• 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 Vega Review Thread.

What do we think about Vega?

  • What has AMD been doing for the past 1-2 years?

  • It consumes how many watts and is how loud!!!

  • It is not that bad.

  • Want to buy but put off by pricing and warranty.

  • I will be buying one for sure (I own a Freesync monitor so have little choice).

  • Better red than dead.

Results are only viewable after voting.
ALXAndy said:
No definitely not !

I don't get why Fury/X stock just stopped. I do know that hardly any one bought it at launch, maybe that was why? Vega seems to be selling like hot cakes though !

If AMD could have launched Fury X for the same price as the 980 they would have had a major success on their hands. Instead it was like it was some sort of laboratory experiment, and now they are doing the same thing playing with HBM2? very strange logic they seem to have.

They are still trying to get their GPU tech supported. If they could you would see the same sort of gains in gaming that you see in mining. But, as far it hasn't happened. Just like it didn't happen for Nvidia with Fermi. AMD now need to revert back and release what games want and not what AMD think games want.
Click to expand...

It was probably more an HBM test vehicle- the interposer was at the limit of what you can do,and it was huge 600MM2 chip,and Nvidia just has more experience with such huge chips.

If you look at it,it was basically double a AMD Tonga GPU but with HBM instead of GDDR5.

Its a shame that HBM1 topped out at 4GB,since an 8GB Fury X might have even looked better at launch.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It was more a test - the interposer was at the limit of what you can do,and it was huge 600MM2 chip,and Nvidia just has more experience with such huge chips.

Its a shame that HBM1 topped out at 4GB,since an 8GB Fury X might have even looked better at launch.
Click to expand...

Yeah or later. 4gb at launch was OK tbh, then a couple of games come along and made it crash/reset my PC. I actually gave up on it then and bought a Titan XM. Was a good card, only just upgraded it after 15 months. I have three rigs plugged into the same monitor. It's 1440p Freesync, but I didn't like Freesync at all so I just run it HDMI now with regular Vsync and as long as it doesn't tank it's more than acceptable.

I do hope that this time around AMD are more committed, and if it turns out later that Vega is very good for DX12 games (like Fury X) that you will still be able to buy it.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Remember weeks ago I said the Vega56 would probably be close to the Vega64.
Click to expand...


Well its not as if that took some Sherlock Holmes level super sleuthing to work out :p The fury "pro" wasn't much slower than the fury x, the 290 pro wasn't much slower than the 290x, been that way for a while now, they just disable some shader units and a mild downclock on the core and ram usually :)
 
ALXAndy said:
Yeah or later. 4gb at launch was OK tbh, then a couple of games come along and made it crash/reset my PC. I actually gave up on it then and bought a Titan XM. Was a good card, only just upgraded it after 15 months. I have three rigs plugged into the same monitor. It's 1440p Freesync, but I didn't like Freesync at all so I just run it HDMI now with regular Vsync and as long as it doesn't tank it's more than acceptable.

I do hope that this time around AMD are more committed, and if it turns out later that Vega is very good for DX12 games (like Fury X) that you will still be able to buy it.
Click to expand...

Well in the end,if cutting back on GPU R and D meant AMD could put it into Ryzen,I still think it was the better bet. Annoying but what to do??

Gerard said:
Well its not as if that took some Sherlock Holmes level super sleuthing to work out :p The fury "pro" wasn't much slower than the fury x, the 290 pro wasn't much slower than the 290x, been that way for a while now, they just disable some shader units and a mild downclock on the core and ram usually :)
Click to expand...

Except everyone was crying about the Vega64,whilst ignoring what was in front of them!! :p

Vega64 is exactly where I expect it would be,so I am indifferent to it - rather have a GTX1080 over it TBH.

OTH,Vega56 seems a much better mix of performance and power.

If anything I think AMD should have just released Vega56 and used AIB partners to produce overclocked versions.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well in the end,if cutting back on GPU R and D meant AMD could put it into Ryzen,I still think it was the better bet. Annoying but what to do??
Click to expand...

TBH Cat if AMD could get Vega supported properly they would beat the 1080Ti. If it can do so in deep learning and mining it could do the same in gaming. But it just isn't, because devs are lazy. Fermi was a monster. When folding it utterly demolished the 5000 series Radeons. Even the 5970 ! now that all seems to have reversed and now it's Nvidia putting out diet dies that run bloody quick. And being a large die that adds expense (and higher failure rates due to die imperfections) and the HBM2 is just like the rotten cherry atop all of that.

I'm glad AMD concentrated more on CPUs. We needed them so much more than GPUs, IMO. Intel were taking the total pee (£185 for a unlocked I3, lmfao !) and needed a hefty slap. And AMD gave it to them. Which, kinda makes me wonder, is that why people are being so forgiving about Vega?
 
ALXAndy said:
TBH Cat if AMD could get Vega supported properly they would beat the 1080Ti. If it can do so in deep learning and mining it could do the same in gaming. But it just isn't, because devs are lazy. Fermi was a monster. When folding it utterly demolished the 5000 series Radeons. Even the 5970 ! now that all seems to have reversed and now it's Nvidia putting out diet dies that run bloody quick. And being a large die that adds expense (and higher failure rates due to die imperfections) and the HBM2 is just like the rotten cherry atop all of that.

I'm glad AMD concentrated more on CPUs. We needed them so much more than GPUs, IMO. Intel were taking the total pee (£185 for a unlocked I3, lmfao !) and needed a hefty slap. And AMD gave it to them. Which, kinda makes me wonder, is that why people are being so forgiving about Vega?
Click to expand...

If it is the Vega56,as long as price is reasonable,its basically an AMD GTX1070 for Nvidia GTX1070 money. As long as the pricing is not pushed up by miners,it seems a solid enough card and quite a few review sites agree. Even power consumption seems to not much more than a RX580,so it should be OK in many systems.

Its not earth shattering but hey,its better than only having an RX580 as your top card! :p

Even if there was no Vega Nvidia will still be selling GTX1070 cards right upto the Volta launch,so if AMD can take a few sales,then a bit more dosh is going their way. Nvidia sells far more GTX1070 cards than GTX1080/GTX1080TI cards it seems(looking at Steam).

OTH,the Vega64 really does not seem that interesting to me - power consumption increases way too much for a very small performance bump.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
yeah it is because Ive had crossfire disabled for over a year its that bad. I know what you are saying though.
Click to expand...
Sssshhhh! Don't say anything negative about AMD on this forum you'll get banned or at the very least lynched!
Follow my lead, I'll get you out safe!

I think the Vega cards are the best GPUs ever built.
They are all clearly faster than a 1080Ti it's just that all review sites that say otherwise are hugely Nvidia biased because Nvidia are evil and pay reviewers to say bad things about AMD.
Nvidia released the 1080 too early 16 months ago (or whatever it was). It was too early, all it did was make develop code more lazily.
Now is the perfect time for these cards. It's also time we ditched 1080p cuz who needs that, even consoles are moving away from that now!

Quick Tony, while everyone quotes me and +1s it, run, RUN! :D

To be fair if AMD had released these cards 12 months ago I think they'd only be mildly disappointing, due to the power usage and possible lack of overclocking (although that seems like it may be a review sample thing, still not something you want "immortalised" in reviews that people will likely look at for the lifetime of the cards). If you were getting 1070/1080 performance for 1070/1080 price at about the same time then I think they'd be as well received as the 300/Fury series cards.

I am tempted to get one of the watercooled Vega 64s at some point though (when there's more stock and hopefully better prices). Do you think it's worth swapping Fury X Crossfire for a Vega 64? I know it seems like a silly question, but it would use less power than 2 Fury X cards (just) and has twice the VRAM. Also in the situations where Crossfire isn't supported it'd give a performance boost. But is it worth the price?
 
Morve said:
Bit disappointed its only a 2 year warranty
Click to expand...
This!

It is was the final nail in the coffin for AMD when they did that. 2 years on such a premium watercooled card? Nah. I would have pre-ordered it if not for that. Now they have just sent Nvidia another customer as I am waiting for Volta :rolleyes::o
 
I dont feel like Nvidia will do anything with prices. They dont have too. Vega isnt really putting any pressure on their line up. It matches it for performance, it's good for FreeSync owners but it isn't stealing from Nvidia's market share.

In fact I feel like Vega is only going to make Nvidia win some new customers with it's power efficiency and heat etc...

Vega 56 tho could be the savour of the party if it drops in price.

But will miners keep prices elevated? This again plays in to Nvidia hands as I get the impression miners prefer AMD cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom