• 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.
Yeah, that's what we were all hoping for when the hype train started, that AMD would be releasing a not terrible card. How much would you pay for a not terrible card? Cuz AMD are charging about £700! £700 gets you a not terrible card, so how much do AMD want for a good card? And people complain about Nvidia prices!

I think back to when AMD/ATI released the 5870 and Nvidia released nothing. Then eventually Nvidia released the GTX 480. It ran hot, it was not power efficient and it was expensive. But it had the performance edge.Still I'm sure a lot of AMD/ATI owners like to focus on the negative points of the GTX 480. Now AMD release the Vega 64 about 16 months after Nvidia released the 1080. It runs hots, it's not power efficient and it's expensive. And it does NOT have the performance edge. Now AMD/ATI owners are saying how Vega 64 is not a terrible card and defending it.
In the extra time it took AMD to make this over what it took Nvidia to make the 1080 you could (with a willing member of the opposite sex) create a human life and use up your maternity leave and there would still be time left over! 12 months ago this performance would be good, Nvidia didn't have the 1080Ti then. But in 16 months AMD are still only able to challenge Nvidia's 3rd tier card?

People happily reporting that it's an improvement over their old card. If you old card was a previous gen, surely this is the very minimum you'd expect? When has their been a GPU release when the new gen top card has worse performance than the previous generation? (except the RX480)

Also, why is it being compared to the 1080? It's AMD's top card, shouldn't it be getting compared to Nvidia's top card? The AIO version is about 1080Ti price too. What was the last time we compared a top end card from one manufacturer to whichever card from the other manufacturer it performs closest to? It's always been top vs. top hasn't it?
When Nvidia released the 980 it was compared to the 780Ti and called disappointing. When the 1080 was released it was compared to the 980Ti. Nvidia cards were being compared to the previous gen's next card up and judged disappointing. But with AMD the top card is being compared against the 3rd tier card and it's considered reasonable when it matches it's performance!? Why wasn't the GTX 980 being compared to the 280X to decide if it was any good? (I don't think the 300 series was out at the time was it?)
Even the big review sites are comparing to the 1080. It feels like there's a lot of AMD bias going around.
And even with the AMD bias the best people seem to be saying is, it's not terrible...

The answer to most of your post is no, it shouldn't be top card to top card, it should be compared in market segment to market segment. AMD simply doesn't have anything at the 1080ti level, so the ti wins automatically for people looking at that level of performance.
 
The answer to most of your post is no, it shouldn't be top card to top card, it should be compared in market segment to market segment. AMD simply doesn't have anything at the 1080ti level, so the ti wins automatically for people looking at that level of performance.

Price imo is what comparisions shoulf be based off
 
Price imo is what comparisions shoulf be based off

That's the most backwards thinking I'm going to quote today.

The review becomes total garbage the moment the price changes not to mention prices are very different for different brands and models of the same card.

A decent review which will last compares cards by performance.

You, the customer, can then know that X Y and Z cards are similar performance and can check in the shop what prices they are selling for today and using your own brain, buy the best value one on the day.

A review which lists by price? What model price? Will it be updated for months as prices change? What if prices are wildly different in your country vs the review?

A good review compares by performance and it will still be worth looking at years later.


A deliberately short life review is a different thing. What can you get for $200 today might be it's name. It will be worthless when prices change but for a short time it can be correct.


For reference you are by far not the only one saying this line but it is so wrong and I had to quote someone to make my point.
 
Pretty much every review in the history of review has mentioned price at the time of reviewing, and has a sentence or two about value for money.

Obviously prices change, but then so can performance (new drivers, etc). A review is a snapshot in time.
 
That's the most backwards thinking I'm going to quote today.

The review becomes total garbage the moment the price changes not to mention prices are very different for different brands and models of the same card.

A decent review which will last compares cards by performance.

You, the customer, can then know that X Y and Z cards are similar performance and can check in the shop what prices they are selling for today and using your own brain, buy the best value one on the day.

A review which lists by price? What model price? Will it be updated for months as prices change? What if prices are wildly different in your country vs the review?

A good review compares by performance and it will still be worth looking at years later.


A deliberately short life review is a different thing. What can you get for $200 today might be it's name. It will be worthless when prices change but for a short time it can be correct.


For reference you are by far not the only one saying this line but it is so wrong and I had to quote someone to make my point.

Everything changes not just price.

But yes lets ignore price and just buy on performance right!.. So everyone should get a 1080ti or a titan :)
Performance also changes with drivers and so on, your view is to check prices on the day your buying my view is to check performance on the day i'm buying at my price point.
Difference being i dont call you opinion wrong just different.
I personally dont see the point of comparing say vega 64 to a 1080 when its priced about the same as a 1080Ti.
 
Everything changes not just price.

But yes lets ignore price and just buy on performance right!.. So everyone should get a 1080ti or a titan :)
Performance also changes with drivers and so on, your view is to check prices on the day your buying my view is to check performance on the day i'm buying at my price point.
Difference being i dont call you opinion wrong just different.
I personally dont see the point of comparing say vega 64 to a 1080 when its priced about the same as a 1080Ti.

I didn't say ignore price, you said that out of nowhere.

But lets look at comparing by price, except which price...

That's right. Just like I said there's different models and different brands.

AMD is planning to sponsor the £450 price again.

So what's it going to be, the £450 price, the £550 price, the £599 price or the £620 price we saw the other day all the same Vega 64 blower card, all the same performance. Then there's the AIO cards each brand at a different price and they have a different BIOS to the air cards so they perform a little better.

We haven't even got to the 3rd party cards yet which can be any price at all, mostly much more expensive.

So you can have a dozen different prices for the same performing card how do you choose what to pick.

On the other hand.

Comparing by performance you compare the card alongside other cards like this:

tmp.png


It's real easy to see how the performance works out, it's pretty much like a 1080 as people have known since way before launch.

You especially get to see how your current card matches up vs what you want.

We can go to the shop today or next year and this graph is likely to still be true. You find out what the cards cost at the moment and decide what your priorities are and what you can get for your money.

That's right, the price matters. But it doesn't make a good review focus because of all those reasons of prices being highly irregular that I've mentioned.

Bottom line is, looking a a proper performance review tells you the answer beforehand to a "compare by price" piece.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say ignore price, you said that out of nowhere.

But lets look at comparing by price, except which price...

That's right. Just like I said there's different models and different brands.

AMD is planning to sponsor the £450 price again.

So what's it going to be, the £450 price, the £550 price, the £599 price or the £620 price we saw the other day all the same Vega 64 blower card, all the same performance. Then there's the AIO cards each brand at a different price and they have a different BIOS to the air cards so they perform a little better.

We haven't even got to the 3rd party cards yet which can be any price at all, mostly much more expensive.

So you can have a dozen different prices for the same performing card how do you choose what to pick.

On the other hand.

Comparing by performance you compare the card alongside other cards like this:

tmp.png


It's real easy to see how the performance works out, it's pretty much like a 1080 as people have known since way before launch.

You especially get to see how your current card matches up vs what you want.

We can go to the shop today or next year and this graph is likely to still be true. You find out what the cards cost at the moment and decide what your priorities are and what you can get for your money.

That's right, the price matters. But it doesn't make a good review focus because of all those reasons of prices being highly irregular that I've mentioned.

Bottom line is, looking a a proper performance review tells you the answer beforehand to a "compare by price" piece.

That graph doesn't seem right to me anyway. The TXP is where the 1080Ti should be (if not more as the stock TXP cooler is not brilliant). Not a few percent faster than the 1080.
 
That graph doesn't seem right to me anyway. The TXP is where the 1080Ti should be (if not more as the stock TXP cooler is not brilliant). Not a few percent faster than the 1080.

Knock yourself out, the point of the huge written articles is they show a lot of detail: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/108889-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-radeon-rx-vega-56/

Thats one game at one resolution, there are others of both.

Come to that there's about half a dozen of these big write ups in english to look at.
 
Cards are compared on price and performance.

And power consumption and noise and heat etc.

Whilst performance is a good yardstick it's only relative to price. You'd have to be mad (or a freesync diehard) to pay 1080ti prices for sub 1080 performance.
 
Comparing by performance you compare the card alongside other cards like this:

tmp.png


It's real easy to see how the performance works out, it's pretty much like a 1080 as people have known since way before launch.

First time over the last 20 years, I see people trying to ignore the price of a product and base it on it's performance. But well, each on their own.
However seeing your graph, which you take like a gospel, thought something is wrong, and my memory did serve me well at the end.

Thats Hexus, used the same CPU/mobo/ram just a month ago to do the review of the TitanXp.

7b6dcf7e-e6da-4c05-9d04-fb90634f1280.png


Huh, what happened? Did 1080tis lost 10% performance in a month to make the Vega review look better?
Or that 38mhz between Aorus Xtreme and EVGA SC2 is the major factor for 10% fps drop?

Lets pick an AMD sponsored game.
From the Vega review.
1dee4f6d-bca8-45d8-b470-1e13d32fbccc.png


From the TXp review same story.
Look at the FuryX performance. Having one myself, didn't saw a 4% drop on FPS in TWW the last 20 days.
803236fa-972f-4022-b711-97aee6728b90.png



The whole reason of my post, isn't another Vega or NV. But that reviews need to be researched over a period to make a decision.

Especially one which involves buying an overpriced card.

And again each on their own.
 
First time over the last 20 years, I see people trying to ignore the price of a product and base it on it's performance. But well, each on their own.
However seeing your graph, which you take like a gospel, thought something is wrong, and my memory did serve me well at the end.

Thats Hexus, used the same CPU/mobo/ram just a month ago to do the review of the TitanXp.

7b6dcf7e-e6da-4c05-9d04-fb90634f1280.png


Huh, what happened? Did 1080tis lost 10% performance in a month to make the Vega review look better?
Or that 38mhz between Aorus Xtreme and EVGA SC2 is the major factor for 10% fps drop?

Lets pick an AMD sponsored game.
From the Vega review.
1dee4f6d-bca8-45d8-b470-1e13d32fbccc.png


From the TXp review same story.
Look at the FuryX performance. Having one myself, didn't saw a 4% drop on FPS in TWW the last 20 days.
803236fa-972f-4022-b711-97aee6728b90.png



The whole reason of my post, isn't another Vega or NV. But that reviews need to be researched over a period to make a decision.

Especially one which involves buying an overpriced card.

And again each on their own.

A Titan Xp is not going to score less than an ordinary Pascal Titan in anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom