• 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.
Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2013
Posts
10,711
Location
West End, Southampton
Wake up to what I was expecting all along but remained optimistic about things recently. Performance is a little worse than I was hoping and the pricing is just bonkers IMO. This was AMD last chance with me, was not going to get my pants pulled down on it which I think they are doing with the pricing, especially considering how late it is to party.

So it's by by AMD you've disappointed far to often sadly, your whole design, marketing, pricing and general clueless approach to things has finally lost you this customer. Ill just pre order xbx1x now, enjoy that in my lounge some 4k hdr goodness on Sammy k7000, then will buy some good quality lube early 2018 and move to Volta which will no doubt be crazy expensive. But will launch on time, and have mental performance
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Sep 2009
Posts
9,616
Location
Billericay, UK
That sounds worse :p

That's because it is. There are a ton of changes from GNC/Fury to RX Vega but I wonder just wonder how much performance AMD are giving up by have part of the die space used up for the hand bandwidth cache, if that space was used for more shader cores I wonder if that would have improved things because at the moment not even titles running in DX12 show any advantages for AMD.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Jeezes listen to yourselves. The only reason Vega "sucks" is because most of you have gotten into your heads that it would be a 1080ti contender which was never promised.
This is nonsense. Everyone but the most optimistic here were expecting the top Vega card to trade blows with the 1080.

The most optimistic were saying things like:
"Maybe it's the cut-down card they're demoing?"
"All the new features are turned off in the driver - that'll save it."
"AMD are sandbagging."

Those people are either blind optimists or AMD die-hards. I don't know which. They won't be the ones saying "Vega SUCKS!" - they will be the ones saying "Vega could still be good, just wait! (more)".

The people saying "Vega SUCKS" are the neutrals/those who are seeing what's in front of their eyes.

And what is that?
A card which only matches a stock 1080 under liquid cooling.
A card which draws 2x the power of a 1080.
A card which has yet to even arrive, but will over 12 months late compared to the competition.
A card which was hyped as a "Volta killer" by AMD's own prior marketing materials ("Poor Volta").

This card has utterly failed to deliver. Only the most optimistic AMD die-hard believers can keep the faith now. For the neutrals, Vega sucks. Deal with it, man!

U w0t m8? Have you been following the thread?
I think he's just trying to re-write history, to make it seem like we had unrealistic expectations for Vega, and actually AMD delivered. Which nobody sane believes.
 
Associate
Joined
26 Jun 2015
Posts
410
No thanks, I've waited since Polaris rumors to replace my Fury X, which died.

I've just ordered my "Vega replacement kit".

GTX 1080Ti, G-Sync Asus PG348Q.

Hum you went with that screen ? As I said AMD did a great job a marketing ASUS screens, they at least achieved that during this release :)
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,764
Location
Planet Earth
In DOOM only, some very selected tests there.

Just not good enough for me giving the sheer size of the die, and the power requirements.

At 20nm it would be acceptable, as it looks like a Fiji die shrink then at 484nm2, but at 14nm. No

31% over a Fury X is not great though,as that is most probably the water cooled version of Vega 64.

Edit!!

Looking at the Vega FE review,it would be holding at least a 40% clockspeed advantage there.

So has performance per clock regressed or is the card massively bandwidth limited??
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
Hum you went with that screen ? As I said AMD did a great job a marketing ASUS screens, they at least achieved that during this release :)

Aye, it was that or the Acer, and Acer doesn't see a fault with the monitor if it has under 15 dead pixels.
So if I ended up with a clump of 13 I'd be out of luck with their support.

The Asus looks great, and great reviews as well; only thing I don't like is that obnoxious 3 armed stand it has. Dell, LG, and HP have the competition beat on proper stands.

Shame LG and Dell don't have any 100Hz G-Sync monitors though, I've had nothing but great experiences with them. Especially Dell support.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2007
Posts
8,206
Location
London
A 64% increase from Vega 56 to Vega 64 for only a 30% increase in FLOPs??

Diminishing returns evidently and a seriously inefficient core. So they've somehow screwed up the architecture?

It was noticeable how much AMD's marketing tailed off after the 1080ti was released. Were they seriously caught off guard by it? Were they honestly that excited about matching a card that has been out for over a year?...I didn't wait in the end and went 1080ti sli but I'm really disappointed, the market needed a kick up the backside at the top end and this isn't it.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2012
Posts
4,139
Location
Oxfordshire
Hmm, real shame it has come to this with AMD. They got it so right with the CPU that the GPU side is even more of a disaster because hopes ran so high. They just are not competitive in anything in terms of GPU and don't look like they will be any time soon. It really is going to cause issues where we are left with one viable option.

I have been hoping to go for an all red build this time after Intel/Nivida last time but it just wont be possible. Hope their R&D can be pushed into the GPU sector soon to really get them back in this race.

Even with people talking about Freesync 2 and pairing that up with AMD, it just doesn't seem enough. They really needed something to match the 1080Ti with similar power drawer and price. I would have been happy for them to undercut it by £20 and get the performance to power ratio right because it would have been an instant buy and not waiting for 2019 or similar but now I think I will be getting a console for some family gaming on the sofa for a few years and waiting it out.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Posts
564
Aye, it was that or the Acer, and Acer doesn't see a fault with the monitor if it has under 15 dead pixels.
So if I ended up with a clump of 13 I'd be out of luck with their support.

The Asus looks great, and great reviews as well; only thing I don't like is that obnoxious 3 armed stand it has. Dell, LG, and HP have the competition beat on proper stands.

Shame LG and Dell don't have any 100Hz G-Sync monitors though, I've had nothing but great experiences with them. Especially Dell support.
If there was a monitor available that was compatible with both G-Sync & Freesync I'd be interested. But I can't afford to ditch my monitor every time I get a new gpu. Or be forced to stay only with Nvidia or only AMD. And I agree about those Asus stands they take up to much room too
 
Associate
Joined
27 Dec 2008
Posts
402
It's heavily dependent on pricing especially with the current inflation due to cryptomining. If aftermarket vega 64 versions can match the 1080 in pricing, I'd hedge my bets on it over the 1080 due to the similar performance and also the slightly newer architecture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom