Radeon RX Vega to Compete with GTX 1080 Ti and Titan Xp

What? No way...you fib. Everyone that wanted to upgrade has already done so and will never ever upgrade again.

LOL

 

bold statement, i dont buy it

 

Pretty much.
That being the reasonably optimistic, yet very plausible case scenario.

But 2x RX 480 would simply not do it!

If you consider that 2x RX 480 barely matches the 1080 Ti FLOPS, and AMD needs more FLOPS to match NV.
And if you consider that 2x GTX 1060 gets you roughly only to GTX 1080(!) level, both performance and hw wise.

Never mind 2xPolaris already dancing close to 300W. Because HBM2 and etc would take care of that, right?
Yet perf/W is still the key issue. Because even 1080Ti is dancing near the edge(250W + save some TDP room for partner cards).
And so if AMD wants to match 1080 Ti perf wise, they pretty much need to match it perf/W wise.
Because releasing the 300W+ nuclear plant with no TDP room left for partners and for OC enthusiasts, would not really cut it.

Think about it:
If the saying "All AMD needs to do to match 1080/Ti/Xp is ___INSERT_SUMTIN" was true, they would have already done it!
Doable yes. Simple - apparently not!

EDIT: Oh and 4096 cores is only 2x RX 470

 

There is a whole lot of negative Nancy's in here. Rather than be excited I see people ****ting on an unreleased product for no reason. Ryzen absolutely delivered. What information do we have that says Vega wont?

 

Look like lately, a lot of of accounts from W.. C..CFtech have been moved to guru3D ..

 

Why not? It's not like the 1080/1080ti OC much more than the standard 10% +/- 5% that's been commonplace for a long while now. Even if you can get something more out of a card you're likely looking at needing to flash different BIOS.

 

Also RX 470 has only 32 ROPs and two of them won't have the said 12.5 tflops either. Not the amount of TMUs this one will have. Vega should 225w from leaked slides so maybe roughly 250w? As they are introducing the things that made maxwell so efficient with Vega.

If they actually do increase the amount of ROPs from Fury/290x and so on and then increase TMUs by some it should be competitive. I expect them to have cleared some of the hardware design bottlenecks that plague older GCN cards including Polaris.

 

Yeah but the core count is only half of it.

We know that the MI25 Vega chip is 25Tflops half precision, presumably if they are doing the same packed math as Nvidia it's 12.5Tflops full precision. Most leaks show that it has 4096 cores. So the only way to hit that is 1.5Ghz clockspeed, which is roughly where current Polaris cards are - but we know from the slides that Vega is optimized for higher clockspeeds than Polaris.

So even if the gaming variant of Vega is clocked the same as the workstation variant (gaming is usually higher) we already know it's going to be 12.5Tflops. 1080Ti with boost clock is roughly 11Tflops. Now obviously AMD's tflop/realworld efficiency is less - Fury X as you know is 8.6 and yet it's often slower than the 980Ti's ~6.5 (with boost). But both Polaris/Vega have architectural enhancements designed to make it more efficient in terms of total utilization.

I don't think those improvements will make it faster than the Ti overall, but I think it's going to be pretty damn close to it and probably beat it in DX12 where their utilization goes up. Unless AMD screws up the balance (not enough ROPS, command processor too slow, some other reason, etc) it should be rather competitive. The problem for AMD is that it needs to use far more expensive HBM2, because like I said they can't split their design for different markets. So they'll be making far less on each card they sell than Nvidia would.

 

But can it run crysis?
No seriously, does anyone use those at home?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...adjust for inflation!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love you, good one m8!

And if you're going 4K I see why you need extra power...maybe get the display first and then see what the market has to offer? Maybe a 1080Ti then?

Not true. Many will hold up just because they're AMD fans. Other can't afford those stupid prices of 1080TI and Titan Xp. 500€ for the top of the line I could understand, but 1200 or whatever it costs is absurd.

 

I dont follow? Please explain.

 

Sorry I didn't get the innovate definition update memo - you know the one that says nothing is innovative unless its used at home.

I also find it amusing how you use the 9800GTX as your example of "prices back then" and not the $650 8800GTX, or $830 8800GTX Ultra released a year prior. I guess those don't fit the narrative you're clearly trying to push.

It's getting old.

 

Let's see then, the 9800GTX deflated in price compared to 8800GTX?
Wasn't Nvidia capable of delivering 8800GTX for less than $400 but instead preferred to milk everyone?

Ya, I bought the GTX460SE next and that was my last Nvidia card, no more Nvidia for me.

 

Yeah the price wasn't higher because of the unprecedented $600M they spent on R&D for it. Or the fact that it was by far the largest chip ever made at the time on a process with terrible yields. It was milking. It's always milking. It's the Guru3D buzzword now in days - everyone is just milking everything. Milk everywhere. RX580, Milk. Titan XP, Milk. So much milk everyone is getting lactose intolerant.

 

OK last time it was "RX480 can do better than the GTX 1080" and it was sitting up close to GTX 1060...

So if "Vega do really nice against GTX 1080Ti and (GTX lol) Titan Xp boost edition + "
then it may beat the GTX 1080 :banana:

more seriously, let's see it before to say something

(and don't forget that NVidia have higher GPU in pro segment to fight back renamed in GTX 10** if they need, before Volta release).

But it will be interesting.

 

People like him forget this is a luxury item and not a nessesity therefore they can charge what ever the hell they want to charge. Don't like the price don't buy the product.

 

If he had said everyone, you'd have a point. He made a valid point in that AMD releasing a similar performing product going on a year later, misses that entire window, which they cannot recover. That is missed sales and revenue. That there are always people upgrading is so obvious I don't know why you'd use that as a counter to LOST sales because of no competing product.
Seems a very simple point you missed.

 

Actually HBM/HBM2 is not expensive. And that brings funny factor to table too.

1st.Vega, performance wise will be 10~15% weaker than 1080Ti. But then comes in play price.

AMD made Fury X with 4096bit IMC and interposer with TSV for 4x HBM1.
With all the changes in Vega architecture it may have like 10% more transistors than Fury X. Including those saved on IMC. That does not inflate manufacturing price of chip itself much over Fury X. And we all know how low AMD went with some Fiji based cards.
Then interposer is smaller as GPU itself is smaller and since 2x HBM2 has quite lower complexity than interposer with 4x HBM1, we have cheaper interposer.
2x HBM2 are not going to be much more expensive than 4x HBM1 as slices improved since then (reduced price) and HBM2 can put more of them in one stack.

GTX 1080 Ti has 12 billion transistors in GPU @16nm. Vega will be somewhere around 9.6~10.2 billion transistors @14nm.

All put together Vega manufacturing price will be damn close to what Fiji was in later phases of its life cycle.
So we are going to get Cards close in performance to 1080Ti at price AMD considers reasonable.


And yes, term "nice" in comparison to GTX 1080Ti says it all. It will be very close, but much more attractive in comparison.

 

Let's just wait and hope for some live benchmarks at Computex next month. :cheers:

 

It does not miss its own window of opportunity. It just did not close window of opportunity for nVidia.

Simple as that, GTX 1080Ti is too expensive for many. But deliver card with nearly same performance at much more Ryzonable price, and you cash all those people.
If AMD came with Vega at 10th of march 2017 (GTX 1080Ti) then it would have bit higher sales as it would steal some of those people who went for GTX 1080Ti.

 

We may exaggerate with the "milking" but you can´t deny that it´s real and has been happening in the last years! And the biggest offenders are Intel and Nvidia because they are simply taking advantage of AMD´s absence in critical times.
A clear example are the 1070/1080, Nvidia has been milking 10 or 20% more than they should because we´re still waiting for Vega to finally appear!...

The 1080Ti is a halo product created more for marketing and hype than to make serious money. The real money makers are the 1060/70/80 and the last two have no direct competition from AMD. So in that segment, AMD has already lost a lot of buyers because many bought a Nvidia card and most of them are going to keep the card for the next years.