AMD's Vega architecture previewed at ve.ga

[MrAlbertrocks]

I really do hope they succeed. Even though i already bought a 1080 a few months back, it would be beneficial for everybody in the long run if AMD releases a GPU that offers a 1080s performance for a lower price. That doesn't necessarily mean that AMD will win, all Nvidia has to do is lower their prices. But for the consumer, it's a win-win situation.

[i_build_nanosuits]

36 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Yeah, exactly what happened with the 480 vs 1060.

...except it didn't.

[CostcoSamples]

3 minutes ago, MrAlbertrocks said:

I really do hope they succeed. Even though i already bought a 1080 a few months back, it would be beneficial for everybody in the long run if AMD releases a GPU that offers a 1080s performance for a lower price. That doesn't necessarily mean that AMD will win, all Nvidia has to do is lower their prices. But for the consumer, it's a win-win situation.

Yeah, I pulled the trigger on a 1070 and fancy Gsync display in 2016, so I'm heavily invested in Nvidia right now.  I might go ahead and upgrade to a Ryzen CPU though, if benches are good and price is fair.

31 minutes ago, App4that said:

The Fury X has never caught the 980ti. It has caught a 980ti at reference clock speeds in games that favor the Fury X. If AMD had not used HBM and put that money elsewhere I think that would be different. 

 

Like I said, AMD needs a card that matches the 1080 for the price of the 1070 to win. Match the 1080 and Nvidia has the means to drop the prices past where AMD can survive. To do that AMD needs to stop being foolish and use tech that works. Worry about innovation after they beat Nvidia. 

That is a fair point.  Fury X caught and sometimes beats the 980 ti reference only.  After market 980 ti was much faster, and no such cards exist from AMD's side.  

 

AMD is always selling at low margins to try compete.  What they need is stronger branding.  Nvidia's branding is rock solid - very hard to compete against.  And perhaps you are right about HBM.  

 

[CostcoSamples]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

...except it didn't.

...except it kind of did

 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

[App4that]

1 minute ago, CostcoSamples said:

Yeah, I pulled the trigger on a 1070 and fancy Gsync display in 2016, so I'm heavily invested in Nvidia right now.  I might go ahead and upgrade to a Ryzen CPU though, if benches are good and price is fair.

That is a fair point.  Fury X caught and sometimes beats the 980 ti reference only.  After market 980 ti was much faster, and no such cards exist from AMD's side.  

 

AMD is always selling at low margins to try compete.  What they need is stronger branding.  Nvidia's branding is rock solid - very hard to compete against.  And perhaps you are right about HBM.  

 

AMD has taken 10% away from Nvidia without having a high end card, that's awesome. And it shows people want options. If they can succeed with Ryzen and Vega it will be the start of a new golden era of hardware. Fingers crossed. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, CostcoSamples said:

...except it kind of did

 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/73945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-23.html

480vs1060 kind of did...FuryX is still noticeably slower than a 980ti though especially if they are overclocked.

[App4that]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

480vs1060 kind of did...FuryX is still noticeably slower than a 980ti though especially if they are overclocked.

The 480 vs 1060 is subjective. But I myself would pick a 480 purely because of Nvidias dick move to not include SLI.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, App4that said:

The 480 vs 1060 is subjective. But I myself would pick a 480 purely because of Nvidias dick move to not include SLI.

they are very even cards...one is better in some games and the other is better with some other games...probably why they cost about the same hey

[i_build_nanosuits]

Can't wait for an AMD ''preview'' where it beat a Pacal Titan X in 1 game at 4K...and then loose significantly to a GTX 1080 in all the other games while using 35% more power per cycle and cost 25$ less...i'm so excited!!!

[CostcoSamples]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

480vs1060 kind of did...FuryX is still noticeably slower than a 980ti though especially if they are overclocked.

Lack of overclocking on Fury X is a problem, but my point remains.  If Fury X had optimized drivers at launch, it would have sold much better.  To a large degree, people's opinions are affected by launch day reviews.  Those reviews put Fury X well behind a reference 980 ti.  And since no third party OC versions came to light, Fury X was a failure.

 

390 and 390 X also suffered similarly, and the 200 series, etc.

 

Another way to look at it is that AMD cards age like wine, whereas Nvidia tends to gimp their cards.

[Princess Luna]

I actually really agree with nVidia making SLI only on the 70's 80's because it has always been a not perfect technology with a lot of problems for both ends, the consumer and manufacturer, going with a single higher end GPU like buying a 1070/1080 for the price you'd pay by SLI'ing two 1060's seems to me like the smartest thing.

 

Also the 1060 6gb does have more raw power than the rx 480, the day nvidia fix the DX12 drivers which might happen after some of these many releases incoming the table here will turn completely and AMD will likely depend on this new product to keep its share on the market... if its just a very high end, high priced deal that still doesn't reach the 1080 they will see themselves in  trouble to find market space.

 

Now I have no reason not to want to see AMD succeeding on this for the competition will make nVidia better but lets be honest, especially with Ryzen AMD has been all about over-hyping it without any solid background so far.

 

@CostcoSamples I don't agree with you, I was using a GTX 560Ti until little ago and its performance in titles like CS:GO League of Legends and alike were all 100+ fps with all maxed out, and it did good enough in a lot of games being able to almost max even the latest 2013 titles, nVidia old cards are as solid as AMD old ones.

[TheRandomness]

49 minutes ago, App4that said:

The Fury X has never caught the 980ti. It has caught a 980ti at reference clock speeds in games that favor the Fury X. If AMD had not used HBM and put that money elsewhere I think that would be different.

I wonder what a Fury X with GDDR5 and 1024 more shaders (removing the HBM and interposer would free up the 'budget' to do that, no?) would've been like...

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, CostcoSamples said:

 

Another way to look at it is that AMD cards age like wine, whereas Nvidia tends to gimp their cards.

No, No, No! We do that outside!

 

Nvidia does not "gimp" anything, nor do they drop support. What they do is bring new architectures to market much more frequently than AMD. AMD tends to favor re-branding architectures. 

 

Don't get twisted.

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

For what it's worth, my XFX 480 is only consuming 95-100 watts on the core while benchmarking and it's often in the mid 80s when gaming. It's not a particularly high asic (from  memory it's 66%) either which means it's not as efficient per mhz as it could be.

mine is the same, and does 100-120 while at 1400mhz

[Princess Luna]

The true question here is; will vega manage enough heat to make me as good barbecue as its ancestors?

[Mr.Meerkat]

12 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

And even then, it consumes uite a bit more power to do that, substantially more than even the far more powerful GTX 1070.

 

Spoiler

Considering that the RX480 consumes roughly 20-30 watts more than a 1060, I'm sure that saving $6.75 per year (assuming 5 hour of gaming everyday for a whole year, 0.12 [cost of a kW/h of electricity] x 0.03 [kW] x 5 [hours] x 365 [days]) is totally worth the price difference of the RX480 compared to the 1060 in some places . Especially when the 4GB RX480 has the perf of the full phat 8GB RX480 while costing more or less as much as the 3GB 1060.

[cj09beira]

37 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

From what I read on reddit (BEEP BEEP TRUCK OF SALT) Volta is only a refresh of Pascal.

it is not!, there are some pascal cards that will have a refresh tho, before we see volta

[Dabombinable]

14 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

 

  Hide contents

Considering that the RX480 consumes roughly 20-30 watts more than a 1060, I'm sure that saving $6.75 per year (assuming 5 hour of gaming everyday for a whole year, 0.12 [cost of a kW/h of electricity] x 0.03 [kW] x 5 [hours] x 365 [days]) is totally worth the price difference of the RX480 compared to the 1060 in some places . Especially when the 4GB RX480 has the perf of the full phat 8GB RX480 while costing more or less as much as the 3GB 1060.

2 different sources, results within margin of error, the RX 480  consumes more:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-review,5.html

 

Edit: Note tomshardware's Furmark results.

[Mr.Meerkat]

9 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

For what it's worth, my XFX 480 is only consuming 95-100 watts on the core while benchmarking and it's often in the mid 80s when gaming. It's not a particularly high asic (from  memory it's 66%) either which means it's not as efficient per mhz as it could be.

22 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

mine is the same, and does 100-120 while at 1400mhz

Awwwww, that's not fair...my RX470 overclocked at 1350MHz consumes 135Watts and at 1400MHz consumes 150watts core only, even if it has an ASIC quality of 73.9%...(just proves than ASIC quality doesn't really mean that much anymore)

 

The worst part is how Asus only put a 6 pin on their strix RX470...so it technically can only draw 150watts of power (although I have a XFX XTS 1kW PSU...) so when I try anything higher than 1300MHz core (30MHz overclock from factory), it starts to stutter and throttle but whatever, it cost me the price of a RX460 2GB to buy so why am I even complaining about losing the silicon lottery?  

Then I remember that my reference 290Xs would do 1253MHz core and 1264MHz core when they aren't CFXed...

 

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

2 different sources, results within margin of error, the RX 480  consumes more:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-480-polaris-10,4616-9.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-rx-480-gaming-x-review,5.html

 

Edit: Note tomshardware's Furmark results.

Fine, 46watts difference between the RX480 and 1060 is still sub $10 price difference if they ran furmark for 1780 hours (which is not recommended...) plus the crysis 3 power consumption numbers are more realistic as who's going to be stressing their GPU with a benchmark?

 

To be fair, 5 hours really is pushing how long people actually play per day, it probably averages out to something more like 2-3 hour per day so from example, in the UK the cheapest 8GB RX480 is roughly 10 quid cheaper than the cheapest 1060 so it would still take 1.5-3 years of gaming for the 1060 to have costed the same as a RX480  (1.5-3 years as it depends on what numbers you use)

[captain cactus]

I mean, JayzTwoCents got an XFX RX480 GTR and at stock clocks (for the GTR that is 1288 MHz) that thing pulled like 87W max while under gaming load. Even at a 1475 MHz overclock it never went above 140W.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

I mean, JayzTwoCents got an XFX RX480 GTR and at stock clocks (for the GTR that is 1288 MHz) that thing pulled like 87W max while under gaming load. Even at a 1475 MHz overclock it never went above 140W.

That was an outlier lol

[Mr.Meerkat]

9 minutes ago, Energycore said:

That was an outlier lol

First world problems with new processes  (I mean 150W core only for 1400Mhz on my RX470 is pretty appalling compared to what others got...)

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

First world problems with new processes  (I mean 150W core only for 1400Mhz on my RX470 is pretty appalling compared to what others got...)

Um, push the power target 6-pin connectors don't have less cables than 8-pins, maybe you can do 200W)

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

Um, push the power target 6-pin connectors don't have less cables than 8-pins, maybe you can do 200W)

+50% power limit, 1301MHz, the clock speeds starts to jump around badly...while at 1270MHz (factory stock) and upto 1300MHz at +0% power limit, it's stable...fun tiems when your system draws a max of 400watts~ underload while you have a 1kW plat rated PSU  

[Energycore]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

+50% power limit, 1301MHz, the clock speeds starts to jump around badly...while at 1270MHz (factory stock) and upto 1300MHz at +0% power limit, it's stable...fun tiems when your system draws a max of 400watts~ underload while you have a 1kW plat rated PSU  

lol ow. Well if you're gonna push power limit you should also push voltage.