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.
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.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.
25% more performance in the same power envelope seems pretty good to me, given that AMD's existing designs are notoriously inefficient.Seems disappointing tbh I expected a lot better of a performance increase I guess the double triple patterning of the lithography really did not give the yields we hoped for..... Well if AMD got 25% I wonder how much better this will be for NVidia, I really hope they are waiting till next year for TSMC UVL process the more precise lithography should yield a bit better of a result and if we are extremely lucky NVidia 7nm uvl might get 30-40% increases where as AMD will have experience with the node size they will have a much smaller increase unless they can make up for it with arch changes.
That is very, very true.25% more performance in the same power envelope seems pretty good to me, given that AMD's existing designs are notoriously inefficient.
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.Now people may finally believe AMD isn't going to save us from Nvidia price gouging. They are just going to enjoy better profit margins like a sensible company trying to maximize profit for shareholders.
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.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.
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.
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.
This card was stated to match the RTX 2080 performance and come with 16GB at a slightly lower price point than the 2080(8GB)....And at that price I cant understand how anyone but the most vapid AMD fanboy could care less.
Underwhelming, but not bad. It's good that they are undercutting the 2080 pricing - if their performance is as stated (I will await Kyle's tests for this determination). Yet, I'd like to see AMD come out with something to compete at the xx80 Ti performance tier, one of these days. Compete on flat-out performance, not JUST price/performance balance.
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)
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.
Agree with all of the above, but believe this product was designed on a shoe string budget prior to the Ryzen come back tour.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.
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.