Monday, May 15th 2017

Entire AMD Vega Lineup Reportedly Leaked - Available on June 5th?

Reports are doing the rounds regarding alleged AMD insiders having "blown the whistle", so to speak, on the company's upcoming Vega graphics cards. This leak also points towards retail availability of Vega cards on the 5th of June, which lines up nicely with AMD's May 31st Computex press conference. An announcement there, followed by market availability on the beginning of next week does sound like something that would happen in a new product launch.

On to the meat and bones of this story, three different SKUs have been leaked, of which no details are currently known, apart from their naming and pricing. AMD's Vega line-up starts off with the RX Vega Core graphics card, which is reportedly going to retail for $399. This graphics card is going to sell at a higher price than NVIDIA's GTX 1070, which should mean higher performance. Higher pricing with competitive performance really wouldn't stir any pot of excitement, so, higher performance is the most logical guess. The $399 pricing sits nicely in regards to AMD's RX 580, though it does mean there is space for another SKU to be thrown into the mix at a later date, perhaps at $329, though I'm just speculating on AMD's apparent pricing gap at this point.
Next up is the RX Vega Eclipse, which will reportedly retail for $499, going head to head with NVIDIA's GTX 1080 (in fact, slightly cheaper than the majority of AIB versions of the card). The line between the Core and the Eclipse is a little blurry here, since we know that the GTX 1070's performance can easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080 - their performance delta isn't that great. If the RX Vega Core does bring with it higher performance than the GTX 1070 (justified by its higher pricing), then that would place it close to GTX 1080 (stock) performance. Since AMD would be trying to avoid its RX Vega Core from eclipsing (eh) its RX Vega Eclipse graphics card in the price/performance department, one can expect - with reservations - that the performance delta between the Core and the Eclipse is higher than their respective pricing indicates. So I would expect the RX Vega Eclipse to offer performance that's greater than the GTX 1080's.

Finally, we have the crème de la crème of Vega, the RX Vega Nova. This graphics card is reported to retail for $599, a full $100 cheaper than NVIDIA's GTX 1080 Ti, while looking to directly compete with it. Considering this pricing, and admitting that the leak pans out correctly, this would mean we won't be seeing a Vega card that's capable of competing with NVIDIA's Titan Xp graphics card (at least, not a single-GPU solution...) AMD simply would not sell their top of the line Vega for $599 if it was competitive with that NVIDIA titan of a graphics card. Based on AMD's previous pricing strategy, I would expect the company to deliver roughly the same performance as the GTX 1080 Ti, looking to use its Nova not as a pure performance product, but as a price/performance contender. What do you make of this leak?
Source: Digiworthy
Add your own comment

87 Comments on Entire AMD Vega Lineup Reportedly Leaked - Available on June 5th?

#76
uuuaaaaaa
Caring1Can someone explain to little ol me, if HBM2 is meant to be much better than GDDR5, why it even needs 16Gb?
Surely 8Gb HBM2 would be enough.
Afaik badwidth is tied to the number of stacks (stacks and capacity are tied too)! i.e. 2 stacks (8Gb) = 2048bit; 4 stacks (16Gb) 4096bit
Posted on Reply
#78
Raevenlord
News Editor
danbert2000My thoughts exactly, the author must not read Techpowerup's own reviews.
Triggered.

The author does read TPU's reviews. Perhaps you should opt to a) read TPU's reviews; b) read the whole thread before posting something that was already answered. Answer below for your reference.
Raevenlord

From w1zzard's review, here
Posted on Reply
#79
TheinsanegamerN
Caring1Can someone explain to little ol me, if HBM2 is meant to be much better than GDDR5, why it even needs 16Gb?
Surely 8Gb HBM2 would be enough.
Capacity is not bandwidth. 27 yodaflops wouldnt matter if you only have 128MB of VRAM.

8GB HBM holds as much as 8GB GDDR.
Posted on Reply
#80
uuuaaaaaa
R0H1TNo 4 stacks can be as much as 32GB for HBM2, tis' 64GB for HBM3 ~ www.techpowerup.com/225244/third-generation-hbm-could-enable-graphics-cards-with-64gb-memory
So HBM2 is max of 8Gb/stack, that does not take from the fact that you still need 4 stacks to achieve 1TB/s of bandwidth. This means that Vega 10 will most likely max out at 512Gb/s. So 16Gb vega will be full chip and full memory stacks while 8Gb vega will have one HBM2 stack disabled and run at 256Gb/s?
Posted on Reply
#81
ratirt
TheinsanegamerNCapacity is not bandwidth. 27 yodaflops wouldnt matter if you only have 128MB of VRAM.

8GB HBM holds as much as 8GB GDDR.
With HBM2 bandwidth and capacity is kinda correlated.
Posted on Reply
#82
danbert2000
RaevenlordTriggered.

The author does read TPU's reviews. Perhaps you should opt to a) read TPU's reviews; b) read the whole thread before posting something that was already answered. Answer below for your reference.
Yes as far as my research into past reviews is concerned, Battlefield 3 is the only game you currently test that shows an overclocked GTX 1070 beating a stock GTX 1080. The only one. Never mind most people will be playing a modern game at 1440P or 4K on a 1070/1080, where the gap widens considerably between the two cards. Maybe it's time to update the OC test game...
Posted on Reply
#83
64K
danbert2000Yes as far as my research into past reviews is concerned, Battlefield 3 is the only game you currently test that shows an overclocked GTX 1070 beating a stock GTX 1080. The only one. Never mind most people will be playing a modern game at 1440P or 4K on a 1070/1080, where the gap widens considerably between the two cards. Maybe it's time to update the OC test game...
The OC 1070 benches he posted are at 1440p

Posted on Reply
#84
danbert2000
Quoted OC gain is 13% (I'll round up to be nice), let's compare The Witcher 3 at 1440p:



64.2 * 1.13 = 72.5
Lower than a "stock" 1080, much lower than the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming at stock.



Again, 34.2 * 1.13 = 38.6

Raevenlord said "the GTX 1070's performance can easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080," but even at 2100 MHz and maxed out memory, which is the very top end of a 1070 overclock, the 1070 falls short. And that's assuming that these games would scale as well as Battlefield 3 does with the overclock. Not likely.

Can the 1070 approach a stock 1080 when max overclocked with a prime chip and memory? Yes. Can "the GTX 1070's performance... easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080"? Not by any objective reading. Raevenlord is trying to make this a 970/980 situation. It's not. If he took out the "easily" qualifier and explained his methodology I'd be fine with that. Until then, it's just a half-truth.
Posted on Reply
#85
64K
danbert2000Quoted OC gain is 13% (I'll round up to be nice), let's compare The Witcher 3 at 1440p:



64.2 * 1.13 = 72.5
Lower than a "stock" 1080, much lower than the MSI GTX 1080 Gaming at stock.



Again, 34.2 * 1.13 = 38.6

Raevenlord said "the GTX 1070's performance can easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080," but even at 2100 MHz and maxed out memory, which is the very top end of a 1070 overclock, the 1070 falls short. And that's assuming that these games would scale as well as Battlefield 3 does with the overclock. Not likely.

Can the 1070 approach a stock 1080 when max overclocked with a prime chip and memory? Yes. Can "the GTX 1070's performance... easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080"? Not by any objective reading. Raevenlord is trying to make this a 970/980 situation. It's not. If he took out the "easily" qualifier and explained his methodology I'd be fine with that. Until then, it's just a half-truth.
You've misunderstood. The original dispute was whether a 1070 could be overclocked to reach a stock 1080. The benches you posted are for the overclocked out of the box card but that card can still be overclocked further.
Posted on Reply
#86
danbert2000
64KYou've misunderstood.
Actually, you've misunderstood. If you read the text under the graphs, I do the math assuming perfect scaling on all games at 13% past the "out-of-the-box" overclock. And then I go on to point out that there's nothing easy about overclocking a 1070 to 2100 MHz and then still falling short on those games.
Posted on Reply
#87
Am*
jigar2speedSame here, i got myself a GTX 1070 but had driver problems, card just wont recognize my 120hz HD TV (stuck at 60 hz which my HD 7970 had zero issues) , had to return it back. Now i am waiting for Vega
If you're on Windows 10, that's a Windows issue (Xbox DVR/Vsync forced on by W10, especially for Nvidia Optimus/systems with both integrated & dedicated graphics). I fixed this same issue on a friend's rig and is one of the many reasons I refuse to downgrade to Windows 10, in addition to the privacy concerns & forced updates.

Also you may want to uninstall the AMD card with DDU before upgrading. I upgraded from one Nvidia card to another and had some issues until I did this (and make sure you remove any overclocking software fully before uninstalling).
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 16th, 2024 18:19 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts