AMD Radeon RX VEGA to Launch at SIGGRAPH 2017

[cj09beira]

Just now, Agost said:

That's a possibility, but I'm afraid it's because of HBM2 and the interposer. Glad to be contradicted in case it's for mature drivers at launch. I want a UHD Freesync monitor and I need Vega to run that.

its definitely sk hynix and their obvious failure at delivering hbm2 2gbps, which was supposed to start its production in December and its no where to be found

[JediFragger]

This is DOA now I'm afriad, just faaaar too late to the party

 

I know 3 people who have just given up on AMD now and have bought Ti's, and they all have Freesync screens!! lol

 

(I already had an Aorus Ti since launch, it's awesome)

[HJ1mech]

2 hours ago, 2Buck said:

I'm not saying Vega will be horrible, but I've lost all interest in it at this point. I mean, come on. It's just too little too late. At this point only diehard AMD fans will wait for it. With Ryzen kicking so much ass I hoped Vega would be similar, but nope. At this point I'm skeptical if it'll even beat a 1080... And let's just say by some miracle that Vega actually competes with a 1080ti, that's still not good enough. The only way they can make a splash with Vega now is if it's priced significantly lower than the competition like Ryzen is doing, but I just don't think that's gonna happen. Another thing, even if Vega DID sooomehow beat the 1080ti for less money, well, Volta's around the corner too.

 

None of this looks good for AMD, they waited too fucking long. Sounds like to me HBM2 ended up hurting them badly.

 

Welp, it looks like my next system will be AMD+Nvidia, like my current one. :I

That's exactly what mine will be. Ryzen 7 1700 with an Nvidia GPU. Sad thing is we need competition so I wanted to go all AMD to help support that but this wait has gotten to be to much. Also once I spend all that money on the more expensive G-sync monitors there's no way I'm replacing them with different Freesync ones so guess I'll be team green for a good while

[cj09beira]

35 minutes ago, HJ1mech said:

That's exactly what mine will be. Ryzen 7 1700 with an Nvidia GPU. Sad thing is we need competition so I wanted to go all AMD to help support that but this wait has gotten to be to much. Also once I spend all that money on the more expensive G-sync monitors there's no way I'm replacing them with different Freesync ones so guess I'll be team green for a good while

its weird that you waited so long and give up one month from release 

[79wjd]

13 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

its weird that you waited so long and give up one month from release 

Eh, you eventually reach a point where you're just fed up with waiting. Besides, Vega won't be announced until July 30th (at the earliest), and so you won't realistically be able to get a Vega GPU until sometime in August -- so you're talking at least nine weeks minimum. 

[VagabondWraith]

1 hour ago, HJ1mech said:

That's exactly what mine will be. Ryzen 7 1700 with an Nvidia GPU. Sad thing is we need competition so I wanted to go all AMD to help support that but this wait has gotten to be to much. Also once I spend all that money on the more expensive G-sync monitors there's no way I'm replacing them with different Freesync ones so guess I'll be team green for a good while

G-Sync is more expensive up front, but it's worth it. Especially considering people keep their monitors for 5-10 years. G-Sync also has a better Hz range than FreeSync. Like my Acer Predator will cover 30-165Hz range which is impressive. A majority of FreeSync monitors (obviously cheap) cover 45-78Hz or 45-90Hz range, which is fine... if you stay within range. You get what you pay for.

[Valentyn]

18 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

G-Sync is more expensive up front, but it's worth it. Especially considering people keep their monitors for 5-10 years. G-Sync also has a better Hz range than FreeSync. Like my Acer Predator will cover 30-165Hz range which is impressive. A majority of FreeSync monitors (obviously cheap) cover 45-78Hz or 45-90Hz range, which is fine... if you stay within range. You get what you pay for.

 

I'm happy with my Asus MG278Q, it's the exact same panel as the G-Sync ROG Swift, and both are 30-144hz. Having used both over a year each, essentially identical in all aspects bar price ;D

The bright side about the cheaper worse range Freesync ones is that they're so super cheap. Although at least with FreeSync 2, AMD has a spec that insists on 30Hz being the lowest cap at least, and they must support LFC as well.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

The 260 was 400 and amd had a card that beat the 280 for 400.

 

 

So my point still stands,  it has been 4 years since AMD has been able to release a card that was competitive with Nvidia's.

 

I really don't understand (outside of silly fanboy denial) why this is such a hard fact to accept.  there is no value to be gained from digging further and further back to find a card that was better than Nvidia's. Because that doesn't change the reality of the last 4 years for the company.

 

 

[Okjoek]

The real place Vega will shine is integrated on the Raven Ridge APU. IMO at-least.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, cj09beira said:

well in that case amd was offering the same perf for 150 bucks cheaper, while being a more efficient chip, so unless i am missing something people should have mostly bought the amd card.

 

What world do live in where two equally performing cards are $150 different. At best here in Australia the difference has been $50.   And as I said before, people tend to buy the best they can, When assembling a system worth $1500 then $50 becomes neither here nor their.  Especially when advice often given (even on these forums and rightly so) is to get less flashy ram or a simpler case and spend the extra on the GPU.  It is really easy to see why nvidia legitimately  has the market share.  

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What world do live in where two equally performing cards are $150 different. At best here in Australia the difference has been $50.   And as I said before, people tend to buy the best they can, When assembling a system worth $1500 then $50 becomes neither here nor their.  Especially when advice often given (even on these forums and rightly so) is to get less flashy ram or a simpler case and spend the extra on the GPU.  It is really easy to see why nvidia legitimately  has the market share.  

given that you give 0 shits about the data i am using to justify my claims on that specific case, and you take a 50 dollar difference in price out of your ass this conversation is over.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

given that you give 0 shits about the data i am using to justify my claims on that specific case, and you take a 50 dollar difference in price out of your ass this conversation is over.

 

There is nothing wrong with your data, it just isn't relevant.  The fact is Nvidia are holding their market share while AMD falls further behind with competing cards.  The evidence is right here in front of you, but instead of accepting that, you keep digging up pointless metrics like die size and power consumption as if it explains your assumptions about the buying public. 

 

[outercry]

4 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Eh, you eventually reach a point where you're just fed up with waiting. Besides, Vega won't be announced until July 30th (at the earliest), and so you won't realistically be able to get a Vega GPU until sometime in August -- so you're talking at least nine weeks minimum. 

Exactly, what I have been saying and thinking as well. I'm still going to wait, because I haven't got the need to upgrade from my GTX 970, however, big part of me is really starting get pissed off with the wait, when I could have just bought 1080, at least after the price drop. Especially, when AMD pulls a dick move, like saying that they made their target date by releasing a card that is not for normal consumers or gamers.

 

As for the date, you are absotely right. I think they will (hopefully?) announce the cards in August, same event, but why not, eh? That, however, doesn't (necessarily) mean that any of us will get our hands on those cards anytime soon.

 

Even if they stick to their word and date(s), pre-orders (if that is even going to be a thing) might, just might, be available in August. Whether you will get your card in August is a completely different matter, especially considering the reports of low stock amounts (whether they apply only to the FE cards or not, I don't know) etc. Plus, I would highly recommend against pre-ordering any of the Vega cards, because of all these problems, so realistically, you end up waiting even longer still, because you will definitely need to see benchmarks from quite a few reputable sources, before going and buying anything.

 

I, for one, am pretty sceptical at the moment about what Vega will bring to the table, most likely not enough, but hopefully I'm wrong.

[Spenser1337]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

So my point still stands,  it has been 4 years since AMD has been able to release a card that was competitive with Nvidia's.

 

I really don't understand (outside of silly fanboy denial) why this is such a hard fact to accept.  there is no value to be gained from digging further and further back to find a card that was better than Nvidia's. Because that doesn't change the reality of the last 4 years for the company.

 

 

I'm just clearing this up for you. Because you stated something completely incorrect prior to this

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Spenser1337 said:

I'm just clearing this up for you. Because you stated something completely incorrect prior to this

Which was? 

[Phate.exe]

On 6/1/2017 at 1:31 PM, Agost said:

That's a possibility, but I'm afraid it's because of HBM2 and the interposer. Glad to be contradicted in case it's for mature drivers at launch. I want a UHD Freesync monitor and I need Vega to run that.

I bought a UHD freesync monitor, and I need Vega to run that, lol.

 

If it were possible to buy used GCN cards for sane amounts of money right now I'd have just gotten either a second card to mess with crossfire or a used Fury.

[Humbug]

 

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

 

 

I don't even understand why this is such a big problem for people.   Just wait till it does some official benchmarks then start judging.  Until then it is speculation (both positive and negative) for the sake of speculation.

[Agosto]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't even understand why this is such a big problem for people.   Just wait till it does some official benchmarks then start judging.  Until then it is speculation (both positive and negative) for the sake of speculation.

The point is that they showed a demo with 2 cards at UHD "above 60fps" (which ranges from 61 to infinity) while a single 1080Ti manages 60+ alone.

[mr moose]

Just now, Agost said:

The point is that they showed a demo with 2 cards at UHD "above 60fps" (which ranges from 61 to infinity) while a single 1080Ti manages 60+ alone.

I get that, but it's hardly thorough testing and bench marking is it?   A little critical thinking would at the very least lead to questioning but not outright judging, especially given there are enough legitimate sounding reasons given for the situation. 

[Agosto]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I get that, but it's hardly thorough testing and bench marking is it?   A little critical thinking would at the very least lead to questioning but not outright judging, especially given there are enough legitimate sounding reasons given for the situation. 

The point is that we are questioning, at least me. I'm really hoping that there were some issues with scaling on 2xVega cards, otherwise this means that Vega could only barely match a 1080 which is very disappointing after more than a year, especially for me since I want Vega because I'm tired of nvidia policies and drivers.

[mr moose]

Just now, Agost said:

The point is that we are questioning, at least me. I'm really hoping that there were some issues with scaling on 2xVega cards, otherwise this means that Vega could only barely match a 1080 which is very disappointing after more than a year, especially for me since I want Vega because I'm tired of nvidia policies and drivers.

And that's fine, but there are others who have just gone beyond the questions. I might be wrong (I'm not re reading this thread again) but it sounded like one or two were suggesting the card will be dead in the water becasue of this. 

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, Agost said:

The point is that we are questioning, at least me. I'm really hoping that there were some issues with scaling on 2xVega cards, otherwise this means that Vega could only barely match a 1080 which is very disappointing after more than a year, especially for me since I want Vega because I'm tired of nvidia policies and drivers.

you are assuming they did it because of perf, raja said it wasn't.

You might be right or completely wrong why keep speculating on this when we don't have enough info to say anything.

[Agosto]

Just now, mr moose said:

And that's fine, but there are others who have just gone beyond the questions. I might be wrong (I'm not re reading this thread again) but it sounded like one or two were suggesting the card will be dead in the water becasue of this. 

That's speculation fueled by a suspicious behaviour from AMD, which usually yells at the world its performance results when they're good enough (see Ryzen presentation)

[Agosto]

Just now, cj09beira said:

you are assuming they did it because of perf, raja said it wasn't.

You might be right or completely wrong why keep speculating on this when we don't have enough info to say anything.

I HOPE I'm wrong. I want Vega.