AMD's RX Vega Launch Prices Might be Just Smoke and Mirrors

[Captain_Tom]

@Raevenlord Having read TPU's Vega reviews I'm really not surprised that you're reporting on a launch rebate when the prices are normally inflated. I'm sure those inflated European prices will come down soon enough when sales tank.

You have no idea how amusing it is to see people like you be SOOOOOOO sure that sales will tank.

Right now these prices make Vega the best choice for miners, and as long as G-Sync exists there will be a large portion of people that will HAPPILY pay the same price for Vega 64 as they would a 1080.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Where THEY expected to be, not where WE expected it to be, seen their advertisements and propaganda.

But i guess this was ryzen's years, next year could be RTG's (fingers crossed)

Any and all expectations above and beyond is your own fault, because AMD.

 

[Nkd]

Why does everyone try to post what gibbo says. He lied about the mining performance and it is no where near getting 70-100 mh.

He might as well be bullshitting here too, to drive up the price. I don't know I would wait and see if we see all cards at 599.99 then AMD did make the price just smoke and mirrors. Very shady, but I don't trust anything gibbo says after the mining rumor. The guy is in it to sell it. Thats all he might be doing here.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Where THEY expected to be, not where WE expected it to be, seen their advertisements and propaganda.

But i guess this was ryzen's years, next year could be RTG's (fingers crossed)

If Navi comes out in 2018, maybe. But personally I see early 2019 being a more likely scenario.


After all AMD is finally making some money again, and so they will want to pour a little bit of it into Radeon to make sure Navi is as successful as Ryzen (because it has to be at this point). Vega is built "future-proof" enough to last at least till then as long as there are continued optimizations. A Vega refresh mid 2018 with decently faster HBM and clocks would tide the Red Team over I think.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Why does everyone try to post what gibbo says. He lied about the mining performance and it is no where near getting 70-100 mh.

He might as well be bullshitting here too, to drive up the price. I don't know I would wait and see if we see all cards at 599.99 then AMD did make the price just smoke and mirrors. Very shady, but I don't trust anything gibbo says after the mining rumor. The guy is in it to sell it. Thats all he might be doing here.

+1

Unless some driver comes out in the next month that brings 100 MH/s, he is not some super source by any means. I would say though that there is a chance AMD intentionally spread rumors that Vega was otherworldly good at hashing.

But even so that just means AMD knows that guy is a leaker lol

 

[xkm1948]

Without altering the compute engine from the very ground up there is no way for RTG to be competitive against Nvidia's line up in the foreseeable future.

 

[qubit]

You have no idea how amusing it is to see people like you be SOOOOOOO sure that sales will tank.

Right now these prices make Vega the best choice for miners, and as long as G-Sync exists there will be a large portion of people that will HAPPILY pay the same price for Vega 64 as they would a 1080.

I think they will tank because of the reviews and the bad reputation that these cards will get. If sales don't tank, then fine, whatever. Just means that people are foolish enough to buy second rate stuff.

They aren't the best choice for miners either, because the hash rate is way lower than it should be for the power consumed to make it worthwhile. It's about 32-36MH/s as measured in TPU's review when 60-100MH/s was expected during the leak period (see link below) which would have made them very worthwhile for miners, but the power consumption is too high to make money at this performance. If new drivers and client software improves performance then they will be good for miners and the picture will change.

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-mining-performance-great

There is an advantage with FreeSync, I'll give you that, since there's no price premium on the monitor. This feature shouldn't be used to prop up the performance of a weak GPU though and touted as the main selling point, which is kinda what's happening here and I don't think is really big enough to sway that many buyers imo.

 

[oxidized]

Any and all expectations above and beyond is your own fault, because AMD.

My fault? Yeah, sure

 

[Captain_Tom]

Without altering the compute engine from the very ground up there is no way for RTG to be competitive against Nvidia's line up in the foreseeable future.

Vega 64 is 30% behind the 1080 Ti. That's it lol

DSBR, RPM, FP16, and HBC are still dormant. Those could easily close that gap.



Look I am not saying I think AMD will catch up within a year (Or even 2 years), but to say it's impossible is ridiculous. The current situation isn't even 1/4th as bad as Bulldozer. In fact the only truly bad thing for AMD is that Nvidia will keep innovating unlike lazy Intel.

 

[oxidized]

Vega 64 is 30% behind the 1080 Ti. That's it lol

DSBR, RPM, FP16, and HBC are still dormant. Those could easily close that gap.



Look I am not saying I think AMD will catch up within a year (Or even 2 years), but to say it's impossible is ridiculous. The current situation isn't even 1/4th as bad as Bulldozer. In fact the only truly bad thing for AMD is that Nvidia will keep innovating unlike lazy Intel.

How exactly does nvidia innovate? As long as they don't use HBM they're not innovating!!!1!!1

/S

 

[Captain_Tom]

I think they will tank because of the reviews and the bad reputation that these cards will get. If sales don't tank, then fine, whatever. Just means that people are foolish enough to buy second rate stuff.

They aren't the best choice for miners either, because the hash rate is way lower than it should be for the power consumed to make it worthwhile.

1. Look at the part of your post I bolded: That is why you are hilarious. You think people are foolish because they are not buying what you think they should, and yet you seem to have some MASSIVE blinders on lol.
2. I would say I am a tad more moderate then these people, but I have had a few friends who just built PC's for the first time: None of them even considered Nvidia after seeing the G-Sync situation. The prices are hilariously marked-up and the selection is even worse. No Samsung options and no LG options, and HDMI (or inputs in general) are non-existent. ASUS makes some nice stuff, but it literally costs up to $400 more than the Freesync option. If you buy G-Sync, 90% of the time you ARE buying second-rate stuff.
3. So once you factor in G-Sync, it takes a mountain of a better cards to make many users consider the Green team. What is Nvidia's counterpart to Vega 64? A card that uses less energy, but is also weaker. For the same price. That isn't impressing anyone.
4. I have been mining since college buddy. Vega is the best mining card BY FAR. 70-100 MH/s would have been insane, but 42 MH/s + excellent dual mining is the new gold standard. To put it in terms non-miners will understand: Vega costs twice as much as an RX 580 and uses roughly 50% more energy. However if you dual-mine it hashes 52% better, and only takes up 1 slot in a motherboard. Thus it is more efficient, you can fit twice as many in the same amount of space, and most importantly: they are in stock! As long as RX 580's are above $250, RX Vega's will be hard to find.

 

[Jism]

AMD is a joke and their graphics division is run by a joke. Vega is a disaster any way you look at it. They haven't made any tangible improvements to their graphics IP since GCN came out back in 2012. Their Chinese design team sucks and they've got nothing going for them. Jim Keller and most of the people who had worked on Zen have left the company too. AMD is a sinking ship. I wouldn't buy any of their products because the competition is better and cheaper.

Keller left because his work was done. He was no longer needed. Get your facts straight dumbass.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Dude send your CV to AMD, your doing a great job.

 

[Captain_Tom]

Dude send your CV to AMD, your doing a great job.

When I ask this question, I am not being facetious: What part of my post do you have a problem with?


Seriously. Read what I said, and then make an informed response. I will listen.

 

[EarthDog]

1. Look at the part of your post I bolded: That is why you are hilarious. You think people are foolish because they are not buying what you think they should, and yet you seem to have some MASSIVE blinders on lol.
2. I would say I am a tad more moderate then these people, but I have had a few friends who just built PC's for the first time: None of them even considered Nvidia after seeing the G-Sync situation. The prices are hilariously marked-up and the selection is even worse. No Samsung options and no LG options, and HDMI (or inputs in general) are non-existent. ASUS makes some nice stuff, but it literally costs up to $400 more than the Freesync option. If you buy G-Sync, 90% of the time you ARE buying second-rate stuff.
3. So once you factor in G-Sync, it takes a mountain of a better cards to make many users consider the Green team. What is Nvidia's counterpart to Vega 64? A card that uses less energy, but is also weaker. For the same price. That isn't impressing anyone.
4. I have been mining since college buddy. Vega is the best mining card BY FAR. 70-100 MH/s would have been insane, but 42 MH/s + excellent dual mining is the new gold standard. To put it in terms non-miners will understand: Vega costs twice as much as an RX 580 and uses roughly 50% more energy. However if you dual-mine it hashes 52% better, and only takes up 1 slot in a motherboard. Thus it is more efficient, you can fit twice as many in the same amount of space, and most importantly: they are in stock! As long as RX 580's are above $250, RX Vega's will be hard to find.

the bold part...

What are your ROI dates on the 580 vs RXV64 with the values you posted?

Since it uses 50% more power, is it fair to assume it hashes 50%+ faster than the 580?

How is it a single slot vs a 580 that isnt?

Edit: sorry... you said its 52% faster. So its 2% more efficient. Yet, its costs double, so your ROI is a lot longer, no? Is it worth it to extend ROI that long for 2% gains?

 

[Captain_Tom]

the bold part...

What are your ROI dates on the 580 vs RXV64 with the values you posted?

Since it uses 52% more power, is it fair to assume it hashes 52% faster than the 580?

Honestly I don't want to be TOO bold until I have ample time to play around with my cards. But let me give you this:
RX Ve

• I mine Ethereum and Siacoin
• RX 570 hashrate (I own several): 27.5 MH/s (ETH) + 500 MH/s (SC), was $210 (Now like $320)
• RX Vega 64 (Based on my research): 42 MH/s (ETH) + 1400 MH/s (SC), $500 - $600

Can you see why Vega is appealing? The only reason I didn't wait for Vega 56 is that I will make more money mining NOW that I would waiting.

I am not going to be cocky yet because I haven't fiddled around with my own cards. But I am at least confident enough to say RX Vega 64 is as appealing as an RX 580 or 570 is, and those cards are hard to find for a reason.....

 

[EarthDog]

I snuck an edit in there on ya...

Shows 34.4 hash rate...http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-vega-56-ethereum-mining-performance_197049

 

[qubit]

1. Look at the part of your post I bolded: That is why you are hilarious. You think people are foolish because they are not buying what you think they should, and yet you seem to have some MASSIVE blinders on lol.
2. I would say I am a tad more moderate then these people, but I have had a few friends who just built PC's for the first time: None of them even considered Nvidia after seeing the G-Sync situation. The prices are hilariously marked-up and the selection is even worse. No Samsung options and no LG options, and HDMI (or inputs in general) are non-existent. ASUS makes some nice stuff, but it literally costs up to $400 more than the Freesync option. If you buy G-Sync, 90% of the time you ARE buying second-rate stuff.
3. So once you factor in G-Sync, it takes a mountain of a better cards to make many users consider the Green team. What is Nvidia's counterpart to Vega 64? A card that uses less energy, but is also weaker. For the same price. That isn't impressing anyone.
4. I have been mining since college buddy. Vega is the best mining card BY FAR. 70-100 MH/s would have been insane, but 42 MH/s + excellent dual mining is the new gold standard. To put it in terms non-miners will understand: Vega costs twice as much as an RX 580 and uses roughly 50% more energy. However if you dual-mine it hashes 52% better, and only takes up 1 slot in a motherboard. Thus it is more efficient, you can fit twice as many in the same amount of space, and most importantly: they are in stock! As long as RX 580's are above $250, RX Vega's will be hard to find.

Ok, so it's gonna be one of those conversations...

I've explained why they're foolish in my first post here, based on objective reviews. On top of that, I'm hardly the only one saying this, strengthening my point. To summarize, the problems are: The flagship Vega 64 has only GTX 1080-like performance after a very long 2 years of development - NVIDIA's 2nd tier card. It runs hot, power hungry and very noisy to achieve this lacklustre performance and appears to be running overclocked to achieve it. The performance should leapfrong the 1080 Ti with similar levels of power draw, heat and noise after all this time. The price isn't even competitive to compensate for this. So yeah, I'm calling them second rate based on solid evidence. What on earth is there to argue about?

You go on a lot about G-Sync as if adaptive sync is the number one reason to buy a graphics card. It's not. While it's nice to have and does an amazing job at improving smoothness when there are framedrops, ultimately you want a card that can sustain those high framerates without dropping them, or hardly ever. Yes, the CPU has to keep up, game coded efficiently etc I know this, so don't "correct" me on it.

I've also acknowledged that FreeSync has the advantage of having no price premium, but as AMD is touting this as the main advantage to buying Vega, can't you see that this is a problem? They should be touting straight up framerate performance, not compensation for the lack of it!

I do remember when the two systems were first tested, G-Sync was found to have the edge on performance, so the price did buy you better and is not only an "NVIDIA tax". With the evolution of FreeSync, I'm not sure how true that holds now. Ultimately, I just wish NVIDIA would move away from the proprietary route so adaptive sync would become a defacto feature for everyone, but that's not the situation now unfortunately, so we just have to put up with it.

That hash rate range of 32-36MH/s I quoted to you is from TPU's review, so where are you getting that 42MH/s from? I don't know what you mean by dual mining it, either?

The card takes up two slots, not one, as you've stated.

 

[dyonoctis]

Honestly I don't want to be TOO bold until I have ample time to play around with my cards. But let me give you this:
RX Ve

• I mine Ethereum and Siacoin
• RX 570 hashrate (I own several): 27.5 MH/s (ETH) + 500 MH/s (SC), was $210 (Now like $320)
• RX Vega 64 (Based on my research): 42 MH/s (ETH) + 1400 MH/s (SC), $500 - $600

Can you see why Vega is appealing? The only reason I didn't wait for Vega 56 is that I will make more money mining NOW that I would waiting.

I am not going to be cocky yet because I haven't fiddled around with my own cards. But I am at least confident enough to say RX Vega 64 is as appealing as an RX 580 or 570 is, and those cards are hard to find for a reason.....

It seems like vega is far from being the miner eldorado that you paint it to be, people who are know to be miners on TPU expressed their disapointement from vega and said that this isn't a good mining gpu...Reddit also showed the same tendency. Most people are just waiting to see IF they get better, with driver, bios mod, and are saying that the people who are already pre-ordering in lot of 10 don't know what they are doing.

 

[xkm1948]

In Captain_Tom's alternative Universe, Vega runs on Unicorn power and pushes 1000+ FPS over 8K. I also wish that alternative universe exist as it would be great for competition.

Sadly he is simply cranking his denial meter to the max. Vega sucks, the meta reviews concluded so. Accept it and move on.

 

[0x4452]

Shows 34.4 hash rate...http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-vega-56-ethereum-mining-performance_197049

The important part of the article is the power capped / overclocked results:

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 we were able to drop down to -25% and we got 247 Watts at the wall, but the hashrate took a dive to 30.1 MH/s. We ended up dialing it in at -23% for a hashrate of 32.40 at 251 Watts.

Lastly, the GeForce GTX 1070 was able to be overclocked with EVGA Precision X up to +800 MHz memory. With the extra memory clock speed and we got that card up to 32.17 MH/s! We also did that with the power target lowered to 60%, so the power draw dropped down 183 Watts despite the memory overclock!

 

[Hood]

I remember that quote from NVIDIA a few months ago where they said they weren't worried about Vega. Clearly they knew what they were talking about and that's bad news for us.

Not necessarily. The backlash from the Vega clusterf**k might play out in Nvidia's favor. Eventually, most of the potential customers will get tired of waiting for availability and reasonable price, and reading disheartening reviews, and they'll get an nvidia card. If the miners leave any Vega cards, the rabid fanboys will buy the rest (for premium prices), and the rest of us can continue to ignore AMD as a buying choice. Personally, I wouldn't pay $300 for one - maybe if they drop down to $200, I'd think about it, but probably still say no. If you're worried about losing the competition, don't. PC gaming is a growing industry worth billions a year; someone will step in and compete after AMD puts their graphics division up for sale. Get some smart people in this game, and back them properly, they might just show Nvidia "the way it's meant to be played", and blow right past them.

 

[moproblems99]

Sadly he is simply cranking his denial meter to the max. Vega sucks, the meta reviews concluded so. Accept it and move on.

I wouldn't say it sucks. It is just ok. It has a place in those that have a Freesync monitor and need something besides a Fury or 580.

I had planned on buying one with hopes that some mining would help pay for it but not going to happen.

 

[cdawall]

The only part of that article that matters is the power capped / overclocked resutlts:

I can get 32mh/s with an rx480@120w what is appealing about vega right now. Like I said before a lot of purchases of them right now are based on assumptions new miners/drivers will drop that utilize the cards better.

 

[qubit]

Not necessarily. The backlash from the Vega clusterf**k might play out in Nvidia's favor. Eventually, most of the potential customers will get tired of waiting for availability and reasonable price, and reading disheartening reviews, and they'll get an nvidia card. If the miners leave any Vega cards, the rabid fanboys will buy the rest (for premium prices), and the rest of us can continue to ignore AMD as a buying choice. Personally, I wouldn't pay $300 for one - maybe if they drop down to $200, I'd think about it, but probably still say no. If you're worried about losing the competition, don't. PC gaming is a growing industry worth billions a year; someone will step in and compete after AMD puts their graphics division up for sale. Get some smart people in this game, and back them properly, they might just show Nvidia "the way it's meant to be played", and blow right past them.

I think you've misunderstood a bit - highlighted - what I've said. It's bad for us, good for NVIDIA with fatter profits, yes. They can also sit on their laurels. keep prices high and make us wait ages for Volta, milking the most money possible from Pascal. I remember the "old days" when I used to buy the very top model NVIDIA card and it didn't break the bank. My reference GTX 285 was about £300 in 2009 and my reference GTX 580 was about £400 in 2011. Happy days. Now the very top model is something like an eye watering £1200 for the TITAN, which is quickly superceded by a GTX version of it, at a much lower, but still very high price.

Agree with the rest of your post, nicely said.

I wouldn't buy one of those cards for any money. Heck, if you paid me, I'd still get rid of it as I'd want something decent in my system. For me, it's very much performance first, value for money second.

I hope that we get a decent competitor to NVIDIA, but I'm not holding my breath. AMD have certainly had long enough to make their ATI acquisition in 2006 into a number one player, but blew it big time. No way is NVIDIA invincible.