AMD Vega

Skerries

couldn't find a dedicated thread for this so started one

first initial testing allowed to PCWorld who say it looks like it will be closer to a 1080ti

no proper gaming scores released yet though

RX Vega will be launched on July 30th at SIGGRAPH

https://videocardz.com/70480/amd-radeon-vega-frontier-edition-preview

minitrue

Ouch to 300W on air or 375W liquid cooled, doesn't look favourable in that regard compared to 250W for 1080ti, Titan X and Titan XP. Still early days though.

BloodBath

It has 16GB of HBM2 though. After market 1080ti's with 8gb of memory use over 300W as well.

TerrorFirmer

I'm bursting to buy a 1080Ti for 4K but for the sake of a month I feel I'd be dumb not to wait it out.

Frontier cards are available to buy so it will be interesting to see real world gaming benchmarks shortly enough.

wotzgoingon

I may get one these when they are released. Maybe the watercooled one but it all depends on the price

Cuddlesworth

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I'm bursting to buy a 1080Ti for 4K but for the sake of a month I feel I'd be dumb not to wait it out.

Frontier cards are available to buy so it will be interesting to see real world gaming benchmarks shortly enough.

Plus the fact that the mining craze has started to hit the 1070/1080's.

Gehad_JoyRider

Apparently it's got a gaming mode in the software if that's the case I'm spending my money!

Cuddlesworth

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

Apparently it's got a gaming mode in the software if that's the case I'm spending my money!

I wouldn't waste your money. Estimates have it between the 1080 and the TI. Not bad, but gaming wise its getting crushed by the XP.

ZeroThreat

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I wouldn't waste your money. Estimates have it between the 1080 and the TI. Not bad, but gaming wise its getting crushed by the XP.

well, I'd guess most cards are getting crushed by the Titan.

Something between 1080 and TI is more than adequate for most mainstream gamers however - all depends on the bang for buck though. Any rumours on the expected price?

Icyseanfitz

problem is if its in between 1080 and TI its too little too late imo, back a few months ago i sold my 1080 and was waiting to see how good vega would be, but lack of news, or specs made me just buy a 1080ti, id assume a lot of people have done the same. The 1080 is a year old at this stage, not really a bar to be aiming for for a new performance gpu

K.O.Kiki

If they can launch for €450-500 it'll still be competitive.

Icyseanfitz

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

If they can launch for €450-500 it'll still be competitive.

i suppose but whats stopping nvidia dropping the 1080ti to 500-600 and the 1080 to around 400, or they could fast track the 1180.

Im personally hoping they bring a card a good bit more powerful than the TI to make nvidia cop on a bit with their pricing and make the enthusiast gpu scene competitive again.

Cuddlesworth

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

If they can launch for €450-500 it'll still be competitive.

This the Vega FE that launched(workstation card), selling for 1200 sterling for the air cooled and 1600 Sterling for the water cooled. It pulls a huge amount of energy and seems to be between the 1080 and the TI. Not looking good for the gamin edition tbh.

BloodBath

300w for a top tier card is not a huge amount of energy. I'd expect any top tier card to draw at least 250-300w or else they aren't pushing the architecture at all. That's not even factoring in that it has double the amount of memory of a 1080ti which also uses over 300w. Memory uses a decent amount of power too. It's actually more power efficient that Nvidias cards.

Let's hope AMD offer killer price/performance on these like they did with Ryzen but I somehow doubt it. This architecture is not that cheap to manufacture and it's been delayed far too long to have the impact it would have had if they got it out of the gates 6 months sooner.

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

and it's been delayed far too long to have the impact it would have had if they got it out of the gates 6 months sooner.

I agree these Vega cards are at least 6 months late. Nvidia will just bring out an even better card if Vega proves to be really competitive.

BloodBath

I think there's a bit of an unfair expectation of AMD to bring out a card that's the single best GPU on the market. They haven't really done this in nearly a decade although the 7970 was arguably better in the long run than the 680.

Since the Titan and the xx80ti's came along they haven't really been able to compete.

If they can land somewhere between the 1080 and 1080ti performance for around the price of a 1080 they are on to a winner. There will be the usual flip flop in games that prefer 1 architecture over the other as well.

AMD's real key to success is working with game developers to optimise their games for their architecture. Getting Vega's (And Ryzen) inside developer workstations instead of Nvidia cards is a big step towards that.

Gbear

What proportion of their profits are high-end cards?

There might be some dick-swinging that goes on with the best card and maybe that translates to one brand being seen as having a higher cachet but I'd imagine most people are buying GTX xx60s or R9 x70s at most (and they can run the majority of games on normal HD screens anyway).

It'd be interesting to see the market share broken down by data which indicates who's making decisions about which card to buy and why they made it.
I wonder is the gulf mostly down to partnerships with crowds like PCWorld, Walmart or whoever who sell "gaming PCs" or does high-end self-build actually have much of an impact?

For the enthusiasts, there's always Freesync to consider as well.
That'll feature into performance/$ and unless you have such a monitor, you're probably wasting your money on a $500+ card.

BloodBath

High end stuff is usually the biggest market share in terms of profit these days for GPU's. There's much higher profit margins up there when there's a lot of people who want the best and are willing to pay through the nose for it.

These are the same kinds of people who usually regularly upgrade to the next best thing when it comes along. There's plenty of you on this forum Proper Enthusiasts pump money into this market.

Icyseanfitz

i just dont see many enthusiasts buying vega, its too late we have all bought TI's imo any card that comes out months later than their competition should really push the envelope in terms of raw power, particularly with a gpu aimed at enthusiasts. I personally care about how much faster a card is than my current card and if it has adequate cooling, thats pretty much it.

BloodBath

That's a good point but AMD will do well to just compete in all market segments atm. They have been in the red for a long time with not much revenue.

Ryzen and Vega should be good stepping stones for them to regain decent market share and potentially get back on top at 7nm.

It's not looking like either will knock intel or nvidia off their podium but they should definitely make a good dent. Especially in the workstation and server markets. This mining craze has turned Polaris into gold as well.

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

It's not looking like either will knock intel or nvidia off their podium but they should definitely make a good dent. Especially in the workstation and server markets. This mining craze has turned Polaris into gold as well.

I read an article recently about the last mining craze and how everyone favored AMD cards as well and AMD did not make any money from that it was the venders that made the money Gigabyte etc.... AMD was still selling cards to them at the set price and they highered their prices at retail and made all the profits.

K.O.Kiki

Vega FE results:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6k0h1f/dude_got_vega_fe_stop_removing_this/
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12987144?_ga=2.232791959.883445742.1498655120-1193447733.1498655120

Above 1070/980Ti but way below 1080.

Cuddlesworth

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Vega FE results:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6k0h1f/dude_got_vega_fe_stop_removing_this/
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12987144?_ga=2.232791959.883445742.1498655120-1193447733.1498655120

Above 1070/980Ti but way below 1080.

Graphics Score 22,916

1080 is around 22,000, 1080ti is around 28,000.

TerrorFirmer

Looks like the RX Vega will be around GTX1080 levels which is fine from a performance POV, it all just depends on pricing.

Though with all this mining crap going on depending on how long it lasts the card could be released, snapped up instantly and at over inflated prices.

ED E

Any word as to TSMCs capability to scale up to meet the miners? It could be a huge cash flow for AMD to help bring them further back on track which would be great for the market long term (though may screw us gamers in the short term).

BloodBath

That's the FE edition though. Raja said the gaming version would be faster for gaming. The RX Vega will be clocked higher. After market versions should be clocked way higher.

It still doesn't look like it's going to beat the 1080ti though. It seems between a 1080 and 1080ti is where it will end up. AMD are going to have to price the RX Vega at around €500-600 to compete.

Skerries

Inviere

A 1080 Ti outscored a Titan X?

wotzgoingon

Inviere wrote: »

A 1080 Ti outscored a Titan X?

Yes that sounds about right. I don't think it would beat a Titan Xp though.

Inviere

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Yes that sounds about right. I don't think it would beat a Titan Xp though.

Doh! My bad

Icyseanfitz

titan Xp and titan XP jeeeez know the difference its so obvious

Inviere

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

titan Xp and titan XP jeeeez know the difference its so obvious

Bloody Nvidia Was the old one a Titan X, and the new Pascal one is XP??

wotzgoingon

Inviere wrote: »

Bloody Nvidia Was the old one a Titan X, and the new Pascal one is XP??

Officially they are both Titan X's. When it was first released the public added a P and then to confuse people even further they then released the Titan Xp.

Inviere

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Officially they are both Titan X's. When it was first released the public added a P and then to confuse people even further they then released the Titan Xp.

So there were two Pascal Titan X's - the Titan X & the Titan Xp??

wotzgoingon

Inviere wrote: »

So there were two Pascal Titan X's - the Titan X & the Titan Xp??

No three. Titan X, Titan X(Pascal) and Titan Xp

Inviere

Ok so:

Titan X (2015) - Maxwell based
Titan X (2016) - Pascal based
Titan Xp (2017?) Pascal based

wotzgoingon

Inviere wrote: »

So the original Titan X was Pascal based also? Sorry for the confusion

No the original was not based on Pascal but they released the second Titan X and people just added a P like this: Titan XP to differentiate from the original but it was really Titan X like the first. Peopel added the P as it was based on the Pascal architecture.

Then Nvidia came along and released the Titan Xp to further confuse people.

Skerries

wotzgoingon

I watched that a while ago. Not good at all.

Inviere

Gehad_JoyRider

I think what we have to remember is Radeon/AMD drivers are like fine wines the older they get the better they get. industry knows this we all know this.

Best thing to do is give it about 3 months. And go from there, they still haven't mastered getting drivers up to spec for release. I think that's down to there release to devs?

wotzgoingon

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

I think what we have to remember is Radeon/AMD drivers are like fine wines the older they get the better they get. industry knows this we all know this.

Best thing to do is give it about 3 months. And go from there, they still haven't mastered getting drivers up to spec for release. I think that's down to there release to devs?

More likely they do not have the money to spend on developing drivers like Nvidia do. Nvidia make millions in profits for years while AMD have been over spending millions. I do not know how they have managed to stay competitive in both CPU space and also GPU.

Gehad_JoyRider

wotzgoingon wrote: »

More likely they do not have the money to spend on developing drivers like Nvidia do. Nvidia make millions in profits for years while AMD have been over spending millions. I do not know how they have managed to stay competitive in both CPU space and also GPU.

Yep and I'm about to join that side which I'm not to pleased about. I really don't like the limiting gsync to only certain games

They do a lot of certified chips for heart machines airplanes and stuff like that. But I think there a ryzen power house at the moment. ( :pac: )

I think the PS4 and Xbox one are there saving Grace's to be honest.

Praetorian

It does look like it's going to be a disappointing launch. I hope I'm wrong about that. I've had maybe 8 green cards in a row, and I would like to support AMD somehow, but I could not buy a hot running inferior card.

I can't see them gaining 20% more performance from drivers optimisation at this stage.

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

wotzgoingon

Praetorian wrote: »

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

Afaik next year Intels mainstream i7's will be 6 core 12 threads.

Cuddlesworth

wotzgoingon wrote: »

Afaik next year Intels mainstream i7's will be 6 core 12 threads.

And not a hope in hell of keeping 7700k clockspeeds either, that thing is a heat monster at 4 cores.

One way to look at it is, I need 4 cores now because games run well on only 4 cores with a high single threaded performance.

The counter argument is that games only run on the above because 4 cores has been the norm since the first I series CPU's. If PC's move in general the 6 cores, games and API's will move towards multi-thread to take advantage of it.

K.O.Kiki

https://www.3dcenter.org/news/erste-informationen-zu-den-einzelnen-modellen-von-amds-radeon-rx-vega

Mildly worrying if this is true.

TerrorFirmer

I like the nostalgic naming - been a while since I've seen the XL, XT and XTX suffixes on an AMD card!

Joshua J

If it offers 1080 performance for 1070 money they'll be on to a winner.

Lu Tze

Joshua J wrote: »

If it offers 1080 performance for 1070 money they'll be on to a winner.

Unless your PSU only has one 8 and one 6 pin connectors, in which case the cost of a new PSU will be included on top of it!

BloodBath

Praetorian wrote: »

It does look like it's going to be a disappointing launch. I hope I'm wrong about that. I've had maybe 8 green cards in a row, and I would like to support AMD somehow, but I could not buy a hot running inferior card.

I can't see them gaining 20% more performance from drivers optimisation at this stage.

I'm also disappointed with Zen, truth is I don't need 8 or 12 or 16 cores for multitasking. I need 4 fast cores.

Too early to tell. I think AMD can easily get 20% through drivers. They have done it in the past. It's a new architecture and some or all of the GCN5 features are not enabled yet like the tile based rasterizer which should give a nice performance bump.

Hard to be too disappointed with Zen. Expecting them to trump the IPC and clock speeds of a highly refined intel architecture is a bit much. What they have done is release much better price/performance cpu's which will help 6-8 cores cpu's become mainstream and offer workstation users 16-32's at half the price of intels.

There's also a growing list of games that see better min frame rates on 6-8 core processors. 4 cores are dead. A 5Ghz 7700k is at 100% load with a 1080ti in BF1 multi for example. It has nowhere left to go. Do you want to stream or record with OBS. You are gonna eat into your frame rate if so.

The reality is the 1600, 1700 and 1800 are better cpu's than the 7600k/7700k. Most games are just not optimised for them. You won't see any significant improvements over the 7700k in future. The only way up is more cores.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

https://www.3dcenter.org/news/erste-informationen-zu-den-einzelnen-modellen-von-amds-radeon-rx-vega

Mildly worrying if this is true.

What's the worrying part?