Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[Boomstick777]

AMD really haven't hyped Vega at all, its been shown off a few times but as usual most of the hype has been on forums with people with totally OTT expectations. Couple this with click-bait "tech" sites throwing manufactured rumours in either direction so they can point to the times their made up bs was vaguely close to the mark and conveniently ignore the stuff that was totally wrong.

Its always the way with video card launches, usually with amd, rumours early in a thread turn into "but amd said" later in the thread like it was set in stone directly from the ceo. I just prefer to wait on review day and see what the story is, not as if i'll be upgrading anytime soon anyway

I like nice and sensible posts like this one ^^.

We all knew it wouldn't be long before certain member's of the green team massive get...

I will just do what I normally do and buy from whichever team has the fastest card and try my best to ignore the fanboy posts from either camp xD

Also I need a new PSU !!

 

[Angilion]

AMD really haven't hyped Vega at all, its been shown off a few times but as usual most of the hype has been on forums with people with totally OTT expectations. Couple this with click-bait "tech" sites throwing manufactured rumours in either direction so they can point to the times their made up bs was vaguely close to the mark and conveniently ignore the stuff that was totally wrong.

Its always the way with video card launches, usually with amd, rumours early in a thread turn into "but amd said" later in the thread like it was set in stone directly from the ceo. I just prefer to wait on review day and see what the story is, not as if i'll be upgrading anytime soon anyway

Vega has been officially released. It's not supposed to be a rumour now.

Also, AMD have been hyping it. Forums and clickbait sites have been hyping it a lot more, but AMD have been hyping it.

 

[akarypid]

Again...

This is my favorite part...

 

[Nexus18]

Sorry but if you look at the guys posting history, he is a "pro"...... anyone that is capable of:

- installing, running programs like cpuz, gpuz, benchmarks
- actively takes part in talking about benchmark comparisons
- building his own machine with pretty good parts (i7 4790k, m.2 256GB)
- knows about AMD vega FE and is even happy enough to pay that kind of money for it
- looks to be involved in shares/stock trading for nvidia/AMD

Is more than qualified to post benchmarks, images/screen caps. It isn't rocket science.


As for AMD and hype, the only thing that I would say they have done so far is the "poor volta" PR poster.

 

[DragonQ]

Would you want someone hot lapping your new sports car if he was not a capable driver and showing it off to be much slower than it is for your first impressions. The guy got so many things wrong. The majority on here would have done a much better job. He seem already to have done damage and if i was in charge of a multi billion dollar company i would be doing everything possible to stop him. If it turns out his benchmarks are on the money then fair enough. Atm it looks like he was a novice.

It doesn't matter what I would want, it matters what legal right I'd have to stop him. He bought the card, he signed no NDA, he can do what he wants. It's possible that AMD asked him to stop, or even gave him a sweetener to do so, but I can't see how they could threaten him.

 

[Davedree]

Ahh ok. Anyhow as i have posted before it makes no sense that Fury X running lower clocks is faster. I find it hard to believe that Vega is a step back.

I read your posts of fury ln2 1400mhz overclock and firestrike extreme graphics scores. But really you need to compare this vega posters 1080p results.

In our leaderboard firestrike 1080p
The fury at around 1100-1200mhz gets a graphics score around 18k. In comparison to that vega poster he was getting 23k. I've seen fury at 1400mhz getting around 22-23k but these results are just bench results on ln2. As we all know the variables affecting the graphics score result If there isn't a driver or scheduling issue then i'd say there's 25k potential.
And at 23k it's where i'd expect a 4096 shader vega to be.

Also I can agree with your demonstration of frequency scaling of a fury on ln2 vs vega and extrapolating where vega should be. But fury and tonga had a hard oc limit at 1150-1200mhz. Amd will of course then compare stock clocks to make the vega % increase look better.

Let's hope amd's front end improvements aren't just

 

[DragonQ]

I read your posts of fury ln2 1400mhz overclock and firestrike extreme graphics scores. But really you need to compare this vega posters 1080p results.

In our leaderboard firestrike 1080p
The fury at around 1100-1200mhz gets a graphics score around 18k. In comparison to that vega poster he was getting 23k. I've seen fury at 1400mhz getting around 22-23k but these results are just bench results on ln2. As we all know the variables affecting the graphics score result If there isn't a driver or scheduling issue then i'd say there's 25k potential.
And at 23k it's where i'd expect a 4096 shader vega to be.

Also I can agree with your demonstration of frequency scaling of a fury on ln2 vs vega and extrapolating where vega should be. But fury and tonga had a hard oc limit at 1150-1200mhz. Amd will of course then compare stock clocks to make the vega % increase look better.

Let's hope amd's front end improvements aren't just

Exactly, we have to hope these numbers are off, otherwise it's potentially no faster, or even slower, than a Fury at the same clocks.

 

[Toss3]

I read your posts of fury ln2 1400mhz overclock and firestrike extreme graphics scores. But really you need to compare this vega posters 1080p results.

In our leaderboard firestrike 1080p
The fury at around 1100-1200mhz gets a graphics score around 18k. In comparison to that vega poster he was getting 23k. I've seen fury at 1400mhz getting around 22-23k but these results are just bench results on ln2. As we all know the variables affecting the graphics score result If there isn't a driver or scheduling issue then i'd say there's 25k potential.
And at 23k it's where i'd expect a 4096 shader vega to be.

Also I can agree with your demonstration of frequency scaling of a fury on ln2 vs vega and extrapolating where vega should be. But fury and tonga had a hard oc limit at 1150-1200mhz. Amd will of course then compare stock clocks to make the vega % increase look better.

