AMD investing heavily to "win the graphics battle" next year

[HEXUS]

Confirms AMD's EMEA component sales manager in a recent interview.

Read more.

[shaithis]

Interesting, reading between the lines in the Neil Spicer article, it sounds like AMD will be going after OEM again....and for desktop and server.

Can they persuade the likes of Dell to carry them in mainstream products again?

[cheesemp]

Hope this works out for AMD. Hate the idea of Nvidia being the only player. Innovation will stagnate and prices will rise... Always had a soft spot for them but its hard to recommend them currently.

[DanceswithUnix]

Can they persuade the likes of Dell to carry them in mainstream products again?

I think the Nvidia premium for Gsync might do them a big favour here. An OEM can put together an AMD variable sync gaming system a lot cheaper than using Gsync.

[DemonHighwayman]

Going by the Spicer quote: AMD should have already been investing heavily to win the next graphics battles, why should they expect customers to invest heavily if they were not doing the same ?
I really hope they are not just flapping there jaws again and do actually produce a decent product. As next year i'll be looking to replace my gtx 970 to power a VR headset.

[qasdfdsaq]

Can they persuade the likes of Dell to carry them in mainstream products again?

Dell already carries them in mainstream products.

[cptwhite_uk]

Depends on the price point really. Recommended a 380 4Gb over a GTX960 2Gb for a small bump in price (£15?). Faster and more RAM, and with the potential gain of DX12 looming over nVidia equivalents it was an easy decision.

[AGTDenton]

Deja Vu? I thought that's what they were doing with Fury... hmmm

[crossy]

One way to guarantee AMD's 2016 success is for me to replace my current setup with an Intel+NVidia one...

I know others have already said it - but unless Zen is spectacular then a lot of folks are going to damn them with "too little, too late". I've been holding on for a while now, but I think that a Haswell-E is probably in my future. As to the graphics side, I get the distinct impression from reading between the lines that again AMD are lagging NVidia in outright performance, but make sales to folks who want that "best bang for the buck".

Like cheesemp says, I really want AMD to do well - not only to keep NVidia "honest", but also to prevent Intel from taking customers for granted. Hopefully 2016 will be "interesting" ...

[DanceswithUnix]

Just read this, which claims that with the latest driver updates they are winning it now: http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-fury-x-pe...atest-drivers/

If that is true, then come on AMD, Nvidia would be making this front page news if it was the other way around. It isn't enough to have a good product, you have to be *seen* to have a good product.

If Crimson does improve AMD's scores further, then Nvidia have some work to do.

[Corky34]

Am I just not seeing where in the TechPowerup article that they says about testing on different drivers and the change to W10, maybe I haven't looked close enough but i can't find any info about the claims WCCFTech are making.

[DanceswithUnix]

It looks like they are comparing the graphs from an old (R9 Nano?) review to the linked one.

[Corky34]

It would seem, from what i think is the old R9 Nano review, that the test systems and the games used for the performance summary are very different, seems like WCCFTech are trying to compare an apple with an orange and present it as proof of something, shame really as I've always wanted to know how different or newer driver versions effect performance of older cards.

[DanceswithUnix]

Does the conclusion not stand though? In their latest review with their latest games, the AMD cards are more competitive.

[Corky34]

I'm not sure WCCFTech's conclusion stand, no, their saying that AMD cards are more competitive because of driver improvements, that maybe true but without testing using the same hardware and software it's impossible to tell if driver improvements were the cause, that's not to say the results from the MSI Lightning review don't stand or that they show the Fury X beating or matching a 980ti at higher resolutions, just that (IMO) the conclusion WCCFTech has drawn is full of holes.

[DanceswithUnix]

Yeah you are right, they are too specific there. The cards are more competitive in the later review, but they can't pin that on anything specific. That would probably require a Win7 vs Win10 benchmark plus an old driver vs new driver benchmark all while keeping the same hardware.

Weird that they benchmark using a spinning disk not an SSD, the only consistent bit of the two reviews is the worst component