Quick News

[AlienALX]

As a Danish politician said the other day. "only fools argues from exceptions"
Just because something happened once in history, don't argue from that fact. Look at the 99 other times.
Beeing on par with a 1080 is still a fail, it's over a year to late.

Being on par with a 1080 is not a fail. Charging £499 for it is a fail, which is what the rumoured price is supposed to be. That's only about £30 less than the 1080 and it eats 100w more.

 

[NeverBackDown]

As a Danish politician said the other day. "only fools argues from exceptions"
Just because something happened once in history, don't argue from that fact. Look at the 99 other times.
Beeing on par with a 1080 is still a fail, it's over a year to late.

It is not an exception. I am not making any excuses. It's the same situation right now.

 

[Dicehunter]

It is not an exception. I am not making any excuses. It's the same situation right now.

It's gonna suck dude, It's gonna suck hard !

 

[AngryGoldfish]

Here's a thought:

If the 1080Ti didn't exist, or even the Titan XP/Xp, in their current forms. As in, the 1080Ti was only slightly faster than the 1080 and the Titan was slightly faster again. Would Vega suck? A 1080Ti that is 15% faster than a 1080 that costs $700 and a Titan that is 20% faster that costs $1200. Would Vega suck? If Vega is $600 (very possible) and is 5-10% faster than a 1080, would that be considered a failure?

I personally don't think so. I think Vega is going to fail because of Nvidia, not because of AMD, though they are to blame as well. Alien and others (I'm including myself here) are criticising AMD's decisions, but I think it has more to do with the competition being so much better at the game.

So here's a thought:

Vega doesn't suck. Pascal is just too good.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

So here's a thought:

Vega doesn't suck. Pascal is just too good.

The end result is the same, and it's the end result that matters, not the way one looks at the whole.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

The end result is the same, and it's the end result that matters, not the way one looks at the whole.

But it does matter. If you stop comparing Vega against Pascal, AMD is seen in a different light. If AMD is seen in a different light, hype subsides, as it should, and people stop hoping for a miracle. Other people read this forum; newcomers and newbies. We're the ones that have hyped Vega to be something it might never have been. Why? Because of Nvidia. Also because of AMD but mostly because of Nvidia. The end product might be the same, but the popularity of it changes and thus the popularity of AMD changes. It comes back to the Mind Share thing. The more times we moan about Vega the less likely people are to buy it and thus the situation worsens until AMD's Zen for the GPU is released. Will that be Navi? We don't know.

 

[Excalabur50]

But it does matter. If you stop comparing Vega against Pascal, AMD is seen in a different light. If AMD is seen in a different light, hype subsides, as it should, and people stop hoping for a miracle. Other people read this forum; newcomers and newbies. We're the ones that have hyped Vega to be something it might never have been. Why? Because of Nvidia. Also because of AMD but mostly because of Nvidia. The end product might be the same, but the popularity of it changes and thus the popularity of AMD changes. It comes back to the Mind Share thing. The more times we moan about Vega the less likely people are to buy it and thus the situation worsens until AMD's Zen for the GPU is released. Will that be Navi? We don't know.

Comparing AMD to AMD isn't real world dude, there is competition, sure it's better than their older stuff but the same can be said for all companies relatively speaking of course, and they are getting spanked

 

[mb67]

As a Danish politician said the other day. "only fools argues from exceptions"
Just because something happened once in history, don't argue from that fact. Look at the 99 other times.
Beeing on par with a 1080 is still a fail, it's over a year to late.

By that logic, then nobody should release anything because it isn't the absolute top of the heap.

 

[Korreborg]

By that logic, then nobody should release anything because it isn't the absolute top of the heap.

The logic here is they have hinted top of the heap performance. Nvidia have sold tons of 1070 and 1080 in the last year, and ALOT of 1080 because of the constant waiting for Vega. = Fail for AMD. Even if the card is good enough. The people that needs to buy the card, have already bought something else. And only the core AMD buyer is left.

And in all these talks, nobody talks about Nvidia's next move. Lets say RX Vega hits marked. It's 5-10% better than 1080. It costs 600$.
But it still have HBM2, so Nvidia drops the 1070 - 1080 price = win for consumer but BAD for AMD

 

[AngryGoldfish]

Comparing AMD to AMD isn't real world dude, there is competition, sure it's better than their older stuff but the same can be said for all companies relatively speaking of course, and they are getting spanked

It's true that this is all tied to relativity. No matter how you spin it Vega will be more powerful than Fiji, and just because that is so it does not mean Vega will be a success. However the idea of comparing Vega against Nvidia's flagship isn't doing AMD or consumers any favours. They are not getting spanked, not in the way you are suggesting. The card is not released yet. We don't know its pricing or its final performance levels. We know that Polaris and Fiji favours DX12 well, but as we've seen recently Vega favours it even more so, meaning the gap between Nvidia and AMD in those fields could widen once again. As Jim from AdoredTV pointed out in his most recent upload, Vega is already matching a GTX 1080 in an ancient benchmark that has always favoured high clock speeds (Nvidia) and DX11 (Nvidia). I think it's wrong to suggest that within a year Vega 10 will beat a 1080Ti, but I think beating a 1080 is all that Vega was supposed to do. That is the bigger market.

I'll say this again: Back in late 2016 when Vega was properly announced, I wanted a card that matched a 1080 in DX11 games but easily beat it in DX12 games for $600. That is likely what we're going to get, and it's what I asked for. However that has changed since then. Why? Because of Nvidia. Yet somehow everyone is blaming AMD. The attitude is the issue. The attitude is what I'm talking about, not economics or business. People are blaming AMD for a poor card when all it is is late. Our attitude partially helps shape the market and the value of Vega. If we go back to what we originally wanted and were more conservative with our estimations, suddenly AMD is seen in a different light. Perspective is what I'm talking about. The issue then goes back to availability, AMD's biggest failing. Vega has taken too long.

Now of course, that then goes back to relativity. If AMD released Vega two years from now would I be saying the same thing? No. That's unreasonable. But six months too late is not unreasonable to say what I'm saying. It's reasonable for consumers to buy the competition, but not to accuse AMD of failing.

 

[AlienALX]

So here's a thought:

Vega doesn't suck. Pascal is just too good.

That is a warming thought. Sadly it's also a warming tech, and uses ridonkulous amounts of power.

Do you know what I see as the biggest problem for Vega? Over the past couple of years CPUs have used so little power (and GPUs too) that a lot of people have built rigs with 450/500W PSUs. Not only that but PSUs have shot up in price. You are now looking at over £50 for a decent 500W unit. In fact, no, more than that. About £80 for something truly decent.

Then you have a GPU coming out that uses over 300W and 100w more than a 1080. So that means for many that they would need to weigh up their power reqs and maybe buy a new PSU.

Which is a bit daft.. AMD have rumoured $499 which is £499 or worse with the current climate. Just checked and you can get a 1080 for £518 right now (Jetstream).

Why would you save £19 and then have to put up with the thermals and power use of the Vega?

Power has always been a massive call of debate on any hardware

People only started getting really interested in it since the I7 920 came out. And those things (and chips thereafter) used a ton of power. The 950 IIRC was 140w stock. They also got really hot too.

So yeah, since Sandy (and the enormous drop in power reqs since) people are hot on that (pardon the awful pun lol) and 100w is a country mile more power than the 1080.

 

[AngryGoldfish]

That is a warming thought. Sadly it's also a warming tech, and uses ridonkulous amounts of power.

Do you know what I see as the biggest problem for Vega? Over the past couple of years CPUs have used so little power (and GPUs too) that a lot of people have built rigs with 450/500W PSUs. Not only that but PSUs have shot up in price. You are now looking at over £50 for a decent 500W unit. In fact, no, more than that. About £80 for something truly decent.

Then you have a GPU coming out that uses over 300W and 100w more than a 1080. So that means for many that they would need to weigh up their power reqs and maybe buy a new PSU.

Which is a bit daft.. AMD have rumoured $499 which is £499 or worse with the current climate. Just checked and you can get a 1080 for £518 right now (Jetstream).

Why would you save £19 and then have to put up with the thermals and power use of the Vega?

Power has always been a massive call of debate on any hardware

People only started getting really interested in it since the I7 920 came out. And those things (and chips thereafter) used a ton of power. The 950 IIRC was 140w stock. They also got really hot too.

So yeah, since Sandy (and the enormous drop in power reqs since) people are hot on that (pardon the awful pun lol) and 100w is a country mile more power than the 1080.

We don't know final power consumption details or temperatures. While the Frontier Edition is the best place to start, it is just that, a start. As we've seen with Polaris, temperatures and power consumption can dramatically be decreased by undervolting and with improvements to the silicon. Polaris was always an efficient architecture, but maybe AMD rushed it out with high clock speeds and 'better to be safe than sorry' voltages. Using Radeon Chill and WattMan you could reach 1060 levels of efficiency. While this is not an excuse per say, it does detail the potential of Polaris and in turn the potential... potential of Vega. If AMD are rushing it out at 1600Mhz and want it to be stable they might be cranking voltages and power delivery to the max, but with the right silicon you might be able to drop it right down without dramatically decreasing performance. This is just optimistic stipulation of course because we don't know, and also it would suck to have to manually do that if you want an ITX AMD system. Either way, I don't see it being a huge issue. Most consumers have at least 550W PSU's and I can't see them being incapable of running Vega. It can run an overclocked 1080Ti and that draws more power than a stock Fury X and about as much as Vega FE. Besides who is paying $600 for a graphics card and £50 a PSU? There are definitely people out there doing that, but I don't think it's a huge demographic and could be an issue with Nvidia hardware as well.

Edit: Actually, I take that back. FE is drawing too much power for a 550W according to Gamers Nexus tests.

 

[Tolemac]

Just checked and you can get a 1080 for £518 right now (Jetstream).

Yup the same place Bonkers and myself got ours for £425 in May lol

 

[AlienALX]

Yup the same place Bonkers and myself got ours for £425 in May lol

Mining has pushed the prices back up. Which sucks, because the only place you can get reasonable £ per performance is the 1070 and above.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Mining has pushed the prices back up. Which sucks, because the only place you can get reasonable £ per performance is the 1070 and above.

It's agreed then; we don't like miners.

 

[Tolemac]

It's agreed then; we don't like miners.

Especially the small Dwarfs

 

[mb67]

The logic here is they have hinted top of the heap performance. Nvidia have sold tons of 1070 and 1080 in the last year, and ALOT of 1080 because of the constant waiting for Vega. = Fail for AMD. Even if the card is good enough. The people that needs to buy the card, have already bought something else. And only the core AMD buyer is left.

And in all these talks, nobody talks about Nvidia's next move. Lets say RX Vega hits marked. It's 5-10% better than 1080. It costs 600$.
But it still have HBM2, so Nvidia drops the 1070 - 1080 price = win for consumer but BAD for AMD

Have they, or is it media/fan expectation?

 

[AngryGoldfish]

 

[WYP]

Remember guys, this is a quick news thread. If you want to create a proper discussion you should make a full thread on it.

 

[TheF34RChannel]

Xeon Scalable Processor “Skylake-SP” detailed

NDA ends today at 9:15 AM PDT. No comments, just slides.

More: https://videocardz.com/70874/intels-epyc-response-xeon-scalable-processor-skylake-sp