• 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.

The 15-game ‘Premium’ VR Review – Pascal vs. Vega benchmarked for the Oculus Rift

Mark Poppin said:
We actually do read some comments on our articles as we see the links and views generated from here. Thank-you for your comments.

As to the drivers we picked, we have determined long ago to always pick the very latest drivers for our major reviews or there are accusations of bias and "cherry picking" drivers. AMD's VR performance has significantly increased over the past 4 months since we lasted tested VR. It's impossible to say that 11.4 is overall better than 12.2 for all 15 games that we picked. And we saw good stability in VR with 12.2.

We plan to revisit this VR evaluation every 3-4 months at BTR, and each time we will increase the size of our benching suite.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments. I have no problem with websites using the latest drivers and I can understand why you do it this way, because fanboys would be screaming at you. I have no problem with Stability in VR on 17.12.2, but, in other games I get frequent crashes that I don't get in any of the 17.11 drivers. They are noticeably slower in VR. But, in Timespy and Vulkan games they are actually faster. For me it's not really about the performance, I genuinely believe that the Adrenalin drivers are not good enough for general release. Any driver which breaks a whole subset of games shouldn't be used.

I can't wait to see your next evaluation with 25 games. It should keep you very busy. I hope that AMD and Nvidia have properly working drivers for the that one. ;)
 
melmac said:
You know first hand how bad the drivers are. You were even thinking about returning your card again!! For the life of me I can't understand what the problem is with what I am suggesting. Use the latest drivers for your reviews, unless the drivers are crap, like the Nvidia drivers last year or the Adrenalin drivers. Then just use the ones directly before that or wait for a fix to come out for the current ones.

AMD should know better, the DX9 thing has really blown up in their face. They have done so much good work in the past few years of getting drivers out quick for game releases, solving bugs quickly without introducing new ones and generally producing good quality drivers. They actually were slowly changing people's opinions and their drivers were been called better than Nvidia's. All that hard work is gone now with one bad driver release. It looks like they rushed the Adrenalin drivers out without proper testing just to get them launched in December. You are right, they should have waited until January.

And sorry for the late replies, I wasn't online for the last day and half due to family emergency.
Click to expand...


I agree with what you're saying, Last week when you asked me to test my Vega with the Adrenalin driver the performance was down in a few tests and I found it was giving a Superposition score that's 1000 points lower than it was on the previous driver. Performance was also dodgy in some games and I even had games that wouldn't run anymore, It's all documented somewhere among last weeks posts over in either the driver thread of Vega owners thread but since moving back to the pre-Adrenalin driver, I'm back on 17.11.4, all the issues I was having with games like Dirt Rally, Bf 2 & COD WW2 are fixed.

If we was talking about a WHQL driver sure you can understand someone just grabbing it to do a review but we're talking about a whole new driver package adding numerous new features that a lot of users had rolled back from due to performance issues which should have been enough to make them a no go for a review. I can't know what the drivers were like for VR as I don't have a headset but I do think that before a reviews done the reviewers should do their homework and find out if the drivers they plan to use are okay, even more so when it's a new driver package not just a new driver because bugs are inevitable. AMD shouldn't of needed to remove the drivers from the driver download section and add a big ALPHA onto them for people to know this.

At the end of the day it's not something to get worked up and start bickering over, we all goof up now and then, I tend to fit into the some more than others category myself. :D
 
danoliver1 said:
You can't polish a turd mate.:D
Glad i got a 1080ti now.:p
Click to expand...

Glad I got the turd, My VEGA cost about 40% less than my old 1080Ti but performs around 10% - 20% slower depending on the game.

Will take a turd like this every time xD

Speaking of turds, My Ryzen 1700 looks a better choice with every passing day. Thanks Intel xD
 
Boomstick777 said:
Glad I got the turd, My VEGA cost about 40% less than my old 1080Ti but performs around 10% - 20% slower depending on the game.

Will take a turd like this every time xD

Speaking of turds, My Ryzen 1700 looks a better choice with every passing day. Thanks Intel xD
Click to expand...

Tell me about it that extra 5-10 fps with Coffeelake is looking less relevant by the day. :cool:


orbitalwalsh said:
its good to see gtx 1080 having a better over the gtx 1070 ti in VR games then non- VR

wished they'd done gtx 1080 11 Gbps version though !
Click to expand...

I think the 1070ti just shows how little using 5x matters. A 1080 with out the X memory would be pretty much identical to the 1080 with it.
 
JediFragger said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? 100% confident of that answer? With a few simple tweaks Vega can perform much faster than stock and that's without any actual overclocking. If he has got a decent Vega chip with a good case, you would be surprised at how much more performance you can get out of a Vega card. It might not be across all games either, like the games that heavily favour Nvidia.
 
