• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Introducing AMD Radeon RX Vega

Kwaz said:
Raja with a beard!? Say it ain't so

I'm excited for this. I hope that the spirit of ATI and passion for pushing the envelope continues to grow.
Click to expand...
Their passion is all talk atm in the GPU area til they can produce the hardware.
 
I like the idea of the "Pack" to keep them out of miners' hands for the initial launch, pretty smart on their part.

Now where the hell and when the hell can I buy it!?
 
I liked when they riffed on the "way its meant to be played" at the end of the video. Shots Fired as a long standing nvidia owner it'd be nice to see some competition at the top end again (I hope)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
why did it take 2 vega to run prey 4k when all it took for nvidia was a single 1080ti? also no fps shown o-O; hm...


many would be asking the same :X only way to be considered if vega really doesn't match performance, if they can somehow undersell to make it a bang for buck purchase over a nvidia.

rgMekanic said:
I like the idea of the "Pack" to keep them out of miners' hands for the initial launch, pretty smart on their part.

Now where the hell and when the hell can I buy it!?
Click to expand...

maybe is good deal with the packs? if i were to get a new system i wouldn't mind a ryzen r6 or r7
 
Last edited:
I had to stop the video when it went something like 'it is like putting on a pair of glasses for the first time'...


I mean if it was going from an s3 virge to a voodoo1 in mechwarrior 2 I'd say yeah, but c'mon
 
Last edited:
Doozer said:
I had to stop the video when it went something like 'it is like putting on a pair of glasses for the first time'...


I mean if it was going from an s3 virge to a voodoo1 in mechwarrior 2 I'd say yeah, but c'mon
Click to expand...
Golden age of gaming. I didn't have as great a gaming experience boost till the TNT2.
 
Ah Roy, there's a name, face and voice to grate on my soul.

Interested to see how they perform, the price is not terrible. Could do with another $50 off I reckon but we'll see what happens when it's in market a bit. If the various technologies work that purportedly keep the frame rate more consistent it'll be a big boon.

Too late for me as I have a faster card already but I definitely want them back in the game. I miss those days when we were getting worthwhile upgrades every 9 months.
 
Doozer said:
I had to stop the video when it went something like 'it is like putting on a pair of glasses for the first time'...


I mean if it was going from an s3 virge to a voodoo1 in mechwarrior 2 I'd say yeah, but c'mon
Click to expand...

That was said by Pete Hines, Bethesda's resident PR bullshitter.
 
Roy Taylor talks in this video about HBM2 : "....gives us 8GB of RAM and unprecedented speeds...."

1) The -"unprecedented speeds" - part i think that i've heard it in the past as well (*oh yeah, during the Hype prior to FuryX launch!! )
2) Also, about the amount of memory of 8GB : For now it will suffice, but i'm fairly certain that in future games we will witness the same limitations that we see now with the only 4GB RAM of FuryX. Check a quote from Gamer's Nexus review for Battlefield 1 : ""The Fury X has the worst frametime performance on this chart. We suspect that this is at least partially a result of its more limited VRAM, though the 390X isn't much better"" ( http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2652-battlefield-1-graphics-card-benchmark-dx11-vs-dx12 ).
(P.S. I know that probably a lot of people will say that GTX1080 has also 8GB RAM just like RX VEGA, but my responce is that: 1) the GTX1080 is one year older than the RX VEGA, so its longevity as a GPU will be far greater than VEGA, & 2) At the same price with AMD's gaming flagship ,the 8GB RX VEGA Liquid Edition, which will be near 700$, NVidia offers the GTX1080Ti, with 11GB RAM & 40% better performance than the 8GB GTX1080. )
 
It's all very nice and shiny, shame about Global Foundries shit 14nm leaky process node. Its the reason why RX480/RX580 had such a low clock wall and why Ryzen hates anything more than 4.1Ghz.

Ryzen2 + Vega2 on 7nm vs nVidia Volta & intel i7's next year is where the real AMD fight begins.... if GF don't bugger it up again.

My aftermarket watercooled 1070 & oc'ed 3770s will last till then :)
 
They are almost trying too hard at this point. It's like they are trying to get as many sales as humanly possible just off of hype & marketing alone. I am dying over here waiting to see the cards tested & reviewed. Let's see the truth about Vega!
 
I remember getting an s3 virge card to run Q2:Ground Zero in opengl mode. :)

It was beautiful; seeing the BFG hitting the big spiderdemon at 4fps was awesome.

The TNT I replaced it with was over 40fps; blazing speed, lol.
 
You have to buy the video card with bundles?

Just means miners will purchase bundles. 100 dollars premium isn't going to stop miners when they generally look at the bigger picture and use their own cargo planes full of graphics cards. Why wouldn't they just limit the number of purchases by recording addresses / card numbers?

Why the fuck would I want to buy a combo card if I already am happy with my other hardware - It just means the card would've been cheaper ($100 dollars cheaper) without the bundled items. You're asking the card to perform at the higher price point when it could've been set lower and undercut nVidia by a large margin.

All I seen was a 11 minute hype video. Which is to be expected. But as far as anything meaningful?


Meh.


I'm still waiting for Vega benchmarks. They will say if it's worthwhile. The only information that I could see is: "Upto 400w of power consumption versus the 1080 FE's 180w."

Edit: I think you can purchase the normal 64 reference model without being in a bundle. So forget the rant. I'm reading different news about it. :\
 
Last edited:
Anyone actually make it through that cringe fest? If you did, did they say a release date?
 
DarkLegacy said:
They are almost trying too hard at this point. It's like they are trying to get as many sales as humanly possible just off of hype & marketing alone. I am dying over here waiting to see the cards tested & reviewed. Let's see the truth about Vega!
Click to expand...

Almost? It's pretty obvious now, from AMDs own benchmarks/statements, that they shit the bed, in epic fashion.

They basically spent 2 years, a process shrink, 3.6 Billion extra transistors, to make Fiji run at higher clock speed, and even lost some scaling on Fiji in the process.

This isn't a train wreck. It's the Hindenburg going up in flames, in front of the crowd that expected to see their loved ones.
 
Been red team for a long time.. But when i installed that 1060 6gb in my old rig... it was like a new PC when playing games. And it only needs 1 power connector? ... So glad i did not get the 480, not because its an under-performer, but now i know its just not fan-boy shit talk. Nvidia's pascal is an amazing achievement. I hope AMD's Vega knocks it out of the park, competition is better for everyone.
 
Last edited:
DarkLegacy said:
They are almost trying too hard at this point. It's like they are trying to get as many sales as humanly possible just off of hype & marketing alone. I am dying over here waiting to see the cards tested & reviewed. Let's see the truth about Vega!
Click to expand...

They are. It's the same thing they did with Polaris.

Raja is trying to sell these cards as quickly as he can to get out from under the R&D costs it took to make them.

Vega is still based on the Arctic Island architecture and therefore is limited and not a real competitor for the Nvidia top end.

Rajah knows that if he is going to compete with Nvidia is going to be with Navi. Navi will be the very first AMD architecture that is 100% Raja's baby.

I know some might laugh and Snicker about moving goal posts, but really finishing off the Arctic Island architecture and recouping those R&D costs is something AMD needed to do because they just aren't big enough to absorb the losses there.

The goalposts stop with Navi. That one will be one hundred percent Raja.

And for those who think one person can't make a difference on an engineering team look at what happened with ryzen and Jim Keller leading the otherwise same group of AMD chip engineers.

Sometimes what you need is not a new batch of Engineers but one with a really good Vision who can guide the others.

So the goal posts to me are firmly set at Navi and it's really boom-or-bust at that point. If Navi fails Raja out of excuses, and so is amd's RTG group.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Rajah knows that if he is going to compete with Nvidia is going to be with Navi.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if most of us will live long enough to wait for Navi. Hell knows we waited too much for Vega.
If die size is any hint of performance, the next NVIDIA gen will have an even bigger gaming performance gap over AMD.
That does not means that AMD will lose money, because AMD owns the mining market and every single GPU they produce will be sold.
 
Last edited:
AMD's "bundle" idea to make you buy a Ryzen system to buy a Vega 64 Liquid would have worked a lot better during the Ryzen launch. Doing it now half a year after the Ryzen launch is too late. Many of us have already upgraded. Why would we buy 2 of the same chips.
 
darme said:
I liked when they riffed on the "way its meant to be played" at the end of the video. Shots Fired as a long standing nvidia owner it'd be nice to see some competition at the top end again (I hope)
Click to expand...
No loyalty among Thieves I see
 
I'll admit I didn't watch the propaganda video but are any actual performance numbers available yet?
 
Tak Ne said:
That Samsung monitor looks interesting
Click to expand...
I have it and it's a great monitor. Got it for about a hundred off list at microcenter - i think it was a mistake on the website as it lasted less than a day. I would warn about dead pixels though. I'm glad I went tot he store and tested it there at the q/a room witn my own laptop. The first monitor had two zones of dead pixels. The second monitor looked great and i took it home. I later found a small line of two or three daed pixels inthe top middle - totally ignoble luckily. Otherwise great color and response times
 
geok1ng said:
I am not sure if most of us will live long enough to wait for Navi. Hell knows we waited too much for Vega.
If die size is any hint of performance, the next NVIDIA gen will have an even bigger gaming performance gap over AMD.
That does not means that AMD will lose money, because AMD owns the mining market and every single GPU they produce will be sold.
Click to expand...

I think we need to dispense with this concept of waiting. You have a small fraction of people on Team Green and team red who will wait for whatever there side releases but the majority of us just go with whatever the hell is the fastest card or the one that gives us the best bang for the buck. The people who fit into those two categories don't really give a shit about Team Green and team red. And those on Team Green and team red don't give a shit about the types of people who will either go for the fastest whatever it is or go for the best bang for the buck, even though they may claim that in order to try to win a pissing contest.

