Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually re-reading the first few posts made me laugh a bit. I'd forgottten it was initially rumoured to be released in early 2018. AMD needs to update that. The last I've heard from them is 2020.
The current thoughts are that Vega 7nm will be skipped and they will jump straight to Navi and add a 12nm 600 series mid-range part set. But given that Nvidia has launched and AMD isn't raining on their parade even with innuendo id say that we are at-least looking end of 1st quarter 2019.
given how secretive they were with ryzen all the way up to launch it's hard to really know what AMD is thinking or doing.. they could either pull another ryzen or pull another vega and there's really no way to tell til it launches. if they start trying to overhype what ever they release next well in advance of launch that's when i'd start getting scared.. they have a bad habit of that with products that don't end up delivering.
given how secretive they were with ryzen all the way up to launch it's hard to really know what AMD is thinking or doing.. they could either pull another ryzen or pull another vega and there's really no way to tell til it launches. if they start trying to overhype what ever they release next well in advance of launch that's when i'd start getting scared.. they have a bad habit of that with products that don't end up delivering.
Well considering that Turing game performance jump is not that good combined with some out of this world price hikes -> AMD may have a viable option now with Vega 7nm especially if they fixed what ever was broken with the previous planned tile based rendering. Would have power under control, more efficiency big time, less heat, higher clocks, maybe even more shaders. Nvidia may have given them a golden opportunity to stay in the game before Navi is ready. With Vega 7nm and current pricing scheme from Nvidia I think they could compete, meaning better than 2080 performance at a lower price point. In other words they will need to outperform the Pascals and be cheaper than Turing which may not be too hard. Nvidia is left with massive oversized dies making it very hard for them to just drop the prices way low. I would bet AMD will make some 7nm Vega's for consumers, AMD needs to keep HBM production going plus all the other interposer assembly lines going before Navi hits.
I don't think the problem with Vega was the drivers. It's architectural bottlenecks.You are talking about the same company that shunned the AM3+ platform for several years. Prices never been a deciding factor with high end cards,
I thought that Vega 20 was doing 20 Terraflops. But Vega seems to not be able to capitalize on the raw power through their drivers.
Supposedly Navi will have some other benefits even if Navi is not going to cater to the high end market.
I do agree that there is a gap but AMD lacks marketing power to position anything and Vega in the consumer space does not have a very favourable reviews that left a very positive impression.
Well the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer (tile based rendering) was never turned on (hardware flaw?) and Primitive Processor as well. Getting DSBR would give a significant boost in efficiency and performance. Features promised but not delivered. If Vega 7nm was fully operational by design, good drivers etc. it would perform significantly better then just Vega, 35%+. As for Navi, it sounds like it is 6-9 months out if the silicon is good, also if TSMC can mass produce at 7nm as well. Now what makes sense is releasing 7nm Vega 20 for Instinct and EPYC so as not to tie up TSMC 7nm production combine with a higher profit margin. Other option is to allow some 7nm Vega 20's for Pro Consumers (4 HBM2 stacked 16gb Vega FE 2?) at a much higher price since Nvidia pricing skyrocketed until TSMC can really deliver on 7nm chips as needed. I would think Vega 20 would be pretty much plug and play on the same circuit board as Vega, change is just what is on the interposer.
I want better options from AMD. Yes, I'm willing to wait and I'm willing to put my money up.
Look at my sig: I've got a 970 running dual 1920x1200s. I still have a 670 powering a HTPC. I've got a Vega56 and an R9 390, but they put out the heat.
I'd like a SOLID 1440 card which doesn't need 250w+ to run. I'd pick up two. Maybe three...
This so hard. I've got a GTX 980 pushing a 32" 144Hz FreeSync monitor that I would love to pair with a Vega 64/56, but the value proposition for AMD is terrible right now. I think I'll just buy a used GTX 1080 while I wait for AMD's next generation in 2020.
You can get a 56/64 brand new with 3 games for under $450 if you take 30 seconds to set up a NIS alert....
Perfect name for the perfect post. Ha ha ha! Just having a bit of fun. How's everything going?I can get a used 1080 for $300 from someone locally and I'm not interested in new games. The power and heat of Vega also concerns me.
I can get a used 1080 for $300 from someone locally and I'm not interested in new games. The power and heat of Vega also concerns me.
Well if we are going to compare Apples to Oranges, I can buy used VEGA's cheaper but they go fast since the cards are still making $3~5 a day after power thanks to the big boost in crypto. I am tempted to buy a couple 56s and sit on them for a month and sell them at the beginning of Dec for $100~150 more then I paid for them. There is a small window here, just like in 2017, where you can get them below MSRP with some great games for a good price. If you choose not to, them that is your choice.
I can help you get the card down to 1080 power levels in about 2 minutes if that is the issue that is stopping you from a enjoying a smoother, judder free experience with higher fPS and IQ with FS. Completely up to you :-D.
PS..I would buy the 1080 and flip that myself in a few weeks. GPU's are headed back up if the crypto market goes the way it seems (the 1080 not so much since 5x isn't great for mining but at $300~350 buy in they will ROI quickly as well).
I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the 1080 regardless if I keep it or not. It's just too good of a deal to pass up.
If I could get a used Vega 56 for $300 or a Vega 64 for $400 I would, but I have been looking for weeks and haven't had any luck. I always buy used because I like to save money and I rarely play AAA games until I can get them for $15 or less. I'm married with kids so playing games when they release isn't important to me.
I am concerned with heat and power consumption. The heat output concerns me because I only have a small window A/C in my basement and it gets pretty warm in there for about 5 months a year. In the winter I'm not concerned because it stay near 66 in the basement with the heat on. We also pay quite a bit extra for electricity since we use a carbon neutral power distributor. The TDP of a Vega 64 is ~150W more than a 1080. It won't kill me, but it adds up.
Again, I *want* to use AMD, but they are really struggling with price, power, and performance for years now.
$250 for a 1080 equivalent card is nice and all but it's super disappointing considering that's basically what a vega 64 competes with.......... Plus nvidia cards have nvenc which is way better than the AMD encoding options.
Clearly you missed the entire thread and it’s points. So it’s disappointing to you that AMD will cause NVIDIA to drop their prices then you can pick up your favorite NVIDIA card for cheaper? Must be soooooo disappointing right since you won’t get to pay extra 100.
Vega basically does that. Oh for 400-500 or wait at twice the power. So you are saying AMd should remain power hungry and charge more?
Lol! Sometimes I really scratch my head at some of the comments.
I can't be disappointed that AMD has made absolutely no significant performance improvement over their current vega cards? I agree the card will be great value at $250. But that is all it will be. And like I said, unless things change, nvidia has nvenc which is important for a lot of people. AMD has an h264 encoder but the quality is terrible in comparison.
And I never said they should charge more...
$250 for a 1080 equivalent card is nice and all but it's super disappointing considering that's basically what a vega 64 competes with.......... Plus nvidia cards have nvenc which is way better than the AMD encoding options.
$250 for a 1080 equivalent card is nice and all but it's super disappointing considering that's basically what a vega 64 competes with.......... Plus nvidia cards have nvenc which is way better than the AMD encoding options.
I can't be disappointed that AMD has made absolutely no significant performance improvement over their current vega cards? I agree the card will be great value at $250. But that is all it will be. And like I said, unless things change, nvidia has nvenc which is important for a lot of people. AMD has an h264 encoder but the quality is terrible in comparison.
And I never said they should charge more...
I think $250 or even $300 for Nvidia 1080 performance would be OMGWTFBBQ levels of good. No one has been moving the price bar for a few years now, releasing that much performance for $250 would finally get prices lowering. Vega is decent and all, but they didn’t move prices with it.
I think people are finally resisting to the higher prices Nvidia has been pushing. Something needs to reset pricing or we’ll be paying $500+ for any decent GPU in a few years.
$250 for a 1080 equivalent card is nice and all but it's super disappointing considering that's basically what a vega 64 competes with.......... Plus nvidia cards have nvenc which is way better than the AMD encoding options.
I'm assuming based on their current lackluster encoding quality. and I'm assuming just like you guys are assuming tehy will have something to compete with the higher end nvidia cards.Oh you have an inside line on the performance of NAVI's x264 encoder performance?
Please tell.
Oh wait, you don't.
Never mind, you were assuming.
I'm assuming based on their current lackluster encoding quality. and I'm assuming just like you guys are assuming tehy will have something to compete with the higher end nvidia cards.
I've seen several that say there is little difference between AMD and Nvidia encoding x264.
Maybe it's your software?
Plex? Plex encoding problem is the software, which I use but sucks on support.
I don't think many people quite understand what Navi's purpose is.
It's to replace Vega (which AMD is selling at a loss).
The problem with Vega has always been its high production cost, specifically the HBM2 memory.
Because Vega is bandwidth starved (thanks to poor memory compression) and uses a lot of power, AMD had to use HBM2.
GDDR6 (which is cheaper than HBM2) provides bandwidth that's close the HBM2, but a significantly higher power consumption.
With AMD going from GloFo 14nm -> TSMC 7nm, AMD can use the power saving from die shrinking the GPU to accommodate the higher power consumption from GDDR6.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, since AMD was losing money with Vega, I don't expect AMD to lower the prices with Navi (unless forced to do so by NVIDIA).
Rather, I expect Navi to maintain Vega's prices.
The only way AMD could do that is if Navi comes clocked @ reference V56-ish speeds....You can't have the extra 300-400Mhz headroom VII has in the same power envelope if you take that power envelope away in order to give it over to the overhead GDDR6 needs...
I am not saying that Navi would not perform and sell very well at V56/64 speeds, but if you want performance uplift (unless you go with a much wider bus giving Navi more memory bandwidth* assuming it has the same bottleneck as VEGA, which it should if its just GCN) you have to expend more power in order to boost clocks. IT will be interesting to see what they come up with.
One of the big advantages that NVIDIA has over AMD that hardly anyone talks about is superior delta color compression.
It's how NVIDIA can get away with using far less bandwidth.
My source stressed to Raja how important it is, but that fell on deaf ears as Raja focuses on splashy new features.
You are correct in that. AMD made strides with the launch of Tonga, but they still lag way behind Nvidia there.
I am sore over the lack of the primitive shader/DSBR that was promised. I ended up happy with my cards, especially since they made me a good bit of money (my mining cards paid for my gaming VEGAs) but having Radeon VII performance in August of 2017 would have made things much better for AMD, and ultimately, the consumer.
Assuming no significant architectural improvement, I would expect it to perform somewhere between Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon RX Vega 64 while having the power consumption of the Radeon RX Vega 64.
The GPU's would run at Radeon RX Vega 56's clock speed.
Memory bandwidth (assuming 8GB GDDR6) would 448.0 Gb/s, which is around half way between Radeon RX Vega 56's 410.0 Gb/s and Radeon RX Vega 64's 483.8 Gb/s.
That would put it in Geforce RTX 2060's territory.
I highly doubt AMD releases a card with Vega 64 power that is slower than Radeon 7 since that is similar power to Vega 64, so it will be even worst on paper. I do expect Navi to have some decent improvements in Architecture. Since sony worked along with them as well. I think power consumption will be a major improvement with Navi since it is also going in consoles.