-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
dgrdsv
Member
Performance - it will most likely beat 1070, judging by the pure flops metric, by some 10% on average probably.
Price - it is already priced above 1070 ($400>$350).
Temperatures - with a good amount of noise, sure, why not
Power usage - with Polaris 10 being on the same level as 1070, I think chances of this are pretty low
Overall, Vega 56 looks interesting simply because it will slide in between 1070 and 1080 (in perf and price at least) offering something which wasn't there on the market previously (unless 1070OC cards will be able to reach its performance levels).
Vega Nano is another such proposition which looks kinda interesting for what it is - remains to be seen how it will compare to ITX 1070 and 1080 cards though.
Vega 64 is just a bad version of 1080 coming out a year later.
The most sad part in all of this is that NV won't rush with updating their lineup to Volta now which means that we're likely stuck with Pascal till spring 2018 at least.
Gunmonkey36
Member
So finding a RX 56 is going to be near impossible right? I assume the crypto farmers are fine paying $400.
That's sorta my takeaway from this as well. The wait for Volta continues lol.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
No the 480 is patently superior to the 1060 now. Check how the two stack up in new games, Polaris comes out ahead versus Pascal for negligible increase in power.
llien
Banned
Where did that 1000w PSU figure jump from, seriously?
Any 650W PSU by decent manufacturer would handle 8 core + hungriest Vega just fine.
850W should be more than fine even if you go bananas with overclocking.
Superior product <in given price segment, bar very top>, all the way until Pascal?
5xx is quite good, for 30-50W extra power consumption (and Radeon Chill featuer that mitigates it quite a bit).
As for why, for not having to pay extra $$$ for adaptive sync monitor and, perhaps, 2Gb extra and, perhaps, for the fact that major consoles are using Radeon graphics.
Besides, people in this very thread talked about how they only cared for AMD to deliver, to get cheaper nvidia card.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
The guy has a 980 Ti as well, which is a hot and power hungry card. 850W will be more than enough.
Sir Abacus
Member
I think the cadence is already pretty set. We'll get some GV104 variant in the new year along with a GV106 a month or two after, a slightly cut down GV102 Titan a couple of months after that, and then the cut down GV102 variant Ti and fully enabled Titan in the late fall. What's changed here is that Nvidia just slapped another $50 on the prices of the Volta launch.
llien
Banned
Just figured gigabyte recommends 1k w PSU. (provided, screenshot is not fake, link is on the previous page)
ethomaz
Banned
The AnandTech article was posted if anybody wants to read.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680...rx-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680...rx-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august
Sir Abacus
Member
Yes. Some of us rely on AMD only to deliver competitive products so we don't get screwed. That's because we bought into G-sync when AMD was still "what? Nvidia is doing adaptive sync?". We're team green because of massive levels of sunk cost not because we especially like green.
We're not going to throw out $800 monitors and switch ecosystems on a dime. At least, not on the backs of these disappointments.
E-Cat
Banned
I recall you were previously expecting Volta this year, citing NVIDIA marching to their own beat as the reason. What changed?
Someone posted a pic of PSU requirements for the liquid cooled...... Said 1000w
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Volta is definitely coming by the end of this year. To be dramatic enough to suggest that an AMD launch will directly postpone Nvidia's scheduled release of a new architecture is silly.
Is Volta using the same nm as Pascal?
Yes. It's using an improved 16nm process that TSMC calls 12nm, in reality it's not actually much smaller ( if at all).
Still will give a decent performance improvement though.
Because TF across architectures is a meaningless, incomparable metric.
Because the 480 has 5.6 TF vs the 1060 has 3.8 TF and yet the latter performs equally if not better on average.
P.S. I have a 480 and regret buying it.
E-Cat
Banned
NVIDIA flops are more 'valuable' than AMD flops due to the way that some calculations are grouped, so they're not directly comparable. A more knowledgeable person may expand on this.
FunkyDealer
Banned
It's not a "minimum" figure. It uses a maximum of what? 420 W? Add 100 for CPU and a bit for HDD's... 550W PSU would probably be minimum, 600+ being OK.
E-Cat
Banned
$699 for the liquid cooled Vega 64. Sent out to die, huh? There's an asterisk behind it, though; don't know what that means.
Spartancarver
Member
Glad I bit the bullet and shelled out for a GSync monitor a year ago.
NVidia will keep coasting and releasing high priced incremental update GPUs and AMD will keep struggling to compete with last year's model.
Guess I'll just wait for next year's version of the 1080Ti
NVidia will keep coasting and releasing high priced incremental update GPUs and AMD will keep struggling to compete with last year's model.
Guess I'll just wait for next year's version of the 1080Ti
martincrimson87
Banned
I'm in to replace my GTX 760 for a 980ti equivalent per 150 USD. Is that reasonable to expect from NVIDIA/AMD for 2018?
PD: As I will keep my FX 6300 I will have to resort for 30 FPS gaming in CPU bound games. So I'm aiming for 4K gaming at max GPU related settings at 30 FPS.
PD: As I will keep my FX 6300 I will have to resort for 30 FPS gaming in CPU bound games. So I'm aiming for 4K gaming at max GPU related settings at 30 FPS.
amstradcpc
Member
Bad sign for PS5 GPU performance.In 7nm a Vega shrunk, similar in size to PS4 original gpu, will perform similar to a current 1080 that at 180 watts could have perfectly fit in a console already at 16nm.
ISee
Member
For the most part they are close to each other with the 1060 still taking a slight lead in the newest games like nier, ghost recon, me:a and even the amd sponsored prey. RE 7 seems to run faster on polaris though.
franklyshankly
Member
I think that asterisk means that's the price that comes with discounts on a bundle of other parts. I'm not sure if they'll sell it cheaper separately or not.
ethomaz
Banned
SolidSnakeUS
Member
Asterisk is because it is a pack and not only the card.
The Pack.
The prices off there are pretty damn nice and can entice some people.
TC McQueen
Member
Here's a look at a Vega with a non-reference cooler:
https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics...PUs-Headlined-ROG-STRIX-RX-Vega-64-OC-Edition
https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics...PUs-Headlined-ROG-STRIX-RX-Vega-64-OC-Edition
ethomaz
Banned
https://youtu.be/51SsMsUXTt8
If there was any doubt, confirmation that Vega was rushed out for Q2. So that's good news for RX.
GamersNexus said:
If there was any doubt, confirmation that Vega was rushed out for Q2. So that's good news for RX.
Yeah, for starters the Draw Binning Rasterizer was disabled in the FE drivers.
dgrdsv
Member
Pricing is irrelevant to the AMD's endeavors, as I've already said NV need to sell the new cards to current NV cards owners - most of them won't be ok with paying more than they've paid for the their cards a couple of years ago.
Two things:
1. Fucking miners buying everything they can from here to the moon meaning that there's little reason to launch new products to revitalize the market.
2. Vega turning out worse than expected even by those who didn't expect much (like me) resulting in a complete lack of market pressure on current Pascal lineup.
I've also heard some rumblings about NV possibly skipping Volta for gaming altogether and opting for a Volta+ (no idea if it will be GV2xx or something entirely different) launch in spring 2018. This was always a possibility with Volta (as Volta is heavily HPC/DL optimized and may be inefficient for pure gaming purposes) but them actually going with this required the #2 from above to actually happen.
1. It was enabled for some applications, like those from SPECViewPerf at least.
2. All the perf/power estimations from AMD slides published today are done with everything being enabled of course.
llien
Banned
According to anand AMD used air cooled one as "baseline" so the water cooled should be a tad faster. (clocks are, it might also throttle less)
I recall there being mere months between g-sync and free-sync, was it not?
480 chip is about 10% larger, than 1060, yet it has 47% higher TF. (and that at lower clocks).
Where did the additional 37% come from?
See the catch? Raw floating point number crunching is just one of the major aspects, but not the only one.
Huh? $450 for 1070 was not ok? That was quite a bit more than what 970 cost.
Nobody knows yet apart from AMD. What we do know is that it was developed before the RTG was formed, so I don't get the people who are blaming Raja and saying he should get fired
Sad Affleck
Member
Not for 2018, no. Hopefully next year we'll have 1060-level performance in that price range (1150Ti?) which falls short of the 980Ti.
dgrdsv
Member
A. 1070 being on a new process should be compared to 670, not 970. 670 was $400 at launch.
B. 1070's MSRP was $380 which is actually lower than that of 670, $450 was for the FE card which was bought by only those who have more money than they can handle.
Generally speaking, Vega is performing exactly like a GCN(3) GPU would perform when being pushed to such TFlops. So it's not really a question of "what went wrong" but more of a couple of different questions:
- Why is GCN so bad at scaling up from midrange? Both Fiji and now Vega are quite disappointing, and even the relatively successful Hawaii was a bit overboard with power consumption.
- Why all the architectural changes brought what is essentially a zero performance gain? Was it always their idea to not improve the existing code performance at all and concentrate on adding new features instead?
Sir Abacus
Member
The first Gsync module was Jan '14. ROG Swift was August '14. The first Freesync monitors didn't come onto the market until April '15 and they was garbage next to a Swift with ghosting all over the place as Benq and LG screwed the pooch on overdrive timings.
So yeah, while it was only months behind the gold standard Gsync monitor, Freesync was AMD's trademark late to the party, worse, but it was at least cheap.
No -- and certainly not between the first truly well-working monitors of each type being released. (Even the first G-sync monitor worked well, Freesync was plagued with a lot of issues -- particularly concerning consistent overdrive control at variable framerates)
Sad Affleck
Member
Good post.
Sir Abacus
Member
I'd like to think that but what are our other options? Buy an AMD card? Sit on our hands? They have us over a barrel. They had us over a barrel with Pascal that's why they jacked the prices up another $50 and we still bought them in droves because, well, what are we going to buy? A Fury X? Competitive with 980 Ti performance and only 2/3 the VRAM! But it was $50 cheaper than the 1080! Woo! AMD! AMD!
I'll believe it when I see a 1180 or whatever they call it at a "mere" $649.