Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[tamz_msc]

Most likely faked.

The fonts are suspect.

 

[Crumpet]

it's a confirmed fake guys

 

[Whitestar127]

Just thought I'd shoehorn in a couple of questions here, to get up to date really. I haven't read through the whole thread, so apologies if this has been discussed before. I also haven't kept up to date recently with regards to Vega news.

1. Do we know anything about Vega's ballpark performance? I saw some rumors on a site yesterday that it would probably land somewhere around 1070/1080 (but they also stated that they didn't know if AMD had another high-end part up their sleeve that could perform even faster).
2. Is there anything out there suggesting that a Ryzen/Vega combo will perform faster than a Ryzen/GeForce combo?

Thanks

 

[Crumpet]

1 - somewhere between not fast and very fast
2 - infinity fabric may do something, I don't know, answers on a postcard please.

Bait for wenchmarks.

 

[mohit9206]

Just thought I'd shoehorn in a couple of questions here, to get up to date really. I haven't read through the whole thread, so apologies if this has been discussed before. I also haven't kept up to date recently with regards to Vega news.

1. Do we know anything about Vega's ballpark performance? I saw some rumors on a site yesterday that it would probably land somewhere around 1070/1080 (but they also stated that they didn't know if AMD had another high-end part up their sleeve that could perform even faster).
2. Is there anything out there suggesting that a Ryzen/Vega combo will perform faster than a Ryzen/GeForce combo?

Thanks

Vega is old news. Everyone is now waiting for Navi.
Navi with 1080Ti performance for $499. That's what we're waiting for.
If that's too much power for you to handle then there's 1070 performance for $299.
All aboard the Navi hype train! Choo-Choo!

 

[William Gaatjes]

I worry about the used process for Vega. :|
The rx580 did not get a serious increase clockspeed bump and it seems the few percent more comes at a cost of more power consumption. I can imagine AMD did not put much effort in polaris , not optimizing it further.
But one would think with all increase in experience and tweaking of using the process, even existing chips would see improvements. Then again, if nothing is actively done to the circuit design such as adding more layers or optimizing the mask layers it may not be possible at 14nm and lower.

 

[lobz]

Vega is old news. Everyone is now waiting for Navi.
Navi with 1080Ti performance for $499. That's what we're waiting for.
If that's too much power for you to handle then there's 1070 performance for $299.
All aboard the Navi hype train! Choo-Choo!

Are you actualluly Mockingbird and just forgot to switch back?

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[mohit9206]

Are you actualluly Mockingbird and just forgot to switch back?

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

No I'm not him.
I'm just saying Navi is going to be worth the wait.

 

[lobz]

No I'm not him.
I'm just saying Navi is going to be worth the wait.

Yes, clearly you said that

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[CatMerc]

Most likely faked.

Very fake.

 

[Vaporizer]

V.

 

[Crumpet]

V.

Maybe we need to put together a V for Vendetta style poster for Vega.

 

[tential]

I never said the Fury X got a last minute price cut. My whole point was that 980 Ti came around too close for a pricing change. It's a huge logistical undertaking this close to release.

I'm saying your whole point of anything about the 980ti being a surprise is hilarious. If you couldn't guess within 10% of where the 980ti was going to be this isn't your field of expertise.

It's not even that, it's that if you simply put a 10% variance in comparison to the prior gen, NOTHING about the 980ti is surprising or 1080ti.

The same thing keeps happening.

What I'm saying is the whole premise of anything about the 980ti being a surprise is only a surprise to those who refuse to pay attention.

I barely skimmed the reviews of the 980ti i knew where the chip was going to land there was no point....

 

[guskline]

Having followed these rumor threads for some time, I notice a pattern. As release of a new card becomes imminent, some pro fans get so wild with expectations that it just "invites" caustic criticism by some ant-fans (ones in the other camp).

Part of the problem for AMD was and is the lack of a new fast high-end card. I own 2 RX480s in CF in rig 3 below. I also own a GTX 1080 and a GTX980TI SC. The single RX480 is a minor league player in overall frame rate etc above 1080p compared to the GTX1080 or even 980 TI SC but it should be considering price and the hardware specs. In fact 2 RX480s in CF can beat the GTX1080 in a select few benchmarks but still trails overall.

No disrespect to the Fury/FuryX owners but though a solid high end card it's not close enough to the GTX 1080 to now be relevant. It was AMD's first stab at releasing HBM setup. No argument that the release of the GTX980TI really affected it.

Vega was pronounced by Raja to be the high end answer and hopefully it is. I sometimes wonder if he keeps tweeking it for the "perfect" balance but has had it in the lab too long?

As fair minded posters above pointed out, it needs to come in solid, hopefully slightly ahead of the GTX1080 and within a close proximity of the GTX 1080TI. Price wise if it trails the GTX1080TI at launch, and I expect it to, it hopefully will not exceed the mid $500 range. Maybe another Ryzen 7 like price structure? (499;$399 etc?).

 

[nathanddrews]

As fair minded posters above pointed out, it needs to come in solid, hopefully slightly ahead of the GTX1080 and within a close proximity of the GTX 1080TI. Price wise if it trails the GTX1080TI at launch, and I expect it to, it hopefully will not exceed the mid $500 range. Maybe another Ryzen 7 like price structure? (499;$399 etc?).

I think everyone would love to see a shakeup of the high-end GPU pricing model, a la Ryzen vs Intel HEDT, but it's really hard to say one way or another.

Generally speaking, AMD has really embraced "the people's champ" mentality with its pricing of Ryzen. Likewise, when it released its highest-end SKU 295X2 vs TitanZ, Fury (non-X) vs 980Ti, Polaris in general. So there's definitely precedence established for AMD offering great value compared to the competition.

 

[tg2708]

Seeing that 4gb vram really hindered the fury cards in certain games the push to 8gb of a supposed superior VRAM tech should help or aleviate any bottlenecks as far as that it concerned. I want it to succeed but since I currently have a gsync monitor I won't be moving away from nvidia for sometime.

 

[IEC]

Speaking of Fury... seems like stock is being cleared out and not replaced. Preparation for Vega, I suppose.

 

[Paratus]

Seeing that 4gb vram really hindered the fury cards in certain games the push to 8gb of a supposed superior VRAM tech should help or aleviate any bottlenecks as far as that it concerned. I want it to succeed but since I currently have a gsync monitor I won't be moving away from nvidia for sometime.

The thing is 4GB really hasn't hindered Fury.

Checking the TPU review of the 1080TI Fury X moves from being down 3% to the 980TI at 1080P to being 4% faster at 4K. It's only behind the 1070 by 2% at that resolution.

Fury improves with resolution.

If you check each of the 22 games they benched @ 4K, Fury X:

• Is slower than the 980Ti by 5-10% in 5 games
• Is faster than the 980Ti but slower than the 1070 in 8
• Is faster than the 1070 in 9 games
• (4 out of 22 games are unplayable @4K with anything below a Titan X)

In every game, with one exception, Fury X becomes more competitive at higher resolutions, even in the games it loses to the 980Ti

The one exception is Battlefield 1. Fury X ties the 1070 at 1440P but ends up slightly slower than the 980Ti at 4K. Neither card gives great performance at that Rez. Basically you'd want a 1080 or above.

I'd say AMDs memory management of 4GB is pretty good if 95% of games show no issues at 4K. I wouldn't call it significantly hindered.

 

[Bacon1]

As fair minded posters above pointed out, it needs to come in solid, hopefully slightly ahead of the GTX1080 and within a close proximity of the GTX 1080TI. Price wise if it trails the GTX1080TI at launch, and I expect it to, it hopefully will not exceed the mid $500 range. Maybe another Ryzen 7 like price structure? (499;$399 etc?).

Honestly while I'd love for Vega to beat out 1080 Ti and be priced very high so AMD gets some of the massive profits Nvidia has been enjoying, I don't see anyone here who upgraded from 1080 -> 1080 Ti -> Titan Xp to upgrade to it even if it was faster and they claim to like the best regardless of price. AMD needs some massive profits to be able to keep up with the crazy profits Nvidia has been enjoying, but I don't see them as a company who likes taking in tons of money, but would rather sell you a great product for very competitive price. I mean just look at Ryzen, they completely eliminated all of intel's lineup except the 7700k if you want to OC it like crazy for gaming only. Every other price point Ryzen crushes Intel, and they did so by killing intel's huge profits. Investors hated that apparently with the huge drop in stock, but it's great for consumers like you and me.

So while it would be great to see Vega make AMD a ton of money they can put back into R&D, I see them once again providing best bang/buck, and might end up upgrading if it's worth it instead of waiting for Navi. My Fury Nitro is doing very well @ 3440x1440 and while more performance would be good, I don't need to push the slight upgrades to Ultra for $500+.

 

[Headfoot]

Seeing that 4gb vram really hindered the fury cards in certain games the push to 8gb of a supposed superior VRAM tech should help or aleviate any bottlenecks as far as that it concerned. I want it to succeed but since I currently have a gsync monitor I won't be moving away from nvidia for sometime.

Link the benchmarks that show 4gb vram "really hindering" Fury cards.

If anything I've been astounded at how not-complete-BS their "Better Memory Management" thing is. It smelled like wishful thinking and excuse making and it's turned out to be true the vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

 

[Samwell]

Link the benchmarks that show 4gb vram "really hindering" Fury cards.

If anything I've been astounded at how not-complete-BS their "Better Memory Management" thing is. It smelled like wishful thinking and excuse making and it's turned out to be true the vast majority of the time, if not all the time.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gefor...kkarte-265855/Tests/Test-Review-1222421/2/#a1
They have many games which show the 4Gb limit:
AC Syndicate: 2560: Fury 10% faster than 390x , 4k 390x 19% faster
GTA5 : 2560: Fury 12% faster than 390x, 4k 390x 7% faster
Mirrors Edge Catalyst, 4gb aren't even enough at 2560, so 390x is faster in both resolutions
Total War Warhammer: 2560 :Fury 30% faster, 4k 390x 80% faster

Not in that review, but seen somewhere else, in rainbow six siege fury is also tanking sometimes in 4k.
There are quite a few more out there probably, so definitely the 4gb are hindering fury pretty strong.

 

[Headfoot]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gefor...kkarte-265855/Tests/Test-Review-1222421/2/#a1
They have many games which show the 4Gb limit:
AC Syndicate: 2560: Fury 10% faster than 390x , 4k 390x 19% faster
GTA5 : 2560: Fury 12% faster than 390x, 4k 390x 7% faster
Mirrors Edge Catalyst, 4gb aren't even enough at 2560, so 390x is faster in both resolutions
Total War Warhammer: 2560 :Fury 30% faster, 4k 390x 80% faster

Not in that review, but seen somewhere else, in rainbow six siege fury is also tanking in 4k.
There are quite a few more out there probably, so definitely the 4gb are hindering fury pretty strong.

Excluding ME:C due to the intentional nature of the Hyper setting VRAM thing (artificially inflated), that is a solid list. Thanks for the info, I stand corrected. I hadn't kept up on this for the Fury lately, since it was a dud. So in a few games the 4GB is starting to become a problem here, in the last 6 months or so. I would expect the number of games where that's an issue to continue to grow going forward. Hell of a lot longer than I thought 4GB could last on the high end

 

[Samwell]

It's also not shown in every review for the same games. As far as i read sometime ago pcgh often tries to find worst cases in games and is benching these, whereas many others just choose some typical scene.
So the limit is not so bad in every game there always, but if you play and need to turn settings down for a particular level, it's still not great.

 

[Bacon1]

Woah woah woah, lets look at the actual FPS and we can tell these settings are not playable at all.

AC Syndicate: 2560: Fury 10% faster than 390x , 4k 390x 19% faster

Yes and the 1080 doesn't even break 30 fps, heck even the 1080 Ti has 36 fps!

GTA5 : 2560: Fury 12% faster than 390x, 4k 390x 7% faster

Ooooo this one is excellent, even the 1080 Ti can't hit over 32 FPS! Those look like playable settings to me

Mirrors Edge Catalyst, 4gb aren't even enough at 2560, so 390x is faster in both resolutions

Mmmm yeah, that sweet 27.7 fps on a 1070 and 19.6 fps on a 980 Ti. Definite playable settings there too

Total War Warhammer: 2560 :Fury 30% faster, 4k 390x 80% faster

Mmmmmm yet another one where a 1080 Ti isn't over 32 fps!

Thanks for the info, I stand corrected. I hadn't kept up on this for the Fury lately, since it was a dud. So in a few games the 4GB is starting to become a problem here, in the last 6 months or so. I would expect the number of games where that's an issue to continue to grow going forward. Hell of a lot longer than I thought 4GB could last on the high end

In actual playable settings it is fine. None of the cards, not even 1080 Ti were playable in those settings tested

So the limit is not so bad in every game there always, but if you play and need to turn settings down for a particular level, it's still not great.

You'll be turning down settings on a 1080 Ti to play those same games, unless you think $700+ GPU should only do 30 fps.

 

[zinfamous]

Woah woah woah, lets look at the actual FPS and we can tell these settings are not playable at all.



Yes and the 1080 doesn't even break 30 fps, heck even the 1080 Ti has 36 fps!



Ooooo this one is excellent, even the 1080 Ti can't hit over 32 FPS! Those look like playable settings to me



Mmmm yeah, that sweet 27.7 fps on a 1070 and 19.6 fps on a 980 Ti. Definite playable settings there too



Mmmmmm yet another one where a 1080 Ti isn't over 32 fps!



In actual playable settings it is fine. None of the cards, not even 1080 Ti were playable in those settings tested



You'll be turning down settings on a 1080 Ti to play those same games, unless you think $700+ GPU should only do 30 fps.

lol. that's some stone-cold massaging of data from Samwell, there. Nice catch--I actually didn't look at the link before your post, so a wee bit telling how obvious that can be on a first look! I can't imagine trying to link data like that and make a %performance argument. (I mean, honestly. of course)