Huh. Release date embargo? Is that bad or typical for GPUs? I'm relatively new to the PC scene.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
Huh. Release date embargo? Is that bad or typical for GPUs? I'm relatively new to the PC scene.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
If you are sticking with 1080p for while then maybe if it really is on par with a 1070. That is assuming you are going for 60fps.
That's what I thought, and yes I'd be looking at 60fps/1080p. Will keep my eyes on any and every deal. Prices are already high here in Canada, so i'll have to wait for a deal/special before dipping my toe in on any card as is
It is standard thing. A bunch of reviewes need time to test bunch of games and finish their articles.
ISee
Member
It's normal.
The bigger and more problematic deal is the rumor that custom designs aren't going to be available before September, which isn't great because blower cards are fine for some scenarios but not the best performers and also rather loud.
Well that's annoying. The custom thing, not the reviews. I feel like with the monitor discount as well as both Wolfenstein and Prey, the bundle really is the best bang for my buck, and the movie/CPU discount might just be the push I need to go ahead and upgrade the whole setup while I'm at it. Could sell my old one wholesale and make back some of the cost that way haha. If the blower cards are gonna suck then that takes a lot of the enthusiasm out. :/
michaelius
Banned
Is monitor discount confirmed to be from street price or is it discount from recommended price which is already discounted in shops ?
kirankara78
Member
This was because they had horrible issues with dx11 drivers and cpu usage. They eventually found solution and that's where big increase came from and myth of magical drivers. It basically stemmed from their dx drivers originally being pretty awful
abracadaver
Member
Will there be custom versions of the water cooled vega that might be faster or will they be all the same like with the water cooled fury?
llien
Banned
Given quite high TFLOPs on Vega 56 (and relatively low TDP), I doubt miners will let us just have them at $400.
Welp, 780Ti used to be faster than 290x.
FreeSync is there to stay.
Wolfinstein II will support rapid packed math (AMD gaming GPU exclusive atm, nvidia has it only on Tesla afaik):
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/so...olossus_will_support_fp16_rapid_packed_math/1
Welp, 780Ti used to be faster than 290x.
FreeSync is there to stay.
Wolfinstein II will support rapid packed math (AMD gaming GPU exclusive atm, nvidia has it only on Tesla afaik):
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/so...olossus_will_support_fp16_rapid_packed_math/1
Rushersauce
Banned
It's no myth, it fucking worked. If you want to dilude that, fine, but that's the truth. The drivers increased the performance (be it because AMD's incompetence or not)
kirankara78
Member
Tbh you could have hairworks at lower level and not really miss out on much and get better performance. Half the value seemed to look great and perform great from my point of view. Barely distinguishable from full setting.
580 are still expensive due to miners though.
One piece of advice though.
Never aim for maximum settings. Their isn't a gpu that ever delivers this in every game.
Just aim for a gpu that delivers performance you're going to be satisfied with and accept there will be some compromises at times.
As chasing maximum settings becomes like a drug and you never achieve the same high all the time and that come down is a real downer
kirankara78
Member
It worked once and this wasn't because they had magically got extra performance out the gpu, they simply fixed an inherent issue with their drivers. same as when they fixed frame pacing issues after years.
Vega is GCN, and we've not seen massive improvements later on in gpu life since. Don't expect them again either.
So it's a myth that their gpu always benefit from "fine wine" drivers.
I once had 4 grand in my pocket, is a myth to say i always have four grand in my pocket.
Furthermore, if your car didn't run properly for 3 years and they later fixed it and told you how great their cars are because now after 3 years you finally use it properly, would you be praising them and calling it "fine wine" engineering???
PS the word is deluded not diluded
Tacklemacain
Member
Vega has a full dx12 feature set, rapid packed math, taht might be used more in the future and as it looks TBR that still needs a lot of driver work. So Vega has the potential to be the next 290(x), but who knows, how it will pan out.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
Question about the power consumption of the Vega 56. I´ve read a couple of articles and they wrote that the gpu use 150W and the board 210W. 210W is the whole graphics card that i slide into my pc and 150 is just the gpu chip on it. The other 60W come from all the other shit that´s on it, right? Cause I´ve never read it like this, so a bit confused.
Looking to upgrade to one later this year from my 290x.
Looking to upgrade to one later this year from my 290x.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
If it's only 150W or even 210W, that's much lower than anyone expected.
Tacklemacain
Member
He is talking about cut down Vega. If the voltage and clockspeeds arent outside the sweetspot like it is the case with the FE and the liquid cooled versions,Vega can be quiet efficient.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
Yeah, talking about the Vega56, not 64.
Even if the values will be different later on, i was just curious about the difference between "gpu" and board.
Even if the values will be different later on, i was just curious about the difference between "gpu" and board.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah I know, but that's not a bad power draw if the 56 compute unit cards are comparable to the 64s a la Fury was to Fury X, which wouldnt be surprising.
FunkyDealer
Banned
I believe you are correct in your assumption. Also, note that 210W is the maximum it will draw, not the average.
I'm very interested in how well it'll undervolt, to further reduce power consumption.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
Alright, cool.
Waiting for non-reference coolers.
Waiting for non-reference coolers.
ethomaz
Banned
Seems about right...
The chip itself now has the memory (HBM).
Plus the 60W for PCB.
The 150W for chip + memory is what make Vega too hungry.
dgrdsv
Member
A. The "ongoing fact" of the consoles using GCN stopped being a performance impacting factor more than a year ago, prior to Pascal launch even. You can't optimize to more than 100% of h/w's capabilities.
B. So far in this year "low level APIs" are showing the exact opposite of what you're suggesting and I'd wager that this will be the case going forward as well. Nobody is rushing to support them outside of few devs who were explicitly paid by AMD to do this - this year it looks to be the same story as last one, with generally only AMD's GE titles getting such renderers. Also it's not like 1070 is struggling in these APIs at all.
Vega 56 is no more "future proof" than 1070.
Vega 56 is rated at 210W. The 150W figure is irrelevant.
Sir Abacus
Member
It's so great to have a second game to play on an AMD card. I was getting tired of Ashes of the Singularity. I hear we're going to have a third game, Far Cry 5.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
Well, that´s what i figured. Just some articles were writing about both.
dgrdsv
Member
That's because it will compete with a 150W GTX1070, and AMD is muddying the waters again with figures which no one will ever see in practice. Their marketing has hit a new low point with Vega's launch.
llien
Banned
I heard there was a fourth one: Doom.
I was also told that since AMD powers major consoles, this will become a trend.
Now, sarcasms aside, packed math is what one gets ON TOP of on par perf parity, you need to remember that,.
It's not Vega as much as PS4 Pro having it that might motivate devs.
Sir Abacus
Member
It's like everything is old is new again. If you can't beat them, downgrade. The glory days of benchmark testing and making sure like for like was actually like for like! Reviewers actually had to do work to make sure they weren't being swindled! I'd half expect AMD drivers to start transparently recompiling every shader they can get their hands on to use packed FP16 if they weren't completely shit at drivers.
If it's only the latter I'm gonna try nudging Amazon customer service to cut me some slack tbh. Prime member for like four years and use almost exclusively shop using their credit card, maybe they can bend the rules a bit by giving credit or something.
The bundles are not a great deal look elsewhere if you want to upgrade. You're paying $100 more for the GPU to get a $100 discount on an X series CPU (which means you have to purchase a separate cooler) and super high end $200+ mobos that are just expensive for the sake of being expensive (the discount only applies to 3 specific boards each of which are $200-$260). Also a $200 discount on a nearly $900 monitor.
You can get an x370 Mobo for $100 less just by buying almost any Mobo that isn't the 3 they offer. And save another $100 (depending on cooler) by not getting the X CPU.
Basically you are looking at this bundle (subtract $300 for the discounts)
vs this (same spec parts but ones not available in the bundle)
The difference is even more dramatic if you don't plan on getting a monitor.
Oh wow. So I guess the smarter move is just getting a 1080ti and a cheaper but similar monitor (Or even the same one on refurb)? That was the other option I considered but I thought the discounts were worth more than that.
Well a 1080ti is about $200+ (depending on model) more expensive than the non-bundled GPU. But if you're going in with a $2500 budget for a full build and a monitor then yea that would be the better deal for the price.
Oh I know, like I said I'd likely be getting a different monitor on refurb instead (possibly the LG 34UM88C) to make up the difference. Keeping my old mobo and i5 4690K - might upgrade those a few months from now instead. I just figure the ti will either last longer or have more resale value next year when the 11/20 line rolls around.
Always open to advice though since it's the first time I've gotten into PC stuff since like four years ago.
I personally like to support the underdog going to try to completely redo my rig with a new Vega/Ryzen build assuming the 64 really is 1080 level. At least hoping too we'll see how money is when the cards are available.
As for you. The 1080ti will definitely be a better card all around though so if it's not a matter of budget it's going to be your card of choice.
ISee
Member
Just some ugly (and pointless math), but I like doing stuff like this:
(And yes, I'm just speculating here)
GTX 1080 @ 1800 MHz = 9.2 tflops
Vega FE @ 1600 MHz = 13.1 tflops
We know that both cards roughly perform the same at those clockspeeds. Still Nvidia is able to better translate their raw power and the ratio between tflops on nvidias side versus tflops on AMD side seems to be 1:1.42 for 'real world' performance.
GTX 1070 @ 2050 MHz = 7.9 tflops
Vega 56 @ 1600 MHz = 11.5 tflops
At 1600 MHz Vega 56 would perform like a 8.1 tflops nvidia card if we apply the previously established 1:1.42 ratio on it. That's about as fast as a highly overclocked 1070, which isn't bad imo. We of course have to wait if Vega 56 is able to run at 1600 MHz in the first place and if Vega 56 street prices are going to stay below 1070 prices, but the vega 56 might turn out to be a good 1070 alternative.
(And yes, I'm just speculating here)
GTX 1080 @ 1800 MHz = 9.2 tflops
Vega FE @ 1600 MHz = 13.1 tflops
We know that both cards roughly perform the same at those clockspeeds. Still Nvidia is able to better translate their raw power and the ratio between tflops on nvidias side versus tflops on AMD side seems to be 1:1.42 for 'real world' performance.
GTX 1070 @ 2050 MHz = 7.9 tflops
Vega 56 @ 1600 MHz = 11.5 tflops
At 1600 MHz Vega 56 would perform like a 8.1 tflops nvidia card if we apply the previously established 1:1.42 ratio on it. That's about as fast as a highly overclocked 1070, which isn't bad imo. We of course have to wait if Vega 56 is able to run at 1600 MHz in the first place and if Vega 56 street prices are going to stay below 1070 prices, but the vega 56 might turn out to be a good 1070 alternative.
Sir Abacus
Member
It's not like you could have bought a 1070 a year ago and have been enjoying greater performance all this time.
Oh wait...
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It's been overpriced since day 1 though, so no thanks.
ISee
Member
Personally I said no to the 1070 and bought a GTX 1080 instead to be able to enjoy even greater performance. But that wasn't my point. My point was that not everybody made the jump to pascal and that vega 56 might become a good alternative if someone is looking for performance above a 1060 or RX 580. And your comment contributed in what kind of form? It informed us that the 1070 is already available. Yes, we know that. Thank you for the deep and meaningful insight.
E-Cat
Banned
You know what, this 'pointless' math will probably turn out pretty accurate. People say you cannot compare the power between different architectures based on FLOPS due to them being fundamentally incomparable, but you actually can with the right constant ratio. Now, could there be some variability in that ratio? Sure, but I'd wager it's not more than a couple percentage points in most cases.
FunkyDealer
Banned
dgrdsv
Member
Image rendered in Int8 running at 4x speed on Vega.
E-Cat
Banned
Pascal can do Int8, too.
dgrdsv
Member
Pascal can do Int8, too.
I know =)
Sir Abacus
Member
Locuza
Member
It can:But it can't do it at 4x the speed of floats.
https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/mixed-precision-programming-cuda-8/
The GP100 chip can't but GP102, 104, 106 and maybe 107 can process Int8 with 4x speed.
GameAddict411
Member
I think the idea of Vega improving like the 290 is a BIG if, and it's not wise to buy a Vega card over a GTX 10 series card for that reason. GCN has matured a lot over the last few years and that includes the drivers. I highly doubt FP16 will take off as well.
ElfArmy177
Member
I'll never understand spending more than 160 on a motherboard... 250 bucks? Why?
Also, I have a gtx 1080, and want better performance also gsync or freesync... I assume from these convos amd is out of the picture?
Also, I have a gtx 1080, and want better performance also gsync or freesync... I assume from these convos amd is out of the picture?
Isn't the Frontier Edition already very slightly outperforming the 1080 though? Since G-sync is so ridiculously expensive I think that would make you for it. The only card that really stomps it is the 1080ti but obviously that'll change next year.
Burgess_101
Member
As someone that has shares in AMD, I just ended up buying a 1080 for £450.
This whole ordeal has just taken so long, and I'd like to have a GPU that can power my new 3440x1440 monitor, my Fury nano just couldn't cut it anymore.
As someone with a HTPC case I just can't justify the wattage the 64 is going to need.
This whole ordeal has just taken so long, and I'd like to have a GPU that can power my new 3440x1440 monitor, my Fury nano just couldn't cut it anymore.
As someone with a HTPC case I just can't justify the wattage the 64 is going to need.
Aztechnology
Member
What monitor out of curiosity? I was looking into some but didn't want to shell out $100+ until HDR and HDMI 2.1. I ended up grabbing a Viotek monitor from that MassDrop deal at $399 (32" 2560*1440, 144hz freesync) so I'll be doing a "review" on it when that comes. Meaning I'll just record some stats, color calibration/profile, input lag, pixel response etc. for people interested.
I know they have a 3440*1440p monitor as well. Then there's the predator, and a few Freesync models from Acer and LG I think?
TLDR: Which monitor, how are you liking it?