Nope sorry.Now when RX 580 and GTX 1060 are being sold at €300-350 price range, and GTX 1070 goes for €500, I think Vega priced at ~ €500-500 and with 250W TDP is the best thing gamers could get at this moment
that is because 4k Gsync displays cost $300 more compared to freesync meaning that RX Vega will cost the same as GTX 1080 meaning it will sell very poorly.
it still cost around 650USD here in eu.We all can only thanks miners.
Btw miners will buy out vega anyway.They buy out everything that is not at 2-3x MSRP.
This discussion has already gone around about the demos they were doing. There are several versions of monitors where the "G-sync tax" is $300, including the one they were using for the demo.You mean $200 more.
This discussion has already gone around about the demos they were doing. There are several versions of monitors where the "G-sync tax" is $300, including the one they were using for the demo.
ok? You're not the first to state that over the past month in these threads. Thanks for your contribution.If Vega drops 15 months later than a 1080, at the same price point, with equal or worse performance.. It's basically DOA.
ok? You're not the first to state that over the past month in these threads. Thanks for your contribution.
And the problem with that is?
I want Vega to succeed. I bought a monitor in preperation for Vega succeeding (I know, I know, daft).
Radeon talked the talk but as more and more info and benchmarks leak out, plus our data from Vega FE, we can see that it can't walk the walk.
So if it can't beat the (15 month old) competition, draws more power than the competition, and doesn't outprice the competition.. How is it not dead in the water?
Because you will still have a video card that is more performant than the one you had. What does it matter that Vega is competing with 1070s and 1080s? Isn't that a concern for AMD? Why does that matter at all to any of us? Unless you have stock it doesn't matter. This isn't an investment forum so it doesn't matter. Is power seriously your top concern? You spend $500+ on video cards, but less than the power of an incandescent bulb is now the worst thing in computing? As far as price, it generally will line up with the performance of the product vs competing products. Why should AMD automatically price is less than Nvidia? AMD has tried that and it doesn't really work. If they do then great, but expecting they need to is silly.
If you visit any AMD specific forum you people that are anxiously waiting for Vega. There are few that just didn't want to wait. That's fine. Acting like AMD won't sell cards is just not true. I'm buying one. It's going to be a great upgrade from my Fury. There will be people upgrading from Polaris and older cards.
One argument that needs to die is that AMD shouldn't release Vega at all. That is not the way business works. AMD sunk R&D into Vega. AMD would be wasting money by not releasing a gaming product. Your product might not sell as well as a better, more performant version, but you still recoup at least some your R&D costs. This is business 101 people. I would also argue that Vega's main goal was to get AMD into prosumer systems with FE and HPC/data center/AI with Instinct. If that is their main goal then building gaming cards is just a bonus.
I dunno. Sunk R&D costs to defray, yes. Still there are some costs to preparing it as a gaming SKU, doing the packaging etc etc. Especially for the AIB's - I really can't see why they'd bother at this point.
It looks likely to be a very hard sell vs Pascal, and a basically impossible one vs Volta - and it definitely isn't totally impossible that GV104 will arrive before AIB versions of Vega do.
More that they tried to fill both purposes with a single design, which as you mentioned Nvidia has done before as well and just as with Vega, paid for it with large chips, heat and power usage. AMD just don't have the resources of Nvidia and this is the result of trying to fill both markets. They desperately need to get into the professional market more so this is their answer to that this time around.Beginning to think AMD truly shifted their focus away from gaming and purposely designed Vega for compute workloads.
Hard to argue with that.
You're probably correct, Vega was designed initially to be prosumer, AMD was quoted back in H1 2016 that Vega was designed to be “the fastest GPU in the world for data scientists and immersion engineers” and I have no idea if it does or does not meet that target.
It only makes sense if they are going after non-gaming market segments first and foremost. I think it's the right call for the business. It's clear gaming Vega is suffering for it because they can only build one chip for everything.
If you think about it, AMD has always been the company pushing boundaries with tech. Nvidia on the other hand is very good at delivering exactly what the market needs at the time their products release. AMD's advanced tech and wide compute heavy architecture is really more suited for non-gaming anyways. I think non-gaming industries are more likely to fully use their chips. Gaming development is nightmare of trying to convince devs to use your features. Additionally there are only so many devs that are even capable of exploiting GPU architectures to their fullest. Better for AMD to think outside of gaming like Nvidia has been doing.
I think it will sell fine at $499 MSRP. Freesync, mining,fans, dx12, are all big factors.that is because 4k Gsync displays cost $300 more compared to freesync meaning that RX Vega will cost the same as GTX 1080 meaning it will sell very poorly.
I will state again I am obviously withholding final judgement until I see reputable RX Vega benchmarks but if it does indeed barely beat a 1080 at such a huge die size and power consumption then I will be forced to believe RTG has shifted its focus.
I think it will sell fine at $499 MSRP. Freesync, mining,fans, dx12, are all big factors.
Personally I think if it comes with an AIO water cooler it will sell out at $549..