Vega Rumors

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,986
LOL Ryzen is a good chip and a big leap forward for AMD, but if the video were accurate, the 7700 box would have been impervious and the Ryzen would have crushed against it.

Ryzen is top shelf for some types of work apps, but intel still reigns in gaming.

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.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
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
 

SickBeast

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
499
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.
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.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
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.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267

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.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
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.
 

SickBeast

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
499
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.
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.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
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.


Pmed ya, can ya give me the coin info and your rig info, just want to see what its all about :) (Skunk)
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
23
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.

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.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
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.


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.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
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
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
23
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

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.
 

TFchris

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,100
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!!
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
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!!


Hard to do, I don't think they have the margins to do that.
 

Hameeeedo

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2016
Messages
187
With a ruler
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.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
992
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.

Have you been paying any attention?

Almost everyone here knows that.
 

razor1

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
10,120
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%.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
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.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
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


How do they do that? They already have a Titan X Sized Die to get regular GTX 1080 performance.
 

GreenOrbs

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
623
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.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,284
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
at 4k.. which if your going to run 4k you likely want a 1080ti anyway or already have 1080
 

GreenOrbs

Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
623
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.
 
Top