Vega's Almost Here, But Are AMD's Board Partners Ready?

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • I think AMD launched Vega because they had to. With the relatively low performance they had to drop prices at the last minute to have any hope of competing with the 10xx series. HBM is expensive. So is cooling a 350w+ card. Looks like the board partners aren't jumping on the lose money train.
    Reply
  • michael_732
    i totally disagree. under what metric are you quoting "relatively low performance"? there are no reputable benchmarks with release drivers to be found. only rumors, speculation, projection, and spin. using "game-mode" drivers on a pro card (where it is an afterthought) have nothing to do with real world benchmarks with real world *gaming* drivers.
    i'm not saying it is the second coming either. it is a competitive card in what is now a competitive market. thank god for that. the real deal with vega is not power consumption either. although the power consumption is notable, it is not remarkable in the history of gpus.
    the real deal with vega is the architecture. it is scalable ! in the 7nm node (next up), the node itself will take care of the majority of power draw. what they are doing atm is tweaking performance like normal, but also looking at places to gain efficiency on the 7nm node. and scale-ability will bring us multi-core gpus as we tackle the *big science* with sub-5nm processes and euv/x-ray lithography.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    I am holding my opinion on the card until I see benches... I think we have more to be surprised than disappointed.
    Reply
  • teamninja
    Low performance? against the only other real GPU maker? I am more surprised by the fact that they aren't as behind as I thought they would be, the jump from Maxwell to pascal was HUGE the fact that they still are managing to hang on is what surprises me THE MOST considering the don't have much money to work with. They CAN still compete on the high end impressively...
    Reply
  • hannibal
    It is quite normal that there Are first normal basic versions and later custom versions. Like Nvidia founder editions that did come out about one month before first custom versions.
    Reply
  • BBBy
    As long as etherium mining frenzy continues, they will milk up a ton of profits from these cards...
    No one should ever think of any option with them feasible or not for gaming for now and short term future...
    It will be not a suprise that prices will be seen like 150-200$ more than MSRPs...
    Reply
  • RedFIveStandingBy
    Vega vs 1080 the only reason to go Vega is if you need a heater-GPU combo
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    20005710 said:
    i totally disagree. under what metric are you quoting "relatively low performance"? there are no reputable benchmarks with release drivers to be found. only rumors, speculation, projection, and spin. using "game-mode" drivers on a pro card (where it is an afterthought) have nothing to do with real world benchmarks with real world *gaming* drivers. i'm not saying it is the second coming either. it is a competitive card in what is now a competitive market. thank god for that. the real deal with vega is not power consumption either. although the power consumption is notable, it is not remarkable in the history of gpus.
    AMD's own promotional slides for RX Vega 64 have it performing about on par with a GTX 1080 in gaming, which costs the same amount, uses significantly less power, and came out over a year ago. In other words, it's only barely competitive now. With the geforce 20 series expected out next quarter, Vega's relevancy seems like it will be short lived.
    the real deal with vega is the architecture. it is scalable ! in the 7nm node (next up), the node itself will take care of the majority of power draw. what they are doing atm is tweaking performance like normal, but also looking at places to gain efficiency on the 7nm node. and scale-ability will bring us multi-core gpus as we tackle the *big science* with sub-5nm processes and euv/x-ray lithography.
    Pretty much any architecture should be able to be scaled down to a smaller process with some tinkering. Smaller process nodes will help Nvidia too, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to help AMD gain an advantage.
    Reply
  • rnewton8
    I want nothing more than for AMD to succeed with their GPUs, but There's a reason AMD has been so tight lipped with this card and still haven't released proper benchmarks or even showing the card in action with an FPS counter. And there's also a reason is it coming bundled with savings cards. It's because the card doesnt perform well enough, the leaked benches are legit, they show the card barely able to compete with Nvidias year and a half old cards, GTX 1070, 1080. If AMD had a competitive card, they would have been marketing it and showing benches. Instead they are doing everything they can to delay and hide the performance numbers. Add in the fact that this card is going to run hotter than hell, especially with that joke of a reference cooler, and then you have thermal throttling issues and a PC that sounds like a jet engine while playing games. I might pick up an aftermarket card in Sept with a proper cooler, but still I'm pretty dissapointed in Vega, as i think most consumers are going to be. And no way Vega will be used for mining Eth. Its too power hungry, and the value of Eth dropped but the difficulty spiked so the Eth mining craze should already be over.
    Reply
  • michael_732
    20006286 said:
    20005710 said:
    i totally disagree. under what metric are you quoting "relatively low performance"? there are no reputable benchmarks with release drivers to be found. only rumors, speculation, projection, and spin. using "game-mode" drivers on a pro card (where it is an afterthought) have nothing to do with real world benchmarks with real world *gaming* drivers. i'm not saying it is the second coming either. it is a competitive card in what is now a competitive market. thank god for that. the real deal with vega is not power consumption either. although the power consumption is notable, it is not remarkable in the history of gpus.
    AMD's own promotional slides for RX Vega 64 have it performing about on par with a GTX 1080 in gaming, which costs the same amount, uses significantly less power, and came out over a year ago. In other words, it's only barely competitive now. With the geforce 20 series expected out next quarter, Vega's relevancy seems like it will be short lived.
    the real deal with vega is the architecture. it is scalable ! in the 7nm node (next up), the node itself will take care of the majority of power draw. what they are doing atm is tweaking performance like normal, but also looking at places to gain efficiency on the 7nm node. and scale-ability will bring us multi-core gpus as we tackle the *big science* with sub-5nm processes and euv/x-ray lithography.
    Pretty much any architecture should be able to be scaled down to a smaller process with some tinkering. Smaller process nodes will help Nvidia too, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to help AMD gain an advantage.

    not true. facile maybe, but not true.
    Nvidia's technology (very impressive) has focused on ever larger chip dies with the volta being the largest and most unwieldy. chip size is directly related to yields from silicon wafers. volta has not (and may not) produced the yields with which one can market to the masses. vega while fairly large, has yields upwards of 80% (according to AMD), and even more importantly it is scalable...meaning with Infinity Fabric (which nvidia does not have) AMD can have however many teraflops it wants...like 52 teraflops from four vega 64 cores stitched with Infinity Fabric with higher power efficiency and minimal lag with higher bandwidth. i predict that is precisely what Navi will bring.
    Reply