Calm your horses. Yea it should be tested but only blasted if Vega rx fails as miserably. Got it? No one is asking you to love amd. All it is being asked to do right now is not see Vega fe as direct equivalent for Vega RX. I doubt many fuckin people are buying this shit for gaming. Did you? If you did i feel bad for you and those that did so. Shit wait thirty days and blast it all you want. Shit I say Vega fe is a failed launch. Right there with you but it doesnt make rx Vega a fail! Got it? Why? Because rx Vega isn't here yet and it won't be price 1000. I'll leave it up to you to make sense of it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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
- Thread starter grtitan
- Start date
Calm your horses. Yea it should be tested but only blasted if Vega rx fails as miserably. Got it? No one is asking you to love amd. All it is being asked to do right now is not see Vega fe as direct equivalent for Vega RX. I doubt many fuckin people are buying this shit for gaming. Did you? If you did i feel bad for you and those that did so. Shit wait thirty days and blast it all you want. Shit I say Vega fe is a failed launch. Right there with you but it doesnt make rx Vega a fail! Got it? Why? Because rx Vega isn't here yet and it won't be price 1000. I'll leave it up to you to make sense of it.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
thats the thing. They wouldn't release the RX Vega (gaming) for $1000 if they know its 1080 speeds. AMD has always been about beating Nvidia in price/performance.
Right now the only we know is that power wise it sucks ass.
Last edited:
But with 8GB HBM2 how low can they really go? 8GB of HBM2 is reportedly around the neighbourhood of $160. Meanwhile, 8GB GDDR5 as introduced in the PS4 is $80-105.
The reason I'm including GDDR5 pricing is that we can get a rough estimate of how much newer GDDR ram chips cost. Assuming GDDR5X cost about the same as when GDDR5 got introduced, we see Nvidia having anywhere between $55-80 advantage in pricing. That's an additional 10% margin minimum WRT a GTX 1080, for example.
This is likely not what's realistic. GDDR5X RAM pricing would probably be quite a bit lower than the estimated $80-105 for 8GB, since in that Fudzilla article it was mentioned that it's several times lower. But still, best case scenario for AMD it's still going to be difficult to sell this for $500. Closer to $600 is more likely.
Also have to factor in the beefier cooling solutions needed, and I don't see RX Vega as being very profitable.
The reason I'm including GDDR5 pricing is that we can get a rough estimate of how much newer GDDR ram chips cost. Assuming GDDR5X cost about the same as when GDDR5 got introduced, we see Nvidia having anywhere between $55-80 advantage in pricing. That's an additional 10% margin minimum WRT a GTX 1080, for example.
This is likely not what's realistic. GDDR5X RAM pricing would probably be quite a bit lower than the estimated $80-105 for 8GB, since in that Fudzilla article it was mentioned that it's several times lower. But still, best case scenario for AMD it's still going to be difficult to sell this for $500. Closer to $600 is more likely.
Also have to factor in the beefier cooling solutions needed, and I don't see RX Vega as being very profitable.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
But if they make Vega as small as Fiji, wouldn't that drive the cost down on making the PCB? Not saying that would offset the memory prices. But if AMD adds in a AIO cooler then there goes any cost advantage.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
Only time AMD had lower high end price was with the real titan killer the 290x which was at 550$ (but due mining craze was unavailable most of time at less than 800$ - 900$..
Hd7970 was initially more expensive than the gtx 680. However due being extremely competitive, amd decided to push insta panic button and re-release the ghz edition which was faster and cheaper..
Fury X was priced the same than the 980Ti and it didn't performed better nor offered anything better than the 980Ti. Result? Fail.
VEGA will have a hard time to be cheaper than the 499$ 1080. So will be likely be another Fury X fail.. and it won't be close to the 1080TI which its worse yet.. at least the 290x and fury X were competitive.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
Um the 7970 was released on December 22nd, and the 680 GTX was released on march 22nd. So Yea the 7970 was more expensive than the 680, but because AMD had no competition in December from Nvidia.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
Vega it's already small.. most of the PCB around the blower is unused.. the reason of that size it's due all the cooling needed.. it's an advanced pure copper vapor chamber that shit it's also goddamn expensive and still the card it's thermal and power limited..
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
but thats the FE. We care about the gaming Vega. Not the crap FE one. We shouldn't compare Vega FE to RX Vega. Some people will because they will bash AMD regardless of what they release. Some people will actually use brains and wait to see the real card.
The only thing we know for sure about RX Vega is it will use a TON of power. No hiding that.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
There was no reason do what they did with the ghz edition. They simply doesn't like to compete in price even having a stronger card.. just by pure nvidia name they panicked.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
Wait you are telling me there was no reason for AMD to release a GHZ 7970 edition. Then what the fuck do you call the 770 GTX? It was the same damn card as the 680 GTX just with higher clocks like the 7970 ghz edition.
Lets not even bring up the 670 GTX to 760 GTX......Same chip but with just lower cuda cores and a higher clock for the same price?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
Thinking RX Vega will behave different than Vega FE it's nonsense.. RX Vega may be able to perform likely better than Vega FE, but that doesn't mean it won't face the same thermal and power issues, it would be fool to think they will engineer a worse cheaper cooler for the RX Vega so it will behave even worse..
the reason of the nvidia founder edition nonsense it's due that updated expensive cooler.. so you could imagine how value add that to the final card.. I sustain my initial position.. RX Vega will be a 550$ - 650$. In fact everyday in leaning towards more 600$ - 650$
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
You might think its nonsense, but these forums expects that from you. I know you want it to fail, and you expect it to fail. But don't come here trying to try say YOU KNOW how the RX Vega will be, and the price this and that. You have no clue.
Now we can speculate sure since FE Vega is out, but there is no way we know if it will perform like RX Vega. First it will have 8GB less ram....Which could mean higher core clocks or something who the fuck knows.
All I know is I am waiting for the [H] review before making judgement, either way I could not wait for it any longer and I picked up a 1080 GTX.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
No.. I'm telling AMD had no reason to re-release the more powerful ghz edition cheaper than the vanilla 7970 IN THE SAME generation.. it was a fool move.. they could have kept the vanilla price and cut the 7970 price and still have a winner card with enough profit.. gtx 770 and 760 were a rebrand as it was the 280x and again the 390x. But not in the same generation.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 9,100
Sure buddy
Defend Nvidia as much as you can. the 680 GTX to 770 GTX was the same generation. You just choose to ignore it. We expect this from ya Araxie.Sodapopjones
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 1,932
You ever notice when someone is losing an argument, rather than stop making themselves look like an ass, they keep going?
The question is: If Vega FE is not using Tile Base Rendering, how much performance can be gained if it does? I've read Nvidia gets about 30% in general performance bump (do not know if that is remotely true, conditions or who tested etc. maybe complete HS). Anyways is Vega Tile Based Rendering broken? Hard to implement? Needs special developer support? How much can it improve gaming if used or turned on?
RTG/AMD being quiet or none communicating about anything Vega is at this point is utterly frustrating. After all this time AMD seems to not be able to access the hardware they created to get the performance out of it. Then you see OpenGL test with Cinebench where the Vega FE is beating a TitanXp - why is it beating the Titan in that at all and failing at other stuff?
With AMD so quiet about Vega I just don't think Vega is really going to impress us much in the end. I also get the feeling that the AIBs are not too interested either in Vega - so very little leaks/info. Maybe RTG should change GPU naming back to Islands, Vega looks like it may Supernova and then turn into a black hole sucking up all light and will not be so bright.
RTG/AMD being quiet or none communicating about anything Vega is at this point is utterly frustrating. After all this time AMD seems to not be able to access the hardware they created to get the performance out of it. Then you see OpenGL test with Cinebench where the Vega FE is beating a TitanXp - why is it beating the Titan in that at all and failing at other stuff?
With AMD so quiet about Vega I just don't think Vega is really going to impress us much in the end. I also get the feeling that the AIBs are not too interested either in Vega - so very little leaks/info. Maybe RTG should change GPU naming back to Islands, Vega looks like it may Supernova and then turn into a black hole sucking up all light and will not be so bright.
5150Joker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,568
You were saying they shouldn't test the FE for gaming performance but they absolutely should. Besides, why would AMD release this thing and forego any gaming optimization in the drivers? That doesn't make any sense at all. Its like NVIDIA releasing Titan xP and having it run at GTX 1070 speeds because they claim its a professional card, could you imagine how much NVIDIA would be ridiculed?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 6,478
even one of the most AMD fanboys and defender AdoredTV shame on the Vega FE gaming drivers..
look if you have one of your biggest fanboys shitting on your product, certainly you did something wrong..
funkydmunky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,016
To do so would be releasing the gaming RX Vega. Why would they jump their release date by a month. They dropped the FE Vega because their roadmap said they would. Ideal, no. Reality, yes.
SighTurtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2016
- Messages
- 1,410
https://videocardz.com/70777/amd-radeon-rx-vega-3dmark11-performance
Within Videocardz's chart, click on the device names for links to the benchmarks.
Within Videocardz's chart, click on the device names for links to the benchmarks.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,295
So just around or a hair shy of GTX 1080 it looks like from those scores (for what they're worth). What we expected if RX Vega holds it's advertised clock (1630mhz) steady.
Much like Polaris, they might have something if they price under 1080, say $500, and bundle in a game -- power/heat notwithstanding, of course.
Much like Polaris, they might have something if they price under 1080, say $500, and bundle in a game -- power/heat notwithstanding, of course.
Brackle performance won't change that much to make a it a different tier card, that is asking for too much. Its still going to hover around the gtx 1080 with its 300 watts.
And they can't go into a price war with nV, its just not possible, they will get slaughtered. Not to mention if Volta is coming out in the next 2 quarters, AMD goes into a price war and Volta's xx60 series come out, what are they going to do?
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 10,289
Welp I think Vega is what happens when you shift engineering to China. Have fun AMD!!
Scott Wasson talkes about Draw stream binning rasterizer, and IMO is very much downplaying it's likely performance boost. Stating that it comes in a the final stage and much software is already build to do a lot of culling at earlier stages.
The big potential boost comes from primative shaders, but that definitley requires special developer support:
~6mins
Primitive shaders just will boost geometry. If culling is done via drivers on amd end that will give the biggest boost as it did with nvidia. That's the part we will finally find out on the 30th. For sure the extra geometry performance needs to programmed through premitive shaders though.
I don't really see him as a fanboy, there just hasn't been much interesting in tech for a while until Ryzen launched. For years it's been buy the latest and greatest from Intel that year or don't buy anything at all. Nvidia performance wise is crushing with the 900 series and 1000 series, AMD atleast had decent cards when the 7000 series and R200 series launched, they haven't really improved at all since then. He's also been calling out vega for months now.
Ieldra
I Promise to RTFM
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,539
I have only glanced at primitive shader announcements so far, but my understanding was that it introduces a new pipeline stage that can essentially be used as a compute shader stage before rasterization. My understanding was that this would be used to rasterize more than 4 tris/cy using the shader array that would otherwise be idle (bottlenecked). Am I wrong ?
Anarchist4000 I think you mentioned this in another post a few days ago but you say that (programmable) shaders are already used for rasterization, afaik this is not the case and it's performed by a fixed function unit
Ieldra
I Promise to RTFM
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,539
Fury X vs Vega FE clock for clock. Some interesting results
As you can see Fury X is severely hampered by its gaming drivers in these tests, much like the Titan X. So all those people who have been droning on and on about how this isn't really a pro card now have some hard performance numbers to contest that claim. Despite performing identically at clock parity, Vega FE is miles ahead of Fury X in specview; pro drivers.
