• 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.
D.P. said:
AMD ploughed R&D into getting HBM on consumer cards which is commendable but ultimately was relatively pointless. Polaris is an odd release wihtout any high-end release. I think this is just a result of massively cut R&D and AMD trying to be efficient with development costs, with Polaris aimed for Apple products and the new consoles. It hit the low-end market which was important.
Vegas is the first GPU since Hawaii where everything should be on track.
Click to expand...

AMD's consumer and professional are the same though; so I commend AMD for at least managing to get the R&D for HBM and HBM2 out there. Once again sadly, despite all their work, their suppliers and fabs are the ones holding them back.
GloFlo's process not as good as TSMC, or Samsung; and now HBM2 2.0Gbps might not be ready yet either.
As we know what happened with Fiji and 20nm

Apparently before Raja got back to AMD, the old management wanted to completely ignore consumer graphics ( focussing on consoles mostly ); and it took him a lot to convince them to bother to stepping back into that field.

So Vega and Navi might be the first proper products AMD's poured R&D into for consumer and enterprise graphics. While Polaris was a much needed gap filler for essentially all segments bar high-end gaming.

I'm still concerned with AMD's design for all approaches, but hopefully Vega sorts out the horrible bottlenecks Fiji had, and brings the required improvements.
 
D.P. said:
For sure they have made some great ground up designs but there is much more risk. Even architectures like Zen, i think it will really shine after an iteration or 2. I would also have concerns about a brand new NVidia architecture.
Click to expand...

My point was that you said they had a bad record, you mentioned Bulldozer (which was plain bad) and Terascale (which came good, very good). Everyone has bad designs (Netburst, Fermi) and I don't think Bulldozer alone gives them a bad reputation.
 
nashathedog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Expecting the lower price (I bought a Nano at launch not many did) because they knew they made a mistake with the pricing at launch with the Nano. The card depreciated faster than Bolt can run the 100m!

I'm also expecting that if Vega only matches the 1080ti that AMD will have to pummel it on price to get upgraders on side. Simple. Hoping. Maybe?
 
Been doing a lot of gaming recently !!!

I spend 2 mins in this thread reading all the non information and I just want to go and spend 4 or 5 hours playing Civ5.:eek::p:D
 
Kaapstad said:
Been doing a lot of gaming recently !!!

I spend 2 mins in this thread reading all the non information and I just want to go and spend 4 or 5 hours playing Civ5.:eek::p:D
Click to expand...

I finished the campaign in the new Dawn of War 3, really enjoyed it. Need more now..they're already teasing an expansion from the looks of it. I need more 40K!
 
old gamer said:
It's wccftech so might be a load of old cobblers but say firestrike benchmark spotted

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/wccfte...evice-8gb-700mhz-vram-1200mhz-core-clock/amp/
Click to expand...
So basically even if the released cards hit 1.5 GHz, estimated performance based on those scores would be around GTX 1080 level, which is disappointing. :(

Personally I don't mind since I wouldn't buy 1080 Ti priced cards anyway - if there's a 1070 or 1080 equivalent but for a more sensible price (that supports FreeSync) it's still a winner.
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
So basically even if the released cards hit 1.5 GHz, estimated performance based on those scores would be around GTX 1080 level, which is disappointing. :(

Personally I don't mind since I wouldn't buy 1080 Ti priced cards anyway - if there's a 1070 or 1080 equivalent but for a more sensible price (that supports FreeSync) it's still a winner.
Click to expand...

AMD already have a Vega card at 1525Mhz, it's their Instinct MI25; essentially their counterpart to NVIDIA's Tesla P100.
Usually enterprise parts are clocked lower than high-end consumer versions based on the same core; so I would be rather surprised if their top end consumer Vega card is at 1500Mhz
 
Unless someone is coordinating all these benchmarks, 687F:C1 is possibly the lower end card with boost only at 1200mhz.

Assuming the top end card is at 1500mhz performance will be in the GTX 1080 region.

If it is like the Ryzen release (1700, 1700X, 1800X) and the C1 card is just the top end card clocked lower, it could be great value once overclocked.

1080ti
1080 vs 687F:C3
1070 vs 687F:C2
687F:C1
1060

Could also push those 3 cards up about half a slot so the C1 matches the 1070 and that is very competitive (for now).
 
Last edited:
N19h7m4r3 said:
AMD already have a Vega card at 1525Mhz, it's their Instinct MI25; essentially their counterpart to NVIDIA's Tesla P100.
Usually enterprise parts are clocked lower than high-end consumer versions based on the same core; so I would be rather surprised if their top end consumer Vega card is at 1500Mhz
Click to expand...

Thats passively cooled as well, so the air/liquid cooled versions, have to be higher, as it just wouldn't make sense, a passively cooled one can run at 1.5 GHz, but an air/liquid cooled one, can only run at 1.2GHz, nah.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Thats passively cooled as well, so the air/liquid cooled versions, have to be higher, as it just wouldn't make sense, a passively cooled one can run at 1.5 GHz, but an air/liquid cooled one, can only run at 1.2GHz, nah.
Click to expand...

Well as passive cooled as it can be with those server turbine fans forcing air through the rack and it.

I agree though; it's like looking at the Tesla P100's clocks and saying; "Well obviously no GeForce card could ever run over 1300Mhz."

muon said:
The MI25 also supposedly runs at up to 300W though.
Click to expand...

AMD quote it as <300W, and well the top end Tesla P100 is rated for the same, while having lower TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16.
 
FoxEye said:
The comments on that site are always such a trainwreck... but you can't look away!
Click to expand...
I used to like going on IGN comments section and giggle at the console fanboys bashing other consoles and defending there own purchase as if it was there favourite football team, wccftech is just embarrassing
 
Watching a stream of this game, 25fps on a 970 he said and seemed smooth no matter the detail. But its alpha, didnt look buggy looks great really. Allegedly it'll be vulkan so Im posting it as relevant lol

v5ipIzo.jpg

Unless someone is coordinating all these benchmarks, 687F:C1 is possibly the lower end card with boost only at 1200mhz.
Click to expand...
Werent early ryzen engineering samples released kinda nerfed or I'm remembering wrong imagining that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom