Monday, May 8th 2017

AMD Vega May Launch with Less Than 20,000 Units Available

Fresh from the rumor-mill comes a report that low HBM2 availability may cripple the Vega launch that is expected to happen in the next few weeks, if a report from TweakTown is to be believed. As far as sources, there isn't much other than TweakTown's news report and their article claiming they had been told this by an "exclusive industry source." Apply your usual grain of salt here vigilant reader, but its certainly interesting speculation, if nothing else. It may turn out to be FUD, or it may turn out to be truth. Only the coming weeks will reveal the truth.
Source: TweakTown
Add your own comment

106 Comments on AMD Vega May Launch with Less Than 20,000 Units Available

#51
Manu_PT
Octopuss
Do you have a girlfriend or a job?
Visits and is active on a Website/Forum about hardware and enthusiasts. Asks an user if he has a job/girlfriend because he has a Logitech mouse and a 240hz monitor.

Impecable Logic.
Posted on Reply
#52
Octopuss
Dj-ElectriC
What the hell is going on in this thread...
That's what I've been trying to figure out for two pages worth.
Posted on Reply
#53
nemesis.ie
Manu_PT
I didn´t say industry should cater to us. I said Intel is a better option for us.
Intel is not the better option, the 7700k is, at this time, for your specific use case. I think that's perfectly fine too but that's not what is being stated in general or in the quote above.

In other words, this does not mean that Ryzen is bad for other people's use cases, or gaming in general or that AMD is inferior to Intel across the board. For many folks and those that want to "build now for the next 5 years" Ryzen is quite likely the better choice.

Everyone needs to look at a) their use case, b) what provides the best performance for their target budget and c) is a given product worth paying e.g. 2x for 10% more performance or not.

Nothing else really matters, assuming reliability, power consumption and similar factors are acceptable and factored into the price over the use period.
Posted on Reply
#54
LightningJR
G33k2Fr34k
My argument still applies: This new Vega10 GTX1070 competitor could have 150W TDP, which makes it a more efficient card than the 275W FuryX.
That's wishful thinking. The RX 480 consumes ~160W and you're thinking the Vega that'll compete with the 1070 will consume less then it on the same 14nm process?

o_O
Posted on Reply
#55
medi01
LightningJR
That's wishful thinking. The RX 480 consumes ~160W and you're thinking the Vega that'll compete with the 1070 will consume less then it on the same 14nm process?

o_O
The process argument is moot.
However, Vega is based on Fiji, and who knows, what they'll do.

I'm skeptical about 1070 competitor Vega for until Sept this year. They'll probably sell small number of high ends which will be 10% behind 1080Ti.
Then they'll be harvested versions of the chip for smaller Vegas, perhaps.
Posted on Reply
#56
Lox
I'm not having the greatest few days so this isn't really going to be a positive comment.

All this AMD leaks, suggestions & expected specifications are starting to become so tiresome ...
The title to me reads "AMD Vega May Launch at some point, will eventually be available for purchase, check back in 6 months"

There's a stack of money burning a hole in my pocket after cancelling my vacation for the past two years with work getting in the way.
So I've been looking at upgrading my Racing rig with 3x 1440p displays & a high end GPU.
Preferably AMD, since I don't like to be overcharged for similar hardware. But the past weeks I've been thinking enough is enough, pay the premium and go green. At least for that I know the hardware will be sufficient & capable.
Posted on Reply
#57
nemesis.ie
It's worth waiting for a few more weeks I would think, after that, you may want to go with what you can get alright.
Posted on Reply
#58
GhostRyder
Well its probably going to end up as more of an in between GTX 1070 and 1080 card unfortunately. I still hold reservations until the card is released, but if it really has the specs of near double an RX 480 on a similar architecture even with HBM its not going to be better than a 1080 unless we assume the CFX results (Without non-scaling games) are underestimations. Then again Vega is all new so maybe we will see some serious scaling with the new architecture and these rumors are just rumors based on the CFX results trying to sound like they already have solved all the mysteries.
Posted on Reply
#59
Caring1
Dj-ElectriC
What the hell is going on in this thread...
The Internet :D
Posted on Reply
#60
64K
Lox
I'm not having the greatest few days so this isn't really going to be a positive comment.

