Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Maverick177]

I'd call that a big win for everyone. A card that splits the difference between 1080 and 1080Ti for a price that splits the difference as well? And you can get a cheap
er Freesync monitor to save another couple hundred?

You can buy a good gaming CPU for $300 saved on a Ti/GSync, that's worth doing.

Might make their "Poor Volta" untrue, but good news for consumers. I care more about what I can buy for my money than the marketing speak.

It is a fail for AMD in regards to technology competency and financial stand point. Also, the 1080Ti is already at $700, what stops nvidia from lowering it down to $650 range? That would utterly decimate Vega.

Even more so when you consider AMD is more than a year late, with roughly 20% faster than GP104 but also 10% more expensive.. I want nvidia to crash down and burn but it seems to me the RTG is really getting a beating right now. Raja doesn't mention Vega performance AT ALL if you skip all the non sense filler crap. That is worrying considering Threadripper is winning heavily..

It looks like Vega will be 10% slower than 1080 TI in titles skewed heavily in AMD's favor like Sniper Elite, which means it'll be 20% slower in a much larger swath of titles. If this ends up the case, it'll average 15+% slower than 1080 TI. I'm still curious as to the die size and power consumption metrics since neither was discussed. All in all though, as a halo gaming card it's too late and going to be VERY short lived with Volta likely hitting in Q4/Q1 next ear.

15% slower seems reasonable, and yeah it's gonna be sad for AMD if Volta is indeed scheduled for this year. Nvidia tends to have 1.5 year period between architectures. Pascal was launched on May last year so it's reasonable to assume it's gonna November for Volta. I got my Fury X on September 2015 because none could be found. Let's hope it's not the case for Vega.

They approached at different angles so hard to compare, but when they both are at the same place the FPS is actually very similar.

https://youtu.be/590h3XIUfHg

And that is against a 1962MHz 1080 Ti! Boost is under 1600 MHz. So its an OC'd 1080 Ti vs Vega and Vega is performing very well.

I'll try to be as unbiased as possible and call this a draw, based solely on this comparison alone since there are way too many things to consider.

 

[tg2708]

And that is against a 1962MHz 1080 Ti! Boost is under 1600 MHz. So its an OC'd 1080 Ti vs Vega and Vega is performing very well.

I know you are well aware of gpu boost but ill say it again not even the FE runs at is factory boost clock it always goes higher.

 

[Maverick177]

Double post.

 

[OatisCampbell]

I'll be disappointed if it's not at least on par with the TI. However a good price could help that disappointment a la the 4870.

Plus in 2 years it'll be faster than the 1080Ti anyway.

Exactly.

They might surprise us, but in the chip market R&D money is king and NV has more (a lot) to throw at this market. Expecting AMD to beat Titan Xp with this launch just because it took 2 years may well be more "optimistic" than "realistic".

 

[guachi]

No consumer Vega in Q2?

 

[Tweak155]

No consumer Vega in Q2?

Unclear right now. Seems like a possibility, though.

 

[IEC]

I'm not terribly impressed by what I saw today of Vega in regards to gaming, but it sure looks like it could be a winner in datacenters, especially if AMD is aggressive with pricing.

As for my impressions/speculations based on information shown today:
1) It is entirely possible the quoted clocks and specs of the Vega Frontier Edition card are lower than gaming cards. It's also quite possible that it's not an appreciable difference.
2) It doesn't seem like they are hitting the 2Gbps HBM2 speeds... close but not quite. If 480GB/s is with the expected HBM2 configuration that represents a speed of 93.75%... aka 1875, not 2000. This could point to delays for consumer cards... or possible later models/refresh cards having improved memory speeds.
3) The "Frontier Edition" sounds like to me that it could be cover for low yields... possibly on the HBM2 side.

Anyhow, I'll reserve final judgment for when consumer gaming cards are available, but I'm now disinclined to be an early adopter unless performance wows me.

 

[Karnak]

No consumer Vega in Q2?

Computex in two weeks, then we'll probably know more.

 

[CatMerc]

LARGE CAVEAT: We only know it was done at 4K, not actual settings used

 

[Cookie Monster]

The VEGA pro specs says it can reach up to 13TFLOPs (FP32) meaning its running near 1.6GHz. That seems fairly impressive given the 1.2GHz rumours.

However when you look at spec 12.1 scores of say a Quadro P6000.. the comparison they have doesnt look too good (the system they used are different but still) - https://www.spec.org/gwpg/gpc.data/...ults_20170210T1401_r1_HIGHEST/resultHTML.html

Not really sure what to expect even now. Dissappointed that they were rushing the gaming side of things and no mention of consumer cards.

 

[Maverick177]

LARGE CAVEAT: We only know it was done at 4K, not actual settings used

Was it running with 2GB Vram capped?

 

[CatMerc]

Was it running with 2GB Vram capped?

Yes

 

[Arachnotronic]

How ridiculous, the only Vega they seem to be readying for Q2 is Vega 10 aimed at the professional/prosumer market, and that 16GB of HBM2 probably indicates that it's going to be quite expensive.

For the consumer market, I don't get a good feeling about Vega.

 

[Paratus]

If the demo today showed stock Vega basically neck and neck with 1950mhz 1080Ti that's pretty good.

Or is 1950mhz common for stock 1080Ti's?

 

[raghu78]

How ridiculous, the only Vega they seem to be readying for Q2 is Vega 10 aimed at the professional/prosumer market, and that 16GB of HBM2 probably indicates that it's going to be quite expensive.

For the consumer market, I don't get a good feeling about Vega.

