Unknown Soldier
Banned
It's still GCN. There's ultimately only so much you can do with an architecture and most of the time it's clock speed increases.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
It's still GCN. There's ultimately only so much you can do with an architecture and most of the time it's clock speed increases.
longdi
Banned
What a weird launch, AMD silently shipped a new GPU with no samples and marketing slides. Its like they probably produced 200 units a month.
The gamer Vega should come with only 8GB HBM2, so the core speeds should be higher and offers a closer performance match to 1080.
Shin
Banned
Volta will have a high power consumption also, just not sure if the source is 100% trustworthy when it comes to nVidia information.
Things turned out differently than I thought they would with Vega, really hoping Navi is the game changer as media out it to be.
GameAddict411
Member
HBM is not cheap. I doubt it's going to be cheaper than $400
dgrdsv
Member
Was this posted already?
AMD announces Capsaicin Siggraph with no word about RX Vega
Seems like AMD tries to back up from their promise of launching RX Vega during SIGGRAPH...
Volta is consuming less energy while providing 50% more performance in GP100 to GV100 comparison. Not sure why and how would it suddenly have high power consumption and even if it will I'd bet that it will be lower than that of GCN4/5.
AMD announces Capsaicin Siggraph with no word about RX Vega
Seems like AMD tries to back up from their promise of launching RX Vega during SIGGRAPH...
Volta is consuming less energy while providing 50% more performance in GP100 to GV100 comparison. Not sure why and how would it suddenly have high power consumption and even if it will I'd bet that it will be lower than that of GCN4/5.
ANOTHER delay?? Jesus fuck
Tacklemacain
Member
They already updated the statement https://i.redd.it/drukpbebjv6z.png
MSI and Amd already said again, that the RX will be faster in games. Amd knows how Vega performs for a long time now, so why anounce a release date and then chnage it shortly after.
MSI and Amd already said again, that the RX will be faster in games. Amd knows how Vega performs for a long time now, so why anounce a release date and then chnage it shortly after.
Autumn Wind
Member
Ah thank you. That answers my question from the previous page somewhat though it's just a matter of what the graphics will run on? HBM2 or GDDR5? I take it HBM2.
How will they differentiate the iMac Pro and iMac?
dgrdsv
Member
HBM and GDDR isn't something which you can choose from for the same chip. If a chip is built to work with HBM then it can't work with GDDR and vice versa. Current Polaris chips can't use HBM, current Vega chips can't use GDDR.
Autumn Wind
Member
I am thinking they will go for HBM2/Radeon Vega Pro across the board at least in the 27" no?
21.5" will still be Polaris and Iris Plus?
Papacheeks
Banned
Not to poke the hornets nest but remember how the launch of Ryzen went? A lot of people reviewed Ryzen as is without understanding how new it was. Now with all the updates they have put out it is very viable and putting pressure on intel who put out a less thought out product with the i9 series.
I really think the Frontier edition cards are early engineering sample, that didn't pass certain test's hence why they don't advertise it as a gaming card first.
I THINK the Frontier edition is a way for them to get rid of bad binned cards that were made probably early with a bad batch of SOC, and maybe issues with HBM2 as well.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
AMD have got to get Vega RX performance up to GTX 1080 somehow (within 5%). Then this may be viable as a $450 product that can beat out a GTX 1080 in DX12/Vulkan titles but has much higher power draw. I think that will excite some PC builders down there near the loins. We can live with that. Compromised no doubt but it would sell decent.
However, if this thing floats between 1070 and 1080 perf territory and they release it for $500 AMD might as well just throw it at a wall.
There's 50/50 chance it will be the former or the latter, mild joy or despair. Originally my prediction was the former way back when but I was ridiculed.
However, if this thing floats between 1070 and 1080 perf territory and they release it for $500 AMD might as well just throw it at a wall.
There's 50/50 chance it will be the former or the latter, mild joy or despair. Originally my prediction was the former way back when but I was ridiculed.
Considering the scorpio uses GDDR and a vega architecture card, wouldn't they have already gone through enough effort to put out both a GDDR and HBM card?
Papacheeks
Banned
Scorpio does not use vega.
It doesn't quite work like that. Clients pick and choose what features they want from AMD's design library, and sometime they apply other customizations on top.
See the Pro's support for double rate fp16, not present in Polaris, then see the lack of such features in Scorpio, despite its presence in Vega.
When talking about the memory, it is even easier to separate the shader cores from the memory controller. But you wouldn't want to waste die area supporting both.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
Scorpio's GPU is Polaris based, not Vega.
RandomExpletive
Member
This is actually the best case option. Miners buy Vega, consumers get the 480 at a reasonable price, AMD makes boatloads of money
its a win-win-win!
They just sent out a tweet confirming Vega's appearance in Siggraph
https://twitter.com/Radeon/status/881233662821486593
https://twitter.com/Radeon/status/881233662821486593
lucebuce12
Member
As someone who has not been following the recent GPU scene almost at all.
What are the chances of AMD releasing a viable competitor to the 1070 and/or 1080 at a decent price?
What are the chances of AMD releasing a viable competitor to the 1070 and/or 1080 at a decent price?
Strong.
They will most likely deliver on price and performance that you are targeting, but it looks like power consumption will be high.
Delusibeta
Banned
Vega is what you're looking for, but we have no idea on pricing for the gaming variants. If it's $600 or above, AMD would be better off not bothering.
Irobot82
Member
Welp. Glad I got too impatient to wait for this mess and bought an EVGA Classified 1080 Open Box from Microcenter for $450. Great scott it's an upgrade over my 7950.
dgrdsv
Member
No idea but why would they tie a screen size to some specific GPU? They can use whatever they like.
Same chip can't support both, this makes no sense from a technical point of view. A different chip using same architecture can support another memory type, sure. However, there are no rumors of them using G5 or 5X/6 with Vega so far and AMD's own documents state that Vega is about HBM2.
Considering that Vega is a chip architecture, you can't really say that Scorpio uses Vega because Scorpio don't use many parts of what is presented as Vega features. Scorpio may use GFX IP9 or GCN5 shader core but that doesn't make it a Vega.
michaelius
Banned
Bargain bin pricing is going to be the only way they can move this to anyone who isn't brand enthusiast.
Still it's only viable strategy if Nvidia decides to maintain profit margin because production costs of Vega will be at level of 1080ti/Titan.
Delusibeta
Banned
Honestly, if they manage to get it on shop shelves for less than $400, they'll probably be fine (in terms of units sold, at least). I am dubious whether they can get to that mark, but we shall see.
Tacklemacain
Member
RX Vega will be launched in a month https://twitter.com/killyourfm/status/881204308863180800
We will see if they can surprise us or not. I would like to stay with AMD, so i dont have to pay 200 for Gsync.
We will see if they can surprise us or not. I would like to stay with AMD, so i dont have to pay 200 for Gsync.
Rushersauce
Banned
Excuse me? What "other failure"? Ryzen? Ryzen is amazing.
Ryzen just released. What does Vega being potentially bad have to do with the PC gaming industry? Quite a ridiclous and random leap honestly.
Aren't the reviewers fault that they launched Ryzen half baked. Shit, the BIOS is still half baked because messing around with RAM at all can have it randomly result to some bonkers timings that completely tank performance.
But ignoring that, your belief that they're hiding some secret sauce optimisation with Vega seems unfounded if only because AMD keeps trying to actively hide Vega. They didn't try to hide Zen because they knew it was good.
They haven't released anything that seriously competes with NV's high end for years. NV doesn't seem to be Intel either since the performance increases from generation to generation are actually pretty substantial.
icecold1983
Member
They competed just fine against maxwell and kepler. They were the better buy at nearly every pricepoint except the 980ti where they were slightly behind
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Woof, those performance-to-watt numbers do not look good. I'm not sure it would be worth buying even if it's insanely cheap considering my electricity prices.
McHuj
Member
With that die size I doubt it can be insanely cheap.
Which isn't an argument I was making. There's been a long slope where they've been getting less and less competitive in the high end space, whether that be through heat/noise or performance. Behind slightly behind is still being behind and for an enthusiast buying a $500+ GPU, the price honestly becomes far less of an issue when there's only some $100 between an AMD or NV option.
But getting into your argument that they compete at the lower end, I never really saw that. The reputation that AMD can't make high end cards bleeds into the lower tier stacks. Its not uncommon to have consumers tell you that they don't want an AMD card even if it was cheaper. That was almost 6 years ago when I worked in computer retail selling HD7850s and I don't see that attitude changing. NV doesn't need to cut prices to compete at the lower end because in the eyes of a lot of people, NV's reputation for being the best and most reliable justifies the price premium.
The last time there was a significant increase in AMD's sales was with the HD5770 and HD5850 where it was simultaneously cheaper, less power hungry, quieter and practically just as powerful. Ryzen 5 & 7 are essentially that card in the CPU space: its really cheap, smashes Intel's consumer chips in multithreaded performance and is very cool and quiet....it comes close to obsoleting every Intel chip in the same price range.
AMD desperately needs a high end card if they don't want to sit in some 20% market share quagmire that is actually competitive and have everything that card provides trickle down to the lower tier stacks. They haven't got anything that doesn't get run over the GTX1070, which isn't even really an expensive card anymore thanks to Bitcoins.
icecold1983
Member
Ignorant consumers are irrelevent. This gen, and only at the high end, is the first time since r600 where amd couldnt compete. They had the better card(performance and price) at almost every pricepoint against maxwell and kepler. They did just fine against fermi too. Polaris is also better than gp106 excluding the current mining fiasco screwing up prices
I mean you had tons of clueless recommendations on this forum for the 970 over the 390 despite the fact that it was 10% or more slower, had less then half the vram and cost more. People being uninformed doesnt make a product better
"Better" products don't sell if they can't sell. I don't get why you don't understand this.
"Ignorant" consumers are important because they're the people who don't spend hours keeping up with technology. They're like your coworkers who want to get a gaming PC to play Overwatch with their friends but only find out about the new X299 platform the day they see it in the weekly emails from their computer stores. And those "ignorant" consumers are those that want NV instead of AMD because AMD is seen as the cheaper and less trustworthy brand. Its not even in the same tier of quality and performance as NV. I couldn't sell a whole lot of AMD back then because of NV's mindshare (and I've at least a thousand PCs). I don't imagine that struggle is any easier.
Its 2017 and people still think AMD has worse drivers than NV when I've had more trouble with recent NV drivers than any AMD driver in recent memory. They have to make steps to tackle NV's mindshare if they want to sell GPUs outside of the cryptocurrency space.
icecold1983
Member
what argument are you trying to make? i thought you were arguing that amd products arent competitive with nvidia. other than vega that hasnt been true since r600, which was 10 years ago
i thought you were arguing product quality and not public perception
I'm making the argument that their high end hasn't been competitive with NV's high end since the HD5000 series. Every single time, a majority of consumers have found it worthwhile to adopt the NV product, whether it be through performance (eg. CUDA acceleration in professional programs) or features they'll actually use (adaptive sync, DRC, GSync). Consistently, AMD has been late to the party (the last two or three generations) or they have issues if they're early (HD7970 grey screen of death). Grey screen of death was a significant enough issue that customers actually waited for the GTX680.
Which then you argue that AMD has been the better buy, therefore competitive, at every price point. Which I argue isn't true because the issues from their high end trickle down to make AMD's lower tier products less competitive through public perception. If you can't sell your product, you aren't competitive full stop. It is the exact same thing with regards to Android and why Samsung is most popular product on the market, even if their lower end phones are arguably worse than other lower end phones.
They're not competing just fine. People aren't really buying their cards outside of mining. They're losing market share on Steam, if their hardware surveys can be trusted. Their only major design win in god knows how long in the laptop and desktop space that I can remember is Apple.
Amey
Member
Locuza
Member
From the tweet context, pcper did a remeasurement (the measurement from the package and the die size initially didn't align, one was wrong from begin with) and now they got ~513mm² instead of previously ~564mm².
Now pcper might still overestimate or Raja doesn't include the chip padding at the edges.
https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-GPU-and-PCB-Exposed
Now pcper might still overestimate or Raja doesn't include the chip padding at the edges.
Yeh I was casually browsing through Finnish webstore and saw new "special" edition sapphire rx580, priced at 499,99 add 60 and you can get 1080...
icecold1983
Member
Ok, we're just arguing a different point. Public perception was never something i was arguing. Only objective product quality
7970 > 680 (especially today. Kepler is awful)
7950 > 670 ^
7870 > 660 ^
390 > 970
390x > 980
380x > 960
580 > 1060
570 > 1060 3gb
Furyx = 980ti. Worse at 1080p. Better at 4k
Arguing over these gpus has been so incredibly disingenuous (as arguing over gpus typically is). The only thing that matters is price to performance. The vast vast vast majority of games aren't going to plunk down the $1000 it would cost to get a gpu that beats a 1080ti. Most of them have entire builds that are worth less than that amount.
You could argue that power consumption matters, but if it matters all that much you almost assuredly aren't in the market for a top end gpu anyways.
You could argue that power consumption matters, but if it matters all that much you almost assuredly aren't in the market for a top end gpu anyways.
Lagspike_exe
Member
Consumer Vega won't cost $1000.
Which is not at all my point
Price to performance is something people really don't understand. When there's only a small price difference between GPUs and like 5% performance difference, people are going to opt for the "reliable" brand 90% of the time.
AMD isn't that brand. People still literally won't buy AMD because of their history, (warranted or not warranted) of bad drivers or dodgy hardware. Despite what guys like icecold think, whatever NV is charging isn't completely overpriced vs the competition. It isn't Intel charging double the price for the same multi-threaded performance. The GTX1050 all the way to the GTX1080 are more popular than any AMD's DX12 offerings amongst gamers.
Vega showing that its downright better than the GTX1070+ is a way to buy mindshare with enthusiasts, which trickles down to the mainstream. If price to performance was all that matters, the GTX1080 alone wouldn't have more DX12 market share according to Steam's hardware survey of June 2017 than AMD's most popular option (HD7700 series).
I don't care what random people "think" about reliability, and neither should anyone else. If you want to buy something because other people "think" it's better, feel free, it's not very smart, but you do you.
If someone is tied into freesync or gsync and feel they HAVE to buy a certain brand then that's the bed they've made, but that is irrelevant to whether or not Vega cards are good.
Whether the best card from AMD competes with the best card from Nvidia is irrelevant too for all but the top 1%. Price to performance is king. Vague arguments about mindshare and PR are irrelevant to anyone with a working brain.
I'm going to get the best card for 400-500ish dollars. Hopefully that's a Vega card, or price reduced Nvidia card. If other people want to buy whatever card internet memes say they should buy, I can't stop them from their own ignorance.
For now, it remains to be seen whether or not Vega is good.