Monday, August 29th 2016

Vega Not Before 2017: AMD to Investors

In a leaked presentation meant for its investors, AMD states that it expects to launch the "Vega" GPU architecture no sooner than 2017. The company plans to get it out within the first half of 2017. What makes this decision significant is that the company isn't planning on making bigger GPUs on its existing "Polaris" architecture, and its biggest product is the $249 Radeon RX 480. This leaves the company's discrete GPU lineup virtually untended at key price-points above, against NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1070, GTX 1080, and TITAN X Pascal, at least for the next five months.

In the mean time, AMD could launch additional mobile SKUs based on the Polaris 10 and Polaris 11 chips. The reasons behind this slow-crawl could be many - AMD could be turning its chip-design resources to the various semi-custom SoCs it's working on, for Microsoft and Sony, with their next-generation game consoles; AMD Vega development could also be running in-sync with market availability of HBM2 memory. 2017 promises to be a hectic year for AMD, with launch of not just Vega, but also its "ZEN" CPU architecture, the "Summit Ridge" processor, and APUs based on the CPU micro-architecture.
Add your own comment

65 Comments on Vega Not Before 2017: AMD to Investors

#51
R-T-B
Camm950's spiked over quite badly.
Thanks. That's one of those cards I don't pay much attention to. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#52
Audiophizile
RejZoRIt's possible they'll use R9 Fury X foundation, shrink it down to 14nm and update the GCN to Polaris version if not even newer (there were speculations about GCN 4.0). Considering how well Fury X is holding up even against GTX 1080 in Vulkan and DX12, AMD isn't really worrying too hard about it. I mean, I'm sure Fury X owners have a big grin on their face, knowing their cards will hold up quite decently even in the future despite initial slight disappointment. Something NVIDIA owners of GTX 900 can just forget about...
Even in the 1 single vulkan game the fury x is 15-20% behind. Let's not count every other game in the world where the 1080 is 30-50% faster. That's not competition.
the54thvoidThat's the point, (well, my point), I have a 60hz refresh monitor and if I had DX12, I don't need the game to play faster. DX12 benefits GCN because GCN 'needs' to be better.
AMD ought to be better than they are. DX12 gets them there.
Does dx12 or vulkan get them there? From everything I've seen dx12 gives AMD a small bump where vulkan is what makes them look good. Dx12 by itself makes the 480 on par with a 1060 instead of slightly behind. Vulkan makes it pull away from the 1060.
Posted on Reply
#53
RejZoR
AudiophizileEven in the 1 single vulkan game the fury x is 15-20% behind. Let's not count every other game in the world where the 1080 is 30-50% faster. That's not competition.
You're comparing cards that are one generation apart, are you aware of that?
Posted on Reply
#54
Octopuss
I guess I will buy second hand 390x while I wait. No big deal, I only play at 1920x1200 and don't plan to change it anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
#55
Audiophizile
RejZoRYou're comparing cards that are one generation apart, are you aware of that?
You realize that you said it was holding up well to the 1080...
Posted on Reply
#56
RejZoR
AudiophizileYou realize that you said it was holding up well to the 1080...
For a last gen, it is.
Posted on Reply
#57
Audiophizile
RejZoRFor a last gen, it is.
A 980ti is holding up better unless you only have doom in your library.
Posted on Reply
#58
RejZoR
Now you're saying like Doom is the only game where AMD has a clear edge...
Posted on Reply
#59
Audiophizile
RejZoRNow you're saying like Doom is the only game where AMD has a clear edge...
You may be able to count hitman. It still doesn't see the performance improvement of vulkan/doom.
Posted on Reply
#60
Tatty_Two
Gone Fishing
Now you 2 are verging on a private conversation, if so take it there please, not here..... thank you.
Posted on Reply
#61
chr0nos
What I meant with the OC capabilities is that we are getting "bad" chips, in the sense that they are already at the limit of what it can reach, possibly cherry picked and the rest get downgraded to RX460/RX470.

I dont know how to explain it clearly but just look at previous generations a see how much you can push them (Nividia/AMD), it could be terrible yields from the newer node, so thats why there are not much RX480.
Posted on Reply
#62
Divide Overflow
First half of 2017?
This had better be out the first quarter of 2017.
Posted on Reply
#63
Assimilator
Camm950's spiked over quite badly.
Some 950s spiked over.

And the spec allows for spikes. It doesn't allow for continuous overdraw.
Posted on Reply
#64
Krzych
They better come out with Vega at the very beginning of the year because everybody has his patience limit, early 2017 is kinda okay, but if they will maintain their "wait for eternity" thing in 2017 then I will go green again. If Nvidia even releases 1080 Ti before Vega....
Posted on Reply
#65
Fluffmeister
Divide OverflowFirst half of 2017?
This had better be out the first quarter of 2017.
Either way it's rather late however people want to slice it, at least Zen will finally appear in early in 2017.

www.extremetech.com/computing/234790-amd-delays-next-gen-vega-confirms-zen-on-track-for-q1-2017

With GP102 already on the market too, the gap in performance is as wide as it's ever been, nVidia are no doubt all about Volta at this stage too, and with Pascals apparent competition still half a year away at least.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 20th, 2024 22:01 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts