AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

[D.P.]

Well, lets be honest here. What they really need is to beat a 1080 with a card at 1070 prices. Now that would throw a spanner in the works.

No really, nvidia will then simply lower the 1080 prices to the 1070 point and carry on. nvidia will be in a much better position to do that by the time AMD have anything mid-2017, and that is if nVidia don't already have Volta out by then which looks highly possible.

 

[Kaapstad]

No really, nvidia will then simply lower the 1080 prices to the 1070 point and carry on. nvidia will be in a much better position to do that by the time AMD have anything mid-2017, and that is if nVidia don't already have Volta out by then which looks highly possible.

This ^^^

And the 1080 Ti will finally make an appearance in the 1080s old place in the lineup.

 

[D.P.]

They will probably be wanting to sell off the 1080s at 1070 prices by then regardless of what AMD does or doesn't offer.

 

[Griffildur]

No really, nvidia will then simply lower the 1080 prices to the 1070 point and carry on. nvidia will be in a much better position to do that by the time AMD have anything mid-2017, and that is if nVidia don't already have Volta out by then which looks highly possible.

yup, I expect the same thing. The more time it passes for AMD until they release Vega, the more irrelevant that launch becomes.

 

[Proto]

Not really - sure the 290X betters some of the cards that used to be a fair bit faster, but its pretty long in the tooth now - hardly going to be laughing when you are increasingly going to have to turn settings down a bit or upgrade with newer games.

The way things have been going, I wouldn't be surprised if you end up having to upgrade your 1070 first due to performance levels dropping below the 290X.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Not really - sure the 290X betters some of the cards that used to be a fair bit faster, but its pretty long in the tooth now - hardly going to be laughing when you are increasingly going to have to turn settings down a bit or upgrade with newer games.

Yes really,the GTX780,etc are VRAM gimped and are rubbish in any newer API and you can see how some modern games don't really do that great on a GTX1060 3GB. My GTX660 is Kepler based and the HD7870 derivatives generally have fared better looking at how mates cards have fared.

In most newer games an aftermarket R9 290X or R9 290 will be a better card than the GTX780 and what you don't get is it is about par(or slightly slower) than a RX480 or GTX1060 overall,so that level of performance will developed for. Until the sub £300 cards are massively faster its going to have another year or so at least,maybe more.

People who got aftermarket R9 290 cards for just over £300 around two months after launch are laughing all the way to the bank - people who had GTX780 cards probably will have upgraded by now and spent more money. It was a forward looking card and it will have great longevity. Its a bit all the people denying the HD7950/HD7970 have had great longevity.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Yes really,the GTX780,etc are VRAM gimped and are rubbish in any newer API and you can see how some modern games don't really do that great on a GTX1060 3GB. My GTX660 is Kepler based and the HD7870 derivatives generally have fared better looking at how mates cards have fared.

In most newer games an aftermarket R9 290X or R9 290 will be a better card than the GTX780 and what you don't get is it is about par(or slightly slower) than a RX480 or GTX1060 overall,so that level of performance will developed for. Until the sub £300 cards are massively faster its going to have another year or so at least,maybe more.

People who got aftermarket R9 290 cards for just over £300 around two months after launch are laughing all the way to the bank - people who had GTX780 cards probably will have upgraded by now and spent more money. It was a forward looking card and it will have great longevity. Its a bit all the people denying the HD7950/HD7970 have had great longevity.

+1 People who can't see this are kidding themselves on.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

+1 People who can't see this are kidding themselves on.

Plus if people did a bit of mining on the side,they would have got some more money off the card.

 

[PapaLazaru]

Sold my MSI Gaming 290 in the MM last week for 110. It's the going rate but thinking about what you still get for that money is incredible. Breezes through most modern games still. Ultra on BF1 pretty easily.

 

[Rroff]

The way things have been going, I wouldn't be surprised if you end up having to upgrade your 1070 first due to performance levels dropping below the 290X.

Maybe - but by that time I will have had months if not a couple of years of much faster performance and be onto a new card will those on the 290X or 1070 will be increasingly having to sacrifice visual settings to keep performance steady.

Yes really,the GTX780,etc are VRAM gimped and are rubbish in any newer API and you can see how some modern games don't really do that great on a GTX1060 3GB. My GTX660 is Kepler based and the HD7870 derivatives generally have fared better looking at how mates cards have fared.

In most newer games an aftermarket R9 290X or R9 290 will be a better card than the GTX780 and what you don't get is it is about par(or slightly slower) than a RX480 or GTX1060 overall,so that level of performance will developed for. Until the sub £300 cards are massively faster its going to have another year or so at least,maybe more.

People who got aftermarket R9 290 cards for just over £300 around two months after launch are laughing all the way to the bank - people who had GTX780 cards probably will have upgraded by now and spent more money. It was a forward looking card and it will have great longevity. Its a bit all the people denying the HD7950/HD7970 have had great longevity.

While I don't go crazy with spending on tech stuff, especially these days, money largely isn't a factor versus what I need - I'd rather spend more and get what I need than spend less and end up limping along trying to justify it under the guise of value for money.

(As an aside my 780 GHZ was within +/-6% of the RX480 when I ditched it in pretty much 90+% of games out there the only exception really being Doom with Vulkan which gave the 480 a pretty big boost which isn't really seen (yet) in other games).

For instance Doom:

Spoiler

Left to right being RX480 Vulkan, RX480 Open GL, my 780 Vulkan (lol at Vulkan performance), my 780 Open GL.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

While I don't go crazy with spending on tech stuff, especially these days, money largely isn't a factor versus what I need - I'd rather spend more and get what I need than spend less and end up limping along trying to justify it under the guise of value for money.

Yet,all the people I know who have R9 290 series cards are not limping along?? They can run almost every modern game at decent settings.

Stop making excuses for the fact that Kepler aged poorly - people owning Kepler based cards were the ones limping along,that is why they upgraded. That is why I upgraded.


(As an aside my 780 GHZ was within +/-6% of the RX480 when I ditched it in pretty much 90+% of games out there the only exception really being Doom with Vulkan which gave the 480 a pretty big boost which isn't really seen (yet) in other games).

For instance Doom:

Spoiler

Left to right being RX480 Vulkan, RX480 Open GL, my 780 Vulkan (lol at Vulkan performance), my 780 Open GL.

You keep saying that and hardly any review site agrees with you - even adding another 10% to the GTX780 scores won't change things were Kepler based cards are failing miserably.

That is the thing the GTX780 has done so badly in most modern games you could not even keep any longer. The R9 290 series cards will still be fine in game a year from now,whilst the GTX780 will be rather rubbish.

Give anybody a choice between a GTX780 and a R9 290 today,and most people will take the latter. Then add the fact people could do a bit of mining on the side to make some money,and the GTX780 is just a card with worse longevity and cost more too.

Literally everybody I knows who had a GCN card has kept it longer than a Kepler based one. Another year or two of longevity is a big deal.

Their longevity has not helped AMD one bit as people hang onto the cards whereas Nvidia has more repeat customers.

Edit!!

Also stop trying to twist 3GB as being fine - there are loads of instances where I can show you a GTX1060 3GB is getting beaten in minimums and frametimes by a RX470 4GB or GTX970 4GB.

That is mostly in newer games released THIS YEAR including ROTR.

That means at least another two years over a GTX780,so yeah the GTX780 aged very poorly,since it is increasingly downhill for the GTX780 by now.

I think we need to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Proto]

People who got aftermarket R9 290 cards for just over £300 around two months after launch are laughing all the way to the bank - people who had GTX780 cards probably will have upgraded by now and spent more money. It was a forward looking card and it will have great longevity. Its a bit all the people denying the HD7950/HD7970 have had great longevity.

Yes.

I know someone who bought a 780 a year after I had bought a 7970, and it was around 30% faster. Not long after that, both cards were virtually on par in most newer games.

Now, he's bought a 1070, which is again 30% or so ahead of custom 290X or 390X cards at 1440p according to the latest 1070 review at TPU.

Let's just sit back and watch.

 

[Rroff]

Also stop trying to twist 3GB as being fine - there are loads of instances where I can show you a GTX1060 3GB is getting beaten in minimums and frametimes by a RX470 4GB or GTX970 4GB.

Where did I try to twist 3GB as being fine?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes.

I know someone who bought a 780 a year after I had bought a 7970, and it was around 30% faster. Not long after that, both cards were virtually on par in most newer games.

Now, he's bought a 1070, which is again 30% or so ahead of custom 290X or 390X cards at 1440p according to the latest 1070 review at TPU.

Let's just sit back and watch.

Its not even that - the GTX1060 3GB probably has a slightly faster core than a GTX780 3GB. Yet plenty of games are showing the 3GB of VRAM is an issue in more and more modern games with a GTX1060 and the 6GB version lacks those issues.

This is why a GTX970 or RX470 which are technically slower cores,have ended up with better minimums and better frametimes.

The fact the GTX780 is a 3GB card is bad enough.

Then add the poor Vulkan and DX12 performance which is not helping.

Most reviews also tend to use reference R9 290/R9 290X cards which throttled too,which puts them in a worse case scenario over later cards.

Where did I try to twist 3GB as being fine?

Because the R9 290 series cards have 4GB and you were trying to say they were around same performance and would have the same issues over time. The lack of VRAM on the GTX1060 3GB is the only reason it suffers in certain games than a RX470 or even a GTX970. It was LOL worthy when DF showed how a RX470 50% better minimums in ROTR in certain scenes in a Nvidia sponsored game. Then you had pclab.pl who tend to favour Nvidia saying to just get a RX470 since they found issues in games with only 3GB of VRAM. Loads of sites have said the same. The GTX780 only has 3GB VRAM,the R9 290 series has 4GB,so just the VRAM is enough to make a longer lived card which can provide playable experiences in many games at decent settings. Its getting worse and worse now.

Add the fact even Vulkan runs better on it and the whole thing of the PS4 and XBox One having GCN1.1 GPUs too,or the fact Polaris is technically the same uarch as those GPUs in terms of coding too.

The R9 290 series has in fact lasted too long which probably has not helped AMD sell more cards. If AMD had not ***** the launch up so much,it would have been considered in a much more positive light.

Edit!!

Thats the thing - somebody who bought an aftermarket R9 290 in early 2014 for just over £300,would have had nearly three years use out of it. The best cards under £300 now are not massively faster overall.

That means it will be still fine for the next year or so or a bit longer. There are people with R9 390 cards who still bought them this year(as were people buying the GTX970 too).

So millions of enthusiasts will still be on GTX970/R9 290/R9 390/GTX1060/RX470/RX480 level performance. Most of those cards will be a nice target for devs.

So,perhaps 4 years of reasonably decent gaming out of a £300 to £350 card?? Think that is not bad at all. Probably not so good for AMD financials though.

 

[Rroff]

Because the R9 290 series cards have 4GB and you were trying to say they were around same performance and would have the same issues over time. The lack of VRAM on the GTX1060 3GB is the only reason it suffers in certain games than a RX470 or even a GTX970. It was LOL worthy when DF showed how a RX470 50% better minimums in ROTR in certain scenes in a Nvidia sponsored game. Then you had pclab.pl who tend to favour Nvidia saying to just get a RX470 since they found issues in games with only 3GB of VRAM. Loads of sites have said the same. The GTX780 only has 3GB VRAM,the R9 290 series has 4GB,so just the VRAM is enough to make a longer lived card which can provide playable experiences in many games at decent settings. Add the fact even Vulkan runs better on it and the whole thing of the PS4 and XBox One having GCN1.1 GPUs too,or the fact Polaris is technically the same uarch as those GPUs in terms of coding too.

The R9 290 series has in fact lasted too long which probably has not helped AMD sell more cards.

You are reading way too much into what I'm saying that isn't even intended. I several times cited the limitations of 3GB VRAM as one of the bigger reasons I upgraded to the 1070.

You seem to be going to massive lengths in your head to justify to yourself the relevance of the 290?

 

[Steampunk]

The R9 290 series has in fact lasted too long which probably has not helped AMD sell more cards. If AMD had not ***** the launch up so much,it would have been considered in a much more positive light.

They did that because AMD like to support their partners (unlike Nvidia who are happy to eat their partners' lunches). AMD launched the basic card, with a standard cooler good for crossfire or mining, but still left better coolers and higher speeds to the AIBs so they could differentiate themselves, make some money and stay in business.

R290/X would have a better rep if the launch reviews used the partner cards launched a couple of months later, as they all has better performance out of the box.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You are reading way too much into what I'm saying that isn't even intended. I several times cited the limitations of 3GB VRAM as one of the bigger reasons I upgraded to the 1070.

You seem to be going to massive lengths in your head to justify to yourself the relevance of the 290?

You are going to massive lengths to justify to yourself the relevance of the GTX780 - yet it has rubbish new gen API performance,is VRAM gimped,etc.

You are always trying to equate the GTX780 as being the same as the R9 290,and if the GTX780 can't run most games(outside DX12 and Vulkan)neither can the R9 290.

Yet,that is a false equivalance - most of the games I am talking about are DX11,and yet if a GTX1060 3GB gets beaten by slower RX470 and GTX970 cards with more VRAM,where does that leave the GTX780 3GB against the R9 290 4GB,then in the same games??

The R9 290 is a forward looking card,far more than the GTX780 is,and it has more VRAM to boot too.

The R9 290 is still relevant,the GTX780 is not. No dev is going to care for the latter in any sort of way - it sucks in modern APIs and it has very little VRAM.

Nobody needs to justify the relevance of the R9 290 series anymore - you are the only person trying to justify their irrelevance.

Edit!!

The longevity has been good for customers but probably not so good for AMD.

Not even their fancy new Fury cards were considered a good enough upgrade over a R9 290/R9 390 series cards.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

They did that because AMD like to support their partners (unlike Nvidia who are happy to eat their partners' lunches). AMD launched the basic card, with a standard cooler good for crossfire or mining, but still left better coolers and higher speeds to the AIBs so they could differentiate themselves, make some money and stay in business.

R290/X would have a better rep if the launch reviews used the partner cards launched a couple of months later, as they all has better performance out of the box.

Yeah,but they failed since Nvidia exploited the craptastic cooler by seeding reference models to review sites and telling them the quiet mode throttled.

They should have either have never implemented the quiet mode,or just used the same noisy fan and plonked a bigger heatsink and charged £20 more.

Even that way the aftermarket cards would have looked better.

If AMD launches Vega with another craptastic reference cooler,it can beat a GTX1080 for £400 and still be a failed launch.

Edit!!

Thats the thing - we can all make the criticisms we make of Nvidia products,but the launches and reference models seem more polished than what AMD does,and it worries me with Vega they will do some stupid thing which Nvidia will exploit.

Trying out an FE GTX1080 here,and despite the criticisms about it,the cooler is actually is pretty reasonable IMHO. I think it is very expensive for what it is,but overall its a nice product.

 

[Rroff]

You are going to massive lengths to justify to yourself the relevance of the GTX780 - yet it has rubbish new gen API performance,is VRAM gimped,etc.

You are always trying to equate the GTX780 as being the same as the R9 290,and if the GTX780 can't run most games(outside DX12 and Vulkan)neither can the R9 290.

Yet,that is a false equivalance - most of the games I am talking about are DX11,and yet if a GTX1060 3GB gets beaten by slower RX470 and GTX970 cards with more VRAM,where does that leave the GTX780 3GB against the R9 290 4GB,then in the same games??

The R9 290 is a forward looking card,far more than the GTX780 is,and it has more VRAM to boot too.

The R9 290 is still relevant,the GTX780 is not. No dev is going to care for the latter in any sort of way - it sucks in modern APIs and it has very little VRAM.

Nobody needs to justify the relevance of the R9 290 series anymore - you are the only person trying to justify their irrelevance.

Edit!!

The longevity has been good for customers but probably not so good for AMD.

Not even their fancy new Fury cards were considered a good enough upgrade over a R9 290/R9 390 series cards.

Yup - again massive long post largely missing the point of what I've said - definitely trying to justify something to yourself.

 

[Ian Evey]

Love my 780, after nearly 3 years of use and it still plays everything I want to play superbly on windows 8.1.