• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News AMD Announces Radeon VII

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Stuka87 said:
I think that has more to do with OEM's being locked to Intel. Most Ryzen laptops have Vega GPU's in them, but most laptops are Intel. AMD is in the majority of Macs sold however. Not gaming, but still a lot of machines.
Click to expand...

Nearly all Ryzen laptops that have Vega GPU's are IGP, aren't they? The only vega discrete graphics that I am aware of was announced for macbook pros, but I'm pretty sure that was a new, smaller vega die pretty much lifted straight off their IGP design of their mobile ryzen GPU's. So Qwertilot's statement stands - even when downclocking, AMD can't compete with Nvidia in performance per watt which is why so few laptops have discrete AMD graphics.
 
You have to pick a baseline though. If amd gpus are doing well in the compute segment and that segment needs performance per watt then in that segment using that reference it is competing well.
 
Given AMD's recent history of claims vs reality in reviews, that's probably what you'd expect to find. Marketing does always tend to concentrate on the good points 🙂
 
Well its fine for me, 4 or 5 points wont sway me from buying one.
I was just being curious as to what I was seeing in that single review.
Wondering if they will let these suckers drop at Midnight tonight cause I'd hate to wake up to find them sold out lol..
 
Justinbaileyman said:
I thought Lisa Su said the Vega VII was gonna be faster then the RTX 2080??
In the review link its show RTX 2080 being slightly ahead still.
Is that review a fake or is this what to be expected??
Either way I am still buying one..
Click to expand...

if they are close enough faster or slower will depend on the game and settings used more than anything...
I will say that even being this close to the 2080 is a decent enough position, it's just a shame that it looks like the Vega 7 is higher cost card to produce and costing the same as the 2080 it's not really doing much in terms of competition.
 
EXCellR8 said:
They're going to sell out quickly; I'm not even sure what to make of the allocation plans.
Click to expand...

Sounds like almost bordering on vapourware if launch volumes are true.

I wonder if it would still be on par if they went with 8GB instead of 16BG Ram at least then it could of undercut the 2080 price.
 
AMD 's own marketing slide deck had the VII leading the 2080 by 1-2 fps in a pair of games in 4k (and doing substantially better in Strange Brigade). If AMD had a real winner on their hands, they wouldn't be so shy about it.

I think we all know what we're going to get from VII, but what's really interesting is the thought that if the extra bandwidth is providing the performance, what stopped AMD from taking the same approach with Vega?
 
GodisanAtheist said:
but what's really interesting is the thought that if the extra bandwidth is providing the performance, what stopped AMD from taking the same approach with Vega?
Click to expand...

Because only having 2 stacks of HBM saves on the HBM itself and on the smaller interposer. It's a cost thing. Also back then when Vega was released, hbm clock speeds were lower than what was expected years before, when Vega was in planning. With higher mem clocks, the 2 channels would have been enough for gaming. That is why you can undervolt and memory OC a vega 56 and be very close to vega 64 performance. both are very memory BW starved.
 
beginner99 said:
Because only having 2 stacks of HBM saves on the HBM itself and on the smaller interposer. It's a cost thing. Also back then when Vega was released, hbm clock speeds were lower than what was expected years before, when Vega was in planning. With higher mem clocks, the 2 channels would have been enough for gaming. That is why you can undervolt and memory OC a vega 56 and be very close to vega 64 performance. both are very memory BW starved.
Click to expand...

With my aftermarket 56 and a 130mhz bump to memory and a 6% OC I get 7540 in Timespy. That’s right in stock GTX 1080 FE territory. The card is only pulling about 230W or so at 1.06v.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
AMD 's own marketing slide deck had the VII leading the 2080 by 1-2 fps in a pair of games in 4k (and doing substantially better in Strange Brigade). If AMD had a real winner on their hands, they wouldn't be so shy about it.

I think we all know what we're going to get from VII, but what's really interesting is the thought that if the extra bandwidth is providing the performance, what stopped AMD from taking the same approach with Vega?
Click to expand...

Simply put: cost. HBM2 was going to enable them to double capacity while equaling the bandwidth of HBM on Fiji/Fury, and going with 2 stacks would help keep costs and complexity down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top