AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

melmac · 29 Apr 2017 at 13:15

tommybhoy said:
Lol, written in the slant of 'AMD made this' and 'Nvidia, they made that one', when the vendors didn't actually have much input in either.

While I agree Quake looks nothing it's been brought up to date, Q3 Arena it certainly isn't, it's Quake, you don't stand about looking at anything it's a turbo charged nutter Quake game which is nothing like Paragon.

Overwatch is where it's at, it kicks lumps out of both of them imo.

If Nivida released a card with minesweeper as the included game, in AthlonXP1800's eyes it would still be better than any game AMD bundled with their cards.

opethdisciple · 29 Apr 2017 at 13:20

Read yesterday that BF1 does support Async compute. Not sure where I'm going with this... maybe I'm asking is this why Nvidia's DX12 performance in BF1 is not as good as AMD's?

JediFragger · 29 Apr 2017 at 13:25

opethdisciple said:
Read yesterday that BF1 does support Async compute. Not sure where I'm going with this... maybe I'm asking is this why Nvidia's DX12 performance in BF1 is not as good as AMD's?

AMD are def ahead in that dept, although the 10-series does benefit a little

D1craig · 29 Apr 2017 at 15:23

shankly1985 said:
1+

Its not hard to see that the title AMD has worked on are known for some of the best optimised games on PC, while title Nvidia has worked on are known for some of the worst optimised/buggy games on PC..

If its got AMD on the box you know dam well this game will run good for all types of hardware
if its got Nvidia on the box you know dam well this game might have issues

The backlog of games is there to back me up on this one.

Yes but if you buy a £750+ card every year you will get 60fps at 1080p no worries lmao.

opethdisciple · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:19

5% off of a 1080 at 1080p. Probably posted already.

TDP of 225W could be a consideration for me as the cooler the better as my case doesn't have great cooling.

---

So the take away from that article is maybe AMD are aiming for the 4k market. It would put the cat amongst the pigeons if AMD made 4k gaming more mainstream. Only issue with this is this would only be in highly AMD optimised games. I cant imagine a Vega card doing well across a whole lot of Gameworks titles at 4k.

Also all the game demos we've seen so far have been 4k!

V F · 29 Apr 2017 at 16:42

JediFragger said:
AMD are def ahead in that dept, although the 10-series does benefit a little

I was always told, NVIDIA for OpenGL and ATi/AMD for DirectX. Though since I haven't had NVIDIA since AGP 2006 I felt like going for NVIDIA again.

N19h7m4r3 · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:09

opethdisciple said:
5% off of a 1080 at 1080p. Probably posted already.

Doesn't seem accurate at all, that shows a base clock of 1000Mhz, that's lower than even the Fury X, and it shows as GCN1.3. Polaris is more advanced than that as well.

Raja from AMD's RTG has stated Vega will be aiming for higher clocks.

Another flag is them saying it;s 9.8TFLOPs of compute, when AMD have shown 12.5TFLOPs, with 1/2 Precision being 25TFLOPs

Just looks like a click bait "article".

Phixsator · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:12

N19h7m4r3 said:
Doesn't seem accurate at all, that shows a base clock of 1000Mhz, that's lower than even the Fury X, and it shows as GCN1.3. Polaris is more advanced than that as well.

Raja from AMD's RTG has stated Vega will be aiming for higher clocks.

Another flag is them saying it;s 9.8TFLOPs of compute, when AMD have shown 12.5TFLOPs, with 1/2 Precision being 25TFLOPs

Just looks like a click bait "article".

The only way i see this makes any sense is if its a cut down vega chip aka not the biggest they are going to release.

opethdisciple · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:14

Phixsator said:
The only way i see this makes any sense is if its a cut down vega chip aka not the biggest they are going to release.

Like a 1070 competitor. That for £350 would be nice!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:17

N19h7m4r3 said:
Doesn't seem accurate at all, that shows a base clock of 1000Mhz, that's lower than even the Fury X, and it shows as GCN1.3. Polaris is more advanced than that as well.

Raja from AMD's RTG has stated Vega will be aiming for higher clocks.

Another flag is them saying it;s 9.8TFLOPs of compute, when AMD have shown 12.5TFLOPs, with 1/2 Precision being 25TFLOPs

Just looks like a click bait "article".

Or it could be not running at final clockspeeds - so another 30% higher clockspeeds would give you that figure.

Sargatanas2511 · 29 Apr 2017 at 17:22

That isn't Vega at all, it shows the memory as 1000Mhz or 2000Mhz effective which would never be HBM2. It's all just nonsense.

N19h7m4r3 · 29 Apr 2017 at 18:04

Phixsator said:
The only way i see this makes any sense is if its a cut down vega chip aka not the biggest they are going to release.

opethdisciple said:
Like a 1070 competitor. That for £350 would be nice!

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Or it could be not running at final clockspeeds - so another 30% higher clockspeeds would give you that figure.

It doesn't make sense from GCN1.3 shown alone. Even if it was the cut down version, that doesn't add up.

Also HBM2 at 1000Mhz or 2000MHz also doesn't add up.

HBM2 on the NVIDIA P100 tesla and GP100 Quadro are 1.4Gbps, where as AMD will be using 1.6 and 2.0Gbps. Nowhere is it rated at a Mhz value, even in the JEDEC published specifications.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9969/jedec-publishes-hbm2-specification

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10527/sk-hynix-adds-hbm2-4-gb-memory-q3

humbug · 29 Apr 2017 at 18:25

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Or it could be not running at final clockspeeds - so another 30% higher clockspeeds would give you that figure.

Yes that is exactly what they are doing, they are taking an old AMD GPU with what they are guessing is a similar number of shaders (Fury-X) and increasing the clock speed to come up with that performance figure.

TPU are right in the gutter with this very un-intelligent headline grabber, that's all it is, TPU themselves know what they wrote there will turn out completely wrong, they are not that stupid, they know Vega is not Fiji, they know its a completely different GPU and will perform completely differently.

This is TPU making it up as they go along to grab clicks.

Sargatanas2511 said:
That isn't Vega at all, it shows the memory as 1000Mhz or 2000Mhz effective which would never be HBM2. It's all just nonsense.

Yup....

opethdisciple · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:04

This time round choosing between AMD and Nvidia is going too be the toughest choice I've ever made PC wise.

It's not just a new GPU. It's a GPU, monitor and ecosystem lock-in for the duration I keep the monitor. My last one is now 9 years old.

eiamhere69 · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:34

Phixsator said:
The only way i see this makes any sense is if its a cut down vega chip aka not the biggest they are going to release.

This
Maybe its the 1070 competitor (15% faster) likley much better as resolution scales. Please someone, hold me back before I board the train, I managed to refrain so far

Sargatanas2511 · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:36

eiamhere69 said:
This

GCN1.3 and memory speeds still make no sense.

eiamhere69 · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:39

opethdisciple said:
Like a 1070 competitor. That for £350 would be nice!

So many rumours, some stating a Vega with GDDR5 memory controller

eiamhere69 · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:45

humbug said:
Yes that is exactly what they are doing, they are taking an old AMD GPU with what they are guessing is a similar number of shaders (Fury-X) and increasing the clock speed to come up with that performance figure.

TPU are right in the gutter with this very un-intelligent headline grabber, that's all it is, TPU themselves know what they wrote there will turn out completely wrong, they are not that stupid, they know Vega is not Fiji, they know its a completely different GPU and will perform completely differently.

This is TPU making it up as they go along to grab clicks.

Yup....

So is this just a click estimate using on Fiji?

I was hoping it was a Vega sample, underclocked

eiamhere69 · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:48

Sargatanas2511 said:
GCN1.3 and memory speeds still make no sense.

Yeah, suppose I just wanted to hear about Vega so much I readxan article stating AMD replaced silicon with orange peelings

silversurfer · 29 Apr 2017 at 19:57

N19h7m4r3 said:
Paragon also ran like rubbish in my old Fury X, it was getting similar performance a my friend's GTX 980 in that game.
Then again, the engine was designed from the ground up to take advantage of NVIDIA gameworks.
https://developer.nvidia.com/unrealengine

As Tim Sweeney of Epic states

"Epic developed Unreal Engine 4 on NVIDIA hardware, and it looks and runs best on GeForce."

Click to expand...

Thats a lot of games then. But it seems its dx11 mostly so no surprise nvidia wins that one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_4

Yes but if you buy a £750+ card every year you will get 60fps at 1080p no worries lmao.

The existing 580 should be dealing with that end, perhaps not always perfectly or on ultra but seems a fair point ultra is not required for games to look good

Like a 1070 competitor. That for £350 would be nice!

Seems like a standstill not progress unless they go sideways in interesting ways

They already said looks nice compared to 1080 so its beyond 1070 I guess

It doesn't make sense from GCN1.3 shown alone

Half my reason for buying is to get their latest GCN version as they promised to support this best on all platforms, linux, everything via vulkan hopefully they have a forward vision. Old GCN wont have that breadth of support, hence I'll be glad Im not 7950 anymore if I see them doing 'new stuff'

where as AMD will be using 1.6 and 2.0Gbps.

Does this explain part of the higher and lower Vega then.

TPU making it up as they go along to grab clicks.