AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

JediFragger · 23 May 2017 at 11:15

DragonQ said:
Yeah that's a fair point. I suppose it's a balancing act - yes they need revenue streams but they also can't afford to slip further behind nVidia in the gaming segment. The more proprietory APIs nVidia push to developers, and the more fancy tech AMD creates that only end up getting used by a handful of games, the harder it'll be to actually catch up.

Tbf, if they can be 10% behind nVidia and only spend a fifth of the development costs is that such a bad thing? Especially how forward looking the company seems to be on the graphic technology front.

N19h7m4r3 · 23 May 2017 at 11:41

JediFragger said:
Tbf, if they can be 10% behind nVidia and only spend a fifth of the development costs is that such a bad thing? Especially how forward looking the company seems to be on the graphic technology front.

AMDs tech looks amazing on paper and demos, the issue is developers. if they're not lazy, they're under extremely pressure for deadlines. They often means getting the bare minimum out and just having some goodies to separate it from the console version.

We've seen what AMD gains when the time and effort is put in, but so few actually do that.

They need the market share for that, I hope their steady climb continues and we finally get to where they need to be.

TimAhKin · 23 May 2017 at 11:43

This waiting is not good for my wallet. I keep browsing websites, looking for info and see deals on other components. Just bought a G502 Proteus Spectrum.
I just want to buy a VEGA and get done with it!

Chrisc · 23 May 2017 at 12:04

TimAhKin said:
This waiting is not good for my wallet. I keep browsing websites, looking for info and see deals on other components. Just bought a G502 Proteus Spectrum.
I just want to buy a VEGA and get done with it!

Haha, I was like that with Ryzen, so many times i had a 7700 in the basket. . . Glad i waited to be honest, I hope i can say the same when Vega is released.

N19h7m4r3 · 23 May 2017 at 12:08

My solution is to get a breakfast roll every week Vega isn't out. I can blame Raja then if I put on a few kilos.

TimAhKin said:
This waiting is not good for my wallet. I keep browsing websites, looking for info and see deals on other components. Just bought a G502 Proteus Spectrum.
I just want to buy a VEGA and get done with it!

shankly1985 · 23 May 2017 at 12:55

TonyTurbo78 said:
I couldn't care less if Vega doesn't beat a 1080ti, I don't need to have the fastest card to brag to my gaming friends. I couldn't care less if a comparative top tier card from AMD is coming a year late to the party either. I've said all along, it's all to do with price for me and finally having an option for a high end card, and lets face it, it's still going to be bonkers fast. 1080 non ti is still very fast, hell even a 1070 is no slouch. The magic figure for me is £400, if they can get the RX Vega in for around £400, that would still be very attractive to me and all these guys still rocking 290/390/480 type cards with a Freesync screen. AMD will never beat an Nvidia top tier card, will just never happen, so I'm just not getting all teary eyed over Vega doom and gloom. It's still going to be brilliant at 1440p for me.

Agreed! I couldn't careless about Epeen My FPS is bigger than yours.. SO Long VEGA is an upgrade over what I have now am happy.

humbug · 23 May 2017 at 12:57

shankly1985 said:

I think he's right, again....

I don't think its a bad thing, AMD don't have a share among the top 2%, that all belongs to nVidia so what is the point?

As long as AMD make GTX 1080 to < GTX 1080TI level cards at a more competitive price its all good as far as i'm concerned, i would much rather AMD concentrate their efforts and R&D where the 95% buy their GPU's, you can Keep your £700 1080TI's and £1000 Titan Xp's, i'm not interested.

No complaints from me AMD, just do what you do well.

Rroff · 23 May 2017 at 13:00

N19h7m4r3 said:
They need the market share for that, I hope their steady climb continues and we finally get to where they need to be.

Even then it isn't enough for propitiatory features - a lot of developers don't touch nVidia's specific extensions, etc. the reasons why stuff like GameWorks gets picked up is as much as anything because nVidia will spend time working with developers to implement it - granted AMD struggles with resources in this regard but even so they rarely work with anyone than a hand picked studio like Dice. AMD seem to have this misconception that if they build it people will use it, without them having to do anything more, which most of the time results in their headline tech never being heard of again within 6 months of release.

Freddie1980 · 23 May 2017 at 13:06

N19h7m4r3 said:
AMDs tech looks amazing on paper and demos, the issue is developers. if they're not lazy, they're under extremely pressure for deadlines. They often means getting the bare minimum out and just having some goodies to separate it from the console version.

We've seen what AMD gains when the time and effort is put in, but so few actually do that.

They need the market share for that, I hope their steady climb continues and we finally get to where they need to be.

With the Xbox Scorpio SoC being built around DX12 it will be interesting to see how this translates to the PC when porting to DX12 from a DX12 console. It could be the break AMD needs.

Chuk_Chuk · 23 May 2017 at 13:08

N19h7m4r3 said:
AMDs tech looks amazing on paper and demos, the issue is developers. if they're not lazy, they're under extremely pressure for deadlines. They often means getting the bare minimum out and just having some goodies to separate it from the console version.

We've seen what AMD gains when the time and effort is put in, but so few actually do that.

They need the market share for that, I hope their steady climb continues and we finally get to where they need to be.

Rroff said:
Even then it isn't enough for propitiatory features - a lot of developers don't touch nVidia's specific extensions, etc. the reasons why stuff like GameWorks gets picked up is as much as anything because nVidia will spend time working with developers to implement it - granted AMD struggles with resources in this regard but even so they rarely work with anyone than a hand picked studio like Dice. AMD seem to have this misconception that if they build it people will use it, without them having to do anything more, which most of the time results in their headline tech never being heard of again within 6 months of release.

What about consoles. There is a lot of incentive to optimise there, and if AMD where to incorporate there technology in the consoles then developers would have to use it. All AMD would need to do is aid in porting it over to PC.

edit: Beaten by freddie

Steampunk · 23 May 2017 at 13:18

Rroff said:
Even then it isn't enough for propitiatory features - a lot of developers don't touch nVidia's specific extensions, etc. the reasons why stuff like GameWorks gets picked up is as much as anything because nVidia will spend time working with developers to implement it - granted AMD struggles with resources in this regard but even so they rarely work with anyone than a hand picked studio like Dice. AMD seem to have this misconception that if they build it people will use it, without them having to do anything more, which most of the time results in their headline tech never being heard of again within 6 months of release.

Like with Mantle. Oh wait, that became DX12 and Vulkan, the two main APIs on PC and consoles moving forwards.

N19h7m4r3 · 23 May 2017 at 13:20

Chuk_Chuk said:
What about consoles. There is a lot of incentive to optimise there, and if AMD where to incorporate there technology in the consoles then developers would have to use it. All AMD would need to do is aid in porting it over to PC.

edit: Beaten by freddie

That could work if developers actually cared. Rise of the Tomb Raider on XBOX used A-Sync heavily to meet it's fps requirement.

The PC version shipped without it, and an NVIDIA sponsorship, despite also using AMD's GPUOpen to create Pure Hair.
Similar again with Dues Ex Mankind Divided, by the time it launched by DX12 mode the game's fanfare was gone, and the PC Dx12 code was buggy as hell for ages.

Hopefully AMD's partnership with Bethesda bears some amazing fruit in future games.

Nexus18 · 23 May 2017 at 13:26

I wouldn't hold out much hope for future bethesada titles even if working with AMD, it is hilarious how broken their games are on release (with the rare exception i.e. doom) yet somehow they seem to get a pass compared to EA/ubi titles.... :/

Rezident · 23 May 2017 at 13:30

N19h7m4r3 said:
My solution is to get a breakfast roll every week Vega isn't out. I can blame Raja then if I put on a few kilos.

I love it! I might borrow that one

Starting tomorrow morning.

spoffle · 23 May 2017 at 13:32

Chuk_Chuk said:
What about consoles. There is a lot of incentive to optimise there, and if AMD where to incorporate there technology in the consoles then developers would have to use it. All AMD would need to do is aid in porting it over to PC.

edit: Beaten by freddie

What the console version can do doesn't have much bearing on what the PC version will. This is because games aren't "ported". It's not now games development works.

Rroff · 23 May 2017 at 13:40

Steampunk said:
Like with Mantle. Oh wait, that became DX12 and Vulkan, the two main APIs on PC and consoles moving forwards.

Your point? neither DX12 or Vulkan are vendor specific features.

Infact kind of proves my point - Mantle itself went pretty much nowhere while AMD specific and dropped with minimal support by AMD.

humbug · 23 May 2017 at 13:52

Rroff said:
Even then it isn't enough for propitiatory features - a lot of developers don't touch nVidia's specific extensions, etc. the reasons why stuff like GameWorks gets picked up is as much as anything because nVidia will spend time working with developers to implement it - granted AMD struggles with resources in this regard but even so they rarely work with anyone than a hand picked studio like Dice. AMD seem to have this misconception that if they build it people will use it, without them having to do anything more, which most of the time results in their headline tech never being heard of again within 6 months of release.

nVidia never did let AMD inside GamesWorks, its not that AMD don't work with Developers, they do, just as much as nVidia, its simply that where nVidia sponsor a developer they are using nVidia's black-box IP where AMD has no access.

Hell even the Developers didn't get access inside GamesWorks, they had to ask nVidia to go inside when needed.

spoffle · 23 May 2017 at 14:00

Rroff said:
Your point? neither DX12 or Vulkan are vendor specific features.

Infact kind of proves my point - Mantle itself went pretty much nowhere while AMD specific and dropped with minimal support by AMD.

Oh come on. Even you aren't really this disingenuous. Mantle was handed off to the Khronos group, which became Vulkan. I think anyone that actually believes the point of Mantle was to be a vendor specific API is in denial. AMD are very specific about being open standard supportive. They don't do this because they're the good guys, they do it because they understand that it's in their best interests for their long term viability that all and any standards are open.

humbug · 23 May 2017 at 14:04

Roff AMD had always said they wanted Mantle to be multi-vendor, So nVidia, AMD and Intel, the only way that could happen was to give it away to someone representing all Vendors, so that is exactly what they did, they gave it to the Khronos Group at no cost, of which Intel, nVidia and AMD are all board members.

JediFragger · 23 May 2017 at 14:11

humbug said:
they gave it to the Khronos Group at no cost

I think their were a few minute caveats from what I remember, but it was probably AMD just protecting themselves a little.