• 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.

Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

On or off the hype train?

  • (off) Train has derailed

    Votes: 207 39.2%

  • (on) Overcrowding, standing room only

    Votes: 100 18.9%

  • (never ever got on) Chinese escalator

    Votes: 221 41.9%
  • Total voters
    528
Status
Not open for further replies.
N19h7m4r3 said:
Aye. I don't care much for 4K yet, but even 3440x1440 results would be nice.
Click to expand...

Me either really - I've a second setup for racing games and was "eventually" going to get it setup for Elite Dangerous, etc. that has a 4K panel but for most of my gaming I like 2560x1440@100+Hz and doubt I will change from that.

For selfish reasons it would be good for the competition though.
 
Steampunk said:
Is it possible that AMD are doing what they've done before and simply not going for the fastest product? Just make RX as fast as the 1080, but charge a lot less, and ignore the halo/vanity product at the top end as something they don't want to compete with.
Click to expand...


That'd be fine for me.

Gerard said:
Its possible but theres a difference between not wanting to compete and not being able to. Currently its hard to say what catagory this may fall under.
Click to expand...

If they could have they would have.
 
N19h7m4r3 said:
The Fury X was barely behind the 980Ti though; here Vega looks to be 1080 performance; despite Die size and power consumption.
Click to expand...
AMD is trying to use one chip to cover multiple markets though - however despite that if it cannot beat a GTX1080 convincingly it's not really that impressive.
Remember the Fury cards would probably be quicker if they had more VRAM.
 
Last edited:
Well, AMD reported $0.02 EPS and is up 6% post-market. So they're now profitable again and that's without a full Ryzen line-up, without Threadripper, without EPYC...

At least things are looking up in terms of ability to spend in R&D. Bring on Navi!

EDIT: it BEAT by $0.02, they're not in the green yet. Still, it looks like Q3 will be their breakthrough quarter. Then again, depends on which number you look at. Non-GAAP they're already $0.02 profitable. Oh well...

EDIT 2: Wow!

For the third quarter of 2017, AMD expects revenue to increase approximately 23 percent sequentially, plus or minus 3 percent. The midpoint of guidance would result in third quarter 2017 revenue increasing approximately 15 percent year-over-year. AMD now expects annual revenue to increase by a mid to high-teens percentage, compared to prior guidance of low double digit percentage revenue growth.
Click to expand...

They're expecting serious market share / money. Now if only they can get RTG to do the same thing they did for CPUs we'll finally have competition back in the graphics card market!
 
Last edited:
Steampunk said:
Is it possible that AMD are doing what they've done before and simply not going for the fastest product? Just make RX as fast as the 1080, but charge a lot less, and ignore the halo/vanity product at the top end as something they don't want to compete with.
Click to expand...
If they wanted to fo that they should have made such a huge chip and use expensive HBM2
 
Kaapstad said:
You mean you typed in 5960X and score 17447 :p:D

Actually being serious for a minute that score should be taken with a pinch of salt as the 5960X is only running at 3.5ghz and could be bottlenecking the fps.
Click to expand...

bottle necking perhaps but 23k gpu score is around 1080 perf which is pretty much where we all expected.

and yes ofc but screen shots from videocards are so hard to read :D
 
Rroff said:
Me either really - I've a second setup for racing games and was "eventually" going to get it setup for Elite Dangerous, etc. that has a 4K panel but for most of my gaming I like 2560x1440@100+Hz and doubt I will change from that.

For selfish reasons it would be good for the competition though.
Click to expand...


The FuryX did well at 4K for 2 reasons: the resolution meant that a lot of additional pixel shading going on and less bottlenecks from geometry etc, 1) the FuryX had a lot of bandwdith for its time.

With vega, there is actually; less bandwidth so things might not scale that much better. Furthermore, the supposed changes to Vega largely centered around removing bottlenecks that are more apparent at lower resolutions. However some might be much more effective at high res.

IMO, Vega's biggest performance gains will be in 1080p I woudl think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom