Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[cytg111]

699.- sounds mindboggling if FE perf is reflective of perf and perf/watt... as Einstein has put it before there must be hidden variables at play here... otherwise its just spooky action at a distance

 

[Tup3x]

699.- sounds mindboggling if FE perf is reflective of perf and perf/watt... as Einstein has put it before there must be hidden variables at play here... otherwise its just spooky action at a distance

Well... Here's the thing. VEGA has larger die than GTX 1080 Ti and HBM2 on top of that. Can it really be cheaper than GTX 1080 Ti? I REALLY have my doubts. They are now taking the display price difference in to account because it looks like it's going to be pricier than GTX 1080. That's a pretty big fail since most are just going to buy a graphics card.

 

[IntelUser2000]

You really think anyone will buy RX Vega at $699 if it's no faster at gaming than GTX 1080 and uses twice the power? Seriously? Who is going to do that?

You don't think they'd try anyway? Like I said, plenty of people have done stupider than selling an under-performing video card for $699.

Some will buy it. Did no one buy the original Willamette P4? Did no one buy the FX 5000 GPUs? I bet AMD's stuck between hard place and a rock where they allocated bunch of wafers and cards for Vega and they will have to get rid of them somehow. GPUs are an extremely low volume product compared to CPUs. The impact of a $699 GPU on fabs are going to be lot less than you think.

They'll keep up this charade of Vega being a magical device for as long as they can. They have to. Even to sell it just to AMD diehards(fanboys especially), and those who buy at a whim. Or those that believe in drivers that bring 40% will arrive and will have future potential. It's not like the device is a literal trash. It's still a very fast gaming card.

 

[Samwell]

699.- sounds mindboggling if FE perf is reflective of perf and perf/watt... as Einstein has put it before there must be hidden variables at play here... otherwise its just spooky action at a distance

I think it's just a overpriced prerelease listing. if it'real could imagine a pretty big markup for the watercooled edition and then 550$ for air or it's just so fast that it deserves the price But somehow i can't believe that after all what we've seen.

 

[beginner99]

699.- sounds mindboggling if FE perf is reflective of perf and perf/watt... as Einstein has put it before there must be hidden variables at play here... otherwise its just spooky action at a distance

It's pretty simple. Ryzen dies have higher margin, even for the R5 ones compared to a GPU not to mention EPYC. So if they can fill the fabs with Ryzen and some Vega compute cards at >$1000 that works out well for AMD. RX Vega is simply a halo part to be able to say we are offering a product there. Doesn't really matter if it sells well. In fact best if it doesn't sell well at all because Ryzen and Radeon instinct get much higher margins.

 

[IntelUser2000]

First of all, there are some extremely profitable coins right now. You shouldn't downplay the mining. It is making these cards effectively free in a lot of cases. You are correct for a different reason though. Vega sucks for mining.

There are people on Ethereum forums where they swear by the Vega FE's they managed to get. Some really smart guys too.

I am fairly sure there will be people that buy many Vega's just because they have enough cash to throw around and just want to experiment. There are those that bought Fury and Fury X's for that and put 6 of them. It doesn't make sense, but they did. Heck, even 1080's.

Will it sell in volume is the question. That I don't think so. People buy sub-optimal products but LOT more buy a good product for its intended purpose. If some are really it in for ROI and not looking just to get a free card they'd stay away from Vega, even wait a few weeks for Polaris cards to arrive.

For me I'd get a 1070 instead. Vega IS faster at 37MH/s rather than 32MH/s, but uses 3x the power or so and its immature. 1070's are also significantly lower than $500. Nvidia's drivers also tend to be much superior to AMD's. Actually, a 1060 is a better choice since its not much of a loss in performance for much lower price. I see a very unfortunate situation coming for AMD where they even lose the niche advantage they had, which is mining, come Volta.

 

[CatMerc]

AMD can make a profit per unit even at 300$ if they write off R&D expenses. It will be shit Polaris like margins, but they can do it. HBM2 and the die size aren't blocks for pricing.

If it's 699$, I imagine there's some reason for it.

 

[coercitiv]

Will it sell in volume is the question.

If it mines well they will sell each and every one they make. In my country RX 580 hardly stays on shelves even at 350+ Euros. (that's over $400, sales tax included)

 

[Samwell]

Strange, it seems vega hasn't even amds memory controller tech, but they just implemented the one of synopsys:

https://videocardz.com/press-releas...-graphics-and-high-performance-computing-socs
https://videocardz.com/press-releas...-graphics-and-high-performance-computing-socs
The one of Fury was a amd development or am i wrong? Why don't they just change their own for hbm2 or have they maybe sold the ip to synopsys?

 

[Veradun]

For me I'd get a 1070 instead. Vega IS faster at 37MH/s rather than 32MH/s, but uses 3x the power or so and its immature. 1070's are also significantly lower than $500. Nvidia's drivers also tend to be much superior to AMD's. Actually, a 1060 is a better choice since its not much of a loss in performance for much lower price. I see a very unfortunate situation coming for AMD where they even lose the niche advantage they had, which is mining, come Volta.

Except they aren't

 

[Malogeek]

Keep in mind the rumored price of $699 is for the water cooled version, which always carries a premium. I can't imagine the normal version being higher than $499. That's where the price comparison is being done with the freesync stuff.

 

[zinfamous]

All I asked for was an AIO, nano-sized card @ ~1080 performance and @ ~250-300W. damn you AMD! (pretty much certain at this point that this is all impossible, right?...well this year maybe)

 

[Qwertilot]

Kind of, but built into those iMac Pro's (So not AIO of course.). Suspect that a Nano equivalent would perform roughly like a 1070, so very hard to justify.

I'd just wait a bit and get an air cooled Volta xx60..... Should be about the all park performance.

 

[lobz]

Kind of, but built into those iMac Pro's (So not AIO of course.). Suspect that a Nano equivalent would perform roughly like a 1070, so very hard to justify.

I'd just wait a bit and get an air cooled Volta xx60..... Should be about the all park performance.

you'd wait quite a good bit then

 

[96Firebird]

Keep in mind the rumored price of $699 is for the water cooled version, which always carries a premium. I can't imagine the normal version being higher than $499. That's where the price comparison is being done with the freesync stuff.

A cut down R9 Fury had a launch MSRP $100 less than the full-die, watercooled R9 Fury X. I don't see that changing to a $200 gap...

But I also am unsure about this rumored $699 price.

 

[EXCellR8]

this is supposedly the "reference" model:

or maybe someone just stuck a big 'R' on a 390 idk

 

[zinfamous]

Kind of, but built into those iMac Pro's (So not AIO of course.). Suspect that a Nano equivalent would perform roughly like a 1070, so very hard to justify.

I'd just wait a bit and get an air cooled Volta xx60..... Should be about the all park performance.

nope, not buying nVidia. but I do need something relatively compact and low heat--I'm putting it in a miniATX case

 

[OatisCampbell]

Once initial interest dies down, AMD will do as AMD does and price cut it. Get as much as you can while you can!

Minor quibble:
Doesn't EVERY company do this?

 

[OatisCampbell]

A cut down R9 Fury had a launch MSRP $100 less than the full-die, watercooled R9 Fury X. I don't see that changing to a $200 gap...

But I also am unsure about this rumored $699 price.

$699 would be an...."optimistic" launch price in my opinion.

To launch same/lower performance at higher power/heat with only FreeSync as your "ace in the hole" seems unwise to me. 1080Tis offering much more performance (based on what we've seen only) can be had for that:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125989&cm_re=1080Ti-_-14-125-989-_-Product

 

[tviceman]

AMD can make a profit per unit even at 300$ if they write off R&D expenses. It will be shit Polaris like margins, but they can do it. HBM2 and the die size aren't blocks for pricing.

If it's 699$, I imagine there's some reason for it.

Polaris margins aren't terrible at $200-250, the GTX 1060 has been that price since day 1 and is only slightly cheaper to produce (slightly smaller, 2gb less vram, ever-so-slightly less complicated power deliver). I don't know any more than you do, but I'm guessing it'd be tough to make a profit at $300 after taking into account throw-away dies, AIB's, e-tail/retail profit, shipping/packaging costs, and warranty work. Vega is (I'm guessing) 3-3.5x the production cost of Polaris after factoring in yields, die size, HBM, and interposer. I'm guessing they need to sell the top water-cooled SKU at a minimum of $350 out of the gate to realize any kind of production-based profit. R&D is out of the window on this one.

 

[Qwertilot]

nope, not buying nVidia. but I do need something relatively compact and low heat--I'm putting it in a miniATX case

You'll just have to accept losing a lot of performance then I think. AMD are OK for raw perf and perf/price, but their perf/watt is way down on NV right now and the gap is going to get quite a bit worse (Volta) before there's a real chance of it getting better.

 

[Tup3x]

All I asked for was an AIO, nano-sized card @ ~1080 performance and @ ~250-300W. damn you AMD! (pretty much certain at this point that this is all impossible, right?...well this year maybe)

Nano sized card at 250-300W? That's never going to happen.

 

[tviceman]

$699 would be an...."optimistic" launch price in my opinion.

To launch same/lower performance at higher power/heat with only FreeSync as your "ace in the hole" seems unwise to me. 1080Tis offering much more performance (based on what we've seen only) can be had for that:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125989&cm_re=1080Ti-_-14-125-989-_-Product

This thing is borderline DOA even at $500. It would have sold a few thousand units at that price so therefore I don't believe the $700 rumor. Maybe $600 with water cooling, but it's got to be $450 on air just to match the current competitive landscape. $450 might give it slightly better perf/$ than an MSRP gtx 1080, but with significantly worse perf/w.

 

[cytg111]

It's pretty simple. Ryzen dies have higher margin, even for the R5 ones compared to a GPU not to mention EPYC. So if they can fill the fabs with Ryzen and some Vega compute cards at >$1000 that works out well for AMD. RX Vega is simply a halo part to be able to say we are offering a product there. Doesn't really matter if it sells well. In fact best if it doesn't sell well at all because Ryzen and Radeon instinct get much higher margins.

I think this is a good candidate for "hidden variable"...

 

[tviceman]

nope, not buying nVidia. but I do need something relatively compact and low heat--I'm putting it in a miniATX case

I heard the new Xbox One X would fit the bill perfectly for you then, unless you don't mind overspending for RX Vega then undervolting to drop 25% off performance to get to ~150 watt power consumption.