Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Mopetar]

Not reasonable to compare them when one is being fabbed by Samsung and the other Global Foundries. That aside, I don't think anyone is reasonably expecting Polaris or Vega to clock as high as Pascal given what we already know about both architectures and their predecessors.

 

[sirmo]

Not reasonable to compare them when one is being fabbed by Samsung and the other Global Foundries. That aside, I don't think anyone is reasonably expecting Polaris or Vega to clock as high as Pascal given what we already know about both architectures and their predecessors.

You mean TSMC? Samsung and GloFo are on the same process.

 

[HurleyBird]

He means Samsung. The 1050/Ti is fabbed by Samsung, unlike the rest of the Pascal line up so far. AMD is on Global Foundries. While Global Foundries is supposed to be using Samsung's process, they may not be exactly identical or be getting the same yields. Or maybe they are. At the very least, one would expect them to be very similar.

 

[biostud]

I still think AMD's design run into similiar problems as the gtx 480, and therefore they can't improve the clockspeed of their GPU's by the same amount as nvidia.

 

[Qwertilot]

He means Samsung. The 1050/Ti is fabbed by Samsung, unlike the rest of the Pascal line up so far. AMD is on Global Foundries. While Global Foundries is supposed to be using Samsung's process, they may not be exactly identical or be getting the same yields. Or maybe they are. At the very least, one would expect them to be very similar.

I'm not so sure about the very - these processes are vastly complicated things and Samsung at the very least have much more experience using it. Maybe more inbuilt knowledge too, having developed the thing originally. Yes they'll have tried for knowledge transfer but it isn't ever easy between organisations.

 

[SlickR12345]

Nvidia uses essentially a cheating technique to "lower" power draw. It essentially lowers and raises the power consumption literally hundreds of times in a second. Software is unable to to accurately measure this, the only way to measure the correct power draw for Nvidia gpu's is to literally measure it at the power source.

I bet if someone did a test like that Nvidia's real power draw would probably be +50W

 

[96Firebird]

Nvidia uses essentially a cheating technique to "lower" power draw. It essentially lowers and raises the power consumption literally hundreds of times in a second. Software is unable to to accurately measure this, the only way to measure the correct power draw for Nvidia gpu's is to literally measure it at the power source.

I bet if someone did a test like that Nvidia's real power draw would probably be +50W

Nope, look up Tom's Hardware reviews.

 

[Dave2150]

Looking more like a May-June release date for Vega IMO - we'd be hearing much more news if it really was coming Q1 2017.

I fear Pascal refresh will launch before Vega does, sad times

 

[RussianSensation]

Looking more like a May-June release date for Vega IMO - we'd be hearing much more news if it really was coming Q1 2017.

I fear Pascal refresh will launch before Vega does, sad times

http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-490-vr-4k-december/

Anything is better than the 1080 overpriced marketing "flagship."

At 4K the 1070 / 1080 are only 6% / 30% faster than the Fury X:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_1070_Xtreme_Gaming/26.html

Historically speaking true next gen flagship used to fall in the range of 50-100% faster. Under ATI, there would be no chance that NV would sell 6600GT/7600GT/GTX560/Ti for $400-700. Too bad as that's what's happening right now. Let's hope AMD actually delivers and NV responds with 1080Ti so the market realignfs itself with historical trends of what a true next gen used to mean.

Having said that, I already have 1070 SLI and since ~90% of 2015-2016 AAA games are console ports, so why waste $ on flagships? Right now many AAA games are so poorly optimized that they often require Titan XP to max them out. Please. Imo, flagship GPUs never made less sense in the history of PC gaming. PC gaming hasn't been this gimped compared to consoles in a while. Now if you run a PS4 Pro game at 10 feet away on a 65" 4K OLED and run the same cross-platform game on a 6700K + GTX 1070 SLI, you can barely tell them apart.

Even though GPU hardware sales keep increasing and more gamers are moving up to $300-400 GPUs, let's not kid ourselves -- PC gaming industry is in a huge rut since the extra CPU+GPU horsepower is hardly commensurate with the graphics we get.

The massive performance advantage PCs have is nowhere to be found in revolutionary terms. When Crysis came out, frankly it blew every single XB360/PS3 game away. There is NOT 1 game on the PC released from 2013-2016 that will make any console gamer say "Holly ****! That's ******* amazing!" When Unreal 2 or Crysis 1 came out, PC gamers were proud of just how advanced our platform was. Today, it's very hard to pick a PC game which exemplifies the cutting edge aspects of PC gaming.To do that now, you may need to dive into VR.

The current console install base is close to 70M. The greater this install base becomes, the more AAA games will be held back by these consoles. It's literally a repeat of XB360/PS3 generation during the last 3 years. I had 7970 CF in 2012 and it sat there twirling thumbs playing console games.

I would much rather have the next "Crysis" that wipes the floor with Titan XP SLI - I am thinking 30 FPS at 1080p 4xMSAA, but 95% of PC gamers don't want that...the GPU industry is never going to be the same since they are now pushing more pixels = next gen graphics. Now it's all about 4K and later it will be about 4K 100-144Hz, then 8K. Except EA, no one is really even pushing the boundaries like Crytek did.

 

[cytg111]

Yea, even "Oh my god, blows my mind - Witcher 3" was pretty much indistinguishable consoles vs. pc .. at best we get a texture pack and the 30fps cap removed. Sad times .

Btw, how is that SLI working out? More trouble than worth or?

 

[Valantar]

http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-490-vr-4k-december/

WCCFTech might take home the prize for "least reliable tech news site/biggest rumor-monger", so I'd look for a better source if I were you. Sure, they're right from time to time, but even wild guesswork hits the mark from time to time.

 

[happy medium]

If history follows.................
Vega 10 must be under 250 watts and 2x faster than Fury X to compete with Pascal Titan.
Vega 11 must be under 200 watts , faster than the gtx1080, and cheaper to compete.

Reading the WCCFtech article, the 490 is looking to be a dual gpu card to compete with the gtx1070.

 

[Dave2150]

http://wccftech.com/radeon-rx-490-vr-4k-december/

Anything is better than the 1080 overpriced marketing "flagship."

At 4K the 1070 / 1080 are only 6% / 30% faster than the Fury X:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_1070_Xtreme_Gaming/26.html

Historically speaking true next gen flagship used to fall in the range of 50-100% faster. Under ATI, there would be no chance that NV would sell 6600GT/7600GT/GTX560/Ti for $400-700. Too bad as that's what's happening right now. Let's hope AMD actually delivers and NV responds with 1080Ti so the market realignfs itself with historical trends of what a true next gen used to mean.

Having said that, I already have 1070 SLI and since ~90% of 2015-2016 AAA games are console ports, so why waste $ on flagships? Right now many AAA games are so poorly optimized that they often require Titan XP to max them out. Please. Imo, flagship GPUs never made less sense in the history of PC gaming. PC gaming hasn't been this gimped compared to consoles in a while. Now if you run a PS4 Pro game at 10 feet away on a 65" 4K OLED and run the same cross-platform game on a 6700K + GTX 1070 SLI, you can barely tell them apart.

Even though GPU hardware sales keep increasing and more gamers are moving up to $300-400 GPUs, let's not kid ourselves -- PC gaming industry is in a huge rut since the extra CPU+GPU horsepower is hardly commensurate with the graphics we get.

The massive performance advantage PCs have is nowhere to be found in revolutionary terms. When Crysis came out, frankly it blew every single XB360/PS3 game away. There is NOT 1 game on the PC released from 2013-2016 that will make any console gamer say "Holly ****! That's ******* amazing!" When Unreal 2 or Crysis 1 came out, PC gamers were proud of just how advanced our platform was. Today, it's very hard to pick a PC game which exemplifies the cutting edge aspects of PC gaming.To do that now, you may need to dive into VR.

The current console install base is close to 70M. The greater this install base becomes, the more AAA games will be held back by these consoles. It's literally a repeat of XB360/PS3 generation during the last 3 years. I had 7970 CF in 2012 and it sat there twirling thumbs playing console games.

I would much rather have the next "Crysis" that wipes the floor with Titan XP SLI - I am thinking 30 FPS at 1080p 4xMSAA, but 95% of PC gamers don't want that...the GPU industry is never going to be the same since they are now pushing more pixels = next gen graphics. Now it's all about 4K and later it will be about 4K 100-144Hz, then 8K. Except EA, no one is really even pushing the boundaries like Crytek did.

I think the idea of buying a 4GB GPU is a foolish one, now that we're almost into 2017. I exceed 4GB in the vast majority of the games I play, and I'm not confident that AMD will continue to hand tune the memory management for each upcoming game for such a niche product (Fiji did not sell a significant amount of units to warrant this continued development time).

I also dislike the idea of the Fury X due to the pump noise at idle - making it one of the loudest idling GPU's of recent years (most AIB GPU's have 0db idle modes, awesome for silence when watching video/doing work etc).

I'm currently using a single 1070, though I prefer AMD and I have a Freesync monitor, so I'm rather keen to get Vega as long as it delivers.

 

[Dave2150]

WCCFTech might take home the prize for "least reliable tech news site/biggest rumor-monger", so I'd look for a better source if I were you. Sure, they're right from time to time, but even wild guesswork hits the mark from time to time.

Indeed, nothing new in that article that they haven't posted 100 times in the last 6 months.

All rumours and no facts, which makes me worry that Vega won't launch until May/June at the earliest.

 

[SpaceBeer]

There were no rumours on Pascal, and yet we got GP104 and GP 106 earlier and better than anyone expected

 

[Arachnotronic]

WCCFTech might take home the prize for "least reliable tech news site/biggest rumor-monger", so I'd look for a better source if I were you. Sure, they're right from time to time, but even wild guesswork hits the mark from time to time.

AMD itself has said Vega is a "1H 2017" launch. Any credible news outlet would not "report" a December 2016 launch date.

 

[tential]

There were no rumours on Pascal, and yet we got GP104 and GP 106 earlier and better than anyone expected

Everything about this launch as well as the last launch was under delivered. So we're only going off AMD's track record....

Not to mention AMD themselves have stated 1q 2017 then revised themselves to 1H 2017. How would that mean it's coming earlier?

 

[Yakk]

I think AMD will maybe make a product announcement in Dec., if they have quantity to sell even better!

Just want a GPU that will drive my 1440 monitor at 144 fps. And.... that will pay for itself mining. Haven't payed out of pocket for a GPU in over half a decade and not looking forward to that. It can use 1 kilowatt don't care, just that it can do these things. 144FPS @1440 & mine its own value.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Everything about this launch as well as the last launch was under delivered. So we're only going off AMD's track record....

Not to mention AMD themselves have stated 1q 2017 then revised themselves to 1H 2017. How would that mean it's coming earlier?

AMD never said 1Q 2017, they only showed a roadmap that suggested that and the press/GPU enthusiasts let their imaginations do the rest

 

[Dave2150]

There were no rumours on Pascal, and yet we got GP104 and GP 106 earlier and better than anyone expected

There were quite a few leaks and rumours. Even the new GPU metal shroud design was leaked weeks ahead of launch, we all knew it was actually coming.

We've had nothing of the sort for Vega - usually we'd have something pretty substantial a month or two before launch.

 

[tential]

AMD never said 1Q 2017, they only showed a roadmap that suggested that and the press/GPU enthusiasts let their imaginations do the rest

I might buy a Nintendo 3ds instead...

 

[Qwertilot]

There were no rumours on Pascal, and yet we got GP104 and GP 106 earlier and better than anyone expected

Err no. We got them on an objectively utterly predictable sort of time scale and very similar sort of performance too. NV have been executing in incredibly consistent fashion, and have been upping their R&D so there was absolutely no reason to expect delays/a misstep etc.

There was seemingly quite a bit of contrary wishful thinking involved from some AMD fans but that was, well, wishful thinking Unfortunately given AMD's recent track record you have to be capable of real optimism to expect them to execute strongly and on time. They might of course

 

[tential]

Fury x $300.
So we don't think something is close on the horizon? The massive price cuts are for?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Fury x $300.
So we don't think something is close on the horizon? The massive price cuts are for?

Fury X pricing is being adjusted so that the inventory currently sitting at the online retailers can actually be moved. At $300 it's priced at a sufficient discount to the 1070 to be worthwhile to some people.

It wouldn't sell at 1070-like pricing.

 

[SlickR12345]

AMD literally said at their event that we are going to get more info in January and while they didn't commit any sort of hard date or anything, they said to expect Vega to release late Q1. So I'm expecting March release date. We are going to get more info January, probably somewhere in the middle, after the holiday stuff is all gone and announce a lot more details.

Anyways 4GB HBM memory is more like 6GB of GDDR5 at 7gbps. And if a game is unoptimized to take full advantage of HBM, they are going to be unoptimized on pretty much all other cards as well. We see great PC games that primary focus in PC games, then you have the average games, overall ran decently and then you have the crappy ports that have graphics like 2012 titles, yet run [poorly]!

Profanity isn't allowed in this forum.
-- stahlhart