Caporegime
My bad, statement was made yesterday via Radeon RX Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/Radeon/status/897820530065199104
P.S It's no good bombarding me with questions related to this, i don't have any answers for you.
-
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
My bad, statement was made yesterday via Radeon RX Twitter account.
https://twitter.com/Radeon/status/897820530065199104
P.S It's no good bombarding me with questions related to this, i don't have any answers for you.
True. Though in fairness, if AMD can leverage IF to use multi-dies on the package with Navi, that *could* be a game changer. They'll need to address the power draw issues they're facing ATM though.
Um.. read all of my post again. Both scenarios are purely speculative obviously.
I think its fair to say they're simply making the best of a bad situation. We don't know for sure what went on but it seems like another polaris situation, they got working silicon back, it didn't clock to where they wanted it to without dramatically raising the volts, so that's what they had to do to get the performance out of it. Had it clocked well with lower volts then its possible they could have scaled it up to where it was within heel nipping range of the 1080 ti (which was probably what they were banking on knowing that a 1080 ti was going to hit before this launched), then if it had consumed 350 watts it wouldn't have been as big an issue as the tech sites are making it. Using global foundries probably didn't help as some are of the opinion their process is a lot more leaky compared to the alternatives.
If anyone thinks the plan for Vega from the outset was a 300-350 watt gpu that only competes with nvidia's second tier 180 watt card then i feel compelled to inform them there's a bridge in Brooklyn up for sale.
Caporegime
That's not a statement to what's being mentioned in regards to pricing?
Something I have noticed in this thread is that there are quite a few people determined to hate Vega, not just for it's flaws and launch mistakes but simply because it's an AMD card which is kinda sad. However the fact remains it was a great choice at £450 and is still a pretty decent option at £550 for many people (which probably explains the cards selling /shock) but as most of those people had resigned themselves to hating it before it launched I guess they're blind to that.
However as there's so much negativity going on I figured I would explain why I chose to buy one based on reasoned analysis in the hope it may help any open minded individuals:
I made the decision a few weeks ago that I would be buying a new GPU on Monday to replace my 980ti because there was no way I was going to wait 8 months just to see what Volta brought to the dance. This meant my choices were (quite obviously) limited to cards better than the 980ti. So the list of contenders was the GTX1080, GTX1080ti, Titan XP, Vega 64 and Vega FE. The VFE got dumped almost immediately because it's essentially the same card as the V64 but with extra RAM that I don't need, simple job. Due to that I also dropped the TXP because even though it's slightly faster than a (reference) 1080ti, I again didn't need that much VRAM at that much extra cost. This narrowed it down to the GTX1080, GTX1080ti and V64.
Looking at it objectively, the leaked reviews showed the V64 trading blows in games with the 1080 and losing to the 1080ti, given the past history of AMD cards it was safe to expect that future drivers would extend a lead over the 1080 however expecting it to match the 1080ti would be wishful thinking. In non-gaming use the V64 appeared to trade blows with the 1080ti and sometimes the TXP while leaving the 1080 in the dust. At this point it was fairly even with all cards having plus and minus points (price wasn't yet known) so focusing on minus points for the V64 it was known it would use more electricity (and thus generate more heat) than either of the Geforce cards on my list, I calculated it out to be an additional £20-30 a year running cost. As my room is air conditioned (and also has a window if that breaks) a bit of extra heat wasn't important to me, and neither was 7p a day extra electric.
So I then switched to features, last time I bought a GPU I was playing a lot of Borderlands and Metro games so PhysX was important to me, today I am not so it's not that much of a concern (I know BL3 and a new Metro game are in development, but they haven't announced PhysX support and won't arrive before Volta anyway). So what other features are relevant then? well AMD has FreeSync and Nvidia has Gsync. My primary monitor supports neither but if I do upgrade it at some point there are significantly more FreeSync choices than Gsync (as with time FreeSync seems to be becoming a standard thing on high end monitors not just a feature), the fact this GPU choice may influence/limit a future monitor upgrade did make the Vega card more appealing (as it would result in the greater pool of monitors to choose from) however I didn't give it too much credit as I am not currently looking to upgrade my primary monitor on this PC.
So that only left price.
I knew from my comparisons that to a buyer in my position the 1080ti was a better card than the V64 which was a better card than the 1080, so the only remaining factor was price, then on Monday that dropped and (at launch) the reference V64 was the same price as a reference 1080, so that was the 1080 dead and I was down to two. With it now a two horse race between the 1080ti and V64 I had to ask if I felt like paying >40% more for a <40% gaming FPS increase that was guaranteed to drop over time, I wasnt so I bought the V64.
And there you have it, yes the V64 most definitely has it's flaws and it's issues, yes if you own a G-Sync monitor it's a terrible option, yes if you do nothing but play games it's no better than a GTX1080. But trying to pretend it's a terrible card and wasn't a great buy for many many users at £450 (and still is at £550 for many) is just disingenuous and makes you look silly.
However as there's so much negativity going on I figured I would explain why I chose to buy one based on reasoned analysis in the hope it may help any open minded individuals:
I made the decision a few weeks ago that I would be buying a new GPU on Monday to replace my 980ti because there was no way I was going to wait 8 months just to see what Volta brought to the dance. This meant my choices were (quite obviously) limited to cards better than the 980ti. So the list of contenders was the GTX1080, GTX1080ti, Titan XP, Vega 64 and Vega FE. The VFE got dumped almost immediately because it's essentially the same card as the V64 but with extra RAM that I don't need, simple job. Due to that I also dropped the TXP because even though it's slightly faster than a (reference) 1080ti, I again didn't need that much VRAM at that much extra cost. This narrowed it down to the GTX1080, GTX1080ti and V64.
Looking at it objectively, the leaked reviews showed the V64 trading blows in games with the 1080 and losing to the 1080ti, given the past history of AMD cards it was safe to expect that future drivers would extend a lead over the 1080 however expecting it to match the 1080ti would be wishful thinking. In non-gaming use the V64 appeared to trade blows with the 1080ti and sometimes the TXP while leaving the 1080 in the dust. At this point it was fairly even with all cards having plus and minus points (price wasn't yet known) so focusing on minus points for the V64 it was known it would use more electricity (and thus generate more heat) than either of the Geforce cards on my list, I calculated it out to be an additional £20-30 a year running cost. As my room is air conditioned (and also has a window if that breaks) a bit of extra heat wasn't important to me, and neither was 7p a day extra electric.
So I then switched to features, last time I bought a GPU I was playing a lot of Borderlands and Metro games so PhysX was important to me, today I am not so it's not that much of a concern (I know BL3 and a new Metro game are in development, but they haven't announced PhysX support and won't arrive before Volta anyway). So what other features are relevant then? well AMD has FreeSync and Nvidia has Gsync. My primary monitor supports neither but if I do upgrade it at some point there are significantly more FreeSync choices than Gsync (as with time FreeSync seems to be becoming a standard thing on high end monitors not just a feature), the fact this GPU choice may influence/limit a future monitor upgrade did make the Vega card more appealing (as it would result in the greater pool of monitors to choose from) however I didn't give it too much credit as I am not currently looking to upgrade my primary monitor on this PC.
So that only left price.
I knew from my comparisons that to a buyer in my position the 1080ti was a better card than the V64 which was a better card than the 1080, so the only remaining factor was price, then on Monday that dropped and (at launch) the reference V64 was the same price as a reference 1080, so that was the 1080 dead and I was down to two. With it now a two horse race between the 1080ti and V64 I had to ask if I felt like paying >40% more for a <40% gaming FPS increase that was guaranteed to drop over time, I wasnt so I bought the V64.
And there you have it, yes the V64 most definitely has it's flaws and it's issues, yes if you own a G-Sync monitor it's a terrible option, yes if you do nothing but play games it's no better than a GTX1080. But trying to pretend it's a terrible card and wasn't a great buy for many many users at £450 (and still is at £550 for many) is just disingenuous and makes you look silly.
Associate
I re-read your post and I stand by what I said.
Soldato
I see that Hardware Unboxed had a talk to AMD about the prices and posted a video about it.
Then pulled it as he doesn't believe AMD.
Then pulled it as he doesn't believe AMD.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,541
Umm what are you talking about? We were talking about the statement on pricing, which you are fully aware of and have been prt of the conversation about...
Associate
I'm still interested in how it will perform finally if they enable the yet disabled features. Would be nice to see a Vega card working not an emulated Fiji.
Tho it's just an AMD slide but primitive shaders should enable NGG fast pathso the throughput rate would jump nicely from 4 primitives to 17/ clock.
Soldato
The difference is Intel pretty much stopped innovating after Sandy Bridge and concentrated on resources on vanity projects like the acquisition of Mcafee which allowed time for AMD to develop Zen and catch Intel with it's pants down. Nvidia on the other hand is in front and keeps it's foot firmly on the accelerator with innovation and new products which makes it a lot of harder for AMD to catch up, besides the CPU and GPU business are different problems, CPU was a hardware issue whereas on the GPU front it's more of a software issue.
No worries mate. We appreciate you being around.
On a more general note (and this is not a question to you), what I'm really looking forward to are partner Vega 56s. I recon we're not going to see any sooner than October/November. Really worried that prices may be terrible by then. Miners, the price of RAM...
Caporegime
Soldato
Nicely articulated and put in to perspective Uber. Tabloid-like hysteria in here sometimes.
What have you seen on paper?
I've seen many things on paper but that was a figure of speech. I was referring to the infinity fabric and the potential for multi-die GPU based Radeon's.
Soldato
Has nothing to do with what the actual RRP is supposed to be?
The guy asks for no more questions because he has no answers and immediately gets more questions.
I suggest bold, underlined and italics, he wasn't clear enough.
Anyway.
Despite very loud gamers declaring it to be so, it's going to be close to impossible to tell if pricing is actually off vs what the market finds acceptable to pay.
AMD isn't going to squeak about stock, shops won't spill the beans unless they don't mind being on AMD's **** list of lowest priority for stock of everything, forever. So if we never know how stock is shifting we don't know if its far too much demand, too little stock or just early days causing the sell outs.
I suggest bold, underlined and italics, he wasn't clear enough.
Anyway.
Despite very loud gamers declaring it to be so, it's going to be close to impossible to tell if pricing is actually off vs what the market finds acceptable to pay.
AMD isn't going to squeak about stock, shops won't spill the beans unless they don't mind being on AMD's **** list of lowest priority for stock of everything, forever. So if we never know how stock is shifting we don't know if its far too much demand, too little stock or just early days causing the sell outs.