>300w >muh mining rumour

>>61901288
Those numbers are complete bullshit though. An RX 580 can easily achieve 33MH/s. Reviewer in 'no idea what the fuck they're doing' shocker.

>>61901288
Hopefully this will deter miners but you know what they can be like. If the devs get their hands on one and work their magic with the new drivers it might sky rocket. I hope not but who knows!

Of course RX VEGA could be awaiting a BIOS update to unleash memory bandwidth. Get the cards into gamyers hands then create a shitstorm. But probably not...

>>61901306
The point is the 90/100 MH/s was buuuulshit

>>61901306
>33

Try 37.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01fH_Nggqno

TPU is staffed by retards.

>>61901347
The point is that your graph is buuuulshit and proves nothing.

>>61901355
Pssh, whatever... kid...

If you had kept on reading the article instead of just copying the chart, you would know that current cryptomining software does not use the special mining instructions AMD added to Vega.
Miners are already buying the cards and adapting their software.

35hashrate is the top on a 580 when they underclock the core and just oc to max the memory
that is a load of bs but this is tcup a site that uses project cars and wow as benchmark standars

>>61901366
>The point is that your graph is buuuulshit and proves nothing.

Jesus Christ, you are so STUPID

>>61901366
>The point is that your graph is buuuulshit and proves nothing

RX Vega 64 is not a a good card for cryptoniggers

>>61901347
The rumor said it would reach 70-100MH/s by using new instructions AMD enabled with a new driver.

At least wait for some benchmarks that actually use these instructions before calling bullshit.

>>61901444
>wait©

>>61901444
you mean wait untill someone is actually using the cards as they should be used in mining? cause we know 580 shits on every single nvidia card atm

>>61901465
Miners didn't wait. It's already sold out, nigga.

>>61901440
No, you're stupid, you stupid fuck. You literally just posted fake numbers that don't in any way reflect reality and tried to claim they prove your point. They do not, in any way. You clearly know the square root of fuck all about mining and are just blindly reposting things from people who also know fuck all about it.

Go back to /v/, kid. You know how it performs in MUH GAYMES, so you don't need to be here any more.

>>61901441
You too. Go.

>>61901306
You know what dag epoch is, right?

>>61901479
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-56-and-vega-64-review/

>Given the shortages on AMD's RX 570/580 cards, which are typically selling at prices 50 percent or more above the MSRP, many have feared—and miners have hoped—that the RX Vega would be another excellent mining option. I poked around a bit to see what sort of performance the Vega 56/64 delivered in Ethereum mining, and so far it's been pretty lackluster, considering the price and power use. The Vega 56 manages around 31MH/s for Ethereum, and the Vega 64 does 33MH/s.

>>61901355
>may 31st

Crack up your 580 and try that test again

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9WL0wvNzAyMjczL29yaWdpbmFsL21pbmluZy5wbmc=.png (60KB, 990x742px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 990x742px

>>61901306

>>61901553
>RX 580 down to 23.5
>Vega 64 30.9

New mining king confirmed? No wonder it sold out instantly.

>>61901479
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-16.html

>AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 isn’t the mining monster many might have hoped, at least right out of the box under Claymore’s current build.

File: 213123213124312.gif (25KB, 190x200px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 190x200px

>>61901565
>$599
>300w
>new mining king

Just..No..

>>61901567
j-just wait for drivers anon, aymd will surely deliver.

File: rxvega.png (496KB, 1179x1006px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1179x1006px

>>61901288
I think the price is a bigger issue than the 300w power-draw.

$1152 for the Sapphire RX Vega 8GB Black isn't exactly "cheap" - but more importantly: It would have to give you a minimum of 2x-2.5x the MH/s of a RX580 to make sense - at a lower total power consumption.

>>61901306
>>61901355

Yeah, reviewers are not miners and have no idea what they are doing. They also seem to think miners will overclock their cards when it's obvious that undervolting will give you a much better MH/s per watt ratio.

£548.99 for shitty VEGA 64 reference.

Nah fuck that.

>>61901590
That is the price of the liquid cooled edition. Aircooled is $499

>>61901615
liquid is 699

air 64 SHOULD be 499, but you'll never see it in stock because hbm yeilds are shit and this has been yet another rushed release.

>>61901637
They delayed it to get enough stock and it still sold out instantly. Even with the power draw, everyone wanted to get their hands on Vega.

>>61901653
I was watching newegg, it went straight to OSS.

It's been delayed for a year because of hbm yeilds, amd admitted that themselves. you dont stockpile for 12 months to sell out in 5 mins.

>>61901679
>>61901679
>you dont stockpile for 12 months to sell out in 5 mins.
I saw a few Newegg.ca links were still in stock for about an hour. Sold out everywhere else, too.

>>61901567
Not good for gaymes
Not good for mining

What fuck these cards are? Beside heater

>>61901706
the point is it was clearly low availability, many sites don't even have a listing for it. we'll never know exactly how many they had.

>>61901725
good for people who have nvidia, bout it. the 56 is the only card you should even consider buying as long as it's for retail prices.

>>61901653
>At $699, you get the Liquid Edition card, with an AIO liquid cooling solution, which enables higher clocks. This card is priced higher than the GTX 1080 Ti, and we doubt if it can compete with that card in performance.

>>61901741
hate nvidia**

>>61901741
>clearly low availability
>we'll never know exactly how many they had
Seeing a bit of a contradiction here ..

https://www.techpowerup.com/235740/amd-says-vega-delays-necessary-to-increase-stock-for-gamers

>>61901763
C'mon mate, screw your fucking head on. are you honestly saying that all these cards were snapped up by miners?

Seeing a bit of retardation and denial here.

>>61901788
Miners, gamers, compute/GPGPU users, everyone.

File: 1453699137594.gif (1MB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x150px

>>61901802

>space heater
>overpriced
>performs shit in all of those tasks
>"must have been really popular guize"

okay m8.

>>61901288
h-how would my old 780 do mining-wise when I upgrade

>>61901763
>produces graphics cards made for gamers
>gamers never get to use them because of the (((miners)))
waste of marketing desu, just advertise solely to miners and make babby gpus for gaymers.

File: 1467353667239.jpg (59KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x300px

someone is gonna release drivers

>>61901983
https://translate.google.com/translate?tl=en-us&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2017-08%2Fradeon-rx-vega-64-56-test%2F

HBCC and primitive shaders confirmed still disabled.

>>61901991
HBCC barely makes an impact for gayms, the dataset is fairly small. But prim shaders disabled for launch?
That's bad.

>>61902016
some games with a truckload of textures that can't fit on VRAM all at the same time would see an improvement from HBCC as I understand

>>61902034
Oh, I am looking at you, Todd!