Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

[T1beriu]

Or bad news. It could be very power hungry so the system can't feed Vega 10 in crossfire.

LE: Or that Vega 10 is so successful AMD is liming OEM to just one card per system.

LE2: Or there's a bottleneck in the manufacturing (maybe low yields, maybe HBM2 shortage) that AMD is liming OEM to just one card per system.

Just speculating. Don't throw rocks at me!

Yeah top end seems to be single Vega rather than 1080 SLI which suggests some good news.

How does logic take you to this conclusion?! Just because it was written last?

2C17

What does that mean? It's just a typo or am I'm missing something?

 

[Glo.]

I think its more reasonable to expect that OEM version of RX Vega GPU can be beaten only by GTX 1080/Ti/Titan Xp in SLI.

GTX 1080 in SLI is much faster than GTX Titan Xp.

 

[Malogeek]

I think its more reasonable to expect that OEM version of RX Vega GPU can be beaten only by GTX 1080/Ti/Titan Xp in SLI.

I think it's far more reasonable to assume that HP don't know what they're doing.

 

[Glo.]

I think it's far more reasonable to assume that HP don't know what they're doing.

Not really. GTX 1080 SLI config will cost north of 1000$. Single Vega GPU - 500-599$. If there would be solution faster than RX Vega, from Nvidia, HP would put it in Omen. No OEM is stupid to waste, and lose money from their clients, on hardware that is weaker than what they can bring.

 

[Bacon1]

No one going to point out that the Omen is completely omitting the 1080 Ti but including Vega?

 

[Glo.]

No one going to point out that the Omen is completely omitting the 1080 Ti but including Vega?

That is exactly my point from the post above.

 

[guskline]

Sorry but the Hype train literally runs off the rails when one suggests a single Vega is faster than 2 GTX1080s in SLI.

I'll be pleased if Vega is faster than a single GTX 1080 but a bit slower than a single GTX 1080TI.

 

[crisium]

Or they want both: an AMD option and a Nvidia option to cover fanboys / Free/G sync users.

As you say, they want the fastest to charge the most money. But the caveat is within certain power consumption. 1080 Ti SLI would use too much; Vega XFire would use also too much – regardless of its speed. 1080 SLI fits though.

You cannot draw a performance conclusion from this. Anything is possible including HP just being dolts.

And who says they are privy to final performance from unlaunched products? Better to be conservative with 1 Vega 10 for now, and crossfire later if it’s low enough wattage (unlikely).

I want to believe too, but I gotta laugh sometimes at the mental gymnastics.

 

[Bacon1]

Sorry but the Hype train literally runs off the rails when one suggests a single Vega is faster than 2 GTX1080s in SLI.

To be fair in many games SLI is very poor

I'll be pleased if Vega is faster than a single GTX 1080 but a bit slower than a single GTX 1080TI.

I think this or slightly faster than a 1080 Ti is the likely outcome. It really all depends on the top end price point. I don't doubt that AMD will come in better price/perf.

 

[tential]

No one going to point out that the Omen is completely omitting the 1080 Ti but including Vega?

The top end is a 1080 SLI.
It's UP TO 1080 SLI. So 1080Ti would be there, then 1080 SLI would be top end. 2 1080Ti was too much power for this PC!!!! (/sarcasm)

Ya.... I don't know why anyone is reading into this.

To be fair in many games SLI is very poor


I think this or slightly faster than a 1080 Ti is the likely outcome. It really all depends on the top end price point. I don't doubt that AMD will come in better price/perf.

SLI Is terrible. So this is what frustrates me when you guys tell me "Oh just go out and buy a 1080Ti". You can't if you want 2 cards unless you want SLI (....) SLI is terrible so no thanks.

That's a bold statement from you. Vega will be faster than a GTX 1080, but a bit slower than 1080Ti, or a bit faster? Really went on a limb there.

And I do doubt that AMD will come in with better price/perf. FURY X

People need to stop automatically handing AMD the price/perf win. It's not that clear cut at ALL anymore.

 

[Karnak]

And I do doubt that AMD will come in with better price/perf. FURY X

People need to stop automatically handing AMD the price/perf win. It's not that clear cut at ALL anymore.

"No way you'll get an 8C for $500. AMD will charge way more than that because Intel wants you to pay over $1000 for its 6900K!!!"

Better price/perf. is the only way for AMD to gain market share - and that's what they need and want the most. At least at the moment.

 

[Bouowmx]

Wait a moment...
HP US: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/...n_family/omen-desktop-slide-learn-more-button
Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11520...g-lineup-desktops-notebooks-egfx-and-displays

2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti


BUT then official video only mentions 2 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080. Ok.

 

[Lordhumungus]

Purely a guess, but if top of the line Vega only has a hybrid cooling solution, is it possible that the case for the Omen wouldn't support mounting more than one of the radiators (for reasons of distance from card, space, etc)?

 

[tential]

"No way you'll get an 8C for $500. AMD will charge way more than that because Intel wants you to pay over $1000 for its 6900K!!!"

Better price/perf. is the only way for AMD to gain market share - and that's what they need and want the most. At least at the moment.

