Monday, July 9th 2018

ASRock Product Roadmap Detailed; No New AMD Cards Until February 2019?

At the XFastest Network event in Japan, ASRock shared some slides detailing its overall graphics card strategy up to February 2019. There are some interesting bits of information that can be gleaned/extrapolated from it. One bit of information that seems to be set in stone is the introduction, come August, of revised versions of some graphics cards (namely, the RX 570 and RX 580 models) under the MK2 marketing - likely revised in their cooling apparatus. That the RX Vega versions of ASRock graphics cards won't be receiving such a revision seems clear as well: there's no reason for the company to withhold information on that. The others, however, are more prone to speculation.

First of, the fact that ASRock still only lists AMD graphics cards likely means the company will remain an exclusively AMD-aligned AIB. Secondly, the absence of any new AMD graphics cards in the ASRock lineup, while noteworthy and prone to speculation, doesn't really say much. AMD certainly wouldn't look lovingly towards ASRock should they out information on a new RX600 series or other AMD products ahead of time. Likewise, ASRock wouldn't want publicity on a new deal with NVIDIA to hit the roads ahead of time. As such, let's just stay with the MK2 graphics cards and ASRock's lineup - and codification for its products, which they kindly shared during the event.
Sources: XFastest, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

26 Comments on ASRock Product Roadmap Detailed; No New AMD Cards Until February 2019?

#1
Jelle Mees
I'm not sure, but I think this is old news. AMD already confirmed in an interview that Vega 2 will not be launched before Q1 2019 and that performance will be around 1080-1080ti performance.
Posted on Reply
#2
Octopuss
Rebranded RX 580, that makes sense... :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#3
TheinsanegamerN
"Jelle Mees said:
I'm not sure, but I think this is old news. AMD already confirmed in an interview that Vega 2 will not be launched before Q1 2019 and that performance will be around 1080-1080ti performance.
So, vega 2 is just vega 64 with a new name?

Talk about dropping the ball. Is AMD really going to let nvidia command the high end uncontested for a third generation in a row? That woudl suck, I dont want to have to pay $1k for a 1180 just to have modern performance.

AMD was the worst thing that ever happened to ATi

"Octopuss said:
Rebranded RX 580, that makes sense... :kookoo:
Hey, they kept pitcarn around for 4 generations, AMD is just trying to break records here.
Posted on Reply
#4
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
"Jelle Mees said:
I'm not sure, but I think this is old news. AMD already confirmed in an interview that Vega 2 will not be launched before Q1 2019 and that performance will be around 1080-1080ti performance.
Navi is 2019.... Vega 20 is workstation so far. no plans for gaming atm.
Posted on Reply
#5
Jelle Mees
"T4C Fantasy said:
Navi is 2019.... Vega 20 is workstation so far. no plans for gaming atm.
Sorry, i ment Navi :)

"TheinsanegamerN said:
So, vega 2 is just vega 64 with a new name?
1080TI is about 25% faster then Vega 64. The 1080 is also about 5% faster.
So if they manage to release a card that is 25% faster then Vega 64 and if it uses about 25% less power then Vega 64, it's a good release.
Keep in mind that AMD will release this card below 1080TI prices.

Keeping up with Nvidia is very hard. Keep in mind that Nvidia has more revenu from GPU's then AMD from GPU's and CPU's combined. The research budget is much much lower. And Nvidia spends a lot of money on partnerships with big developpers.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheGuruStud
"Jelle Mees said:
Sorry, i ment Navi :)



1080TI is about 25% faster then Vega 64. The 1080 is also about 5% faster.
So if they manage to release a card that is 25% faster then Vega 64 and if it uses about 25% less power then Vega 64, it's a good release.
Keep in mind that AMD will release this card below 1080TI prices.

Keeping up with Nvidia is very hard. Keep in mind that Nvidia has more revenu from GPU's then AMD from GPU's and CPU's combined. The research budget is much much lower. And Nvidia spends a lot of money on partnerships with big developpers.
Partnership is an interesting description for that relationship lol. "Here, we're gonna completely hijack your optimization task and tank performance by 30%, but it's ok, it'll kill AMD's by 45."

Nvidia buys them like a hooker.
Posted on Reply
#7
Jelle Mees
"TheGuruStud said:
Partnership is an interesting description for that relationship lol. "Here, we're gonna completely hijack your optimization task and tank performance by 30%, but it's ok, it'll kill AMD's by 45."

Nvidia buys them like a hooker.
Indeed :)
<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="O7fA_JC_R5s"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O7fA_JC_R5s/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7fA_JC_R5s" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#8
Prima.Vera
Looks like AMD completelly dropped the ball on quality GPU development. Let's hope next year Intel is going to do something about it....
Posted on Reply
#9
Fluffmeister
"Prima.Vera said:
Looks like AMD completelly dropped the ball on quality GPU development. Let's hope next year Intel is going to do something about it....
At this stage I'm hoping China can get the job done.

Navi most likely a year a way at least which means the silly hype will begin in...

5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
Posted on Reply
#10
Tsukiyo
XFastest is one of the Tech Meida from Taiwan! Not from Japan, lol.
Posted on Reply
#11
atomicus
It's a sure fire bet that Nvidia knew of this long before us, which in my mind only adds fuel to the rumours that the 1180 is going to just be a Pascal refresh, not full Turing as many enthusiasts are wishing for. Yes it will no doubt be an improved upon GPU, but Nvidia simply have no need to release true next gen cards in a marketplace where they literally have zero competition at the top end.
Posted on Reply
#12
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
"atomicus said:
It's a sure fire bet that Nvidia knew of this long before us, which in my mind only adds fuel to the rumours that the 1180 is going to just be a Pascal refresh, not full Turing as many enthusiasts are wishing for. Yes it will no doubt be an improved upon GPU, but Nvidia simply have no need to release true next gen cards in a marketplace where they literally have zero competition at the top end.
No pascal refresh it will be 100% volta if not turing
Posted on Reply
#13
B-Real
We don't even know any NV card release dates either. Plus if NV releases anything in autumn, who cares if AMD releases cards in spring? The 2 companies rarely released cards synchronously. Maybe the RX 470-480 -GTX 1060 6GB was the only one in some years.
Posted on Reply
#14
cucker tarlson
No cards from Q2 17 to Q1 19. AMD just doesn't give a crap about pc gaming, all they care about is profiting from consoles,mining and HTC, gamers get leftovers.
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
It's well about time for a 3rd player in the Market...
Posted on Reply
#16
Octopuss
"cucker tarlson said:
profiting
What alternative dimension have you fallen here from? This is kind of what a company does. It tries to make as much profit as possible.
Posted on Reply
#17
cucker tarlson
"Octopuss said:
What alternative dimension have you fallen here from? This is kind of what a company does. It tries to make as much profit as possible.
selective reading or comprehension problems ?
Posted on Reply
#18
Jelle Mees
"cucker tarlson said:
No cards from Q2 17 to Q1 19. AMD just doesn't give a crap about pc gaming, all they care about is profiting from consoles,mining and HTC, gamers get leftovers.
If it wasn't for consoles, mining and HTC, AMD would be dead already, and then you would be paying 2000$ for a 1080TI.

Keep in mind that not enough website test GPU's 6-12 months after they get released. Then you see the real performance over time.
Nvidia is very good at providing the best performance when a card gets released, but their drivers can't keep up months or years after the hardware gets released.

One of the most thrustworty websites in the Benelux benchmarked the Vega 64 vs the 1080 and 1080ti back in august 2017.
At that time, the 1080 was about 5% faster on 1080P and about 1% faster on 1440p.
They retested the same hardware with updated drivers in june 2018:
The 1080 was now only 0.3% faster on 1080p and 0.8% faster on 1440p.

The same results are available for hardware from older generations. While the GTX 980 was about 4.7% faster on 1080p compared tot the R9 390x in 2015, the R9 390x is now about 1% faster then the GTX 980 in modern games. The 980ti was 17% faster then the Fury X in 2015 on 1080p, but in modern games, it's only 0.7% anymore.

AMD hardware performs better over time, even with all the shady deals and agreements Nvidia makes with developpers. Not to mention FreeSync vs Gsync.

But do you think most gamers know this? NO. They are still buying the GTX 1080, supporting Nvidia. They still base their opinion on Vega and previous generations, based on the first reviews that came out, and not on recent benchmarks.

AMD does care about gamers, but they simply don't have the research budget and capacity to keep up with Nvidia.

It's something that TPU should do aswell. They should test hardware from 2016, two years later, and show how the performance difference evolved over time.
Posted on Reply
#19
cucker tarlson
They got 1% down to 0.8%. Wow, that's truly amazing. How can people buy 1080s anymore:roll:Vega is 3000PLN here, 1080 is 2200. 1080Ti is 3200.
You're right about AMD needing consoles and miners to live though. As much as I think they've fallen behind in enthusiast pc gaming segment, I can't imagine if they went down. I'm just worried cause they seem to push enthusiast pc gaming down to the absolute bottom of their priorities.
Posted on Reply
#20
Jelle Mees
"cucker tarlson said:
They got 1% down to 0.8%. Wow, that's truly amazing. How can people buy 1080s anymore:roll:Vega is 3000PLN here, 1080 is 2200. 1080Ti is 3200.
You're right about AMD needing consoles and miners to live though. As much as I think they've fallen behind in enthusiast pc gaming segment, I can't imagine if they went down. I'm just worried cause they seem to push enthusiast pc gaming down to the absolute bottom of their priorities.
Of all performance differences I posted, you only saw that one?

The prices are what they are because game cards are being bought for other purposes then gaming. AMD can't do more then provide the cards. They don't decide who buys them and why. Higher demand = higher prices.

You think that Nvidia is making the most money from 1080Ti's? They sell at least 10-20 times more 1060's and 1050 TI's. And with the research budget and shady deals Nvidia has compared to AMD, do you really think they can earn the money back from profits if they ever released a card faster then Nvidia? Only a few days or weeks would pass by and Nvidia will have a counter offer ready.