As you can see Fury X is severely hampered by its gaming drivers in these tests, much like the Titan X. So all those people who have been droning on and on about how this isn't really a pro card now have some hard performance numbers to contest that claim. Despite performing identically at clock parity, Vega FE is miles ahead of Fury X in specview; pro drivers.
For the most part you are correct, but I think it can be used for other things. Without having fully disclosed documentation I can only say for 100% what you stated is accurate but it might have more features. It seems to me there is a direct communication path from the front to the back end of the pipeline with the use of primitive shaders. Something that traditional shader units don't have.
Fury X vs Vega FE clock for clock. Some interesting results
As you can see Fury X is severely hampered by its gaming drivers in these tests, much like the Titan X. So all those people who have been droning on and on about how this isn't really a pro card now have some hard performance numbers to contest that claim. Despite performing identically at clock parity, Vega FE is miles ahead of Fury X in specview; pro drivers.
This is one of the reasons I think these idiots have worked on pro drivers more than gaming for Vega. And are not willing to release anything fully fledged until rx Vega launches. I don't know at this point I am scratching my head. Did amd just went all out and focused on drivers for pro applications first and delayed gaming Vega by 2 months almost? Either way at this point I am scratching my head figuring out AMDs strategy on Vega. Again this is where amd marketing fails. They should have put VEGA FE against fury x in pro applications instead of titan xp and show here is how much better VEGA FE is then our last gen product in these applications.
This is nonsense.
Demonstrate where Titan X is significantly slower clock for clock than 1080 Ti.
Vega performance changes represents a change in architecture to favor compute performance of its new SPs. Vega has more than double the FP16 performance of Fury X. That isn't a driver change, that is a HW architecture change.
It is not out of line that all HW changes to increase compute performance had a slightly diminished throughput on games.
Unlike HW, SW doesn't have to make tradeoffs between computer and gaming. Drivers can be good at both.
There is no sane reason why AMD would purposefully gimp gaming performance.
This is simply a case of AMDs gaming optimizations not being ready yet. The card was shipped early with unfinished drivers to make a promised deadline.
Ieldra
I Promise to RTFM
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,539
Why do i have to show Titan X is slower than 1080Ti at clock parity?It's faster... Has 10% more SMs
I Dont follow, maybe you misread my post?
You claimed the Titan X was also hampered by drivers like Vega is (see the part of your post I bolded). Which is nonsense. Titan X has the same drivers as the rest of the 10 series.
NVidia doesn't hamper Titan X with drivers.
Neither does AMD for that matter. It is new HW and unfinished drivers that are hampering Vega.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 10,289
He was saying Titan X vs Vega FE for productivity, that the Titan X doesn't have full fledged productivity drivers... (or at least DP performance is hampered somehow to 1/32).
So that is kinda a niche nVidia ran away from. Maybe Vega FE will force nVidia to put out a prosumer card? They neutered the Titan line after the first one for productivity and basically made it into "get the top end sooner" premium fee. (which sucks since it kills the resell value)
Ieldra
I Promise to RTFM
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,539
I said Titan is hampered by drivers in specview, it is beaten by the quadro equivalent of a 1070.
Fury X is the same.
Vega FE *is* running the high performance pro drivers, and it doesn't compare very favorably to its quadro competition
I think he meant titan x doesn't work with nvidia pro drivers. No? Titan x is kinda hampered by nvidia when it comes to prosumer work. It's for gamers that want bragging rights otherwise there is no reason to get it over nvidia Ti models.
Ieldra
I Promise to RTFM
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2016
- Messages
- 3,539
Its not about DP. Nvidia split their GPU stack since Kepler. Only one chip has high rate DP. GP100 now, GK110 and GK210 previously.
The quadro and (ex) firepro line dont necessarily offer DP, only application certification and a more stable driver set, and ECC.
If Vega is running pro drivers, then comparing it to Titan X is just dumb.