RX VEGA Prices Confirmed

[AnonymousGuy]

This is the most apt youtube video to describe the situation:

 

"Don't tell me this is Zune bad"

[Kenoxabe]

If this performs above 1080 and lower than 1080 Ti for $100 cheaper, I'd happily sell my rx 480 + ps4 pro to upgrade to it and buy a Freesync monitor.

[Dackzy]

I might be getting one of these cards, if one of them perform between a 1080 and 1080ti, but cost about the same as a 1080, then I am getting one, plus some of those discounts are very nice.

[Valentyn]

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

For the first time AMD tells us directly about RX Vega 64 performance

https://youtu.be/uxVzDQtHzqo?t=2m37s

 

31% faster than Fury X

12% faster than the Vega FE

 

(keep in mind that this would be a comparison to fully enabled FE. Currently some things are turned off in FE as confirmed by AMD engineers to Gamers Nexus).

 

That performance increase would have been fine a year ago. It would have slapped around the 1080 on price to performance, and a year later ( now ) would likely have pulled ahead with driver updates.

Sadly, I can't support AMD here. Price to performance is worse than the 1080Ti at the moment.

 

They want roughly £600-650 for the liquid cooled Vega? Well Amazon has an EVGA SC BE 1080ti for £693 right now.

 

I've been waiting since Polaris rumors and hype to replace my Fury X, which has since died ( of waiting ). So NoVideo I go again.

[Bananasplit_00]

Ok well Sweclockers were wrong as hell lol. Well I got a bit on the WAN show for it

[VinLAURiA]

A bit out of my price bracket, unfortunately; I was hoping to see at least one model more comparable to a GTX 1060 or Polaris cards in price.

 

I'm hoping the Vega Nano will be more in line with my budget, but who knows when that'll come out, and they might even be on Navi by that time.

[Shimejii]

Like i said in my other post about vega leaks, if they charge more then 500$ for this product, it will be a guaranteed failure like the Fury X was. You cannot charge the same if not more money for a similar performing product almost a year after it came out. You are bound to fail at that point. This was a poor marketing decision by AMD, What a fucking joke. We will wait and see the performance numbers by reviewers, but from the ones we got from the AMD GPU guy on the leaked Firestrike benchmark, this is not looking very good for AMD.

 

Do not be blinded by your fanboyism, if you honestly think a GPU that performs less or equal to a 1080 that's priced equal to it or  even more to it is a good value, please do not try spewing that crap here. AMD Has to price it less then whats currently on the market to EVEN HAVE A CHANCE to get any decent amount of revenue. You fanboys are not going to be nearly enough to meet the profits they have to get in order to be successful. 

[ravenshrike]

5 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Like i said in my other post about vega leaks, if they charge more then 500$ for this product, it will be a guaranteed failure like the Fury X was. You cannot charge the same if not more money for a similar performing product almost a year after it came out. You are bound to fail at that point. This was a poor marketing decision by AMD, What a fucking joke. We will wait and see the performance numbers by reviewers, but from the ones we got from the AMD GPU guy on the leaked Firestrike benchmark, this is not looking very good for AMD.

 

Do not be blinded by your fanboyism, if you honestly think a GPU that performs less or equal to a 1080 that's priced equal to it or  even more to it is a good value, please do not try spewing that crap here. AMD Has to price it less then whats currently on the market to EVEN HAVE A CHANCE to get any decent amount of revenue. You fanboys are not going to be nearly enough to meet the profits they have to get in order to be successful. 

Similar, except with a significantly narrower framerate band. This means that gaming on it is is smoother than on a 1080. As I don't play FPS's competitively, that is much more pleasing to me than a marginally higher framerate that comes from the 1080. I would love for someone to run a proper double blind test on a college campus with 100-200 participants using 8 systems and 10 games. A 1700/Vega 64 Air no adaptive sync, a 1700/1080FE no AS, a 7700k/1080 FE no AS, a 7700k/Vega 64 Air no AS, and then their adaptive sync counterparts. Unfortunately that would cost a significant chunk of change.

[Shimejii]

Just now, ravenshrike said:

Similar, except with a significantly narrower framerate band. This means that gaming on it is is smoother than on a 1080. As I don't play FPS's competitively, that is much more pleasing to me than a marginally higher framerate that comes from the 1080. I would love for someone to run a proper double blind test on a college campus with 100-200 participants using 8 systems and 10 games. A 1700/Vega 64 Air no adaptive sync, a 1700/1080FE no AS, a 7700k/1080 FE no AS, a 7700k/Vega 64 Air no AS, and then their adaptive sync counterparts. Unfortunately that would cost a significant chunk of change.

Do you have any proof that is the case at all other then wishful thinking? Fury x didnt exactly do that in the Maxwell lineup, and is almost always a CPU issue rather then a GPU issue with 1% and .1% lows being consistent. GPU's tend to become the factor when they approach thermal limits and throttle, Better coolers solve that issue.

[rn8686]

4 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Do you have any proof that is the case at all other then wishful thinking? Fury x didnt exactly do that in the Maxwell lineup, and is almost always a CPU issue rather then a GPU issue with 1% and .1% lows being consistent. GPU's tend to become the factor when they approach thermal limits and throttle, Better coolers solve that issue.

No reviews as of yet, but we do have some numbers from AMD that would indicate this. 

https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series

[Shimejii]

1 minute ago, rn8686 said:

No reviews as of yet, but we do have some numbers from AMD that would indicate this. 

https://videocardz.com/71430/amd-announces-radeon-rx-vega-64-series

If you trust these results worth anything more then a grain of salt you are sadly mistaken. The numbers mean nothing without any information given about them, test info,and what the variables were. NEVER trust the manufacturers benchmark for this kind of advertisement. 

[xAcid9]

This is sad if it's true.

 

 

[rn8686]

5 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

If you trust these results worth anything more then a grain of salt you are sadly mistaken. The numbers mean nothing without any information given about them, test info,and what the variables were. NEVER trust the manufacturers benchmark for this kind of advertisement. 

Well, we do have proof. I as said, just an indication of the fact that it will probably have better minimums. 

 

[ravenshrike]

3 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Do you have any proof that is the case at all other then wishful thinking? Fury x didnt exactly do that in the Maxwell lineup, and is almost always a CPU issue rather then a GPU issue with 1% and .1% lows being consistent. GPU's tend to become the factor when they approach thermal limits and throttle, Better coolers solve that issue.

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83751?return=node%2F68061

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83731?return=node%2F68060

 

At 1440P a stock Vega FE has a significantly narrower band across the majority of the test as well as higher lows and lower highs. However the bands starts to reverse at 4k

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83756?return=node%2F68061

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83736?return=node%2F68060

 

The reversal is not nearly as extreme howeve. Unfortunately they did not run that test at 1080p where I imagine the variance would be even greater. Now, it is possible that RX Vega will significantly alter this tendency, but I doubt it.

 

 

[Shimejii]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83751?return=node%2F68061

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83731?return=node%2F68060

 

At 1440P a stock Vega FE has a significantly narrower band across the majority of the test as well as higher lows and lower highs. However the bands starts to reverse at 4k

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83756?return=node%2F68061

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83736?return=node%2F68060

 

The reversal is not nearly as extreme howeve. Unfortunately they did not run that test at 1080p where I imagine the variance would be even greater. Now, it is possible that RX Vega will significantly alter this tendency, but I doubt it.

 

 

The graph isnt usefull without other information to me. Are they reference nvidia cards, what are the fan curves, whats are the temps of the cards, are they throttling due to this. These graphs can be helpful with more information, but without it its just a few benchmarks. With this information you can infer that the Vega Frontier would be a decent minuum framerate card, but i cannot say for sure without knowing the other results from thermals, fan curves and other things that would remedy and help fix some of the spikes. 

[LAwLz]

It's pretty funny seeing /r/AMD do such a 180 turn.

It went from

Quote

 

Vega Fe is a compute card! Vega RX will perform about 50% better! Just wait until Tile Based Rasterization is enabled!

 

to

Quote

Vega is a piece of shit!

in like 2 weeks time.

 

If it performs like a 1080 then I don't see when people would buy it.

Not even the bundle seems that good because of the really bad monitor selection. I mean, sure if you were planning on buying a Vega card, a Ryzen CPU as well as a ~1000 dollar monitor then you are getting a really good deal, but I suspect that the amount of people looking for all of those things at the same time is fairly low.

 

Reviews will be very interesting to say the least. Too bad we are several weeks away from the NDA lifting, and like a month or more away from the card actually launching (even longer if you want a version with an aftermarket cooler?).

[ravenshrike]

Just now, Shimejii said:

The graph isnt usefull without other information to me. Are they reference nvidia cards, what are the fan curves, whats are the temps of the cards, are they throttling due to this. These graphs can be helpful with more information, but without it its just a few benchmarks. With this information you can infer that the Vega Frontier would be a decent minuum framerate card, but i cannot say for sure without knowing the other results from thermals, fan curves and other things that would remedy and help fix some of the spikes. 

There's also the GN review where they undervolt the card to remove thermal throttling.

 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2990-vega-frontier-edition-undervolt-benchmarks-improve-performance

[xAcid9]

23 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83751?return=node%2F68061

https://www.pcper.com/image/view/83731?return=node%2F68060

Vega graph is slightly thicker to my eyes.

[Jito463]

19 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Too bad we are several weeks away from the NDA lifting, and like a month or more away from the card actually launching (even longer if you want a version with an aftermarket cooler?).

The September launch date is for the AIB cards.  I believe we will see reference cards available in a couple weeks, just probably not in very high quantities.

[ravenshrike]

10 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The September launch date is for the AIB cards.  I believe we will see reference cards available in a couple weeks, just probably not in very high quantities.

64's purportedly by the 10th with the 56 on the 30th(31st).

[VerticalDiscussions]

The pack deal is somewhat a killer for me

 

I dont want 200$ of a monitor ill never get, i dont want 100$ off a CPU + mobo combination i wont be getting, but hey free games xD.

 

I highly doubt this would even be applicable in Portugal, so this card launch is starting to seem so disappointing .-.

[ivan134]

16 hours ago, Valentyn said:

 

I saw it on wccft's comment section haha.

 

Yes that's I where I see them too

[System Error Message]

looking at vega fe and its performance in games, i expect the vega 64 to perform better in games, due to driver optimisation for gaming. So you're looking at 1080 TI performance.

 

Shader to shader nvidia werent equal but looking at this however tells a totally different story. On my laptop, the gtx 1070 clocks up to 1911mhz during heaven benchmark whereas AMD says their GPU clocks up to 1800mhz on the vega fe. My titan xp clocks higher. I'll definitely be getting the vega fe as the unrestricted architecture would help a lot for both compute and game dev while not having to buy a tesla for the full architecture. AMD usually strips less from their consumer cards than nvidia does 

 

The vega FE is already out and like nvidia they have 2 versions of the architecture. By cutting back on fp64 they can focus on fp32 which is what games use. So there are actually 2 teslas, 1 good fp64 performance, and 1 with bad fp64 performance but much better fp32 and lower power draw.

 

Im glad that AMD is bringing something decent though late. Just remember that its not AMD who set the market prices, the market does. AMD only sells at an agreed price and sets an RRP same with nvidia. I hope you can buy straight from AMD like you can with nvidia. In the case of AMD, not restricting is better and are giving you the full chip (more than nvidia if compared to their consumer) at a competitive price. As long as the hardware turns out to not fail prematurely like it has the past few iterations i will be switching to AMD.

 

None of the GPUs i have since the gts 250 or HD 2000 series have failed yet, however all AMD GPUs i had past GCN (7970) has failed. So for me reliability and full architecture are more important than performance.

[Agosto]

3 minutes ago, System Error Message said:

looking at vega fe and its performance in games, i expect the vega 64 to perform better in games, due to driver optimisation for gaming. So you're looking at 1080 TI performance.

AMD slides clearly show it's comparable to a 1080, not 1080 Ti.

I'm also afraid RX Vega will have lower average fps, looking at most FE reviews (minimums on par with 1080, lower average)

[jawong2000]

When exactly is this stupid thing launching?