AMD's RX Vega has been compared to a GTX 1080 Ti in a "blind" gaming test

[AlienALX]

So you guys would deliberately buy something that cost the same, but was slower? Because, and I sort of quote "It's all I need".

Then you guys buy them.

If these cards were cheaper than I have a very good feeling they are going to be? then fine. You could live with all of their foibles. Me? I will still take every last shake of power I can get out of my cash.

And, I would imagine, pretty much the whole world will do that also, and these will not sell and end up like Fury X.

Because no matter how you market something and how hard you try a turd is a turd.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

So you guys would deliberately buy something that cost the same, but was slower? Because, and I sort of quote "It's all I need".

Then you guys buy them.

If these cards were cheaper than I have a very good feeling they are going to be? then fine. You could live with all of their foibles. Me? I will still take every last shake of power I can get out of my cash.

And, I would imagine, pretty much the whole world will do that also, and these will not sell and end up like Fury X.

Because no matter how you market something and how hard you try a turd is a turd.

No, I wouldn't do that. But it's not as black and white as that.

A GTX 1080 currently costs anywhere from £500-600 and performs at 100%.

A GTX 1080Ti currently costs anywhere from £680-800 and performs at 120%.

If the Vega GPU comes in at £450-550 and performs at 110% in DX12/Vulkan games, that's not a failure. That's solid value. If it comes in at less power than that, that's disappointing, but I think I could live with it considering how tied in to Freesync I am. I won't be ecstatic, but I don't need to be to enjoy gaming and enjoy hardware. Hence my point.

As for power consumption, if the Frontier Edition is anything to go by, it's not looking good. I was hoping for an efficiency improvement over the Fury X, but again if the FE is anything to go by then AMD have actually receded even with a shrink down to 14nm and with HBM2. But if Vega comes in at the same power consumption as a Fury X then that is not a failure. A Fury X only draws a little more than a 980Ti, and an overclocked 1080Ti can draw a huge amount of power.

For temperatures, a 1080Ti is amazingly efficient. It can be overclocked to the max (without LN2) using a good air cooler. That's an amazing achievement. I doubt AMD will be able to do the same. That could be its biggest downfall. The top-tier card could actually demand liquid, which would be a shame. But so did the 980Ti and that wasn't a failure.

"Because no matter how you market something and how hard you try a turd is a turd." - Says the guy who clearly doesn't know what a turd is. Would you consider the Fury X a turd? I wouldn't. You own one and I own its little brother. It's done me very well over the last two years. In a few modern games it beats a higher priced GPU. Yet you compare the Fury X's failures to Vega. If Vega is a turd, so is the Fury X. But is the Fury X really a turd? It's not brilliant, but that doesn't make it a turd. These extremes confuse me, where if it doesn't beat the competition, it's sh*t. I don't want to live in those extremes. I'd rather judge something on its merits and decide for myself what is right for me.

So, no matter what you say, a turd is not a turd if it's not a ruddy turd.

 

[AlienALX]

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/ocuk...dr5x-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-21c-ok.html

£449. The Vega uses 100w more and is set to cost more.

Fury X wasn't a turd but it wasn't anywhere near as good as the 980Ti and it cost the same. Yes, I really hated Nvidia that much (well, not *that* much)

Vega is set to cost up to £700.

Hot, noisy, power hungry, expensive = turd. Sorry, there's no other way around it. Let's say it's as fast as a 1080, yet suffers from all of the problems I have laid out, why on earth would you buy one?

They're screwed. Nvidia have been making Pascal hay for over a year. They've charged up to £750 for a piece of tiny mid range silicon so if they have to drop the price now (and can, down to £400 or less) they will. AMD need to recoup costs for their big bloated die and their HBM2 and interposers and god knows what else they have wasted their cash on and like Fury X they are going to need to get that money back, unless they sell them at a loss.

7970 was a turd but AMD got away with it (it was FAR hotter and more power hungry than the 680). 290/x stock was a total turd. It was a nightmare, but it was cheap. Fury X was a turd. Slower and the same price as a 980Ti and you had to have a rad on it. Vega is set to be their biggest turd yet, IMO. It has to be expensive and it can't even outright beat Nvidia's mid range card.

When you see the price you will understand.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

OK. I'll leave it at that.

 

[AlienALX]

How many other people do you know with Fury cards fella? How many other people other than me do you know who has a Fury X, or bought one at launch?

Every one bought the 980Ti. It was a total whitewash, and Fury X was a good card as you say but the problems it had stopped it from selling.

 

[Dicehunter]

How many other people do you know with Fury cards fella? How many other people other than me do you know who has a Fury X, or bought one at launch?

Every one bought the 980Ti. It was a total whitewash, and Fury X was a good card as you say but the problems it had stopped it from selling.

I had a Fury X for around 3 months, It leaked out of one of it's tubes so had to RMA it, Replaced with a 980 Ti and instantly saw a big performance jump AND got £100 refunded from the Fury X which went towards an SSD.

The biggest mistake AMD ever made was buying ATI IMO, Too many eggs in 1 basket.

 

[russler]

Hot, noisy, power hungry, expensive = turd. Sorry, there's no other way around it. Let's say it's as fast as a 1080, yet suffers from all of the problems I have laid out, why on earth would you buy one?

im guessing its why they are pushing the freesync side of things Hard.

 

[The_Governour]

How many other people do you know with Fury cards fella? How many other people other than me do you know who has a Fury X, or bought one at launch?

Every one bought the 980Ti. It was a total whitewash, and Fury X was a good card as you say but the problems it had stopped it from selling.

I had one and it was good, with Vulkan was nearly as good as a 1070. But I got my second hand and it waz never as good as a 980ti, it was more competing with the 980.

Buying it new, was a total Fail, but a year later or more then it was OK. Nothing more.

 

[AlienALX]

I had one and it was good, with Vulkan was nearly as good as a 1070. But I got my second hand and it waz never as good as a 980ti, it was more competing with the 980.

Buying it new, was a total Fail, but a year later or more then it was OK. Nothing more.

Indeed. It wasn't a bad card, it was just ruined by AMD's choices. If they had made it use GDDR and got the price down (that AIO must have cost a fortune) then it could have been as successful as the 290, even though the stock 290 was awful. People still bought it though, Titan power for much less cash. So yeah, bit of a turd but not because of the tech just AMD's bad decisions.

I've been reading another forum and apparently Fury X went EOL very quickly too. You would think if it had done well it would still be available new.

Vega won't be a bad card. Performance looks good. But you watch, it will be marred by prices, availability (yes, Fury X was too, remember those interposer problems?) heat and so on. None of those things alone will make it a turd, it's just that there is already too many of them even on their £1000 pro card.

BTW I also got my Fury X cheap. Very cheap, one week after launch (£100 off RRP). That is mainly why I bought one. Yeah I wanted to stick it to Nvidia but I hardly helped AMD by buying a second hand GPU.