Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted - Page 25

post #241 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by August View Post

I wish we could get a glimpse of the price range. Sure, performance makes for good discussion, but if the price isn't right it won't matter. Stuck with an overdue upgrade of a 560ti and I can't even tell if I should wait another unknown number of months for Vega, settle for Polaris, or go with overpriced Nvidia..


i would wait till end of Q2 at the very least as they said the release is in Q2, otherwise you might regret it...

Next week (11April) = Ryzen 5 focus
Week after (18April) = RX580 (RX480 refresh)
By the end of April/early may, we should hear about VEGA, i would say for sure by mid-MAY ...

That would make sense to me.

Release end of May/June.

i hope anyways .. poke.gif
My System
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6GHz [400FSB*9] Asus P5K-E/WiFi-AP [Intel P35] EVGA GTX 760 SC Arctic Accelero Xtreme III Corsair Dominator DDR2-938 8GB [540MHz] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
BenQ BL3201PH 4K  Rosewill SilentNight 500 Fractal Design Define R4 Black Pearl Burson Conductor V2+ 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6GHz [400FSB*9] Asus P5K-E/WiFi-AP [Intel P35] EVGA GTX 760 SC Arctic Accelero Xtreme III Corsair Dominator DDR2-938 8GB [540MHz] 
MonitorPowerCaseAudio
BenQ BL3201PH 4K  Rosewill SilentNight 500 Fractal Design Define R4 Black Pearl Burson Conductor V2+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #242 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaosstar View Post

Absolutely.. I'd go even farther and say that if Vega isn't at least double the performance of the 1080ti, it's not worth upgrading for anyone with a 7870.

/s

Say what you want but it's the truth, it has to match the 1080ti at least unless priced very aggressively. No one wants a 1080 perf level card that has been attained by Nvidia a year ago unless priced very low. Late to the party, cost probably more (HBM or potential AIO, if they follow the irrational locked down Fury X cooling to AIOs only.) and if it just matches the 1080, it will be a fail.

Locking down the Fury X to an AIO only solution and leaving those who wanted a Full Fury X on air to settle for a cut down and reduced performance was mind boggling, especially when Tis offered air or water cooling solutions from the get go.
Edited by Nickyvida - 4/7/17 at 6:22pm
post #243 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickyvida View Post

Say what you want but it's the truth, it has to match the 1080ti at least unless priced very aggressively. No one wants a 1080 perf level card that has been attained by Nvidia a year ago unless priced very low. Late to the party, cost probably more (HBM or potential AIO, if they follow the irrational locked down Fury X cooling to AIOs only.) and if it just matches the 1080, it will be a fail.

Locking down the Fury X to an AIO only solution and leaving those who wanted a Full Fury X on air to settle for a cut down and reduced performance was mind boggling, especially when Tis offered air or water cooling solutions from the get go.
I would buy it with 1080 performance at $550. LOL but I'm not the market as a whole. I want something >fury performance for the freesync monitor. I don't care about the cooling as as it's sufficient. I'm not measuring my e-peen against Nvidia owners. Not after having Titan x SLI.... LOL
Water5930k
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5930k asus x99 pro/3.1 Fury Nitro OC+ gskill ddr4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
evo 1tb samsung 1tb hdd blu ray burner custom watercooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 preview Qnix UHD325 4K 32" ducky shine 4 EVGA 1600w titanium 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
enthoo primo Corsair M65 pro RGB logitech  bose speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
Water5930k
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5930k asus x99 pro/3.1 Fury Nitro OC+ gskill ddr4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
evo 1tb samsung 1tb hdd blu ray burner custom watercooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 preview Qnix UHD325 4K 32" ducky shine 4 EVGA 1600w titanium 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
enthoo primo Corsair M65 pro RGB logitech  bose speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #244 of 566
at this stage Vega might fail actually
too late to the party, and from what we observed, 25-30% faster than fury X at best
if priced over 500$ it'd be an epic fail
post #245 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

I'm amazed at the amount of people that consider $500 cards to be "mid-range" cards.

Midrange cards are cards such as the RX 480 8GB and GTX 1060 6GB (or at the very least GTX 1050 Ti / RX 470). Or for earlier generations, cards such as the GTX 960 / GTX 760 / GTX 660Ti / GTX 560 Ti / GTX 460, R9 380 / R9 285 / HD 7870XT / HD 6870 / HD5850 would be mid-range.

The majority of the gaming market is $150-350 cards not $800+ GPUs.

i.e.

http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats-new/articles/introducing-the-geforce-gtx-760 titled "GeForce GTX 760: A Mid-Range GPU With High-End Features"
or non-Nvidia quotes,
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Review - Is it the New Mid-Range Champion?

As far as Vega goes,

If the new RX 580 Firestrike Extreme results are to believed, a card with 2x 1500Mhz RX 580 8GB performance would be just under a GTX Titan X pascal with no overclock while one with 2 x RX570 performance (i.e. 4096 shader) would be just over a GTX 1080. Don't expect much more or you're setting yourself up for disappointment if things don't pan out with whatever NCU optimizations, geometry pipeline changes, and primitive shaders they had been hawking.

Since the start of the GTX lines Nvidia used nomenclature that ended in 4 to denote midrange cards (GF104 = GTX460, GF114 = GTX560, etc...) and nomenclature ending in 0 to denote high-end cards (GT200 = GTX280, GF100 = GTX480, GF110 = GTX580)

Kepler was developed using similar terminology, the GK104 (GTX680) and GK110/100 (GTX780/Titan) chips were developed side by side. Unfortunately it turned out that the GK104 chip was more than a match for AMDs equivalent at the time (7970) so Nvidia embarked on their current market strategy which is to release the XX1X4 chips as X80 cards instead of X60 (660 > 680) and then charge full high end price for them while keeping back the actually high-end chips to sell cards with significantly better margins (Quadro/Tesla). They've been maintaining this nickel and dime strategy ever since, mostly because AMD hasn't really put up much resistance.

So mid-range cards shouldn't be $500 but they are because Nvidia can get away with it.
Red Mage
(19 items)
 
M17x R4
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3740qm @ 3.9Ghz M17x R4 7970m @ 1Ghz Corsair 1600mhz DDR3 4x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
480gb seagate 600 SSD 500GB Seagate 2.5 Liton Slot-Load Blu-Ray Windows 10 x64 Tech Preview 
  hide details  
Reply
Red Mage
(19 items)
 
M17x R4
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3740qm @ 3.9Ghz M17x R4 7970m @ 1Ghz Corsair 1600mhz DDR3 4x4GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
480gb seagate 600 SSD 500GB Seagate 2.5 Liton Slot-Load Blu-Ray Windows 10 x64 Tech Preview 
  hide details  
Reply
post #246 of 566
`
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis2307 View Post

at this stage Vega might fail actually
too late to the party, and from what we observed, 25-30% faster than fury X at best
if priced over 500$ it'd be an epic fail

Absolutely this in a nutshell. 1 year late, most likely less performance and most likely locked to an AIO cooling solution again which would increase prices. Some people want the choice of a full fat Vega/Fury X without having to settle for the Fury cut down like what happened when Fury launched. Even Titans had the choice of air cooled or water cooled.
post #247 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickyvida View Post

`
Absolutely this in a nutshell. 1 year late, most likely less performance and most likely locked to an AIO cooling solution again which would increase prices. Some people want the choice of a full fat Vega/Fury X without having to settle for the Fury cut down like what happened when Fury launched. Even Titans had the choice of air cooled or water cooled.

from the Linus-hands-on video somewhere on YT, Vega might not be sporting an AIO, but a similar but bigger cooler as the 480, I'd like to think AMD learnt their lesson with the FuryX
post #248 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis2307 View Post

from the Linus-hands-on video somewhere on YT, Vega might not be sporting an AIO, but a similar but bigger cooler as the 480, I'd like to think AMD learnt their lesson with the FuryX

Wasn't the same thing happening right before Fury X launch? I can't remember but their cooler had an AIO and one air cooler that was teased Perhaps, which i dread is that the air cooler we saw on YT could very well be for the Vega cut down
post #249 of 566
AMD Scott Wasson has just confirmed VEGA is AMD's return to the high-end market
now let's assume Full-VEGA is 1080ti level of performance, with 8GB HBM2, price will be at least 650, people will choose the 1080ti anyway
and if it's a 1080 OC level of performance, AMD will have to sell at a loss
this late, Vega is set to fail anyway
post #250 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis2307 View Post

AMD Scott Wasson has just confirmed VEGA is AMD's return to the high-end market
now let's assume Full-VEGA is 1080ti level of performance, with 8GB HBM2, price will be at least 650, people will choose the 1080ti anyway
and if it's a 1080 OC level of performance, AMD will have to sell at a loss
this late, Vega is set to fail anyway

Yeah, pretty much DOA either way. People have moved on from 1080 on to Ti and Volta is coming. If it ranks in at 1080-esque, that is.

But if it is at least 1080ti and cheaper, i'm sure that will be the sweet spot to snatch Nvidia's thunder before Volta comes online.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted