[quotemsg=18760844,0,328798][quotemsg=18758016,0,269694]... selling their mobile gpu/cpu line off[/quotemsg]I thought that happened well before most of the mismanagement. Possibly around the time of the ATI/AMD merger.
[quotemsg=18758016,0,269694]oh, and just a side note, once you equalize a 980 and 1070 to have the same theoretical flops, there is no difference between the cards, meaning there is not architectural advantage to a pascal over a maxwell, only a clock rate advantage due to the shrink[/quotemsg]Yeah, I read that. I take it as further testament to what a huge step forward Maxwell was, for them. Other than that, I'm not sure it matters.
If you look at everything that improved with Pascal (die shrink, HBM2/GDDR5X, and I forget the 3rd main improvement - maybe something to do with power management or efficiency), I don't think you can fairly accuse them of sitting on their butts.
As for AMD's improvements, it all depends on what their baseline was. Fury X got less performance per Watt than Maxwell, so we'll have to see how Vega matches up against Pascal before deciding who's been lazy.
[quotemsg=18758828,0,1782036]Yeah, I know about Vega and but have also noticed how NVidia keeps dodging the questions of Ti or a name/real specs for the next thing. It's like a cross between poker and go fish with these two lately.[/quotemsg]Well, until AMD launches or announces anything, they really should keep quiet. In the face of no high-end competition, they can only hurt themselves with such rumors.
[/quotemsg]
realistically, watts don't matter on gpus, at least on the pc.
damn near no one uses more than one gpu, and so long as all your hardware is new, you don't need more than a 550 for any configuration you want
per watt, yea, nvidia really hit it out of the park with maxwell, all credit to them there.
as for nvidia sitting on their butts, they knew vulcan, they knew dx12, and they still don't fully support async compute, they have a half step at best. nvidia not fully supporting the new apis and actively preforming worse in them compared to 11 is going to REALLY bite them. If vega is double what a 480 is, thats it for everything on their product line under a titan and possibly 1080ti, as crossfire 480's matched a 1080 and that was with losing about 13% of the performance, if they don't rop starve the thing that's another 5-15% on top of that too, if it's just doubled. It should also be close to matching a 1080 in dx11 too, but at that time, enough dx12 games should be out to make dx11 not really a focal point of benchmark.
as for nvidia not having a high end competition, fury line in many dx12 gives nvidia a run for its money, and price performance the fury is the number one card now as it can be had for around 250$. If I honestly didn't need more than 4gb of ram and some hardware decode I would have gotten it. But as I'm not building a new pc till zen comes out (be it intel or amd) Im held back by my cpu so much I can stand waiting for price drops and new hardware while useing my 280x
[quotemsg=18758016,0,269694]oh, and just a side note, once you equalize a 980 and 1070 to have the same theoretical flops, there is no difference between the cards, meaning there is not architectural advantage to a pascal over a maxwell, only a clock rate advantage due to the shrink[/quotemsg]Yeah, I read that. I take it as further testament to what a huge step forward Maxwell was, for them. Other than that, I'm not sure it matters.
If you look at everything that improved with Pascal (die shrink, HBM2/GDDR5X, and I forget the 3rd main improvement - maybe something to do with power management or efficiency), I don't think you can fairly accuse them of sitting on their butts.
As for AMD's improvements, it all depends on what their baseline was. Fury X got less performance per Watt than Maxwell, so we'll have to see how Vega matches up against Pascal before deciding who's been lazy.
[quotemsg=18758828,0,1782036]Yeah, I know about Vega and but have also noticed how NVidia keeps dodging the questions of Ti or a name/real specs for the next thing. It's like a cross between poker and go fish with these two lately.[/quotemsg]Well, until AMD launches or announces anything, they really should keep quiet. In the face of no high-end competition, they can only hurt themselves with such rumors.
[/quotemsg]
realistically, watts don't matter on gpus, at least on the pc.
damn near no one uses more than one gpu, and so long as all your hardware is new, you don't need more than a 550 for any configuration you want
per watt, yea, nvidia really hit it out of the park with maxwell, all credit to them there.
as for nvidia sitting on their butts, they knew vulcan, they knew dx12, and they still don't fully support async compute, they have a half step at best. nvidia not fully supporting the new apis and actively preforming worse in them compared to 11 is going to REALLY bite them. If vega is double what a 480 is, thats it for everything on their product line under a titan and possibly 1080ti, as crossfire 480's matched a 1080 and that was with losing about 13% of the performance, if they don't rop starve the thing that's another 5-15% on top of that too, if it's just doubled. It should also be close to matching a 1080 in dx11 too, but at that time, enough dx12 games should be out to make dx11 not really a focal point of benchmark.
as for nvidia not having a high end competition, fury line in many dx12 gives nvidia a run for its money, and price performance the fury is the number one card now as it can be had for around 250$. If I honestly didn't need more than 4gb of ram and some hardware decode I would have gotten it. But as I'm not building a new pc till zen comes out (be it intel or amd) Im held back by my cpu so much I can stand waiting for price drops and new hardware while useing my 280x
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram