Read more.Quote:
Said to come with 512EUs, clock up to 2.2GHz, have 16GB GDDR6, and 275W TDP.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Said to come with 512EUs, clock up to 2.2GHz, have 16GB GDDR6, and 275W TDP.
Encouraging numbers - if they really do have a unit that can match a 3070...and can price it accordingly, we could finally have a 3rd competitor in the consumer GPU market again for the first time since 3DFX went under.
All good news there imo :)
Hopefully this will be a card that we can actually buy.... if the numbers are good (and yields are decent) Intel have a real chance to shift a lot of cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spud1
I wonder if we’ll start seeing rigs with AMD CPU and Intel GPUs?
It's ideal market conditions to launch a new GPU, it would be hard not to succeed so if Intel mess this up they've only got themselves to blame.
A quick glance at the logo and I thought it was a new "X" game being introduced.
Players of X space games will know what I mean :)
IF, and I say IF, that information is accurate and the price is right (not to mention stock and supply) it might be interesting to see how AMD/Nvidia react with pricing etc, especially if Intel take a more aggressive approach with a lower price to gain marketshare.
Sadly unless Intel has something comparable to cuda and the software I use makes use of it then I'm stuck with Nvidia....
With card in general not being able to be bought easy...and hard to get, we would most like see people making games hitting more on the open source coding, due to the GPU industry is not providing their customers what they need, then it would better and probably also cheaper to built on a platform, that would just force each GFX manufacturer, to have well working setups with.
It would make sense to me if so.
What are the odds of the shortages still being a thing in the 2021 holiday season? Missing the current boom would be a shame - they'd sell any GPU hand over fist in the current climate, if they leave it too long they'll have to compete on merits (a much harder proposition, especially as the next holiday season is around the right time for a super refresh from nvidia).
I know that the wafer supply is unlikely to greatly increase for a while, but AMD CPUs are showing up at retail now so TSMC is meeting demand in some areas.
We also have to remember, these are being built on TSMC n7 (iirc, quick google shows this to be the case still) so Intel will be just as supply constrained as AMD and Nvidia.
Edit: Hmm, seems to be some hooplah of it being either TSMC n7 or n6...
If Intel had any sense,at least for some of the more mainstream SKUs,they should try and competitively price it to get some marketshare. Both AMD and Nvidia have gotten into a little cartel of sorts,and don't want to poke each other too hard as it makes them more money. Thereby they can quietly pretend their RRPs are real,blame AIB partners and retailers for price increases,and then see another record year of net margins.
MLID said they Intel is probably going to try and price it a bit competitively - apparently the GPU is arriving late this year or Q1 2021 apparently.
Maybe but if contrarevenue has thought us anything Intel is willing to eat margins if they can try and get a foothold. It makes me wonder whether they will do bundle deals with their CPUs and GPUs to OEMs??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Contrarevenue won't matter if you're just as stock constrained as you competition, all you'll be doing is wasting money.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
If the GPU is capable and functions like its competition then it doesn't matter what the price is, it'll sell.
Now if there wasn't a global shortage and everyone fighting for scraps, they would likely be applying their "financial horsepower" to push away competition from being in the viewpoint.
any windows 7/8 support? If not I'm not buying.
The problem is the current Intel CEO was working at Intel when they did all the crap during the Athlon 64 era. You should see what section he headed at his last stint at Intel....the Digital Enterprise Group. Yes,the group which handled desktop and server CPUs,and who used their financial clout to get what they wanted. Intel threw billions of USD at PC companies to stop the Athlon 64,and then when the world didn't even want Atom CPUs,they spent billions on that. The issue is Intel can and will offer to pay more if it especially means if AMD gets screwed too. Its why I think them trying to get TSMC capacity might also be partly to deny AMD capacity too and if they do decide to sell their GPUs at a lower margin,by extension it means both Nvidia and AMD have to also which causes them more problems. Maybe Nvidia going to Samsung wasn't as bad a longterm idea as people though it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
It may have worked out rather well, partly because Intel are way more likely to go for Nvidia's throat than AMDs. AMD are just too nice, Intel will want their market share but won't feel all that threatened by them. But Intel savaged Nvidia, and Nvidia have not forgotten. Nvidia will take Intel down if given the chance, without a moment's hesitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
As for contra-revenue, I think that is irrelevant here (not that it in any way worked last time). Margins are pretty big, so Intel can make a low price splash if they want to and still make plenty of money. The thing is, Intel are not a budget firm and won't want to start out in that posture. They started as a DRAM manufacturer, quit that business because of the low margins and even after all these years seem to have a revulsion for anything low margin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Interesting that Intel are using TSMC for the GPU, considering they have the capability to produce their own chips at a similar density with their 10nm node. I can't help wondering how much money they're going to throw at TSMC to try to nudge out capacity for both AMD and to a lesser extent Nvidia and whether that's a deliberate move.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The problem is longterm Intel wants better margins,but their history has shown repeatedly that they are quite willing to tank short term margins,if it screws over the competition and causes them problems. This is the company who spent bilions of USD on software companies and other things which lost them money,and still made a lot of profits.
Another issue with AMD is buying Xilinx,means AMD is under even more pressure to push up stock prices,by concentrating on margins. $35 billion is a lot to pay,especially since a lot of it is in AMD shares and all those new "investors" will want a return on it. In the short term it's going to be the rest of the company products which bare the brunt of having to do this(Xilinx only had a total revenue of $3 billion and will not even double the profits AMD made last year).
Anything that can constrain margin growth is not great for AMD,especially if it causes issues with its stock prices with all those new "investors" onboard.
Also in the same vein,I can see AMD slowly trying its best, because of the acquisition, to copy Nvidia and try sell you less and less for more and more.
So AMD is definitely on the path to not being the "budget brand" so I don't expect them to be aggressive on pricing unless Intel or Nvidia forces them to. If the latter are quite happy not to,expect things to just go up and up in price,at an increasing rate. Also looking at Apple,who everyone is copying,they might have no problems even getting less sales overall,if it means they can up street prices to give them what the investors want.
Its why mainstream gaming is probably go to end up being pushed to the price-points of enthusiast gaming at this rate over the next 5 years. I suspect mainstream gaming will then shift to consoles,game streaming services,phones and tablets.
They are all budget brands, the prices is just driven sky high due to people think that mining is the road ahead...
It is interesting seeing your views Cat as since Zen 3 and RDNA2 you have become quite disinterred by AMD because the positions have flipped between Intel and AMD.
I don't think AMD will be too aggressive with margins and prices simply because they are still not a market leader, you can squeeze the prices a little (as seen with Ryzen 5k but also exasperated by pandemic shortages and the fact you drop a duce on the deck, someone will probably buy it because they need it asap) but if you do it too much without providing a performance buff behind it, you'll be boxing yourself into a corner.
I can see AMD being reasonable with their price bumps versus their system capabilities for a while yet, maybe when they reach 20-40% share in server space they'll be a bit more Intel-like but we're a long way off that.
AMD was able to successfully acquire Xilinx on their current upward trajectory but if they do too much Icarus level stuff, they'll get burnt badly and AMD knows this from the early radeon days.
Lisa is not an idiot both in a customer sense or a business sense and there's been no evidence to the contrary on that yet.
However on Intels side, there is definitely a dark horse that could potentially be re-emerging because I also saw Pat with his history at Intel during the times he was in positions of power and he was either part of or turned a blind eye to crippling AMD. Now he is in the position of absolute power and the new open fabrication they're looking at doing could be moving the game away from crippling AMD through MDF but instead through crippling their suppliers by forcing designers and vendors to use their fabs instead.
Intel is not above quite happily blowing out your kneecaps halfway through a marathon but I think they've just gotten a lot better at masking it.
One of Intel's superpowers seemed to be playing chicken with the courts, maximising damage and then settling out of court so it didn't go to trial. But now they've been dragged through the courts and are officially a convicted monopolist. There must be only so many times you can get convicted of that :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
ofc the old remedy put forwards was to split Intel up into a foundry company and a CPU division giving everyone access to Intel's superior fabs. Now that they are inferior fabs, that won't help. I do wonder if Intel's attempt to restart foundry sales is an attempt to head that off at the pass, though given how badly it went last time I doubt they will get many takers.
Tbh, there's a point in time where you reach critical mass and you're too big and too much of a market leader to fail. For instance, with the leak of 500 million users' data in 2019, doing 4% of their total revenue will be a hit on their net income of 2019 (total: 21,082 mill, 843 mill fine, net income 7.34 billion) but barely even something worth considering for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
And then businesses of this size have the power and capacity to drag things out and for far longer than necessary because they abuse the way the system works. I mean, Intel finally go ordered to pay (still haven't paid fully iirc) in 2012 for a lawsuit bought against Intel in 2005! That means the money that AMD "may" receive will be nice to have but it didn't exactly help AMD when they were at their worst.
Also don't forget Intel has been charged twice for antitrust lawsuits, the first in 1991 which gave AMD royalty free licensing to any Intel patents used in AMD x86 processors.
Intel doesn't and won't care, really. The only way to hit them right where it hurts isn't in the money but in the sales. You have an antitrust lawsuit pending, your products are barred from sale in the US/EU except under special circumstances (military/government). You can bet bottom dollar Intel will speed that lawsuit through quickly because not only will they lose money not being able to sell but also when businesses need to purchase a new server or system, they can't so they rush for the alternative harming Intels future capability.
But its unlikely to happen, sadly.
I would hardly say ideal. If they were producing the chips themselves, then yes, it would be a good opportunity. But as they say they are using a TSMC process, it seems unlikely. Therefore they are going to compete for production facilities with an unknown product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky34
The issue is AMD has been here before. Before the Athlon 64 they were all about value for money,longterm platforms,etc(sound familar?). People forget the whole socket 754,QuadFX,etc motherboard moves. Then after that they jacked pricing up,split platforms,features,etc. That about turn from AMD happened very quickly and I just managed to stay with my Athlon XP long enough to not get caught out by it. Then AMD kind of stagnated with its pricing,until the Core and Core2 came along. If you read reports of the time AMD actually held back on 65NM and the Phenom,because the 90NM Athlons were quite profitable(at least that is what I remember,I might be wrong on the details).
You saw that after Zen2. They started with trying to screwover 400 series users from using Zen3,then artificially locked out PCI-E 4.0 from 400 series motherboards(OEM ones worked),making sure 500 series motherboards won't work with Zen and Zen+ and then finally making their CPUs even more expensive core for core than Intel. Even Zen3 compatibility happened with the 400 series motherboards due to the huge backlash from consumers and OEMs. AMD delayed the B550,made the B450 the only Zen3 compatible Zen3 chipset,implied it would work to people who bought Zen2 and a B450 motherboard,and then said no it won't work. They even told their OEMs who got were promised it would work. MSI also didn't expect it either.
Then the whole resizeable BAR thing - which was implied to need Zen3 and 500 series motherboards. Nvidia went and showed it works with Zen2,400 series motherboards,Intel CPUs,etc - see how SAM now apparently works with Zen2 and Zen+ now:
https://www.kitguru.net/components/g...access-memory/
Imagine if Nvidia hadn't showed their Resizeable BAR working with other CPUs? Would we be getting it on other CPUs?
They even copied Intel and ditched CPU coolers for most of their SKUs. The one SKU which has a cooler,has the same crap cooler as their £100 CPUs. They also copied Intel with the Wraith Spire,and made the heatsink worse(they quietly removed the copper core),and replaced it with a noiser fan.
The fact that AMD went to outcompeting Intel on per core price,showed that all their value for money marketing was more because they were behind. They want to be Intel,and they did that during the Athlon 64 era. Look at the last 2 years of things AMD did?? These sound much closer to what you would expect Intel or Nvidia would do?? People give AMD the pass because its the "underdog" but the issue its still another large tech company,who wants to be the rest. It clearly works for Intel and Nvidia as they making tons of money.
With their GPUs they tried to price the RX5700XT above £400,closer to the RTX2070 but Nvidia made its moves beforehand. They essentially tried to replace the RX5700 with the cheaper to make RX5600XT,then kind of screwed over their board partners with the 5600XT last second BIOS changes. They said it was "jebaiting" when it was quite clear they forgotten Nvidia can drop prices too. Now with the RX6000 series,look how they positioned them?? The RX6000 series has better performance/watt but it has worse feature support,very poor RT support,etc but look at the pricing?? RX6700XT RRP made it poor value against the RTX3070 and RTX3060TI. RX6800 is only marginally faster than the RTX3070,but is priced halfway between a RTX3070 and an RTX3080,so as to not directly complete.
Even when the market settles down - I suspect AMD/Nvidia will try to just put products which don't directly compete with each other. Its quite clear the RTX3000/RX6000 RRPs are just targetting the gaps in each other's ranges. So as much as we laugh at Intel and its misfortune we really need to have something reasonable to keep AMD/Nvidia on their toes.
This is just the last 2 years or so. So now think if they further outcompete Intel and even beat Nvidia - just wait for the £300 Ryzen 3 7500X which is 6C/6T. But its faster in gaming than a 6C/12T Ryzen 5 5600X,so its all OK. People who defended the Ryzen 5 5600X pricing,can't see Intel did the same. They used the faster cores of newer generations to push higher core count CPUs right up the stack.
So it wouldn't surprise if Intel can't push as many cores as AMD for the next few years,we will end up with 6C being the new 4C,and we won't see much core progression at under £300. Soon 6C will be the new 4C meme.
The thing is Lisa Su isn't like previous AMD CEOs - the whole "we don't want to be perceived as a value brand" is because she is razor focussed on increasings margins,more than previous AMD CEOs.
So basically its why people need Intel and Nvidia to be competitive - AMD will be quite happy to replace Intel and Nvidia in the premium pricing game,EVEN if they lose some sales. Apple basically showed the way forward - overall their smartphone/tablet marketshare have shown declines outside launch peaks,but they are making more per sale,so its evened out for them. This is because Wallstreet cares less about profits and more about margin increases each quarter. The return is more important than the physical numbers. Its why lower margin mainstream phones are now made by Chinese companies - not because it isn't profitable(Nokia made enough money doing this),it isn't profitable enough,and is more constrained in margin increase per quarter.
AMD said 400 series wouldn't work with new zen, received a backlash, and then changed their mind. Intel said most of their 400 series wouldn't work with 11th gen, and it stuckQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
With Intel it was limited to H410 and B460 due to older chipsets:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
https://hexus.net/tech/news/mainboar...t-rocket-lake/
H470 and Z490 apparently will get updates. Everyone seems to berate Intel for its mixed messaging but AMD does get much more of a pass. I have been building enough AMD systems(or recommending then) over the last 15 years or so to see enough of some of the crap they also did.
Also,I think you might want to re-read the old threads on AMD "not saying" it would not work:
https://forums.hexus.net/pc-hardware...work-zen3.html
https://forums.hexus.net/hexus-news/...r-zen-3-a.html
They made certain statements at the Zen2 launch caliing out Intel and its socket strategy,a very vague chart(which was used in concert with that statement IIRC),and told MSI and Schenker it would work(and the latter pretty much said AMD told them,and were blindsided when AMD made the announcement). Then all the BIOS nonsense,which was shown to be well nonsense. Even the backtrack was more because they would have screwed over two OEMs,who put a lot of effort into AMD systems,and AMD can certainly afford to do it less than Intel who can thrown money everywhere! ;)
People always call out Intel,but stuff like socket 754,QuadFX,FM1 were dire. FM2/AM2/AM3 all needing + revisions even though AMD was vague about purported support until they were released. AMD CPU compatibility has been great historically,not so much the motherboard part(unless ASRock gets involved).