Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Head1985]

It really shouldn't remind you of the 290. The 290 was actually (barely) faster than the $500 780, matched the $1000 Titan, and the $700 GTX 780 Ti was only 15% faster. I'm not expecting the Vega 56 to be faster than the $500 1080, and within 15% of the $700 1080 Ti. And it had more VRAM than the Ti, which is opposite this time.

Mining ruined these prices, FWIW.

It looks like AMD is aiming for the Vega 56 to edge out the reference 1070 but not reach the higher card, so I'm not expecting the 290 parallel to hold up. 1070 max OC can match 1080 stock, so I will be curious about Vega 56 max OC. Besides power consumption, it could be a very viable alternative to the 1070. Looking forward to reviews, just out of curiosity.

GTX1070 cant oc to stock GTX1080.its still 10-15% behind i tested it with 10+ games.Anyway vega mining instructions just killed it.We will not see any vega card in shops because miners or it will be at double MSRP like every GPU on market now(from 1060 up)
God i hate miners so much.

 

[SirDinadan]

Anyone notice AMD is still using Intel CPU's in their benchmarks?

And the official AMD YT channel paired Ryzen with GTX 1080 in one of their build guides. Nothing new, but yeah, awkward, to say the least.

 

[EXCellR8]

I actually would consider NVIDIA the premium discrete GPU manufacturer... with AMD's graphics division trailing behind and kind of doing their own thing. It's not like the cards are bad, just not where they're focusing their R&D. I don't think the cards need to be as good as what NVIDIA is producing, as long as they're plenty adequate, but Volta prices are going to be insane long before we even see Navi surface. I mean, the RX 480's I have do pretty much everything I need them too; there aren't any PC games on the immediate horizon that will require twice the power. Sure, they'll be some things that I can't enable here and there but at the end of the day I try not to let those things tarnish my gaming experiences.

 

[PhonakV30]

Wait for Polaris....Wait for Vega.

Can we please now stop telling people to wait before they buy something. You should buy to meet your current needs.

and you should stop writing nonesense Post like this

Anyone notice AMD is still using Intel CPU's in their benchmarks?

consumers that want to know GPU's Perf , don't care what CPU is used in bench.

 

[raghu78]

Wait for Polaris....Wait for Vega.

Can we please now stop telling people to wait before they buy something. You should buy to meet your current needs.

True. I would still have no problem telling people to wait for a Nvidia GPU especially if its coming in a few months since they have shown flawless execution for 3 generations now. For AMD I would say never again.

 

[crisium]

GTX1070 cant oc to stock GTX1080.its still 10-15% behind i tested it with 10+ games.Anyway vega mining instructions just killed it.We will not see any vega card in shops because miners or it will be at double MSRP like every GPU on market now(from 1060 up)
God i hate miners so much.

Compared to blower 1080 it's still 10-15% behind? I was just going by TPU reviews, where they max OC the aftermarket 1070s and they match the 1080 FE, or barely edge it out. Any aftermarket 1080 will be faster than any 1070 period, or if you run the 1080FE at a more aggressive fan curve.

Of course they only use Battlefield 3 for some reason.

 

[Head1985]

Compared to blower 1080 it's still 10-15% behind? I was just going by TPU reviews, where they max OC the aftermarket 1070s and they match the 1080 FE, or barely edge it out. Any aftermarket 1080 will be faster than any 1070 period, or if you run the 1080FE at a more aggressive fan curve.

Of course they only use Battlefield 3 for some reason.

Yeah it was because BF3.In BF3 GTX1080 is only 15% faster than GTX1070 so you can oc it to GTX1080 level.But in new games the gap is 25-30% so its still 10-15% behind.

 

[Phynaz]

and you should stop writing nonesense Post like this

consumers that want to know GPU's Perf , don't care what CPU is used in bench.

You really don't get it, do you? AMD want's to show their GPU's in the best possible light. It turns out that's when they are paired with an Intel CPU.

Also, please explain why buying for your current need and not waiting for the next new thing is nonsense.

 

[Phynaz]

True. I would still have no problem telling people to wait for a Nvidia GPU especially if its coming in a few months since they have shown flawless execution for 3 generations now. For AMD I would say never again.

I wouldn't tell anyone to wait for a technology product ever. Otherwise you are waiting forever because there's always something new coming out.

 

[swilli89]

Some preliminary benchmark #s from AMD's slides testing foot notes.

RX Vega - 1080
Ashes 60 ---- 63
BF 1 68 ---- 57
Dues Ex 58 ---- 45
DOOM 83 ---- 76
FORZA 61 ---- 51
GoW 53 ---- 59
Hitman 59 ---- 63
Sniper Elite 65 ---- 63
Warhammer 60 ---- 56

So RX Vega 64 may edge out the 1080 and at $499 I think this is a pretty strong value, given current market prices. AMD has indeed said that the Vega FE did not have the tile based rasterizer enabled as well as some clock-gating power management features enabled neither. This level of performance, if they can get consumption down to ~250w for AIBs (1080 AIB ar around ~200-220W) this will be at least competitive, just not the stunner many of us hoped for.

 

[PhonakV30]

You really don't get it, do you? AMD want's to show their GPU's in the best possible light. It turns out that's when they are paired with an Intel CPU.

Also, please explain why buying for your current need and not waiting for the next new thing is nonsense.

I get it but problem is yours.I don't have problem If AMD wants to use Intel CPU or Ryzen to show their best scenario just only you have problem.No one care about it , even All of reviewers use Intel's CPU because All of gaming benchs are 100% GPU bound and don't want to miss 1% or 2% hit performance but Does it matter ? No

You need to read carefully My post , I didn't talk about "Wait for next tech"

 

[Carfax83]

I wouldn't tell anyone to wait for a technology product ever. Otherwise you are waiting forever because there's always something new coming out.

Not only that, but in this case, GPU prices have actually increased significantly compared to their launch prices due to the mining craze.

So those that waited and thought that the prices would lower over time (not a bad assumption mind you) have truly gotten screwed.

 

[Malogeek]

I could go and buy a 1080ti for $100 more than Vega 64 air LC though.

 

[swilli89]

I could go and buy a 1080ti for $100 more than Vega 64 air though.

Can you find one for $599?

 

[Phynaz]

I get it but problem is yours.I don't have problem If AMD wants to use Intel CPU or Ryzen to show their best scenario just only you have problem.No one care about it , even All of reviewers use Intel's CPU because All of gaming benchs are 100% GPU bound and don't want to miss 1% or 2% hit performance but Does it matter ? No

Nope, you still don't get it. It's a credibility issue for AMD. They market the heck out of their CPU's for gaming, but when it comes to showing off their GPU's they use Intel CPU's because they know the Intel CPU's are better. So much better that it matters to how they think their GPU's will be perceived.

Anyway, this is the GPU forum, let's atop talking about CPUs.

 

[Malogeek]

Can you find one for $599?

Oops, no. Apparently I'm pulling numbers out of my ass, but I believe I meant the LC vega instead which should end up at $599.

 

[tential]

None of this matters anyway..... miners will grab every available card for any price and most gamers will never see one of these even if they wanted to.

Aren't people getting tired of using this excuse for Vega yet?

 

[tential]

It really shouldn't remind you of the 290. The 290 was actually (barely) faster than the $500 780, matched the $1000 Titan, and the $700 GTX 780 Ti was only 15% faster. I'm not expecting the Vega 56 to be faster than the $500 1080, and within 15% of the $700 1080 Ti. And it had more VRAM than the Ti, which is opposite this time.

Mining ruined these prices, FWIW.

It looks like AMD is aiming for the Vega 56 to edge out the reference 1070 but not reach the higher card, so I'm not expecting the 290 parallel to hold up. 1070 max OC can match 1080 stock, so I will be curious about Vega 56 max OC. Besides power consumption, it could be a very viable alternative to the 1070. Looking forward to reviews, just out of curiosity.

Why amd fans want to compare this gpu to Hawaii, a gpu that actually did well is beyond me. It's like the are trying to paint amd in a negative light.

 

[PhonakV30]

Nope, you still don't get it. It's a credibility issue for AMD. They market the heck out of their CPU's for gaming, but when it comes to showing off their GPU's they use Intel CPU's because they know the Intel CPU's are better. So much better that it matters to how they think their GPU's will be perceived.

whatever you want to try hard but writing such that pointless your post is Fanboy alert Like this :

Hey! Look! AMD uses Intel's CPU , bohahahahah

You're not from WCCFtech.You're from anandtech.

 

[msi2]

45MB of SRAM???

 

[Phynaz]

Asus ROG Strix RX Vega 64

http://techreport.com/news/32321/asus-rog-strix-rx-vega-64-is-ready-for-takeoff

 

[EXCellR8]

the shortage is a credible theory at least. there's no way the prices AMD released aren't going to be inflated by online vendors--who will have a lot of grief trying to keep them in stock and handling RMA's

 

[happy medium]

So RX Vega 64 may edge out the 1080 and at $499 I think this is a pretty strong value, given current market prices.

I found 2 AIB gtx1080's for $515 dollars shipped, in the hot deals section.
They should be faster that the reference 1080's used in the tests.

I don't see the value Vega brings by beating a 16 month old product by 3% and costing the same with much higher heat output.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/gigabyte-gtx-1080-msi-gtx1080-515-00-shipped.2512543/

I also see a few water cooled gtx1080's for ~ $600 on newegg.
$579 AR for a water cooled gtx 1080 Sea Hawk
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...14127942&cm_re=gtx1080-_-14-127-942-_-Product

$599 for a EVGA FTW water cooled gtx1080
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...14487266&cm_re=gtx1080-_-14-487-266-_-Product

 

[amenx]

I found 2 AIB gtx1080's for $515 dollars shipped, in the hot deals section.
They should be faster that the reference 1080's used in the tests.

I don't see the value Vega brings by beating a 16 month old product by 3% and costing the same with much higher heat output.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/gigabyte-gtx-1080-msi-gtx1080-515-00-shipped.2512543/

Not only that, but who will buy a card thats only marginally better than the 1080 then risk having regrets if Volta is released in next few months. What if Nvidia rushes out Volta now and announces a solid, earlier than expected release date?

 

[tential]

I found 2 AIB gtx1080's for $515 dollars shipped, in the hot deals section.
They should be faster that the reference 1080's used in the tests.

I don't see the value Vega brings by beating a 16 month old product by 3% and costing the same with much higher heat output.

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=threads/gigabyte-gtx-1080-msi-gtx1080-515-00-shipped.2512543/

I also see a few water cooled gtx1080's for ~ $600 on newegg.
$579 AR for a water cooled gtx 1080 Sea Hawk
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...14127942&cm_re=gtx1080-_-14-127-942-_-Product

$599 for a EVGA FTW water cooled gtx1080
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...14487266&cm_re=gtx1080-_-14-487-266-_-Product

I saw a gtx 1080 on sale the other day for $465.

It really isn't a great price at $500.