Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[Gerard]

If the rx vega is only on par with a 1080 then its a bit of a fail to say the least, they would essentially be bringing in last years "high end" (most would argue mid range priced as high end in the case of 1080 fe) performance over a year later on their high end. Yes they can price it accordingly etc but it still puts them a long way behind nvidia in terms of overall performance considering volta is meant to be coming relatively soon and 1080ti is a decent bit faster than 1080.

Thats if its only on par or slightly faster.

 

[humbug]

TBH,even if you were to be pessimistic and say 20% extra performance for the RX Vega due to a better cooler and better drivers(as the top SKU will probably be water cooled),it would still make it generally quicker than a GTX1080 FE.

20% is a lot more than currently predicted based on the FE results, PcPer insist no more than 10%, 4 weeks to find out how much PcPer predictions are worth.

 

[Gerard]

20% is a lot more than currently predicted based on the FE results, PcPer insist no more than 10%, 4 weeks to find out how much PcPer predictions are worth.

If amd were to just focus on performance instead of hbm and hbc they might be a lot further ahead than they are. One of the big hooplas about hbm was smaller card sizes, seems like that's already been kicked in the head, and the only thing that hbm is currently doing for amd is reducing power requirements slightly, otherwise the 375 watt tdp of vega fe might be over 400 watts. Saying that though i don't think vega has really exceeded 280ish in some of the reviews?

 

[Sargatanas2511]

Tile based rendering should bring a fairly sizeable jump in performance on it's own when properly implemented.

 

[humbug]

If the rx vega is only on par with a 1080 then its a bit of a fail to say the least, they would essentially be bringing in last years "high end" (most would argue mid range priced as high end in the case of 1080 fe) performance over a year later on their high end. Yes they can price it accordingly etc but it still puts them a long way behind nvidia in terms of overall performance considering volta is meant to be coming relatively soon and 1080ti is a decent bit faster than 1080.

Thats if its only on par or slightly faster.

It would make it a £300 card given as you say Pascal is approaching end of life, Volta is looming possibly Q1 2018.

Given the size of it and HBM2 i'm not sure AMD would make any profit on a card like that for that price.

 

[humbug]

If amd were to just focus on performance instead of hbm and hbc they might be a lot further ahead than they are. One of the big hooplas about hbm was smaller card sizes, seems like that's already been kicked in the head, and the only thing that hbm is currently doing for amd is reducing power requirements slightly, otherwise the 375 watt tdp of vega fe might be over 400 watts. Saying that though i don't think vega has really exceeded 280ish in some of the reviews?

I don't know that its the fault of HBM or not.... but we will need a new memory architecture before too long, someone has got to pioneer it, if no one does its bad for consumers in the long run.

If it wasn't for pioneers in the industry we would still be stuck on DDR Memory for GPU's

 

[Gerard]

It would make it a £300 card given as you say Pascal is approaching end of life, Volta is looming possibly Q1 2018.

Given the size of it and HBM2 i'm not sure AMD would make any profit on a card like that for that price.

Its giving me flashbacks of the 2900xt launch, that was meant to be a monster card then when it came out amd essentially market it as a good value card for around £300 or so. Barely kept up with the 8800gts while swallowing a lot more power.

 

[humbug]

Its giving me flashbacks of the 2900xt launch, that was meant to be a monster card then when it came out amd essentially market it as a good value card for around £300 or so. Barely kept up with the 8800gt while swallowing a lot more power.

Maybe... worrying times if true.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Are you waiting?

No.

 

[Martini1991]

Could be worse. They could put it up for pre order before reviews like the 290x was

 

[Martini1991]

TBH,even if you were to be pessimistic and say 20% extra performance for the RX Vega due to a better cooler and better drivers(as the top SKU will probably be water cooled),it would still make it generally quicker than a GTX1080 FE.

Tbh. I think that with clocks and drivers 20% over what we've seen is probably on the cards.

 

[Rroff]

Its giving me flashbacks of the 2900xt launch, that was meant to be a monster card then when it came out amd essentially market it as a good value card for around £300 or so. Barely kept up with the 8800gts while swallowing a lot more power.

I think there are a lot of parallels - with R600 they seemed to bet the horse on developers rapidly taking up new techniques and technologies with some kind of vision of if they produced the card people would jump on the bandwagon - it never happened and even today the 2900 cards have a lot of never tapped potential. Vega increasingly looks like being the same with some potentially great features they seem to be betting on that aren't likely to be utilised at anything like the level needed to make the card a success. (Which is why nVidia has gone to great lengths when they've done similar to automate as much work within the driver as possible or fully implement in hardware completely transparent to the application).

 

[pagepack]

Could be worse. They could put it up for pre order before reviews like the 290x was

One of the longest lasting cards I've owned, brilliant value. Got it on a reasonably priced AIO, still going strong 4 years later.

 

[nashathedog]

More clutching at straws

Let's not forget we've had all this play out with the Fiji and the 480 releases. Right up until the point of reviews, AMD fans kept saying "the leaks are all wrong, these cards will be amazing!" The 480 was going to batter a 980ti, remember? Oh wait, it turned out to trade blows with a 970.

Now RX Vega will batter a 1080, and possibly match a 1080ti. See you in 4 weeks when it trades blows with a 1070 in some titles, and a 1080 in others, but gets absolutely nowhere *near* a 1080ti.

Quote button primed and ready

Rumour's of things like the 480 being a 1070 competitor were just made up on the web, I doubt more than 1 percent of the userbase put any stock into it really being the case, Claims like that are silly and recognised as silly by most so it's hardly a good claim to base an argument on,
It's like claiming everyone on the internet's think Hitler had the right idea, When it was said by one neo Nazi in the comments of an old WW2 video on youtube in an angry response from a Jewish chap saying what a **** Hitler was. Fair enough some people are easily led and others easily excited but no one with half a brain really thought or thinks that.

 

[nashathedog]

TBH,even if you were to be pessimistic and say 20% extra performance for the RX Vega due to a better cooler and better drivers(as the top SKU will probably be water cooled),it would still make it generally quicker than a GTX1080 FE.

Which is around what the more conservative among us thought it'd be with a bit of tit for tat depending in the game

 

[five8five]

If amd were to just focus on performance instead of hbm and hbc they might be a lot further ahead than they are. One of the big hooplas about hbm was smaller card sizes, seems like that's already been kicked in the head, and the only thing that hbm is currently doing for amd is reducing power requirements slightly, otherwise the 375 watt tdp of vega fe might be over 400 watts. Saying that though i don't think vega has really exceeded 280ish in some of the reviews?

It was over 300W at times when PCper were testing it.

 

[five8five]

I have a feeling the FE isn't actually Vega, it is just a die shrunk Fury-X for the budget professional market.

So you think AMD is lying and trying to con everyone?

The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition graphics card was the first to feature AMD’s cutting edge “Vega” GPU architecture, purpose-built to handle big data sets and a diverse range of computational workloads.

https://pro.radeon.com/en-us/product/radeon-vega-frontier-edition/

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

20% is a lot more than currently predicted based on the FE results, PcPer insist no more than 10%, 4 weeks to find out how much PcPer predictions are worth.

Which is around what the more conservative among us thought it'd be with a bit of tit for tat depending in the game

Tbh. I think that with clocks and drivers 20% over what we've seen is probably on the cards.

That is assuming that 10% they said and then another 10% for clockspeeds,since I assume the RX Vega will have a better cooler and having 8GB of HBM2 should mean more of the power and TDP budgets can be used by the core. So at a minimum I expect the RX Vega to be a tad ahead of GTX1080 FE. OFC,if the drivers they shipped for the Vega FE are really that borked for gaming,it might be more,but rather hype it up too much,I would rather be pleasantly surprised in a positive way.

 

[nashathedog]

It would make it a £300 card given as you say Pascal is approaching end of life, Volta is looming possibly Q1 2018.
Given the size of it and HBM2 i'm not sure AMD would make any profit on a card like that for that price.

That is assuming that 10% they said and then another 10% for clockspeeds,since I assume the RX Vega will have a better cooler and having 8GB of HBM2 should mean more of the power and TDP budgets can be used by the core. So at a minimum I expect the RX Vega to be a tad ahead of GTX1080 FE. OFC,if the drivers they shipped for the Vega FE are really that borked for gaming,it might be more,but rather hype it up too much,I would rather be pleasantly surprised in a positive way.

Here's the problem we're going to have, It wouldn't surprise me if AMD are holding something back so that on release we see a moderate performance hike which they hope will temporarily blind us to the overall performance and how it sit's with the price they're asking,
I can't see it being much cheaper than £500 if at all. The Fury pro was £430, the Fury X was from £500 up and I think the Nano was more than the Fury X to start with.
Considering the apparent work that's gone into the chip and the memory and what AMD have got riding on it, I think the asking price will be too much. We'll see at the end of the month.

 

[five8five]

Exactly, We really don't know if they are sandbagging as someone put it, Too me sandbagging seems like a stupid thing to do at this stage, All it's doing is causing ill will among the user base which will continue to have a knock on negative effect towards RTG long after RX Vega is released with whatever performance it has.
It's an uphill struggle for AMD and they seem intent on making the hill steeper. It's crazy

I agree. If they'd only sent cards out to reviewers they could have potentially sandbagged (pre-release / review drivers) but as they've released the FE to the public and people are actually paying $1000 / £1000 for it, sandbagging is incredibly stupid. Do AMD not understand the power of the internet, for good or for bad.