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

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

1070 not that they even have to.

The 480/580 is a better card than the 1060 and the 1060 outsold it 5-1.

Some competition is better than none at least. I still think these could sell in decent numbers.

That was the same as the GTX 970 vs the R9 290. The 970 outsold it but the 290 beat it handily.

BloodBath

What I don't understand is if these benchmarks are correct that would put Vega at only around 50% faster than an RX 580.

Going by the specs of the cards the Vega should be closer to twice as fast. WTF went wrong? Are AMD sandbagging?

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

Are AMD sandbagging?

I'm not sure but we will just have to wait and see the released product with hopefully better drivers.

K.O.Kiki

BloodBath wrote: »

The 480/580 is a better card than the 1060 and the 1060 outsold it 5-1.

This is going to be very hard to verify, since I doubt crypto-miners log into Steam.

Cuddlesworth

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

This is going to be very hard to verify, since I doubt crypto-miners log into Steam.

True, AMD haven't been able to keep cards in stock for nearly a year now.

BloodBath

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

This is going to be very hard to verify, since I doubt crypto-miners log into Steam.

That's true, I meant for gaming going by the steam survey. I have no doubt the 480/580 has outsold them overall because of miners.

wotzgoingon

True colours of Intel. I never realized it was so bad. Well that another company I will no longer support.

I will never buy another GPU off Nvidia and now I'm thinking I may do the same with Intel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

Redfox25

Seems that there is a reddit post from Nordichardware who claim the retail price for Vega will be 850 USD.

Seems a bit steep considering it potentially won't beat the 1080ti and yet cost the same?
Even assuming thats the top end card there would need to be some more tweaks to performance unless the benchmarks so far have been held back a bit.

BloodBath

There's no way it will cost that much unless it soundly beats the 1080ti. AMD have made multiple statements on how Vega will have much better price/performance than Nvidias offerings like Ryzen vs Intel. They are taking into account G-sync vs Free-Sync costs there as well though but they are using the €300 less number a lot.

There have been multiple blind tests now with the majority of people saying they don't see a difference or that the Nvidia system performs noticeably worse. Seems like weird or bs marketing. If Vega performs better just come out and say it and show us the benchmarks. They were using cherry picked games like Doom and BF1 as well. At least these are modern engines using modern API's though.

I'm guessing the 3 Vega cards will be priced around $100 less than their Nvidia counterparts unless they are noticeably faster. The rumoured prices that a lot of sites were using were $399, $499 and $599. If the top end Vega comes in at $850 it's DOA. Less performance and memory than a 1080ti while costing more? AMD aren't that stupid.

wotzgoingon

Isn't there a AMD event on today for Vega, not being live streamed unfortunately.

Liquid cooled suppose to be $599, air $499 and cheapest(gimped one) one $399

Redfox25

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-vega-64-pricing-clocks-leaked-air-cooled-499-liquid-599/

Skerries

prices confirmed
Vega 64 going after 1080 market
Vega 56 aimed at 1070 market

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/75782-amd-reveals-rx-vega-price-performance-specs.html

Samuel T. Cogley

€600 + VAT for a Vega 64 liquid cooled then, recokon I'd get that for my 1080 Hybrid? I want a new toy :pac:

Strike that my PSU won't handle 345w just for the GPU! :eek:

wozniattack

Very disappoiting! A 25% performance increase over the Fury X after more than two years. The power requirements are silly as well.

Amazon have an EVGA 1080TI SC Black Edition for £693 at the moment, which considering the price of the liquid cooled Vega 64 looks like a bargain; and I even have freesync.

Redfox25

wozniattack wrote: »

Very disappoiting! A 25% performance increase over the Fury X after more than two years. The power requirements are silly as well.

Amazon have an EVGA 1080TI SC Black Edition for £693 at the moment, which considering the price of the liquid cooled Vega 64 looks like a bargain; and I even have freesync.

Check out the evga eu site directly, alot cheaper considering its in euro.

I would give the prices a few weeks for the AIB partners to get in on the act and for a price drop to start from Nvidea and a counter drop from AMD.

Good to see they have some sort of competition going at last, even if it is too late and probably too power hungry for many.

wozniattack

Redfox25 wrote: »

Check out the evga eu site directly, alot cheaper considering its in euro.

I would give the prices a few weeks for the AIB partners to get in on the act and for a price drop to start from Nvidea and a counter drop from AMD.

Good to see they have some sort of competition going at last, even if it is too late and probably too power hungry for many.

Thanks, I had a look there.

Ordered myself a new monitor and GPU. G-Sync Ultrawide should be fun.

Hopefully AMD's Navi is able to compete on the very high end again. As flawed as the Fury X was, it managed to at least get close to the 980Ti. Same can't be said for Vega sadly.

Redfox25

wozniattack wrote: »

Thanks, I had a look there.

Ordered myself a new monitor and GPU. G-Sync Ultrawide should be fun.

Hopefully, AMD's Navi is able to compete on the very high end again. As flawed as the Fury X was, it managed to at least get close to the 980Ti. Same can't be said for Vega sadly.

The AIB partners might be able to tweak the cards to get another 5-10% out of them with better coolers and reference boards so dont rule Vega out fully just yet.

(10% might be overly optimistic ofc)

wozniattack

Redfox25 wrote: »

The AIB partners might be able to tweak the cards to get another 5-10% out of them with better coolers and reference boards so dont rule Vega out fully just yet.

(10% might be overly optimistic ofc)

For me that's just not enough.

Vega 64 is 12% faster than Frontier Edition based on AMD's own slides; that's just down to it having higher base and boost clocks.

The best Gamer Nexus managed to overclock the Frontier Edition on water was 1700Mhz. That gave them performance of around AIB overclocked 1080s.

So I'm sure AIB Vega 64's will be able to get to that performance; but given the price of Vega right now and the power requirements and TDP; it just doesn't hit the Price to Performance point AMD is usually known for.

Add in it'll be another 2-3 months before AIB custom cards arrive, and Volta just seems to close.

NVIDIA has already been fulfilling pre-order for V100 stations, and made a PR splash giving the Volta cards to researchers.

Following their release schedule V104 the replacements for the 1070 and 1080 will be around in Q1 2018.

I hope AMD sells Vega though, but for me it's just not enough and I had a Fury X, and been waiting to replace since the Polaris rumors.

Shame they couldn't enter the market as disruptive as they were with Ryzen; although for people that want a cheaper alternative when factoring in the monitor; Vega + Freesync looks great. Even more so if you add in a new Ryzen R5 base system.

Skerries

it might be worth it when I do a refresh next year with a GPU and CPU if we even get the bundle offer

TerrorFirmer

Well that looks terrible. Sub GTX1080 performance - and that's even going by AMD's own presentation in which they have clearly cherry picked the best possible games - and guzzles power, runs hotter, all for a higher/same price than an actual GTX1080.

All Nvidia have to do is a slight price drop on 1070/1080 cards and they're laughing. Even without a price drop Vega is looking pretty unattractive.

K.O.Kiki

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Well that looks terrible. Sub GTX1080 performance - and that's even going by AMD's own presentation in which they have clearly cherry picked the best possible games - and guzzles power, runs hotter, all for a higher/same price than an actual GTX1080.

All Nvidia have to do is a slight price drop on 1070/1080 cards and they're laughing. Even without a price drop Vega is looking pretty unattractive.

Undervolt.

Also Nvidia can drop the price on 1070/1080 cards all they want, if miners buy them up they'll only win on paper! :pac:

Mr Crispy

Bit of a shambles this, tbh.

Redfox25

Unless the AIB boards are cheaper than the AMD ones, kinda like Nvidea did with the FE and then the AIB boards were a good bit cheaper and better.

Drivers might also make a big enough difference to the performance to put it ahead of the 1080 but probably not up to the 1080 ti level of performance.

Might be a good time for folks thinking of buying either brands high end card to hang on a few days to see if any price cuts follow.

BloodBath

This is looking disappointing alright. I really hope AMD are trolling Nvidia into thinking they don't have to rush forward their next release with these figures and then they hit them on release day but it doesn't seem likely.

Redfox25

BloodBath wrote: »

This is looking disappointing alright. I really hope AMD are trolling Nvidia into thinking they don't have to rush forward their next release with these figures and then they hit them on release day but it doesn't seem likely.

That would be funny alright. Something along the lines of the poor volta advertising they came out with in Jan.

Really hope they fire some of their PR folks for over hyping this card too early in the day.

BloodBath

The whole design is a failure if the numbers are true.

A scaled up Polaris would have performed better with similar power consumption figures and they could have got it out the gates a year ago.

Thank god they got the CPU's right. I'd be worried about AMD's future if not.

wotzgoingon

BloodBath wrote: »

The whole design is a failure if the numbers are true.

A scaled up Polaris would have performed better with similar power consumption figures and they could have got it out the gates a year ago.

Thank god they got the CPU's right. I'd be worried about AMD's future if not.

You are right, if these Vega cards came out a year ago AMD would be in a better position. I have no idea why it took them so long to produce these cards. Even if they came out in January they would be in a better position. We are gone past the 2nd quater or 1st half mark.

I may end up buying one though not fully sure yet as I have a Fury X atm.

BloodBath

I think it was the lack of available HBM2. Polaris should have had high end versions with GDDR5 that definitely would have competed with at least the 1070 and 1080.

The 480/580 has similar DX11 performance to the 6gb 1060 and better DX12 performance.

That was with 2304 stream processors and around 150w power consumption. If they had scaled that design up for 4096 I'd say they had 1070 and 1080 beaters in their hands a year ago but the miners would have snapped those up as well.

Samuel T. Cogley

I think we're looking at this all wrong frankly.

Firstly, these will sell to miners, no problem and I feel AMD have rushed the launch knowing that. Secondly I think the Vega56 could be the killer here competing against the 1070. I'd be very interested to know what the market is >1070 I'd say the 1080 and 1080ti market is pretty small and I'm not convinced Vega64 will sit too much below the 1080 in terms of performance.

Skerries