RX VEGA Prices Confirmed

[JuztBe]

12 minutes ago, jawong2000 said:

When exactly is this stupid thing launching?

August 14th 

[jawong2000]

16 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

August 14th 

Thanks mate. Is it gonna be a paper launch, or a proper launch? Or is that one of them uber secret Vega mysteries as well?

[LAwLz]

Just now, jawong2000 said:

Thanks mate. Is it gonna be a paper launch, or a proper launch? Or is that one of them uber secret Vega mysteries as well?

I think it actually hit shelves on the 14th, and aftermarket cooler cards will be available in like another month or so. 

[Nup]

20 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Those are Vega 11 and 12, probably next Spring.

 

19 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

Who knows. A Vega 36 or Vega 40 card would be a welcome addition in the future to accompany the Navi lineup if/when that comes.

Makes sense to break up the high end and midrange into two separate "lines" so to speak. 

Would be cool to see a small vega anyway, but if it's only built for HBM maybe it'll be too expensive to make sense in that price range. Probably will see it along with navi alright. 

[Fahim Foysal]

On 7/30/2017 at 8:54 PM, BingoFishy said:

i

 

On 7/30/2017 at 8:49 PM, BuckGup said:

**UPDATED**

 

Official word from AMD this time and it seems the rumor was in fact correct.

 

 

 

 

Source: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-56-official-slide-performance-specs-price-leak/

 

The bundle thingy makes it an unattractive option for people looking to upgrade only the gpu

[Taf the Ghost]

46 minutes ago, Fahim Foysal said:

 

The bundle thingy makes it an unattractive option for people looking to upgrade only the gpu

It limits the supply of the Reference Liquid cards they have to produce. I expect the AIB RX Vega 64 parts are probably going to be the option of choice in a lot of ways.

 

You can still OC the RX Vega on Air.

[Phate.exe]

16 hours ago, Max_Settings said:

Vega's naming scheme seems lust like random numbers taced on after the word Vega.

What's the difference between a Fury and a Fury X?  The Fury X is the full Fiji chip with 64 compute units (CU's), while the Fury is cut down with only 56 CU's.  What about the R9 Nano?  Full 64 CU Fiji chip, with a lower power limit.

 

That's a hell of a lot easier than following the R9 200/300 series, which was a mishmash of multiple generations of GCN hardware.  At least the RX cards are all Polaris-based.

 

Or how about the GTX 1060 3gb vs 6gb?  There's a lot bigger difference than just the amount of VRAM there.

[System Error Message]

i have some idea about the differences in performances between pascal and vega and various games.

Firstly the clock speed is maxed at 1600mhz whereas nvidia maxes out past 1800mhz on the core/shaders despite AMD having more (also nvidia has more compute power if you include the special function units included in every core). The 2nd is the low ROP count which directly affects performance in some instances especially at higher res. So while HBM2 gives the card an advantage in memory bandwidth which makes it faster in some games, it is slower in other games due to lower ROP count and havent yet included their new efficient ROP method yet.

 

The gtx 1070 and GTX 1080 have 64 ROPs but with nvidia's newer ROP render method.

 

The main difference however is the few rarely said differences. Nvidia pascal features mostly the same amount of ROPs (1080 ti has more), less TMUs (Vega can do more with textures than nvidia at a time), nvidia has additional units like SFUs, polymorph engine, AMD only cuts fp64 but retains all the cache, busses(AMD has full duplex, nvidia geforce has half duplex) and even better fp16 performance.

 

So if you are considering a card for some games and compute, both nvidia consumer line and AMD do the same with in8, but nvidia cuts the performance of fp16 on all their consumer line including titan xp whereas AMD maintains the full bus, numbers (except for fp64), and cache. The titan xp only has the cache and more ROPs but not the busses and other number crunching goodies left only to tesla and not even the quadro. The quadro for nvidia is basically the exact same cut down chip as the gtx but with ECC, more vram and different drivers.

 

From digging around, the benchmarks with vega fe was without the newer ROP method nvidia is using that AMD has yet to implement and some driver differences. Scaling back fp64 allows for better fp32 performance using less power (hence why the vega 64 can use 50W less than FE). So with the launch of the consumer vega line there will be performance improvements which should make it equal to the gtx 1080. Hopefully the prices will be at or below RRP and that there wont be an inflation.

If you look at pascal, the GP100 full core has good fp64 performance but only has tesla card, theres a gp102 tesla card with faster fp32, less power use but very slow fp64 performance. So the recent gens have been gaining on graphics performance by scaling back on fp64 so rather than a compute orientated chip with half fp32 performance for fp64, they made it a lot lot less.

 

Even hardOCP has done blind tests using gtx 1080ti with gsync and vega with freesync and gamers did not see a difference at 4k 100hz though both cards had some dips. So it seems like AMD is achieving the same in graphics as before. Not the fastest GPU but also giving a good deal. If you need fp16 AMD is hands down better and i know some mentioned CUDA libraries but if more people started using openCL, there'd be the same libraries on openCL for use with AI as well. There is really no reason to diss AMD just because they have a steep hill to climb in performance. Performance is still decent and final decision will be a matter of pricing (though freesync monitors are much cheaper than gsync). So if you consider the fact that you would've bought a gtx 1080 than you can consider the vega whereas the 1080 ti is much faster so if you would buy the 1080 ti, if the prices dont increase just because AMD isnt fast enough than vega isnt for you.

 

Between the titans and vega fe, vega fe is the better choice.

[Humbug]

Tweaktown is claiming that the Vega 56 will beat the GTX1070 and be the sweetspot in the Vega lineup.

 

2560x1440 ultra leaked benchmarks

 

Battlefield 1

GTX 1070 ; 72 fps

Vega 56    ; 95 fps

 

Civilization6

GTX 1070 ; 72 fps

Vega 56    ; 85 fps

 

Doom

GTX 1070 ; 85 fps

Vega 56    ; 100 fps

 

COD IW

GTX 1070 ; 92 fps

Vega 56    ; 100 fps

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58635/amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-leaked-benchmarks-gtx-1070-killer/index.html

[ravenshrike]

25 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Tweaktown is claiming that the Vega 56 will beat the GTX1070 and be the sweetspot in the Vega lineup.

 

2560x1440 ultra leaked benchmarks

 

Battlefield 1

GTX 1070 ; 72 fps

Vega 56    ; 95 fps

 

Civilization6

GTX 1070 ; 72 fps

Vega 56    ; 85 fps

 

Doom

GTX 1070 ; 85 fps

Vega 56    ; 100 fps

 

COD IW

GTX 1070 ; 92 fps

Vega 56    ; 100 fps

 

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58635/amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-leaked-benchmarks-gtx-1070-killer/index.html

Okay, that's sexy if true. Def doing a watercooled Vega Nano mini case build as soon as they come out.

[Asche]

If true, i think low end VEGA will do just fine.

[Humbug]

25 minutes ago, Asche said:

If true, i think low end VEGA will do just fine.

It's probably true.

 

For Vega 64 in terms of hardware there is nothing more they can do to make it pull further ahead of the GTX 1080. The chip is fully unlocked so they cannot increase cores / TUs etc... They have pushed up clockspeeds as much as they reasonably can and have ended up on parity with the GTX 1080. Future performance increases will be software based only.

 

Whereas the Vega 56 is a cut down chip.

So AMD started with Vega 64 and they only cut down and only scaled back clockspeeds to the extent that they are still well ahead of the GTX 1070.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Humbug said:

It's probably true.

 

For Vega 64 in terms of hardware there is nothing more they can do to make it pull further ahead of the GTX 1080. The chip is fully unlocked so they cannot increase cores / TUs etc... They have pushed up clockspeeds as much as they reasonably can and have ended up on parity with the GTX 1080. Future performance increases will be software based only.

 

Whereas the Vega 56 is a cut down chip.

So AMD started with Vega 64 and they only cut down and only scaled back clockspeeds to the extent that they are still well ahead of the GTX 1070.

It was always likely to be the case. GCN doesn't scale great from its core original design (as an iGPU), where Nvidia's uArchs are designed for HPC tasks then downscaled. Clearly works better in the last 2 generations. If AMD can get on-PCB multi-GPUs working, they'll be able to change the game on Nvidia. You can only make chips so big before they become completely uneconomical.

[Agosto]

Those leaked benchmarks look like BS to me, according to actual reviews the 1070 has better performance than those listed in the comparison

We just have to wait for reviews. Again. And again.

However, given the past iterations and the possible internal bottlenecks, I'd say there will be a very small difference between Vega 64 and 56, even if the former has higher clocks and SP count

[Humbug]

7 minutes ago, Agost said:

However, given the past iterations and the possible internal bottlenecks, I'd say there will be a very small difference between Vega 64 and 56, even if the former has higher clocks and SP count

Once you start tweaking Vega56 should easily reach Vega64 clocks.

It's probably just clocked lower for market segmentation purposes...

[ravenshrike]

13 minutes ago, Agost said:

Those leaked benchmarks look like BS to me, according to actual reviews the 1070 has better performance than those listed in the comparison

The Civ 6 one looks about right in a revealed map mid to late game.

[Agosto]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

Once you start tweaking Vega56 should easily reach Vega64 clocks.

It's probably just clocked lower for market segmentation purposes...

That's obvious, the point is the differenze in SP will probably impact performance much less than it should. Vega 56 should be 14% slower clock for clock, just like R9 Fury should have been, but we all know that the difference was lower

1 minute ago, ravenshrike said:

The Civ 6 one looks about right in a revealed map mid to late game.

Civ VI is VERY cpu bound and leads to large discrepancies through systems, so I'm not even considering it

[ravenshrike]

18 minutes ago, Agost said:

However, given the past iterations and the possible internal bottlenecks, I'd say there will be a very small difference between Vega 64 and 56, even if the former has higher clocks and SP count

You do have to remember that the 56's will probably not be thermally throttled at all. Whereas the 64s clearly are. We're not going to see the full potential of Vega until waterblocks come out for it.

[Agosto]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

You do have to remember that the 56's will probably not be thermally throttled at all. Whereas the 64s clearly are. We're not going to see the full potential of Vega until waterblocks come out for it.

Vega FE is not thermal throttling, it's power throttling. Vega 64 has lower TDP and clocks, thus it's probably going to dissipate less heat (thanks to DSBR too)

The problem with GCN is that it loves power.

[Humbug]

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

You do have to remember that the 56's will probably not be thermally throttled at all. Whereas the 64s clearly are. We're not gong to see the full potential of Vega until waterblocks come out for it.

No need water blocks. Just need a proper air cooler with 3 fans (sapphire, MSI etc).

 

The official benchmarks which AMD has put out for Vega 64 are the air cooled (blower) version. Which "trades blows" with GTX 1080.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Does anyone have compute numbers available for this (OpenCL)?

afaik the card still isn't even properly finished - they have driver and who knows what else (maybe firmware) changes to make still, and I don't mean the typical AMD FineWine^TM stuff, like, this is even less finished than usual  So we will get true performance numbers once it's launched.  Until then I wouldn't put much weight in anything we've seen leaked.

[TheRandomness]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Vega 40 or 36 to replace Polaris 10/20 XTX XXX edition or whateverTM as a 2560 or 2304 shader card with GD5/X would be quite amazing for the $299 pricepoint.