If this were a $400 or even $500 card I might be much more interested or at least positive. It doesn't matter that it beats the 1080 (did you mean 2080?) by 1%, because it's not worth it for what you have to pay ($700) to do that.What are you talking about? Vega 64 beats the GTX 1080 by 1% overall.
Sure you can say that it's cheaper than the 2080, but the 2080 is a terrible value for $800. If you compare this card to a Vega 64, you end up paying 40% more (maybe even worse since someone earlier pointed out that you can actually buy a Vega 64 for $400 now) for a 30% performance bump on average.
I doubt that we'll see such a card. Once Navi is ready, AMD is going to focus on that. We've already seen the Vega as an architecture just isn't that good at gaming and that using HBM2 ensures that AMD can't price that card as reasonably as it should.This is a Vega 20 design, so mostly the same design, but with some tweaks and improvements obviously. This also seems like a cutdown version and its possible that they will release a higher end model sometime in the future, in fact Lisa Su said as much in the presentation.
I doubt that AMD expects to sell terribly many of these and once Navi launches they'll have a mainstream card that consumers can actually afford.
Buy a Vega 64 and you'll have something that's just as effective while saving $300.Anyone who bashes this new AMD card is smoking crack. There is so much fake news and sock puppet accounts, you can't trust anyone.
Or wait another half of a year for Navi cards to become available and you'll have something more than good enough at a significantly reduced cost.
I imagine that AMD will probably offer some bundles since Navi and Zen 2 will have a similar time frame for their launch. Then you can snag a new CPU as well, because unlike this Vega card, Zen 2 is absolutely something to be excited about.