• 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.
I really miss my Ultrawide, the best of it was it was IPS + Hardware LUT, great anti-glare coating, plus Thunderbolt.

I was able to have my PC in another room in the end, with my RAID arrays, and noisy things; and have it all managed to me via a Thunderbolt hub. If it had FreeSync back then I'd never have replaced it with an measly 144Hz 1440p display.
dnicgRm.jpg
 
Guys, the Vega reference will have a flavour with the AIO from the FuryX/295X2

Rossuk89 said:
Ah right, there's been so many dates being thrown about it's hard to keep track on what's actually accurate.

I say that because if Vega is due towards the end of the year then I'd get a 1080Ti right now but if it's still on track to be released before the end of June then that's not too bad
Click to expand...

I am not that desperate for new GPU. The 1190/600 FuryX cuts through everything I play. And the only game I had bad performance, needs 8/16 CPU (and going to 16/32 when Ryzen 9) which is TESO (Cyrodiil - PVP). The rest I play mostly are fine and can wait. eg WOT doesn't need it, neither CK2. TW Warhammer on the other hand while it does, I wont play it until December when TWW2 is out.

What bothers me, been on the 3rd monitor replacement (XL2730Z) and now out of warranty so if it goes, I will buy the best quality monitor with gsync/freesync and then the GPU.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
I really miss my Ultrawide, the best of it was it was IPS + Hardware LUT, great anti-glare coating, plus Thunderbolt.

I was able to have my PC in another room in the end, with my RAID arrays, and noisy things; and have it all managed to me via a Thunderbolt hub. If it had FreeSync back then I'd never have replaced it with an measly 144Hz 1440p display.
dnicgRm.jpg
Click to expand...

Which monitor is that?
 
r7slayer said:
That video is spot on! Ive been saying it for ages. Max settings don't tend to do much for IQ. high settings gets you virtually the same IQ with much better frame rates. You can play with other settings and turn them down to medium with little to no effect on visual quality.

Like the guy said consoles tend to be the baseline which means low/medium tends to get you the same experience as console Xbox One / PS4

But cranking up those settings doesn't always tend to do much and me personally if it offers what i see as nothing its stays where it is. I prefer a smoother gameplay over tiny or very miniscule visual quality increment where you have to focus in on a area to notice the difference while stood still. Who plays games like that? With motion you will not notice the minor details but when playing moving high frame rates will benefit you and you will notice it especially on higher refresh rate monitors.
Click to expand...

A combination is always best and I think people are most likely using benchmarks as a wasy to see which gpu gives them at least 60fps regardless of the settings used (I aim for ~100fps, which should be achievable if you get 60 on Ultra). Not sure why, but I always liked the way Hardocp ran their benchmarks; comparing the highest playable settings rather than just putting everything on ultra, which is frankly a pretty dumb way to run things.
 
TNA said:
No one mentioned medium. Medium settings these days is like 3rd or 4th setting in games. The point here is these days there is hardly any difference at all between the highest settings and one below. Main difference is your fps counter showing much smaller numbers. Lol.
Click to expand...

if you looked at what I replied to, low and medium were mentioned. As for the FPS counter I am not even sure why you bring that up. No one mentioned it and I don't play with that on ever.

Trust me, you will notice very quickly if a game doesn't run well, you don't need an FPS counter to tell you that.
 
Griffildur said:
if you looked at what I replied to, low and medium were mentioned. As for the FPS counter I am not even sure why you bring that up. No one mentioned it and I don't play with that on ever.

Trust me, you will notice very quickly if a game doesn't run well, you don't need an FPS counter to tell you that.
Click to expand...
Ah my apologies, did not see that.

I mentioned the fps counter to aid the point I was making, I hardly use it myself. I agree with you, once frames dip to undesirable levels, you will know.
 
I really hope vega drops and is comparable/better than the 1080 at least.

They need to get the price right.

My only reason for sticking around for vega at this point is:
1. I've waited
2. I really like the options in the freesync market for monitors (looks at samsung quantum dot ultrawide for less money than the ugly gsync Asus/Acers)
 
nashathedog said:
Usually you can tell when the average fps is too low without a counter so I prefer to run a game and fine tune the settings without one.
Click to expand...

It can help diagnostically though - sometimes for instance you will get the feeling of low framerate - but its displaying high framerates and some feature or the game engine or a DPC latency issue, etc. is resulting in uneven frametimes and the nasty feel that gives which can otherwise be harder to track down. I don't need a framerate counter to know when my framerate is too low but it helps me to understand what is going on.
 
Rroff said:
It can help diagnostically though - sometimes for instance you will get the feeling of low framerate - but its displaying high framerates and some feature or the game engine or a DPC latency issue, etc. is resulting in uneven frametimes and the nasty feel that gives which can otherwise be harder to track down. I don't need a framerate counter to know when my framerate is too low but it helps me to understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that....but lots of people are blinded by it and follow it like it's a religion. I also understand overclockers who are trying to break records in seeing what they can get out of their systems too, but I dont get the "gamer" who continually needs his/her (lets not be sexist) FPS a few frames better than someone elses just because it's there on the screen. At the end of the day if our games are not interupted by stutter and they run and play smooth that is what matters most. Game Enjoyment for me is the most important thing. :)
 
maonayze said:
I can't argue with that....but lots of people are blinded by it and follow it like it's a religion. I also understand overclockers who are trying to break records in seeing what they can get out of their systems too, but I dont get the "gamer" who continually needs his/her (lets not be sexist) FPS a few frames better than someone elses just because it's there on the screen. At the end of the day if our games are not interupted by stutter and they run and play smooth that is what matters most. Game Enjoyment for me is the most important thing. :)
Click to expand...

you are on an enthusiast forums so these people here are expected to run fps counters and benchmarks. Don't confuse them for the average gamer though and also even on this forum I bet most people do not actually run counters and don't bother bench-marking ...
 
Panos said:
Guys, the Vega reference will have a flavour with the AIO from the FuryX/295X2



I am not that desperate for new GPU. The 1190/600 FuryX cuts through everything I play. And the only game I had bad performance, needs 8/16 CPU (and going to 16/32 when Ryzen 9) which is TESO (Cyrodiil - PVP). The rest I play mostly are fine and can wait. eg WOT doesn't need it, neither CK2. TW Warhammer on the other hand while it does, I wont play it until December when TWW2 is out.

What bothers me, been on the 3rd monitor replacement (XL2730Z) and now out of warranty so if it goes, I will buy the best quality monitor with gsync/freesync and then the GPU.
Click to expand...

What settings are you using for the Fury X to achieve that speed, mine has issues at stock speed/stock voltage!
 
MadMossy said:
What settings are you using for the Fury X to achieve that speed, mine has issues at stock speed/stock voltage!
Click to expand...

Have you installed the April 2016 UEFI bios from AMD?

The settings are +24v, +50% power limit, 1190/600 on MSI AB. And works fine.
But needs the UEFI Bios from AMD.
 
Last edited:
Yeah did that ages ago, will try those settings see how they do, but I often had issues at stock speed, games would either just hang dead or I'd get black screen problems.

EDIT: Tried those settings results in a driver reset after 20-30 seconds, temps got to around 52c with MSI Kombuster.

Same happened at 1150 and 1125, tried 1100 and it seemed to be ok. Guess my FuryX just sucks. Bring on Vega!
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
Yeah did that ages ago, will try those settings see how they do, but I often had issues at stock speed, games would either just hang dead or I'd get black screen problems.

EDIT: Tried those settings results in a driver reset after 20-30 seconds, temps got to around 52c with MSI Kombuster.

Same happened at 1150 and 1125, tried 1100 and it seemed to be ok. Guess my FuryX just sucks. Bring on Vega!
Click to expand...

Do you have upgraded the stock BIOS to the UEFI version?
 
Raja Kaduri said there will be water cooled versions that will run faster. I wonder if any manufacturer will bother to touch them beyond slapping their stickers on them. It seems unlikely we're going to have aftermarket cooling options at launch, so I'm wondering whether or not a water cooled one would be a good buy if one didn't want to wait for afermarket solutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom