
AMD unveils Radeon RX Vega GPUs for high-end gaming PCs - artsandsci
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680/radeon-rx-vega-unveiled-amd-announecs-499-rx-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august
======
geezerjay
Related HN threads:

\- AMD unveils its Vega 10 GPU architecture (tomshardware.com)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14892149)

------
zitterbewegung
I really hope that AMD gets better deep learning support so it will push
NVIDIA's pricing structure down. Also, AMD's processor lineup looks very
appealing compared to Intel (which has had more pressure on their solutions
also.

~~~
arcanus
> better deep learning support

They released the cuDNN equivalent for AMD devices a few weeks ago:
[http://gpuopen.com/developer-quick-start-
miopen-1-0/](http://gpuopen.com/developer-quick-start-miopen-1-0/)

So AMD devices should now be capable of accelerating tensorflow, caffe, etc.
(insert your favorite GPU deep learning framework here)

------
tgtweak
The price is attractive, but having followed vega for the last year, it is way
behind schedule (they had promised deliveries as early as December 2016) and
way under performance targets.

To put this claim into perspective, Nvidia has had a card of comparable speed
on the market for 14 months, which consumes 40% less power than RX Vega (GTX
1080).

The price is definitely attractive, but we're comparing it to year-old units
from nvidia. Throw into the mix the fact that NO graphics card is selling for
MSRP and hasn't for the last 6 months, you can expect supply and price to be
far from this mark.

I just can't see this being a compelling business model - release late, under
performing and cut margins to make up for it.

I love team red, and I have owned AMD cards for the last 7 years (one of which
mined 50+ bitcoins on it's own) but this latest showing is quite late and
quite lackluster. I can see nvidia releasing volta in the coming month or two,
giving them a strong lead in performance and efficiency, and slashing their
pascal card prices to vega level.

AMD is keeping nvidia on their toes, and for nothing other than that, we
should support them. It would be nice to be doing that AND having the fastest
hardware.

~~~
mrkrabo
>and way under performance targets.

Well... It's AMD. Did you really believe what they promised? How many times
have they lied and played the hype game just to deliver garbage?

>AMD is keeping nvidia on their toes, and for nothing other than that, we
should support them.

It's cheaper. Yep. But worse. Worse than Intel, worse than nVidia. And what's
even worse is that, for example in GPUs, you can see they sell not-so-bad
hardware coupled with horrible, abhorrent drivers. It's really pathetic. AMD
never again, at least for me.

~~~
lewisj489
Horribly unguided comment. The Zen architecture outperforms Intel at smiliar
or lower TDPs. Their drivers have aren't top notch but after a month or two
the drivers are stable and performance is better than ever.

Additionally if you think RX Vega is "garbage" you're a bit of a clown. Only
because it doesn't outperform the fastest GPU in the world does not mean it's
garbage.

~~~
tgtweak
I'll add that the drivers (on all platforms) have really turned around in the
last few years - for the better. Crossfire support is still terrible compared
to SLI, but that is a small demographic.

------
mtanski
Following this along with curiosity. It seam like a much better compute card
at attractive prices and an okay (not great) gaming card.

A lot of the silicone was dedicated to features that just do not matter to
gaming. For example, HBM cache (I'm not aware of any games that blow through
8GB of VRAM) or FP16.

That's because the part is more (then less) identical to their professional
compute offerings.

------
csvan
I'm very excited to see how these will perform in folding@home and similar
projects, where Nvidia historically has been very dominant.

------
shmerl
So, what's the actual TDP in these cards? Last reports were conflicting about
it.

~~~
tgtweak
Two TDPs, depending on if it's air cooled or liquid cooled. Seems to be
300/375 respectively.

~~~
shmerl
I saw much lower numbers - 165 W (for RX Vega 56) and 220 W (RX Vega 64).
That's why I said it's confusing.

