Both RX Vega 64 & 56 Beat GTX 1080 Ti in Forza 7 DX12 benchmarks

[TheRealDeal]

I checked out Techpower's summary and the Vega 64 holds it's own with the 1080 at 1080p and nothing changes much as the resolution goes up. Seems to me that Vega is delivering what it's capable of in all resolutions. Fury X and all those before were the opposite. That's why i am saying Vega looks to have addressed this issue.

Vega wins at 1080p and 1440p so overall a win for me. 1080 gets it at 4k. It's pretty close to a draw though . Still for me Nvidia is being held back for whatever reason which is not what we are used to seeing.

 

[Martini1991]

Fury X's advantage at 4K doesn't really exist much anymore given the VRAM at 4GB. I still remember people banging on about how AMD's magic sauce that'll make it a none issue.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Fury X's advantage at 4K doesn't really exist much anymore given the VRAM at 4GB. I still remember people banging on about how AMD's magic sauce that'll make it a none issue.

Yea the 4gb now makes it a none contest as who cares how much gpu power you have when you have no Vram left. The magic sauce was never proven to be fake though as it was always said to be up to AMD to deliver. Personally give me more vram over Magic sauce

 

[Martini1991]

Yea the 4gb now makes it a none contest as who cares how much gpu power you have when you have no Vram left. The magic sauce was never proven to be fake though as it was always said to be up to AMD to deliver. Personally give me more vram over Magic sauce

Well, Fury X is falling over at 4K with a game that's supposedly showcasing all dat AMD tech. So I'd say it's a fake.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Well, Fury X is falling over at 4K with a game that's supposedly showcasing all dat AMD tech. So I'd say it's a fake.

If it gets fixed is the magic sauce real then . How much magic sauce is enough though. Could the Fury X still perform when 4.5gb Vram is needed for normal memory setups and as soon as it's 4.6 gb needed the sauce runs out. I doubt we will ever know. Like i say though i would much rather have more Vram compared to supposed secret sauce.

 

[Freddie1980]

Well, Fury X is falling over at 4K with a game that's supposedly showcasing all dat AMD tech. So I'd say it's a fake.

Good ol Senator Vreenak needs a phtoshop with a Fury card.

 

[silversurfer]

Doesnt anyone own the game and can just test it themselves. It has a benchmark on the demo even, anyone with a 4k monitor and 1080ti can test before and after new drivers

Moreover, why would buy a 1080Ti or Vega64 to game at 1080P?

Some will only use either card with 1080p. If I was to get a new monitor it'd be 250hz and I think the spec is 1080p only for that range, some might get 3x 1080p monitors not everyone is going 4k. I think consoles paired to a tv will lead that front more

 

[D.P.]

Doesnt anyone own the game and can just test it themselves. It has a benchmark on the demo even, anyone with a 4k monitor and 1080ti can test before and after new drivers



Some will only use either card with 1080p. If I was to get a new monitor it'd be 250hz and I think the spec is 1080p only for that range, some might get 3x 1080p monitors not everyone is going 4k. I think consoles paired to a tv will lead that front more

Displaying 3x1080 is almost the same as displaying 4K form the GPU's perspective. If you want to drive a 50Hz display then CPU becomes critical .

Regardless it is irrelevant to the argument being made.

 

[Martini1991]

I don't understand the argument about 64's or 1080ti's at 1080p. People said a 290X was overkill for 1080p, now it's required. It just means it'll last longer.

 

[shankly1985]

I don't understand the argument about 64's or 1080ti's at 1080p. People said a 290X was overkill for 1080p, now it's required. It just means it'll last longer.

No such thing has Overkill!

 

[Davedree]

I checked out Techpower's summary and the Vega 64 holds it's own with the 1080 at 1080p and nothing changes much as the resolution goes up. Seems to me that Vega is delivering what it's capable of in all resolutions. Fury X and all those before were the opposite. That's why i am saying Vega looks to have addressed this issue.

Vega wins at 1080p and 1440p so overall a win for me. 1080 gets it at 4k. It's pretty close to a draw though . Still for me Nvidia is being held back for whatever reason which is not what we are used to seeing.

Here's what you said when you conveniently forget to include the greater details of Vega's die size/ power consumption and expense to manufacture .

Non of which matters when deciding to buy a card. Price and then performance. Non of my points were aimed at manufacturing and profit to AMD so not sure why i need to see your words of wisdom .

So it's like you admit you don't care about the cost of manufacturing and that Amd cannot compete with Nvidia from Mid Range to High End, but as long as they provide the performance and priced accordingly then that's all that matters. Well how do you feel about the pricing of Vega 56 at £469 or Vega 64 at £559, do you still think price vs performance is still there?
How do you feel that the front end scheduling in the majority of games is still a problem when you consider that the Vega 56 is artificially gimped to separate the fps difference between it and the vega64?
When testing with same clocks and power limits the 64 rarely scales beyond the 56 by 4-5%?

 

[TheRealDeal]

Here's what you said when you conveniently forget to include the greater details of Vega's die size/ power consumption and expense to manufacture .


So it's like you admit you don't care about the cost of manufacturing and that Amd cannot compete with Nvidia from Mid Range to High End, but as long as they provide the performance and priced accordingly then that's all that matters. Well how do you feel about the pricing of Vega 56 at £469 or Vega 64 at £559, do you still think price vs performance is still there?
How do you feel that the front end scheduling in the majority of games is still a problem when you consider that the Vega 56 is artificially gimped to separate the fps difference between it and the vega64?
When testing with same clocks and power limits the 64 rarely scales beyond the 56 by 4-5%?

True the initial pricing was not bad though. Most around here will now not buy at current pricing. Power usage is not a big factor to me. My case can has enough air flow so i don't care about a few extra pounds each month. There has been a good few threads that prove that power costs is not a big issue, heat however is. Vega at launch pricing was not to bad. For those buying now i would still buy it over a 1080 if the prices were close as i trust in Vega to last longer than Pascal. As to your point on the scaling i would go for a 56 every time as i did with the 290 over the 290x. £200 i paid with 3 games over a 290x that cost over £300 i believe. For bench marking then people might pay the extra but for me i know the gaming experience will be pretty much the same.

The 56 ain't gimped at all either it's like all other cards from AMD that are close on spec. If AMD gave the 56 matching clocks then performance would be far to close. As someone that knows how to gain that performance back you should be glad . The majority have no clue what those overclocking sliders do so it works for them. If everybody starts getting a clue we will have the next tier down with more gimped hardware.

 

[Davedree]

True the initial pricing was not bad though. Most around here will now not buy at current pricing. Power usage is not a big factor to me. My case can has enough air flow so i don't care about a few extra pounds each month. There has been a good few threads that prove that power costs is not a big issue, heat however is. Vega at launch pricing was not to bad. For those buying now i would still buy it over a 1080 if the prices were close as i trust in Vega to last longer than Pascal. As to your point on the scaling i would go for a 56 every time as i did with the 290 over the 290x. £200 i paid with 3 games over a 290x that cost over £300 i believe. For bench marking then people might pay the extra but for me i know the gaming experience will be pretty much the same.

The initial pricing was just a limited batch though, see that's what annoys me is that we know Amd cannot afford to really drop the prices and it's just held the prices up.
I'm not sure who to back as to whether pascal or Amd will last longer, I know people compare Hawaii vs Fury vs Polaris and Tonga and that's where the Fine Wine theory comes from, but then on the other side it just shows how much Amd have struggled to provide a leap in performance from Hawaii to where we currently are now. In the Forza benches it's incredible how close Hawaii is to Fury, I 'm not totally anti vega but I cannot understand it's transistor count vs the performance we see.
Vega 56 needs to be 350 and I'd buy it, but it won't ever get that low.
Exactly as you say the 290 often was the recommend buy over the 290x (minus the 290x 8gb which I nearly bought)

edit lol the vega 56 is the star of the show, I missed out when it was £389 as I would have been happy with that

 

[r7slayer]

I don't understand the argument about 64's or 1080ti's at 1080p. People said a 290X was overkill for 1080p, now it's required. It just means it'll last longer.

At their time of release perhaps but as time goes on and new gens of gpu come out games get more demanding shifting that overkill goal post on to something else. It's still to keep thinking a 680 / 7970 or 780/290x is still overkill for 1080p. Yea sure if you test the same games which only existed back then but we didn't have the likes of the new tombraider, BF1 or SWBF2 or GTA5 etc etc back then. My 290x only just managed to run gta5 with most settings maxed out minus the grass and AA at 1080p and keep 60FPS. Then again i only had a i5 and not the i7 i have now.

 

[TheRealDeal]

The initial pricing was just a limited batch though, see that's what annoys me is that we know Amd cannot afford to really drop the prices and it's just held the prices up.
I'm not sure who to back as to whether pascal or Amd will last longer, I know people compare Hawaii vs Fury vs Polaris and Tonga and that's where the Fine Wine theory comes from, but then on the other side it just shows how much Amd have struggled to provide a leap in performance from Hawaii to where we currently are now. In the Forza benches it's incredible how close Hawaii is to Fury, I 'm not totally anti vega but I cannot understand it's transistor count vs the performance we see.
Vega 56 needs to be 350 and I'd buy it, but it won't ever get that low.
Exactly as you say the 290 often was the recommend buy over the 290x (minus the 290x 8gb which I nearly bought)

edit lol the vega 56 is the star of the show, I missed out when it was £389 as I would have been happy with that

Hawaii was for me one of the best cards to have existed. It's still pretty potent all these years later.

I think Loadsamoney even when winding people up got it spot on. Vega has all those extra transistors due to being a compute card at heart. It kicks the crap out of the 1080 in that side. Nvidia with there money can simply make pure gaming parts keeping the transistor count down and another part purely for compute. AMD are just about a profitable company again so hopefully if that keeps up they can do the same and focus on both sides instead of giving us a jack of all trades. Still Vega has loads of gaming features that should in theory make it perform better over time. It certainly is the most complete dx12 architecture that's on the market. I can see Vega dropping in price when the sales die down. It looks like it's more available now and competition will ramp up when AIB cards hit the market. The compute market is where the money is for them though as Nvidia have so much mind share that AMD would need to produce a hell of a card to over power that.

 

[Kaapstad]

Doesnt anyone own the game and can just test it themselves. It has a benchmark on the demo even, anyone with a 4k monitor and 1080ti can test before and after new drivers

I could but I am not going to bother as some people will never believe any results I post.

 

[Stanners]

I could but I am not going to bother as some people will never believe any results I post.

Do it kap, who cares about those people. It would be interesting to see.

 

[Bazzards]

Do it for the greater good.

 

[henson0115]

I could but I am not going to bother as some people will never believe any results I post.

let them believe what hey want, up to them to prove otherwise. theres lots here who would be interested in the results.

 

[nashathedog]

What we should all be taking from this is Vega has potential. At Launch it was all doom and gloom for good reasons. The more games that support it's features will show it to be better than initial impressions. Nobody is getting rid of that power usage though

Hi, We now know Vega wasn't ahead because of the game taking advantage of Vega specific features, Polaris, Grenada and Fiji were also performing above their weight, It was due to Nvidia not getting a game optimised driver out in time for the reviews, They now have one out and the AMD cards are positioning as expected.