• 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.
TwsT said:
Edit (adaptive sync not fast sync derp)

adaptive sync adds nothing to the cost freesync is neither free nor open source it's simply cheaper than g-sync. Freesync monitors have a price and there are none freesync versions.

adaptive sync is the vesa standard that I believe AMD gpu's do support and I imagine Nvidia will eventually.
Click to expand...

Well apparently to put Freesync support on the monitor they have to ask for AMDs approval. More stricter standards for freesync 2 as well which gives AMD more control over the monitors.

I always wonderd why they don't put Adaptive sync technology on the box with freesync support. Rather than just labeling it a freesync monitor. Seems daft.
 
D.P. said:
So they made a tradeoff and are producing a lower quality screen with freesync at a similar price to better screens without freesync.


Freesync isn't free of cost, the word free refers to licensing.

GSync is marketed as a premium technology in higher end monitors, so the prices are just higher anyway. The issue of Gsync monitors needing a redsign to accommodate the hardware is a but overspoken. Sure, if a manufacturers wanted to add gsync to an existing display it might require a small redesign depending on the chassis (or as Roff pointed out with his Asus, it just gets taped into place). but if a manufacturer wanted to designa new screen that supported Gsync an freesync/no sync then the extra cost is non-existent in that respect as the design work has to be done anyway. the hardware and license is soemthign like $30. The price difference in the end will mainly come down to the prices the manufacturer can sell the screen at. Quite obviously if people weren'tt paying the prices for Gsync monitors then they wouldn't sell and manufacturers would stop producing them. The fact that Gsync monitors are sold at a premium means the public are quite happy to pay that price and the manufacturers enjoy the extra profit margin.
Click to expand...
Freesync is free...
Adaptive sync may cost to incorporate but AMD' support of this tech AKA Freesync is free. No money goes to AMD for adaptive sync tech.

Gsync they have to redesign monitors to incorporate the Gsync module which will be a added cost then pay nVidia for licensing too which will come with the Gsync modules. I bet Gsync 2 aka HDMI support costs more than standard Gsync.
 
D.P. said:
It can be used for some AI work, namely deep learning due to the FP16 double-rate performance but the lack of FP64 is still an issue for general machine learning algorithms. For deep learning Vega has a lot of potential but the critical aspect is software support. Most of the DL tools out there don't even support OpenCL, they all support CUDA or at the very least CUDA is the main priority and gets the first features. The CUDA integration also achieves massive efficiency increases t that could largely mitigate the FP16 advnatge of Vega when compared to lower end Pascal units. The big players in DL are all happily using GP100 GPUS, or simply using Amazon AWS GPU instances. So there isn't a big market there. I do a little Deep learnign at work 9although msotly use alternatively ML archietcures), if we did a little more then we might very well buy a Vega GPU for development but using Amazon AWS works out fine for us.


The lack of certification basically means it is no better than any other gaming GPU though, so if you are really pn a budget then Vega makes no sense for professional work. And when we are talking about budget, pro software retails for 4-10K a time, so being able to afford a low-end Quadro is absolutely no problem and competes very well with Vega and nets you professional certification for $400-800.
Click to expand...

The majority of AI work is not done using FP64, FP64 is needed for high precision data modelling.

And Vega FE has Optimisations for Pro software in the drivers, not having a certification just means the driver has not gone through the certification process, but it doesn't mean the driver is any less capable. Certification is only really needed in situations where you have to be sure that the output is exactly what it says it is. Such as in CAD situations where a model need to be accurate.

But those pro software optimisations also involve use cases where that level of certainty is not required. But the performance in that pro software is a good thing.
 
r7slayer said:
Well apparently to put Freesync support on the monitor they have to ask for AMDs approval. More stricter standards for freesync 2 as well which gives AMD more control over the monitors.

I always wonderd why they don't put Adaptive sync technology on the box with freesync support. Rather than just labeling it a freesync monitor. Seems daft.
Click to expand...

Dont remember the last time when anyone could self-certify standards
I suspect even something as ubiquitous as USB has to be certified by some foundation

In the long-term depending on how amd sees freesync evolving they might partner with other players to create a freesync foundation.. these foundations are generally non-profits but they need to atleast sustain their costs.. no such thing as free :D
 
Mauller said:
The majority of AI work is not done using FP64, FP64 is needed for high precision data modelling.

And Vega FE has Optimisations for Pro software in the drivers, not having a certification just means the driver has not gone through the certification process, but it doesn't mean the driver is any less capable. Certification is only really needed in situations where you have to be sure that the output is exactly what it says it is. Such as in CAD situations where a model need to be accurate.

But those pro software optimisations also involve use cases where that level of certainty is not required. But the performance in that pro software is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I remember this talk back with the 7970 days when people bashed on AMD drivers for no certification and said they was just beta drivers. No MS Certification so they was beta drivers and that made them non trust worthy lol.
 
r7slayer said:
I remember this talk back with the 7970 days when people bashed on AMD drivers for no certification and said they was just beta drivers. No MS Certification so they was beta drivers and that made them non trust worthy lol.
Click to expand...

Never really understood the worry. Its not like MS has been flawless in the certification process themselves. They have slipped plenty of crap through that has done a tone of damage. Now im sure its not Microsofts job to make sure that your fans are always running but there has been plenty of compatibility issues with windows itself with both AMD and Nvidia certified drivers. Some of the best drivers for me back when i was using the 980ti was actually beta drivers or the non WHQL developer drivers.
 
All I want is for nVidia to support Freesync or some hack to allow me access to Freesync in the drivers, it's so frustrating however paying for G-Sync is nuts.
 
So the only price difference was the $300 between the monitors so I assume RX Vega will be priced in 1080ti territory, better deliver that performance then. These BS promotional vids mean nothing to me, I want cold hard FPS number not how the games feel lol, If AMD are justifying sub 1080ti performance for similar money just because they feel the same with no performance metrics they are seriously taking the ****.
 
Armadillo said:
meh. 4 days to go and still only getting "how it feels" nonsense. Is it really that hard to just give the numbers.
Click to expand...

While I do want to see the numbers myself, how it feels is important. I mean isn't that why gamers pay the big money to get a system that feels good while gaming. Isn't that why freesync and gsync have taken off because games "feel" better.
 
It was nearly $600 between the monitors. If you read the article he said that AMD didn't mention the RRP of RX Vega so they just went with that $300 as a baseline.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
So the only price difference was the $300 between the monitors so I assume RX Vega will be priced in 1080ti territory, better deliver that performance then. These BS promotional vids mean nothing to me, I want cold hard FPS number not how the games feel lol, If AMD are justifying sub 1080ti performance for similar money just because they feel the same with no performance metrics they are seriously taking the ****.
Click to expand...

It could be the same price, or maybe AMD haven't told anyone the cost yet. Not sure which one is the case really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom