• 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.
Gerard said:
I just wonder what would have happened had this card used gddr5, 400 watts for the card alone?
Click to expand...

Multiple people in hospital with serious burns most likely. In all seriousness the power really ain't a problem as if it was faster than a 1080ti and priced below people would buy. It's gtx1080 and that really does sip juice in comparison.
 
Last edited:
1000w!

SYPNBHQ.gif.png
 
TheRealDeal said:
Multiple people in hospitable with serious burns most likely. In all seriousness the power really ain't a problem as if it was faster than a 1080ti and priced below people would buy. It's gtx1080 and that really does sip juice in comparison.
Click to expand...


Well FE 1080 is listed at 180w, this is almost double that for roughly comparable performance. Just seems that the actual vega chip is going the same way polaris did, its not what they expected but have no choice but to go with it, put some marketing spin and deals together and pretend like "this is what its meant to be". It really is 2900xt all over again, late, power hungry, and competing with nvidia's second tier card when it was intended to be a top spot competitor. At least with 2900xt they priced it accordingly, amd seem stuck in this "we aren't budget" mentality so are pricing it pretty high, presumably the aluminium shroud was slapped on to give it a premium look.
 
AllBodies said:
It's pretty clear they focused on adding transistors for professional workloads, and the gaming side is basically an overclocked Fury.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree completely with that, if we are to believe AMD, they had to add transistors in order to get higher clocks over Fiji, which yeah of course would also translate to pro workloads, but the way I understand it is that they didn't have much of a choice.
 
nashathedog said:
Fine Wine? Nobody from AMD has been calling it Fine Wine, In fact Raja went on stage and said he doesn't like the Fine Wine name being used. He calls it their user promise.

From 31m 20s
Click to expand...

Yeah but they don't mind pointing out the fine wine term and not complaining about it when it suits them ... lol :

52 min 27
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
RX 480 (580) = 5.8TFLOP's
RX Vega 56 = 10.5TFLOP's
Click to expand...

Not a good indication. The Vega 64 @ 1546 is 12.66TFLOP, and the FuryX @ 1050/500 is 8.6TFLOP. (so a good 47% more)
However their FPS difference in BF1 according to AMD is just 20% at 2560x1440. Something a FuryX @ 1190/600 (AMD UEFI bios, stock AIO) can come close if not beat.
There is something seriously wrong with the AMD Vega presentation. Clearly something is wrong and cannot be justified. Alternative, they did a computing card trying to cut into that market segment for first time, and didn't bother about gaming. A similarly (1546) clocked FuryX could trash it by a very good margin.

While an overclocked AIB or WC GTX1080 clearly trashes the Vega chip.

That from someone who's using a FuryX at 1190/600.
 
Panos said:
Not a good indication. The Vega 64 @ 1546 is 12.66TFLOP, and the FuryX @ 1050/500 is 8.6TFLOP. (so a good 47% more)
However their FPS difference in BF1 according to AMD is just 20% at 2560x1440. Something a FuryX @ 1190/600 (AMD UEFI bios, stock AIO) can come close if not beat.
There is something seriously wrong with the AMD Vega presentation. Clearly something is wrong and cannot be justified. Alternative, they did a computing card trying to cut into that market segment for first time, and didn't bother about gaming. A similarly (1546) clocked FuryX could trash it by a very good margin.
Click to expand...

I took those values from Gamers Nexus so not sure how accurate.

From watching the presentation what I think they did was focus getting them selves back in the data centre first. So Epyc and Vega for compute. Ryzen with it's modular design seems to have paid off, but Vega.... not sure yet.
 
Panos said:
Not a good indication. The Vega 64 @ 1546 is 12.66TFLOP, and the FuryX @ 1050/500 is 8.6TFLOP. (so a good 47% more)
However their FPS difference in BF1 according to AMD is just 20% at 2560x1440. Something a FuryX @ 1190/600 (AMD UEFI bios, stock AIO) can come close if not beat.
There is something seriously wrong with the AMD Vega presentation. Clearly something is wrong and cannot be justified. Alternative, they did a computing card trying to cut into that market segment for first time, and didn't bother about gaming. A similarly (1546) clocked FuryX could trash it by a very good margin.
Click to expand...

Clearly the IPC is not the same, that is all. People need to stop comparing it to Fury X clock for clock. End performance is all that matters and this is where Vega has disappointed as it has not improved enough over Fury X. With all those extra transistors, time for new architecture, HBM2 and they did not even get 50% improvement...

This pretty much means Vega was not designed primarily for gaming, but for compute.

I do think over time we will get 10-20% improvement though. But I talking about 12-24 months, not in the next few weeks.
 
nashathedog said:
Fine Wine? Nobody from AMD has been calling it Fine Wine, In fact Raja went on stage and said he doesn't like the Fine Wine name being used. He calls it their user promise.

From 31m 20s
Click to expand...
Fair enough on the terminology, but my point still stands. It seems like they are hinting it will get faster. I wonder if they are acknowledging the issues with getting good drivers out the door in a timely manner or are they hinting at it being more f"future proof".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom