8 Replies Latest reply on Aug 17, 2017 7:37 PM by colesdav

    AMD GPU and Future


      I recall a phone conversation that i had way way back with ATI in regards to one of there products .

      Basically I mentioned to them that it seemed like ATI was no longer interested in GPU's and didn't take 3DFX  seriously.

      I said them , you better start focusing on your GPU future and make it a priority or you will not have one.


      Well not long after that a Company called Nvidia purchased 3DFX and well the rest if as they say, History.

      ATI was bought out by AMD.

      I again send many many emails and stated multiple times on the Forums that  AMD needs to take there GPU division seriously and make it a priority if it wanted to be a player in the future.


      AMD hired some very shallow and ill informed CEO's and what not and basically ran there ATI now AMD division down to the ground to the point that there Drivers were so drastically awe full and not compiled for the games on the market that every time a NEW game came out , it was pathetic how badly it compared to Nvidias on a driver platform base alone. Nvidia just had the pored the resources into it and AMD, well did not.


      AMD's CEO and the top brass could not care less about GPU's and they were only concerned there X86 CPU market.

      Over the years AMD's GPU's became so outdated that it was getting hard not to feel down and how this once great GPU company had just been beat so far low to the ground it was sad to see.


      I'm calling it right now again.  If AMD do not take there GPU division seriously then they are done in the Future.

      Say what you will but  a BIG lesson they can all learn was from IBM whom at the time came out with Windows OS called OS/2.  They had a great OS but they focused only on BUSINESS and they assumed or thought that if they could get that market they would over shadow and take over from MS.  Sometimes these CEO's with there BIG Cars and Suites have no clue what they are doing.

      MS went on the focus on the Consumer Market and rapidly became the PC go to for  personal computing. Even into the Business market.

      IBM ?   They are lucky to even exist today. Let's be honest they made a MAJOR mistake.

      The point is  AMD need to start thinking  MASS and making there product ( LIKE there GPU's)  for the Masses and GAMING is so so important for this.

      If they do not , they will not and can not continue to try to compete  in this field for many more years  to come.


      Yes now that Lisa Sue is there they have hired Raja and more GPU programmers and staffing and have now evened the field on Drivers or bettered NVidia in that sense. But it is sad that it took them this long to get to this point in the first place. PC  GAMING is not going anywhere and the stupid people stating that PC gaming is dying should quit there jobs and get into another field.

      PC gaming is only to get bigger and bigger and right now there exists only 2 players in this field .  If AMD do not pour more time and resources into getting better staff and engineers into there GPU division , well it might be only NVIDIA in the future.


      I know it is a long rant but it is very disheartening for me to see A COMPANY i love  just not make more of an effort  to better it's self.

      Here is hoping that LISA Sue see's  the writing on the WALL and recognizes that they need to bring in another Jim Keller of GPU's  instead of CPU's or someone that can assist RAJA on how to make a product much better then Nvidias counter part.

        • Re: AMD GPU and Future

          Radeon RX Vega 56 is more less GTX 1070 and Vega 64 more less GTX1080 at games. With better support at DX12 and Vulkan APIs. The computational power of both cards are greater than the GTX counterparts. Freesync monitors are like 200-300USD cheaper than Gsync equivalent. AMD Radeon supports open standards and do not artificially disables part of their GPUs.

          I wanted a Radeon GPU equivalent to a GTX1080 or better. AMD Radeon delivered. They are sold out everywhere.

          Im trying to buy one to replace my R9 290Xs and RX 580s. The only thing someone can be angry about is availability.

          And they delivered with Ryzen 7 too.

          3 of 3 people found this helpful
            • Re: AMD GPU and Future

              I guess I would have preferred something that ran closer to the 1080 Ti, similar to the R9 Fury X and the 980 Ti.  I don't think the lack of availability is "the only thing" someone could be mad about.  A big disappointment for me was the efficiency of Vega.  There were a lot of interviews and slides that maintained the perf/watt gains seen in Polaris would continue with Vega.  AMD maintained that Vega would have even better performance per watt than Vega.  They obviously did not deliver on that promise.  I actually wonder, from an architecture standpoint, if you were to downclock a Vega 64 to the R9 Fury X's stock speeds, would it actually be any faster?  It would be one thing if AMD never made any claims about the efficiency of Vega, but as it was already a source of complaints for the R9 290, 390 and Fury series to see it get even worse after a marked improvement with Polaris is discouraging.


              Efficiency was actually one of the biggest improvements in x86 for AMD with Ryzen.  8 cores, performing close to Intels very best 8 core models but within a 95W TDP as opposed to 140W the Intel units need.  I really liked that about my HD 5870 card as well.  It was a little slower than NVidia's Fermi and Kepler cards, but man, did it sip power by comparison. 

                • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                  Obviously lower power usage would be great, but power usage is not hidden you decide if you want it. Gamer Nexus Utube channel has some videos about undervolting Vega RX and FE, I  do not remember if it was 56 or 64. And they have the info you requested about underclocking to Fury X speed the Vega FE to compare performance and power consumption. Very nice videos.

                  2 of 2 people found this helpful
                    • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                      I did see the data for the Vega FE down clocked to the Fury X clocks, and the two cards perform almost identically.  I haven't seen any similar data for the RX version.

                      Vega FE vs. Fury X at Same Clocks: 'IPC' Testing | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchmarks


                      I understand that I could always downclock a Vega GPU and lower the power draw and performance.  I guess my issue is more with AMD's stated commitment to further improving performance per watt from Polaris and that is was a priority for them.  Here is the handy slide again.


                      The slide is hardly the only mention either.  There are a few videos with AMD execs indicating perf/watt was a priority with Vega.  So what happened?  The card they delivered has approximately the same per/watt as the 28nm GPUs (worse in the case of Vega 64 Liquid), and far worse than Polaris.


                      On the other hand, maybe Vega doesn't lose much performance when clocked down.  The R9 Fury Nano gave 90% of the Fury X's performance with a 100W lower thermal envelop.  I guess I could always pick one up, try it out with the trusty killawatt meter and if I don't like the results, not like it would be tough to resell.

                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                        • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                          Good info!

                          • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                            Performance versus Power draw and some information regarding  DSBR working or not needs looked at again.
                            We need more info. Sooner the better. Too soon to make any conclusions right now on it.
                            I am pretty confident that the Gaming Performance will improve over time with driver optimization.
                            Remember the GTX1080/1070 have had ~ 1.5 year head start, so all of their driver optimizations are already in.


                            All of these benchmarks were rushed out. It will take time to go into specific games and settings and find out what has happened exactly.
                            For some games in the  videos I have seen Running the Vega in Power Efficiency Mode saves a lot of power and does not impact FPS that much.
                            If you are thinking about the future then DX12 and Vulkan games should be given more emphasis in reviews.

                            Were some reviewers running Nvidia specific Gameworks features like GodRays of HBAO+ etc. 
                            Frequently these Nvidia features can totally hammer AMD card performance.
                            Use the alternative AMD setting where possible.


                            If you buy a Vega GPU  and own a FreeSync Monitor, the important thing is to ensure the card can run at the top end of the monitor Freesync range, deliver the frames as smoothly as possible,  at the resolution and settings you are happy with.  Often dropping the AA setting a little has minimal visual impact but gives a reasonable improvement in FPS.

                            I think Vega 56 is looking pretty good given it is just out. Reality I think most Gamers would be very happy to own one. 
                            I think Vega 64 needs some more work/investigation into the Power Draw, but I would still like to own a Vega 64 Liquid Edition card.

                    • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                      I'm excited to see what AMD has to offer over the next couple years. My next GPU with be AMD. The RX580 looks like a much better card than my 970.

                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                      • Re: AMD GPU and Future

                        I think your memory of events is a little muddled.  AMD didn't abandon GPUs to focus on x86, in fact the GPU segment was, for the longest time, the only thing keeping AMD afloat.


                        The HD 5870, HD 6970, HD 7970, R9 290 were all the fastest single card solution available when they launched.  Even the R9 Fury X was only slightly behind the GTX 980 Ti and Titan on average.   The x86 space really became the anchor dragging AMD to the bottom.  After the Vishera refresh of the FX processor line in 2012, AMD didn't release a new enthusiast desktop platform until this year.  That was a 5 year gap between releases in the high end x86 space.


                        All that time, the only thing keep AMD profitable were desktop graphics and APUs.  The APUs sold by virtue of their integrated graphics, not their x86 performance which was always derided compared to Intel.  So technology that you claim was being ignored and become outdated due to neglect was the sole focus of the company and the only top performer at a time when AMD was saddle with an x86 architecture that didn't pan out the way they wanted it too.


                        If anything it was x86 space fell into complete neglect until the launch of Ryzen this year.  And AMD really needed a win there after 6 years of Bulldozer.  I would say that the IPC improvements on Ryzen were incredible from where they were, coupled with the infinity fabric scaling makes for an incredibly cost effective part that can be easily scaled to meet any workload.


                        And speaking of the infinity fabric, you argue that advances in one area preclude or come at the expense of another.  However, the stellar scaling capability of the infinity fabric implemented in Ryzen will also be used in the Navi GPU architecture.  Navi will also rely on smaller "building block" cores that are cheaper to produce and can be merged with infinity fabric to scale performance rather than fabbing out different monolithic dies. 


                        So work in x86 doesn't come at the expense of the GPU space,  because they no longer exist in the heterogeneous compute future.  A term AMD has been using since the earliest Llano APUs.  The future is Fusion, the future is now.

                        3 of 3 people found this helpful