Thursday, January 12th 2017

AMD's Vega-based Cards to Reportedly Launch in May 2017 - Leak

According to WCCFTech, AMD's next-generation Vega architecture of graphics cards will see its launch on consumer graphics solutions by May 2017. The website claims AMD will have Vega GPUs available in several SKUs, based on at least two different chips: Vega 10, the high-end part with apparently stupendous performance, and a lower-performance part, Vega 11, which is expected to succeed Polaris 10 in AMD's product-stack, offering slightly higher performance at vastly better performance/Watt. WCCFTech also point out that AMD may also show a dual-chip Vega 10×2 based card at the event, though they say it may only be available at a later date.
AMD is expected to begin the "Vega" architecture lineup with the Vega 10, an upper-performance segment part designed to disrupt NVIDIA's high-end lineup, with a performance positioning somewhere between the GP104 and GP102. This chip should carry 4,096 stream processors, with up to 24 TFLOP/s 16-bit (half-precision) floating point performance. It will feature 8-16 GB of HBM2 memory with up to 512 GB/s memory bandwidth. AMD is looking at typical board power (TBP) ratings around 225W.

Next up, is "Vega 20", which is expected to be a die-shrink of Vega 10 to the 7 nm GF9 process being developed by GlobalFoundries. It will supposedly feature the same 4,096 stream processors, but likely at higher clocks, up to 32 GB of HBM2 memory at 1 TB/s, PCI-Express gen 4.0 bus support, and a typical board power of 150W.

AMD plans to roll out the "Navi" architecture some time in 2019, which means the company will use Vega as their graphics architecture for two years. There's even talk of a dual-GPU "Vega" product featuring a pair of Vega 10 ASICs.
Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

187 Comments on AMD's Vega-based Cards to Reportedly Launch in May 2017 - Leak

#176
medi01
On par with TX will be good enough for AMD (and is actually reasonable to expect).
cdawallWait lets look at this graph. 100% performance match to the 5970. Would you mind telling everyone how many GPU's the 5970 contained?
5870, a single chip, is listed at 91%. (ignoring the fact that TPU % charts were messed up in a major way until recently)
Posted on Reply
#177
EarthDog
medi01(ignoring the fact that TPU % charts were messed up in a major way until recently)
Sorry.. what now?
Posted on Reply
#178
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
medi015870, a single chip, is listed at 91%. (ignoring the fact that TPU % charts were messed up in a major way until
Still took two to equal it 100% and that's a 1024x768 chart. I mean really come on.
Posted on Reply
#179
Kanan
Tech Enthusiast & Gamer
HD 5970 being a CF card scales very poorly on 1024x . Save to say GTX 480 was far away from performing like two ATI Gpus. HD 5850 CF / 5970 which is essentially almost the same without overclock and especially HD 5870 CF wiped the floor with the GTX 480. The GTX 580 made a much better job at that but still wasn't 2x as fast. This is purely talking fps on high resolutions, not real picture quality. I think in that generation the HD 5850 was the best GPU price to performance wise and HD 5870 the best gpu performance wise without costing too much energy.
Posted on Reply
#180
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
KananHD 5970 being a CF card scales very poorly on 1024x . Save to say GTX 480 was far away from performing like two ATI Gpus. HD 5850 CF / 5970 which is essentially almost the same without overclock and especially HD 5870 CF wiped the floor with the GTX 480. The GTX 580 made a much better job at that but still wasn't 2x as fast. This is purely talking fps on high resolutions, not real picture quality. I think in that generation the HD 5850 was the best GPU price to performance wise and HD 5870 the best gpu performance wise without costing too much energy.
I had crossfire back then. In the three games it actually worked in awesome. Fermi was a turning point for nvidia and to this date one of my favorite cards.

As for power consumption...um it wasn't that high, just high for the time. The 290 consumes more power so do the rest of the current top tier cards. The whole it uses less energy crutch is annoying. I didn't buy a gaming PC to save the ecosystem. Performance is performance and fermi offered more of it. They also consumed less power once you got the temps down.
Posted on Reply
#181
Kanan
Tech Enthusiast & Gamer
cdawallI had crossfire back then. In the three games it actually worked in awesome. Fermi was a turning point for nvidia and to this date one of my favorite cards.

As for power consumption...um it wasn't that high, just high for the time. The 290 consumes more power so do the rest of the current top tier cards. The whole it uses less energy crutch is annoying. I didn't buy a gaming PC to save the ecosystem. Performance is performance and fermi offered more of it. They also consumed less power once you got the temps down.
Doesn't change the fact that the gtx 480 was not a efficient gpu and the HD 5870 much better all around.

Comparing older generations with new ones is kinda moot. The energy consumption for its performance was way too high. GTX 580 was okay, GTX 480 was a mess, it's like comparing ref 290 with custom 290 or the 390s.

You find it annoying I'm talking about efficiency and power consumption, fine. I'm not using my pc to save the environment too (look my specs) but I'd chose the more efficient gpu any day, that's my whole point. I always try to find a good balance.
Posted on Reply
#182
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
580 overclocked had a habit of consuming just as much power as the 480 if not more...
Posted on Reply
#183
Kanan
Tech Enthusiast & Gamer
cdawall580 overclocked had a habit of consuming just as much power as the 480 if not more...
But it was so much faster too. 32 Cuda cores more, much more efficient. Everything. I had a gtx 570 revised edition with smaller pcb that was a great card. Very efficient for a big Fermi.
Posted on Reply
#184
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
KananBut it was so much faster too. 32 Cuda cores more, much more efficient. Everything. I had a gtx 570 revised edition with smaller pcb that was a great card. Very efficient for a big Fermi.
It was an additional cluster unlocked over the 480 and the same basic core just a better process. You know the same issue we are seeing with the current AMD 480. Piss poor process, higher power consumption etc.
Posted on Reply
#185
Kanan
Tech Enthusiast & Gamer
cdawallIt was an additional cluster unlocked over the 480 and the same basic core just a better process. You know the same issue we are seeing with the current AMD 480. Piss poor process, higher power consumption etc.
I heard they reworked the architecture, I don't think it was the process, or only partly, as they had experience with the process with revamped GTX 275 series before it (the usual test drive GPUs for new processes). In the end it had the additional cluster + way better functioning GPU in general. GF110 != GF100.
Posted on Reply
#186
theeldest
cdawallNo you are missing nothing. He posted graphs in one of the other threads claiming how there is performance per flop etc. Basically he used excel and is proud of it. Let him have his excel moment remember not everyone can use excel.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 23rd, 2024 14:01 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts