I don't buy the idea of AMD sandbagging at all. We already know the FE is "full fat Vega". The only possible improvements for their top end card would be better power management (to both reduce power consumption and prevent throttling to better sustain boost clocks), or improved performance through drivers. The former doesn't help much with performance (Gamers Nexus undervolted and boosted the power limit of the FE and it didn't exactly become a 1080 Ti competitor) and the latter doesn't help with power consumption. So unless they improve both of these areas significantly, which is a hugely tall order considering they're showing off the cards this month, I can't see it being a better option than the GTX 1080 except in terms of price and FreeSync compatability.
-
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
While I am dubious of sandbagging, there were some theories before that are possibly feasible. The FE being early silicon that had issues, and the RX Vega cards being a slightly revised silicon was banded around for a bit.
I find it more believable that some gaming features like tile based rasterisers not being enabled yet is more likely, though I am again doubtful these technologies could bridge the gap to the Ti.
I find it more believable that some gaming features like tile based rasterisers not being enabled yet is more likely, though I am again doubtful these technologies could bridge the gap to the Ti.
That'd be a bonus and great for some people, but the majority still only buy single GPU's so that alone won't save it if Vega performance is sub-par.
I'm still mildly optimistic that it's going to be at least a little better than the naysayers on here have been bleating on about over and over.
Damned AMD NDA's appear to be bloody watertight.
I've just read this article on Fudzilla. What caught my eye was this paragraph:
Since the rest of the systems were said to be identical, that means that the savings come from the GPU - and possibly using a Freesync rather than GSync monitor - could it be that RX Vega is going to be targeted at the £250 price point? I.e. a mainstream card and a replacement for the RX 580?
Since the rest of the systems were said to be identical, that means that the savings come from the GPU - and possibly using a Freesync rather than GSync monitor - could it be that RX Vega is going to be targeted at the £250 price point? I.e. a mainstream card and a replacement for the RX 580?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
Do that imo, you'll get more for your money!! SLi is in a dire place atm.
Probably closer to £50-100 cheaper than the gtx 1080. So £350-400 is my guess with the watercooled version going for £450.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
No.
At the very least $200 of that saving is purely the difference between the freesync/g-sync monitors.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 713
- Location
- UK
Someone posted a video on youtube where they identified the monitors used at the AMD event and worked out the GSync one has an RRP $500 more expensive than the Freesync, so a $300 system price difference indicates Vega will be quite expensive.
Not sure I believe that, but anyone expecting Vega to be super cheap is probably going to be disappointed. My expectation is the full Vega XT will be no less than £499, and the water-cooled XTX at least £100 more.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
Just imagine the howling if they all came out at £699/£599/£499 
Has to be higher.
Bulldozer was worse than Phenom, clock for clock. It's not like AMD could not possibly have regressed in gaming performance.
Like Rroff says, if they keep changing things up and hoping that developers will jump on board the "AMD Way" of doing things, and it doesn't happen, you're just left with a very inefficient, poorly-utilised architecture. If they just concentrated on releasing cards that work for the current paradigms, instead of re-inventing the wheel every time, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
Same thing happened with Sony and Cell. Trying to force developers to switch to something all-new just doesn't seem to work out
Then AMD can go screw themselves because who in their right mind would pay more for worse performance (unless of course they end up being faster than the gtx 1080ti by some sort of miracle)?Just imagine the howling if they all came out at £699/£599/£499
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,768
- Location
- Planet Earth
I honestly hope for some here the RX Vega is as crap as they want it to be,otherwise some are going to get heart palpitations!! 
Its only a few weeks until the launch,so best to wait now and see how it pans out. Some of you really are getting way too worked up over this now - its summer go and do something fun!!
Its only a few weeks until the launch,so best to wait now and see how it pans out. Some of you really are getting way too worked up over this now - its summer go and do something fun!!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I still hold out slim hopes. Would be great for everyone if its decent. 
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 808
- Location
- Peterboghorror
Even the energy saving stickers are green. More nvidia bias
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,768
- Location
- Planet Earth
Bulldozer was worse than Phenom, clock for clock. It's not like AMD could not possibly have regressed in gaming performance.
Like Rroff says, if they keep changing things up and hoping that developers will jump on board the "AMD Way" of doing things, and it doesn't happen, you're just left with a very inefficient, poorly-utilised architecture. If they just concentrated on releasing cards that work for the current paradigms, instead of re-inventing the wheel every time, maybe we wouldn't be in this situation.
Same thing happened with Sony and Cell. Trying to force developers to switch to something all-new just doesn't seem to work out
Or maybe because AMD has not make pure gaming cards at the top end for years??
Nvidia starting with Maxwell has had two lines - one for commercial and one for gaming. AMD is attempting to tackle both with one line and that means its a compromise on their part. Look at things like the SSD functionality on Polaris 10,its not something useful for gaming so is wasted transistors for our usage patterns and that no doubt adds to power consumption,etc.
Look at the HD4000/HD5000 series against the GTX200 and Fermi cards. AMD used much smaller gaming orientated chips against Nvidia,but those Nvidia GPUs were probably much better in non-gaming scenarios.
This is why Ryzen needs to do well as all this does need more R and D money.
Edit!!
You can kind of see this with the GP102. Its probably the smallest top end gaming GPU Nvidia has made for a very long time,and the first under 500MM2 in yonks.
Last edited:
- Status