AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Review

[ddferrari]

Just so happens the Aorus Extreme Gaming has the same massive clocks as the Gigabyte Extreme gaming that I have .just different led logo,,slightly different shroud. back plate .but essentially the same card..also when you manually set clocks via software or bios mod .as long as the lower card can run at the higher clocks your good to go. and it wouldn't be the first time I flashed a GT to an Ultra.DOH!

Fair enough! I own an Aorus 1080 Ti Xtreme and it's a beast.

 

[ddferrari]

Just read the 62 comments on here....... Some really down to earth comments on here and some not so much.

Lets all remember that it is day one of the release for this card and that it is not trying to beat the 1080Ti but provide market value against the 1070 and 1080.

The only cards currently released are the reference cards with day 1 drivers and the performance looks to be the equal +-5% to the NVidia options.

The power is a concern but really my old 390 is only 20W less TDP than the air cooled Vega 64 so really not a big deal.

These are 10+ and 13+ TFLOP cards and a whole new architecture ....... performance is going to improve.

The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark.

Everyone keep a level head, keep the fanboy/hating (which ever camp you fall into) to a reasonable level and wait until the dust settles over the next 60 days.

"The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark."

Maybe in your neck of the woods. I just checked Newegg and a Gigabyte 1080 FE runs $510. The OC'd Windforce version is $549. The Vega 64 starts at $599.

 

[AntiShill]

you do realise that the 1070 was never at that price point, besides a few very limited deals (a few coupon deals I remember), even before miners brought the price higher? (and the only country that actually got that was the US) Nvidia can tell us that they want to sell them at 100$ it's pointless if it will never be sold regularly at that price by anybody.
it's similar to how the R7 1700x had a 199$ deal on amazon.

But I got my rebate deals. I actually got 2 GTX1070s for two machines, and had to do those Microcenter rebates back some 10 months ago. I had just bought a pair of Dell 27" 1440p G-sync monitors (S2716DG) for $450 from Best Buy, and my gtx970s were running too loud and too hot just to barely keep up. This price for 1070 was not fiction, you had Evga, Gigabyte, Asus, all competing to sell at around $379 and the Asus ones happened to have the $20 rebate that week, but different ones were offering different weekly rebates. I am sorry you don't live in the U.S., but the shelves at the stores had plenty to pick from. BTW I think is common knowledge, nVidia is not providing charity pricing them at $379 for MSRP either.

But why is it that nVidia priced 1070 significantly lower than their existing 980 and 980ti where as we all know well that the 1070 is faster than the 980 and basically on par to the 980ti? The 980ti were going for about $699, the 1070 was $320 less at $379

Why is AMD can't do a similar thing? The R9 Fury X, the 980ti competitior, back then was about $650, subtract $320, the Vega 56 MSRP should about $330, round it down to $300 price point to be more competitive to make up for its shortcomings like, heat and power. Why can't AMD do this? Why is it that nVidia did and AMD is NOT?

Given street price for anything hardly ever matches MSRP for anything, MSRP set by nVidia or AMD is still NOT 100% pointless, It is a way for thes companies to communicate to their user base, and it is way for us to gauge how much price gouging the retailers are doing, so we can make an informed decision. And what I hear from AMD is offensive to me and other gamers that value their money.

 

[AntiShill]

...
The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark.
....

$699 is too high to Vega 64. See all these 1080ti for around $700
http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...all&sortby=pricelow&N=4294966998&myStore=true

And here are the benches for the Vega 64, for those who are wondering. DX12, DX11, it doesn't matter. Look thru the whole article if you want. Here is just one random sample snapshot of the benches:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-6.html

AMD is going get its lunch eaten from out under it. I really do NOT understand why AMD thinks they can sell lesser products for more money. This is NOT the AMD I know or the AMD I remember as being a price competitive alternative.

 

[Puiu]

But I got my rebate deals. I actually got 2 GTX1070s for two machines, and had to do those Microcenter rebates back some 10 months ago. I had just bought a pair of Dell 27" 1440p G-sync monitors (S2716DG) for $450 from Best Buy, and my gtx970s were running too loud and too hot just to barely keep up. This price for 1070 was not fiction, you had Evga, Gigabyte, Asus, all competing to sell at around $379 and the Asus ones happened to have the $20 rebate that week, but different ones were offering different weekly rebates. I am sorry you don't live in the U.S., but the shelves at the stores had plenty to pick from. BTW I think is common knowledge, nVidia is not providing charity pricing them at $379 for MSRP either.

But why is it that nVidia priced 1070 significantly lower than their existing 980 and 980ti where as we all know well that the 1070 is faster than the 980 and basically on par to the 980ti? The 980ti were going for about $699, the 1070 was $320 less at $379

Why is AMD can't do a similar thing? The R9 Fury X, the 980ti competitior, back then was about $650, subtract $320, the Vega 56 MSRP should about $330, round it down to $300 price point to be more competitive to make up for its shortcomings like, heat and power. Why can't AMD do this? Why is it that nVidia did and AMD is NOT?

Given street price for anything hardly ever matches MSRP for anything, MSRP set by nVidia or AMD is still NOT 100% pointless, It is a way for thes companies to communicate to their user base, and it is way for us to gauge how much price gouging the retailers are doing, so we can make an informed decision. And what I hear from AMD is offensive to me and other gamers that value their money.

"But why is it that nVidia priced 1070 significantly lower than their existing 980 and 980ti where as we all know well that the 1070 is faster than the 980 and basically on par to the 980ti? The 980ti were going for about $699, the 1070 was $320 less at $379"
that's a moot question. why are you bringing GPUs that are no longer being manufactures into the mix? the prices of those are irrelevant. you could find 980TI starting at under 450$ last year and now it's up to 2000$ (as seen on newegg).

It's pretty clear that you have no economics background since you can't actually understand the pricing situation.

 

[OcelotRex]

you do realise that the 1070 was never at that price point, besides a few very limited deals (a few coupon deals I remember), even before miners brought the price higher? (and the only country that actually got that was the US) Nvidia can tell us that they want to sell them at 100$ it's pointless if it will never be sold regularly at that price by anybody.
it's similar to how the R7 1700x had a 299$ deal on amazon.

I'm from the USA - I bought a EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 2.0 from Best Buy for ~$375 earlier this year. They were selling on Amazon for over a month under $379 (not FE).

 

[AntiShill]

....
It's pretty clear that you have no economics background since you can't actually understand the pricing situation.

Nope, I understand the economics quite well. Someone famously said "never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people." AMD is doing its best to get as much as possible from those people right now as we speak, large groups means large profits after all. It doesn't take a genius to see why AMD is gladly taking donations, but I can sure call them out for pricing way too high.

 

[Flebbert]

...
The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark.
....

$699 is too high to Vega 64. See all these 1080ti for around $700
http://www.microcenter.com/search/s...all&sortby=pricelow&N=4294966998&myStore=true

And here are the benches for the Vega 64, for those who are wondering. DX12, DX11, it doesn't matter. Look thru the whole article if you want. Here is just one random sample snapshot of the benches:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-6.html

AMD is going get its lunch eaten from out under it. I really do NOT understand why AMD thinks they can sell lesser products for more money. This is NOT the AMD I know or the AMD I remember as being a price competitive alternative.

Lol a 1080TI in AUS is $1200-$1700, the Vega 64 is $699 and the 1080 is $800-$1000.

That price seems REASONABLE to me.

Reading everything online at the moment is a little comical and is like AMD has personally attacked everyone by not having the fastest card in the world for $3.

Just makes me think of Ryzen all over again WHERE everyone jumped on the hater bandwagon and then 6 months later switch to "nah always thought they were great".

So this brings us 2 days after release..... only 58 days left BEFORE we can all start applying common sense to the situation.

P.S you need more random CAPS.

 

[Flebbert]

Just read the 62 comments on here....... Some really down to earth comments on here and some not so much.

Lets all remember that it is day one of the release for this card and that it is not trying to beat the 1080Ti but provide market value against the 1070 and 1080.

The only cards currently released are the reference cards with day 1 drivers and the performance looks to be the equal +-5% to the NVidia options.

The power is a concern but really my old 390 is only 20W less TDP than the air cooled Vega 64 so really not a big deal.

