Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[Lokken86]

The 380 was based on the new Tonga architecture ( GCN 1.2 vs Tahiti's 1.0, and Hawaii 1.1 ), and even AMD marketed the 480 as a replacement for 380. Just like the 1060 is a replacement for 960.
Although both were rarely compared to those GPUs, despite the improvements being massive. Instead they were compared to higher end GPUs from the previous generation.

It's why I find it funny D.P suddenly says it's meaningless to compare the Fury X against the 1070 ( or 1070 against 980Ti ), and it should be compared to the 1080Ti, because the 1080Ti replaces the original competitor the 980Ti.

By that same margin people shouldn't then compare the 480 with the 390, which is a higher tier card from the previous gen. Or compare the 1070 to the 980Ti and so on.

My head hurts
I'm only really concerned with rebrands or cards that are essentially rebranded, not with faster cards that have replaced others. I am aware there are some other improvements to the 1070 core but it's so close to the 980ti iv always considered them basically the same card even if its not technically rebranded. Cards of same tier/class and gen if you will.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

My head hurts
I'm only really concerned with rebrands or cards that are essentially rebranded, not with faster cards that have replaced others. I am aware there are some other improvements to the 1070 core but it's so close to the 980ti iv always considered them basically the same card even if its not technically rebranded.

Same here, there's little between them, and once both are overclocked as high as they go they're still the same basically in all regards.

Hybrid 980Ti here still going strong.

 

[silversurfer]

Mmm, I'm looking forward to seeing what Frontier can do too.

Also that die shot is very nice, great photo in general.

And I've seen some people estimate the die size around 490mm^2 from it. Since the HBM2 stacks are meant to be 92mm^2 each.

Apparently AMD came back to say its an artistic render like the Vega case shots I posted. It cant be taken for exact measurement

Frontier also I'll just take generally, I just wonder is its cost 4 figures

No, the iMacs aren't coming with Vega til December.

I think a lot of their wider plans for Vega are far later in the year, like the integration for CPU and laptop etc. Thats all a typical company cares about really, this high end of a market doesnt count as much for revenue and paying the bills I bet.
I wont be waiting as Ive had a junk rig forever but I'd expect the second iteration of this generation on all fronts to be the smarter deal

Miners don't have a contract with Apple to supply x number of GPUs by a certain date.

Its unlikely AMD have created a perfect crypto hasher. HBCC I cant see helping miners and many other features, it will continue to be cheaper to buy polaris models.
Also a point missed maybe is miners can 'crossfire' perfectly, their work is perfectly divided into units and hasnt any problems in rendering like a normal card must endure. A typical mining machine is stacked full of cheaper cards by preference

 

[D.P.]

I'm only using a different Pascal card (1070)because it is essentially the same thing as a 980ti. I can definitely understand why the guy compared the two. I can't see why someone compares the Furyx to the 1080 though.

This just doesn't make any sense.

Where is the logic in comparing a FuryX to a 1070 but not a 1080? The 1070 is cutdown chip with cores disabled, it doesn't provide a useful comparison to what nvidia achieved with a new architecture on the new node with a given die size. The 1080 is much more indicative if you want to make comparisons. Otherwise why not compare the FuryX to the 1050 or any other random card if no logic is required?. And a comparison to a 980ti is equally ridiculous because Vega wont be competing with the 980ti but the 1080 and 1080ti. Shoudl we comapre the FuryX to the Geforce 3 and claim AMD is already far superior?


Here are several logical and unbiased comparisons:

• FuryX vs 1080 and 1080ti: AMD are aiming to release a card that competes with these Nvidia offerings, and the FuryX was the last high end AMD card in this segment. This comparison clearly illustrates performance and efficiency gains required but is let down by the difference in fabrication technology.
• RX580 vs 1080/1080ti. Again, AMD want to have competition to the 1080/1080ti. The RX580 is currently the fastest card AMD sells but is not aimed at the same market segment. but it is built on equivalent manufacturing node so might make a better comparison for required efficiency gains.
• RX580 vs 1060: These offer similar performances and prices. This clearly shows the efficiency differences that need to be overcome. We can also scale the RX580 up to GP102/104 sizes to get a minimum performance before applying architectural improvements.

But of course you can always compare the FuryX to a Voodoo2 if you want, i just don't see the value.

 

[Nexus18]

Get out of damage patrol mode for once and read what the OP asked.....

It might been asked before but I thoughts I ask, since not really looking forward to swim through all these pages and see if it has.

How much of a difference will VEGA be compared to the Fury-X ?? If anyone knows roughly that is ?? Just wondering if it worth upgrading or wait to the next one.

Thanks.

Hmm, I wonder why people compare the RX 480 to the GTX 970/980 and R9 390 then. Surely they should compare it with the RX 380 in that case.

Very very few people or reviewers ever did that as well.

Yup, there was extreme overclocking results of the Fury X @ 1450Mhz, where in Fire Strike it matched a GTX 1080.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-R9-Fury-Unlocked-Fury-X-Overclocked-1-GHz-HBM

Vega Frontier Edition is 1600Mhz, so if Vega had no improvements over Fiji, and it was just a plain die shrink with clock speed increase it should still be over the GTX 1080.

