And the prices on (retailers) "in stock" green are dropping here $AU, not looking good (even if that supposed increase is AIB(?) related ?).
1 of 1 people found this helpful
AMD responds, does not confirm nor deny
Radeon RX Vega64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand. Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
AMD responds again with more PR dancing around, they blame retailers for price gouging. So the fact that Vega64 makes zero sense to own at these price points is apparently beyond them.
Regardless, if you’ve seen the story, AMD’s official statement on Vega price increases is as follows:
“Radeon RX Vega64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand. Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days.”
Reading this PR line more carefully, it’s clear that this is really three separate statements: (1) Demand was higher than expected at the initial launch price, (2) stock is being refilled, (3) “Vega64” is one word, not two. Never does the comment indicate a restocking at the launch prices, so we inquired further:
“That helps -- thanks for not leaving press & consumers in the dark.
“I have a point of clarification on the official statement: The statement notes ‘initial launch quantities’ and attaches prices to those initial quantities. What is not clear -- to me, at least -- is whether the RX Vega 64 cards will be restocked at a specific price. The statement works around that. Can you confirm for print whether RX Vega 64 single cards (non-bundles) will be restocked at $500?”
“Because we can’t control pricing, I can’t say that.”
We inquired again:
“A follow-up, then: To what does AMD attribute the price increase found on retailers? What does AMD think caused the instant price hike at retailers?
“I suppose this is what I'm getting at: If the defense is ‘we can't control the pricing,’ and yet the launch price is clearly MSRP and has later spiked $100, then it seems as if there is some level of control somewhere. If that level of control is exercised through MDF, then that certainly seems an important part of the story. I am curious as to AMD's knowledge or speculation on what caused the price spike.”
This is where it was clear that no further ground would be gained, and that AMD is not providing information beyond the above statement: AMD’s representative was not authorized to further discuss the pricing questions.
We are still looking into this matter, but it seems as if the true price of “standalone” RX Vega cards (wherein “standalone” indicates “gamer pack”) is about $100 higher than expected. AMD’s timing is interesting: Launching in the middle of the mining market, there’s plausible deniability that mining demand – although the card mines far worse than we expected – is influencing retailer pricing. This defense is employed to a point of nearly accusing retailers of gouging based on demand, levying the “we can’t control that” against a rising tide of confused consumers. It's certainly a possible cause, but the stories from retailers, AIB partners, and AMD do not align. We were hoping for a response with some substance from AMD, but the PR line is all we’re getting for now.
There look to be more Vega 64 Liquid /Limited Edition and Standard Air Cards on the way here.
Interesting to see that some Vega 64's are starting to come on Ebay at around the launch price with comments like
Purchased, Tested, Reselling as Open Box New. If genuine it could be Miners deciding the hash rate versus power
efficiency not high enough here. So perhaps more cards will become availabe, but means no Manufacturers Guarantee if purchased ...
and it could also be scammers.
Is a pretty moot point, however, with AMD's prices only applying to the awful reference editions, board partners are free to set their own for their own custom editions.
These are dark days for PC gamers of all grades. Pray for a cryptocurrency collapse, that's the only way prices will return to "normal".
Given the present VBIOS/Gaming Driver and Performance versus Power so far I think Watercooling is the ideal option.
The Vega 64(Air) cards have blower fans but I do not think the cards are awful. \they are all the same reference board.
The reference boards are of high quality and apparently the Vreg is one of the most efficient and best designs seen on a reference card.
It is of "MSI Lightning" Vreg quality. The quality of the components are very high.
It looks like the only thing the AIB partners will be able to do for the air cooled cards (other than get hold of faster clocked HBM2 somehow) is go overboard on the size of the coolers and have large high r.p.m. fans, and overclock the GPU further ...
If they make a long triple fan card but keep it 2 slots high that would be the best.
Miners (and other GPU compute users) use the PCI 2.0 x1 slots on the motherboard and blocking those means lifting all cards off the motherboard which adds expense.
As for the Vega 64 Liquid Cooled cards, I do not think there is room for much improvement there except longer Triple Fan Radiator.
There is also the option to sell waterblocks on Vega 64 cards. They are already available for the Vega FE here. Relative costs I see here for Vega FE to RX Vega are:
Vega FE Liquid 1600
Vega FE(EK Waterblock) 1000
Vega FE (AIR) 900
RX Vega 64 Liquid 700
RX Vega 64 Limited 600
RX Vega 64 550
I won't comment on the "Free Games" stuff because to be honest Games can wait and they often sell for massive discounts on Steam.
Prey is 50% off already.
If I were lucky enough to get hold of (or win ...) an RX Vega 64 (AIR) at low price somehow I would remove the Reference Blower immediately and add a high performance AIO cooler with a large waterblock. That would probably get me over the cost of the Vega 64 Liquid Edition card though.
Still hoping for some way the performance versus power draw can be improved with Drivers, VBIOS change or Turning on a new feature in the card...
There is no way for the power draw to be improved, and as we've seen with the ASUS Strix Vega 64, First custom Vega 64 edition surfaces (ASUS): Drinks even MORE POWER!, custom boards are only going to be more thirsty as they bypass the stock card's 400w power limiter.
I'm waiting on AIB(probably V56) reviews, or i might change a color for new(undecided) build.
In the meantime, the 390 ($280AU (new from store in Jan.'17)) is cruisin' well.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
If anything Vega 56 will be grabbed up by miners faster than Vega 64. Going by the LegitReviews benchmark it mines at the same rate, and with new drivers they get over 40 MH/s, and it draws 60w less than Vega 64, and the MSRP is $400. Of course these aren't voltmodded cards like the miners will use, so that number is going to be closer to the 1070's 0.18/w, and when they go on sale at $100 less than the GTX 1070 (if that's not a $100 rebate price like the Vega 64 cards, AMD isn't talking), gamers have little hope of landing them in their machines.
I agree it is looking very unlikely that Power Draw can be improved and I am pretty sure the AIB partners know how to
undervolt the GPU and push the clocks up as much as possible to get the best Performance versus Power possible.
I also understand that the AIB Cards, especially the OC versions will likely change the VBIOS, possibly have the choice of specially binned Vega64 GPU and HBM2 ...
I guess I am still living in hope because if this is it, then then The Gaming Card should only be Vega 56 at the launch price or lower and Vega 64 chips should used on the Frontier Edition instead. Otherwise I think the Vega 64 price will have to drop for Gamers.
FYI I have seen a review of this card that stated the reviews were overclocking it to GCLK/MEMCLK = 1980/1000 MHz.
It seemed high to me and think the 1980MHz is wrong and I just noticed this: Clock Bug Rant: No, Vega Isn't Hitting 1980MHz - YouTube
I just found this article as I was wondering if increasing the size of the radiator and adding more fans on the Vega 64 Liquid Card would help keep core temp down and allow better performance,
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Again in the above article it seems that Wattman is so broken on RX Vega right now that reviewers are unable to undervolt or overclock reliably.
Adding a much larger Radiator is definitely helping reduce temps. We still need to wait for more info...
RE: These are dark days ...
Time for some gallows humor?
Please tell me Vega was named after a Star and not named after this Car ... The Vega: An unmitigated disaster
I am still hoping for VBIOS/Better Drivers/New features turned on will improve Performance versus Power Draw, and that AMD can supply enough cards to all their customers and still make a profit.
That seems high. If you don't like the price then don't buy the card from them and they might be stuck with stock that is not shifting so the price will come down again. Isn't that how it works?
Just looked around today and the black pack + monitor + two free games has dropped in price by ~5% today.
Vega 64 (Air) = 550.
Vega 64 Limited Edition = 600.
Vega 64 Liquid = 700.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
Another AMD employee has chimed in, Gerald Youngblood: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-launch-price-reduction
“Our SEPs, and the price tag that we announced,” Youngblood says, “is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”
What happened, though, was we launched the product and the demand was really huge. Now we’re focused on replenishing so that there is plenty of stock so we can encourage our partners to hit the SEPs that we announced.”
It’s primarily this filling of retailers inventory which AMD sees as key to getting the prices of Vega down to their original pre-launch levels.
“First of all we just need to drive as much stock as we can,” Youngblood says, “because inventory is really important in everybody being able to hit those prices. Then it’s just working with our partners to enable it, but we don’t set the price of their product. But we will drive, and do everything that we can, to get those prices to where we suggested when we launched them earlier.”
They did everything they could, except encrypt the VBIOS and have instructions to cut the memory bandwidth to 64 bit under mining load.
Great, but it needs to be an official AMD statement I think.
I would really like to buy one of the Vega Liquid Edition cards but I am really unable to take that decision to do so based on technical results so far.
There was lots of promotion, adverts, interviews before launch.
Now results are out, Performance/Power not good enough/dissapointing for Vega 64.
Some form of post launch interviews explaining benchmarks and power draw is needed.
Undervolting discussion and VBIOS settings?
Is faster HBM2 coming?
Some way to clock the HBM2 faster?
Larger radiator and more fans on the Vega 64 Liquid Cooler?
What is the state of DSBR in drivers? Will it help?
Why is Wattman broken at launch?
Any other new features to be enabled that could help performance?
I think the price needs to go down and the Performance / Power draw improve v 1080/1080Ti.
Just watched latest AdoredTV video and he is dropping any more work on Vega for now and concentrating on Threadripper.
Other reviews I have watched are not recommending Vega64/56 now.
And now it's even worse: AMD Radeon RX Vega 64: now $700+ on Amazon and Newegg - http://www.tweaktown.com/news/58844/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-now-700-amazon-newegg/index.html
Having a quick look on Amazon and Newegg shows us that Radeon RX Vega 64 air-cooled is $719... far from the "$499" - and I keep using inverted commas because AMD launched RX Vega 64 at $499, but then it was $599 - and now it's $700+... I just don't know what to say anymore. But hey... you get Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus and Prey.
The artificial inflation blame can't be stamped on Radeon RX Vega, and this is more an "introductory" price for Vega - almost #FakeNews and false advertising. AMD stayed very quiet during the week of price increases, but released an official statement that we reported on here. But now, the price of the cards have peaked at $700 on Amazon... meaning you can get NVIDIA's far superior GeForce GTX 1080 Ti for LESS then RX Vega 64.
Which is complete and utter bull chips. The FTC only disallows collusion and price fixing, they allow manufacturers to set prices which a retailer must adhere to. Newegg is Chinese, and Amazon uses a should-be-made-illegal dynamic price system, but AMD still has the right to cut off any retailer which charges more than MSRP. As it stands, Newegg is still pricing Vega 64 against the vastly superior 1080Ti, which is bad for everyone except the retailer, and means Vega 64 should only collect dust on the shelves. It makes AMD look bad because it's over $200 more than MSRP and they're not doing anything about it, instead of putting their foot down and halting all shipments to retailers which do this garbage.
I should say, they're pricing REFERENCE Vega 64 against CUSTOM GTX 1080 Ti.
New report by Fudzilla: AMD loses $100+ on every Vega card sold at $499 - http://fudzilla.com/news/graphics/44401-amd-is-losing-100-on-every-vega
Our industry sources have confirmed to Fudzilla that AMD loses at least $100 on every Vega 64 card it sells at its $499 Suggested Etail Price (SEP).
The pricing of the HBM 2.0 memory, the packaging and substrate cost are simply too high to have a sustainable price of $499. We have mentioned this before, but Vega for AMD is not about making money. Don’t get me wrong, every company would like to make money with every product that it makes, but for AMD it is more important to win market share. First you win the market share, then you go after better ASPs (Average Selling Prices) and potentially start running a positive business.
The company made a statement that it still has the power to interest its loyal customers with a high-end part and win some higher end GPU market from Nvidia. AMD is waiting for the second HBM 2 supplier to try to get a bit more favorable HBM 2 price and Hynix is expected to start delivering its HBM 2 memory in October.
Not certain that is the complete picture since even if the gaming cards loose some, the GPU card, and the Vega64 GPU that sells into gaming also sells into Radeon Pro (Vega FE and Vega WX cards) and Instinct, so it is not as simple as the article may sound.
There are many features on Vega that are interesting for GPU compute and deep learning.
Perhaps when SK Hynix can supply HBM2 and there is a second source to Samsung the price of HBM2 may come down.
Maybe the speed of HBM2 will go up, which should help the Performance/Power of the Vega64 Chips as well?
Here's hoping, I want to see RX Vega do well.
Competition is always good.
Still 700 for a Vega 64 Liquid (card only, no extras) on Pre-Order is the best I can find here today.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
AMD's Raja Koduri speaks, again denies price increases and all that goodness, but doesn't explain why there weren't only two profiles (Balanced and High Performance), why Power Saver has 96% of the performance but 75% of the power draw, and why AMD is catering to the mining market to sell cards instead of to gamers to increase market share (stock prices no doubt, investors don't care who buys them as long as they shift), especially questionable given the fact that Vega has some unique features, such as rapid packed math, which game developers will be much less likely to give a flying eff about if only a few hundred people can take advantage of it when tens of thousands of users of older AMD cards and nVidia cards don't have that capability.
Another thing is why he doesn't talk about the GPU shortage, which, given the fact that AMD just had to fork out $30 Million to investors over Llano's shortage and hyped up claims of demands, you would think that AMD would...be honest.
This Mining craze might be good for AMD short term, as all AMD 480/580 cards and now maybe all Vega Cards are getting snapped up immediately at high cost but, what happens when / if the Mining Bubble bursts?
Miners may try to sell all of their Mining Cards on Ebay with statements like "Only used for light gaming" or "Upgrading to a GTX1080 / GTX 1080Ti" at lower prices than AMD Retail and many Gaming Consumers may take the risk and buy the GPU's that have no guarantee, and may have been used 24/7 for mining instead of purchasing a new AMD GPU at Retail Cost (If they can get one anyhow).
Those mining cards will very likely fail quickly, and this will leave the Gaming Consumers with a negative feeling about AMD Gaming cards that might last a lifetime.
Short term one time profit for potential life time of lost sales in that case.
Also if the Mining craze does end quickly and then lots of used AMD cards end up flooding Ebay, this might make it difficult to shift new AMD Cards at Retail for months/years. AMD might have to take an inventory write off if this happens. I think they had to do this previously.
I read the above article and I will not comment futher on it other than this.
It would be better to face the situation and fix it properly rather than to try to use spin to cover up a bad situation.
Even AMD fans and supporters have their limit.
A mining tax. Basically, "gamers get it while you can, then it's onto the mining market."
Here's some worse news: All nVidia cards (and presumably all RX series AMD cards as well) are set to see a price increase of 10% or more as memory manufacturers have increased prices 30% and decreased GDDR production in favor of system RAM.
Needless to say, that sucks.
Some Good news. Vega 56 uses it's high Dynamic Power Range to beat Vega 64 and GTX 1080 in benchmarks.
AMD Vega 56 Hybrid Results: Fixing AMD’s Artificial Limit at 1742MHz | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchma…
I can't wait to see Sapphire Watercooled Vega 56 with Triple fan radiator.
Not really good news if it costs negligibly less and draws considerably more power than a GTX 1080Ti does it?
At time like these it is best to look at the upsides of the downsides it seems to me.
It depends if you like to game and cook your tea at the same time or not.
I do. But it is often inconvenient to have to walk out of my office and into the kitchen.
With that Gamers Nexus overclocked Vega 56 on a watercooler and a triple fan radiator I could make a PC/Cooker combo device.
I am guessing that triple fan radiator would get pretty hot and there must be enough room on it to fry a couple of eggs,
a few beefburgers and perhaps a rasher of bacon or two, and maybe even some toast.
I would possibly not be able to concentrate on my gaming though.
I would probably be looking forward to boasting to my friends the next day about the the dynamic power range of my GPU.
Turn it off at the wall. 0 Watts.Overclock it to within an inch of its life with a Watercooler, 600 Watts.
I just thought it was an interesting article. I do like the idea of a Sapphire Watercooled Vega 56 with a triple fan wide watercooler radiator
but I was not suggesting they go as far as the Gamers Nexus example. The Gamers Nexus Example is really extreme.
I am still hoping that we get some answers about why the Performance/Power for gaming is where it is right now for Vega 64 and 56.
There were features promoted regarding Vega such as DSBR which I think should be working out of the box without intervention of code changes and should have provided performance increase and power drop. As far as I understand it DSBR is the AMD equivalent of Tile Based Rasterization from Nvidia. Using Tile Based Rasterization on Nvidia cards moving from Maxwell to Pascal GPU's seemed to give significant Performance uplift and Power reduction.
Looking at an investigation comparing Power/Performance of R9 FuryX versus Vega 64, it looked like the Vega 64 Performance was ~ what would be achieved if a FuryX could be run at Vega clock speeds. The Power Consumption on the Vega 64 looks higher than expected.
If that investigation is correct then the implication is that either new features like DSBR are enabled but do not work as was expected, or they not enabled at all, or some driver improvements are needed.
It is difficult to know what is going on with Vega right now. I was waiting to buy at least one Vega LE or FE & maybe two. The performance reviews are out. No real AMD response.
I am really confused about recent statements regarding "Highest Dynamic Power Range". I cannot tell the difference between that and just overclocking the GPU to the limit.
If it is the case AMD concentrate on Miner Drivers and Vega FE/Workstation/Instict Cards first and Gaming Features are third place in the queue I wish they could at least tell people who want to buy the cards for gaming only. It might be that AMD Users would wait maybe 1-2 months longer if they knew that Performance/Power would improve soon. Many people I know who are just interested in gaming have just thrown in the towel with Vega and gone out and bought a GTX1080Ti gamer AIB card because they are cheaper, more power efficient, and faster at the moment.
Prices for Vega 64 (Air) around 470 here.
Vega 64 Liquid 700 but only on pre-order.
Vega FE (Air) 900
Vega FE (Liquid) 1500
I thought these videos were an interesting comparison of RX Vega 64 v 56 v RX580 v FuryX for any AMD GPU users looking to purchase a Vega Card.