Thursday, January 10th 2019

AMD Radeon VII Hands On at CES 2019

While many have watched or at the very least seen our coverage of AMD's live stream at CES 2019, it just can't compare to seeing the latest graphics card from the company up close and personal. Therefore as soon as we had the opportunity, we took a closer look at the AMD Radeon VII and let us just say the reference card is indeed a bit fancy. The shroud itself is made of metal and has a very similar look and feel to the one used on the Radeon RX Vega 64 liquid cooled reference cards. However, instead of using an AIO for this release AMD instead opted for three uniform fans and a massive heatsink. Not only does this make the card more compatible with small form factor systems, it is also less of a hassle to install. Display outputs consist of 3x DisplayPort and 1x HDMI. Sadly AMD did not include a VirtualLink port (USB Type-C) like NVIDIA for VR headsets, which is rather odd considering AMD is also part of the VirtualLink consortium.

Power delivery is handled by two 8-pin PCIe power connectors giving the card access to a theoretical limit of 375-watts which is 75-watts more than its 300-watt TDP. Considering the Radeon VII has the same power level as the Vega 64 it offers 25% more performance at the same power level. Compute unit count falls between the Vega 56 and Vega 64 at precisely 60 CUs. That said, a few missing CUs are of no consequence when you consider how close the Vega 56 performed to the Vega 64 once tweaked. As for clock speeds AMD has stated the Radeon VII will have a 1.8 GHz core clock, while the 16 GB of HBM2 will deliver 1 TB/s of memory bandwidth over the 4096-bit memory interface.
Overall gaming performance is 29% higher according to AMD with the Radeon VII having been tested in 25 titles in order to reach that conclusion. Eight of them were DX12 and two of them Vulkan meaning they used a decent spread of games across multiple APIs. In regards to the games tested they used; Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V, Destiny 2, Doom, F1 2018, Fallout 76, Far Cry 5, Forza Horizon 4, Grand Theft Auto V, Strange Brigade, The Witcher 3, and Monster Hunter World just to name a few. Add that to the information shown in AMD's graphs and it appears it really can beat or at least trade blows with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2080. However, before jumping to any conclusions we will verify that soon enough once we have a sample in for review. In regards to pricing and availability it was already revealed earlier that AMD's Radeon VII will release at $699 on February 7th and will come bundled with a few games including, Devil May Cry 5, Resident Evil 2 and The Division 2 for a limited time.
Add your own comment

109 Comments on AMD Radeon VII Hands On at CES 2019

#76
toyo
I wish people would stop trying to find excuses for these corporations. Not long ago we got 970s and 1070s at decent prices that competed with the previous Ti card. AMD was always treasured for ONE thing the most:
- consumer friendly (supposedly)
- not as greedy as Nvidia/Intel
- price disruption
Few want to buy AMD at the very top end unless it is actually BETTER performance for a lower price, considering the fewer features and underdog status.
And basically 699 is top mainstream, ignore the 1200 dreams of Titan-equivalent prices from Nvidia. People hope for something akin to how the 4850 was back in the day, forcing Nvidia to drop prices and making them pay for their greed.
But just like in the past, when AMD had a good performing Athlon, they positioned it to 1000USD immediately, showing everyone what they should have always known:
- AMD is just as greedy as Nvidia
- neither of the big 3 is consumer friendly
And since these corporations don't look out for US, the consumer, we shouldn't EVER say their pricing schemes are OK and just fine, and try to find justifications, like "16GB HBM2" and "still Vega". For the consumer, these things don't matter, price is what matters first, and consumers should look for THEIR interest, NOT the corporation's.
TL;DR: people should each of the big 3 when they come with greedy disappointing prices, and also reward them for products such as the GTX970 (yes, it worked fine even with the fake 0.5VRAM, even on full 4GB VRAM used), HD4850 or even the 8700K, which in my country sold for the same price as the 7700K and BELOW the 1700x and 1800x.
Posted on Reply
#77
Dimi
TheGuruStud said:
You need to take control of the money. Phone bill should be 50 max and that's including tons of data. She's pissing it away. She must buy lots of nvidia products :roll:
T-mobile in NYC is expensive lol and yes she uses a GTX 1070 :) But she only plays at 1080p@60hz, i play at 1440@165hz and my 1070 is showing its age.
Posted on Reply
#78
sutyi
M2B said:
8GB frame buffer is not possible with its current memory configuration.
They need to cut the bus width and ROP count to half to make this an 8GB card which means significant performance decrease.
A radeon VII with 8GB frame buffer would perform like an overclocked Vega 64.
Forgot about the backend. You are right.

siluro818 said:
Why are people expecting a "price disruption" from a card that comes with the most expensive version of the most expensive memory currently in the industry is beyond me...
Actually demand is higher for this HBM2 density, so it's cheaper than GDDR6.
Posted on Reply
#79
Prince Valiant
lynx29 said:
so performance wise this needs to go to toe to toe with a rtx 2080 across the board, min, max, avg. - i had a chance to buy a rtx 2080 for $599 free ship no tax with ebays site wide promo i backed out at last second then 5 mins later it was sold out. i have some regrets. and something tells me this $700 card won't even beat the 2080. dangit. shoulda went with my gut instinct and just bought the 2080
I wouldn't feel too bad about that. There's a good chance the 2080 is going to drop in price if this maintains availability.
Posted on Reply
#80
lynx29
Prince Valiant said:
I wouldn't feel too bad about that. There's a good chance the 2080 is going to drop in price if this maintains availability.
yeah, I am in no rush anyway. i have so many games on backlog at this point, my 1070 literally prob last me another 3-4 years before i even dent my backlog from 5+ years ago lol... and these are games I really want to play and finish still too, so yeah i need to get on that instead of worrying about the cutting edge. i used to upgrade every generation. really surprised i didn't this time nor have the urge too. just starting tor ealize how dumb i was is all.
Posted on Reply
#81
Manu_PT
bug said:
This is a great idea until you realize 20 games later you're already down $1,200 on consoles. And that's assuming you play only titles that don't require a subscription.
Wrong. Console games are as cheap, if not cheaper, than pc games. Myths from 2010. Do your research.
Posted on Reply
#82
lynx29
Manu_PT said:
Wrong. Console games are as cheap, if not cheaper, than pc games. Myths from 2010. Do your research.
yeah this is kind of true too, ebay used games + they actually do have deep discount sales like steam these days. they never used to, its relatively new tho in last few years that the discounts went as deep as PC games do. but yeah

personally i am still sticking with gamefly subscription 2 games out at a time, thats all i have time for anyway, and i never have to buy games that way, can play a single story game, enjoy it, go at my own pace, then swap it in when done or beat. works great at a great price.
Posted on Reply
#83
crazyeyesreaper
Chief Broken Rig
For the people looking at the 29% average and freaking out about it. Keep in mind thats with 25 games averaged together. AMD tested various titles including NVIDIA centric ones. If you cherry pick the results then obvious the average will move up. Honestly I surprised by their game choice.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Battlefield 1, Battlefield 5, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4,Destiny 2,Deus x: Mankind Divided, Doom (2016), F1 2018, Fallout 76, Far Cry 5, Forza Horizon 4, Grand Theft Auto V, Hitman 2, Just Cause 4, Middle-Earth: Shadow Of War, Monster Hunter World, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Sid Meier's Civilization VI, Star Control: Origins, Strange Brigade, The Witcher 3, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands, Total War: Warhammer 2, Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
Posted on Reply
#84
medi01
toyo said:
when AMD had a good performing Athlon, they positioned it to 1000USD immediately
Oh, shut the hell up. They positioned it right where "extreme" edition of Pentium (a slower CPU) was.

toyo said:
- AMD is just as greedy as Nvidia
Even Intel is not as greedy as nvidia, let alone AMD.

<div class="youtube-embed" data-id="H0L3OTZ13Os"><img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/H0L3OTZ13Os/hqdefault.jpg" /><div class="youtube-play"></div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0L3OTZ13Os" target="_blank" class="youtube-title"></a></div>
Posted on Reply
#85
XXL_AI
yet another amd crap. try again amd, you are a few years behind of your competitor.
Posted on Reply
#86
Ravenas
Is Sapphire making these?
Posted on Reply
#87
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Ravenas said:
Is Sapphire making these?
Well they are the top AIB for AMD and they used to make the ATI branded cards for them back in the day so very possible.
Posted on Reply
#88
Mistral
This is essentially a content creation card with good gaming capabilities. Not bad at all at that price point, if that's what you need.
Posted on Reply
#89
VulkanBros
Beautifully - reminds me a little bit about the 5800 series when it came out - aesthetically
Posted on Reply
#90
Jism
Zubasa said:
TBH I rather they cut a few more CUs and clock the card higher or lower power consumption.
Vega being so Geometry limited doesn't really ultilize all those steam processors, Vega 56 is pretty much on-par with 64 clock for clock.
Its basically the same issue with Fury vs Fury X.
This card does seem to have 128ROPS vs 64 the original Vega has. Cutted down SP's from 64 to 60 and a clock up to 1.8Ghz or so on air is not so bad.
Posted on Reply
#91
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
PerfectWave said:
who is the idiot that buy high end gpu to play at 1080p?
Crank details to max in game and in the control panel.

I do that with a r9 290 with 1280x1024.

toyo said:
I wish people would stop trying to find excuses for these corporations. Not long ago we got 970s and 1070s at decent prices that competed with the previous Ti card. AMD was always treasured for ONE thing the most:
- consumer friendly (supposedly)
- not as greedy as Nvidia/Intel
- price disruption
Few want to buy AMD at the very top end unless it is actually BETTER performance for a lower price, considering the fewer features and underdog status.
And basically 699 is top mainstream, ignore the 1200 dreams of Titan-equivalent prices from Nvidia. People hope for something akin to how the 4850 was back in the day, forcing Nvidia to drop prices and making them pay for their greed.
But just like in the past, when AMD had a good performing Athlon, they positioned it to 1000USD immediately, showing everyone what they should have always known:
- AMD is just as greedy as Nvidia
- neither of the big 3 is consumer friendly
And since these corporations don't look out for US, the consumer, we shouldn't EVER say their pricing schemes are OK and just fine, and try to find justifications, like "16GB HBM2" and "still Vega". For the consumer, these things don't matter, price is what matters first, and consumers should look for THEIR interest, NOT the corporation's.
TL;DR: people should each of the big 3 when they come with greedy disappointing prices, and also reward them for products such as the GTX970 (yes, it worked fine even with the fake 0.5VRAM, even on full 4GB VRAM used), HD4850 or even the 8700K, which in my country sold for the same price as the 7700K and BELOW the 1700x and 1800x.
I call BS on Top mainstream, no highend card for consumers is worth more than 500.

Only when you get into workstations which are typically corporation bought count.
Posted on Reply
#92
Ravenas
INSTG8R said:
Well they are the top AIB for AMD and they used to make the ATI branded cards for them back in the day so very possible.
Back in the day? They made Vega 64 reference.
Posted on Reply
#93
xkm1948


source: https://hardforum.com/threads/here-are-amds-radeon-vii-benchmarks.1975236/

Fouquin said:
The Fury X reference cooler was an AIO. Literally still the best reference cooler ever shipped (Vega 64 LC, R9 295X2 also withstanding) on a reference card. What are you smoking, and would you like to share?
Quite a large number of FuryX pump died within or just outside of 2yrs warranty when you search around. The default AIO quality is meh at best.

Source: me as previous FuryX owner had to pay out of pocket to get it fixed. Would not touch another factory AIO GPU.
Posted on Reply
#94
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Ravenas said:
Back in the day? They made Vega 64 reference.
Then you answered your own question no? I’m just going by Sapphire cards I’ve owned which is all of them dating back to the 9800. Ruby was under the Sapphire sticker on my X1900s.
Posted on Reply
#95
Ravenas
INSTG8R said:
Then you answered your own question no? I’m just going by Sapphire cards I’ve owned which is all of them dating back to the 9800. Ruby was under the Sapphire sticker on my X1900s.
How did I answer my question? Sapphire manufactured Vega 64 reference. The question was who is manufacturing Vega 7 reference...
Posted on Reply
#96
Apocalypsee
Does this card really have 128 ROPs? If its really based on Vega 20 I saw the Instinct MI50/60 specs here on TPU database only have 64 ROPs?
Posted on Reply
#97
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Manu_PT said:
Wrong. Console games are as cheap, if not cheaper, than pc games. Myths from 2010. Do your research.
60 bucks, not cheap
Posted on Reply
#98
INSTG8R
My Custom Title
Ravenas said:
How did I answer my question? Sapphire manufactured Vega 64 reference. The question was who is manufacturing Vega 7 reference...
Who else would then? The partnership is decades old I don’t see it changing do you?
Posted on Reply
#99
Zubasa
Jism said:
This card does seem to have 128ROPS vs 64 the original Vega has. Cutted down SP's from 64 to 60 and a clock up to 1.8Ghz or so on air is not so bad.
The ROPs are on the rendering back end, and that is not actually the main issue with GCN.
The main issue is the fact that Vega 20 keeps the same 4 Geometry Engine limit all the way back from Hawaii.
The whole Geometry Fast Path / Next Gen Geometry feature was suppose to get around that, and it was suppose be done hardware/driver side, and that never happened on Vega 10.

Apocalypsee said:
Does this card really have 128 ROPs? If its really based on Vega 20 I saw the Instinct MI50/60 specs here on TPU database only have 64 ROPs?
AMD certainly did not, it is all speculation until AMD release detail spec / the card is released.
Posted on Reply
#100
InVasMani
Could be very strong for crossfire use pricey at that point, but still would be interesting to see how two of these stack up again a Titan price/performance wise. Not the most exciting chip though it's still a great GPU for blender content creators Vega 56/64 had excellent performance already and this is like 27% faster for blender in that area, but then again why bother when you could two Vega 56's for that purpose instead at about the same price point? You'd be better off doing that instead. Still this is a new 7nm chip I'd except the price to come down a bit over time. They will probably release a 8GB version that's cheaper as 7nm yields improve as well and perhaps they'll make a 8GB version which is dual GPU chip for about the same price once that happens. Right now yields are probably a bit limited so I think they are just launching this initially as they did with Vega Founders Edition give it 3-4 months and 1-2 more versions could trickle in perhaps.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment