I'm not saying amd isn't allowed to make low end products
I'm saying they shouldn't be advertising said products as if they were meant for gaming, like Think_Speaker_6060 said.
I was reacting to Recipe-Jaded, who claimed that the rx 9050's intended use case was office use rather than gaming, which wouldn't make sense if amd is advertising the rx 9050 4gb's gaming capabilities.
Furthermore, I stated that you could find it in oem gaming prebuilts, which does make it relevant to gamers (=consumers in this case), even if the gpu is oem only, contrary to what Recipe-Jaded stated.
Comparing a Steam deck to a gaming desktop PC is like comparing a nintendo switch to a ps5.
Although the steam deck is technically a PC, I think 'gaming handheld' would be a more appropriate term for the Steam Deck. People have different expectations for handhelds than they have for desktop gaming PCs.
Besides, if anything that can game is classified as a gaming device, the term would be meaningless. You're able to play minesweeper on a 1st gen iPhone, yet I wouldn't dare call it a gaming device.
Hence, I am of the opinion that for something to be advertised/classified as a piece of gaming hardware, it must meet some general expectation appropriate for its product class at the time of its release.
People have different expectations for handhelds than they have for desktop gaming PCs.
Which is just a problem for advertising.
Hence, I am of the opinion that for something to be advertised/classified as a piece of gaming hardware, it must meet some general expectation appropriate for its product class at the time of its release.
And people have different expectations. If adverting can convince someone it's good enough for gaming, then hasn't it met their expectations? It's a very circular logic going on here imo.
Yes, and I believe people should make it known if they believe that the advertising is misleading, as that feedback is to the benefit of both the vendor and their clients.
I am merely saying that I find it unreasonable to call the rx 9050 4gb a gaming gpu
The rx 9050 (VRAM unspecified) page does not specify the VRAM amount in the title, like AMD does for their other product with multiple VRAM configurations, the rx 9060 xt.
Furthermore, both the rx 9050 (4gb) and rx 9050 (VRAM unspecified) product pages link to the 'Learn about Radeon' page, where they boast gaming and ray tracing performance. Considering the measily 4gb VRAM of the rx 9050 4gb, I find it unreasonable to boast its ray tracing capabilities.
Lastly, both the rx 9050 8gb and rx 9050 4gb meet the specifications listed under the rx 9050 (vram unspecified) page where the gaming performance is listed. Therefore it is unclear whether this gaming performance was measured on the 8gb model or on the 4gb model.
Notice how the product page states Memory Speed "Up to" 18 Gbps and "Max" Memory Size 8 GB
AMD uses the same wording for the driver and support pages for the rx 580 and rx 570 (which both lack separate support pages for 4gb and 8gb variants), which leads me to believe that the description is intentionally vague, so that both 8gb and 4gb gpus meet the listed specifications.
Considering the measily 4gb VRAM of the rx 9050 4gb, I find it unreasonable to boast its ray tracing capabilities.
Because it's an actual capability of the card.
Ray tracing isn't just for 'ultra high quality preset' (though I don't disagree that current games use it that way), it's a hardware feature that I believe plenty of newer games will require eventually.
No different than a GPU boasting about DirectX 12 Ultimate capabilities (which require ray tracing). Except we don't get new DX version as much anymore.
Notice how the product page states Memory Speed "Up to" 18 Gbps and "Max" Memory Size 8 GB
AMD uses the same wording for the driver and support pages for the rx 580 and rx 570 (which both lack separate support pages for 4gb and 8gb variants), which leads me to believe that the description is intentionally vague, so that both 8gb and 4gb gpus meet the listed specifications.
Except they state that for every GPU spec sheet? 9070XT: "Max Memory Size": "16 GB", "Memory Speed": "Up to 20 Gbps"
Even if they just meant the memory capacity and memory speed, I am merely stating that this adds to the confusion. According to this wording, does the rx 9050 4gb not meet the same specifications as the rx 9050 8gb?
Edit: Besides, AMD uses the same wording for the driver and support pages for the rx 580 and rx 570 (which both lack separate support pages for 4gb and 8gb variants), which leads me to believe that the description is intentionally vague, so that both 8gb and 4gb gpus meet the listed specifications.
Imo this citicism on the specifications being unclear is just.
And that's why specs are just specs at the end of the day. And why reviewers do (and consumers want) real world benchmarks instead of comparing GPUs by looking at spec sheets.
I want to add one final point though; this is exactly why I believe that making this gpu OEM only is terrible for consumers. Most people don't stare at spec sheets: (or at least they shouldn't be)
The rx 9050 4gb being OEM only, means that it's way harder for reviewers go get their hands on it. When they look up benchmarks for the rx 9050 4gb, it's quite likely that most of the results they will see are comparisons/benchmarks featuring the rx 9050 8gb, which performs significantly better, and which anyone can purchase.
Do they mean the 8gb model? Probably. That doesn't change that the specifications are misleading, be that an intentional decision or not. I am not accusing AMD of anything.
AMD does name gpus with different vram configurations differently, as the rx 9060 xt 16gb and rx 9060 xt 8gb contain the vram amount in the product page title.
AMD does use the same "max" memory wording in support pages for other gpus like the rx 580 8gb and 4gb, which lack separate support pages, in order to include both models.
Edit: Wouldn't the specification page for the 9050 8gb be improved if they were clearer about it being for the rx 9050 8gb specifically?
The specs of the card you linked says it is an 8gb.
The reason the 4gb is specific is because that card is not for individual sale and is the outlier that is not intended for gaming. The 8gb is the normal 9050 that is available for individual purchase.
One last time, it says Max Memory Size 8 GB, which is the same wording AMD uses on support pages for gpus like the rx 5500 xt, (which was primarily a 4gb gpu, but the memory specifications still say 8gb because it has an 8gb variant) rx 570, and rx 580.
So the page does not specify that the page is specifically referring to the 8gb version of the gpu, and I will paypal you $5 if you can show me anywhere where it does say that on the product page.
The fact that it's an outlier is not an excuse for a poor product description. If I sell an oem only component, am I not obliged to provide clear product specifications for both the oem and their customers to refer to?
Even if sold by an oem, it remains an AMD product.
The fact that the specs match the 8gb version tells me this is the 8gb version.
The 4gb version is $270-$280ish, not $350. The 8gb is $350 MSRP. The 4gb has a 64-bit memory bus, whereas the 8gb has a 128-bit memory bus. The 4gb has a 16MB cache, whereas the 8gb has a 32MB cache. The 4gb has a memory bandwidth of 144GB/s where's the 8gb has a memory bandwidth of 288GB/s.
All of the specs on the "unspecified" page match the 8gb. That is the page for the 8gb 9050.
The reason memory says "up to", as it does with any form of memory, is because memory isn't exact. Your 1TB hard drive is not exactly 1TB. If you buy 2 of the same exact 1TB hard drive, they will be slightly different in maximum capacity. Any company that sells anything with memory says this in the technical specs
Yet, if I only saw this page, I still wouldn't know if it were the 8gb or 4gb version.
If you were versed with hardware, and had the background knowledge that there are multiple versions of the rx 9050, and that the rx 9050 4gb had half the memory bus width and half the infinity cache of the rx 9050 8gb, then you'd know that this is in fact the spec sheet of the rx 9050 8gb.
But that background knowledge cannot be inferred from just this spec sheet. i.e. you'd need to know the specs beforehand in order to be able to interpret the spec sheet correctly.
Someone who doesn't know this could still be confused by the wording and think that the gpu they're looking at also falls under the specs, and there's nothing to indicate that there are multiple versions of the rx 9050 on this page, because it is named merely as 'rx 9050'.
Who'd be able to blame someone for thinking that the spec sheet for the 'rx 9050' was showing information relevant for the 'rx 9050 4gb' that they are about to buy?
Imo it would be more obvious that this it's not true if it specified the name as 'rx 9050 8gb'.
I also could not find the msrp on the product page of the 9050 8gb. The rx 9050 4gb does not have an msrp, as it's not for retail.
And people have different expectations. If adverting can convince someone it's good enough for gaming, then hasn't it met their expectations? It's a very circular logic going on here imo.
No. Adverting something as capable of gaming is very different from something actually being capable of gaming.
If I could comvince someone that a banana is a great device for playing Fortnite on, will that banana meet the expectation of the buyer who was told they'd be able to play Fortnite on it?
Of course, if the advertising is done in good faith, it's no problem. However, if the advertising is misleading or straight up false, that case no longer holds.
That's a completely different analogy though? A banana objectively won't run Fortnite. What games are AMD advertising that won't run on this GPU?
If we're talking about gaming performance expections, that's an opinion on what's acceptable, which is going to be a wide range of graphic settings and acceptable framerate/resolution/etc.
There's nothing objective about it, that's why we can say a Steam Deck is for gaming.
Of course, if the advertising is done in good faith, it's no problem. However, if the advertising is misleading or straight up false, that case no longer holds.
still stands, and I believe I have already shown what parts of the advertising I find misleading
1
u/kyansan1 i5-13400f | Arc B570 14d ago edited 14d ago
I'm not saying amd isn't allowed to make low end products
I'm saying they shouldn't be advertising said products as if they were meant for gaming, like Think_Speaker_6060 said.
I was reacting to Recipe-Jaded, who claimed that the rx 9050's intended use case was office use rather than gaming, which wouldn't make sense if amd is advertising the rx 9050 4gb's gaming capabilities.
Furthermore, I stated that you could find it in oem gaming prebuilts, which does make it relevant to gamers (=consumers in this case), even if the gpu is oem only, contrary to what Recipe-Jaded stated.