By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Radeon RX Vega revealed

Alby_da_Wolf said:
Waiting for Raven Ridge APUs, with Zen CPU and Vega GPU cores.

So do I

That said, I fear we will have to wait for a long while, at least on desktop PCs. AMD just finally releases the Bristol Ridge APUs on the consumer desktop market, so Raven Ridge certainly won't come out there until spring next year earliest. At least it's mobile version is supposed to come out during the holiday season.



Around the Network
Errorist76 said:
KBG29 said:

Not enough for next gen. Every PlayStation console has had ~10 - 12x increase in CPU/GPU power and a 16x increase in RAM. What you are describing sounds like a PS4.5, as the Pro is basically a PS4.1. 

As for the OP. We are starting to reach the point when PC gaming looks interesting to me during the console cycle. I know the idea behind the Pro and the X is to stop people from going PC, but they need to offer something more high end IMO. I would love a $999.99 XBO or PS4 that can stand toe to toe with a 1800X + RX 64 PC.

I will be buying the XOX this holiday. If Sony can not deliver something next year (PS4 Premium or PS5), then I will seriously have to consider a new PC.

I don't get that logic. There is no chance for a PS5 before 2019 earliest. Why don't you just skip the XOX and just go for a PC to complement a PS4Pro..?! by far the best option. Best of both worlds imho.

I just prefer the consoles. If I can avoid PCs and Smartphones and put my money behind the products I actually enjoy, then I feel much better about spending my money. That is why I am all about the Pro and the X. Like I said, let me spend a thousand plus on a devices in the PlayStation or Xbox Ecosystem, and I will choose that every day over a PC.

There just comes a point in the console life cycle where the rest of my tech (Displays, Recievers, Speakers, ect.) get so far ahead of the consoles that I get hungry for the latest CPU/GPU tech, and even though I really have no interest in PC, I want to get the most out of those other toys.

Right now we are boarderline at that point for me. Threadripper and Vega have me so tempted to build a new PC. Like I said, if Sony can't deliver next year, and my financs are in order I will probably break down and build a PC. If it is anything like the last two I built, it will be a terrible investment, because it won't get touched again once a new console arrives, but for that 12 - 24 months, it will give me peice of mind.



Stop hate, let others live the life they were given. Everyone has their problems, and no one should have to feel ashamed for the way they were born. Be proud of who you are, encourage others to be proud of themselves. Learn, research, absorb everything around you. Nothing is meaningless, a purpose is placed on everything no matter how you perceive it. Discover how to love, and share that love with everything that you encounter. Help make existence a beautiful thing.

Kevyn B Grams
10/03/2010 

KBG29 on PSN&XBL

caffeinade said:
curl-6 said:

What's the alternative though, if next gen doesn't use Ryzen?

Something from IBM, ARM, Intel, ect.

Intel's way too expensive, IBM moved all-in into the HPC market wich makes their chips very ill-suited for a gaming console now, and ARM is just plain too weak to compete with x86 outside of handheld/hybrid market where x86 just consumes too much

Also, all of them would need a secondary contractor for the graphics chip, further increasing the price. Only AMD can deliver an all-in-one package with desktop hardware, which would mean Ryzen wins out by default.



curl-6 said:

How likely are those though? Isn't another AMD APU with a Ryzen CPU the next logical step from where they are now?

AMD APU is practically the only logical step for backwards compatibility because AMD GPUs have different enough hardware features and microcode to be incompatible Nvidia or Intel GPUs ... 



Trumpstyle said:

Sony and Microsoft will be forced to use Nvidia in next-gen consoles because Amd gpus is just so bad compared to Nvidia.

nVidia do not have APU's. It's a marketing term strictly limited to AMD.
nVidia does not have x86 SoC's as nVidia does not have an x86 license.


Trumpstyle said:


This vega gpu needed 50% more die size(50%+ more transistors), a watercooler, hbm2 and almost twice the power (watt usage) to barely beat the geforce 1080. Expect the watercooler version have about 0-5% more performance then geforce 1080 and the non water cooler version to lose.

Benchmarks are not out yet, so it is to early to call anything just yet. I know your name is "Trumpstyle". - But you don't need to emulate Trump in every aspect. Evidence is a requirement you know.
Reserve Judgement untill legitimate benchmarks have been done by legitimate outlets.

Besides, GCN has shown to age extremely well once before, where initial released cards performed slower/equivalent to the nVidia counterparts, but 12 months later... Will soundly wipe the floor with the same nVidia parts.

Although, initial Vega FE+Power+Performance stats aren't looking great, but they aren't representative of the consumer products and benchmarks that we will receive.


Trumpstyle said:


This card is hilariously bad, it's worse than polaris architecture (the gpu in ps4 pro and xbox one x). I don't know how AMD manage to make a card worse than their previously.

Polaris is not in the Playstation 4 Pro and Xbox One X. - Those consoles are using older Graphics Core Next designs but have been "enhanced" to adopt some Polaris... And even Vega enhancements.

Polaris *is* shit. But that is only because it is badly priced. There is no such thing as a bad card, only a bad price.

If Vega is priced well, it will do well. Ryzen doesn't always soundly beat Intel at every turn, but it offers good performance at a good price... And AMD was rewarded for that with a massive uptick in sales.

As for Vega being worse than Polaris, that is a hilarious stretch of the imagination.

Trumpstyle said:

I still stand by this. Ps5 will have 4-6 ryzen cpu cores, a midrange nvidia gpu(whatever arhitecture comes after volta), 16gb gddr6 and 2 tb non-ssd drive. 2020 released time(will be using 7 nm Euv) 399$ and non backwards compatibility.

I think by the time we are looking at next-gen, AMD might have finally done a sizable update to it's cat cores. If that happens, that is what next gen will use.
Otherwise they will use a reworked Zen+ core, likely with cutbacks to cache to reduce costs at the expense of performance.

Besides, by the time 2020 rolls around, the Ryzen we have today will be old news.

Trumpstyle said:

If Sony go amd gpu expect instead 2019 release date(will be using 7 nm non-Euv), 8 ryzen cpu cores, 8-9 teraflops navi gpu(might be polaris architecture if Navi is a disaster as Vega) but will be backwards compatibility.

So what is it? 4-6 Ryzen cores or 8 Ryzen cores?

And Polaris in 2019? No way.

Vega will be pushed into more price points next year with it's refresh. Navi will be sprinkled on top.
Then... We might see the reorganization of the Radeon segment finally start to show itself and have it's next gen architecture from top to bottom in AMD's product stack.

bananaking21 said:

damn, that would be an impressive jump in hardware. so we are looking at at least 13-14 teraflops for next gen? 

Flops aren't everything.
But don't be surprised if single-precision floating point is higher than that.

curl-6 said:

What's the alternative though, if next gen doesn't use Ryzen?

Likely a cost-reduced Zen+ with cutbacks to cache, possibly removing hyper-threading.
A 6-8 core Zen is still a fairly chunky amount of die area.

Unless of course AMD does a successor to it's tiny Cat cores. (Bobcat/Jaguar/Puma/Puma+)
AMD tried to scale Excavator downwards with Carizzo-L, with mixed results.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Next consoles will most probably use Ryzen. There's just not much else to choose by then, the only other possibility is an ARM based chip

Everyone was saying the same thing about the Xbox One X.

Ryzen as it is today is likely not going to be the CPU chosen for next gen. AMD will have released a successor by then.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Will there ever be a DX 13? By the way Microsoft is handling DirectX right now 12.x versions seem sadly more likely.

Partial updates to Direct X has always happened.
We had Direct X 7a, then 7.1... Then Direct X 8a, 8.1, 8.1a, 8.1b, 8.2... And so on and so on.

Direct X 13 will happen eventually.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Fury Nano couldn't hold those 1000W unless undervolted and with much better cooling, most of the time the cruise speed was actually more like 900-950 Mhz with most Fury nano cards out of the box

It didn't need to? Vega isn't 1,000w anyway.

900-950mhz isn't that much of a reduction from 1050mhz either in retrospect, especially considering the 100w power reduction thanks to lower voltages due to better chip binning.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

RAM is expensive. Not just right now, but for a console manufacturer in general. There's a reason why the PS360 had such severely limited amounts of RAM.


Moores law also applies to DRAM.
The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 had such limited memory... Was because memory densities were limited.

Memory densities *are* increasing and will continue to increase even before next-gen launches.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Only if RAM prices drop by a lot (like, 16GiB for less than or about 50$ on consumer market lot) will there be a real chance of more memory for the next next next gen consoles. I'm hoping for 32 GiB too by then (24 is an odd number in terms of RAM), but there's no guarantee an that just yet.

It's not about price-drops. Consoles have a fixed budget for every piece of component.

It's about increasing densities for the same amount of chips for the same price.

24GB is also not an odd number. Scorpio uses 12GB, It means it will be 12 chips on a 384-bit bus.... Or 6x high density chips on a 192-but bus. 2020 is still years away remember, technology development isn't stopping between now and then.

Besides, 4k is being pushed into the mainstream, you need more Ram, it's that simple.

Trumpstyle said:

Sony and Microsoft aren't using bad GPUs, xbox one had a badly performing card. Ps4 was using cut-down radeon 7870, mid range gpu. Ps4 pro same, radeon 480 gpu. Those Gpus aren't bad, they are decent. Xbox one x gpu is probably superior than radeon 580 because of the bandwidth from the memory.

You also make a bit confusing comments in this thread :) First you say Sony and microsoft uses bad GPU than you say ps5 will have 14 TF which is unrealistic unless they w8 for 5 nm(Don't think they will w8 that long).

The base Xbox One and Playstation 4 were using older GPU designs, that were slightly modified. They were mid-range parts. Now they are low-end parts. They are not as impressive as the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3's performance was relative to a high-end PC on release that's for sure.

As for the bandwidth, the Xbox One X does have a caveat that may limit it's full bandwidth potential in some instances, it's crossbar controllers are not matched with the ROPs, which is the exact same issue we saw with the Radeon 7970... End result is, in some cases bandwidth can drop down to 218GB/s on the Xbox One X.

The Radeon 580 (Which I own...)  can beat the Xbox One X's worst-case scenario soundly. It can also beat it in single precision, double precision and half precision floating point, geometry performance and so on.

With that said, the Radeon RX 580 is not a high-end GPU. It never was. It's a good 1440P performer.

Trumpstyle said:

Amd cpu (ryzen) and nvidia gpu works great on PC, there is no reason why it should not work on console.

 

I don't believe arm cpu+nvidia gpu as APU. The Cpu is just to weak for going an ARM.

ARM can be competitive with x86. So that is a misnomer.

And the reason why having an AMD CPU + nVidia GPU is one of cost. They aren't all in one solutions.

haxxiy said:

Power consumption, though. Even the Xbox One X doesn't seem to consume more than ~160W and that's on a vapour chamber cooler and a $499 console.

Vapour Chamber coolers can handle more than 160w. Lots more.

Trumpstyle said:

That's what I believe is realistic, but you can look at past gpu releases. For example Fury x was amds top GPU on 28 nm, that card is 8,6 TF. In 2016 with a new node jump(14 nm) midrange gpus can't match it. Ps4 pro GPU can't match it. Now Vega is Amds top gpu on 14 nm and it has about 13 TF.


Flops aren't everything. You can have a GPU with less flops outperform a GPU with more flops.

Polaris gets fairly close though considering it's not a top-to-bottom Architectural overhaul from Fury.
What is impressive is that Polaris has HALF the memory bandwidth, 1792 less shaders, 112 less Texture Mapping Units and Half the Rops, 40-50% less compute...

And yet we are looking at performance differences in the range of 15-30%.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1868?vs=1720

That's the Fury X. What about the Nano with it's 50mhz clock reduction?
Radeon RX 580 does allot better.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1868?vs=1754

Lafiel said:

I wonder if we'll actually see APUs next gen or rather AMD Epyc/Threadripper style interconnected (CPU/GPU) modules, which each make much better use of a waver and hence can provide the processing power for a much better price. The difficulty here lies in the bandwith of the interconnection, which has to be potent enough to operate the construct like a single chip.

APU's will still be the go-to due to cost.

So much easier having a single chip than multiple chips that require increased power delivery, PCB traces and so on and so forth.

thismeintiel said:

Is there a reason you keep saying Navi is coming in 2018?  It is being reported now that it is coming out in 2019, which is the year I expect the PS5, or at least its announcement.  If somehow it does hit 2018, it'll be very late 2018 and in very limited quantities.  2018 is when they are going to be focusing on the Vega 20 (which is being made in 7nm 14nm+, so maybe that will be better for the PS5), or whatever that will be called, now, and the Vega 64 Pro Duo.  And since Vega was delayed, what makes you think Navi won't be?  I guess keep the hope alive.

Because of AMD's roadmaps. There are some fake roadmaps floating around, so stick to legitimate sources if you can.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11404/amd-updates-gpu-architecture-roadmap-after-navi-comes-next-gen
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10145/amd-unveils-gpu-architecture-roadmap-after-polaris-comes-vega

And the reason why Navi won't be delayed is simple.

AMD has more than one team. One team was responsible for Vega, another for Navi. Just because one team might be slightly slower out of the gate doesn't mean the next is.
nVidia has done the same thing in the past where one team was slower with one GPU release, the next team was on time, so you had a less than 12 month~ release gap between an entire product launch.

thismeintiel said:

The number of times you jump in power isn't as important as what you are getting inside that jump.  The PS2 was theorectically 30x-40x the power of the PS1, with 12x the RAM.  The PS3 was theorectically ~40x the power as the PS2, with ~14x the RAM.

Don't forget either that power of a platform is more than just the increase in flops or the increase in Ram.
New graphics techniques can bring with it increases in efficiency and massive gains in graphics for the same "theoretical" performance ceiling.

thismeintiel said:

Manufacturing costs always lower over time, even if not greatly after the first year or two.  Of course, at first, a lot of the cost is the manufacturer trying to make up for R&D costs.  AMD is not going to ignore those costs for Sony or MS, either.


Sure. They do. But there comes a point where you are better off overhauling your design.

You aren't going to get a Vega chip that is only going to cost $100 in 3 years time.


Captain_Yuri said:

So here is the benchmark provided by AMD for RX Vega. Remember that since this is a benchmark provided by AMD themselves, is this more or less the best case scenario at least for BF1:
<SNIP>

You might as well disregard any 1080P benchmarks for Vega. That isn't where the GPU will shine.
It will be like Fury where it will be at higher resolutions where that card will show it's capabilities.

shikamaru317 said:

There's a 30 fps difference between the Fury X on AMD's benchmark and the Fury X on Guru3D's benchmark though.

Basically according to those benchmarks we can expect 20-30% increase in performance.
Considering that Vega is operating at a clockrate some 60% higher, those benchmarks leave allot to be desired in my opinion.

Either, AMD hasn't enabled the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer and Drivers are not finalized... They are trolling us... Or there is some big bottlenecks in the design.

OdinHades said:
So barely faster than my 1080 which is already one year old? Bummer. Waiting for Volta.

Asynchronous Compute should obliterate the Geforce 1080 though, which is what more modern games should start pushing.
Pricing seems to be falling around the Geforce 1070 level, which in my opinion is great bang-for-buck.

fatslob-:O said:

Should wait until 2021 to release new hardware ... (it's worthwhile to wait for Samsung to introduce their new transistor structure) 

You need more than just hardware to succeed ...

I would prefer a 2021 release, but I think 2020 is likely the more realistic window that Sony and Microsoft will push for.

fatslob-:O said:

16GB will be fine since we're still going to be stuck at 1080p (This time I don't even think it's going to be native, we're going to reconstruct to 1080p and still be stuck with 30FPS since everyones going to chase for the holy grail known as physically based global illumination)

I think bandwidth is going to be an important bottleneck going into next generation so if it's a choice between 16GB (2TB/s bandwidth) vs 32GB (1TB/s), I'd very much choose the first option as a console hardware designer since procedural texturing might become viable by then

I think the Xbox One X and Playstation Pro has removed the "struck at 1080P" scenario. 1440P with frame reconstruction techniques is the sweet spot for those consoles, next-gen should be more capable than that. Or at the very least, that is the consumer expectation.

Besides, just because you are rendering at 1440P - 2160P doesn't mean that 1080P users don't see any gains.

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

How likely are those though? Isn't another AMD APU with a Ryzen CPU the next logical step from where they are now?

AMD APU is practically the only logical step for backwards compatibility because AMD GPUs have different enough hardware features and microcode to be incompatible Nvidia or Intel GPUs ... 

And Abstraction can only take you so far.

 



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:

nVidia do not have APU's. It's a marketing term strictly limited to AMD.
nVidia does not have x86 SoC's as nVidia does not have an x86 license.

Don't exactly need an x86 patent but might need patents for x86 extensions to be useful ... (someone needs to remind me when the patents for x86-64 and SSE2 expire as patents only last for 2 decades)

Nvidia already designed an x86 processor before but so did tons of others before ...

Pemalite said:

I think the Xbox One X and Playstation Pro has removed the "struck at 1080P" scenario. 1440P with frame reconstruction techniques is the sweet spot for those consoles, next-gen should be more capable than that. Or at the very least, that is the consumer expectation.

Besides, just because you are rendering at 1440P - 2160P doesn't mean that 1080P users don't see any gains.

It should be but since graphics programmers are obsessed with achieving real time physically based ray tracing, we probably won't see a resolution increase ...

Pemalite said:

And Abstraction can only take you so far.

Hopefully GCN is amenable to ISA extensions, it's almost as if though Sony accounted for the fact that newer GCN microachitectures would have changed microcodes in their shader compiler thus they got double rate FP16 in the end with an ISA between GCN3/5 ... (It's good that Sony didn't lock down their shader compiler a specific GPU ISA microcode but their still probably stuck with AMD GPUs that offer similar functionality)



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Waiting for Raven Ridge APUs, with Zen CPU and Vega GPU cores.

So do I

That said, I fear we will have to wait for a long while, at least on desktop PCs. AMD just finally releases the Bristol Ridge APUs on the consumer desktop market, so Raven Ridge certainly won't come out there until spring next year earliest. At least it's mobile version is supposed to come out during the holiday season.

Yeah. the good news is that it looks like AMD decided to skip Polaris for the next APU GPUs and go directly to Vega, as it gives both AMD and users better performances and power consumption, and for AMD, probably saving silicon for the same desired performance or getting more performances for the same silicon, depending on the model.
Or maybe AMD will make us wait even more, skipping Vega too, to use Navi and the new 7nm process and save even more silicon.   



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Nice but I wont upgrade until I cant atleast triple my current cards power (1070). The jumps are just too small. 20 Tflop air cooled or I am not interested.

Unless they bring out a High resolution VR Headset I dont need the power.



980Ti still runs all games at max 1080p. It was costly but in the end a worthy upgrade!



Pemalite said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Next consoles will most probably use Ryzen. There's just not much else to choose by then, the only other possibility is an ARM based chip

Everyone was saying the same thing about the Xbox One X.

Ryzen as it is today is likely not going to be the CPU chosen for next gen. AMD will have released a successor by then.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Will there ever be a DX 13? By the way Microsoft is handling DirectX right now 12.x versions seem sadly more likely.

Partial updates to Direct X has always happened.
We had Direct X 7a, then 7.1... Then Direct X 8a, 8.1, 8.1a, 8.1b, 8.2... And so on and so on.

Direct X 13 will happen eventually.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Fury Nano couldn't hold those 1000W unless undervolted and with much better cooling, most of the time the cruise speed was actually more like 900-950 Mhz with most Fury nano cards out of the box

It didn't need to? Vega isn't 1,000w anyway.

900-950mhz isn't that much of a reduction from 1050mhz either in retrospect, especially considering the 100w power reduction thanks to lower voltages due to better chip binning.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

RAM is expensive. Not just right now, but for a console manufacturer in general. There's a reason why the PS360 had such severely limited amounts of RAM.


Moores law also applies to DRAM.
The Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 had such limited memory... Was because memory densities were limited.

Memory densities *are* increasing and will continue to increase even before next-gen launches.

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Only if RAM prices drop by a lot (like, 16GiB for less than or about 50$ on consumer market lot) will there be a real chance of more memory for the next next next gen consoles. I'm hoping for 32 GiB too by then (24 is an odd number in terms of RAM), but there's no guarantee an that just yet.

It's not about price-drops. Consoles have a fixed budget for every piece of component.

It's about increasing densities for the same amount of chips for the same price.

24GB is also not an odd number. Scorpio uses 12GB, It means it will be 12 chips on a 384-bit bus.... Or 6x high density chips on a 192-but bus. 2020 is still years away remember, technology development isn't stopping between now and then.

Besides, 4k is being pushed into the mainstream, you need more Ram, it's that simple.

1. Xbox ONE X is still using Jaguar because it's an incremental update of the Xbox ONE. While I was hoping for Ryzen in the XboX I certainly didn't expect it. The next gen consoles certainly won't use this Ryzen, but a future gen of Ryzen, but it will nontheless be Ryzen, as AMD won't have a new architecture anytime soon

2. Yes, DX 13 will eventually come. i was more joking than anything else. However, considering how the GPUs still don't have all features of DX12 enabled this will probably take a while

3. 1000 Mhz, not Watt, that was a typo. The thing is, if you also undervolted the Fury X, there won't be a 100W difference anymore. Oh, and most cards came with over 1100 Mhz anyway. It however shows how fast consumption can rack up when leaving the sweet spot on any kind of processors

4. yes, Moore's Law applies to any kind of microchip. But at the time of the PS360's releases 1GiB RAM was the usual amount on a gaming PC. I can still remember the outcry when it was revealed that the PS3 would only come with 256 MiB of RAM and how that won't be enough to fuel Cell. The desaturated, Gray-brownish colored games that followed are a testimony that this just wan't enough even at it's inception. Same happened when the current gen launched (though at a much lesser degree) and again with their upgrades.

5.  I know consoles have a fixed budget per component. That's why I said that without a massive pricedrop the consoles won't have more than 16GiB of RAM as otherwise it just won't fit into the budget. Was it really that hard to make that connection?

24 GiB is an odd number; just like 384bit connection is also an odd number. Both are not an exponent of 2, which makes them odd in computer science

You need more RAM for 4k? Really? Tell that to the console manufacturers, because the PS4 Pro doesn't have more RAM and the additional RAM on the X is eaten up by it's gargantuan OS (5 GiB for the OS on a console? Really Microsoft???). (before you make a comment about it, yes I know higher screen resolutions need more (V)RAM)

The next gen consoles won't be able to push 4k much better than the current upgrades, most will just be upscaled or checkerboxed in some fashion unles they turn down the details compared to the PC releases. This is due to consoles having to choose mid-range graphics chips for their consoles due to price and TDP constraints, and I doubt those will be much better at 4k then they are right now. Worse, as the consoles start to age they will inevitably drop down  again to 1080p or even less in the most demanding third party titles.