nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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!

Joshua J

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

TerrorFirmer

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Inviere

wotzgoingon

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

Skerries

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.

Inviere

Ok so:

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

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

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: »

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

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??

Icyseanfitz

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

Inviere

wotzgoingon wrote: »

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

Doh! My bad

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

A 1080 Ti outscored a Titan X?

Skerries

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.