I was checking on preordering a Vega and had the following question:
How exactly do the recently unveiled editions at $399 & $499 compare spec wise to the already released Radeon Vega Frontier Edition?
For reference, product listing for the released Vega at Amazon http://amzn.to/2vXKOsk (url shortended). I looked at the prices and assume the Frontier edition is better, but by how much?
I kind of long for the simpler days of GPU naming ;-)
Vega Frontier is very similar to RX Vega 64 with the same number of shaders, 4096, but has 16GB of HBM2 memory instead. Clockspeeds will differ depending on which version it is, Air versus Liquid.
Vega 56 $399 will have cut down shaders for a total of 3584 shaders and lower clockspeeds.
Yeah, I'm surprise that even these standard size cards are so long. Back when HBM was new, there where diagrams showing how moving the memory from PCB to interposer significantly reduced the PCB space requited. And yet these cards are just as big as traditional cards. What is all the extra PCB space being used for?
"At this point, one must give credit to AMD for their marketing program for the Radeon RX Vega. The company has opted to dip feed information over many months, and as a result this has kept the public interested in the architecture and consumer RX Vega cards."
Credit?
I think you mean blame. This kind of dragged out release only pisses me off and cheer for them to implode.
Next years model will only cost $39,998 and feature a whopping 13MB of RAM, but the power consumption will require 8000W dedicated to just the card and LN2 for light web browsing! Such a steal :P
Regardless of the competitive landscape, we shouldn't applaud this kind of dragged out, train wreck of a marketing job, ending in an embarrassing product release.
For the future, I suggest one piece of advice: "Put up, or shut up".
It's not the marketing department's fault: the architecture is just junk. They did the best they could with the severe delays, and have tried to put lipstick on a pig. I don't know how you can hold it against the marketing department. It's the engineers who clearly need to get their act together.
I wouldn't exactly call it junk. Just look at where AMD has come from. Now you can get an 8 core 16 thread 64PCIE lane processor for probably around $500 at Microcenter and a $300 plus 4k graphics card that will go excellent with a low cost freesync monitor. If AMD had failed you would be paying $4 grand for a setup like that. AMD now offers that for around $1500 very soon. Intel will counter and AMD will counter then it's time to buy. A year ago I never dreamed that I would be able to afford such hardware and I will never forget the Intel tick tock rip off marketing. I will only buy AMD from now on. If you are smart you will also.
If you nixed the AMD part, you'd might be right though I'd choose to say objectivity, or good judgement since I not aware of good data linking intelligence with fanboiosity.
Amd cpu's and gpu's come from what are essentially different companies. Amd spun Radeon graphics off in to Radeon Technology Group. Most likely to insulate the parent corporation in the event that the Radeon group fails and needs to be sold to the highest bidder.
The Vega that's being presented is not a 4K card. Performance just isn't there. Even 1080 Ti struggles at 4K. But the icing on the cake is that the 1080 Ti puts out much more performance than RX Vega, while still seemingly using less power.
I've been a supporter of AMD for a long time, but this is just pathetic.
"I will only buy AMD from now on. If you are smart you will also."
Bravo. I had been buying Intel and NVidia because AMD was technically inferior (worst in CPUs). But thinking about Ryzen, what it takes to create something like that, and AMD's chronic near-bankruptcy, I realized that we are damned lucky they have survived and are still punching. My money now goes to (1) Reward the people who are *really* trying and (2) Keep them in the game.
Do you assume AMD can pull off such a recovery twice? If too many of us say "yeah, but I can get a few more FPS from an Intel / NVidia rig", we could very well have only those two in the future.
The bottom line: Don't niggle about minor tech differences; there's much more at stake. Buy AMD where you reasonably can - and they do offer a LOT now. I bought Ryzen 1800X and will buy Vega.
I bought the 1800X too, if they'd have spilled the beans on Threadripper a little earlier I might have waited for that. Vega? Sorry I smelled that hype train far away, think it scared nVidia a bit though because I think they saw Zen and thought AMD is on fire let's secure sales while we can because the 1080Ti for $700 carried an extremely small premium to be the top card. AMD releasing a card trading blows with the 1080 at 300W+ five months later? My guess someone at nVidia is kicking themselves for not making it an $8-900 card. "Only" 250W on air, 11GB RAM, HDMI 2.0b/DisplayPort 1.4 out and usable framerates at 4K without SLI and the long lifetime of DX12/Vulkan makes me think it's an investment I don't want to replace any time soon. It's probably an okay value card to keep AMD in the loop, but nothing more. Hopefully Threadripper and EPYC will keep them floating to come up with something better.
what does ryzen has anything to do with Vega (PR) failure? Nobody doubt ryzen (except hardcore intel fanboys), ryzen/tr/epyc all looks great and ryzen is on my list for upgrade.
It's not the ROP's. Fiji always killed it in fillrate tests, which basically test the ROP's. In Fiji, at least the main bottleneck was the Geometry engines.
it is fault of marketing team, who's else? If your engineering produce VW Golf only idiot in your PR can tout "Ferrari F1!" good job by marketing team would be to set realistic expectations for the product, which they didn't for Vega. Polaris is hardly a competition for 1080ti nor Titan but does it make it bad product? Did marketing overhype and overshot Polaris? So as they did good with Polaris they screwed up horribly with Vega.
Or they should rush it for a different kind of disaster like X299, X370?? I'm happy with it just like it is but I've already accumulated everything else and don't need to buy the whole ecosystem. Just the the PCB and an EK block, but maybe they will offer it with threadripper then I can dump my x1800 and Asus crossfire VI. Hey, it's just money.
August 14th.....what the heck are they waiting for at this point. Release date two weeks after "announcement" they sure have taken their sweet time bringing this to market.
The Green Team seems to be dragging their feet on Volta as well.
Staggering product launches is the way it has to be done to make money. I will never forget the Intel/Nvidia tick tock rip off the consumer scheme. For what I payed for my 6700k at launch I could now have a 8 core 16 thread 64 PCIE lane threadripper that would be the last CPU I'd ever have to buy. I've dreamed of 64 pcie lanes for a long time. I can wire my whole home with dedicated GPUs for each TV. WOW. Can you imagine what that kind of bandwidth will inspire mfgs to build. THANK YOU AMD.
What's sad is that Intel could have done this ages ago, re the true nature of the 3930K, the 4820K having 40 lanes, etc. Shows what lack of competition does. Just glad AMD is back kick Intel where it's rightly deserved.
> The Green Team seems to be dragging their feet on Volta as well.
Because they don't need to bother pushing when their "competitor" has just released an architecture that is slower than NVIDIA's own more-than-1-year-older Pascal.
NVIDIA literally needs to do nothing to torpedo Vega, but if they really wanted to put the screws on they could drop the price of all their cards by $50 and watch as AMD squirms.
I would bet my entire setup that Vega pre-orders will fill up instantly and the cards will be next to impossible to find through at least the end of August.
I would bet than the few dozens of AMD fans that have waited 14 months for getting a 1080 at double the power consumtion won't decrease nvidia's selling so that they need to lower its prices.
The drivers aren't ready. That's why Vega FE hadn't tile rendering enabled. I suspect that AMD's driver code base is a mess. Adapting it for GCN 5 was probably a massive task. For the sounds of the announcement it doesn't seem that all features will be enabled even at launch.
drivers are not ready? more than 8 months isn't enough? I'm kind of amd fan but wtf dude? its most likely more than 8months since they had chip ready - as they demoed it end of last year? Hell of a time for drive tuning... Also drivers excuses is lame as Vega was mostly delayed due to HBM2, so if not for hbm delays it would be released without drivers at all or what?
Exactly. This great marketing worked out so well for AMD, that after X1950, HD4870, HD6870, R9 290, and RX 480 I went and bought a GTX1080, the first nVidia card since I retiered my 8600GT back in the days.
exactly this! I was like wtf after reading that first lines, had to triple check if reading AT article...calling this marketing disaster,fiasco, failure something worth of giving praise is duh huh beyond ridiculousness.
I think marketing did more damage to the card than poor engineering. Problem is they did hype it beyond craziness with stellar architecture stellar performance for something that's product between 1070-1080 for higher price, the hypetrain hit the rock wall, hard.
I'm pretty sure that most of fans and enthusiasts that did follow Vega since early beginning take this Vega for failure. So if PR fools wouldn't overhype the shit out of this card , and treat it like normal product, it could be taken as decent 1070/1080 alternative that came year later but still able to deliver some competition to NVidia... So in this light personally I see it even worse than "overclocker's dream" Fury...
Not to mention all the ppl that pulled trigger on 1080/ti that couldn't wait anymore for idiots at AMD PR that delayed delayed and without any relevant information.
...and someone calls the marketing team competent...
So TomsHardware is already confirming that VEGA 64 is slower than even a Vanilla GTX 1080, much less than a 1080Ti. It probably won't be far behind a gtx 1080, but they are trying to charge $600 for it, so i don't see them doing well with this card unless it mines like a republican in west virginia
no no no no it's 600$ for the bundle which gives you a 64 air cooled vega card a ryzen 7 cpu a curved samsung monitor that is 3440 * 1440 a mother board and 2 games now that is what you call a fucking steal m8
Nah you just get discounts on the other items, $100 off a CPU motherboard Combo and $200 off a $900 Moniter and two free games. Pretty mediocore if you ask me. I was patiently waiting for Vega but this is just ridiculous, It makes more sense to buy a 1060 and wait for Nvidia's new cards cause they will reck Vega.
Hm. So I have to buy a monitor, games, an AM4 motherboard, and Ryzen CPU for the 64LC model? I already have two 4K Freesync panels and a Ryzen 7 1700. Just missing the premium end RX Vega to round it out.
You don't have to. You can pay the extra for the discounts on the monitor and MB/CPU but not actually buy them in the same transaction, swallowing the additional cost as a 'premium'.
If it has the same performance as a 1080 but uses significantly more watts, I don't think they can price it for the same as the 1080, especially because NVIDIA's reputation is currently better than AMD's. But I guess mining currently makes MSRP moot, anyway.
It may launch high, but it will drop, Nvidia will counter then AMD will counter, then it's time to buy the best performance/dollar. I will not forget the tick tock of Intel/nvidia so AMD will get my money for a long time to come.
??? Amd reputation is much better than Nvidia. If you buy amd gpu now that is same speed than nvidia today. Then amd gpu will be faster than the same gpu in the future. That is how it has been a long time.
But how fast Vega actually is, remains to be seing. Most likely basic version is near 1080, because the price is near and 56 version is near 1070, because the price is near that. Not bad, at all if that is true. Most likely the real situation is quite similar than in the past. Amd is better in dx12 and Vulcan and much weaker in dx11 so real usage experience will vary a lot based on the program you use.
Honestly, I can't understand how there are fanboys that are so dedicated to AMD that they're actually trying to defend Vega. I was with AMD from the original Radeon all the way through Fury, but I've had no choice but to go to Nvidia since AMD disappeared at the high end, and that hasn't changed.
"Honestly, I can't understand how there are fanboys that are so dedicated to AMD that they're actually trying to defend Vega."
Simple, mental gymnastics. They tell themselves Nvidia is evil and AMD is their great savior, not realizing this is just how capitalism works and AMD would do the same if roles were reversed.
TBH, it's not about "evil or good". People are not complaning about nVidia or Intel because they're supposedly "evil". That's way too simple minded. It's about things like Intel paying out Dell not to ship AMD products or nVidia milking the public for a $700 GTX 1080 before deciding that Vega was close enough and slashing $200 from it. If AMD would do the same, so be it. People who are bothered by bad corporate behaviour would simply flock to the company not doing such things, even if it'd be nVidia or Intel.
"Newsflash people, companies are in it to make as much money as the market allows them. They may pretend they care about their customers, but the truth is neither AMD or Nvidia does."
Price gouging is only a valid concern regarding goods towards basic needs, of which playing video games is definitely not.
You think it's fine for companies to rip off customers as long as they don't die of it? Rubbish. I put a lot of precious time making money and it's not okay for gigantic multi-billion dollar bussiness to exploit their market position to sell products are eye wattering margins. There's a reason for even very liberal countries regarding market freedom such as the US or the UK to have lawfuly taken down monopolies in the past.
Rip off customers? Hardly, that would only apply if said products brought no improvements whatsoever. Otherwise, it's just capitalism at work. If you can't afford it, either get a better job or get a new hobby.
It is ok. They are not forcing you to buy anything, and none of these products are required for staying alive. They are all just fanciful things, so don't get too upset.
Dug, people will always get upset, they're desparate to defend their buying decisions, while taking sides in an A vs. B ego battle because... er... reasons. Check out the rant by the main guy on Gamers Nexus about this sort of thing, it's rather good.
Is there any particular school that teaches this rubbish about good and evil in economy? Or it just mere frustration that creates all these idiotic theories that customers that pay for a product (which are also the best on the market) must feel robbed?
I would say that fanboys that wait 14 months to have a product the same as another older than a year should feel robbed of their time and enjoyed occasions. But they are fanboys, you can't expect them to understand
The victim mentality is not acquired via economics classes, these are individuals who believe that there is a place for GPUs within the "social justice" spectrum. You can pretty much just ignore them and move on to the next comment.
Have you seen the Volta predictions? AMD are unable to produce a card that competes with Nvidia in terms of pure brute force. AMD cards need optimisations in Vulkan and what not to be competitive. People talk about tick/tock and about how Nvidia abuses the market but seriously who cares? When I buy a GPU I want to buy the best, Feelings have no place when you're buying hardware. That being said Ryzen is amazing but Vega sucks.
Newsflash people, companies are in it to make as much money as the market allows them. They may pretend they care about their customers, but the truth is neither AMD or Nvidia does.
" Ryzen is amazing but Vega sucks" seems to be the consesus - I think the attach rate on Ryzen will be pretty high though. you will be able to get a high end PC for "Much less" than an intel/Nvidia PC. same thing for AI ect. bulldozer (fail) AMD was never able to test the attach rate which is one of the advantages you should have if you produce both a CPU and GPU.
This is flat out wrong, and has been disproven multiple times. In fact, AMD drops support for older cards much faster than NVIDIA does; they are still releasing updates for the 8400 GS, which came out 10 years ago.
Yeah, those packs are problematic for games as well. I already have one of the games, a 34" freesync display, and I want to upgrade to a Threadripper later, not a Ryzen 7....
With that being said, distributors usually remove the game codes here, and hardware packs are quite unheard of, so probably we won't get anything, just more expensive separate pieces.
It's not a hardware bundle coming from AMD: you have to add both the monitor and the card pack to the basket for the discount to be applied. The retailer then has to deal with AMD / the distributor to work out what they get out of it.
Man... I thought there would be some mention of SR-VIO. I know that it is a 'Pro' Graphics card feature, but it is very, very 'desired' for people who run Linux with virtualized Windows. We don't need 8 to 64 different virtualized operating systems to share one graphics card, just 1.
As a consumer, I really don't want to plug in two different graphics cards just so I can run Linux with Windows for games. I get that some people just boot into a different operating system, but that honestly makes no sense at all when we simply have the technology to move beyond that.
Well to beat Nvidia in my opinion they need to keep their power draw in check so we have: 1.RX VEGA 56 against 1070 or 210W power draw Vs 150W power draw 2.RX VEGA 64 against 1080 or 295W! power draw Vs 180W power draw Also they are 1 year late to the game.Nvidia will have Volta early next year (probably) dont see AMD are in a good position with this generation and i dont think Navi will save them either which is always bad for us consumers
It's really a moot point by now. Nvidia hasn't had any competition at the high end for 2 years now. We're already getting fully gouged. The only thing holding prices in check is what the market will bear.
Nobody's getting gouged. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy the product. Sick of reading this pseudo-commie nonsense, when really it's just wealth jelousy in disguise IMO (either that or people just don't want to take responsibility for their purchasing decisions).
Hmmmmmmm, let’s try to be objective. All AMD tests are made with the worst version of Vega 64. This means that the card will be always near the lower end of its clock range (or worse, throttling). So, based on that, AIB versions with better coolers (or, as I’ll do, stock cards with a waterblock slapped on them as part of a 2x240 custom loop) will be faster, and (I hope) by a good margin. And don’t forget the better drivers (as AMD always releases)
Not anyone wants ultra wide screen monitors. Samsung should scrap the annoying curve and release a 24-27" VA 144Hz Freesync FG70. Also rebates on 500-1TB samsung EVO/Pro.
The curve isn't really noticeable once you get used to it. I think it may actually be a plus in games. It's basically a non-issue in every other situation.
Nah. A curved screen is only good for one thing... Marketing finding another way to sell you something new. I tried, honestly, I really tried to find a realistic positive to a curved screen but found nothing concrete.
Wait, what? Trading blows with the 1080, and not the 1080 Ti? I thought flagship Vega was supposed to offer 1080 Ti+ performance for less money. I was also hoping the cut-down version for $400 would be very comparable to 1080 Ti, like R9 290 (non X) was to big Kepler. Not to mention cut-down HBM2, only 64 ROPs; the $400-500 4K dream looks more and more like a mirage.
Am I missing something here? Weren't those cards supposed to be 12+ TF and 10+ TF - way more than 1080 and 1070?
In gpu same price gpu from amd and Nvidia has always been about the same speed. So now we have vega64 that is 500$ vs Nvidia 1080 about 500$ and They Are about the same speed. Is anyone surprised? No I did not think so. Vega will manage better in dx12 and Vulcan titles and Nvidia will beat Vegas in dx11 titles hands down... any surprices in there... no at all. This is very much what we did and can Expect.
When Volta will come out, it is more expensive than 1080 series if it is faster. If it is not faster it is about the same price (I predict that Volta is much faster in dx12 and Vulcan titles, but not so much in dx11.. it can even be slover in there compared to previous generation.) All in all both companies have put the price quite close the Comparative product from the rival and it will continue Also in the future.
I am very happy about the Vega. The competition is back. Not Volta will have to compete against Vega and not against very old fury. And very soon after Volta comes out there will be Vega 2. The Navi is at least two years from now. If it is not, and Navi comes 2018, then Nvidia have some problems untill 2019 the will get out Volta2. But all in all the relative price vs. Competition will remain the same. regardless what is released.
Not necessarily true. When NVIDIA released Kepler (600-series), they decided to start charging double - $500 for a mid-sized GPU, instead of $250; and $1000 for the flagship in the face of Titan a bit later on. It was then that AMD shook up the market by releasing R9 290 - a $400 Titan alternative; at the time, the closest competitor NVIDIA had was 780 - a double cut-down big Kepler that was slower than R9 290 and cost $700. Obviously, all that was great for consumers, even those that weren't looking to buy AMD since NVIDIA cut the price of 780 and introduced 780 Ti.
Ah you say they have to price at same levels right? But AMD can undercut Intel by half with much better cpu, but cannot undercut NV?? You talking out of your finger. Most probable reason for that is expensive big die and HBM2
Does anyone remember the time when AMD released a card that was actually faster than the top NVIDIA card and didn't draw a lot more power? Or was it ATI?
So how are those air coolers going to cool 300W? Would it not have been smarter to just release the water cooled card and let partners release the air cooled ones with custom monster 3 slot coolers? As it is all the Vega reviews will be with an air cooled Vega's, and everyone's memory of it will be "too hot, too loud, throttles hard". See 290 release for comparison.
I love AMD but am I the only one worried that AMD might have cocked up with such a late release? I mean the best card the RX Vega 64 seems to target 1080 performance. While this is great Nvidia still have the 1080Ti out and the 10 Series cards are like a year old already, so soon we can expect Nvidia to toss out there new architecture and obliterate the new Vega's. Sure the AMD Bundles are great but really...
You are screwing over your most loyal customers, AMD. I just wanted the liquid cooled card, AMD . I ALREADY HAVE a freesync monitor I've been sitting on for over TWO YEARS waiting on a singe GPU to push it. I ALREADY HAVE a Ryzen system. I have ZERO interest in either of the games and you're telling me I have to pay an additional $100 for absolutely no benefit to myself. If they really go through with this, then Fuck you, AMD.
And did you read? Will there be any non-bundle cards available? If they put majority of cards toward bundles , he has to pay premium if he can't get hands on non bundle card.
That TDP is crazy! 200+ watts for a single GPU? If this is the direction the industry is going in the name of running a video game at non-vomit-inducing framerates, I'll throw in the towel thanks.
Never seen so much hate for a product not even released and benchmarked.
I will wait for the review before judging anything. People to tend the effect of drivers and architectures. Nobody take into account HBM 2 and it could be way more important than what people believed.
Once again, I only see nVidia fanboys burning their banners and going to war.
Agree and only Nvidia can get away with a large TDP. Anytime AMD releases something, somehow its OMG lets fry some bacon, when Nvidia does it the response is puh-leez what's an extra $20 a year.
It seems GCN's static partitioning of CUs/TMUs/ROPs will need to give way to something more efficient and dynamic; I think GCN 5 is the last of its line. However, Nvidia achieves relatively good TBP by offloading some functions to the CPU. The selling point looks good though, as it's so much lower. Overall total system draw may not be too dissimilar.
Any new architecture will need to incorporate a very large L2 cache, not unlike Pascal, and even on the CPU front, Ryzen; the render back-ends on Vega are L2 clients now, but I don't have data on the size of L2 cache on Vega 10. That takes up precious die-space, so what will get the axe? Hardware scheduling? Perhaps nothing at all? Moving to 7nm will free up some of that burden. We already know that the not-too-distant future of GPUs is MCM (multi-chip modules), just like CPUs. It'll be interesting to see what solutions transpire when the time comes.
AMD targeted Vega 10 for 225w. That has ballooned to 295w (air) and 345w (water). So, I think GCN wasn't designed, at the very beginning, with high-clocks in mind. A whole new rethink will need to be done for Navi to take the fight to Nvidia's Volta and future architectures.
The fact is that GCN is performing so poorly in gaming that AMD needs to clock it up a lot to get some decent performances for the used silicon. And that goes against thermal efficiency, of corse.
AMD is using a ring topology, and NVidia was two-way bus, I think. AMD inherited that from co-work with IBM fifteen years ago, and from ATI acquisition. Essentially, AMD's architecture is more like a supercomputers type with ability to transfer large data blocks, and NVidia is relying on cheaper narrow bus with compression, decompression and data predictions, but can achieve higher clock speeds... AMD missed to take on board software developers, NVidia popularized CUDA meanwhile, although for heavy computations AMD would be probably better, hence the crypto- currency preference to run better on AMD since the days of bitcoin, SETI and so on. Considering so many foreign investors with material influence, I don't think AMD stands a chance outside the consumer market - from defense security point is a no go. I wish them luck , and I buy AMD for my gaming hobby, but realistically, they are not part of the big technology scene anymore.
Wow. This is just awful. Something must've gone really wrong with either the design or implementation, or both. There's no good excuse why a card that is running on a two generation newer node AND that has a similar power draw is ever running at fewer fps. I really hope the story of wtf happened to Vega emerges.
The R9 Nano pointed in the right direction for what HBM could do: Less power, noise and size, while beating the R9 290X on performance.
For the VEGA I expected a generational improvement like I got from the GTX 1070 vs. the GTX 980ti: Same performance at half price and power.
345 Watts for the equivalent of a 180 Watt/(R9 Nano level) GTX 1080? Seriously? Did someone swallow a shrink and make HBM2 more energy hungry than GDDR5X?
Even the Infinity Fabric cannot rescue such a Watt/performance blunder...
BTW, Infinity Fabric is not a magic component, and for sure nor a energy saver one. On the contrary, it is an added component that need extra energy to solve scaling problems. So, at the end, a possible MCM GPU will have a lower performance/energy ratio than a monolithic one.
I'm pleased as a bowl of rum punch that Dr. Lisa Su is aggressively competing against Intel with Ryzen and now against Nvidia with Vega but to be an AMD fanboy is to suffering wait times of foot-long beards and inches on the waistline. AMD is typically late in unveiling new hardware. I hope that their cadence of tic-toc-toc will at least bring noteworthy enhancements. Good luck AMD. It's great to see spoil Intel's party, as I hope you do with Nvidia's, but it's been a long, long time coming.
The biggest issue with them being this late will be nVidia with Volta, even if Vega is decent and slots in between a 1080 & 1080ti it'll soon be beaten by Volta, for those of us who wanted to upgrade we brought a 1070/1080/1080ti and will be waiting for Volta.
aggressively competing against Intel with Ryzen and now against Nvidia with Vega
What many AMD fanboys have still not understood is that you do not compete with anyone if your product costs more (at production) ad is sold at less. Your product is simply under priced to have some appeal, and THAT IS NOT CONCURRENCY! Vega, as is the entire GCN architecture is simply under performing and needs to be boosted in clocks a lot outside of their optimal energy efficient point without still reaching a decent performance against the lower tier concurrent solution. This architecture has to be scrapped and a new one must take its place as soon as possible, or will we wait for the eternal savior (it was Tahiti at the beginning, which soon showed it was too big too power hyngry, then it was Fiji, then Pascal, then Vega.. next is Navi... we will ever see an architecture performing better than the nvidia ones without using tons more of silicon and watts, so being really competitive?
Hahahahah. With 490mmq, HBM2 and 300W it should leave GP102 in the dust, not trading blow with its lower tier cousin, the GP104, released 14 months ago. Are you kidding when talking about how good it GCN? Have you still not understood how bad it is? What do you need to understand it? Well, possibly Volta will teach you how good it GCN, when the x80 series will sell for $600. And, yes, if you expressly code for GCN (like DICE did) it will gain some points. As for any other architecture. Which does not cancel the poor area*power/performace GCN has.
Well even if Vega will slot in between 1080-ti in performance it won't survive long IMHO. NV can further slash 1080 and 1070 prices (as they milked enough) and I can't see how Vega would sell. I guess AMD can't go much lower with price either... Not to mention AMD lost many potential buyers after NV dropped Ti and lowered 1080 price few months back.
Not to mention AMD lost many potential buyers after NV dropped Ti and lowered 1080 price few months back.
That was surely not for any AMD concurrency. There was zero from that front. It simply meant nvidia touched the maximum margins it could have with those products (it is a thing that limits the market even in a monopoly) and had to lower them to raise the number of sold units = higher volumes of money in nevertheless. I bet that Vega will not change nvidia prices. Too few, too late and in very limited quantity. AMD has not interests in selling Vega in consumer market apart from a showcase: it costs them too much. And HBM2 is not that abundant.
Honestly Vega is looking like an amazing upgrade for me check out these numbers i calculated
35% to 45% increase in performance upgrading to the liquid cooled Vega 64@1677Mhz over my r9 fury@1000Mhz, even higher minimum framerates for smoother gameplay according to their numbers and i get Enhanced Vsync as well since its not available on Fiji has of yet. Consider i saw 30% to 35% going from an r9 290 to a R9 Fury non x in gaming, this is even better for me. yes if you own a 1080 or especially 1080 ti this is not an upgrade path lol unless you wanna get into the Radeon Ecosystem of course.
Also these are based on current numbers, if you add in DSBR support on day one launch and Super fine wine tech like massive fp16 performance in Vega and other tech features you will see even greater numbers in the future also increases in optimisation in games just like the rx 480 saw 10% performance gain over 6 months which put it trading blows with a 1060 eventually in DX11 and DX12.
DSBR was already enabled for the AMD tests in the slide deck. It shows an 18% increase on Doom compared to the FE on a driver that is not out to the public yet. DSBR is not a magical thing that will make everything lovely. Look for the tech articles on it at retail launch.
I was very excited for Vega. Along the way, I simply got bored and lost interest. Sorry AMD, but you aren't just late this time, you still haven't even shown up. These cards were supposed to be launched a LONG time ago, with the most recent statements saying July. Well here we are in August and nobody can buy one.
On 14th August Vega 64 with custom cooler from ASUS should be available. That's less than 2 weeks to wait ,we still don't know about its performance apart from AMD claiming it will be very competitive. I can see 2 possibilities there: Vega is quite pathetic product with average performance and super high power draw or Vega is great and AMD as usual suck big time at advertising its products.
I just want to express my respect for you that you did NOT take the bait today for AMD's noxious rolling NDA loft on Vega, and produce a whole article that contains nothing more than a description of the packaging. This will be a moment for me to separate the serious technical journalists from the clickbait purveyors. Thank you.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
162 Comments
Back to Article
VulkanMan - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Hmmm....ddriver - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
$200 Discount: Samsung CF71 34-inch Widescreen Freesync MonitorIsn't that CF791?
coolhardware - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I was checking on preordering a Vega and had the following question:How exactly do the recently unveiled editions at $399 & $499 compare spec wise to the already released Radeon Vega Frontier Edition?
For reference, product listing for the released Vega at Amazon http://amzn.to/2vXKOsk (url shortended). I looked at the prices and assume the Frontier edition is better, but by how much?
I kind of long for the simpler days of GPU naming ;-)
Amoro - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Vega Frontier is very similar to RX Vega 64 with the same number of shaders, 4096, but has 16GB of HBM2 memory instead. Clockspeeds will differ depending on which version it is, Air versus Liquid.Vega 56 $399 will have cut down shaders for a total of 3584 shaders and lower clockspeeds.
coolhardware - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Thank you kindly for the info, it is much appreciated! Looks like I should wait for the RX Vega 64 :-)Scabies - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
So where's the Nano?tamalero - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
There are photos of it, but no more info than that?tarqsharq - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Is this what you wanted? https://smallformfactor.net/wp-content/uploads/Veg...Mr Perfect - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Yeah, I'm surprise that even these standard size cards are so long. Back when HBM was new, there where diagrams showing how moving the memory from PCB to interposer significantly reduced the PCB space requited. And yet these cards are just as big as traditional cards. What is all the extra PCB space being used for?Threska - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Heatsink? Voltage control? Built-in coffee warmer?KennyS - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
It is said that Satan himself runs two of these to keep hell from freezing over.Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
My Xtreme 980ti uses the same watts. Probably more at 1520mhz.The_Assimilator - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Your Xtreme 980Ti is also two generations older.nathanddrews - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
And $650 launch MSRP.nathanddrews - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Oops, $690 for the Xtreme...CiccioB - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
That's because it was top of the notch, not just a high end card as other on the market.coolhardware - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
lol, love it. :-)guidryp - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
"At this point, one must give credit to AMD for their marketing program for the Radeon RX Vega. The company has opted to dip feed information over many months, and as a result this has kept the public interested in the architecture and consumer RX Vega cards."Credit?
I think you mean blame. This kind of dragged out release only pisses me off and cheer for them to implode.
broadbanned - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Sounds like a great idea, you like $40,000 GTX 1020 12MB RAM cards for gaming, right?broadbanned - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Next years model will only cost $39,998 and feature a whopping 13MB of RAM, but the power consumption will require 8000W dedicated to just the card and LN2 for light web browsing! Such a steal :Pguidryp - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Regardless of the competitive landscape, we shouldn't applaud this kind of dragged out, train wreck of a marketing job, ending in an embarrassing product release.For the future, I suggest one piece of advice: "Put up, or shut up".
Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It's not the marketing department's fault: the architecture is just junk. They did the best they could with the severe delays, and have tried to put lipstick on a pig. I don't know how you can hold it against the marketing department. It's the engineers who clearly need to get their act together.Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I wouldn't exactly call it junk. Just look at where AMD has come from. Now you can get an 8 core 16 thread 64PCIE lane processor for probably around $500 at Microcenter and a $300 plus 4k graphics card that will go excellent with a low cost freesync monitor. If AMD had failed you would be paying $4 grand for a setup like that. AMD now offers that for around $1500 very soon. Intel will counter and AMD will counter then it's time to buy. A year ago I never dreamed that I would be able to afford such hardware and I will never forget the Intel tick tock rip off marketing. I will only buy AMD from now on. If you are smart you will also.Hurr Durr - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
>I will only buy AMD from now on>talks about being smart
Sometimes the ironing on AT is beyond delicious.
vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Do you really expect intelligence from AMD fanbois? Good luck with that.tuxRoller - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
If you nixed the AMD part, you'd might be right though I'd choose to say objectivity, or good judgement since I not aware of good data linking intelligence with fanboiosity.Tewt - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
LOL. Oh, the IRONY of this statement.Ej24 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Amd cpu's and gpu's come from what are essentially different companies. Amd spun Radeon graphics off in to Radeon Technology Group. Most likely to insulate the parent corporation in the event that the Radeon group fails and needs to be sold to the highest bidder.Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The Vega that's being presented is not a 4K card. Performance just isn't there. Even 1080 Ti struggles at 4K. But the icing on the cake is that the 1080 Ti puts out much more performance than RX Vega, while still seemingly using less power.I've been a supporter of AMD for a long time, but this is just pathetic.
Arbie - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
"I will only buy AMD from now on. If you are smart you will also."Bravo. I had been buying Intel and NVidia because AMD was technically inferior (worst in CPUs). But thinking about Ryzen, what it takes to create something like that, and AMD's chronic near-bankruptcy, I realized that we are damned lucky they have survived and are still punching. My money now goes to (1) Reward the people who are *really* trying and (2) Keep them in the game.
Do you assume AMD can pull off such a recovery twice? If too many of us say "yeah, but I can get a few more FPS from an Intel / NVidia rig", we could very well have only those two in the future.
The bottom line: Don't niggle about minor tech differences; there's much more at stake. Buy AMD where you reasonably can - and they do offer a LOT now. I bought Ryzen 1800X and will buy Vega.
Kjella - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I bought the 1800X too, if they'd have spilled the beans on Threadripper a little earlier I might have waited for that. Vega? Sorry I smelled that hype train far away, think it scared nVidia a bit though because I think they saw Zen and thought AMD is on fire let's secure sales while we can because the 1080Ti for $700 carried an extremely small premium to be the top card. AMD releasing a card trading blows with the 1080 at 300W+ five months later? My guess someone at nVidia is kicking themselves for not making it an $8-900 card. "Only" 250W on air, 11GB RAM, HDMI 2.0b/DisplayPort 1.4 out and usable framerates at 4K without SLI and the long lifetime of DX12/Vulkan makes me think it's an investment I don't want to replace any time soon. It's probably an okay value card to keep AMD in the loop, but nothing more. Hopefully Threadripper and EPYC will keep them floating to come up with something better.lordken - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
what does ryzen has anything to do with Vega (PR) failure?Nobody doubt ryzen (except hardcore intel fanboys), ryzen/tr/epyc all looks great and ryzen is on my list for upgrade.
Jimster480 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The main problem is the number of ROPs.It was the problem in the Fury and it will be the problem here.
If they want more FPS they need to add more ROPs.
Ej24 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Yeah it's strange, their entire gpu pipeline is massively wide except the rops on the backend. They're always rop starved.bug77 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Yet I have it from one of their own engineers that they have no indication of any ROP bottleneck. Go figure...vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
And Raja told me himself that's not true... See how easy that is?Lord of the Bored - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
They could make the second longer. And raise the speed of light while they're at it.extide - Monday, August 14, 2017 - link
It's not the ROP's. Fiji always killed it in fillrate tests, which basically test the ROP's. In Fiji, at least the main bottleneck was the Geometry engines.guidryp - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It is exactly that they tried to put lipstick on a pig that so pisses me off.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
"It is exactly that they tried to put lipstick on a pig that so pisses me off."It's not like it's something new to AMD, they've being doing this overhyping thing for ages.
lordken - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
it is fault of marketing team, who's else? If your engineering produce VW Golf only idiot in your PR can tout "Ferrari F1!"good job by marketing team would be to set realistic expectations for the product, which they didn't for Vega. Polaris is hardly a competition for 1080ti nor Titan but does it make it bad product? Did marketing overhype and overshot Polaris?
So as they did good with Polaris they screwed up horribly with Vega.
sbrown23 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Yeah I'm totally sure they'll look to RandoCommenter3769 for marketing advice next time around.Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Or they should rush it for a different kind of disaster like X299, X370?? I'm happy with it just like it is but I've already accumulated everything else and don't need to buy the whole ecosystem. Just the the PCB and an EK block, but maybe they will offer it with threadripper then I can dump my x1800 and Asus crossfire VI. Hey, it's just money.HOOfan 1 - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
August 14th.....what the heck are they waiting for at this point. Release date two weeks after "announcement" they sure have taken their sweet time bringing this to market.The Green Team seems to be dragging their feet on Volta as well.
Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Staggering product launches is the way it has to be done to make money. I will never forget the Intel/Nvidia tick tock rip off the consumer scheme. For what I payed for my 6700k at launch I could now have a 8 core 16 thread 64 PCIE lane threadripper that would be the last CPU I'd ever have to buy. I've dreamed of 64 pcie lanes for a long time. I can wire my whole home with dedicated GPUs for each TV. WOW. Can you imagine what that kind of bandwidth will inspire mfgs to build. THANK YOU AMD.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
"THANK YOU AMD."What's sad is that Intel could have done this ages ago, re the true nature of the 3930K, the 4820K having 40 lanes, etc. Shows what lack of competition does. Just glad AMD is back kick Intel where it's rightly deserved.
The_Assimilator - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
> The Green Team seems to be dragging their feet on Volta as well.Because they don't need to bother pushing when their "competitor" has just released an architecture that is slower than NVIDIA's own more-than-1-year-older Pascal.
NVIDIA literally needs to do nothing to torpedo Vega, but if they really wanted to put the screws on they could drop the price of all their cards by $50 and watch as AMD squirms.
Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Cutting prices would just hurt Nvidia. Vega isn't going to sell either way.Djhillier - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I would bet my entire setup that Vega pre-orders will fill up instantly and the cards will be next to impossible to find through at least the end of August.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
If you're betting that based on mining demand, it's not gonna happen with Vega's ridiculously poor efficiency.tuxRoller - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It has poor mining efficiency? Presumably you're referring to the FE, correct?I wasn't aware of that.
Interesting.
That makes this so much worse.
vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Pro drivers don't influence mining performance so RX Vega should have just as awful mining power/watt.CiccioB - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I would bet than the few dozens of AMD fans that have waited 14 months for getting a 1080 at double the power consumtion won't decrease nvidia's selling so that they need to lower its prices.lefty2 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
>what the heck are they waiting for at this pointThe drivers aren't ready. That's why Vega FE hadn't tile rendering enabled. I suspect that AMD's driver code base is a mess. Adapting it for GCN 5 was probably a massive task.
For the sounds of the announcement it doesn't seem that all features will be enabled even at launch.
lordken - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
drivers are not ready? more than 8 months isn't enough? I'm kind of amd fan but wtf dude?its most likely more than 8months since they had chip ready - as they demoed it end of last year? Hell of a time for drive tuning...
Also drivers excuses is lame as Vega was mostly delayed due to HBM2, so if not for hbm delays it would be released without drivers at all or what?
meepstone - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Generating hype always works. Keeps people interested. Like movie trailers that add extra scenes that get released months apart.ludicrousByte - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
They should have done pre-orders, people always buy into that hype.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Hmm, dunno, fair few people have been burned by the whole preorder thing, mostly re games but nevertheless a bitter aftertaste (eg. NMS).MrBlowfish - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Exactly.This great marketing worked out so well for AMD, that after X1950, HD4870, HD6870, R9 290, and RX 480 I went and bought a GTX1080, the first nVidia card since I retiered my 8600GT back in the days.
Awesome job there AMD. :D
at80eighty - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
<i>This kind of dragged out release only pisses me off and cheer for them to implode</i>You sound like a mentally well adjusted individual
lordken - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
exactly this! I was like wtf after reading that first lines, had to triple check if reading AT article...calling this marketing disaster,fiasco, failure something worth of giving praise is duh huh beyond ridiculousness.I think marketing did more damage to the card than poor engineering. Problem is they did hype it beyond craziness with stellar architecture stellar performance for something that's product between 1070-1080 for higher price, the hypetrain hit the rock wall, hard.
I'm pretty sure that most of fans and enthusiasts that did follow Vega since early beginning take this Vega for failure. So if PR fools wouldn't overhype the shit out of this card , and treat it like normal product, it could be taken as decent 1070/1080 alternative that came year later but still able to deliver some competition to NVidia...
So in this light personally I see it even worse than "overclocker's dream" Fury...
Not to mention all the ppl that pulled trigger on 1080/ti that couldn't wait anymore for idiots at AMD PR that delayed delayed and without any relevant information.
...and someone calls the marketing team competent...
Morawka - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
So TomsHardware is already confirming that VEGA 64 is slower than even a Vanilla GTX 1080, much less than a 1080Ti. It probably won't be far behind a gtx 1080, but they are trying to charge $600 for it, so i don't see them doing well with this card unless it mines like a republican in west virginiaEnlows1 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
no no no no it's 600$ for the bundle which gives you a 64 air cooled vega card a ryzen 7 cpu a curved samsung monitor that is 3440 * 1440 a mother board and 2 games now that is what you call a fucking steal m8nevcairiel - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Thats not what the bundles give you. They give you games, sure, but both AMD and NVIDIA do that all the time.The other things are just small discounts on those products, you don't get all that for $600.
HAILHOFF - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Nah you just get discounts on the other items, $100 off a CPU motherboard Combo and $200 off a $900 Moniter and two free games. Pretty mediocore if you ask me. I was patiently waiting for Vega but this is just ridiculous, It makes more sense to buy a 1060 and wait for Nvidia's new cards cause they will reck Vega.Ferrari_Freak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
And it seems that monitor discount is only for North America, Australia, and Singapore. Everyone else will only get the games and Ryzen discount.https://www.dvhardware.net/article66980.html
Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
No their not. Tom's hardware does NOT have an RX Vega.sorten - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Confirming? Did they steal an engineering sample?IanHagen - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
And how is it that they've "confirmed" it without actually having a RX Vega?Stuka87 - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Any word on Vega 11?Ryan Smith - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Not at this time.VulkanMan - Sunday, July 30, 2017 - link
Paper launch?Disabled features in driver for FE?
Ugh, what a mess.
Then we have until September for 3rd party Vega RX cards to come out, since the first batch seems to be all reference design.
And we have to wait weeks for actual, real reviews. :(
FeelsBadMan.
vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I'm pretty sure some review sites will buy the Vega as soon as it's available mid August so we should have real reviews before September.HomeworldFound - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The heatsinks are unusual. I think I like them. The liquid cooled unit should have a window though.Bateluer - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Hm. So I have to buy a monitor, games, an AM4 motherboard, and Ryzen CPU for the 64LC model? I already have two 4K Freesync panels and a Ryzen 7 1700. Just missing the premium end RX Vega to round it out.Ian Cutress - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
You don't have to. You can pay the extra for the discounts on the monitor and MB/CPU but not actually buy them in the same transaction, swallowing the additional cost as a 'premium'.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Or he could just get the standalone $499/399 cards.fanofanand - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Sure but he specifically asked about the LC version.Yojimbo - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
If it has the same performance as a 1080 but uses significantly more watts, I don't think they can price it for the same as the 1080, especially because NVIDIA's reputation is currently better than AMD's. But I guess mining currently makes MSRP moot, anyway.Walletripper - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It may launch high, but it will drop, Nvidia will counter then AMD will counter, then it's time to buy the best performance/dollar. I will not forget the tick tock of Intel/nvidia so AMD will get my money for a long time to come.haukionkannel - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
???Amd reputation is much better than Nvidia. If you buy amd gpu now that is same speed than nvidia today. Then amd gpu will be faster than the same gpu in the future. That is how it has been a long time.
But how fast Vega actually is, remains to be seing. Most likely basic version is near 1080, because the price is near and 56 version is near 1070, because the price is near that. Not bad, at all if that is true. Most likely the real situation is quite similar than in the past. Amd is better in dx12 and Vulcan and much weaker in dx11 so real usage experience will vary a lot based on the program you use.
nevcairiel - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Near 1080 performance, a year later and using 100W more power? Yeah, actually a bit bad.Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Honestly, I can't understand how there are fanboys that are so dedicated to AMD that they're actually trying to defend Vega. I was with AMD from the original Radeon all the way through Fury, but I've had no choice but to go to Nvidia since AMD disappeared at the high end, and that hasn't changed.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
"Honestly, I can't understand how there are fanboys that are so dedicated to AMD that they're actually trying to defend Vega."Simple, mental gymnastics. They tell themselves Nvidia is evil and AMD is their great savior, not realizing this is just how capitalism works and AMD would do the same if roles were reversed.
IanHagen - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
TBH, it's not about "evil or good". People are not complaning about nVidia or Intel because they're supposedly "evil". That's way too simple minded. It's about things like Intel paying out Dell not to ship AMD products or nVidia milking the public for a $700 GTX 1080 before deciding that Vega was close enough and slashing $200 from it. If AMD would do the same, so be it. People who are bothered by bad corporate behaviour would simply flock to the company not doing such things, even if it'd be nVidia or Intel.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Let me reiterate this here:"Newsflash people, companies are in it to make as much money as the market allows them. They may pretend they care about their customers, but the truth is neither AMD or Nvidia does."
Price gouging is only a valid concern regarding goods towards basic needs, of which playing video games is definitely not.
IanHagen - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
You think it's fine for companies to rip off customers as long as they don't die of it? Rubbish. I put a lot of precious time making money and it's not okay for gigantic multi-billion dollar bussiness to exploit their market position to sell products are eye wattering margins. There's a reason for even very liberal countries regarding market freedom such as the US or the UK to have lawfuly taken down monopolies in the past.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Rip off customers? Hardly, that would only apply if said products brought no improvements whatsoever. Otherwise, it's just capitalism at work. If you can't afford it, either get a better job or get a new hobby.Dug - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It is ok. They are not forcing you to buy anything, and none of these products are required for staying alive. They are all just fanciful things, so don't get too upset.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Dug, people will always get upset, they're desparate to defend their buying decisions, while taking sides in an A vs. B ego battle because... er... reasons. Check out the rant by the main guy on Gamers Nexus about this sort of thing, it's rather good.CiccioB - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Is there any particular school that teaches this rubbish about good and evil in economy?Or it just mere frustration that creates all these idiotic theories that customers that pay for a product (which are also the best on the market) must feel robbed?
I would say that fanboys that wait 14 months to have a product the same as another older than a year should feel robbed of their time and enjoyed occasions.
But they are fanboys, you can't expect them to understand
fanofanand - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
The victim mentality is not acquired via economics classes, these are individuals who believe that there is a place for GPUs within the "social justice" spectrum. You can pretty much just ignore them and move on to the next comment.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
"The victim mentality is not acquired via economics classes, ..."An SJW gfx card, now I've heard it all. :D
HAILHOFF - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Have you seen the Volta predictions? AMD are unable to produce a card that competes with Nvidia in terms of pure brute force. AMD cards need optimisations in Vulkan and what not to be competitive. People talk about tick/tock and about how Nvidia abuses the market but seriously who cares? When I buy a GPU I want to buy the best, Feelings have no place when you're buying hardware. That being said Ryzen is amazing but Vega sucks.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Newsflash people, companies are in it to make as much money as the market allows them. They may pretend they care about their customers, but the truth is neither AMD or Nvidia does.stockolicious - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
" Ryzen is amazing but Vega sucks"seems to be the consesus - I think the attach rate on Ryzen will be pretty high though. you will be able to get a high end PC for "Much less" than an intel/Nvidia PC. same thing for AI ect.
bulldozer (fail) AMD was never able to test the attach rate which is one of the advantages you should have if you produce both a CPU and GPU.
Deathlokke - Saturday, August 5, 2017 - link
This is flat out wrong, and has been disproven multiple times. In fact, AMD drops support for older cards much faster than NVIDIA does; they are still releasing updates for the 8400 GS, which came out 10 years ago.nagi603 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Yeah, those packs are problematic for games as well. I already have one of the games, a 34" freesync display, and I want to upgrade to a Threadripper later, not a Ryzen 7....With that being said, distributors usually remove the game codes here, and hardware packs are quite unheard of, so probably we won't get anything, just more expensive separate pieces.
Ian Cutress - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It's not a hardware bundle coming from AMD: you have to add both the monitor and the card pack to the basket for the discount to be applied. The retailer then has to deal with AMD / the distributor to work out what they get out of it.superflux - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Man... I thought there would be some mention of SR-VIO. I know that it is a 'Pro' Graphics card feature, but it is very, very 'desired' for people who run Linux with virtualized Windows. We don't need 8 to 64 different virtualized operating systems to share one graphics card, just 1.As a consumer, I really don't want to plug in two different graphics cards just so I can run Linux with Windows for games. I get that some people just boot into a different operating system, but that honestly makes no sense at all when we simply have the technology to move beyond that.
efficacyman - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I also wish there was more clarity on SR-VIO. If it is enabled and supported on consumer cards I will be definitely buying Vega.siberian3 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Well to beat Nvidia in my opinion they need to keep their power draw in check so we have:1.RX VEGA 56 against 1070 or 210W power draw Vs 150W power draw
2.RX VEGA 64 against 1080 or 295W! power draw Vs 180W power draw
Also they are 1 year late to the game.Nvidia will have Volta early next year (probably) dont see AMD are in a good position with this generation and i dont think Navi will save them either which is always bad for us consumers
Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It's really a moot point by now. Nvidia hasn't had any competition at the high end for 2 years now. We're already getting fully gouged. The only thing holding prices in check is what the market will bear.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Nobody's getting gouged. If you don't like the pricing, don't buy the product. Sick of reading this pseudo-commie nonsense, when really it's just wealth jelousy in disguise IMO (either that or people just don't want to take responsibility for their purchasing decisions).apple020997 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Hmmmmmmm, let’s try to be objective.All AMD tests are made with the worst version of Vega 64. This means that the card will be always near the lower end of its clock range (or worse, throttling).
So, based on that, AIB versions with better coolers (or, as I’ll do, stock cards with a waterblock slapped on them as part of a 2x240 custom loop) will be faster, and (I hope) by a good margin. And don’t forget the better drivers (as AMD always releases)
YazX_ - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
OK, Pascal refresh is coming next year, no need to release VOLTA as Nvidia is still ahead, sigh....Lolimaster - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Not anyone wants ultra wide screen monitors. Samsung should scrap the annoying curve and release a 24-27" VA 144Hz Freesync FG70. Also rebates on 500-1TB samsung EVO/Pro.R3MF - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
No. They should not do that.Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The curve isn't really noticeable once you get used to it. I think it may actually be a plus in games. It's basically a non-issue in every other situation.damianrobertjones - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Nah. A curved screen is only good for one thing... Marketing finding another way to sell you something new. I tried, honestly, I really tried to find a realistic positive to a curved screen but found nothing concrete.yhselp - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Wait, what? Trading blows with the 1080, and not the 1080 Ti? I thought flagship Vega was supposed to offer 1080 Ti+ performance for less money. I was also hoping the cut-down version for $400 would be very comparable to 1080 Ti, like R9 290 (non X) was to big Kepler. Not to mention cut-down HBM2, only 64 ROPs; the $400-500 4K dream looks more and more like a mirage.Am I missing something here? Weren't those cards supposed to be 12+ TF and 10+ TF - way more than 1080 and 1070?
haukionkannel - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
In gpu same price gpu from amd and Nvidia has always been about the same speed.So now we have vega64 that is 500$ vs Nvidia 1080 about 500$ and They Are about the same speed. Is anyone surprised? No I did not think so. Vega will manage better in dx12 and Vulcan titles and Nvidia will beat Vegas in dx11 titles hands down... any surprices in there... no at all. This is very much what we did and can Expect.
When Volta will come out, it is more expensive than 1080 series if it is faster. If it is not faster it is about the same price (I predict that Volta is much faster in dx12 and Vulcan titles, but not so much in dx11.. it can even be slover in there compared to previous generation.)
All in all both companies have put the price quite close the Comparative product from the rival and it will continue Also in the future.
I am very happy about the Vega. The competition is back. Not Volta will have to compete against Vega and not against very old fury. And very soon after Volta comes out there will be Vega 2. The Navi is at least two years from now. If it is not, and Navi comes 2018, then Nvidia have some problems untill 2019 the will get out Volta2. But all in all the relative price vs. Competition will remain the same. regardless what is released.
yhselp - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Not necessarily true. When NVIDIA released Kepler (600-series), they decided to start charging double - $500 for a mid-sized GPU, instead of $250; and $1000 for the flagship in the face of Titan a bit later on. It was then that AMD shook up the market by releasing R9 290 - a $400 Titan alternative; at the time, the closest competitor NVIDIA had was 780 - a double cut-down big Kepler that was slower than R9 290 and cost $700. Obviously, all that was great for consumers, even those that weren't looking to buy AMD since NVIDIA cut the price of 780 and introduced 780 Ti.I was hoping for something similar with Vega.
Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I think everyone was hoping for that. Unfortunately, something appears to have gone seriously wrong with Vega, hence the long delays.lordken - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
Ah you say they have to price at same levels right? But AMD can undercut Intel by half with much better cpu, but cannot undercut NV??You talking out of your finger.
Most probable reason for that is expensive big die and HBM2
Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
No, you're not missing anything. The Vega architecture just sucks. It's a step back in every way from Fiji and Polaris.Tim Miller - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Does anyone remember the time when AMD released a card that was actually faster than the top NVIDIA card and didn't draw a lot more power? Or was it ATI?Dribble - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
So how are those air coolers going to cool 300W? Would it not have been smarter to just release the water cooled card and let partners release the air cooled ones with custom monster 3 slot coolers? As it is all the Vega reviews will be with an air cooled Vega's, and everyone's memory of it will be "too hot, too loud, throttles hard". See 290 release for comparison.Nagorak - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It would have been smarter just not to release the gaming version at all, just said Vega gaming got cancelled and pushed the work station cards.vladx - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
AMD most likely couldn't do that due to stockholder obligations.HAILHOFF - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I love AMD but am I the only one worried that AMD might have cocked up with such a late release? I mean the best card the RX Vega 64 seems to target 1080 performance. While this is great Nvidia still have the 1080Ti out and the 10 Series cards are like a year old already, so soon we can expect Nvidia to toss out there new architecture and obliterate the new Vega's. Sure the AMD Bundles are great but really...Brazos - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Typo? "The company has opted to drip feed information"Ryan Smith - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
That's correct.=)coolhardware - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Typo if first paragraph: "dip feed" should be "drip feed".Also, thanks for the Vega update!
quilciri - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
You are screwing over your most loyal customers, AMD. I just wanted the liquid cooled card, AMD . I ALREADY HAVE a freesync monitor I've been sitting on for over TWO YEARS waiting on a singe GPU to push it. I ALREADY HAVE a Ryzen system. I have ZERO interest in either of the games and you're telling me I have to pay an additional $100 for absolutely no benefit to myself. If they really go through with this, then Fuck you, AMD.eva02langley - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
You are not obligated to purchase the bundle edition and save 100$. Just to learn to read you genius.Daniel4182 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Try having a little re-read and save yourself from an embarrassing little rant.lordken - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
And did you read? Will there be any non-bundle cards available? If they put majority of cards toward bundles , he has to pay premium if he can't get hands on non bundle card.mapesdhs - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Nobody's forcing him to buy anything. Delaying gratification is possible. :DBrokenCrayons - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
That TDP is crazy! 200+ watts for a single GPU? If this is the direction the industry is going in the name of running a video game at non-vomit-inducing framerates, I'll throw in the towel thanks.fanofanand - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
it just shows the rate of advancement has slowed.Dug - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I would of gladly bought this bundle if they offered the Samsung C32HG70.Which I find much more appealing for gaming than ultrawide.
eva02langley - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Never seen so much hate for a product not even released and benchmarked.I will wait for the review before judging anything. People to tend the effect of drivers and architectures. Nobody take into account HBM 2 and it could be way more important than what people believed.
Once again, I only see nVidia fanboys burning their banners and going to war.
Tewt - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Agree and only Nvidia can get away with a large TDP. Anytime AMD releases something, somehow its OMG lets fry some bacon, when Nvidia does it the response is puh-leez what's an extra $20 a year.Regardless, I'm very happy with my RX 470.
madwolfa - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
And when was it, 2010? We're in 2017, dude. Can't release hot shit liek that in this day.JasonMZW20 - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
It seems GCN's static partitioning of CUs/TMUs/ROPs will need to give way to something more efficient and dynamic; I think GCN 5 is the last of its line. However, Nvidia achieves relatively good TBP by offloading some functions to the CPU. The selling point looks good though, as it's so much lower. Overall total system draw may not be too dissimilar.Any new architecture will need to incorporate a very large L2 cache, not unlike Pascal, and even on the CPU front, Ryzen; the render back-ends on Vega are L2 clients now, but I don't have data on the size of L2 cache on Vega 10. That takes up precious die-space, so what will get the axe? Hardware scheduling? Perhaps nothing at all? Moving to 7nm will free up some of that burden. We already know that the not-too-distant future of GPUs is MCM (multi-chip modules), just like CPUs. It'll be interesting to see what solutions transpire when the time comes.
AMD targeted Vega 10 for 225w. That has ballooned to 295w (air) and 345w (water). So, I think GCN wasn't designed, at the very beginning, with high-clocks in mind. A whole new rethink will need to be done for Navi to take the fight to Nvidia's Volta and future architectures.
CiccioB - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The fact is that GCN is performing so poorly in gaming that AMD needs to clock it up a lot to get some decent performances for the used silicon. And that goes against thermal efficiency, of corse.Ananke - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
AMD is using a ring topology, and NVidia was two-way bus, I think. AMD inherited that from co-work with IBM fifteen years ago, and from ATI acquisition. Essentially, AMD's architecture is more like a supercomputers type with ability to transfer large data blocks, and NVidia is relying on cheaper narrow bus with compression, decompression and data predictions, but can achieve higher clock speeds...AMD missed to take on board software developers, NVidia popularized CUDA meanwhile, although for heavy computations AMD would be probably better, hence the crypto- currency preference to run better on AMD since the days of bitcoin, SETI and so on.
Considering so many foreign investors with material influence, I don't think AMD stands a chance outside the consumer market - from defense security point is a no go. I wish them luck , and I buy AMD for my gaming hobby, but realistically, they are not part of the big technology scene anymore.
Oxford Guy - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
"they are not part of the big technology scene anymore."Did you sleep and miss Ryzen, Thread Ripper, and Epyc?
Oxford Guy - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Vulkan, which appears to be mainly an offshoot of Mantle, also has finally given Linux the ability to fully compete with DirectX.Sttm - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
295W to match the 180W GTX 1080... THEY ARE A GENERATION BEHIND!tuxRoller - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
Wow.This is just awful.
Something must've gone really wrong with either the design or implementation, or both.
There's no good excuse why a card that is running on a two generation newer node AND that has a similar power draw is ever running at fewer fps.
I really hope the story of wtf happened to Vega emerges.
abufrejoval - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
The R9 Nano pointed in the right direction for what HBM could do: Less power, noise and size, while beating the R9 290X on performance.For the VEGA I expected a generational improvement like I got from the GTX 1070 vs. the GTX 980ti: Same performance at half price and power.
345 Watts for the equivalent of a 180 Watt/(R9 Nano level) GTX 1080? Seriously? Did someone swallow a shrink and make HBM2 more energy hungry than GDDR5X?
Even the Infinity Fabric cannot rescue such a Watt/performance blunder...
CiccioB - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
BTW, Infinity Fabric is not a magic component, and for sure nor a energy saver one. On the contrary, it is an added component that need extra energy to solve scaling problems.So, at the end, a possible MCM GPU will have a lower performance/energy ratio than a monolithic one.
7beauties - Monday, July 31, 2017 - link
I'm pleased as a bowl of rum punch that Dr. Lisa Su is aggressively competing against Intel with Ryzen and now against Nvidia with Vega but to be an AMD fanboy is to suffering wait times of foot-long beards and inches on the waistline. AMD is typically late in unveiling new hardware. I hope that their cadence of tic-toc-toc will at least bring noteworthy enhancements. Good luck AMD. It's great to see spoil Intel's party, as I hope you do with Nvidia's, but it's been a long, long time coming.spat55 - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
The biggest issue with them being this late will be nVidia with Volta, even if Vega is decent and slots in between a 1080 & 1080ti it'll soon be beaten by Volta, for those of us who wanted to upgrade we brought a 1070/1080/1080ti and will be waiting for Volta.CiccioB - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
What many AMD fanboys have still not understood is that you do not compete with anyone if your product costs more (at production) ad is sold at less. Your product is simply under priced to have some appeal, and THAT IS NOT CONCURRENCY!
Vega, as is the entire GCN architecture is simply under performing and needs to be boosted in clocks a lot outside of their optimal energy efficient point without still reaching a decent performance against the lower tier concurrent solution.
This architecture has to be scrapped and a new one must take its place as soon as possible, or will we wait for the eternal savior (it was Tahiti at the beginning, which soon showed it was too big too power hyngry, then it was Fiji, then Pascal, then Vega.. next is Navi... we will ever see an architecture performing better than the nvidia ones without using tons more of silicon and watts, so being really competitive?
Outlander_04 - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
You must be one of the very few who have actually used a Vega card? No?So its almost like you are just making stuff up?
Weird !
CiccioB - Thursday, August 3, 2017 - link
Hahahahah.With 490mmq, HBM2 and 300W it should leave GP102 in the dust, not trading blow with its lower tier cousin, the GP104, released 14 months ago.
Are you kidding when talking about how good it GCN? Have you still not understood how bad it is? What do you need to understand it? Well, possibly Volta will teach you how good it GCN, when the x80 series will sell for $600.
And, yes, if you expressly code for GCN (like DICE did) it will gain some points. As for any other architecture. Which does not cancel the poor area*power/performace GCN has.
fanofanand - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
Pascal was Nvidia, just an FYI. Otherwise nice rant.CiccioB - Thursday, August 3, 2017 - link
Yeah, you are right. It was Polaris. I often mismatch them as they both are similar. My fault.lordken - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
Well even if Vega will slot in between 1080-ti in performance it won't survive long IMHO. NV can further slash 1080 and 1070 prices (as they milked enough) and I can't see how Vega would sell. I guess AMD can't go much lower with price either...Not to mention AMD lost many potential buyers after NV dropped Ti and lowered 1080 price few months back.
Outlander_04 - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
You do know that its hard to find a polaris card because demand is so high, right?CiccioB - Thursday, August 3, 2017 - link
That was surely not for any AMD concurrency. There was zero from that front.
It simply meant nvidia touched the maximum margins it could have with those products (it is a thing that limits the market even in a monopoly) and had to lower them to raise the number of sold units = higher volumes of money in nevertheless.
I bet that Vega will not change nvidia prices. Too few, too late and in very limited quantity. AMD has not interests in selling Vega in consumer market apart from a showcase: it costs them too much. And HBM2 is not that abundant.
giantmonkey101 - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
Honestly Vega is looking like an amazing upgrade for me check out these numbers i calculated35% to 45% increase in performance upgrading to the liquid cooled Vega 64@1677Mhz over my r9 fury@1000Mhz, even higher minimum framerates for smoother gameplay according to their numbers and i get Enhanced Vsync as well since its not available on Fiji has of yet. Consider i saw 30% to 35% going from an r9 290 to a R9 Fury non x in gaming, this is even better for me. yes if you own a 1080 or especially 1080 ti this is not an upgrade path lol unless you wanna get into the Radeon Ecosystem of course.
giantmonkey101 - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
Also these are based on current numbers, if you add in DSBR support on day one launch and Super fine wine tech like massive fp16 performance in Vega and other tech features you will see even greater numbers in the future also increases in optimisation in games just like the rx 480 saw 10% performance gain over 6 months which put it trading blows with a 1060 eventually in DX11 and DX12.Ymir - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
DSBR was already enabled for the AMD tests in the slide deck. It shows an 18% increase on Doom compared to the FE on a driver that is not out to the public yet. DSBR is not a magical thing that will make everything lovely. Look for the tech articles on it at retail launch.syrious - Tuesday, August 1, 2017 - link
These cards are so ugly.fanofanand - Wednesday, August 2, 2017 - link
I was very excited for Vega. Along the way, I simply got bored and lost interest. Sorry AMD, but you aren't just late this time, you still haven't even shown up. These cards were supposed to be launched a LONG time ago, with the most recent statements saying July. Well here we are in August and nobody can buy one.milkod2001 - Thursday, August 3, 2017 - link
On 14th August Vega 64 with custom cooler from ASUS should be available. That's less than 2 weeks to wait ,we still don't know about its performance apart from AMD claiming it will be very competitive. I can see 2 possibilities there: Vega is quite pathetic product with average performance and super high power draw or Vega is great and AMD as usual suck big time at advertising its products.mapesdhs - Friday, August 4, 2017 - link
Or it'll be somewhere inbetween and people will argue like crazy as to whether it's worth buying or not. :D Oh wait, that'll happen anyway, hehe...MadManMark - Saturday, August 12, 2017 - link
I just want to express my respect for you that you did NOT take the bait today for AMD's noxious rolling NDA loft on Vega, and produce a whole article that contains nothing more than a description of the packaging. This will be a moment for me to separate the serious technical journalists from the clickbait purveyors. Thank you.