• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay here is my predictions for pricing on Vega if there is indeed 3 SKUs available.
340 pounds for the gtx 1070 competitor
450 pounds for the gtx 1080 competitor
570 pounds for the gtx 1080ti competitor
 
Phixsator said:
Okay here is my predictions for pricing on Vega if there is indeed 3 SKUs available.
340 pounds for the gtx 1070 competitor
450 pounds for the gtx 1080 competitor
570 pounds for the gtx 1080ti competitor
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go ahead and say, £299-£319 - £399-£429 and £549-£579 in the same order you put.
 
spikerules said:
If the low end Vega is Nano size and comes in for £400 I'm all over that. Same with the high end Vega matching 1080Ti for £500. Any more than £500 then I'm not sure if I'd pick one up over a 1080 Ti.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect that from the Nano version if there is one?

How much was the Fiji Nano on release?
I think it was close to £600.

A Fury X was from £500 while the cut down Fury was £430 or £440 for the overclocked model.

I'm expecting 1080ti pricing even if it is a bit slower, That or 1080 pricing if it a bit slower than that.

I'm certainly not expecting bargain prices unless it's a bit of a lemon.
 
Didnt people say the ryzen 1800x would cost the same as the 6900k if they performed the same,and look what happened there,ryzen was half the price of the 6900k.

Raja koduri has said his aim is to have a complete pc system that does 4k well,at under $1000.

So its quite possible that Vega could beat the 1080 and 1080ti and come in at a much lower price.
 
nashathedog said:
All we need now is 144hz 4k and UW4k monitors, My UW1440 only has 75hz :(
Click to expand...
They are coming this year, but will be priced silly it seems, so I have opted to skip them and go straight to OLED in 2-3 years time, by then 144hz on 4K ill be a standard thing and not cost 2k :)
 
GUESS WHICH PAGE THIS THREAD WILL BE AT WHEN VEGA LAUNCHES!

After 469 pages, I wonder how long this thread will get before we finally get Vega. Anyone care to make a prediction?
 
TNA said:
They are coming this year, but will be priced silly it seems, so I have opted to skip them and go straight to OLED in 2-3 years time, by then 144hz on 4K ill be a standard thing and not cost 2k :)
Click to expand...

If you're waiting that long (I might too personally), it'll also be interesting to see how Samsung's Quantum Dot research comes along.

They're looking into making displays where the Quantum Dots are solely the pixels. So no OLED, no LCD, just direct electricity --> light via 'Quantum-Pixels'.

If I don't wait though, I'll look into buying a 32" 4K TV next year when they have HDMI 2.1, and GPUs have 2.1.

If you didn't know, most 4K TVs actually have 120 Hz panels already, but you can't drive it at 120 with any current GPU just due to ports.

I wouldn't mind paying £400-500 for a quality 32" 120 Hz TV as a screen.
 
Is anyone else looking at the Vega spec and thinking that it looks very similar to a Fury X? Is this really just a die-shrink and overclock of the Fury X? (I actually want to be proven totally wrong here, just a lot of the specs seem the same).
 
Scougar said:
Is anyone else looking at the Vega spec and thinking that it looks very similar to a Fury X? Is this really just a die-shrink and overclock of the Fury X? (I actually want to be proven totally wrong here, just a lot of the specs seem the same).
Click to expand...

No. It's obvious just from the new tech that AMD has already talked about that Vega is far more than just a shrunk Fury. It's a mostly new design for 14nm with lots of innovative and new tech.
 
AllBodies said:
If you're waiting that long (I might too personally), it'll also be interesting to see how Samsung's Quantum Dot research comes along.

They're looking into making displays where the Quantum Dots are solely the pixels. So no OLED, no LCD, just direct electricity --> light via 'Quantum-Pixels'.

If I don't wait though, I'll look into buying a 32" 4K TV next year when they have HDMI 2.1, and GPUs have 2.1.

If you didn't know, most 4K TVs actually have 120 Hz panels already, but you can't drive it at 120 with any current GPU just due to ports.

I wouldn't mind paying £400-500 for a quality 32" 120 Hz TV as a screen.
Click to expand...
Well I have a AOC Agon AG271UG coming tomorrow which is a 27" 4K G-Sync monitor. Going to see how much of a difference this G-Sync will make to my gaming. Currently there are no 4K Freesync monitors that have LFC and the only ones available do 40-60. With G-Sync it will at least be 30-60 or even lower. Then you have fastsync for when you want to go higher.

I will see how the display and colours etc compare to my current 4K Dell which I have had since 2014. If it is close enough and G-Sync is as mind blowing as some claim, I will keep it and stick with my 1080 until Volta. Shame though, as I am really looking forward to Vega. Never know though, if it does not impress me much I may send it back and try a cheap LG 4K Freesync monitor instead and live with 40-60 Freesync range. Either way, I am not paying the silly money they want for the new monitor's with HDR when there is hardly any HDR games for it. I would rather wait for OLED and proper HDR in couple of year time, at least the premium paid will be worth it.
 
Rezident said:
I have to agree. Nvidia have proven that the high-end GPU market is clearly not very price sensitive and they have boldly and successfully moved the goalposts further than many thought they could go. Now AMD would be leaving money on the table by not charging higher prices than before. Assuming the performance is there, of course.
Click to expand...

There is a difference that I think is significant. Nvidia had and have no competition in the high-end GPU market. If AMD do bring out a card that does compete on equal terms in the same market, AMD will not be in the same position. They'll need to gain market share, which means they'll have to create a reason for people to buy their cards over the already well established nvidia cards and for that reason to be significant enough to create a significant increase in market share quickly. The money isn't on the table when it's already in nvidia's pocket. They could sell at the same price and rely on brand loyalty or people supporting the underdog or just supporting the idea of competition. Maybe that would work enough. Selling at a lower price would work better at least initially, but nvidia could cut their prices easily enough.

The high-end GPU market isn't really what AMD needs, though. Not directly, anyway. Despite the very high prices, there isn't enough money in it. The main use of it for AMD is attention and halo effect. AMD needs bulk money, not high profit margins on a small number of sales. Although the two aren't entirely seperate, since it's a lot easier to scale down a top of the range design to make a whole range of cards than it is to scale up a low midrange design to create a whole range of cards.

I'm waiting to see what happens with Vega. I'm realistically (I think) hoping for a card on a par with a 1070 and for a 10% drop in prices to result. I'd buy whatever card best suits me, whoever makes it. I'd probably have bought a 1070 already if it wasn't for Vega. I don't expect Vega to make a dramatic difference, but I'd feel silly if I'd bought a 1070 and a couple of months later Vega did make a dramatic difference.

I'd like a card on a par with a 1080 for £200, of course. With a built-in coffee maker :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom