AMD Unveils More Info About Vega

[Humbug]

12 hours ago, DocSwag said:

so this means Vega is ~25% better than the Fury X, which is a pretty good increase. What are your thoughts?

a lot of people are saying that this is vega 10 and that the bigger vega 11 was not ready to be shown yet. Is this true?

 

if Yes then it is hugely impressive... if Vega 10 now with crappy prerelease drivers months before launch is already 25% faster than fury x.

[ivan134]

So time to sell my 480?

[Humbug]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

And we can also assume that there will be cut down variants of both chips, giving us at minimum, 4 distinct model numbers. 4 is hardly enough to fill out an entire generation, so either there are more chips, or they'll be rebranding or refining Polaris to fill out the low end (Which would not really be that bad, if they can keep the power consumption levels to reasonable levels). The only problem I can see with that, is that certain fanboys hate it when AMD re-releases an older card as a lower-end part in a new generational lineup.

i agree they will just switch to Rx 5xx series across the board. and ya it's obvious that within vega 10 and vega 11 as well there will be cut down and full chips positioned differently, binned differently and at different clockspeeds on core and memory. Similar to HD 7950 vs 7970 and R9 290 vs 290x.

 

I also think AMD is not talking about exact performance because they themselves do not know yet with about 3 months to go for commercial launch. They probably have an idea with a best and worst case scenario. They know that with release quality drivers it will get better but don't know exactly how much. They know that clockspeeds will go up as they move from current engineering samples to release quality silicon but again they don't know how much, and based on that only in a couple months will they decide where to lock in the final increased clockspeeds.

 

so for now it's easier for them to say ok this GPU is good enough for locked 60fps 4k gaming... Rather than giving specific numbers.

[Carclis]

I'm still curious to see how the massive GPU Raja was holding performs. I still don't believe that those Doom benchmarks we were shown were running the highest offering of Vega since the performance improvement over the Fury X was pretty minimal for a 50% clock speed increase, let alone all of the other improvements.

[Scitesh]

14 hours ago, DocSwag said:

I don't think Vega is supposed to beat Volta. That's Navi's job. Vega is just a high end Pascal competitior.

Isn't it a bit late to party then?

 

13 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

Oh here's a new thing I'd like to see that AMD could give without revealing too much. Is it going to be stack like:

RX 485 (small cut down Vega), RX 490 (small Vega), RX 495 (big cut down-ish Vega), RX 500 (big Vega)? Or will it skip straight to the 500 series?

I  guess it's going to be RX 500 series based on  the leaked RX560 ..Also bad idea to go with that naming series

[Humbug]

7 minutes ago, Scitesh said:

Isn't it a bit late to party then?

 

I  guess it's going to be RX 500 series based on  the leaked RX560 ..Also bad idea to go with that naming series

Very late. And it's not even ready yet for a few more months... Loads of lost revenue for AMD by continuing to not having anything competitive above the RX480 for so long.

 

However it is possible that they will use Vega 10 to compete with Pascal and launch Vega 11 to take the shine off the Volta launch until Navi is ready.

[TheRandomness]

10 minutes ago, Scitesh said:

Isn't it a bit late to party then?

 

I  guess it's going to be RX 500 series based on  the leaked RX560 ..Also bad idea to go with that naming series

Leaked 560? Source please, I haven't seen this anywhere at all.

[Citadelen]

3 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

-snip-

I know... It would only make sense for the Vega chip to be demoed to be the smaller chip, they have no need for a lower performance chip, Polaris fulfils that role.

[Trik'Stari]

15 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Went from Graphics Core Next to Next-gen Compute Unit.

 

These names, man.

20% more gen right?

[Carclis]

1 hour ago, TheRandomness said:

Leaked 560? Source please, I haven't seen this anywhere at all.

It was on a Lenovo laptop.

[captain cactus]

15 minutes ago, Carclis said:

It was on a Lenovo laptop.

They still mention it on their website: http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/ideapad/legion-y-series/y520/

 

If it was a typo they'd removed it by now.

[DocSwag]

7 hours ago, Humbug said:

a lot of people are saying that this is vega 10 and that the bigger vega 11 was not ready to be shown yet. Is this true?

 

if Yes then it is hugely impressive... if Vega 10 now with crappy prerelease drivers months before launch is already 25% faster than fury x.

I really don't know. I can see it going either way so I really have no idea right now .  Maybe vega 10 is like gp 104 and will compete with the 1070 and 1080 and vega 11 will compete with the 1080 ti and Titan XP and AMD is aiming straight for the top. Maybe this is vega 11 and amd's top card will be a 1080 equivalent and then vega 10 will be between 1060 and 1070 in performance.

 

5 hours ago, Scitesh said:

Isn't it a bit late to party then?

 

I  guess it's going to be RX 500 series based on  the leaked RX560 ..Also bad idea to go with that naming series

Yeah, but I think it's also meant to compete with the 1080 ti and Titan XP too, so in terms of those cards no, it isn't late.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Carclis said:

It was on a Lenovo laptop.

This could just be an OEM naming thing - many times in the past, OEM's have basically made up model numbers that were just rebrands of older GPU's. Though usually in those cases, AMD skips a generational number.

[Prysin]

21 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Went from Graphics Core Next to Next-gen Compute Unit.

 

These names, man.

No it didn't. It went from CU,  to NCU

 

Its still a iteration of GCN 

[Morgan MLGman]

21 hours ago, Nena360 said:

I agree it is only because it says "poor Volta(sticker)" on the trailer... o3o

Found at /r/amd, thought I'd share :

[ivan134]

2 hours ago, ONOTech said:

I doubt Vega will be out for another 3 months or so.

I know. I was JK.

[Nena Trinity]

1 hour ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Found at /r/amd, thought I'd share :

Funny indeed!

[crystal6tak]

On 1/5/2017 at 6:41 PM, DocSwag said:

I'm assuming that they're running Doom with Vulkan, not OpenGL. The Fury X gets around 55 fps average on DOOM at 4k with ultra settings on Vulkan, so this means Vega is ~25% better than the Fury X, which is a pretty good increase. What are your thoughts?

Only 25%? Let's hope that was a low end Vega, or seriously unoptimized drivers, or something, cause that'll be really disappointing...

It'll have to be at least 50% better to compete with the 1080, let's hope the 1080 ti won't laugh at Vega. And that's not even mentioning Volta, aw geez, AMD better step up their game.

[crystal6tak]

2 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

According to your graph, 25% better than the Fury X is 91%. That puts within the 1080's margin of error. Seems competitive to me.

66*1.25 = 82.5 

[Kobathor]

On 1/5/2017 at 0:18 PM, lots of unexplainable lag said:

AMD's move with the RX480 launching first might have been a smart one on paper, but the money's made in the high-end market, not the mid-range market. AMD has nothing in the high-end save for a last-gen power hungry Fury or Fury X on sale.

well, the money per card is in the high end market, yes. But, the majority of people buying cards buys the mid-tier offerings, which is why the RX-480 and GTX-1060 get so many sales compared to the 1070 and 1080. More people are spending more on computers though, as made apparent by the vast success of the GTX 970. 

[crystal6tak]

1 minute ago, ONOTech said:

It's already in percentages. You don't multiply by 25%, you add 25%.

 

If it was 66 FPS, then you would multiply by 1.25 to show a 25% increase. But the unit is percents already.

It doesn't work like that. The graph is showing relative performance with 100% being the 1080 AMP!.

 

In other words, if the 1080 non ref was getting 100 fps in a certain game, the fury X would get 66% of that fps, which is 66 fps. So in this case we can directly convert % to fps.

 

So if the Vega 10 is 25% better than fury x, it wouldn't get 25 fps more, it'll get 16.5 fps more (since now this % is referencing fury x as 100%)

 

This brings the hypothetical Vega 10 to 82.5 fps, translating to 82.5% of the 1080 non ref.

[cj09beira]

14 hours ago, Carclis said:

I'm still curious to see how the massive GPU Raja was holding performs. I still don't believe that those Doom benchmarks we were shown were running the highest offering of Vega since the performance improvement over the Fury X was pretty minimal for a 50% clock speed increase, let alone all of the other improvements.

its weird no one is talking about this, i made some calcumalations and i got this:

14nm fury x 357mm2 (from 596)

in 536mm2 using 14nm it could have 6144 cores (using the same cu/mm2 of the rx 480)

 

i really believe the gpu shown was bigger than 4096 cus, how mush more is still to be determined thou 

[Carclis]

8 hours ago, cj09beira said:

its weird no one is talking about this, i made some calcumalations and i got this:

14nm fury x 357mm2 (from 596)

in 536mm2 using 14nm it could have 6144 cores (using the same cu/mm2 of the rx 480)

 

i really believe the gpu shown was bigger than 4096 cus, how mush more is still to be determined thou 

That seems pretty plausible given the RX 480 performance at 232mm². I'd be curious to see what they can do with the extra 15% in size over a Titan X, but given that they're hitting higher frequencies now I wouldn't be surprised to see 4096 cores at 1500Mhz.

[DocSwag]

16 hours ago, cj09beira said:

its weird no one is talking about this, i made some calcumalations and i got this:

14nm fury x 357mm2 (from 596)

in 536mm2 using 14nm it could have 6144 cores (using the same cu/mm2 of the rx 480)

 

i really believe the gpu shown was bigger than 4096 cus, how mush more is still to be determined thou 

How do you get the first calculation? I'm just curious.

 

Also, another thing is that there are some stuff that is universal to all the GPUs. Stuff like freesync support stuff, pcie stuff, crossfire stuff, etc. Not to mention that cores aren't everything. ROPs, TMUs, Geometry processors, memory controllers, etc. matter too and those won't also necessarily be x times more on vega than Polaris. That's not even to mention AMD redesigned a bunch of stuff including the CUs in vega which means the Vega CUs could potentially be larger.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, DocSwag said:

How do you get the first calculation? I'm just curious.

 

Also, another thing is that there are some stuff that is universal to all the GPUs. Stuff like freesync support stuff, pcie stuff, crossfire stuff, etc. Not to mention that cores aren't everything. ROPs, TMUs, Geometry processors, memory controllers, etc. matter too and those won't also necessarily be x times more on vega than Polaris. That's not even to mention AMD redesigned a bunch of stuff including the CUs in vega which means the Vega CUs could potentially be larger.

well, first i calculated the racio between die size increase and core increase, using 280x to fury x, with that racio and  with the rx 480 as a base i calculated what would a 14nm fury be (357mm ) then i played around by increasing to core count until i got to 530mm2 which is the size of the vega chip (give or take).

280x                                                        fury x

352mm                                                    596mm

2048c                                                      4096

   ====  200% number of cores ===>

   ==== 169% die size  ==========>

racio 0.845

i attached a excel file with all the data

 

 

 

cards specs.xls