• 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.
Looks to be shaping up to be a nice card. This could be worthy enough to replace my GTX 1070 when the times comes.

Might go Zen as well and ditch my 6700K setup, was gonna go 7700K but initial benchmarks just show it's a renamed 6700K with an overclock.

Could be first all AMD build in years.
 
Boomstick777 said:
Looks to be shaping up to be a nice card. This could be worthy enough to replace my GTX 1070 when the times comes.

Might go Zen as well and ditch my 6700K setup, was gonna go 7700K but initial benchmarks just show it's a renamed 6700K with an overclock.

Could be first all AMD build in years.
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward to the prospect too, I was running a Phenom quad core for ages, Then I eventually moved on to an Ivy i5 so it'd be nice to go 8 core Zen and big Vega early next year.
 
Well an extra 4GB of RAM would be helpful in higher resolutions. It's also two generations newer architecturally than the Fury X which in theory would help the newer card use it's resources more efficiently.
 
FredFlint said:
If the spec is correct it just looks like a FuryX with an extra 4GB RAM and a small clock speed bump. It need to be 50% faster to be a good upgrade.
Click to expand...

Agree it needs to be much faster, but bear in mind the GTX 1080 is only ~35% faster averaged across a lot of games.

And the Fury X was MASSIVELY bottlenecked in its design. There's a lot of potential for it to be substantially faster, even if it still ran at 1000 MHz with 512 GB/s memory Bandwidth.

If it's going to run at 1200-1400 MHz, and have a tad more bandwidth, plus better memory compression, plus a lot of its bottlenecks sorted, it could be monstrous. (hopefully...)
 
AllBodies said:
Agree it needs to be much faster, but bear in mind the GTX 1080 is only ~35% faster averaged across a lot of games.

And the Fury X was MASSIVELY bottlenecked in its design. There's a lot of potential for it to be substantially faster, even if it still ran at 1000 MHz with 512 GB/s memory Bandwidth.

If it's going to run at 1200-1400 MHz, and have a tad more bandwidth, plus better memory compression, plus a lot of its bottlenecks sorted, it could be monstrous. (hopefully...)
Click to expand...

Yea when Fury X is used to it's proper potential in games like Doom and some other dx12 games it's pretty fast. A vastly improved version could do some damage.

It's a wait and see as usual. I am optimistic but history has shown me as of late to be a little less when it comes to the latest AMD releases. The share price going up has me thinking AMD have some decent offerings coming our way in both Gpu/Cpu form.
 
Does not really matter how good team reds hardware/software is when you have idiots buying a worse green(im not saying every green deal is bad btw) deal because a friend of a friends mom's onkel said it was the best thing since sliced bread and the same goes for some "enthusiasts" who are so stuck in the past and running around screaming from the roof tops that drivers are better on the green team yet havent owned a red card in ages.. but the internet says so ..so must be true then.
 
Phixsator said:
Does not really matter how good team reds hardware/software is when you have idiots buying a worse green(im not saying every green deal is bad btw) deal because a friend of a friends mom's onkel said it was the best thing since sliced bread and the same goes for some "enthusiasts" who are so stuck in the past and running around screaming from the roof tops that drivers are better on the green team yet havent owned a red card in ages.. but the internet says so ..so must be true then.
Click to expand...

This is why AMD can't afford no more screw up's at launch and with drivers. To over come this stigma they need to be great in every area. It's a long road they have but it's not an impossible one if they get things right.
 
Phixsator said:
Does not really matter how good team reds hardware/software is when you have idiots buying a worse green(im not saying every green deal is bad btw) deal because a friend of a friends mom's onkel said it was the best thing since sliced bread and the same goes for some "enthusiasts" who are so stuck in the past and running around screaming from the roof tops that drivers are better on the green team yet havent owned a red card in ages.. but the internet says so ..so must be true then.
Click to expand...

Tends to be down to how well promoted nVidia are. They are like Apple in this regard and the amount of people that buy Macs because they think they are the better computer or laptop for everything such as gaming, editing etc astounds me. But they buy a mac because well its apple and its a mac with a pricetag.

AMD dont seem to be as well advertised as a company nor with thier hardware which is why i think they are let down a lot. Along with what you have said with the masses just saying AMD are bad drivers are crap and hardware sucks because i had a card years ago that was poo. Nvidia Rule. Seems to be the general consensus and ppl just buy green.
 
r7slayer said:
Tends to be down to how well promoted nVidia are. They are like Apple in this regard and the amount of people that buy Macs because they think they are the better computer or laptop for everything such as gaming, editing etc astounds me. But they buy a mac because well its apple and its a mac with a pricetag.
Click to expand...

That's a comparison that I've read a lot lately, expecially on this forum, but the logic is very faulty.

In general, people who buy Macs do so because OS X is a significantly different user experience to Windows, and they like it better, not because they believe they're getting a more capable computer.

In the same tier, you don't get a noticeably different user experience whether you buy an AMD or an Nvidia card. The end results are effectively identical, but the vast majority will spend more and buy Nvidia because "Nvidia are better".
 
gthlm said:
That's a comparison that I've read a lot lately, expecially on this forum, but the logic is very faulty.

In general, people who buy Macs do so because OS X is a significantly different user experience to Windows, and they like it better, not because they believe they're getting a more capable computer.

In the same tier, you don't get a noticeably different user experience whether you buy an AMD or an Nvidia card. The end results are effectively identical, but the vast majority will spend more and buy Nvidia because "Nvidia are better".
Click to expand...

So why is it that when you ask some one who owns a mac why you spent significantly more money on a less powerful machine they tend to stop and pause and answer "erm i just like it more or get because its better". Then you ask them how it's better... I don't need to answer this part. Same for iphones, ipads etc. Then i get "because they are easier to use..." But i never found windows nor android difficult as alternative options. I very very rarely find they buy a mac because of a different user experience because a lot have never tried android nor linux for example so this theory doesn't float for me.
 
r7slayer said:
So why is it that when you ask some one who owns a mac why you spent significantly more money on a less powerful machine they tend to stop and pause and answer "erm i just like it more or get because its better". Then you ask them how it's better... I don't need to answer this part. Same for iphones, ipads etc. Then i get "because they are easier to use..." But i never found windows nor android difficult as alternative options. I very very rarely find they buy a mac because of a different user experience because a lot have never tried android nor linux for example so this theory doesn't float for me.
Click to expand...

You're kind of missing my point. Preference of OS is pretty subjective - it's difficult to explain why you like one over the other in much the same way that most people would struggle to explain why they like red more than blue, for example. So you get meaningless answers when you ask.

The point is that for better worse it's objectively different, and people will make a purchasing decision based on the perceived difference.

AMD vs. Nvidia; where is the difference? Without pedantically fussing over negligible differences in fps/watts/decibels, you see the exact same thing on your screen, everything functions identically and so on and so forth.
 
gthlm said:
You're kind of missing my point. Preference of OS is pretty subjective - it's difficult to explain why you like one over the other in much the same way that most people would struggle to explain why they like red more than blue, for example. So you get meaningless answers when you ask.

The point is that for better worse it's objectively different, and people will make a purchasing decision based on the perceived difference.

AMD vs. Nvidia; where is the difference? Without pedantically fussing over negligible differences in fps/watts/decibels, you see the exact same thing on your screen, everything functions identically and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...


No i see it as people prefer gold because we are all made to believe gold is a better metal to wear as jewellery than copper or aluminium or silver for example. If you asked why do you prefer gold over copper people would look at you funny and say well because its better and looks better etc. Just like everyone is made to believe nVidia is the better option because they have better drivers and hardware which infact is very easily debatable at times.
970 for example or drivers which sent people's including my own computer into boot loops.
But people shrugged off the 970 problem or hardware issue because they didn't notice it or because it got sort of fixed in a driver update. And the 970 sold in droves. But did that make the hardware better than a 390 or 390x? Nope.
It's because nVidia is better advertised just like apple is. People just think its the better option as that is what they are led to believe and when you own something and like it you tend to defend it.
 
iBSOD said:
Rx490, gtx 1080 perf for £500

please :D
Click to expand...

D1craig said:
This late in the game it needs to be closer to 1070 price with 1080 performance because we know nvidia will release a 1080ti not long after
Click to expand...

Yeah considering the release date, they need to be targeting Titan XP performance for £500-550.

And GTX 1080 performance for £350-400.

And let's not forget how many people were saying "hurr durr you'll never get 980 Ti/Titan X performance for less than £400", and then the GTX 1070 came out. As time goes on, performance has to get cheaper.
 
Last edited:
D1craig said:
This late in the game it needs to be closer to 1070 price with 1080 performance because we know nvidia will release a 1080ti not long after
Click to expand...

Why? YOU still going to buy an 1080Ti. You just expect AMD to take the financial hit so you can buy the NV cheaper?
No.

If Vega actually is as powerful as stated above at 9.8Gflop it should be priced accordingly at 650-700. Cheaper than the competition, but no that cheap for company not to make money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom