• 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.
Steampunk said:
The problem is that's the same as saying that unless you want to spend $1000, then Vega is not for you. If you only want to spend 400-600, then go to Nvidia. They will be cheaper and faster, and you don't have to buy a load of stuff you don't want. That's not a compelling argument for the majority who only want a graphics card, not a whole system.
Click to expand...

Not at all. He was talking about a 4k capable system. If going for 4k your not spending 4-600 on a full system using Intel and Nvidia.
 
Molesy79 said:
Problem is with that is how many people upgrade their PC and monitor at the same time? Maybe if you are purchasing over time or are new to PC gaming even then the majority of people aren't buying Freesync monitors, currently anyway...
Click to expand...

Esp with the Fastsync technology from both companies now, it's surely extending the life of normal monitors.
 
TwsT said:
but it needs to come out when it's relevant vega is basically 1 year late, and whilst some Amd users buy into the "we must stay with AMD" "nvidia monopoly would be bad."

I personally feel that buying an inferior product doesn't help the long term sustainability of the company, it simply feeds into the bad decision cycle that bought it about.

Vega was late
Vega is power hungy
Vega is under powered for said power hunger it matches a 1 year old card in 1080p performance not even driver updates will turn it into a 1080ti.


The price is going to have to be amazing to swing this imo. but that could really damage the other products in the line.
Click to expand...


+1

I went with the 290x and Fury pro for exactly that reason, The thing is they did offer a good experience. Well my pos MSI TF4 290x didn't but the good models like the Tri-x's did.
My need for an AMD gpu today is for Freesync and if it's not overpriced I will get one because how games actually play is more important than how they do in benchmarks.
So if I'm confident in it's uw1440 performance and it's priced right I'll bite, If not I'll probably make do with the 6gb 1060 I have now and I'll wait to see what the cheapest Vega offers or what
Volta offers in the 2-3 hundred category and then wait on Navi, I don't want to do that but it may be the best thing I can do.
 
Molesy79 said:
Just look at the monitor section of any IT shop, how many are Free/G Sync compared to just normal monitors, plus they are more expensive, to you're average Joe PC gamer they just want s decent 1080p monitor because its cost effective.
Click to expand...

Freesync adds nothing to the price.. thats the point.
 
Molesy79 said:
Not saying that Freesync isn't any good or that the g-sync tax isn't bad but the vast majority of gamers aren't currently buying Freesync (or G-Sync) monitors, hopefully that will change in the future.
Click to expand...

I would say the vast amount of gamers are buying Free sync monitors and using NV cards on them :D:D. The vast amount of gamers don't really know tech that well and will buy at a reasonable price. There are far more Freesync options on the market in reasonably priced bracket and overall. The amount of times I have to explain sync to people who game is off the charts. I think a lot of these type of people might switch over to get the use from sync. A guy I know is already getting rid of his gtx1080 to use Free Sync on his 1440 Ultra wide depending on Vega''s reviews.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Not at all. He was talking about a 4k capable system. If going for 4k your not spending 4-600 on a full system using Intel and Nvidia.
Click to expand...

But what if you just want a graphics card? The upsell to £1000 of 4K system is not what I want to buy. Where's the price or performance benefit if I don't want Vega as part of a much larger and more expensive complete system?
 
Steampunk said:
But what if you just want a graphics card? The upsell to £1000 of 4K system is not what I want to buy. Where's the price or performance benefit if I don't want Vega as part of a much larger and more expensive complete system?
Click to expand...

Then just buy the best graphics card you can :D:D. His whole point was nothing to do with just buying a graphics card and either was mine. Common sense says look at your budget and get what suits.

When you don't have the overall fastest product you have to look into other angles for your marketing. It looks like they won't be bringing the fastest card so anything that makes a bit of sense could shift a few cards. freesync is AMD only due to Nvidia not taking it up and price are there main weapons to do this.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
They know that nV can undercut them. Therefore, the only strategy that makes sense is to launch the RX more expensive than the nV.

Either way they'll get fewer sales than nV, but fewer sales at a higher price is better than starting a price war you're always going to lose.

Perhaps something like AIO Vega at £650, big air Vega at £550, cut-down Vega at £450.

They know whatever they do they can't be cheaper than nV, so they'll probably make a small amount of cards and sell them for as much as possible. Then ride out this gen until they've got something more competitive.

What else can they do? They only way they can have a real price war is to make losses on these cards, which is nuts.
Click to expand...

But this pricing can only succeed if they have the performance. Most would only pay £550 for Air VEGA IF its faster than 1080 and by some margin not just 1-2%. I would rather have a card that draw 200W than near 500W for the same performance. Performance/wat and performance/price are also very important.
 
I just want a decent value upgrade from my 970. The 1080+ doesn't fall in that bracket (too price)

Bit sad that the best value upgrade on the table right now is a used 980ti.

Hoping for some more choice out of this release even if it's just some price competition.
 
Gregster said:
Yer, FastSync with G-Sync and V-Sync is still an option but I can't notice any tearing or stutter over the 100 fps, so always use the global choice of FastSync. You will like it, as I know you are a CS:GO player and having smoothness with high frames without tearing will be sweet in that.
Click to expand...

Will give it a try and all that :D I dont play CS anymore :D PUBG gets my Online time now.
 
Scougar said:
I find it funny how everyone mocked AMD on their gsync cost comparison, but now y'all talking about it.
Click to expand...

As ever around here everyone just wants the numbers. AMD know they don't have the numbers so have to show gamer's that a cheaper AMD system will give the same experience to an Nvidia counter part. Saying that it's been worse this time around due to the much longer wait than usual so i am not surprised people are eager to know what's what with numbers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom