AMD Radeon RX Vega GPU Specs and Pricing Revealed

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,276
AMD Radeon RX Vega GPU Specs and Pricing Revealed - AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and 56 information and pricing and availability has been announced from Siggraph. At least we know what is coming now. We will talk about it, show you the complete presentations, including architecture, for your viewing pleasure. Let’s see what AMD has up its sleeve for the August 14th release of the AMD Vega GPU lineup.
 

Pusher of Buttons

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
1,925
Pricing isn't... terrible.... though the top end there is going to be a hard sell at 1080 Ti prices. Is there any real chance this competes on that level?

The 56 could be a nice sweet spot for someone like me looking for a 2k Freesync card, though.
 

BigJayDogg3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
1,679
The way they're bundling the higher end cards is...interesting. I'm curious to see if/how the strategy changes as time progresses.

I really want Vega to be good. I could see myself buying the air cooled 64 assuming the performance is there.
 

CombatChrisNC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
1,139
I was hoping...

I believe I will be very disappointed. Sure, you might get great value if you get that bundle, and you were in the market for a new CPU and Mobo... or a new FreeSync monitor... and you wanted those games. But I have a feeling that sans bundle, these cards do not stand well on their own.

Prove me wrong, AMD. PLEASE, prove me wrong.
 

jfreund

Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
983
Interesting to note that the Vega that did well in Kyle's Freesync/G-Sync throwdown was air-cooled, therefore not the fastest Vega card announced.
 

Gigantopithecus

[H]ardOCP Case Reviewer
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,394
The base model Vega 64 and GTX 1080 are both $500. I think it's reasonable to infer from that that Vega 64 will perform about the same as the GTX 1080.

Vega 64 has a TDP 100W+ more than the GTX 1080.



 

Warsloth

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
200
Do all of these things come with the holocube? If so, I wonder how much they would be without the stupid, gimmicky thing.
 

J-Will

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,724
the bundle with a freesync monitor discount actually seems like a good sales tactic.
 

Sovereign

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
3,080
How this shakes out highly depends on third parties, especially with that high TDP/power draw.

If Asus, Gigabyte, etc. can slap a better cooler on that lets air Vega run like stock liquid Vega at a reasonable price, this could get interesting. I'm not sure how feasible that is (though my Gigabyte GTX780 bragged about being able to handle 400w of heat so...) If coolers like this really can handle the massive TDP of Vega, then the only issue becomes power consumption for that level of performance.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
Seems like they really went in depth with the presentation focusing on other things to take attention away from the "meh" performance. 345 watts liquid cooled to be a bit faster than a year old 1080? What in the fuck is going on over there? Are they just constantly underestimating the competitions performance or are their chips just falling short of expectations constantly?

As for the so called bundles the monitor one doesn't even apply in europe, which would be where they had a freesync monitor and a vega on show with their comparative test against a 1080 and a gsync screen. Not to even mention the holo cube thing, they show linus unboxing it as if it comes with the card, then they have to clarify it doesn't Then why put it in the fucking box? Jesus Christ their marketing dept must be staffed by people who spend most of the day picking fleas off each other and tossing shit at walls.

Just one huge series of clusterfucks that are an embarrassment to watch. AMD did a good job with ryzen, but vega just fell off the tracks totally.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
690
Seems like they really went in depth with the presentation focusing on other things to take attention away from the "meh" performance. 345 watts liquid cooled to be a bit faster than a year old 1080? What in the fuck is going on over there? Are they just constantly underestimating the competitions performance or are their chips just falling short of expectations constantly?

As for the so called bundles the monitor one doesn't even apply in europe, which would be where they had a freesync monitor and a vega on show with their comparative test against a 1080 and a gsync screen. Not to even mention the holo cube thing, they show linus unboxing it as if it comes with the card, then they have to clarify it doesn't Then why put it in the fucking box? Jesus Christ their marketing dept must be staffed by people who spend most of the day picking fleas off each other and tossing shit at walls.

Just one huge series of clusterfucks that are an embarrassment to watch. AMD did a good job with ryzen, but vega just fell off the tracks totally.
Go look at market cap of each company and AMD also makes CPUs so R&D is even less. The fact they can somewhat compete without near the dame amount of resources is amazing, if you want better products out of the gate then start buying AMD hardware is about the only option, unless they get lucky with some design breakthrough.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,794
The base model Vega 64 and GTX 1080 are both $500. I think it's reasonable to infer from that that Vega 64 will perform about the same as the GTX 1080.

Vega 64 has a TDP 100W+ more than the GTX 1080.

I'm generally an AMD fan (though I will buy Nvidia etc) because I believe them to often make more customer-friendly and open protocol/source decisions (ie FreeSync, OpenCL, Vulkan etc..) not to mention their success keeps Intel and Nvidia from bloating prices like they're won't to do. However, I find it hard not to be disappointed with this "1080 performance" window and general pricing, after all this time. The higher TDP is an issue as well, and personally I would have at least felt better if they had included the full 16gb of RAM since AMD cards tend to get better with age/optimization and pick up some long-tail benefits from the extra memory. On top of that, where is the discussion with FreeSync 2 and whatnot, if they're going to hang Vega on how good it is with inexpensive FreeSync monitors? They hardly mention all the next-gen FreeSync 2 functions . If they had some equivalent to those super expensive GSync + IPS/IGZO + HDR/QuantumDot/Local Dimming monstrosities scheduled to come out towards the end of this year, and really pushed for "Hey guys, check it out here's a 4K 120hz FreeSync 2 HDR+all the features lineup of monitors from 27-35" at $750-1000 instead of Nvidia's $2000+ 27" offering...and oh by the way, we'll also give you an even bigger discount if you buy Vega!" I'd feel better about this. Now granted maybe something to that end was in the actual presentation but I was just checking out the slides. Likewise, I like that they have some bundles and pack ins, but frankly Prey is old hat now and while Wolfenstein 2 is a good idea, I'd rather they offer several upcoming high profile titles. Lets not forget that Nvidia is offering bloody Destiny 2, one of the highest profile titles around and the only Non-Blizzard title on the Blizz Launcher, as their pack in. Every single Vega should come with 2 or more new/upcoming titles, plus discounts for various FreeSync monitors and AMD hardware. Hell, make it rebate-style to help move these cards. Did you just buy Threadripper + X399 mobo, or one of those monitors? Well if you buy Vega within 6+ months you can send in for a rebate that grows in proportion etc.

In some ways it all feels like too little, too late and its really frustrating. 1080 price and performance over a year late, within the span of 2 high-end yearly release cycles from a competitor, and with a higher TDP doesn't feel good. I'm glad to see AMD back in the enthusiast space, but this entry... they didn't have to beat the 1080 Ti, but if they managed either parity and/or even coming in slightly below it yet for for a lower price (and with a similar 12-16gb RAM), I'd have called it a sure win. However now it seems that its all about how to justify buying Vega in spite of its faults - the discounts, pack ins, or buying for instance because of the jacked up NV card shortage prices. Now if they were selling the full version (and you could expect a custom Asus et al variant, released within a month of the reference) to $100 lower than listed, they'd at least have unbeatable price/performance. I wanted Vega to threaten Nvidia the way Ryzen and Threadripper threaten/beat Intel, causing them to change their behavior with a serious, major competitor on their heels - "Oh jeez guys, maybe we need to start supporting FreeSync monitors as well and focus on the future with OpenCL, Vulkan etc" . Instead I worry all they'll do to answer this is drop the prices on the 1080 and 1080 Ti versions and hint that Volta is on its way that will only pull further ahead. Then what happens after that...AMD's answer comes in late and with a midding reply? They just can't afford to be late to the party anymore and without a proper gift.
 
Last edited:

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
This seems the biggest failure to me since bulldozer, trade blows with 1080 (best case scenario) for same price and 2x power consumption and 1 year later.

I loved my r9 290 but looks like they really don't give a fuck about their GPU division anymore.
 

Bandalo

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
2,660
This seems the biggest failure to me since bulldozer, trade blows with 1080 (best case scenario) for same price and 2x power consumption and 1 year later.

I loved my r9 290 but looks like they really don't give a fuck about their GPU division anymore.
I think they care, they just made a bad mistake going with HBM before it was really ready for the mainstream. By they time they realized they could get the same performance with far-cheaper GDDR5-5X, they had too much sunk into R&D on Vega to change tracks.

I'll bet Vega cards are going to be super-scarce, and AMD will cut production as soon as they possibly can to move on to the next platform. They've got to be selling the chips with super-low margins given the price of HBM.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,163
There will be a larger base for these cards, Much larger compared to Fury, based on pricing alone.

If anything I'm more excited for what Nvidia is going to release or steps taken around the Vega launch to counter their competitor's window.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
Go look at market cap of each company and AMD also makes CPUs so R&D is even less. The fact they can somewhat compete without near the dame amount of resources is amazing, if you want better products out of the gate then start buying AMD hardware is about the only option, unless they get lucky with some design breakthrough.

Oh i agree, but the fact is they're a year late and a dollar short as usual. Had this card come out around the same time as the 1080 then i think people would have been happy enough even with the 100 watts more it takes to beat a 1080. But trotting this out over a year later as their new high end is a bit of an anticlimax to say the least. Its just amd moving the goalposts away from overall performance by focusing on bundles and freesync yadda yadda. They made a huge gpu die and still somehow can't be as fast as a 1080 ti which i think actually has a smaller die than vega.
 

a3venom

Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
695
There will be a larger base for these cards, Much larger compared to Fury, based on pricing alone.

If anything I'm more excited for what Nvidia is going to release or steps taken around the Vega launch to counter their competitor's window.
I don't think Nvidia needs to do anything at all, there is nothing to counter. They can just release the next gen as they planned to. I was really hoping for a good card this time, so I can take advantage of my freesync monitor..
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,286
Oh look, those pre launch 850 dollar obviously inflated prices that Nvidia fans were throwing around ended up not being official MSRP. Who would have thought that buying a GPU that isnt officially launched yet would come with a early adopter tax!
/ end sarcasm
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,397
I think they care, they just made a bad mistake going with HBM before it was really ready for the mainstream. By they time they realized they could get the same performance with far-cheaper GDDR5-5X, they had too much sunk into R&D on Vega to change tracks.

I'll bet Vega cards are going to be super-scarce, and AMD will cut production as soon as they possibly can to move on to the next platform. They've got to be selling the chips with super-low margins given the price of HBM.
HBM was needed yes or yes.. due the much needed power consumption reduction... just imagine where will be the TBP with 16GB GDDR5X in a 512bit bus (they need huge bus size)
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,794
By nearly two years do you mean 14.25 months or so (Launched May 27, 2016)? I'm not sure how ~14 months is nearly 24 months. Not commenting on content - just that data point.
Is that when it was launched? I wasn't so much specifying the exact amount of time; I suppose I could have put it in "yearly release cycles" referring to the 2016 launch of the 1080 and the 2017 launch of the 1080 Ti, already present. Regardless, I think at 14 months and 2 yearly release cycles for high end products from competitors, is still late to the table.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
HBM was needed yes or yes.. due the much needed power consumption reduction... just imagine where will be the TBP with 16GB GDDR5X in a 512bit bus (they need huge bus size)
you wont need a 512bit bus with gddr5x. That is the entire point of having faster memory lol! Its just a bad decision on AMDs part. HBM2 at this point is not saving them much power i think. I am sure its volted to max as well.
 

Ashcutus

n00b
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
50
The lack of numbers is jumping out at me - it's like RTG/AMD realise they have a dud, but have sunk time and money into making it the best they can. The fact they are banging on about freesync and throwing bundles out there to entice potential buyers just smacks of pure desperation to me.

I've always had AMD in my machine (well, since the TNT2 back in the day), but finally moved over to a 1070 earlier this year and I can't ever see myself going back if this is the lacklustre product they are offering right now.

It's a shame, it really is - lets hope Ryzen can keep the lights on whilst we now start the Navi wait!
 

Araxie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
6,397
you wont need a 512bit bus with gddr5x. That is the entire point of having faster memory lol! Its just a bad decision on AMDs part. HBM2 at this point is not saving them much power i think. I am sure its volted to max as well.
Bus isn't only about bandwidth.. even with faster memory a 384bit - 448bit - 512bit bus would be needed. GCN as itself is a bandwidth starving architecture theres reason why a 7970 with slower memory and without all the geometry and bandwidth enhancement of newer architectures is faster than a 380X and even at some point competitive in some games with a RX 470 (this last difference mainly based on clocks).. more bus lanes are always better.
 

magoo

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
14,380
This is dissapoint.
Providing a new GPU that's only as fast as something that's been out for 6 months or better AND the same price just isn't worth it.

Trying to spit polish it with adding in a monitor is not going to do it either.

Hopefully AMD will do OK with their new CPUs and invest some money in their GPU business.

If they can't whip nvidia's butt I'm going to have to pay the ransom. I'd love to see them best nvidia to make the market more price conscious.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
This is dissapoint.
Providing a new GPU that's only as fast as something that's been out for 6 months or better AND the same price just isn't worth it.
6 months? The 1080 which vega is going against has been out near 14 months.

I honestly think this is going to get torn apart in reviews, its 2900xt all over again, late to market, gobbles power, and can only compete against nvidia's second tier card. But at least the 2900xt was priced lower because of this, amd seem to think sticking on an aluminium shroud and doing some game bundle makes it ok to price it higher than it should be.

The FE 1080 is a 180 watt card, the "aqua" version of vega sucks up 345 for comparable performance? Just wtf. Imagine this card with gddr5 instead of hbm, would probably be guzzling around 400 watts or more. :confused:

Usually i don't give a fuck about wattage, but when its near double the watts for 14 month old performance i have to wonder. They must have cracked the whip on these cores and volted and clocked them to within an inch of failure, plus they must have more leakage than the Titanic.
 
Last edited:

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
6 months? The 1080 which vega is going against has been out near 14 months.

I honestly think this is going to get torn apart in reviews, its 2900xt all over again, late to market, gobbles power, and can only compete against nvidia's second tier card. But at least the 2900xt was priced lower because of this, amd seem to think sticking on an aluminium shroud and doing some game bundle makes it ok to price it higher than it should be.

The FE 1080 is a 180 watt card, the "aqua" version of vega sucks up 345 for comparable performance? Just wtf. Imagine this card with gddr5 instead of hbm, would probably be guzzling around 400 watts or more. :confused:

Usually i don't give a fuck about wattage, but when its near double the watts for 14 month old performance i have to wonder. They must have cracked the whip on these cores and volted and clocked them to within an inch of failure, plus they must have more leakage than the Titanic.
you are right. But its only fair to compare it to the equivalent card. Lets wait and see right now we are at 290w vs 180w. Because AMD is saying the standard rx vega will go up against 1080. Still sucks but facts are facts.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,117
The TDP.

Check my sig. I'm in need of some new gpu goodness. I have two rigs in one room (the R9 390 (a stopgap card) running a 27" 1440 freesync, and the 970 which runs dual 1920x1200s), and that room gets WARM when they're both gaming.

I had an AC guy come in and part of the estimate was to put that room on its own zone to keep the temperature down.

That's a lot of money.

I don't care about the efficiency of whatever cooler gets slapped on Vega, I care about the heat which will get exhausted into the room. A better idea may be to repurpose a radon fan to some 4" shop vacuum lines and just vent it outside.

It's the TDP.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
4,995
you are right. But its only fair to compare it to the equivalent card. Lets wait and see right now we are at 290w vs 180w. Because AMD is saying the standard rx vega will go up against 1080. Still sucks but facts are facts.
They would say that though as it lets them escape the "double the power" argument :p

Realistically there's not gonna be much of a performance difference between the aio cooled 64 and the aio one, couple of fps tops as its only a clock speed bump, not as if it has any more shaders unlocked or anything along those lines. So we have one card "competing" with the 1080 and one slightly faster than that.
 

Mugato

Muh Feelz!
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
933
Oh look, those pre launch 850 dollar obviously inflated prices that Nvidia fans were throwing around ended up not being official MSRP. Who would have thought that buying a GPU that isnt officially launched yet would come with a early adopter tax!
/ end sarcasm
I was pretty close at $649.00, same as Fury. In fact, this feels quite a bit like the Fury launch. I also think they did something cool with such limited resources, but the market doesn't care now does it? They want a performance king, and a perf/$ king, releasing Vega this late and this close to the competitions next gen was not a wise move, but what else you gonna do? So, here we are, will you buy the card or not. Depends I think on whether you own a Freesync monitor. I was handed an essentially new 4K LG FreeSync monitor, and will probably go for Vega as I don't pay for power on this rig either. If I didn't have this monitor, an OC'd 1070 would be my preference. Pre-benches of course!

Kyle, do you know much about the slide that mentions using Local Video Memory as an enhanced cache for system/storage memory? That sounds interesting! Is it more for content creators or can it benefit a normal windows user? Specific programs only, or a piece of software in Wattman that controls it?
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,729
The deals look very solid from building almost from scratch. Have to see the performance of the Vega 56 and regular Vega 64, including VR. The added tax for shinny metal and then AIO is too excessive.

I also expect ~10% improvement over time via drivers but that is never really known. RTG driver team just takes time to get all the performance out of the hardware even though Vega really has been around for awhile hardware wise internally.

Slides were terrible, good to put one to sleep at best. Software continue to improve and puts to shame Nvidia antiquated POS on the UI side also with improving features built in. Except 15% power limit on my Nano would kill performance, need 35%+ to extract the potential out of it.

If you are in the price range at $500 or $400 you do have more options soon, that is a good thing. FreeSync is well worth an upgrade over and that will save some bucks as well over GSync. If one is going for a decent upgrade with new monitor, free games then this is looking good. With new motherboard/cpu added then this looks very good. Just a card? Not so much.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
4,729
Did some power supply manufacturer acquire AMD while I was not paying attention or what?
Well the Vega 56 is rated at 225w, if the ratio of performance is like the 290x to 290 of 4-7% - that maybe will be the real deal out of the lineup plus a more reasonable power usage. The 1080 to 1070 is a 20% performance difference, so the Vega 56 may indeed be faster then the 1070 and over time will get better. Also Chill does work well in games that can use it, I've have not notice anything detrimental in the experience and it does reduce power significantly. Some of the downside of high power is noise and being blower cards may not be so good.
 
Top