Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[Bacon1]

That's without OCing where FuryX had barely any headroom and the 980Ti was an overclockers dream.

Odd that even on day 1 Fury X had 10% OC which is the exact same as Pascal yet Fury X has "no headroom" and Pascal is a good OCer according to any review out there...

Lets compare price/perf with features though right? So buy a WC'd 980 Ti, that's $770 and you end up with just slightly better price/perf over the Fury X when heavily OC'd and using more power

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ws/70502-evga-gtx-980-ti-hybrid-review-3.html

If you wanted the best price/perf you would have bought Fury Air, which was only ~5% slower on average yet $100+ cheaper.

Funny enough though we never see any reviews with OC'd Fury X or even Fury Air while they did get 10% even at launch.

I'm not saying its a great OCer by any means, but when it matches what Pascal can do and people call it unable to OC while praising Pascal still it's just silly...


Quit arguing 2 year old crap.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[exquisitechar]

Odd that even on day 1 Fury X had 10% OC which is the exact same as Pascal yet Fury X has "no headroom" and Pascal is a good OCer according to any review out there...

Lets compare price/perf with features though right? So buy a WC'd 980 Ti, that's $770 and you end up with just slightly better price/perf over the Fury X when heavily OC'd and using more power

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ws/70502-evga-gtx-980-ti-hybrid-review-3.html

If you wanted the best price/perf you would have bought Fury Air, which was only ~5% slower on average yet $100+ cheaper.

Funny enough though we never see any reviews with OC'd Fury X or even Fury Air while they did get 10% even at launch.

I'm not saying its a great OCer by any means, but when it matches what Pascal can do and people call it unable to OC while praising Pascal still it's just silly...

Agreed, the Fury X is often underestimated. Especially its OC headroom, most cards nowadays boost close to their limit out of the box. Yet for some reason it is the only card that is criticized for it.

Not to mention, I recall that two Fury X cards running in CrossFire solidly beat the 980ti and Titan X Maxwell in 4K during the time that those cards were relevant.

It was by no means a great card, but it wasn't awful either like some would you to believe.


Quit arguing 2 year old crap.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[LaikaSpaceCat]

Vega FE are prosumer cards. They are designed to go up against Titan cards. Firepro & Radeon Pro W series cards are RTG's purely professional workstation cards. I don't know where you are getting that Vega is slower than GP104 or Quattro. The numbers we know about now put Vega above GP100.

https://hothardware.com/ContentImages/Article/2562/content/spac1.png

 

[ElFenix]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. I'm locking it and handing out infractions. When you all cool down and get over yourselves I'll unlock it.

AT Moderator ElFenix

 

[crisium]

Another rumour:

http://wccftech.com/amd-vega/

AMD will reportedly begin shipping final RX Vega silicon to its board partners as early as this week to finalizes their custom card designs. These custom AIB RX Vega cards are said to begin shipping between late July and early August.
...
Finally, HWBattle reports that Vega will be faster than the GTX 1080, although they did not offer much detail beyond that.

 

[Tweak155]

Glad this thread is now unlocked, only thread I come here for (for the most part), with it being so close to a potential launch, critical to read about any rumors

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Another rumour:

http://wccftech.com/amd-vega/

RX VEGA that's faster than GTX1080 + the Samsung C32HG70 = my setup by the end of the summer.

 

[Malogeek]

RX VEGA that's faster than GTX1080 + the Samsung C32HG70 = my setup by the end of the summer.

Very nice monitor, I'm looking at the 21:9 freesync 2 curved in the near future once I have Vega.

 

[Despoiler]

https://hothardware.com/ContentImages/Article/2562/content/spac1.png

I'll take 4 Vega Air cards vs 1 P6000 and still have money left over. 7 vs 1 GP100. Ill take that too. Chart that....

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

Very nice monitor, I'm looking at the 21:9 freesync 2 curved in the near future once I have Vega.

I was considering ultrawide but too few games properly support it just yet. Maybe my next monitor in a few years if things change!

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

I'll take 4 Vega Air cards vs 1 P6000 and still have money left over. 7 vs 1 GP100. Ill take that too. Chart that....

Jesus, yeah the Quadro P5000 and the Quadro M6000 are 4 and 8 times more expensive respectively than the WX7100 they're being compared to in that chart!

WX7100 x4 in a Threadripper workstation for anyone trying to do that kind of work?

 

[Malogeek]

I was considering ultrawide but too few games properly support it just yet. Maybe my next monitor in a few years if things change!

I'm surprised how much it is supported so far personally. And if it's not supported, then run it in 16:9 instead for that game, problem solved.

 

[tviceman]

Another rumour:

http://wccftech.com/amd-vega/

Comparisons to 1080 TI in gaming continue to be avoided.

 

[Maverick177]

"Faster than 1080".

As opposed to slower than 1080?

What a ridiculous statement and article.

 

[3DVagabond]

never mind

 

[AdamK47]

Will AMD support 4-Way Crossfire for Vega?

 

[Jackie60]

Will AMD support 4-Way Crossfire for Vega?

I hope so although I doubt I'll go there but might depending on price and performance. Need to see good scaling before I'll bite.

 

[nad-]

Apparently Vega FE is not running pro drivers.
If it is, they're not working considering a Polaris 10 is able to keep up with it.

Vega FE ( £1200 )
Catia = 135.75
CREO = 83.94
SolidWorks = 114.88
Cinebench OpenGL = 183.28

Radeon Pro WX 7100 ( £660)
Catia = 104.34
CREO = 82.08
SolidWorks = 111.55
Cinebench OpenGL =197.11

Titan Xp ( £1200)
Catia = 107.29
CREO = 65.2
SolidWorks = 67.75
Cinebench OpenGL = 169.72

These are the FuryX and RX480 results:
Fury X ( ? )
Catia = 81.79
CREO = 39.23
SolidWorks = 67.18
Cinebench OpenGL = 175

Radeon RX480 8GB ( ? )
Catia = 92.14
CREO = 47.43
SolidWorks = 74.14
Cinebench OpenGL = 166

Ungracefully mugged from SA forums-

 

[nathanddrews]

It's reasonable to assume that until the unit actually launches, there will be no launch driver available. Only beta/alpha drivers at the moment.

I think the branding tells us what we need to know. This is being marketed as the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition, under the Pro umbrella, but without the Pro suffix on the card itself. So in reality, I assume that it's a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Middle ground between a gaming-centric card that doesn't benefit from professional drivers and workstation-centric card that isn't usually optimized for gaming. More than anything, a halo product for the "gotta have it first at any price" crowd. Taking a page from the Titan-series, but adding in more professional capabilities.

 

[nad-]

It's unlikely, a but a third set of drivers called "Prosumer"? Which would fit the jack of all trades label.
Though I can't imagine AMD having the resources for new driver teams.

 

[nathanddrews]

It's unlikely, a but a third set of drivers called "Prosumer"? Which would fit the jack of all trades label.
Though I can't imagine AMD having the resources for new driver teams.

No, I'm assuming it will use the same ReLive driver package as the ProDuo. I'm suggesting that they maybe haven't released any launch drivers with specific Vega tweaks yet. Also total speculation: if it's not meant to be a WX-series competitor, then they might be hobbling its performance relative to the Polaris WX cards and upcoming Vega WX cards.

 

[Stuka87]

Will AMD support 4-Way Crossfire for Vega?

Considering AMD uses the PCI-E bus to connect cards, it is certainly possible.

 

[Mopetar]

No, I'm assuming it will use the same ReLive driver package as the ProDuo. I'm suggesting that they maybe haven't released any launch drivers with specific Vega tweaks yet. Also total speculation: if it's not meant to be a WX-series competitor, then they might be hobbling its performance relative to the Polaris WX cards and upcoming Vega WX cards.

It makes no sense for AMD to hobble performance intentionally when they're not in a dominant market position. They need Vega to come out looking great or it's going to lose a lot of what little mindshare its still clinging to.

 

[nathanddrews]

It makes no sense for AMD to hobble performance intentionally when they're not in a dominant market position. They need Vega to come out looking great or it's going to lose a lot of what little mindshare its still clinging to.

For my needs, it doesn't make sense, but AMD wouldn't be bifurcating chips into RX and WX lines if it didn't make sense to AMD as a company. In fact, it makes tremendous sense. Gamers and enterprise are two entirely different markets with entirely different needs, and - most importantly - two entirely different checking accounts. This particular Vega FE is clearly meant to be a direct competitor to GeForce (not Quadro) Titan Xp by offering gaming capabilities and limited, but powerful, professional capabilities for a halo price. HEDT and boutique builders will view it as a Titan alternative.

The rest of us will wait for reasonably priced RX Vega models.

#CrystalBallshit

 

[Mopetar]

Unless it's a performance monster, AMD would just be shooting themselves in the foot. For what AMD is allegedly asking, this should be trouncing the WX 7100 or there's no reason not to just buy a WX 7100 instead if you need any professional capabilities since you get similar results at half the price. If you want gaming, wait for RX Vega which AMD have said will be faster than the FE. There are a lot of people who will pay the NVidia premium, but no where near as many that will do so for AMD.

A far better conclusion is that the supposed benchmarks aren't accurate for whatever reason, the most likely being that it doesn't include final drivers because AMD wants to keep performance figures under wraps.