They are a discrete fixed function core. Each SM has one directly behind the tex units. Ideally, this needs to increase to 2 per SM for little to no performance penalty, as these are not units that you can just optimise for better performance, they have a dedicated task and do that task at the limits of the clock rate.
I'm sorry you have a problem with high-end features requiring high performance cost, specifically at first, just like it always has been. (Tessellation anyone? Among many others first introducing technologies that pushed the graphics boundaries) Another way for that your nonsense could be stated is: Look how amazing(in comparison) RTX 2080 does ray-tracing, and look how horrible the Radeon VII does ray tracing, for a card that are supposed to be equal, or better on that radeon side, that's pretty sad and pathetic. Ofcourse this comment can't be officially stated, since Radeon VII can't run ray tracing (at least, not announced), but really is that a plus in AMDs court? Not even in the slightest, that's worse then running it horrible, 0 fps/null and void, is worse then 2fps. I love AMD, i want them to succeed in both CPUs and GPUs, i would love to have an actual reason to go AMD GPU, but as it stands, there's no way i'd spend $699 for technology that just does the same thing as previous generations, a little bit better, and has no (known) advancements into the future of gaming technologies. The only reason i'd buy one is to support HBM on GPUs, as i do believe that is the future. I'm also sorry you think you understand technology. Your trolling, bashing post history states otherwise.
either way, we need AMD to do better with its Hardware and Software, needing 2 years for a product to reach peak performance is how i interpret "Fine wine" arguments.
Hmm, after some research at 4k performance, Radeon VII will be placed between 2070 and 2080. Lisa said 25% faster than Vega 64. That's 1080ti's boundaries as 1080ti is 33.3% faster than Vega 64 and 2080 is 44.9% faster than Vega 64. AMD fanboys stop hype and lies. You are a shame.
The performance seems to be rather good, considering it's just from a die shrink. The price feels like it's too much. I guess they are orienting themselves on overblown Nvidia pricing. I hope this pricing trend doesn't continue. It would have been nice if this card came in at around $400-450 (maybe they could push out a variant without included games and/or 8GB variant for that price still?) instead to put some real pressure on Nvidia to lower prices considerably as well. Let's see what Navi brings.
I think that this will greatly depend on the resolution, the 7nm vega will have 1tb/s of raw bandwidth. it will no doubt get stronger at higher resolutions (compared to vega 64). Something i find interesting is the cards boost clock is only 150mhz higher than the vega FE, 7nm is supposed to clock 20% higher at the same power, obviously the design is not quite the same, but the implication is that 2ghz might not be off the table when overclocked with no power limits.
the 7nm node AMD are using isn't exactly the best for ramping up performance, they need to move to EUV which have a far more precise gate layer to bring performance up without transistor leakage.
they need to release an 8gb version cheaper, then it ll sell, heck i would replace my 1070 in my ryzen rig with this card to go all the way with the redteam, but at this price no thanks , ill keep the 1070 in it since its my 2nd rig
100% agree. People complaining about the price need to just stop. This is a normal price of high end GPU's for the past 5 years. Then you factor in you are getting 1080Ti/2080 performance levels, double the amount of VRAM, Insane bandwidth (1TB/sec), and 3 free games thrown in that each would cost $60/£50 each thats $180/£150 just for the games you are getting with the GPU as well!! The card costs $699 take off $180 = $519 for the GPU! Bare in mind the 2080 is the same price on newegg with only 2 games, and the 1080Ti is still around the same price as well. Its a great deal and Nvidia can kiss my ass, totally hating their business decisions for the past 3 years but AMD haven't had anything worth buying. This looks like it will be my first AMD GPU since the HD7970!
It's always good to see another option come out for people buying new cards. Competition is much needed in the gpu sector. Unfortunately nvidia will remain the only option if you want to game at ultra 4k 60fps and probably will remain the only option for quite a while. As much as I would like AMD to catch up, I don't think they ever will. By the time they release anything close to nvidia's 2080ti, nvidia would have already developed a card or two that is better. Most likely at top price too because nothing is really stopping them. This pattern has been going on for a while. Would be interesting to see if another company steps in like Intel or something else.
eh looks a bit overpriced, not expecting much from that architecture. You never know i guess....? Might be less bad than it looks (at that price point.. tho knowing AMD i wouldnt bet on the price staying there)
RTX 2080 is almost equal to a 1080 ti in performance. Yes, in some games, it's more. And, in some games, it's less. It really depends on the game and resolution. Saying one card is "insert percent here" faster then another card is arbitrary unless you're talking about an average between games and resolutions, of which there really is no website that does that. There's this: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti/4026vs3918 https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2080-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-64/4026vs3933 But it doesn't tell you much either, as again, there are many games the 2080 outperforms the GTX 1080 ti in, specifically at 1080p, by quite a margin. But considering you said you're compared 4K....i'm really questioning where you came up with the idea that, at 4K, the 2080 is "universally" faster then a 1080 ti. Most games, at 4K, put the 2080 and 1080 ti at pretty much equal. If you average all the 2080 vs Vega 64 here: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_rtx_2080_founders_review,16.html You'll see a 29% difference between a 2080 and Vega 64, at 4K. Yes, i did get the differences between each game at 4K for the two and average them out, i'll even show my work. But this clearly shows that is the Radeon VII is 25% faster, then it very well could reach 2080 performance at 4K, especially given its fast HBM2 ram. ALSO, and this is important, unless hilbert wants to tell me i'm wrong, i don't believe that guru3d re-runs all of its benchmarks for every release of graphics card, which means that the Vega 64 results above in the linked guru3d article are likely from when they were released, a year and a half ago. So that certainly, if true, closes the 29% to 25% difference. More importantly you're saying 25% more performance vs Vega 64 at 4K, but that's not what was said, it was 25% more at the same power draw at 4K. We don't know if they will have the same power draw. And again i'd like to double back to your 2080 being faster then the 1080 ti at 4K, i'll run those numbers as well. The difference, again comparing all games at 4K on the guru3d review of the 2080, for the 2080 vs 1080 ti, is a whopping....3% Again, i'll show my work for both of those, and if you're wondering what all the numbers mean: There are 15 games tested, each #, example #1, #5, #8, etc. relates to each game on the website from top to bottom. Example again, #1 is Star Wars Battlefront II. #5 would be Deus Ex Mankind Divided, #8 would be Codemasters Formula 1 2018. And each number on each line is the percent difference between the two. If this doesn't make sense to someone, i don't know how to make it more clear. And yes, the 2080 vs 1080 ti has negatives in it, due to the fact that yes, the 1080 ti sometimes beats the 2080 at 4K And again i don't know where you came up with your numbers, because unless you do this math manually like i have just done, websites don't generally give you this information. They give you the information to do the averages, and choose which resolution you want, but they don't do it for you. You state the 2080 is 44.9% faster then the Vega 64 at 4K, and that does not hold true to guru3ds reviews at the least, and like i stated earlier, that does not account (likely) for the much better drivers that have come out since the Vega 64 was released, likely pushing the difference between them to the 20-25% range, again, at 4K.
That feeling waiting for an Amd gpu that cost the same as an 2 years old 1080ti and perform the same. XD 1080ti must be the best buy for years Used 1080ti for 450- 500$ is the deal of the day
That feeling when someone thinks "GPU performance" = "Gaming performance". ...Ignoring all there is to GPU workloads. Yes that means 2080 is much better than 1080Ti, because it does do compute workload properly.
YES YES YES YES YES, Lisa bring this baby NOW NOWW. My 290x is waiting to be retired. Clear, this will be my day 0 (07.02.2019) upgrade regardless!!!
Personally myself, i would have much preferred a Navi launch. But I'm hearing rumors that it needs another respin.
