AMD's RX 64 Launch pricing was only for "early sales"
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AlienALX
Well-known member
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I never expected AMD to kick Nvidia in the balls.
What I initially wanted Vega to be:
€550-600 for AIB partner variant
225-250W TDP
Widespread availability by June 2017
Slightly overclocked GTX 1080 in DX11 games
Heavily overclocked GTX 1080 to within 5-10% of 1080Ti in DX12 games
This is what we have:
€600-650 for reference design
300W TDP
Extremely limited availability in August 2017
Below GTX 1080 performance in DX11 games
Around overclocked GTX 1080 performance in DX12 games
Compared to others who expected AMD to beat a 1080Ti, I had rather reserved expectations. Even those weren't met.
Oh I never expected that either, I just said it would have been nice. 
Two evil empires getting their come-uppance from the same company. That sure would have made a nice story.
AMD could have had a massive hit on their hands with Vega if they kept the price in check. We all knew they couldn't compete with the 1080Ti. Anyone who assumed that was dreaming. If they had a 1080Ti competitor, AMD would have been shouting that from the rooftops, instead of deceptive little Doom-based performance leaks with no solid info. You could smell foul from the start.
Two evil empires getting their come-uppance from the same company. That sure would have made a nice story. AMD could have had a massive hit on their hands with Vega if they kept the price in check. We all knew they couldn't compete with the 1080Ti. Anyone who assumed that was dreaming. If they had a 1080Ti competitor, AMD would have been shouting that from the rooftops, instead of deceptive little Doom-based performance leaks with no solid info. You could smell foul from the start.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I'm not going to be a peni and do the Captain Obvious bs but yeah, I knew it would be what it was. I called nearly everything really. That was from a mountain of BS, but a lot of it rang true.
I think I started to have serious doubts when my mate in Taiwan told me that they had only just ordered the prototype PCBs. Apparently Vega was going to launch in March, was it? and they had only just ordered the PCBs ffs. (X2 PCBs btw..)
Next time a GPU is coming out find the thread on OCUK and have a good read fella. There are some incredibly clever chaps on there (DrunkenMaster, he waffles on a bit but he knows his onions).
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Tbf though it's not that bad compared to a 1080 performance wise. It's pretty close.
Vega 56 is still the only thing worth getting. It's a fantastic card. Power consumption is high but at least it's better than a Fury X.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
In the US the prices will be the same. 1070s are a lot last I checked
Although I can't find a 56 anywhere on any site
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I do appreciate what you're saying, but I find it hard to trust random chaps on t'internet. I doubted the things you were saying, but I also saw the logic. I just don't like abiding to ideas before I see a final product. Now that we have a final product, the judgements I had reserved are coming out.
But in DX11 games (apart from Res Evil and COD) it's marginally behind or only just a match for a FE 1080. Even in Prey, a Gaming Evolved title, Vega 64 can only just match a FE 1080 at 1440p. In other games a 64 can only beat a 1080 if it's a Founder's Edition. Add a custom board and let GPU Boost 3.0 works its stuff and AMD is behind again. We know that GCN does not scale well with overclocking so AIB partner cards won't improve performance like it does for Nvidia. I'm not saying Vega 64 is not competitive in overall power. It is not competitive in price, drivers, availability (that's a given since it's only just released), TDP, and options (again a given but could stay that way as it did with Fury).
Vega 56 is a much more attractive buy, but the 1070 could easily receive a price drop and suddenly become the more attractive buy. And for those who have Fury, Fury Nano, or Fury X might not be interested in the 56 as it doesn't offer very much in the way of more performance.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
@Angry
Depending on where you look, the 64 is either overall faster, tied, or slower than a 1080. I'd honestly split the difference and can it tied with a 1080. However the price and power consumption and the fact it is a reference card, means it's a flop.
56 though while some sites say it's slower or tied with a 1070, majority of everything I've read on it says it's flat out faster 90% of the time and loses in games where Nvidia has far more optimization from Devs(like Ubisoft). But again it's power hungry. It's thermals are ok but noise is bad. But reference card. AMD have once again themselves in the foot with a slow launch. They need to give there AIBs at least 4 months in advance to design something for launch. They can't keep having these crappy reference card launches when the coolers are crap because there cards are power hungry. If they did, it would be a much different launch. Much better actually, but still the 56 would be the only one worth getting.
Depending on where you look, the 64 is either overall faster, tied, or slower than a 1080. I'd honestly split the difference and can it tied with a 1080. However the price and power consumption and the fact it is a reference card, means it's a flop.
56 though while some sites say it's slower or tied with a 1070, majority of everything I've read on it says it's flat out faster 90% of the time and loses in games where Nvidia has far more optimization from Devs(like Ubisoft). But again it's power hungry. It's thermals are ok but noise is bad. But reference card. AMD have once again themselves in the foot with a slow launch. They need to give there AIBs at least 4 months in advance to design something for launch. They can't keep having these crappy reference card launches when the coolers are crap because there cards are power hungry. If they did, it would be a much different launch. Much better actually, but still the 56 would be the only one worth getting.
Korreborg
Member
The placement of 2 cards "between" 1070 and 1080 just shows that Vega does not have the power to thoroughly beat the 1080, but they still wanted to beat the 1070 = The cards had to be pretty close.
Haven't had the time to watch a ton of videos, but gamers nexus have played with OC on the 56, and it's locked at 300W no matter what he tries = AMD had to make sure that it will not get near the 64 in performance.
Haven't had the time to watch a ton of videos, but gamers nexus have played with OC on the 56, and it's locked at 300W no matter what he tries = AMD had to make sure that it will not get near the 64 in performance.
MacLeod
New member
The rumors from Vega were all over the place for a long time. People were calling everything from total flop to 1080 Ti killer. Somebody had to be right so I wouldn't necessarily bestow the title of "great prognosticator" on anybody to quick.
That said, I do believe that we kinda knew what was coming. Towards Vega's release more and more rumors and leaked benchmarks were showing what it really was in a little slower than a 1080. It's been this way the last couple launches from AMD if I remember right.
Nail...head. If the RX64 was about $50 cheaper then it would be worthy buying. But right now the cheapest RX64 on Newegg is $600!!!!!!! The cheapest 1080 is $510. THAT right there is what makes the RX64 a flop in my opinion. If the 64's were going for $450'ish, that would be a good deal. What is that saying? There are no bad GPU's, just bad prices.
The_Governour
New member
After seeing some videos it seems that the 56 is the best card. With some nice OC it nips the heals of the 1080 - a great thing.
The 64 is not such a obvious buy vs the 1080. Only if your a die hard fan of AMD and u have a free sync monitor.
The 64 is not such a obvious buy vs the 1080. Only if your a die hard fan of AMD and u have a free sync monitor.
MacLeod
New member
Anybody see this video from Hardware Unboxed where he claims OC3D "fabricated" this story based solely on a quote from a forum member? WTF?!?!
Am I missing something? The article states they got the quote from the retailer Overclockers UK. There is only 1 "Gibbo" on these forums and he hasn't posted since 2013.
https://youtu.be/vnUW9-aYtx4
I commented that the source was actually from Overclockers and NOT a forum member and he did correct it in the comment section but I still think that's a bit shady.
Am I missing something? The article states they got the quote from the retailer Overclockers UK. There is only 1 "Gibbo" on these forums and he hasn't posted since 2013.
https://youtu.be/vnUW9-aYtx4
I commented that the source was actually from Overclockers and NOT a forum member and he did correct it in the comment section but I still think that's a bit shady.
Last edited:
WYP
News Guru
It is not based solely on the quotes of Gibbo, we have been in contact with other retail staff who have confirmed the same thing.
AMD only supplied limited quantities of "Standalone" Vega products and they sold out within minutes. Now the GPU is only available in bundles. More expensive bundles.
Right now AMD has not made any indication to us or retailers that they plan on releasing more standalone Vega products. Many stores have reported that the price was launch only, subsidised by AMD to give early adopters a great deal.
We contacted AMD several times before the article went live and they have had plenty of time to respond to this.
I can see now that Hardware unboxed has also removed his video on the matter...
Pricing could decrease again in the future if AMD releases more Standalone Vega GPUs, though at this time AMD has delivered no indications that they will be.
MacLeod
New member
I made that very point in the comment that he responded to, a quote about MSRP's from a big wig at a pretty major retailer like Overclockers is definitely a valid source. I just took issue with the guy crapping all over OC3D as "fake news" and comparing y'all to WCCFTech!
Good! It was a BS video. The guy called out OC3D for "fabricating" a story when that was in fact EXACTLY what he was doing! You listed your source right there at the top of the page as Overclockers, not some random forum member! Apparently the guy didn't bother to read the article he was taking a dump on.
The video is down, the people have been heard. Don't mess with the OC3D crew, we have eyes everywhere.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Seconded. He's been in the game for years and he's bloody good at it.
You can use him for info, you just need to learn to dodge the sales patter crap he comes out with sometimes.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, the 1080 FE is about tied with Vega 64, but that's the FE edition. Get a card that boosts to 1950Mhz with an 11Ghz memory OC out of the box and the 1080 is faster overall for roughly the same price.
The 1070 is generally 1-3% slower than a Vega 56, from what I can see. That's solid; nothing special but still solid. It would be a good upgrade from an R9 290. Anything after that (Fiji) and I don't think it would be worth it. Of course, if $500 is the actual price for Vega 56, that's appalling value. And Vega 64 at $600 would be even worse. I can't see any selling to enthusiast gamers who aren't blindly brand-loyal. I'm loyal to AMD because I like them and because of Freesync. But if they screw up enough times then I'll jump ship.
I made that very point in the comment that he responded to, a quote about MSRP's from a big wig at a pretty major retailer like Overclockers is definitely a valid source. I just took issue with the guy crapping all over OC3D as "fake news" and comparing y'all to WCCFTech!
Good! It was a BS video. The guy called out OC3D for "fabricating" a story when that was in fact EXACTLY what he was doing! You listed your source right there at the top of the page as Overclockers, not some random forum member! Apparently the guy didn't bother to read the article he was taking a dump on.
The video is down, the people have been heard. Don't mess with the OC3D crew, we have eyes everywhere.
Drama seems to follow that chap as well as a few other YouTubers.
