Well said.
-
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.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Caporegime
Well in light of all this I just bagged myself a fury x for 275.
Dayum, at that price for a second hand card, I would have waited 2 weeks and picked up a brand new Vega 56 for £75 more mate.
Soldato
You know when AMD said Vega is aimed at the high end? I think what they meant was high end PSU's. 
Last edited:
I am very stunned to see 3 people bought PowerColor RX Vega 64 Liquid Edition for £779.99 that are £120 more expensive and 30% slower than Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti at £659.99.
Madness!
30% slower than a 1080Ti at what?
Maybe gamers are going to be kept off these cards by people who don't use them as toys and find the price trivial.
Vega 64 is cheaper than the Vega FE and disgustingly cheaper than the Pro Nvidia cards and still topping the lists for certain workloads.
No, please don't say that. Going to have nightmares tonight... H1 2019 means Q3 2019 to AMD.
I hope so
I have seen a lot of people be very harsh on him online due to Vega, saying silly things like fire him etc. But I won't judge the man's work until Navi and even then if it cannot beat Volta, people need to understand he has a lot less R&D money than Nvidia.
I don't think Raja should be judged on Vega either. By all means it was in development before he returned to AMD and probably well in development by the time he got back up running again. Vega was originally codenamed Greenland which was first mentioned around 2014/15. Vega is GCN based and most likely Navi will be as well, GCN is quite an old architecture now being around for 6 years, there might not be much more he can do to turn it around without a redesign. Hopefully the architecture after Navi will be a departure from GCN and will allow him to show what he's capable of.
Associate
If you look at its compute performance, where it's on a par with an XP in some cases, that may indicate it's not gamers picking these up.so its £50 more and 30% slower? and people are buying it?
Because it's important to compare like for like, and because Vega and the GTX1080 don't either.
IF you're arguing that the AIO version of the Vega 64 is rubbish because it costs (or did before pricing went lol) the same as a hairdryer spec 1080ti then you're also arguing that the AIO GTX1080's are rubbish too. This is why apples/oranges comparisons don't work.
The settings are approved but the performance differences may vary.
Otherwise explain why AMD would purposely set voltage and power levels that achieve no meaningful performance gains.
AMD will have tested thousands of chips and and done a lots of calculations and simulations to find exact voltage and power settings to achieve desired performances and yields. They didn't randomly pick settings that make Vega look terrible for no reason
Last edited:
30% slower than a 1080Ti at what?
Maybe gamers are going to be kept off these cards by people who don't use them as toys and find the price trivial.
Vega 64 is cheaper than the Vega FE and disgustingly cheaper than the Pro Nvidia cards and still topping the lists for certain workloads.
LOL!
Agreed.
You do understand there are people who use computers for things other than gaming right? If the cards are considerably cheaper than equally/worse performing cards for workstation use then it makes sense professionals would be interested.LOL!
I mean, the fact remains that despite the pricing going full retard these things are still selling like hotcakes and it's damn sure not miners this time so that only leaves gamers/professionals.
Soldato
People don't have much of a choice, my Dell S2417DG cost me around 450 quid when i got it. Expensive, but it'll do me for a couple of years until we get good 4k high hz screens.I still don't think that is enough of a drop to make up for the G-sync mugging
Soldato
I thought it was known that the psu over 650w was not needed. Only Liquid could use that much and even then power is capped off.
You could turn a negative to a positive and buy the ti or dont buy the psu and buy the 56 then buy Navi when it appears or even Volta. Keep your options open
They capped power or one reviewer I think said yes its feasible as the card components are engineered to handle just about anything. I wonder how people like 8pack might deal with it.
Obviously those are the extremes, the sweet spot is not near 2ghz its a 1080 contender.
The future gains for Vega I think are in efficiency and reducing load on their pipeline which helps power and the ghz rise that way, or thats how it sounded.
The Nexus interview with an AMD guy he seemed adamant that Vega can be 1.7ghz at least with boosting above that. I would guess he was frustrated at not being near this 2ghz as you say
Last edited:
Yes I do. Correct me if I am wrong however, most people here are interested in gaming side of things, since when did we worry about compute in these forums?
Everyone is talking about games, guy pops out charts to support his argument that are based on compute. Surely you see the funny side of that?
It's more ROP's that AMD need, 1080Ti has about 40% higher fillrate, not everything in GPU is compute dependent, drawing pixels happens to be extremely important in gaming.
If you look back at some Fury X rumour articles before it was a known quantity there were somewhat ambitious rumours about it having 128 ROP's, as it turned out it had the same number as AMD have had since 290X and they've not improved it with Vega either.
If you look back at some Fury X rumour articles before it was a known quantity there were somewhat ambitious rumours about it having 128 ROP's, as it turned out it had the same number as AMD have had since 290X and they've not improved it with Vega either.
Last edited:
Guy is expressing surprise that cards are selling despite being less powerful than a 1080Ti.
Other guy posts evidence of situations where Vega 64 is in fact much more powerful than a 1080Ti and thus it wins at performance and price.
Thus presenting a decent reason for Vega 64's to be selling despite gamer mentality that it shouldn't because FPS
You follow me?
Associate
Yes I do. Correct me if I am wrong however, most people here are interested in gaming side of things, since when did we worry about compute in these forums?
Everyone is talking about games, guy pops out charts to support his argument that are based on compute. Surely you see the funny side of that?
I do, and it's also good to see these selling full stop. Not that it's a long term indication of how they'll do, and of course if gamers aren't buying them then that would be detrimental as what incentive would devs have to optimise better for the architecture?
Take it you haven't played Watchdogs then?