Monday, May 15th 2017

Entire AMD Vega Lineup Reportedly Leaked - Available on June 5th?

Reports are doing the rounds regarding alleged AMD insiders having "blown the whistle", so to speak, on the company's upcoming Vega graphics cards. This leak also points towards retail availability of Vega cards on the 5th of June, which lines up nicely with AMD's May 31st Computex press conference. An announcement there, followed by market availability on the beginning of next week does sound like something that would happen in a new product launch.

On to the meat and bones of this story, three different SKUs have been leaked, of which no details are currently known, apart from their naming and pricing. AMD's Vega line-up starts off with the RX Vega Core graphics card, which is reportedly going to retail for $399. This graphics card is going to sell at a higher price than NVIDIA's GTX 1070, which should mean higher performance. Higher pricing with competitive performance really wouldn't stir any pot of excitement, so, higher performance is the most logical guess. The $399 pricing sits nicely in regards to AMD's RX 580, though it does mean there is space for another SKU to be thrown into the mix at a later date, perhaps at $329, though I'm just speculating on AMD's apparent pricing gap at this point.
Next up is the RX Vega Eclipse, which will reportedly retail for $499, going head to head with NVIDIA's GTX 1080 (in fact, slightly cheaper than the majority of AIB versions of the card). The line between the Core and the Eclipse is a little blurry here, since we know that the GTX 1070's performance can easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080 - their performance delta isn't that great. If the RX Vega Core does bring with it higher performance than the GTX 1070 (justified by its higher pricing), then that would place it close to GTX 1080 (stock) performance. Since AMD would be trying to avoid its RX Vega Core from eclipsing (eh) its RX Vega Eclipse graphics card in the price/performance department, one can expect - with reservations - that the performance delta between the Core and the Eclipse is higher than their respective pricing indicates. So I would expect the RX Vega Eclipse to offer performance that's greater than the GTX 1080's.

Finally, we have the crème de la crème of Vega, the RX Vega Nova. This graphics card is reported to retail for $599, a full $100 cheaper than NVIDIA's GTX 1080 Ti, while looking to directly compete with it. Considering this pricing, and admitting that the leak pans out correctly, this would mean we won't be seeing a Vega card that's capable of competing with NVIDIA's Titan Xp graphics card (at least, not a single-GPU solution...) AMD simply would not sell their top of the line Vega for $599 if it was competitive with that NVIDIA titan of a graphics card. Based on AMD's previous pricing strategy, I would expect the company to deliver roughly the same performance as the GTX 1080 Ti, looking to use its Nova not as a pure performance product, but as a price/performance contender. What do you make of this leak?
Source: Digiworthy
Add your own comment

87 Comments on Entire AMD Vega Lineup Reportedly Leaked - Available on June 5th?

#26
ratirt
I'm getting one then. Been waiting for the Vega card so damn long. New card and new monitor for me this year I suppose :) Great new gear is always welcome :D

EDIT: As a matter of fact I wanna go with 4k. But that depends on the Vega performance :)
Posted on Reply
#27
nemesis.ie
W1zzardI haven't heard anything from AMD other than the Computex press event invite.

No Vega NDA, no info, nothing on reviews.
Maybe they will do it like the Ryzen launch and present attendees with their "review box" during the event at the show?
ratirtEDIT: As a matter of fact I wanna go with 4k. But that depends on the Vega performance :)
FreeSync2 might be worth waiting for, I wonder will we see some FS2 monitors soon?
Posted on Reply
#28
ratirt
nemesis.ieMaybe they will do it like the Ryzen launch and present attendees with their "review box" during the event at the show?



FreeSync2 might be worth waiting for, I wonder will we see some FS2 monitors soon?
Do we know when Freesync2 is going to be on the market? It's been so long waiting for Vega and now if i have to wait for monitor with freesync2 I'm just gonna die.
Posted on Reply
#29
jigar2speed
oxidizedi don't even know if i need such power yet, i tried with a 480 but had problems, might get a 1060 soon, but new cards would probably make 1060 cheaper, so...
Same here, i got myself a GTX 1070 but had driver problems, card just wont recognize my 120hz HD TV (stuck at 60 hz which my HD 7970 had zero issues) , had to return it back. Now i am waiting for Vega
Posted on Reply
#30
deu
P4-630I don't expect it to be even close to 150 Watts, for sure not less in power draw than a GTX1070 knowing AMD's current available cards....
You do understand that VEGA is in most aspects nothing like any of AMDs former GPUs right? Im not saying that it will draw less but to use your argument is not a valid argument. Like saying; VW's new electric car will polute more than their former cars which runs on gazoline.
Posted on Reply
#31
64K
deuYou do understand that VEGA is in most aspects nothing like any of AMDs former GPUs right? Im not saying that it will draw less but to use your argument is not a valid argument. Like saying; VW's new electric car will polute more than their former cars which runs on gazoline.
Why does it always have to be cars when comparing PC hardware? And how would making a guess based on AMD's past GPUs be comparable to an electric car engine versus a gas engine?
Posted on Reply
#32
RejZoR
Because it's analogy most familiar to all users. Though it has to be a correct one to begin with...
Posted on Reply
#33
Cybrnook2002
W1zzardI haven't heard anything from AMD other than the Computex press event invite.

No Vega NDA, no info, nothing on reviews.
No need :) AMD Marketing dept will take care of all of that for you ;-) Must still be sour from BTA.
Posted on Reply
#34
TheinsanegamerN
deuYou do understand that VEGA is in most aspects nothing like any of AMDs former GPUs right? Im not saying that it will draw less but to use your argument is not a valid argument. Like saying; VW's new electric car will polute more than their former cars which runs on gazoline.
VEGA is still an evolution of GCN, which has proved time and time again that it is thirsty.

AMD's past HBM card was a power hungry monster until it was tamed for the nano.

So far, history is not on your side.
Posted on Reply
#35
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
TheinsanegamerNVEGA is still an evolution of GCN, which has proved time and time again that it is thirsty.

AMD's past HBM card was a power hungry monster until it was tamed for the nano.

So far, history is not on your side.
I would be curious if this is part of the reason to cut down to 2048bit on the hbm2.
Posted on Reply
#36
AngryGoldfish
Please show me a single 1070 that's overclocked to match a stock 1080. The 970 can be overclocked to match a 980, but it's common knowledge that the 1080 is leagues above the 1070. Overclocking it closes the gap, but it's still behind by a calculated amount.
Posted on Reply
#37
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
AngryGoldfishPlease show me a single 1070 that's overclocked to match a stock 1080. The 970 can be overclocked to match a 980, but it's common knowledge that the 1080 is leagues above the 1070. Overclocking it closes the gap, but it's still behind by a calculated amount.
Bad example there is one brands 1060 that overclocked to 3ghz and beats a 1080
Posted on Reply
#38
kruk
TheinsanegamerNVEGA is still an evolution of GCN, which has proved time and time again that it is thirsty.
Actually, first generation of GCN beat Kepler in power efficiency. The Cape Verde and Pitcairn chips were leading the efficiency charts from 2012 to 2014 when Maxwell 1.0 came along. I'm pretty sure Polaris could be much closer to Pascal in efficiency if AMD hadn't pushed the clocks (and voltage) to the limit.

I'm also sure a Vega Nano with sub 170W and 1070+ performance is possible, but don't expect it at $399 but much more. Why? Because the Vega Nano lineup will probably have the best binned chips to have great performance at low power consumption - same story as with Fury Nano. This also makes this reddit "leak" extremely questionable. I call it fake.
Posted on Reply
#39
efikkan
krukI'm pretty sure Polaris could be much closer to Pascal in efficiency if AMD hadn't pushed the clocks (and voltage) to the limit.
I hope you're joking, because if you believe this it would be really sad.
Polaris is hardly more efficient than Fiji, even with a node shrink. Nvidia were the ones pushing the clocks, if they used comparable clocks, Pascal would be twice as efficient.
Posted on Reply
#40
kruk
efikkanI hope you're joking, because if you believe this it would be really sad.
Polaris is hardly more efficient than Fiji, even with a node shrink.
In contrast to you, I actually own a Polaris card and know what is capable off.
Posted on Reply
#41
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
krukIn contrast to you, I actually own a Polaris card and know what is capable off.
I had two the word efficient didn't come to mind when describing them, the 95w TDP models sold only to embedded sure those were great, the 150w cards consumers saw? NO.
Posted on Reply
#42
RejZoR
TheinsanegamerNVEGA is still an evolution of GCN, which has proved time and time again that it is thirsty.

AMD's past HBM card was a power hungry monster until it was tamed for the nano.

So far, history is not on your side.
That's equally as stupid as saying Pascal is just using an evolution of CUDA cores from Fermi...
Posted on Reply
#43
Estaric
Depending on performance i might sell my R9 Fury's and get eclipse or even Nova depending on reviews. Feel like my 4gb of vram is really holding me back
Posted on Reply
#44
medi01
since we know that the GTX 1070's performance can easily be overclocked to reach a stock 1080
Huh?!?!?
Posted on Reply
#45
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
RejZoRThat's equally as stupid as saying Pascal is just using an evolution of CUDA cores from Fermi...
Not quite the same. Like at all.
Posted on Reply
#46
medi01
TheinsanegamerNAMD's past HBM card was a power hungry monster until it was tamed for the nano.
Bullshit.
Fury X consumed more than 980Ti, but that's it.

The only monster power consumer AMD ever produced was 295, which was a dual card.
Posted on Reply
#48
Raevenlord
News Editor
AngryGoldfishPlease show me a single 1070 that's overclocked to match a stock 1080. The 970 can be overclocked to match a 980, but it's common knowledge that the 1080 is leagues above the 1070. Overclocking it closes the gap, but it's still behind by a calculated amount.


From w1zzard's review, here
Posted on Reply
#50
Raevenlord
News Editor
R0H1TI think Wccf came to TPU with this *alleged rumor.

*with today's politics & politicians it's always nice to hedge your bets i.e. never give a straight yes or no :D

I believe
they think we started this rumor. Must've missed the source link.

Taking a page from your book, R0H1T, hope you don't mind :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Apr 26th, 2024 16:23 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts