Vega Rumors

SighTurtle said:
Sadly, I don't think AMD is dragging it out due to bad performance, no, its related to production or software, drivers, the DSBR etc. Bad performance or not, AMD does not make money when products are withheld.
Click to expand...

Still better to wait a few weeks and go it right if that's what they are doing.

Historically they launch a card with a severe issue, fix it a few weeks later, but it's already known to be a shit card because of x issue. Hopefully they are avoiding that. That would be ok.
 
cageymaru said:
I haven't read a review of one that says that. Can you link a review?
Click to expand...

AMD said that Radeon RX Vega 64 would "trade blows with Geforce GTX 1080" and, of cause, this coming from AMD means that this is the optimistic scenario.

Radeon Vega Frontier Edition literally performs about half way between Geforce GTX 1070 and Geforce GTX 1080
 
Dayaks said:
Still better to wait a few weeks and go it right if that's what they are doing.

Historically they launch a card with a severe issue, fix it a few weeks later, but it's already known to be a shit card because of x issue. Hopefully they are avoiding that. That would be ok.
Click to expand...

Well, like its been said before, AMD said 1H 2017, and considering its delay behind Nvidia's Pascal, any more delays would lose AMD tons of money and confidence in the company.
 
_mockingbird said:
AMD said that Radeon RX Vega 64 would "trade blows with Geforce GTX 1080" and, of cause, this coming from AMD means that this is the optimistic scenario.

Radeon Vega Frontier Edition literally performs about half way between Geforce GTX 1070 and Geforce GTX 1080
Click to expand...

So you're going to base that off a review of a card that was released without gaming drivers? Seriously?

What is so wrong with waiting until the 14th and seeing what [H]ardocp and others have to say about its actual performance? I just refuse to jump to conclusions without a proper review.

Sorry.
 
cageymaru said:
So you're going to base that off a review of a card that was released without gaming drivers? Seriously?

What is so wrong with waiting until the 14th and seeing what [H]ardocp and others have to say about its actual performance? I just refuse to jump to conclusions without a proper review.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

No, I am basing the performance on what AMD said, which is that Radeon RX Vega 64 would "trade blows with Geforce GTX 1080"
 
Cageymaru is really a big fan of AMD as he was convinced that Bulldozer was a good chip for the price 2 years ago.
 
I'd like to know how much difference does freesync make at 40 - 45 fps range on a 60 hz display.
 
Ocellaris said:
AMD is dragging things out as long as possible so they don't need to answer for their bad performance.

And where were all the supposed "surprises" from the event? The biggest surprise was AMD really did launch their card with a bunch of smoke and mirrors. And also that they found another way to push the date back...

"Guys it's not about frame rate or power consumption anymore, it's about feelings!" -AMD marketing
Click to expand...
Was that really a big surprise though? I don't think so.
 
_mockingbird said:
There won't be many standalone Radeon RX Vega cards and most of them would go toward the bundles.
Click to expand...

The only benefit of those "bundles" is they make the cards less desireable to the miners, so at least the gaming community has a better shot at one.
 
Bandalo said:
The only benefit of those "bundles" is they make the cards less desireable to the miners, so at least the gaming community has a better shot at one.
Click to expand...

Those bundles don't even do that, they are just instant coupons. Doesn't stop the miners from buying the cards without anything else. Now Vega has a pretty bad hashrate when looking at how much power it draws. So its not going to be that desirable to miners for now. Now if mining software can take advantage of fp16 (most likely not cause the calculations need FP32) and other optimizations, might look better later on.
 
razor1 said:
Those bundles don't even do that, they are just instant coupons. Doesn't stop the miners from buying the cards without anything else. Now Vega has a pretty bad hashrate when looking at how much power it draws. So its not going to be that desirable to miners for now. Now if mining software can take advantage of fp16 (most likely not cause the calculations need FP32) and other optimizations, might look better later on.
Click to expand...

Maybe I mis-read that...I was under the impressions that the bundles would be more expensive than the bare-bones cards.
 
Those bundles might actually be really good deals...

I'll figure it out when they actually launch.
 
Bandalo said:
Maybe I mis-read that...I was under the impressions that the bundles would be more expensive than the bare-bones cards.
Click to expand...

Both you and Razor1 are right. Yes, they are instant coupons and game codes and as such won't work well for deterring miners. And yes, the bundles are $100 more expensive than the card only. However, the aluminum air cooled and the liquid cooled version is ONLY available in a bundle. So if you want the metal cooler and not the black plastic one you have to buy the bundle.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Both you and Razor1 are right. Yes, they are instant coupons and game codes and as such won't work well for deterring miners. And yes, the bundles are $100 more expensive than the card only. However, the aluminum air cooled and the liquid cooled version is ONLY available in a bundle. So if you want the metal cooler and not the black plastic one you have to buy the bundle.
Click to expand...

Can't you just sell the coupon on eBay? I fail to see how the bundle protects the cards from miner based buys.
 
Archaea said:
Can't you just sell the coupon on eBay? I fail to see how the bundle protects the cards from miner based buys.
Click to expand...

Like I said, its an instant coupon and must be applied during the same purchase so no resale. You might be able to resell games if AMD doesn't do that thing that NVIDIA did with linking it to GeForce experience and specific graphics cards... And yes, Razor1's point was that such a system does little to protect from miner buys and I agree with both you and him.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Both you and Razor1 are right. Yes, they are instant coupons and game codes and as such won't work well for deterring miners. And yes, the bundles are $100 more expensive than the card only. However, the aluminum air cooled and the liquid cooled version is ONLY available in a bundle. So if you want the metal cooler and not the black plastic one you have to buy the bundle.
Click to expand...

