Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

[opethdisciple]

Is there any benefit to them doing both cpus and gpus though? It's not as if more gpus run faster on AMD cpus, in fact, for years even amd gpus ran faster on intel cpus

Since Ryzen and Vega they have been banging the drum that they are the only company that does both. Advantage? Probably not.

 

[Zeed]

I would try remapping your x and y keys on your keyboard before typing.

how about typing from bath tub on smartphone ??

 

[Zeed]

I'm fairly confident Vega 64 will come in under the £500 1080 price point.

£450 to be precise.

Although I have no idea how much the Fury X launched for as I wasn't following AMD at the time.

it was 20 quid more than 980ti that was cooler and faster
https://videocardz.com/amd/radeon-rx-300/radeon-r9-fury-x

 

[opethdisciple]

how about typing from bath tub on smartphone ??

 

[Lokken86]

Ryzen

Since Ryzen and Vega they have been banging the drum that they are the only company that does both. Advantage? Probably not.

Ryzen actually does work a fair bit better with AMD gpus.

 

[Mauller]

If You see what NVidia have done, they had 192CUDA cores per SM in Kepler, reduced that to 128 in Maxwell and reduced that again in pascal down to 64. More streaming multiprocessor, lless cores per processor, elad to better utilization and efficiency keeping more of the cores at full load.

Consumer pascal is 128 FP32 cores per SM, only GP100 is 64.

 

[Zeed]

The slide on this site seems to suggest the 64 will be available before the 56.

Guess You missed that part of AMD presentation when they said so ??

 

[opethdisciple]

Guess You missed that part of AMD presentation when they said so ??

Yep

 

[WeSbO]

Not really obvious.

They clearly were not going after compute and HPC because vega10 only has 1:16 FP64 support so is essentially locked out of the market for most uses.

I hear ya, I'm getting pretty fed up of reading "ohhhh they had professionals in mind when building Vega, gaming was an afterthought", and this excuse being perpetuated by tech youtubers and such . When all indicates the contrary, they noticed their Vega wasn't going to do tremendously well for gaming compared to the competition, so they shifted the marketing towards pro workloads and adapted themselves as they could.
It's my belief that they definitely thought Vega would clock higher than it does, even if a fair amount of power was needed

but I'm sure there are reasons why AMD stuck with the old architecture

My best guess would be the lack of monnies

 

[TheRealDeal]

He is silly then I've done that and it amazes me the difference. Gone from 40fps med/high tomb raider reboot to about 80fps ultra

It's not stupid just really underwhelming all these years on. I personally liked it but when you expect to much like the AMD hype train you are left feeling underwhelmed when the expectations are not met. His AMD setup also had way better image quality which must have been a shock.

Bottom line is if you expect to much the reality is mostly a let down.

 

[AllBodies]

It's very plausible the Vega56 will consistently beat the 1070, if the Vega64 consistently matches the 1080.

The 1070 is actually very cut-down. Being cut-down 33%, or having 0.75x the shaders of the 1080. As well as lower memory bandwidth, and a worse form of memory so there's no chance to overclock to the same as the 1080.

On average it's ~25% slower than the 1080, and this can grow to 30%+ in highly optimised games like DOOM: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Mini/28.html

The Vega56 is only 14% cut-down, or has 0.875x the shaders of the Vega64. If it can clock to the same level, and there's no reason to believe it can't, it will be less of a drop compared to the Vega64 as the 1070 is to the 1080.

Therefore the only way the Vega56 won't beat the 1070 on average is if it clocks terribly for some reason, or the Vega64 consistently loses to the 1080 by ~10%. And from what we know at the moment, neither of those seem to likely.

Also I say this as a 1070 owner.

 

[WeSbO]

It's very plausible the Vega56 will consistently beat the 1070, if the Vega64 consistently matches the 1080.

Yes but probably not out of the box for the reference design, it will probably need some tweaking (no biggie) coz those clocks are pretty lower to stay in the 160w TGP enveloppe they wanted this card to have.

 

[opethdisciple]

For me I'm interested to see if true what AMD say about minimum frames higher than competition, HBCC and FP16.

If it matches current performance with higher minimums and a cheaper price. Then it's winning already.

It's gonna be a let down isn't it.

 

[Killer7xx]

Well dont expect for nano to be faster mate. They will need 2 cut down on power section mhz ect. If its a match to yhis 1070 i actually be shocked. Not to mention it will cost same

Did the Fiji Nano not match or exceed the R9 Fury in performance and even match the fury X in a lot of scenarios? All of this whilst having a lower TDP. Vega nano should be the same story, I'd expect it to be the full Vega 64 just with more aggressive undervolting and clocking to hit the optimal curve for perf/Watt.

 

[Zeed]

For me I'm interested to see if true what AMD say about minimum frames higher than competition, HBCC and FP16.

If it matches current performance with higher minimums and a cheaper price. Then it's winning already.

It's gonna be a let down isn't it.

Well price is let down already so

 

[TNA]

Have patience . Mate just moved from a 290x to a 1080ti and so far he ain't impressed with it's 4k capability. He expected to much. Keep telling him it's a beast yet 4k gaming is still not possible if you want to turn the sliders up. He's more impressed with just how good his nearly 4 year old card is. I am much more impressed as i follow the hardware side and to me it's a really fast card. Just shows how much the performance leaps have slowed down and with 1 card 4k is still not ideal. Really think he was expecting 4 x the performance and not 2 x. Hopefully AMD get back in the game soon so we can get some real performance upgrades.

I managed fine with 4K with my 1070/1080 to be honest. You just need to know what to turn off or lower without loosing IQ. Way I see it is, in most games at 4K, optimising sliders to get fps, the game still looks better than 1440p with everything whacked up on maximum. These days many effects named Ultra or Nightmare you cannot see the difference when playing vs a setting below, yet the performance difference in fps is like owning a 1080 to a 1080Ti. So by optimising and unlocking all the fps, I get a free upgrade

It really does look good right Loadsa? I would have bought it had it been £500.

 

[passifid]

It's not stupid just really underwhelming all these years on. I personally liked it but when you expect to much like the AMD hype train you are left feeling underwhelmed when the expectations are not met. His AMD setup also had way better image quality which must have been a shock.
Bottom line is if you expect to much the reality is mostly a let down.

Amen. If you buy into the marketing you're doomed

 

[Zeed]

Did the Fiji Nano not match or exceed the R9 Fury in performance and even match the fury X in a lot of scenarios? All of this whilst having a lower TDP. Vega nano should be the same story, I'd expect it to be the full Vega 64 just with more aggressive undervolting and clocking to hit the optimal curve for perf/Watt.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_radeon_r9_nano_review,22.html

It was SLOWEST out of the loot and not cheap either.

 

[five8five]

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 to be great for mining

This information comes from a good source of mine, but for now, take it with a grain of salt. Apparently, new features were enabled on the latest RX Vega driver, which have also (indirectly) increased mining performance of Vega.
I’m not a fan of sharing numbers I can’t verify, but we are looking at at least doubled Vega Frontier mining performance (which has a hash rate of ~30 MH/s).
IF TRUE, then this is very bad news for gamers, graphics card manufacturers, and also AMD.

https://videocardz.com/71591/rumor-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-to-be-great-for-mining

Not good news if true

 

[TheRealDeal]

I managed fine with 4K with my 1070/1080 to be honest. You just need to know what to turn off or lower without loosing IQ. Way I see it is, in most games at 4K, optimising sliders to get fps, the game still looks better than 1440p with everything whacked up on maximum. These days many effects named Ultra or Nightmare you cannot see the difference when playing vs a setting below, yet the performance difference in fps is like owning a 1080 to a 1080Ti. So by optimising and unlocking all the fps, I get a free upgrade

The reality is he just spent over £3k on a new system and it's still not ideal for 4k. Settings still need tweaked. If he knew what we did he would be more impressed but he is mainly a gamer and doesn't really follow hardware much. The reality is if you don't know your hardware and the capabilities you just throw money at it and expect . Guys can build a PC no problem but just doesn't keep up with hardware knowledge.

Yea settings are key to a good experience and Ultra settings usually add very little bar ultra frame drops.