Vega refresh?

[Exposed]

But if you would rather have a card that runs today's games great, maybe not being the top dog, but still great, and can take advantage and is designed to use the new technology and implementations coming out in the future, then AMD is the better design.

You're putting alot of faith here, and that is just that...faith on what could be. Only time will tell if Vega will be as future proof as you think it will be.

As far as benchmarks, I used Guru3D as an example. If you have so much issue with them, look at Techspot instead. Or PC Gamer. Or HardOCP. Or (you get the picture).

Also, how can you say AMD is the better design to someone who purchased a GTX 1080 in May 2016? That person would have enjoyed playing his PC games at the fastest framerates and quality settings allowed. He/she would have ignored the 1080Ti refresh and waited for Vega for an "upgrade", only to find out it's a card that uses more power, generates more heat, more noisy, etc.. only to be either slightly slower, the same, or slightly faster in games? And you're saying because of AMD's better design, it would take yet another year or so for games to take advantage? Surely at that time said person who no longer have need for a 1080. Even if you buy into AMD has a better design, their execution is atrocious.

Now, I took you off my ignore list, because I hoped you had grown up, but you have quickly proven that to be wrong, as you are once again trying to rehash the Nvidia/Intel evil/can't be trusted crap again, and trying to make the discussion personal and call it a bias thing, when in fact, it wasn't. again.

I'm sorry, but you stated Nvidia is an evil /dishonest corporation and you refused to comment to AMD's own questionable ethics and class action suits. Hard to take your arguments seriously without that against it. Unless you're saying you don't really believe that anymore? That Nvidia is just a technology company like AMD out to deliver products for the consumer, and the only reason Nvidia is "hurting" AMD's marketshare is by simply delivering better products?

IF AMD does a refresh using a smaller die, than the clock speeds, power draw, before undervolting will only improve. As this whole thread is about Vega refresh, IF it happens, which many believe not as AMD's road map shows nothing about a Vega Refresh. __________________p

The last I read, Vega's refresh will not be until 2019.

Also on the list is perhaps the surprise announcement of the day: AMD will be bringing Vega to 7nm, with customer sampling expected to start in 2018. This ultimately means that Vega on 7nm will hit the shelves in 2019, but there is a twist to the tale. The first products off the line will be solely for the Radeon Instinct family and machine learning. Users who want 7nm desktop-class products will have to wait a little longer, but it does give an indication of how GlobalFoundries 7nm process is coming along.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1223...ealed-with-ryzen-apus-zen-on-12nm-vega-on-7nm

Unless there is a refresh on the current process, gamers will have to wait a while.

 

[shadow001]

IF AMD does a refresh using a smaller die, than the clock speeds, power draw, before undervolting will only improve. As this whole thread is about Vega refresh, IF it happens, which many believe not as AMD's road map shows nothing about a Vega Refresh.

This is what it comes down to in the end, and apart from it's power draw, there is absolutely no issue whatsoever with Vega and it indeed out guns smaller Pascal in the 1080 by a huge degree in shading power......9 Teraflop vs 13 Teraflop for Vega is a 40% difference and is still about 10~15% higher than big Pascal featured in the TI version ( clocks in at 11 Teraflop) ......It doesn't take a genius that once games keep on adding more shader effects to look even more realistic than they do, or use the advanced features in Vega ( or both ), the gap will only grow relative to small Pascal and we're yet to see how much of a lead big Pascal will have.


It's similar to the situation that now happens between Fury X and it's direct opponent from Nvidia, the GTX 980......Fury is generally faster these days.


And yes, Exposed is still on my ignore list......Biggest NV shill possible.....

 

[NWR_Midnight]

You're putting alot of faith here, and that is just that...faith on what could be. Only time will tell if Vega will be as future proof as you think it will be. products?

You seem to believe that the Vega architecture is the first time AMD has done this. You would be wrong, AMD has always had a vision about future, not the here and now.

As far as benchmarks, I used Guru3D as an example. If you have so much issue with them, look at Techspot instead. Or PC Gamer. Or HardOCP. Or (you get the picture).

I am not the one who used Guru3d in a rebutal, you did. I have no reason to go looking, as you are the one who used it to support your opinion. Looking at all those other sites does not change Guru3D's flawed or out dated comparison. Not to mention that most of them do not have a current up to date comparison such as Tom's hardware. So it would be looking at results yet again from release day.

It is not my job to go searching for other results as I am not the one who tried to disprove Tom's results, you did. If you have other source that have CURRENT, not months old results.. let us have them.

Also, how can you say AMD is the better design to someone who purchased a GTX 1080 in May 2016? That person would have enjoyed playing his PC games at the fastest framerates and quality settings allowed. He/she would have ignored the 1080Ti refresh and waited for Vega for an "upgrade", only to find out it's a card that uses more power, generates more heat, more noisy, etc.. only to be either slightly slower, the same, or slightly faster in games? And you're saying because of AMD's better design, it would take yet another year or so for games to take advantage? Surely at that time said person who no longer have need for a 1080. Even if you buy into AMD has a better design, their execution is atrocious.

Some people would rather support innovation rather than a company who just follows behind claiming the FPS crown, and not have to spend hundreds every year or two to be able to run the new technology. There is more to the equation than just being the fps crown, and having the fps crown doesn't mean you have the better design. A person's upgrade path is subjective, but that does not discount that Nvidia has been following AMD on the innovation and future proof technology path for a few years now. AMD was first for native support for DX 11, DX 12, Vulkan, and what is to come. So, what AMD may lose in speed, they gain in advancements and innovation.

I'm sorry, but you stated Nvidia is an evil /dishonest corporation and you refused to comment to AMD's own questionable ethics and class action suits. Hard to take your arguments seriously without that against it. Unless you're saying you don't really believe that anymore? That Nvidia is just a technology company like AMD out to deliver products for the consumer, and the only reason Nvidia is "hurting" AMD's marketshare is by simply delivering better products?

I didn't comment because there is nothing to comment about. Google has nothing on AMD losing or setting any class action lawsuits, today, and what.. 6 or 8 months ago when you first made this comment, it showed nothing then. yet, you can find them easily for Intel/Nvidia.. (there is one about AMD settling a investor lawsuit) It really doesn't matter. You, me, nobody has to explain why they dislike a company or think they are evil, we are all allowed to have our opinion, and NOBODY should have to argue about it every time they make a comment, specially 6 to 8 months later.

Why are you even responding to me, since you have a hard time taking me seriously because I won't be baited into a pointless argument?

Don't you think it is time to let the baiting/argument die!!

As for Nvidia delivering better products. that is all in a matter of perspective. Yes, they carry the FPS Crown, but that doesn't mean they have the better product, they just have a faster product, that can't run future technology.

 

[Exposed]

You seem to believe that the Vega architecture is the first time AMD has done this. You would be wrong, AMD has always had a vision about future, not the here and now.

That's too bad, because gamers prefer to game in the now, not the future.

I am not the one who used Guru3d in a rebutal, you did. I have no reason to go looking, as you are the one who used it to support your opinion. Looking at all those other sites does not change Guru3D's flawed or out dated comparison. Not to mention that most of them do not have a current up to date comparison such as Tom's hardware. So it would be looking at results yet again from release day.

It is not my job to go searching for other results as I am not the one who tried to disprove Tom's results, you did. If you have other source that have CURRENT, not months old results.. let us have them.

You've made it abundantly clear no matter which review is used, you will simply make an effort to dismiss them. There's enough newer reviews out there from the Titan V's to custom OC cards using latest drivers that show a plain jane Vega 64 is still basically on par with a plain jane GTX 1080. At best you can maybe say it's 5% faster, per Tom's review overall? Is that really an accomplishment against a card released in May 2016? And for the same price of a Vega 64 you could simply get the Ti which does MUCH better?

Some people would rather support innovation rather than a company who just follows behind claiming the FPS crown, and not have to spend hundreds every year or two to be able to run the new technology. There is more to the equation than just being the fps crown, and having the fps crown doesn't mean you have the better design. A person's upgrade path is subjective, but that does not discount that Nvidia has been following AMD on the innovation and future proof technology path for a few years now. AMD was first for native support for DX 11, DX 12, Vulkan, and what is to come. So, what AMD may lose in speed, they gain in advancements and innovation.

Again, gamers want the best performance for their games now, not wait for the future.

I didn't comment because there is nothing to comment about. Google has nothing on AMD losing or setting any class action lawsuits, today, and what.. 6 or 8 months ago when you first made this comment, it showed nothing then. yet, you can find them easily for Intel/Nvidia.. (there is one about AMD settling a investor lawsuit) It really doesn't matter. You, me, nobody has to explain why they dislike a company or think they are evil, we are all allowed to have our opinion, and NOBODY should have to argue about it every time they make a comment, specially 6 to 8 months later.

Why are you even responding to me, since you have a hard time taking me seriously because I won't be baited into a pointless argument?

Don't you think it is time to let the baiting/argument die!!

I think you're being coy here. You know (or should very well know) of AMD's class action law suits. I named two already in that long dead thread. There's one right now where AMD is being hit with class action lawsuit over false and misleading statements regarding the Spectre/Meltdown security risk.

As for Nvidia delivering better products. that is all in a matter of perspective. Yes, they carry the FPS Crown, but that doesn't mean they have the better product, they just have a faster product, that can't run future technology.

What future technology can't they run? What games will feature them?

 

[Gandalfthewhite]

so closing this given the complete and utter disregard for my statement from earlier.