• 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.
WeSbO said:
Lol I bet if he spoke as he probably does in real life half of his audience wouldn't understand **** :D especially Mericans.

I thought he would go a bit more in depth into the technical stuff, bit disappointing. Notice he mentioned that the Doom test was with the Air 64, was this confirmed ?

He seems to be putting a lot of faith into FP16...

And I found it a bit disingenuous on his behalf to point out that the 1070's price is high on newegg without pointing out that the 1080 start price is 50$ more (509$) (gigabyte windforce) a bit misleading, I mean it's only fair to point out all the prices if one of the prices is higher than expected
Click to expand...

I don't see it and its seems quite a stretch. He was talking about the closet competition to the $399 V56.
 
Zeed said:
Well is it me or 1070 numbers do t add up?? 72.2 fps in both games looked around net and in doom on volcan 1070 is around 110fps and bf1 aeound 91


Sorty too derail vega 56 hype train lol. Btw 1070 is cheaperin theory lol

Remember rhat 56 comes with custom aib so gotta compare it to aib 1070 not fe one....
Click to expand...

In any case you need to invest in a new keyboard before thinking about GPUs :p
 
Yep, I have higher average FPS throughout the playthrough of both Doom and BF1 at same settings in previous builds I have done for others. The last build I did with W10, 512GB M.2, Ryzen 1600 was as follows:

Doom averaged 107.6
BF1 averaged 98.4

Zeed said:
Well is it me or 1070 numbers do t add up?? 72.2 fps in both games looked around net and in doom on volcan 1070 is around 110fps and bf1 around 91

Sorry too derail vega 56 hype train lol. Btw 1070 is cheaper in theory lol
Click to expand...

In fact if you put all the Vega numbers there as the 1070 that is exactly what I have been getting average when building systems for others with said card. So I would still say at best the Vega card is only just about matching the 1070.
 
Zeed said:
Well is it me or 1070 numbers dont add up?? 72.2 fps in both games looked around net and in doom on volcan 1070 is around 110fps and bf1 around 91


Sorry too derail vega 56 hype train lol. Btw 1070 is cheaper.

Remember rhat 56 comes with custom aib so gotta compare it to aib 1070 not fe one....
Click to expand...
Quick look on youtube shows the 1070 at 1440p around 80fps in bf1 and jumping up to 110fps in doom but its all meaningless as we don't know where in-game they were benchmarking to make a fair comparison.
 
Kaapstad said:
So Vega 56 is marginally quicker than a GTX 980 Ti in some handpicked benches.

I think we need to wait for proper reviews and not jump on the hype train.:)
Click to expand...
I have been on to many AMD hype trains which have crashed and burned. Don't worry, won't be getting on this one :p

Still, even though my brain says wait for Volta and grab that, my heart says Vega 56 does not look to bad, would go well with my 4K Freesync monitor. I usually turn off a bunch of rubbish settings in games depth of field, motion blur etc which save me fps, so I may be able to get away with gaming in the 40-60 Freesync zone my monitor has. Over time Vega 56 could catch up to 1080 with driver improvements anyway.

Need to wait and see reviews and UK price, but I am not optimistic. With the pound climbing lately vs the dollar, if we can grab a Vega 56 for £375 then I would have done a straight swap with my 1080, difference being Vega 56 would be brand new, rather than the 1080 which was Gregster's old card (credit to him though, the card looked brand new) :D

Google says:

$400 = £302
+VAT then = £362.40

So hitting £375 should be very possible. I personally would not pay a penny more.
 
interesting ....filling up the furnace with coal.... getting some pressure built up and off we go again...
 
The way it's looking is that the Vega 56 is almost GTX 1070 performance and the Vega 64 is almost GTX 1080 performance.

I expect pricing to reflect that. If not then I think many people besides just myself will take a pass on this one.
 
beany_bot said:
And reality says $400 = £400. Plus AIB costs = £450 realistically. Add mining tax = £550.
Click to expand...
I think initially pre-orders will be £450. Then depending on mining suitability it will either rise to £500+ or drop to £400.

I don't think we'll see it for less than £400.

Don't forget, the price of a 580 before mining sent the market crazy was approaching £300. It wouldn't make sense for the 580 to be £300 and the Vega 56 to be £350.
 
kithylin said:
I just wanted to take a moment to point out something. Most of these "tech news" web outlets, and even some of the actual videos and documentation (slides) published by AMD so far has specifically only told us the "TDP" in watts for the vega series. Just for those that don't know, "TDP" stands for "Thermal Design Power". That means how much heat the chips are producing in watts, and how much thermal heat the heatsink/fan array has to displace.

TDP does have something to do actual power consumption of the entire board/card it's self in a system, but is not is a direct power usage figure. That is an entirely different figure. Total board power consumption has not been published yet by AMD. And typically (going by previous cards) AMD does not ever publish the actual power consumption figures for their cards, only TDP from what I can find.

So just because some sites say Vega Water edition is "300 watts TDP", that does not mean it will consume 300 watts of power.

To understand better, Linus helped us with this:

Now that said.. I don't know how much power vega will use, and neither does anyone else on the internet at the moment. It very well could use 200 watts of actual power but 300 watts TDP. We just don't know at the moment.
Click to expand...
I agree there is confusion about the figures published by manufacturers and what they actually refer to.
We do know that Vega 64 is very closely related to Vega FE. PCper test just graphics card power draw and their results are close to the AMD published figures.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...-16GB-Liquid-Cooled-Review/Power-Consumption-
 
TheRealDeal said:
The FE is a step above so if those results are true then the 64 will be in between the 1080 and Ti making it the faster card at the price point. Masses of salt though as this would put a decent overclocked 64 in ti country. Just not up for believing this atm. Under 2 weeks now and then we will see.
Click to expand...
Sorry it was late :o I meant to say "Do they look genuine" based on the FE result?
 
It does seem people don't learn and the hype train is picking up pace again.

Now those results may well be true but remember AMD have already told us what Vega can do (best case scenario) on their official slides so unless they were sandbagging....
 
erazor51 said:
Going by Threadripper prices it's $999 and in UK their charging us £998.99. If that's anything to go by then RX Vega is going to cost us exactly the same in conversion :(
Click to expand...
Prices will not stay like that if people don't buy it. R7 1700 is frequently sold for around £290, despite its $320 SRP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom