• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Vega Rumors

What does that mean? Disabled permanently because of design/production issues or driver team delays?
 
Meeho said:
What does that mean? Disabled permanently because of design/production issues or driver team delays?
Click to expand...

nothing and none, the simply fact that HBCC it's enabled on windows but it turned to be just a gimmick marketing feature for gaming, destroy all those claims, but also what that tweet fail to say is that they are referring to GNU/Linux environment as they referred to in another tweet.


*account made for fun, don't take our tweets so seriously. ;)*
 
They said that they think they are disabled on Windows and Linux if you read the comments on the tweet I linked further. Would be nice if one day AMD figured out all of their new toys on release day for once. ;)
 
IMO, the pricing issue is overblown. If AMD/RTG were selling cards directly from their own store and prices were like this, that would be a concern.

Come back in a month or two when cards should be more available. If prices are still sky-high and there's actual evidence of price collusion then feel free to pull the pitchforks out.
 
pandora's box said:
Who else remembers buying built by ati cards back in the day?
Click to expand...

I still have one or two in my 'storage' room... (Still have a working Voodoo Banshee card in an AMD Thunderbird system I gave to my mother-in-law, too, but that's not an ATI card, lol).
 
Everyone needs to remember that the two games are FREE.

Even the word FREE is underline

70Fk7KB.png
 
It's normal for prices to be inflated at launch, here in italy i can find Vega 64 for close to 900 euros


That's not the point though, as it stands based on statements from GN, Ocuk etc, AMD's stated MSRPs were factoring in a rebate. At no point to did AMD state that this rebate was in effect. Retailers were selling at those prices because the rebate enabled them to, in the absence of it they cannot.

This is not the same as usual launch inflation.

Neither is it comparable to the added cost of FE cards from NV...

If NV had launched the 1080 for 599$, but in truth it could only be sold at 599$ for as long as Nvidia maintained a 100$ rebate for retailers, then it is effectively a 699$ part on a short term launch discount.

Jesus christ if nvidia had done that all of these hardware forums + reddit would have exploded

The end result is the cards were reviewed considering a 100$ lower price point.
 
jbc029 said:
If the games were "free" then the bundle price would be the same as the stand alone card.
Click to expand...

Well the funny thing is they are free, cause the card costs 100$ more than claimed.

So, I guess you can choose how to take it, "free games" or "499$ MSRP"
 
Amd still said in there official response that suggested Msrp is good and they are doing their best to restock stand-alone cards.

The statement was really bullshit. I swear I used to cheer for the underdog and wanted Raja and rtg to succedd. But their lies are getting painful. Seriously I have never seen a launch so shady on pricing. This makes nvidia’s founder edition tax look good in comparison. Atleast nvidia fuckin told you what the founders edition is gonna cost and what the pricing on retail cards would be.
 
NKD said:
Amd still said in there official response that suggested Msrp is good and they are doing their best to restock stand-alone cards.

The statement was really bullshit. I swear I used to cheer for the underdog and wanted Raja and rtg to succedd. But their lies are getting painful. Seriously I have never seen a launch so shady on pricing. This makes nvidia’s founder edition tax look good in comparison. Atleast nvidia fuckin told you what the founders edition is gonna cost and what the pricing on retail cards would be.
Click to expand...

It's not a good look, is it.
 
F AMD. The previous 290x was my last and final AMD purchase. Under perform and over charge is a complete BS move especially from an underdog company like AMD. I know I didn't or won't be buying a Vega but it pisses me off when companies do this. It should be priced under a $500 1080 based on lower performance on average yet the air and water cooled versions are $100 / $200 more. It's down right pathetic. Hmm $700 for Vega 64 water cooled (<1080 performance) or 1080ti with 30% more performance? Tough choice. Middle finger to AMD.
 
So techpower up has thus article and at the end if says amd is losing $100 on each vega card sold lol. As much as I called shits on amd in my last post. I don’t believe this thing about them losing $100 on each card. I think this messy pricing is to put them at 30% profit on each card. If they were losing $100 on each card and were raising it $100 to break even that’s not even worth the time.

This is to pretty much maximize profits on each sale. And amd is counting on fanboys to buy these in bundles and at $599.99 despite knowing it’s not a great deal.
 
