• 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

It's official

Radeon RX Vega 56: $399

Radeon RX Vega 64 (Reference): $499

Radeon RX Vega 64 Limited: $599

Radeon RX Vega Liquid: $699
 
Derangel said:
Gaming wise there isn't really a huge difference between the two. The majority of games are still heavily GPU limited so either CPU is just fine if your only goal is gaming. The 7700K is better, but I don't know if I'd call it crushingly better.
Click to expand...
That's the thing. When Ryzen first came out the gaming performance looked brutal. That has largely been addressed by faster memory, BIOS updates, and Windows 10 updates. As it stands right now Ryzen is a fantastic processor and if I needed to upgrade today I would not hesitate in buying the 6 or 8 core version. For you guys with a variable refresh rate 1440p monitor maybe Intel would make a difference. I'm going to say that for 4k gaming, however, Ryzen would do a pretty good job. Plus I'm sure those extra cores will come in handy.

Coffee Lake is supposed to be out in less than a month though.
 
Cards aren't coming out till Sept?

So AMD's best case is 1080 lol, ok lets take that down a bit! Not much difference from that and FE then.
 
Maverick177 said:
https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series

So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
Click to expand...

There are benchmarks from the slides on there as well:
Code: 
FPS    R9 FURY X      RX VEGA 64      GTX 980 TI    GTX 1080
4K     32 <-> 46      43 <-> 57       26 <-> 47     26 <->56

I guess that means Minimum <-> Average FPS

So Vega 64 beats GTX 1080 as well has Fury X, beat GTX 980 Ti (where did that happen?)

I have to assume that is some AMD friendly bench, so it doesn't look too good.
 
The only saving grace seems to be the free games and some money off of freesync monitors. Might be half decent in terms of value, but eh.
 
Snowdog said:
There are benchmarks from the slides on there as well:
Code: 
FPS    R9 FURY X      RX VEGA 64      GTX 980 TI    GTX 1080
4K     32 <-> 46      43 <-> 57       26 <-> 47     26 <->56

I guess that means Minimum <-> Average FPS

So Vega 64 beats GTX 1080 as well has Fury X, beat GTX 980 Ti (where did that happen?)

I have to assume that is some AMD friendly bench, so it doesn't look too good.
Click to expand...
Impressive minimum FPS though. I wonder why there's so much difference. If that carries over to other games that will give AMD something at least.
 
SickBeast said:
Impressive minimum FPS though. I wonder why there's so much difference. If that carries over to other games that will give AMD something at least.
Click to expand...


Pmed ya, can ya give me the coin info and your rig info, just want to see what its all about :) (Skunk)
 
-Strelok- said:
The only saving grace seems to be the free games and some money off of freesync monitors. Might be half decent in terms of value, but eh.
Click to expand...

But I already have a MG279Q :(.

AMD fucked up big time. At least FuryX was on par with a stock 980Ti atm. Imagine Fury X at 980 level of performance at launch. This is really bad for AMD.
 
SickBeast said:
Impressive minimum FPS though. I wonder why there's so much difference. If that carries over to other games that will give AMD something at least.
Click to expand...


Well that could be the app too, some of AMD's game program titles have better frame times on their cards than nV's, and Vice versa. So I wouldn't be surprised if they were picking a game that was friendly to them.
 
3266508-performance.png


Apparently, (without adaptive vertical sync) Radeon RX Vega 64 is at least 33% faster than Geforce GTX 1080 at 4K according to AMD
 
Snowdog said:
That slide seems all kinds of wrong. Since when does Fury X have higher minimum FPS than a GTX 980Ti, let alone a GTX 1080...

AMD in full Shenanigans mode.
Click to expand...

AMD don't want to do live streaming because it wants to be able to edit out moments when people ask difficult questions.
 
_mockingbird said:
3266508-performance.png


Apparently, (without adaptive vertical sync) Radeon RX Vega 64 is at least 33% faster than Geforce GTX 1080 at 4K according to AMD
Click to expand...

No, what AMD showed is the range of which the Vega's FPS could be. The only way you could get average fps out of this slide is 99% frametime, which historically 10% less than what AMD showed.
 
AMD needs to realize that coming into the game late then offering similar performance (at best) that consumes wayyyy more energy for the same MSRP is what's driving them to the trashcan. Most of the gamers already built their rigs. AMD is searching for scraps and they need whatever customers they can get... plus many used competitor items are for sale by now for a much lower price. C'mon AMD, get with the program T__T

Winning pricing formula?
Offer a GTX1080TI competitor for $50 LESS than the minimum between (MSRP and Current Value) of a GTX1080
Offer a GTX1080 competitor for $50 LESS than the minimum between (MSRP and Current Value) of a GTX1070

Price it at $50 less than the next tier competitor card. This way, people would see little to no reason to ever purchase the green side. Completely disrupt the market and gain back customers!!
 
TFchris said:
AMD needs to realize that coming into the game late then offering similar performance (at best) that consumes wayyyy more energy for the same MSRP is what's driving them to the trashcan. Most of the gamers already built their rigs. AMD is searching for scraps and they need whatever customers they can get... plus many used competitor items are for sale by now for a much lower price. C'mon AMD, get with the program T__T

Winning pricing formula?
Offer a GTX1080TI competitor for $50 LESS than the minimum between (MSRP and Current Value) of a GTX1080
Offer a GTX1080 competitor for $50 LESS than the minimum between (MSRP and Current Value) of a GTX1070

Price it at $50 less than the next tier competitor card. This way, people would see little to no reason to ever purchase the green side. Completely disrupt the market and gain back customers!!
Click to expand...


Hard to do, I don't think they have the margins to do that.
 
_mockingbird said:
With a ruler
Click to expand...
Really your numbers are wrong, AMD is just posting their extremely cherrypicked tests to try show that Vega 64 has an advantage, it doesn't. It's barely faster in these AMD favorable tests (done with unknown settings), you can immediately tell they are bullshitting everyone when they are showing FuryX having better minimums than even the 1080.
 
Hameeeedo said:
Really your numbers are wrong, AMD is just posting their extremely cherrypicked tests to try show that Vega 64 has an advantage, it doesn't. It's barely faster in these AMD favorable tests (done with unknown settings), you can immediately tell they are bullshitting everyone when they are showing FuryX having better minimums than even the 1080.
Click to expand...

Have you been paying any attention?

Almost everyone here knows that.
 
no need to fight guys everyone thinks these benchs are BS...... RX Vega will most likely come out around FE performance, no really difference, cause of the lower clock speeds. So drivers made less than 10% difference, only around 5%.
 
I was out driving today and this song popped in my playlist and it fits Vega (tweaked only slightly):

The waiting drove me mad !
You're finally here and it's a mess
I take your entrance back
Can't let you roam inside my head
I don't want to take what you can give
I would rather starve than eat your bread
...
Vega is toast.
 
TFchris said:
AMD needs to realize that coming into the game late then offering similar performance (at best) that consumes wayyyy more energy for the same MSRP is what's driving them to the trashcan. Most of the gamers already built their rigs. AMD is searching for scraps and they need whatever customers they can get... plus many used competitor items are for sale by now for a much lower price. C'mon AMD, get with the program T__T

Winning pricing formula?
Offer a GTX1080TI competitor for $50 LESS than the minimum between (MSRP and Current Value) of a GTX1080
Click to expand...


How do they do that? They already have a Titan X Sized Die to get regular GTX 1080 performance.
 
Some slides from release slide decks look to be available now.

AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Performance-4K_GTX-1080.png

Edit: These appear to be minimum fps ranges from a number of different games and not average frame rates (looked more closely at the tiny text). Guess we will need to wait for reviews to see the avg. frame rates but this is in line with Vega FE results in which Vega was close to a 1080.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Some slides from release slide decks look to be available now. RX Vega basically = 1080 with better minimum frame rates.

AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Performance-4K_GTX-1080.png
Click to expand...
at 4k.. which if your going to run 4k you likely want a 1080ti anyway or already have 1080
 
Yeah, while its just one slide that's leaked, I can't say I'm too impressed. AMD is comparing the performance to a 1080. The various websites say that AMD are comparing the $600 water cooled Vega 64 to a reference 1080 (not sure if this is the case). We will get a better understanding when more info and full reviews are released but not a terrible exciting start.
 
razor1 said:
Does the game grab pack remind anyone of the FX game pack?
Click to expand...

I don't remember the FX game pack. Reminds me a bit of the stuff they used to do when they bothered to have a program for working with developers on game development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top