• 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

depends on how far they have to push the clocks, I think that is what it comes down to.
 
razor1 said:
I don't think they can go down that low, this card is expensive to make..... Well they might do it, a hit on margins but low supply product anyways.
Click to expand...

I expect they release at least 2 variants cut down with all the best chips going to the Vega FE.
 
so are the TFLOP AMD Vega numbers (i.e., 13 TFLOLPS and 25 (FP16) TFLOPS) completely bogus? was this tested?

if not, then there seems to be driver issues.
 
cpuspeed said:
so are the TFLOP AMD Vega numbers (i.e., 13 TFLOLPS and 25 (FP16) TFLOPS) completely bogus? was this tested?

if not, then there seems to be driver issues.
Click to expand...

AMD said up to 13.1 TFLOPS (this is missing on a lot of websites/advertisements)

for FP32 it should be 1/2 * Texture Units * Raster Operators * Core Clock = FLOPS

1/2*256*64*1600=13.1 TFLOPS
of course during the PCPer demo it averaged 1400mhz so ~11.47 TFLOPS
 
I think we are looking at air cooled at $399.99 close to 1080 performance. And then watercooled that sustains 1600-1700 clocks in between 1080-1080ti at $549.99. Those are the only two prices that would make sense. $100 less than 1080 and closer to 1080 performance and 150 less than 1080ti.

Of course likely 100 more watts then 1080 and 1080ti at that price. Pick your poison.
 
Burzum said:
Yeah just don't use a 7900X as the CPU lol.
Click to expand...

Vega plus a 7900x, now we know what the Russians were doing at Chernobyl. They needed all the power that reactor had to run a benchmark.....
 
NKD said:
I think we are looking at air cooled at $399.99 close to 1080 performance. And then watercooled that sustains 1600-1700 clocks in between 1080-1080ti at $549.99. Those are the only two prices that would make sense. $100 less than 1080 and closer to 1080 performance and 150 less than 1080ti.

Of course likely 100 more watts then 1080 and 1080ti at that price. Pick your poison.
Click to expand...

If AMD has to price the cards low due to have good gaming performance/dollar, the mining performance/$ will be very attractive. From what I read mid to high 30's on ethereum hashrate would be possible for the frontier edition. If they have to price at $399.99 based on gaming performance to compete, then the cards are likely to be picked up by miners. That said, who knows if demand for mining will still be as high when the cards do come out but the limited stock due to HBM2 limitations can't help.
 
Archaea said:
I already mentioned a solid reason why someone might want an AMD card.

Freesync

Here's another one. Eyefininty multidisplay setups with mixed PLP (portrait landscape portrait) functionality for DX10, 11, and 12. Something Nvidia Surround can't do. Nvidia user's only option is Soft TH, which currently is DX9 at highest. But yes -- Freesync is the big one. I'd surely wager my bottom dollar that more Freesync monitors are out there in the wild than G-Sync, since Newegg has 5x's as many Freesync models for sale as they have G-sync monitors and G-sync monitors on average cost $2-300 more for the same panel display otherwise. So anyone interested in Freesync is eyeing an AMD card -- MS Console XBOX NEXT Scorpio introduces Freesync too - which means Freesync might start making it's way to TVs if it hasn't already. Nvidia can't serve Freesync. I've said for six or nine months that Freesync is AMD's ace in the hole.

As to these things being a "mega-space heater" in the office or at home. What is power draw at idle - because that's more typical to what your concern is, and to Magic Hate Ball's point -- the cards don't have to be stripped down hard on performance to be stripped down hard for power use when considering stuffing them into mobile application if that's the desired conversation. Wringing out the performance to the last rung is where the big power draw jump happens.
Click to expand...

I asked on r/AMD why people are waiting for Vega and FreeSync is the overwhelming answer.

If NVIDIA is willing to give up a little profit (either support FreeSync or make GSync free), NV could literally wipe out RTG for a generation.

That's a scary thought.
 
Last edited:
AMD has 0 chance in the mobile space. Here's what they're up against:

ellh57q.png


And it has about 85% of full reference desktop 1080 while using 55% of the power.

7e6cea87-1b0d-47f7-871e-bb16716fc862
bRvtCrS.png




So those who think power efficiency is not a must is simply ignorant. They're shut out of many lucrative markets due to their inefficiencies.
 
Last edited:
This is why I hate AMD though - they put out shit like "Poor Volta".

I'm still annoyed from when I waited for Fury, holding off on a 980ti, just to be mislead by them. Nothing pisses me off more than someone wasting my time.
 
Poor Vega ;)

That drummer boy is not jobless. Wonder what happened to the revolution, firing squad for the advertising agency?
 
Dayaks said:
This is why I hate AMD though - they put out shit like "Poor Volta".

I'm still annoyed from when I waited for Fury, holding off on a 980ti, just to be mislead by them. Nothing pisses me off more than someone wasting my time.
Click to expand...

What, do you expect them to say "our upcoming product kinda sucks, please go ahead and buy something else"? :p
 
Dayaks said:
This is why I hate AMD though - they put out shit like "Poor Volta".

I'm still annoyed from when I waited for Fury, holding off on a 980ti, just to be mislead by them. Nothing pisses me off more than someone wasting my time.
Click to expand...
Sorry but don't blame AMD, it is solely your fault. Every AMD marketing material for the better part of the last decade has been skewed one way or another. You made a choice, one you deem poor, and that is on you.
 
JustReason said:
Sorry but don't blame AMD, it is solely your fault. Every AMD marketing material for the better part of the last decade has been skewed one way or another. You made a choice, one you deem poor, and that is on you.
Click to expand...

Well, I learned my lesson. Remember the benchmarks showing the Fury X 30% better... yeah I learned my lesson well! Pile of shit company, I'm happy they are stuck with this turd.
 
Dayaks said:
Well, I learned my lesson. Remember the benchmarks showing the Fury X 30% better... yeah I learned my lesson well! Pile of shit company, I'm happy they are stuck with this turd.
Click to expand...


Never believe any marketing or any AMD rep stating anything about their products

Roy Talyor should be able to turn things around, he was the guy that had to make the fx look good! He has enough experience polishing up poor products. Wouldn't be surprised if poor volta was his idea lol.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
Never believe any marketing or any AMD rep stating anything about their products

Roy Talyor should be able to turn things around, he was the guy that had to make the fx look good! He has enough experience polishing up poor products. Wouldn't be surprised if poor volta was his idea lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Roy was a lot of it....
 
Has anyone seen Vega's FE launch video? Wow that was crap marketing they didn't even show the card or talk about its performance or talk about the card, reminds me of the infinity car commercials when infinity was first released.
 
So far looks like Vega FE is ~1080 ish. Since this is not the "gaming optimized" card, according to AMD, maybe the RX scores a little better. Which would go back to Kyle's prediction of between a 1080 and a 1080 Ti.

Either way, not losing any sleep over my 1080 Ti purchase ;).
 
I'm really curious what the average undervolt on the Vega will be.

Many RX480's had some crazy undervolt headroom (is it buttroom if it's under?) vs stock.

Hell, my HTPC RX470 will undervolt to 975mv from 1150mv if I sacrifice 5% clock speed!

The Fury I had (until I sold it for more than I bought it for hehehe) could undervolt -60mv from stock and that saved a ton of heat/power too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Magic Hate Ball said:
I'm really curious what the average undervolt on the Vega will be.

Many RX480's had some crazy undervolt headroom (is it buttroom if it's under?) vs stock.

Hell, my HTPC RX470 will undervolt to 975mv from 1150mv if I sacrifice 5% clock speed!

The Fury I had (until I sold it for more than I bought it for hehehe) could undervolt -60mv from stock and that saved a ton of heat/power too.
Click to expand...
My RX 480 has factory max clock of 1290 MHz @ 1150 mV; I run it at 1300 MHz @ 1060 mV. Stock memory speed is 2000 MHz @ 1000 mV; I run at 2100 MHz @ 940 mV. It uses ~100 W whilst playing Overwatch at 1440p with 99+% usage most of the time (a couple of specific spots in some maps look to be CPU limited). Ryzen is actually more efficient than Intel's chips their normal operating range (<= 3.8 GHz), it's just that their efficiency band doesn't extend high enough to compete at very high clocks (the usage rises disproportionately even at 4 GHz, similar with Intel above ~4.5 GHz). Just like with Ryzen, AMD are capable of making really efficient chips but just not at the very high end of the scale.

It looks like AMD have run into that issue again; they've got the clocks up to 1600 MHz but at the cost of extreme power consumption. The only real hope Vega has of turning out good is if the currently disabled features hugely boost performance for no power usage sacrifice. Maxwell managed to improve performance by over 50% through features like tile-based rasterization, something which we know is currently disabled in Vega FE release drivers. So it's possbile. I hope it happens but I am not holding my breath.

Right now Vega is behaving like an overclocked Fury, which makes no sense given it's on a smaller node and has a bunch of new features supposedly built into the design. Something is clearly up here.
 
To be somewhat more fair, the Vega FE should be compared more to the Quandro P5000, professional card:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...NA&ignorebbr&gclid=CM_Nxtjc5dQCFQ9ahgodFHsJ0g

Basically the P5000 is the professional version of the 1080 with 16GB. No, it does not game as fast as the gaming 1080 either and cost $2500 on sell. Now the gaming performance is like 8%-10% slower then a FE 1080 and more so for an AIB OC 1080. The Vega FE is way cheaper and I would like to see the performance compared to this card in professional applications and games. Biggest difference I see with the P5000 is certified drivers for applications (biggie), Cuda applications and of course lower power requirements. If the FE Vega performs well against this card then it maybe a great buy for a number of professionals.

I will just wait to see what AMD brings to the table with their gaming cards, I probably already put my foot in my mouth earlier. Still AMD is the one that compared the Vega FE to Nvidia's fastest gaming card - go figure plus not having certified professional drivers does not help.

Gaming Vega's will have less ram - some power and heat saved there, HBM2 could be clocked higher. The max temperature for throttling could be set higher, as in over 85c of the FE a.k.a 95c allowing higher clocks. Could have more aggressive powertune options, bigger coolers, more streamlined drivers for speed or games. Plus some of the developers maybe working already to optimize some of the games for Vega. Binning can also used for faster skew versions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top