• 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.
DragonQ said:
Not sure why people are expecting 12 GiB on Vega, I thought one of the selling points of HBM was that less of it was needed due to compression? We might see 6 GiB and 8 GiB models if that's the case.
Click to expand...
Meh, it is how it goes for AMD releases. Pretty soon people will be talking about 1080ti performance for £400 then shouting "FAIL" when it doesn't happen.
 
r22snapper said:
Meh, it is how it goes for AMD releases. Pretty soon people will be talking about 1080ti performance for £400 then shouting "FAIL" when it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

Probably. I just want a card that will be perfectly suited for 1440p. I really don't want to purchase a 1070 AND get a G-Sync monitor, they're too expensive when compared to freesync.
 
shredgodxp said:
Probably. I just want a card that will be perfectly suited for 1440p. I really don't want to purchase a 1070 AND get a G-Sync monitor, they're too expensive when compared to freesync.
Click to expand...
I've got a Freesync screen and am prepared to wait and see. As long as the price/performance is not worse than NVIDIA then I'll get Vega. If it is worse then I'll just do without Freesync and buy a 1080.
 
Greater than 1080Ti performance for a lower price is the Rx Vega market distributor, with a a refreshed Polaris 580 pitching for the mid range sub-4k segment.

The problem AMD has now is demonstrating real competition with the hardware with price being secondary at the top end. If say Vega can achieve 1080Ti performance after 2 quarters of driver updates for £100 less than a 1080Ti then that is a great improvement for AMD but for the consumer its nothing to get excited about because that is still 6-8months behind with Volta only 6months away.
 
BigBANGtheory said:
Greater than 1080Ti performance for a lower price is the Rx Vega market distributor, with a a refreshed Polaris 580 pitching for the mid range sub-4k segment.

The problem AMD has now is demonstrating real competition with the hardware with price being secondary at the top end. If say Vega can achieve 1080Ti performance after 2 quarters of driver updates for £100 less than a 1080Ti then that is a great improvement for AMD but for the consumer its nothing to get excited about because that is still 6-8months behind with Volta only 6months away.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest about what AMD are claiming though, they are only claiming 4k 60FPS performance. How it compares to 1080 or 1080ti performance is only applicable when comparing prices, which from AMD will likely be a little under the comparable performance from Nvidia. This is the most likely reality of Vega, whatever performance they come in at, it'll be priced a bit lower than Nvidia. I don't expect more than that. Whether that equates to a massive fail for AMD I couldn't care less about, as that's mostly a subjective viewpoint. What counts is bang for buck, and AMD have a market there, whether people want to admit it or not. Doesn't matter if it's 1 or 2 years late, they are never going to "steal market share" from Nvidia, despite any aggressive marketing ("Poor Volta").
I'm tailoring my expectations for a faster card than anything AMD currently have, competitively priced. No way are they ever going to have the fastest card on the market, nor do they need to. Yes, it would be a huge gain for AMD if they did, but only the most optimistic of people would hold out hope for that.
 
fullmetaltony said:
Let's be honest about what AMD are claiming though, they are only claiming 4k 60FPS performance. How it compares to 1080 or 1080ti performance is only applicable when comparing prices, which from AMD will likely be a little under the comparable performance from Nvidia. This is the most likely reality of Vega, whatever performance they come in at, it'll be priced a bit lower than Nvidia. I don't expect more than that. Whether that equates to a massive fail for AMD I couldn't care less about, as that's mostly a subjective viewpoint. What counts is bang for buck, and AMD have a market there, whether people want to admit it or not. Doesn't matter if it's 1 or 2 years late, they are never going to "steal market share" from Nvidia, despite any aggressive marketing ("Poor Volta").
I'm tailoring my expectations for a faster card than anything AMD currently have, competitively priced. No way are they ever going to have the fastest card on the market, nor do they need to. Yes, it would be a huge gain for AMD if they did, but only the most optimistic of people would hold out hope for that.
Click to expand...

or are they claiming 4k@60fps "only in AMD preferred low level APIs" using their new features?

I think what is frustrating is I'd like to give AMD a chance but they are not giving people like me enough to go on, I get the product is not ready yet but they must surely know where its performance is likely to land in the spectrum of things.
 
r22snapper said:
I've got a Freesync screen and am prepared to wait and see. As long as the price/performance is not worse than NVIDIA then I'll get Vega. If it is worse then I'll just do without Freesync and buy a 1080.
Click to expand...
I don't have either freesync or gsync. Just got a 120hz AW2310 monitor that's starting to age. Here's to hoping!
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Its a fail them not giving out any info at all, apart from it being a smidge faster in Doom, when its running Vulkan, as theres just no incentive for anyone there to hang on for it.
Click to expand...
Given the 480 release, and what we know about AMD, it tells us exactly where it's going to be..... Slightly under performing when compared to a 1080, eeking out a bit better in Vulkan games. People shouldn't expect more, then be pleasantly surprised if it is more (but we know it wont).
The key point will be price, if it's priced competitively compared to a 1080 then it's going to sell.
Personally I could never afford to throw >£500 at a GPU, I got my 290 for ~£90 off the MM and it's performed great (albeit with a Kraken AIO mount), so I'll be waiting for small Vega and hoping for a good performance increase over the 290 for ~£300.
 
DragonQ said:
Not sure why people are expecting 12 GiB on Vega, I thought one of the selling points of HBM was that less of it was needed due to compression? We might see 6 GiB and 8 GiB models if that's the case.
Click to expand...

It's not the case, There's no magical memory compression going on with HBM, 4gb's is 4gb's, 8 is 8 and so on. If a game uses more than the 4gb's that's available a Fiji card fares no better than a 4gb Maxwell card, Infact I think it may do worse once it's overflowing look at ROTTR as a case in point, The bench thread is empty of Fiji cards or those that it does show have minimums of single figures or even negatives while 4gb card like the 980 and 290x seem to handle not having as much memory as is needed a lot better.
 
nashathedog said:
It's not the case, There's no magical memory compression going on with HBM, 4gb's is 4gb's, 8 is 8 and so on. If a game uses more than the 4gb's that's available a Fiji card fares no better than a 4gb Maxwell card, Infact I think it may do worse once it's overflowing look at ROTTR as a case in point, The bench thread is empty of Fiji cards or those that it does show have minimums of single figures or even negatives while 4gb card like the 980 and 290x seem to handle not having as much memory as is needed a lot better.
Click to expand...
Very true. I remember running my Fury X in BF4 and Mantle but the VRAM ran out and it was a slide show. 4GB is 4GB and that is that.
 
fullmetaltony said:
Given the 480 release, and what we know about AMD, it tells us exactly where it's going to be..... Slightly under performing when compared to a 1080, eeking out a bit better in Vulkan games. People shouldn't expect more, then be pleasantly surprised if it is more (but we know it wont).
The key point will be price, if it's priced competitively compared to a 1080 then it's going to sell.
Personally I could never afford to throw >£500 at a GPU, I got my 290 for ~£90 off the MM and it's performed great (albeit with a Kraken AIO mount), so I'll be waiting for small Vega and hoping for a good performance increase over the 290 for ~£300.
Click to expand...

The RX480 tell us nothing tbh. Vega is completely different and is coming out a year after the RX480. I think the majority expect it to be faster than the gtx1080. The main question is where it will be in comparison to the gtx1080ti. AMD like the rest of us knew there would be a Nvidia chip releasing in the form of the Ti that would be around as fast as the Titan. They might come across stupid but they are not that stupid to be aiming at gtx1080 performance a year on. You only have to look at the 290x which came along as fast as the Titan and to a certain extent the Fury X which couldn't match up to the Titan but was a good chunk faster than the gtx980 which is the equivalent to today's gtx1080.

Vega is an unknown but it's hard to imagine AMD bringing a chip to the market that can't even beat out a year old gtx1080 while Nvidia just released a much faster gtx1080ti. Nvidia as long as i can remember have never been 35-40% faster than AMD where the chip sizes have been the same kind of size on the same node. They weren't even that much faster when AMD chips were nearly half the size. Any how that's my thinking on possible performance.
 
fullmetaltony said:
I'm definitely in the minority then :D
Can't see it personally, showing off Doom running Vulkan and only just beating the 1080. Had better be small Vega in that case, is which case I'll definitely be a happy bunny.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was small Vega, that is why they taped off the power connectors which later showed it was using 8pin + 6pin power inputs. I appreciate that is conjecture but would small Vega be using that much power? I don't think it would tbh
 
BigBANGtheory said:
I don't think it was small Vega, that is why they taped off the power connectors which later showed it was using 8pin + 6pin power inputs. I appreciate that is conjecture but would small Vega be using that much power? I don't think it would tbh
Click to expand...

As it is an engineering board it might not be using all that power but might be setup to use all the connections to facilitate testing the full spectrum of power delivery circuitry/management and/or it could be say the 8pin went to the GPU and the 6 pin was separately piped to functions on the diagnostic board.

However I'm pretty sure in a video somewhere just before Christmas one of the AMD people basically said that they only had the one process, which is the one used for the coming GPUs, in a working state at that point and the other one was behind it in development.
 
Who knows lol
"As the loose bowel-ed pigeon of time swoops low over the tourist of destiny, and the unlicensed mini-cab of fate gets lost in the one-way system of eternity..." another day of faith ebbs and flows away, let us hope tomorrow brings some useful info.
 
TheRealDeal said:
The RX480 tell us nothing tbh. Vega is completely different and is coming out a year after the RX480. I think the majority expect it to be faster than the gtx1080. The main question is where it will be in comparison to the gtx1080ti. AMD like the rest of us knew there would be a Nvidia chip releasing in the form of the Ti that would be around as fast as the Titan. They might come across stupid but they are not that stupid to be aiming at gtx1080 performance a year on. You only have to look at the 290x which came along as fast as the Titan and to a certain extent the Fury X which couldn't match up to the Titan but was a good chunk faster than the gtx980 which is the equivalent to today's gtx1080.

Vega is an unknown but it's hard to imagine AMD bringing a chip to the market that can't even beat out a year old gtx1080 while Nvidia just released a much faster gtx1080ti. Nvidia as long as i can remember have never been 35-40% faster than AMD where the chip sizes have been the same kind of size on the same node. They weren't even that much faster when AMD chips were nearly half the size. Any how that's my thinking on possible performance.
Click to expand...

I think we need to be slightly conservative with AMD though - Pascal is an evolution of Maxwell,so is probably was well characterised at launch,and with the GTX1080 and the Pascal Titan X being out so long we can expect devs have had more experience with them.

So,AMD even to match a GTX1080TI would technically need a faster card in the first place and the same goes with their GTX1080 competitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom