AMD Radeon RX VEGA to Launch at SIGGRAPH 2017

[Dash Lambda]

1 hour ago, L.Lawliet said:

Yeah it will probably end up like 1070. but if they cost less like $50-100 less..its not that bad i guess

Didn't they already hit 1070 performance?

If I recall correctly, the Fury X was head-to-head with the 980ti, and the 980ti is very comparable to the 1070. If they didn't improve by a meaningful amount from the Fury X, I'd be astonished.

[DXMember]

1 hour ago, Moress said:

I think disappointment is inevitable at this point. The hype train for Vega was too big for anything less than a 1080ti for the price of a 1060 to live up to.

4K capable gaming machine under $1000 total is the dream for 2017

and Rja Koduri will not rest until we get 8K per eye gaming

[DXMember]

Just now, Dash Lambda said:

Didn't they already hit 1070 performance?

If I recall correctly, the Fury X was head-to-head with the 980ti, and the 980ti is very comparable to the 1070. If they didn't improve by a meaningful amount from the Fury X, I'd be astonished.

the weird thing is that right now Vega FE is doing like +15% more gaming at most of the Fury X at +60% clock speeds, which is confusing as hell since it has the same amount of shader cores and an architectural advantage going for it 

[NumLock21]

4 minutes ago, DXMember said:

we knew it's going to launch at Siggraph like a week ago...

I know it was like eons ago. Those were wild guesses. This is confirm.

 

[mach]

If it has 1080ti performance but cheaper...hell even at the same price I'd get one because fuck gsync

[DXMember]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

I know it was like eons ago. Those were wild guesses. This is confirm.

 

I'm pretty sure there was a guy with the publication that I first heard earlier this week which had the first look at pre-release of Vega FE, that guy there that they had was some technical dude from AMD that said Vega RX at Siggraph, while also Raja Koduri telling everyone in the interviews to wait for Siggraph

[DXMember]

1 minute ago, L.Lawliet said:

head 2 head with 1080 while being cheaper

that's not nearly enough!! I need double the performance of R9 Fury or I'm waiting for Navi...

[DXMember]

Just now, L.Lawliet said:

How bout Volta?

competition is green with envy

[ltguy]

Just watched gamer nexus review and something is definelty wrong. Vega is significantly slower than there Rx580 + Rx480 crossfire numbers. Based on the stream processor count and clock speed alone (assuming no architechial improvements) RX vega should be 6% faster than RX 580 crossfire while there 3dmark score puts it 20% slower than RX580 crossfire. Gaming fps numbers show similar results. 

[DXMember]

2 minutes ago, ltguy said:

Just watched gamer nexus review and something is definelty wrong. Vega is significantly slower than there Rx580 + Rx480 crossfire numbers. Based on the stream processor count and clock speed alone (assuming no architechial improvements) RX vega should be 6% faster than RX 580 crossfire while there 3dmark score puts it 20% slower than RX580 crossfire. Gaming fps numbers show similar results. 

baffling, right?

even compared to Fury X doesn't match up

[ltguy]

Just now, DXMember said:

baffling, right?

even compared to Fury X doesn't match up

Is this an IPC decease like phenom ii to fx?

[DXMember]

2 minutes ago, ltguy said:

Is this an IPC decease like phenom ii to fx?

no idea... they say they have increased the ipc with the new GCN

[Humbug]

17 minutes ago, ltguy said:

Is this an IPC decease like phenom ii to fx?

not possible, they wouldn't have bragged about IPC increase in that case.

 

It's that the gaming driver is not done yet. That's why they decided to launch FE Vega and push back launch of RX Vega.

[LAwLz]

Just some thoughts that I think people should be aware of:

1) It might just be a paper launch. Don't expect cards to be in stores straight away. 

2) Vega will not compete against Pascal. Pascal is old at this point. Over a year old. Vega will have to compete against Volta, which should be out fairly soon. 

3) The workstation cards have never been that much worse than the gaming cards for gaming, so stop with the "it's not a gaming card!" excuses. They might improve the drivers in the future but that's about it. Don't expect RX Vega to be magically better than Vega FE for gaming. 

4) Do not trust AMD's own marketing and benchmarks. Don't take AMD's word for how it will perform. Wait for independent benchmarks to come out. 

[Andrew Sh]

2 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

It will probably not be faster than a 1080, but why does that make it a flop? If they get the pricing right, Vega will be a success (1080 performance for $400)

Because AMD were showing off Vega beating Nvidia a looong time ago. Reputation matters and poeple will just make fun of it if it's slower than 480. Also don't forget that it's supposed to be faster than the Vega FE since that isn't even a gaming gpu.
It's like comparing a Quadro with 1080ti.

 

Ideally AMD would want to have a gpu at 3 tiers like nvidia, something like 1060+25%, 1070 +50% and 1080ti (~+5-10%.) Quite unlikely we'll get lucky enough to get that competition though.

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, Andrew Sh said:

Make or break here for AMD.
They gotta have 1080ti performance on the top RX model.

Here's how it can play out:

1: It will beat 1080ti by large margin and bring AMD back in heavy competition in the high end market similar to Ryzen.
2: It will be equal to 1080ti and "fine wine" will be the motivator of sales, meaning it won't be a huge market share gain (but it'll grow a lot still)
3: It'll fall short, AMD fans will say "fine wine" but no one will care for a few months.
4. It'll be good for mining and miners are gonna LOL at gamers.
5. It'll beat the 1080 but not close to the 1080ti and flop.

 

I don't see mid range GPUs being released for now given that they just threw out the 500 series (which I have to say was unnecessary).

 

I have high hopes gaming here. Would be great if they can release a 4k competitor to the 1080ti.

At best they can get to your point 5 but with the Frontier Edition benchmarks we know they just can't magically produce an additional 20% or more performance which would be needed for them to get near a 1080ti.

 

it's gonna be a 1080 for poor people that wins at Doom and AOTS, maybe some Square games it trades blows.

[ltguy]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

At best they can get to your point 5 but with the Frontier Edition benchmarks we know they just can't magically produce an additional 20% or more performance which would be needed for them to get near a 1080ti.

 

it's gonna be a 1080 for poor people that wins at Doom and AOTS, maybe some Square games it trades blows.

Do you guys read the other posts.... its current performance is irrelevant. It is beat out by its own rx580 in crossfire. Either the drivers or the card is broken. Cant see amd releasing the RX Vega will less IPC than RX480.

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, Andrew Sh said:

Also don't forget that it's supposed to be faster than the Vega FE since that isn't even a gaming gpu.
It's like comparing a Quadro with 1080ti.

Workstation GPUs are gaming GPUs with extra stuff added.

Gaming GPUs are not workstation GPUs with stuff added. 

 

Dont expect RX Vega to have anything extra over the Vega FE. This has never been the case before so I don't see why it would suddenly change. Quadro and FirePro cards have always been pretty close to the GeForce and Radeon GPUs they share core with. 

 

The drivers will probably be more polished for gaming but don't expect miracles. 

[Dash Lambda]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

3) The workstation cards have never been that much worse than the gaming cards for gaming, so stop with the "it's not a gaming card!" excuses. They might improve the drivers in the future but that's about it. Don't expect RX Vega to be magically better than Vega FE for gaming. 

That's generally the case, but I seriously have trouble believing this Vega FE is very representative of the rest of the lineup. I mean, it barely even beats Fiji, they couldn't possibly be trying to push that as their top tier. If anything I expect that this isn't actually their full-fat chip.

And it isn't like CPUs, where they can have slightly lower single-core performance but win with cores and value. GPUs scale in pretty much every relevant task with both per-core performance and core count, so its overall performance is judged as a whole -Lower performance just means lower performance. And I don't think they'll get the sort of response for value with Vega that they did with Ryzen.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, ltguy said:

Do you guys read the other posts.... its current performance is irrelevant. It is beat out by its own rx580 in crossfire. Either the drivers or the card is broken. Cant see amd releasing the RX Vega will less IPC than RX480.

There's not enough time for any significant changes to happen so either they delay it again or just quietly and unceremoniously release a turd.

 

They are capable of being just plain bad at high end GPUs where they're mediocre. In other words, Vega is a Fiji repeat on a smaller node.

[ltguy]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

There's not enough time for any significant changes to happen so either they delay it again or just quietly and unceremoniously release a turd.

 

They are capable of being just plain bad at high end GPUs where they're mediocre. In other words, Vega is a Fiji repeat on a smaller node.

I really really hope you're wrong   I mean if after all this waiting this is all they have... a regression, then why didnt they just make a RX490/590 dual card so I can have my mini itx rig back. If my current RX 480 crossfire beats their long awaited big vega card.... i will have to swallow a whole lot of sadness. Can i just have a card based on rx480 with 4096 stream processors? I would have bought a Fury X if they had given it an acceptable amount of VRAM and hdmi 2.0.

[Agosto]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Workstation GPUs are gaming GPUs with extra stuff added.

Gaming GPUs are not workstation GPUs with stuff added. 

 

Dont expect RX Vega to have anything extra over the Vega FE. This has never been the case before so I don't see why it would suddenly change. Quadro and FirePro cards have always been pretty close to the GeForce and Radeon GPUs they share core with. 

 

The drivers will probably be more polished for gaming but don't expect miracles. 

Tiled rasterization on FE is switched off and it seems it's using a different branch of the driver, rather than the current gaming ones

*there's still hope for me*

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Agost said:

Tiled rasterization on FE is switched off and it seems it's using a different branch of the driver, rather than the current gaming ones

*there's still hope for me*

Is that speculation or has it been confirmed?

 

If that's true, then there might be some untapped performance left. Does anyone know how much performance increase you can expect by switching to tiled rasterization? 

[VerticalDiscussions]

Oh god no, why couldnt it be today!?!?

[Agosto]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Is that speculation or has it been confirmed?

 

If that's true, then there might be some untapped performance left. Does anyone know how much performance increase you can expect by switching to tiled rasterization? 

This is what pcper's test looked like

This video explains how it is in maxwell and pascal compared to earlier AMD versions (HD 6670, he said he couldn't get a newr AMD gpu)

In this forum post, an user says the FE results are not different from how his R9 Nano draws the triangle