MSI Pretty Much Just Called Radeon GPUs Sub par

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Mar 25, 2018.

  1. oxidized

    oxidized Master Guru

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    On AMD reddit, LMAO, i was intentioned to sign it, but then i saw it was on AMD reddit.
     
  2. Jawnys

    Jawnys Master Guru

    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    55
    GPU:
    asus tuf oc 3090
    we all know amd gpu are sub par even vega, he didnt need to say it, only reason amd has been selling gpu these past years is because of the mining craze
     
  3. Romulus_ut3

    Romulus_ut3 Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    252
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX5700 XT 8G
    So a discounted GTX 1070 would be the RX 580 Killer, eh? Are you using Ethereum hashrate to measure cards? :D Because that's the only metric where a GTX 1070 can be compared to the RX 580.
     
  4. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    1,494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Who would even buy these custom cards, other than miners?
    How many custom Vega 64 SKUs are on the market.
    4?
    How many 1080 Ti? Proly 54 or sumtin...

    AMD held a gun to AIB heads trying to persuade them to make custom Vegas.
    And the number of Vega SKUs tells you just how delighted AIBs were with Vega chips and the margins.

    Remember the clusterfuk with Vega pricing before mining explosion, and how they were bundled with "Free" packs that set you back for $100... that was AIB's and AMD trying to brake even.
    Mining is what "fixed" Vega, and you don't need custom RGB cards with fancy cooling and added value to sell them to miners.
     

  5. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    1,494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    Could it be that this is why MSI India is unhappy with AMD?

    Linus: "It is pretty tight to be AMD partner."


    "Being an Nvidia partner versus an AMD partner, is supposedly a lot better."

    "XFX turned tail on Nvidia and went to AMD, and it has been pretty rough is all I can say"


    6:14 onward

     
    fantaskarsef and warlord like this.
  6. oxidized

    oxidized Master Guru

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    I'm not comparing them but since the 580 was slightly faster than a 1060, and nvidia can't stand the existence something being faster at least in a short term, they could've "countered" the 580 with a 1070 dropped in price, since 1060 9gbps wasn't really doing much better than the regular 1060.
     
  7. tensai28

    tensai28 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    413
    GPU:
    rtx 4080 super
    I'm getting the feeling you didn't understand what I wrote. No one is talking about a non existing gpu.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  8. Romulus_ut3

    Romulus_ut3 Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    252
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX5700 XT 8G
    The intended competitor for the original RX 480 8 GB card is the original GTX 1060 6 GB.

    The intended competitor for the RX 580 8 GB card is the GTX 1060 6 GB 9 Gbps.

    The original GeForce GTX 1080 launched with 10 Gbps memory, which was later overhauled to 11 Gbps.

    The scandalous thing about this is that the GTX 1060 3 GB never saw the memory clock bump to 9 Gbps, and if you don't look really close to card specifications or naming of the card, you likely won't notice the difference between GTX 1060 6 GB 9 Gbps vs the regular GTX 1060 6GB, despite the two cards having different names. The same naming issue exists for the revamped GTX 1080 cards, too. Some people are totally unaware of the difference between the two variants.

    The GTX 1070 Ti, unlike the GTX 1080/1080 Ti, didn't ship with GDDR5X but with GDDR5 instead.

    These little speed bumps in memory, and the choice of putting GDDR5 instead of GDDR5X in a Ti card shows that they are interested in staying competitive with AMD and their offerings not only in gaming, but mining too. Higher clocked memory and tighter straps can make a significant difference in hashing. and GDDR5X isn't all that well received by miners. So instead of choosing the GDDR5X route, nvidia went with GDDR5 instead. Keeps the cost low, too and is the perfect response for VEGA 56 and VEGA 64.

    I suppose these marginal speed bumps doesn't effect gaming performance at all, but if AMD's offerings were sub par as some people here are suggesting, nvidia need not have made these marginal upgrades with other ulterior motives in mind. But with any business, seizing the opportunity of money to be made matters, and that's what they did and will be doing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  9. Warrax

    Warrax Member Guru

    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    30
    GPU:
    GTX 1070Ti
    Oh no! someone said what everyone else was thinking, OH THE DRAMA!
     
  10. oxidized

    oxidized Master Guru

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    1060 9gbps came out AFTER the 580

    They were subpar because performance/watt was way worse, chip were bigger and cost was just sligthly lower. Subpar was especially true for Vega
     

  11. Romulus_ut3

    Romulus_ut3 Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    252
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX5700 XT 8G
    And the GTX 1060 came out after The RX 480. The GTX 1070 Ti came out after VEGA 56/64. I am not seeing your point.

    If you want a more practical example, some factory overclocked GTX 980 Ti cards are on a league of their own, and is faster than a stock GTX 1070 and offers roughly the same performance of a GTX 1070 Ti. The Gigabyte G1 GeForce GTX 980 Ti Xtreme for example, is capable of doing so. That's how this industry works, you hold on to your cards and wait for your competition to make the move first, then adjust/react. Anyhow. Let's move on.
     
  12. oxidized

    oxidized Master Guru

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    Yes, so what's your point? I already said that 1070ti was nvidia being nvidia because there wasn't really the need of such card, when the 1080 already existed and was faster than Vega 56, they could've dropped the price of that.
     
  13. warlord

    warlord Guest

    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    927
    GPU:
    Null
    Well. Truth unleashed by me. Price was never the strong point this round for AMD, they deceived everyone about their gaming ability. They deceived their customers. For first time Nvidia has had the price performance ratio.

    And something is fishy with their gpus. Nvidia is more sincere.

    You supposed here to be gurus of 3d. Does not anyone see that many games furyx and rx580 are closer to vega and on others there is a huge gap. AMD does anticonsumer driver tactics like their only gpu is Vega. I despise them.
     
  14. Romulus_ut3

    Romulus_ut3 Master Guru

    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    252
    GPU:
    NITRO+ RX5700 XT 8G
    VEGA 56's original competition is the GTX 1070, and not the GTX 1080.

    VEGA 64 exists for that. There is a gap between GTX 1070 and GTX 1080, which VEGA 56 managed to squeeze itself into, until GTX 1070 Ti came along.

    The point is, your comparisons are invalid. And nvidia isn't the type of company to slash prices of a product that is of a bracket above it's competition to stay competitive. And that's because AMD's offerings are pretty reasonable. The only sub par products from AMD are the RX 550 and RX 560 cards, that doesn't offer anything at all.

    The last thing gamers care about is performance/watt, trust me on this. Back when Fermi (GTX 400) came out, those cards ran hotter than hell, and was sub par compared to what AMD was offering. We didn't see all this talk of power consumption by gamers back then. But now, it's an issue because AMD is behind in that section? :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  15. Noisiv

    Noisiv Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,230
    Likes Received:
    1,494
    GPU:
    2070 Super
    When AMD releases decent perf/$ GPU, yet the product which has higher Bill Of Material cost compared to Nvidia performance counterpart,
    (more mm2, higher cost PCB, better cooling needed, HBM(!), water (!))
    ie. GPU which has similar performance, cheaper or same priced as Nvidia, yet is more expensive to produce....

    Who do you think eats the cost, compared to NV counterpart, ie. who gives up the "value" that's been passed to consumer?

    There are only 3 possible answers:
    1. AMD
    2. AIBs
    3. AMD and AIBs
    And remember, this or even worse than that (Vega, Fury), has been the case almost universally ever since the Kepler release.

    --> So there you go with the unhappy and butthurt AIBs, living a "pretty tight" and "rough" life.

    TL;DR
    It's not that AIB's hate AMD, they hate their margins.
     

  16. alanm

    alanm Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,235
    Likes Received:
    4,437
    GPU:
    RTX 4080
    Not sure why some people think it was an MSI top spokesmans carefully worded statement that was intended to mean exactly what it said. It wasnt. It was a poorly thought out statement that would embarrass any company to issue. MSI is not some super company with $ millions devoted to their PR dept. I suspect the person making the statement was just some young, inept fellow not aware of the impact his words may have.
     
    tensai28 likes this.
  17. oxidized

    oxidized Master Guru

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    35
    GPU:
    GTX 1060 6G
    VEGA 64 exists to compete with the top nvidia had, which was 1080ti, not 1080, Vega 56 was meant to compete with 1080, the 1080 objective failed, and they fell back to compete with 1070, which they handily beat, since the card was initially more towards 1080 performance than 1070, at that point nvidia being nvidia, felt the need of releasing the 1070ti, totally useless, because they could've dropped a little the pricing for the 1080, and even if more expensive than Vega 56 they could've counter that without releasing any new card.

    Polaris 4xx was a very good product, polaris refresh a bit worse overall, but nothing compared to the fail that Vega was, starting with the Frontier edition. But even there, 4xx was slightly slower than Pascal low to mid range, 470 just had no opponent basically, because it was much faster than 1050ti, but much slower than 1060 6GB, so 1060 3GB is what it could compete with, but still the 1060 3GB wins that, because altough it had lower clocks and less memory it still was the same chip, but slightly gimped. The series 5xx was a power hungry polaris on steroids, which ran faster but much hotter and hungrier, nvidia tried to counter by increasing 1060 memory speeds but failed, so the 580 has actually no response from nvidia, that's why i said they could've dropped price on 1070 and resolve this problem aswell, not that they would be able to price a 1070 same as a 580, but even a 100$/€ premium would've been enough to counter that.
     
  18. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Guest

    Messages:
    11,808
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Please define "everyone". Then sign for brain transplant, maybe they can find some upgrade for you (like vacuum). I really dislike when someone tells others what they think.

    But maybe you intended to say something about those who do not agree with your statement. Like that they are not part of everyone. But then who are they? No ones? Did you even read responses in this thread? Or any other?
     
  19. Prince Valiant

    Prince Valiant Master Guru

    Messages:
    819
    Likes Received:
    146
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 1080 ti
    Most people don't see it because AMD was a bit late on releasing the 290X. I think it would've went similarly if they had waited to get Ryzen out the door. How anyone defends MSI when they haven't issued a retraction I don't know.


    I like how their official response is 'contact us'.
     
  20. xrodney

    xrodney Master Guru

    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    68
    GPU:
    Saphire 7900 XTX
    8 years?? ...no way
    HD 7970 pretty much traded blows with GTX 680 and HD 290x was faster than GTX 780. It took 780 ti (overclocked Titan) to finaly take performance crown from AMD and that happened on end of 2013. So, Nvidia ruled in high end, but only since end of 2013 which is just little over 4 years now, not 8 like you stated.
    But that does not mean AMD had nothin in mid to high end, 480/580 are still very good midrange cards.
     
    Evildead666 likes this.

Share This Page