Let's hope amd's front end improvements aren't just

If the Fury clocked at 1400 scores 22-23k then why would you expect a newer/better architecture to perform the same at the same clocks? Shows 0 improvement over fury. Either AMD haven't had time to optimize the architecture for 3dmark yet, or Vega is a real stinker.

 

[Gregster]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

 

[Zeebedy]

I just hope the prices are competitive, if they are saying 1080 ish performance for RX VEGA surely the will be in the 450-550 pound price bracket??

 

[Zeebedy]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

for me yeah, thats why i sold my 1070, plus, the freesync compatibility.

 

[Davedree]

Exactly, we have to hope these numbers are off, otherwise it's potentially no faster, or even slower, than a Fury at the same clocks.

If the Fury clocked at 1400 scores 22-23k then why would you expect a newer/better architecture to perform the same at the same clocks? Shows 0 improvement over fury. Either AMD haven't had time to optimize the architecture for 3dmark yet, or Vega is a real stinker.

I can't answer much except that it worries me too, either performance isn't there and power consumption is terrible, or this is just what Vega is for example
I know polaris 10 rx470 is just a modified tonga, but Rx 470 Cf would seem to get around at stock 23.5k and 25k at 1350mhz

edit to post, this is my point Fury didn't clock to 1400mhz it was just benched at that, those clockspeeds were unsustainable on Air/Water. Amd will compare Vega against a stock Fury X, maybe even the Nano .

 

[Howling]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

Nope.

 

[ljt]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

I wouldn't be "happy" but I have a 1440p ultrawide freesync monitor, so Nvidia cards are out of the equation meaning I'm left with whatever the fastest AMD card is to power games at that resolution with freesync. However at least I didn't pay hundreds more for a G-sync equivalent as I refuse to pay the g-sync premium anymore

 

[TonyTurbo78]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

Yep I've always said Greg, I'm not interested in owning the latest greatest fastest card history has ever seen. I just want an improvement over what I have each year. For me 1080 performance is still blindingly fast, if it does only just beat the 1080 by small margins, id still be interested if the price was right. That price for slightly better than 1080 performance for me would be about 400 quid. I doubt that's going to happen though.

 

[Davedree]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

Not really Greg for a few reasons. I mean the 1080 should be 300- 400 really. But with no mid range and high end offerings from Amd, Nvidia executed perfectly in raking it in.

Secondly As I said many months ago Gp104 is clever in that it butters both sides of the bread for desktop and laptop. The revenue off of Gp104 is pretty amazing for the build price of the gpu's.
For Amd to compete with Gp104 using Hbm2 it would have to either be a high yield product, cheaper to make than a Gp104, or perform better than a Gp104, and it's so late to the market Gp104 has really done all the damage.

Thridly Volta may not be far away .

 

[Erik13]

There is one more guy on youtube who has got his Fe and seems that he is planning to test with games. so stay tuned for more dissapointment

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANy...zCe3wNb9PGMOA&time_continue=110&v=Y-_ZJI10VxA

 

[markoboyo11]

Would people be happy with 1080 performance at 1080 prices out of curiosity?

I would as I just bought a 1080 ti, so keeping a close eye on this thread.

 

[Gregster]

I wouldn't be "happy" but I have a 1440p ultrawide freesync monitor, so Nvidia cards are out of the equation meaning I'm left with whatever the fastest AMD card is to power games at that resolution with freesync. However at least I didn't pay hundreds more for a G-sync equivalent as I refuse to pay the g-sync premium anymore

Yep I've always said Greg, I'm not interested in owning the latest greatest fastest card history has ever seen. I just want an improvement over what I have each year. For me 1080 performance is still blindingly fast, if it does only just beat the 1080 by small margins, id still be interested if the price was right. That price for slightly better than 1080 performance for me would be about 450 quid.

Not really Greg for a few reasons. I mean the 1080 should be 300- 400 really. But with no mid range and high end offerings from Amd, Nvidia executed perfectly in raking it in.

Secondly As I said many months ago Gp104 is clever in that it butters both sides of the bread for desktop and laptop. The revenue off of Gp104 is pretty amazing for the build price of the gpu's.
For Amd to compete with Gp104 using Hbm2 it would have to either be a high yield product, cheaper to make than a Gp104, or perform better than a Gp104, and it's so late to the market Gp104 has really done all the damage.

Thridly Volta may not be far away .

I understand where you are coming from guys. Those with Freesync monitors certainly want an AMD card and makes perfect sense to happily pay 1080 money (saved with buying the monitor over G-Sync). And Fair point Dave and totally agreed that the 1080 should be £350-£400 IMO and the 1080Ti would be fairer priced at £550 ish (possibly £600 tops).

 

[Nexus18]

Has it not already pretty much been confirmed that vega will be very good for pricing especially considering the performance? i.e. hinting at it being better than 1080 pricing?

But no, if a 1080 type of performance came in at the same price then I will be disappointed, like I have said all along, the 1080/1070/1080ti's are complete rip offs so for AMD to come a year late and ask for the same price (well actually when the 1080s etc. launched, they were cheaper than what they are now iirc.....), no thanks, either I will just skip PC upgrades/gaming all together until things get better or pick up a cheap second hand card from the MM for any PC gaming.

If PC gaming was worth the expense then I would have no problem paying up to £700, but as it is, there is no way I will drop £400+ on a GPU just to be able to get 10-15 fps more in ****** optimized games that offer barely any better graphics over the ps4 pro/xbox one x versions.