• 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.
thanks for that information about an nvidia card really useful in this thread.

pretty much as we knew from the other 100's of nvidia posts saying the same.
 
If this old Doom Open GL vs Vulkan comparison from Digital Foundry is anything to go by, the Vega 64 card might end up beating the 1080 quite easily given Vulkan and DX12 games.

Look how much the 480 and Fury X gain in those API's.


You can really tell the difference between AMD endorsed games and Nvidia games. AMD games are your Doom/Wolfenstein types usually using more advanced API's also usually run in the high fps and light on the CPU.

Nvidia games tend to be much more CPU heavy (Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs) and run DX11 and run at slower fps natively.
 
KNiVES said:
2 8-pins, ridiculous. My 1080ti uses an 8 and 6 pin and has less power draw even when overclocked.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's crap. No-one wants 2 8-pins. And yet, it's an option.

That GTX 1080 Ti is better for (presumably a lot, but we'll see) more money. I'd buy it. Except, it also doesn't play nice with my Adaptive-Sync monitor, so NVIDIA has made it a non-option.

This will be so until either I want to spend the cash for a new GPU and G-SYNC monitor combo (I don't, it's too much), or NVIDIA changes its position on that technology. Variable refresh is amazing so I'm not giving it up. I doubt I'm the only one in this boat.

If NVIDIA made a £300-400 card that played nice with my monitor and performed 50% better than my R9 290X they could have the money. Until then, functionally it doesn't matter how ridiculous the RX Vega 64 or 56 is, at least it's an option.
 
nashathedog said:
The 1080ti keeps being mentioned because we think Vega pricing will have it in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
It is priced for miners, not gamers. So probably won't be 1080Ti performance :p

I hope I am wrong though. I have always expected 1080Ti performance at least. But more I have seen, the less confident of that I have become. Would be such a present surprise if at least the liquid edition is close to the 1080Ti on minimums. It would at least warrant it's price a little.
 
opethdisciple said:
If this old Doom Open GL vs Vulkan comparison from Digital Foundry is anything to go by, the Vega 64 card might end up beating the 1080 quite easily given Vulkan and DX12 games.

Look how much the 480 and Fury X gain in those API's.


You can really tell the difference between AMD endorsed games and Nvidia games. AMD games are your Doom/Wolfenstein types usually using more advanced API's also usually run in the high fps and light on the CPU.

Nvidia games tend to be much more CPU heavy (Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs) and run DX11 and run at slower fps natively.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why all the Doom b tests were useless. It should thrive in that one game, but what about every other?
 
TNA said:
It is priced for miners, not gamers. So probably won't be 1080Ti performance :p

I hope I am wrong though. I have always expected 1080Ti performance at least. But more I have seen, the less confident of that I have become. Would be such a present surprise if at least the liquid edition is close to the 1080Ti on minimums. It would at least warrant it's price a little.
Click to expand...

But that's no good is it, We've waited this long and when the FE hit it was you need to wait a little longer for the gaming RX and now what? If they're priced too far over what the performance is like I'll give it a miss and jump ship long term by getting an Nvidia card.
 
nashathedog said:
But that's no good is it, We've waited this long and when the FE hit it was you need to wait a little longer for the gaming RX and now what? If they're priced too far over what the performance is like I'll give it a miss and jump ship long term by getting an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

This is the point entirely. It's not just the cost of the card if you buy (or have the vendors refresh technology) Your locking your self in for the long term.

Unless your the type that buys gpus/monitors like sweets and changes stuff a few times a year.

Me? My Processors last on average 4-5 years. A GPU 2-3 years and my monitor is now approaching 9 years old.

So I'f I buy Vega all of the above apply. This is why I've gone for a 1080. Nvdia are just a much safer bet in the long term.

Sorry AMD I love Ryzen but your have to make Navi epic for me to consider you. You need to prove from product to product consistency. This Nvidia give you and at a yearly cadence.
 
Look I can kind of get why people are annoyed AMD can't get close to a GTX1080TI,but TBH I have the GTX1080 FE and its perfectly fine performance at qHD even though I am using an older generation CPU.

For someone on older card like an R9 290,a Vega56 or an air cooled Vega64 is still going to be a decent upgrade especially with a FreeSync monitor and if the latter is priced at GTX1080TI level,then simply get a GTX1080TI then??

I mean looking around at my mates,the fastest card they have is a GTX1070,and most gamers I know have slower cards. In the end some of you are acting like a GTX1080 type card is so "slow" it can't run even HOTS!! :p

Also apparently ARK also seems a bit easier to run according to my mate - shock and horror on that one,right??
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Look I can kind of get why people are annoyed AMD can't get close to a GTX1080TI,but TBH I have the GTX1080 FE and its perfectly fine performance at qHD even though I am using an older generation CPU.

For someone on older card like an R9 290,a Vega56 or an air cooled Vega64 is still going to be a decent upgrade especially with a FreeSync monitor and if the latter is priced at GTX1080TI level,then simply get a GTX1080TI then??

I mean looking around at my mates,the fastest card they have is a GTX1070,and most gamers I know have slower cards. In the end some of you are acting like a GTX1080 type card is so "slow" it can't run even HOTS!! :p

Also apparently ARK also seems a bit easier to run according to my mate - shock and horror on that one,right??
Click to expand...

Whilst so late to the game we're on the eve of the next gen nvidia cards I dont think anyone would complain at 1080 performance for Vega but the price has to be less given the vega cards other deficiencies.

It is now make or break in the price. With decent 1080's around the £450 mark that's asking a lot.
 
opethdisciple said:
This is the point entirely. It's not just the cost of the card if you buy (or have the vendors refresh technology) Your locking your self in for the long term.

Unless your the type that buys gpus/monitors like sweets and changes stuff a few times a year.

Me? My Processors last on average 4-5 years. A GPU 2-3 years and my monitor is now approaching 9 years old.

So I'f I buy Vega all of the above apply. This is why I've gone for a 1080. Nvdia are just a much safer bet in the long term.

Sorry AMD I love Ryzen but your have to make Navi epic for me to consider you. You need to prove from product to product consistency. This Nvidia give you and at a yearly cadence.
Click to expand...
This, if AMD delivered top draw performance I'd swap tomorrow, until that point I'll keep buying Nvidia products.
That been said I really like AMD and want them to succeed, I've been eyeing up the ryzen laptop to level the playing field while I'm working away. They've delivered on the CPU front so hopefully navi will be a hit. If both AMD and Nvidia had a top of line product with the same performance and price I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Josh.
 
Brazo said:
Whilst so late to the game we're on the eve of the next gen nvidia cards I dont think anyone would complain at 1080 performance for Vega but the price has to be less given the vega cards other deficiencies.

It is now make or break in the price. With decent 1080's around the £450 mark that's asking a lot.
Click to expand...

TBH,Volta is out next year at some point and sure it would have been nice if Vega was out last year,but its unlikely even if AMD did not have Vega,that people will stop buying GTX1070 or GTX1080 cards from Nvidia. One of my mates just bought a GTX1070 a few weeks ago for example.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
TBH,Volta is out next year at some point and sure it would have been nice if Vega was out last year,but its unlikely even if AMD did not have Vega,that people will stop buying GTX1070 or GTX1080 cards from Nvidia. One of my mates just bought a GTX1070 a few weeks ago for example.
Click to expand...
I suppose little point in them bringing it forward now!
 
1_Copy.jpg


That was posted in the Vega preorder thread.
 
TNA said:
I wonder if that is the liquid cooled edition. At those clocks it should be around 1080Ti performance one would imagine. However I can see it being 400w or something. lol
Click to expand...

Not if the bandwidth isn't there - so I want to see how much memory bandwidth affects performance. Is it really memory bandwidth limited or is something else holding back performance??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom