rumor has it RX Vega XT(X) will actually be called Vega 64

[TheGunzPT]

The name scheming.. It's so confused for casual fans.

 

But I don't mind it to be Vega 64, I just they have to work better on marketing..  But knowing AMD.. It won't happen.

 

But hey, at least it's not as horrible as Intel's iGPU naming scheme. I had a conversation today with some folks at work and explaining the differences between Intel's iGPUs and everyone was so confused..

I mean it doesn't surprise me at all.

 

 

[Fonzie92]

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

We do whatever we want you know. I know how to buy a gpu correctly thank you.

Not if you're going to buy a rx vega lmfao.

[LAwLz]

It is pretty impressive how often AMD chances naming schemes for their products.

Why not just stick to a prefix that stays consistent across generations (like GTX), a numbering scheme (like <generation><performance tier, such as 1080) and then possibly a suffix for special versions (like Ti).

Surely it can't be THAT hard to do, right?

[Bananasplit_00]

42 minutes ago, zMeul said:

don't worry, according to the rumormill RX Vega will be available ~1 month after the announcement

well thats going to make this whole thing EVEN WORSE lol

[TheGunzPT]

11 minutes ago, Fonzie92 said:

Not if you're going to buy a rx vega lmfao.

If you are locked into the FreeSync eco system like my GF there is no other choice.. than waiting.

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is pretty impressive how often AMD chances naming schemes for their products.

Why not just stick to a prefix that stays consistent across generations (like GTX), a numbering scheme (like <generation><performance tier, such as 1080) and then possibly a suffix for special versions (like Ti).

Surely it can't be THAT hard to do, right?

just at how they started to label their AM4 chipsets 

part of me thinks they did it intentionally while the other thinks they have no fucking clue what they're doing

[laminutederire]

19 minutes ago, Fonzie92 said:

Not if you're going to buy a rx vega lmfao.

Because not taking vega into account is a smart move?

You don't know how it will perform, nor which price it has.

You have leaks only and you talk like you know everything. You're the reason why the tech world has a bad image in the real world, so beat it and save us your inappropriate remarks.

If you want to judge anyone, do it with your friends when actual information is out. The fact that you selected information shows you're inherently biased, so I don't have much hope for you, but I have to correct you so that newcomers don't get thrown off or get wrong info because of you.

So far we know the Frontier edition is slightly above the 1080 in gaming and is better than a titan in pro tasks. Official infos are that RX Vega is better at gaming. We have leaks which shows plausible results, but actual numbers could be both higher or lower. No one except amd knows. Then there are no official prices. There a few leaks, but they contradict each other... so we basically have nothing, except people cherry picking leaks to make their point, which they subsequently don't make with such arguments.

 

[Fonzie92]

27 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Because not taking vega into account is a smart move?

You don't know how it will perform, nor which price it has.

You have leaks only and you talk like you know everything. You're the reason why the tech world has a bad image in the real world, so beat it and save us your inappropriate remarks.

If you want to judge anyone, do it with your friends when actual information is out. The fact that you selected information shows you're inherently biased, so I don't have much hope for you, but I have to correct you so that newcomers don't get thrown off or get wrong info because of you.

So far we know the Frontier edition is slightly above the 1080 in gaming and is better than a titan in pro tasks. Official infos are that RX Vega is better at gaming. We have leaks which shows plausible results, but actual numbers could be both higher or lower. No one except amd knows. Then there are no official prices. There a few leaks, but they contradict each other... so we basically have nothing, except people cherry picking leaks to make their point, which they subsequently don't make with such arguments.

 

Saving this post. Gonna reply to you in 3 days. Lol this is going to be glorious 

[ravenshrike]

 

1 hour ago, TheGunzPT said:

But I don't mind it to be Vega 64, I just they have to work better on marketing..  But knowing AMD.. It won't happen.

Their marketing for Ryzen until launch day was "40% IPC gain" launch comes around "Just kidding, 52% IPC gain over Excavator". Either something has gone horribly wrong, or they've got some trick up their sleeve.

[TheGunzPT]

7 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

 

Their marketing for Ryzen until launch day was "40% IPC gain" launch comes around "Just kidding, 52% IPC gain over Excavator". Either something has gone horribly wrong, or they've got some trick up their sleeve.

I assume something went horribly wrong? The Vega launch is all about secrecy.

 

Or at least that's the idea that they are passing around... 

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Great bang for buck when it performs the same as a 1080 and costs more?

Except we don't know anything for certain right now.  All we have is rumor and speculation.

3 hours ago, Fonzie92 said:

LOL. We'll see in a couple days. I forbid you and anyone to pre-order or buy it though.

One should never pre-order hardware.  Even with Ryzen - as hyped as I was for it (and, as it turns out, with good reason) - I waited nearly a month after launch to order it.  Part of that was lack of funds until then, but I would have waited even if I had the money.  Pre-ordering hardware without benchmarks is even worse than pre-ordering video games without reviews.

[Fonzie92]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

Except we don't know anything for certain right now.  All we have is rumor and speculation.

One should never pre-order hardware.  Even with Ryzen - as hyped as I was for it (and, as it turns out, with good reason) - I waited nearly a month after launch to order it.  Part of that was lack of funds until then, but I would have waited even if I had the money.  Pre-ordering hardware without benchmarks is even worse than pre-ordering video games without reviews.

Now that is something that is pretty damn true.  I just want this rx vega shit to end. Sick of the rumors 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It is pretty impressive how often AMD chances naming schemes for their products.

Why not just stick to a prefix that stays consistent across generations (like GTX), a numbering scheme (like <generation><performance tier, such as 1080) and then possibly a suffix for special versions (like Ti).

Surely it can't be THAT hard to do, right?

Because Nvidia never changed there's . But yea this is getting rather stupid; 4 numbers, then an X + 3/4 numbers, then 4 numbers, then R<x> + 3 numbers, then Fury/Fury X/Nano and now Vega 56/64. And that's ignoring the ATI Rage era etc and also ignoring the silly X/XTX/Ultra BS after their earlier cards that made zero sense to anyone.

[laminutederire]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because Nvidia never changed there's . But yea this is getting rather stupid; 4 numbers, then an X + 3/4 numbers, then 4 numbers, then R<x> + 3 numbers, then Fury/Fury X/Nano and now Vega 56/64. And that's ignoring the ATI Rage era etc and also ignoring the silly X/XTX/Ultra BS after their earlier cards that made zero sense to anyone.

Don't forget the Vega 64, with 64 in all caps against the smaller one not in all caps!

[zMeul]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

also ignoring the silly X/XTX/Ultra BS after their earlier cards that made zero sense to anyone.

those XL, XT, XTX versions made quite a lot of sense

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, zMeul said:

those XL, XT, XTX versions made quite a lot of sense

Not really, don't forget there were also SE, LE, GT, PRO, GTO, XL, XT PE, Ultra, XTX etc. Using those suffixes was needless when you have plenty of numbers to use.

[Guest]

Well, if you went for the air cooled graphics card, the temperatures would be much higher when overclocked, so I guess if your buy the watercooled version, your at least getting more performance in terms of clock speeds and it also allows for some extra overclocking headroom with the temperatures still staying consistently low.

 

But, then again you are paying more for the watercooled version and you would be spending lots more money on a custom waterloop for your graphics card.

 

Imagine vega in crossfire, paired with a custom watercooled loop.

[dorin]

@TheBeastPC, I don't think that will be friendly for environment and polar bears  

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Fonzie92 said:

Saving this post. Gonna reply to you in 3 days. Lol this is going to be glorious 

To be fair he makes good points.

We don't know for certain what the price nor performance will be, so it is a bit premature to judge it already. It is not looking good, but there is still a chance that AMD surprises us in some way.

I doubt they will release a card that performs like a 1080 and costs more than a 1080 Ti, even if that's what the rumors are pointing at.

 

 

3 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Their marketing for Ryzen until launch day was "40% IPC gain" launch comes around "Just kidding, 52% IPC gain over Excavator". Either something has gone horribly wrong, or they've got some trick up their sleeve.

I doubt it.

Their 40% IPC gains were taken from a slide while they were still working on Ryzen, and it was their goal. In the end they managed 52% IPC gain. But during their presentations they behaved very differently from how they are behaving right now.

They were doing side by side comparisons, they were talking about percentages, they allowed people to play with it under fairly loose conditions and so on.

With Vega they are very secretive, not talking numbers, and have only allowed one or two very strict blind tests.

 

I don't think you can compare the Ryzen launch with this at all.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Because Nvidia never changed there's . But yea this is getting rather stupid; 4 numbers, then an X + 3/4 numbers, then 4 numbers, then R<x> + 3 numbers, then Fury/Fury X/Nano and now Vega 56/64. And that's ignoring the ATI Rage era etc and also ignoring the silly X/XTX/Ultra BS after their earlier cards that made zero sense to anyone.

Well at least Nvidia have been consistent since the 400 series.

Also, we should totally go back to the older and rad naming schemes. Ultra, Turbo, Rage etc... Such cool names.

Then again, judging by the topics about Vega we might as well call that card "Vega Rage", because that's the reaction people seem to have towards it.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if Nvidia came out with the "Nvidia Turbo Titan"? It sounds rad as hell.

(That's sarcasm by the way)

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

To be fair he makes good points.

We don't know for certain what the price nor performance will be, so it is a bit premature to judge it already. It is not looking good, but there is still a chance that AMD surprises us in some way.

I doubt they will release a card that performs like a 1080 and costs more than a 1080 Ti, even if that's what the rumors are pointing at.

 

 

I doubt it.

Their 40% IPC gains were taken from a slide while they were still working on Ryzen, and it was their goal. In the end they managed 52% IPC gain. But during their presentations they behaved very differently from how they are behaving right now.

They were doing side by side comparisons, they were talking about percentages, they allowed people to play with it under fairly loose conditions and so on.

With Vega they are very secretive, not talking numbers, and have only allowed one or two very strict blind tests.

 

I don't think you can compare the Ryzen launch with this at all.

 

 

Well at least Nvidia have been consistent since the 400 series.

Also, we should totally go back to the older and rad naming schemes. Ultra, Turbo, Rage etc... Such cool names.

Then again, judging by the topics about Vega we might as well call that card "Vega Rage", because that's the reaction people seem to have towards it.

 

Wouldn't it be cool if Nvidia came out with the "Nvidia Turbo Titan"? It sounds rad as hell.

(That's sarcasm by the way)

True, there is no point pairing the new ryzen launch against vega, because the ryzen 3 chip would be significantly bottlenecked. And, why would someone want to spend heaps of money on a high end graphics card and pair it with a low end cpu, what a waste of money. I think that vega would be better optimised with a ryzen 7 chip as it would decrease the chances of it getting bottlenecked. If vega is priced higher than the 1080ti, than there is definately something wrong their in terms of pricing to performance.

[Jito463]

21 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

True, there is no point pairing the new ryzen launch against vega, because the ryzen 3 chip would be significantly bottlenecked. And, why would someone want to spend heaps of money on a high end graphics card and pair it with a low end cpu, what a waste of money. I think that vega would be better optimised with a ryzen 7 chip as it would decrease the chances of it getting bottlenecked. If vega is priced higher than the 1080ti, than there is definately something wrong their in terms of pricing to performance.

That post wasn't about pairing Vega with Ryzen 3.  I read it as simply comparing the pre-launch marketing of Ryzen to the pre-launch marketing of Vega, which is a fair assessment.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

That post wasn't about pairing Vega with Ryzen 3.  I read it as simply comparing the pre-launch marketing of Ryzen to the pre-launch marketing of Vega, which is a fair assessment.

Sorry about the misconception, I now finally reaslise what you are saying.

[VagabondWraith]

Poor Vega.

 

Its just too bad AMD recommends a 1500w power supply for it. So not only is it more expensive than a 1080 for less performance, but you have to buy a 1500w PSU to power it. 

[Guest]

Just now, VagabondWraith said:

Poor Vega.

 

Its just too bad AMD recommends a 1500w power supply for it. So not only is it more expensive than a 1080 for less performance, but you have to buy a 1500w PSU to power it. 

Wow, I never new how powerhungry this card really was.

[dexT]

7 minutes ago, VagabondWraith said:

Poor Vega.

 

Its just too bad AMD recommends a 1500w power supply for it. So not only is it more expensive than a 1080 for less performance, but you have to buy a 1500w PSU to power it. 

Dayum haha. Dual GPU?