Poll: The Vega Review Thread.

[andybird123]

like the 1000's of posts in the other 7 closed threads?

I checked his post history and everything pre-release was more questions than negative statements. Post release he had like 3-4 posts criticising vega. There arent even 7 closed threads. The histrionics are strong with this one.

Its not surprising that after a year AMD have released a product uses more power for much less performance with no improvement on price that people are going to point that out. Accusing everyone doing so of trolling isnt going to help anything.

 

[Brazo]

Is your life so hollow, sad and meaningless that you incessantly need to troll AMD threads pouring your views and opinions of scorn on the products to any prospective buyers?

We get it you have a low opinion of AMD products, do the right thing now, move on instead of force feeding your view on everyone.

Seriously you may want to consider counselling over your behaviour it's just not healthy

Erm Internet forums are for discussion and if someone's posting deluded comments then there will be plenty to point out the facts. This is the review thread where I am led to believe such discussion is allowed. The owners thread well that's a different matter.

I think you'll find some of the professionals reviews make me sound like an AMD fanboy!

As for personal insults well you perhaps need your own counselling

 

[ICDP]

Nope...

More expensive
Less performance
Hotter
Louder
More expensive to run.

There are no redeeming features to make it a worthwhile recommendation over the existing competition.

Your first two points are nonsense, it is ~1080 performance and at the same price (from £450). Your other points are totally valid of course and can not be argued with other than people not worrying about those negatives. I accept these negative qualities because the following are positives.

• Freesync Support
• More complete DX12 and Vulcan Support that will be a benefit in such games that support those features.
• Similar performance to 1080
• Similar price to 1080
• A decent upgrade for those who prefer/are locked in to AMD.

It is a logical fallacy to argue it's the same performance at the same price 16 months late. Arguing this also applies to anyone considering a GTX 1080. AMD have a 1080 competitor for those who can see where the RX Vega does offer tangible benefits. I much prefer AMD because I don't like Nvidia's business practices, though I try to remain pragmatic and will purchase Nvidia when it suits. Having said that I have found the 1080Ti prices extortionate and the ~30% performance boost going from Fury X to 1080 without Freesync was a downgrade.

Finally, and I have no statistics other than my own experience, but to me it is clear that the majority of GPU forum trolls are Nvidia fans. Therefore when I am using Nvidia I feel associated with the likes of those "people" and I feel dirty.

See, I can be irrational too

 

[Rannoch]

All Nvidia need is a price drop.

 

[Wrinkly]

All Nvidia need is a price drop.

That would be quite a hefty price drop to make up for the cost of G-sync.

 

[Brazo]

Your first two points are nonsense, it is ~1080 performance and at the same price (from £450). Your other points are totally valid of course and can not be argued with other than people not worrying about those negatives. I accept these negative qualities because the following are positives.

• Freesync Support
• More complete DX12 and Vulcan Support that will be a benefit in such games that support those features.
• Similar performance to 1080
• Similar price to 1080
• A decent upgrade for those who prefer/are locked in to AMD.

It is a logical fallacy to argue it's the same performance at the same price 16 months late. Arguing this also applies to anyone considering a GTX 1080. AMD have a 1080 competitor for those who can see where the RX Vega does offer tangible benefits. I much prefer AMD because I don't like Nvidia's business practices, though I try to remain pragmatic and will purchase Nvidia when it suits. Having said that I have found the 1080Ti prices extortionate and the ~30% performance boost going from Fury X to 1080 without Freesync was a downgrade.

Finally, and I have no statistics other than my own experience, but to me it is clear that the majority of GPU forum trolls are Nvidia fans. Therefore when I am using Nvidia I feel associated with the likes of those "people" and I feel dirty See, I can be irrational too

It may be an inconvenient truth but there are £700 Vega offering 1080 performance and you won't find one now for £450.

It just matches a stock fe 1080 let alone an overclocked AIB 1080. In some titles THE vega card is significantly behind. Now I know they've been a huge mining success and will continue to be hence the high prices.

Pointing out these facts taken from the many professional reviews should not label one a nvidia troll. I saw your original post you have now edited it but name calling places one very low in the pecking order.

 

[Hotwired]

Nope...

More expensive
Less performance
Hotter
Louder
More expensive to run.

There are no redeeming features to make it a worthwhile recommendation over the existing competition.

You certainly are selectively quoting me.

Quote the rest of it and then see if your post makes any sense.

Second person who can't read a whole post and just quotes the first line.

Here, I'll do it for you and quote myself:

Looks like AMD have made a really good card and shown they can still make a card with performance to compete at the top end.

Small matter that it is with two separate cards but it's all selling out so it's still good.

The 56 when it finally arrives deserves to sell well for gaming and value reasons.

64 is selling for the wrong reasons but 100% certain AMD couldn't care less, they know fine well how it matches up which is why they want to shunt publicity to the 56.

See, when you quote the first line without the rest you're a liar and misrepresenting.

 

[Martini1991]

Right now the 64 does cost more than a 1080.

 

[Hotwired]

I've read the whole thing too, I agree with you that the 56 is a very attractive option, but your implication that the 64 has 'performance to compete at the top end' is off. It's nowhere near 1080ti/titan xp level yet has higher power draw.

I'm pretty sure if I make a chart of modern gpu performance and chop it into low end, mid range and top end gpus I can find the 64 in the top end. You're latching onto the previous posters thoughts that top end means the best card. No, that's some personal definition. The 64 is in the top end of gpus, it's no mid range card.

There isn't an argument to be had because I didn't say compete with the top card, only the top end.

 

[Evian]

Your first two points are nonsense, it is ~1080 performance and at the same price (from £450). Your other points are totally valid of course and can not be argued with other than people not worrying about those negatives. I accept these negative qualities because the following are positives.

• Freesync Support
• More complete DX12 and Vulcan Support that will be a benefit in such games that support those features.
• Similar performance to 1080
• Similar price to 1080
• A decent upgrade for those who prefer/are locked in to AMD.

It is a logical fallacy to argue it's the same performance at the same price 16 months late. Arguing this also applies to anyone considering a GTX 1080. AMD have a 1080 competitor for those who can see where the RX Vega does offer tangible benefits. I much prefer AMD because I don't like Nvidia's business practices, though I try to remain pragmatic and will purchase Nvidia when it suits. Having said that I have found the 1080Ti prices extortionate and the ~30% performance boost going from Fury X to 1080 without Freesync was a downgrade.

Finally, and I have no statistics other than my own experience, but to me it is clear that the majority of GPU forum trolls are Nvidia fans. Therefore when I am using Nvidia I feel associated with the likes of those "people" and I feel dirty.

See, I can be irrational too

1080 is better and some 1080's are cheaper, Freesync ranges are terrible/Flickering issues, Higher power consumption, 16 months for worse than 1080 performance, 1080's released 16 months ago were £20 more than now, That is quite bad.

 

[ubersonic]

More expensive

Than a GTX1070, which is slower.

Less performance

Than a GTX1080ti which is £200 more, and that gap will close over time.

Hotter

Heat is only a problem if you game in a room with bad ventilation, in which case any card would heat the room to unbearable levels eventually.

Louder

Than what? I don't expect it's going to be noticeably louder than a reference GTX1080.

More expensive to run.

Oh noes, it will add almost £50 to a hardcore gamers annual electric bill, the sky is falling.

There are no redeeming features to make it a worthwhile recommendation over the existing competition.

1: At the £450 price point it was great value.
2: Performance should improve even more when drivers get better.
3: Supports Adaptive Sync.
4: Don't need the heating on over Xmas ^^

 

[Yaayuh!]

As i said previously, it 64 should sit at £450 and 56 should sit at no more than £350. Alas, this doesn't look like it's going to happen at the moment and something tells me that this was not a cheap endeavour for AMD.

 

[justbeingmiko]

Well, I am probably in the minority here, but the benchmarks don't look as bad as I thought they would. Seems that AMD have matched the 1070/1080 with their Vega solutions - Yes it is a year later than the Nvidia offering, but given that there is nothing faster on the horizon from either company, it still brings competition. And yes, I know the Titan and TI are faster, but they are not mass market cards

I wonder if there is headroom in 6 months for AMD to bring out a Vega Ti equivalent? Nvidia did.

 

[Ayahuasca]

A volta consumer card should be here within 6 months, whether it will be the massively priced Titan first is the question.

At £450 the 64 might just slip into the mass market but at current pricing I don't think it will, this forum creates a weird perception of what most are willing to pay for a GPU.

 

[Hotwired]

Well, I am probably in the minority here, but the benchmarks don't look as bad as I thought they would. Seems that AMD have matched the 1070/1080 with their Vega solutions - Yes it is a year later than the Nvidia offering, but given that there is nothing faster on the horizon from either company, it still brings competition. And yes, I know the Titan and TI are faster, but they are not mass market cards

I wonder if there is headroom in 6 months for AMD to bring out a Vega Ti equivalent? Nvidia did.

Wccftech was mumbling about a rumour of a dual vega from asus.

It would be quite obnoxious on many levels starting with power consumption and ending with the price.

But if you've seen the pcb of a regular vega there's a lot of room already as the memory chips are stacked with the gpu not scattered around taking up board space so there's that going for it.

If it happens it may well be too limited and expensive to ever be considered a proper card.

 

[TNA]

Nope...

More expensive
Less performance
Hotter
Louder
More expensive to run.

There are no redeeming features to make it a worthwhile recommendation over the existing competition.

Yeah but...

Freesync
FineWine
Nvidia urgh.

 

[DarrenM343]

I'm pretty sure if I make a chart of modern gpu performance and chop it into low end, mid range and top end gpus I can find the 64 in the top end. You're latching onto the previous posters thoughts that top end means the best card. No, that's some personal definition. The 64 is in the top end of gpus, it's no mid range card.

There isn't an argument to be had because I didn't say compete with the top card, only the top end.

I think peoples opinion varies on this. To me "top end" is the likes of the Titan X and to a slightly lesser extent the Ti. The 1080 I class as mid-range. Top end is never for the masses.
It's like a car. Top end cars are not the best value by a long shot, you can pay a huge premium for sometimes a small gain - but people want the best, but it's not for the masses and not everyone is willing to pay for it. The TX is really only in this category.
The 1080 was a top end card when it arrived, but not now. I think of the mid-range as being upper-mid, mid and low-mid with the 1080,1070 and probably 1060 in there too (low-mid). Everything below 1060 becomes low end. This is in my mind anyway

 

[Hotwired]

I think peoples opinion varies on this. To me "top end" is the likes of the Titan X and to a lesser extend the Ti. The 1080 I class as mid-range. Top end is never for the masses.
It's like a car. Top end cars are not the best value by a long shot, you can pay a huge premium for sometimes a small gain - but people want the best, but it's not for the masses and not everyone is willing to pay for it. The TX is really only in this category.
The 1080 was a top end card when it arrived, but not now. I think of the mid-range as being upper-mid, mid and low-mid with the 1080,1070 and probably 1060 in there too (low-mid). Everything below 1060 becomes low end. This is in my mind anyway

As you see it but you're making new categories. I also really can't bring myself to say that cards which are £550-600 are mid range.

Mid range is the stuff which sells loads and is affordable, I can't call these affordable and they sure don't give value for money. They're for pushing dreams of bigger monitors and faster refresh rates rather than getting a good looking game on an average screen.

 

[opethdisciple]

I think peoples opinion varies on this. To me "top end" is the likes of the Titan X and to a slightly lesser extent the Ti. The 1080 I class as mid-range. Top end is never for the masses.
It's like a car. Top end cars are not the best value by a long shot, you can pay a huge premium for sometimes a small gain - but people want the best, but it's not for the masses and not everyone is willing to pay for it. The TX is really only in this category.
The 1080 was a top end card when it arrived, but not now. I think of the mid-range as being upper-mid, mid and low-mid with the 1080,1070 and probably 1060 in there too (low-mid). Everything below 1060 becomes low end. This is in my mind anyway

Possibly

So high end: 1080ti

Upper mid: 1080
Center mid: 1070
Lower mid: 1060

Anything else. Pants.

 

[danoliver1]

Apparently VEGA can do a big MEGA-FLOP, I'll get me coat.