I don't understand this launch at all. I can't decide if RTG has just lost their mind, or if Raja has been keeping performance leaks super tight because they are bringing something phenomenal to the table...after all, none of the "tech sites" knew ThreadRipper was in the pipeline until it was imminent.

I think this launch is going to be a total flop, but if this pricing information is accurate, it makes me think maybe, just maybe, RTG is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat...but I don't think that is very realistic at this point.

JAT

The mining price hike has not been that bad in Sweden. Stock is a problem though.

Polaris was pretty expensive at launch IIRC, even higher than mining prices.

EDIT: If we go by Polaris numbers it will still be more than 1080ti prices, and it will have to be so good at mining it's offensive, which it isn't. We'll see how it'll be I guess. When's release?

DimiCome on man, how long have you been into the PC scene? You don't remember paying 300$ for a Voodoo card? Or 500$ for a 9800 Pro? That was AGES ago...

AMD has just been as guilty as all the others but a lot of people fail to see that. For anyone that remembers the FX cpu's, they were priced to the extreme, 12 years ago might i add!

AMD could have OWNED the market if they priced the Fury cards at a normal price. But at 650$ for the Fury X... You can't blame Nvidia for this one.

Voodoo didnt even have a heatsink, the first two anyways. 9800 wasnt much "bigger" as far as power draw and components on the card.... just sayin. Die sizes were also pretty small back then.

I'm not saying cards aren't a bit overpriced, forgetting about mining for now, but there's a lot more stuck on them now.

Some pre-orders for something like a 7700k were 9999+ euros, so I'm sceptical. Alzo, with these kind of things it's likely just supposed to be a 1080 (ti) or something, not rx vega.

BasardVoodoo didnt even have a heatsink, the first two anyways. 9800 wasnt much "bigger" as far as power draw and components on the card.... just sayin. Die sizes were also pretty small back then.

I'm not saying cards aren't a bit overpriced, forgetting about mining for now, but there's a lot more stuck on them now.

Not to mention, that $500 9800 pro today would be $725 today. So $800 for a vastly more complex chip doesnt seem that far out of line, unless said chip is not competitive.

theoneandonlymrkCome on im no computer scientist but I know no one using mumbo jumbo black magic to run games, they use hardware, registers caches and loads of software , amd presently competes with a 4 year old optimised design and vegas got plenty of new stuff in , they don't and never did need black magic just better software, something that does take time to get right as we all know.
And they were four years behind with the useless to games stuff ripped out , highly optimised and node swapped for clocks and power then continually pampered via drivers for each use case , some see Rosey stuff where i see what's actually there it seams.
Yes it works for nvidia but don't build them up as if the sun shines out their bottom and i should be glad to pay three hundred quid for what is a £80(Bom) peice of tech ie 1060s.

OK, outside of the awful grammar and run on ramble sentence that was typed here, lets break this down.

Come on im no computer scientist but I know no one using mumbo jumbo black magic to run games, they use hardware, registers caches and loads of software , amd presently competes with a 4 year old optimised design and vegas got plenty of new stuff in , they don't and never did need black magic just better software, something that does take time to get right as we all know.

AMD has had over half a year to work on VEGAs drivers, and it still performs poorly and still uses fiji codepaths. So why are they still so far behind? If there is performance locked away, I have no confidence that AMD will ever deliver on it given they still have not managed to after half a year of work minimum.

And they were four years behind with the useless to games stuff ripped out , highly optimised and node swapped for clocks and power then continually pampered via drivers for each use case , some see Rosey stuff where i see what's actually there it seams.

Holy sentence structure batman. Optimized for each use case? This is the same company that can barely get general drivers working properly. Your own comment says that drivers taking a long time to make is an excuse for VEGAs poor performance. Why on earth would needing to optimize drivers for every use case be a good thing when the company making the hardware cant manage to get launch drivers correct? That would insinuate that if VEGA has locked away performance, odds are we would never see it because AMD would never be able to keep up.

Yes it works for nvidia

Yes it does, because nvidia has their heads screwed on straight. They are not wasting money on useless APIs or making redundant architectures. They are making good chips, providing good drivers, and dominate the market. It's called good business sense.

but don't build them up as if the sun shines out their bottom and i should be glad to pay three hundred quid for what is a £80(Bom) peice of tech ie 1060s.

Do...do you have any understanding of capitalism? do you really think that AMD's 580 costs much more then $80 to make either?

News flash. Any manufactured good is sold far, far above the BoM cost because THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE MONEY. Appliances, cars, electronics, furniture, ece. If you are going to call out the 1060, why are you not also calling out the 580 at $229? Or do you believe that since Nvidia is doing a better job that they should sell the 1060 at cost out of the goodness of their hearts? When you have a product superior to everything else on the market, you charge more because you can. Only the daft would give up free profit (notice that despite higher prices, nvidia has enjoyed high sales since pascal came out)

AMD screwed up hard with VEGA. Some will blame nvidia for working with developers, some will say that AMD just needs more time to work on their drivers (because 3 years of development on an arch and at least half a year of working silicon just isnt good enough for poor ol AMD), some will say that DX12 will save AMD, Some will say that TBR will let VEGA complete with Pascal on power consumption. I've heard it all before.

The bottom line is AMD screwed up, hard. VEGA is highly disappointing, and barring AMD pulling the wool over everybody's heads, intentionally gimping VEGAs performance with drivers prior to gaming vega's launch, and somehow dramatically increasing IPC or decreasing power draw, AMD will not be competitive. They have managed to fail to catch a 18 month old arch from nvidia, pure and simple. AMD will not be competitive until NAVI at the earliest.

coolernoobbut this looks right - at this twisted market (miners) this makes sense... RX 580 are sold out for 450$+... this card will be around +30% faster (also in mining) - so lets add real rx 580 price and +30%, now lets add +25% for sweden (in article even gtx 1080 there costs 650$+)... and we get - bs that amd should be called out from day one - when we saw that the mighty Vega can not compete with 1.5 year old gtx 1080... and you have to include a monitor prices in amd pr bs (monitor sepcs and price* of their preference).

This card will not be much faster than a rx580 8gb with a bios mod if you can get them. The Vega final frontier was tested at being around 31-33mh/s for mining Ether and sucking up lots more power.

There is nothing inherent in either Direct3D 12 nor Vulkan giving GCN an edge, but rather many of the initial games being developed as AMD exclusives. Nvidia chose to bring the driver side improvements of Direct3D 12 to all APIs, giving them a lower "relative gain". Over time Nvidia has prioritized Direct3D 12 more, reducing the initial advantage of AMD. Nearly all games so far are using an abstraction layer instead of the new APIs directly, so we have no evidence to claim AMD have an advantage.

TheinsanegamerNThat is what happens in a capitalist system. If you are the only one with a competitive product, you can charge way more and people will still buy it. Only the daft would not take advantage of being two generations ahead of their competition.

That was true for their CPU division, and voila, Ryzen blew in, and what we see is Intel flustering.

it's the 2900XT all over again.

www.pcworld.com/article/132798/article.html

Everything about Vega feels wrong. It's a terrible chip, from an engineering standpoint and if it's priced as badly as the early rumors suggest, then we have ourselves another 2900XT FTF.

I miss the times I went and buy a brand new HD5870 for ~400$ directly from the store....
And this was only 7 years ago...

Vega should have about 100% mining performance compared to Polaris. Clearly the software needs optimizations for the architecture.

This is all preemptive. We don't even have solid benchmarks from the retail card with finalized drivers yet. Maybe performance is better than is being let on.

FordGT90ConceptVega should have about 100% mining performance compared to Polaris. Clearly the software needs optimizations for the architecture.

This is all preemptive. We don't even have solid benchmarks from the retail card with finalized drivers yet. Maybe performance is better than is being let on.

Common dude. Even with fully optimized drivers, you cannot increase the performance more than 10-15%.

You can coupled with higher clock speeds. It sounds to me like the consumer version of Vega is going to be officially announced within 18 hours. Best to park the hype train until then.

The price clearly indicates one of two things:
1) Vega does better than we were lead to believe up to this point.
2) Vega costs a lot to manufacturer and they can't afford to sell it for less.

#2 is doubtful because it's not really a huge chip. #1 is what RTG has been telling us for a long time now.

coolernoobbut this looks right - at this twisted market (miners) this makes sense... RX 580 are sold out for 450$+... this card will be around +30% faster (also in mining) - so lets add real rx 580 price and +30%, now lets add +25% for sweden (in article even gtx 1080 there costs 650$+)... and we get - bs that amd should be called out from day one - when we saw that the mighty Vega can not compete with 1.5 year old gtx 1080... and you have to include a monitor prices in amd pr bs (monitor sepcs and price* of their preference).

I will accept a release date just over a year ago, not 1.5 years for the 1080 which was released May 2016. The Ti was released only 4 months ago on March 2017, so it too isn't old architecture. But I do agree with everything else. I believe AMD are placing their limited funds towards their cpu. If they can become very profitable like Intel, I am sure they will have a much better go at Nvidia later.

Yet another rumor I can't put any stock in. By now, there has been so much hope, speculation and despair over this GPU, as well as insane positive and negative hype numbers, that I feel Vega is doomed before release.

Honestly, I doubt one person, based on their entrenched viewpoint, will be happy about this card. I feel it is not going to be good news for AMD. Yeah, mid-grade GPU's are where the money is at, but you've got to have a good flagship. I will wait, and we shall see.

FordGT90ConceptVega should have about 100% mining performance compared to Polaris. Clearly the software needs optimizations for the architecture.

This is all preemptive. We don't even have solid benchmarks from the retail card with finalized drivers yet. Maybe performance is better than is being let on.

Vega should be absolute garbage in mining if we ever want to (be able to) buy one for gaming...

I think the power consumption and heat output will prevent people from wanting to mine with it, at least for several years.

If these prices are correct then... Bummer. Hope not. Although it's Sweden so I wouldn't be surprised if the final pricing was way down of what's been announced by our Swedish friends. :)

TheinsanegamerNNot to mention, that $500 9800 pro today would be $725 today. So $800 for a vastly more complex chip doesnt seem that far out of line, unless said chip is not competitive.

OK, outside of the awful grammar and run on ramble sentence that was typed here, lets break this down.

AMD has had over half a year to work on VEGAs drivers, and it still performs poorly and still uses fiji codepaths. So why are they still so far behind? If there is performance locked away, I have no confidence that AMD will ever deliver on it given they still have not managed to after half a year of work minimum.


Holy sentence structure batman. Optimized for each use case? This is the same company that can barely get general drivers working properly. Your own comment says that drivers taking a long time to make is an excuse for VEGAs poor performance. Why on earth would needing to optimize drivers for every use case be a good thing when the company making the hardware cant manage to get launch drivers correct? That would insinuate that if VEGA has locked away performance, odds are we would never see it because AMD would never be able to keep up.


Yes it does, because nvidia has their heads screwed on straight. They are not wasting money on useless APIs or making redundant architectures. They are making good chips, providing good drivers, and dominate the market. It's called good business sense.

Do...do you have any understanding of capitalism? do you really think that AMD's 580 costs much more then $80 to make either?

News flash. Any manufactured good is sold far, far above the BoM cost because THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE MONEY. Appliances, cars, electronics, furniture, ece. If you are going to call out the 1060, why are you not also calling out the 580 at $229? Or do you believe that since Nvidia is doing a better job that they should sell the 1060 at cost out of the goodness of their hearts? When you have a product superior to everything else on the market, you charge more because you can. Only the daft would give up free profit (notice that despite higher prices, nvidia has enjoyed high sales since pascal came out)

AMD screwed up hard with VEGA. Some will blame nvidia for working with developers, some will say that AMD just needs more time to work on their drivers (because 3 years of development on an arch and at least half a year of working silicon just isnt good enough for poor ol AMD), some will say that DX12 will save AMD, Some will say that TBR will let VEGA complete with Pascal on power consumption. I've heard it all before.

The bottom line is AMD screwed up, hard. VEGA is highly disappointing, and barring AMD pulling the wool over everybody's heads, intentionally gimping VEGAs performance with drivers prior to gaming vega's launch, and somehow dramatically increasing IPC or decreasing power draw, AMD will not be competitive. They have managed to fail to catch a 18 month old arch from nvidia, pure and simple. AMD will not be competitive until NAVI at the earliest.

You called mine a rant, Amd have not delivered yet ,the fail maybe on the way but you're jumping the gun ,its not out yet.

Between Vega's low expected performance, high price of HBM and retail launch markup, this leak tells us exactly squat.

bugBetween Vega's low expected performance, high price of HBM and retail launch markup, this leak tells us exactly squat.

Tells us squat :) low expected performance? It was meant to be 1080 GTX competitor. It is as expected. Vega reaching 1080 Ti's performance is unlikely although the card may come closer to it.

FordGT90ConceptI think the power consumption and heat output will prevent people from wanting to mine with it, at least for several years.

OMG it just hit me

Vega is so shit so miners wouldn't buy them all, and the gamers can actually game.

AMD did it all on purpose! To save PC Gaming!

ratirtTells us squat :) low expected performance? It was meant to be 1080 GTX competitor. It is as expected. Vega reaching 1080 Ti's performance is unlikely although the card may come closer to it.

Cut the crap. Do you a quote from AMD saying "just wait a year and we'll give you what Nvidia gives you today"? For 2017, Vega's performance is low, period.

bugCut the crap. Do you a quote from AMD saying "just wait a year and we'll give you what Nvidia gives you today"? For 2017, Vega's performance is low, period.

Electronics output is not measured in years, you know.