AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[maonayze]

as AMD cannot produce a competitive card in these brackets.

Just a reminder for you....Vega is coming in 2017. Hopefully sooner rather than later. AMD has said nothing to the contrary and have stuck to all thier release schedules so far. I cannot believe how many people keep reading these rumors over and over and then go and say that AMD said this or AMD said that...When all AMD have done is stuck ridgedly to their original schedule. No more, no less.

Too many Nvidia fans are fixated by clock speed and Nvidia know this and keep you all well fed. Well to that I say this - In reality the 1060 and 480 are probably the closest rivals to each other than any other set of cards in both companies history...however the Nvidia cards have got to have clock speeds of between 300-500mhz greater to put them on equal par. It doesnt matter how amazingly high your clock speeds go as the Nvidia Tech is designed that way whereas the AMD tech isnt. I would rather have equal speed with slower clock rates for sure. I also think that everyone keeps changing the goal posts when it suits them too.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Fury was generally the same price as the GTX980 and was a bit faster.

AMD,probably didn't have as much pricing leeway,as Fiji was a 600MM2 chip on an interposer with HBM which all sounds quite expensive to make.

I expect Vega will be a somewhat smaller chip,and considering how much the GTX1080 costs currently,they sadly have a lot of leeway for pricing.

The main issue,is that with the GCN1.2 and 1.3 chips they were all quite large chips for their performance brackets.

Vega pricing will be determined more by the die size and whether they only use HBM2,as that would probably increase packaging costs.

The 980 was around £200 cheaper.

? I think you are trying to be some stalker type folk, but doing it wrong. I bought a laptop 9 months ago, so next time spend your life searching through my previous posts more carefully.

I own a Freesync monitor and Gsync monitor. A Gsync laptop (AMD had no competitive product, so wasn't a choice).

I also own a FuryX, 1070, 390X and countless other GPU's.

I feel that gives me a wide perspective when it comes to performance and features of these GPU's, though it's still on my opinion, agree or disagree with me, I don't really care

What can't be argued is that the Fury range of cards were absolutely terrible upon release, Maxwell was a much better choice and this is shown by the numbers of respective GPU's sold.

I continue to recommend RX480's over 1060's, as they are the better card in my eyes, though obviously cannot recommend any AMD card over a 1070 or above, as AMD cannot produce a competitive card in these brackets.

So playing the victim are we??? You just lied through your teeth to help your mate out - I know some of the people from Hexus who reviewed the card:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/84512-sapphire-radeon-r9-fury-tri-x-oc/

DR has good contacts in the industry so they are not particularly biased,and the R9 Fury was generally considered a faster card. You also don't seem to understand how many people I know outside forums who have various cards,including GTX980s,R9 Fury,GTX980TI,etc. I even met devs who have done cross-platform development on consoles and PCs actually give me some good insight into developing games on both companies hardware.

The R9 Fury was generally always a faster card on average and plenty of the competing GTX980 cards were not far off the price.

GTX980 cards were NOT £200 to £250 at the same time,and supporting your mate when he got into trouble is not helping your cause,when he couldn't show us all these £200 to £250 GTX980 cards which were apparently available.

Also,its always the same with you - everytime you get a new piece of hardware that companies is the bestest. It was the same in the CPU subforum where I hardly post when some people got fed-up of you waxing lyrical about the Core i7 you got too and they owned Intel CPUs too.

 

[humbug]

970 is not close to Fury, surely?

No, not even the 980 was that close, Christ the 390X overtook the 980 after some driver improvements.

The Fury/X was never as good as the hype or the hopes, but it was also never that bad 'a card, and always faster overall than the 980 let alone the 970, the Fury-X was barely more than 10% behind the 980TI.

This is either straw-men with a lot of salt trying to rewrite history or they are simply remembering it wrong and are digging themselves a bigger hole trying to make the mistake they made a reality.

I don't know whats worse.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No, not even the 980 was that close, Christ the 390X overtook the 980 after some driver improvements.

The Fury/X was never as good as the hype or the hopes, but it was also never that bad 'a card, and always faster overall than the 980 let alone the 970, the Fury-X was barely more than 10% behind the 980TI.

This is either straw-men with a lot of salt trying to rewrite history or they are simply remembering it wrong and are digging themselves a bigger hole trying to make the mistake they made a reality.

I don't know whats worse.

No because Dave is trying to support his mate,who said the GTX980 was apparently £200 to £250 at the R9 Fury launch.

So he is doing everything possible to help deflect from the fact he is lying or getting confused about the cards.

They both seem to hero worship the GTX980 for some reason. It was such an overpriced card,it even made the Fury look viable.

But in the end most people just bought a GTX970 or R9 390 in the end.

I am sure it will be the next 10 pages of playing the victim,etc just to cover their tracks and steer the threads to an AMD vs Nvidia flamewar.

 

[humbug]

Best policy is never agree with anything LoadsaMoney says. if he dug himself into a hole leave him in it.

 

[maonayze]

What about the X, that was more expensive than the 980 for around the same performance (was £550), it was even dearer than the much faster Ti, as i remember Nvidia dropped that down to £525.

Lets reset history for one moment and at least get it right or there abouts.

When the Fiji cards were being developed, Nvidia's fastest high end card was the GTX980 (Titan X I consider to be Enthusiast) and AMD were aiming to beat that. Just two months before the Fury X release, Nvidia knew that AMD were about to do just as they promised and beat the 980, so they brought out what can only be said to be a slightly (Very Slightly, I might add) nobled Titan X and it became the 980Ti and drastically reduced the price compared to its slightly bigger brother.

Nvidia only dropped the prices because the Fiji Line was coming out, then when they did bring out the 980Ti they dumped on all those that had bought the Titan X only 3 or 4 months before.

The 980Ti at the reduced pricing structure should not be compared to the Fury X at launch as it is not comparing apples to apples (Launch prices to launch prices). I could compare the Fury cards now to the 1070 and you will get better performance to price....but that would not be fair as they are discounted prices. Anyone can discount prices at any time making your comparison skewed to your point of view when it suits.

 

[Griffildur]

970 is not close to Fury, surely?

I think the point was that on release they were about the same as the drivers were awful. Things are different now, obviously.

 

[maonayze]

I think the point was that on release they were about the same as the drivers were awful. Things are different now, obviously.

Indeed they are. I have seen Fury Xs above 1070s in at least one of the newer games recently released. Not bad at all that, for a 4GB card.

 

[bru]

So enough about Furys and 980's this is a thread about Vega.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I kind of know the people at Hexus too,want me to drop them a line??

It's really not worth bothering real life people over an argument with an idiot. It's obvious to anyone who isn't biased you're correct, and to those who are they'll never admit it.

 

[Dave2150]

Which one do you prefer? Just curious. I have an amazing Gsync, but no freesync to compare

I prefer Gsync, simply because I can play my games in fullscreen windowed mode and instantly alt tab etc.

Freesync sadly only works in fullscreen exclusive mode, meaning a few seconds delay between every alt tab, which can be annoying. Also some games have issues with fullscreen exclusive mode, requiring you to constantly toggle it.

Apart from that though they perform identically, so just a quality of life issue with the fullscreen mode.

 

[Griffildur]

Indeed they are. I have seen Fury Xs above 1070s in at least one of the newer games recently released. Not bad at all that, for a 4GB card.

Indeed but I wouldn't put too much value on that. I expect pretty soon most games will use more than 4 gb, things will only get worse for cards with less memory. Once you open the door ....

 

[maonayze]

So enough about Furys and 980's this is a thread about Vega.

LOL thanks for the reminder

Pointless talking about it until we get something solid from AMD. As much as I want the Vega 10 cards to be released at the end of 2016, I wouldn't mind a paper launch with some info this year and cards released next year (1st Quarter).

 

[humbug]

I think the point was that on release they were about the same as the drivers were awful. Things are different now, obviously.

If he had just said the Fury was not as good as it should have been due to drivers it would have been accurate.


His mistake was the huge exaggeration in his claim the 970 was faster when in fact the Fury was actually faster than the 980.
Even cherry picking out a couple slides out of about 20 discarded in a review having the Fury ahead of the 980.

 

[maonayze]

Indeed but I wouldn't put too much value on that. I expect pretty soon most games will use more than 4 gb, things will only get worse for cards with less memory. Once you open the door ....

Most games can and will use over 4GB yes. But will most games need over 4GB within the next 12 months...I doubt it. The only people who argue this always use the super dooper textures...The Super Ultra's or the Nightmare settings which dont look much different or make that much difference from Ultra or Very High. They are the "Bragging Rights" texture packs that only a small minority use because they can.

 

[Dave2150]

Indeed they are. I have seen Fury Xs above 1070s in at least one of the newer games recently released. Not bad at all that, for a 4GB card.

I saw a 9700 pro above a 1080 the other day also, in an incredibly popular DX13 title which everyone plays. Who cares about the millions of DX11 games, huh?

 

[humbug]

Most games can and will use over 4GB yes. But will most games need over 4GB within the next 12 months...I doubt it. The only people who argue this always use the super dooper textures...The Super Ultra's or the Nightmare settings which dont look much different or make that much difference from Ultra or Very High. They are the "Bragging Rights" texture packs that only a small minority use because they can.

The 4GB thing IMO is a valid argument, some people, like me prefer higher res and better textures to out right FPS, eye candy.

The Fury/X are capable of games at a res / IQ that will choke on the 4GB of V-Ram.

Even my 970 can run a number of games with perfectly acceptable FPS at res and IQ that the buffer cannot deal with even when all 4GB is working.

I would never buy a card as fast as the Fury with only 4GB.

That really is the only valid criticism of it.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

LOL thanks for the reminder

Pointless talking about it until we get something solid from AMD. As much as I want the Vega 10 cards to be released at the end of 2016, I wouldn't mind a paper launch with some info this year and cards released next year (1st Quarter).

I think the issue is whether they use HBM2,so they will be constrained by HBM2 production,ie, when it is cheap enough to deployed in a gaming card.

In some ways,unless they can beat the GTX1080 with an HBM2 card,I actually hope it uses GDDR5 or GDDR5X TBH.

Because,whatever said and done,having to package the chip on an interposer with the RAM,probably won't help with cost IMHO(could be wrong),and it will give leeway for Nvidia to cut prices easily.

 

[maonayze]

I saw a 9700 pro above a 1080 the other day also, in an incredibly popular DX13 title which everyone plays. Who cares about the millions of DX11 games, huh?

But my post was based on fact, so not sure why you ridicule it with nonsense. We all care about the few thousand DX11 games (Millions LOL ) as they will still be here when DX13 has come and gone...just the same as all the older DX games. And as far as I can see...in some of the newer titles the RX480 beats the 1060 in DX11 as well as DX12, so maybe the drivers are getting better for AMD in DX11.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 4GB thing IMO is a valid argument, some people, like me prefer higher res and better textures to out right FPS, eye candy.

The Fury/X are capable of games at a res / IQ that will choke on the 4GB of V-Ram.

Even my 970 can run a number of games with perfectly acceptable FPS at res and IQ that the buffer cannot deal with even when all 4GB is working.

I would never buy a card as fast as the Fury with only 4GB.

That really is the only valid criticism of it.

Agreed,especially if you are into modding games. AMD did mention they were optimising per game,IIRC,so it might explain why it does better than it should at times.