So at that point it'll depend on availability. The miners may try to snag the cheaper cards, but they won't be AS interested in the upper tier cards for additional cost. What will AMD so? 50% base model, 25% metal, 25% AIO? Or maybe 25/50/25? Or 80/10/10?
 
Honestly, from the video, sounds like AMD can compete with the 1070 fine (ish?), but competing with 1080 and ti will be difficult if those bundles are saying anything.
 
Low end aftermarket 1080's are currently selling for ~$500 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125880 for example). Given this, I think the Vega pricing shows that AMD is aiming for slightly better than 1080 performance. Otherwise they wouldn't have priced reference edition at aftermarket 1080 prices. We already see 1080 ish performance from an OC Frontier Edition. If I had to guess, I would expect RX Vega to be 5-10% worse than a 1080 in NVIDIA favoring titles and the about the same amount better on AMD favoring titles.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Low end aftermarket 1080's are currently selling for ~$500 (https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125880 for example). Given this, I think the Vega pricing shows that AMD is aiming for slightly better than 1080 performance. Otherwise they wouldn't have priced reference edition at aftermarket 1080 prices. We already see 1080 ish performance from an OC Frontier Edition. If I had to guess, I would expect RX Vega to be 5-10% worse than a 1080 in NVIDIA favoring titles and the about the same amount better on AMD favoring titles.
Click to expand...

Did you think the same thing about Fury X? Because it was priced the same as a 980 TI and a vanilla 980 TI was slightly faster than a Fury X while every single after market 980 TI obliterated Fury X, at similar (same) prices.
 
Different circumstances.

980ti pre-empted Fury X, as in it was released merely days before (not a year before as in the case of Vega), so AMD probably couldn't have done much to change the prices so close to launch.
 
Just pointing out that pricing is a good indication of what type of performance a company is expecting to be able to achieve especially when the price and performance of the competition is known in advance (unlike in the case of the 980 Ti). A rational company sets a price based on the kind of performance they expect they can squeeze with last minute optimizations on drivers/software etc. Doesn't guarantee that they will be able to deliver what they are aiming for but the initial Frontier Edition benchmarks suggest that AMD's statement that the Vega RX will trade blows with a 1080 doesn't seem too unrealistic.
 
razor1 said:
210 watts TBP is RX Vega 56

350 watts TBP for the RX Vega 64 water cooled

290 watts TBP for the RX Vega 64 air cooled cooled

Now AMD is using TDP which is only the GPU power usage.
Click to expand...
razor1 said:
no no, ya need to get it all at once.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


AMD is using TGP (Total Graphics Package).. ie GPU + Mem + interposer
Nano = 150W TGP
56 = 165
64 = 220
Only 64 WC was listed as "max of 350-400"
 
FrameBuffer said:
giphy.gif


AMD is using TGP (Total Graphics Package).. ie GPU + Mem + interposer
Nano = 150W TGP
56 = 165
64 = 220
Only 64 WC was listed as "max of 350-400"
Click to expand...


LOL no they aren't, think you should look at some videos of people who talked to AMD reps. AMD reps have been stating both of them. Videocardz got it right.

Yes framebuffer, its been checked and double checked actually triple checked.

And if you are using trump as meme for this case, I'm sorry for you....... bad choice.

https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series

this table they put up IS THE actual TBP of the Vega series. Nano isn't in there though. TGP is only the GPU and HBM2 that is it.

Yeah AMD reps are switching numbers back and forth and if you paid attention to GN, I think it was them that mentioned that some of the Reps were using the numbers interchangeably (hence in this video they did the same thing LC version of Vega from 300 to 400 watts, that is its TBP vs the other 3 cards which they gave the TGP, pretty much AMD trying to fool consumers again (accidental or dilibrate doesn't matter) just like they did with Polaris. Polaris wasn't a 110 watt card, which is what Hallock stated in Reddit, it was a 110 watt GPU + everything else, it made it a 150 + card. It was also stated in the Polaris manuals too (110 watt)!

I know it really burns when ya have a 300 watt + card next to ya, but oh well that is what they are. And a Vega 54 is still a 210 watt card @1070 ish performance.

And about the bundle, yes you need to get it all at once, once you get the card, motherboard, cpu, monitor and buy them then you get the instant rebates. There are no coupons that I am aware of. Unless Anandtech got that wrong.
 
Last edited:
Boil said:
Gonna call it now, the RX Vega Nano will be an even more cut down version of the Vega GPU...

I am thinking, with the 150w TDP they are shooting for, this is going to be a RX Vega 48 Nano...?

I might just have to go with the stock RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooled / 120 AIO GPU & throw a Cooler Master MasterLiquid 120 AIO on the Ryzen R7 1700 CPU...

I hope my Corsair SF600 SFX PSU is up to the task...!
Click to expand...
Nano is 150w GPU/HBM2 power and not total board power just like the Vega 56 is 165w and Vega 64 220w. Being 150w vice 165w to me tells me it is a full Vega chip. I am highly interested in this version especially if a full Vega chip.
 
noko said:
Nano is 150w GPU/HBM2 power and not total board power just like the Vega 56 is 165w and Vega 64 220w. Being 150w vice 165w to me tells me it is a full Vega chip. I am highly interested in this version especially if a full Vega chip.
Click to expand...


Its going to be clocked much lower.
 
a3venom said:
I'd like to know how much difference does freesync make at 40 - 45 fps range on a 60 hz display.
Click to expand...
From my personal experience, a huge positive change. 40fps has never been so smooth in other words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top