• 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.
Steampunk said:
Surely that's a good thing? Customers get max performance out of the box without messing with voltages, cooling, etc. Some people act as if it's taking away their elite overclockers status, when really it's just making it standard with less hassle.
Click to expand...
Generally, yes. It's basically the same thing that is happening with Ryzen and AMD's GPUs. "Turbo" or "boost" modes allow manufacturers to use fuller potential of their silicon without reducing yields - a bad chip just won't boost as high or for as long, but it's still sellable since only the base clock is guaranteed. I suppose it is bad for overclockers but we all know that the days of buying cheaper parts and doubling their speed is gone. The closest you can get now is probably the R5 1600 and R7 1700.
 

40 fps on Metro Last Light 4k. Stock is around 38. Really abysmal results. Hopefully RX Vega can redeem itself because I really don’t believe AMD spent this much time on a turd
 
This thread is getting really silly !!!

We have not seen a gaming card yet

We therefore have not seen drivers for it yet

We really do need to wait for a proper review of the actual gaming card, anything else is irrelevant.

Testing a professional card for gaming is a bit like driving a Rolls Royce off road, totally pointless.:)
 
Steampunk said:
Surely that's a good thing? Customers get max performance out of the box without messing with voltages, cooling, etc. Some people act as if it's taking away their elite overclockers status, when really it's just making it standard with less hassle.
Click to expand...

TheRealDeal said:
It's always been a lottery if you get a good chip or not as far as overclocking goes but Nvidia have taken away some option's and made it a bit harder for those that want to push past the boundaries especially for those on water. No big deal to the likes of me and probably yourself as it's a benefit as i see it. Only need to look at the bench threads to see that there is not a real big variation on clocks like there used to be. Guess it takes a bit of the fun away.
Click to expand...

Steampunk said:
But again, I think it's a good thing that you buy a card and you know what you're going to get. You're no longer relying on the silicon lottery because you're getting max clockspeed guaranteed from the manufacturer. I'd rather be using my card than endlessly tweaking it because I think there's some performance left on the table.
Click to expand...

I also feel it's a good thing. Vast majority of users won't OC so at least this way they get all their money's worth.

There's still ways to have fun though. Under-volting is essentially the same thing.

I just wish people would realise that even on Nvidia side, ever since GPU boost 3.0 the party is over!

Even the reference Pascal cards hit the same clock speeds (1.9x - 2.0 GHz) and any extra for the AIB ones is simply because of superior thermal solution. Essentially what you see in the review benchmarks is within 5% of the best case scenario.
 
Last edited:
I dont mind waiting. I like AMD and their products overall (with few exceptions of course). What I do not like is waiting without knowing what I am waiting for and then being told to wait even more without any information to go on. I am getting closer and closer to just say **** it and ditch my idea of getting RX Vega as im not gaming right due to the poor performance of my current placeholder(its not a bad card but just not powerful enough)
 
Kaapstad said:
This thread is getting really silly !!!

We have not seen a gaming card yet

We therefore have not seen drivers for it yet

We really do need to wait for a proper review of the actual gaming card, anything else is irrelevant.

Testing a professional card for gaming is a bit like driving a Rolls Royce off road, totally pointless.:)
Click to expand...

Yup, and tests showing the Pro mode giving better gaming performance than Gaming mode also points to that.

We already know the performance for the hardware specs makes no sense at all, unless AMD regressed in IPC by around 30%.

If they didn't they'd just not bother with the gaming card and stick to enterprise.

So let's wait a bit more for Siggraph before the wait for Volta train gets boarded.
 
Kaapstad said:
This thread is getting really silly !!!

We have not seen a gaming card yet

We therefore have not seen drivers for it yet

We really do need to wait for a proper review of the actual gaming card, anything else is irrelevant.

Testing a professional card for gaming is a bit like driving a Rolls Royce off road, totally pointless.:)
Click to expand...

jonjay said:
Its almost as good as the last thread :)
Click to expand...

