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

LoadsaMoney · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:29

Gregster said:
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

Guess if it wasn't for those Vega features, even the 1060 would be ripping em a new'un

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:40

LoadsaMoney said:
Guess if it wasn't for those Vega features, even the 1060 would be ripping em a new'un

Has Matt already pointed out his results are way different! They used the Built in Benchmark and clearly this isn't of how the actually gameplays.. !!!

For example here is a VEGA 56 at 1080p getting Way above 150fps... and even close to 200fps Wow! They is so much differences in this game that the built in Benchmark isn't good enough to use.

w1ze1 · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:47

LtMatt · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:47

Interesting, didn't realise there was an in game benchmark in Forza 7.

five8five · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:51

shankly1985 said:
Has Matt already pointed out his results are way different! They used the Built in Benchmark and clearly this isn't of how the actually gameplays.. !!!

For example here is a VEGA 56 at 1080p getting Way above 150fps... and even close to 200fps Wow! They is so much differences in this game that the built in Benchmark isn't good enough to use.

We did our testing with an array of three different resolutions (1080p, 1440p, and 4K) at maximum image quality settings. We tested both AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards in similar price and performance segments. The built-in benchmark mode for this game was used, which does feature some variance due to dynamic weather patterns. However, our testing within the full game matched the results of the benchmark mode closely, so we used it for our final results.

hyperseven · 30 Oct 2017 at 14:54

shankly1985 said:
Has Matt already pointed out his results are way different! They used the Built in Benchmark and clearly this isn't of how the actually gameplays.. !!!

For example here is a VEGA 56 at 1080p getting Way above 150fps... and even close to 200fps Wow! They is so much differences in this game that the built in Benchmark isn't good enough to use.

Yeah let's not bother with those pesky benchmarks when you don't get the results you want :rolleyes:

'wiping the floor'...

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 15:12

I very much doubt they went and tested all tracks and day of time and weather effects LOL. They is plenty of footage on Youtube showing higher FPS results then these benchmarks.

Gregster · 30 Oct 2017 at 16:05

shankly1985 said:
Has Matt already pointed out his results are way different! They used the Built in Benchmark and clearly this isn't of how the actually gameplays.. !!!

For example here is a VEGA 56 at 1080p getting Way above 150fps... and even close to 200fps Wow! They is so much differences in this game that the built in Benchmark isn't good enough to use.

Agreed - Better to ignore those who do it for a living and go with random sites/Youtubers

Vince · 30 Oct 2017 at 18:19

five8five said:
Surprised that there is so much difference between the 1080 / 64 Frame Times and Frame Variance -

They do play similarly though -

Don't get why Vega 64 clocks are 1247/945? Vega can easily maintain a 1600 core clock so why are they running it so low? Or are they simply trying to show a base clock? I am not sure.

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 19:26

Vince said:
Don't get why Vega 64 clocks are 1247/945? Vega can easily maintain a 1600 core clock so why are they running it so low? Or are they simply trying to show a base clock? I am not sure.

Out of the box VEGA does poorly keeping clocks. My Ref cooled 64 @ stock clocks but I under volt the cores to 900/950 and Memory @ 945 Under volt 1025 I keep a decent core clock around 1500+ and temps always under 85c mosty with high 70s

five8five · 30 Oct 2017 at 19:42

Vince said:
Don't get why Vega 64 clocks are 1247/945? Vega can easily maintain a 1600 core clock so why are they running it so low? Or are they simply trying to show a base clock? I am not sure.

Stock settings, same with the 1080. They'll both boost higher automatically subject to thermals.

Martini1991 · 30 Oct 2017 at 19:45

Vince said:
Don't get why Vega 64 clocks are 1247/945? Vega can easily maintain a 1600 core clock so why are they running it so low? Or are they simply trying to show a base clock? I am not sure.

Out of the box Vega will never keep 1600MHZ.

Vince · 30 Oct 2017 at 19:49

shankly1985 said:
Out of the box VEGA does poorly keeping clocks. My Ref cooled 64 @ stock clocks but I under volt the cores to 900/950 and Memory @ 945 Under volt 1025 I keep a decent core clock around 1500+ and temps always under 85c mosty with high 70s

My 56 is quite different, was actually pretty good at keeping stock clocks, sits nicely at 1600+ with the 64 bios but to maintain it fan profile is an issue for my ears. I bought an eiswolf 240 that I couldn't get to work properly so instead I think I will water cool it with a proper block. Going to send that eiswolf to another member on here see if he has better luck.

Edit: Gotta say though none of that is just plug it in and go which I guess is more what this is all about. I don't really remember what mine does without a custom profile.

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 19:53

Vince said:
My 56 is quite different, was actually pretty good at keeping stock clocks, sits nicely at 1600+ with the 64 bios but to maintain it fan profile is an issue for my ears. I bought an eiswolf 240 that I couldn't get to work properly so instead I think I will water cool it with a proper block. Going to send that eiswolf to another member on here see if he has better luck.

Edit: Gotta say though none of that is just plug it in and go which I guess is more what this is all about. I don't really remember what mine does without a custom profile.

Am still waiting for my eiswolf 240 to be dispatched

Alphacool said stock should be going to suppliers today 30th so hope next week.

Vince · 30 Oct 2017 at 20:00

shankly1985 said:
Am still waiting for my eiswolf 240 to be dispatched Alphacool said stock should be going to suppliers today 30th so hope next week.

Honestly I am not sure I would bother. There was too much about it that bothered me. I decided to cut my losses and pretty much give it away to a fella on these boards.

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 20:01

Vince said:
Honestly I am not sure I would bother. There was too much about it that bothered me. I decided to cut my losses and pretty much give it away to a fella on these boards.

I'll give it ago

Vince · 30 Oct 2017 at 20:02

shankly1985 said:
I'll give it ago

I literally re-seated it about 10 times and couldn't get the hot spot under control at all. Will be interested to see how you get on.

Edit: I am going to make a gpu loop and see how it gets on. If it works out ill add my 1950x to the loop and be done with the aio on that as well I think.

shankly1985 · 30 Oct 2017 at 20:09

Vince said:
I literally re-seated it about 10 times and couldn't get the hot spot under control at all. Will be interested to see how you get on.

Edit: I am going to make a gpu loop and see how it gets on. If it works out ill add my 1950x to the loop and be done with the aio on that as well I think.

How did you apply the paste? With VEGA you need to cover all the Core and Memory with paste. I do forget what video I watch not long ago about this.

Vince · 30 Oct 2017 at 22:11

shankly1985 said:
How did you apply the paste? With VEGA you need to cover all the Core and Memory with paste. I do forget what video I watch not long ago about this.

All over both core and memory as is required, less than a mm thick applied with a credit card I cut in half

Its not the paste that was causing me the issues with the standard cooler back on we are back with everything down at low 30's idle. Best I managed with the eiswolf was in the 40's and put any load on it and the temps started rocketing... No idea where I went wrong but after that many goes I am done.

jigger · 30 Oct 2017 at 22:36

LoadsaMoney said:
Guess if it wasn't for those Vega features, even the 1060 would be ripping em a new'un

You mean DX12 features

If it wasn't for those pesky Mantle API's we'd have project Denver based graphics cards.