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

Skerries

looks like they are not great for mining

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-16.html

well that's something I suppose

Icyseanfitz

tbf their really not all that fantastic for gpus that have come out more than a year after the pascal cards. Sort of competing i suppose, but the price difference needs to be more imo

wotzgoingon

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

tbf their really not all that fantastic for gpus that have come out more than a year after the pascal cards. Sort of competing i suppose, but the price difference needs to be more imo

Their market share is for someone like me who has a 1440P 144Hz Freesync monitor or someone coming from a R9 200 series or even a Rx400 series and similar. I may get one of these but I am not gaming that much lately and I am happy with my Fury X so I may get one or may not it all depends.

TerrorFirmer

**** sake, prices have already gone ridiculous. £549 for a reference Vega 64 on OCUK. £100 more than a faster, cooler, and quieter GTX1080, freesync or not you would have to be pretty mad.

farna_boy

If I can get a Vega 56 close to the RRP I will probably get one. I had been thinking of getting a GTX1070 but the 56 seems to beat it consistently for what should be a lower price.

I will probably wait to see some reviews of the non-reference cards to see what extra they can squeeze out but given that over time drivers should give an extra 10%, I think it could be a solid buy.

The biggest problem though is that I don't think any are going to be available any time soon.

Am I correct in thinking the 56 doesn't get released til the end of the month?

TerrorFirmer

Yeah, I think it's being released in 2 weeks. RRP is the big problem right now. On paper it's a solid buy but real world circumstances could mess that up big time.

Redfox25

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

**** sake, prices have already gone ridiculous. £549 for a reference Vega 64 on OCUK. £100 more than a faster, cooler, and quieter GTX1080, freesync or not you would have to be pretty mad.

It does come with two games worth 60stg but its still overpriced for a reference card for what it does.

Cuddlesworth

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Actually, I stand totally corrected, just the review I read had it the other way around bizarrely enough - maybe just by remarkable coincidence they were using games that favor Nvidia!

Also saw some issues with Fallout 4 in another review, but I think problems like that will be ironed out quickly enough.

The only problem I see with Vega 56 is that the GTX1070 is now dropping to £340-350 on some sites (like OCUK), but the RRP is $399 for Vega 56.....which could easily end up as €450. Still great though to now have a GPU in that price/performance range compatiable with freesync, the lack of a card like this was really a killer for the tech and for AMD.

Redfox25 wrote: »

It does come with two games worth 60stg but its still overpriced for a reference card for what it does.

If 250 quid cards are selling for 450 to 500(and are sold out), why would the Vega cards sell for MSRP. Market is nuts right now, doesn't matter if they mine well or not.

K.O.Kiki

It wouldn't even be so bad if you could SLI the GTX 1050 Ti

Praetorian

It was always disappointing to me that they stuck with the same 4096 stream processors. Even higher clocked with HBM2, they surely should have known it was never going to be that much faster. They've really had to rag the mhz / power usage to get the performance.

Vega performs well enough to offer competition, but it's 7 months late at least uses too much power, runs too hot and doesn't dethrone the 1080ti unfortunately.

Apparently they dedicated if my memory is right, 3 billion transistors to get the mhz up. I'm sure they could have built a 14nm 8192 stream processor gpu running at lower more sensible and cooler clocks that wouldn't have been too large a chip to be profitable. I think if they had they would be destroying the TI. Even a 5120 or a 6144 stream processor gpu with medium / high clocks to my mind would have been a better balance.

Clearly Amd knows more than I know about GPU design, they obviously had their reasons. I just would have loved to see them put Nvidia into the number 2 position this time around.

THe last two generations from Nvidia, maxwell and pascal were just so damned impressive. I have the feeling Volta is going to be an even larger jump.

[Deleted User]

Praetorian wrote: »

It was always disappointing to me that they stuck with the same 4096 stream processors. Even higher clocked with HBM2, they surely should have known it was never going to be that much faster. They've really had to rag the mhz / power usage to get the performance.

Vega performs well enough to offer competition, but it's 7 months late at least uses too much power, runs too hot and doesn't dethrone the 1080ti unfortunately.

Apparently they dedicated if my memory is right, 3 billion transistors to get the mhz up. I'm sure they could have built a 14nm 8192 stream processor gpu running at lower more sensible and cooler clocks that wouldn't have been too large a chip to be profitable. I think if they had they would be destroying the TI. Even a 5120 or a 6144 stream processor gpu with medium / high clocks to my mind would have been a better balance.

Clearly Amd knows more than I know about GPU design, they obviously had their reasons. I just would have loved to see them put Nvidia into the number 2 position this time around.

THe last two generations from Nvidia, maxwell and pascal were just so damned impressive. I have the feeling Volta is going to be an even larger jump.

They've, probably correctly, put their money into researching the CPU division. They've done very well with the resource they had to be honest

Redfox25

ITs not a bad card overall, its just late to the party but at least its at the party. Not like the last year and a bit where the highest AMD card was the 480/580 (which are good cards for what they do).

The power hungry bit is a bit overblown, the Fury cards were power hungry and warm too apart from the Nano. The GTX 1080 is a more energy efficient card and is as good or better than the Vega 64 atm. Drivers might (big might) change that but the two cards will still be apart on a power usage pov.
The main selling point for the Vega is that it will probably get better and its Freesync, offering Freesync monitor owners an upgrade at last.

Give them a few years of Ryzen income and they will get alot better. If your buying a brand new system and dont mind the price of the G-sync monitors then go Nvidea, the Freesync + gpu will be a bit cheaper and not too far behind for less cash.

I think anyone thinking it would beat up the 1080 Ti was being overly hopeful. Nvidea have a ton more money to win this war with.

justsomebloke

Deleted User wrote: »

They've, probably correctly, put their money into researching the CPU division. They've done very well with the resource they had to be honest

or making sure they have a decent mining card. It doesn't matter how good a gaming card it is if they are selling everyone they can produce while forcing people to pay for extras on top of the card.

Redfox25

Came across this a few mins ago, http://wccftech.com/amds-rx-vega-64s-499-price-tag-was-a-launch-only-introductory-offer/

If its true its another nail in the Vega coffin.

wotzgoingon

Redfox25 wrote: »

Came across this a few mins ago, http://wccftech.com/amds-rx-vega-64s-499-price-tag-was-a-launch-only-introductory-offer/

If its true its another nail in the Vega coffin.

I don't think AMD are that stupid more likely OCUK are putting the price up themselves. I wouldn't buy anything off them. They were never cheap for any item.

Redfox25

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I don't think AMD are that stupid more likely OCUK are putting the price up themselves. I wouldn't buy anything off them. They were never cheap for any item.

It probably is something like that alright.

Some folks find them grand, have only used them a bit myself and recently RMA'd a card for "in house testing that takes a few days" that turned into a RMA to the manufacturer that will take up to 28 days. 14 days later no update and the DT's are here!

Pac1Man

Redfox25 wrote: »

Came across this a few mins ago, http://wccftech.com/amds-rx-vega-64s-499-price-tag-was-a-launch-only-introductory-offer/

If its true its another nail in the Vega coffin.

I would wait until it all pans out in terms of stock and pricing before jumping to conclusions. I'm eagerly anticipating AIB 56 variants.

Also, from the author:

"incredibly upsetting news"

Relax!

TerrorFirmer

Redfox25 wrote: »

Came across this a few mins ago, http://wccftech.com/amds-rx-vega-64s-499-price-tag-was-a-launch-only-introductory-offer/

If its true its another nail in the Vega coffin.

Comical. Why in the name of god would anyone pay €599-699 for a card that trades blows with the GTX1080 at best while consuming far more power.

[Deleted User]

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Actually, I stand totally corrected, just the review I read had it the other way around bizarrely enough - maybe just by remarkable coincidence they were using games that favor Nvidia!

Also saw some issues with Fallout 4 in another review, but I think problems like that will be ironed out quickly enough.

The only problem I see with Vega 56 is that the GTX1070 is now dropping to £340-350 on some sites (like OCUK), but the RRP is $399 for Vega 56.....which could easily end up as €450. Still great though to now have a GPU in that price/performance range compatiable with freesync, the lack of a card like this was really a killer for the tech and for AMD.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Zotac-NVIDIA-GeForce-1070-Graphics/dp/B01LLAJ8PU/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Even Amazon has 1070 at 350 now

Redfox25

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Comical. Why in the name of god would anyone pay €599-699 for a card that trades blows with the GTX1080 at best while consuming far more power.

Think Pac1Man summed it up with his wait and see and it's likely OCUK gouging for the sake of it.

I would be amazed if this was an AMD ploy as it's not like the cards were super cheap at launch and going back to market value afterwards.

Redfox25

This trades blows with Vega atm at this price and blows it out of the water if the increases are true. Amazon GTX 1080 for 489stg. (540 euro give or take)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/GIGABYTE-NVIDIA-GeForce-1080-GAMING/dp/B01GCAW1IA/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1502811490&sr=1-1&keywords=gtx+1080

Cuddlesworth

Praetorian wrote: »

Clearly Amd knows more than I know about GPU design, they obviously had their reasons. I just would have loved to see them put Nvidia into the number 2 position this time around.

GCN is a really good design and it always has been. Its the reason why any older "head to head" in the past, has the equivalent AMD card pounding the Nvidia card into the ground right now.

And Vega is by all accounts a monster card. Its just not a monster gaming card. Those instinct cards are going to take a fair portion of the silicon.

Pac1Man

Redfox25 wrote: »

This trades blows with Vega atm at this price and blows it out of the water if the increases are true. Amazon GTX 1080 for 489stg. (540 euro give or take)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/GIGABYTE-NVIDIA-GeForce-1080-GAMING/dp/B01GCAW1IA/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1502811490&sr=1-1&keywords=gtx+1080

That's tempting. Must resist. Amazon Prime only at the moment though. I've been keeping an eye on 1080 prices and they seem to fluctuate daily.

Remember the scene in Braveheart where Gibbo and the lads are lying flat in the grass with spears while a horde of horsemen approach? He waited and waited until the very last moment before raising the spears which helped lead them to victory.

I feel like Gibbo at the moment, with slightly less face paint.

Redfox25

Pac1Man wrote: »

That's tempting. Must resist. Amazon Prime only at the moment though. I've been keeping an eye on 1080 prices and they seem to fluctuate daily.

Remember the scene in Braveheart where Gibbo and the lads are lying flat in the grass with spears while a horde of horsemen approach? He waited and waited until the very last moment before raising the spears which helped lead them to victory.

I feel like Gibbo at the moment, with slightly less face paint.

Sign up for free trial, order card. Wait for card to be delivered, cancel Prime before you hit the 1 month must pay window.

I too need/want/need a new card. Must resist till payday at the end of the month.

Serephucus

Adored's video. Rock solid, covers all the bases I'd expect (given time), and very fair.

It's looking like Vega 64 is pretty much a no-go, though an argument could be made for 56, depending on the situation.

Redfox25

Looking forward to watching that later.

If we assume that 64 isnt optimal, is it worth loosing Freesync for a GTX 1070/1080 card is the question going to be facing most Freesync monitor owners.

wotzgoingon

No it is not worth losing Freesync as I found it to be a far bigger jump than going from 60Hz to 144Hz I just do not see the difference but I do notice the difference with Freesync.

Pac1Man

wotzgoingon wrote: »

No it is not worth losing Freesync as I found it to be a far bigger jump than going from 60Hz to 144Hz I just do not see the difference but I do notice the difference with Freesync.

Really? Never experienced it myself but most people swear by a 144Hz monitor.

wotzgoingon

Pac1Man wrote: »

Really? Never experienced it myself but most people swear by a 144Hz monitor.

I honestly cannot see the difference but it is suppose to help if you are into twitch shooters.(faced pace)

K.O.Kiki

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I honestly cannot see the difference but it is suppose to help if you are into twitch shooters.(faced pace)

My friend tells me he can tell the difference every time he switches over from his PS4 to my PC (120Hz).