The price of the AMD RX Vega, along with its performance and its high consumption, is a warning of the possible failure of AMD, since it is not competitive in price against the NVIDIA graphics.
The first benchmarks do not bode well for the new AMD RX Vega, since the Vega 64 tie in performance with the GTX 1080, but the consumption is a real stupid and more or less the same thing happens with the Vega 56 and the GTX 1070 For mining initially, things are not very good either, because what has been published about the mining performance of Ethereum, the Vega 30 barely reaches 64MH / s, which is far from the first information.
We must add to these bad omens the price of the RX Vega. We can see in Coolmod that these graphics are already listed, finding the Sapphire for € 615, the XFX Limited Edition and the version with the basic heatsink for € 625 and the XFX Liquid Edition for € 730. If we compare these prices with the GTX 1080 that are on the market with an assembler heatsink, we find that there are four models much cheaper than AMD graphics and two for more or less the same price, to which we must count the efficiency of the NVIDIA graphics and their lower temperatures.
Everything indicates that the RX Vega will be like the Fury, a failure and not only for performance, consumption and temperatures, but also for price. NVIDIA could lower its graphics by € 50, if it were interested, making AMD graphics remain on the shelves, because at the moment they are not even useful for mining, with these absurd consumptions. The truth is that AMD had very difficult to match the feat of the Ryzen against Intel processors, since clearly AMD has managed to slap Intel, but when it comes to the graphics segment, things look bad.
Lights and shadows for AMD ...
Why are the Rizen "good"?
Because Intel allowed it to do so, if Intel had added 2 cores for each new generation from Sandy Bridge, today we would have processors with more cores and AMD's strategy would not make sense, but it would not exist.
Why are the Vega "bad"?
Because Nvidia has not allowed AMD to do anything, I am almost certain that AMD took so long to launch Vega to increase the GPU frequency to the “maximum” possible without affecting the guarantee offered by the partners.
AMD needs another architecture and it seems that Navi is more of the same, but with more stream processors, obviously Nvidia will not make the same mistake as Intel.
I already knew it since 2013 ………….
right what I said since 2014
and i said this
The radeons do not improve but increase their performance through more consumption and more bandwidth with the saving of their very good prices, AMD has to change their Core Stream to beat NVIDIA
Old times in what I had predicted but the fanboys covered me with the prices
I also predicted that the Radeon fury was more powerful thanks to the HBM memory but without that, with gdrr5 it was still the same
I said it in 2015
But I know that AMD will improve its core stream or architecture and become better than nvidia
HJGJGJ
Too bad for amd 2 years working on this architecture and they did not know how to take advantage of the performance of the hbm2 memory. Different from nvidia that if they knew what to do with hbm2 on the tesla v100. I thought that finally amd could give competition in the high range but well they screwed up again, the only good thing is ryzen
What they gained with Ryzen they are going to lose with what they did, very poor ... they would have started with at least 16gb hbm2. Taking into account Ryzen and that the hbm2 memories are theirs, they could have made some convergence between cpu, gpu and use the hbm2 as the new ram of the future, at the same time when producing more the prices of those memories would drop.
Hopefully the opinion that it sucks, make it drop in price until it's really competitive xD