• 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.
spikerules said:
Okay I'm confused why people are still bothered.

We know for 99% certain that the Vega64 is 1080 performance level for double the power consumption and the same price almost a year later. Then we have the Vega64 AIO which will likely be just below 1080ti price inbetween 1080 and Ti performance for double the power consumption of the 1080Ti.

Finally we have the Vega54, which is likely the main alternative to Nvidia 1070 and the only Vega remotely worth thinking about at that price and performance level.
Click to expand...

We also have the Vega Nano which is unknown performance level for unknown the power consumption at unknown the price. Being released unknown.
 
well, after looking at the leaked review and seen almost 520W draw for the RX VEGA 64 AIO (overclocked) I have dusted off the 1500w strider PSU just as a precautionary measure incase my 750W Corsair platinum croaks it.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
So why is the Vega FE consuming far less power than a RX Vega with 8GB less VRAM??

This is not a few watts - the site is basically saying the air cooled Vega is consuming more than a water cooled Vega FE.
Click to expand...
Could be to do with clocks/performance settings. Also that chart has the Vega 64 air lower than the 350w of the FE in your link.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Really?? You do realise they contradict every single review of the Vega FE 16GB??

So why is the Vega FE consuming far less power than a RX Vega with 8GB less VRAM??

This is not a few watts - the site is basically saying the air cooled Vega is consuming more than a water cooled Vega FE.
Click to expand...
The tester confirmed it. Look at the idle watts, too low for a system.

I'm guessing it's because HBM2 doesn't consume much power so 8GB less won't make much difference. The 64 AIO is also running at a much higher clockspeed. The FE watts rose dramatically with clockspeed increases.

Remember water cooled FE hit 440W when overclocked (+25% power target)
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
We also have the Vega Nano which is unknown performance level for unknown the power consumption at unknown the price. Being released unknown.
Click to expand...

I have the Fury Nano on water and it is a beast, but even I won't buy the Vega Nano. We would be looking at below 1070 performance with more power consumption. Might as well buy the 1070 itx card and put that on water.
 
spikerules said:
Okay I'm confused why people are still bothered.

We know for 99% certain that the Vega64 is 1080 performance level for double the power consumption and the same price almost a year later. Then we have the Vega64 AIO which will likely be just below 1080ti price inbetween 1080 and Ti performance for double the power consumption of the 1080Ti.

Finally we have the Vega54, which is likely the main alternative to Nvidia 1070 and the only Vega remotely worth thinking about at that price and performance level.

So why are people still bothered? Even for AMD die hards with Freesync monitors it would be more worth while to sell up and just buy a 1080Ti with a Gsync monitor.

Overall very disappointing as I wanted AMD to really take it to Nvidia, instead it's like they are purposely bending over and taking one hard up the GPU dirty pipe.

The only reason AMD might succeed here is if the mining hearsay of 60-100 is real, which it won't be and I think we all know the "friend of a friend said" thing was just a way of a certain retailer to build up hype for the miners so they can price hike on launch.
Click to expand...

Pcper tweeted that it's mining ability has not changed from that of the Frontier edition.

spikerules said:
I have the Fury Nano on water and it is a beast, but even I won't buy the Vega Nano. We would be looking at below 1070 performance with more power consumption. Might as well buy the 1070 itx card and put that on water.
Click to expand...

Or make do with the nano until Volta appears
 
Ayahuasca said:
So are the US RRP figures quoted unofficial?
Click to expand...
nashathedog said:
We know the dollar price and how that converts and it puts the water cooled RX Vega at the same price as the £640 non reference Gigabyte 1080ti.
They're not guesses they're confirmed numbers.
Click to expand...

The price we pay is going to be seen at 2pm, anything before then is very far from solid.

At least people arguing performance can be reasonably sure Vega is looking like 1070 and 1080 respectively.

Price isn't fixed til you can click buy.
 
nashathedog said:
Pcper tweeted that it's mining ability has not changed from that of the Frontier edition.
Click to expand...
So it has worse price/performance than it's predecessor and main competitor, worse power/performance than it's predecessor and main competitor AND worse mining performance per watt than it's predecessor and main competitor.

Well, it looks cool lol.
 
Hotwired said:
The price we pay is going to be seen at 2pm, anything before then is very far from solid.

At least people arguing performance can be reasonably sure Vega is looking like 1070 and 1080 respectively.

Price isn't fixed til you can click buy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say very far from solid when we've got US RRP pricing and we can do the math on current card prices in the US, even in best case scenarios they're looking overpriced.
 
five8five said:
The tester confirmed it. Look at the idle watts, too low for a system.

I'm guessing it's beacause HBM2 doesn't consume much power so 8GB less won't make much difference. The 64 AIO is also running at a much higher clockspeed. The FE watts rose dramatically with clockspeed increases.
Click to expand...

ubersonic said:
Could be to do with clocks/performance settings. Also that chart has the Vega 64 air lower than the 350w of the FE in your link.
Click to expand...

Again look at this logically an AIR COOLED Vega64 according to them is consuming almost as much power as a water cooled Vega FE with double the VRAM,AIO and with higher boost clockspeeds. That is with half the VRAM,unless you think 8GB of HBM2 is magically adding nearly 50W more,instead of using 16GB.

TGsKslX.png
power-witcher3.png


Oj6MVDu.jpg

The only reason they leaked the results early is to get a huge number of page hits.

How about we actually wait until all the proper reviews are out to see if this holds,or is some weirdness from that review site??
 
Last edited:
Hotwired said:
The price we pay is going to be seen at 2pm, anything before then is very far from solid.

At least people arguing performance can be reasonably sure Vega is looking like 1070 and 1080 respectively.

Price isn't fixed til you can click buy.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a definite, AMD quoted a $699 price for the AIO so £640 will be the lowest it could be, Yes the price might go up from that but it won't go under.
 
Kirby Wurm said:
Where pray tell? Cheapest I've seen in a long time was the £639 preorder here. Even then the Vega 64 at that price makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Another major retailer had 1080tis under £600 and even an evga custom cooled one for just a shade over £600. That was about a month ago now though.

Cant say much more as dont want to get done for discussing competitor prices!

Essentially though, if any vega card is near £600 it is ridiculous. 1080 performance for 1080ti money and 15 months late to the party!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom