating a decent user experience on a product that they are utilizing and pushing?

 

[LordVile]

They gave crates a decent user experience but it ain’t a Mac. In the end Freesync is an open source standard so AMD can’t control what’s used. If you want to get into more “enthusiast” features then you should do research. I view it similar to water cooling. You can’t mix metals and blame the vendor because you didn’t read.

 

[jimmysmitty]

They gave crates a decent user experience but it ain’t a Mac. In the end Freesync is an open source standard so AMD can’t control what’s used. If you want to get into more “enthusiast” features then you should do research. I view it similar to water cooling. You can’t mix metals and blame the vendor because you didn’t read.

AMD can easily push for a better experience and quality control by requiring a certification process that meets certain specifications. Why is that so hard to ask of them?

And again not every single product gets a review. If you haven't noticed most reviews tend to be bigger brand names with bigger prices. A product not having reviews doesn't mean its a bad product and user reviews are hard to trust since it could always be a case of user failure and not product failure.

 

[LordVile]

Because then it’s not an open standard is it? AMD then needs to validate everything which adds cost they need to make back through licensing fees.

Then you can always RMA it.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Because then it’s not an open standard is it? AMD then needs to validate everything which adds cost they need to make back through licensing fees.

Then you can always RMA it.

So slightly more cost for a better user experience. Almost seems like most products. Typically companies that put more time into creating a better product also have to charge more but it is a better product. A desk built out of real wood and hand crafted typically costs more than a pressed wood desk but it also tends to last longer and look better.

I still don't see why you are so against AMD creating a better and easier user experience instead of leaving it to people who may not be as tech savvy and understand that some features make for a better experience.

 

[cryoburner]

Yes wider range of products. Great. However the cheaper versions don't support all the features and tend to have a lower refresh rate. You want it to have the bells and whistles? Well get ready to pay up. That's the biggest issue that I see with it. That will and does lead to less educated people buying a cheaper version unaware that it might not run the way they think and getting a bad experience.

GSYNC has a consistent experience across brands. That's an advantage even though it makes the cost higher.

Again, this simply isn't a problem. If someone buys a FreeSync display that's priced under $200, it should be obvious that it's probably not going to be quite as nice as another costing significantly more. It might only have a 75Hz refresh rate, and perhaps a FreeSync range that only goes down to around 40Hz, but that still doesn't change the fact that they can still have access to adaptive sync within their budget. With G-Sync, they simply wouldn't be able to get the feature in any form anywhere remotely close to that price range. How can it possibly be considered "getting a bad experience" when you're comparing it against not being able to experience the feature at all? Most people are not spending $400 or more on a computer monitor, after all.

And what features are you talking about "paying up" for? A high refresh rate? You can get that on FreeSync displays starting around $200. And not even all G-Sync screens offer that. Most of the existing 4K displays are only 60Hz, so much like FreeSync, being "G-Sync certified" does not actually guarantee much to someone who doesn't look further into reviews or hardware specs. I can't say that I see the G-sync displays being better received either. Judging by user review scores, average reviews across FreeSync and G-sync screens seem rather similar, and I don't really see any greater percentage of people having "bad experiences" with FreeSync displays compared to G-Sync.

Also, this suggestion that G-sync displays offer a "better user experience across the board" is rubbish. Since the monitor manufacturer needs to send a significant cut of their profits Nvidia's way for their overpriced proprietary components and certification, it's only natural that corners will be cut elsewhere at a given price point. Looking back at those product listings I linked to, the lowest-priced G-Sync monitor with an IPS panel at Newegg is currently $860. Or $580 for their lowest priced VA panel. The "lower end" of the G-Sync segment is dominated by TN panels. Is a 24" 1080p 144Hz TN panel worth paying around $400 for? On the FreeSync side, you're looking at paying over $100 less for comparable hardware with VA, or getting a 32" 1440p 144Hz VA panel for around the same price level.