AMD's Vega 64 is on par with the 1080. There is only one card faster and that's the 1080TI. And they did that with only 25% of the research budget Nvidia has!
Posted on Reply
#21
cucker tarlson
I get that you would like people to buy AMD for whatever reason it is you posted but seriously stop cause it's getting embarrasingly desperate. Seriously, you want me to be shocked about a 5% difference in results between 390 and 980 over the course of three years from a source you can't even link directly ?

btw I'd like to see those results of Fury X now matching 980Ti. You didn't provide the link, you didn't even provide the name of the site.You very vaguely specified the geographical location. Here, this is how you do this

take a few latests games and compare 980ti vs fury x at 1440p, resolution they're mostly used for


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Crew-2-Spiel-60966/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1259989/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wreckfest-Next-Car-Game-Spiel-54915/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1259053/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Jurassic-World-Evolution-Spiel-61244/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-Bewertung-1258464/

Fury X loses in all of them,980Ti is 49% faster on average. How does Fury X compare to 980Ti in 2018 ? Twice as bad than it did in 2015.
Even if that was true that Fury X matches 980Ti and not something you made up or a site cherry picked, no one cares about it three years after the release. 980Ti has been faster all its life.

You're fake news, Sir.
Posted on Reply
#22
techy1
I cant believe that AMD has nothing after 1 full year of mining feast. even the fact how Vega uncompetitive was at lauch should be a wake up call to AMD... instead AMD to them selves was like : "look how good this Vega sells for x2 price, man we really must have made the best product, lets just chill and not worry about GPU stuff, we got dis for long time to come" :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#23
Prima.Vera
"Jelle Mees said:
AMD's Vega 64 is on par with the 1080
No it's not. Not by a long shot. It's only on AMD "optimised games" and those you can count them on one hand. Relax. Read multiple reviews from several sites, not only those from Pro AMD/nVidia ones. TPU it's a good start.
Posted on Reply
#24
cucker tarlson
"techy1 said:
I cant believe that AMD has nothing after 1 full year of mining feast. even the fact how Vega uncompetitive was at lauch should be a wake up call to AMD... instead AMD to them selves was like : "look how good this Vega sells for x2 price, man we really must have made the best product, lets just chill and not worry about GPU stuff, we got dis for long time to come" :shadedshu:
Cause blockchain and compute was the primary target for this card. You think they made it for gamers ? They're fine sitting on Vega,counting profits from mining,blaming nvidia for the slow adpotion of dx12 instead of reworking Vega for better gaming performance. When is our perfomance going to match nvidia ? When those biased developers do the impartial thing and start using tools designed for our cards specifically while dropping support for the other company in the business.
Posted on Reply
#25
Jelle Mees
"cucker tarlson said:
I get that you would like people to buy AMD for whatever reason it is you posted but seriously stop cause it's getting embarrasingly desperate. Seriously, you want me to be shocked about a 5% difference in results between 390 and 980 over the course of three years from a source you can't even link directly ?

btw I'd like to see those results of Fury X now matching 980Ti. You didn't provide the link, you didn't even provide the name of the site.You very vaguely specified the geographical location. Here, this is how you do this

take a few latests games and compare 980ti vs fury x at 1440p, resolution they're mostly used for


http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Crew-2-Spiel-60966/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1259989/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wreckfest-Next-Car-Game-Spiel-54915/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-1259053/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Jurassic-World-Evolution-Spiel-61244/Specials/Benchmark-Test-Review-Bewertung-1258464/

Fury X loses in all of them,980Ti is 49% faster on average. How does Fury X compare to 980Ti in 2018 ? Twice as bad than it did in 2015.
Even if that was true that Fury X matches 980Ti and not something you made up or a site cherry picked, no one cares about it three years after the release. 980Ti has been faster all its life.

You're fake news, Sir.
There ya go:
https://be.hardware.info/reviews/8327/15/gpu-update-30-3d-chips-hertest-hardwareinfo-gpu-prestatiescore

"techy1 said:
I cant believe that AMD has nothing after 1 full year of mining feast. even the fact how Vega uncompetitive was at lauch should be a wake up call to AMD... instead AMD to them selves was like : "look how good this Vega sells for x2 price, man we really must have made the best product, lets just chill and not worry about GPU stuff, we got dis for long time to come" :shadedshu:
Eeuhm, AMD HD 7000 series, 200 series, 300 series, all based on same technology with only minor differences. Take in to account two years of research before the HD 7xxx got released, that's 5 years for just one architecture. If you look at the 400/500 series, it's also just an improved design on 14nm instead of 28nm. That's why the performance difference on each "generation" is that small. The Vega 64 release was the first release in years that actually had 20% performance increase. And if they could do better, they would have done better. But if you look at the power consumption on Vega, they simply couldn't do better at that time.

And if I'm not mistaking, Nvidia hasn't done much either in the last year becides releasing the 1070TI ( because of Vega 56 ) and they have a research budget that is 4 times higher for GPU's. And for some reason you are mad at David but not at Goliath? :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment