• 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

Ieldra said:
Woah woah woah.

How is it more efficient exactly? Performs like a 1080, draws almost double the power. Half as efficient if anything
Click to expand...
ahh more BS from nTardiacs again..gone from 30-40W more to now "double"
lol yeah ok.. nearly 400+w for 1080 perf.. lay off the green chapstick and turn in your kneepads..
 
FrameBuffer said:
ahh more BS from nTardiacs again..
lol yeah ok.. nearly 400+w for 1080 perf.. lay off the green chapstick and turn in your kneepads..
Click to expand...
Even without being hyperbolic there is scant evidence to support it is more efficient. Again we will know for sure in a few days, but it definitely looks like a power hungry card. That is obviously not a big deal to everyone, but it is to some. Power efficiency is something i look at because i live in the damn desert and it is too expensive to run the AC too low, so i try not to stick too much of a furnace under my desk.
 
FrameBuffer said:
ahh more BS from nTardiacs again..gone from 30-40W more to now "double"
lol yeah ok.. nearly 400+w for 1080 perf.. lay off the green chapstick and turn in your kneepads..
Click to expand...

30/40 watts more can still be double if your reference is 30/40w...

Having said that we are comparing a 180w card ( 1080) to a 300w card (Vega 64 air cooled) at best.

If we look at PCPer's power testing you will find GTX 1080 @165/170w in RottR, whereas...

. In Rise of the Tomb Raider the Vega FE Liquid pulls around the 350-watt mark, compared to 290 watts for the air-cooled Vega FE and 250 watts for the GTX 1080 Ti.
Click to expand...

And this is what the performance landscape looks like in the very same test they used for power measurements.

RoTRDX12_2560x1440_OFPS_2.png


Well would you look at that, it's a 1712mhz overclocked watercooled Vega FE still losing to the 1080 despite drawing *more* than double the power. 350w is for stock Vega WC btw, the 1712mhz card is over 400w lol

You're more than welcome to continue accusing me of making false, unfounded claims though!
 
what is odd is AMD marketing this as a really modified GCN architecture so much so its essentially new, they really should have just keep their mouth shut and let it die before it even came out. I can't even image Polaris if it was bigger being much worse. The power characteristics, performance just scale so much like Polaris, the only difference is higher clock speeds.

They liked the name Vega so much they wanted to use it as their Flagship name, now in marketing terms, next generation top end cards, can't be called Vega anymore, gotta use something else. Fury as a marketing name is dead now too. What are they going to call their next one? They should have called it Fury Maxx, name is already dead, just kill it some more lol. They should keep one name as their top level card, like nV does with Titan. Vega is a good name to use for that, oh well just have to open up the dictionary again I guess.
 
razor1 said:
what is odd is AMD marketing this as a really modified GCN architecture so much so its essentially new, they really should have just keep their mouth shut and let it die before it even came out. I can't even image Polaris if it was bigger being much worse. The power characteristics, performance just scale so much like Polaris, the only difference is higher clock speeds.

They liked the name Vega so much they wanted to use it as their Flagship name, now in marketing terms, next generation top end cards, can't be called Vega anymore, gotta use something else. Fury as a marketing name is dead now too. What are they going to call their next one? They should have called it Fury Maxx, name is already dead, just kill it some more lol. They should keep one name as their top level card, like nV does with Titan. Vega is a good name to use for that, oh well just have to open up the dictionary again I guess.
Click to expand...
How About Vega Furrier. I want to see the white paper have they released that and I am just too dumb to find it? I am curious how different or similar the architecture is to fiji or polaris.
 
razor1 said:
what is odd is AMD marketing this as a really modified GCN architecture so much so its essentially new, they really should have just keep their mouth shut and let it die before it even came out. I can't even image Polaris if it was bigger being much worse. The power characteristics, performance just scale so much like Polaris, the only difference is higher clock speeds.

They liked the name Vega so much they wanted to use it as their Flagship name, now in marketing terms, next generation top end cards, can't be called Vega anymore, gotta use something else. Fury as a marketing name is dead now too. What are they going to call their next one? They should have called it Fury Maxx, name is already dead, just kill it some more lol. They should keep one name as their top level card, like nV does with Titan. Vega is a good name to use for that, oh well just have to open up the dictionary again I guess.
Click to expand...

I like how they append the number of CUs to the name though, it's going to sound like shit for low end cards but oh well.
 
Ieldra said:
I like how they append the number of CUs to the name though, it's going to sound like shit for low end cards but oh well.
Click to expand...


Thats not all that bad IMO, just easy to demarcate the line.

PS this is why I say Doom is more optimized for AMD hardware, again no one fault other than nV's because of them being late with Vulkan driver updates with their intrinsics.

arch-23.jpg


Love this slide

arch-30.jpg


Where did all that power savings go?
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
LOL sounds like furry (furrier).

Don't think they released it yet, but tech power up has a good write up (over view) but nothing indepth yet as white papers. I would like to see it too!

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Vega_Microarchitecture_Technical_Overview/
Click to expand...
So the HBCC sounds impressive but everything else is just a beefed up Fiji with some Polaris compute features thrown in. Not sure if they can keep up if they stick with GCN for another generation or two.
 
Respin? Updated Vega early next year? 16gb version using 4 stacks? Does anyone know how many revisions Vega went through so far? Really not sure how long Vega will be on the shelfs in other words or this version of Arch.
 
tajoh111 said:
The problem with Vega and why you are seeing such much hate on it is because of the advertising campaign and guerilla marketing strategy used by AMD. It generated alot of hype and although this hype was only partially created by AMD, AMD gave enough for the Guerilla marketers to work with. With claims like biggest jump in performance per watt ever, increased IPC and the poor Volta slogan, viral marketers had all the tools they needed to make hype. What AMD has been doing to maintain its credibility while get cheap marketing done is use guerrilla marketing. We see alot more rumors coming from AMD side along with mysterious posters that disappear after AMD launches.

Compare this with Nvidia and we don't see it as much if at all. How often do we see performance rumors of Nvidia cards aside from those a couple weeks before launch? Basically zero. How often do we see them from AMD months before launch? Basically every launch since Fiji. Remember the captain jack slides, Polaris slides that indicate gtx 980 ti performance, 1600mhz overclocking and with Vega, we have gtx 1080 ti performance or better, the author of chipandbits.it claiming something similar. If we look at other forums you will see people who are long term members saying things like my sources within AMD are claiming .... What AMD has been doing is seeding fake information as cheap marketing because their products are late and they need to delay but they also want to deny accountability. The problem with this is we discuss these rumors and the viral marketers foster these topics into hype trains. They get so wild that if people say vega performs like a gtx 1080, your considered a hater and a fanboy. When these hype trains crash, it is vindication for those that didn't board it.

This launch has been particularly bad. It was not just the performance expectations, it was the fake launch dates. How often were we told to wait till october 2016, next may for prey launch, next was june and finally next was end of July. Add in the annoucements about annoucements and presentations that lack substance like the Capcaicin event which showed only a damn name and AMD was testing even the most hardened fans patience.

Now we have AMD doing stuff like hindering reviews for the product unless you test it the way AMD wants it and split NDAs that only allow AMD products to be shown the way they want. It just a damning marketing strategy.

Add in the inferiority of the actual product which which mixes some of the worst performance characteristics from Fermi(inefficiency), the fx 5800(performance inferiority vs competition) and it should be no surprise this product is getting slammed along with those responsible for it.

If people say nothing and just pretend this marketing disaster didn't happen, you are only validating these type of marketing tricks in the future.
Click to expand...

You're right on point here. AMD marketing (and their "influencers") have had their fingers in the pie that is the collective anticipation for Vega since the day it was launched. Watching Vega (and Polaris prior to this) unfold has been an education in guerrilla tactics, payola, context manipulation and misdirection.

Not by any means suggesting nV isn't doing the same, but it at least their claims are more consistent and, as you mention, much less of the planted, engineered early "leaks".
 
_mockingbird said:
Would anyone explain to me why anyone should buy Vega over Pascal?
Click to expand...

If looking at 1080 level of performance and not too bothered about the extra power demand, ignoring noise as it could be a factor but depends upon model and noise characteristics.
Or as some mention FreeSync.
Also considering Nvidia does seem to have issues (mostly low level API games) on the AMD platform for whatever reason that are still not clear I would probably go for Vega by default here, the additional benefit is that Polaris tends to perform better on Ryzen than Intel when looking at relative DX11 to DX12 performance.
So if on Ryzen, I would feel Vega for now could be the right choice for a few reasons.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
chenw said:
FreeSync monitor owners
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that the cost of having to buy a more powerful power supply cuts into the saving of choosing a FreeSync monitor over a G-Sync monitor.

That, not to mention higher electricity costs of not only powering the video card, but also to cool the room.
 
_mockingbird said:
The problem with this argument is that the cost of having to buy a more powerful power supply cuts into the saving of choosing a FreeSync monitor over a G-Sync monitor.

That, not to mention higher electricity costs of not only powering the video card, but also to cool the room.
Click to expand...

Well that's usually the primary argument for people to choose FreeSync over G-Sync, the cost of the monitors alone, and never rest of the system. I compared that to choosing between a BMW and Toyota based on the cost of the windscreen wiper replacements.

But another argument can be made that not every FreeSync has a G-Sync equivalent monitor, while the reverse almost do not exist (I only know of 1, XB271HU, has no FreeSync exact equivalent). For those who favour their monitor more than their GPU, that can be a pretty strong argument. For example, there are no 24" 4k or 32" 1440p 144hz G-Sync monitors, but both have FreeSync versions.

Plus, the blur reduction on FreeSync monitors function independently of GPU, as they can be both used with FreeSync or with nVidia GPU. With G-Sync monitor, ULMB and G-Sync are one or the other, and you lose both when hooking it up to an AMD GPU. Essentially, even for nVidia owners, there are some sense to go with a FreeSync monitor, while there is literally none for AMD owner buy G-Sync (there was one historically, but that is already long gone).
 
_mockingbird said:
Would anyone explain to me why anyone should buy Vega over Pascal?
Click to expand...

to have a cohesive platform. Currently running ryzen and a freesync monitor. I got rid of 2x 1070s since I was able to get back nearly 100% due to mining craze. Waiting for the 56 and hopefully it's as good as the leaked benchmarks show, otherwise there's no point in its existance vs. fury.
 
noko said:
Respin? Updated Vega early next year? 16gb version using 4 stacks? Does anyone know how many revisions Vega went through so far? Really not sure how long Vega will be on the shelfs in other words or this version of Arch.
Click to expand...

I don't see why they would it would be a waste of money.
 
There is currently an internal power struggle with at least one powerful figure actively lobbying for Koduri to be removed from his position.
 
_mockingbird said:
There is currently an internal power struggle with at least one powerful figure actively lobbying for Koduri to be removed from his position.
Click to expand...

I've must have missed the post where you explained it, is there any reason why anyone should believe you beyond acknowledging the possibility this is happening?
 
Archaea said:
Here's one to throw on the old burn pile. This was brought up in the AMD pre-order thread.

https://videocardz.com/71591/rumor-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-to-be-great-for-mining

Vega is 70-100mh/s?

vs. 1080Ti's ~30mh/s and Fury X ~28mh/s.

Sounds preposterous....but if true - you won't be able to touch a Vega for less than $1K after launch. The mining operators will be special ordering these things by the thousands.
Click to expand...


This makes all the gaming arguments moot, since only a handful of gamers will ever own these cards.
 
I'm just hoping the mining numbers are totally fake. It just means it will be almost impossible for people like myself who are considering the RX for gaming.
 
Maddness said:
I'm just hoping the mining numbers are totally fake. It just means it will be almost impossible for people like myself who are considering the RX for gaming.
Click to expand...
Those are probably the only real numbers as this card seems it was designed with mining in mind.
 
Presbytier said:
Those are probably the only real numbers as this card seems it was designed with mining in mind.
Click to expand...

If that is truely the case, then I feel quite let down. I need an upgrade for my 480 and I was hoping Vega would be it. But it looks like it may be nigh on impossible to grab one at launch.
 
Dayaks said:
Anyone have a clue why it would be 3x FE Vega?
Click to expand...
Probably a combination of hashes liking integers and HBCC paging the memory so the physical requirements are lessened. Those features may not have been readily enabled when FE released. Card may actually be compute bound despite all the FLOPs.
 
SighTurtle said:
I've must have missed the post where you explained it, is there any reason why anyone should believe you beyond acknowledging the possibility this is happening?
Click to expand...

Let's see. I have an almost perfect track record on AnandTech before getting banned.

I was also the first to say that there will be three variations of Vega.

Two fully enabled Vega (one Air-cooled and one Liquid-cooled) and one cut-down Vega.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

April 19, 2017

Initially, AMD has intended for the Radeon RX Vega to compete with the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti which AMD has anticipated to be a mild refresh of the Geforce GTX 1080.

Radeon RX Vega has a close loop design similar to the one seen on the Radeon R9 Fury X. One of the problem is that it is already running out of the box at its thermal limit with no overclocking headroom.

The other more serious problem is that Radeon RX Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti.

When NVIDIA announced the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti at $699 and dropped the price of the Geforce GTX 1080 to $499, it threw the monkey wrench at AMD.

The Radeon RX Vega doesn't perform well enough for a $699 price tag, but costs too much to produce such that it could be sold at $499.

AMD is stuck in the impossible position of having to somehow increase the performance to justify the price tag or cut cost enough so that it can be sold at a lower price.

As a result, Radeon RX Vega has been indefinitely delayed.
Click to expand...

April 19, 2017

I didn't said that it won't be released.

I said that it has been delayed indefinitely, as in: it is not known when it will be released.

AMD is making changes to either make it runs faster or make it cheaper to make.
Click to expand...

April 23, 2017

"Big" Vega is at best 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.
Click to expand...

April 24, 2017

Well, the idea is to operate inside the optimal range.

Once operating outside of the optimal range, power consumption increases significantly more than performance.
Click to expand...

April 27, 2017

Even AMD doesn't know the answers to those questions because the product isn't finalized yet.
Click to expand...

May 1, 2017

I will say this: if AMD has a really great product that is supposedly at most a couple of months from release, AMD wouldn't be able to resist talking about the product every chance it gets.

We would know by now if AMD is going to knock the socks of NVIDIA.
Click to expand...

June 12, 2017

Just about everyone here on this forum was convinced that Vega was going to be announced at Computex and released before the end of June.

I said long before Computex that Vega has been indefinitely delayed.
Click to expand...
 
Here is a more reliable video showing mining for air and watercooled Vega with current existing drivers; air at 36Mh/s (hitting clock rates similar to what Tom's review saw in games when initially cold with around 1400Mhz) and 41Mh/s watercooled (this was hitting 1600MHz then 1520Mhz but considering this is from cold not suprising but with tweaking can it be maintained after 30mins).


Like he says, drivers should improve this a bit more, but this test is with cold GPUs so there is a balance between the two factors.
Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top