Read more.Quote:
Higher resolution, multi-display, and VR gaming will continue to push component demand.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Higher resolution, multi-display, and VR gaming will continue to push component demand.
With HBM around GDDR6 looks like an improvised floppy disk drive. Cant we move on already?? Samsung have a blue print for cheap low bandwidth HBM2 that can integrated into low tier cards like RX560 and Gtx 1050 but until today Nvidia/Intel/AMD have shown no interest
Is it a big year since it is overpriced which means moar money for them since AMD and Nvidia won't have a choice,or a big year since it will be more cost effective than HBM2 and GDDR5X meaning midrange and lower end cards can finally not be so held back by memory bandwidth,ie,they can pack more shaders into them and can still use a narrow bus to make the card cheaper??
We are moving on, to GDDR6 because HBM2 is too expensive and can't be produced easily: see last two gens of AMD cards ruined by choosing this instead of easy to use and make GDDR5x.Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
It's sad AMD keeps going down a road that is a buzzword instead of useful today. If you don't need the bandwidth quit killing your margins/profit by using a memory that holds up production (for year this time) and keeps cards from selling (you can't sell what you can't make). This is why NV is setting records (choose easily produced stuff unless the alternative WINS), while going the easy route and stocking shelves with stuff we can actually buy.
Not sure why you're so interested in using a memory that causes price hikes due to production issues. If you like cheaper prices, you should be hoping everyone goes for GDDR6 over HBM crap that may be useful one day for gamers if it ever gets price competitive.
Move on, but only when it is to something BETTER at the same price or less. HBM thus far has proven useless to gamers and has killed 2 gens of AMD cards due to management thinking a buzzword beats performance. That isn't to say HBM sucks as a tech, just that if you can't make it price competitive and it's speed is still not needed, then what is the point other than harming your profits? AMD as the little guy had near ZERO chance of making ANY gen of HBM a standard. Only NV could pull this off as the market leader with ~75-80% share. You'll never catch me calling AMD management smart ;)
If AMD had not been slowed down so much by issues with HBM they might have been able to release cards earlier and actually produce some competition with Nvidia. I think AMD know they need to do something different to stand out but at the end of the day what matters most for their customer base is what FPS they can provide at what price point compared to the competition. If they're implementing tech that slows down release dates then they might as well just make slower cards. The effect is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodyspecialWe are moving on, to GDDR6 because HBM2 is too expensive and can't be produced easily: see last two gens of AMD cards ruined by choosing this instead of easy to use and make GDDR5x.Quote:
Originally Posted by lumireleon
It's sad AMD keeps going down a road that is a buzzword instead of useful today. If you don't need the bandwidth quit killing your margins/profit by using a memory that holds up production (for year this time) and keeps cards from selling (you can't sell what you can't make). This is why NV is setting records (choose easily produced stuff unless the alternative WINS), while going the easy route and stocking shelves with stuff we can actually buy.
Not sure why you're so interested in using a memory that causes price hikes due to production issues. If you like cheaper prices, you should be hoping everyone goes for GDDR6 over HBM crap that may be useful one day for gamers if it ever gets price competitive.
Move on, but only when it is to something BETTER at the same price or less. HBM thus far has proven useless to gamers and has killed 2 gens of AMD cards due to management thinking a buzzword beats performance. That isn't to say HBM sucks as a tech, just that if you can't make it price competitive and it's speed is still not needed, then what is the point other than harming your profits? AMD as the little guy had near ZERO chance of making ANY gen of HBM a standard. Only NV could pull this off as the market leader with ~75-80% share. You'll never catch me calling AMD management smart ;)