Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Malogeek]

If that's the case, i'll get a 1440 or 4k ultrawide with freesync, mmm maybe with tasty HDR.

A freesync ultrawide with HDR..... that's my next monitor. Since I already have a 34" ultrawide.... don't think my wife will let me upgrade just yet

 

[Crumpet]

My wife lets me spend money on my computer habit addiction problem hobby and she usually gets my cast offs too. She generally understands that I don't really spend money on anything else, and of course it helps that I let her spend as much money as she wants on wool and craft supplies so.. Fair's fair.

That said, justifying another expensive monitor purchase so soon after buying this one may be difficult.

Ooh..

Though..

I could totally get 2 more of these LG 34uc79G's and run in 7680x1080p... ooh baby.

 

[Valantar]

I'm genuinely worried that Vega will blow me straight out of the 144hz zone of my freesync range and i'll have to enable Vsync, except I don't want input lag.

No need to do that. Just set a global framerate limit of 144fps in the Radeon software, leave FreeSync on, and you're good to go. The GPU will simply throttle down to whatever speed is necessary to maintain 144fps if you exceed it, which adds no input lag and keeps freesync functional. Using this keeps my Fury X running at 450MHz or so to maintain 60fps in Rocket League (the only game I've played for long enough with frame rates high enough to keep an eye on this).

 

[Eymar]

Yeah I showed my wife the windmill demo and she was shocked at the difference.

I'm genuinely worried that Vega will blow me straight out of the 144hz zone of my freesync range and i'll have to enable Vsync, except I don't want input lag.

If that's the case, i'll get a 1440 or 4k ultrawide with freesync, mmm maybe with tasty HDR.

For input lag, just use a frame limiter (AMD's built in one or RivaTuner or in game). Needs to be a few frames below highest refresh of monitor as FS needs a buffer (ie. 140 frame limit for 144hz or 72 limit on 75hz).

Freesync has been a godsend for hobby wallet. I don't really care about high avg FPS anymore, just look at minimums since anything above 50FPS is an enjoyable experience with FS (ex. Project Cars use to be a stuttering mess with sub 60fps on AMD with a non FS monitor, but is really smooth when FS even at 45fps). Also helps that my FS monitor is 32" 1440p 75hz so don't need top end GPU to be at FS sweet spot of 50-75fps at 1440p. If Vega can provide 4k at 50-60fps performance and decent 32" 4k FPS monitor is available then probably upgrade to Vega and new monitor.

 

[tential]

Yeah I showed my wife the windmill demo and she was shocked at the difference.

I'm genuinely worried that Vega will blow me straight out of the 144hz zone of my freesync range and i'll have to enable Vsync, except I don't want input lag.

If that's the case, i'll get a 1440 or 4k ultrawide with freesync, mmm maybe with tasty HDR.

I got it working finally, WOW!

But now I can't seem to get my freesync range to be larger? I'm stuck with 48-61. I feel like I should be able to get down to 35-41, but the second I change the range in CRU, it completely stops freesync from working.

The main reason I'm with AMD is the cheap ecosystem allows me to get all the things I want. So I can also get the 1440p 1440hz monitor and still be under the cost of a gsync monitor. I'm pretty sure I can buy 3 monitors (4k, 1440, and 4k 144hz) for less than a gsync monitor that does 4k 144 hz.

Vega is 100% necessary for me.

 

[Mockingbird]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

 

[tential]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

You're wrong, and you're wrong mostly because if you're right I'm pretty much done with AMD.

 

[Mockingbird]

You're wrong, and you're wrong mostly because if you're right I'm pretty much done with AMD.

AMD is only so big a company and only has so much resource.

It has to put Vega on the backburner to prevent Zen from being delayed any further (not that AMD can't make great graphic cards).

Things are obviously much more dire for AMD's processors division which has been suffering from the fallout of the Bulldozer nuclear disaster for the past six years.

 

[Red Hawk]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Are you going to come up with an actual source this time? Because if you don't I'm just going to block you.

It's not that what you're saying isn't in the realm of possibility. It's that you're speaking as if you are an authority and you personally have access to this information when you have done absolutely nothing to establish yourself as a credible source. You come across like you're making this crap up, but also that you may actually believe your own BS and you have an estranged relationship with reality.

AMD is only so big a company and only has so much resource.

It has to put Vega on the backburner to prevent Zen from being delayed any further (not that AMD can't make great graphic cards).

Things are obviously much more dire for AMD's processors division which has been suffering from the fallout of the Bulldozer nuclear disaster for the past six years.

Wait a sec. You realize that Zen is already on the market, right?

 

[Mockingbird]

Are you going to come up with an actual source this time? Because if you don't I'm just going to block you.

It's not that what you're saying isn't in the realm of possibility. It's that you're speaking as if you are an authority and you personally have access to this information when you have done absolutely nothing to establish yourself as a credible source. You come across like you're making this crap up, but also that you may actually believe your own BS and you have an estranged relationship with reality.

Okay. Bye.

Wait a sec. You realize that Zen is already on the market, right?

Yeah.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Whats the performance delta between a Fury X and a GTX1080 in the latest games? I did read somewhere (https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/2017-March/006570.html), VEGA supposedly has 4096 GCN cores..

Just a rough speculation on my part, im guessing the memory bandwidth side of things will be updated to HBM2 for the obvious improvements along with all the leaks and rumours. The move from 28nm to 14nm should allow the VEGA core to be clocked higher than 1GHz. We all know that the geometry side of things for GCN has always been weak in laymen terms (this thread actually has a really good series of posts of potential bottlenecks in GCN based AMD GPUs - https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...olaris-10-at-same-clocks-and-cus.59645/page-2).

It makes perfect sense that there are alot of resources being wasted on AMD GPUs (along with utilisation problems in some cases and exposed by the DX11/12 benchmarks) because its not smart enough to discard and load balance given its resources. We know this because theoretically, since the RX480 for example should be comfortably faster than the GTX1060 given the fact that it has almost twice the ALU count.. interestingly, nVIDIA has been able to do more for less for the last couple of generations even if they aren't as future proof (could possibly be another reason why as games get more more demanding especially DX12 titles and compute shaders). Interesting to note that the core count gap i.e. the theoretical peak FLOPs gap between AMD and nVIDIA has been decreasing per generation just in time for DX12.

Anyway back to topic.. VEGA is rumoured to implement a tile based rasterizer like Maxwell (but not sure how similiar it will be) or probably more techniques within the GPU to discard/cull w/e so it doesn't waste resources doing useless work. But this is there first attempt at it so it will interesting to see their gains.

Considering all things, I have a hard time imagining RX VEGA to go head to head with the 1080Ti given the 4096 GCN cores (and obviously for power consumption reasons if clocked really high). Thinking it will sit between a 1080 and 1080Ti imo (just my opinion for now!). The latter is almost twice as fast as a Fury X if my memory serves me correctly.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[beginner99]

The latter is almost twice as fast as a Fury X if my memory serves me correctly.

True but Fury chip was the most imbalanced of the whole GCN line. I mean it clearly under performs compared to Hawaii on number of GCN cores. Removing some bottlenecks (front-end for example) in fury alone could lead to 30%+ improvements. Add to that all other improvements from vega + higher clocks and you now are very close to 100% faster.

I like to refer to this image regarding power use:

This means 1 CU is a lot smaller than in hawaii or polaris and uses much less power. Where does the 4096 figure actually comes from? AFAIK this is just a rumor. Maybe it's actually more because they are smaller.

 

[Valantar]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Are you going to come up with an actual source this time? Because if you don't I'm just going to block you.

It's not that what you're saying isn't in the realm of possibility. It's that you're speaking as if you are an authority and you personally have access to this information when you have done absolutely nothing to establish yourself as a credible source. You come across like you're making this crap up, but also that you may actually believe your own BS and you have an estranged relationship with reality.

I'm glad someone has decided to take on the role of w3rd and bring back the "making sh*t up and proclaiming it as fact" in this thread. It's been too long. Sources, you say? Bah, humbug! Mockingbird is the absolute authority on anything and everything AMD. How dare we question his indisputable authority by asking for 'sources'? Ludicrous!

 

[Peicy]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Anything not in bold is speculation, and thats part of the reason why this forum exists.
The bolded is nonsense though. You are aware that designing a chip takes several years?

 

[Valantar]

Anything not in bold is speculation, and thats part of the reason why this forum exists.
The bolded is nonsense though. You are aware that designing a chip takes several years?

No.There's no fundamental difference in neither the content nor the form of anything in your quote. It's all speculation (some backed up by various rumors, some not), but also all presented as fact. Look at how it's written, the language used:

"Big" Vega is (...)

It's liquid cooled (...)

"Big" Vega costs significantly more (...)

This poses a significant issue (...) because it won't be able (...)

... AMD is going (..)

This is why (...)

(my emphasis)
Those are not word forms commonly associated with expressing neither opinion nor speculation, unless prefaced with something clarifying that what follows is just that. I don't see anything like that anywhere here. Those are word forms used for expressing facts, things that are, not things that might be. Which is the entire root of this discussion. None here are opposed to neither rumors nor speculation (that's what this thread is for, after all), but expressing it as if it were indisputably true - and refusing to provide sources to boot! - is just silly. I mean, adding "I think" or "it sounds reasonable that" into a sentence here and there would make this whole problem go away. But that's the job of the writer, not the reader. And failing to do so reflects a rather disturbing relationship with knowledge, facts and truth on the part of the writer. #alternativefacts

 

[Peicy]

No.There's no fundamental difference in neither the content nor the form of anything in your quote. It's all speculation (some backed up by various rumors, some not), but also all presented as fact. Look at how it's written, the language used:

(my emphasis)
Those are not word forms commonly associated with expressing neither opinion nor speculation, unless prefaced with something clarifying that what follows is just that. I don't see anything like that anywhere here. Those are word forms used for expressing facts, things that are, not things that might be. Which is the entire root of this discussion. None here are opposed to neither rumors nor speculation (that's what this thread is for, after all), but expressing it as if it were indisputably true - and refusing to provide sources to boot! - is just silly. I mean, adding "I think" or "it sounds reasonable that" into a sentence here and there would make this whole problem go away. But that's the job of the writer, not the reader. And failing to do so reflects a rather disturbing relationship with knowledge, facts and truth on the part of the writer. #alternativefacts

I am very aware of that. Since i dont take most post regarding the future of the industries landscape seriously, i don´t care if someone writes his potential BS as a fact or ads a ton of "may" and "i think". My intention is not to attack you since you are quite right, but i feel that taking appart of post such as the one we are discussing is frankly, a waste of time.

 

[Glo.]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Stop spreading misinformation. Thank you.

 

[DDH]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

AMD is only so big a company and only has so much resource.

It has to put Vega on the backburner to prevent Zen from being delayed any further (not that AMD can't make great graphic cards).

Things are obviously much more dire for AMD's processors division which has been suffering from the fallout of the Bulldozer nuclear disaster for the past six years.

Wrong.

Wrong.


PSA: This person has absolutely no idea what theyre talking about. Their post isnt inside knowledge or speculation, its fantasy. Your best strategy is to ignore



Edit: This poster made a troll thread about vega being indefinitely delayed initially but it was locked. Clearly they didnt get enough traction with posts so took it to the vega rumour thread. The account was created back in feb and has posted almost exclusively in ryzen threads. Id argue this was only to establish credibility as a real account. One of their posts indicates they are still in school. Yet out of no where they suddenly have inside information on vega being delayed indefinitely. From a source who apparently is a financial analyst. Yet the stock price is still up 7-800% from '16. This account is a sockpuppet.

 

[Valantar]

[chorus x7]
Wrong.

PSA: This person has absolutely no idea what theyre talking about. Their post isnt inside knowledge or speculation, its fantasy. Your best strategy is to ignore

The funny thing is that inside that post there is one (single) nugget of truth:

AMD is only so big a company and only has so much resource.

This is indisputably true. After that, though, it goes straigt downhill again. "AMD is smaller than their competitors, so they're bound to suck and fail." is not only historically inaccurate, but Ryzen pretty much proved that it's still not true today. It's fun to watch people take singular facts entirely out of context and then draw conclusions based on them.

However, I don't believe in ignoring trolls, misinformation spreaders or people showing awful judgement - allowing their statements to stand unchallenged is too easily read as acquiescence (or at the very least lack of objection). Whether it's a raving tech fanboy/hater, some bumbling MAGA-Trumpist, anti-vaxxers, climate deniers, deregulation-obsessed libertarians, some alt-right neo-nazi a**hole, or just some logic-challenged overly impressionable teenager, they all need to be challenged and met with thoughtful, logical and thorough argumentation at every step. If not, they soon start drowning out the sensible people. Which makes for awful, awful discussion.

But I'm veering quite a bit off topic now, so I'll leave at that.

edit: obvious, argument-breaking typo.

 

[Valantar]

A freesync ultrawide with HDR..... that's my next monitor. Since I already have a 34" ultrawide.... don't think my wife will let me upgrade just yet

That's what I want too. FS (with enough range for LFC), ultrawide 1440p, HDR, preferably ~1800r curved, VA (or at least ~3000:1 static contrast), ~34", VESA compatible and with a built-in USB hub. Preferably somewhat color accurate - factory calibrated would be awesome. I'm not giving up my trusty U2711 until all of those criteria are fulfilled (or it dies on me). Which is okay, as I'm planning on keeping my Fury X for another couple of years.

 

[Crumpet]

That's what I want too. FS (with enough range for LFC), ultrawide 1440p, HDR, preferably ~1800r curved, VA (or at least ~3000:1 static contrast), ~34", VESA compatible and with a built-in USB hub. Preferably somewhat color accurate - factory calibrated would be awesome. I'm not giving up my trusty U2711 until all of those criteria are fulfilled (or it dies on me). Which is okay, as I'm planning on keeping my Fury X for another couple of years.

That but 144hz and sign me up.

In other news, i'm finding it interesting to see how the general media has gone from "Vega will not challenge the 1080ti or the Titan XP" to "Vega may face serious competition from Volta in q3".

Are they so anti-radeon that they can't create a positive spin on the rumours that Vega may top 1080ti/Titan XP that instead they choose to focus on how a future (and brought forward) Nvidia product may beat it.

 

[USER8000]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

So roughly 10% slower than a GTX1080TI Founders Edition??

 

[exquisitechar]

"Big" Vega is about 10% faster than the Geforce GTX 1080 out-of-box (OOB).

It's liquid cooled (closed loop a la Radeon R9 Fury X) and already running at its maximum clock OOB.

By comparison, you can get a Geforce GTX 1080 and overclocked it on air (assuming a good cooler).

"Big" Vega costs significantly more to make than the Geforce GTX 1080 and even the Titan X (aka Geforce GTX 1080 Ti) when they were released [and, of cause, the production cost/unit has dropped since they were in production for a while now].

This poses a significant issue for AMD because it won't be able to sell its "big" Vega for the same price as the Geforce GTX 1080, let alone undercut its price.

As a result, AMD is going back to the drawing board.

This is why we haven't heard much about Vega recently.

Just stop. You are so wrong you won't be able to post here after the Vega launch without being a laughingstock.

Even if big Vega is just GTX 1080 + 10% performance AMD will not do what you say they will. They will not "go back to the drawing board". They will certainly not delay the launch indefinitely.

 

[Valantar]

In other news, i'm finding it interesting to see how the general media has gone from "Vega will not challenge the 1080ti or the Titan XP" to "Vega may face serious competition from Volta in q3".

Are they so anti-radeon that they can't create a positive spin on the rumours that Vega may top 1080ti/Titan XP that instead they choose to focus on how a future (and brought forward) Nvidia product may beat it.

There definitely seems to be a tendency towards headlines leaning that way, yeah. When AMD is rumored to rival/beat Nvidia this is presented as questionable ("Will AMD [product X] be able to challenge Nvidia?"), while Nvidia-leaning rumors seem to be presented as more plausible ("Nvidia [product Y] to deliver z% performance improvement in Q3"). The difference in approach, language and perspective is subtle, but seems pervasive. I kind of wish I had time to do a study on that (being a tech obsessed (future) media researcher will do that to you), but there are limits to my spare time

 

[tamz_msc]

All I want is Dell to introduce Freesync in their Ultrasharp lineup. Once that happens I'm getting their updated U25-whatever 25" 1440p 60Hz. Though knowing Dell, it's going to be a long wait.