The only Vega Raja talked about is the Radeon Vega Frontier edition for professional market. That does not mean no Radeon RX VEGA launch in Q2. I think we will know for sure by Computex time if RX VEGA is coming in June. If it doesn't then surely its very disappointing AMD are almost a generation behind Nvidia. I don't know what AMD has planned for 2018 but I have a feeling it will be a repeat of Maxwell vs Radeon 300/Fury X as I think (actually almost sure) AMD might not have the funds to launch a full lineup of Vega GPUs at 14nm+ because they would be allocating their meagre cash resources to 7nm Navi GPUs due for H1 2019. AMD will have to find a way to generate more money and try to keep up with Nvidia's generations which are now not tied to process nodes and happen every 18-24 months.

 

[Maverick177]

Yes

Then it's pointless to compare.

How ridiculous, the only Vega they seem to be readying for Q2 is Vega 10 aimed at the professional/prosumer market, and that 16GB of HBM2 probably indicates that it's going to be quite expensive.

For the consumer market, I don't get a good feeling about Vega.

Who are you kidding at this point? Frequent visitors are well aware that you will say nothing but doom and gloom about AMD.

For the mod: it's not personal attack, it's just an observation.

 

[Bouowmx]

"13" TFLOPS is 12.5 rounded up, from the fact that 16-bit rate is 25 TFLOPS. Frequency is 1525 MHz.

For NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti standard frequencies: Founders Edition can achieve 1.6-1.7 GHz; partner cards (ex. ASUS ROG STRIX) can achieve 1.9-2.0 GHz.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Theonly Vega Raja talked about is the Radeon Vega Frontier edition for professional market.

I think they would have hyped up Radeon RX Vega for consumer at this event; after all, why promote the Frontier Edition but not the consumer stuff which is arguably more interesting?

That does not mean no Radeon RX VEGA launch in Q2. I think we will know for sure by Computex time if RX VEGA is coming in June. If it doesn't then surely its very disappointing AMD are almost a generation behind Nvidia.

I think we'll know on May 31

I don't know what AMD has planned for 2018 but I have a feeling it will be a repeat of Maxwell vs Radeon 300/Fury X as I think (actually almost sure) AMD might not have the funds to launch a full lineup of Vega GPUs at 14nm+ because they would be allocating their meagre cash resources to 7nm Navi GPUs due for H1 2019. AMD will have to find a way to generate more money and try to keep up with Nvidia's generations which are now not tied to process nodes and happen every 18-24 months.

Yeah, AMD is clearly behind in the high-end gaming GPU market. Will be interesting to see how RX Vega holds up in games and what the competition offers, too.

 

[Yakk]

I think they would have hyped up Radeon RX Vega for consumer at this event; after all, why promote the Frontier Edition but not the consumer stuff which is arguably more interesting

Well, "Financial Analyst Day" doesn't screem "home gamer" mind you... There are more suited events for the consumer market.

 

[tviceman]

If the demo today showed stock Vega basically neck and neck with 1950mhz 1080Ti that's pretty good.

Or is 1950mhz common for stock 1080Ti's?

AMD did not disclose the graphical settings used, other than 4K, and Sniper Elite 4 is a very friendly title for AMD when it comes to bench marking. With the GTX 1070 typically commanding a 10% lead over the Fury X, in this particular title both are neck and neck. If Vega was going to be a true 1080 TI competitor in gaming, AMD would have released more than just 1 gaming benchmark, and they would have made direct comparisons to the 1080 TI in games too.

Read between the lines, do the math.... it will not be faster than the 1080 TI in gaming.

 

[Bacon1]

I know you are well aware of gpu boost but ill say it again not even the FE runs at is factory boost clock it always goes higher.

The FE runs @ 1650ish out of the box due to throttling.

OC'd and max thermal / power they got it to 2063 MHz which is slightly more than the one in the video.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti/33.html

 

[HurleyBird]

"13" TFLOPS is 12.5 rounded up, from the fact that 16-bit rate is 25 TFLOPS. Frequency is 1525 MHz.

We already know there's a 1600MHz Vega out in the wild. Running 16-bit packed ops probably hits certain parts of pipeline harder, and/or produces more heat, and therefore can't boost quite as high.

 

[Bacon1]

I think they would have hyped up Radeon RX Vega for consumer at this event; after all, why promote the Frontier Edition but not the consumer stuff which is arguably more interesting?

Because this was an investor's call and the big market they have untapped is machine/deep learning. So that's where they focused most of their talks both GPU and CPU (and both combined).

 

[Paratus]

AMD did not disclose the graphical settings used, other than 4K, and Sniper Elite 4 is a very friendly title for AMD when it comes to bench marking. With the GTX 1070 typically commanding a 10% lead over the Fury X, in this particular title both are neck and neck. If Vega was going to be a true 1080 TI competitor in gaming, AMD would have released more than just 1 gaming benchmark, and they would have made direct comparisons to the 1080 TI in games too.

Read between the lines, do the math.... it will not be faster than the 1080 TI in gaming.

So to reiterate:
Stock Vega @ 4K in a friendly game (TPU has FuryX averaging 2% behind the 1070 @ 4K over a range of games BTW) is basically even with a 1080Ti with a 23% OC.

I was worried at first that it really was slower than the stock 1080Ti, by failing to best it in a friendly game. That it's performance is similar to a significantly OC'd model is actually a good sign.

The other interesting thing is the asus strix 1080Ti is about 50% faster than Fury X at 4K. Vega would also be about 50% faster which is equal to the 50% increase in clockspeed.

Fury in this game is faster than the 1070 by 5%. This is a game where Fury is able to feed its shaders. Vega should have improved its through put across most games thanks to the extra transistor budget over Fury.

I think this is a game that is generally going to be indicative of Vegas general performance. Equal to a highly OC'd 1080Ti.

 

[Gibbons]

You need to know what CPU, memory and games settings that Vega system was using if you want to put specific numbers on things.