• 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.

AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
nashathedog said:
That's crazy, No-one should even be buying new Furies now, not unless they have a massive price drop. My Fury pro was £440 when I got it, The Fury X started at just over 500 and went up to £650 (I think). That's an extra 100+ for a brand name (Asus) on an identical card.
Today new Fury X's should be under £300 and new Fury pro's under £250 for them to even be worth considering.
Click to expand...

But I guess if you were stuck there's nothing else to buy. And Fury performance seems to be getting faster every month.
 
+
Rezident said:
But I guess if you were stuck there's nothing else to buy. And Fury performance seems to be getting faster every month.
Click to expand...
True, but last year they were being discounted heavily!

That's when I picked up my Fury X, and the normal Fury's were going for even cheaper. Seems the only ones left are extremely limited amounts with unrealistically high price tags.

Having a gander at Caseking.de the Sapphire Furi Nitro OC's are going for €299
The Fury X €479 ( was 749 LOL )

https://www.caseking.de/en/gaming/pc-gaming/graphics-cards/radeon-r9-gaming

They were cheaper 8 months ago.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Seems Prey will be optomised for Vega

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5u9dq1/prey_2017_will_be_optimized_for_vega/

The thread has a link to a german site talking about it.
Click to expand...


Odd considering the System Requirements.

Prey (2017) Minimum Requirements:

  • Intel CPU: Core i5-2400 3.1GHz.
  • AMD CPU: FX-8320.
  • Nvidia Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 670.
  • AMD Graphics Card: Radeon HD 7870.
  • VRAM: 2 GB.
  • RAM: 8 GB.
  • OS: Win 7 64.
  • Direct X: DX 11.
  • HDD Space: 55 GB.
Click to expand...

Prey (2017) Maximum Requirements:

  • Intel CPU: Core i7-3770 4-Core 3.4GHz.
  • AMD CPU: FX-8350.
  • Nvidia Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 970 4GB.
  • AMD Graphics Card: Radeon R9 290.
  • VRAM: 4 GB.
  • RAM: 8 GB.
  • OS: Win 7 64.
  • Direct X: DX 11.
  • HDD Space: 55 GB.
Click to expand...

http://gamingbolt.com/prey-pc-system-requirements-revealed
 
Rezident said:
But I guess if you were stuck there's nothing else to buy. And Fury performance seems to be getting faster every month.
Click to expand...

True but personally I'd buy a good 480 rather than a Fury if I was buying today at todays prices.

N19h7m4r3 said:
+

True, but last year they were being discounted heavily!

That's when I picked up my Fury X, and the normal Fury's were going for even cheaper. Seems the only ones left are extremely limited amounts with unrealistically high price tags.

the Sapphire Furi Nitro OC's are going for €299
The Fury X €479 ( was 749 LOL )

They were cheaper 8 months ago.
Click to expand...



At one point last year the Nano's were heavily discounted and cheaper than today too.

The Fiji models are good cards there's no denying that, I've been really happy with my Pro and as said they are still going strong.
 
nashathedog said:
True but personally I'd buy a good 480 rather than a Fury if I was buying today at todays prices.





At one point last year the Nano's were heavily discounted and cheaper than today too.

The Fiji models are good cards there's no denying that, I've been really happy with my Pro and as said they are still going strong.
Click to expand...

I got both and the old Fury is still faster and ageing very well. Agree it’s a good card and there’s still some life in the old dog yet!
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
Just a shame they never managed to get 8GB HBM on it. The cards would have far more life in at 1440p and higher.
Click to expand...


That's all that's missing, And as we saw with ROTTR and RE7 it does sometimes hold it back, Certainly at 3440x1440, I gave the Fallout 4 texture dlc a go and it was a mess due too only having 4 gb's of memory. The core itself is doing great and if it hadn't been for the die shrink this time around it could have done what Hawaii did by becoming Grenada. Even at 3440x1440 it does a respectable job. I'm looking forward to the extra grunt of Vega though, I'm also looking forward to seeing how it copes with the types of weaknesses Nvidia supported games tend to exploit.
 
nashathedog said:
That's all that's missing, And as we saw with ROTTR and RE7 it does sometimes hold it back, Certainly at 3440x1440, I gave the Fallout 4 texture dlc a go and it was a mess due too only having 4 gb's of memory. The core itself is doing great and if it hadn't been for the die shrink this time around it could have done what Hawaii did by becoming Grenada. Even at 3440x1440 it does a respectable job. I'm looking forward to the extra grunt of Vega though, I'm also looking forward to seeing how it copes with the types of weaknesses Nvidia supported games tend to exploit.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well. I moved from 3440x1440 to 144Hz 2560x1440p, and Fiji does well; but I want that extra grunt.

I hope Vega delivers, and does well for AMD and us.
 
JediFragger said:
One thing is for sure, at least we know that AMD will eek extra performance out of Vega over time. With nVidia you pretty much get what you see initially... :)
Click to expand...
A lot of gamers want the fastest gpu and nvidia have provided that for quite a long time, amd are quite far behind, nvidia will easily take the crown again, it's been this way for ages, i'm waiting for the next nvidia gpu's.
 
kedge said:
A lot of gamers want the fastest gpu and nvidia have provided that for quite a long time, amd are quite far behind, nvidia will easily take the crown again, it's been this way for ages, i'm waiting for the next nvidia gpu's.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible for AMD to catch up. In fact, it is always easier to catch up (as opposed to stay ahead) in technology. The reason is that others see what you've done right and can use the same approach (as long as patents aren't in the way).

One such example is tile-based rasterisation which Nvidia has been doing since Maxwell. They had a patent for it, which was one of the items in the lawsuit against Qualcomm and Samsung. Apparently they lost the case in late 2015 and suddenly a year and a half later (i.e. the first AMD architecture since that decision) says it'll implement some version of this in Vega...

How much performance is this worth? Whatever NVidia did with Maxwell, it was like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Could this be it? Because if it was, then they need to pull a new rabbit out of that hat, otherwise I'd expect Vega to close the gap to Volta.

EDIT: Besides, look at what's happening with Ryzen. A year ago nobody would've though AMD could get back into the CPU game, yet here we are now...
 
Last edited:
kedge said:
A lot of gamers want the fastest gpu and nvidia have provided that for quite a long time, amd are quite far behind, nvidia will easily take the crown again, it's been this way for ages, i'm waiting for the next nvidia gpu's.
Click to expand...

A far greater number of gamers don't have $900 - 1200 to spend on the fastest GPU and just want value for money, a stable experience and product longevity. AMD have provided that for quite a long time and are about to achieve performance parity with nVidia while still giving the better value proposition. I'm waiting for Vega.
 
akarypid said:
That may be so, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible for AMD to catch up. In fact, it is always easier to catch up (as opposed to stay ahead) in technology. The reason is that others see what you've done right and can use the same approach (as long as patents aren't in the way).

One such example is tile-based rasterisation which Nvidia has been doing since Maxwell. They had a patent for it, which was one of the items in the lawsuit against Qualcomm and Samsung. Apparently they lost the case in late 2015 and suddenly a year and a half later (i.e. the first AMD architecture since that decision) says it'll implement some version of this in Vega...

How much performance is this worth? Whatever NVidia did with Maxwell, it was like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Could this be it? Because if it was, then they need to pull a new rabbit out of that hat, otherwise I'd expect Vega to close the gap to Volta.

EDIT: Besides, look at what's happening with Ryzen. A year ago nobody would've though AMD could get back into the CPU game, yet here we are now...
Click to expand...

you are correct and all this should help a bit, but I'd like AMD to be a bit more ambitious. Ok Ryzen is good news but it doesn't introduce any new level of performance, it's simply matching years old tech. This might help with prices short term, but not long term and they need to keep going strong. Vega, same story although we don't really know the level of performance just yet but if it doesn't beat the 1080 by a good margin it's going to be exactly the same story. Yes, it help with end user prices, short term, but it doesn't help with progress and I don't believe it will help long term at all. Man we really need some competition, I still hope to see a brand new company join this fight and shake things up ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom