AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[Besty]

i think some posters in this thread mistake technical superiority with commercial superiority. Nvidia don't want Vega released because they won't able to repeat charging up to £850 to end-users for a mid-range 1080 type card.

In DX11 i am fully expectant of a vega card that can't beat a juiced 1080 but that's ok by me.

the nvidia share price currently reflects the level of competition in this area, this is why nvidia 'fear' vega (and its successor) as they are going to have a few billions wiped off their stock in the next 18 months.

i don't want to pay £850 for the 1180 when it appears!

 

[Dave2150]

i think some posters in this thread mistake technical superiority with commercial superiority. Nvidia don't want Vega released because they won't able to repeat charging up to £850 to end-users for a mid-range 1080 type card.

In DX11 i am fully expectant of a vega card that can't beat a juiced 1080 but that's ok by me.

the nvidia share price currently reflects the level of competition in this area, this is why nvidia 'fear' vega (and its successor) as they are going to have a few billions wiped off their stock in the next 18 months.

i don't want to pay £850 for the 1180 when it appears!

DX11 games make up more than 99% of current games available, so it's an extremely important metric to consider when purchasing a new GPU.

 

[TonyTurbo78]

At the end of the day, getting 130FPS in a game on a non freesync high refresh rate monitor will feel much better than getting 70 FPS with a freesync GPU/monitor.

Not my experience at all. Motion and IQ is still way better on a freesync/gsync monitor even at a much lower fps. I've 2 monitors and hate gaming at 140 on non freesync screen. Would rather take the freesync/gsync screen every day of the week as a gamer hence why I've not jumped to a 1070/1080/1080ti all these months. Freesync is way more important to hold on to for me.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

when ryzen was to come out amd were leaking tons of info showing it to be the cinebench king. but looks like they are hush with vega since it cant even perform in doom which was its strongest point with Vulcan etc. oh well looks like we can get lucky with a price war in the low to mid end range of cards.

 

[TNA]

LOL @ this thread. It is like a roller coaster. We only a few days ago went from hype train with Gibbo being very impressed of what he saw in Italy, to it will be lucky to beat 1080 again...

Vega will easily beat 1080. Why would anyone think otherwise with all the evidence available today?

As for people banging on about R&D, well yes that is why Nvidia have had 1080 and Titan X performance out a full 12 months before! What did you expect, that because of Nvidia's R&D AMD will have magically regressed and not mad use of 14nm, HBM2 and all the other new architecture they talked about and will only be delivering a GPU that is 20-30% better than a Fury X after all those years? Geez...

 

[Griffildur]

i think some posters in this thread mistake technical superiority with commercial superiority. Nvidia don't want Vega released because they won't able to repeat charging up to £850 to end-users for a mid-range 1080 type card.

In DX11 i am fully expectant of a vega card that can't beat a juiced 1080 but that's ok by me.

the nvidia share price currently reflects the level of competition in this area, this is why nvidia 'fear' vega (and its successor) as they are going to have a few billions wiped off their stock in the next 18 months.

i don't want to pay £850 for the 1180 when it appears!

you have no idea what NVidia want or don't want, sorry to burst your bubble ...

 

[FredFlint]

The RX480 is faster than the FuryX in one or two titles, due to it's massively increased efficiency. Overall the FuryX is the faster card of course.

Vega needs to be faster than the 1080 in order to be a worthwhile card IMO.

I have a 480 and a FuryX, @1200p the 480 is good and it can be difficult to tell the difference but @1440p it just cannot perform anywhere near the Fury.

 

[Griffildur]

LOL @ this thread. It is like a roller coaster. We only a few days ago went from hype train with Gibbo being very impressed of what he saw in Italy, to it will be lucky to beat 1080 again...

Vega will easily beat 1080. Why would anyone think otherwise with all the evidence available today?

cause there's no hard evidence and an AMD demo does not count as evidence, not in my book anyway.

 

[TNA]

cause there's no hard evidence and an AMD demo does not count as evidence, not in my book anyway.

Go read, I added more to my post. In my opinion there is evidence if you know what to look for and have realistic expectation making use of historical data and common sense.

 

[TheRealDeal]

when ryzen was to come out amd were leaking tons of info showing it to be the cinebench king. but looks like they are hush with vega since it cant even perform in doom which was its strongest point with Vulcan etc. oh well looks like we can get lucky with a price war in the low to mid end range of cards.

Whatever Vega chip they showed was beating a 1080 in Doom. It's going to be faster than a 1080 and of that i am pretty certain. A Fury x is only 10%-15% slower in Doom. AMD at the time said even in Open GL the Vega chip would beat the pants of a 1080. If it can do that in Open GL where AMD are weak it has to be pretty potent.

"
AMD Vega 10 Should Still “Beat The Pants Off The GTX 1080” In OpenGL
Digging deeper into AMD’s Vega 10 and Ryzen announcements PCWorld’s Gordon Mah Ung and Brad Chacos sat down with Raja Koduri, well actually they stood up, and chatted away for about 40 minutes. One very interesting question that came up during the interview, which you can find here, was whether Vega 10 would still “beat the pants off the GTX 1080” if the DOOM demo was ran on OpenGL instead of the more efficient Vulkan."

http://wccftech.com/amd-confirms-vega-10-doom-4k60fps-vulkan-demo-outperform-gtx-1080-opengl/

I don't normally link this site but as it's a direct quote from Raja then i feel it's legit enough.

 

[Griffildur]

Go read, I added more to my post. In my opinion there is evidence if you know what to look for and have realistic expectation making use of historical data and common sense.

hopefully not long to wait now, right? Do we know when AMD plan to release Vega yet? Haven't checked the forum in a few weeks so no idea

 

[Griffildur]

Whatever Vega chip they showed was beating a 1080 in Doom. It's going to be faster than a 1080 and of that i am pretty certain. A Fury x is only 10%-15% slower in Doom. AMD at the time said even in Open GL the Vega chip would beat the pants of a 1080. If it can do that in Open GL where AMD are weak it has to be pretty potent.

"
AMD Vega 10 Should Still “Beat The Pants Off The GTX 1080” In OpenGL
Digging deeper into AMD’s Vega 10 and Ryzen announcements PCWorld’s Gordon Mah Ung and Brad Chacos sat down with Raja Koduri, well actually they stood up, and chatted away for about 40 minutes. One very interesting question that came up during the interview, which you can find here, was whether Vega 10 would still “beat the pants off the GTX 1080” if the DOOM demo was ran on OpenGL instead of the more efficient Vulkan."

http://wccftech.com/amd-confirms-vega-10-doom-4k60fps-vulkan-demo-outperform-gtx-1080-opengl/

I don't normally link this site but as it's a direct quote from Raja then i feel it's legit enough.

To be honest Doom is not exactly a trusted benchmark. We already know all about it, yes we've covered that many many times. It's still not representative of anything, so the fact that Vega is better in Doom doesn't really mean that much and it makes me wonder why can't AMD show a few other games instead of keeping with just the one.

 

[TheRealDeal]

To be honest Doom is not exactly a trusted benchmark. We already know all about it, yes we've covered that many many times. It's still not representative of anything, so the fact that Vega is better in Doom doesn't really mean that much and it makes me wonder why can't AMD show a few other games instead of keeping with just the one.

It's the fact he said it would beat the pants of a 1080 in Open Gl where AMD cards are very weak in comparison to Nvidia. That statement leads me to believe that Vega might be pretty potent. In Vulkan i take nothing from that but in Open GL that's a pretty big statement to make. He's not saying just beat a 1080 in Open GL he said beat the pants off it.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

WoW is an NVIDIA sponsored game, it runs massively faster on anything NVIDIA. It's not even close, unfortunately.

Even if Vega and the 1080ti were equal in most games, the 1080ti would have a massive advantage in WoW, due to the coding/development etc.

Having used the Fury X and now a 980Ti, massively faster is just wrong. Especially in The Nighthold raid. All the Pascal cards have issues and severe framedrops there I never had on the Fury X.
Still have guild members with 1080's getting lower fps in raids than my 980Ti, or my Fury X had.

It was true prior to WOD, but since then it hasn't been the case for years now. Even my SLI 980Ti system would drop into the teens and low 20's during huge PvP and openworld events.

In plain empty zones at the exact same settings the difference is 10-35 FPS in favour of the 980Ti, but in raids they're both putting out the same numbers. Especially when also recording/streaming the raids, and events.
The difference in minimums were a none issue. 1-2FPS going either way, and the mins are what really matters in WoW.

 

[Lokken86]

i think some posters in this thread mistake technical superiority with commercial superiority. Nvidia don't want Vega released because they won't able to repeat charging up to £850 to end-users for a mid-range 1080 type card.

In DX11 i am fully expectant of a vega card that can't beat a juiced 1080 but that's ok by me.

the nvidia share price currently reflects the level of competition in this area, this is why nvidia 'fear' vega (and its successor) as they are going to have a few billions wiped off their stock in the next 18 months.

i don't want to pay £850 for the 1180 when it appears!

The Nvidia share price will definitely return to the 70s or lower. Just saying.

 

[ScottyJKB]

hopefully not long to wait now, right? Do we know when AMD plan to release Vega yet? Haven't checked the forum in a few weeks so no idea

+1

I'm assuming there's still no 'official' release date?

 

[Besty]

you have no idea what NVidia want or don't want, sorry to burst your bubble ...

it just just basic economics. nvidia wants to sell me a £850 card not one at half that, you don't have to profess to have some sort of miracle mind reading skills to know what nvidia wants.

every single U.S listed company has two aims - stock price and profits the profits nvidia are producing at the moment are down to profit margin due to no competition. once competition is reintroduced the margins will collapse and so will their profits. it would be silly to pretend otherwise.

this is not a lewis hamilton F1 situation where the return of competition from Ferrari is applauded by Mercedes.

 

[opethdisciple]

Yes, they are effectively low end cards if you are looking at NVIDIA/AMD performance levels.

Ultra enthusiast - TitanXP
High end - 1080TI
Upper mid range - 1080
Lower mid range - 1070/Fury X (only in handful of games does the Fury X come close to the 1070, such as Doom etc)
Upper low end - 1060/RX480/Fury

That's how I see it at the moment at least. The fact that Vega was demonstrated in December and almost 5 months later we've seen no performance numbers is also not a good sign IMO (look at how they showed off Ryzen, giving us actual benchmark numbers well before release etc).

I see it based in resolution.

4k - 1080ti
1440p 1080
1080/1200p 1070

The above is assuming the owner wants to max out games at this res and have great fps.

The issue at the moment is AMD only really have the 480 as a current gen card so that sits in the 1080/1200p category along side the 1070 as a budget option.

Anything above a 1080ti is for people with more money than sense.

 

[TNA]

hopefully not long to wait now, right? Do we know when AMD plan to release Vega yet? Haven't checked the forum in a few weeks so no idea

Yep

We do not know and exact dat no. We do know it will be in Q2 at some point. Could be April, May or June. My guess would be late May or early June.

 

[DarrenM343]

it just just basic economics. nvidia wants to sell me a £850 card not one at half that, you don't have to profess to have some sort of miracle mind reading skills to know what nvidia wants.

every single U.S listed company has two aims - stock price and profits the profits nvidia are producing at the moment are down to profit margin due to no competition. once competition is reintroduced the margins will collapse and so will their profits. it would be silly to pretend otherwise.

this is not a lewis hamilton F1 situation where the return of competition from Ferrari is applauded by Mercedes.

THat's not just U.S listed companies, that's pretty much the same with all companies, whether the stock is tradable or not .
Personally I'm doubtful AMD can even compete at the top end anyway. I reckon their CPU's have had more focus and those are good but still not exactly leading the way (apart from pricing). I think NV will be sewing the market up for a long time yet. When Vega arrives the next gen from NV will be closer and many have already bought the current gen cards so personally I'm not sure how big the market will be for Vega when it does arrives other than the die hard AMD fans who might side-grade or are still waiting to upgrade. I imagine the 1080 Ti is pretty much scooping up all remaining big margin £ this generation, and many won't upgrade more than once per generation (ie, if a Vega 1080 beater comes along, who's left to buy it ?). At a lower margin they will need a lot of buyers.

If AMD were to put the jump on the Pascal cards, by a long shot, that will attract buyers especially if the early Volta cards are only similar performing, and that's what we could really do with for AMD to be truly back in the game.