residentour:

Radeon VII is actually a desktop version of "Radeon Instinct MI50" : https://www.amd.com/en/products/professional-graphics/instinct-mi50 But there is also a "Radeon Instinct MI60" with 64 compute units, 4096 stream procs : https://www.amd.com/en/products/professional-graphics/instinct-mi60 so still there is hope for a possible RTX 2080 Ti competitor .

This actually makes some sense. I did think about it before, but now that you mentioned it again it can be possible. The only thing holding it back would be too low GPU clock to compensate more cores, if they manage to improve that than it will deliver for sure. Guess they took mi50 base for a reason, process is not quite there yet with these early samples. Kind of like hd7970 and then 1ghz edition when they fianlly fixed those electronic leaks and process limitations.

I was First 🙂: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amd-announces-radeon-vii-7nm.424782/page-3#post-5625460

icedman:

I fail to see why so many people in these enthusiast forums are so picky on power use the difference between even 150w to 300w at the end of the year will make a negligible difference on your power Bill's and as long as it has a decent after market cooler it makes no difference.

The reason Vega failed was because of the power hungry architecture =/= high temps =/= loud fans (and being more expensive than a GTX 1070 & 1080) unless you had some exotic cooling, but Navi looks more promising.

Is Fallout 76 that memory/bandwidth starved on Vega 64?

I'm satisfied with these results, while it's not exactly as fast i expected it could be, but it should decrease price for Vega 56/64 even more.

Fox2232:

OMG. AMD, stop using i7-7700K for any kind of comparison tests. There are quite a few games this thing will bottleneck even on 4K.

Radeon Technologies would need to lay off an engineer to afford a new Intel CPU, so it can't be helped.

Can someone add in FPS from a similar setup with a 1080Ti/2080 and 2080Ti? It would be a good idea to see how it looks compares. Overall, V7 looks GREAT.

Vega scales much better with clock speeds than shaders count. There is a very good video of Gamers Nexus where they push Vega 56 to the max with no power limit. Card is at 1740mhz beating both Vega 64 and gtx1080. If only RVII overclocks to 2ghz it would be a beast.

Core i7-7700K, 16GB DDR4-3000, adrenaline 18.50, UHD, maximized settings

As others noted, that is the news of this article and really confuses me. Why on earth is AMD using Intel products for gaming? I know Ryzen performs a tiny bit lower but it is disturbing that even AMD doesn't want to benchmark with their own processor or chipset products.

I think its because 7700K was best selling gaming CPU(also 6700K), so more Gamer's can relate to it's performance.

RzrTrek:

The reason Vega failed was because of the power hungry architecture =/= high temps =/= loud fans (and being more expensive than a GTX 1070 & 1080) unless you had some exotic cooling, but Navi looks more promising.

Mining on top of the already low yields and high cost of production that made it so expensive is what really killed Vega in the end.

Man..... I personally expected more from AMD this go'round. When are they ever going to release something that can beat what's already out on the market?! 7nm node and power efficiency isnt even on par with the competition let alone performance. I wanted something to hit the market at this price point, but equal performance if not beating the 2080ti. Give us a reason to laugh at NVidia and their price gouging tactics! Still waiting AMD....... Still here with money in hand and a system that still gets it all done that's five years old! Shoot money isn't an object here.....I just want performance gains that were of yesteryear along with prices.... Going through this price scalping with trying to get quality Medicine in my state as the laws are allowing some dispensaries to scalp while others had to close.

@DeskStar I think what you're actually waiting for is Navi. Radeon 7 seems to be just a placeholder.

RzrTrek:

The reason Vega failed was because of the power hungry architecture =/= high temps =/= loud fans (and being more expensive than a GTX 1070 & 1080) unless you had some exotic cooling, but Navi looks more promising.

I would question Vega failing to begin with, aside from in the sense of a particular set of enthusiast gamers. I mean sure, among said crowd it likely didn't sell as well as the 1070/1070Ti/1080/1080Ti but that has more to with absolute performance, the performance/power curve leaning in favor of Nvidia or even the slight Nvidia bias that exist in the PC gaming community overall (comparing the market penetration of the 1060 vs. the 480/580 for example). But the cards have sold and they do perform well enough at their price range overall. Mining craze excepted, obviously. As a Vega 56 owner I can say that the card certainly isn't running hot enough to make the cooling an annoyance (and this from someone who runs the CPU and case fans at 7-800 RPM, because noise) and my total system power draw while gaming is usually in the 250-350W range. I'm not saying that the power draw is ideal by any means but it's unlikely to be a point of concern for the crowd of people the card is targeted at. Certainly the blower solution of stock AMD cards have always been terrible and it did Vega no favors but that's a completely different problem, and one that's been around way longer than I care to remember. With Vega AMD didn't break past the absolute top end and failed to offer competing performance at lower price and power than Nvidia but that's honestly a pretty high bar to clear. So while I won't deny that there are low points to the architecture and that it underperformed the competition in sales I think calling it "failed" is pretty strong. Mostly though I disagree with the notion that power/temp/noise is the reason for it failing. Those are the most common excuses bandied about in forums but they have no bearing on reality, lack of performance and not undercutting the competition on price is what ultimately mattered.

Xtreme1979:

Why would they not use their own CPU's? It's like saying for gaming go intel.

SSD_PRO:

Why on earth is AMD using Intel products for gaming?

For quite a while now AMD has been quoting performance uplifts for various titles in the release notes of their driver updates. The reference system they use has the same hardware as the one used to run these tests, not by coincidence I imagine. I don't know when they started using that system but it makes sense to stick to the same configuration for as long as possible as that enables any performance metrics they produce to stay relevant to both their own previous benchmarks as well as the users relying on them.

I was really hoping for some news regarding next gen lineup, aka navi. I suspected this would happen, looking that they registered the brandname vega 2. Whole thing seemed rushed, and im guessing things didnt go as planned. I have no idea how early they have to register spots in ces to get the space and scene, guessing someone knows that here. When ceo is talking it almost looks like she is aware of that this isnt what we expected or hoped for. Not that vega 2 seems to be a bad card in it self, pricing vs performance is my main issue. Its just to little to late, and nvidia will continue to dominate this marked and can continue with their shady tactics and pricing. Amd just dosent have anything that can compete is gamer marked. Compute on the other hand, maybe. Compared to titan its almost a nobrainer considering how titan is priced.. Amd needs to show a amazing navi based graphics card within the year, and not follow nvidia regarding pricing. As i understand the navi costs 750usd to make, so even at 699usd they are loosing money, its the best they can do... Im considering upgrading this summer, and i hope amd has something that can compete with nvidia. Tho, im skeptical. They seem to be 1+ generation behind nvidia.. But again, they nailed it with their ryzen cpu's. And the upcoming lineup looks promising. So at least they make good cpu's for respectable prices, even tho we didnt get much information the little we got im guessing i will go for a amd cpu this year. Heck, if i would upgrade right now i think i would go for amd cpu.. Conclusion, amds gpu department needs to get their shit together withing this year. If not im afraid their will loose the costumers, and nvidia will win with their rtx "it just works" series. If they havent already loosed since poeple are tired of the waiting game and just upgrade before navi... Meh.. 🙁

DrKeo:

So two years later AMD matched the 2017 700$ 16nm 250W 1080ti with a 2019 700$ 7nm 295W card? AMD should have dropped GCN five years ago. Nvidia doesn’t even try anymore. Just to think that they made a huge die with lots of wasted silicon and still AMD can hardly compete.

AMD doesn't have the money to just "drop GCN" and there is no wasted silicon on Turing - stop spreading dumb.

Aura89:

I feel that comment would hold more ground if AMD actually created an AMD branded motherboard with Intel LAN or something else on it. Otherwise, Intel LAN on "AMD" motherboards have less to do with AMD, more to do with the motherboard manufacturer. That being said, i feel like this must have been done by some third party company, as AMD is more likely to have AMD parts laying around then Intel parts. The fact they did it on Intel parts kinda makes it seem like AMD doesn't believe in its own products. But, at 4K, that doesn't make sense, since both CPUs from both companies would perform very, very similarly. Like i said, i find it....weird. It's not really a problem, just weird. I very much doubt if/when Intel makes their GPU, they will ever test (officially and publicly) on an AMD system lol

nah even amd/gpu division will use intel for testing and even public displays it may have been someone but fully amd supported/backed anyways let me try to get my head around some debating on the webs,nv gives rtx cores(something new) does ray tracing full time like on games and we bitch. the price sucks but not bad other wise. amd refresh vega comes 7nm and has presumed 2080 performance and about? the same price. amd seems like a day(years)late and a buck short maybe if the "1180"would be a bs refresh with Samsung on 7nm and no 2080 we would feel better? if it just becomes a fps war its going to get even more boring then it is now just saying

Valken:

Can someone add in FPS from a similar setup with a 1080Ti/2080 and 2080Ti? It would be a good idea to see how it looks compares-

Yea, why hasn't anyone done that yet? 😀

@schmidtbag Its a die shrink step to get to know how 7nm performs and to get engineering experience with it. Both an architecture change and stepping down to a smaller node is generally a no-no in the fab world.

Exodite:

I would question Vega failing to begin with, aside from in the sense of a particular set of enthusiast gamers. I mean sure, among said crowd it likely didn't sell as well as the 1070/1070Ti/1080/1080Ti but that has more to with absolute performance, the performance/power/price curve leaning in favor of Nvidia or even the slight Nvidia bias that exist in the PC gaming community overall (comparing the market penetration of the 1060 vs. the 480/580 for example). But the cards have sold and they do perform well enough at their price range overall. Mining craze excepted, obviously. .

fixed yeah you are right a big winner don't take it personal not bad cards but....face it