+1
 
Still 200 pages short though. More ****posts required.

I have been waiting a long time for VEGA, but I have to admit that it's not looking too promising. Looks like I might be waiting for Volta next :(
 
Baboonanza said:
Still 200 pages short though. More ****posts required.

I have been waiting a long time for VEGA, but I have to admit that it's not looking too promising. Looks like I might be waiting for Volta next :(
Click to expand...
This is how I am feeling also. Does not bode well, but I am still hopeful, they just need to price it right.

But if not will wait for Volta. I like the idea of getting 1080Ti performance for under £400 brand new with a 2070/1170, not to mention it will run a lot cooler :D
 
TNA said:
I like the idea of getting 1080Ti performance for under £400 brand new
Click to expand...
That's my next upgrade right there - I don't care really which team delivers it.

However I fully expect AMD to fall a bit (a lot?) short, so realistically will be waiting for Volta, and hoping above hope nV don't start selling the xx70 cards for £500+...
 
I'm still running a 970. The card it's self is fine (ish)... at 1200p, but I need a new monitor desperately.

If Vega isn't exciting dunno if it's better to forgo the 1080/1440p monitor upgrade and just wait it out for Volta?

IF we are going to see Volta in 2017 then I'd wait. Buying a product at full price during the tail end of it's life cycle doesn't make sense. Second hand maybe the answer but then that's still around £350.
 
Last edited:
JediFragger said:
Mate of mine has just gotten an Acer XB270HU and he has a 970. It's managing stuff on Medium....just!

Go Gsync, you won't regret it tbh.
Click to expand...

:p

I just like to buy things when all the hands have been played so I can make an informed decision. I'd feel silly if I went and bought a 1080 and then Vega turned out to be 'disruptive' as AMD like to say.

Saying that.... When Volta comes round I am going to be stuck with a Freesync monitor... :(

I'ts also summer time and the gaming machine doesn't get much of a run out. So I have waiting time.
 
muon said:
Well a Fury X is 8.6Tflops at 1050mhz. At 1600mhz it would also have 13.1Tflops.
Click to expand...
Well it would, because TFLOPS number is calculated by basic multiplication of cores x clocks.
Armadillo said:
Thoughts? Stick with my original pick? Chicken out and send back? Buying stuff is torture :p
Click to expand...
Vega with proper cooling is at least two months out. Probably three.
I made my choice back in December and will wait for RX Vega. Sounds like you are happy to get 1070 performance and features, so that is a good choice as well.
 
opethdisciple said:
Saying that.... When Volta comes round I am going to be stuck with a Freesync monitor...
Click to expand...
Not a bad place to be. If your GPU/CPU combo can produce steady 144fps, having freesync/gsync matter less. I have a freesync monitor and prefer to have it off, so I can take advantage of Blur Reduction feature. Different kind of smooth motion.
 
alec said:
Not a bad place to be. If your GPU/CPU combo can produce steady 144fps, having freesync/gsync matter less. I have a freesync monitor and prefer to have it off, so I can take advantage of Blur Reduction feature. Different kind of smooth motion.
Click to expand...
Yeah surely the point of FreeSync and G-Sync is that you don't need to hit a constant 144 Hz or 60 Hz? That's why I got it - I knew I could get 60+ FPS at 1440p with an RX 480 but not a constant 144 Hz without settings on low. With FreeSync that's not a problem. Even a GTX 1080 Ti wouldn't manage 1440p 144 Hz at max settings in most games so it seemed to me that having a more future-proof solution was a better way to go, plus it was cheaper up-front with the option to get a better GPU later, without sacrificing smoothness.
 
DragonQ said:
1080 Ti wouldn't manage 1440p 144 Hz at max settings
Click to expand...
Settings are there to be tweaked. Max settings are not a Holy Grail. I prefer to trade a bit of image quality to get smooth framerates. But thats me.
I was referring to future with Volta it will probably be simpler to keep steady 144. For RX480 freesync is definitely the way to go
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom