Yes, then I suppose the numbers are best case scenario.
In which case this card must be priced properly otherwise given its inferior to a 2080 otherwise sales will be few and far between.
-
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.
Radeon VII
- Thread starter DragonQ
- Start date
In which case this card must be priced properly otherwise given its inferior to a 2080 otherwise sales will be few and far between.
Soldato
I wonder if this is more about appearing competitive than actually being so, whilst waiting for Navi to get out the door?
If its as good as rtx2080 then they are being competitive not appearing to be. If not then its a bit of a pointless release.
Soldato
Pointless because I am assuming this isn't really making AMD any real money. If it can't match a 2080 then it's gonna be in trouble. If it isn't making much profit, then they HAD to justify making this for some reason. I am guessing that they did so to stop potential 2080 sales, and for investors so they could say they have a product out there.
You think otherwise? To me this is really trying to stretch the architecture.
You think otherwise? To me this is really trying to stretch the architecture.
It just seems to be chips they have that they may as well sell. If its a viable card and brings them upto 2080 performance then people cant play the "amd aren't competing" card anymore. It's over 18 months since they launched a high end card, though i would have prefered to see this coming sometimes last year, though that's all down to 7nm yields i would suspect. Really all comes down to performance, if it is on par with 2080 then its a good release, if not then imo its a waste of time.
They've really been stretching gcn for the last few years now, just about every release people see 64 rops and groan as that's seemingly the limit of what the architecture is capable of supporting and one area nvidia have a large edge, they've went as high as 96 on pascal and 96 on turing.
It has to be said though people were on the moan about wanting a 7nm Vega and amd have delivered, whether that was the plan or not i've no idea.
Indeed- I think I want one anyway, perhaps I'll be one of the few people that buy.
We don't know at this point if it is "inferior" or not, just have to wait for reviews to see.
To some extent yes but we have AMD’s own suggested performance at the Euro Gamer benchmarks to work from for now.
Associate
I think I will go with AMD this time around, last time I bought a pascal titan only to see the titan XP released soon after. And I refuse to Pay NV tax this time. I fancy a go with the new Vega card! if equal to
a 2080 will be good enough for me.
a 2080 will be good enough for me.
This was my thinking also and if it can trade blows with a 2080 i will probably give it a shot.
Same here. as I said earlier AMD has better Linux support so I'm going to grab one provided the performance is very close to or better than the 2080. My excuse is that I need to change the fluid in my loop so I may as well upgrade while I've got it drained 
At least that's how I'm justifying it to myself.
At least that's how I'm justifying it to myself.Let’s hope AMD aren’t being optimistic. Say it does match a 2080 though it must be cheaper given it doesn’t have the additional tech, efficiency, lower power consumption etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,150
The 2080 only has 8gb Vram. I would take the 16gb Vram with a little more power usage, the extra tech on the 2080 is pretty much a gimmick especially if you game at high resolution.
I know what your saying reference the newer tech, I don’t rate it myself but would rather take it (for free!). The 16GB is by accident though and certainly not design. These are salvaged cards that would only have been binned and 16GB would not have been AMD’s starting point for what let’s face it is 2 year old Performance.
My own Vega 56 really benefits from vram oc moreso than clockspeed. Ironically it’s the 16GB that I think gives these cards the additional performance over vega 64.
Lets face it, right now the "newer tech" is an overblown gimmick that is years away from being mainstream. You'll get a few games supporting it obviously but for the here and now it's nothing special in any way.
Vii around the same power as a vega 64 so could likely be tweaked down a bit. Even then the consumption is the absolute max it can pull, i'd doubt it would normally get near that. My vega strix at 1440p according to wattman it's usually in the 150w range or thereabouts.
I agree, but i still severely doubt native 4k 60fps for graphically demanding games will consistently be on the horizon.
I'd love to be proven wrong though.
I feel the PC gaming advantage will never go. Being able to 4k/60FPS ANY game from your backlog, mod games to oblivion and back (Skyrim VR thanks to modding is endless and beautiful), ENB support for graphic-whores etc. I think where consoles really shine is what they can offer which a PC can't such as the Nintendo Switch.
Is it worth the money over a PS5? No. But is a gaming PC better value than a PS4? Clearly no but they're still selling because the best experience seems to be on the PC.
I think once Sony open up more native studios and offer more awesome exclusives, along with Nintendo's commitment to doing the same; we could see PC gaming struggle.
I dont think it is to be honest as the FE performs bang on the vega 64 and all that is, is a vega 64 with 16gb
If it is close to the RTX2080 and is not a room heater in disguise then I probably will get one. I am going to get a 4k LG 27" monitor for photo and video work when they come into stock so will need something with a bit more grunt than my current GTX 1080.