Except, I didn't say that.

Pulling the random comments of random forum users is utterly irrelevant to this conversation. I brought an actual fact with AMD's Fury X. You just quoted a random forum user not even verbatim.

So, you have no idea whether AMD will bring better perf/price this time around with a top end chip.

 

[Karnak]

Except, I didn't say that.

Pulling the random comments of random forum users is utterly irrelevant to this conversation. I brought an actual fact with AMD's Fury X. You just quoted a random forum user not even verbatim.

So, you have no idea whether AMD will bring better perf/price this time around with a top end chip.

I brought an actual fact with AMD's Ryzen.

And that was not a random comment, that was what like 80% of the people said before the launch of Ryzen. Because of Intel's 6900K beeing expensive with over $1000. So why would AMD sell its 8C CPU for only $500 then? And we know they did.

Like I said, they need and want market share. For that they'll need to have better price/perf compared to nvidia - like it's the case with Ryzen on the other side.

 

[tential]

I brought an actual fact with AMD's Ryzen.

And that was not a random comment, that was what like 80% of the people said before the launch of Ryzen. Because of Intel's 6900K beeing expensive with over $1000. So why would AMD sell its 8C CPU for only $500 then? And we know they did.

Like I said, they need and want market share. For that they'll need to have better price/perf compared to nvidia - like it's the case with Ryzen on the other side.

"That was what like 80% of the people said"

Ya, sounds like a definite "fact" you've got there.

What you have is conjecture and opinion, that's fine, but accept it for what it is.

 

[Smoblikat]

Not really. GTX 1080 SLI config will cost north of 1000$. Single Vega GPU - 500-599$. If there would be solution faster than RX Vega, from Nvidia, HP would put it in Omen. No OEM is stupid to waste, and lose money from their clients, on hardware that is weaker than what they can bring.

LOL, have you ever worked for an OEM? Well I have, a direct quote from an executive at Dell is "We succeed in spite of ourselves". I couldnt agree more with that statement, never underestimate the stupidity of a large American company.

 

[beginner99]

Sorry but the Hype train literally runs off the rails when one suggests a single Vega is faster than 2 GTX1080s in SLI.

To fulfill that Vega must only be faster than a 1080 because SLI doesn't work in most new games anyway.

 

[Karnak]

"That was what like 80% of the people said"

Ya, sounds like a definite "fact" you've got there.

What you have is conjecture and opinion, that's fine, but accept it for what it is.

You know how to read, do you?

And I'm sorry, but it's not just an opinion that Ryzen's price/perf is great. That's a fact. You said you doubt that AMD will come in with better price/perf because of Fury X. I said just look at Ryzen. price/perf there is kind of outstanding, especially for the 1600(X) and 1700 compared to Intel.

What people were saying has nothing to do with that fact, that's another point. But that's the thing: Back then a $500 8C CPU while Intel wants you to pay over $1000 for its 6900K? I think you'll understand why most people couldn't believe it. But AMD did it with a maximum of $499 for its 8C Ryzen.

And IMO we'll see the same with Vega in terms of price/perf. Because of Ryzen.

 

[Bacon1]

The top end is a 1080 SLI.
It's UP TO 1080 SLI. So 1080Ti would be there, then 1080 SLI would be top end. 2 1080Ti was too much power for this PC!!!! (/sarcasm)

Ya.... I don't know why anyone is reading into this.



SLI Is terrible. So this is what frustrates me when you guys tell me "Oh just go out and buy a 1080Ti". You can't if you want 2 cards unless you want SLI (....) SLI is terrible so no thanks.

That's a bold statement from you. Vega will be faster than a GTX 1080, but a bit slower than 1080Ti, or a bit faster? Really went on a limb there.

And I do doubt that AMD will come in with better price/perf. FURY X

People need to stop automatically handing AMD the price/perf win. It's not that clear cut at ALL anymore.

Fury was the same price/perf as other video cards. Fury X was the same price/perf as other water cooled video cards which had a huge $100 or so premium.

They have been targeting Volta not Pascal so why do you think the price/perf will be worse than Pascal? They knew they weren't competing with Pascal in the high end and that they were going to compete against Volta with their timeline.

I don't understand how people think Nvidia can price Volta at better than 1080 Ti for 1070 price but it would be impossible for AMD to do so as well.

AMD has the biggest change in their arch in a long time and they skipped a high end Polaris so they could get a high end only Vega ("next gen") out faster than Nvidia could (having to do both high/low Pascal and high again on Volta).

Nvidia's R&D budget is massive so they require tons of money in return to make up their ROI so they keep prices as high as they can as long as they can.

AMD just destroyed Intel CPU side. Only CPUs worth buying from Intel are the Pentium and i7 7700k if you only game and nothing else. It looks like Threadripper and Eypc (please AMD find someone better to name these!!) are going to do it again for high end servers as well.

They have been targeting Volta not Pascal with Vega. They are releasing top end first to help make up the R&D costs since server markets are the big $$. They'll spend what, $50 in parts for $400+ more in end markup? Same deal with Titan / Quadro vs xx80 Ti. Very similar arch yet massive price increase and thus profit margin.

They got the increase in market share and gains with developers / game engines they needed with Polaris and now are going high end with their new Arch.

Its going to be very interesting!

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

You know how to read, do you?

I'm sorry, but it's not just an opinion that Ryzen's price/perf is great. That's a fact. You said you doubt that AMD will come in with better price/perf because of Fury X. I said just look at Ryzen. price/perf there is kind of outstanding, especially for the 1600(X) and 1700 compared to Intel.

What people were saying has nothing to do with that fact, that's another point. But that's the thing: Back then a $500 8C CPU while Intel wants you to pay over $1000 for its 6900K? I think you understand why most people couldn't believe it. But AMD did it with a maximum of $499 for its 8C Ryzen.

And IMO we'll see the same with Vega in terms of price/perf. Because of Ryzen.

Along that vein I'd say don't underestimate a company desperate for marketshare and a bare semblance of profit.

 

[Jackie60]

Or bad news. It could be very power hungry so the system can't feed Vega 10 in crossfire.

LE: Or that Vega 10 is so successful AMD is liming OEM to just one card per system.

LE2: Or there's a bottleneck in the manufacturing (maybe low yields, maybe HBM2 shortage) that AMD is liming OEM to just one card per system.

Just speculating. Don't throw rocks at me!



How does logic take you to this conclusion?! Just because it was written last?

What does that mean? It's just a typo or am I'm missing something?

Well to me it looks like the performance available goes in ascending order much like you would write 10 after 9 although this is wild conjecture. 2017 is the year we're living in, check a calendar if unsure.

 

[Valantar]

Fury was the same price/perf as other video cards. Fury X was the same price/perf as other water cooled video cards which had a huge $100 or so premium.

They have been targeting Volta not Pascal so why do you think the price/perf will be worse than Pascal? They knew they weren't competing with Pascal in the high end and that they were going to compete against Volta with their timeline.

I don't understand how people think Nvidia can price Volta at better than 1080 Ti for 1070 price but it would be impossible for AMD to do so as well.

AMD has the biggest change in their arch in a long time and they skipped a high end Polaris so they could get a high end only Vega ("next gen") out faster than Nvidia could (having to do both high/low Pascal and high again on Volta).

Nvidia's R&D budget is massive so they require tons of money in return to make up their ROI so they keep prices as high as they can as long as they can.

AMD just destroyed Intel CPU side. Only CPUs worth buying from Intel are the Pentium and i7 7700k if you only game and nothing else. It looks like Threadripper and Eypc (please AMD find someone better to name these!!) are going to do it again for high end servers as well.

They have been targeting Volta not Pascal with Vega. They are releasing top end first to help make up the R&D costs since server markets are the big $$. They'll spend what, $50 in parts for $400+ more in end markup? Same deal with Titan / Quadro vs xx80 Ti. Very similar arch yet massive price increase and thus profit margin.

They got the increase in market share and gains with developers / game engines they needed with Polaris and now are going high end with their new Arch.

Its going to be very interesting!

There's a lot of unfounded speculation here. While I agree that AMD must be aware that they'll be competing with Volta in a relatively short timeframe, does that necessarily mean that they can simply "choose" to make a faster card? And while the Vega NCU is the biggest architectural change for AMD GPUs since GCN replaced VLIW, that doesn't really tell us anything about actual gaming performance.

I don't understand how people think Nvidia can price Volta at better than 1080 Ti for 1070 price but it would be impossible for AMD to do so as well.

As of now, we have no evidence at all that Vega is more than roughly competitive with Pascal. Simply because Volta will be arriving soon, doesn't somehow magically increase the performance of Vega, nor lower production costs. Of course, the demos we have seen have been early hardware and alpha drivers, so again, we don't know where this will end up, and we have no idea about pricing either. But you're making assumptions that Vega can compete with Volta seemingly based only on them being on the market at the same time. Which makes no sense. As for price/perf, Vega has a bigger die than GP102, and uses (somewhat) more expensive memory and an interposer. I.e. selling them at lower prices would probably mean noticeably lower margins.

Then again, if AMD has balanced the architecture better than Fiji (which they must have, come on!) this would gain them a lot of "free" performance, and if they save R&D and fab costs by having fewer die designs (two currently rumored (probably more down the line, but I'd be surprised to see more than 4) vs. the 6 currently existing Pascal chips), this might balance out. The point is: we have to wait and see.

 

[tential]

@Valantar
This doesn't even begin to talk about Vega 11, which everyone here conveniently wants to ignore talking about. Vega 11 DEFINITELY goes up against Volta midrange chips. So how fast is Vega 11?

Because we know how fast that Volta midrange will be.... Nvidia does the same thing every time.

 

[leoneazzurro]

Wow, a lot of people know a lot of things never published anywhere. Including:
- When Volta midrange arrives, even if the computing monster chip is not available yet, nor a precise launch date was given
- How all these cards will perform for gaming, computing and so on
- Prices

I would have your crystal ball, so I could win at the lottery everytime.