Radeon RX Vega availability check: not ready for harvest

Well, for everyone who's been waiting for Vega—yours truly included—today's the day. The cards are out, and it's time to put up or shut up. The thing is, there doesn't seem to be anything to put up for. Our pals over at Newegg have no less than fifteen listings for the new graphics cards: one for each Vega 64 model (black air-cooled, silver air-cooled, and liquid-cooled) from manufacturers Gigabyte, MSI, Powercolor, XFX, and Sapphire. However, at this time, all the cards are displayed as being sold out.

We checked around, and the only other web shops with listings for RX Vega cards are Best Buy, which is carrying XFX's range, and NCIX US and its selection of back-ordered Sapphire cards. Meanwhile, Fry's Electronics, OutletPC, SuperBiiz, and even Amazon are bereft of listings for the new video cards. Altogether, these data points would indicate that we've simply been too quick on the draw. It's likely the listings are less "sold out" and "back ordered" and more akin to "newly listed."

Hopefully we see the cards come into stock and stay that way. Anyone who follows the PC hardware scene knows that speedy Radeons have been hard to come by for a while now, and the most common explanation is that crypto-currency miners have bought up the stock. Radeon RX Vega was rumored to perform exceptionally well on that sort of workload, so it may be difficult to find the cards in stock even after listings have filled out at the web shops. Some cards are already showing up on eBay, like this listing for a Radeon RX Vega 64 for $1500. At that price, you might as well pick up a Frontier Edition model.

Comments closed
    • HERETIC
    • 2 years ago

    Bit of a worry-
    [url<]https://www.techpowerup.com/236177/amds-rx-vega-launch-prices-might-be-just-smoke-and-mirrors[/url<]

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      I’m hoping that’s just noise and not anything real.

    • ronch
    • 2 years ago

    No problemo. Not gonna buy one even if I hit the lottery jackpot.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      But don’t you want one for your ThreadRipper box?

        • ronch
        • 2 years ago

        If my PC suddenly emits some magic smoke I’m going out for Ryzen 5, not Threadripper. Even Ryzen 7 is way overkill for me.

    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    It looks like scalpers are trying to make a quick buck but don’t realize that majority of the miners don’t care for Vega at this time.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 2 years ago

    It’s no surprise all RX 64 versions are selling for $599.99. Jeff even listed $499 as MSRP and $550 for the GTX 1080 but Nvidia lowered the MSRP to $499. This review has some light AMD shilling and a bit shady. Read further..

    [url<]http://www.pcworld.com/article/3175782/components-graphics/nvidia-slashes-geforce-gtx-1080-prices-reveals-new-overclocked-memory-options.html[/url<] GTX 1080 pricing officially $499 and TR lists it as $550 in performance/price graph. Even more biased it doesn't reference FE which is $549 not AIB at $499. Even even more biased is that the $499 MSRP would put Vega in an even worse comparison.TR chooses the FE at a greater price to protect Vega 64's poor performance/price. Even even even more biased is that the $599 RX 64 is compared to a $549 FE, which the graph does not state, at the $499 "not gonna happen" price. This is pretty shady. Nvida FE GTX 1080 price used and AMD non limited edition price used... $499 to $549 instead of $599 to $549. Either there is an agenda, AMD asked jeff to mislead and misrepresent performance/price or Jeff doesn't know the difference between FE and non FE 1080 and therefore clueless about Pascal GPUs. I think Jeff well knows the difference between the FE and non FE, so why such deceit, Jeff? After the "beg AMD for Threadripper" post did AMD ask you to mislead readers by misrepresenting performance/pricing of current GPUs? This isn't to beat up TR or Jeff, this is fact checking and #fakenews. Reporting on PC hardware should be fair, while "attempting" to limit bias. Clear bias in this review. Shady Shady...

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      Well… I have to give you props for accusing TR of having a pro-AMD bias… it’s usually the other way around.

      As for the pricing situation I’ll put it this way: You aren’t wrong to say that the street prices for Vega in the immediate aftermath of the launch are definitely above plain MSRP levels. However, I’ll give TR a pass here since the prices a clearly volatile and they had to put some number down at launch. The recent i9 launch had a similar situation where some sites were charging more than MSRP for parts, although most of the big markups have settled down after the launch.

