Any hope I had left for RX Vega died with this event. Looks like the worst case scenario is true, RX Vega is around GTX 1080 performance, except it is a much larger (and more power-hungry) chip, which means they can't even price it really low to make it an attractive product without having almost nonexistent margins.
This will probably be the biggest failure in the GPU scene since a long, long time.
Agreed. This must mean it's worse clock-for-clock vs Fury, as FE Edition. I hope now, finally some members will realize that people saying that those miraculous 40% driver improvements will not happen, werent all shills
I just have to wonder what Raja and co. were doing to create such a massive failure. Polaris was in development since before he was with AMD but Vega is a different story. Instead of finally achieving a leap over the old GCN with its first significant revision after leaving the high end GPU market for 2 years, they've basically made zero progress.
Oh well, I still trust AMD will price it well, and performance should look more favorable as new games come out and make use of its advanced features.
I just have to wonder what Raja and co. were doing to create such a massive failure. Polaris was in development since before he was with AMD but Vega is a different story. Instead of finally achieving a leap over the old GCN with its first significant revision after leaving the high end GPU market for 2 years, they've basically made zero progress.
Oh well, I still trust AMD will price it well, and performance should look more favorable as new games come out and make use of its advanced features.
Thanks for the first hand information.Incredible. Waited 2 hours in the queue, but gave up. Very unprofessional organization.
This is what I have been told:
They had a FreeSync and a G-Sync system, one equipped with an RX Vega, the other with a GTX 1080, display was some 100 Hz ASUS.
The "contest" was to tell which one performs better. You have 2 minutes with each system. Finito.
Additionally, they have some ASUS gear to show.
That's it. Don't know who is / was responsible for this. What a joke.
Interesting read and results, thx for link
They did that when they launched Polaris. Even back then it was rather disgusting marketing.Lets wait for RX Vega, and then come out with torches against AMD.
That's the usual "we offer good enough performance". "You aren't going to see any real word difference." In practice, it means they aren't going to be faster. If that would have been the case they would have shown pure raw numbers. And if they used GTX 1080 it means they aren't targeting GTX 1080 Ti. That would mean the VEGA FE numbers are quite accurate.Incredible. Waited 2 hours in the queue, but gave up. Very unprofessional organization.
This is what I have been told:
They had a FreeSync and a G-Sync system, one equipped with an RX Vega, the other with a GTX 1080, display was some 100 Hz ASUS.
The "contest" was to tell which one performs better. You have 2 minutes with each system. Finito.
Additionally, they have some ASUS gear to show.
That's it. Don't know who is / was responsible for this. What a joke.
They did that when they launched Polaris. Even back then it was rather disgusting marketing.
That's the usual "we offer good enough performance". "You aren't going to see any real word difference." In practice, it means they aren't going to be faster. If that would have been the case they would have shown pure raw numbers. And if they used GTX 1080 it means they aren't targeting GTX 1080 Ti. That would mean the VEGA FE numbers are quite accurate.
We'll see...
Agreed. Vega is going to be 18 months late and extremely disappointing. Only way AMD can salvage the PR is to sell it at cost.
Agreed. Vega is going to be 18 months late and extremely disappointing. Only way AMD can salvage the PR is to sell it at cost.
18 months?? How do you figure? It was originally going to be announced in late 2016. We are now in mid 2017. Basic math suggest it is not 18 months.
Reportedly most people found the RX Vega + FreeSync smoother then the 1080 + GSync, which is telling. Perhaps it tells us something about FreeSync vs GSync, but it also could indicate there is a larger then expected difference between Vega and the 1080 at least in the scenario they set up.Any hope I had left for RX Vega died with this event. Looks like the worst case scenario is true, RX Vega is around GTX 1080 performance, except it is a much larger (and more power-hungry) chip, which means they can't even price it really low to make it an attractive product without having almost nonexistent margins.
This will probably be the biggest failure in the GPU scene since a long, long time.
I just have to wonder what Raja and co. were doing to create such a massive failure. Polaris was in development since before he was with AMD but Vega is a different story. Instead of finally achieving a leap over the old GCN with its first significant revision after leaving the high end GPU market for 2 years, they've basically made zero progress.
Oh well, I still trust AMD will price it well, and performance should look more favorable as new games come out and make use of its advanced features.
If you don't have money and people, what can you do? At the financial analyst day Raja mentioned that till 2015 the AMD management thought GPUs are a shrinking market. Maxwell probably showed them that it's not the case. But till that time AMD probably reduced the r&d in gpus massively and thought that professional/datacenter are the only gpu markets where they'll be able to make money, so focused more on these parts. But reducing r&d won't work out if your rival is going on with full speed.
From 2015 on amd added more people and r&d to the graphics division, but this won't help vega much. Vega was only 1 year from tapeout, so the people could only help in implementing the architecture, but not change it much anymore. Vegas architecture was build at the time in which amd spend the lowest amout on gpu r&d and they added a ton of features. But unfortunately features can be implemented in efficient and non-efficient ways and when you're restricted with way too low ressources the latter is quite probable.
Well... that slide says Vega will address a bigger market in 2018 than in 2017.
I'll leave conclusions to the reader
Actually I see bigger TAMs in all the segmentsFrom the slide it seems to me that Consoles will address higher TAM volume in 2018 vs 2017, not Vega.
Raja needs to be fired NOW! He has delivered failure after failure, AMD needs a better lead in the GPU segment, its clear that their GPU's are too imbalanced. Too heavy on the shaders and pixel starved, as well as feeding those shaders is a big issue for them.
I was holding out hope that with optimizations in the driver and a bit higher and more stable clocks the RX Vega will gain 10% on the Vega FE and beat the 1080 in most games, but this is just not the case.
AMD sucks in DX11 even more now, GCN 4.0 and the 400/500 series are actually way more DX11 efficient and it seems like their DX12/Vulkan advantage with GCN 4 is gone with Vega as well.
At this point upscaling the RX 580 will be a much wiser choice and its actually going to consume less power as well. GCN 4 also seems to scale more with cores, so adding 1000 cores is likely to increase performance over the RX 580 at same clocks and memory bandwidth by over 60%. Add in increased clocks to 1600MHz, GDDR5x memory and more like 70% added performance. At about 4000 processing cores which is almost double its current cores it would be over 100% faster than a 580, meaning competitive with the 1080.