Radeon RX Vega Discussion Thread

trentchau said:
The big buyers like Dell, HP, etc with their 250 watt psu's car about power. Even then the lower mid, to mid has always been the main bread winners.
Click to expand...
yes this is true but those system wouldn't have components that require higher wattage. the average person doesn't want to spend more than $500 on a tower which might have a 1050 or something low end in it or even just onboard so its not an issue.
 
Dayaks said:
When have AMD's slides every been accurate? Or even close? Not in the last couple years.

I wrote off Vega as not being able to predict... too much is different. If I had to guess I'd say around 1080 range but it's a shitty guess.
Click to expand...
As in cryptic and non sensible? With us wasting our life debating over it as well? With wiggle room enough for a weasel to get lost in. It maybe not if they are accurate or not but can we actually determine anything accurately with them. The Nano slides were actually pretty much accurate and useful information to determine performance. The Polaris ones really did not fulfill the efficiency ratings without some rather gross comparisons. We just need the hardware in hand, preferably at HardOCP running it though real usage tests. Then forget about the slides.
 
pendragon1 said:
no that's not paying attention and blaming the wrong product
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, since customer is the king.
pendragon1 said:
yes this is true but those system wouldn't have components that require higher wattage. the average person doesn't want to spend more than $500 on a tower which might have a 1050 or something low end in it or even just onboard so its not an issue.
Click to expand...
The main customer of OEMs are companies, you know that, don't you?
 
noko said:
Performance rules followed by price closely for the most part in many large selling parts of this world. In the US performance sells, in Germany power starts I do believe to be considered more. If the new Polaris with a significant bump in performance is true - what is Nvidia going to compete against AMD in that sub $300 market? I don't see the 1060 getting a 10%-20% boost in performance. I do believe Nvidia could dramatically reduce prices though getting the 1070 very close to that $300 mark. Nvidia lock on the mobile market with discrete GPU's that play rather nice with Intel cpu's looks secure for now since Polaris 11 or will it be 21? Still looks weak.
Click to expand...

The new 500 series isn't 10-20% faster, its more like 3-6%. And there is a 9Ghz memory 1060 now. GP106 also outsells Polaris 10/20 by a few times.

The question is how will AMD price Vega and where do it hurt due to their much higher costs. In short, how low can they price Vega before they lose money. GTX 1080 can already be had for down to 450$.

Nvidia got a lock on the mobile market because of perf/watt. Polaris series is a complete joke there and Vega will not even enter it.
 
Peppercorn said:
Basically all you are doing is creating your own narrative then spewing out random words to validate your own narrative. Vega isn't late, it's always been on the roadmap for 2017 as i've informed you several times. What is late, is Volta that has been pushed back for 2 years at least since it first appeared on the road map. Poor Volta.
Click to expand...

Oh my God !!
Really, i just noticed that, and can't resist to answer !! (*although someone might have given a similar answer already, but as i said i can't resist to wait !!)
So, .....Vega isn't late, but it's Volta that is late ????
I'll tell you a little secret: It's not NVidia whose best-flagship GPU is severely lacking in performance, .....it's (*guess who !! )....AMD !!!
So you are claiming that a company ( AMD ) whose best GPU (FuryX) has half the performance of the present best GPU (1080Ti ), is right on schedule, while another company ( NVidia ) who has no competition at all for almost a year now, is ...behind on schedule? !!!! :dead:

-Hypothetical question now: Imagine how far behind AMD would have been if they weren't right on schedule !!! :ROFLMAO::LOL:
P.S. Poor Volta indeed !!!
 
Last edited:
sirmonkey1985 said:
i wouldn't really consider the 970 as a power efficient card but for the price at the time it was the best option when you look at performance/cost. if i remember correctly it was over 200 dollars cheaper than the 980 (the difference was even larger with the custom 980's) and only 50-60 more than the 960 that released way later than both cards while having almost similar performance to the 980 if you overclocked it.
Click to expand...

When it came out, I remember sites like Anandtech, Tomshardware, and even HardOCP dedicating a page or their reviews to power consumption on the 970. It was advertised and reviewed as a power effecient card...I believe Maxwell was heavily pushed as such.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-970-maxwell,review-33038-12.html

Here's the HardOCP one

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/09/29/msi_geforce_gtx_970_gaming_4g_video_card_review/10


While once again I like raw power...I think people were just shocked at how much fps Nvidia and now AMD was getting with using only 60~70% of the load from before.
 
If the rumors are true and Vega is AIO water cooled, I will have to rethink my plans. Was hoping to run 2 in Crossfire but I probably can't fit two more coolers in my case.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57144/amd-radeon-rx-vega-teased-8gb-hbm2/index.html

Do you think AIB partners will make non-water cooled versions? I really want two. If I can't have 2 I may consider just going Nvidia (though I really wanted this rig to be AMD all the way).
 
Damn assholes are spending all this money on the fucking packaging and we don't even know what the hell good the card is, yet...

And if it's water cooled only that would really suck.
 
cybereality said:
If the rumors are true and Vega is AIO water cooled, I will have to rethink my plans. Was hoping to run 2 in Crossfire but I probably can't fit two more coolers in my case.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57144/amd-radeon-rx-vega-teased-8gb-hbm2/index.html

Do you think AIB partners will make non-water cooled versions? I really want two. If I can't have 2 I may consider just going Nvidia (though I really wanted this rig to be AMD all the way).
Click to expand...
Given their past track record of Fury X, unlikely.
 
cybereality said:
If the rumors are true and Vega is AIO water cooled, I will have to rethink my plans. Was hoping to run 2 in Crossfire but I probably can't fit two more coolers in my case.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57144/amd-radeon-rx-vega-teased-8gb-hbm2/index.html

Do you think AIB partners will make non-water cooled versions? I really want two. If I can't have 2 I may consider just going Nvidia (though I really wanted this rig to be AMD all the way).
Click to expand...
I would be very surprised to see it end up being an AIO-only card in retail.
 
cybereality said:
If the rumors are true and Vega is AIO water cooled, I will have to rethink my plans. Was hoping to run 2 in Crossfire but I probably can't fit two more coolers in my case.
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57144/amd-radeon-rx-vega-teased-8gb-hbm2/index.html

Do you think AIB partners will make non-water cooled versions? I really want two. If I can't have 2 I may consider just going Nvidia (though I really wanted this rig to be AMD all the way).
Click to expand...

I don't know where this rumor started. All the demos done have been on a blower style cooler. The rumor is there might be a water cooled version but it will only be reserved for the top of the line card it seems. There will be air cooled versions of the cards, may be there will be a water cooled version that will be maxed out on clocks who knows but there will be clearly air cooled versions as all the demos have been of the air cooled cards.
 
OK, that makes sense. I'll give AMD the benefit of the doubt until there is official confirmation either way. Man, the anticipation is killing me.
 
cybereality said:
OK, that makes sense. I'll give AMD the benefit of the doubt until there is official confirmation either way. Man, the anticipation is killing me.
Click to expand...

Yea the leaks have been on absolute lockdown though. It feels like they totally stopped talking about it. Someone told Kaduri to shut the fuck up, I wanted to punch him in the face when he said he had something special for viewers online and then announced a fucking name with a teaser. Good riddance, I am actually happy he has shut up about it, may be they will drop a decent graphics card on us other than just stupid demos and previews, and name teasers.

I think that rumor started from WCCFTECH.com about there being a liquid cooled version of Vega card with no source to back it up. Thats where I first read it at least.
 
If this card sucks or requires some bullshittery playing with the motherboard memory timings to squeeze out more fps I'm selling my freesync monitor and going back to Nvidia. As much as I love my monitor and the current mediocre performance from my 295x2, I can't wait for them to "catch up" any longer.

I also can't wait for them to release it any longer, hurry it up AMD.
 
Archaea said:
So why are the Vega specs basically the same as the Fury X?

Vega
http://www.game-debate.com/news/227...-packaging-spotted-in-amd-chinese-ad-campaign

14nm Vega 10 GPU

  • 4096 stream processors
  • 64 NCUs (Next Compute Units)
  • 2048-bit memory bus
  • 8 GB HBM2
  • 512GB/s Memory Bandwidth
  • PCIe Gen 3 x 16
  • 225W TDP

Fury X
https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-specs-fiji/amp/

4096 stream processors
64 NCU
2048 memory bus
4GB HBM
512GB/s memory bandwidth
Click to expand...


Its because AMD was getting diminishing returns with more shaders. They needed to plug things else where. Apparently Vega is suppose to have more refined CUs that can work at higher clock rate and can be utilized more than Fury. One of the slides also said designed to run at higher frequency and more operations per clock. I am sure they could pack more shaders and then be stuck with the same situation, a bigger chip and slower clocks and shaders that are sitting there and doing nothing. I am sure we will find out soon enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
I wouldn't mind an AI0 version as long as you can disconnect the hoses going to the pump, fan cooler and hook up your own. Better yet just an option to buy the card with just the block at a cheaper cost. If these are good overclockers and yet will need a lot of cooling than water maybe the way to go.

One way to cut cost is having a 4gb version if the Memory High Bandwidth Cache Controller does what AMD taunts about. If they do have a 4gb version I hope HardOCP really does some very hard testing seeing if it actually delivers what was promised - better allocation of memory resources where 4gb will be like 8gb before. If it does then it would cut the cost down on the HBM and not hurt performance also the 8gb version will be more like a 16gb card.
 
Last edited:
Archaea said:
So why are the Vega specs basically the same as the Fury X?

Vega
http://www.game-debate.com/news/227...-packaging-spotted-in-amd-chinese-ad-campaign

14nm Vega 10 GPU

  • 4096 stream processors
  • 64 NCUs (Next Compute Units)
  • 2048-bit memory bus
  • 8 GB HBM2
  • 512GB/s Memory Bandwidth
  • PCIe Gen 3 x 16
  • 225W TDP

Fury X
https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-specs-fiji/amp/

4096 stream processors
64 NCU
2048 memory bus
4GB HBM
512GB/s memory bandwidth
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the Chinese marketing video, in my opinion these specs might well be bullshit. Has anyone actually seen the video? Also ya, I hope Koduri is a better exec than he is a marketeer.
 
Looks like they might release a high clocked version with AIO that will be limited edition it seems. Makes sense, probably TOP of
SighTurtle said:
I haven't seen the Chinese marketing video, in my opinion these specs might well be bullshit. Has anyone actually seen the video? Also ya, I hope Koduri is a better exec than he is a marketeer.
Click to expand...

Game debate is copy paste bullshit website. They post recycled shit and make up anything. There is nothing concrete about Vega. But yea its likely similar specs to fury with added features to reduce bottlenecks and much higher clocks.
 
Archaea said:
So why are the Vega specs basically the same as the Fury X?

Vega
http://www.game-debate.com/news/227...-packaging-spotted-in-amd-chinese-ad-campaign

14nm Vega 10 GPU

  • 4096 stream processors
  • 64 NCUs (Next Compute Units)
  • 2048-bit memory bus
  • 8 GB HBM2
  • 512GB/s Memory Bandwidth
  • PCIe Gen 3 x 16
  • 225W TDP

Fury X
https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/amd-radeon-fury-x-specs-fiji/amp/

4096 stream processors
64 NCU
2048 memory bus
4GB HBM
512GB/s memory bandwidth
Click to expand...

Fiji got a 4096bit bus. And who knows is Vega 10 actually gets 512GB/sec instead of 409GB/sec at this point. 2Ghz HBM2 is still MIA.

Even Vega 20 is pretty much the same specs, besides the bus is back to 4096bit. For Vega 10 packed math seems to be the biggest die stealer. For Vega 20 its FP64.
 
SolidSnake3035 said:
Damn assholes are spending all this money on the fucking packaging and we don't even know what the hell good the card is, yet...

And if it's water cooled only that would really suck.
Click to expand...

Considering they had all sorts of issues with the AIOs on the Fury X it would make me very skeptical. Probably a deal breaker for me.
 
Dayaks said:
Considering they had all sorts of issues with the AIOs on the Fury X it would make me very skeptical. Probably a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...
They sorted all those issues out early on, and you can expect them to NOT repeat those issues with their refined coolers --- if they do a water cooled option again on the Vega. I have a pair of Fury X (about 1 year old) and the coolers allow me to run crossfire with ~ 600 watts of GPU in a Cooler Master Cosmos 1010 case (not the best at airflow) with the two cards only running at 55*C under gaming load - with the fans nearly inaudible (case on the floor).

Compare that to a pair of GTX 560TI's that I had previously that would throttle as they approached 100*C in SLI, with fans that went crazy in the same case Cosmos 1010 case (bear in mind the GTX560TI pulled significantly less power than the pair of Fury X).
CLC's have their place! They exahaust all the GPU heat OUTSIDE the case (keeping everything else cooler too -- hardrives, motherboard, CPU, etc).
I'd buy my next pair of cards with CLC in a heartbeat.
 
Including an AIO is AMD's way of increasing the card's value when it fails in other areas. "It might perform slightly worse but it comes with a 'free' watercooler".
Didn't work against the 980 Ti, will probably work even less this time around since the 1070 and 1080 are more efficient.
 
if its not at least 1080 preformance and I am betting it won't be, they are already writing excuses and saying how its the greatest despite not being.
So far everything they have introduced in the last year has been low end junk.
 
sparks said:
if its not at least 1080 preformance and I am betting it won't be, they are already writing excuses and saying how its the greatest despite not being.
So far everything they have introduced in the last year has been low end junk.
Click to expand...

I've got 3 words for ya:

AN OVERCLOCKERS DREAM
 
Archaea said:
They sorted all those issues out early on, and you can expect them to NOT repeat those issues with their refined coolers --- if they do a water cooled option again on the Vega. I have a pair of Fury X (about 1 year old) and the coolers allow me to run crossfire with ~ 600 watts of GPU in a Cooler Master Cosmos 1010 case (not the best at airflow) with the two cards only running at 55*C under gaming load - with the fans nearly inaudible (case on the floor).

Compare that to a pair of GTX 560TI's that I had previously that would throttle as they approached 100*C in SLI, with fans that went crazy in the same case Cosmos 1010 case (bear in mind the GTX560TI pulled significantly less power than the pair of Fury X).
CLC's have their place! They exahaust all the GPU heat OUTSIDE the case (keeping everything else cooler too -- hardrives, motherboard, CPU, etc).
I'd buy my next pair of cards with CLC in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Well that's fine and dandy but I had to replace my fan on my Fury X and now the pump sounds like hell. I threw AMD a bone and it didn't quite work out. Two faults in one cooler :/. I'd be crazy to do it again.

Now I've put AIO's on my 980, Titan X and 1080... So I know how nice they can be.
 
Dayaks said:
Well that's fine and dandy but I had to replace my fan on my Fury X and now the pump sounds like hell. I threw AMD a bone and it didn't quite work out. Two faults in one cooler :/. I'd be crazy to do it again.

Now I've put AIO's on my 980, Titan X and 1080... So I know how nice they can be.
Click to expand...

Should still be under warranty. You have three years right? (my XFX Fury X cards have three years)
 
Some news on Vega with a 2018 release. Not sure which Vega he is refering too though.

 
RAutrey said:
Q1 2018??? Thought it was going to be the "summer of Vega".
Click to expand...

There is a vega 20 as well in 2018. Guys is basically trolling. He always tells people off and calling them AMD fanboys but truth is statements like that is where people like him lose all credibility. Vega 2018? What the fuck is he literally smoking when the chines marketing video said coming "2017" lol. And oh about the power usage, why doesn't he actually get off his ass and do some work to determine actually how much the card is using rather than saying it uses same as ti because of recommend power supply? WTF lol.
 
Shintai said:
The new 500 series isn't 10-20% faster, its more like 3-6%. And there is a 9Ghz memory 1060 now. GP106 also outsells Polaris 10/20 by a few times.

The question is how will AMD price Vega and where do it hurt due to their much higher costs. In short, how low can they price Vega before they lose money. GTX 1080 can already be had for down to 450$.

Nvidia got a lock on the mobile market because of perf/watt. Polaris series is a complete joke there and Vega will not even enter it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it yet until the pedal is to the metal on both. Looks like DX 12 and VulKan it is just that. A larger sampling I would also need to see.

Nothing earth shattering - onto Vega.
 
So where are all those 1500 mhz rumors now, and 220 watts for 1060 gtx performance, looks like a respin really helped t
NKD said:
Yea the leaks have been on absolute lockdown though. It feels like they totally stopped talking about it. Someone told Kaduri to shut the fuck up, I wanted to punch him in the face when he said he had something special for viewers online and then announced a fucking name with a teaser. Good riddance, I am actually happy he has shut up about it, may be they will drop a decent graphics card on us other than just stupid demos and previews, and name teasers.

I think that rumor started from WCCFTECH.com about there being a liquid cooled version of Vega card with no source to back it up. Thats where I first read it at least.
Click to expand...


Actually they haven't been in lock down, we pretty much know what Vega is already :) Now that is a pretty big hint there :). Nothing to do with WTF tech article btw.
 
NKD said:
Its because AMD was getting diminishing returns with more shaders. They needed to plug things else where. Apparently Vega is suppose to have more refined CUs that can work at higher clock rate and can be utilized more than Fury. One of the slides also said designed to run at higher frequency and more operations per clock. I am sure they could pack more shaders and then be stuck with the same situation, a bigger chip and slower clocks and shaders that are sitting there and doing nothing. I am sure we will find out soon enough.
Click to expand...


~1500 is still max on Vega, we just can't expect more, there are many reasons for this, and many leaks that point to that. Not only that with P10 refresh, we can see what is happening to the power draw with GCN architecture, we saw this with ALL GCN architectures to date, 1500mhz is much higher of a clock rate then what they had previously. Remember AMD never mentioned which card or gen AMD has been comparing to higher clock rates too. They were not talking about Polaris 10.

Now add in the fact we know pretty much everything major about Vega, and the time they had to design Vega, too many things point to 1500, and specs that have been leaked. There is no way AMD has two different chips one from Instinct Brand and one for Radeon brand. Not going to have two separate chips. They are resource limited, and to design and tape out another chip, just the tape out costs 20 million or so. So design? Lets look into the hundreds of millions? Did they have the R&D to do that? They have been cutting down their R&D expenses in the recent years, so no they didn't.
 
The MI25 card at this time is lowered to 24Tflops or 1440Mhz if you like.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Including an AIO is AMD's way of increasing the card's value when it fails in other areas. "It might perform slightly worse but it comes with a 'free' watercooler".
Didn't work against the 980 Ti, will probably work even less this time around since the 1070 and 1080 are more efficient.
Click to expand...

They won't do that unless absolutely necessary. Fiji was a necessity, they couldn't keep its thermals and power usage in a certain range and keep up with the 980ti at the same time. So they needed that AIO. It was a 275 watt card with an AIO without it, expect it to be a lot more, since it clocks were pushed to the max at default.
 
The trend, at least with Polaris, seems to be to compare to the 380. I'm guessing that it's based upon price point. So what's Vega going to be price-wise? A 390X? A Fury?
 
Vega should be Fury series and 390 series replacements, how they stack up to nV's cards is a different matter since nV has 4 cards (2 in performance, which is the bracket the 390x series, and 2 in Enthusiast,which are in and Ti and Titan P,) problem with this is, Titan is not something AMD can go toe to toe against unless they have the performance in respectable power consumption. So 1080ti will be something they have to get to, to actually have a decent product on the market, something that can sell. If they don't get to that performance tier, everything else is going to matter BIG time, power consumption, can't be crazy on these cards. They can't go up to 275 watts and at gtx 1080 performance, anyone purchasing that card that is a 100 watt power difference in respect to their competition, that is a 50% increase in power. That isn't small, that is going from a 750 watt power supply to over 1000 watts.

OEM's will shun the card, look Dell the third largest OEM started selling Fury's at system costs 200 bucks or something around there above systems with gtx 1080's. That tells ya the power supply and cooling they need to put into the rest of the components, they are being beefed up considerably.

So if at gtx 1080 performance levels, they need to be around 200 watts otherwise the card just won't sell anywhere. If at 1080ti performance, yeah they can go up to 275 watts no problem, but from what we have seen so far to reach the 1080ti, unlikely that will happen.
 
I'm betting that Vega will be GTX 1080 performance for $400. Willing to wager $100 on the bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top