AMD Moves Vega 56 Embargo Forward, Asks Reviewers to Prioritize Over 64

[LaboonTheWhale]

Source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3016-amd-moves-vega-56-embargo-forward-prioritizes-over-64

 

Quote

As of today, AMD noted that RX Vega 56 cards have been shipped to reviewers, along with a request that reviewers specifically “prioritize coverage” of RX Vega 56 over RX Vega 64 under time-constrained conditions

 

Quote

This clearly indicates AMD’s faith in RX Vega 64 and 56, demonstrating that 56 should more reasonably compete with nVidia at the ~$400 price-point, while 64 will undoubtedly be more fiercely embattled at $500-$600

 

Quote

• Unboxing embargo lift on Saturday, August 12, 11AM EDT: AMD permits unboxing photos or videos only.
• Performance embargo lift for Vega 56 on August 14, 9AM EDT.
• RX Vega 64 already in hands of some reviewers, with unboxing embargo lift on Saturday, August 12, 11AM EDT.
• RX Vega 64 performance embargo lift on August 14, 9AM EDT.
• Update: Vega 56 launches on 8/28.

I really want AMD to do well, I'm all for competition to benefit us all in the long run, but this is really disappointing that it seems even AMD may not have that much faith especially in their higher end model. Prices are pretty ridiculous so far in what has been posted on Asian and European stores (speculated placeholder maybe?) but perhaps AMD jumping the gun and using HBM2 instead of GDDR5(x) is causing the large spike in costs. I was hoping to grab one as I have a few Freesync monitors and would prefer to be able to keep using that but a lack of bang-to-buck (if costs are increasing) would be really disappointing. Come on competition!!! 

[mach]

Just put them on the shelves already.....

It's not like they are releasing anything groundbreaking that deserves all the teasing

 

[DXMember]

dayyy.... for $400 superclocked Furies.. not bad

now how do I get rid of mines?

[LaboonTheWhale]

Just now, DXMember said:

dayyy.... for $400 superclocked Furyies.. not bad

now how do I get rid of mines?

Looking to Sell my Fury X, luckily Vega isn't released at a price that would really disrupt these cards' resale. 

[leadeater]

This is not good news at all, not for people looking to buy Vega 64 anyway.

[dizmo]

Part of me is excited because I want to see how the card performs, part is sad that the high end stuff might not be up to snuff and AMD is losing faith, but most of me is thinking WHERE THE HELL IS THE NANO.

[LaboonTheWhale]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Part of me is excited because I want to see how the card performs, part is sad that the high end stuff might not be up to snuff and AMD is losing faith, but most of me is thinking WHERE THE HELL IS THE NANO.

If they're putting all their might in the Vega 56, its comparable to a 1070 which is kinda where the Fury X sits. I guess not a good time for me to upgrade this time around  

[XenosTech]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is not good news at all, not for people looking to buy Vega 64 anyway.

It's excellent news for me though

[dizmo]

4 minutes ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

If they're putting all their might in the Vega 56, its comparable to a 1070 which is kinda where the Fury X sits. I guess not a good time for me to upgrade this time around  

It's a little better though, no?

If it's 20% better, I'm still all over it if it's what the Nano is based on.

If it's par, then the 1070 wins because of it's much lower TDP.

 

I like the Fury X, just can't use it because of the cooler. I considered the R9 Nano, but want more VRAM.

[LaboonTheWhale]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It's a little better though, no?

If it's 20% better, I'm still all over it if it's what the Nano is based on.

If it's par, then the 1070 wins because of it's much lower TDP.

 

I like the Fury X, just can't use it because of the cooler. I considered the R9 Nano, but want more VRAM.

I have it in an itx custom loop and with how short the gpu is lets me use a tube res which is nice. but reaaaaaally struggles at 1440p 144hz  I was hoping vega 64 would help if it sold well... IF 

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

I have it in an itx custom loop and with how short the gpu is lets me use a tube res which is nice. but reaaaaaally struggles at 1440p 144hz  I was hoping vega 64 would help if it sold well... IF 

How much does it struggle? Like, can't get over 110fps, or can't get over 60fps?

That was basically the target I was aiming for too. But on air, in a tiny, tiny case.

[LaboonTheWhale]

Just now, dizmo said:

How much does it struggle? Like, can't get over 110fps, or can't get over 60fps?

That was basically the target I was aiming for too. But on air, in a tiny, tiny case.

Depending on the game and the optimization. Games I have been mainly playing like Rising storm 2: vietnam, Squad, and VR it struggles. Now I'm just being nit picky as it can reach 60 in most, but after investing in a 144hz monitor. I want it to reach it. only 144hz I've experienced so far without LOW graphics is minecraft  Paired with a ryzen 1700 @ 3.8Ghz

[Misanthrope]

Yeah I bet they also want them to prioritize not talking about power requirement too much or making the point of "Well, computers are much more efficient nowadays anyways you probably haven't stressed your 650 watts PSU in years!"

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, LaboonTheWhale said:

Depending on the game and the optimization. Games I have been mainly playing like Rising storm 2: vietnam, Squad, and VR it struggles. Now I'm just being nit picky as it can reach 60 in most, but after investing in a 144hz monitor. I want it to reach it. only 144hz I've experienced so far without LOW graphics is minecraft  Paired with a ryzen 1700 @ 3.8Ghz

Ouch that's pretty brutal, I can see why you want an upgrade.

It's looking more and more like an MSI ITX 1070 is in my future. Or perhaps whatever they come out with next.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, mach said:

Just put them on the shelves already.....

It's not like they are releasing anything groundbreaking that deserves all the teasing

 

 

Yep, they have effectively hyped themselves out of sales.  It's not even released yet and many people are getting bored with the state of play that they aren't even considering waiting for one.

[Ryujin2003]

So, where did any of the information say that Vega sucks and isn't worth anything? All of this negativity from nothing? Yup, GN is today about something, and is excluded. And priority is given to 56, do that means 64 is horrible.. or maybe that 56 is in the most common price range, so advertise that more to get peak interest in that price range?

 

I could be totally wrong. Did I miss something in the original article?

[Humbug]

This was expected and makes perfect sense.

 

The vega64 is already a fully unlocked part. So even though AMD badly wants it to be clearly faster than a 1080  they cannot just add more ROPs or TUs now. Those decisions were made years ago. And they cannot keep ramping up clock speed indefinitely. So they had to settle on a Vega64 air cooled stock version which only 'trades blows' with the GTX 1080... The water cooled version and the after market ones from sapphire Asus etc will be faster but again probably no faster than aftermarket overclocked 1080s.

 

Whereas Vega56 is a cut down, lower clocked version of the flagship. Being so late to market AMD basically had the luxury of starting with full fat vega, and then down tuning it's configuration in order to create a next tier SKU. But now they know exactly where they should settle on in order to remain comfortably faster than the gtx 1070.

 

Vega56 may be the only SKU in the lineup where AMD can say that they are clearly faster in every benchmark. (rather than 'trading blows').

 

Also the other SKUs Vega64 and Vega FE have been clocked up and volted up way beyond the point of diminishing returns on efficiency. This is in order to compete on raw performance with the GTX 1080 in gaming and Titan XP in professional applications. AMD knew that being so late they cannot lose to the 1080 on raw performance. Whereas the Vega56 is much closer to that optimal point in every architecture where you get the most perf/watt. It will still take more power than a GTX 1070, but now it is close enough that nobody cares (unlike the Vega 64 vs GTX 1080).

[Phate.exe]

2 hours ago, DXMember said:

dayyy.... for $400 superclocked Furies.. not bad

now how do I get rid of mines?

Right?  Pretty stoked about Vega 56.  Everything I've seen suggests Vega performs clock for clock like Fiji, and since my Fury Nitro is awesome, what is basically a Fury with double the vram that will clock to 1500MHz looks like a perfect upgrade.

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Right?  Pretty stoked about Vega 56.  Everything I've seen suggests Vega performs clock for clock like Fiji

It will be better than that. Apparently stuff was switched off in the drivers for the Vega FE launch. Gamer's Nexus got confirmation directly from AMD's engineers.

 

They were/are not ready and just rush launched the FE at end June in order to technically keep their promise to investors about Q2 Vega launch.

[Phate.exe]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

It will be better than that. Apparently stuff was switched off in the drivers for the Vega FE launch. Gamer's Nexus got confirmation directly from AMD's engineers.

 

They were/are not ready and just rush launched the FE at end June in order to technically keep their promise to investors about Q2 Vega launch.

I'd say I've tempered my expectations, but...

 

And I figured that about the Vega FE launch.

[captain cactus]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

This is not good news at all, not for people looking to buy Vega 64 anyway.

Honestly, a Vega 64 at that price is just retarded. 1080 performance at 115W more power draw. It's a repeat of the Fury launch where the Fury was a way more sensible buy over a Fury X.

 

The Vega 56 is a way better buy in every way, shape and form, IF the leaked performance we've seen is actually accurate and it crushes a 1070. Otherwise that should also not exist at $399.

[Humbug]

12 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Honestly, a Vega 64 at that price is just retarded. 1080 performance at 115W more power draw. It's a repeat of the Fury launch where the Fury was a way more sensible buy over a Fury X.

Honesty it's a lot worse.

At the time Nvidia's fastest card was the 980ti. For sure it was faster than the Fury X. But at least in some benchmarks at 4K the Fury X was competitive.

This time AMD cannot touch the fastest Nvidia card; 1080ti. They have to push Vega to the max in order to beat the 2nd tier GTX 1080.

[Humbug]

33 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

The Vega 56 is a way better buy in every way, shape and form, IF the leaked performance we've seen is actually accurate and it crushes a 1070. Otherwise that should also not exist at $399.

Yep, it seems like Vega56 is closer to the optimal point for the Vega architecture.

Compared to the Vega64 it takes far less power, but only gives up a little bit of performance.

[Morgan MLGman]

Another unoptimistic info about Vega Honestly, what worries me the most is that this might make Nvidia be like Intel = stop innovating because there's no competition at the high-end, to give minimal performance gains gen per gen for a huge price. At least so far Nvidia has kept releasing new generations that are an actual improvement over previous ones, let's hope it doesn't change.

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Yep, it seems like Vega56 is closer to the optimal point for the Vega architecture.

Compared to the Vega64 it takes far less power, but only gives up a little bit of performance.

It's more about the scaling as the uArch goes up in CUs. I think the actual issue is more that at 64 CU, while the load might be 100%, realistically the GPU is going to actually be starved for things to do. There's also the issue of Hardware vs Software schedulers. Vega seems like a much better computer card than high-end Gaming card.

 

It really just comes down to GCN being an iGPU uArch scaled up, while Maxwell is a HPC uArch scaled down. At the ~$500USD price point, the downscale works better. At the ~$300USD price point, the upscale probably will work better. (The fact that they sell more 1070s than 1080s should tell us something about the market.) This is why Navi being 2x GPU will be a game changer for AMD.

 

Side-point: anyone able to guess if you could buy a 3x Vega 64 and get them to work as computer cards? Rather than much more expensive Workstation variants? There's some interesting synergy with the upcoming TR 1900X.