      • Airmantharp
      • 2 years ago

      There is exactly [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125908<]one[/url<] GTX1080 available for <US$549 as of this posting. I'd consider putting the card at US$550 fair, you know, for those interested in actually buying one of these cards more so than internet arguments.

      • cynan
      • 2 years ago

      The main issue affecting the price/performance chart’s utility/accuracy at the moment is the lack of availability of Vega. This situation is fairly commonplace when trying to compare a just-released product with limited to no supply, to one that has been out for months. I’m sure Jeff, if he is so inclined, can update the price figures in a month or so when supply has (hopefully) stabilized.

      The fact remains is that the MSRP for the no-bundle Vega 64 is $500. You just probably can’t buy one now. Point being that if Jeff listed the bundle price of $600 for Vega 64, it would be just as biased.

      Also, with a single exception of a Gigabyte model (GV-N1080TTOC-8GD) at Newegg for $510, of Newegg, Amazon, BHphotovideo and BestBuy, the cheapest GTX 1080s are currently listed at $540, with many more at $550. So is $550, FE or otherwise, for a GTX 1080 really so patently egregious? Or is this largely much ado about nothing?

      I dunno, maybe he should just split the difference for now and price both the GTX 1080 and Vega 64 at $550 for now? would that appease you?

      #mountainoutofmolehill

        • Voldenuit
        • 2 years ago

        [quote<]I dunno, maybe he should just split the difference for now and price both the GTX 1080 and Vega 64 at $550 for now? would that appease you? [/quote<] Considering that the price/performance curves are being used (correctly) as an indicator of value, I agree that blindly listing MSRP when neither card is available at said MSRP is particularly useful. Why not put error bars on the price axis reflecting current market high/low prices, and let the reader decide at which price point a given card becomes desirable to them?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      Sorry, you’re way off base.

      Nvidia asks $549 for the GTX 1080 Founders Edition right now: [url<]https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/geforce-gtx-1080/[/url<] This is not "deceit," it is straight from the horse's mouth. We tested a Founders Edition, that's the price it goes for, that's the price that made it into the chart. This has been our policy since time immemorial. Same deal goes for the other cards (save the RX 580, which would make no sense at its actual retail price). We had no inkling that the supply situation for the RX Vega 64 at MSRP would be so messed up. The prices for Founders Edition cards are even higher on Newegg, so if anything, I'm giving Nvidia a pass. [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709%20601203901[/url<] Try harder when you troll, thanks.

        • Srsly_Bro
        • 2 years ago

        Except the graph says “GTX 1080” and not “GTX 1080 FE.” That’s the difference and there is a difference in $50. If you put “FE” in the name I’d have no problem. You didn’t designate FE and that’s why I called out your shady practice to make AMD look better.

        Link to your image and pls lmk if I’m wrong..

        [url<]https://techreport.com/r.x/2017_08_13_AMD_s_Radeon_RX_Vega_64_and_RX_Vega_56_graphics_cards_reviewed/99thValue.png[/url<] p.s. i'm not

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    It looks like Newegg has gone into [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=Vega+64+bundle&N=-1&isNodeId=1<]bundle-only mode[/url<] if you want a card. The bad news is that none of the bundles look to be a real discount, but the good news is that from what I can tell the included Radeons are only at MSRP instead of selling with a markup. As to whether or not you want the bundle, that depends on your situation I guess.

      • raddude9
      • 2 years ago
    • Krogoth
    • 2 years ago

    Methinks, AMD pulled a paper launch with Vega 64. There still must be issues with HBM2 production.

    AMD is allocating the bulk of current product towards the more lucrative FirePro/Frontier/Instinct line-ups.

    Hopefully, the supply issues don’t affect the Vega 56 as much.

    • LostCat
    • 2 years ago

    Some of the bundles are up, but not quite what I was hoping for. No, I really don’t want a $1000 monitor (or even ultrawide.) I’m sure some people do.

    Eh. I don’t really need anything right now anyway fortunately.

    • Lordhawkwind
    • 2 years ago

    I got the Sapphire Vega 64 black AC on special offer from Scan for just £450. It said 65 people had already bought this product. Payment has been accepted, the SKU has been picked, receipt received and I’m picking it up from the shop tomorrow. And yes I own a freesync monitor hence this will be replacing my Fury Pro which will be going into my son’s PC. Went back onto the site 10 minutes later and the special offer was gone and all the other cards are on pre-order.

    • DavidC1
    • 2 years ago

    Here’s a new idea.

    Rather than blaming miners for supply issues, the problem may be due to AMD’s inability to supply properly.

    I bet the HBM2 chips are still too hard to produce and its in limited supply. Having to pump out 484mm2 chips aren’t walk in the park either.

    HBM2 was originally promised to reach 2GT/s with 512GB/s bandwidth in a two chip configuration. It fails to reach it. The fault in reaching clock speeds are almost always due to yields. You have a percentage of chips that can reach certain clocks, and when you aim lower, you increase that percentage. HBM2 in GP100 and GV100 chips can’t reach 2GT/s either. Last year’s GP100 was even lower at 1.4GT/s.

      • chuckula
      • 2 years ago

      It’s probably a combination of both. You can bet that supplies of these cards are not plentiful right now, but the miners are probably accounting for a larger proportion of sales than you might expect, which is just making the supply issue even worse.

        • raddude9
        • 2 years ago
          • blahsaysblah
          • 2 years ago

          I meant to downvote. dangit. i miss clicked. Would you stop thread crapping everywhere. There is a personal message feature.

      • Krogoth
      • 2 years ago

      It is not miners at all.

      RX Vega 64 is a poor choice for mining. It has too much up front cost ($600 for marginal gain over a RX480) and eats too much power and throws too much heat. The same reasons why the 1080Ti is a sup-par choice for mining.

        • cynan
        • 2 years ago

        You could be right, but I think the Jury is still out on what kind of hashrate RX Vega will ultimately achieve (at least in ethereum). And RX Vega 64 is a $500 card, not $600. If RX Vega can do 40+ MH/s on something akin to the power-saving mode, then it might not be all that bad for mining after all.

          • Krogoth
          • 2 years ago

          Nope, the Vega 64 is going to be a $599+ GPU until demand and/or supplies stabilize.

        • blahsaysblah
        • 2 years ago

        Is that true? according to Jeffs review, they can massively lower the power usage as is typical in downclocking the cores but raising the memory in coin mining.

          • Krogoth
          • 2 years ago

          It takes a hit on mining performance and it still consumes too much power for miners unless they got extremely cheap electricity a.k.a either somebody else is paying or you are living in China.

      • Airmantharp
      • 2 years ago

      It may not be great for mining, but that doesn’t mean that miners won’t still buy it.

    • USAFTW
    • 2 years ago

    Wait, I thought they were supposed to be 499/599 for reference and clc versions? I know the prices were gonna start climbing, but those seem to be launch prices.

      • cynan
      • 2 years ago

      Nope. $599/$699 for the air cooled limited (silver)/cl cooled cars with the bundle. $499 for the air cooled regular (black) with crappier bundle. Vega 64 , that is.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 2 years ago

    I wonder if the miners are buying the “packs,” too. The ROI would take a lot longer but with $500+ RX 580’s it’s not so far fetched. If so, one might expect to find a glut of Ryzen CPU’s on Ebay in short order.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 2 years ago

    Too bad this doesn’t hash faster or draw a lot less power. I was considering getting one as my daily driver and moving my 480 to my currently defunct HTPC.

    Reason I’m still in for AMD is the possibility of Freesync over HDMI making its way to televisions – its possible now, technically, but no TVs are available with the feature. That would be a great day.

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 2 years ago

      FreeSync TV’s is what will push me over the edge to finally buy a 4K TV (HRD on OLED almost did it).

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        What do you mean? It’s not on any TVs yet, so why would you get a 4K TV now? Sorry, just confused by the statement.

        OLED in general may be what keeps me from getting a Freesync TV (if they ever become available). The picture quality of OLED is just too good, and the 65inch models with HDR are now right around $3000 which was the max price point I set for myself. I’ll be looking closely at Black Friday deals on the LG 65inch C7 model. It’s floating at $3200 right now, so maybe $2500 by BF. That’s really tempting.

          • DragonDaddyBear
          • 2 years ago

          I mean I don’t have a 4K yet and that’s the one last feature that would make me buy one. 4K is mostly useless based on most screen sizes and viewing distances.

            • southrncomfortjm
            • 2 years ago

            Ack, yeah, missed the “what will” and read it as “what did.” Gotcha. So yeah, we are basically in the same boat. I don’t care at all about 4K, so it’ll either be the desire for OLED’s amazing picture quality or Freesync that will get me to buy a 4K TV.

            EDIT: More than the lack of benefit from 4K are the issues it creates: massive graphics power increase to push pixels, a slightly “softer” appearance of 1080p sources, compatibility issues, massive bandwidth requirements to stream, and an almost complete dearth of true 4K content rather than 1080p upscales.

      • Grape Flavor
      • 2 years ago

      HDMI 2.1 has adaptive refresh (and high frame rate capability) baked right into the spec. If TVs and monitors start adopting this, it could be game over for G-Sync.
      [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_2.1[/url<] Which would be good news for consumers, but maybe bad news for AMD as the G-Sync tax is a major selling point for Radeon setups right now. Then again maybe Nvidia is just cocky enough in their dominant market position to pull the ultimate dick move and refuse to put HDMI 2.1 on their cards. In which case AMD marketing will really be able to beat them over the head with their restrictive attitude to adaptive sync.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        Right, I just wonder how expensive it will be and how long it will take for TV makers to put this into production. I’m still guessing late 2018, and then maybe only if Xbox One X takes off.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 2 years ago

    And this is why it behooves AMD to aggressively price Vega initially.

    It’ll surely have limited stock for at least the first month or so.

    Milk the early adopters, THEN get aggressive with price.

    Otherwise, the retailers get to overprice and exploit all of that initial surplus demand.

      • UberGerbil
      • 2 years ago

      Funny, I read “aggressive pricing” and I think “undercut your competitors” — that’s what it generally means in other markets. But I agree with your analysis — I think I just would have used the term “exploitatively price” instead.

    • willyolioleo
    • 2 years ago

    no, they’re actually sold out i think.

    I was pressing F5 over and over at 6:00am PST. I managed to put 2 of the overpriced cards into my shopping cart and they were listed “in stock”. Decided not to pull the trigger.

    5 minutes later, newegg informed me that my shopping cart was empty and the product was sold out. So they actually did sell, all within the first 5-10 minutes of listing.

    I also didn’t even notice the (single) MSI Vega listing at actual MSRP of $499. Meh. We’ll see what the 56’s stock is like…

    Amazon didn’t even bother putting the Vega into their search results, and they still sold out. Apparently the only way to have seen them was to browse all graphics cards and find the Vegas manually.

    • chuckula
    • 2 years ago

    Incidentally, these real-world preoder prices are somewhat higher than the MSRP for the product so consider that when buying or waiting for the prices to drop back down.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      UK prices for preorder or in-stock Vega64 is 599.

      For comparison, GTX1080 models start at 475 and 1080Ti is under 650.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 2 years ago

        For most gamers, the Vega doesn’t seem to make much sense compared to a Pascal card. Freesync being cheap compared to Gsync may be the big marketing item for Vega.

      • raddude9
      • 2 years ago
        • K-L-Waster
        • 2 years ago

        A) give it a rest already, and

        B) what on earth does a GPU thread have to do with Intel?

    • willmore
    • 2 years ago

    They’re not released until [s<]6pm PST[/s<], IIRC, so I wouldn't expect any availability yet. Oh, nope, nevermind, it was 6am [s<]PST[/s<]PDT.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 2 years ago

      +3 for checking yourself prior to wrecking yourself.

      • DancinJack
      • 2 years ago

      It’s daylight savings time. Not standard time. If we’re going to make the effort to put a timezone, let’s at least get it right.

      • tsk
      • 2 years ago

      PST PDT EST (PTSD) When will Americans learn to use UTC.

        • LostCat
        • 2 years ago

        Never. We can’t even figure out why we’re still doing daylight savings time.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This