What will happen is if AMD produces with Navi then they will end up selling out their cards and people will forget all about this stretch. If they don't succeed, then AMD will be labeled as a mid-tier product and Nvidia will be regarded as the only game in town ala intel.

One really only needs to look at AMD processor history for an example of this. They caught a lot of shit over bulldozer and rightly so. People gave up on them ever putting out a competitive chip. Yet here they are with a competitive chip in ryzen and are back in the game.

Before that though people were saying the same things about AMD processors that they are saying about Vega now except replace nvidia with Intel.

Grand pronouncements may be fun forum fodder but they did rarely ever mean anything in reality.
 
Here is another performance indicator for RX Vega 64:

raja_koduri_and_scott_herkelman_-_radeon_rx_vega-35-1440x810.png
 
Is it me, or is there hardly any Vega advantage over their previous R9 Fury X?

Fury X to Vega:
FireStrike Extreme went from 7700 to 9700 graphics score?
FireString Ultimate went from 4000 to 4800 graphics score?
Unigine Heaven went from 57fps to 64fps?

What exactly was the point of releasing this card?
 
Taldren said:
Is it me, or is there hardly any Vega advantage over their previous R9 Fury X?

Fury X to Vega:
FireStrike Extreme went from 7700 to 9700 graphics score?
FireString Ultimate went from 4000 to 4800 graphics score?
Unigine Heaven went from 57fps to 64fps?

What exactly was the point of releasing this card?
Click to expand...

mining. and this 10-20% performance increase is enough to make it viable for VR
 
Dunnlang said:
I can't tell if it's just poorly made or intentionally deceptive. This really is more of a pictogram, or piece of clip art, than any sort of meaningful presentation of data.
Click to expand...

It is totally deceptive. I looked at the left and the numbers are low to high from left to right. Not the case on the right side of the chart.
If I hadn't looked at the numbers themselves I would have assumed that Vega was faster in everything instead of in some things.
AMD doesn't pay someone to create graphics that may be accidentally read more than one way.

Also, why no scores for some of the cards in certain games? Is it because the numbers didn't fit the narrative?

Don't get me wrong, I want AMD to succeed and be competitive. I don't want to be fed a line of BS though.
 
Bandalo said:
Regardless of which your preferred brand is, this chart is a hot mess.
Click to expand...

Dunnlang said:
I can't tell if it's just poorly made or intentionally deceptive. This really is more of a pictogram, or piece of clip art, than any sort of meaningful presentation of data.
Click to expand...

This Ars article explains that minimum FPS has been an issue for AMD in the past.

"Minimum frames are something AMD has struggled with in the past, and ultimately those matter more to the average player (since minimum frames indicate how smooth a game feels) than a crazy-high average frame rate. If AMD's performance claims hold out once reviews hit, they could make an RX Vega 64 a compelling graphics card even if peak performance and power efficiency (RX Vega 64 sports a 295W TDP versus 180W for a GTX 1080) doesn't reach that of Nvidia's pricier GTX 1080 Ti."
 
Doozer said:
It is totally deceptive. I looked at the left and the numbers are low to high from left to right. Not the case on the right side of the chart.
If I hadn't looked at the numbers themselves I would have assumed that Vega was faster in everything instead of in some things.
Click to expand...

The graph isn't ranking FPS, it's just showing how many titles each card manages to get above 48 FPS minimum (the right-side graph), or for which the minimum FPS is less than 48 FPS. The ordering of the GPU marks isn't by FPS, but like this in each of the graphs: GTX 980 Ti, GTX 1080, Fury X, RX Vega 64.

Also, why no scores for some of the cards in certain games? Is it because the numbers didn't fit the narrative?
Click to expand...

Each of the cards has a placement for each of the games in one of the two graphs. If a card isn't listed for a game on one graph, it's because it's listed on the other graph. If the card has a minimum FPS of less than 48, it will be on the left-side graph. If its minimum FPS is more than 48, it will be shown on the right-side graph.
 
Delicieuxz said:
The graph isn't ranking FPS, it's just showing how many titles each card manages to get above 48 FPS minimum (the right-side graph), or for which the minimum FPS is less than 48 FPS. The ordering of the GPU marks isn't by FPS, but like this in each of the graphs: GTX 980 Ti, GTX 1080, Fury X, RX Vega 64.



Each of the cards has a placement for each of the games in one of the two graphs. If a card isn't listed for a game on one graph, it's because it's listed on the other graph. If the card has a minimum FPS of less than 48, it will be on the left-side graph. If its minimum FPS is more than 48, it will be shown on the right-side graph.
Click to expand...


That's my point. Even I misread what they were trying to show. Its the "lets muddy it up enough to make it confusing" way of showing data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top