Such a disaster. Not only is Vega underwhelming but it was released right in the middle of the mining craze. If only it hadn't been so delayed then it might have stood a chance. Needless to say, I've basically written off Vega.

There's quite a few in stock in the UK but people don't want to pay the prices being asked.

Bought myself a whole set of parts to build a R5 1600 based comp. All I need now is a graphic card which I'll order monday, I guess it's gonna be a GTX1070. I wanted a full AMD build this time with a Vega 56, but I guess I'll have to pass.

So the same reviewer who says Vega 56 and 64 are "Guru3d recommended" in the review, comes with an article where he says "I can only speculate that in that case the reason would be the lack of competition". So if I were to translate from the Vega 64 review here "product is too weak to compete against Nvidia, but yeah, guru3d recommended, get".

D3M1G0D:

Such a disaster. Not only is Vega underwhelming but it was released right in the middle of the mining craze. If only it hadn't been so delayed then it might have stood a chance. Needless to say, I've basically written off Vega.

The mainstream media started the whole "mining craze", it's fake news.

foxx1337:

So the same reviewer who says Vega 56 and 64 are "Guru3d recommended" in the review, comes with an article where he says "I can only speculate that in that case the reason would be the lack of competition". So if I were to translate from the Vega 64 review here "product is too weak to compete against Nvidia, but yeah, guru3d recommended, get".

There's little wrong with Vega, if priced right. I very much would like to see the AIB products with improved cooling. That's all and that's what i clearly mention in the reviews. And at the advertised prices it matches GXT 1070 / 1080 perf at competing prices. So yes, sorry to break your AMD hate bubble there.

Looking back at how die size can influence the price and success of a product, I'd never allow a product to come out with more than 300mm2 unless the engineers would prove me it would be something amazing.

RzrTrek:

The mainstream media started the whole "mining craze", it's fake news.

I don't think they are fake news unfortunately https://www.plus500.pt/Trading/CryptoCurrencies.aspx I too was affected by this and couldn't get a RX570. Looking at my tiny RX560 and happy after 2 months without GPU.

D3M1G0D:

Such a disaster. Not only is Vega underwhelming but it was released right in the middle of the mining craze. If only it hadn't been so delayed then it might have stood a chance. Needless to say, I've basically written off Vega.

It doesn't matter when it was released. If it were released a year ago we'd still be in the exact same situation right now: there would be no availability and a high demand. The only difference is a year ago, more gamers (but not a lot more) would've got their hands on it, and the price point would've looked more attractive. Take the RX 580 for example - that was released before Vega should have been released, and yet that's still in-demand by gamers. Considering it's just a rebrand, that proves even more that it doesn't matter when people want to buy new hardware. Meanwhile, the mining craze is finite - the longer we wait, the closer we get till miners don't want to buy hardware anymore. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if Vega would actually have been more available (for gamers) if released later, at least in theory. Vega was only underwhelming to those who had unrealistic expectations about it. It performed roughly as well as AMD said it would. However, many (if not most) people are inclined to agree with you, and as a result, Vega would have truly been a disaster if it weren't for the miners. It would suck for AMD to spend all this money on a GPU that nobody really feels passionate about and have it sit on the shelves indefinitely. Considering how Vega's desirability is lacking for gamers, it's nice that it wasn't a total waste of an investment to AMD, and the money they're getting from this should hopefully fund something gamers actually want.

schmidtbag:

Considering how Vega's desirability is lacking for gamers, it's nice that it wasn't a total waste of an investment to AMD, and the money they're getting from this should hopefully fund something gamers actually want.

I agree. Going further: Recent events have made me realize how much we need AMD as a player in both CPU and GPU. We should choose their stuff wherever it's competitive. It certainly is with Ryzen, which I bought. I expected to buy Vega too but can wait. I'm glad it's selling out, even it it's for mining. AMD needs all the cash it can get in order to survive and keep competition alive. We've seen what Intel will do without that.

Arbie:

I agree. Going further: Recent events have made me realize how much we need AMD as a player in both CPU and GPU. We should choose their stuff wherever it's competitive. It certainly is with Ryzen, which I bought. I expected to buy Vega too but can wait. I'm glad it's selling out, even it it's for mining. AMD needs all the cash it can get in order to survive and keep competition alive. We've seen what Intel will do without that.

I agree as well. I'm perfectly fine if the miners are buying up the Vega GPU's as AMD can sure use the cash and lets be honest it wasn't going to be a huge selling gaming GPU anyhow. All of us need AMD in the game for progress as we can see what Intel does with no competition. I planned to build a new PC this year and went with Ryzen R7 as well since it was competitive to Intel and ran cool. I already had picked up a GTX 1070 almost a year ago now and my plan was to upgrade it with Navi if its as good as I expect. Looking forward if Glofo's 7nm that IBM developed is really as good as they are shooting for then Zen2 and Navi should end up being really competitive products maybe even best in class for a short period of time. A ton rests on that 7nm process being on time as it is the cure for what ales Ryzen's low frequency(I'm sure they will have IPC tweaks etc but the 7nm node is the silver bullet) and Navis whole purpose in life of tying GPU's together using infinity fabric which is a no go on the 14nm process they have way to much heat and size.

The 56 looks to be a solid card, pricing being important. And like the Fuji, drivers will improve. Vega is also more a stepping stone, the next generation I expect to really see something. Everything AMD is doing right now is part of a growth cycle happening in stages. I am a moderate gamer, so perhaps I am not so bothered and even excited to see where things go in the near future.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

There's little wrong with Vega, if priced right. I very much would like to see the AIB products with improved cooling. That's all and that's what i clearly mention in the reviews. And at the advertised prices it matches GXT 1070 / 1080 perf at competing prices. So yes, sorry to break your AMD hate bubble there.

RX Vega 56 is a fine product, on the other hand RX 64 should have not received any recommendation. Its perf/w compared to RX56 is much lower. Compared to it's competing product '1080', the 1080 has more than 80% better perf/w. When the competing product averages out in performance comparison across a range of games while being the same price, much cooler/quieter, cheaper when comparing AiB custom cards( the asus RX strix is 770 USD), smaller dimensions, etc, I don't see anyone possibly recommending it. So many tradeoffs if you go for a RX 64 In fact, it's possible to get a cheaper custom Ti than RX 64 liquid variant and custom AiB cards; that's just a slap in the face. Vega would have to undercut the 1080 by $100 to be competitive. At that price point I can see a possible recommendation, but otherwise no way. But problem is that won't happen. It costs significantly more to produce Vega vs 1080. That would eat up all their margins. At this point, prices will stay at least $100 above MSRP for a while. So at this point(until prices are way lower) RX64 a total product failure. Most reviewers all agree about this too while giving RX 56 a recommendation.

I would recommend a Vega 56, especially an aftermarket cooler model very quickly to anyone looking to game at anything under 4K. There's not anything to match it at MSRP from either team for that price and performance range. Vega 64 on the otherhand is just too power hungry and ~ equal in performance to a GTX 1080, so it's a very difficult recommend at MSRP in my opinion. Currently overinflated prices are just adding insult to injury (fairly both AMD and NVIDIA are over priced above MSRP for many models right now).

Silva:

I'd never allow a product to come out with more than 300mm2

Then that would limit everyone to dinky cards like the 1060 and RX580.. No thank you.

schmidtbag:

Vega was only underwhelming to those who had unrealistic expectations about it. It performed roughly as well as AMD said it would. However, many (if not most) people are inclined to agree with you, and as a result, Vega would have truly been a disaster if it weren't for the miners. It would suck for AMD to spend all this money on a GPU that nobody really feels passionate about and have it sit on the shelves indefinitely. Considering how Vega's desirability is lacking for gamers, it's nice that it wasn't a total waste of an investment to AMD, and the money they're getting from this should hopefully fund something gamers actually want.

AMD did not actually make much (if any) money from the Bitcoin boom (whatever they made was most likely wiped out by the massive write-down that they had to take on unsold 290 inventory), and I doubt the current boom will lead to big profits for AMD either. It's certainly not a reliable source of income and as the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. I think this video highlights everything that's wrong with AMD's GPU division (note that this is from a channel that is very pro-AMD): MODERATOR: getting a little tired of these conspiracy click/view-bait videos. Pleas stop posting them, thanks. Although I like AMD products and am an active customer (I have a Ryzen 7 and Ryzen Threadripper, as well as 2 RX 580s) I think they really need to get their Radeon Technologies Group in order, as they keep repeating the same mistakes, with Vega being the latest example.

Not too surprising, checking a few digital stores here shows arrival estimated for early October, pricing is coming down a bit though but 1000$ is still the tag for a few GPU's but it's coming down a bit to around 700$ or so although there's still no stock available.

Agent-A01:

Then that would limit everyone to dinky cards like the 1060 and RX580.. No thank you.

You're right, I was a bit extreme. But I did mention an exception: looking at your GPU, a 1080Ti, it has a 471mm2 die size and a TDP of 250W. I think it fits the exceptions by the performance it outputs. Although expensive, I can't deny it's a solid performer. Looking at Fiji we're talking about a 596mm2 die...Vega is 484mm2 and compared to a 1080 (TDP180W) that is only 314mm2, can you see my point? If Nvidia focused on making a new GPU the same size as the 1080 we could keep power and costs down. But it's easier to scale the tech and make a monolith GPU that costs your kidneys.

Picked up a Sapphire RX Vega 64 Liquid cooled. I got really lucky. Mine OC's to about 1850Mhz on the stock voltage. Have not had time to play with it much. I hear undervolting is the new overclocking though.

Srsbsns:

Picked up a Sapphire RX Vega 64 Liquid cooled. I got really lucky. Mine OC's to about 1850Mhz on the stock voltage. Have not had time to play with it much. I hear undervolting is the new overclocking though.

Let us know in the AMD gpu section what you think. I am curious.

D3M1G0D:

AMD did not actually make much (if any) money from the Bitcoin boom (whatever they made was most likely wiped out by the massive write-down that they had to take on unsold 290 inventory), and I doubt the current boom will lead to big profits for AMD either. It's certainly not a reliable source of income and as the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy.

Bitcoin wasn't as efficient with GPU mining as Ethereum. Once the USB ASICs came out (which seemed to happen relatively early), miners stopped getting GPUs. Also when Bitcoin first came out and was easy to mine, nobody cared about it. By the time it became valuable, ASICs were abundant. Some older GCN 1.0 hardware was bought for mining purposes since it was cheap, but that was pretty much all that was sold. Ethereum, however, was designed with GPU mining in mind, and AMD's stock has been completely depleted as a result. Most companies do not rely on selling 100% of their inventory. Not only is AMD selling faster than they can create, but they can increase the price beyond MSRP which in turn gives them even more profit than they expected. So, I would say they've seen a substantial revenue increase as a result of this. Remember, if it weren't for miners, Vega would probably have sold worse than AMD was hoping.

Although I like AMD products and am an active customer (I have a Ryzen 7 and Ryzen Threadripper, as well as 2 RX 580s) I think they really need to get their Radeon Technologies Group in order, as they keep repeating the same mistakes, with Vega being the latest example.

For gamers, you're absolutely right. For everyone else, you're very wrong. Vega is fantastic in compute performance-per-dollar, and its wattage suddenly doesn't look so bad anymore. If I were interested in building a server revolved around OpenCL tasks I would absolutely get Vega.