• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Final8y said:
If AMD has a faster card than the XP then NV can only match or beat AMD if NV already have a faster GPU ready to go. R&D takes a lot of time, having the money is only half of the equation.
Click to expand...

The only way nV won't have a faster card ready to go is if they've been extremely complacent for several years.

They've had a financial advantage for several years now.

Is anyone here really expecting AMD to come from nowhere and surprise nV by producing something they have no answer for?

I guess hope springs eternal and all that.
 
humbug said:
His post looks confused to me.

He's talking about Vega being 16% faster than the 480 and still slower than the 980, where did he get this from?

The 480 is on par with the 980 in DX11, in DX12 and Vulkan it blows it out of the water.

If Vega can't beat the 980 it can't beat the 480
Click to expand...


Really???

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_480_Gaming_X/23.html

The stock RX 480 looks to be about 10% behind the stock 980 there, closing to 6% at 4K.

Your latter points about AMD sorting out their bottle neck issue's I agree with though, if they can sort them out they would be in a much better position.
 
Ancient 4 month old drivers and a throttling card ^^^^
Edit, actually the Gaming-X there is only clocked less than 3% higher and is only 4% shy of the 980.

FoxEye said:
It's my understanding that comparing TF to TF across vendors is not a good comparison by which to measure performance.

Polaris's 5.8 TF to Vega 11's 7 TF is more meaningful.

And no, Vulkan means nothing until there are Vulkan games widely available. Do we need to remember Mantle? It doesn't matter how awesome an API is (or could be) if it never hits critical mass.



They probably couldn't, even if they wanted to. nV can afford to throw money at R&D on a scale that AMD can't match. Same vs Intel on the CPU side.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting 7 TFlops from?

Vega with 4096 Shaders at RX 480 speed would be 10.4 TFlops

Some rumours have it at ~12 TFlops.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Ancient 4 month old drivers and a throttling card ^^^^
Edit, actually the Gaming-X there is only clocked less than 3% higher and is only 4% shy of the 980.

Where are you getting 7 TFlops from?

Vega with 4096 Shaders at RX 480 speed would be 10.4 TFlops

Some rumours have it at ~12 TFlops.
Click to expand...

So you waded into my post without even reading it properly... Vega 11. Eleven.

Not Vega 10.

Vega 11 is rumoured to be 480 successor and 7 TF.
 
FoxEye said:
So you waded into my post without even reading it properly... Vega 11. Eleven.

Not Vega 10.

Vega 11 is rumoured to be 480 successor and 7 TF.
Click to expand...

Thats fine, if AMD have improved their DX11 performance enough that will be a good competitor to the 1070 and exactly what i'm looking for.
 
humbug said:
Ancient 4 month old drivers and a throttling card ^^^^
Edit, actually the Gaming-X there is only clocked less than 3% higher and is only 4% shy of the 980.
Click to expand...

Oh come on humbug, so you want to compare a stock card with an AIB overclocked one. We all know how well the GM104 parts clocked, you yourself were saying that your 970 clocks really well, bringing it not a million miles away from stock 980ti performance. ( and no I cannot be #@^&* to go find those posts):)
 
I thought the most consistent rumour was that Vega 10 was 9.5TFlops ish making it about two 470 worth of performance. If that is the case it will all depend on how much AMD can sort out the bottlenecking issue.
 
bru said:
Oh come on humbug, so you want to compare a stock card with an AIB overclocked one. We all know how well the GM104 parts clocked, you yourself were saying that your 970 clocks really well, bringing it not a million miles away from stock 980ti performance. ( and no I cannot be #@^&* to go find those posts):)
Click to expand...

I didn't, the point i made was the Gaming-X was more than twice the performance difference with its overclock.

IE: The reference RX480 throttles.

Nothing to do with this but By comparison Reference Pascal cards actually run much higher than what's written on the box, especially the ones reviewers get, 1.6Ghz is more like 1.9Ghz.

Maxwell cards are not much different, at least they don't throttle, and that does matter.
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
AMD RX 490 High-End 4K VR Graphics Card Inbound – Announcement and Release Expected in December





http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-490-vr-4k-december/

:D:D:D
Click to expand...

If they release and expect people to be all excited about a dual Polaris card they're fools, The majority of those that do buy it will end up regretting it or they'll end up doing what AMDMatt does when benching with his pro duo, ie: game with one chip turned off all the time :D
 
nashathedog said:
If they release and expect people to be all excited about a dual Polaris card they're fools, The majority of those that do buy it will end up regretting it or they'll end up doing what AMDMatt does when benching with his pro duo, ie: game with one chip turned off all the time :D
Click to expand...

Well said. Multi GPU is a waste of time there days.
 
Tbh, if the name really is 490, I'd expect dual Polaris.

For Vega you'd think they'll use 5xx in their nomenclature.

That and they've flat out said 1H 2017 for Vega. Which means June :p
 
Gerard said:
That's one of the main problems with some of the bs thats spouted, a rumour suddenly becomes "amd said" and everyone believes it. Then the usual people that have an axe to grind beat it to death.
Click to expand...

Yeah true.

Btw, I meant to write 1H 2017.
 
Okay this is silly, is the OP's post not an official slide? I was meant to type 1H 2017 all that time and messed up which could be why we got all this confusion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom