AMD Vega

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

titan Xp and titan XP jeeeez know the difference its so obvious

Bloody Nvidia

Was the old one a Titan X, and the new Pascal one is XP??

Inviere wrote: »

Bloody Nvidia Was the old one a Titan X, and the new Pascal one is XP??

Officially they are both Titan X's. When it was first released the public added a P and then to confuse people even further they then released the Titan Xp.

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Officially they are both Titan X's. When it was first released the public added a P and then to confuse people even further they then released the Titan Xp.

So there were two Pascal Titan X's - the Titan X & the Titan Xp??

Inviere wrote: »

So there were two Pascal Titan X's - the Titan X & the Titan Xp??

No three. Titan X, Titan X(Pascal) and Titan Xp

Ok so:

Titan X (2015) - Maxwell based
Titan X (2016) - Pascal based
Titan Xp (2017?) Pascal based

Inviere wrote: »

So the original Titan X was Pascal based also? Sorry for the confusion

No the original was not based on Pascal but they released the second Titan X and people just added a P like this: Titan XP to differentiate from the original but it was really Titan X like the first. Peopel added the P as it was based on the Pascal architecture.

Then Nvidia came along and released the Titan Xp to further confuse people.

Skerries

I watched that a while ago. Not good at all.

Gehad_JoyRider

I think what we have to remember is Radeon/AMD drivers are like fine wines the older they get the better they get. industry knows this we all know this.

Best thing to do is give it about 3 months. And go from there, they still haven't mastered getting drivers up to spec for release. I think that's down to there release to devs?

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

I think what we have to remember is Radeon/AMD drivers are like fine wines the older they get the better they get. industry knows this we all know this.

Best thing to do is give it about 3 months. And go from there, they still haven't mastered getting drivers up to spec for release. I think that's down to there release to devs?

More likely they do not have the money to spend on developing drivers like Nvidia do. Nvidia make millions in profits for years while AMD have been over spending millions. I do not know how they have managed to stay competitive in both CPU space and also GPU.

Gehad_JoyRider

wotzgoingon wrote: »

More likely they do not have the money to spend on developing drivers like Nvidia do. Nvidia make millions in profits for years while AMD have been over spending millions. I do not know how they have managed to stay competitive in both CPU space and also GPU.

Yep and I'm about to join that side which I'm not to pleased about.

I really don't like the limiting gsync to only certain games

They do a lot of certified chips for heart machines airplanes and stuff like that. But I think there a ryzen power house at the moment. ( :pac: )

I think the PS4 and Xbox one are there saving Grace's to be honest.

Praetorian

It does look like it's going to be a disappointing launch. I hope I'm wrong about that. I've had maybe 8 green cards in a row, and I would like to support AMD somehow, but I could not buy a hot running inferior card.

I can't see them gaining 20% more performance from drivers optimisation at this stage.

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

Praetorian wrote: »

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

Afaik next year Intels mainstream i7's will be 6 core 12 threads.

Cuddlesworth

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Afaik next year Intels mainstream i7's will be 6 core 12 threads.

And not a hope in hell of keeping 7700k clockspeeds either, that thing is a heat monster at 4 cores.

One way to look at it is, I need 4 cores now because games run well on only 4 cores with a high single threaded performance.

The counter argument is that games only run on the above because 4 cores has been the norm since the first I series CPU's. If PC's move in general the 6 cores, games and API's will move towards multi-thread to take advantage of it.

K.O.Kiki

https://www.3dcenter.org/news/erste-informationen-zu-den-einzelnen-modellen-von-amds-radeon-rx-vega

Mildly worrying if this is true.

TerrorFirmer

I like the nostalgic naming - been a while since I've seen the XL, XT and XTX suffixes on an AMD card!

If it offers 1080 performance for 1070 money they'll be on to a winner.

Lu Tze

Joshua J wrote: »

If it offers 1080 performance for 1070 money they'll be on to a winner.

Unless your PSU only has one 8 and one 6 pin connectors, in which case the cost of a new PSU will be included on top of it!

BloodBath

Praetorian wrote: »

It does look like it's going to be a disappointing launch. I hope I'm wrong about that. I've had maybe 8 green cards in a row, and I would like to support AMD somehow, but I could not buy a hot running inferior card.

I can't see them gaining 20% more performance from drivers optimisation at this stage.

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

Too early to tell. I think AMD can easily get 20% through drivers. They have done it in the past. It's a new architecture and some or all of the GCN5 features are not enabled yet like the tile based rasterizer which should give a nice performance bump.

Hard to be too disappointed with Zen. Expecting them to trump the IPC and clock speeds of a highly refined intel architecture is a bit much. What they have done is release much better price/performance cpu's which will help 6-8 cores cpu's become mainstream and offer workstation users 16-32's at half the price of intels.

There's also a growing list of games that see better min frame rates on 6-8 core processors. 4 cores are dead. A 5Ghz 7700k is at 100% load with a 1080ti in BF1 multi for example. It has nowhere left to go. Do you want to stream or record with OBS. You are gonna eat into your frame rate if so.

The reality is the 1600, 1700 and 1800 are better cpu's than the 7600k/7700k. Most games are just not optimised for them. You won't see any significant improvements over the 7700k in future. The only way up is more cores.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

https://www.3dcenter.org/news/erste-informationen-zu-den-einzelnen-modellen-von-amds-radeon-rx-vega

Mildly worrying if this is true.

What's the worrying part?

Lu Tze wrote: »

Unless your PSU only has one 8 and one 6 pin connectors, in which case the cost of a new PSU will be included on top of it!

Ah you could say that about any upgrade tbh.

Lu Tze

Joshua J wrote: »

Ah you could say that about any upgrade tbh.

I think most cards are topping out now with 8+6 pin connectors, with only the super duper overclocked versions of the 1080ti having 2 x 8pin I think.

It was more so from my own perspective, but a 300+W card would necessitate a PSU change for me anyways, I'm sure I'm not alone in that, it could be a consideration for many. It will all come down to the price/performance which it doesn't look like we will find out for another couple of months anyway!

Lu Tze wrote: »

I think most cards are topping out now with 8+6 pin connectors, with only the super duper overclocked versions of the 1080ti having 2 x 8pin I think.

It was more so from my own perspective, but a 300+W card would necessitate a PSU change for me anyways, I'm sure I'm not alone in that, it could be a consideration for many. It will all come down to the price/performance which it doesn't look like we will find out for another couple of months anyway!

Yeah from my own perspective running 450W + RX480 I'd have to upgrade if I was getting a 1080 performance card but I wouldn't necessarily factor that into the card cost or hold it against the card value wise.

Lu Tze

Joshua J wrote: »

Yeah from my own perspective running 450W + RX480 I'd have to upgrade if I was getting a 1080 performance card but I wouldn't necessarily factor that into the card cost or hold it against the card value wise.

Yeah I'm not really in the market for a card so don't know why I'm commenting! Just don't play enough anymore, could go two or three months without playing anything at all, and then jump in and play 20 odd hours over a couple of weekend! Happy enough to turn down AA and shadow detail and other superfluous settings as required for now!

Lu Tze wrote: »

Yeah I'm not really in the market for a card so don't know why I'm commenting! Just don't play enough anymore, could go two or three months without playing anything at all, and then jump in and play 20 odd hours over a couple of weekend! Happy enough to turn down AA and shadow detail and other superfluous settings as required for now!

Same as that my gaming spikes in the Winter when I've a room to heat lol.

TerrorFirmer

Joshua J wrote: »

Yeah from my own perspective running 450W + RX480 I'd have to upgrade if I was getting a 1080 performance card but I wouldn't necessarily factor that into the card cost or hold it against the card value wise.

You wouldn't for a GTX1070 though (arguably not for a 1080 either depending on the setup), which is still a massive upgrade on a 480.