Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[D.P.]

It's very plausible the Vega56 will consistently beat the 1070, if the Vega64 consistently matches the 1080.

The 1070 is actually very cut-down. Being cut-down 33%, or having 0.75x the shaders of the 1080. As well as lower memory bandwidth, and a worse form of memory so there's no chance to overclock to the same as the 1080.

On average it's ~25% slower than the 1080, and this can grow to 30%+ in highly optimised games like DOOM: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Mini/28.html

The Vega56 is only 14% cut-down, or has 0.875x the shaders of the Vega64. If it can clock to the same level, and there's no reason to believe it can't, it will be less of a drop compared to the Vega64 as the 1070 is to the 1080.

Therefore the only way the Vega56 won't beat the 1070 on average is if it clocks terribly for some reason, or the Vega64 consistently loses to the 1080 by ~10%. And from what we know at the moment, neither of those seem to likely.

Also I say this as a 1070 owner.

If you ignore cherry picked games and look at a broad average, the 1080 is 20% faster than the 1070. No need to use theoretical numbers based on cores, we can use empirical measurements:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Quick_Silver_OC/29.html
E.g., a vanilla 1070 is 95% of an overclocked 1070, and the 1080 is at 115%. 115/95 ~=21%.
And of course the 1080 is only 15% faster than the base 1070.


Given Vega clocks and core count I expect Vega 56 to be very close to 1070 speeds, but possibly slightly faster. This then makes the Vega64 look pretty useless because you pay a lot more to get 16-18% performance but ti pulls a massive amount more power. If it was possible to clock the 56 to 64 level eaislly then many AIB cards would be at the heals of the 64, which makes the 64 very unattractive.

I do beleive the 56 is probably the most attractive of the 2, but if you are a die hard AMD user coming from a FuryX it will not be an upgrade worth the money, you would have to stump up for the 64

 

[Zeed]

If it goes on Mining on VEGA

http://www.nag.co.za/2017/07/10/amd...of-shortages-thanks-to-cryptocurrency-miners/

 

[WeSbO]

Sheer volume of sales in the mainstream however usually more than make up the difference. The real importance of higher end cards is brand perception, etc. which is often almost sub-conscious - in many cases people are already sub-consciously leaning towards the mid-range product that has a connection to a high end product versus another mid-range product that is more stand alone even when the stand alone product might have more going for it.

Look how many people due to brand perception, who don't actually have requirements that dictate their purchasing, will still buy or be very reluctant to buy anything other than an Intel CPU even in segments where AMD's Ryzen CPUs are a significantly better offering.

Yeah the advantage of targeting the quantity over profit as well, is to bring up brand perception, well when perception is low anyways it puts the brand on the map. Which on a side note the consumer market perception is really important for a successful pro market when you play in both markets.

I'd be surprised if they don't gain quite a bit of market share with ryzen/threadrippper for the simple fact that when you do release a good product it sells itself, even though of course you'll always have the people that won't convert, but with this platform being previewed for a 3 year lifespan I expect the zen arch to gain a lot of terrain, well i'd be surprised if it doesn't.
Oh and the marketing for Threadripper is really good, that unboxing experience looks fantastic, but it's way easier to market a good product than it is to market a subpar one

 

[spoffle]

OLED may give better results but its not a requirement.

The only technical requirement for HDR is that the display can output the higher colour depth.

Now I dont know if you work for a tv/display manufacturer or affiliated in some way but you seem to be really trying to push that there is some kind of special extra hardware processing needed.

This proves that you don't understand the different types of HDR.

Do you understand what local dimming is and how it relates to HDR?

 

[Rroff]

I'd be surprised if they don't gain quite a bit of market share with ryzen/threadrippper

Wasn't saying it won't sell well BTW before anyone misunderstand me and jumps on that :s

 

[B12B6]

Actually in that video he points out just before that part, how high end gaming is very important because even though it represents a smaller market share the margins are way higher as opposed to the Polaris market which yield marginal profits. You should really watch that video I linked (from 31 minutes) you'll learn a lot about their goals.

I have watched it. But the problem is quantity, like many here has said already. They just dont sell that many high end chips for gaming. Vega RX is 400-500$, that same chip in WX9100 is 2200$. The real money is in professional side.

 

[kithylin]

This proves that you don't understand the different types of HDR.

Do you understand what local dimming is and how it relates to HDR?

I may be new here but I was assuming in this thread we would be discussing graphics cards.. specifically AMD Vega. Why are we discussing monitor display technologies? Shouldn't that be in a different thread somewhere?

 

[WeSbO]

Wasn't saying it won't sell well BTW before anyone misunderstand me and jumps on that :s

Oh yeah no I understood what you meant, there will always be those who won't change brand (maybe one day) because Intel is all they ever heard for the past decade.

 

[Telecaster]

This is bad right? The miners are just going to push prices of everything up again, fabulous.

It's alright having insane hash rates, but if it needs 300w+ to achieve it then it's fairly moot unless you get free power.

 

[D.P.]

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 to be great for mining



https://videocardz.com/71591/rumor-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-to-be-great-for-mining

Not good news if true

As I said before, if AMD really cared about gamers not getting cards due to miners they could put lock in their drivers to lower performance for mining.

The article basically collaborates that: AMD unlock performance for miners in the latest drivers. Well, they did't have to, they can disable those changes when mining software is detected.

Of course AMD don't want to do that, because a sale is a sale.

 

[WeSbO]

I have watched it. But the problem is quantity, like many here has said already. They just dont sell that many high end chips for gaming. Vega RX is 400-500$, that same chip in WX9100 is 2200$. The real money is in professional side.

But it's very important to have mindshare in all sectors of the consumer market, when you produce for the pro market as well, the brand perception on the consumer market helps sales in the pro market.
For example Epyc will probably have a hard time at first getting into it's targeted market even though it's a really good CPU, it'll take quite a few years before Epyc becomes a viable solution over Xeon in peoples minds, but what will help Epyc is the brand perception AMD will gain in the consumer and enthusiast market.

 

[WeSbO]

It's alright having insane hash rates, but if it needs 300w+ to achieve it then it's fairly moot unless you get free power.

How much does a 580 use on average while mining? Gotta be above 100w hasn't it ? If it is and Vega can get 100 hasrate (or even 80) at 300w that would be a great solution for miners over a 580...

 

[JediFragger]

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 to be great for mining



https://videocardz.com/71591/rumor-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-to-be-great-for-mining

Not good news if true

You boys best get your pre-orders in asap!! Because there's gonna be **** all stock

 

[Zeed]

How much does a 580 use on average while mining? Gotta be above 100w hasn't it ? If it is and Vega can get 100 hasrate (or even 80) at 300w that would be a great solution for miners over a 580...

indeed cause you can slam more gpus in 1 rig

 

[DazQ87]

How much does a 580 use on average while mining? Gotta be above 100w hasn't it ? If it is and Vega can get 100 hasrate (or even 80) at 300w that would be a great solution for miners over a 580...

Well I guess I might as well start waiting for navi because I can't see anybody being able to actually buy a vega card any time soon. Let alone for RRP.

 

[WeSbO]

indeed cause you can slam more gpus in 1 rig

Yep and it would be potentially having a higher perf/watt ratio.

Is there any indication of ETH mining slowing down at all ? I heard a few people (that aren't into PC tech) talking about beginning to mid 2018

 

[AllBodies]

even tho the 1070 has a lower type of memory, its actually only less than 10% less on memory bandwidth than the 1080 as the memory clock speed on the 1080 is very low.

But yeah the gap between the 1070 and 1080 is bigger than it was from 970 to 980

This is wrong.

The stock speed of the 1070 memory is 8000 MHz, and 10,000 MHz stock for the 1080.

That's a 25% difference.

If you ignore cherry picked games and look at a broad average, the 1080 is 20% faster than the 1070. No need to use theoretical numbers based on cores, we can use empirical measurements:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1070_Quick_Silver_OC/29.html
E.g., a vanilla 1070 is 95% of an overclocked 1070, and the 1080 is at 115%. 115/95 ~=21%.
And of course the 1080 is only 15% faster than the base 1070.


Given Vega clocks and core count I expect Vega 56 to be very close to 1070 speeds, but possibly slightly faster. This then makes the Vega64 look pretty useless because you pay a lot more to get 16-18% performance but ti pulls a massive amount more power. If it was possible to clock the 56 to 64 level eaislly then many AIB cards would be at the heals of the 64, which makes the 64 very unattractive.

I do beleive the 56 is probably the most attractive of the 2, but if you are a die hard AMD user coming from a FuryX it will not be an upgrade worth the money, you would have to stump up for the 64

If you look at 4K, to get rid of any CPU bottleneck, it's 116/94 = 23.4%

And it's also a 10-month old review with older games and older drivers.

 

[WeSbO]

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 to be great for mining



https://videocardz.com/71591/rumor-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-to-be-great-for-mining

Not good news if true

What is funny is that on one side AMD are "concerned" about miners snatching all the Vega GPUs, hence why they are taking time to launch, but on the other hand AMD would contact their partners to tell them in advance, before launch, that Vega is great at mining ....
Yep they want miners to buy as many Vegas as they can lol (good for profit I guess, won't help them gain any credibility on the market though)

 

[D.P.]

I said they dont design high end gpus to gaming. And they dont. Polaris 10, GP106 and maeby even GP104 are made for gaming. Vega 10 and GP 102 are made for professional workloads. It just happens they make are good gaming chips. Ecpesially GP102 with its cut down parts unnessaccery for gaming. They dont sell enough Vega 10 or GP102 to just sit down and dicide to make a gaming chip. The sell, what? hundred thousand, a million, that is peanuts, its nothing.
Lets say they could earn 300$ per big Volta gaming gpu, they would have to sell 10million to even brake even with their R&D cost. So no, no one designs big chips for gaming.

Around 80% of Nvidia's revenue comes from gaming. The other 20% is split between HPC, professional visualization, embedded, and automotive.
Actual HPC and compute market revenue is only around 10% of total revenue.

Nvidia is very much producing hips for gaming as their primary revenue source. There is still enough crossover between a gaming chip and compute applications that gaming can subsidize Nvidia's exploits in other market areas. At the current time, HPC and automotive is growing faster than the rest of nvidia is trying to aggressively push compute technology, but it is still firmly planted in developing a gaming chip that can be used for compute applications, not the inverse.

Even Volta GV100 at 800mm^2 still has things that are only useful for gaming like texture mapping units, ROPs, geometry processing, video decoder and a lot of transistors supporting DX features etc. Given GV100's size it would have been great to thro away all those useless transistors but the deisgn is too heavily based on a gaming product.

I expect in time Nvidia will continue to diverge the lines but for the time being, Nvidia develop gamign chips as its main focus. So does AMD.

 

[Gerard]

What is funny is that on one side AMD are "concerned" about miners snatching all the Vega GPUs, hence why they are taking time to launch, but on the other hand AMD would contact their partners to tell them in advance, before launch, that Vega is great at mining ....
Yep they want miners to buy as many Vegas as they can lol (good for profit I guess, won't help them gain any credibility on the market though)

This news report is coming from what gibbo said on the forum, and he got it from someone at one of the oem's presumably that have a card. He already said he wasn't sure if it was legit but of course the tech sites got it and put their own spin on it.