• 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.
According to OC3D's review the 64 overclocked consumed as much power as two ROG Strix overclocked 1080 Tis. He checked this number over five times. Absolutely brutal.

No wonder even AMDTV called out AMD over these poor cards. Only the most rabid of fans now defend Vega.
 
harney said:
I am sure i am invisible... i did post that a few pages back for you :)
Click to expand...
Happens all the time here. The other day a guy posted a video and it was posted literately 3-4 posts ago. lol

You also get what just happened with my post. The main point is not being addressed, but one line has been taken out of the whole post and people talking about that. lol
 
ubersonic said:
I wasn't accusing you of moaning more the consumer base in general. when AMD have noticeably higher power consumption than Nvidia people complain about it, when they don't people complain about it, they can't really win lol.
Click to expand...

Personally I think they should have not bothered with the consumer Vega64 as it seems a fully enabled Vega GPU with high clockspeeds sucks too much power for little performance gain over Vega56.

I think they should have concentrated on Vega56,and put a more efficient VRM section in,with a better stock cooler,to at least show they have moved forward in performance/watt a decent amount and have a better GTX1070 competitor,which is the highest represented performance card on Steam currently.

Then they could have allowed the AIB partners to release custom Vega56 cards with faster RAM to compete with the GTX1080,and then released the Vega64 Nano as their SFF card.
 
OC3D: 'AMD have the tendency to say they have all these new technologies... but we have to wait for the developers to do it.. Nvidia stuff just tends to work [whereas] AMD as a whole always seem to be yeah... but... in a bit'.

Excellent points rarely discussed given the heavy AMD bias on many internet forums.
 
Mayh3M said:
OC3D: 'AMD have the tendency to say they have all these new technologies... but we have to wait for the developers to do it.. Nvidia stuff just tends to work [whereas] AMD as a whole always seem to be yeah... but... in a bit'.

Excellent points rarely discussed given the heavy AMD bias on many internet forums.
Click to expand...

Is it? No-one is buying on unpromised performance improvements. Reviewers look at the performance now and therefore metrics that buyers will be using to base their decision are actual performance figures, not fabricated potential future figures...
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Personally I think they should have not bothered with the consumer Vega64 as it seems a fully enabled Vega GPU with high clockspeeds sucks too much power for little performance gain over Vega56.

I think they should have concentrated on Vega56,and put a more efficient VRM section in,with a better stock cooler,to at least show they have moved forward in performance/watt a decent amount and have a better GTX1070 competitor,which is the highest represented performance card on Steam currently.

Then they could have allowed the AIB partners to release custom Vega56 cards with faster RAM to compete with the GTX1080,and then released the Vega64 Nano as their SFF card.
Click to expand...
i think this is where amd's interest ls, it puts up a good show against the 1070 and probably cheaper to make than the 64, it just feels as though they put out the 64 reluctantly and could not care less if it sells or not
 
DragonQ said:
Yep. If nVidia added FreeSync support in a driver I would probably buy a GTX 1070 immediately.
Click to expand...
I take this back. Considering top tier GTX 1070s are £440+ and a top tier GTX 1080 can be had for £500 right now, I'd get the 1080. :p

Makes Vega look a bit silly doesn't it? Let's hope these really are inflated miner prices that'll drop eventually.
 
eddyr said:
Is it? No-one is buying on unpromised performance improvements. Reviewers look at the performance now and therefore metrics that buyers will be using to base their decision are actual performance figures, not fabricated potential future figures...
Click to expand...

I did say internet forums, not reputable tech sites. Although AMD die-hards like to insinuate these sites are corrupt for not pushing the 'fine wine' narrative. There are people in this very thread talking about how these cards have huge potential once their technologies are used. It's the story they've been telling for years with AMD GPUs. Always talking about what could be rather than what is.
 
Mayh3M said:
I did say internet forums, not reputable tech sites. Although AMD die-hards like to insinuate these sites are corrupt for not pushing the 'fine wine' narrative. There are people in this very thread talking about how these cards have huge potential once their technologies are used. It's the story they've been telling for years with AMD GPUs. Always talking about what could be rather than what is.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of assumptions and generalisations. Worthless.
 
Mayh3M said:
It's the story they've been telling for years with AMD GPUs. Always talking about what could be rather than what is.
Click to expand...
Well in fairness if you know a product is most likely to improve with driver refinements then that should factor into the buying decision.

I paid £300 for a launch GTX670 because it could trade blows with the (older) HD7970, however by the time AMD had refined their drivers the HD7970 was beating the GTX680/770 and my card was barely able to pull away from the HF7950 (which cost 2/3 as much).
 
Some like myself prefer the performance on day one (Nvidia) and others don't mind waiting for it (AMD). No problem either way, you makes your choice.....

All I would say is that, 6-12 months post purchase I don't particularly care how my card performs in games released at purchase, as I will have moved on to other games/Graphics card at that point so is irrelevant to me. Having the performance on day one works for me YMMV.
 
Bazzards said:
Some like myself prefer the performance on day one (Nvidia) and others don't mind waiting for it (AMD). No problem either way, you makes your choice.....

All I would say is that, 6-12 months post purchase I don't particularly care how my card performs in games released at purchase, as I will have moved on to other games/Graphics card at that point so is irrelevant to me. Having the performance on day one works for me YMMV.
Click to expand...

Lol, this performance on day one thing is total crap, somehow implying that AMD have started from less than zero and work their way up to parity (for example RX 480 vs GTX 1060). What about games where AMD are better at day one? Does the opposite apply? The truth is both vendors deliver the best possible "day one" (whatever that means) performance at release. Both vendors improve performance over the life cycle of their GPUs, sometimes more than others.

There's no, "Nvidia are better from day one".
 
ICDP said:
Lol, this performance on day one thing is total crap, somehow implying that AMD have started from less than zero and work their way up to parity (for example RX 480 vs GTX 1060). What about games where AMD are better at day one? Does the opposite apply? The truth is both vendors deliver the best possible "day one" (whatever that means) performance at release. Both vendors improve performance over the life cycle of their GPUs, sometimes more than others.

There's no, "Nvidia are better from day one".
Click to expand...

I think he meant that Nvidia are better than AMD at delivering as much as they can from the card on day one.
 
ICDP said:
Lol, this performance on day one thing is total crap, somehow implying that AMD have started from less than zero and work their way up to parity (for example RX 480 vs GTX 1060). What about games where AMD are better at day one? Does the opposite apply? The truth is both vendors deliver the best possible "day one" (whatever that means) performance at release. Both vendors improve performance over the life cycle of their GPUs, sometimes more than others.

There's no, "Nvidia are better from day one".
Click to expand...
NVidia have their faults but on the whole, the performance you get is what you get and that's that. None of this 6 months time performance will improve spiel. I am not faulting AMD but I would rather have the performance now instead of later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom