Read more.It is based upon AMD's reference design, as is the Radeon VII Phantom from ASRock.
Read more.It is based upon AMD's reference design, as is the Radeon VII Phantom from ASRock.
It's great to see more competition in the graphic cards market. Nvidia will need to work in their driver support and game adoption of their technologies if they want to stay competitive with AMD and that, in the end, benefits the end user.
"on average 28 per cent faster than the RX Vega 64" hmm so I'm thinking more like 10% to a undervolted o/c vega .. mine doing 1700/1150
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
To see the wizard one must look behind the curtain ....
So Vegas need to undervolt to OC them? That's new to me, too many years with the green team.
I notice they didn't list 1080p or 1440p. Only talking 4k again, which yet again, is used by 1.38% of the market according to steam survey of 125 MILLION gamers. Nobody cares, start making your cards WIN where we PLAY. Even 1440p is ~3.5%.
You're essentially saying, "we're good at a resolution that only 1.38% of our target market uses"...Congrats. You lose. Try aiming at the rest of us for better results. Your presentation showed 1080p (forza), you should stick to trying to win there for a while longer as nobody uses 4k yet (again, why 16GB raising the price was dumb, when devs are just starting to talk 11GB for future games).
It's actually used by 1.42% of 125m steam users and that's around 1.7m potential customers (if my math is correct), that's a pretty big market for what would otherwise be silicon destined for landfill, and that's excluding whatever number we care to give to how many 'professionals' will be buying these £600 cards instead of the £400 & £1800 more expensive Nvidia cards.
Yup, so much losing going on there.
Nobody special.
AMD targets 3 points in the market which basically equates to the price/performance sweet spots for 1080, 1440 and 4K. They don't target the ultra high end as the R&D is too high for what essentially equates to bragging rights. This is the 4K card and that's why 4K is quoted. If you want 1440 or 1080 then really you're not intersted in this card.
There are games out there already exceeding 8GB of RAM and how HBM works means the next step was probably 16GB. Seems excessive but what is the lifespan on this card? £700? Hopefully a good few years and by then >12GB for 4K is probably going to be the norm.
If you are gaming at 1080 do not waste your money on this card. It's not aimed at you (or me).
You should try it. I have a Sapphire Pulse Vega 56. All I've done is drop the voltages a bit, bump the memory to 900 and increase the power limit by 50%. Very little testing done to check stability (I figured gaming would tell me) but it benches quicker than a reference V64 now. All done within the AMD supplied drivers. I'm sure there's extra headroom there too (especially if I mess with core speeds), but I'm quite happy with things.
I feel like if Vega had been released at 1.1V instead of 1.2V it would have done a lot better..
DanceswithUnix (28-01-2019)
I got that impression before I bought one, I shall try and bump that up the priority list of things I have to do.
Mind you, since replacing the GPU I notice in Elite Dangerous my old FX 8350 is now starting to max out at 100% on all cores occasionally causing the Rift cameras to disconnect on USB for a second and then you are waiting for the windows plinkty plonk "somethings been plugged in" sound to get the headset image back. Just what you need in a dogfight. First world problem I know, but I wonder if making the GPU faster might be a bad thing until I get a new CPU
Please correct me if I've missed something but I'm not seeing references as to why this card has fewer stream processors, compute units and texture mapping units in comparison to the Vega 64. Surely if they remained the same or even increased them it would improve the performance further and maybe take better advantage of the 16 GB of HBM2 RAM?
I am aware it's the professional workstation card but surely the same would apply? Unless it really comes down to cost cutting and expediency as the professional card just needs more RAM?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)