AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[Besty]

Frontier is a professional workstation card. It's not a gaming/consumer card. Sure, you can game on Frontier, just like you could take a Challenger tank to do your local shopping, but that's not really what it's for.

not knocking it, was just replying to the posters who are expecting a circa. £450 card.

this is not the droid you are looking for.

that's not a moon....etc.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

If you're not overclocking, is there much point in having faith in AMD at this point?

If they're just going to release a card which has 1080 level performance at a 1080 price point this LATE in the game, I think I'd rather take that initial hit on the NVIDIA tax in regards to gsync and then have access to high end cards which push current levels of performance without having to wait a year for AMD to play catchup.

It all depends on your wants, needs, and use cases.

Personally I'll be happy with performance between the 1080 and Ti if the price is right; since AMD cards are better in the other software I use compared to the NVIDIA equivalent.
RX 480 barely slower than Titan X in DaVinci Resolve; and equal in Adobé Suite.

Add in if you have, or are buying an Adaptive Sync monitor, and it helps make up some people's minds.

It also depends on what you're upgrading from, resolutions you play at and favoured games.

It is a shame AMD is behind, but it's a mix of trying to get AMD on track for Consumer Graphics again, and SK Hynix not delivering on their promises of mass HBM2 quantities by Q3 2016 as they originally had in their information and catalogues.

It all combined into the mess that has seen Vega so delayed; so that's where my above points still come in.
If Vega's performance, price, or availability are negatives, and you need a card right now; it's always been the case to just buy the best that's available for you right now.

 

[spoffle]

Depends on what way you look at it. That 30% for me was well worth it and the 1080 was great for 1440P and allowed me to run with ultra settings in pretty much everything but switching up to 3440x1440 had it struggle and noticeable slow downs in a couple of my more demanding games and with the same settings but then switching the 1080 out for a 1080Ti was night and day and allowed me to not even consider having to lower settings.

Don't get me wrong, 30% is noticeable but it really is only a substantial amount of frames when you're into the high frames territory anyway.

You're talking going from 15FPS to 20FPS. Or 30FPS to 39 FPS. 40 FPS to 52 FPS. 50FPS to 65FPS, and so on. Those sort of jumps are never really enough to make a big difference.

I'm not suggesting you wasted your money or anything, it's more to do with it being an upgrade that only takes just about playable, to playable. It sounds like you got what you wanted of course, but it's not gonna take much in the way of advances for it to start creeping into to the just about playable territory again. 30% essentially leaves a small buffer.

 

[spoffle]

It all depends on your wants, needs, and use cases.

Personally I'll be happy with performance between the 1080 and Ti if the price is right; since AMD cards are better in the other software I use compared to the NVIDIA equivalent.
RX 480 barely slower than Titan X in DaVinci Resolve; and equal in Adobé Suite.

Add in if you have, or are buying an Adaptive Sync monitor, and it helps make up some people's minds.

It also depends on what you're upgrading from, resolutions you play at and favoured games.

It is a shame AMD is behind, but it's a mix of trying to get AMD on track for Consumer Graphics again, and SK Hynix not delivering on their promises of mass HBM2 quantities by Q3 2016 as they originally had in their information and catalogues.

It all combined into the mess that has seen Vega so delayed; so that's where my above points still come in.
If Vega's performance, price, or availability are negatives, and you need a card right now; it's always been the case to just buy the best that's available for you right now.

The Adaptive Sync is my main issue as well. I've got a 980ti as my main card, because only in Pretend Land was I buying a 4GB graphics card (Fury range). I would like an adaptive sync monitor because hell no am I buying into G-Sync. nVidia need to pull their head out of their arse and support adaptive sync.

I'm looking to get new monitors in the near future, and Adaptive Sync is really why I want Vega to be competitive. Even if I "have" to buy another nVidia card, I still not going for a G-Sync monitor. I hate the concept of vendor specific features like that. I'd sooner go without any sync as it's more likely I'd change graphics cards before monitors anyway.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

The Adaptive Sync is my main issue as well. I've got a 980ti as my main card, because only in Pretend Land was I buying a 4GB graphics card (Fury range). I would like an adaptive sync monitor because hell no am I buying into G-Sync. nVidia need to pull their head out of their arse and support adaptive sync.

I'm looking to get new monitors in the near future, and Adaptive Sync is really why I want Vega to be competitive. Even if I "have" to buy another nVidia card, I still not going for a G-Sync monitor. I hate the concept of vendor specific features like that. I'd sooner go without any sync as it's more likely I'd change graphics cards before monitors anyway.

I'm currently on a 980Ti myself, and on a FreeSync monitor. It's in there since my Fury X died, and before that I had SLI 980Ti with the ROG Swift G-Sync monitor.

Adaptive Sync really is wonderful; and honestly my friends, and I have not been able to tell a difference between Fury X FreeSync, and 980Ti G-Sync.

I agree about vendor lock in; it's horribly annoying; which is the reason I bought 144Hz monitors. Even without Adaptive Sync they're a league ahead of normal 60Hz ones; and the Adaptive Sync is the cherry on the top.

I hope Vega lives up to my needs and expectations at least as it'll be an instant buy for me; and already owning a FreeSync monitor for gaming is still a plus then.

In the end, all anyone really has is speculation, and estimations. We'll have to wait until Computex to hear anything about consumer gaming Vega cards.

AMD's main issue still seems to be the failings of their partners here. If SK Hynix managed to roll out 2.0Gbps, or even quantities of 1.6Gbps 4GB HBM2 in Q3 2016 like promised we'd all have Vega by now I suspect.
So even if the only Vega card was 10% faster than the GTX 1080 at best, everyone would be happy.

Instead we're moving towards Q3 2017, and SK Hynix have no listed 2.0Gbps 4GB modules, never mind the imaginary 8GB modules; and what looks like limited supply of the slower 1.6Gbps ones; which AMD seem to be running at 1.88Gbps on the Vega Frontier Edition to try and make up the bandwidth issue.
Since then NVIDIA also launched the new Titan Xp, and GTX 1080Ti, so now people expect 1080Ti performance at a minimum because of all the delays. :/

 

[BigDools]

The card that has been announced is a $1000 card excluding tax. It will be as quick in 4K as a stock 1080ti in Some scenarios. It won't be quicker outside of that and may trade blows with a custom 1080.

Sauce?

Spoiler: SAUCE

 

[LoadsaMoney]

AMD : Lower-Priced, Gaming-Optimized Radeon RX Vega Is Coming

OK, When Is This Gaming Radeon RX Vega Coming?!

If you’re an AMD Radeon Fury X or Fury owner and you’ve been looking forward to purchasing a Vega card to pair with that brand new 4K or high refresh rate 2560×1440 FreeSync monitor you bought then this wait most certainly can be frustrating.

We’re coming up on the Fury series’ two year birthday soon and the Radeon RX Vega Frontier Edition is not coming out until late June. AMD announced that the Frotnier Edition will be the first Vega based card they’re going to release and based on Raja’s statement, you’ll have to wait “a little while longer” for the gaming oriented Radeon RX Vega. At this point we’d be looking at a Q3 2017 launch for the gaming parts.

There’s no doubt that Raja and his team are doing all they can to get Vega out the door, so what exactly is behind the delay? Thankfully a piece of information that has come out very recently means that we can do more than just speculate. I’m referring to SK Hynix’s latest update to its product databook which they issued earlier this week.

http://wccftech.com/amd-lower-priced-gaming-optimized-radeon-rx-vega-coming/

Yep, i know its only wccf, but......

 

[old gamer]

AMD : Lower-Priced, Gaming-Optimized Radeon RX Vega Is Coming



http://wccftech.com/amd-lower-priced-gaming-optimized-radeon-rx-vega-coming/

Yep, i know its only wccf, but......

looks like we may be still in for a bit of a wait, but I guess if its not ready what can amd do

 

[N19h7m4r3]

http://wccftech.com/amd-lower-priced-gaming-optimized-radeon-rx-vega-coming/

My god, the buggers actually had the nerve to take the photoshopped colour variations from WhyCry at Videocards, and put their own damn watermark over it.

 

[Gregster]

Don't get me wrong, 30% is noticeable but it really is only a substantial amount of frames when you're into the high frames territory anyway.

You're talking going from 15FPS to 20FPS. Or 30FPS to 39 FPS. 40 FPS to 52 FPS. 50FPS to 65FPS, and so on. Those sort of jumps are never really enough to make a big difference.

I'm not suggesting you wasted your money or anything, it's more to do with it being an upgrade that only takes just about playable, to playable. It sounds like you got what you wanted of course, but it's not gonna take much in the way of advances for it to start creeping into to the just about playable territory again. 30% essentially leaves a small buffer.

I know what you mean.

 

[Rroff]

I meant to say territory. The boosting feature of nVidia cards really does make overclocked versus stock comparisons very difficult. But don't 1080s overclock quite a bit? I had the impression that they tend to overclock 30%>. My luck with GPUs that overclock well might be skewing that as I've had a decent amount of cards that I was able to get a 50% overclock on.

The essence of what I was getting at though is that 30% isn't that big of a difference that it's going to be night and day in games. It's really the difference between just about playable, and playable with a bit in reserve for dips.

Problem with the Pascal cards is that for most of them no matter how high overclock you can get - there will be times when they fall back on around 202xMHz due to power reasons - even if you get them boosting by +30% where you need the performance the most they've probably dropped back to around +6-10% boost.

Even fairly small overclocks can be worth it if its enough to push you most of the time over the minimum framerate you need to not notice slowdown i.e. if someone is a stickler for say 60fps with V-Sync a 10% overclock could keep them just above 60fps instead of dropping into the 50s and having V-Sync drop to the next lower multiplier.

 

[TNA]

I know what you mean.

Yeah he has a point. But you do prefer higher fps so 30% can make a bigger difference to you. 80 would go to 104 which obviously looks like a much bigger jump

To me 30% is not much either tbh, I can easily get that turning of all the crap developers use in their games that make the game look worse to me. But most do not even bother to look at the difference and assume if it is there it must be to improve graphics, but this is not always the case.

Still would love the extra performance, but it depends on cost obviously.

Sauce?

Heinz BBQ please

 

[silversurfer]

Been at work all night.

Am I right in thinking there is still no real news about gaming Vega cards.

Unfortunately we dont get proper info till that big conference apparently. We got related details better then absolute guesses but thats it, hope we dont have to wait till September or something

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Yeah he has a point. But you do prefer higher fps so 30% can make a bigger difference to you. 80 would go to 104 which obviously looks like a much bigger jump

To me 30% is not much either tbh, I can easily get that turning of all the crap developers use in their games that make the game look worse to me. But most do not even bother to look at the difference and assume if it is there it must be to improve graphics, but this is not always the case.

That 30%fps difference in price could be a decent FreeSync Monitor, which would give one nice experience compared 30% more FPS but normal 60Hz monitor.

 

[D1craig]

I can't remember them all, but I had a good few 7950s that would overclock more than 50%.

I haven't had the need to overclock for quite a while. Due to a change in circumstances (bought a house and I haven't got a dedicated computer room set up with a desk and all that, yet...), I do all my gaming on my TV with a lapdog, and I tend to really only play PVZ Garden Warfare 2, which is a fairly light game. So I have no need to overclock until I finish said computer room and start playing more games.

Imagine if AMD had clocked these cards better for release... the market share might have been more in their favour for longer and not be in such an unrecoverable position now.

 

[TNA]

That 30%fps difference in price could be a decent FreeSync Monitor, which would give one nice experience compared 30% more FPS but normal 60Hz monitor.

Yeah, this is what I mean. 30% extra fps is nice, but not say £300-400 nice, to me personally anyway. But all that stuff is relative really

Just like it is with me preferring 4K 60hz/fps over a lower resolution and more fps as I don't do twitch gaming and the extra smoothness is not much of a big deal.

 

[Rroff]

Imagine if AMD had clocked these cards better for release... the market share might have been more in their favour for longer and not be in such an unrecoverable position now.

Usually the cards where a good number have great overclocking potential happen due to things like highly varying yield quality meaning they have to have wider allowances i.e. the GTX470 which were basically cores that failed to make the grade for the 480 in some cases due to poor thermal properties on a card (480) that was already having problems with that but meant the larger majority of 470s would overclock like crazy - but you'd get some that couldn't budge from the stock clock.

 

[beany_bot]

I wonder if this thread will reach a 1000 pages...?

 

[Defiant306]

I wonder if this thread will reach a 1000 pages...?

That's relative to the number of posts per page you have set in your account login settings.

Also I think VEGA's whole build up to launch and strategy has been an utter mess and if they do launch with that amount of stock... well they will be worse than Nvidia with the 1000 series 'soft' launch.

 

[beany_bot]

Just give me a card that will play current titles at 4K - maxed out settings at >50fps. That's all I want AMD.