The question now is timing: is it too late?
Imo, unless it's priced at $999, it is too late:
1) 980Ti SLI/Fury X CF have been available for sale for 6-7 months now. Most gamers who wanted top-of-the-line 28nm GPUs already purchased them by now. The remaining few who are looking to drop $1-1.5K on 28nm GPUs is going to be a lot less than 6 months ago.
2) We are almost in December so AMD missed the strategic holiday run-up as many gamers who were holding off finally upgraded due to AC Syndicate, SW:BF, Fallout 4, MGS V, etc. AMD missed the biggest wave of upgraders because they simply didn't get he product out during the 1st half of 2015 when we had Dying Light, GTA V and the Witcher 3 and they missed the holiday run-up -- missing September, October and November is a huge deal. They will probably miss the release date of Just Cause 3 and Rainbow 6 Siege too.
Generally speaking, dual-chip cards from both NV and AMD don't sell well. Even when $600-650 R9 295X2 was wiping the floor with the $550 980 for barely more $, it still didn't sell. Ask yourself this, would a dual Fiji X2 with 4GB HBM stand a chance now when many gamers are already
getting hyped up for 16nm FF?
When AMD gets beaten by nVidia, just go for a dual GPU card that only guys with the right mainboard can go along with. OH and don't forget to buy a 1200 W PSU too!
This post is highly misleading.
- You do not need 1200W PSU to run HD6990, HD7990, R9 295X2 or any NV equivalents.
This is total system power with a highly overclocked 6-core i7:
- What are the chances that a high-end user who is paying $1K+ on 980Ti SLI, Fury X CF, Fury CF, Fiji X2 cannot afford a $90-120 850-1000W Platinum PSU?
Power supply prices and quality of PSUs have never been better.
EVGA 850W Platinum =
$90 (enough to run any dual chip GPU setup out today)
EVGA 1000W Platinum =
$110 (enough to run any dual chip GPU setup today
with max overclocked CPU + GPUs)
Your point about PSU requirements is basically irrelevant in the real world for this type of a consumer.
AMD is pathetic at this point.
Are you suggesting that because a graphics manufacturer releases a dual-chip card, they are pathetic? This is the strategy both ATI/AMD and NV have used for generations. Did you suddenly forget about GTX295, GTX590, GTX690, Titan Z? They are simply catering to a niche market segment that requires as much GPU raw horsepower per a single PCIe slot as possible. Both companies even had/have dual-chip Quadro/FirePro series.
No wonder the GTX 680 GTX to 980 TI went from 500€ to 700€.
There are many reasons for this but the most important one has nothing to do with AMD. If tomorrow the price of milk, bread, eggs, coffee, tea, gasoline, increases by 50%, are consumers still going purchase those products? If consumers are willing to pay higher prices, companies will raise prices to maximize profits. Also, your statement is ironic at best because AMD already tried the price/performance strategy with HD4000-7000 series and how did that work out? The market has spoken as a whole and both AMD and NV raised prices as a result. If you want to point the blame towards someone, the consumers are largely responsible: fewer GPU buyers are willing to pay higher prices, while because there are fewer dGPU sales compared to the historical periods, AMD/NV are raising prices to compensate for declining dGPU volume unit sales (including sub-$100 dGPU market collapse).
The last good AMD was the 7970 GHZ edition.
This is false. R9 290 was better than 780 and now that the dust has settled, R9 290X is better than the 780Ti. Not only were the R9 290/290X cards cheaper overall throughout their life, they have better driver support, more VRAM and perform better in modern titles and many legacy titles.
Fury/Fury X is where AMD dropped the ball in terms of competitiveness. R9 290/290X were solid cards.
The Fury X gets completely destroyed by the 980 TI.
Yes, once 980Ti is overclocked. At stock speeds, they are basically identical. 980Ti wins at 1080P, they are tied at 1440P and Fury X wins at 4K.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Ti_Lightning/23.html
Also, 980Ti SLI loses to Fury X CF on average, unless 980Ti is overclocked.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1033-gtx-980-ti-sli-r9-fury-x-crossfire/
AMD's problem is marketing. The 290X was competitive.
I agree but I'd add engineering blunder too with the reference blower. 780Ti is looking like one of the worst $700 purchases in recent years. Thankfully with the excellent 970 and 980Ti cards, most NV users have moved one and they don't care about how poorly 780Ti performs now in many games,
new and
old.
--------------
Sticking to the topic, if AMD wants to make a big splash with the Fury X2, they could target $999-1099. A single Fury X is now about
$570. Still too expensive against GTX980Ti though.
AMD Cuts All GPU Prices Including R9 Fury X, Fury And Nano – Down To As Low As $569, $499 And $549 Respectively
I am surprised neither AMD nor NV are offering the option of a bare PCB dual-chip flagship card. With expandable
AIOs becoming much more affordable, many gamers would probably rather save $80-100 on the cooling solution and buy their own water blocks instead.
Fury X2 looks significantly smaller than the R9 295X2. They could have fit 3 Fiji chips on there
vs.