AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[nashathedog]

Full RGB of course.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with Vega cooling. The Fury boards were quite short due to not needing the extra VRAM chip space (I assume). I guess an air cooled version without a blower would just need to have a cooler significantly longer than the card.

So basically what the Fury Trix from Sapphire was like, Like all the other Fury Pro's it had a 3 fan cooler with one fan and a third of the heatsink being past the board and backplate which had the added benefit of allowing the third fan to push air through the uncovered heatsink a lot easier.
That helped the card run cooler and quieter as seen when comparing it too the Asus's Fury Strix which had a full length custom board and backplate, On the Strix temps were a few degrees hotter even though the fans were spinning faster creating more noise.
Based on that I hope we can get similar coolers for Vega with a large chunk of the heatsink out in the open..

I saw it here on these and many other forums where plenty of people complained and said AMD should do better. Granted Freesync was new and many didn't understand the spec, how it worked or how AMD was involved. You would think however that it would compel people to do some research instead of just repeating what a random guy has said in frustration and ignorance.

Common sense often goes out the window on these forums.

 

[TwsT]

Haha. I was being sarcastic, but to be honest most of the people think this way. They think Nvidia is so ahead that the best AMD can do is 1070 performance which I find amusing

I will be surprised and very happy if it matches the 1080ti new build looming would happily use vega over 1080 ti's

 

[nashathedog]

Source: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-performance-gtx-1080-ti-titan-xp/

The bit that bothers me is this "The sources also tell that Vega 10 may possibly be delayed but launch is planned for later Q2. AMD will be intiating full production of Vega GPUs this month and we can expect more details at Computex 2017 that is almost a month away."

If that is the case AMD need to fess up straight away not leave those of us waiting in the dark. Mind you that is a WCCFtech article someones linking too again, ie: rubbish 'r' us so I prefer this article myself

AMD confirms Vega will be out in the next two months:
http://hexus.net/tech/news/graphics/104953-rx-vega-launch-within-next-two-months-says-amd/

 

[Howling]

My Fury X is getting a bit long in the tooth. I just need Vega to come out so I know whether I'm getting a Ti or not
Much as I'd prefer to buy an AMD, if the Vega doesn't at LEAST match the 1080 then unfortunately I'm gonna have to go with a Ti.

 

[0h_no_not_again]

The bit that bothers me is this "The sources also tell that Vega 10 may possibly be delayed but launch is planned for later Q2. AMD will be intiating full production of Vega GPUs this month and we can expect more details at Computex 2017 that is almost a month away."
prefer this article myself

Not super bothered if it is delayed, but I would like to know performance, price and most importantly release date. Otherwise you may as well go and buy a 1080ti and be confident Vega is always 2 months away.

 

[nashathedog]

No thats not what he said. He said it "looks really nice" which can also mean price to performance compared to the 1080ti/Titan. Now of course i hope he means in pure performance as the only metric but these days these people are like politicians. Always twisting words around. I have to see the numbers from an independent reviewer/user before i'll believe anything.

Exactly, Personally I don't care how much power it uses and I don't care how much heat it produces as long as it has a cooler that can handle it properly.
I'd be perfectly happy if it was packaged the same as my Fury Tri-x is.
However I want the high-end model this time not a cutdown version.
I want balls to walls Titan eating performance this time.

 

[nashathedog]

I'd be surprised if Vega isn't water cooled like the Fury X. The Vega Pro card they've just demo'd looked to be using water. At least I assume that's what the black braided pipes are at the front of the card.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3192...gas-ability-to-handle-8k-graphics-at-nab.html

That looks nice, I'll be happy with one of those.

Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...

Spoiler

Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...

Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.

It's results like these that helped me decide not too buy a 1070 to replace my Fury Pro last year.

Look like cherry-picked games to me...

They're meant to show that it doesn't always go the 980 ti's way.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...

Spoiler

Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...

Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.

Fury X/980ti/1070 all trade blows with each other you be hard pressed to tell the difference at stock, overclocked is a different matter. Power consumption on the 980ti even with normal GDDR5 was still lower and it's much more complex PCB! , talking around only 20w but still.

I still remember that first pre release event with that single FC4 and the overclockers dream comment, then a lot of peeps were going "ITS GOING TO DESTROY THE 980ti WITH ITS HBM!!"

Didn't work out like that did it, since then I've been really skeptical of any even like his from AMD/Nvidia/Intel and wait for proper news and analysis.

Of all out sakes I hope Vega is a hit and put some real pressure and competition back in the GPU market like with Ryzen and CPU's .

 

[0h_no_not_again]

I still remember that first pre release event with that single FC4 and the overclockers dream comment, then a lot of peeps were going "ITS GOING TO DESTROY THE 980ti WITH ITS HBM!!"
.

Haha, those were good times! Right up until the performance of HBM was measured at ~340GB/sec instead of the 512GB/sec promised. Fiji really was a prototype

 

[AlamoX]

Yeah it is now, it took them a good 8 months or so after they released it, to get it up to the Ti, when they'd already lost the sales, same went for the 480, only 970 performance that upon release, 1060 walloped it, but a good 6 or so months later, and a few more drivers, it was up and beating the 1060, again though, when they'd already lost the sales.

They need to be there straight off the bat, as its on that release day, people want to buy, they lost a mountain of sales on the Fury X and 480 release days, as with being so poor on their releases, everyone just hit the buy button on the Ti and 1060s, but hopefully, with AMD saying they just about all working on Vega drivers, it could be different, we'll just have to wait and see, but if not, then again, AMD will be releasing a card, and sending Nvidias sales rocketing.

the world is ending...loadsamoney thinks his cfx fury is " Yeah it is now ", it felt almost as if "you cared about AMD" for a moment there, are you feeling ok ? !
well then you should be happy that vega is taking so long to release, more driver ironing, should be a good thing

 

[JediFragger]

They're meant to show that it doesn't always go the 980 ti's way.

I agree, when the FuryX is used to its full potential then it's still a very good card

I just think the total lack of any info is driving us all a bit crazy, me inc

 

[old gamer]

I agree, when the FuryX is used to its full potential then it's still a very good card

I just think the total lack of any info is driving us all a bit crazy, me inc

I know, you would think with the 1080 and 1080ti already out that amd would come out with vega and say right this is what it can do, if its good then people will wait and if not then people wont buy it anyway

 

[D.P.]

To be fair, at the time those were ... not entirely accurate but the Fury X was the quicker card at 4k on stock clocks. The inaccuracies arise when you consider the Ti overclocks by about 600000% (chip dependent) and the OC put the Ti considerably ahead (since the Fury had approximate 0.000000005% headroom).

Even at 4K on release the FuryX performed nothing like that relative to the 980Ti. The reason AMD got anywhere close to those numbers is shown in the second image where the benchmark details are given. Weird-ass settings like 0xAF, not used stuff like that since the early 2000s, a load of custom settings or medium settings

 

[TheRealDeal]

I know, you would think with the 1080 and 1080ti already out that amd would come out with vega and say right this is what it can do, if its good then people will wait and if not then people wont buy it anyway

This never really happens with Nvidia or AMD tbh. Makes sense but is never the way things go. Think of it this way if you have a knock out blow ready, do you deliver it after telling your competitor or do you surprise them right at the last moment for the ultimate impact. I am not saying that Vega will be a knockout blow as i have no idea but keeping things secret seems to be the way so your competition can't react. Had AMD or Nvidia let on about what they have then it gives the other a lot more time to react.

 

[Stanners]

This never really happens with Nvidia or AMD tbh. Makes sense but is never the way things go. Think of it this way if you have a knock out blow ready, do you deliver it after telling your competitor or do you surprise them right at the last moment for the ultimate impact. I am not saying that Vega will be a knockout blow as i have no idea but keeping things secret seems to be the way so your competition can't react. Had AMD or Nvidia let on about what they have then it gives the other a lot more time to react.

If you are after winning market share back you would do it now as every day lost would be potential sales lost. It serves no purpose in my eyes to hold info back now if it beats the competition.

 

[Mtom]

 

[AlamoX]

i wish AMD sticks to the " under 500$ bar " for it's high end, 350$-400$ for the cutdown version of vega, with some luck AMD might just deliver on the promise of " 1000$ 4k build ".
if this tweet is to be believed then Veg will come in 2 SKUs, one at 379$ and the other at 499$, maybe the higher SKU might get a limited edition with AIO and better clocks at like 599$

 

[D.P.]

Given the last AMD high end was $650 RRP and there has been some inflation since then, $700 RRP makes a lot of sense. That price will hold if Vega is at least close to the 1080ti. If performance is more liek between 180 and the ti then a $600 price tag seems possible but AMD will have the issue of lower margins form expensive HBM2, they probably wont want to go too low.

 

[Toss3]

Except if you look at reviews now, the Fury X isn't getting smashed at all...

Spoiler

Those are all from a review 5 days ago. Seems like the Fury X is doing pretty well against the 1070 never mind the 980Ti...

Yes there are games that the Fury struggles in, like ROTR and GTA V, but on the whole by no means is the Fury X 'smashed' by the 980Ti.

Doing quite well, but it's still behing them if you take overclocking into account as its not entirely fair to put one maxed out card against one held back because of lower power consumption. The Fury X is by no means a bad card, but the GTX 980 Ti is still better no matter how you look at it.

 

[AlamoX]

Given the last AMD high end was $650 RRP and there has been some inflation since then, $700 RRP makes a lot of sense. That price will hold if Vega is at least close to the 1080ti. If performance is more liek between 180 and the ti then a $600 price tag seems possible but AMD will have the issue of lower margins form expensive HBM2, they probably wont want to go too low.

they cannot, AMD need to stop this, if they beat 1080ti they can price their flagship however they want ( within reason ofc) , but if they can't, then the price need to be much more than 50$ off the 1080Ti, it just doesn't work, mindshare is much more important than higher margins, much more, that's the sales of all your future releases.
so vega need to have a price disruptive enough to nulify the failed performance crown in ppl's minds, and that need 150$ to 200$ saving off the current performance crown, believe me AMD won't start selling GPUs untill they understand this.
it might be hard financialy, but if they want to claw back market share, and change the perception ppl have of them, this is how they should do it, either get performance crown for couple generations, and if you can't, then make a product as close as possible, then slash the price to a point where performance per dollar renders the price of the crowned ridiculous to even enthusiasts.