• 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.

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

Soldato
Joined
22 Apr 2016
Posts
3,425
The problem is minimums in themselves also don't tell you much about the actual smoothness,often thry are just statistical outliers and can be a result of background tasks on the FLU rather than the actual GPU load
It is foolish to resist. Give yourself to the dark side:D
 
Associate
Joined
5 Oct 2007
Posts
620
I am still going for a 1080ti instead of vega, for the following reasons 99% of my games will run faster and smoother on the ti, I trust Nvidia drivers more (had terrible experiences with AMD drivers) last AMD card I got was the Nano and it had so many glitches and the power consumption of the vega (my current pc i7 6700k 1080 based runs at real world 87-120w power consumption for the entire rig while gaming including oculus rift, I know this because it is powered by solar panel and battery setup outside my window). I do not hate AMD and I am happy for those that enjoy there cards but there is far more than 1-3 games out there and far more to a happy gaming system than max fps.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
It is foolish to resist. Give yourself to the dark side:D


It is true, a simply 99th percentile wont tell you how smooth the game is, now will frame time variance.
Scenario 1) The first few seconds of a the test has some memory hitching as some resources are loaded with minimum the 10-15FPS, afterwards the minimums are 70FPS
Scenario 2) There is not hitching, but minimums are frequently below 55FPS even when the average is 80+
Scenario 3) The start is fine but some time later there is a serious hitch while the GPU has to swap out a load of memory, but this only occurs over 1 frame, overwise min FPS in 70FPS.


Scenario 1 might provide the lowest minimums at the 99th percentile but it will offer the best experience.



As for smoothness, FPS that range form 40-45FPS ar much smoother than FPS from 70-110FPS, but I know what I would rather play with.





I 100% agree that how well the game plays is far more important that a average, but minimums and direct frame variance is not a good measure either.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2011
Posts
20,639
Location
The KOP
It is true, a simply 99th percentile wont tell you how smooth the game is, now will frame time variance.
Scenario 1) The first few seconds of a the test has some memory hitching as some resources are loaded with minimum the 10-15FPS, afterwards the minimums are 70FPS
Scenario 2) There is not hitching, but minimums are frequently below 55FPS even when the average is 80+
Scenario 3) The start is fine but some time later there is a serious hitch while the GPU has to swap out a load of memory, but this only occurs over 1 frame, overwise min FPS in 70FPS.


Scenario 1 might provide the lowest minimums at the 99th percentile but it will offer the best experience.



As for smoothness, FPS that range form 40-45FPS ar much smoother than FPS from 70-110FPS, but I know what I would rather play with.





I 100% agree that how well the game plays is far more important that a average, but minimums and direct frame variance is not a good measure either.

I agree that frame rate is mostly noticeable in the lower end more so than the higher end.

But I massively disagree with frame latency/pacing not being an issue.

Take a look at this Digital Foundry video, skip to 4min and take note of the frame rate matching the target, now on paper everything would look normal here but take note of the latency.

https://youtu.be/UerFogW1m-0?t=269
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
10 Sep 2010
Posts
1,533
Location
Cornwall, England
last AMD card I got was the Nano and it had so many glitches and the power consumption of the vega (my current pc i7 6700k 1080 based runs at real world 87-120w power consumption for the entire rig while gaming including oculus rift, I know this because it is powered by solar panel and battery setup outside my window).

Your other points, fair enough, but you must be mistaken about your PC's power draw, a 1080 on it's own can easily draw 180-200W, a 6700K + Mobo/RAM will draw atleast 100W aswell, I would expect your load power draw to be about 300-350W. when you say 87-120W, do you mean idle?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
24,769
Location
Planet Earth
I am still going for a 1080ti instead of vega, for the following reasons 99% of my games will run faster and smoother on the ti, I trust Nvidia drivers more (had terrible experiences with AMD drivers) last AMD card I got was the Nano and it had so many glitches and the power consumption of the vega (my current pc i7 6700k 1080 based runs at real world 87-120w power consumption for the entire rig while gaming including oculus rift, I know this because it is powered by solar panel and battery setup outside my window). I do not hate AMD and I am happy for those that enjoy there cards but there is far more than 1-3 games out there and far more to a happy gaming system than max fps.

Emm,what?? I have a low TDP Xeon E3 1230 V2,a mini-ITX mb and a GTX1080FE with an SF450,with two SSDs and a single HDD. My real world power consumption at the wall is between 140W to 280W depending on the game.

To put in context I had a GTX960 with the same setup and I was lucky to see 200W(it was much lower).

I am not sure how you got such low power figures??

Edit!!

The Corsair One SFF system with a SFX400 PSU,Core i7 7700k and a GTX1080 tops out at around 260W:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/systems/103477-corsair-one-pro/?page=8

Have you undervolted and underclocked the CPU and GPU??

Just intrigued to know TBH!!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2010
Posts
3,069
I am still going for a 1080ti instead of vega, for the following reasons 99% of my games will run faster and smoother on the ti, I trust Nvidia drivers more (had terrible experiences with AMD drivers) last AMD card I got was the Nano and it had so many glitches and the power consumption of the vega (my current pc i7 6700k 1080 based runs at real world 87-120w power consumption for the entire rig while gaming including oculus rift, I know this because it is powered by solar panel and battery setup outside my window). I do not hate AMD and I am happy for those that enjoy there cards but there is far more than 1-3 games out there and far more to a happy gaming system than max fps.

not sure on your figures, I'd expect 230-280w for yours at stock voltage.

1155 h61-usb3 ITX, BEQUIET Tfx 300w Psu
Undervolted 3770k 3.6ghz@ 1.0v, DDR 1600 1.5v
Zotac Gtx1060 Amp stock 1.05v 1962/4000mhz
1x Kingston 120gb ssd, 1 x 2.5" Wd 7200 black spinner
1x 120mm front case fan.

Idle 35w, Load Games 1080p/4k = 110-180W,
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,322
Location
Essex innit!
PCPer tested this with the latest drivers and Vega still does well but NVidia were on the ball.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Forza-Motorsport-7-Performance-Preview-Vega-vs-Pascal

2irukpd.jpg
 
Associate
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Posts
2,382
Location
UK
[/QUOTE]
PCPer tested this with the latest drivers and Vega still does well but NVidia were on the ball.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Forza-Motorsport-7-Performance-Preview-Vega-vs-Pascal

Surprised that there is so much difference between the 1080 / 64 Frame Times and Frame Variance -

rryxqxA.png


NwKSeE3.png

They do play similarly though -

Taking a look at the first chart, we can see while the GTX 1080 frame times are extremely consistent, the RX Vega 64 shows some additional variance.

However, the frame time variance chart shows that over 95% of the frame times of the RX Vega 64 come in at under 2ms of variance, which will still provide a smooth gameplay experience in most scenarios. This matches with our experience while playing on both AMD and NVIDIA hardware where we saw no major issues with gameplay smoothness.
 
Back
Top Bottom