• 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.

Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
SlickR12345 said:
AMD literally said at their event that we are going to get more info in January and while they didn't commit any sort of hard date or anything, they said to expect Vega to release late Q1. So I'm expecting March release date. We are going to get more info January, probably somewhere in the middle, after the holiday stuff is all gone and announce a lot more details.
Click to expand...

[citation needed]
 
12390

Tell me I'm not crazy but Fury X still looks weaksauce right? I mean look how close that GTX 1060 6GB is....
 
That's not the impression I'm getting here. Fury X is weaksauce because of how close the 1060 is?

Well how about looking at the death of the 980, behind the 390 non-X (!)

That says it all about how the 800 bucks 1080 will perform in 2 years time. 🙂
 
happy medium said:
Direct X 12 was supposed to handle crossfire and SLI much better, I could see AMD planning more dual gpu cards. BUT we all see how direct X 12 is doing....crap so far. Mabe that threw off their game plan?

Funny though, Nvidia seems to shy away from dual gpu cards/ SLI lately.
Click to expand...
No new version of Direct X has reached any relevant market share until at least two years after launch, simply because developers need time to learn how to program for them. As such, DX12 is doing just fine. I don't remember seeing DX11-only titles this early in its lifetime, and there are one or two already for DX12 (and quite a few with it as an option). And even with DX12's improved multi-gpu handling, it still requires significant developer effort. Always has, always will.
Yakk said:
With the work AMD has been doing with VR developers like Croteam's Serious Engine for Multi-GPU VR using Liquid VR I can see the 490 being a Dual GPU card a lot more than a HBM GPU. Timing seems very good for it

And a link for Multi-GPU VR info :

https://youtu.be/UeY-RxFxYi0
Click to expand...
Working with a handful of developers on VR titles is a sign of a new high-end dual GPU? Sure, AMD went after a high-end niche with the R9 Mano, but at least then it had a similarly priced "mainstream flagship" for those who didn't fit that particular niche. Making a dedicated GPU for multi-GPU VR? Sure, I bet they'd sell a few hundred. Maybe even a few thousand. Globally. No more, no way. The group of "VR headset owners with a GPU worse than the GTX 1070 and a budget of less than $400" is not large. Launching a product like that as a standalone flagship would be brand suicide.
 
Sven_eng said:
It's embarrassing that the 980 Ti was only 5% ahead of Fury X. Maxwell forgotten so soon. 🙁
Click to expand...
Huh?
They are COMPETING GPUs. A reference 980Ti is 5% ahead of Fury X before we use AIB models? Look how much that adds for the GTX 1070? Then before we factor in the fact that the 980Ti is one of the best OCing gpus?
The 980Ti makes it even more obvious just how terrible of a GPU Fury X still is.

People are grasping at straws to try to make Nvidia GPUs look bad in that graph. It's like everyone is purposely ignoring the OC potential of Nvidia GPUs, ESPECIALLY MAXWELL, in comparison to AMD. GTX 980 vs AMD R9 200/300 series stock when you know how much the GTX 980 OCs over the reference card is a joke.

I'm talking about cards people will use in real world scenarios. Not just some cute benchmark scenario to let users here say "Omg look how close the 980Ti is to the Fury X" when we KNOW that's not the real world. Come on, lets just be real and honest and not try to defend Fiji. We know the GPU was not balanced, we know Fiji had issues, it's not a big deal.

Edit: I'm not even sure an RX490 will confidently beat a GTX 980Ti at the full potential of the GPU the GTX 980Ti has. That's not a good sign.
 
Last edited:
tential said:
Huh?
They are COMPETING GPUs. A reference 980Ti is 5% ahead of Fury X before we use AIB models? Look how much that adds for the GTX 1070? Then before we factor in the fact that the 980Ti is one of the best OCing gpus?
The 980Ti makes it even more obvious just how terrible of a GPU Fury X still is.
Click to expand...

Fury X wasn't terrible, but 980 Ti was awesome.
 
Arachnotronic said:
Fury X wasn't terrible, but 980 Ti was awesome.
Click to expand...
Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.
Vega if it does get the RX490 to be on par with the GTX 1070, by the time it comes out, Nvidia will be on the GTX 2070 coming up shortly. That's just being stuck between a rock and 4 different hard places if you're an AMD high end user.
 
tential said:
Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.
Vega if it does get the RX490 to be on par with the GTX 1070, by the time it comes out, Nvidia will be on the GTX 2070 coming up shortly. That's just being stuck between a rock and 4 different hard places if you're an AMD high end user.
Click to expand...

That's why I don't recommend to anybody that I know to invest in AMD's ecosystem if they want high end GPUs. It's better to bite the bullet on things like G-Sync, pay a little more upfront, and then be assured that NVIDIA will put out new products in a timely fashion.
 
tential said:
Fiji is a new generation that adds 20% over the last generation flagship. How much more terrible does that have to be to be deemed terrible? GTX980Ti was awesome, but Fury X was bad.
Vega if it does get the RX490 to be on par with the GTX 1070, by the time it comes out, Nvidia will be on the GTX 2070 coming up shortly. That's just being stuck between a rock and 4 different hard places if you're an AMD high end user.
Click to expand...
According to tpu, the Fury X added around 37% to the previous gen's flagship (290x) at 4k, while consuming a bit less power on average when gaming.


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
 
linkgoron said:
According to tpu, the Fury X added around 37% to the previous gen's flagship (290x) at 4k, while consuming a bit less power on average when gaming.


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/31.html
Click to expand...
This is what I mean when I'm saying we're muddying the waters. This is from Fury X launch. I literally just posted an aggregate graph that's recent as of 11/15. You could get one that's recent too.

Using the sweclockers graph I posted it's 33%.
Using the most recent techpower up review and lets say the 290x and R9 390 are on par.
perfrel_3840_2160.png

It's 23%.
That's bad. Why try to defend this?

Look at the Sweclockers graph I posted.

63% increase between Titan X to Titan XP. You know you'll see similar for the 980Ti to 1080Ti. I mean, if I was assured a 60%+ increase from Fury X flagship to the Vega Flagship I'd be happy. Instead, people are defending the mediocore gains Fury X has over a 290x.

If you use the 390x like I did which I admit is unfair, but I use the 390x since I am using it like considering it to be an aftermarket 290x, then it's far worse....

Edit: How much of an improvement is Vega over Polaris? Because I base a lot of my feeling of Vega off Polaris, but if Vega is quite the improvement in architecture I might be pleasantly surprised. Especially if they expand on the Fury X design which I am a huge fan of. But if it's just Polaris with minor changes and HBM.... I'll be an angry camper forever.
 
Last edited:
tential said:
snip
Click to expand...
I'm not defending anything. You're using wrong numbers to make your point.

The 390 is more representative of a 290x in that tpu graph and the difference is 35%, and even in the swe numbers, the Fury X beats the 290x by 31%.

I'm not saying that the Fury X is awesome. It's just not terrible as you're trying to paint it. I agree,though, that the AIB 980tis are much better cards.

Edit: re-reading your post it looks like you actually did use the 390 and not the 390x in the TPU chart, but it appears you accidentally calculated against the Fury and not the Fury X.
 
Last edited:
Arachnotronic said:
Fury X is also old news, small VRAM, old 28nm process, power guzzler. If you can buy one on clearance it is a decent deal, but at similar prices GTX 1070 is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree Fury X is old news (and a very poor purchase now, considering it's VRAM limitations), it's worth remember that it's power consumption is very similar to TItanX Maxwell and Pascal. So if you consider Fury X to be a 'power guzzler, then both TitanX's are too 😀

Though TitanX (Pascal) is obviously massively faster and has astronomically higher per/watt.
 
Dave2150 said:
Whilst I agree Fury X is old news (and a very poor purchase now, considering it's VRAM limitations), it's worth remember that it's power consumption is very similar to TItanX Maxwell and Pascal. So if you consider Fury X to be a 'power guzzler, then both TitanX's are too 😀
Click to expand...

perfwatt_2560.gif


Poor performance per watt compared to 980 Ti, though.
 
linkgoron said:
I'm not defending anything. You're using wrong numbers to make your point.

The 390 is more representative of a 290x in that tpu graph and the difference is 35%, and even in the swe numbers, the Fury X beats the 290x by 31%.

I'm not saying that the Fury X is awesome. It's just not terrible as you're trying to paint it. I agree,though, that the AIB 980tis are much better cards.

Edit: re-reading your post it looks like you actually did use the 390 and not the 390x in the TPU chart, but it appears you accidentally calculated against the Fury and not the Fury X.
Click to expand...

AMD flagships
7990
295 x2
Fury X
Vega10

NVidia flagships
gtx690
gtx780ti/Titan
Titan X/ gtx980ti
Titan XP

just for point of reference.
 
Arachnotronic said:
perfwatt_2560.gif


Poor performance per watt compared to 980 Ti, though.
Click to expand...

Why change subject? I commented on your depiction of the Fury X as a 'power guzzler' - when the TitanX and TitanXP both use very similar power levels.

Got to be prepared to paint them all with that brush, if that's your true opinion 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top