AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[Dave2150]

+1



Hey this is AMD NOT Nvidia



I actually don't think they will do that. Not for a good while anyway. Don't go tarring AMD with Nvidia's brush. AMD have always supported older cards far, far better than Nvidia ever have.

If they go down that route then you can get yer tar and yer brush out and I will say fair cop....but until then....@ £249 in the Black Friday sale it is the best bang for buck card out there.

I luvs my Fury, I does. It has served me well and is going great guns at the moment

Money has been saved though and a weary eye on Vega is being kept. Fingers crossed for AMD and a good competitive card in 2017.

I wouldn't buy a Fury for £250 at this point in time - although it provides the most power for the money it will be a short lived investment IMO. More and more games will use more memory, since NVIDIA command such a massive market share the developers will increase VRAM usage, as NVIDIA sadly leads the way.

I've had m 1070 since June, I'll be getting Vega on release and selling on my 1070. It will still be worth £250+, whilst if I had bought a Fury, I'm guessing they will be £150 ish second hand by then.

 

[TheMorningStar]

HBM on Fury cards should have given them a massive start in memory optimizations, probably why they got it out there in the first place and it should carry over, not only to HBM2 but other wide bandwidth memory technologies. And while these optimizations will be fairly redundant on 8gb cards, as we are likely to get it will pay off on HBM APUs. I imagine that it's more than data size also, processing efficiency, manufacturing efficiency etc

 

[Bonjour]

I wouldn't buy a Fury for £250 at this point in time - although it provides the most power for the money it will be a short lived investment IMO. More and more games will use more memory, since NVIDIA command such a massive market share the developers will increase VRAM usage, as NVIDIA sadly leads the way.

I've had m 1070 since June, I'll be getting Vega on release and selling on my 1070. It will still be worth £250+, whilst if I had bought a Fury, I'm guessing they will be £150 ish second hand by then.

Still losing roughly the same amount of £100 on each.

 

[nashathedog]

I wouldn't buy a Fury for £250 at this point in time - although it provides the most power for the money it will be a short lived investment IMO. More and more games will use more memory, since NVIDIA command such a massive market share the developers will increase VRAM usage, as NVIDIA sadly leads the way.

I've had my 1070 since June, I'll be getting Vega on release and selling on my 1070. It will still be worth £250+, whilst if I had bought a Fury, I'm guessing they will be £150 ish second hand by then.

I've had my Fury Tri-x for just over a year, It cost me 440 pounds which at this point is the most I've spent on a card, Through out it's life it's been a cool and quiet card and the drivers have been excellent. There has been some issues but AMD's driver team have worked hard for the Fiji range, The 4gb limit has been a non issue with just one or two games demanding more than it has and the fix being to drop the texture setting one which has had a negligible effect on the visuals. I'll buy Vega because the Fury pro has been a good card, I haven't worried about the loss I might take when selling on because that's part of the game and it has already more than paid for itself.

 

[old gamer]

I've had my Fury Tri-x for just over a year, It cost me 440 pounds which at this point is the most I've spent on a card, Through out it's life it's been a cool and quiet card and the drivers have been excellent. There has been some issues but AMD's driver team have worked hard for the Fiji range, The 4gb limit has been a non issue with just one or two games demanding more than it has and the fix being to drop the texture setting one which has had a negligible effect on the visuals. I'll buy Vega because the Fury pro has been a good card, I haven't worried about the loss I might take when selling on because that's part of the game and it has already more than paid for itself.

same here the fury tri x has done a pretty decent job but when vega comes and its only worth about £100 on mm i might just keep it as a spare

 

[SiDeards73]

same here the fury tri x has done a pretty decent job but when vega comes and its only worth about £100 on mm i might just keep it as a spare

I intend on giving my 8yr old and 5yr old boys my i7 4770k and a 290 to play minecraft with once Zen and Vega come, the resale on the parts wouldnt be great, all i need to buy them in a case to house it all and they will have a perfectly fine PC for gaming for a few years.

 

[nashathedog]

same here the fury tri x has done a pretty decent job but when vega comes and its only worth about £100 on mm i might just keep it as a spare

I'm thinking that too although I'm also thinking about making a separate racing sim set up so I may keep my current 4790k and Fury build for that as I'm hoping to go ITX next.

 

[Geck0]

I wouldn't buy a Fury for £250 at this point in time - although it provides the most power for the money it will be a short lived investment IMO. More and more games will use more memory, since NVIDIA command such a massive market share the developers will increase VRAM usage, as NVIDIA sadly leads the way.

I've had m 1070 since June, I'll be getting Vega on release and selling on my 1070. It will still be worth £250+, whilst if I had bought a Fury, I'm guessing they will be £150 ish second hand by then.

Not really. AMD in the x86 ecosystem (PC & console) currently represent 57% of the overall GPU market http://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/57-per-cent-gamers-on-radeon This being the case most new titles are being coded primarily for GCN on console & ported to PC. This is only going to amplify going forward.

AMD arch is always forward looking, nVidia are the grasshopper to the ant in this respect. To say nVidia current (or any) ach outlasts AMD is patently and proven false.

AMD have captured the ecosystem, as it were. It's all downhill from here in PC gaming for nVidia unless they change direction in a hurry.

 

[Besty]

i am gonna go for a full launch of zen at ces with a guest appearance from vega but not a full launch announcement.

and yes the excitement about both products is palpable.

 

[JediFragger]

AMD have captured the ecosystem, as it were. It's all downhill from here in PC gaming for nVidia unless they change direction in a hurry.

I might have dreamt it but I'm sure I read 5/6 months back that Volta has a lot of GCN influences. May be why.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

deleted

 

[Dave2150]

Not really. AMD in the x86 ecosystem (PC & console) currently represent 57% of the overall GPU market http://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/57-per-cent-gamers-on-radeon This being the case most new titles are being coded primarily for GCN on console & ported to PC. This is only going to amplify going forward.

AMD arch is always forward looking, nVidia are the grasshopper to the ant in this respect. To say nVidia current (or any) ach outlasts AMD is patently and proven false.

AMD have captured the ecosystem, as it were. It's all downhill from here in PC gaming for nVidia unless they change direction in a hurry.

I think Fury's 4GB of VRAM will prevent it from 'outlasting' much at all. There's very little AMD can do as games continue to increase VRAM usage.

 

[Rroff]

AMD said they were actively managing the VRAM on the Fury cards IIRC.

Yeah but ultimately it still comes up against the PCI-e bus, etc. brickwall - TBH having some idea of what goes on behind the scenes in this regard I'm surprised at the support and how relatively little issues they've managed to get away with with the FX and its memory management to be fair they've done pretty well on that aspect so far - not without issues though if you watch a benchmark of a game with settings that can push 4+GB that has say a boss that teleports in with a lot of graphical effects you can see some microstutter in the frametimes for the HBM cards as it shuffles data around to accommodate that, etc. partly made worse because it seems that AMD's shader caching isn't as mature as nVidia's system.

 

[D.P.]

Yeah but ultimately it still comes up against the PCI-e bus, etc. brickwall - TBH having some idea of what goes on behind the scenes in this regard I'm surprised at the support and how relatively little issues they've managed to get away with with the FX and its memory management to be fair they've done pretty well on that aspect so far - not without issues though if you watch a benchmark of a game with settings that can push 4+GB that has say a boss that teleports in with a lot of graphical effects you can see some microstutter in the frametimes for the HBM cards as it shuffles data around to accommodate that, etc. partly made worse because it seems that AMD's shader caching isn't as mature as nVidia's system.

AMD partly get away with it because most review sites don't investigate stutter in detail, and in these kinds of scenarios the stutter is going to be sporadic. As you, a big boss suddenly appears and load of new assets need loading then you get stutter.

 

[maonayze]

I've had my Fury Tri-x for just over a year, It cost me 440 pounds which at this point is the most I've spent on a card, Through out it's life it's been a cool and quiet card and the drivers have been excellent. There has been some issues but AMD's driver team have worked hard for the Fiji range, The 4gb limit has been a non issue with just one or two games demanding more than it has and the fix being to drop the texture setting one which has had a negligible effect on the visuals. I'll buy Vega because the Fury pro has been a good card, I haven't worried about the loss I might take when selling on because that's part of the game and it has already more than paid for itself.

+1 from me. I am in agreement. The card has never let me down and in my new build it is as quiet as...a very quiet person. Same with the 4GB HBM, only one game (ROTTR) gave me problems and I dropped it down a notch and all was good with hardly any degradation at all in IQ. I always take a loss on my GFX cards because my boy always gets a free upgrade...but he is on 1080P and the Tri-X will last him quite a while, so not too bad.

same here the fury tri x has done a pretty decent job but when vega comes and its only worth about £100 on mm i might just keep it as a spare

Good Idea....good to have a spare just in case

I intend on giving my 8yr old and 5yr old boys my i7 4770k and a 290 to play minecraft with once Zen and Vega come, the resale on the parts wouldnt be great, all i need to buy them in a case to house it all and they will have a perfectly fine PC for gaming for a few years.

That's just how my lad started and it's good to put the slightly older tech to good use. I have money originally saved for a Vive, but never got around to it due to there being no real killer games for it (Okay Elite and Project Cars and a few others but not enough to get me to shell out £800), so I am waiting for Vega and hoping it will compete with Nvidia's current offerings and with fingers tightly crossed will give the 1080/Ti a run for its money.

 

[Gerard]

Probably about as far as it does for GDDR5 and GDDR5X based cards.

This is something I would think that all drivers do from both vendors.

There are plenty of 4gb Hawaii cards out there, does their memory need hand tuning for individual games too?

Well with they way they were talking about being able to move data around on hbm presumably it was a fiji only thing.

 

[Seanspeed]

So is that a limitation of HBM or of the Fiji Architecture do you think? im starting to wonder what actual advantage HBM will have for a GPU? it cant really be OC'd, and it does not appear to be any better than GDDR? its a lot more expensive? what actual benefit does it have?

No idea what Kaapstad is talking about there.

HBM's advantage is bandwidth, size-on-card and lower power primarily. Three things that will absolutely make an impact. Fiji's 4GB limitation and inclusion on a card that was really only ever great for 1440p at best kind of put it in a position of not being able to show off HBM's capabilities too much. HBM2 plus a far more powerful card(Vega 10/11) should really paint a strong picture. Especially with games really starting to push into the 6GB+ area of vRAM requirements even at 1080p. HBM2-equipped cards should be able to just basically handle that like a fire hose scrubbing off crumbs on a plate.

And of course the board size and power saving benefits that help in terms of form factor and thermal limitations.

 

[AllBodies]

No idea what Kaapstad is talking about there.

From what I've read of Kaapstad's posts on the matter, he's of the belief HBM is inferior to GDDR5/X at similar GB/s bandwidth because the clockspeed is low, which presumably in theory makes the latency higher.

i.e.

• GDDR5X could give 640 GB/s at low latency with 512-bit interface and 10 GHz
• HBM2 could give 640 GB/s at high latency at 4096-bit interface and 1250 MHz

Whether this is true or not is speculation for all I know.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

http://en.yibada.com/articles/174013/20161117/amd-radeon-rx-490-feature-vega-10-gpu-release-slated.htm

 

[Bonjour]

...which will have the capability to speed up recent gaming up to 60 frames per second at 1080p resolution.

Sold