All this AMD leaks, suggestions & expected specifications are starting to become so tiresome ...
The title to me reads "AMD Vega May Launch at some point, will eventually be available for purchase, check back in 6 months"

There's a stack of money burning a hole in my pocket after cancelling my vacation for the past two years with work getting in the way.
So I've been looking at upgrading my Racing rig with 3x 1440p displays & a high end GPU.
Preferably AMD, since I don't like to be overcharged for similar hardware. But the past weeks I've been thinking enough is enough, pay the premium and go green. At least for that I know the hardware will be sufficient & capable.
Well, you've waited this long. Vega may launch during Computex about 3 weeks away. We don't know yet the performance for certain and we don't know if they will be in short supply which may cause retailers to gouge. But it's probably not too far away now and at least you will know for certain that a 1080 Ti will be the best choice or not for you then.
Posted on Reply
#61
Lox
Well, I am going to wait. I've been waiting for months now, a few extra weeks won't matter.
I won't even have time to properly use everything untill the summer anyway.

Hopefully in a few weeks time or at the end of the months the reviewers will get samples & be allowed to publish results before VEGA actually gets released.
But reading yet another post without any sort of valid info is almost as bad as spam.

sorry for the rant, bad day as I said
Posted on Reply
#62
DeOdView
Manu_PT
The differences are not marginal for gamers (like me) that already use 240hz monitors and want 200 to 240 constant fps on their multiplayer games. We may be a minority, but we do exist, and Intel is simply way better for that right now. And anyone can get 4,7/4,8ghz with a 30 bucks cooler. No need for super hot and expensive (cooling) 5ghz. And 4000mhz DD4 also works flawless on Z270. Trust me, at 4,8ghz + 4000mhz DDR4 you get more than 30% improvement in framerates compared to Ryzen in many games. If you don´t care about a big amount of FPS, that´s ok. Ryzen is a good chip anyway, but please don´t say the differences "are marginal" compared to 7700k on gaming. They aren´t.

We, competitive gamers, don´t look at number of cores or threads. We look at our fps in the upper corner of the screen. If a 1 core CPU delivers the fps we want, that´s what we use. Anything else is irrelevant to us.
... and the world revolved with or without you.
Posted on Reply
#63
ERazer
price gonna jack up again like the 1080 at launch, goodluck grabbing one at base price

and most will wait for 3rd party varient, so around couple months when its somewhat available.
Posted on Reply
#64
efikkan
cdawall
What gives you that idea? If they have the TDP set super low (exactly how the Nano was setup) the card will perform completely different than a card with a high clockspeed and higher TDP.

Remember the R9 Nano had a GPU clock of 1000mhz, 4096cu's and 4gb of 500mhz HBM, the Fury X had a GPU clock of 1050mhz, 4096cu's and 4gb of 500mhz HBM…
Nano used cherry-picked chips with super-aggressive power throttling, just like laptops. Not a recipe for anyone wanting stable performance.
G33k2Fr34k
I'm not bashing it, I'm stating the facts. Ryzen is actually pretty competitive for non-gaming tasks. The reason it sucks for gaming is because game workloads can be made up of thousands of simultaneous interdependent threads that share data and migrate across CPU cores all the time. Having a cross CCX latency that is 3 times as high as typical core-to-core latency causes significant slowdowns, which is what's happening with Ryzen.
There is no game that uses thousands of threads. Current games typically uses 2-8 threads, usually one of them communicates with the GPU.
RejZoR
And which entirely disappears if you run a fast RAM. And by fast I mean 3600 MHz or more. Which is fast, but certainly not the fastest available (or the most expensive). And even without this, it's still plenty fast…
Not even remotely true. Intel's quadcores does fine with much slower memory, so bandwidth is not the issue.
You know very well the issue with Ryzen is the prefetcher. Ryzen scales well on loads with little branching and cache misses, but gets too many stalls due to an inferior prefetcher.
ratirt
Not to mention Ryzen is a new architecture. It takes time till games and other stuff get optimized. :) 7700k is almost at its limit in some games. It's a matter of time till it becomes a bottleneck.
It doesn't work that way. Except for using exclusive intrinsics (which there are few of) there are really few ways to optimize for specific CPUs, so games usually aren't. Rendering though, is a pipelined workload with heavily parallel steps, optimizing is usually about calibrating buffer sizes, batching, etc. and of course sometimes exclusive GPU features.
Posted on Reply
#65
Alphadark
Octopuss
That's what I've been trying to figure out for two pages worth.
I'm just here to see which graphics card I will be purchasing next and all hell is breaking loose between the fanboys
Posted on Reply
#66
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
efikkan
Nano used cherry-picked chips with super-aggressive power throttling, just like laptops. Not a recipe for anyone wanting stable performance.
Right and what makes you think amd learned from the nano?
Posted on Reply
#67
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Come on guys. Thought yall could spot a troll by now. I've been training yall for years. I'm disappointed.

On topic if its around a 1070 for less money Ill pick one up.
Posted on Reply
#68
ERazer
TheMailMan78
Come on guys. Thought yall could spot a troll by now. I've been training yall for years. I'm disappointed.

On topic if its around a 1070 for less money Ill pick one up.
not with f'ing scalpers :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#69
efikkan
cdawall
Right and what makes you think amd learned from the nano?
Well, if they want enough GPUs to meet the demands and make money, for once.
Posted on Reply
#70
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
efikkan
Well, if they want enough GPUs to meet the demands and make money, for once.
The nano met a demand. Just not necessarily one that was yours.
Posted on Reply
#71
efikkan
cdawall
The nano met a demand. Just not necessarily one that was yours.
You misunderstood. AMD never managed to deliver enough Nanos…
Posted on Reply
#72
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
efikkan
You misunderstood. AMD never managed to deliver enough Nanos…
AMD never manages to deliver enough anything. There are still issues keeping the 1800x in stock.
Posted on Reply
#73
Vayra86
Manu_PT
Usually the guys that spam multiplayer games side chat with: "reported; banned in 2 days; nice wallhack; nice aimbot; report him; stupid hacker; etc" are the ones like you, that think we suffer from placebo about high refresh rates and 5ms differences in input lag. Go figure. Cya on the battle, with my placebo kit PMW3366 perfect mouse sensor, my 0,7ms oscilocope measured monitor input lag, my 4ms 240hz @ 240 fps frame time and my Gaming NIC. Good luck.

"Human eye can´t see past 30fps" - 1995
I'll still beat you any day of the week on a 120hz VA and 40 bucks Zowie mouse.

If you think gear is a factor in actually competing, you're deluded. That's why I know I'll beat you. 240hz is a placebo and this is pretty easy to see. You are convinced its not, which is exactly why its called a placebo.

Show me a dataset that proves 240hz gaming matters for the K/D ratio compared to a 120hz gamer, and you'll win this. Otherwise, its BS. Simple. Because there is actual data that proves 120hz has merit versus 60hz.

0,7ms oscilloscope measured monitor LMAO

Gaming NIC *ROFLMAO* this is actually proven to be counterproductive compared to the regular Intel or Qualcomm.
Posted on Reply
#74
Jism
Nobody knows the bare performance of this Vega HBM2 based card. So everyone's speculating and assuming it's in between the 1070 and 1080Ti. Who cares.

What we DO need is 2 competetive company's who create graphic cards which are both affordable (and i'm talking 150 ~ 300 range) and offers the best value related to performance. The high-end spot is only for a few people where we're talking 600 to 1200 for one single graphics card.

The RX480 was a very good product. Was on par and fast enough if you had a golden chip that went up to 1400Mhz. We need a chip from both camps that put the prices in a ideal spot. On paper vega looks promissing but we all need to await benchmarks before anyone can judge about it.

Ryzen is a decent (gaming) chip as well. It had a better 40% IPC compared to vishera and thus mission accomplished. You are buying 1000$ intel performance for 400$ these days. Be gratefull for having AMD up there bringing up great products.
Posted on Reply
#75
Vayra86
Jism
Nobody knows the bare performance of this Vega HBM2 based card. So everyone's speculating and assuming it's in between the 1070 and 1080Ti. Who cares.

What we DO need is 2 competetive company's who create graphic cards which are both affordable (and i'm talking 150 ~ 300 range) and offers the best value related to performance. The high-end spot is only for a few people where we're talking 600 to 1200 for one single graphics card.

The RX480 was a very good product. Was on par and fast enough if you had a golden chip that went up to 1400Mhz. We need a chip from both camps that put the prices in a ideal spot. On paper vega looks promissing but we all need to await benchmarks before anyone can judge about it.

Ryzen is a decent (gaming) chip as well. It had a better 40% IPC compared to vishera and thus mission accomplished. You are buying 1000$ intel performance for 400$ these days. Be gratefull for having AMD up there bringing up great products.
I think you'll find the high end market covers far more % of the PC gaming population than you'd think and the market is also shifting towards lower volume and higher price points. RX480 is the bottom of the stack for high end, you could say, but this is the performance level any PC gamer would start to consider / would find ideal to start with. Go lower and the choice is easy: you buy a console.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment