I dont know why you keep saying this and after we've seen the specs.
4000 cores is a big chip GPU. This is the flagship. There should be no doubt about it.
Vega 11 will undoubtedly be a lesser GPU.
-
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
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
4000 cores is a big chip GPU. This is the flagship. There should be no doubt about it.
Vega 11 will undoubtedly be a lesser GPU.
4000 cores wasn't even such a big chip on 28nm, it was still smaller than Big Kepler on the same process, at 14nm its a good deal smaller than the full fat Pascal Titan. Probably half the size.
Last edited:
It's 'big chip' by AMD standards in a given range.
I think it's pretty obvious what we're looking at here.
that's exactly the problem with AMD's line up, they wont have 300-400$ GPUs, they got SKUs from 80$ to 250$, then nothing untill you get over 500-600$, unless they are planning on pricing vega between 350-500$, but as i said before looking at the packaging i doubt that's their aim, especialy with AIO cooler...and i do not believe AMD has another vega chip except from ( full/cutdown variants)
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,184
4000 cores was a massive chip on 28nm. The Fury X was 596mm2. Amd's biggest ever chip I believe. On 14nm it would be somewhere around 300-350mm2 I think.
The 980Ti I'm using is one of two, plus a G-Sync monitor I sold a friend just a week before the GTX 1080 was announced. Dude is being really sound an letting me use this until I get a vega replacement card.
I just hope they open up with Big Vega, and not small/mid. I want a card that'll last me a minimum of two years at 1440p, and through all the stress of video work daily.
What Standards? you say that and yet history clearly proves you wrong, the Fury-X was still a pretty big chip, actually a little bigger than big Kepler as i have been corrected ^^^^
The 7970 was also much larger than the GTX 680. the 290X was a pretty big chip too.....
AMD are quite capable of making chips as big or even bigger than those nVidia make, when they want or need to, and they have.
Big Pascal is 600mm2^, a 14nm Fury-X isn't going to be anywhere near that big, AMD have plenty of room to grow into, another 50% probably for a 6000 core GPU.
used to strip the graphics cards down, block them then shove them in a custom loop (which i hated doing). the fury x was my first AIO and i love the look of ithem.. I do hope they keep it as classy as that 
although downside suggests not much room for overclocking agian
although downside suggests not much room for overclocking agian
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
used to strip the graphics cards down, block them then shove them in a custom loop (which i hated doing). the fury x was my first AIO and i love the look of ithem.. I do hope they keep it as classy as that
Let's hope they don't mess up on sourcing the aio's again.
As for which chip is big Vega ie 10 or 11, From what I've been reading in the past it's 10 and if 10 is coming with an aio we need to hope it is because if they're having to watercool small Vega it doesn't bode well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,574
What ever form Vega comes out in, its going up against an overclocked 1080Ti in my eyes. If AMD want to promise more later on account of optimizations, partnerships and API preference great but I'm interested in the here and now that IS the bottom line... no smoke with mirrors is going to deviate me from that. Water cool Vega and you're up against a water cooled 1080Ti end of story.
That doesn't matter to me, just the out of box experience and performance. I have no intention off pulling of coolers and setting up a custom loop or 3rd party hybrid cooler.
I just want to install it and get on with it; I also won't be overclocking.
So it's all down to price and performance out of the box for myself, and many.
Trouble is , even with HBM it looks like they are nearing the power wall. The card spec listed already has a 225 tdp so there is not much room for maneuver unless they are going to release a card that runs very hot and power hungry.
I mean if they were to release a mammoth 6000 core gpu what would the tdp be if the 4000 core card is already at 225!
Last edited:
it would be way over 300w most likely, especially since you would want 16GB HM2 to make it work while. And I don't think a 6000core GPU would scale nicely at all. the 4000 cores on the FuryX were a bit of a disaster as there was so much bottle-necking the GPU never lived up to 0its theoretical throughput. AMD seem to at last be doing the sensible thing and instead of trying to brute-force performance are actually trying to balance the GPU design and better optimize the pipeline. Big Vega will have a similar 4000cores to FuryX but the increased transistor budget will be spent on making those cores work more effectively, especially in DX11.
You misunderstand TDP, its not power consumption, its a thermal thing.
Besides that 225 Isn't high at all. nVidia's big Pascal chips are higher than that.
We have heard the size and power consumption arguments before, for the same reason it was argued to be impossible for AMD to match the original GTX Titan, in actual fact they did more than that, AMD beat the original Titan and did it with a significantly smaller chip.
None of what you are saying here makes any sense. for a start adding cores doesn't scale in the way you clearly think it does, you can even keep the same power consumption with added cores by simply binning the chips better, and or not running as higher clocks, or a compromise of that and add a bit more power.
As for comparing the performance to the Fury-X, what? We already know Vega is not Fiji so..... its not a Fury-X.
A lot of hyperbole here....
Last edited:
Here we go again.
1st off - I never said 225 is that high. It is when someone says AMD might be able to do a 6000 core version when the 4000 core version is already at 225 though.
Yes the Titan X has a 250 TDP but the 1080 has a 180tdp. If you do the maths the 40% or so extra cores has resulted in a 40% or so higher TDP.
so 50% more cores on the same vega architecture could well result in a TDP of ~340 which is quite high.
and secondly - AMD beat the original Titan with a new architecture, we are talking about expanding the same architecture basing it on the 4000 core version having a 225 tdp (assuming those specs are correct)
Nothing that has been said is hyperbolic. It is just common sense. I never said it was impossible. It just seems very unlikely given the TDP figure.
Last edited:
Well, it isn't and they are.... hyperbole.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,184
Well it is true. Titan X has a TDP rating of 250w and you can see from this link we have had plenty of cards with much higher TDP. You could be right that adding 2000 more shaders could be pushing it but we shall see. Nvidia look to have reached that level with the new Titan XP which probably uses more juice than the Standard Titan X (Pascal). The thing is with decent cooling these beasts can be tamed pretty easy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StreetFigh...member_that_mom_that_got_jumped_well_she_got/
Last edited:
225 isn't high so AMD has plenty of room to grow into, as i explained adding 50% more cores does not automatically result in 50% higher power consumption, the GTX 1080 has 2560 cores @ 180 watt TDP, the Titan Xp has 3840 Cores at a 250 TDP, thats 50% more cores and a 39% higher TDP.
That doesn't mean any of these cards are actually using that amount of power, TDP is not power consumption, yet even if you take 225 Watts and add the same 39% you still only have 310 Watts, thats less power than the 390X.
You could cut that down to 275 watts simply by binning the chips better, not using quite as high clocks.
Yes, this is the point i made, Vega is also a new architecture, it is not a Fury-X in the same way the 290X was not a 7970 so don't compare the performance.
Last edited:
- Status