Vega Rumors

[5150Joker]

Games are optimized based on consoles

As far as Volta goes, Vega might actually stall its launch if Pascal sales are still high margin and going well. They wont sell them at a loss, but my guess is they have some room to drop

Rarely if ever has the supposed myth of "optimized for AMD on the console" translated to better results on the PC--if anything its been the opposite. As for Volta being delayed because Vega sucks, nah that won't happen, NVIDIA is releasing on a strong cadence and won't slow down just because AMD is faltering:

Blayne Curtis – Barclays Capital, Inc.
Thanks. And then just moving to the gaming GPU side, I was just wondering if you can just talk about the competitive landscape looking back at the last refresh. And then looking forward into the back half of this year, I think your competitors have a new platform. I’m just curious as to your thoughts as to how the share worked out on the previous refresh and then the competitiveness into the second half of this year.

Jen-Hsun Huang – NVIDIA Corp.
My assessment is that the competitive position is not going to change.​

What this means is NVIDIA is not slowing down for AMD.

Source if interested: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085647-nvidia-shining-brighter-vega

 

[Sodapopjones]

He's probably talking about the lack of 4GB cards at launch (almost none), and the overall lack of supply for the first month or so.

Which weren't 4GB cards anyway, they were crippled 8GB cards, would have scooped one up if it had a DVI out....

 

[NKD]

He's probably talking about the lack of 4GB cards at launch (almost none), and the overall lack of supply for the first month or so.

What does rx 480 launch too high means? To me it means launched too high lol. I sure don't think he meant high in quantities. Haha

 

[NKD]

Considering they still have shit for market share, yes, it was too high. Nevermind it's VR performance is pitiful.

From the [H] review: "Still, for a next generation video card, $239 seems a little steep for only Radeon R9 390 level performance today. You must also consider that custom add-in-board partner video cards may have a higher price for custom coolers and designs and clock speeds."

And when the 1060 launched the price tanked because they couldn't sell it.

Common man! $239 for that card was a deal! No proce didn't tank lol. Rx 480 price remained consistent despite gtx 1060. As far as selling too many? AMD is going to sell what they are going to sell. It wasn't a great product but it was almost certainly priced well for how it performed.

 

[CSI_PC]

Lisa Su is actually a better CEO than I thought, she has turned the company around. AMD just posted a profit, what a shocker. Ryzen has been a huge success for them. Raja could be different though. If Vega does indeed turn out to be a turkey then he could be in hot water. It will not reflect well on him. We will see, just one more day to go.

It is a shame that many will forget but actually it is Rory Read who has turned AMD around; he was the one that identified the business model to dominate consoles (and so improve optimisation indirectly also with consumer PC for those AAA games) without requiring too great a financial/R&D commitment and also put in place the foundation for Zen/Ryzen while also getting more of the insane costs more under control (but they are still unfortunately happening), on top of this he managed to create additional business opportunities.

Sure he could be blamed that he pulled investment out of GPU division but tbh I think Ryzen is pretty good and should have good margins and the lower Polaris is doing OK (very well if including miners but that can come back and bite both companies impacting future perceived product values), unfortunately Lisa has freaking lowerd the price way too much for the consumer CPUs while there is not enough differentiation (so most buy the cheaper models and make them as good as the top end 1800X) and while Ryzen is selling well AMD has massacred their bloody margins sigh.
Personally I feel Lisa has dropped the ball because Ryzen is probably the best thing going for AMD at the moment, but they have not even managed to get the best from it - recent financial release showed sales are doing well BUT they still lost money due to ongoing costs.
Considering how they are streamlined operation these days it is a seriously unfortunate situation.

Cheers

 

[Jimmy Whicher]

Rarely if ever has the supposed myth of "optimized for AMD on the console" translated to better results on the PC--if anything its been the opposite. As for Volta being delayed because Vega sucks, nah that won't happen, NVIDIA is releasing on a strong cadence and won't slow down just because AMD is faltering:

Blayne Curtis – Barclays Capital, Inc.
Thanks. And then just moving to the gaming GPU side, I was just wondering if you can just talk about the competitive landscape looking back at the last refresh. And then looking forward into the back half of this year, I think your competitors have a new platform. I’m just curious as to your thoughts as to how the share worked out on the previous refresh and then the competitiveness into the second half of this year.

Jen-Hsun Huang – NVIDIA Corp.
My assessment is that the competitive position is not going to change.​

What this means is NVIDIA is not slowing down for AMD.

Source if interested: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4085647-nvidia-shining-brighter-vega

Rarely is still "sometimes" and that is why I listed it .

I disagree with your interpretation of JHHs comment, personally I think he's only saying he feels their position as market leader will be unchanged after the release of Vega.

NVIDIA only competes with NVIDIA at the high end for some years now. It's not outside the realm of possibility that they slow cadence in a monopoly situation as that "may" serve stockholders best. (on the other hand they have to keep people buying cards as well)

Side note: Are you that "Joker Productions" reviewer on YouTube? I've enjoyed your work if so.

 

[Boil]

From WCCFTech via Guru3D via NewEgg...?!?

• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air: $499
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air Limited Edition: $549
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid : $599
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Limited Edition : $699
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 : $399

If we can see ACTUAL performance measurements; with RX Vega 56 between GTX 1070 & GTX 1080, and RX Vega 64 between GTX 1080 & GTX 1080TI; then I would be happy...

Now, if we can get RX Vega 56 at GTX 1080 & RX Vega 64 at GTX 1080Ti levels, that would be extra special (and help offset the pain of the power requirements)...

The next week should be interesting...!

 

[razor1]

well the price gives it all away, liquid cooled is the one that will be between the 1080 and 1080ti but still less that the 1080ti by quite a bit., air cooled will be around the 1080, rx vega 56 just about 1070.

http://wccftech.com/amd-rx-vega-64-pricing-clocks-leaked-air-cooled-499-liquid-599/

• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air: $499
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air Limited Edition: $549
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid : $599
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Limited Edition : $649 [UPDATED $649/$699]
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 : Pending [UPDATED $399]

price update ?


https://videocardz.com/71393/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-rumored-pricing-and-clocks

clocks

• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid: base 1406 MHz / boost 1677 MHz
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited: base 1247 MHz / boost 1546 MHz
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64: base 1247 MHz / boost 1546 MHz

At least now we will see the difference between water cooling and air cooling vs, clock speeds lol, if that LE Liquid cooled gets 400+ watts, like what we saw with GN's Frankenstein.......

BTW guys their entire marketing campaign is based off of free sync apparently......

 

[Snowdog]

From WCCFTech via Guru3D via NewEgg...?!?

• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air: $499
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Air Limited Edition: $549
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid : $599
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Limited Edition : $699
• AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 : $399

If we can see ACTUAL performance measurements; with RX Vega 56 between GTX 1070 & GTX 1080, and RX Vega 64 between GTX 1080 & GTX 1080TI; then I would be happy...

Now, if we can get RX Vega 56 at GTX 1080 & RX Vega 64 at GTX 1080Ti levels, that would be extra special (and help offset the pain of the power requirements)...

The next week should be interesting...!

I wonder if these are priced with the current mining craze in mind, or based on MSRPs

If those prices would be based on MSRP they indicate that:
Vega 56 > GTX 1070
Vega 64 > GTX 1080
Vega 64 Limited Liquid > GTX 1080 Ti.


But if the prices are based on screwed up Mining prices:
Vega 56 > GTX 1060
Vega 64 < GTX 1070
Vega 64 Limited Liquid < GTX 1080 .

Another part of me wonders if the mining craze is really not affecting these prices anymore and the companies have realized they can keep overcharging like crazy. Kind of like how HD prices were boosted by a flood and never came back down.

 

[razor1]

mining won't cause pricing changes, AMD can't cater pricing with Vega as a miner card. Too much power consumption to make it a viable mining card.

And even VEGA 64 LE won't get close to the 1080ti either. less than 10% clock increase, they need to hit 25% more performance to touch the 1080ti. Not going to happen. And the pricing shows that too.

 

[Michaelius]

Let's see how well this reference cooler can keep those clocks

 

[Boil]

Plans are for a Ncase M1 / Ryzen / RX Vega build, CPU & GPU in a custom loop,,,

 

[razor1]

don't know if this will be in spanish or not but this guy is going to live stream the launch



Since AMD ran out of money to live stream, at least others are helping

Those holocubes were just too costly!

 

[Dayaks]

Plans are for a Ncase M1 / Ryzen / RX Vega build, CPU & GPU in a custom loop,,,

That fits a 240 rad? Or 280? Just curious. Obviously you'll be undervolting unless you ran an external rad which ruins the point. Should be neat!

 

[DooKey]

Wait, you are gonna take stabs at the possibility of others paying too much for a level of performance, when you own a Titan. Poor argument. Granted anyone can buy whatever they want, but outside the original Titan the last 3 Titans were absolute wastes of money. Especially the last Titan, but given the fact of the TI releases shortly after cant say that buying one is ever a good idea nor is a purchaser of one in any position to throw stones at those that may mirror that decision albeit at differing price/performance tiers.

I buy performance. I'm not a $/performance video card buyer. I've made that quite plain over the years.

 

[SickBeast]

It is a shame that many will forget but actually it is Rory Read who has turned AMD around; he was the one that identified the business model to dominate consoles (and so improve optimisation indirectly also with consumer PC for those AAA games) without requiring too great a financial/R&D commitment and also put in place the foundation for Zen/Ryzen while also getting more of the insane costs more under control (but they are still unfortunately happening), on top of this he managed to create additional business opportunities.

Sure he could be blamed that he pulled investment out of GPU division but tbh I think Ryzen is pretty good and should have good margins and the lower Polaris is doing OK (very well if including miners but that can come back and bite both companies impacting future perceived product values), unfortunately Lisa has freaking lowerd the price way too much for the consumer CPUs while there is not enough differentiation (so most buy the cheaper models and make them as good as the top end 1800X) and while Ryzen is selling well AMD has massacred their bloody margins sigh.
Personally I feel Lisa has dropped the ball because Ryzen is probably the best thing going for AMD at the moment, but they have not even managed to get the best from it - recent financial release showed sales are doing well BUT they still lost money due to ongoing costs.
Considering how they are streamlined operation these days it is a seriously unfortunate situation.

Cheers

AMD is earning the exact same margins with Ryzen as Intel makes with the i5 and i7 chips. There is no integrated GPU. The die size is the same. Ryzen has been priced brilliantly, it's a large part of the reason why AMD has been so successful lately.

 

[Dayaks]

I buy performance. I'm not a $/performance video card buyer. I've made that quite plain over the years.

Yeah buying a Titan you have top performance for at least six months. Buying Vega you get an overpriced mid range card (we'll find out for sure soon, but 1070/1080 is mid range to me). Apples and oranges.

 

[lolfail9001]

AMD is earning the exact same margins with Ryzen as Intel makes with the i5 and i7 chips.

Uhm, no?

The die size is the same.

No, it is not, Ryzen's sensibly larger (like 1.5x the size of Kaby or close to 2x even).

 

[razor1]

AMD is earning the exact same margins with Ryzen as Intel makes with the i5 and i7 chips. There is no integrated GPU. The die size is the same. Ryzen has been priced brilliantly, it's a large part of the reason why AMD has been so successful lately.

AMD's margins are still lower, Intel Margins are 60% + AMD's is no where near that, its probably in the upper 30% range near 40%. edit: Yeah they are at 37%

 

[c3k]

Margins? TDP? Process size? Memory throughput? Liquid cooling?

Bah. All I care about is buying the card with the most 'X's in its name!

Seriously...wtf with the naming?

 

[_mockingbird]

July 12, 2017

Here's pricing information:

Vega 10: $499

Vega 10b: $599

Vega 11: $449

*These prices are subject to change.

Interpretation:

Vega 10b is presumably a special binned of Vega 10 and presumably comes with a liquid cooler.

Vega 11 is presumably the same as Vega 10, but with some CUs disabled.

all about 100 bucks to much

AMD don't think so.

Expect Vega to be sold out as soon as it is "released".

600 bucks for 1070 level performance 12 months late and at 3x the power and 2x the heat...

what does Vega get you over a 1080 for 500?

Reliable heating in winter.

And tropical conditions in summer.

If Vega 10 is going to be $499 in the US, that's about £465 in the UK including VAT. The cheapest GTX 1080s right now are ~£500. I really don't think that's good enough if it's only offering GTX 1080 performance whilst producing a lot more heat, especially given all GPU prices are currently inflated anyway due to the mining craze and Vega will be even further inflated at launch as GPUs always are when stocks aren't high enough.

Which is historically accurate for AMD. Par for the course! (Downward spiral)

Yes let's worry about power and heat when you guys will fork over an extra $200 or more for a g-sync monitor. *eye rolls* The difference between a 1080 and this is about 100 watts. That isn't a lot more heat. That's an old school lightbulb for a typical room and 1.2 cents EXTRA PER HOUR of it MAXED out.

And the final performance isn't known yet. Same old arguments. Save your judgement until the final product comes out.

 

[Krenum]

mining won't cause pricing changes, AMD can't cater pricing with Vega as a miner card. Too much power consumption to make it a viable mining card.

How do you like your Crow cooked?

 

[razor1]

How do you like your Crow cooked?

It won't be, I'm a miner and I'm not remotely interested in spending 100 bucks a month for 6 vega's on a rig for its power consumption vs, getting 2 rigs of rx580's (6 cards each rig) which will consume the same amount of power (same 100 bucks a month) at more hash rates.

Not only that, I would need to spend more on the power supplies for the Vega rig too, I would need to get 2 1200 watt power supplies, which will increase the cost of that rig an extra 150 bucks. Cost doesn't cover the profits. Loose on the front end and the back end what is the use?

Miners are in it for the money, its essential to keep the costs as low as possible for power and cost of the entire rig, while keeping as much hashrates.

This the order of cards per efficiency right now for most money out for cost:

rx580 = gtx 1070 (gtx 1070 gets higher hash rates and consumes less power but costs more, so the rx580 could be in the lead still, all depends on how much you can get the 1070's for and which type of 1070 it is)
rx570
gtx 1060 6gb

Vega from what we have seen so far will come in at just above the gtx 1060 gb, adding cost of the extra power supply right around the gtx 1060. Granted mining software isn't optimized for Vega, but we will have to see about that.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

It won't be, I'm a miner and I'm not remotely interested in spending 100 bucks a month for 6 vega's on a rig for its power consumption vs, getting 2 rigs of rx580's (6 cards each rig) which will consume the same amount of power (same 100 bucks a month) at more hash rates.

Not only that, I would need to spend more on the power supplies for the Vega rig too, I would need to get 2 1200 watt power supplies, which will increase the cost of that rig an extra 150 bucks. Cost doesn't cover the profits. Loose on the front end and the back end what is the use?

Miners are in it for the money, its essential to keep the costs as low as possible for power and cost of the entire rig, while keeping as much hashrates.

This the order of cards per efficiency right now for most money out for cost:

rx580 = gtx 1070 (gtx 1070 gets higher hash rates and consumes less power but costs more, so the rx580 could be in the lead still, all depends on how much you can get the 1070's for and which type of 1070 it is)
rx570
gtx 1060 6gb

Vega from what we have seen so far will come in at just above the gtx 1060 gb, adding cost of the extra power supply right around the gtx 1060. Granted mining software isn't optimized for Vega, but we will have to see about that.

The 1080 is not a bad card. 26mh with -400 on core speed and +144 mem. Anyway, If vega delivers 50+ mh, then 300w is not a bad place to be doulbe GTX 1070 power, for 80% more hash. Ratio is not that bad.

 

[SickBeast]

AMD's margins are still lower, Intel Margins are 60% + AMD's is no where near that, its probably in the upper 30% range near 40%. edit: Yeah they are at 37%

Sorry guys, there is an AMD shill on another forum I visit, he said that the die size and margins were the same. I stand corrected.

 

[Snowdog]

AMD's margins are still lower, Intel Margins are 60% + AMD's is no where near that, its probably in the upper 30% range near 40%. edit: Yeah they are at 37%

Intel gets the whole margin of Silicon and Chip design together. AMD has to pay GloFo to do the silicon and they will get some of that margin.

Though on top of that Intel tends to command higher prices as well.

 

[razor1]

The 1080 is not a bad card. 26mh with -400 on core speed and +144 mem. Anyway, If vega delivers 50+ mh, then 300w is not a bad place to be doulbe GTX 1070 power, for 80% more hash. Ratio is not that bad.

well 1080 cost ratio isn't good enough. gtx 1060 get around 25mhs at much lower power consumption and cost

Vega's power is more than double of the 1070, when mining my 1070's use at most 100 watts each single or dual mining, my rx use 130 watts, and 150 watts dual mining, so I'm expecting Vega will be like the rx's, double the power consumption of them and triple that of the 1070's to get 55mhs.


My 1070s are getting 35mhs as well, its the most efficient card out there for mining right now. minus the initial costs of course. I have them all with +650 on the mem and core clock +100, 60% power envelope core voltage no change.

My rx 580's are getting 30 mhs per sec while dual mining they consume 150 watts, but the second coin does more mhs than the 1070's but its kinda pointless cause the second coin barely covers the electric costs.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

well 1080 cost ratio isn't good enough. gtx 1060 get around 25mhs at much lower power consumption and cost

Vega's power is more than double of the 1070, when mining my 1070's use at most 100 watts each single or dual mining, my rx use 130 watts, and 150 watts dual mining, so I'm expecting Vega will be like the rx's, double the power consumption of them and triple that of the 1070's to get 55mhs.


My 1070s are getting 35mhs as well, its the most efficient card out there for mining right now. minus the initial costs of course. I have them all with +650 on the mem and core clock +100, 60% power envelope core voltage no change.

My rx 580's are getting 30 mhs per sec dual mining for course so they consume 150 watts, but the second coin does more mhs than the 1070's but its kinda pointless cause the second coin barely covers the electric costs.

How are you cranking out 35mh? Most I have been able to get to 30-31

I found core clock does nothing for me, even at +500memory , if I go higher , windows crashes, unless you're using a different card to output video? (On board??)

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Intel gets the whole margin of Silicon and Chip design together. AMD has to pay GloFo to do the silicon and they will get some of that margin.

Though on top of that Intel tends to command higher prices as well.

Intel has to pay to build the fabs , run them, etc... is that factored into the margins?

 

[Dayaks]

Intel has to pay to build the fabs , run them, etc... is that factored into the margins?

Yeah I'd rather people just speak in profit margin. There's no ambiguity.

I'd have to go look at an old pricing model to tell you how my past $36B company calculated it...

July 12, 2017

What's with the wall of quotes? +/- two weeks all looks the same lol.

 

[razor1]

How are you cranking out 35mh? Most I have been able to get to 30-31

I found core clock does nothing for me, even at +500memory , if I go higher , windows crashes, unless you're using a different card to output video? (On board??)

Using the latest claymore. All my 1070's are AMP zotac, their memory clocks are crazy, I get +650 on all of them and some of them I can go up to +750. Core clocks help too just a few mhs, like 2 or 3, if you can get the memory higher then you can get 35 easy. I found that EVGA's suck for mining (relatively to other brands), and 31 is pretty much the highest you can get for them. The FE's are just as good as the AMP!, the best ones I found were the Gigabyte 1070's overclocked, these are very hard to find at reasonable prices, they get 36 to 37 mhs.

Oh I don't have any monitors hooked up I use team viewer (if a rig is having issues) and awesome miner to monitor my rigs.

 

[Elios]

CALLED IT!

 

[NKD]

well 1080 cost ratio isn't good enough. gtx 1060 get around 25mhs at much lower power consumption and cost

Vega's power is more than double of the 1070, when mining my 1070's use at most 100 watts each single or dual mining, my rx use 130 watts, and 150 watts dual mining, so I'm expecting Vega will be like the rx's, double the power consumption of them and triple that of the 1070's to get 55mhs.


My 1070s are getting 35mhs as well, its the most efficient card out there for mining right now. minus the initial costs of course. I have them all with +650 on the mem and core clock +100, 60% power envelope core voltage no change.

My rx 580's are getting 30 mhs per sec dual mining for course so they consume 150 watts, but the second coin does more mhs than the 1070's but its kinda pointless cause the second coin barely covers the electric costs.

My 1060s are are 22.5 mh and 1070s are are 32.5 mh. Friends getting 31 with his 1070s because he can't get as high of memeory overclock, got micron memory. I have yet to see any 1060s or 1070s get anywhere close to 25 or 35 mh. All my 1070s are at 1ghz OC on memory 70% power limit. It's not even that I actually haven't seen anyone on the internet pull those numbers with 1060s or 1070s.

This is with latest claymore and all my cards are founders edition. And one zotac AMP. I cant seem to figure out how you are pulling 35+. As I said my friend himself is getting only 31 since his memory doesn't clock that high.

 

[razor1]

My 1060s are are 22.5 mh and 1070s are are 32.5 mh. Friends getting 31 with his 1070s because he can't get as high of memeory overclock, got micron memory. I have yet to see any 1060s or 1070s get anywhere close to 25 or 35 mh. All my 1070s are at 1ghz OC on memory 70% power limit. It's not even that I actually haven't seen anyone on the internet pull those numbers with 1060s or 1070s.

This is with latest claymore and all my cards are founders edition. And one zotac AMP. I cant seem to figure out how you are pulling 35+. As I said my friend himself is getting only 31 since his memory doesn't clock that high.

I'm getting it man, my evga's are getting 31, 184mhs on 6 cards at 60% power draw man.

 

[Elios]

so 600 buck rx vega runs 1677mhz that should put it firmly = to a 1080... for 100 bucks or more more
rx vega air will be = to a 1070

vega 56... is a joke slightly faster than a 1060 AT BEST

 

[razor1]

the 600 buck rx water cooled at 1677mhz should be faster than the 1080 10%ish...

Vega 56 might be faster than the 1070, otherwise its price makes no sense.

 

[Maddness]

so 600 buck rx vega runs 1677mhz that should put it firmly = to a 1080... for 100 bucks or more more
rx vega air will be = to a 1070

vega 56... is a joke slightly faster than a 1060 AT BEST

Is that confirmed or where you think they will sit.

 

[Elios]

the 600 buck rx water cooled at 1677mhz should be faster than the 1080 10%ish...

Vega 56 might be faster than the 1070, otherwise its price makes no sense.

if it can reach / hold that clock and most aib 1080s will be faster 1700 MAY be able to be reached with 400w+

 

[Elios]

Is that confirmed or where you think they will sit.

best guess based on Vega FE which is the came core with more ram FE boost clock is 1600Mhz vs RX Liquid's 1677Mhz
liquid will likely be able to hold that but the air cards i dont think other then AIB cards wont get any where near the boost clocks under gaming loads for more then a few minuets

Vega 56 imo will be = to Fury X

 

[Nirad9er]

Vega sounds like an overpriced joke. $600 and equal to a $500 1080.