I called it long ago that Nvidia would start supporting FreeSync-compatible adaptive sync eventually, and they have begun doing so, at least for a limited number of screens. Eventually, classic G-Sync will probably go the way of classic PhysX, and G-Sync will likely just become Nvidia's branding for VESA adaptive sync. And that's arguably a good thing for the consumer, unless they bought into one of these early G-Sync screens that might never gain compatibility with the open standard that everyone will be using. If they want adaptive sync, they'll still be locked into Nvidia cards for as long as they support their screen, even if Intel or AMD start offering superior graphics card options at the high-end.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Yes wider range of products. Great. However the cheaper versions don't support all the features and tend to have a lower refresh rate. You want it to have the bells and whistles? Well get ready to pay up. That's the biggest issue that I see with it. That will and does lead to less educated people buying a cheaper version unaware that it might not run the way they think and getting a bad experience.

GSYNC has a consistent experience across brands. That's an advantage even though it makes the cost higher.

Again, this simply isn't a problem. If someone buys a FreeSync display that's priced under $200, it should be obvious that it's probably not going to be quite as nice as another costing significantly more. It might only have a 75Hz refresh rate, and perhaps a FreeSync range that only goes down to around 40Hz, but that still doesn't change the fact that they can still have access to adaptive sync within their budget. With G-Sync, they simply wouldn't be able to get the feature in any form anywhere remotely close to that price range. How can it possibly be considered "getting a bad experience" when you're comparing it against not being able to experience the feature at all? Most people are not spending $400 or more on a computer monitor, after all.

And what features are you talking about "paying up" for? A high refresh rate? You can get that on FreeSync displays starting around $200. And not even all G-Sync screens offer that. Most of the existing 4K displays are only 60Hz, so much like FreeSync, being "G-Sync certified" does not actually guarantee much to someone who doesn't look further into reviews or hardware specs. I can't say that I see the G-sync displays being better received either. Judging by user review scores, average reviews across FreeSync and G-sync screens seem rather similar, and I don't really see any greater percentage of people having "bad experiences" with FreeSync displays compared to G-Sync.

Also, this suggestion that G-sync displays offer a "better user experience across the board" is rubbish. Since the monitor manufacturer needs to send a significant cut of their profits Nvidia's way for their overpriced proprietary components and certification, it's only natural that corners will be cut elsewhere at a given price point. Looking back at those product listings I linked to, the lowest-priced G-Sync monitor with an IPS panel at Newegg is currently $860. Or $580 for their lowest priced VA panel. The "lower end" of the G-Sync segment is dominated by TN panels. Is a 24" 1080p 144Hz TN panel worth paying around $400 for? On the FreeSync side, you're looking at paying over $100 less for comparable hardware with VA, or getting a 32" 1440p 144Hz VA panel for around the same price level.

I called it long ago that Nvidia would start supporting FreeSync-compatible adaptive sync eventually, and they have begun doing so, at least for a limited number of screens. Eventually, classic G-Sync will probably go the way of classic PhysX, and G-Sync will likely just become Nvidia's branding for VESA adaptive sync. And that's arguably a good thing for the consumer, unless they bought into one of these early G-Sync screens that might never gain compatibility with the open standard that everyone will be using. If they want adaptive sync, they'll still be locked into Nvidia cards for as long as they support their screen, even if Intel or AMD start offering superior graphics card options at the high-end.

Beyond a higher refresh rate LFC. Its not a mandatory feature and is typically reserved for higher end monitors.

Yes nVidia is supporting Freesync but if you look at the news about it they are not supporting them all, they are still holding them to a very high standard and I am willing to bet the certified ones will be the pricier Freesync monitors.

You misunderstand me. I have no issue with Freesync itself. It can do everything GSYNC can and I am more than happy if it wins and makes cheaper in the long run. My only issue is user experience and the biggest issue with open standards is when there is everything from a super good to super bad. A consistent user experience is better.

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

AMD has to shoulder some of the responsibility, remember the issues users had with the bundled Samsung CF791?

 

[Avro Arrow]

So, Jensen "Dear Leader" Huang throws shade at a non-nVidia product....

Um... how is this news? This has been going on for decades.