True but as above consumers don't really care about that but also even a tweaked and shrunk (albeit 28nm to 14nm FF isn't trivial to shrink) Fury would have been pretty competitive at this point giving them a bit more time to work on R&D for future generations. I really don't understand the reluctance at AMD to go with the leaner, faster architecture atleast on alternate cycles even if they want to push another approach in the long term.
-
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 **
- Thread starter TNA
- Start date
- Status
True but as above consumers don't really care about that but also even a tweaked and shrunk (albeit 28nm to 14nm FF isn't trivial to shrink) Fury would have been pretty competitive at this point giving them a bit more time to work on R&D for future generations. I really don't understand the reluctance at AMD to go with the leaner, faster architecture atleast on alternate cycles even if they want to push another approach in the long term.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
Especially with their Infinity Fabric they could have done something ala threadripper with those small Fiji dies. Unless they couldn't put infinity fabric on the Fiji die for some reason.
They wouldn't have been able to do anything different to current multi GPU - IF doesn't have the bandwidth or latency to tie monolithic cores together (plus all the latency at each end within the cores) as if one GPU for gaming purposes (though it should work great for compute workloads) and neither Fiji or Vega have the architecture to work in a "headless" fashion.
Looks like recent advances in substrate technology however is making it possible to produce a GPU in a manner of essentially laying out a monolithic core in a distributed fashion using separate packages on an interposer using a bunch of essentially "headless" GPU modules which going by recent news nVidia are looking at after Volta and AMD might be working towards similar capabilities as part of Navi's development. AFAIK though this requires far more single purpose dedicated interconnects than supported by IF which is a more general purpose widely flexible approach though it might be possible to implement it with some kind of dual mode functionality that lets it switch between those approaches as required.
Last edited:
Im well aware of that. My point is if they sell out on everything they make. They are making good money.
AMD confirmed that the Vega could use Infinity Fabric https://forum.level1techs.com/uploa.../6cfeffad803f8457d0bacb15bd2d1aae088a6cf7.jpg and I think raja confirmed on reddit or something, I don't know if they are using it though yet.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
so Vega is basically just an 8GB Fury X, with an overlcock
If they were going to do an 8GB, they shouldn't have left it this long, like they didn't with their 290s, as it didn't take them 2 years to get their 8GB variants out.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I've just started using Fastsync and have a question, What am I meant to do regarding V-sync in the ingame menu? On or Off?
Interesting
Yup. Volta or bust for me now. Maybe pick up a PS4 Pro in the meantime, if they drop the price below £300.
AMD just aren't at the races at all.
Who really wants a 375 watt (!!!!!!) 1080? I like my PC to be quiet. Fat chance if it's burning through that much power.
While it should be over-rode by the nVidia drivers anyhow the best thing to do is turn off any V-Sync option ingame - you want the game to be able to run as fast as possible providing new frames as quickly as possible as the driver then selects the one that is closest to the V-Sync window to display reducing latency.
Somewhat counter-intuitively higher levels of max pre-rendered frames can actually produce better results here.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I know it's not quite the same, but just remember how much AMD have managed to completely undercut Intel on the cpu side. Here's hoping it's somehow possible in the gpu section too.
*edit* It's also possibly worth remembering that the 970 > 1070 price jump was over £100 at launch, the 980 >1080 price jump was over £150 and the 980ti > 1080ti was about £200. There may be some milking involved in those prices
I think vega will be priced much lower than 1080 ... they need to factor in the 1080-like performance at a rumored 375W power draw.
Either ways if it has 15-18 billion transistors it is expected to age well.. just like the FuryX which had more transistors than its peers
The way things are going now..we may be looking at an uninspiring volta launch..nvidia will surely cut the GV100 in half and peddle that as enthusiast gear
It'd be nice if AMD did take the same approach they took with Intel but I can't see it happening, It'd be great but I think AMD are gonna have the attitude that this is a 1080ti competitor, even if it loses out more often than not. They priced the FE like a Titan and last gen they priced the Fury X like a 980ti even though it lost to it in just about every game benchmark on release, If you remember AMD came up with there own set of game test results on the eve of the Fury releasing that showed it beating the 980ti consistently, A couple of day's later when we had the independent test results we found out that AMD's results were false.
In all likelihood vega was already far past the point of production where it could have benefited from anything like that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,672
- Location
- London
So now people are expecting Vega to be faster than the 1080 but at a cost of increased thermals and power draw.
If it's cheaper by at least £50 that's not bad. Hopefully more.
£100 would be about right for a product equivalent but a year later.
If it's cheaper by at least £50 that's not bad. Hopefully more.
£100 would be about right for a product equivalent but a year later.
So mostly behind Fury X IPC when it comes to gaming, but annihilates the FX when it comes to pro stuff. Can't wait to see the RX vega to answer some questions.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2017
- Posts
- 1,029
Thats bcoz the furyx doesnt have access to semi-pro drivers like the vega.. a possible explanation
This just isn't adding up. Fury X Release Date: June 24, 2015
More than 2 years later they are releasing a HIGH-END card that is barely faster than the Fury X? Something just isn't adding up here.
Maybe I'm just in denial.
More than 2 years later they are releasing a HIGH-END card that is barely faster than the Fury X? Something just isn't adding up here.
Maybe I'm just in denial.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
They should be, It's selling faster than they can make replacements.
Have any reviewers done this type of review with a 1080ti and 980ti?
- Status