5 ms·

I'm really skeptical these cards will be cost/perf competitive with AMD's upcoming Polaris. The 1080 is the only card with GDDR5X, which from what I've read ha

I'm really skeptical these cards will be cost/perf competitive with AMD's upcoming Polaris. The 1080 is the only card with GDDR5X, which from what I've read has twice the bandwidth of GDDR5. The 1080 and 1070 both have 256-bit buses, meaning if the clock rates are equal, the 1070 will have half the memory bandwidth of the 1080. In contrast, the current gen AMD R9-290, R9-390 and higher have 512-bit GDDR5 buses, and the leaked Polaris cards have 256-bit GDDR5X buses (eqivalent). AMD cards tend to be priced lower than NVidia cards, so we're very much in a wait-and-see mode right now. (We do datacenter level cryptographic compute and our workloads are very memory bandwidth constrained.)

maaku 10y ago
You do cryptographic compute. You're about the only HPC application that benefits from AMD architecture. Most other scientific compute and deep learning applications have horrible performance on AMD compared with NVIDIA (usually for software reasons that are in principle fixable, but it is what it is).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sklogic 10y ago
  There is a lot of applications beyond crypto that depend on an integer performance. Even in graphics, not just scientific/engineering compute.
  - magicalist 10y ago
    sure, but if you're not integer performance bound, which most graphics work won't be, it doesn't usually matter.
    - sklogic 10y ago
      Yet, a lot of stuff beyond crypto depends solely on an integer performance + memory bandwidth. Graphics included. 2D image processing is better done in integer or a fixed point.
  - maaku 10y ago
    In HPC?
    - sklogic 10y ago
      HPC included. A whole lot of simulations fits well into a fixed point.
onli 10y ago
For general graphics usage (meaning mainly: games) this would not be new. The current R9 300 and Fury cards perform very well against Nvidias lineup, to the point that they are currently in every price point for most (non-CUDA) usages the best pick (if one does not want the strongest card for 1080p and DX11, which would be the GTX 980 Ti). This might vary with the prices in different markets. But that AMD is the better choice in the 200€/$ price region, which for pure price performance is currently the high point, almost has tradition. It should also be noted that the projected performance gains are qualified as for VR. Those will still be strong cards for normal graphics, but if they were as an enormous leap there as well Nvidia would have said so.
- egeozcan 10y ago
  I own an AMD 380X and price/performance is why I chose it. However, I think I made the wrong choice, after experiencing how buggy AMD drivers are.
- HelloMcFly 10y ago
  I think for many like me, the small marginal performance increase an AMD card might deliver is not worth the significant disadvantages AMD brings in software, heat, and noise.
  - onli 10y ago
    I honestly do not get that perspective. But please note that this is from a (well, former) gamer perspective, how AMD gpus perform in ML and how the software support is there is just not my area of expertise. For games the performance difference is not marginal. The R9 380 and especially the R9 380X is a lot faster than the GTX 960. The R9 390 is on par with the GTX 970, as long as the Vram of the latter does not become an issue or one plays on higher resolutions. For all of them there is DX12 on the horizon, which so far gives a big boost to all AMD cards and none to Nvidia. Software just is no issue. You find that everywhere on the net, but AMDs drivers in practice just are not worse. I used both, I had problems with both and stable systems with both, there is no meaningful difference there. And professional reviews back that up (note: I'm not talking on how they are to program for. That I don't know). AMD driver for windows are not bad since many many years now, and the Crimson driver update also overhauled the UI in a good way. On linux the situation is more complicated: While Nvidia has absolutely the faster driver, it is closed source. The free AMD driver is capable of playing games now, it made enormous progress in the last year and it is a pleasure to see that. Having a free driver is a big advantage. There is a big difference in heat coming from power usage, Nvidia cards are just better there. Noise should be the same, but since both shut their fans down on idle and since the heating systems from Sapphire & Co are quite good, that is not something where AMD cards are really bad. I do not want to sound too pro-AMD – Nvidia makes great cards and they definitely have their place – but I do not get the negative attitude against AMD.
alkonaut 10y ago
The deciding factor in current gen cards for me isn't cost perf (as it's reasonably close) but perf/watt which is where the 9xx is clearly better than the AMD cards. Is AMD tackling this issue in the next generation or are they continuing to be competitive with cheap but hot chips? Aren't the higher power requirements creating higher costs in datacenters (power, cooling) that make the AMD cards less attractive? The 390 vs 970 is at nearly a 2-to-1 power advantage for nvidia!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
coroutines 10y ago
Hmm, good on the NSA for being cost-effective. :-)

maaku 10y ago

You do cryptographic compute. You're about the only HPC application that benefits from AMD architecture. Most other scientific compute and deep learning applications have horrible performance on AMD compared with NVIDIA (usually for software reasons that are in principle fixable, but it is what it is).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sklogic 10y ago
There is a lot of applications beyond crypto that depend on an integer performance. Even in graphics, not just scientific/engineering compute.
- magicalist 10y ago
  sure, but if you're not integer performance bound, which most graphics work won't be, it doesn't usually matter.
  - sklogic 10y ago
    Yet, a lot of stuff beyond crypto depends solely on an integer performance + memory bandwidth. Graphics included. 2D image processing is better done in integer or a fixed point.
- maaku 10y ago
  In HPC?
  - sklogic 10y ago
    HPC included. A whole lot of simulations fits well into a fixed point.

onli 10y ago

For general graphics usage (meaning mainly: games) this would not be new. The current R9 300 and Fury cards perform very well against Nvidias lineup, to the point that they are currently in every price point for most (non-CUDA) usages the best pick (if one does not want the strongest card for 1080p and DX11, which would be the GTX 980 Ti). This might vary with the prices in different markets. But that AMD is the better choice in the 200€/$ price region, which for pure price performance is currently the high point, almost has tradition. It should also be noted that the projected performance gains are qualified as for VR. Those will still be strong cards for normal graphics, but if they were as an enormous leap there as well Nvidia would have said so.

egeozcan 10y ago
I own an AMD 380X and price/performance is why I chose it. However, I think I made the wrong choice, after experiencing how buggy AMD drivers are.
HelloMcFly 10y ago
I think for many like me, the small marginal performance increase an AMD card might deliver is not worth the significant disadvantages AMD brings in software, heat, and noise.
- onli 10y ago
  I honestly do not get that perspective. But please note that this is from a (well, former) gamer perspective, how AMD gpus perform in ML and how the software support is there is just not my area of expertise. For games the performance difference is not marginal. The R9 380 and especially the R9 380X is a lot faster than the GTX 960. The R9 390 is on par with the GTX 970, as long as the Vram of the latter does not become an issue or one plays on higher resolutions. For all of them there is DX12 on the horizon, which so far gives a big boost to all AMD cards and none to Nvidia. Software just is no issue. You find that everywhere on the net, but AMDs drivers in practice just are not worse. I used both, I had problems with both and stable systems with both, there is no meaningful difference there. And professional reviews back that up (note: I'm not talking on how they are to program for. That I don't know). AMD driver for windows are not bad since many many years now, and the Crimson driver update also overhauled the UI in a good way. On linux the situation is more complicated: While Nvidia has absolutely the faster driver, it is closed source. The free AMD driver is capable of playing games now, it made enormous progress in the last year and it is a pleasure to see that. Having a free driver is a big advantage. There is a big difference in heat coming from power usage, Nvidia cards are just better there. Noise should be the same, but since both shut their fans down on idle and since the heating systems from Sapphire & Co are quite good, that is not something where AMD cards are really bad. I do not want to sound too pro-AMD – Nvidia makes great cards and they definitely have their place – but I do not get the negative attitude against AMD.

alkonaut 10y ago

The deciding factor in current gen cards for me isn't cost perf (as it's reasonably close) but perf/watt which is where the 9xx is clearly better than the AMD cards. Is AMD tackling this issue in the next generation or are they continuing to be competitive with cheap but hot chips? Aren't the higher power requirements creating higher costs in datacenters (power, cooling) that make the AMD cards less attractive? The 390 vs 970 is at nearly a 2-to-1 power advantage for nvidia!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

coroutines 10y ago

Hmm, good on the NSA for being cost-effective. :-)