• 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.

Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

On or off the hype train?

  • (off) Train has derailed

    Votes: 207 39.2%

  • (on) Overcrowding, standing room only

    Votes: 100 18.9%

  • (never ever got on) Chinese escalator

    Votes: 221 41.9%
  • Total voters
    528
Status
Not open for further replies.
N19h7m4r3 said:
Something is really up, an overclocked Fury X on normal "stock" cooling is beating the Frontier Edition that's at 1600mhz

How the hell does Vega at 1600Mhz lose to Fiji at 1125Mhz
YEGkMUM.jpg
Click to expand...


Seeing that actually gives me hope, I can't believe that a company with AMD's experience would **** up this badly. That said maybe that's why they've become so quiet recently,
They know it's a lemon now so they're keep stoom and letting all the AMD apologists in the community make up excuses for them.

Even if that was a stock Vega FE score if it can't beat an overclocked Fury X it'll crash and burn.
When I posted the compare of that and my Fury pro I didn't think to compare a Fury X result as well, duh.
 
Gregster said:
I agree and hence my last sentance "I would sooner wait for gaming vega in reality" I can really see this harming AMD as well when PCPer etc start testing and agreed, it will stick but hopefully they use some common sense and install into people that these cards are professional cards and gaming cards WILL deliver better performance.
Click to expand...

One can hope. This is a major blunder though; and it makes you wonder who approved the launch like this.
Drivers make and break these devices, and Raja already mentioned this Arch is extremely difficult in that regard.

More waiting, so much waiting :(
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Fury X competed at least, and was 5-10% slower than 980Ti, and matched it in 4K.

Vega Frontier Edition is barely beating an overclocked Fury X while having 30-50% Clock speed advantage, smaller process, and higher TDP.

They ruined this launch entirely, silly buggers.
Click to expand...

Yeah true.

Quite embarrassing for AMD.

Just when you think they could not sink lower they go and do it!

:p
 
AMD need to come out with an official statement about FE not being representative of RX gaming performance. At this point, I'd get out ahead of this by bringing a few selected big sites to head office, and let them run a few Vega RX gaming benchmarks. Put them out as preliminary benchmarks, with full benchmarks suites coming in a month.

I don't know how AMD always do this. They let rumours spin out of control, and keep quiet so the only message out there is whatever anyone else wants. Random amateur owners doing benchies, Nvidia shills spreading disinformation, click-bait sites making things up - they all get their messages out, but AMD does nothing to correct things and get out ahead of a bad story with their own narratives. The only voice out there belongs to everyone except the guys who actually have the truth. How does the AMD PR department not know this? Do they think we're still in 1995 and all that matters is print magazine reviews? Have they forgotten this thing called "the internet" where people spread their own information around no matter what?
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
One can hope. This is a major blunder though; and it makes you wonder who approved the launch like this.
Drivers make and break these devices, and Raja already mentioned this Arch is extremely difficult in that regard.

More waiting, so much waiting :(
Click to expand...
AMD are legendary with their blunders and this just adds to it. I know they have a limited budget but surely they must have known that someone would grab the FE, do some results and it wasn't going to be all singing and dancing that most (including me) are hoping for. They should have blocked the FE from working with gaming drivers really.
 
shankly1985 said:
This...
Its a card for creation and then testing them, optimising them.. It isn't a Gaming GPU and it shouldn't be compared for Gaming only but tested for what it's designed to do has a complete package. So meny people this day and age are so fast to ignore what they clearly been told and jump on the hate wagon. We all here for gaming performance "Well Most I would expect"
So why don't we just wait for RX Vega?
Click to expand...
What are the physical differences between the FE and the RX apart from amount of memory?
 
Combat Fighter said:
Yeah true.

Quite embarrassing for AMD.

Just when you think they could not sink lower they go and do it!

:p
Click to expand...

I have to agree its not looking good for AMD, unless they are having driver issues which is looking less likely as days progress. On paper technically they should be performing better given the die improvements over Fury. What have they done with the extra 5 billion transistors?
 
five8five said:
What are the physical differences between the FE and the RX apart from amount of memory?
Click to expand...

physically it's the same silicone and gpu.

it's like the difference between the quadro p6000 and the titan Xp, about 2% difference in gaming.

the main difference is just the drivers and fp16 being enabled.
 
nashathedog said:
If I'm recalling it right early last year the general consensus was that AMD was going to give the high end a miss rather than try and create a big Polaris chip, That way they could focus on giving us a good product in Vega this year, From the look of the FE I think we'd of been better off with a big Polaris chip and GDDR5.
I think it's going to be up to the board partners to save the day. At least if they can offer good cooling and good quality components so it can keep a 1600 clock it won't be a total loss.


Also, I'm glad I kept my 850 watt psu. :)
Click to expand...
Have to agree, not sure if HBM2 is worth it considering how GDDR5/X cards can perform.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how the AIB perform.
 
Steampunk said:
AMD need to come out with an official statement about FE not being representative of RX gaming performance. At this point, I'd get out ahead of this by bringing a few selected big sites to head office, and let them run a few Vega RX gaming benchmarks. Put them out as preliminary benchmarks, with full benchmarks suites coming in a month.

I don't know how AMD always do this. They let rumours spin out of control, and keep quiet so the only message out there is whatever anyone else wants. Random amateur owners doing benchies, Nvidia shills spreading disinformation, click-bait sites making things up - they all get their messages out, but AMD does nothing to correct things and get out ahead of a bad story with their own narratives. The only voice out there belongs to everyone except the guys who actually have the truth. How does the AMD PR department not know this? Do they think we're still in 1995 and all that matters is print magazine reviews? Have they forgotten this thing called "the internet" where people spread their own information around no matter what?
Click to expand...
That's what I've said. They should have held back the gaming driver.

I actually thought they wouldn't release the gaming drivers now and would hold them back for the RX launch so as not to steal its thunder - of course expecting decent results :rolleyes:
 
well if you look at it from another angle it might be a good thing for us. If they totally mess up the release of this card and it damages sales of the gaming version then AMD might be stuck with a load of stock they need to shift so they may lower the price :) <---- positive hat on today
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom