CES AMD livestream

bill dennison said:
he is saying Radeon 7 not Radeon sound

and the only thing new is the pre release unboxing soon and leeks will start as soon as reviewers have them in hand
Click to expand...

You are correct.. I went and relistened to it.. for some reason, the first time had CC . I have never turned on CC, thought it was encoded in the feed to be automatic, but I turned it off.. not having it show sound card helps hear it right.
 
AMD InterWave (the chip) was huge **** back in the day for some of us, for instance Gravis Ultrasound PnP geeks like myself. Gotta love AMD :) So absolutely, they have a history of being involved with audio. Which is why TrueAudio was such a nice surprise. Other than the PS4 I have no experience with it, maybe some in here do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rms
kboye said:
AMD InterWave (the chip) was huge **** back in the day for some of us, for instance Gravis Ultrasound PnP geeks like myself. Gotta love AMD :) So absolutely, they have a history of being involved with audio. Which is why TrueAudio was such a nice surprise. Other than the PS4 I have no experience with it, maybe some in here do?
Click to expand...

Other than the horrific audio engine in Thief 4 where TrueAudio just applied massive amounts of reverb, no.
 
Yep, hardware assisted processed/positional audio. Wish there was more focus on audio these days, it used to be huuuuuge. Maybe it'll become more common in VR. At least something is happening.
 
Reading up a little... appears that SteamAudio has support for it. I just can't find a list of game's making use of SteamAudio.
 
To be honest, I'd rather Nvidia was also pushing audio processing rather than ray tracing. We've seen a lot of headway on the graphics front over the last two decades. Audio has practically been stagnant. In some respects it's not clear we're even beyond where we were with A3D before Creative killed Aureal. We need improvements in audio much more than we need improvements in graphics, in my opinion.
 
Treeckcold57 said:
lol why are they compared to 2080 Ti? Wtf? I'd thought it'd compared to 1080 Ti/2080. WCCFtech...pfffft.
Click to expand...

Yeah, AMD claims parity with the 2080 (which we all know will be limited to the same handful of cherry-picked titles). Which means we are looking at 2070 class performance in most games.

Supposedly Vega VII costs ~$650 to build so I doubt we'll see many in the wild.
 
GTwannabe said:
Yeah, AMD claims parity with the 2080 (which we all know will be limited to the same handful of cherry-picked titles). Which means we are looking at 2070 class performance in most games.

Supposedly Vega VII costs ~$650 to build so I doubt we'll see many in the wild.
Click to expand...



Sarcastic but most likely true. AMD are still quoting "softness in the graphics channel" for next quarter which translates into lower GPU sales and lower income. Now also quoting just February launch date for VII no specific date given which means they won't be selling many of these cards in Q1 2019.

They also state that in 2019 "growth will be driven by Ryzen, EPYC and Radeon datacenter GPU product sales". Does this mean they are not really counting on VII and Navi sales to add a boost to the bottom line? :sherlock:
 
why would VII drive sales lets be real here your >$300 cards are not where you get volume shipments to drive sales. See nVidia q4 results as an example. So yeah until they get a mid to low stack of navi parts in the market they are going to be relying on desktop cpu and datacenter parts to be the sales drivers. We can expect a slow Q1 with a pick up towards the end of Q2 leading into what should be a strong Q3 and hopefully Q4.
 
LordHawkwind said:
[/B]

Sarcastic but most likely true. AMD are still quoting "softness in the graphics channel" for next quarter which translates into lower GPU sales and lower income. Now also quoting just February launch date for VII no specific date given which means they won't be selling many of these cards in Q1 2019.

They also state that in 2019 "growth will be driven by Ryzen, EPYC and Radeon datacenter GPU product sales". Does this mean they are not really counting on VII and Navi sales to add a boost to the bottom line? :sherlock:
Click to expand...

Considering Vega II will be very small percentage of their GPU sales, even if they had a top end GPU that beat all Nvidia offerings, it would still be a very small percentage of their GPU sales as it is in the enthusiasts category and not the main stream category. In other words, it means nothing. Also, you are not looking at it in an investors point of view. Softness in the graphics channel is due to the crypto dying off, and their financial forecast is based off last year financial figures from the same quarter, which the 1st quarter of last year was boosted substantially from the crypto market. As well as what is going on in the market today. Due to this, she is spot on about "softness in the graphics channel" because there is not going to be any crypto boosting GPU sale like there was last year, which has a direct impact on the ability to increase revenue compared to last years revenue. It has nothing to do with how well the Vega II will do, or won't do, as it would be nearly impossible to make up what they won't make this year off the crypto market, even if the Vega II ended up being the GPU of all GPUs.

As for your "February launch date" on Vega II release. They already announced a launch/release date of February 7th, 2019 at CES. It has nothing to do with not selling many of them in Q1, because there is no need to say the exact date in a financial report statement to investors, hence why she just said "February release date".
 
Last edited:
if they fixed the power draw problems of vega 1 and it beats my 1080 ti I may buy one or two

buy I really want to know if there will be a strix version or a watercooled version

oh well one week to go
 
We can always hope for the best! :)

EDIT: I suppose Vega VII may at least indicate how much better TSMC's production is, and help answer the question about how much of Vega and Polaris's problems were due to fab limitations rather than design limitations.
 
Last edited:
GTwannabe said:
Vega VII draws 300w, so... not really, no.
Click to expand...

we don't know that yet

it may but all the info I have seen is somewhere less than 300 w

i'll wait for reviews before I kill the idea of buying


but if it is only 30% max faster than Vega 64 (that was 300w) and on 7nm tsmc instead of gofo what the hell is using 300 watts ?
smaller chip on 7nm and tsmc should have better power or be faster than just 30%

but just because it has 2 8 pin plugs doesn't mean it will draw the full 300
 
bill dennison said:
we don't know that yet

it may but all the info I have seen is somewhere less than 300 w

i'll wait for reviews before I kill the idea of buying


but if it is only 30% max faster than Vega 64 (that was 300w) and on 7nm tsmc instead of gofo what the hell is using 300 watts ?
smaller chip on 7nm and tsmc should have better power or be faster than just 30%

but just because it has 2 8 pin plugs doesn't mean it will draw the full 300
Click to expand...


it's possible they have 2 - 8 pin connectors for overclocking head room. We will know in 1 week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top