These are 10+ and 13+ TFLOP cards and a whole new architecture ....... performance is going to improve.

The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark.

Everyone keep a level head, keep the fanboy/hating (which ever camp you fall into) to a reasonable level and wait until the dust settles over the next 60 days.

"The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark."

Maybe in your neck of the woods. I just checked Newegg and a Gigabyte 1080 FE runs $510. The OC'd Windforce version is $549. The Vega 64 starts at $599.

Yeah pricing seems a little random world wide at the moment, Vega looking really reasonable in some places and stupidly over priced in others.

I still think once the aftermarket ones come out and we have 60 days for stuff to settle down we will know where the Vega cards sit.

 

[ddferrari]

Lol a 1080TI in AUS is $1200-$1700, the Vega 64 is $699 and the 1080 is $800-$1000.

That price seems REASONABLE to me.

Reading everything online at the moment is a little comical and is like AMD has personally attacked everyone by not having the fastest card in the world for $3.

Just makes me think of Ryzen all over again WHERE everyone jumped on the hater bandwagon and then 6 months later switch to "nah always thought they were great".

So this brings us 2 days after release..... only 58 days left BEFORE we can all start applying common sense to the situation.

P.S you need more random CAPS.

I think the anger is very justifiable considering how AMD kept begging their fans to hold off on buying Pascal and wait for Vega. They hinted on many occasions that it would rival Nvidia's best and that was clearly misleading. At least Nvidia tells it like it is and gives you the full package up front (minus the GTX 970 Vram debacle). None of this "we'll get you what you paid for through driver updates, eventually" crap. I want everything I paid for NOW. I don't buy wine to throw it in a cellar for 20 years.

 

[OcelotRex]

I think the anger is very justifiable considering how AMD kept begging their fans to hold off on buying Pascal and wait for Vega. They hinted on many occasions that it would rival Nvidia's best and that was clearly misleading. At least Nvidia tells it like it is and gives you the full package up front (minus the GTX 970 Vram debacle). None of this "we'll get you what you paid for through driver updates, eventually" crap. I want everything I paid for NOW. I don't buy wine to throw it in a cellar for 20 years.

Did performance suffer though? TBH the specs really didn't matter that much in the long run.

 

[ddferrari]

Did performance suffer though? TBH the specs really didn't matter that much in the long run.

No, but if I was going to flat-out state that Nvidia tells it like it is, then I wasn't going to let someone else point it out to me.

 

[OcelotRex]

No, but if I was going to flat-out state that Nvidia tells it like it is, then I wasn't going to let someone else point it out to me.

I see now - transparency. I skipped from the GTX 7XX series right to the GTX 10XX series so I missed out on those completely.

 

[ddferrari]

I see now - transparency. I skipped from the GTX 7XX series right to the GTX 10XX series so I missed out on those completely.

Me too. I went from a GTX 670 SLI setup to an Aorus 1080 Ti Xtreme. Night and day difference.

 

[Flebbert]

Lol a 1080TI in AUS is $1200-$1700, the Vega 64 is $699 and the 1080 is $800-$1000.

That price seems REASONABLE to me.

Reading everything online at the moment is a little comical and is like AMD has personally attacked everyone by not having the fastest card in the world for $3.

Just makes me think of Ryzen all over again WHERE everyone jumped on the hater bandwagon and then 6 months later switch to "nah always thought they were great".

So this brings us 2 days after release..... only 58 days left BEFORE we can all start applying common sense to the situation.

P.S you need more random CAPS.

I think the anger is very justifiable considering how AMD kept begging their fans to hold off on buying Pascal and wait for Vega. They hinted on many occasions that it would rival Nvidia's best and that was clearly misleading. At least Nvidia tells it like it is and gives you the full package up front (minus the GTX 970 Vram debacle). None of this "we'll get you what you paid for through driver updates, eventually" crap. I want everything I paid for NOW. I don't buy wine to throw it in a cellar for 20 years.

Completely understand where you are coming from, but I think this isn't an AMD issue. Nvidia have been fortunate to have a very strong product and be market leader for a longer time, I do think that if the roles were reversed they would do exactly the same thing.

Actually they did do that when AMD had a stronger GPU for 18 months yet there marketing team managed to work some magic and people were buying the significantly slower Nvidia cards even though they were more expensive.

I guess my point is be frustrated, angry etc but keep a level head about it all, the cards have only been out for 2 days and they are reference cards at that, the cards have up to 13+TFLOPS of compute on them and by the time aftermarket cards come out (Never buy reference) things might look a little better.

I don't plan on buying a Vega to be clear as couldn't be bothered waiting and grabbed a TI a while ago.

Edit: I think the percentage of people who would be looking to buy a Vega 64 would be very low compared to a 1060 or 580 and the TI even lower. If anything I hope Vega settles the market a little as video cards are stupidly expensive and no one is winning at the moment regardless if they buy Nvidia or AMD.

 

[ddferrari]

Completely understand where you are coming from, but I think this isn't an AMD issue. Nvidia have been fortunate to have a very strong product and be market leader for a longer time, I do think that if the roles were reversed they would do exactly the same thing.

Actually they did do that when AMD had a stronger GPU for 18 months yet there marketing team managed to work some magic and people were buying the significantly slower Nvidia cards even though they were more expensive.

I guess my point is be frustrated, angry etc but keep a level head about it all, the cards have only been out for 2 days and they are reference cards at that, the cards have up to 13+TFLOPS of compute on them and by the time aftermarket cards come out (Never buy reference) things might look a little better.

I don't plan on buying a Vega to be clear as couldn't be bothered waiting and grabbed a TI a while ago.

Edit: I think the percentage of people who would be looking to buy a Vega 64 would be very low compared to a 1060 or 580 and the TI even lower. If anything I hope Vega settles the market a little as video cards are stupidly expensive and no one is winning at the moment regardless if they buy Nvidia or AMD.

High end graphics cards have always been expensive but I don't think the current batch is "stupidly expensive". The 980 Ti retailed for $799 and the 780 Ti retailed for $699 in 2013. I paid the going rate of $400 in 2012 for each of my GTX 670s. The 10XX series destroys them all while being much more power efficient. The 13+TFLOPS don't mean squat to gamers-who undoubtedly are the vast majority of buyers (mining fad aside).

 

[Flebbert]

With mining

Completely understand where you are coming from, but I think this isn't an AMD issue. Nvidia have been fortunate to have a very strong product and be market leader for a longer time, I do think that if the roles were reversed they would do exactly the same thing.

Actually they did do that when AMD had a stronger GPU for 18 months yet there marketing team managed to work some magic and people were buying the significantly slower Nvidia cards even though they were more expensive.

I guess my point is be frustrated, angry etc but keep a level head about it all, the cards have only been out for 2 days and they are reference cards at that, the cards have up to 13+TFLOPS of compute on them and by the time aftermarket cards come out (Never buy reference) things might look a little better.

I don't plan on buying a Vega to be clear as couldn't be bothered waiting and grabbed a TI a while ago.

Edit: I think the percentage of people who would be looking to buy a Vega 64 would be very low compared to a 1060 or 580 and the TI even lower. If anything I hope Vega settles the market a little as video cards are stupidly expensive and no one is winning at the moment regardless if they buy Nvidia or AMD.

High end graphics cards have always been expensive but I don't think the current batch is "stupidly expensive". The 980 Ti retailed for $799 and the 780 Ti retailed for $699 in 2013. I paid the going rate of $400 in 2012 for each of my GTX 670s. The 10XX series destroys them all while being much more power efficient. The 13+TFLOPS don't mean squat to gamers-who undoubtedly are the vast majority of buyers (mining fad aside).

With mining at the moment they are stupidly inflated and vendors are taking advantage of that.

The 980Ti was $999 at launch in AUS and the 1080TI at a middle ground is $1300.

The 580 8GB was $600 here for a while when it was what $250 in the states. The US does seem to be protected from the crazy pricing at times.

This can be seen with Nvidia operating margin from 20 to 26.8% in the last year which is huge.

 

[Boilerhog146]

Just read the 62 comments on here....... Some really down to earth comments on here and some not so much.

Lets all remember that it is day one of the release for this card and that it is not trying to beat the 1080Ti but provide market value against the 1070 and 1080.

The only cards currently released are the reference cards with day 1 drivers and the performance looks to be the equal +-5% to the NVidia options.

The power is a concern but really my old 390 is only 20W less TDP than the air cooled Vega 64 so really not a big deal.

These are 10+ and 13+ TFLOP cards and a whole new architecture ....... performance is going to improve.

The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark.

Everyone keep a level head, keep the fanboy/hating (which ever camp you fall into) to a reasonable level and wait until the dust settles over the next 60 days.

"The Vega 64 can be picked up for $699 in aus vs the 1080 which has the majority around the $800+ mark."

Maybe in your neck of the woods. I just checked Newegg and a Gigabyte 1080 FE runs $510. The OC'd Windforce version is $549. The Vega 64 starts at $599.

just checking the exchange rate today.my 729cdn = 571 u.s. .so I'm thinking I got a good deal ,cause I will not find the vega 64 for that price for a while.our dollar has made a bit of a comeback since I bought my card though so I saved even a little more than that.

 

[Reehahs]

I kinda disagree with using an AMD card on an Intel Core i7. I think it's well known that Nvidia is optimized for intel better than AMD cards are.

Everyone's raving about the threadripper, but this Vega isn't impressive to me. My build is Core i9 with a Titan Xp. Vega isn't even as good as a 1080Ti or 1080 or even the 1070 (power consumption).

It's late to market and not as good a value as the Nvidia cards.

I'd only consider a Vega if I built a threadripper system.

Vega 56 is as good as the 1070 as the power consumption difference will be made by performance increase through maturity in drivers. 1070 being out for 14 months doesn't have much more give through software improvements. We will have to wait and see how do Vega 64 and Vega 64 Aqua perform against 1080 and 1080 Ti. If both Vega cards can match the performance of market contenders at launch for lower price then they provide a good value.

 

[Reehahs]

...Since every Zen-based CPU has basically "hit it out of the park", ....as they were behind Intel in CPU design (It took 10+ years to get the performance crown back) and look what happened there. They came seemingly out of NOWHERE to lay a major beat-down on Intel, ...

Seriously? Such ridiculous hyperbole. I hope you are not trying to hype AMD's stock now.

In terms to absolute performance, in what way has AMD got a server level processor that is has beat intel? See:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

There was no major beat-down. Only thing AMD can make a reasonable play on is price. AMD has to deliver unrivaled value to the customer. As much as Intel hates this, Intel only has to lower their prices, but no performance crown has been taken by AMD, and this is a fact. Morever, Intel can easily glue more cores together and it would just be a packaging issue to put something out like that and price accordingly.

As far as Ryzen is concerned, AMD has overpriced them and you can see the pricing trends. The i7-7700k at release in January was $305, today it is at $280 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/472529/Core_i7-7700K_Kaby_Lake_42_GHz_LGA_1151_Boxed_Processor

On the other hand the R7 1800x released at $500 and it is now at $350 see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/476003/Ryzen_7_1800X_36_GHz_8_Core_AM4_Boxed_Processor

For product that supposed "hit out of the park", how the heck did the price drop 30% in less than 6 months? Yep they sure hit it out of the park, but it didn't land on the fairway or the green, and they forgot the people were actually playing golf, not sure what that base ball bat is good for. LOL. And even at $350, the 1800x is overpriced compared to their own 1700 at $270 see, which everyone now know benches roughly the same as the 1800x see:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/..._AM4_Boxed_Processor_with_Wraith_Spire_Cooler

AMD should have priced Ryzen like this from day 1:
$250 max for their top line Ryzen 7
$150 max for their top line Ryzen 5
$100 max for their top line Ryzen 3
Especially since it is well known that Ryzen have GPU bottleneck timebomb that will only get worse with faster GPU going forarward and the ryzen failing to keep up with the GPU. We can already seen that with GTX1080ti at 1440p being capped by the current iteration of Ryzen. The sleight-of-hand 4K 60fps or less is good enough GPU bottleneck trick fools no one.

They need to earn back whatever remains of the goodwill of their customers leftover from back in the socket 939 era. And since their products do NOT win accross the board, they must deliver unrivaled value, just like what they did with the AthlonXP(barton, thoroughbred, t-bird) back in the late 90's and early 2000s. Vega being more power hungry will also require a serious price reduction to be competitive.

I do NOT doubt AMD can put out a reasonably competitive products, and I stress "reasonable". Reasonable require AMD to price for the consumers, games, and other users alike a price that provide unrivaled value.

The value proposition is invaluable, regardless, comparing Intel'server offering to AMD enthusiast offering in unnecessary since you require a small fortune to be able to afford Intel's Xeon gear.

 

[ddferrari]

just checking the exchange rate today.my 729cdn = 571 u.s. .so I'm thinking I got a good deal ,cause I will not find the vega 64 for that price for a while.our dollar has made a bit of a comeback since I bought my card though so I saved even a little more than that.

Wow- you guys really get flogged on tech prices. Australia is an amazing land- except for gamers apparently.

 

[ddferrari]

Vega 56 is as good as the 1070 as the power consumption difference will be made by performance increase through maturity in drivers. 1070 being out for 14 months doesn't have much more give through software improvements. We will have to wait and see how do Vega 64 and Vega 64 Aqua perform against 1080 and 1080 Ti. If both Vega cards can match the performance of market contenders at launch for lower price then they provide a good value.

We've already seen it and it isn't happening. 1080 Ti and Vega don't belong in the same room.

 

[Boilerhog146]

I know folks were expecting a lot more, but honestly I'm impressed. It definitely competes with the 1070 very well and this is an early review sample. We all know AMD's GPU's ALWAYS age better over time, so I would bet by a few months in this card will be handily beating the 1070 in every popular game.

What really makes me want one or two of these is the fact that my new 4K monitor supports Freesync. I'm peeved that my GTX 970's in SLI cannot make use of Freesync simply because Nvidia blocks it on their cards. I've been with the green team for so long now and I'm tired of them abandoning the older gen cards with driver updates while AMD seems to keep improving their older generations to a point that makes them far more usable after a long time. At this point I'm looking for long life from my GPU's, considering how fast technology moves. I believe I'm ready to make a switch. Ryzen and Vega would be a sweet build for me.

Why on gods green earth would anyone buy a Freesync monitor ,when they have recent g-sync capable graphics cards.I understand your being peeved if you were misled into such a purchase ,but you obviously knew exactly what you were doing,so you only have yourself to be peeved at.also it sounds like you were ready to jump ship anyway.
enjoy your new Rysen vega build ,should work nicely with the new FREESYNC monitor.
You are gonna build a new system to match the new monitor? "scratches head"


regarding drivers ,I recently disassembled my pair of GTX 480.to clean and remount the HSF,went to NVidia website and ,there is a new driver available..not LEGACY. when I look for drivers for AMD products that I have .drivers are more hit and miss.AMD drops support way more frequently than nvidia does .I have enough experience with that.

 

[Boilerhog146]

AMD lied to EVERYBODY. the rx 480 launch.all 8 gig cards, with some intentionally crippled to create a different sku.with only 4 gig available.thats more underhanded than rebranding ever was .those that bought 8 gig rx480 at launch were blatantly robbed and lied to by their chosen hardware provider.It's not the 1st time either .
Has anyone tried to flash their 8 gig vega to a 16 gig Frontier edition yet? LMFAO!

So how can anyone actually believe anything AMD puts out as information anymore,the HYPE train is more serious than anyone realizes...Nvidia is not much different either.though I haven't seen it that bad .fixing a few benchmarks ,that kind of **** ..

 

[AntiShill]

... If both Vega cards can match the performance of market contenders at launch for lower price then they provide a good value.

But they already perform worse and are priced higher and produce more heat, use more power, leading to cooling and fan noise problems. And while we wait for AMD to optimize drivers or AMD to get developers to optimize games, how about AMD gets to wait for our money. Fair is fair right? We should NOT have to pay upfront for a bill of good based on hype and certainly not pay more, before we actually take delivery of the final product. But I don't see AMD accepting a 20% down and remaining 80% over the next 3 years contingent on them delivering the performance optimizations. AMD has overpriced their Ryzens, overpriced their Vegas, who do they think they take us for? We are NOT that easily fooled like the "poorly educated".