If we're tweaking I'll just ramp my Ti to 2100Mhz on the core without any extra volts. Probably close to 50% faster than the 64 on some games :)

Game. Over.


Don't get me wrong, I love both sides but I'm not wearing any rose-tinted spectacles here...
 
Reviews should use the latest drivers always. If a vendor has a buggy driver that harms its products then thats its own fault for releasing it IMO.
 
triss said:
Reviews should use the latest drivers always. If a vendor has a buggy driver that harms its products then thats its own fault for releasing it IMO.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If they can't retain past performance whilst improving it for the latest games then they're not doing their job. That goes for Red and Green.
 
JediFragger said:
If we're tweaking I'll just ramp my Ti to 2100Mhz on the core without any extra volts. Probably close to 50% faster than the 64 on some games :)

Game. Over.


Don't get me wrong, I love both sides but I'm not wearing any rose-tinted spectacles here...
Click to expand...

But, he never claimed it was close to an overclocked 1080Ti. At the time he bought he would have had to pay 40% more to buy a 1080Ti.
 
melmac said:
But, he never claimed it was close to an overclocked 1080Ti.
Click to expand...

But he mentioned tweaking, I'm doing no less (one simple slider to the right).

I'm not saying that eventually the Vega platform won't perform better, but in the here and now it's getting destroyed by the 'bang-per-buck' champion nVidia! Makes me a bit sick to say it mind..... :eek:

AMD don't want to be the budget brand forever (which makes sense), but to offer low value (at least in the higher segment) is not good!
 
JediFragger said:
But he mentioned tweaking, I'm doing no less (one simple slider to the right).

I'm not saying that eventually the Vega platform won't perform better, but in the here and now it's getting destroyed by the 'bang-per-buck' champion nVidia! Makes me a bit sick to say it mind..... :eek:

AMD don't want to be the budget brand forever (which makes sense), but to offer low value (at least in the higher segment) is not good!
Click to expand...

No, no, we aren't talking about current Vega prices. He bought his for 40% less than the cheapest 1080Ti at the time. You said it wasn't possible for his Vega card to come as close as he claims it does. I am just pointing out that it might. Yes you can overclock the TI, but Boom never claimed that at all.

I am the one that mentioned tweaking the card, not Boom.

The current Vega prices and AMD's plans for the future aren't really relevant to whether Boom's card can get within 10-20% of a 1080ti :)
 
melmac said:
The current Vega prices and AMD's plans for the future aren't really relevant to whether Boom's card can get within 10-20% of a 1080ti :)
Click to expand...

Yes Mel but my point was that figure was *very* situational! Sometimes the 64 even loses to the poor-ass 1080 FE! As a balance I think we can all agree that the Ti is 30-40% faster than the 64 overall? Or am I being dilutional like @Boomstick777 ?
 
JediFragger said:
Yes Mel but my point was that figure was *very* situational! Sometimes the 64 even loses to the poor-ass 1080 FE! As a balance I think we can all agree that the Ti is 30-40% faster than the 64 overall? Or am I being dilutional like @Boomstick777 ?
Click to expand...

I fully agree a stock 1080ti is 40-50% faster than a stock Vega 64.

But, why are you in no way willing to accept that an overclocked Vega 64 could come within 10-20% of a stock 1080Ti? It's not that much of an overclock. And I do understand that are a few games that work much better on Nvidia cards than AMD ones. I mean if I bought a 1080 for £450 and overclocked it to come with 10-20% of the 1080ti, people would say good job and I would be pretty happy with the result. But, because Boom claims his Vega 64 can come with 10-20% of a 1080ti, all he gets is "nope" and "a 1080Ti can overclock too" That's not the point. The point is that his £475(not sure of exact price he bought it for) card can come close to £600+ video card from Nvidia, a top tier performing one at that.

Vega's current prices are terrible, but, Boom didn't pay current prices, he bought at the much cheaper discount prices, so he would have paid less than £500.

Yes with the current prices, AMD cards are a terrible buy. From a gamers point of view, it's a really bad situation for AMD to be in, very bad bang for buck. As you say making Nvidia's offerings look like cheap and the best value for money. Well they are, by miles. I bought my Vega 64 second hand for £410 and I wouldn't have paid anything over £475, they just aren't worth any more. Looking back, the Vega 64 liquid edition at £599 was the best value Vega card to be had LOL, which tells a really sad story!! Damn miners.

I should add that if Boom had £600+ for his air cooled Vega 64 card then he would have to claim it overclocks faster than a 1080Ti for us to be impressed :p:D
 
Last edited:
If your overclocking one card to get it close to another then its fair to also overclock the other . Simple stuff guys you compare stock to stock or overclocked to overclocked .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom