[Videocardz rumour] Vega pushed forward to October

[raghu78]

Fottemberg is not a reliable source. Lisa Su said Vega launching within the next two quarters, which is Q1 2017. If they were planning a limited EOY launch, they would say so in the investor calls just as they do with Summit Ridge.

yeah Lisa Su confirmed Vega is 2 quarters away. So best case it launches at CES 2017 and worst case late Q1 2017.

 

[R0H1T]

Within means, exactly that. Within. Not at the end of two upcoming quarters. It can be either Q4 2016 or Q1 2017.

Could this still be a function of yields &/or fab capacity? AMD is doing a lot of things atm, die shrunk XB1 (& PS4?) with the next gen consoles launching (possibly) inside a year & of course Zen, then Polaris for desktops, OEM's & Apple.

So I'm guessing it's either fab/yield related or that AMD doesn't have enough manpower (& enough $ obviously) to execute each of them simultaneously.

 

[Glo.]

Right now AMD relies on marketing and hype to sell product as the inherent product competitiveness is pretty weak as we saw with polaris. We are seeing more of the same with Vega. Nvidia meanwhile is executing like a juggernaut raking in the moolah with minimum noise or fuss. AMD talked for 6 months about Polaris and delivered a disappointing product. Nvidia spoke about Pascal 3 weeks before GTX 1080 launch and knocked it out of the park. This is basically the difference between a company which is executing flawlessly with strong R&D (Nvidia) and one which is struggling to compete due to weak R&D and financial state.

Did we have seen any Vega product, yet? Where is it? Any links? You are going way to far with your estimations. Lets not get too hyped for Vega, but also lets do not spread FUD here.

One more thing, I think AMD have increased their R&D expenses in last quarters.

 

[Glo.]

Could this still be a function of yields &/or fab capacity? AMD is doing a lot of things atm, die shrunk XB1 (& PS4?) with the next gen consoles launching (possibly) inside a year & of course Zen, then Polaris for desktops, OEM's & Apple.

So I'm guessing it's either fab/yield related or that AMD doesn't have enough manpower (& $ obviously) to execute each of them simultaneously.

Nvidia does not have Yield problems at all. They struggle with capacity(all companies, except from Apple, struggle with capacity there).

 

[R0H1T]

Nvidia does not have Yield problems at all. They struggle with capacity(all companies, except from Apple, struggle with capacity there).

Well this was about Vega right, so I'm talking about AMD, or was that a typo?

 

[Glo.]

Well this was about Vega right, so I'm talking about AMD, or was that a typo?

This was an analogy. AMD most likely for obvious reasons: Amkor and TSMC production chain in Taiwan linked directly to HBM chips, will go with TSMC for the Vega chips.

But that is only my loud thinking, and logic.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Personally, I am mystified at AMD's hush hush antics. If they have a competing product coming to market in the next 3-6 months, why not market it? Let the public see some details, hype the chip up, do something! This Laissez faire underdog card they have been playing over the last year or two is getting so old and played out. I don't know about you guys, but I want to buy cards from a company that seems like they give a hoot about their customer base and their interests. Market your products AMD. Give your fans and customers something to talk about other than spouting NV criticisms on forums and comments boards. This woe is me AMD facade is getting so old. Be proud and loud about your products. Know the market and know the customers.

It's overwhelmingly obvious AMD fans and consumers in general want a new competitive chip BADLY. Let them know their thoughts are being heard.

 

[Yakk]

One more thing, I think AMD have increased their R&D expenses in last quarters.

You think correct. As Reed had cut AMD's R&D to zero, any R&D now under Lisa Su will be infinitely better.

 

[antihelten]

Personally, I am mystified at AMD's hush hush antics. If they have a competing product coming to market in the next 3-6 months, why not market it? Let the public see some details, hype the chip up, do something! This Laissez faire underdog card they have been playing over the last year or two is getting so old and played out. I don't know about you guys, but I want to buy cards from a company that seems like they give a hoot about their customer base and their interests. Market your products AMD. Give your fans and customers something to talk about other than spouting NV criticisms on forums and comments boards. This woe is me AMD facade is getting so old. Be proud and loud about your products. Know the market and know the customers.

It's overwhelmingly obvious AMD fans and consumers in general want a new competitive chip BADLY. Let them know their thoughts are being heard.

The big Vega chip would possibly be going up against a Geforce version of the GP102, and as such AMD may want to keep their cards close, to be able to control the message and announce/launch it at the most opportune moment (a moment that would likely fall around the same time as the launch of said Geforce card).

On the other hand the smaller Vega chip would likely be going up against GP104 (i.e 1070 and 1080), and in this case I don't really see any reason to hold off on the marketing (or at least on the "leaks").

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Exactly. If you've got a GP104 competitor in the works (aka RX 490), flaunt it. Make sure the claims are not overstated and let consumer in the market for a $350-500 GPU to replace their 290X/390X/970/980 know that you've got something viable coming.

And coming soon. This is key. If the RX 490 comes out 6 months from now and fails to beat neither the 1070 or 1080 in terms of price-performance, it will have been for naught. Enthusiasts aren't patient, especially since the Polaris cards (IMO) have been somewhat underwhelming.

 

[Glo.]

Don't expect it will be 350-500$ GPU. 650$ is most realistic expectation if it would be on the level of GTX 1080. And that is bottom line price for it.

 

[railven]

Personally, I am mystified at AMD's hush hush antics. If they have a competing product coming to market in the next 3-6 months, why not market it? Let the public see some details, hype the chip up, do something! This Laissez faire underdog card they have been playing over the last year or two is getting so old and played out. I don't know about you guys, but I want to buy cards from a company that seems like they give a hoot about their customer base and their interests. Market your products AMD. Give your fans and customers something to talk about other than spouting NV criticisms on forums and comments boards. This woe is me AMD facade is getting so old. Be proud and loud about your products. Know the market and know the customers.

It's overwhelmingly obvious AMD fans and consumers in general want a new competitive chip BADLY. Let them know their thoughts are being heard.

I think the bold is more reason to stay shut lipped until closer to launch. They show cased Polaris almost 7 months before it's official launch. They were "modest" with their showcase and through out the product showcase outside of some boastful performance / watt claims, they kept relatively modest with their expectations.

But the hype monster and AMD fans WANTING a win, hell take a stroll through the CPU subsection, basically turned Polaris 10 in a Fury X replacement. Even when leaks started to funnel out, it was unbelieveable by some that Polaris 10 would just meet 390 performance and in some occasions 390X.

If AMD has something planned, they be best letting their fans know LAST or this will turn into a GP102/GP100/GV104 competitor before the day is over.

 

[Mercennarius]

Don't expect it will be 350-500$ GPU. 650$ is most realistic expectation if it would be on the level of GTX 1080. And that is bottom line price for it.

Not with the 480 only being $199. That price gap is too large and based off that AMD seems to be focused on price/efficiency those are going to be focus points for Vega just like Polaris. I expect it to be in the $499/$549 range and offer 90% of the performance of the 1080 in DX11 and possibly match or beat it in DX12/Vulkan.

 

[linkgoron]

Exactly. If you've got a GP104 competitor in the works (aka RX 490), flaunt it. Make sure the claims are not overstated and let consumer in the market for a $350-500 GPU to replace their 290X/390X/970/980 know that you've got something viable coming.

And coming soon. This is key. If the RX 490 comes out 6 months from now and fails to beat neither the 1070 or 1080 in terms of price-performance, it will have been for naught. Enthusiasts aren't patient, especially since the Polaris cards (IMO) have been somewhat underwhelming.

Vega isn't coming soon according to Lisa Su.

I just don't see AMD having an ace up their sleeve. Polaris was disappointing technologically (for whatever reasons, arch related or fab related), with perf/watt and perf way worse than what people expected. If this is what's in store for Vega 10, I just don't think AMD has anything to market if they wanted to.

What should they flaunt? They announced Polaris quite a bit in advance, and people were disappointed. Fury X was also a disappointment. People really want competition, and they always overstate what AMD has in store. On the other hand, people don't really forgive AMD for any PR slips. Some people here are still mad about the "Overclockers dream" Fury X thing, although Nvidia usually gets a pass (some of those that are still mad at AMD are quick to forgive Nvidia about the 970 fiasco, or the 1080 overclocking demonstration).

Hopefully AMD have something better soon, but I'm expecting a 2017 launch.

 

[Glo.]

Not with the 480 only being $199. That price gap is too large and based off that AMD seems to be focused on price/efficiency those are going to be focus points for Vega just like Polaris. I expect it to be in the $499/$549 range and offer 90% of the performance of the 1080 in DX11 and possibly match or beat it in DX12/Vulkan.

What if... Small Vega GPU is 3072 GCN core version, with... HBM1? Then it would make sense, what you are writing.

On the other hand... 2 stacks of HBM2 would give the same amount of bandwidth, lower power consumption, and lower cost of HBM chips, and packaging the GPU.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Over-hype is inevitable, we see it from both sides all the time. I'm saying legitimize the product so that consumer knows its coming. Hype is good. At least something '490' will exist, rather than 'Vega might be coming eventually sometime between now and Q2' 17. Why would someone looking to upgrade to something 1070/1080 in price wait another 6 months for something that will only preform similar to what already exists? People want to play now and with games like BF1, Mafia III, Civ VI, Gears 4, and Forza Horizon 3 all releasing in October, most looking to upgrade at that price point will likely do so then.

 

[Glo.]

Vega isn't coming soon according to Lisa Su.

I just don't see AMD having an ace up their sleeve. Polaris was disappointing technologically (for whatever reasons, arch related or fab related), with perf/watt and perf way worse than what people expected. If this is what's in store for Vega 10, I just don't think AMD has anything to market if they wanted to.

You have perfectly described the problem. It was what people expected. Even I have to confess here that I was hyped for Polaris, but second time in the row(FuryX), I got brought down to earth. It made me rethink. Is is because of the brand or what I think about the brand?

I do not want overhype the GPUs, anymore. And no, after thinking about this, considering every aspect of Polaris it was absolutely not disappointment. It is extremely good value GPU. Especially RX 470 is.

 

[Glo.]

Sorry for post under post, however I thought about another thing.

Lisa Su have said that Vega is coming within two upcoming quarters, right?

Vega stack have 2 GPUs.
What if this means that Q4 - small Vega - RX 490.
Q1 2017 - Big Vega?

That would make complete sense. With big Vega being the next gen. Fury product similar to Titan.

 

[linkgoron]

considering every aspect of Polaris it was absolutely not disappointment. It is extremely good value GPU. Especially RX 470 is.

Note that I wrote that it was a disappointment technologically. I was expecting Polaris have the same performance at around 30-40 watts less, not basically match Maxwell. The price is great, but the launch was terrible. Throttling cards, and AIBs were really slow to release their cards.

Perf/watt might look better under DX12, but I haven't seen anyone do a perf/watt measurement specifically under DX12 (I haven't looked very hard though)

 

[Erithan13]

They show cased Polaris almost 7 months before it's official launch. They were "modest" with their showcase and through out the product showcase outside of some boastful performance / watt claims, they kept relatively modest with their expectations.

But the hype monster and AMD fans WANTING a win, hell take a stroll through the CPU subsection, basically turned Polaris 10 in a Fury X replacement. Even when leaks started to funnel out, it was unbelieveable by some that Polaris 10 would just meet 390 performance and in some occasions 390X.

Polaris was disappointing technologically (for whatever reasons, arch related or fab related), with perf/watt and perf way worse than what people expected. If this is what's in store for Vega 10, I just don't think AMD has anything to market if they wanted to.

If Polaris was a major disappointment to anyone performance wise, that is only because of the above mentioned hype machine getting out of control and setting expectations way too high. AMD has been absolutely consistent about the 480 offering 390 level performance at reduced power consumption and that's exactly what we got. I honestly thought they would get more praise for being upfront about what Polaris is since people are always keen to jump on a company for over-promising and under-delivering.

Granted, there's things to criticise about Polaris, mainly the perf/w being somewhat disappointing, though I still don't think it's quite as bad as some people have made out. Compared to previous gen AMD cards it's a substantial improvement and I expect there's still room for more efficiency with better drivers/undervolting/a new revision of the cards. Polaris' perf/w may not look so hot (ha!) against Pascal, but at that point I feel I have to point out the obvious, that Nvidia have practically limitless R+D resources against cash-strapped AMD, they've focused heavily on efficiency compared to AMD cards having more raw computing power, and by all accounts their 16nm process is a better one than whatever shenanigans AMD are stuck with at GloFo. Given all that I think it's at least a bit unfair to compare Polaris so unfavourably to Pascal.

I tend to feel that while AMD are a long way from being a flawless company, even when they execute relatively well they still can't win. Look at the stock situation with Polaris. They could have launched along with Pascal, I'm sure of it, but the availability would have been even more dismal. Result? 'Paper launch, AMD fail'. They could have waited another month for stock to build through July, result 'Late launch, NV beat them to the punch, AMD fail'. Suggesting that they should have had more cards ready, okay, review again the disparity in resources compared to NV, now is anyone going to seriously suggest AMD have been sitting around thinking 'well we could launch these millions of cards we have gathering dust, but let's not'? (reading the AMD reddit recently apparently there are people who believe this; 'AMD should make more cards!' Yeah, thanks, I'll pass that on to Lisa Su whenever I get the chance. Don't even get me started on how vilified miners have become on there).

Vega then? I can already see the pattern repeating. I don't think it's going to be a bad card, in fact I think in terms of pure performance per dollar it's going to be highly competitive with NV, but I can say for a fact right now it is going to disappoint people aboard the hype train expecting some miracle. Rinse and repeat for Zen

 

[exar333]

Vega isn't coming soon according to Lisa Su.

I just don't see AMD having an ace up their sleeve. Polaris was disappointing technologically (for whatever reasons, arch related or fab related), with perf/watt and perf way worse than what people expected. If this is what's in store for Vega 10, I just don't think AMD has anything to market if they wanted to.

What should they flaunt? They announced Polaris quite a bit in advance, and people were disappointed. Fury X was also a disappointment. People really want competition, and they always overstate what AMD has in store. On the other hand, people don't really forgive AMD for any PR slips. Some people here are still mad about the "Overclockers dream" Fury X thing, although Nvidia usually gets a pass (some of those that are still mad at AMD are quick to forgive Nvidia about the 970 fiasco, or the 1080 overclocking demonstration).

Hopefully AMD have something better soon, but I'm expecting a 2017 launch.

I am 'hopeful' for Vega, but almost think we will just get 2x Polaris for 2x the price. AMD hopefully has something up their sleeve....and they will need to be providing some solid performance leaks and (accurate) prerelease hype to keep people from still buying 1080s/1080Tis. I really wanted to go AMD this year, but nothing on the mid high-end to choose from. Hoping Vega is a home-run.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I don't think anyone is vilifying miners (besides forum dwellers). Most people don't even know about virtual currency mining besides the fact that bitcoin is a thing.

Hype is a factor on any release. Managed or not, the end result is still just that. Custom 8GB RX 480s are pretty much even in pricing with the GTX 1060. In most cases, the RX 480s preforms worse than the 1060, uses more power (not that this really matters), and has spotty availability at best. Despite being available before the 1060. To me, AMD needed a definitive 'gotcha' release. Instead what they released was either par and/or + or - a few percentage point in terms of performance compared to the 1060. Sure its not a bad card by anyones account. The question is why would a long time NV user or former AMD-turn-NV user switch back to AMD for a card that essentially matches last years mid-tier cards?

Lets not forget the fact that if you are really looking for value, used 290 and 290Xs are available for $150 shipped on r/HardwareSwap and the like. Or that for $50-70 more over the price of a custom RX 480 8GB, one can snag a used 980 Ti instead.

 

[railven]

If Polaris was a major disappointment to anyone performance wise, that is only because of the above mentioned hype machine getting out of control and setting expectations way too high. AMD has been absolutely consistent about the 480 offering 390 level performance at reduced power consumption and that's exactly what we got. I honestly thought they would get more praise for being upfront about what Polaris is since people are always keen to jump on a company for over-promising and under-delivering.

These are often the people who are most loudest on forums linking any article that substantiates their claims/beliefs. I see it across multiple forums and it basically generates a hype monster than AMD can't even come close to satisfying. Polaris 10 wasn't a failure, in my eyes, but I was no longer rooting hardcore for AMD thus didn't get sucked it the hype machine. You see it on both sides, but I think AMD fans wanting that win will believe the hype generated by click sites even more. Hell, weren't custom 480's suppose to hit 1.6ghz on air? I mean, I know Pascal side was selling 2.2ghz+ on air, but they weren't struggling for performance/wins.

AMD should keep this close to the vest, even more so if it's ace card. For 2 months leading up to Polaris 10's launch it was "this is HD 4870 all over again" and whatever nonsense that over estimated 480's performance. My favorite is still 90% of GTX 1080 in DX12 for $200.

 

[Glo.]

What could AMD possibly do to increase throughput of their GPUs? Next gen. rasterization? Next gen. schedulers?

Is there anything that would make 4096 GCN core, and 1TB/s of bandwidth fully utilized?

I know I may sound a little excited on this topic, but I want to know what might appear in next gen. Mac Pro .

 

[Arachnotronic]

What could AMD possibly do to increase throughput of their GPUs? Next gen. rasterization? Next gen. schedulers?

Is there anything that would make 4096 GCN core fully utilized?

There are engineers at AMD that get paid big bucks to figure that out. Don't think you'll find the answers you seek on this forum.