• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Radeon RX Vega thread

Ac30 said:
Somewhat burying the flagship, bold strategy. Let's hope the 56 is actually competitive with the 1070...
Click to expand...

To be honest, is a smart move. They will sell more of them as bigger market than for flagship cards. It seems 56 will deliver a far more competitive price/ performance ratio
 
SRG01 said:
This was the case with Fury and Fury X too. And possibly 470/480 to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

The 480 4GB was a fine card, and at $200 a bargain. Such a bargain AMD did their best to produce basically 0. Man what a flubbed launch. I don't remember them plugging the 470 at launch much compared to the "$200 for the 480!" which you couldn't really buy...
 
kirankara78 said:
Does Vega FE cost same as a 1080ti?
Click to expand...
It isn't much more expensive, but I"m not sure why it matters.
RIP remark would make sense, in my opinion, if AMD would not be able to even remotely match the performance (in prof workloads). If it actually can and even is faster, then the comment is misplaced.

But then, I don't see why a gamer would go with ThreadRipper to begin with, perhaps, there are some reasons.
 
llien said:
It isn't much more expensive, but I"m not sure why it matters.
RIP remark would make sense, in my opinion, if AMD would not be able to even remotely match the performance (in prof workloads). If it actually can and even is faster, then the comment is misplaced.

But then, I don't see why a gamer would go with ThreadRipper to begin with, perhaps, there are some reasons.
Click to expand...


My 1080ti gaming x cost £650 and performs much better than FE which is £1000.

That's a big difference

But yes original comment was nonsense
 
ponpo said:
3gtVR0a.png


Damn rip Vega
Click to expand...
This is pretty good
 
Ac30 said:
Somewhat burying the flagship, bold strategy. Let's hope the 56 is actually competitive with the 1070...
Click to expand...

That's my dream, slightly better than the 1070 at a good price. I just want to unlock Freesync and have a stronger card to hit 144fps in more games (or at least 100-120).
 
Ac30 said:
The 480 4GB was a fine card, and at $200 a bargain. Such a bargain AMD did their best to produce basically 0. Man what a flubbed launch. I don't remember them plugging the 470 at launch much compared to the "$200 for the 480!" which you couldn't really buy...
Click to expand...
There were fewer RX 470's in circulation too, even moreso the 470 8GB....RX 480 was a more popular card regardless....

AMD might try to push Vega 56 and that may sell well as that card outperforms the 1070 at $400.00, but regardless lots of people will buy the flagship 64 cards, especially the OC'd AIB ones...

Well, at least it will be nice to see some Vega 56 benches on the 14th and see how it does against the 1070....Also how much perf improvement we have with the 64 over the 56...Should be very interesting...
 
thelastword said:
There were fewer RX 470's in circulation too, even moreso the 470 8GB....RX 480 was a more popular card regardless....

AMD might try to push Vega 56 and that may sell well as card that outperforms the 1070 at $400.00, but lots of people will buy the flagship 64 cards, especially the OC'd AIB ones...

Well, at least it will be nice to see some Vega 56 benches on the 14th and see how it does against the 1070....Also how much perf improvement we have with the 64 over the 56...Should be very interesting...
Click to expand...

I thought there are only going to be reference Vega 64 cards and AIB partners are only getting Vega 56 chips to play with?

Gonna try and snare one on launch day as well. But from here in UK that might be impossible.
 
St3v3 said:
That's my dream, slightly better than the 1070 at a good price. I just want to unlock Freesync and have a stronger card to hit 144fps in more games (or at least 100-120).
Click to expand...

I'd consider getting one if its faster than a 1070 for a reasonable price. But miners mean it will be impossible to get anywhere near MSRP I'm afraid. Maybe it will lower demand for 1070s though so they can go back to a somewhat reasonable price.
 
bomblord1 said:
1924mhz is not a stock clock on any 1080 that is close to msrp. You're comparing a premium 3rd party card or an overclocked card (yes I get that is a clock basically any 3rd party card can hit) to a blower style reference Vega and then claiming the Vegas overclock speeds are invalid. Compare stock to stock and overclock to overclock there's no reason to believe that 1750mhz won't be as normal of a clock for 3rd party Vega cards as 1924mhz is for 3rd party Nvidia cards.
Click to expand...

Here's the clock graph for a 1080 FE:

14636166464UR8bKmzfk_2_2_l.gif


Note that it basically starts at 1900 MHz - it's highly likely that even this "stock" FE would report 1925 MHz as its max boost clocks to the 3DMark monitoring module. Maybe a step lower, around 1911. In any case, 1925 is basically stock "max" clock for a GTX 1080.

1750 MHz max is for RX Vega 64 WC model so you could say that I'm actually comparing a much cheaper AC factory OC 1080 to a water cooled Vega there. And you're completely ignoring the lower range of Vega results in these graphs again which clearly hint at top results actually being for the OCed WC model.

A "normal" clock for a WCed OC GTX 1080 is ~2100-2150 MHz. Such card will likely be faster than any of the Vega results in these graphs.

The sole fact that AMD has moved forward Vega 56 launch and told the press to prioritize that over Vega 64 should already tell you all you need to know about Vega 64 performance - it simply won't beat its (more than a year old) competition to any significant degree at the same price.

Vega 56 should fare a lot better against the 1070 and is likely to end up being the only Vega card worth buying.
 
dr_rus said:
Here's the clock graph for a 1080 FE:

14636166464UR8bKmzfk_2_2_l.gif


Note that it basically starts at 1900 MHz - it's highly likely that even this "stock" FE would report 1925 MHz as its max boost clocks to the 3DMark monitoring module. Maybe a step lower, around 1911. In any case, 1925 is basically stock "max" clock for a GTX 1080.

1750 MHz max is for RX Vega 64 WC model so you could say that I'm actually comparing a much cheaper AC factory OC 1080 to a water cooled Vega there. And you're completely ignoring the lower range of Vega results in these graphs again which clearly hint at top results actually being for the OCed WC model.

A "normal" clock for a WCed OC GTX 1080 is ~2100-2150 MHz. Such card will likely be faster than any of the Vega results in these graphs.

The sole fact that AMD has moved forward Vega 56 launch and told the press to prioritize that over Vega 64 should already tell you all you need to know about Vega 64 performance - it simply won't beat its (more than a year old) competition to any significant degree at the same price.

Vega 56 should fare a lot better against the 1070 and is likely to end up being the only Vega card worth buying.
Click to expand...

The article you pulled that from

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/05/19/geforce_gtx_1080_founders_edition_overclocking_preview/
The red line below shows you the default clock speed for comparison. The lowest clock speed of the overclock spiked down to 1873MHz very briefly, but otherwise the average new clock speed is 2062MHz versus 1770MHz average clock speed at default operation.
Click to expand...

A card running at an average clock speed of 1924 MHZ is running much higher than an average boost clock of 1770MHZ the card may have peaked higher but that's irrelevant when it averages lower.

Once gain you're trying to compare an overclocked 1080 to a stock clock reference Vega and claiming the OC performance doesn't matter and ignoring the fact that 3rd party Vega cards (barring AMD pulling another r9 fury thing) will also be capable of running at higher clocks on average.
 
bomblord1 said:
A card running at an average clock speed of 1924 MHZ is running much higher than an average boost clock of 1770MHZ..
Click to expand...

The card is not running at an average clock of 1924MHz though...

3DMark reports the peak frequency, which would be around 1900Mhz for a stock 1080
For reference, 3DMark says my o/c 1080 runs @2076MHz when it's really closer to 2012-2025 in game
The only way I see that frequency is if the card is below 40°C which never happens when gaming

Edit: it even says so in the bench link
"Note 2: The clock speed reported by 3DMark is a peak clock, it may or may not mean that the card was overclocked at the time of testing."
 
Not accurate to say most 3rd party 1080s hit 2.1 - 2.15ghz...hitting 2.1 is pretty tough even with the high end ones. I have one and generally 2088 is best I do. 2.1 is the wall.
 
bomblord1 said:
The article you pulled that from
Click to expand...

Okay, let's try this for the third and final time - 3DMark monitoring module logs _maximum clocks_ a card reports. This is why you see only 1630 and 1750 MHz for all RX Vega results despite said results being very different. 1925 MHz can easily be a maximum clock reported by a stock GTX 1080. A properly OCed GTX 1080 would report clocks starting from 2000 MHz there.
 
Padinn said:
Not accurate to say most 3rd party 1080s hit 2.1 - 2.15ghz...hitting 2.1 is pretty tough even with the high end ones. I have one and generally 2088 is best I do. 2.1 is the wall.
Click to expand...

Even 2088 is considered to be high. I can only go for 2063 MHz on my Strix (no offset OC, but clock-curve to hit 2063 on all relevant boost states) , which is already good. Most 1080s seem to be able to hit 1980 - 2038 MHz without much trouble, though.
2.15 GHz are only possible with volt mods or certain bios versions (for the most part). The best I've seen were 2.25 GHz on a watercooled strix that was running the XOC Bios (1.25V-1.3V).
 
dr_rus said:
Okay, let's try this for the third and final time - 3DMark monitoring module logs _maximum clocks_ a card reports. This is why you see only 1630 and 1750 MHz for all RX Vega results despite said results being very different. 1925 MHz can easily be a maximum clock reported by a stock GTX 1080. A properly OCed GTX 1080 would report clocks starting from 2000 MHz there.
Click to expand...

So now we're back to a FE equivalent RX Vega at a lower clock beating out a 3rd party 1080 with still some form of a factory overclock (when compared to the FE) in 75% of the given tests.
 
blankempathy said:
Are all Gpu launches this stressful?
Click to expand...

Usually we'll have a far better idea of what the performance is like, because there would be far more official benchmarks and 'leaks' ahead of time. The fact that AMD has been very quiet about RX Vega until very recently, and that the 'leaks' basically didn't happen should be a large red flag.
 
PFD said:
I think all of these numbers are from SIGGRAPH

So Vega has 70% higher clockspeed than Fury X, but only 30% more performance

I just don't get it
Click to expand...

Unfortunately trying to increase clock speed potential can often be detrimental to per-clock performance. The most famous example of this is the NetBurst architecture in Pentium 4.

Nvidia doesn't really get enough credit for maintaining and even slightly increasing per-clock performance in Pascal while also gaining such a massive increase in clock speed potential over Maxwell.
 
I've never bought a GPU at launch before.

What is my best bet for buying a Vega 64 liquid at launch?

Can I just buy one on Amazon? When will it go up?
 
I've been following the PC gaming scene for a few weeks after getting out of it awhile ago. I'm pretty much up to speed now on all the new tech and all the rumors of tech coming out. I got the green light from my wife to replace my 2014 MacBook Pro with a gaming pc, but there is so much happening right now it doesn't seem like a good time to jump in new.
Inflated graphics prices, inflated memory costs, new intel chips at the end of the month all make me want to wait til the beginning of 2018 when new Ryzen CPUs and possibly new nvidia cards will be out... I'm thinking of just getting a mechanical keyboard and make due with my Xbox one and PS4 until next year... or if I'm weak I may wait until Black Friday deals to pickup a monitor or possible my whole rig. Really excited to see the numbers on Vega on Monday.
 
vanhanz said:
I've been following the PC gaming scene for a few weeks after getting out of it awhile ago. I'm pretty much up to speed now on all the new tech and all the rumors of tech coming out. I got the green light from my wife to replace my 2014 MacBook Pro with a gaming pc, but there is so much happening right now it doesn't seem like a good time to jump in new.
Inflated graphics prices, inflated memory costs, new intel chips at the end of the month all make me want to wait til the beginning of 2018 when new Ryzen CPUs and possibly new nvidia cards will be out... I'm thinking of just getting a mechanical keyboard and make due with my Xbox one and PS4 until next year... or if I'm weak I may wait until Black Friday deals to pickup a monitor or possible my whole rig. Really excited to see the numbers on Vega on Monday.
Click to expand...

Waiting until 2018 is probably wise, since if the mining rumours are true, then Vega's launch is going to be a complete mess, regardless of how well it does at videogames.
 
SRG01 said:
This was the case with Fury and Fury X too. And possibly 470/480 to a certain extent.
Click to expand...

kirankara78 said:
To be honest, is a smart move. They will sell more of them as bigger market than for flagship cards. It seems 56 will deliver a far more competitive price/ performance ratio
Click to expand...

Except these are huge die chips competing with NV mid sized dies. NV is killing amd on margins. That's why nvs shareholders are pretty happy and amds aren't. You can't really spin this as any sort of win for amd.
 
shouamabane said:
I've never bought a GPU at launch before.

What is my best bet for buying a Vega 64 liquid at launch?

Can I just buy one on Amazon? When will it go up?
Click to expand...

Newegg had the air cooled Vega 64 on pre order this morning for $600 without the bundle. I don't see them anymore. That's already a $100 markup. There are rumors that just came out that Vega won't be so good for mining this morning which contradicts rumors last week.
I think all of the cards will get snatched up right away on speculation alone. That and the pent up demand from people with freesync monitors waiting for Vega for so long, and scalpers will make these tough to get.
 
Any news about the Vega Nano? I'm looking to see what would be a reasonable upgrade (8-pin ITX GPU) from my "Fury" Nano be like. I was initially thinking that the 1070 itx would be the premium choice, but, it turns out the appearance of a 1080 itx changed that. A 1080 Ti would've made for a great choice, too, if not for the power draw (requires 2 8-pin connectors), heat (test show the card hitting thottling temps, unlike its non-Ti cousin), noise (unlike its non-Ti cousin), and price ($600~ is waaaay too much for me). I'm hoping Vega Nano would at least be competitive in the performance/$ ratio, even if it ends up in-between a 1070 and 1080.
 
sfried said:
Any news about the Vega Nano? I'm looking to see what would be a reasonable upgrade (8-pin ITX GPU) from my "Fury" Nano be like. I was initially thinking that the 1070 itx would be the premium choice, but, it turns out the appearance of a 1080 itx changed that. A 1080 Ti would've made for a great choice, too, if not for the power draw (requires 2 8-pin connectors), heat (test show the card hitting thottling temps, unlike its non-Ti cousin), noise (unlike its non-Ti cousin), and price ($600~ is waaaay too much for me). I'm hoping Vega Nano would at least be competitive in the performance/$ ratio, even if it ends up in-between a 1070 and 1080.
Click to expand...

Nil. It's not even confirmed whether or not it's a prop. Plus I would expect a theoretical Vega Nano to have all the same issues that you listed for an SLI 1080Ti.
 
kirankara78 said:
My 1080ti gaming x cost £650 and performs much better than FE which is £1000.

That's a big difference

But yes original comment was nonsense
Click to expand...

ZOONAMI said:
Except these are huge die chips competing with NV mid sized dies. NV is killing amd on margins. That's why nvs shareholders are pretty happy and amds aren't. You can't really spin this as any sort of win for amd.
Click to expand...

what you waffling about??

Im not trying to spin this anyway.

I'm simply saying there's a reason AND putting more emphasis on Vega 56. it's cheaper, lower power consumption and will perform not so far behind vega 64.

they will sell more of those than Vega 64.

overall Vega is a bit of an embarrassing disaster in my opinion. But they still have to make best of bad situation
 
Unknown Soldier said:
Unfortunately trying to increase clock speed potential can often be detrimental to per-clock performance. The most famous example of this is the NetBurst architecture in Pentium 4.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, except Vega FE at 1050Mhz has performance that is nearly identical to Fury X.
 
Hard to take much from that graph without knowing what games/resolutions were being tested, but that would be crazy if the performance gap between the 56 and the 64 is really that slim.
 
Zefah said:
Hard to take much from that graph without knowing what games/resolutions were being tested, but that would be crazy if the performance gap between the 56 and the 64 is really that slim.
Click to expand...

It's only 8 CUs apart & I'm sure that the 56 is just 64 cards that didn't come out with all 64 CUs working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Radeon RX 9060 XT review thread
41
14K
SolidQ replied
RX 7900 XTX vs RX 9070 XT March 2026 - Comparison with Newest Drivers
9
1K
HerpDerpstreit replied
Rumor: SF6 year 4 DLC potentially leaked. Gouken, Haggar, Vega, and…. Tifa
2 3
109
2K
Knight of the Round replied
Radeon RX 9060 XT features 2048 cores, boost clock of 3.2 GHz
Hardware  2 3
119
13K
roosnam1980 replied
[VideoCardz] GeForce RTX 5060 Ti appears on Steam Hardware Survey list before Radeon RX 9070 series
News Hardware 
27
2K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom