AMD Vega Hardware Reviews

Long Live my Fury X.

Navi, my Freesync monitor needs you.

 

Looks like we'd need a "what went wrong?" thread in a few hours.

 

But... They said we can't trust Vega FE reviews for gaming because it was not a gaming product... They said it won't be a R600 bis...

Performances wise, with all the leaks, it's will be nothing new if it sucks. Still, I'm interested in proper reviews for a deep dive in the Vega architecture. Then yeah, something went wrong, but I doubt we will know for sure what (except if so engineer speak out).

 

Oh well...

 

and AMD lied again !
Now the price is confirmed to be $599 for the reference Vega 64.
Neweg deluxe deal :

 

In this thread:

- People who have been thoroughly informed by AMD about RX Vega's performance, power consumption and pricing, yet they still have that urge to express "super disappointment" when the reviews come out and prove what was known.

Newegg rips customers off by selling above MSRP on launch day but that's somehow AMD's fault?

 

So ? All is not known. We have only 3dmark and a few very specifics games. And with Vega FE, a lot of people came back at the disappointed people with "oh, wait for the gaming version".

When a product is hyped, is late, and doesn't out perform the rival product on the market for 14 months, that's what happen. Plus, the kind of weird world tour thing, poor volta, etc... Honestly the com' was atrocious. They skipped a high end "cycle" for Vega. If Vega bomb, yes people won't be happy and will express it. I don't see the problem here.

 

The product itself, apart from the power consumption (and poor delta against Fury X) and delays, it is not so bad (or I really had bad expectations). Certainly not as bad as R600, although worse than Fermi, which at least managed to beat HD5800. However, the chip is definitely a dud, since the huge increase in clockspeed over Fury X barely justifies the performance delta. Performance per clock cycle seem to have gone down a bit or seen no increase at all. Something must be bottlenecking it hard.

 

Which qualities make Vega so much better than R600? It similarly matches nV's 3rd fastest solution. The TDP issues are probably worse on Vega. The RX is really late to party. "Future proof" features were on R600 too.
// Almost forgot the hype-train. I guess it was pretty similar too.

 

R600 would often perform worse than X1900XTX or be barely faster from what I can remember. This is not the case with Vega.

This review is a good example of the massive failure of R600. Vega does not seem to be nowhere as bad as this.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_2900_XT/6.html

 

At least 2900xt were priced lower than nvidia high end.

 

If I remember correctly, 2900Xt was neck to neck with Nvidias competitor as long as you didn't use Msaa.

 

Yes, it was priced at GTS 8800 level, which correctly translates to today's GTX1080, so it seems correct (at 499$). Today's top of the line is GTX1080Ti and is not prices against it, just as R600 was not priced against GTX8800.

 

By competitor, you mean GTS8800 640 or 320 right?

 

Deja Vu?

From Anandtech:
"Despite the delays, despite the quirks, and despite the lack of performance leadership, AMD has built a good part. It might not be as exciting as an ultra high end card, and it certainly isn't as power efficient as an 8800 GTX or Ultra, but it has quite a few positives that make it an interesting product, and more competition is always a good thing. The worst thing that could happen now is for NVIDIA to get as complacent as ATI did after R300 wiped the floor with the competition."

 

I kind of disagree here. For me 1080TI is like "very high end", and 1080 is high end. But it's also "old".

I see thing like that : R600/2900xt was ATI high end (before launch), but it sucked, so they decided to place it against 8800gts instead of 8800gtx. In the current situation, if Vega64 is not able to beat 1080, they could try to place it against custom 1070s. It seems they wont. But I gues they can't with a cheap this size and HBM2. Like Fury X price never went down...

But if Vega64 is a tie with 1080 (performances, noise, heat, power draw, etc), then yeah, my argument is invalid.

 

I think Anandtech was too benevolent in this assessment. It could not be a good part if it could not decisively beat its predecessor. Talking about MSAA is a moot point. It was supposed to be high end, so it should have acceptable performance with it ON. Most times performance would tank under X1900XTX with MSAA. Completely ridiculous.

 

??? Someone will always be salty anyhow and want to spell doom. Same thing with Nvidia products. Why do you even care about those people? And for some, a certain product may or may not fit their respective needs. That's the consumers prerogative to express their feelings without the need for diversification and incorporating different points of view. This also is the same for Nvidia products - there's also enough people who say how, i don't know, a new Titan is soo expensive and Nvidia is the greediest company evar or the raging battle about "they don't even have AC yet" vs. "they don't even have DX12_1 yet" (Polaris-gen). So what?
*shrugs*

 

So what, everyone knows where Totten's allegiances stand, so its probably better to ignore those statements, otherwise we risk derailing the thread. Learned that long ago.