AMD is only making extra profit on these cards if (r)etailers were passing the profits back to AMD. This almost assuredly is not happening. If it were, that would be collusion on a massive scale and would fall afoul of the law (at least in the United States). As much as I think AMD/RTG has fucked up with this launch, I'm not going to accuse them of breaking or skirting the law.

As far as AMD losing 100 USD on each card, I doubt that's true. Shareholders would have Lisa Su's hide if they were losing money on each card. She doesn't seem to be an idiot.
 
NKD said:
So techpower up has thus article and at the end if says amd is losing $100 on each vega card sold lol. As much as I called shits on amd in my last post. I don’t believe this thing about them losing $100 on each card. I think this messy pricing is to put them at 30% profit on each card. If they were losing $100 on each card and were raising it $100 to break even that’s not even worth the time.

This is to pretty much maximize profits on each sale. And amd is counting on fanboys to buy these in bundles and at $599.99 despite knowing it’s not a great deal.
Click to expand...
The real question is losing $100 compared to what? AMD probably is losing $100 per RX Vega and Vega at MSRP probably is profitable. Everything AMD has done with the Vega launch makes perfect sense in that context and performance relative to Pascal isn't even relevant because of it. It's simple economics and capitalism.

Even enabling all of Vegas features isn't necessary as it wouldn't change the current situation. Doubling Vegas performance and better performance/watt than Pascal still likely wouldn't change anything.
 
Anarchist4000 said:
The real question is losing $100 compared to what? AMD probably is losing $100 per RX Vega and Vega at MSRP probably is profitable. Everything AMD has done with the Vega launch makes perfect sense in that context and performance relative to Pascal isn't even relevant because of it. It's simple economics and capitalism.

Even enabling all of Vegas features isn't necessary as it wouldn't change the current situation. Doubling Vegas performance and better performance/watt than Pascal still likely wouldn't change anything.
Click to expand...

if that was even possible that would change the dynamics of market place GREATLY!

Didn't we see what happened with the HD4xxx series against 2xx series? Or G80 vs r600? Lets see fx5800 vs the 9700 pro.

And this will never happen anyways.




Now ya see drivers are already done before a chip is taped out lol, this was JHH talking about Riva 128!

They launched the Riva 128 without validation and pretty much everything in the chip was FUNCTIONAL out of the box.
 
Last edited:
Considering doubling performance would topple 1080ti, I don't know whats going through your mind Anarchist, that you would think that wouldn't change anything.
 
So much pissing about the cost of the cards, if they are priced too high then you vote with you wallet and dont buy them. Prices wont come down until they cant sell the cards fast enough or what we like to call supply and demand.
 
Ieldra said:
It's normal for prices to be inflated at launch, here in italy i can find Vega 64 for close to 900 euros


That's not the point though, as it stands based on statements from GN, Ocuk etc, AMD's stated MSRPs were factoring in a rebate. At no point to did AMD state that this rebate was in effect. Retailers were selling at those prices because the rebate enabled them to, in the absence of it they cannot.

This is not the same as usual launch inflation.

Neither is it comparable to the added cost of FE cards from NV...

If NV had launched the 1080 for 599$, but in truth it could only be sold at 599$ for as long as Nvidia maintained a 100$ rebate for retailers, then it is effectively a 699$ part on a short term launch discount.

Jesus christ if nvidia had done that all of these hardware forums + reddit would have exploded

The end result is the cards were reviewed considering a 100$ lower price point.
Click to expand...

Gideon said:
So much pissing about the cost of the cards, if they are priced too high then you vote with you wallet and dont buy them. Prices wont come down until they cant sell the cards fast enough or what we like to call supply and demand.
Click to expand...

Leldra's post is on the mark. The claims made by OCUK and GamerNexus are where the issue is. Sadly I doubt AMD will respond either way, true or false. True, AMD will go silence to hopefully let it die down. False, well AMD is facing a situation with retailers and all the complexity that entails. And I doubt we'll see OCUK getting cut off, true or false, cause AMD can't afford to piss away storefronts.
 
razor1 said:
if that was even possible that would change the dynamics of market place GREATLY!

Didn't we see what happened with the HD4xxx series against 2xx series? Or G80 vs r600? Lets see fx5800 vs the 9700 pro.
Click to expand...
SighTurtle said:
Considering doubling performance would topple 1080ti, I don't know whats going through your mind Anarchist, that you would think that wouldn't change anything.
Click to expand...
Think about it in terms of $/mm2. Unless Vega is selling closer to $1000, regardless of performance, it's probably not in AMDs interest to manufacture. Hence pro cards and salvage 56's with a token launch. Toppling 1080ti wouldn't matter, even they aren't priced that high, so no need to play their cards. We simply have to wait.
 
Anarchist4000 said:
Think about it in terms of $/mm2. Unless Vega is selling closer to $1000, regardless of performance, it's probably not in AMDs interest to manufacture. Hence pro cards and salvage 56's with a token launch. Toppling 1080ti wouldn't matter, even they aren't priced that high, so no need to play their cards. We simply have to wait.
Click to expand...


What? if they were capable of beating Pascal they would do it, no question about it, high margin graphics products in gaming still make money! 40%+ margins for performance and up. No one in business ever throws money way. Specially when they are in the shitter. Listen to that video, JHH talks about when they were about to go under after NV1. nV was in the shitter, you think AMD behaves differently when they are virtually in the same boat?
 
I can't believe that if Vega could beat Pascal, AMD would still be unable to produce it without losing money. But I guess I could see Vega 64 being a problem with HBM2, such a big die, but not 56. (I don't know how GPUs get cut down) 56, should be a decent 1070 competitor, I can't see how the cost of producing 56 would make it unusable.

But I think only the launch and post-launch of Vega 56 will tell if AMD is unable to make money on the chips.
 
Meeho said:
The question now is what will come first, RTG's demise or a competitive card from AMD?
Click to expand...

Well if Navi doesn't deliver, RTG might just exit the discrete card business and just focus on semi custom and APU, but there will be no demise of RTG.
 
SighTurtle said:
I can't believe that if Vega could beat Pascal, AMD would still be unable to produce it without losing money. But I guess I could see Vega 64 being a problem with HBM2, such a big die, but not 56. (I don't know how GPUs get cut down) 56, should be a decent 1070 competitor, I can't see how the cost of producing 56 would make it unusable.

But I think only the launch and post-launch of Vega 56 will tell if AMD is unable to make money on the chips.
Click to expand...

It cost the same amount of money to make the 56 dies. They are just 64 dies with part of the chip disabled (sometimes because that area of the silicone has failures).
 
Meeho said:
The question now is what will come first, RTG's demise or a competitive card from AMD?
Click to expand...

They can't go out of business. Literally impossible. It would instantly make Intel a monopoly and break them up into smaller companies. Ha ha I would LOVE to see the EU response to AMD going out of business. Hell they can't be sold to a foreign country due to laws against certain types of tech being traded with other countries. The x86 license doesn't go with them if sold. What would happen to Nvidia if AMD is sold? I guess they could avoid the monopoly thing since Matrox is still around?

As far as performance goes in some tests it runs circles around Nvidia's finest. Read the conclusion here. If someone was looking for a gaming card that is super fast at workstation stuff (ThreadRipper / Intel i9 users) the Vega64 is in the same class as the upper tier Nvidia offerings which is what Anarchist4000 is trying to say about it being somewhat comparable to a Pro card. It isn't that much slower than a GTX 1080 in pure gaming if we were to be honest and look at a wide range of titles. When did GTX 1080 levels of performance become a failure? I thought the GTX 1070 was a really nice and powerful card personally.
https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/7/

As soon as everyone digests that a parrot will yell, "power consumption." Like most of us on [H]ardocp really care. :) The new Intel and AMD CPUs pull 400w+. Add in the extra performance for professionals and the card starts to justify some of its power usage. I think they are still a cycle behind Nvidia on this front but I'm not crying over it.

Lisa Su ain't worried. She has her protection on.


(And yes I was just having a bit of fun.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
cageymaru said:
They can't go out of business. Literally impossible. It would instantly make Intel a monopoly and break them up into smaller companies. Ha ha I would LOVE to see the EU response to AMD going out of business. Hell they can't be sold to a foreign country due to laws against certain types of tech being traded with other countries. The x86 license doesn't go with them if sold. What would happen to Nvidia if AMD is sold? I guess they could avoid the monopoly thing since Matrox is still around?

As far as performance goes in some tests it runs circles around Nvidia's finest. Read the conclusion here. If someone was looking for a gaming card that is super fast at workstation stuff (ThreadRipper / Intel i9 users) the Vega64 is in the same class as the upper tier Nvidia offerings which is what Anarchist4000 is trying to say about it being somewhat comparable to a Pro card. It isn't that much slower than a GTX 1080 in pure gaming if we were to be honest and look at a wide range of titles. When did GTX 1080 levels of performance become a failure? I thought the GTX 1070 was a really nice and powerful card personally.
https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/7/

As soon as everyone digests that a parrot will yell, "power consumption." Like most of us on [H]ardocp really care. :) The new Intel and AMD CPUs pull 400w+. Add in the extra performance for professionals and the card starts to justify some of its power usage. I think they are still a cycle behind Nvidia on this front but I'm not crying over it.

Lisa Su ain't worried. She has her protection on.


(And yes I was just having a bit of fun.)
Click to expand...


Doesn't work that way, natural monopolies by other companies falling flat can't be litigated against doesn't matter if its US or EU, rules are actually similar to monopolies.

The performance itself is not a failure, in conjunction with time (1 + year later) and double the power consumption, that is what is a failure.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
As far as performance goes in some tests it runs circles around Nvidia's finest. Read the conclusion here. If someone was looking for a gaming card that is super fast at workstation stuff (ThreadRipper / Intel i9 users) the Vega64 is in the same class as the upper tier Nvidia offerings which is what Anarchist4000 is trying to say about it being somewhat comparable to a Pro card.
Click to expand...
That's niche of a niche market segment, though.

It isn't that much slower than a GTX 1080 in pure gaming if we were to be honest and look at a wide range of titles. When did GTX 1080 levels of performance become a failure?
Click to expand...
When it comes so late and requires a giant expensive chip.
 
razor1 said:
What? if they were capable of beating Pascal they would do it, no question about it, high margin graphics products in gaming still make money! 40%+ margins for performance and up. No one in business ever throws money way. Specially when they are in the shitter. Listen to that video, JHH talks about when they were about to go under after NV1. nV was in the shitter, you think AMD behaves differently when they are virtually in the same boat?
Click to expand...
To what end though? Create a superior product and not ultimately sell very many? Those 40+ margins are likely insufficient in this case. The problem being GPUs aren't inherently high margin!

Meeho said:
The question now is what will come first, RTG's demise or a competitive card from AMD?
Click to expand...
It's still essential to their current processor model so I don't know why anyone would consider killing it off. Far more useful in the future, just not this moment.

SighTurtle said:
I can't believe that if Vega could beat Pascal, AMD would still be unable to produce it without losing money.
Click to expand...
The issue isn't about losing money, but not making as much.

cageymaru said:
As far as performance goes in some tests it runs circles around Nvidia's finest. Read the conclusion here. If someone was looking for a gaming card that is super fast at workstation stuff (ThreadRipper / Intel i9 users) the Vega64 is in the same class as the upper tier Nvidia offerings which is what Anarchist4000 is trying to say about it being somewhat comparable to a Pro card.
Click to expand...
That's part of it, but more that only the pro cards have margins currently warranting production. Market demands 1k CPUs and 1k GPUs and you can produce 1k chips. CPUs sell for 1k and GPUs for 500. Which chips do you make? That's the whole point of GPU performance currently being irrelevant for gamers. Even if the cards worked well, gamers couldn't find them for a reasonable or competitive prices without Pascal sucking big time.

GF isn't building fabs because AMD is going out of business. The issue isn't that Vega sucks, but that Ryzen/Threadripper/Epyc are kicking Intel's butt. Just think about that BoA analyst report with AMD going from 11% to 40-50% CPU market share. Unless GF was happily operating at less than 20% capacity there's a likely problem. The CPUs and GPUs use the same fab. Makes sense with GF expansion, WSA renegotiations, Mubadala raising cash, product releases, etc. A supply side constraint makes perfect sense. Until that eases, GPUs don't have sufficient margins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top