AMD Radeon RX VEGA to Launch at SIGGRAPH 2017

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, Agost said:

I HOPE I'm wrong. I want Vega.

for me its simple, 2 rx 480's will pay for vega ;-p

[mr moose]

Just now, Agost said:

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)

speculation is still speculation.  

[Agosto]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

for me its simple, 2 rx 480's will pay for vega ;-p

Too much power and suboptimal solution ( 300W for 1080 performance, if the game works with crossfire). It's €500+ for 2 480/580 GB.

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

speculation is still speculation.  

It's mostly fear, from my point of view.

[cj09beira]

15 minutes ago, Agost said:

Too much power and suboptimal solution ( 300W for 1080 performance, if the game works with crossfire). It's €500+ for 2 480/580 GB.

It's mostly fear, from my point of view.

the cards are mining mostly and when not mining they are in different systems

[Agosto]

Just now, cj09beira said:

the cards are mining mostly and when not mining they are in different systems

Aaaaah ok I didn't get it, i thought that was an alternative solution. I'm not mining, so...

[Taf the Ghost]

The issue with the Prey demo is there was a big community hype for a full Vega display, and they really didn't get it.  To the point people were counting screen tears trying to figure out the frame rate...

 

Vega isn't actually "late", it's just that the 1080 has been out for well over a year at this point, and there's starting to be a collection of people with good Freesync monitors that want a high-end GPU for them. And, just to add weird insult to the delay, the massive buying of every stock of RX470/480/570/580s by crypto miners also means even those are really hard to come by. 

 

But, and this is a tad sad to say, the massive explosion of "I waited AMD, but now I'm buying a 1080!" posts in a lot of places look really suspicious. I imagine there's a few people, but the 1080 sales are a great profit center for Nvidia. They're not high volume parts, which also explains why AMD isn't so worried about launching RX Vega. (And, frankly, taking an extra 2 months to get the new Driver architecture smoothed over is probably better for everyone.)

[79wjd]

48 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

 (And, frankly, taking an extra 2 months to get the new Driver architecture smoothed over is probably better for everyone.)

Fifty bucks says Vega drivers at launch are still bad.

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Fifty bucks says Vega drivers at launch are still bad.

i would say they probably wont have fp16 working in games as the vulkan guys are still working on it right now

[Taf the Ghost]

12 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

Fifty bucks says Vega drivers at launch are still bad.

I don't like losing money, haha.

 

Though, since it's a new driver architecture for AMD, "bad" could be many things. Hopefully it also means that's going to need to be less hand-tuning each game to get great results. 

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I don't like losing money, haha.

 

Though, since it's a new driver architecture for AMD, "bad" could be many things. Hopefully it also means that's going to need to be less hand-tuning each game to get great results. 

Bad as in it will have the same performance issues AMD drivers always have at launch.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Bad as in it will have the same performance issues AMD drivers always have at launch.

Considering it's a new driver architecture, I'm going with it having different problems at launch, haha.

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

They're not high volume parts, which also explains why AMD isn't so worried about launching RX Vega. (And, frankly, taking an extra 2 months to get the new Driver architecture smoothed over is probably better for everyone.)

AMD is worried about it. They would have liked to have it out months ago...

But they can't work magic and either the drivers are still undercooked or HBM 2.0 supply is too limited. I think they planned to release it in Q2 and missed their mark.

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, Humbug said:

AMD is worried about it. They would have liked to have it out months ago...

But they can't work magic and either the drivers are still undercooked or HBM 2.0 supply is too limited. I think they planned to release it in Q2 and missed their mark.

amd's agreement with sk hynix is bitting them in the ass, i would like them to just switch to samsung 

[Valentyn]

1 hour ago, cj09beira said:

amd's agreement with sk hynix is bitting them in the ass, i would like them to just switch to samsung 

 

Samsung's HBM2 is much slower though. 1.4Gbps is terrible compared to even the slowest 1.6Gbps from Hynix.

The Vega Frontier Edition's HBM2 is running at 1.88Gbps, so gives it 480GB/s bandwidth. That's still less than the old Fury X, and even GTX 1080T (484 GB/s)i.

If they used Samsung HBM2 they would have memory bandwidth of around 366GB/s.

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, 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.

The question I would ask, is what the minimum framerates were for both?  Does the 1080 Ti maintain above 60, or is that the average (my understanding is that it's averaged, but I'm not certain).  In which case, what does it drop to at it's lowest?  Same question for the Vega demo.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, Valentyn said:

 

Samsung's HBM2 is much slower though. 1.4Gbps is terrible compared to even the slowest 1.6Gbps from Hynix.

The Vega Frontier Edition's HBM2 is running at 1.88Gbps, so gives it 480GB/s bandwidth. That's still less than the old Fury X, and even GTX 1080T (484 GB/s)i.

If they used Samsung HBM2 they would have memory bandwidth of around 366GB/s.

is 1.4 all they got?

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

But, and this is a tad sad to say, the massive explosion of "I waited AMD, but now I'm buying a 1080!" posts in a lot of places look really suspicious. I imagine there's a few people, but the 1080 sales are a great profit center for Nvidia. They're not high volume parts, which also explains why AMD isn't so worried about launching RX Vega. (And, frankly, taking an extra 2 months to get the new Driver architecture smoothed over is probably better for everyone.)

The 1080 has sold in pretty high volume. 1.19% of Steam users have it, which puts it ahead of the 1050 Ti. And AMDs most popular GPU is the RX 480 at 0.73%.

[Humbug]

41 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The question I would ask, is what the minimum framerates were for both?  Does the 1080 Ti maintain above 60, or is that the average (my understanding is that it's averaged, but I'm not certain).  In which case, what does it drop to at it's lowest?  Same question for the Vega demo.

You will not find out the framerate of the Vega demo.

All we know is that is is above 60... I get the impression AMD too is still developing the drivers and so are not sure where the exact final performance will land. Based on where it lands they will decide the pricing..

 

Anyway that Prey demo was just to show off how you can create an ultimate AMD PC with crossfire Vega using threadripper...

[Valentyn]

40 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

is 1.4 all they got?

It's all they've listed so far, but 1.76Gbps is due for later in the year.

 

The NVIDIA V100's HBM2 runs at 1.76 Gbps. Still less than what SK Hynix is putting on the Vega Frontier Edition. 1.88Gbps; and both still below the 2.0Gbps HBM2 is supposed to deliver and what was due for Q3 2016

[Jito463]

25 minutes ago, Humbug said:

You will not find out the framerate of the Vega demo.

All we know is that is is above 60... I get the impression AMD too is still developing the drivers and so are not sure where the exact final performance will land. Based on where it lands they will decide the pricing..

I know, it was more meant as a rhetorical question, to counter the "Vega is crap/slow/a failure" posts, when it's all still speculation until it actually comes out.  I'm as anxious as anyone for AMD to actually finally release it.  I find it infuriating that AMD is playing things so close to the vest with Vega, but I'm not about to call it for Nvidia until AMD actually brings Vega out (whenever that may be).

[Agosto]

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

The question I would ask, is what the minimum framerates were for both?  Does the 1080 Ti maintain above 60, or is that the average (my understanding is that it's averaged, but I'm not certain).  In which case, what does it drop to at it's lowest?  Same question for the Vega demo.

On TPU's review the 1080Ti manages an average of 80 fps at UHD, but that's without the patch 1.02 which actually lowered performance on nvidia cards (because there were some glitches and something that wasn't rendered correctly). At OC3D, with the latest patch, the 1080 averages at 45 fps with 39 minimum, so it's pretty safe to say that a 1080Ti with the 1.02 fix hits about 60 average fps.

[Taf the Ghost]

11 hours ago, Sakkura said:

The 1080 has sold in pretty high volume. 1.19% of Steam users have it, which puts it ahead of the 1050 Ti. And AMDs most popular GPU is the RX 480 at 0.73%.

It's sold, but you proved my point.  Steam Users are self-selected gamers, where as the 1050 Ti isn't a "gamer" GPU.  It also has a 6 month head-start on the 1050 Ti. So the best case scenario isn't that the 1080 class chips aren't a high-volume seller. 

 

It's not great when AMD takes a processor generation off from the high-end, but it's been long too late to change that.

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's sold, but you proved my point.  Steam Users are self-selected gamers, where as the 1050 Ti isn't a "gamer" GPU.  It also has a 6 month head-start on the 1050 Ti. So the best case scenario isn't that the 1080 class chips aren't a high-volume seller. 

 

It's not great when AMD takes a processor generation off from the high-end, but it's been long too late to change that.

The 1050 Ti is a gamer GPU. There's no point getting a 1050 Ti if you're not gaming.

[juri-han]

21 hours 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.

As someone who has had crossfire 290x going on 4 years the few games that actually do end up supporting crossfire it's never at launch and usually after 4 or 5 patches and driver updates 

 

some games get CF support but actually give you a worse performance, perfect example battlefield 1 in CF I get less FPS it's choppy as hell with flickering textures .... so crossfire on alpha drives it's a major achievement that it even works

 

that demo was just a shot at Intel with their 28 PCIe lanes 

[Jurrunio]

Knowing that HBM2 is problematic, AMD should have released Vega with the widely available GDDR5X instead while apologizing, and bring HBM2 in Vega refresh.