Here Is the Official "AMD Radeon VII: World's First 7nm Gaming GPU" Reveal Trailer

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
19,930
Here is the official AMD Radeon VII reveal trailer. The AMD Radeon VII is the world's first 7 nm gaming GPU. It has 3840 stream processors, 16 GB of HBM memory, 1 TB/s memory bandwidth, and features AMD FreeSync 2 HDR technology. Some details mentioned during AMD president and CEO Dr. Lisa Su's keynote speech include 60 compute units that run at up to 1.8 GHz, 4K max settings gaming, a $699 SEP (suggested etail price) and a February 7, 2019 launch date.

AMD Radeon VII graphics brings maximum performance for hardcore enthusiast gamers, delivering incredible, ultra-smooth gaming experiences at consistently high FPS, in 1440p, ultrawide and 4K resolutions. Dominate your games and shatter records with the world's first 7nm gaming GPU, future-ready and built to meet the demands of high-performance gameplay.
 

andrewaggb

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
437
As I understand it:

Pro's - Slightly cheaper than a 2080, equivalent performance, double the ram.
Con's - No RTX, No CUDA.

My Concerns: 16GB of HBM2 (if it's anything like Vega) suggests limited availability and that prices won't change much.
Unknowns: Power consumption. It's 7nm so power might be comparable to nvidia this time around but we'll have to see.

Other thoughts: Might be a good machine learning card vs the RTX 2080 with all the ram and raw processing power, depends how much the tensor cores help a given problem. Though you'll have to use custom AMD builds of tensorflow and may have less or no support in other frameworks.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,307
What a bummer, 2080 performance at 2080 prices without the 2080 feature set.

Only people who would really be interested in such a card are the people who need the 16GB of ram.
In all fairness I was expecting at best 2070 performance at 2070 pricing without the 2000 series features. So they did better than I thought they would, now if they can actually build them and have them in stock and with luck maybe get something cool done with EKWB while they are at it I will be happy. I mean worst case nVidia drops $100 off the 2080 to counter so in either event that would be a win.
 

andrewaggb

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
437
You're overestimating the amount of people that care about RTX
I think if an 8gb version was $100 cheaper and had otherwise equivalent performance that would be a good card to offer but I believe they are just offering their 7nm datacenter vega to consumers now. I suspect it's the exact same board and so they don't have to change anything to offer it this way.
 

and713

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
92
Sounds like a good card to me, competitive at high end and a way to stabilize market cap until Navi is ready.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,307
Hopefully we get some "mainstream" cards soon.
Mainstream is still running 1080p at <= 60hz, that makes up 2/3'rds of the gaming monitors still in use, so that puts them clear in the $300 card range which both AMD and nVidia have solid offerings for currently available for which these cards will offer no tangible benefit.
 

Snooble

Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
865
So let me get this straight :

The took what was essentially the Vega 64, put it through the 7nm process bumped up the speed, doubled the memory, added no new technology to compete with the 2080 goods and it costs almost 2x as much as the current Vega 64, currently the same as the 2080 cards we see on NewEgg.

Who in the fuck would blow the same amount of cash for older technology?

AMD totally screwed themselves by not starting at a lower price point.

"Here's your new updated Cavalier with just a turbo on it boys. Enjoy that 2.4 Ecotec!"
 

dook43

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
2,966
So let me get this straight :

The took what was essentially the Vega 64, put it through the 7nm process bumped up the speed, doubled the memory, added no new technology to compete with the 2080 goods and it costs almost 2x as much as the current Vega 64, currently the same as the 2080 cards we see on NewEgg.

Who in the fuck would blow the same amount of cash for older technology?

AMD totally screwed themselves by not starting at a lower price point.

"Here's your new updated Cavalier with just a turbo on it boys. Enjoy that 2.4 Ecotec!"
Nothing has changed with respect to the "technology" in question. DX12 is still the latest graphics API. If the performance is there, it will merit the cost... if it isn't, it won't.
Not many enthusiasts are super interested in paying $1200 to barely run 1080P raytracing.
 

Stiglite

n00b
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
4
If the price and performance of the new Radeon can only trade blows with the 2080 I'm not impressed. The Radeon could be a great deal if they kept the price closer to ~500. Its too bad the price is so high I was hoping that we could see video cards get back to a somewhat reasonable price point again.
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,307
If the price and performance of the new Radeon can only trade blows with the 2080 I'm not impressed. The Radeon could be a great deal if they kept the price closer to ~500. Its too bad the price is so high I was hoping that we could see video cards get back to a somewhat reasonable price point again.
The 2070 can be found around that price and is more than reasonable for what it offers at 1080 and 1440 which is where more than 80% of all gamers are playing at, so I am not sure what you are expecting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DF-1
like this

Rahh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
1,607
If the price and performance of the new Radeon can only trade blows with the 2080 I'm not impressed. The Radeon could be a great deal if they kept the price closer to ~500. Its too bad the price is so high I was hoping that we could see video cards get back to a somewhat reasonable price point again.
It comes with 3 AAA games and is $100 less than the 2080 while outperforming it. Most only have issues with no RTX but even the 2080 can't do RTX so there's no argument there. Not sure why anyone would be unhappy about this? Lower prices is always better I agree but would you pay $100 more for a 2080 that doesn't perform as well?
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Please don't suck.
Lol
It probably isn't going to suck, but it probably won't be mind blowing either.

Either way my hopes are on Navi for AMD as long as the arch is good they might be able to match on rasterization workloads or exceed them.
 

Chebsy

Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
523
I wonder why AMD reduced the number of stream processors when compared to Vega 64 ?
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
520
It comes with 3 AAA games and is $100 less than the 2080 while outperforming it. Most only have issues with no RTX but even the 2080 can't do RTX so there's no argument there. Not sure why anyone would be unhappy about this? Lower prices is always better I agree but would you pay $100 more for a 2080 that doesn't perform as well?
After the updates the 2080 does fine with RTX fps I mean you aren't going to get 4k performance but reasonable 2k isn't out the window according to all the benchmarks, the 2080ti gets 60-90fps now at 1080p, and the 2060 apparantly targets 60fps or greater at 1080p with RTX in low, it's new so really without DLSS it's hard to quantify.

 

Krizby

n00b
Joined
Jul 26, 2017
Messages
19
As I understand it:

Pro's - Slightly cheaper than a 2080, equivalent performance, double the ram.
Con's - No RTX, No CUDA.

My Concerns: 16GB of HBM2 (if it's anything like Vega) suggests limited availability and that prices won't change much.
Unknowns: Power consumption. It's 7nm so power might be comparable to nvidia this time around but we'll have to see.

Other thoughts: Might be a good machine learning card vs the RTX 2080 with all the ram and raw processing power, depends how much the tensor cores help a given problem. Though you'll have to use custom AMD builds of tensorflow and may have less or no support in other frameworks.
Since Radeon VII has 25% more perf/w than Vega 64 (say in one of the slide) while RTX 2080 is 90% more efficient than Vega 64 (source: Techpowerup's reviews), that means RTX 2080 is 65% more efficient, multiply that by 2080's TDP and we have a 350W TDP for Radeon VII (if anything the 3 fans 2.5 slot cooler already told us how much of a power hog this card is).
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,577
As I understand it:

Pro's - Slightly cheaper than a 2080, equivalent performance, double the ram.
Con's - No RTX, No CUDA.

My Concerns: 16GB of HBM2 (if it's anything like Vega) suggests limited availability and that prices won't change much.
Unknowns: Power consumption. It's 7nm so power might be comparable to nvidia this time around but we'll have to see.

Other thoughts: Might be a good machine learning card vs the RTX 2080 with all the ram and raw processing power, depends how much the tensor cores help a given problem. Though you'll have to use custom AMD builds of tensorflow and may have less or no support in other frameworks.
Well AMD is pretty damn fast at compute tasks and in many more ways than nVidia, however, nVidia has its strengths too so I wont argue with the lack of Cuda.

2ndly I am not sure if RTX is a big deal and if it is wasn't AMD suppose to implement some form of ray tracing on a hardware level soon anyways? I do not know enough about this though and am probably repeating fud or rumors.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,193
Feelsbad for everyone hoping for a mainstream card getting announced. They almost didn't even release this card so at least there's something for AMD enthusiasts to jam out on in 4k.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,211
I am very disappointed with the price/performance.

No launch, so I am hoping that they are sandbagging! F*cking portuguese blood, always living in "hope".
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Since Radeon VII has 25% more perf/w than Vega 64 (say in one of the slide) while RTX 2080 is 90% more efficient than Vega 64 (source: Techpowerup's reviews), that means RTX 2080 is 65% more efficient, multiply that by 2080's TDP and we have a 350W TDP for Radeon VII (if anything the 3 fans 2.5 slot cooler already told us how much of a power hog this card is).
I thought lisa su said same power as 64... Or was it power envelope? Hnmm
 

Soulmetzger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
1,310
I'm kind of stuck with the green team because of having a G-sync monitor but I am more than happy AMD is trying to throw some heat nvidia's way.
 

Stiglite

n00b
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
4
It comes with 3 AAA games and is $100 less than the 2080 while outperforming it. Most only have issues with no RTX but even the 2080 can't do RTX so there's no argument there. Not sure why anyone would be unhappy about this? Lower prices is always better I agree but would you pay $100 more for a 2080 that doesn't perform as well?
If you shop around a 2080 can be found for around ~$700 with 2 free AAA games. At this price if performance is similar I would prefer the 2080 over the new Vega as it does have the RTX features that might be beneficial for future games. 16 gigs of ram is not needed for the performance level of this cards capabilities. AMD should have cut out some of the ram as well as the price and they might have a winner.
 

Ski

Gawd
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
984
As I understand it:

Pro's - Slightly cheaper than a 2080, equivalent performance, double the ram.
Con's - No RTX, No CUDA.

My Concerns: 16GB of HBM2 (if it's anything like Vega) suggests limited availability and that prices won't change much.
Unknowns: Power consumption. It's 7nm so power might be comparable to nvidia this time around but we'll have to see.

Other thoughts: Might be a good machine learning card vs the RTX 2080 with all the ram and raw processing power, depends how much the tensor cores help a given problem. Though you'll have to use custom AMD builds of tensorflow and may have less or no support in other frameworks.
Well AMD is pretty damn fast at compute tasks and in many more ways than nVidia, however, nVidia has its strengths too so I wont argue with the lack of Cuda.

2ndly I am not sure if RTX is a big deal and if it is wasn't AMD suppose to implement some form of ray tracing on a hardware level soon anyways? I do not know enough about this though and am probably repeating fud or rumors.
Gonna try to follow up with both of you comments with one of my own. I'm looking at this from a 3d artist and rendering perspective and based on the tentative analysis of the specs (or lack there of in this case) AMD is clearly not in the market for GPU rendering because it requires CUDA cores, so their intent is pretty clear they're not interested. Which is understandable but troubling none the less because Nvidia will continue to have monopolistic control in this market. And unlike the severe amount of negativity RTX is getting with their raytracing engine, when it comes to gpu rendering, this is where it excels and if these early test benchmarks from Chaosgroup's VRay are any indication, then it's going to be an attractive seller.

Flipping the script back to gaming, and admittedly I'm only a light gamer these days so have no skin in the game. But anyways, if the performance is only marginally better than the 2080, and the fact 90% of gamers won't ever take full advantage of 16GB of VRAM, and they're pricing it exactly as the same as the already overpriced 2080, no CUDA cores, then unfortunately in this humble mother fuckers opinion AMD dropped the ball, especially with the pricing. Unless they were to set the floor at $599 (and I could argue all day even $499 would be more attractive) then it's going to be difficult to convince the hobbyist gamer, or loyalist to jump ship.

At the end of the day nobody is going to care about watts or any, gamers are going to speak with their wallets, and sadly for me I have no choice but to play Nvidia's long term strategy because I would love nothing more than to give them the bird after their arbitrary NDA's and forced Geforce program scandal. This is what happens when in a capitalistic system where there is no competition, progress stagnates and consumers lose to corporate interests and their shareholders.
 
Last edited:

jardows

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
1,837
I'm looking at this from a 3d artist and rendering perspective and based on the tentative analysis of the specs (or lack there of in this case) AMD is clearly not in the market for GPU rendering because it requires CUDA cores, so their intent is pretty clear they're not interested.
It's not that AMD aren't interested, but they cannot legally put CUDA cores into their products, as it is Nvidia proprietary technology. AMD does excel at OpenCL tasks, and there are plenty of applications that take advantage of that. Perhaps not the applications you use, but they are out there. The only thing AMD can do is make the best OpenCL performing cards they can, and work to increase the use of OpenCL over CUDA, which would be something not really discussed at this level unless there was a major breakthrough in OpenCL.
 

Shoganai

Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
679
Still waiting for the heat.

And guess what Nvidia does to 2080 price right before this comes out (assuming they even feel the need, which is in question now).
NVIDIA won't lower anything.
 

Snooble

Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
865
I'm guessing that Nvidia is going to compete by using the 2070 instead of the 2080. I'm betting we see sales on the 2070 then a permanent price decrease.

When it's on sale is already an attractive card, if Nvidia plays smart they'll lower the cost to gain the mainstream buyers confidence again instead of trying to milk every one they can.

The 2080 and the Radeon 7 are equal priced. Not many will buy the 7 and it's sad that AMD is attempting to dethrone Nvidia with what is ultimately a lesser product.

We have a saying in the Canadian Air Force : "Yesterday's technology tomorrow!"... This seems to be how AMD is attempting competition.
 

ecuador

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
207
The 16GB makes no sense. Is it an architecture limitation, like they HAD to ship it with 16GB if they wanted that many compute units or something like that?
 
Top