AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[Griffildur]

It should smash the 1080, as they've also been taking digs at VOLTA.

AMD RADEON RX VEGA, THE MOAG (Mother Of All GPUs) - ITS COMING!

AMD seem to be better at taking shots at NVidia than actually delivering anything that challenges NVidia and that is the problem, people don't want adverts, demos and t-shirts ...
They need to shut the heck up, focus on their products and deliver something. Once they have something out there they can take whatever shots they want, but not before

 

[N19h7m4r3]

That too, as AMD aren't normal PC gaming anymore, Nvidia finished em off.

They moved into the VR market with their 480s, and now going into the deep learning, film industry, video etc..., with their VEGA, thats their main focus now.

The parts that make the big monies!

Reminds me of Fermi really; just gotta hope it doesn't set homes on fire as well.

 

[TNA]

The truth is someone being impressed tells us absolutely nothing, Impressed with what? Performance, the cache ram system? It tells us nothing.

As for evidence, what evidence? I've seen nothing except it being in the ballpark of a 1080 in a Vulcan game where AMD excel and it playing Battlefront where there's to many variable to know how it was really doing.
I want AMD too succeed and giv eus a storming card but so far the lack of info is becoming disconcerting.
At the moment people are all doom and gloom because off the Vega data page on TPU, I think? On there they have it positioned between the 1070 and 1080, But yet again that is lacking context, We don't know if they have more of an idea than us, we don't even know if they are talking about big or little Vega so people haven't got a clue basically, Sitting between a 1070 but closer to the 1080 wouldn't surprise me though.

What evidence? Unless they lied about all the architectural improvements, about 14nm and about HBM2 etc then Vega will me much better than Fury X. Once you work out roughly how much better it should be (conservatively) than a Fury X and compare how Fury X does vs 1080 now, you will have all the evidence you need to know it should easily match/beat a 1080, let alone a 1070... (which what Loadsamoney and Grifildur think it will be).

 

[akarypid]

Personally I hope it does it all and sits between the 1080 and 1080ti but so far we have nothing solid to pin hopes on. It'll be very disappointing if it does lose out to the 1080 most the time after such a long wait but understandable with everything taken into account. Now the legwork for Zen's been done they may get more resources for future gen's so that will be when the real competition happens.

This will never happen. Vega can't and won't do it all.

You can make a card with hardware scheduling and asynchronous capability, push Mantle/Vulkan/DX12 and hope for the best.

OR

You can stick to DX11, make a driver that offloads as much work as possible onto other threads (exploiting free CPU cycles instead) and produce a less crowded GPU that lacks those abilities, but runs at lower temperatures/consumption, has higher clocks and is faster in DX11.

But you can't have both.

Remember that both AMD and Nvidia at some point thought it was a good idea to go for the hardware scheduler. AMD however made a bad business decision and stuck with it (also due to consoles), whereas Nvidia backtracked (post Fermi).

We all know for a fact that Nvidia chose correctly.

 

[silversurfer]

Liquid cooled like the Fury X, but unlike that, only from AMD, AIBS can do customs.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-8-gb-hbm2-teaser-video-leak/

14nm and its still liquid cooled, Fury was 28nm. Im not sure I might like that setup but wouldnt that be surprising that it'd produce that much heat. We know they aim to include similar tech across the range not just top end but integrated and on a cpu
Does this new type of ram run hotter then ddr5 or cooler. Maybe its a positive and liquid cooling aids its vast overclocking potential

Come on AMD am getting bored, RX500 good and all but it's not what I want. I need Vayyyyyyyyyyyy-guhhhhhhhhhhhhhh on new game load up screen Please!

Spoiler: “It’s Got a Brain, It’s Got a Soul, It’s Almost Human”.

Brain would be a reference to the cache management and something Deep Learning ? The lighting in that video reminds me of the car Kit from Knightrider.

GPU tachometer that displays the load on the card

Should have been a thing years ago imo, maybe its only especially possible now with greater sophisication. Pity its only limited edition, have we had many cards release in that way

and it playing Battlefront where there's to many variable

never saw that opps

Spoiler

Can I ask if an RX580 clocked at 1500Mhz (as per the RX580 thread) is expected to come quite close to a 1070 with 2304 shaders, how is a Vega with 4096 shaders plus many enhancements, at a similar expected clock, not going to match a 1080?

I've said it before. If Vega can't beat the 1080 by at least 10-15% I will be extremely disappointed.

Seems reasonable to me. Is the 580 performance a guess or checks out by a few estimates, sounds more then a refresh release

 

[DragonQ]

Ryzen wasn't shown running any games though, which we now know why, it was only shown running Cinebench, Vega has only been shown running Vulkan, and Dx12, we havn't seen it running what about 99% of games are using, and are still going to use, for quite some time to come, take from that what you will

Actually it was shown playing Dota 2 whilst streaming, alongside an i7-7700K.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Reminds me of Fermi really; just gotta hope it doesn't set homes of fire as well.

 

[akarypid]

Does this new type of ram run hotter then ddr5 or cooler.

Cooler.

 

[opethdisciple]

This will never happen. Vega can't and won't do it all.

You can make a card with hardware scheduling and asynchronous capability, push Mantle/Vulkan/DX12 and hope for the best.

OR

You can stick to DX11, make a driver that offloads as much work as possible onto other threads (exploiting free CPU cycles instead) and produce a less crowded GPU that lacks those abilities, but runs at lower temperatures/consumption, has higher clocks and is faster in DX11.

But you can't have both.

Remember that both AMD and Nvidia at some point thought it was a good idea to go for the hardware scheduler. AMD however made a bad business decision and stuck with it (also due to consoles), whereas Nvidia backtracked (post Fermi).

We all know for a fact that Nvidia chose correctly.

Ah? Nvidia's DX12 and even Vulkan performance is not as good as AMD.

I'm making my next GPU purchased based on those assumptions. I want a GPU that will be good in the next gen API's and I feel like the current 1000 series are not next gen API cards.

Also need a GPU to get the most from my Ryzen CPU and it seems Nvidia's drivers in DX12 aren't getting the most from the architecture.

I'm more Green than Red. My last Red card was a 5870. I've been Green since. But the fact the current Nvidia gen are not as good as AMD in the next gen API as well as the extortionate pricing of the 1000 series I most likely will be going Vega.

---

You are sort of right tho.. in that we are not fully in the DX12 era yet. Most games are still DX11 and thats what Nvidia are good at as opposed to DX12. I fully expect proper DX12 cards to come from Nvidia once Volta finally arrives.

Problem is I want these cards now as an upgrade form my 970. Leaving me with little option other than a Vega unless the 1080 drops sub £400.

 

[akarypid]

Ah? Nvidia's DX12 and even Vulkan performance is not as good as AMD.

...

But the fact the current Nvidia gen are not as good as AMD in the next gen API as well as the extortionate pricing of the 1000 series I most likely will be going Vega.

Like I said in my previous post: you can't have both!

You are sort of right tho.. in that we are not fully in the DX12 era yet. Most games re still DX11 and thats what Nvidia are good at as opposed to DX12. I fully expect proper DX12 cards to come from Nvidia once Volta finally arrives.

Problem is I want this cards now as an upgrade form my 970. Leaving me with little option other than a Vega unless the 1080 drops sub £400.

Ultimately, it's a chicken and egg scenario in a way: Nvidia have so much clout in PC gaming, that they've managed to keep the industry on DX11 for longer than AMD expected -- and will continue to do so for as long as they can.

Nvidia would rather do not 1 but 100 refreshes of Maxwell/Pascal, for as long as PCs stick to DX11. At the same time, game developers are happy to code to what they know (DX11) and not bother much with the 'more complicated' approach of DX12/Vulkan. The longer AMD waits the more dominant Nvidia becomes and the harder they can push back, sponsoring more and more titles, etc.

Meanwhile, Volta will remain a perpetual upcoming architecture that will only come out when DX12/Vulkan have become too big to ignore.

In such a situation you need a catalyst that can act as both the chicken and the egg in order for things to move forward. This catalyst is Microsoft in our case...

 

[Goldblum]

AMD have said about quite big changes in their command processor in Vega with dynamic load balancing, will be interesting if this helps their DX11 performance.

It will be interesting to see how Vega performs, i personally can't see them setting their target at Pascal as that is already refreshed and tweaked architecture.
With Scorpio pushing 4k 60fps that really raises the bar for PC desktop performance.
If there is any truth in the Star Wars bench 4k 60fps with the GPU only at 37% load going by the tacho, it could be something special but who knows.

 

[opethdisciple]

Ultimately we just need more realistic pricing. £500 for a GPU (1080) is extortionate imo.

The current 1070's and 1080's are about £100 overpriced. Part of the reason why I haven't been compelled to upgrade.

It wasn't until Ryzen came out that I saw something I wanted. A CPU with 8 cores and 16 threads and relatively sane pricing was too much for me to resist. Plus I started to feel my 3570k bottleneck so the upgrade was an easy one.

Just need an upgrade from my 970 that makes as much sense. At least one in my mind.

I'm hoping AMD can do with Vega what they've done with Ryzen. If they launch a card with the power of a 1080 at £400 and under.... then I'll be all over it.

---

Equally I'm staying on the fence until Vega launches. Once Vega has launched I can compare my price range to what Nvdia has to offer and then act on my options. Hoping at the minimum we will see a price drop on the Nvidia cards. But I think expecting to see a 1080 hit close to £400 probably isn't going to happen.

---

Another factor is I need a new monitor and Freesync is generally cheaper than Gsync.

 

[AlamoX]

ppl who saw the packaging video and still hope for cheap pricing are unrealistic, why would AMD put so much work on the packaging and cost, to deliver a cheaper product ? it doesn't work, that video showed that AMD in't trying to save money to offer a cheaper product.
the only other reason would be a limited edition of the GPU, with cheaper AIB versions a la FE.

 

[Seanspeed]

I still dont get what Vega is even going to be. Just one GPU(with two models) at the very high end(>GTX1080)? There's supposed to be a 2nd Vega, but they aren't talking about it, and from what they keep making it sound like, in terms of the general desktop market, there's only RX Vega. Is the other some lower power laptop chip or something? Maybe a dedicated professional card?

Thing is, if Vega is just one GPU, they are leaving too much ground uncovered whatever they do. They either aim high for the 1080/1080Ti-level market and compete there and completely leave open a huge gap between the 580 and Vega where Nvidia will continue to reap in that lucrative market with the GTX1070. Or AMD do something more towards the 1070/1080, which probably has bigger reach, but again leaves them without a flagship product, keeping them looking like a budget brand - which they said they didn't want to do.

I cant imagine they would simply do a massively cut down Vega to cover both bases. For all the improvements they'd likely get in yields, that'd probably still end up being a waste of an expensive, high performance chip.

 

[kration]

I still dont get what Vega is even going to be...

I'm confused as well - big Vega, small Vega. The pause in upgrading waiting for Vega is bad enough, but because of the uncertainty over what is being launched I feel that there will still be something to wait for when Vega actually is here e.g. if it's small Vega that's launched first, if such a thing exists.

 

[labbby]

ppl who saw the packaging video and still hope for cheap pricing are unrealistic, why would AMD put so much work on the packaging and cost, to deliver a cheaper product ? it doesn't work, that video showed that AMD in't trying to save money to offer a cheaper product.
the only other reason would be a limited edition of the GPU, with cheaper AIB versions a la FE.

It wont be cheap but you can almost put money on them under cutting the bang for buck price.. If it comes in between the 1080 and 1080ti in performance i reckon it would just be below the 1080 price.

Amd have never been shy at slashing prices of their gpu's when they have too.. I can still remember how dirt cheap i got 2 7990's for.. Although i wish AMD paid my electricity bill during that time

So if it is a good card but AMD cant shift them due to people prefering Nvidia they will slash prices.. So you never know it might turn out to be bargain further down the line.

 

[TNA]

I still dont get what Vega is even going to be. Just one GPU(with two models) at the very high end(>GTX1080)? There's supposed to be a 2nd Vega, but they aren't talking about it, and from what they keep making it sound like, in terms of the general desktop market, there's only RX Vega. Is the other some lower power laptop chip or something? Maybe a dedicated professional card?

Thing is, if Vega is just one GPU, they are leaving too much ground uncovered whatever they do. They either aim high for the 1080/1080Ti-level market and compete there and completely leave open a huge gap between the 580 and Vega where Nvidia will continue to reap in that lucrative market with the GTX1070. Or AMD do something more towards the 1070/1080, which probably has bigger reach, but again leaves them without a flagship product, keeping them looking like a budget brand - which they said they didn't want to do.

I cant imagine they would simply do a massively cut down Vega to cover both bases. For all the improvements they'd likely get in yields, that'd probably still end up being a waste of an expensive, high performance chip.

I am expecting 2 small vega cards and 2 big vega cards. Think 1070/80 and Titan XP/1080Ti. Or for those who cannot fathom that, think Fury and Fury X for big Vega.

 

[nashathedog]

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X/30.html[/QUOTE]

What evidence? Unless they lied about all the architectural improvements, about 14nm and about HBM2 etc then Vega will me much better than Fury X. Once you work out roughly how much better it should be (conservatively) than a Fury X and compare how Fury X does vs 1080 now, you will have all the evidence you need to know it should easily match/beat a 1080, let alone a 1070... (which what Loadsamoney and Grifildur think it will be).

By evidence I meant seeing how it actually performs and all they've shown is it beating out the 1080's Doom result at 4k and a look at Battlefront which had too many variables and unknowns to trust, Info about tech they are implementing on the card is not telling us how it will perform side by side with the competition. Working out how you think it'll do has as much use as hearing that someones impressed, We've seen it time and again where the numbers don't add up when working out how AMD's gpu's perform. We know it's not a 1070 competitor because that's not far off an Fury X and hopefully it will kick a 1080 into touch we just haven't seen anything to prove that yet.

I am expecting 2 small vega cards and 2 big vega cards. Think 1070/80 and Titan XP/1080Ti. Or for those who cannot fathom that, think Fury and Fury X for big Vega.

That's what I'm hoping to see, small Vega as a 590 and maybe a 590x and big Vega with 2 or 3 Vega named cards as they could do another Nano type.

 

[TNA]

By evidence I meant seeing how it actually performs and all they've shown is it beating out the 1080's Doom result at 4k and a look at Battlefront which had too many variables and unknowns to trust, Info about tech they are implementing on the card is not telling us how it will perform side by side with the competition. Working out how you think it'll do has as much use as hearing that someones impressed, We've seen it time and again where the numbers don't add up when working out how AMD's gpu's perform. We know it's not a 1070 competitor because that's not far off an Fury X and hopefully it will kick a 1080 into touch we just haven't seen anything to prove that yet.



That's what I'm hoping to see, small Vega as a 590 and maybe a 590x and big Vega with 2 or 3 as they could do another Nano tyope card.

The type of evidence you are talking about typically only come from reviews before release. AMD or Nvidia do not release the info you are after until the card is out or about to come out within a week or something.

Loadsamoney thinks it is a 1070 competitor also Griffildur They say this, but they never say how they arrived at that conclusion. Just a gut feeling or something? I explained all the way back in September why I expect it to be Titan XP performance. At worst however they will easily beat a 1080. They have had tons of time to get the drivers right also. People who talk about the 4K Doom and Battlefield demo; they will have had 5-6 months to optimise drivers before launch since we saw that so I expect much better performance than what we was shown.

 

[AlamoX]

I still dont get what Vega is even going to be. Just one GPU(with two models) at the very high end(>GTX1080)? There's supposed to be a 2nd Vega, but they aren't talking about it, and from what they keep making it sound like, in terms of the general desktop market, there's only RX Vega. Is the other some lower power laptop chip or something? Maybe a dedicated professional card?

Thing is, if Vega is just one GPU, they are leaving too much ground uncovered whatever they do. They either aim high for the 1080/1080Ti-level market and compete there and completely leave open a huge gap between the 580 and Vega where Nvidia will continue to reap in that lucrative market with the GTX1070. Or AMD do something more towards the 1070/1080, which probably has bigger reach, but again leaves them without a flagship product, keeping them looking like a budget brand - which they said they didn't want to do.

I cant imagine they would simply do a massively cut down Vega to cover both bases. For all the improvements they'd likely get in yields, that'd probably still end up being a waste of an expensive, high performance chip.

exactly, it's like AMD s trying a new market segmentation, low-mid-high without many sku's inbetween 480 is about double the performance of the 460, and vega about double the performance of the 480, this would make sense for navi, and the way it scales, 1-2-4 GPUs, but for polaris and vega the price is still tied to the size of the die, plus the 470 feel like a mistake around 10% difference between it and the 480.
maybe the cut down versions were supposed to be for laptops but the power target failed and kept them for desktop, and we see again the new RX550... AMD's line up is all over the place, hard to make sense of it all.