Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Glo.]

I think it is likely that for dGPU this year, Vega 10 is the flagship, Radeon refresh fill out the midrange (but would probably still leave a huge gap, unless there is a cut-down Vega 10 that slots somewhere between 1070/1080 performance).

"Vega 11" may appear in cut-down form as parts for Raven Ridge and/or Apple-branded laptops/iMacs/macPros or whatever--so no Vega 11 dGPU until next year, when it actually does replace Polaris? Maybe we see 590/590X...and quite possible 580X? but then it wouldn't be called Vega, so maybe a different naming scheme for the next card that fills out the 290 > 390 line.

I have been thinking about this possibility some time ago, and you may be correct on this.

However... what if Radeon RX Vega lineup for the time being will be made from two Vega 10 GPUs?
Radeon RX Vega
Radeon RX Vega Nano.

That would make sense, if the Vega Nano is the 1.2 GHz GPU, and the RX Vega is that 1.5 GHz GPU.

 

[zinfamous]

I have been thinking about this possibility some time ago, and you may be correct on this.

However... what if Radeon RX Vega lineup for the time being will be made from two Vega 10 GPUs?
Radeon RX Vega
Radeon RX Vega Nano.

That would make sense, if the Vega Nano is the 1.2 GHz GPU, and the RX Vega is that 1.5 GHz GPU.

You might be correct there, and as AMD seems to be trickling out their new hardware over the last year or two in limited SKUs, considering their budget, this could be the case. In this situation, a speculative Vega Nano @1.2ghz or so would be my target, assuming this is a $400-500 part. ....$500 still makes me throw up in my mouth a bit when thinking about hardware.

 

[Mopetar]

I don't know if they keep Fury though as it wasn't necessarily a successful brand or something that was wildly popular.

The only knock against using something like Black/Red/Blue star is that the colors don't necessarily convey a number ranking, but price probably does that fine. It also becomes a problem when you move to Navi and whatever comes after that as people won't know that Navi is necessarily the successor. It's not a problem if they stop using stars for code names, just get a new naming scheme again. Won't be the first time things have changed, won't be the last.

AMD Radeon RX Vega anything else is already too much. Never mind that the naming convention is even more confusing if they have Polaris parts in the mix. So we go from the AMD Radeon RX Vega Fury Nano (sounds so much less ridiculous than Black Star doesn't it?) down to the AMD Radeon RX 580? What slots in between there? Presumably an eventual Vega 11 chip, but that's also Vega so what do you call it? The AMD Radeon RX Vega 590?

Really they should just shorten the name entirely regardless of what they do. AMD Vega _____ is fine. AMD Vega Fury X sounds pretty good. Slap some Radeon branding on the box ("Advanced Radeon Technology!") if you're worried people will forget, or just have it as part of the full code name that only shows up in manuals and other places.

Also, I kind of prefer Radiohead's Black Star to Bowie's, but it's not a bad song itself. One other thought: If they did use colors, they could make Green Star the lowest tier as a jibe at NVidia.

I guess it doesn't really matter what they call it though if the performance isn't there.

 

[Valantar]

I don't know if they keep Fury though as it wasn't necessarily a successful brand or something that was wildly popular.

I'm not saying they should keep the name (I'm not against it, just more or less indifferent to it), but the naming scheme. Radeon RX Vega, RX Vega X, RX Vega Nano. Plain and simple.

The only knock against using something like Black/Red/Blue star is that the colors don't necessarily convey a number ranking, but price probably does that fine. It also becomes a problem when you move to Navi and whatever comes after that as people won't know that Navi is necessarily the successor. It's not a problem if they stop using stars for code names, just get a new naming scheme again. Won't be the first time things have changed, won't be the last.

I'd argue that's not the only knock against it - not even the biggest one. Sounding like the name of the villain from some fanfic written by a 16-year-old who has read too much old pulp sci-fi would be the biggest knock against it in my book. Second in line is "being utterly made up while still not making sense". As you say, there's no logical ranking with naming like that. As such, keep numericals for the majority of the line, and a name implying greatness (as such, Fury is pretty decent. Titan is too) for the top-end.

AMD Radeon RX Vega anything else is already too much. Never mind that the naming convention is even more confusing if they have Polaris parts in the mix. So we go from the AMD Radeon RX Vega Fury Nano (sounds so much less ridiculous than Black Star doesn't it?) down to the AMD Radeon RX 580? What slots in between there? Presumably an eventual Vega 11 chip, but that's also Vega so what do you call it? The AMD Radeon RX Vega 590?

See above.

Really they should just shorten the name entirely regardless of what they do. AMD Vega _____ is fine. AMD Vega Fury X sounds pretty good. Slap some Radeon branding on the box ("Advanced Radeon Technology!") if you're worried people will forget, or just have it as part of the full code name that only shows up in manuals and other places.

Ditching the Radeon name would be a bad idea. AMD caught enough flak for killing the ATI brand. Discontinuing Radeon would just be bad marketing - unless they come up with a new architecture so revolutionary it needs a new name.

I guess it doesn't really matter what they call it though if the performance isn't there.

That, my friend, is the truth.

 

[Mopetar]

I'm not saying they should keep the name (I'm not against it, just more or less indifferent to it), but the naming scheme. Radeon RX Vega, RX Vega X, RX Vega Nano. Plain and simple.

Problem is that it quits working when you introduce Vega 11 chips into the mix. What do you call those? Vega works as a replacement for Fury on its own though.

As you say, there's no logical ranking with naming like that.

I guess it doesn't really matter as long as people understand the system. Belt colors work fine for martial arts and everyone knows that black belt is the top. AMD previously used Black Edition to denote the top of the line CPUs so I just riffed off of that a bit more and tied it in with their stellar naming scheme.

Ditching the Radeon name would be a bad idea. AMD caught enough flak for killing the ATI brand. Discontinuing Radeon would just be bad marketing - unless they come up with a new architecture so revolutionary it needs a new name.

It would be a big change, but how much baggage does the Radeon brand carry? I still occasionally hear people say they don't want one because the drivers are bad. ATI/AMD fans won't care, and how often do people even talk about Radeon or bring up the name. People talk about AMD or NV cards, or say things like get a 480. I don't really know if Radeon is really an important part of the brand anymore or something that resonates with the average consumer.

Vega might be a big enough leap to warrant new branding. They already decided to stick with the codename since it seemed to have a lot of traction. I'd argue some of that is more AMD taking for goddamn ever to release it that the codename can't help but stick than Vega being so amazing in and of itself. People were more than willing to adopt Ryzen as a new brand so I don't think moving away from Radeon would honestly hurt them at all.

 

[nathanddrews]

The way data flows and leaks today, codenames are effectively useless as being code for anything. All buzz, news, and trends are based upon the codename, so it is advantageous to continue using it for marketing and production. However, the benefit of using simpler number monikers (480, 470, etc.) is for dummies and non-English speakers to easily recognize tiers.

 

[zinfamous]

I guess it doesn't really matter as long as people understand the system. Belt colors work fine for martial arts and everyone knows that black belt is the top. AMD previously used Black Edition to denote the top of the line CPUs so I just riffed off of that a bit more and tied it in with their stellar naming scheme.

Actually, you do have a point here and I didn't pick up on it earlier:

Western Digital has long been doing this with their HDDs. Consumers pretty much know what black edition is, they know that Blue is the mainstream, general whatever, and that green is the low-power, 5400 RPM version (or whatever, I forget specifically). Don't they also have a red or purple for enterprise?

Black and Green actually do work on typical consumers across sectors. If they have a low-TDP, low-power Vega, this could fit in there. The only problem being that "green" generally defaults to low performance in the consumer mind, which is generally not a good thing for what should be a relatively high performance GPU, in its class.

 

[piesquared]

Problem is that it quits working when you introduce Vega 11 chips into the mix. What do you call those? Vega works as a replacement for Fury on its own though.



I guess it doesn't really matter as long as people understand the system. Belt colors work fine for martial arts and everyone knows that black belt is the top. AMD previously used Black Edition to denote the top of the line CPUs so I just riffed off of that a bit more and tied it in with their stellar naming scheme.



It would be a big change, but how much baggage does the Radeon brand carry? I still occasionally hear people say they don't want one because the drivers are bad. ATI/AMD fans won't care, and how often do people even talk about Radeon or bring up the name. People talk about AMD or NV cards, or say things like get a 480. I don't really know if Radeon is really an important part of the brand anymore or something that resonates with the average consumer.

Vega might be a big enough leap to warrant new branding. They already decided to stick with the codename since it seemed to have a lot of traction. I'd argue some of that is more AMD taking for goddamn ever to release it that the codename can't help but stick than Vega being so amazing in and of itself. People were more than willing to adopt Ryzen as a new brand so I don't think moving away from Radeon would honestly hurt them at all.

Radeon is a valuable, well known and established brand, there's no chance they'll not use it IMO.

 

[Valantar]

I have been thinking about this possibility some time ago, and you may be correct on this.

However... what if Radeon RX Vega lineup for the time being will be made from two Vega 10 GPUs?
Radeon RX Vega
Radeon RX Vega Nano.

That would make sense, if the Vega Nano is the 1.2 GHz GPU, and the RX Vega is that 1.5 GHz GPU.

What would they then do with dies with defective components? Throw them away? Save them for a rainy day, when they launch a second-tier Vega? If they're making a Nano, it needs to be binned for power efficiency like the first one was. As such, it has even less fault tolerance than the high-clocked full-die SKU. And there shouldn't be any reason for a Nano to be cut down, given that they managed to reduce power draw 100W from the Fury X for the first one.

Actually, you do have a point here and I didn't pick up on it earlier:

Western Digital has long been doing this with their HDDs. Consumers pretty much know what black edition is, they know that Blue is the mainstream, general whatever, and that green is the low-power, 5400 RPM version (or whatever, I forget specifically). Don't they also have a red or purple for enterprise?

Black and Green actually do work on typical consumers across sectors. If they have a low-TDP, low-power Vega, this could fit in there. The only problem being that "green" generally defaults to low performance in the consumer mind, which is generally not a good thing for what should be a relatively high performance GPU, in its class.

I'd argue that this works for some products, and not for others. Is there a market for GPUs where power efficiency is promoted as the chief quality? I wouldn't think so - power efficiency in the GPU space is a means to increase performance in a given power and thermal envelope. So the "green" label has no market value there. Then there's the competing "oh, this must be fast" quality of "red" and "black". What, exactly, tells you that one is above or below the other? And are you suggesting "blue" for mainstream? If so, how many "blue" cards are there to be, and how do customers tell the difference? Heck, even WDs HDD branding is confusing as hell. The Green line was recently absorbed by blue, as there was no real difference between the two. Then there's "Black" (high-speed desktop), "Red" (NAS, mid-performance), "Red Pro" (NAS, high-speed), "Purple" (video surveillance, constant writes) and RE (enterprise). Outside of Black, I'd argue there's little to no sense in any of these names - and that's in a product stack with barely a handful of different lines (with capacities easily denominated otherwise). GPUs don't differentiate in the same way. Or are you suggesting Black, Red, Blue and so on as a replacement for the R9, R7, R5, R3 system? Which is already discontinued?

 

[Glo.]

What would they then do with dies with defective components? Throw them away? Save them for a rainy day, when they launch a second-tier Vega? If they're making a Nano, it needs to be binned for power efficiency like the first one was. As such, it has even less fault tolerance than the high-clocked full-die SKU. And there shouldn't be any reason for a Nano to be cut down, given that they managed to reduce power draw 100W from the Fury X for the first one.

R9 Nano ASIC never was binned for efficiency. It was exactly the same ASIC as Fury X, just power gated.

 

[Mopetar]

Radeon is a valuable, well known and established brand, there's no chance they'll not use it IMO.

I think it has as much baggage associated with it as good though. The brand loyalists will probably stick with AMD regardless of what they call their product, but I think there are a lot of people who still associate Radeon with bad drivers or who view it as the inferior product that you buy if you don't get a GeForce (NVidia) card. I question if that's worth keeping.

I'd argue that this works for some products, and not for others. Is there a market for GPUs where power efficiency is promoted as the chief quality? I wouldn't think so - power efficiency in the GPU space is a means to increase performance in a given power and thermal envelope. So the "green" label has no market value there.

Green would just be the low-power chips. There's already sort of a natural association with green and environmentally friendly. They need not even be the most efficient in reality, this is just a way of marketing cards to consumers. That marketing has pretty much already been done.

Then there's the competing "oh, this must be fast" quality of "red" and "black". What, exactly, tells you that one is above or below the other?

Price dictates that. It doesn't matter what kind of naming scheme you use, price is what ultimately determines whether someone makes a purchase. At best you can establish a strong brand that customers trust and then flog off mediocre hardware at high prices, but that speaks more to the power of brand. If you've got $300 to spend on a GPU, you look at GPUs that cost about $300, maybe a little above and below to see if you can get away with spending less or can get a really good deal for a little bit more, but price is the ultimate starting and ending point. You might know the names of some expensive products or brands that you lust after, but you ultimately buy in your price range, regardless of what that product is called.

The names are essentially meaningless. They only exist to differentiate the products or to serve as a label. If Vega Red Star X gets more eyeballs than Vega 590, then Vega Red Star is a better brand, especially if that extra attention translates to sales. Who cares if someone isn't sure whether Blue Star is better than Red Star, the price tag tells them that. Numbers just suggest a more natural ranking, but they become worthless when looking at generations. An R9 370 isn't a better GPU than an R9 290, so you still need to understand how that numbering system works instead of just looking at the raw number. However most customers probably wouldn't make that mistake, because a 290 costs more and unless that person is a complete plonker they'll probably start to realize that there's more to the numbering system than just thinking the bigger number is better.

Using colors isn't really any worse since the GPU number system is almost just as arbitrary. How would a normal person know that there's a dividing line between the R9 280 and R9 290 that's more significant than that between the R9 270 and R9 280? They're both just 10 apart, but really the gaps are far bigger than that. The only real reason to keep the existing system is because people are used to it, or at least people who talk about GPUs a lot are used to it. The x80 part means a certain thing in terms of AMD cards, but if you're just walking into the store, you don't have that domain knowledge and AMD Radeon RX 480 is as worthless to you as AMD Vega Blue Star. Neither conveys any particular meaning so you just end up looking at the price tag and working from there.

 

[zinfamous]

Green would just be the low-power chips. There's already sort of a natural association with green and environmentally friendly. They need not even be the most efficient in reality, this is just a way of marketing cards to consumers. That marketing has pretty much already been done.

Right, but that type of marketing is actually counter-productive in something like a GPU, which is understood to need more power, by the people that purchase these things. I think it would be valuable for the OEM market, though, as another tag to dump on the product description. That could work.

...but this is kinda nonsense discussion, imo. This will likely never happen.

 

[Mopetar]

Tell that to the people who want a passively cooled GPU for HTPC use. Green sounds like a great moniker all of a sudden.

Of course AMD wouldn't use it even if it made perfect sense. The demented system for Ryzen naming that seems to be an amalgamation of Intel's scheme and pure madness suggests we'll get the Radeon RX Vega 5080 Fury Ti or something similarly cruddy.

 

[w3rd]

Or, RX Vega ... and RX Vega 2
But you guys can entertain any idea you want.

 

[beginner99]

I think it has as much baggage associated with it as good though. The brand loyalists will probably stick with AMD regardless of what they call their product, but I think there are a lot of people who still associate Radeon with bad drivers or who view it as the inferior product that you buy if you don't get a GeForce (NVidia) card. I question if that's worth keeping.

they call them self radeon technology group why would they change the name of the product then?

 

[Mopetar]

Or, RX Vega ... and RX Vega 2
But you guys can entertain any idea you want.

That makes even less sense than anything else proposed as most people would assume that the aren't the same product generation. A system that misleads like that is actively awful.

they call them self radeon technology group why would they change the name of the product then?

They could call themselves the snugly elf club so what difference does that make? I don't think you need to completely kill the Radeon branding, but it doesn't need to be emphasized either. Give the product its own space to stand apart. Look at NVidia with the Titan, which is branded separately so it can stand on its own. You don't get a 700 Titan, 900 Titan, 1000 Titan. It's always Titan or some derivation of it. Both of the last two are both called Titan X and the Pascal version even dropped GeForce from the name so it's just the NVidia Titan X.

AMD can still keep Radeon around, but it doesn't need to feature prominently in their product naming. Just call it the AMD Vega X or AMD Vega Black Star (or whatever) and say "featuring Radeon technology" if you still need to keep that branding around.

 

[zinfamous]

Radeon RX Vega
Radeon RX Vega X / Radeon RX Vega X Nano
Radeon RX Vega XT
Radeon RX Vega XTX

....because it happened before. sorta.

 

[Mopetar]

I know they still use that internally (Fury is Fiji XT) but I don't think they have used it as part of the consumer part name in years.

Would be kind of an interesting throwback. Would be cool to see them bring back something like Rage as well.

 

[w3rd]

You lost all credibility with: "Radeon RX Vega 5080 Fury Ti ".

 

[Valantar]

You lost all credibility with: "Radeon RX Vega 5080 Fury Ti ".

I think we can all agree that that was meant as a joke/sarcastically, no?

Now can we PLEASE stop this rather inane discussion of names? Or have we completely run out of information regarding the actual GPUs in question?

 

[Mopetar]

You lost all credibility with: "Radeon RX Vega 5080 Fury Ti ".

You seem like one of those triangles that's neither right nor acute.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/facetious

Now can we PLEASE stop this rather inane discussion of names? Or have we completely run out of information regarding the actual GPUs in question?

I suppose someone can post a wccftech rumor if that'd be any better. At the very least, product name isn't something that has been done a dozen times to death before. There's nothing new, not even a nonsense no-credibility rumor so its come to this. We're like depraved alcoholics lapping at mouthwash swill for want of anything better.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

You lost all credibility with: "Radeon RX Vega 5080 Fury Ti ".

Young whippersnapper
Think of how many BungholioMarks that card would get

 

[w3rd]

So, you can lay it down, but not take it yourself..?

Yes, I was pointing out how outlandish your post was, to point out how outlandish you critiquing others are. People with thousands of posts can speak freely, but "Vega2" gets shot down? So yes, I can play your game too..

Seems you didn't like me mocking you.



I have been building computers, as long as anyone here. OC them since before some of you were born ("Turbo" button ftw). And may have more insight on speculation than my remedial post suggest. Still have my Riva & Number9 cards. (So that Voodoo Photoshop is unimpressive). My collection goes back to Video Toasters.


So, Radeon RX Vega Pro ftw.. (RX Vega x2).

 

[Sweepr]

AMD Vega will be available with 4GB and 8GB memory capacity

I think this is the most interesting tidbit from the whole presentation. Herkelman explained that “Vega will use HBM2 that has different capacity stacks”. He then added: “you will see from our board partners different configurations, whether that’s 4 Gig or 8 Gig or those types of memory architectures that will allow you to drive different games and different resolutions based upon what capacity stack they end up using”. That sounds like AIBs will have the option to use single stacks or double stacks of HBM2 memory. So Vega might be available with one or two stacks and that, as you probably know, will affect memory bandwidth, because the more stacks the chip has access to, the higher the bandwidth. But we are yet to see if there will be 2GB HBM2 stacks so that the board partners could still offer 2 stacks with full bandwidth, but only 4GB memory.

https://videocardz.com/67642/amd-radeon-rx-vega-is-just-around-the-corner

 

[Samwell]

If they really launch Vega10 with 4Gb, then HBM2 has to be still extremely expensive. Maybe he just made examples as we so far heard of 8 Gb and 16 Gb professional cards.