Overclock.net banner

[PCGamesN] AMD is targeting GTX 1080 performance for their first public showing of the RX Vega

33K views 555 replies 152 participants last post by  Dragonsyph 
#1 ·
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-vs-gtx-1080
Quote:
With the setup AMD have been showing off at the Budapest event, it's clear the GTX 1080 is where they're aiming the RX Vega cards at. They showed no actual frame rate comparisons between the two systems, running Battlefield 1 and Sniper Elite 4, preferring to base it on perceived differences rather than detailed performance figures.
Quote:
Sadly that's not down to the difference in price of the graphics cards themselves, but a large part of it will be down to the fact they were using 3440 x 1440 ultrawide monitors to game on, one using FreeSync and the other G-Sync. A G-Sync ultrawide costs significantly more than a FreeSync screen.
Quote:
We also don't know what other hardware AMD had kitted out the Nvidia-based rig with. The Vega PC was running a Ryzen 7 CPU, but it's possible there was a different processor platform used in the GTX 1080 machine, which would also add to the cost.
Also,

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-rx-vega-shown-against-gtx-1080-at-budapest-event.html
Quote:
There are no accounts of frame-rate counters, or any other significant performance gauges besides human observation. In fact, that seems to have been the point of this exercise. AMD's intent with this show appears to have been 'you can't tell the difference between Vega and a 1080 in a blind-ish test'
Meaning, "Yes the 1080 is faster in most games and uses less power, but you can't tell the difference anyway, and if you're also buying a brand new monitor and\or go with Ryzen instead of Intel, you're saving UP TO $300!!"

Wow. Just wow. Screams confidence doesn't it?

 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Bad marketing is bad marketing. Major face palm for AMD. If I were AMD I would artificially limit supply of Vega RX and sell as many FE's as possible. Better margins and less bleeding.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Megaman_90
#3 ·
What? It's still irresponsible performance.
 
#5 ·
I have been waiting for AMD cards for so long to replace my Quad 290x, I have been waiting since 2015 and in March 2017, I couldn't waiti anymore so bought 2 x GTX 1080ti. I am an AMD fan and I just wish AMD will make me regret my move but so far, I guess I made the good one.
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

Bad marketing is bad marketing. Major face palm for AMD. If I were AMD I would artificially limit supply of Vega RX and sell as many FE's as possible. Better margins and less bleeding.
My thoughts exactly.

Hopefully this settles the "wait for RX Vega drivers it'll bring magical +30% performance to match 1080 Ti AMD is just sandbagging right now". Oh wait who am I kidding...
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieanotherday View Post

i've expected something > 1080 ti...

they shoulda stuck with the 480 and just expanded on it.
Well, a pair of 480s was faster than a 1080 IIRC.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: LAKEINTEL
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleazybigfoot View Post

What a waste of time...

Why would you target a year old GPU, what's the point... Unless the price will be something like 300 euros, which I don't see happening either. (For reference, the cheapest GTX 1080 here is the MSI GeForce GTX 1080 ARMOR 8G OC at 584.50 euros.)
This.

I mean it's fast for compute and all... But for pete's sake, just call it FirePro and not Radeon if that's the case.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaRLiToS View Post

I have been waiting for AMD cards for so long to replace my Quad 290x, I have been waiting since 2015 and in March 2017, I couldn't waiti anymore so bought 2 x GTX 1080ti. I am an AMD fan and I just wish AMD will make me regret my move but so far, I guess I made the good one.
Congrats you'll absolutely love them.
thumb.gif
 
#15 ·
hmm there is only one solution for people that AMD will regret due to Horrible VEGA's efficiency.

Ban Vega From World!
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

ohno-smiley.gif


May as well wait for Volta at this point.
It's sad isn't it? I'm actually one of the people who wanted to buy an AMD GPU. My first AMD GPU was a 58XX series card followed by a 6850HD series. Running a 1060 AiB atm and it does it's job at 1080p, handily. However, I wanted to upgrade to 4k at around christmas time. Idea was to get a cheapish 40 inch 4k60hz low latency TV and then run two Vega's in CFX. If it had been at or close to 1080Ti and priced right, it would have worked. But honestly it looks like they used vega as a test bed for APU's. HBCC and all the other features, the power saving one, too. I think a conscious choice was made to not even bother to target gamers with RX Vega. Didn't Raja say that APU's were the future or something? Maybe this was the plan all along, maybe they are just salvaging a product that got here late and won't work as an actual competitive card. I gladly would have dropped 1,000-1300 on Vega cards if they had been slightly below, at parity with or above a 1080Ti; but meh.

I just sort of want to ask one question. what s the point of HBCC on an 8gig or 16gig card with HBM2. Oh that's right, there isn't really one, it was designed for something else.

I would say wait for Navi, but i'm not going to wait for Navi, I'm going to wait for Volta or whatever will give me what I want, at some ungodly cost. We have to put up with this crap for two years before we get Navi, an entire generation away from a card that is still 11 days away from launch. Good job AMD... In Raja we do NOT trust

Also: What the hell happened to 'ITS NOT A GAMING CARD' we got from AMD..... it's the same performance
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by criminal View Post

Bad marketing is bad marketing. Major face palm for AMD. If I were AMD I would artificially limit supply of Vega RX and sell as many FE's as possible. Better margins and less bleeding.
Actually it'd be better to sell them as Radeon Pro WX W9100 or Radeon Instinct. $2-5K workstation vs $1k prosumer vs RX VEGA only getting $500-600 tops.

It's only strong point right now is FP16 AFAIK.

edit: https://instinct.radeon.com/en-us/product/mi/radeon-instinct-mi25/
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergmanT View Post

So not really beating my 980ti 1500/2000, hallaluja for my newly bought freesync 34"
mad.gif
biggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorngodofall View Post

It's sad isn't it? I'm actually one of the people who wanted to buy an AMD GPU. My first AMD GPU was a 58XX series card followed by a 6850HD series. Running a 1060 AiB atm and it does it's job at 1080p, handily. However, I wanted to upgrade to 4k at around christmas time. Idea was to get a cheapish 40 inch 4k60hz low latency TV and then run two Vega's in CFX. If it had been at or close to 1080Ti and priced right, it would have worked. But honestly it looks like they used vega as a test bed for APU's. HBCC and all the other features, the power saving one, too. I think a conscious choice was made to not even bother to target gamers with RX Vega. Didn't Raja say that APU's were the future or something? Maybe this was the plan all along, maybe they are just salvaging a product that got here late and won't work as an actual competitive card. I gladly would have dropped 1,000-1300 on Vega cards if they had been slightly below, at parity with or above a 1080Ti; but meh.

I just sort of want to ask one question. what is the point of HBCC on an 8gig or 16gig card with HBM2. Oh that's right, there isn't really one, it was designed for something else.

I would say wait for Navi, but i'm not going to wait for Navi, I'm going to wait for Volta or whatever will give me what I want, at some ungodly cost. We have to put up with this crap for two years before we get Navi, an entire generation away from a card that is still 11 days away from launch. Good job AMD... In Raja we do NOT trust

Also: What the hell happened to 'ITS NOT A GAMING CARD' we got from AMD..... it's the same performance
There's always Vega X2 that we have heard someone on this forum running their mouth about. Maybe that is really what AMD has up their sleeve for later this year. Two Vega's on a single card with 1100-1200 Core clocks with lower voltage could still give better than 1080Ti performance (barely) and be kind-of-ish power efficient. (Man that was hard to type with a straight face... lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

Actually it'd be better to sell them as Radeon Pro WX W9100 or Radeon Instinct. $2-5K workstation vs $1k prosumer vs RX VEGA only getting $500-600 tops.

It's only strong point right now is FP16 AFAIK.
Fair point. Either way I think at this point Vega RX is just going to cost AMD money.

thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
lachen.gif
 
#23 ·
And here I was hoping they'd put some pressure on the green team..
 
#25 ·
So the RX competes with the 1080, a card costing $550 as of right now. Lets see what AMD charges for it. Just like most of the members here, im sick of the teases. Give out the cards to reviewers so we can see some credible numbers. We're almost at the launch window.....finally.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by the w3rd View Post

AMD has the next 5 months to sell tons of Vega Radeons of all flavors.
For those that want more than Ti, or Xp performance, there is a Radeon for you. Via AMD's fabric.

Nvidia who... ?
Its pretty obvious at this point you are here pretending to be for AMD but your not.

This is really sad news, i was hoping for 1080ti performance at least. This looks like its going to be inconsistent performance and this looks like in dx11 they will be 1070-1080ish at best. AMD is really just cementing themselves as a value offering, which is good for the masses but not the overclocking enthusiasts......

Really sucks because it would be nice to have diversity in hardware on the top30 threads... Or any leader boards for that matter.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top