• AMD announces quarterly loss of $197 million, its fourth straight loss
    45 replies, posted
I dunno about you guys but I think 2016 may well be the final year for them if things don't turn around. You can only sell off your assets to finance losses for so long before you run out of things to sell, especially for a relatively small company like AMD. They also can't afford to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on acquisitions that they don't do anything with and write off *cough* seamicro *cough*.
They really don't deserve this. GCN is a beautiful design, and as a professional graphics programmer, they have nothing but respect from me for being so open in everything they do. Full ISA documentation? Check. Full source code to all their original effects e.g. tressfx? Check. Nvidia on the other hand can go fuck themselves, shite hardware being sold through nothing but brute force (marketing, proprietary software and throwing cash at people)
I prefer AMD products, from their chips to their GPUs anyway.
[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;48916802]They really don't deserve this. GCN is a beautiful design, and as a professional graphics programmer, they have nothing but respect from me for being so open in everything they do. Full ISA documentation? Check. Full source code to all their original effects e.g. tressfx? Check. Nvidia on the other hand can go fuck themselves, shite hardware being sold through nothing but brute force (marketing, proprietary software and throwing cash at people)[/QUOTE] Some of the companies behind the best innovations in desktop computing ultimately failed because of poor product marketing and bad gambles. 3dfx comes to mind, nvidia only made it big after they bought the rights to 3dfx tech and utilized it in their own GPU designs.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48916668]Yeah, that's why I said it stays very cool with its water cooler. The Fury X sits at 65C (41.5dB idle, 43dB load), with the 980 TI (37.8dB idle, 51.8dB load) at 83C (going by Anandtech). Now why did you say all the Fury cards run hot when none of them do? Actually this was one reason AMD was able to attain so much better power/performance compared to the 2/3xx series. Just going by Newegg, the 980 Ti and the Fury X are basically the same price. I can't disagree with performance, of course. [editline]16th October 2015[/editline] While Intel's GPUs are now pretty fast, saying there's a difference in price is an understatement. Doesn't change that no one wants to make an AMD laptop (although a few with Carrizo have popped up).[/QUOTE] Yeah I justs didnt word myself right there. The 300 series does run a little hot (albeit better than the 200 series) @ around the low 70s under load. The fury does run cold, but I think the water jacket around it really helps alleviate the temps. Nice to see it being under 50c under load. but with water cooling, this is something I'd almost expect.
The 300 series is the result of not selling enough 200 series. They needed to repurpose them. I like amd because of crossfire and being able to run your last card with your newer card. It's cool not having to throw away your 270 after you threw away your 9800GT.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;48916595]As a purely consumer opinion I have an R9 390 that I bought recently and when I did research the Nvidia equivalent about the same price point I swayed when I saw it was [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqsT1nzSkw"]worse from footage like this. [/URL] In this Crysis 3 video the GTX 970 frequently drops to 50 or 40 FPS whereas the R9 390 rarely ever has FPS drops below 58 and when it does drop it recovers very quickly. Frankly, I'll never buy from Nvidia while AMD still breathes. I've never been dissapointed in a purchase from them and I'm paying less for more performance.[/QUOTE] Except the equivalent was a 980, not a 970.
[QUOTE=27X;48918861]Except the equivalent was a 980, not a 970.[/QUOTE] The price equivalent of the R9 390 is the GTX 970. The R9 390X competes with the 980 on a price point.
Completely synthetic comparison subject to to change on a whim. If it mattered at all AMD would have a hell of a lot more of the market share than 27% of discrete skus.
[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;48916802]They really don't deserve this. GCN is a beautiful design, and as a professional graphics programmer, they have nothing but respect from me for being so open in everything they do. Full ISA documentation? Check. Full source code to all their original effects e.g. tressfx? Check. Nvidia on the other hand can go fuck themselves, shite hardware being sold through nothing but brute force (marketing, proprietary software and throwing cash at people)[/QUOTE] I can't stand Nvidia because of their hamfisted attempts to garner market share with proprietary technology, AMD has done the right thing and released technology after technology into the public. But, I'm probably going Nvidia next, AMD has a lot of problems that are starting to effect basic visual quality, their texture filtering is broken in any Source game after 07, I have endless visual glitches inside anything raster drawn, etc. And this is with multiple graphics cards on multiple installs of windows.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48916668]I can't disagree with performance, of course. [/QUOTE] Interesting thing is at higher resolutions, primarily 4k, the fury x is virtually equal for all intents and purposes. I've read all sorts of reviews which go back and forth on that matter, some saying the fury x is the better choice, while others the 980 ti.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;48922849]Interesting thing is at higher resolutions, primarily 4k, the fury x is virtually equal for all intents and purposes. I've read all sorts of reviews which go back and forth on that matter, some saying the fury x is the better choice, while others the 980 ti.[/QUOTE] The Fury X should more than equal it at 4K if you want to declare it a winner. Fury X in CrossFire apparently does appreciably better than 980 Tis in SLI, though, so I'm actually pretty excited for the Fury Nano X2.
[QUOTE=Zombii;48914559]That's not true as far as I know. AMD's only relation with Intel over their instruction set license is that Intel owns the rights to the x64/86 platform, and as such AMD can't send chips to fab without that agreement. Since Intel owns the rights, they can produce the chips no matter what, even if AMD went under.[/QUOTE] To correct your correction: Intel owns x86. AMD owns AMD_64. AMD licenses their instruction set architecture to Intel, Intel licenses their ISA to AMD(or, maybe they're both free to copy?). So if it's a licensed thing, Intel would still maintain its license agreement, but if that were to expire for whatever reason, then it would no longer be able to make x86_64 chips, and might have to go back to their shitty IA64. And if AMD goes away, Intel will [B][U]have[/U][/B] to be split up. Nvidia's kind of in the clear since Intel does make graphics, although they just can't compete on that front. Also, I'm really regretting not getting AMD CPUs, purely because compiling would be so much faster with more cores
[QUOTE=Sableye;48915986]You'd think making the gpu for all the consoles would be somewhat lucrative but then they may just be horribly missmanaged[/QUOTE] They aren't lucrative at all. The Xbox 360 sold less units in 10 years as the PC market moves laptops in a month.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;48929820]They aren't lucrative at all. The Xbox 360 sold less units in 10 years as the PC market moves laptops in a month.[/QUOTE] On top of that they sell the parts to MS and Sony barely above cost. Is basically a cashflow generator for them, which in business terms can be useful even if it isn't inherently profit making.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.