Tuesday, April 25th 2017

AMD Confirms Vega is Launching this Quarter

Via Facebook, AMD has confirmed that Vega is nearly here - at least, as nearly here as a "this quarter" can be. This means Vega will launch in two-months time (Q2 extends through the months of April, May and June, after all.) Through a post on its Facebook page, AMD replied that Vega will be coming "when it's ready... And it will be this quarter."

According to previous leaks (and our own deep dive on Vega's architecture), Vega should go a long way towards bridging the power/performance gap between AMD and NVIDIA's GeForce series. It will be the first time since Fury that AMD will have a competitive, high-performance graphics design (expectedly, and hopefully, since no-one likes to buy over-priced graphics cards.) The fact that AMD has teased Vega in two different pieces of media that come out in May (Arkane Studios' Prey, which comes out on May 5th, and Alien: Covenant, which also comes out during the month of May.) I've previously posited that AMD wouldn't tease Vega's launch alongside one of the most promising games of the year without giving us the chance to power it through Vega come launch day, but as Prey's release date approaches and there is no more information on Vega (much less an announcement), it's looking increasingly likely that we'll have to wait until we can see that universe in all of its Vega-rendered glory.
Source: WCCFTech
Add your own comment

66 Comments on AMD Confirms Vega is Launching this Quarter

#52
efikkan
ratirtI been reading the post all over again and I'm tired :)...
Normally a refesh of any product is marginally better at some aspects, but RX 580 is in fact a worse product than RX 480, since it sacrifies a lot in terms of efficiency for a very marginal performance gain. That's not opinions, but facts.

Now why is efficiency important? Since both vendors are able to create GPUs of roughly the same size, and GPUs are more or less going to struggle over 250W, efficiency becomes the deciding factor for performance, and is the end also price. GP102 and Vega10 are GPUs of the same size, so if Vega are to come close in performance, it would have to be very close in efficiency. Right now the efficiency-gap between Polaris and Pascal is massive, and Vega would have to cut off >80% of that gap to even be close to competing. This is why it's very unrealistic that Vega will even compete in the high-end.
Posted on Reply
#53
ratirt
efikkanNormally a refesh of any product is marginally better at some aspects, but RX 580 is in fact a worse product than RX 480, since it sacrifies a lot in terms of efficiency for a very marginal performance gain. That's not opinions, but facts.

Now why is efficiency important? Since both vendors are able to create GPUs of roughly the same size, and GPUs are more or less going to struggle over 250W, efficiency becomes the deciding factor for performance, and is the end also price. GP102 and Vega10 are GPUs of the same size, so if Vega are to come close in performance, it would have to be very close in efficiency. Right now the efficiency-gap between Polaris and Pascal is massive, and Vega would have to cut off >80% of that gap to even be close to competing. This is why it's very unrealistic that Vega will even compete in the high-end.
And you still compare Polaris to Pascal. You haven't answer anything. You say efficiency and that's all. For me 580 is superior to 480 and it is a good refresh. It has better OC potential, is faster etc. So if you were to buy a video card now from a lower range tier and you were choosing between 480 vs 580 you would choose 480 I suppose? Well my answer is 580 since it is better for the same price. For me it is simple.
Posted on Reply
#54
efikkan
ratirtAnd you still compare Polaris to Pascal. You haven't answer anything. You say efficiency and that's all. For me 580 is superior to 480 and it is a good refresh. It has better OC potential, is faster etc. So if you were to buy a video card now from a lower range tier and you were choosing between 480 vs 580 you would choose 480 I suppose? Well my answer is 580 since it is better for the same price. For me it is simple.
And what should I compare then? Besides Polaris and Pascal?
If RX 580 had the same thermals as RX 480 it would be fine, but it sacrifices a lot of efficiency for a very minimal gain, any reasonable person understands this. And the OC potential is lower for RX 580, since it's essentially just an overclocked RX 480.
Posted on Reply
#55
ratirt
efikkanAnd what should I compare then? Besides Polaris and Pascal?
If RX 580 had the same thermals as RX 480 it would be fine, but it sacrifices a lot of efficiency for a very minimal gain, any reasonable person understands this. And the OC potential is lower for RX 580, since it's essentially just an overclocked RX 480.
So you say I'm not reasonable? thanks bro that was very cool. Thermals are lower than 480 with new cooler and heat sink. I would rather better performance not thermals or lower wattage. but that's just me I guess.
Posted on Reply
#56
Vayra86
ratirtSo you say I'm not reasonable? thanks bro that was very cool. Thermals are lower than 480 with new cooler and heat sink. I would rather better performance not thermals or lower wattage. but that's just me I guess.
By that rationale any watercooled card is also a much better GPU because it runs cooler. Your logic is completely flawed, and indeed it is not reasonable. You need to look beyond your stupid RX580 because that is entirely not what this topic is about. 'Thermals are lower with a bigger heatsink' LOL comment of the day.
Posted on Reply
#57
ratirt
Vayra86By that rationale any watercooled card is also a much better GPU because it runs cooler. Your logic is completely flawed, and indeed it is not reasonable. You need to look beyond your stupid RX580 because that is entirely not what this topic is about. 'Thermals are lower with a bigger heatsink' LOL comment of the day.
water cooler is a premium and all know that. you don't and that's just sad :)
And no. I don't need to look beyond my stupid rx 580 cause it's just the comparison of the2 480 and 580 no other. Period. you compare those 2 and that is what I wanted to share. You are locked with NV(envy) of the 2. so please. please don't tell me how do I live already know that :)
Posted on Reply
#59
efikkan
Add the benchmark to a comparison, and it will reveal the GPU name as "687F:C1", which is the same engineering sample of Vega10 AMD demonstrated running Doom.
Keep in mind the clocks of the final product might be higher than 1200 MHz.
Posted on Reply
#60
EarthDog
medi01The "leaked" bench look like epic.fail

www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741
You posted the result.. cool.

For the slow, me apprently, tell me why that link does anything more than what was previously linked?
Posted on Reply
#61
uuuaaaaaa
medi01The "leaked" bench look like epic.fail

www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741
efikkanAdd the benchmark to a comparison, and it will reveal the GPU name as "687F:C1", which is the same engineering sample of Vega10 AMD demonstrated running Doom.
Keep in mind the clocks of the final product might be higher than 1200 MHz.
HBM2 @700MHz on 2 stacks will give less bandwidth than 4 stacks of HBM1 @ 500MHz + we already know that the Radeon Instinct MI25 must be clocked around 1525MHz to meet AMD's specs. I still believe that AMD will deliver this time, they have no other option.
Posted on Reply
#62
efikkan
uuuaaaaaaHBM2 @700MHz on 2 stacks will give less bandwidth than 4 stacks of HBM1 @ 500MHz + we already know that the Radeon Instinct MI25 must be clocked around 1525MHz to meet AMD's specs. I still believe that AMD will deliver this time, they have no other option.
I encourage people to have realistic expectations, it's not like this card is going to be a GTX 1080Ti killer.

Lower memory bandwidth than Fury X is actually quite possible. Not only did Fury X fail to utilize all it's bandwidth, Vega will also employ slightly better compression and various other improvements to reduce bandwidth requirements.
Posted on Reply
#63
medi01
efikkanI encourage people to have realistic expectations, it's not like this card is going to be a GTX 1080Ti killer.
Well, it's not like it would be unreasonable to expect 500mm2 chip to beat 47?mm2 chip, but everything that has been shown so far, is rather to underwhelming (beating 1080 at Doom vulkan,, followed by pathetic event where we learned Vega will be called Vega, give me a break) for that to materialize.
uuuaaaaaawe already know that the Radeon Instinct MI25 must be clocked around 1525MHz to meet AMD's specs
That's true, but what we see runs at 1200 and is... pathetic.
EarthDogwas previously linked
I possibly have missed what was linked previously.
Posted on Reply
#65
Caring1
EarthDogDoes size always matter?
Every time ;)
Posted on Reply
#66
ratirt
Caring1Every time ;)
What about small but freaking crazy animal ?? :p

BTW: Do we know the exact date of the Vega release? From what I've read so far it's not that great. I hope they are wrong. I'm just waiting for Vega it would be not so good if I get to be disappointed. :/
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 23rd, 2024 15:47 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts