-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **
- Thread starter TNA
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 10,758
- Location
- West End, Southampton
One thing I've now learnt, after all these years I'm now 100% convinced AMD contract Nvidia to do the marketing of all their big GPU launches 
I'm not reading to much into these at the moment, this isn't RX Vega but at the same time I'm just stunned once more at the incredible ineptitude AMD display time and time again with the way they launch their GPUs. Its Furyx all over again I'm feeling.
I'm not reading to much into these at the moment, this isn't RX Vega but at the same time I'm just stunned once more at the incredible ineptitude AMD display time and time again with the way they launch their GPUs. Its Furyx all over again I'm feeling.
I think one thing we can all agree with is AMD gpu launches always leave a lot to be desired
They didn't use to. Hawaii was the last good one sadly. Four years ago...damn. Great GPU, rubbish reference cooler.
Yeah the cooler on that was a joke, its like it was designed a month before launch with no idea of the temps it was trying to cool, what was it like 95c or thereabouts?
Lets not forget that Raja was emphatic that people need to wait for RX Vega for gaming performance - that said the only way I can see it going anywhere from here is maybe 5-10% from driver optimisation and maybe disabling some hardware/compute capabilities that are less relevant to gaming so as to push clock speeds up another ~10% which doesn't really do that much for it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,510
- Location
- Dormanstown.
94C and it'd throttle.
You can't install fresh drivers on a 290X install and just run the card default IMO.
Yup, settled at 93-95 degrees on quiet mode, Uber would ramp the fans to near max.
They should have just launched AIB only; the coolers on those were fantastic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,510
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Those Tomb Raider results are dire compared to Titan XP lol.
I'm not very hopeful really - I've not kept upto speed on the specs of the FE card but I suspect there are some areas they could disable that don't do anything for gaming performance that would allow a 100-200MHz clock speed improvement but unless they are specifically gimping gaming performance - and I'm not sure for what purpose as it doesn't seem the card is that great at anything as a trade off - I can't see the difference being that miraculous.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,762
- Location
- Planet Earth
Witcher 3 screenshot:
http://i.imgur.com/v9iqlXE.jpg
So looks a bit slower than a GTX1080 in W3 but quicker than a GTX980TI(and probably by extension a GTX1070).
http://i.imgur.com/v9iqlXE.jpg
So looks a bit slower than a GTX1080 in W3 but quicker than a GTX980TI(and probably by extension a GTX1070).
That is what I have been expecting from the start, a 1080 competitor, if we're lucky, possibly better than a 1080 by 5-10% overall.
It is safe to say that vega will be matching a 1080 at the very least so all that matters now is the price, if they can't price it at £400 or lower, then fail....
So far the only real disappointment is:
- power required (don't really care though)
- temperatures for the fan speed (but I would never touch a reference card anyway so)
Yes it happens (usually when a game is first launched and is in need of some optimisation or/and drivers need updating), but you are talking about maybe 3-6 games at most, if that? Usually when fiji can't match a 980ti, it is generally a game that prefers nvidia hardware or you can have something like hitman in dx 12 and nvidia hardware looks really pitiful then, iirc a 290x is around a 980ti for performance in that game....
Overall, a fury x is neck in neck with 980ti now, it loses some titles badly and it wins some by a good bit but again this is entirely down to certain games/engines and day 1 releases.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,727
- Location
- Gillingham, Kent
Reference cooled 290X was designed to run at 94C and keep the fan speed as low as possible to maintain this temperature. With the Quiet BIOS, the max fan speed it would allow was 47% and if it couldn't maintain the card at 94C using that then the clock speed would start to throttle. With the Uber BIOS, the max fan speed was raised to 55% before throttling the clock. From memory (I changed to AIO coolers on them a while back) the only way to get the fan speed above 55% was manually setting this limit in CCC/Crimson.
Watching the PCPer stream, and if I'm honest I'm a bit disappointed in the Vega. I fully understand it's not the Gaming Vega and new drivers may boost performance hugely, but it's still a released product and running roughly the same speed as a Fury with higher clocks. While this is nice, I was kind of expecting more evidence of improvement over the past couple of years than 'just' raising the clock speed. Still hoping to be pleasantly surprised in a month's time, but looking less likely IMHO.
Watching the PCPer stream, and if I'm honest I'm a bit disappointed in the Vega. I fully understand it's not the Gaming Vega and new drivers may boost performance hugely, but it's still a released product and running roughly the same speed as a Fury with higher clocks. While this is nice, I was kind of expecting more evidence of improvement over the past couple of years than 'just' raising the clock speed. Still hoping to be pleasantly surprised in a month's time, but looking less likely IMHO.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,658
- Location
- London
I imagine this card will be vastly different to the Vega gaming GPU.
There is absolutely no point for AMD to go to all this effort and put so much money in to developing a card that isn't at least competitive to the completion and much better than it's own previous line up.
On the flip side they would have known that people would be looking at the FE card to try and gauge gaming performance so maybe they shouldn't have launched this one first.
There is absolutely no point for AMD to go to all this effort and put so much money in to developing a card that isn't at least competitive to the completion and much better than it's own previous line up.
On the flip side they would have known that people would be looking at the FE card to try and gauge gaming performance so maybe they shouldn't have launched this one first.
I honestly don't believe for a minute that a 94c card was what amd had in mind when designing that gpu, especially considering all the backlash nvidia got with the 480 running hot and loud. Its just what they ended up with and had to make the best of.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,510
- Location
- Dormanstown.
At the end of the day, AMD saw fit the current state of the FE.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,762
- Location
- Planet Earth
I did a capture of the ROTR results:
http://i.imgur.com/sCBOCcQ.jpg
ROTR seems to be between a GTX980TI and a GTX1080 but is significantly higher than a Fury X - the first part seems to be probably between 70FPS to 80FPS.
http://i.imgur.com/sCBOCcQ.jpg
ROTR seems to be between a GTX980TI and a GTX1080 but is significantly higher than a Fury X - the first part seems to be probably between 70FPS to 80FPS.
- Status