AMD Vega

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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

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.

K.O.Kiki

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

**** 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.

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.

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

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

K.O.Kiki

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3020-amd-rx-vega-56-review-undervoltage-hbm-vs-core

Undervolting + 50% power target helps the Vega 56, but it's running into a BIOS hard limit for overclocking.

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.

Xenoronin

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Vega 56 looking pretty decent, although still generally a little slower than a GTX1070 it's a viable alternative especially with freesync in mind, and hopefully a decent price as well. Does show though that those leaked benchmarks from awhile back were a load of crap.

Looking through the Anand benchmarks, the Vega 56 looks like it beats the 1070 the majority of the time. Especially at 1440p and above where the memory bandwidth gets to flex its muscle.

Probably the funniest scores i've seen are for GTA5 where Nvidia seems to have a huge win, until you look at the 99th Percentile score and shenanigans seem to be afoot.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/14

So, Vega reviews are in.

Vega 64 not looking great - sub GTX1080 performance while consuming more power than an overclocked GTX1080Ti!

Vega 56 looking pretty decent, although still generally a little slower than a GTX1070 it's a viable alternative especially with freesync in mind, and hopefully a decent price as well. Does show though that those leaked benchmarks from awhile back were a load of crap.

Be interesting to see prices now. Vega 64 pre-orders were on OCUK for £450 which seems a bit ridiculous as the cheapest GTX1080's are that price and are still much better than the reference Vega 64 in performance and cooler quality. Few reviewers saying that the Vega reference cooler is really loud.

Inviere

Reference cards are great for sff cases too, as they exhaust heat outta the rear. I've a 1070 reference in my Core V1 & its running sweetly, never really hear it at all

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I had a reference R9 290 never again. Don't get me wrong it was an excellent performing card but it sounded like a jet engine.

Worst reference card ever, no idea what AMD were thinking, it killed interest in their cards stone dead for many people.

Nvidia generally do a decent job with ref coolers - great style, decent performance. AMD = Argos hairdryers and visual panache only a blind person could produce.

Pac1Man wrote: »

Generally are you better off waiting for the custom cards to be released? What is the general consensus on reference cards?

Skerries wrote: »

I think reference cards are mainly used for water cooling

I had a reference R9 290 never again. Don't get me wrong it was an excellent performing card but it sounded like a jet engine.

Skerries

I think reference cards are mainly used for water cooling

Pac1Man

Generally are you better off waiting for the custom cards to be released? What is the general consensus on reference cards?