What do you think the top end Vega model needs to do to be successul?

T

tybert7

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,763
I think that top end model needs to at LEAST trade blows with a 1080 on launch day if not best it clearly in most games on average to be considered a win, especially since nvidia will obvious leap frog it with a 1080ti in short order.


And even if it achieves all that, I think it should be target an msrp of 499 for the reference versions.

If it is a bit below a 1080, it needs to be no higher than 350-399 for a reference version.


Marketshare >>>> profits imo, amd needs to break the cycle of nvidia dominance on the pc side.
 
Define successful. From a financial perspective for a gaming?

Its hard to imagine success in any category. It seems to be a 1080 card with a much higher TDP at best for now. And its coming at around summertime, a year after the release of the performance. Its fate is already sealed. And success is not part of it, neither in gaming or finance.

I think it will end up as a 350$ card battling it out with a 1070 refresh with GDDR5X. And then you have GP102 sitting on all the money again before Volta hits.

Vega is a card that should have been out 3 months ago. Not in 6 months from now.
 
Last edited:
I think it needs to beat a 1080 in 4K games and or benchmarking. If it trades' blows with he 1080 below that resolution so be it, there is enough horsepower there to not worry about it.
 
I think AMD needs to top the benchmarks, uncontested, for a few months to really "win". Just to show they really can play in that arena again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
tybert7 said:
I think that top end model needs to at LEAST trade blows with a 1080 on launch day if not best it clearly in most games on average to be considered a win, especially since nvidia will obvious leap frog it with a 1080ti in short order.


And even if it achieves all that, I think it should be target an msrp of 499 for the reference versions.

If it is a bit below a 1080, it needs to be no higher than 350-399 for a reference version.


Marketshare >>>> profits imo, amd needs to break the cycle of nvidia dominance on the pc side.
Click to expand...


It has to be better performance than a 1080 and the same power consumption at less cost because of the relative delay to the 1080 for it to be successful. If its the same performance and same power usage, it has to be even less. If its perf/watt ratio is lower than the 1080, bargin bin time, they will need to price it at 1070 level.

And this is all due to the release 1 year after cause nV will have more capabilities to target prices at that point, since they might be getting better deals on per wafer costs since they already have a set amount of wafers coming for their chips.
 
For me to consider it a winner it just needs to be significantly better performing than anything AMD currently has available at a price that puts it on a better price/performance ratio than nVidia.

If it's performing at or better than the 1080 and hits the market at sub $500 prices then I'd consider it a winner.

If it's on par with the titan then they can charge whatever they want up to the price of a titan.

My expectation is it'll be closer to the 1080 than the titan, though.
 
It needs to beat a Titan XP and in power consumption while overclocking better and being cheaper.


It probably won't do that. Its too late in the game to match a GTX 1080 for crying out loud. No innovation what so ever. I won't even notice the performance different to the eye with my Fury X.
 
I don't think it needs to beat the Titan Xp, cause the Titan Xp is 1200 bucks lol, If it beats the Titan Xp and power consumption is same, AMD can charge and probably will charge more.
 
Last edited:
Bandalo said:
I think AMD needs to top the benchmarks, uncontested, for a few months to really "win". Just to show they really can play in that arena again.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. That ship has sailed and subsequently sunk
 
Crosshairs said:
Not gonna happen. That ship has sailed and subsequently sunk
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, unless something changes radically with AMD's R&D, or Nvidia drops the ball massively with Volta. But that's the problem with AMD. Nvidia wants to be #1 and pushes hard for that title. AMD seems content to be just "good enough".
 
AMD's version of "successful" or real world successful?
For the latter I'm going with ~GTX 1080 performance around the $300-$400 price point.
 
Matching performance isn't going to be good enough. Anything less than TITAN level performance would be a failure. AMD needs to stop playing catch up and lead for a change.
 
Shintai said:
Define successful. From a financial perspective for a gaming?

Its hard to imagine success in any category. It seems to be a 1080 card with a much higher TDP at best for now. And its coming at around summertime, a year after the release of the performance. Its fate is already sealed. And success is not part of it, neither in gaming or finance.

I think it will end up as a 350$ card battling it out with a 1070 refresh with GDDR5X. And then you have GP102 sitting on all the money again before Volta hits.

Vega is a card that should have been out 3 months ago. Not in 6 months from now.
Click to expand...


Sorry if I am mentioning the obvious but I am not as active on [H] as I used to be but AMD has me really excited with its upcoming CPU/GPU. But damn are you annoying in all the AMD threads I have been reading. Don't get me wrong, Intel is awesome and my current three systems are Intel with a mixed of Nvidia/AMD GPUs, but aren't you excited for a little competition? You don't have to be such a downer ya kno XD
 
I'm also pretty excited to see what Zen and Vega bring. Good to see I'm not the only one.
 
Rvenger said:
It needs to beat a Titan XP and in power consumption while overclocking better and being cheaper.


It probably won't do that. Its too late in the game to match a GTX 1080 for crying out loud. No innovation what so ever. I won't even notice the performance different to the eye with my Fury X.
Click to expand...
I agree. Merely matching the (not really) flagship of your opponent, months after the fact, is just another recipe for failure. GTX1080 performance is old news. People are looking towards a possible 1080 Ti and price cuts from here on out. I am certain nVidia is simply waiting on AMD before even launching a 1080Ti (if ever).
 
Matching the performance at the same cost and power envelope would be a good first step (at the top end). I personally will pay for quality regardless of which banner flies above it. It can't be deficient in any way though for it to be a contender. None of this 90% of the performance at 80% of the cost and 120% TDP bullshit.
 
IMO, the flagship Vega needs to at least come close to (or match) the Titan X(P). If it only competes with the 1080, then nVidia drops a 1080Ti, and the current status quo remains in place.
 
I really hope it can go head to head with a Titan X Pascal in 4K resolutions as that would mean Nvidia can't just put out a 1080 Ti at some ridiculous price. At this point I am not expecting them to beat Nvidia, just to help drive prices down so I am happy that there is some real competition. As it is there is still not a single card that makes upgrading from my 980 Ti worthwhile.
 
legcramp said:
Sorry if I am mentioning the obvious but I am not as active on [H] as I used to be but AMD has me really excited with its upcoming CPU/GPU. But damn are you annoying in all the AMD threads I have been reading. Don't get me wrong, Intel is awesome and my current three systems are Intel with a mixed of Nvidia/AMD GPUs, but aren't you excited for a little competition? You don't have to be such a downer ya kno XD
Click to expand...

I dont care about competition if its a year late. And even then not competitive. If you want to play the #waitforever game your life is over and you never get to enjoy.

Now try again to think on who is annoying. Those that keep telling you to wait and buy something slower in the meantime, or those that just live with the times in the world of reality so you can enjoy it while you live?

Remember to cheer on VIA and Matrox next time too, even better, buy them. You know...for competitions sake.
 
Last edited:
DejaWiz said:
IMO, the flagship Vega needs to at least come close to (or match) the Titan X(P). If it only competes with the 1080, then nVidia drops a 1080Ti, and the current status quo remains in place.
Click to expand...

Not to mention refresh lines. Its easy to bump clocks of GPU and memory on all current products. That's why its so extraordinary painful to be a year late when refresh lines starts to hit.

1080 refresh with +100-200Mhz and 12Ghz GDDR5X
1070 refresh with +100-200Mhz and 10Ghz GDDR5X
1080TI as the current Titan.
Titan Black as a full or nearly full GP102,

And so on.
 
It could be 15-30% faster as AMD has been in past, in multiple segments at times over last 10-15 years, but lets face it - a majority of you brand self-concious e-peen fanboys, still wouldn't dare jump ship. You're the apple zombies of the PC world. You'll shit on AMD at any slight chance, glorify Intelvida, then say 'but muh cumpatitionz gud' whilst never doing shit about it when they do pull a clear winner out.
 
N4CR said:
It could be 15-30% faster as AMD has been in past, in multiple segments at times over last 10-15 years, but lets face it - a majority of you brand self-concious e-peen fanboys, still wouldn't dare jump ship. You're the apple zombies of the PC world. You'll shit on AMD at any slight chance, glorify Intelvida, then say 'but muh cumpatitionz gud' whilst never doing shit about it when they do pull a clear winner out.
Click to expand...

Which was when, exactly? I'm asking as someone who was in camp Red for a decade before my last purchase.
 
The Fury X i do own already hovers around 1070 levels in most games, so Vega would have to be at least to 1080 levels in all games (and not only in Doom, as seen recently)
 
Shintai said:
Define successful. From a financial perspective for a gaming?

Its hard to imagine success in any category. It seems to be a 1080 card with a much higher TDP at best for now. And its coming at around summertime, a year after the release of the performance. Its fate is already sealed. And success is not part of it, neither in gaming or finance.

I think it will end up as a 350$ card battling it out with a 1070 refresh with GDDR5X. And then you have GP102 sitting on all the money again before Volta hits.

Vega is a card that should have been out 3 months ago. Not in 6 months from now.
Click to expand...

They have been showing Vega 10. That's not the top end. The high end chip is Vega 11.

Shintai said:
I dont care about competition if its a year late. And even then not competitive. If you want to play the #waitforever game your life is over and you never get to enjoy.

Now try again to think on who is annoying. Those that keep telling you to wait and buy something slower in the meantime, or those that just live with the times in the world of reality so you can enjoy it while you live?

Remember to cheer on VIA and Matrox next time too, even better, buy them. You know...for competitions sake.
Click to expand...


"Nvidia.

Because you should enjoy Life."

Can you be more of a shill?
 
Last edited:
Remon said:
They have been showing Vega 10. That's not the top end. The high end chip is Vega 11.
Click to expand...

Document it please. Vega 10 is already 300W via the MI25.

Remon said:
"Nvidia.

Because you should enjoy Life."

Can you be more of a shill?
Click to expand...

I dont care about whoever gives me the performance and desired metrics. If you want to talk about shills, its those who keep telling you to wait because their favourite company is behind.

If Vega and GP104 had switched places in time, I would sit with a Vega card now and enjoyed it for half a year without wasting my time and life waiting for GP104.
 
Last edited:
Shintai said:
Document it please. Vega 10 is already 300W via the MI25.
Click to expand...

Vega 11 is the high end, I don't need to document it, it's been known for a good while now.

I dont care about whoever gives me the performance and desired metrics. If you want to talk about shills, its those who keep telling you to wait because their favourite company is behind.

If Vega and GP104 had switched places in time, I would sit with a Vega card now and enjoyed it for half a year without wasting my time and life waiting for GP104.
Click to expand...

So, care to post a photo of your 7970?
 
Remon said:
Vega 11 is the high end, I don't need to document it, it's been known for a good while now.

So, care to post a photo of your 7970?
Click to expand...

So there is no big Vega. Thanks.

I own a 1080 if you have missed it.
 
Remon said:
No no, you said that you get the best that's out there, and I was asking for a photo of your 7970. I'm sure you got one since it was dominating back in 2011-2012.
Click to expand...


You take pictures of every graphics card you buy? Silly question isn't it?

Back to Vega 11, the reason why its not a bigger chip. Cause if you look at die sizes Vega 10 will already come around 400-450 mm^2, for them to go larger than that, will be hard to do on this process while trying to keep prices low enough with HBM.

Another reason is Vega 10 was first to be conceptualized. GPU makers always start working on the bigger chip first before they start with the smaller versions, because the problems that occur with the bigger chips are going to be greater in number and the consequences of those problems can multiply because of node issues and what not.
 
razor1 said:
You take pictures of every graphics card you buy? Silly question isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hah, the circlejerk is funny. Well, no, not silly question, he said he would buy an AMD card if it was better and I called him out on it. No need for photo, I knew he wouldn't have one anyway since he was lying.

As for Vega, I showed you info. You're assuming...
 
Remon said:
Hah, the circlejerk is funny. Well, no, not silly question, he said he would buy an AMD card if it was better and I called him out on it. No need for photo, I knew he wouldn't have one anyway since he was lying.
Click to expand...

Lets go back to what the topic is about instead other peoples pictures lol.
 
Its funny when you have to have an album of old cards else you lie :)

I obviously dont own a 1080 either then.

When you come a year late to the party with the same performance as a year ago. You cant blame people for not waiting. No matter what you may call them of silly names in the process.
 
Bandalo said:
Oh I agree, unless something changes radically with AMD's R&D, or Nvidia drops the ball massively with Volta. But that's the problem with AMD. Nvidia wants to be #1 and pushes hard for that title. AMD seems content to be just "good enough".
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't have a choice. They lack the resources to be #1. They are focusing on what they can to succeed with the resources that they have available: be good enough to sell volume in the market segment where people are likely to spend the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top