AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[JediFragger]

I prefer the here and now as opposed to AMD's keep waiting strategy

Same, I have 1080's

 

[TheRealDeal]

I buy for at least 2 years, preferably more. When I bought my card, I did a lot of research and I actually waited for the 480 to be released. Major disappointment that turned out to be. My only upgrade options were 1070 and 1080. That's it. Unless I played the waiting game for another year ( this was back in June ) and frankly that's way too long. I've seen a lot of people who favour AMD buy 1070 for the same reason. Even now, if you want to buy a GPU for more than a year, your only option is to wait for Vega. 480 is not that card.

That's a little different though. AMD have nothing in this bracket so there is only one choice which is the gtx1070. If i needed a card and had £400 i would see the gtx1070 as my only option. If i was buying in the £250 bracket then i would choose the Rx480 as i think it's a safer bet over the gtx1060 and would have done the same in July when the gtx1060 launched.

 

[D1craig]

i know we keep saying that AMD cards mature better ie. better performance as time goes on. couldnt this be because there hasnt been another AMD card for them to do with what nvidia do with ie. slow down on the driver improvements etc?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Trouble is, it takes AMD too long to sort their drivers, as by the time they have, they've already lost the sales, as look at the FuryX, on its release, it wasn't much faster than the 980, and was around £200 more expensive, so everyone went for the much faster/better 980Ti (which was also cheaper at the time, as Nvidia had dropped its price), then months later, after a few more drivers, it was around/and beating the Ti, but it was no good then, as they'd already lost the sales to it.

Same goes for the 480, on its release, it was only around the 970s performance, so they lost sales there too, and they lost even more when the faster/better 1060 came out, as everyone started buying that, and now, months later, its equalling/bettering the 1060, when its already lost the sales.

They need decent performing drivers upon the release of a new card, not months down the line, when they've already lost the sales, as people are wanting to buy on that release day, so if the cards not performing as well as the Nvidias on that day, they've had it.

 

[passifid]

290 and 290x cost a fair bit more than the 970 on their release.

And the 970 is still kicking strong.

What kind of laughable revisionism is this that the 970 isn't a great card? lol

Well because they were released before the 780ti, so a gen before, of COURSE the 970 should be faster. But it isnt..

 

[JediFragger]

Trouble is, it takes AMD too long to sort their drivers, as by the time they have, they've already lost the sales, as look at the FuryX, on its release, it wasn't much faster than the 980, and was around £200 more expensive, so everyone went for the much faster/better 980Ti, then months later, after a few more drivers, it was around/and beating the Ti, but it was no good then, as they'd already lost the sales.

Same goes for the 480, on its release, it was only around the 970s performance, so everyone lolled, as the 970 was 2yr old, so they lost sales there as well, and even more when the faster/better 1060 came out, but now, months later, its equalling/bettering the 1060, when they've already lost the sales.

They need decent performing drivers upon the release of a new card, not months down the line, when they've already lost the sales, as people are wanting to buy on that release day, so if the cards not performing as well as the Nvidias on that day, they've had it.

Probably a resources issue if anything, just haven't got the manpower to extract 90% of the performance of the card on release. Damn shame

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I prefer the here and now as opposed to AMD's keep waiting strategy

As do many.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Considering the GTX 970 has been available since September 2014 and is still competitive with a GTX 1060 or RX 480 when all 3 are overclocked, I would say anyone who bought one on launch day got an absolute bargain.

290 and 290x cost a fair bit more than the 970 on their release.

And the 970 is still kicking strong.

What kind of laughable revisionism is this that the 970 isn't a great card? lol

The R9 290 undercut the GTX780 pricing at launch(there was a set of GTX780 price cuts,which meant RRP went from $650 to $500 to undercut the R9 290X,but the R9 290 debuted at $400) and you could get custom cooled R9 290 series cards for just over £300 nearly one year before the GTX970 was launched.

People who bought some of those cheaper aftermarket R9 290 cards a few months after launch,have had the better part of three years decent use out of them. The R9 290 series cards are still reasonably fine in DX12 and Vulkan too. Plus plenty of people mined on them and essentially got free cards. The R9 390 is basically an aftermarket R9 290 with 8GB of VRAM.

The R9 290 is probably the biggest bargain of the two,as it still holds up in newer API.

Plus in the month before the R9 390 series was launched you could get decent R9 290 cards for like £170 to £180 and R9 290X cards for just over £200 if you shopped around.

However,it shows you how disastrous the negative PR from the reference cooler was,when a rebranded range of cards actually ended up selling at a higher price.

Its why I really hope AMD has a decent cooler on the next cards they launch.

 

[humbug]

So why don't you own an Hawaii based card ?

You obviously found the 970 more appealing.

Did you not like my answer to that the first time round you asked it again? really?

290 and 290x cost a fair bit more than the 970 on their release.

And the 970 is still kicking strong.

What kind of laughable revisionism is this that the 970 isn't a great card? lol

You need to get a grip too.....

Its worse than that, i had a 290 for 2 years (Powercolor PCS+) great card..., but i wanted an upgrade, all AMD did was rename the 290 the 390, i still wanted a change so thought i would give Nvidia a try again after a few years with AMD.

I have had the Gigabyte WF 970 for little over a year now, again great card but i'm looking at going back to AMD now.

 

[Dave2150]

those running 1080P will be struggling to buy a GPU from AMD to cope with the pretties.

Here we are, Ladies and Gentlemen, the most hilarious quote of 2016. Gregster saying that a Radeon Pro Duo, Fury X, Fury, Fury Nano, RX480, 390X are all "struggling" to play games at 1080P.

OBVIOUSLY NVIDIA cards are faster at the moment, hence why I have a 1070 in my system. Though to suggest that all AMD cards struggle to run 1080P is simply fanatic devotion to NVIDIA, hence coming into AMD Vega threads to troll.

 

[Gregster]

Considering the GTX 970 has been available since September 2014 and is still competitive with a GTX 1060 or RX 480 when all 3 are overclocked, I would say anyone who bought one on launch day got an absolute bargain.

+1

I thought I would see how the old card was getting on. as I had fond memories of that, as I did the 290X I owned and it is holding its own surprisingly well. It wins a few, loses a few and a few are evenly matched against the 390.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1050_Ti_Strix_OC/6.html

The 970 is a great 1080P card, as is the 390 and several other cards.

 

[Dave2150]

The 970 is a great 1080P card, as is the 390 and several other cards.

5 minutes earlier:

for those running 1440P or even 1080P will be struggling to buy a GPU from AMD to cope with the pretties.

 

[Dave2150]

Considering the GTX 970 has been available since September 2014 and is still competitive with a GTX 1060 or RX 480 when all 3 are overclocked, I would say anyone who bought one on launch day got an absolute bargain.

Indeed, absolute bargins. I imagine the 1070's will last just as long though, NVIDIA's xx70 cards have been masterstrokes these last two generations.

I wonder if they'll be able to do it again for the next generation

 

[TheRealDeal]

Here we are, Ladies and Gentlemen, the most hilarious quote of 2016. Gregster saying that a Radeon Pro Duo, Fury X, Fury, Fury Nano, RX480, 390X are all "struggling" to play games at 1080P.

OBVIOUSLY NVIDIA cards are faster at the moment, hence why I have a 1070 in my system. Though to suggest that all AMD cards struggle to run 1080P is simply fanatic devotion to NVIDIA, hence coming into AMD Vega threads to troll.

Yep even my 290 does not struggle at 1080p. Bf1 ultra preset no probs and the division on Ultra pretty much the same.

 

[Gregster]

5 minutes earlier:

I can't help if you can't work out from my post what I am on about.

 

[Gregster]

Here we are, Ladies and Gentlemen, the most hilarious quote of 2016. Gregster saying that a Radeon Pro Duo, Fury X, Fury, Fury Nano, RX480, 390X are all "struggling" to play games at 1080P.

OBVIOUSLY NVIDIA cards are faster at the moment, hence why I have a 1070 in my system. Though to suggest that all AMD cards struggle to run 1080P is simply fanatic devotion to NVIDIA, hence coming into AMD Vega threads to troll.

Let me put things into context. I did test 20 games at 1440P with all the pretties on and using a GTX 1080.

Now keep the same settings and run that at 1080P on any AMD card and you will see what I was on about and my point (which you clearly miss) is that AMD don't actually have anything that is competing with the 1070/1080/TX Pascal and hence they charge so much money.

Why call me a troll as well? I find you very unpleasant!

 

[nashathedog]

i know we keep saying that AMD cards mature better ie. better performance as time goes on. couldnt this be because there hasnt been another AMD card for them to do with what nvidia do with ie. slow down on the driver improvements etc?

AMD's just as slippery as Nvidia, Look at what happened with the 390 & 390x release, They did separate drivers for the 300 series so they could hold back the optimisations from the Hawaii cards until after the 300 reviews had all been done, Then they released one driver for all the cards which gave the 290 & 290x a nice boost practically halving the lead the 390 & 390x had over the 290 & 290x in all the independent reviews done the week before.

They're a business, The difference comes in how AMD's architecture is a more adaptive one that's able to handle new ways of doing things better because it was developed with them in mind, Nvidia target the here and now with less concern for tech advancements as they'll release new cards when they must and people will buy them, In the meantime they'll happily trip up and slow down the advancements in order to keep their current crop of cards on top.

 

[humbug]

Let me put things into context. I did test 20 games at 1440P with all the pretties on and using a GTX 1080.

Now keep the same settings and run that at 1080P on any AMD card and you will see what I was on about and my point (which you clearly miss) is that AMD don't actually have anything that is competing with the 1070/1080/TX Pascal and hence they charge so much money.

Why call me a troll as well? I find you very unpleasant!

Having a card with as much power as the Fury-X has why would you run 1080P? especially your selection of ancient games there.

 

[LittleChimp]

My 290 is still running great 3 years later and even better with the new 16.12.1 drivers. It's crazy to think I would get so much mileage from the card but I have to give props to AMD for supporting old cards so well. The 1080 is tempting but think ill hold on for Vega. If I am lucky I'll get another 3 years out of that too lol.

 

[nashathedog]

At the end of the day there are games that will bring the fastest cards to there knees, even at 1080p.
It's why we have dev's making statements that they're releasing games with settings that future gpu's will be needed to run.
That and optimisation laziness.
If someone insists on turning every setting as high as possible that will never change.
I'm sure we could find games that at 1080p take a Pascal Titans fps down into the 30's or 40's at times.