Place your bets on Vega

How good will fastest Vega be on "Game Play" as per [H] Review.

  • Better than 1080Ti

    Votes: 30 8.2%
  • Same as 1080Ti

    Votes: 28 7.7%
  • Better than 1080

    Votes: 126 34.6%
  • Same as 1080

    Votes: 97 26.6%
  • Better than 1070

    Votes: 42 11.5%
  • Same as 1070

    Votes: 12 3.3%
  • Complete piece of shit!

    Votes: 29 8.0%

  • Total voters
    364
Status
Not open for further replies.

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,210
Be a wo/man!

Tell your [H]fellow what is your wisdom on Vega.

Then be judged on release, as choices are public.

Sorry, but I love polls!
 
They've been pushing this thing so long it better be 1080ti level or 1070 level at a 1060 price point.

Anything else and AMD will be fucked.
 
I've got 3 billion Zimbabwe dollars on red!

3 billion? Pshh, lets up the ante a little....

Zimbabwe%20Trillion_3_CROP.jpg
 
Wait!

Did I screw up the poll?

Can you guys see who voted for what?
 
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'd expect it to be at or slightly above 1080 levels at a price point between $350-400.

AMD will have to push the clocks this one aswell to make sure it beats the 1080 out of the box, drawing more power.
Some will call this a victory because of cheaper pricing, but many of us who have moved on from SLI/CF to the most powerful card available will be disappointed.
 
I voted complete POS. AMD has been over-promising & under-delivering for so long that nobody should be surprised. They haven't released anything worth buying or talking about in the past 10 years.



Ehhh, the HD 7970 was a good card and so was Hawaii(especially the AIB models). That was it, though...
 
Someone should tweet a picture of this poll to AMD afterwords just to give them an idea of how disappointing the enthusiast community is with their products.


Vega = Enthusiast, they need to know.
 
My realistic guess is for somewhere between 1080-1080ti for a "normal" model, and some monstrosity with it's own dedicated external power supply and a condenser you have to mount in a window that will be the technically fastest card around.

My guess is it'll still suck in DX11, but probably be killer in DX12.

I don't really care that much about power draw as long as I can run it on a reasonable PSU....so cheaper for more power draw is acceptable to me. I'll buy the damn thing regardless because I adamantly refuse to buy a G-Sync monitor, and I need something with more ooomph than the RX4/580 for consistent 2k gaming. So I'm a buyer regardless.
 
My guess is for the reference cards, it'll come out midway between 1080/1080ti performance. AIB's and customs will probably put it on par with 1080ti.
 
I like to point that amd cards may not be so great at launch, but unlike nvidia they get better with age. my 5870 lasted for eons, my 7970s still work fantastic, 290x solid, etc.
 
I like to point that amd cards may not be so great at launch, but unlike nvidia they get better with age. my 5870 lasted for eons, my 7970s still work fantastic, 290x solid, etc.

That is very true....I bought 2 video cards from 2003-2013....a 9700 Pro and a HD5850. My GTX770 lasted me 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Here's my prediction -

Slightly better or slightly worse than vanilla GTX 1080 depending on the game. It wont overclock for shit and the GTX 1080 will edge it out on just about every benchmark when comparing OC'ed Vega to OC'ed GTX 1080. It will be priced similarly to the GTX 1070 to keep it competitive.

AMD fanboys will grasp onto the 3-4 games/benches that favor Vega and will mention them in every thread.
Nvidia fanboys will say "you should look into a gtx 1070, its faster than Vega when overclocked" in every thread asking about it.
 
Here's my prediction -

Slightly better or slightly worse than vanilla GTX 1080 depending on the game. It wont overclock for shit and the GTX 1080 will edge it out on just about every benchmark when comparing OC'ed Vega to OC'ed GTX 1080. It will be priced similarly to the GTX 1070 to keep it competitive.

That sounds like a fair assumption imo
 
I take the added cost of a Gsync monitor into my equations when it comes to anything remotely "enthusiast". That's where AMD can become a value. In all reality that's what's keeping me waiting for Vega. My next build will be a max-out 2K build, and while I could grab a 1070 or reach for a 1080, I've still got to drop a $200 premium to get a decent monitor for it compared to whatever Vega presents itself as.
 
I take the added cost of a Gsync monitor into my equations when it comes to anything remotely "enthusiast". That's where AMD can become a value. In all reality that's what's keeping me waiting for Vega. My next build will be a max-out 2K build, and while I could grab a 1070 or reach for a 1080, I've still got to drop a $200 premium to get a decent monitor for it compared to whatever Vega presents itself as.

I have a Gsync monitor but I completely see your point. Free/G sync removes the need for absolute top of the line for me since I can get a great experience on even the upper mid range cards now.
 
I think it'll fall out just a tad bit over 1080 speeds.

It'll lose to 1080 in a few benchmarks, but it'll be faster than 1080 in most benchmarks. In some optimized vulcan or dx12 games it'll approach 1080ti at 4k, but it'll be a closer competitor to the 1080 overall.

It'll be $600 MSRP for the 8 GB version.
 
I'm going to pick same as 1080. If it's not at that level, I'm going to consider it a complete failure considering the hype train AMD has tried to build around it.
 
I'm going to pick same as 1080. If it's not at that level, I'm going to consider it a complete failure considering the hype train AMD has tried to build around it.

According to the votes so far, I think it is fair to say that most would agree with you.

Also, AMD has a alternative to the 1060.

If after all this effort they can only add a 1070 alternative, man that would suck donkey balls!

1080 alternative, now at least that would cover a fair chunk of "enthusiasts".

1080Ti alternative, that would be awesome!
 
I voted faster than 1080 (so between 1080 and 1080 Ti) because it HAS TO be. If it isn't faster than a 1080 they don't have any pricing power and will be screwed.
 
I voted 1080 level performance. If it exceeds that, then that's great. But with the little R&D costs that they have to work with, even getting to 1080 levels might be good.
 
Last edited:
I think it has to be 1080+ to be a hit, that said, I voted 1070+, :)

Lisa Su was talking so much smack with Ryzen+Vega @ 4K it'll fall flat any other way
 
I think it will be faster than the 1080 in some games and slower in others.
 
Same if not slightly better than the 1080 but will have crazy power consumption issues & run hot.
 
>= 1080 nearly universal, always slower than 1080ti. $550. It's an enthusiast part, so I expect it to consume as much power as a 1080ti (somewhere between 225 and 275W).
 
>= 1080 nearly universal, always slower than 1080ti. $550. It's an enthusiast part, so I expect it to consume as much power as a 1080ti (somewhere between 225 and 275W).

I feel it's going to be another 300w card.
 
I am figuring it will be about 1080 speeds for Nvidia Friendly games and be near or trade blows with the 1080ti on games that tend to do better with AMD architecture. If it can do this for around $500, I'll get it to replace my 1070.
 
Oddly enough, based on some of the AMD team's comments, I suspect it will improve DX11 performance vs DX12 performance compared to previous Radeon cards.

How high it clocks, if that's what they were counting on to hit 12.5gflops as quoted for the Instinct part, and whether or not that fell through when the finished silicon was spun.... the world may never know.

I suspect their driver team is pulling 60-70 hour weeks to get this HBCC voodoo working.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top