AMD has really put me in it with Vega..

CSI_PC said:
Facepalm.
Yes but the OFFICIAL TDP for Vega IS 300W and more for the models that perform!
This does not reflect Nvidia who do not operate anywhere near this officially, also he made comments about 1080ti power demand and Nvidia claims where I showed he was not fully correct.

Like I said if you start talking about OCd 1080ti to try and get closer to this figure and ignore that the 1080ti performance is meant to be notably higher even without OC than Vega (meant to be competing with 1080), then go wonder where the hell Vega is going to come in considering the official TDP/TBP.
Click to expand...
For petes sake. He was only referencing those complaining about 300W, performance, no matter where it is, has a damned thing to do with it. I know you feel the need to defend Nvidia at every turn but your attempts here are not even in context of the original statement. He only spoke to the fact that those with 1080Tis OCed complaining about 300W being too much, with no mention of performance, was disingenuous at best being those OCed 1080Tis can easily approach and surpass 300W. It is real simple to understand but some of you seem unable to grasp the point and even how to debate within the confines of his point.
 
JustReason said:
For petes sake. He was only referencing those complaining about 300W, performance, no matter where it is, has a damned thing to do with it. I know you feel the need to defend Nvidia at every turn but your attempts here are not even in context of the original statement. He only spoke to the fact that those with 1080Tis OCed complaining about 300W being too much, with no mention of performance, was disingenuous at best being those OCed 1080Tis can easily approach and surpass 300W. It is real simple to understand but some of you seem unable to grasp the point and even how to debate within the confines of his point.
Click to expand...
Ironically I think it is you being biased seeing select posts/contexts/inferred meanings and yet you called me out twice now while I have been polite to you.

Anyway not quite (still being polite to you) he also stated Nvidia claims about 1080ti official spec where I showed Nvidia is well within spec and actually overperforms for it; meaning at 250W the 1080ti is actually performing 10% better than official rating.
And context for 300W you expect a certain performance if one is to put up with it, but as mentioned an AIB 1080ti at 1880MHz is still under 300W at 285W; to hit over 300W you need to take the GP102 and clock it to 2000MHz!!!
The 1080ti has an official boost clock of 1582Mhz, meaning its sustained real world clock is 19% higher to reach 285W and 25% higher to get it over 300W.
You have just seen the real world clock of Vega FE and that 300W was only 1440MHz, below where the official boost clock is rated.

See the difference in context and why it does not make sense correlating the Vega at 300W with the 1080ti at 300W?
The 1080ti at 300W is probably the only card that can be truly rated as 4K or 1440p high framerate with near all options enabled, so less reason to complain about an OC 1080ti than the 300W Vega sustaining clocks of 1440Mhz and maybe around 1080 FE performance level.
The unknown is just how much TDP above 300W is required from the limited water cooled edition as this is probably binned to reach and sustain near top boost clocks and whether it makes sense to push it that hard relative to its performance.

To break it down; people will accept a highly OC 1080ti at 300W with its performance although the AIB standard OC for 285W is plenty for nearly everyone, but they would not accept an OC 1080 at 300W or even at 280W.....
And where does the Vega sit in this....

Anyway trying to argue some kind of equalisation around 300W between AMD and Nvidia while thinking the differences/factors involved do not matter is mind boggling skewed.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
a3venom said:
Wait 2 weeks for benchmarks, they are also going to launch a Nano version of it which will fit in your power envelope. I wouldnt wanna pay a big premium for it though..
Click to expand...

Nano doesn't magicaly make it use less power. It's a smaller package so it'll fit in mITX case but power usage will be the same or if it lower power then the performance will be lower too.
 
noko said:
As usual benchmarks all over the place, the videos you see the real McCoy. Anyways HardOCP review when ever that becomes available should be very interesting.
Click to expand...

LOL, video side by side reviews are useless.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
Nano doesn't magicaly make it use less power. It's a smaller package so it'll fit in mITX case but power usage will be the same or if it lower power then the performance will be lower too.
Click to expand...

In my case (pun!), the size is no issue for me, my case can fit huge cards...just the power draw and to a lesser extent, heat output.
 
dankykang said:
In my case (pun!), the size is no issue for me, my case can fit huge cards...just the power draw and to a lesser extent, heat output.
Click to expand...

Yep, using ITX setups for ages I dont see how Nano is an "ITX" card. maybe for a niche of the ITX crowd. Most can fit full sized cards or none at all.
 
Just get a lower TDP Vega and or underclock it given your power supply and AMD’s power hungry-ness
 
Shintai said:
Yep, using ITX setups for ages I dont see how Nano is an "ITX" card. maybe for a niche of the ITX crowd. Most can fit full sized cards or none at all.
Click to expand...

The concept of an ITX-sized GPU is that it IS shorter than a standard reference card, most being slightly longer than an ITX motherboard...

The original Nano was shorter than an ITX motherboard, which true SFF users liked because you could either have a smaller overall chassis (picture 4 liter chassis with back-to-back motherboard & ITX-size GPU, with a G-Unique PSU setup) or you could have room for water-cooling components in a (still SFF) larger chassis (think NCase M1 with D5 pump in space freed up by using ITX-size GPU)...
 
Boil said:
The concept of an ITX-sized GPU is that it IS shorter than a standard reference card, most being slightly longer than an ITX motherboard...

The original Nano was shorter than an ITX motherboard, which true SFF users liked because you could either have a smaller overall chassis (picture 4 liter chassis with back-to-back motherboard & ITX-size GPU, with a G-Unique PSU setup) or you could have room for water-cooling components in a (still SFF) larger chassis (think NCase M1 with D5 pump in space freed up by using ITX-size GPU)...
Click to expand...

The point is such cases are a niche of a niche. ITX cases are pretty much divided into 2 segments. Those that can have full sized cards, and those that cant have any GPU at all. And then you can go into the niche of a niche of a niche to try fit in a Nano somewhere as well.

Cards like the Nano also likes to dump heat inside. For Nvidia, the mini cards tend to stop with the 1070 because its just a gimmick. Not because it cant be done. You could make a 1080ti mini if you wanted.

https://www.zotac.com/us/product/graphics_card/zotac-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-mini
 
I thought that the Nano was AMD's attempt to show of the 'benefits' of jumping to HBM1 in terms of size, given that performance apparently wasn't one.
 
Shintai said:
The point is such cases are a niche of a niche. ITX cases are pretty much divided into 2 segments. Those that can have full sized cards, and those that cant have any GPU at all. And then you can go into the niche of a niche of a niche to try fit in a Nano somewhere as well.

Cards like the Nano also likes to dump heat inside. For Nvidia, the mini cards tend to stop with the 1070 because its just a gimmick. Not because it cant be done. You could make a 1080ti mini if you wanted.

https://www.zotac.com/us/product/graphics_card/zotac-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-mini
Click to expand...

It may be a niche of a niche, but the SFF community is out there, and there are some nice 7 liters & smaller cases that require an ITX-sized (usually meaning less than 190mm in length) GPU...

The Zotac 1080 & 1080Ti are in that middle ground; not a full-length card, but not a true ITX card either...

There are rumors of Gigabyte making a GTX 1080 in the same size as their current ITX-sized 1070 offering...
 
Boil said:
It may be a niche of a niche, but the SFF community is out there, and there are some nice 7 liters & smaller cases that require an ITX-sized (usually meaning less than 190mm in length) GPU...

The Zotac 1080 & 1080Ti are in that middle ground; not a full-length card, but not a true ITX card either...

There are rumors of Gigabyte making a GTX 1080 in the same size as their current ITX-sized 1070 offering...
Click to expand...

https://www.dan-cases.com/dana4.php

7.2L, 292mm GPU support.

Again, I dont see the market, and sales showed there is really no market. Specially not with the limitations it imposes without any benefit.

I also remember the Nano cases AMD showed in their PR. They ranged from 10.1L to 18L.
 
Shintai said:
https://www.dan-cases.com/dana4.php

7.2L, 292mm GPU support.

Again, I dont see the market, and sales showed there is really no market. Specially not with the limitations it imposes without any benefit.

I also remember the Nano cases AMD showed in their PR. They ranged from 10.1L to 18L.
Click to expand...

https://hardforum.com/forums/small-form-factor-systems.102/

https://smallformfactor.net/forum/category/custom-cases-projects/

Plenty of boutique SFF cases out there...

You can get a Zotac Mini GTX 1080 into a sub 5 liter chassis (but that uses an external power brick, which there is a divide in the SFF community over external bricks & actual overall system volume)...

The LZ7 takes ITX only GPUs, the RX Vega Nano would fit nicely...

A RX Vega Nano would also allow for a D5 pump in a custom-looped NCase M1...

(but I would go with a non-topped DDC pump tucked under a full-length RX Vega 56)

The RX Vega Nano may be a product aimed at a niche of a niche of a niche market, but they will sell to that market...
 
I'm just hoping that we don't have the video card version of bulldozer here. With how long they've been hyping up this card while staying so tight lipped I'm not getting my hopes up. At this point the ti has been out for 5 months and gtx 1080 for well over a year.

Volta probably isn't even that far off.

I'm sure that they'll do well in the short term with the current mining situation. We all know how well that's effected their market share in the long term........
 
Just checking back in as of...now. Still haven't purchased anything.

Interesting bit though - There are rumors of people with this monitor (Samsung CF791) running Vega and it has fixed the freesync flickering issue. This seems unlikely to me since I thought it was more of a panel issue with the monitor, but there are multiple claims from internet people with this pair that it has in fact gotten rid of entirely or GREATLY minimized the FS flickering. If this proves to be true, its no contest...I'll just have to buy a better PSU and rock Vega 64...when the prices drop.

See here:
 
Last edited:
dankykang said:
Just checking back in as of...now. Still haven't purchased anything.

Interesting bit though - There are rumors of people with this monitor (Samsung CF791) running Vega and it has fixed the freesync flickering issue. This seems unlikely to me since I thought it was more of a panel issue with the monitor, but there are multiple claims from internet people with this pair that it has in fact gotten rid of entirely or GREATLY minimized the FS flickering. If this proves to be true, its no contest...I'll just have to buy a better PSU and rock Vega 64...when the prices drop.

See here:
Click to expand...

I don't have that issue at all on mine so maybe Vega fixed it. I originally thought most of the complaints were users using low bandwidth cables. I had to spend an hour trying to find one online. Had to go to the source to get specs worthy of high bandwidth cables, and they were cheaper too.
 
JustReason said:
I don't have that issue at all on mine so maybe Vega fixed it. I originally thought most of the complaints were users using low bandwidth cables. I had to spend an hour trying to find one online. Had to go to the source to get specs worthy of high bandwidth cables, and they were cheaper too.
Click to expand...

I'm using the DP cable it came with. I would imagine it should fully support the monitor? Have you run yours with any Polaris cards?
 
dankykang said:
I'm using the DP cable it came with. I would imagine it should fully support the monitor? Have you run yours with any Polaris cards?
Click to expand...
No Polaris cards, never were in stock for me. Mine came with a cable but too short, although I bought a cable because the site I was looking at did not list the monitor coming with one. Thus far I have had no adverse behavior out of this monitor. Although some of the reviews had me expecting something.
 
JustReason said:
I don't have that issue at all on mine so maybe Vega fixed it. I originally thought most of the complaints were users using low bandwidth cables. I had to spend an hour trying to find one online. Had to go to the source to get specs worthy of high bandwidth cables, and they were cheaper too.
Click to expand...

JustReason said:
No Polaris cards, never were in stock for me. Mine came with a cable but too short, although I bought a cable because the site I was looking at did not list the monitor coming with one. Thus far I have had no adverse behavior out of this monitor. Although some of the reviews had me expecting something.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link / source for the high bandwidth cable you are using...
 
Monoprice display port 1.2 cable 21.8Gb bandwidth. 10ft cost me $6. Same-ish cable elsewhere with no mention of bandwidth costs upwards of $20 or more. There was a DP 1.4 cable with 3x.0 bandwidth I came across before I was going to buy mine that was $30.00 and I think it was the same manufacturer that makes those DP to HDMI 2.0 adapters. I am sure the one with the monitor is good, plenty thick enough.
 
It's a shame Vega 64 is just now offering this performance. I'm a fan of the underdog and I really wanted this to crush the 1080 oc like the card in my Sig. The Vega 56 is another story altogether and is very impressive. I wouldn't call this a fail technologically but it's a fail for the delay.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
It's a shame Vega 64 is just now offering this performance. I'm a fan of the underdog and I really wanted this to crush the 1080 oc like the card in my Sig. The Vega 56 is another story altogether and is very impressive. I wouldn't call this a fail technologically but it's a fail for the delay.
Click to expand...
I am just glad I got one, not too glad for what I paid and that was SEP/MSRP. However being the 4XX and 5XX series were a no go for much of the time I was looking, albeit for the wife, so wound up giving her my 290 and an upgrade was definitely necessary. At least the gaming experience thus far has been outstanding.
 
JustReason said:
I am just glad I got one, not too glad for what I paid and that was SEP/MSRP. However being the 4XX and 5XX series were a no go for much of the time I was looking, albeit for the wife, so wound up giving her my 290 and an upgrade was definitely necessary. At least the gaming experience thus far has been outstanding.
Click to expand...
I hate to sound like a broken record but it's a lesser game play experience then I've been used to for over a year. I know that sounds really dickish but it's the situation AMD has made for themselves. If HBM is causing delays they need to give it up other than in high end markets like the P100. I hope Raja can right the ship with Navi but only time will tell. I know I'll go team Red if it's on time and faster than the competing GeForce product.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I hate to sound like a broken record but it's a lesser game play experience then I've been used to for over a year. I know that sounds really dickish but it's the situation AMD has made for themselves. If HBM is causing delays they need to give it up other than in high end markets like the P100. I hope Raja can right the ship with Navi but only time will tell. I know I'll go team Red if it's on time and faster than the competing GeForce product.
Click to expand...
No I get it from your perspective, and you would be right to have that opinion. However in my case I am coming from a 290 and 32 inch standard 16:9 1080p. So for me this is leaps and bounds better.
 
JustReason said:
Did you not read his post at all? It isn't about stock or what clocks it attains or some other random CRAP. It is in reference to people complaining that 300W is too much in their tiny room and hence Vega would be unbearable, no mention of performance. So he pointed out that anyone that OCs their 1080Ti not AIB OCed models but manual OCed by users CAN easily reach into the 300W range and above. Hell your chart of the FE proves this as well, 1650Mhz to the 2000Mhz most are aiming for would greatly surpass that peak as daily clock wttage.
Click to expand...


Can't compare overclocked 1080ti power consumption to Vega overclocked power consumption, the 1080ti is a bracket above Vega performance wise and with the overclocks in place, the 1080ti will be almost 2 brackets above Vega 64 while Vega 64 consumes much more power than the 1080ti overclocked 100 maybe 150 watts more?

Its not even fair to look at it that way cause one just crushes the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top