Maverick177
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2015
- Messages
- 23
https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series
So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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.
https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series
So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
FPS R9 FURY X RX VEGA 64 GTX 980 TI GTX 1080
4K 32 <-> 46 43 <-> 57 26 <-> 47 26 <->56
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.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.
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.
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.
September release date.... Talk about being very late to the party.https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series
So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
Apparently, (without adaptive vertical sync) Radeon RX Vega 64 is at least 33% faster than Geforce GTX 1080 at 4K according to AMD
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.
Apparently, (without adaptive vertical sync) Radeon RX Vega 64 is at least 33% faster than Geforce GTX 1080 at 4K according to AMD
An entire series of DOA cards except maybe Vega 56.https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series
So RX Vega is Vega FE + 10%. What a complete turd.
How did you calculate this?Apparently, (without adaptive vertical sync) Radeon RX Vega 64 is at least 33% faster than Geforce GTX 1080 at 4K according to AMD
How did you calculate this?
With a ruler
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!!
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.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.
YGPMPmed ya, can ya give me the coin info and your rig info, just want to see what its all about (Skunk)
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
pearl jam good stuff!
56 is a joke for the price get a 1070...An entire series of DOA cards except maybe Vega 56.
at 4k.. which if your going to run 4k you likely want a 1080ti anyway or already have 1080Some slides from release slide decks look to be available now. RX Vega basically = 1080 with better minimum frame rates.