AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition goes on sale later this month (26 June). It is designed to provide a "gateway" to the "Vega" GPU architecture for graphics professionals and game developers alike, with the consumer graphics product, the Radeon RX Vega, is bound for late-July/early-August. Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition, being a somewhat "enterprise-segment" product, was expected to have slightly lower TDP than its consumer-graphics sibling, since enterprise-segment implementations of popular GPUs tend to have slightly restrained clock speeds. Apparently, AMD either didn't clock the Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition low, or the chip has extremely high TDP.According to specifications put out by EXXACT, a retailer which deals with enterprise hardware, the air-cooled variant of the Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition has a TDP rated at 300W, while its liquid-cooled variant has its TDP rated as high as 375W. To put this in perspective, the consumer-segment TITAN Xp by NVIDIA has its TDP rated at 275W. EXXACT is claiming big performance advantages in certain enterprise benchmarks such as SPECVIEWPERF and Cinebench. In other news, the air-cooled Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition is reportedly priced at USD $1,199 ; while the liquid-cooled variant is priced at $1,799 . Based on the 14 nm "Vega 10" silicon, the Pro Vega Frontier Edition features 4,096 stream processors and 16 GB of HBM2 memory across a 2048-bit memory interface.

123 Comments on AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition TDP and Pricing Revealed

1 to 25 of 123 Go to Page 12345 PreviousNext

#1 uuuaaaaaa

If those TDP numbers are real this is looking like R600 (HD 2900 XTX) all over again... I hope that the performance is at least monstrous... Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:08 Reply

#2 Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop Whyyyyyy not use that colour scheme for your consumer cards, AMD? That blue they use is so very nice and the gold one is rad. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:16 Reply

#3 _Flare

if the RX Vega is much slower than 1080Ti i wouldn´t buy one with more than a single 8-pin or 2x 6-pin

because a TDP over 225 Watts will be highly inefficient given the performance the 1080 non-Ti has with much lower TDP Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:17 Reply

#4 Liviu Cojocaru

Yep, this is a power hungry monster, let's hope it delivers. We have to wait for the consumer edition and see what TDP that has. Let the vega hype resume ;)) Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:19 Reply

#5 Aldain

This is not the power consumption of the card itself , it is the MAXIMUM BOARD POWER Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:23 Reply

#6 P4-630

300 Watts....



Performance must be really great, otherwise: :shadedshu: Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:24 Reply

#7 champsilva

Aldain This is not the power consumption of the card itself , it is the MAXIMUM BOARD POWER Meaning is freaking hot, even hotter then TTXP, thats why they use WC in their cards. Meaning is freaking hot, even hotter then TTXP, thats why they use WC in their cards. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:35 Reply

#8 HTC

Just a question: why are they comparing an "enterprise segment" card (Vega Frontier edition) to a gaming card (Titan Xp)? Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:42 Reply

#9 Fluffmeister

HTC Just a question: why are they comparing an "enterprise segment" card (Vega Frontier edition) to a gaming card (Titan Xp)? Because the AMD Advantage column would also say "--". :oops: Because the AMD Advantage column would also say "--". :oops: Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:46 Reply

#10 Aldain

champsilva Meaning is freaking hot, even hotter then TTXP, thats why they use WC in their cards. Nope , it means 1x8 pin + 1x6pin + MB = 300W and 2x8pin + MB = 375W simple logic, the card itself wont be sucking up 375 watts of power that would be ludicrous Nope , it means 1x8 pin + 1x6pin + MB = 300W and 2x8pin + MB = 375W simple logic, the card itself wont be sucking up 375 watts of power that would be ludicrous Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 12:47 Reply

#11 I No

$1200 USD for air cooling $1800 for water. That's one hell of a water cooler for $600 extra. And to think I thought nVidia AIBs were charging extra for gimmicks... o_O Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:08 Reply

#12 bogami

That the results of these tests are better consumption and TPD as well as a simple solution by increasing frequency. It has some really new solutions and the time invested is expected 100% over the current generation of advantages. Price is again a serious jump!

With 100% higher prices AMD showed its true face ,and the matter will be burned to the real tests ! Again will be sell for 700€ max. In whole thing's price is usurious ! Volta of the already knocking at the door .

With such delays and the prices will earn little . Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:08 Reply

#13 Unregistered

P4-630 300 Watts....



Performance must be really great, otherwise: :shadedshu: Rge performance those numbers in that chart are based on are feon the air cooled version which can't cool itself very well. Even titan XP/1080 ti fe should be cooler, so a decent increase in performance can be expected from a) the gaming version, b) AIB's and it already outperforms a 1080 ti/titan XP apparently in synthetic benchmarks! If games are well-optimized and it runs great in dx12/vulkan, it's gonna be even better than I expected! I No $1200 USD for air cooling $1800 for water. That's one hell of a water cooler for $600 extra. And to think I thought nVidia AIBs were charging extra for gimmicks... o_O Also higher speeds and less throttling. Rge performance those numbers in that chart are based on are feon the air cooled version which can't cool itself very well. Even titan XP/1080 ti fe should be cooler, so a decent increase in performance can be expected from a) the gaming version, b) AIB's and it already outperforms a 1080 ti/titan XP apparently in synthetic benchmarks! If games are well-optimized and it runs great in dx12/vulkan, it's gonna be even better than I expected!Also higher speeds and less throttling. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:14 Edit | Reply

#14 Nokiron

Hugh Mungus Rge performance those numbers in that chart are based on are feon the air cooled version which can't cool itself very well. Even titan XP/1080 ti fe should be cooler, so a decent increase in performance can be expected from a) the gaming version, b) AIB's and it already outperforms a 1080 ti/titan XP apparently in synthetic benchmarks! If games are well-optimized and it runs great in dx12/vulkan, it's gonna be even better than I expected! Just an FYI, a cut down GP104 based Quadro P4000 performs similiar to this Vega FE in Specviewperf.



Titan XP also does have gimped perfomance in these application with the lack of workstation drivers.



So the benchmarks themselves makes little to no sense. Just an FYI, a cut down GP104 based Quadro P4000 performs similiar to this Vega FE in Specviewperf.Titan XP also does have gimped perfomance in these application with the lack of workstation drivers.So the benchmarks themselves makes little to no sense. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:17 Reply

#15 jabbadap

To put this in perspective, the consumer-segment TITAN Xp by NVIDIA has its TDP rated at 275W. Nvidia gives Well it has lots of fp16 power, that nvidia has only with P100 teslas or Quadro GP100 and they are not cheap.Nvidia gives graphics card power, which is 250W for titan xp. Where did you get that 275W tdp figure? Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:18 Reply

#16 bug

Aldain This is not the power consumption of the card itself , it is the MAXIMUM BOARD POWER It sure doesn't mean it will be a 150W card either. It sure doesn't mean it will be a 150W card either. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:20 Reply

#17 Unregistered

Nokiron Just an FYI, a cut down GP104 based Quadro P4000 performs similiar to this Vega FE in Specviewperf.



Titan XP also does have gimped perfomance in these application with the lack of workstation drivers.



So the benchmarks themselves makes little to no sense. What resolution though and what resolution is used here? What resolution though and what resolution is used here? Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:22 Edit | Reply

#18 I No

Hugh Mungus Also higher speeds and less throttling. Last time I checked getting a GPU under water would cost you WAY less than $600 ... still something doesn't add up. Also if Apple wants to stick these into their nice efficient Macs... well .... you get the picture. Furthermore it's like the article says if this is aimed at the prosumer market the gaming ones should be more aggressive with clockspeeds and whatnot, let's just hope these things deliver, if they prove to be slower than nVidia's offerings RTG has some serious trouble. Last time I checked getting a GPU under water would cost you WAY less than $600 ... still something doesn't add up. Also if Apple wants to stick these into their nice efficient Macs... well .... you get the picture. Furthermore it's like the article says if this is aimed at the prosumer market the gaming ones should be more aggressive with clockspeeds and whatnot, let's just hope these things deliver, if they prove to be slower than nVidia's offerings RTG has some serious trouble. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:23 Reply

#19 _Flare

the exact spect of the Mainboard-Slot say 5.5A for 12 Volts means 66 Watts, the remaining 9 Watts are for 3.3V etc.

The PCIe-12V connectors rely mainly on what yout PSU and its cables are.

Specs: 6-pin 6.25A/75W, 8-pin 12.5A/150W

good PSU can handle +10% on Amps



spec-conform combinations 12V-only [Amperes] are:

66W - Slot only [5.5A]

75W - 1x 6-pin [6.25A]

141W - Slot + 6-pin [11.75A]

150W - 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin [12.5A]

216W - Slot + 2x 6-pin or 1x 8-pin [18A]

225W - 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin [18.75A]

291W - Slot + 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin [24.25A]

300W - 2x 8-pin [25A]

366W - Slot + 2x 8-pin [30.5A] Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:25 Reply

#20 Unregistered

I No Last time I checked getting a GPU under water would cost you WAY less than $600 ... still something doesn't add up. Also if Apple wants to stick these into their nice efficient Macs... well .... you get the picture. Furthermore it's like the article says if this is aimed at the prosumer market the gaming ones should be more aggressive with clockspeeds and whatnot, let's just hope these things deliver, if they prove to be slower than nVidia's offerings RTG has some serious trouble. So sceptical. Apple gets "special" gpu's and has a huge bulge on its imac pro, it's a pro card, so 600 dollars for a certain overclock and lower temps is normal and vega will deliver a lot, we just don't know quite how much. So sceptical. Apple gets "special" gpu's and has a huge bulge on its imac pro, it's a pro card, so 600 dollars for a certain overclock and lower temps is normal and vega will deliver a lot, we just don't know quite how much. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:26 Edit | Reply

#21 Nokiron

Hugh Mungus What resolution though and what resolution is used here? Specviewperf is a standardized benchmark, there are no settings to change. Specviewperf is a standardized benchmark, there are no settings to change. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:27 Reply

#22 Unregistered

Than that's odd. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:32 Edit | Reply

#23 rainzor

Aldain Nope , it means 1x8 pin + 1x6pin + MB = 300W and 2x8pin + MB = 375W simple logic, the card itself wont be sucking up 375 watts of power that would be ludicrous Where do you see a six pin tho? Both cards seem to have 2x8pin according to those pictures. There was a a 6+8 pin card that Raja had during some presentation but afaik he said it was only eng. sample and the production cards will have 2x8pin. Where do you see a six pin tho? Both cards seem to have 2x8pin according to those pictures. There was a a 6+8 pin card that Raja had during some presentation but afaik he said it was only eng. sample and the production cards will have 2x8pin. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:35 Reply

#24 I No

Hugh Mungus So sceptical. Apple gets "special" gpu's and has a huge bulge on its imac pro, it's a pro card, so 600 dollars for a certain overclock and lower temps is normal and vega will deliver a lot, we just don't know quite how much. After the major cock-up they pulled @ Computex? How can one not be a sceptic regarding this. Also charging $600 on cooling I'm sorry to say it, justifies jack-all. Furthermore how do we know that this will deliver? So far everything is in Limbo with a paper lunch on the way. After the major cock-up they pulled @ Computex? How can one not be a sceptic regarding this. Also charging $600 on cooling I'm sorry to say it, justifies jack-all. Furthermore how do we know that this will deliver? So far everything is in Limbo with a paper lunch on the way. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:35 Reply

#25 bug

I No Last time I checked getting a GPU under water would cost you WAY less than $600 ... still something doesn't add up. Also if Apple wants to stick these into their nice efficient Macs... well .... you get the picture. Furthermore it's like the article says if this is aimed at the prosumer market the gaming ones should be more aggressive with clockspeeds and whatnot, let's just hope these things deliver, if they prove to be slower than nVidia's offerings RTG has some serious trouble. AMD is probably binning higher clocking chips for water cooling. AMD is probably binning higher clocking chips for water cooling. Posted on Jun 16th 2017, 13:36 Reply