AMD plans no new graphics cards in 2013, report

Subject: Graphics Cards | February 8, 2013 - 10:03 PM |
Tagged: amd, radeon

In a report first spotted by Rage3D from source website 4gamer.net, news is filtering out that AMD may in fact have no new discrete graphics card releases for the remainder of 2013!  While talking with the APAC media about the fantastic Never Settle Reloaded game bundle, they showed THIS slide. 

View Full Size

That seems to indicate that at the very least through the 3rd quarter of 2013, AMD has no plans to update or add to its discrete graphics card roadmap.  We had heard whispers of this fact while at CES in January but this pretty much puts a cap on it.  And with the wording of "throughout 2013" it could indicate we won't see new product until 2014.

View Full Size

Also shown, this product comparison between AMD and NVIDIA, put together by AMD, is a bit lopsided and less than 100% accurate in my eyes.  With the release of the new 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark AMD has a distinct advantage and it seems the slide here is based completely on that....blech

Regardless, what does it mean if AMD actually has no new discrete, enthusiast class cards for 2013?  We know the rumors are swirling about the NVIDIA GeForce Titan based on the GK110 and sporting 2688 CUDA cores and it will likely take the place as the fastest single GPU card on the market.  AMD has been depending on its partners to build multi-GPU options based on Southern Islands like the ASUS ARES II and Powercolor Devil 13 but they have been pretty low volume.  Our original review of the HD 7970 launched in December 2011....this could be quite a drought. 

 

Source: 4gamer.net
February 8, 2013 | 11:09 PM - Posted by Patrick (not verified)

Isn't this the first time in a decade or longer they've gone more than a year and a few months for a GPU launch?

February 8, 2013 | 11:19 PM - Posted by icebug

Well I certainly wasn't expecting this news... Did they spend all of their R&D money on the new GPUs for the new consoles?

February 8, 2013 | 11:24 PM - Posted by arbiter

Considering all the games AMD is giving away, do they even have $ for R&D?

February 8, 2013 | 11:23 PM - Posted by arbiter

I agree with that comparison being less then 100% accurate, being a synthetic benchmark it don't prove how good card is overall. Its just a way marketing ploy in the end.

February 9, 2013 | 12:07 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

lol the graph is more shameless on AMD's side than anything. I mean the cards are closer to dead even with maybe a little bit higher here or there in either Nvidia or AMD's favor, but that graphic is intentionally stretching the illusion for the sake of using marketing to try and say something that doesn't exist.

I was wondering if both sides were going to wait tilt he end of the quarter since the new consoles will likely come out around November. Would be a good way to jump on the bandwagon to push out new gaming hardware. These yearly cycles are expensive, one of the reasons even CPU's have scaled back from days of old.

February 9, 2013 | 12:12 AM - Posted by truk007

Shit, I hope this isn't true. I was hoping to see some new cards. It's time to update my current system.

February 9, 2013 | 02:37 AM - Posted by praack

this could also show the amount of bleed ATI has taken in research head count. so with the amount of push in to APU with additional load into the new console arena they don't have the headcount to continue progressing the discrete cards currently.

So I'll bet there is no release of a new discrete desktop chip either in AMD land next year.

no head count to progress the R&D

February 9, 2013 | 02:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Well, this was unexpected...

Looks like I can buy a second 7970 without regret.

February 9, 2013 | 04:43 AM - Posted by mz (not verified)

Guess the Geforce Titan will be the king of 2013.

February 9, 2013 | 05:35 AM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

Ryan, I see once again how biased your actions are. I don't want to say that your remark about Amd using this synthetic benchmark to leverage itself above Nvidia : " With the release of the new 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark AMD has a distinct advantage and it seems the slide here is based completely on that....blech. " is wrong. But how come that when Nvidia used the same tactics you never pointed it out with such a disgust "...blech".

Well, I am wondering how fair/objective would be your future reviews...?

February 9, 2013 | 08:43 AM - Posted by ThorAxe

Are you drunk? Do you even know what this site was called before PC Perspective?

February 9, 2013 | 09:39 AM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

Are you drunk?? I didn't say anything about what this site was called before or what Ryan was doing back then But about what he is doing in the present. Read carefully on what I am basing my affirmation.

What defines someone is what he is doing in the present not what he was doing in the past.

February 9, 2013 | 08:46 AM - Posted by Angry

If you want biased reviews go somewhere else, you wont find them here....

February 9, 2013 | 09:56 AM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

Believe me I want it to be true but such kind of biased remarks expose a different perspective.

Now days people care more about money then the Truth(generally speaking, not particularly for this site)

February 9, 2013 | 12:10 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I've always said if you aren't getting crazy comments like this then you aren't doing a good job reviewing. :)

To be quite blunt, AMD has spent more on this site than just about anyone ... and yet our editorial commentary is biased towards NVIDIA...??

Thanks for stopping by though.

February 9, 2013 | 02:28 PM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

I see that no one understood my point (or avoid it deliberately).

I am checking this site quite a lot and I never saw a remark with such a disgust "AMD has a distinct advantage and it seems the slide here is based completely on that....blech" towards $Nvidia$ when they are using the same tactics.

"To be quite blunt, AMD has spent more on this site than just about anyone " - this doesn't prove anything, your actions and your "subtle remarks" show enough.

As I said in my first comment may be you right that Amd jumped on a bench that advantages them but what about cases when Nvidia does the same - nobody talks about it But when Amd does it then it's ...blech

February 9, 2013 | 03:20 PM - Posted by Tim Verry

Sigh. And where is this article (or articles) where we both point out that NVIDIA is cherry picking benchmarks and condone the action/think it's awesome? Just curious. You are correct that I am still not understanding your statement.

February 10, 2013 | 11:57 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Yes, please show me the place whre NVIDIA is cherry picking a single SYNTHETIC benchmark to state its GPUs performance.  Please.  Please.  PLEASE.

February 10, 2013 | 05:20 PM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

Well guys I didn't want to continue this pointless discussion (I see that you deliberately change the topic), but since you are so insistent I will give another try.

First of all read my first comment more carefully: "...But how come that when Nvidia used the same tactics you never pointed it out with such a disgust...", here I said that Nvidia uses the same "tactics" not necessarily a SYNTHETIC benchmark as you stated in your replay.

To explain you what I meant by "tactics" let me start with your review about gtx 680: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680-2GB-G...

Power consumption of gtx 680 as stated on their website(http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications), is 195 W; also on your review with Tom Petersen (http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/PC-Perspective-Live-Review-Reca...) at 0:01:30 Tom showed the graph about amd 7970 and gtx 680 power consumption and said that 7970 consumes 250 W but 680 only 195 W in games, But on your own review about power consumption the difference is only 29 W and not 55 W as implied by Tom Petersen, so either 680 consumes 224 W or 7970 consumes 221 W in games, either way you didn't correct Tom about his misleading graph (or more properly his lie); But you didn't hesitate to express your "...blech" when Amd showed a graph based only on one benchmark(although it's not a lie).

This is only one example, but there is a lot to talk about temperature (Nvidia claimed 680 it's the coolest card, although your graph showed the opposite); about GPU compute; about gaming selection for testing (at that time there were at least other two games beside Metro 2033, where 680 lost: Crysis Warhead and AvP) but somehow all review sites (including this one) picked only one game.

And of course there are your subtle biased"remarks which tried to expose the positive aspects of 680, and didn't hesitate to expose negative aspects of 7970.

You admitted yourself in one of your comments that Nvidia gives only the Golden Pieces cards to reviewers, but you didn't make any "...blech" about this either.

By the way, I made another comment about biased review on another article of yours, I can't find it but I think you can ( I have the same name and e-mail).

There is more to talk about it but I don't have time to make a "review" about your review. I hope that this time everything is understood. And please think about what I said.

February 11, 2013 | 04:21 AM - Posted by ThorAxe

I have listened to every single PC Perspective Podcast and I have never heard any bias, unless you count Allyn's preference for Nvidia, but he is our storage guy so it hardly matters.

Now if you will excuse me I am off to play 3DMark Fire Strike....Oh snap!

February 11, 2013 | 04:40 AM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

People, do you even read the comment before you make a reply to it?

February 11, 2013 | 02:00 PM - Posted by Nilbog

If you think Pcper is bias you never listened to the podcast.
Josh is quite the AMD enthusiast, and i would say Jeremy is probably the same. Nobody here bashes on AMD, they're just very blunt and honest with the issues they do have. Which i find damn refreshing.

Because you are being an ass, here is Ryan calling out NVIDIA on their shit:
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/GTX-670-and-Case-Missing-and-Re...
OMG SO BIAS
I dont care enough to comment on all of your confusion.

I do want to point out that Crysis and AvP are really piss poor examples of benchmarking games. Therefore nobody gives a rats ass who performs better in them.

February 11, 2013 | 03:10 PM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

"Because you are being an ass..." - Well, another brain(less)iac, I wrote in my first comment : ...But how come that when Nvidia used the same tactics you never pointed it out with such a disgust "...blech.", can you make the difference from this and what Ryan said in that link you pointed out?

You are really impossible, PLEASE read carefully before replaying and don't make a full of yourself.

February 11, 2013 | 09:46 PM - Posted by Nilbog

Ryan said to NVIDIA: "Seems like a cop-out to me man..."

You are bitching about "blech"

I would say that telling engineers that they are half ass-ing something is way worse than "blech"

Nobody is avoiding your question (it actually doesn't have a question mark at the end of the sentence so it looks more like a statement, IMO) Clearly nobody can think of NVIDIA doing that recently, i always see games on their graphs and, have noticed literally ONE synthetic benchmark alongside those games.
Ryan asked you; "Yes, please show me the place where NVIDIA is cherry picking a single SYNTHETIC benchmark to state its GPUs performance. Please. Please. PLEASE."
I would like to see these as well, stop avoiding it.

*Replying (you have made this mistake like 10 times, stop and read what you are typing)
*Fool

February 12, 2013 | 03:16 AM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

You are really impossible, how many times should I ask you to first READ my comment then reply to it?

"Ryan said to NVIDIA: "Seems like a cop-out to me man..."

You are bitching about "blech"- I am talking about making a remark with disgust "...blech" not that this remark wouldn't be true...AGAIN READ Can you show me such a disgust towards Nvidia in Ryan's articles?

"I would say that telling engineers that they are half ass-ing something is way worse than "blech" " - I see you can't distinguish between this two cases. Ryan didn't expressed disgust towards Nvidia, he just pointed out something that was obvious; Why he didn't done the same to Amd but instead expressed his disgust? About this I am talking about in my every comment till now but You seem to avoid it deliberately.

1."*Replying (you have made this mistake like 10 times, stop and read what you are typing)" - count please and then type.
English is not my first language so thank you for pointing out my typing errors.
"*Fool"- actually "full of yourself" goes well with my intention, but if you prefer then let it be "fool".

2."Nobody is avoiding your question"- who said that I asked a question? I made an affirmation based on Ryan's article(s) and You all try to deny it by talking about something I never said(see 3.)
At the end of my first comment I asked a question.

3."..Ryan asked you..."- read my reply to Ryan. See the links?
Look how Ryan swallows Tom Petersen's lies without correcting him, how would you call this?

I am wondering with what you will come up next time?

February 11, 2013 | 02:52 PM - Posted by TC (not verified)

Actually Nvidia does it ALL the time. Always distorting the truth. Your ignorance of this fact does seem to prove a bias towards Nvidia.

AMD cards have become faster than the Nvidia cards in most games with their latest drivers. That is fact, especially at higher resolutions.

February 9, 2013 | 12:55 PM - Posted by arbiter

Maybe you should actually look at Real benchmarks of these cards in real world games. They they are pretty much head to head. One winning in 1 game other winning in another. AMD sponsored PC per CES coverage. Graph makes claim the non-ghz card was 10% better which is false. 680 was beating 7970 hence why AMD released the ghz edition card.

February 9, 2013 | 01:50 PM - Posted by andrei (not verified)

1.If you will look carefully in this article's graph Amd claims this performance in new 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark not in a game... so what you say is not related in any case to what Amd is saying in this graph
2.Look at my first comment to see what I am talking about and don't make replays with other topics...

February 9, 2013 | 07:12 AM - Posted by anon (not verified)

The slides are for fiscal year. At the earliest expect an update in August of 2013 or possible 1st quarter 2014 - which is November 1st 2013. Don't get your panties in a bunch yet!

February 9, 2013 | 11:25 AM - Posted by mAxius

tsmc strikes again if this is true

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.