Poll: The Vega Review Thread.

[humbug]

As gamers GPU's these cards are over priced and under developed but is anyone really surprised about that?

nVidia probably spend 3x as much on marketing their GPU's as AMD can afford on R&D, even when AMD had competitive GPU's they were still losing marketshare to nVidia, in a situation like that eventually one does actually fall behind, at that point it becomes a downward spiral of actually being uncompetitive.

Personally i think AMD are having to make choices about what they do with what little money they have, very much the opposite of these latest GPU's from AMD their CPU's are fantastic, their Zen architecture is batter than anything Intel have right now.

AMD think there is far more profitability in CPU's than in gaming GPU's, and they would be right, AMD are selling HEDT chips for £1000 that cost them £100 assembled and shipped. and they are selling because they are plain better than Intel's Core i9's.

These Vega GPU's are clearly not designed for gamers, they are workstation GPU's that come with game capable drivers, they are again very good, actually as workstation GPU's, at £500 - £600 they make no sense as gamers GPU's, but as workstation GPU's they are fantastic.

With limited R&D this is where AMD's choices now are, gamers not a priority anymore and frankly who can blame them? gamers are a tribal bunch and most have not been kind to AMD over the past decade.

 

[opethdisciple]

It's pretty simple.

RX Vega 64: £548.99
Geforce GTX1080ti: £649.99
VEGA Frontier Edition: £899.99
Nvidia Titan XP: £1149

If you're looking for a card for professional use then depending on your software the Vega cards match or beat the Pascal ones at every price point. This is one of the big reasons it's done so well but for some reason people keep trying to dismiss the appeal of Vega for professional use (presumably because acknowledging it would debunk the fake narrative that they're terrible cards and only miners want them) but it's definitely there. A friend of mine even held off ordering new workstations until he could secure V64 cards for them (enabling him to order the workstations with the cheapest GPU option then replace, it's common practice in the field).

And as for the "not £600 of performance" that's 100% true, but then none of the four cards above are worth their price just for their gaming performance, they all have tricks up their sleeves that make them appeal to different buyers.

Gamers don't buy them for their compute performance.

RX Vega is marketed as a gaming card. So it should be judged as such. Not have it's price justified by saying 'but it makes up for it in compute'.

 

[Hotwired]

That's literally the same comparison, just starting at different ends.

Comparing the perf of two equally priced cards and
Comparing the price of two equally performing cards is

The exact same comparison. Value/money.

Since you're talking about what I said...

The reason this started is because some people have been demanding that youtube reviewers who do micro reviews, should scrap their Vega 64 vs 1080 reviews and do Vega 64 vs 1080 Ti micro reviews because it makes sense to them. Because price.

And I say that's many levels of farce.

Just so you know what side you're jumping in on.

 

[ljt]

Gamers don't buy them for their compute performance.

RX Vega is marketed as a gaming card. So it should be judged as such. Not have it's price justified by saying 'but it makes up for it in compute'.

Exactly.

Of course I'm going to base my decision and opinion on Vega based on price to performance in gaming only. I have no interest in it's compute performance. I only game so everything else it does is of very little interest.

I do understand that it might be brilliant at compute based tasks and understand it might be a cheap card for those people but it does t make it a good card for my needs.

I can't imagine the compute based user base and market is very big though compared to the gaming market

 

[Calin Banc]

As gamers GPU's these cards are over priced and under developed but is anyone really surprised about that?

nVidia probably spend 3x as much on marketing their GPU's as AMD can afford on R&D, even when AMD had competitive GPU's they were still losing marketshare to nVidia, in a situation like that eventually one does actually fall behind, at that point it becomes a downward spiral of actually being uncompetitive.

Personally i think AMD are having to make choices about what they do with what little money they have, very much the opposite of these latest GPU's from AMD their CPU's are fantastic, their Zen architecture is batter than anything Intel have right now.

AMD think there is far more profitability in CPU's than in gaming GPU's, and they would be right, AMD are selling HEDT chips for £1000 that cost them £100 assembled and shipped. and they are selling because they are plain better than Intel's Core i9's.

These Vega GPU's are clearly not designed for gamers, they are workstation GPU's that come with game capable drivers, they are again very good, actually as workstation GPU's, at £500 - £600 they make no sense as gamers GPU's, but as workstation GPU's they are fantastic.

With limited R&D this is where AMD's choices now are, gamers not a priority anymore and frankly who can blame them? gamers are a tribal bunch and most have not been kind to AMD over the past decade.

If I remember correctly, nVIDIA was makeing more money out of their gaming GPUs than their other branches. Indeed the market was not kind to them, but also they didn't do that much to turn around their image. Throwing something out and hopping for the best is just ... playing with the odds.

 

[FoxEye]

Since you're talking about what I said...

The reason this started is because some people have been demanding that youtube reviewers who do micro reviews, should scrap their Vega 64 vs 1080 reviews and do Vega 64 vs 1080 Ti micro reviews because it makes sense to them. Because price.

And I say that's many levels of farce.

Just so you know what side you're jumping in on.

Well all the reviews I've seen showed numbers for a range of cards.

Eg 1060, 1070, Vega 64, 1080, 1080 ti.

I guess I don't look at the "micro reviews". I think getting the bigger picture is more important than just focusing narrowly down on 1v1 reviews.

I mean, sometimes people aren't sure even how much money they want to spend. "Do I want a 1080 or a 1070?" is a question most probably all 1070 and 1080 buyers have asked themselves.

It would be of very limited usefulness to just compare 1 AMD v 1 nV like you've said.

 

[Gerard]

There's a guy on eBay with no fewer than SEVEN of these things listed, just wtf.

 

[humbug]

Gamers don't buy them for their compute performance.

RX Vega is marketed as a gaming card. So it should be judged as such. Not have it's price justified by saying 'but it makes up for it in compute'.

Its marketed to gamers as a gaming card but as i said a few posts above that's not AMD's priority, this is a Workstation card with game capable drivers.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

They should put it against the 1080 and the Ti, then you can see from that, that it is 1080 performance, but at the Tis price, and see that the Ti for the same money, hands it its ass.

 

[FoxEye]

Its marketed to gamers as a gaming card but as i said a few posts above that's not AMD's priority, this is a Workstation card with game capable drivers.

But what does knowing that change, if anything?

It doesn't make it a better gaming card than it is. Sure we can explain why it is, but we still can't justify buying it

 

[Panos]

Gamers don't buy them for their compute performance.

RX Vega is marketed as a gaming card. So it should be judged as such. Not have it's price justified by saying 'but it makes up for it in compute'.

Yep, I agree. Many in here know that I was always in favour or wait and see the gaming RX Vega. Had heated debates in here, and a lot of arguing.

However now we know the current state of performance and we do not speculate, truly the Vega 64 is not a good gaming card. Vega 56 might be for those who are on that price/perf bracket, but the 64 is not.
Is not only against the GTX1080 or 1080Ti pricing. But is not better graphics card over an overclocked FuryX or an overclocked GTX980Ti.
With the latter 2nd hand prices going for £175-260 to boot.

 

[Kaapstad]

If you chaps can prove that you get different scores to those you see in reviews with identical hardware components, software versions, and test configuration then you have a point - and should challenge the reviewer directly, as they do sometimes make mistakes. Otherwise, the simpler and likelier explanation is that without replicating their set-up and testing exactly, you're bound to get different scores.

The above is one of the reasons I do have so many components, so I can test under identical conditions as I have little faith left in some reviewers.

 

[humbug]

If I remember correctly, nVIDIA was makeing more money out of their gaming GPUs than their other branches. Indeed the market was not kind to them, but also they didn't do that much to turn around their image. Throwing something out and hopping for the best is just ... playing with the odds.

They don't have a choice, is what i'm saying, have you seen AMD's finances? the have to make choices about where they spend what little money they have for R&D, Gaming GPU's are the least profitable 'for them', Workstation GPU's and CPU is where they are profitable.

So thats what these cards were actually designed for, with some game capable drivers but when you look at the raw performance of them they are extremely powerful cards, its not translating into gaming performance, no money to develop that when they have to make decisions and prioritise where they are profitable.

 

[Panos]

They should put it against the 1080 and the Ti, then you can see from that, that it is 1080 performance, but at the Tis price, and see that the Ti for the same money, hands it its ass.

Yep.

Look at the pricing of these.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/sapp...cooled-graphics-card-aqua-pack-gx-385-sp.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/powe...ss-liquid-cooled-graphics-card-gx-18t-pc.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...cooled-graphics-card-aqua-pack-gx-19k-gi.html

You can buy of the fastest 1080Tis (Aorus Xtreme for example) for less than 730 these days. And believe me is amazing card that doesn't need watercooling to perform.
(the cooler alone is bigger and heavier than my old 295X2 card).

Or this one for even less
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/giga...dr5x-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-19h-gi.html

 

[greatash]

If I remember correctly, nVIDIA was makeing more money out of their gaming GPUs than their other branches. Indeed the market was not kind to them, but also they didn't do that much to turn around their image. Throwing something out and hopping for the best is just ... playing with the odds.

To be honest they should have won some generations hands down i.e. 7xxx vs 6xx series. 7xxx launched first, and quickly dropped lower than 670/680 price after they launched (When I bought my 7950 at £220, the 670 was £300 with the 7970 and the 680 was £400+), outperformed them and had 50% more vram yet sold less due to nvidias mindshare or people spouting amd has bad drivers etc.

I also remember the 290/x being significantly cheaper than the 780/ti, yet sold poorly in comparison. (again due to nvidia mindshare and people saying the 290x would burn your house down when AIB cards were just as cool as the competition)

It was smart for AMD to go for the cpu market, they can make hands down a better GPU than nvidia but its gonna sell bad anyway so why bother. If we get one GPU manufacturer left it'll only be the consumers fault.

 

[greatash]

-

 

[humbug]

Greatash is right./

The 290X vs the GTX Titan was the pudding that proved nVidia's mindshare, here AMD had a GPU that was faster and much much much cheaper.

In fact the 290X was one of the best GPU's ever made, it went on to beat the GTX 980 in the revised 390X naming.

Despite all of this AMD couldn't sell it in anything like the numbers nVidia sold the massively more expensive GTX Titan, yes the original reference 290X had an inadequate cooler on it but the trolling on the Internet about heat and noise was relentless long after it got its well deserved AIB coolers, even after it was reintroduced as the 390X 2 years later....

And the "bad drivers" BS was just as relentless, i had a 290 for 2 years, i never had so much as a tiny glitch with its drivers, after it i had a GTX 970, and now a GTX 1070... nVidia's drivers do not feel anything like as well put together or as stable as AMD's did, i have had issues with them and i don't trust them like i did AMD's.

There is too much tribalism in this community, far too much for our own good.

The 290X was AMD's last great GPU, yet its what broke them. yeah, thank you.

 

[ubersonic]

Gamers don't buy them for their compute performance.

Actually quite a lot do (myself included) because not everyone uses their PC for just one thing, and I think this is something a lot of people miss when attempting to hate on a card that's still selling well.

When it was the same price as the 1080 it was a no brainer as it matched it in games, battered it in compute and supported the more popular *Sync format. It was an easy decision because the 1080 was flat out inferior and the 1080ti didn't justify a >40% price increase for a significantly lower performance increase.

Like I said above, even at £550 it's still a stonking buy for anyone who does more than just game on their computer or doesn't own a GSync monitor.

Granted if you only use your PC as a glorified console and care about gaming performance and absolutely nothing else then it does not justify the extra cost over a 1080, but then it's not like the 1080ti ever did either.

 

[chrcoluk]

So kyle the first reviewer to reply to me on hardforum.

Has strongly said that OCUK and komplett are lieing.

He didnt comment on why AMD have made no clear statement on the RRP, just he is saying he knows (but not how he knows) that the actual RRP is 499usd.

All other reviewers still refuse to comment.

 

[chrcoluk]

Didn't Kyle over on HardForum already put you in your place?

He replied to me earlier today, but not before I made that post.

He hasnt put me in my place, he has just said he is certain ocuk and komplett are lieing but provided nothing to back up his statement.

Do you agree with him then and that gibbo and komplett lied?

Either the retailers are wrong or the reviewers are, they not both right.

Given AMD's cryptic statement, and that komplett have said the same thing, videocardz also had the same info before launch and GN was supposedly also told by "sources", the cards are stacked against kyle.