I said this in the old thread for months, not many seem to actually take it in though. A straight die shrink of Fiji or even a bigger Polaris should beat or match a 1080 comfortably, not including any other optimisations, features and changes.

Stop bringing logic and common sense into this!!!!!

Or take the 290(x) and how it is suppose to compete with the 780(ti) but due to how awfully the 780(ti) has aged, people are now comparing it to a 970/980 instead.....

It is confusing as **** why people seem to be ignoring that article too

But yeah like I said, AMD are going to release a card that doesn't even beat a 1070..... /s

There is better than that if you run a 980 Ti at 1080 clocks the older card wins, better still the Kingpin 980 Ti on LN2 v 1080 LN2 always goes to the Maxwell card. When it came to efficiency Pascal was almost a step backwards for NVidia.

Yup the 980ti when OC is a very strong GPU.

 

[Martini1991]

Well AMD released Bulldozer, so it's not like it hasn't happened before where they've released a product that comes up trumps against its predecessor

I'm skeptical of how Vega will perform. Two Polaris releases have done nothing to make me optimistic.

At my best I'd hope for a better priced GTX 1080 performer.

 

[Lokken86]

This just doesn't make any sense.

Where is the logic in comparing a FuryX to a 1070 but not a 1080? The 1070 is cutdown chip with cores disabled, it doesn't provide a useful comparison to what nvidia achieved with a new architecture on the new node with a given die size. The 1080 is much more indicative if you want to make comparisons. Otherwise why not compare the FuryX to the 1050 or any other random card if no logic is required?. And a comparison to a 980ti is equally ridiculous because Vega wont be competing with the 980ti but the 1080 and 1080ti. Shoudl we comapre the FuryX to the Geforce 3 and claim AMD is already far superior?


Here are several logical and unbiased comparisons:

• FuryX vs 1080 and 1080ti: AMD are aiming to release a card that competes with these Nvidia offerings, and the FuryX was the last high end AMD card in this segment. This comparison clearly illustrates performance and efficiency gains required but is let down by the difference in fabrication technology.
• RX580 vs 1080/1080ti. Again, AMD want to have competition to the 1080/1080ti. The RX580 is currently the fastest card AMD sells but is not aimed at the same market segment. but it is built on equivalent manufacturing node so might make a better comparison for required efficiency gains.
• RX580 vs 1060: These offer similar performances and prices. This clearly shows the efficiency differences that need to be overcome. We can also scale the RX580 up to GP102/104 sizes to get a minimum performance before applying architectural improvements.

But of course you can always compare the FuryX to a Voodoo2 if you want, i just don't see the value.

You need your head examined

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Well AMD released Bulldozer, so it's not like it hasn't happened before where they've released a product that comes up trumps against its predecessor

I'm skeptical of how Vega will perform. Two Polaris releases have done nothing to make me optimistic.

At my best I'd hope for a better priced GTX 1080 performer.

Yeah, but did AMD secure OEM support for Bulldozer before it was even out?
Compared to back then Zen, and Vega is already being listed by OEMs in high end systems, and the latter isn't even out yet. Bulldozer never got close to the same treatment.

 

[D.P.]

You need your head examined

I know, bringing common sense and reasoning into an AMD thread, simply not allowed!

 

[Nexus18]

Well AMD released Bulldozer, so it's not like it hasn't happened before where they've released a product that comes up trumps against its predecessor

I'm skeptical of how Vega will perform. Two Polaris releases have done nothing to make me optimistic.

At my best I'd hope for a better priced GTX 1080 performer.

That is all that I am expecting, possibly a bit faster than a 1080...

The only way Vega will suck is if the drivers are terrible which unfortunately is possible on release given Amd's history....

 

[Lokken86]

I know, bringing common sense and reasoning into an AMD thread, simply not allowed!

But there's nothing logical in anything your saying tbh.
Im comparing apples to apples. FuryX came out to beat the gtx980 and to compete with the 980ti. I suspect this generation that Vega will come out, beat the 1080, compete against the 1080ti. What's all this nonsense about comparing 10 year old technology to a FuryX all about. If its not a rebrand its last gen stuff. And who cares what's top AMD as of right now when we all know FuryX still competes with a 980ti but since that has effectively been rebranded I used the 1070 as my comparison. What's the issue here?

 

[Nexus18]

But there's nothing logical in anything your saying tbh.
Im comparing apples to apples. FuryX came out to beat the gtx980 and to compete with the 980ti. I suspect this generation that Vega will come out, beat the 1080, compete against the 1080ti. What's all this nonsense about comparing 10 year old technology to a FuryX all about. If its not a rebrand its last gen stuff. And who cares what's top AMD as of right now when we all know FuryX still competes with a 980ti but since that has effectively been rebranded I used the 1070 as my comparison. What's the issue here?

+1

Although the fury x was actually brought out to compete with the titan, hence why nvidia quickly released the 980ti before amd could get their fury x out.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Im comparing apples to apples. FuryX came out to beat the gtx980

Shame it never done it.

 

[D.P.]

But there's nothing logical in anything your saying tbh.
Im comparing apples to apples. FuryX came out to beat the gtx980 and to compete with the 980ti. I suspect this generation that Vega will come out, beat the 1080, compete against the 1080ti. What's all this nonsense about comparing 10 year old technology to a FuryX all about. If its not a rebrand its last gen stuff. And who cares what's top AMD as of right now when we all know FuryX still competes with a 980ti but since that has effectively been rebranded I used the 1070 as my comparison. What's the issue here?

There is no logic in comparing nvidia current generation cards with different AMD cards?
In which case why are you comparing some current nvidia cards, with some old Nvidia cards, and an old AMD card? Isn't that just as illogical?



My stated comparisons offer people the chance to compare performance and efficiency when trying to normalize as many variables as possible. And until Vega is released one will always have to accept some variables wont match.

One can easily see that Vega will be approximately twice Polaris but limited to under 300w. The one has to estimate the architectural improvements and add that on top. Similarly, Vega will have similar numbers of GCN cores as FuryX, but should be clocked 50% higher and again we have to add the architecture gains. The architecture improvements are unknown but we could guess 50-70% based on history. SO we could take an RX480/Rx580 and increase performance by 50% for the same power draw, scale up performance with the additonal GCN cores and finally scale to around 250-275w. Doing this we see performance should be well between the 1080 to 1080ti at least


Comparing to a 1070 or a 980ti doesn't tell you as much information. Vega isn't competing with the 980ti or 1070, but the 1080 and 1080ti. You could do somethign weird like estimate the 1080 performance form the 1070 but why bother when we know the 1080 performance?

 

[Howling]

There is no logic in comparing nvidia current generation cards with different AMD cards?
In which case why are you comparing some current nvidia cards, with some old Nvidia cards, and an old AMD card? Isn't that just as illogical?



My stated comparisons offer people the chance to compare performance and efficiency when trying to normalize as many variables as possible. And until Vega is released one will always have to accept some variables wont match.

One can easily see that Vega will be approximately twice Polaris but limited to under 300w. The one has to estimate the architectural improvements and add that on top. Similarly, Vega will have similar numbers of GCN cores as FuryX, but should be clocked 50% higher and again we have to add the architecture gains. The architecture improvements are unknown but we could guess 50-70% based on history. SO we could take an RX480/Rx580 and increase performance by 50% for the same power draw, scale up performance with the additonal GCN cores and finally scale to around 250-275w. Doing this we see performance should be well between the 1080 to 1080ti at least


Comparing to a 1070 or a 980ti doesn't tell you as much information. Vega isn't competing with the 980ti or 1070, but the 1080 and 1080ti. You could do somethign weird like estimate the 1080 performance form the 1070 but why bother when we know the 1080 performance?

You're either being obtuse on purpose or you're really that invested in nVidia.
He's saying the Fury X wasn't supposed to compete with the 1080 or 1080Ti, it was put out to compete with the 980 and Titan (and subsequently 980Ti). The 1070 has similar performance to those cards, therefore that's the most recent nVidia card that's comparable to the Fury X for similar performance figures. I'm fairly sure you do understand that, so I don't see how you're managing to make a page of fuss about it.

 

[nashathedog]

AMD RTG Marketing Team Faked Vega 10 Die Shot

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-die-shot-fake/

I bet Raja won't quote WCCF again.

 

[Howling]

stop trolling

Have you ever listened the the thousands of people who've told you the same?

 

[tommybhoy]

Guy consistently posts with clear intent to antagonize and disrupt the locals with a barage of inflammatory nonsense and shouts 'troll'.

 

[nashathedog]

It doesn't, just gives people who want to mindlessly attack AMD ammunition

Yeah, da-da-da-da-da-da-daa


That's my machine gun, I would have given you a screenshot of it but I could only get hold of a ruddy 560 so I can't run & render it at uw1440


Just kiddin,

sub 30's cinematic...

 

[Nexus18]

There is no logic in comparing nvidia current generation cards with different AMD cards?
In which case why are you comparing some current nvidia cards, with some old Nvidia cards, and an old AMD card? Isn't that just as illogical?



My stated comparisons offer people the chance to compare performance and efficiency when trying to normalize as many variables as possible. And until Vega is released one will always have to accept some variables wont match.

One can easily see that Vega will be approximately twice Polaris but limited to under 300w. The one has to estimate the architectural improvements and add that on top. Similarly, Vega will have similar numbers of GCN cores as FuryX, but should be clocked 50% higher and again we have to add the architecture gains. The architecture improvements are unknown but we could guess 50-70% based on history. SO we could take an RX480/Rx580 and increase performance by 50% for the same power draw, scale up performance with the additonal GCN cores and finally scale to around 250-275w. Doing this we see performance should be well between the 1080 to 1080ti at least


Comparing to a 1070 or a 980ti doesn't tell you as much information. Vega isn't competing with the 980ti or 1070, but the 1080 and 1080ti. You could do somethign weird like estimate the 1080 performance form the 1070 but why bother when we know the 1080 performance?

As said, you are making a fuss out of nothing....

Shame it never done it.

Eh?

A fury x trashes a 980