• 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.

AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doom112 said:
Nvidia had edge since maxwell (2014). Now on 14nm AMD only manage get on par with Nvidia while Nvidia was on 28nm. It only shows that how much years and how far AMD is behind.
Click to expand...

Do you intentionally not read what i put above?? or are you just mentally challenged?

Nvidia have an edge because their Hardware does not have DX12 support at the Hardware level, they instead rely on Software, drivers etc and high clocks to out perform AMD.

AMD hardware carries a lot of under utilised components that still require power, hence Nvidia cards being more efficient.

AMD have not released a product as of yet that is a direct competitor to Pascal 1070, 1080 and TitanXP.

The only AMD product this cycle that competes with Pascal is their low end Polaris stuff, and as you will see in Vulkan and DX12 it makes the cards they compete against (1060 etc) look silly in comparison.

I am sure you are either just wind up merchant, or are totally oblivious, AMD are not trying to compete with Nvidias top end right now, this is what Vega is for.

You keep going on about AMD being behind and that AMD 14nm is only competing with Nvidia 28nm, Yes in DX11... in DX12 / Vulkan this is a different story with the shoe on the other foot.

I am not sure how to spell it out to you, AMD hardware was designed for the future in mind, Nvidia was designed for DX11 here and now.

DX11 = Nvidia
DX12 / Vulkan = AMD

Its really that simple, and when Nvidia actually release hardware with DX12 hardware level support, then you will see how close they are in not only performance but Power consumption.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Do you intentionally not read what i put above?? or are you just mentally challenged?

Nvidia have an edge because their Hardware does not have DX12 support at the Hardware level, they instead rely on Software, drivers etc and high clocks to out perform AMD.

AMD hardware carries a lot of under utilised components that still require power, hence Nvidia cards being more efficient.

AMD have not released a product as of yet that is a direct competitor to Pascal 1070, 1080 and TitanXP.

The only AMD product this cycle that competes with Pascal is their low end Polaris stuff, and as you will see in Vulkan and DX12 it makes the cards they compete against (1060 etc) look silly in comparison.

I am sure you are either just wind up merchant, or are totally oblivious, AMD are not trying to compete with Nvidias top end right now, this is what Vega is for.

You keep going on about AMD being behind and that AMD 14nm is only competing with Nvidia 28nm, Yes in DX11... in DX12 / Vulkan this is a different story with the shoe on the other foot.

I am not sure how to spell it out to you, AMD hardware was designed for the future in mind, Nvidia was designed for DX11 here and now.

DX11 = Nvidia
DX12 / Vulkan = AMD

Its really that simple, and when Nvidia actually release hardware with DX12 hardware level support, then you will see how close they are in not only performance but Power consumption.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ but how come Nvidia is beating AMD on every DX12 and Vulkan game? Even a GTX 980 Ti is on top list of every single on DX12 benchmark in Overclock.uk benchmarks. Assumption is different from reality and reality is that right now Nvidia has 5 different card ,which beats AMD best card ,whether is DX12 or Vulkan.
 
SiDeards73 said:
Nvidia wont have the efficiency they have now once they actually start putting hardware on their cards that use the hardware features of DX12 and Vulkan etc.

AMD are paying this penalty right now, Nvidia have brute forced their way so far and it shows in DX12 / Vulkan performance where AMD Cards hardware is getting fully utilised and closes the gaps on Nvidia.

AMD cards still power these bits of hardware in Dx11 where it goes mostly unused, hence the bigger power draws.

This is all coming for Nvidia if they start adding Hardware to their cards to fully utilise newer API features, of course they could still use a Brute force and software approach, but i believe hardware approach will always eventually win out in this type of scenario.
Click to expand...


You got this pretty much exactly backwards. Nvidia cards have a higher DX12 feature level, with Polaris still behind in areas like Conservative rasterization.

It is AMD cards that use a more brute force approach, which is why they are less efficiently. Just a quick look at the the different TFLOPs of the NVidia and AMD cards shows you how GCN is incredibly shader heavy and relies on brute force to archive performance. Conversely, Nvidia cards, especially since Maxwell have a far more efficient design to facilitate greater utilization and better efficiency with less theoretical computational resources. NVidia cards have better delta color compression, hierarchy early Z-culling, and as found out recently Maxwell moved to a tile-based rendering system. This is again shown by the fact that NVidia cards can get away with less raw memory bandwidth and still achieve higher performance with less power.

Nvdia spends far more transistors on making their GPUS efficient, AMD spend more of the transistor budget on simply adding more compute shaders without addressing the bottle-necking issues of the front-end command processor and geometry engines.

Hopefully Vega will be a change in direction for AMD and they will concentrate on better utilization and removal of critical bottle necks rather than simply pushing the aging GCN architecture further into diminishing returns and idle shaders.
 
Pete @r... said:
I might be wrong, probably, but Rx480 is 1060 competitor. 1060 uses 50w less than 480 so 1080 competitor, vega, why couldnt that be equal but use just 50w more, so 220w. I would be fine with that.
Click to expand...

There isn't a constant offset though.

the RX480 uses nearly as much power as the 1080 and is nearly half the performance. To scale the RX480 to 1080 performance by basicaly doubling the core size would require nearly twice the power. Given Polaris' power efficiency you would be looking at maybe 320-350W to give the 1080 a run for its money. That is a serious cooling issue. HBM2 will save them about 30w maybe, the rest will have to come form a better architecture.
 
JediFragger said:
Waiting for Volta or selling both Fury's for a 1080 man?
Click to expand...

Im in no rush, i only play old games, which run fine, newest game ive got is ROTTR, and even thats fine, and works in Xfire too (which is surprising :p), apart from the odd flickering texture, which i can tolerate, but i will be upgrading to a Nvidia card when the time comes, as i think AMD have gone like their CPUs now, they'll just be doing the cards they are doing now, the low/mid range, and Nvidia will doing those, and all the high/enthusiasts.
 
On the power front, how about looking at a site that does just the card power readings rather than total system power.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/GeForce-GTX-1060-6GB-Review-GP106-Starting-249/Detailed-Power-Consumption-Tes

This graph, though a bit hard to read at a single glance, shows the power consumption and efficiency of the GTX 1060 and GP106 at work. The blue line at the bottom is the GeForce GTX 1060, with its 120 watt TDP, drawing just 115 on average through this section of our Rise of the Tomb Raider testing.
Click to expand...

The Radeon RX 480 is hitting every bit of its 150 watt TDP in this test, showing a full 35-40 watt delta between the two competing products.
Click to expand...

The situation is similar in our The Witcher 3 testing; the GTX 1060 is pulling 105-110 watts combined while the RX 480 is more in the 155 watt range.
Click to expand...

So that 35-45 watt difference is actually 30-40% more. It is easy to look at total system figures of 260-300W and say hey what is an extra 37W, but that doesn't show the true fact that the RX480 is at best using a third more power, for less performance.
 
Its 37 Watts Bru, dress it up how you will its an LED light bulb.

Doom112 said:
overclocking, shadow play, 6GB Vram.
Click to expand...

Why 6GB Vram when a 390 comes with 8?

Shadow Play... when it works properly, when i set the recording to 130Mb/s and its actually recoding at that rate and not 35Mb/s, which is not yet in the year i have had the 970.
Or when its not setting a screen res at the Windowed mode some games start in and then does not change it to 1080P or 1440P when the game goes to full screen, its still set at the windowed resolution even if i tell shadowplay i want to record only in 1080P

The Gaming Evolved app while a re-skinned Raptr app uses AMD's VCE which as far as i can tell has a sharper more vivid image quality, it also worked flawlessly and always at the rate its set

Doom112 said:
Even Async does not help Fury X to win from a OC GTX 980 Ti leave alone Pascal high end.
Click to expand...

It beats it in Hitman, so does the 390X, a 4 year old SKU, fancy that...
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Why 6GB Vram when a 390 comes with 8?

Shadow Play... when it works properly, when i set the recording to 130Mb/s and its actually recoding at that rate and not 35Mb/s, which is not yet in the year i have had the 970.
Or when its not setting a screen res at the Windowed mode some games start in and then does not change it to 1080P or 1440P when the game goes to full screen, its still set at the windowed resolution even if i tell shadowplay i want to record only in 1080P

The Gaming Evolved app while a re-skinned Raptr app uses AMD's VCE which as far as i can tell has a sharper more vivid image quality, it also worked flawlessly and always at the rate its set



It beats it in Hitman, so does the 390X, fancy that...
Click to expand...
Wrong.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18732901

GTX 980 Ti OC is very near with Radeon Duo Single core OC.

If are talking about Async then you should talk about AMD DX11 overhead. There are 100s of DX11 games and very few DX12 games. As right now no one will buy a card just to play a couple of DX12 game and leave alone tons of DX11 games behind.
 
Doom112 said:
Wrong.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18732901

GTX 980 Ti OC is very near with Radeon Duo Single core OC.

If are talking about Async then you should talk about AMD DX11 overhead. There are 100s of DX11 games and very few DX12 games. As right now no one will buy a card just to play a couple of DX12 game and leave alone tons of DX11 games behind.
Click to expand...

Yea and how many 980ti's have you seen runnuing 1620 core. Even then as the resolution goes up it falls behind. The 1080 is not even 10% ahead in this game.
 
Doom112 said:
Wrong.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18732901

GTX 980 Ti OC is very near with Radeon Duo Single core OC.

If are talking about Async then you should talk about AMD DX11 overhead. There are 100s of DX11 games and very few DX12 games. As right now no one will buy a card just to play a couple of DX12 game and leave alone tons of DX11 games behind.
Click to expand...

Is that the link you intended? what i see is the Fury-X beating the 980TI.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Yea and how many 980ti's have you seen runnuing 1620 core. Even then as the resolution goes up it falls behind. The 1080 is not even 10% ahead in this game.
Click to expand...

That what OC means. A GTX 980 Ti provides a better experience then a Fury X

And please do not talk about this game, which is totally broken on Dx11, negative steam review, terrible sales, terrible animations, and a terrible PC port.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom