Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by AlphaAtlas, Jan 9, 2019.
So wait the same price for 2080 performance like 4 months later? wtf ati
8/12G is 2 years ago...
Ok, this looks like the main thread as there are about 4 threads on this now.
Right now, the 3gb gtx 1060 often takes a hit on fps with only 8gb system ram when compared to the 6gb gtx 1060 (ignoring shader difference). Over the next few years, I am thinking Vega 7 will hold up much better than the 8gb Nvidia cards when using 'only' 16gb of system ram. If you have 24gb or 32gb of system ram already, they are probably about even.
It's not really the rate of progress I'd like to see - going by their "on par with RTX 2080" claim puts it at (very optimistically) 10-15% above a 1080Ti, 2 years later and at the same price.
Which also means this card will likely be $999, possibly even $1099 Canadian dollars. Ugh.
The horribly late Vega refresh finally shows up
sadly nvidia left the option on the table but 16GB of HBM2 isn't cheap either. maybe it starts a price war, maybe it doesn't. all we can do is wait and see what the outcome ends up being.
On it's own it looks like a pretty decent card, but from my subjective point of view it's not really worthwhile. Forcing some price cuts would be very much appreciated.
25% more performance in the same power envelope seems pretty good to me, given that AMD's existing designs are notoriously inefficient.
8gb-12gb-16gb and "cut down" to hit different price points such as this $700, a $504 and a $325 version (something like that) this would target all the "enthusiast" level price points, leaving open the ~$80, $125-$200-$225-$275-$300 total (I talk in CAD though that $700 is well beyond my wallet, for me, $350 max shipped price is most I can stomach, pretty bad when my 2012 card (7870) still sits at number 80 out of 592 cards speed rank, where Titan RTX and 2080Ti are 1st and 2nd respectively.
I just want great 1080p and nice 1440p+ level (turn down a thing or 2) that uses under 150w or so full load (from the wall), I liked my 7870 because it has ability to "suck back" 225w but spec at 150w "normal" with a chunk overclock allows to hit 175w max load so at least there is plenty of room in wattage rating, I want a more "hard lock" type approach with more proper control on wattage limit (such as throttle when hit X power use) organize clocks accordingly for core and vram (to maximize performance and minimize power use) they need more steps available for GPU and CPU IMHO so "cool and quiet" does exactly what it should be.
Anyways, if something "new" allowed me to finally replace my aging 7870 (still running perfect to this day, maybe 5-8mths after they released in first place) not exceeding 150-175w fully loaded (maybe even mid overclock) and the cpu/rest of system combined say 500w with great performance at a reasonable price point I had in mind ($3000 or less) 1440p+ level of performance, quick ASF storage performance and more than capable of handling demanding tasks.
That is very, very true.
Honestly I'll wait to see the independent benchmarks, both NVidia and AMD cherry pick best case scenario numbers and %s.
The positive perspective is that without Radeon VII, AMD can only compete with Nvidia up to the RTX 1060, but with Radeon VII, AMD can now compete with Nvidia up to the RTX 1080. I think that's substantial, and a win for consumers. It's not some mic drop moment, but it's better than nothing.
The negative perspective is I'm likely stuck on my GTX 1080 Ti until mid-2020. (If we're just now seeing Radeon VII, then Navi is likely at least still a full year out, right?) This will be the first GPU I've kept for more than three years.
To be fair this is a cut down workstation part using a relatively large die on a cutting edge process with 16GB of HBM memory, it's not cheap to produce. AMD is almost certainly making less money per sale here than NVIDIA is on the 2070 or 2080.
Looking back through my older posts, I remember describing how the biggest thing that was probably holding VEGA 64 back and especially why its clockspeed scaling was so poor compared to Fury cards was the lack of memory bandwidth. It looks like Vega VII's boosted memory bandwidth really is the primary source for frame rate improvement since real world clock speed is seemingly not that much higher than VEGA 64's speed.
Yeah, go out and buy a 1080Ti right now. Oh wait.
No need, I've had one for close to two years. I'll sell it to you for a fair price if you want :^)
Well, you're wrong there, but you may have mistyped your models. Vega 64 is competetive with GTX 1080, which is same performance as RTX 2070.
I'm looking to build a computer for video editing. The 16 GB of HBM at $699 certainly makes this tempting. Vega 2 will probably be available to sell by the time I can get this together.
It's funny/sad to see how my GTX 1080 Ti has hardly lost any of its price to performance value since I purchased it almost 1.5 years ago.
The 1080ti is turning out to be the 2600k of GPUs. I paid more for mine than I'd ever paid for a video card before, but it looks like I'll be keeping it for longer than any other card as well.
1080ti might be challenging the fabled OG Titan on how well it holds it's value over time soon.
I am being dead serious here but as long as you don't care about brand or logo, a 2060 more than qualifies at your price point. If you are strictly AMD you are probably going to need to hold out.
...And at that price I cant understand how anyone but the most vapid AMD fanboy could care less.
I was mistaken - I thought Vega 64 only competed up to RTX 2060, didn't know it reached RTX 2070 performance levels. Thanks!
I was actually expecting it to be more around the performance of the 2070 instead of the 2080 so that is good news to me. However, if the price would have been $599 instead I would have considered it a hit but at $699 the price is merely "ok" to me. The 16Gb HBM is nice but it's missing DLSS, and RT found on the 2080. At the end of the day it's a 1080Ti level card with 16Gb HBM and all of the Radeon features which isn't a bad thing by any means but it's going for the same price that the 1080Ti launched at two years ago so it's not a slam dunk value, just alright. It'll be good for AMD users for sure but since I got a used 1080Ti in November I'm not interested in purchasing this card myself.
I'm tempted to sell my 1080ti strixx for the vega 7, but it'll be a sidegrade or maybe 5-10% better with more memory. Hard to justify now that gsync should work on my freesync2 samsung CGH70
This card was stated to match the RTX 2080 performance and come with 16GB at a slightly lower price point than the 2080(8GB).
Looks like a decent choice to me for 4K gamers.
Hopefully Navi will bring us some mainstream improvements later in the year.
I am running a 1070ti and am waiting for the first solid 7nm GPU in the $250-$350 range available (Nvidia or AMD).
Vega 7 and Turing are both short term stop gaps until 7nm (2nd half 2019 AMD, 1H 2020 Nvidia)
If this has the Vega chip will it allow assigning some of that excess memory and processing capability to VDI's in a small ESXi host? Guys your missing the boat here if that is the case. We could be easily building a VM host machine with 1 of these cards in it to support 4 small light weight no dedicated video systems even laptops to allow them to Game on a VDI with a good experience! Sure it's not for everyone... now I need to see if Vega supports virtualization.
This looks like a... MAYBE right now.
Until it comes out and MSRP is just a stat, e-tailer's will inflate this to $1k which will make it a bad deal even if stock is medium they will still try flipping the cards for a higher price, NVidia will just price cut in May or April when manufacturing yields get better and it basically puts AMD right where they were with Vega56/64.
Honestly I'd wait for TSMC 7nm UVL and not the double triple patterned lithography, you are going to get a better yield of performance with the more precise etching it should have less power leakage as well.
I already have more video cards than I know what to do with
For 699 I'm not the least bit impressed as it does basically zero to change the current landscape. Nvidia sure as hell not going to worry about their card being just a hundred dollars cheaper even if it does compete with it because for $100 more you get DLSS and Ray tracing features for some games. So essentially we're still getting 1080ti performance for the same price that a 1080ti cost nearly 2 fucking years ago. This GPU should have been 599 at the very most.
Could be a really good proposition for 4K gamers. RTX isn't powerful enough in the 2xxx chips to be usable in 4K, so a card with massive memory and good pixel pushing power like this could be really nice.
What is even more funny/sad? I feel the same way with my 970 and it plays everything at 1080p that I have tried.
I guess games have plateaued so the vid card makers are manufacturing technologies that we just have to have to justify their products. I just have not seen anything that impresses me from either camp.
I'll wait for the HardOCP review but looks like a winner.
Agree with all of the above, but believe this product was designed on a shoe string budget prior to the Ryzen come back tour.
This is AMD's short term offering to let gamers and Nvidia know AMD hasn't given up on the high end (it should compete with RTX 2080).
Well it *is* vega... @ 7nm
It looks like the bandwidth limit has now been confirmed.
Not interested for $700 dollars, especially for a refresh card. 7nm or not.
It doesn't look like a lower price point to me. You can buy in stock 2080s for $699 today. How long before you can say that for the Vega 7?
Hmm...1 Ryzen 3rd Gen system and 2 new Radeon 7's...
Yeah that's definitely doable.
Looks like a couple of the sailors on base will be getting my Asus Strix 1080Ti OC and Titan X.
Finally can get rid of the nVidia cards...damn it's been a long time since I've had a pure AMD-based system