Radeon VII

[D.P.]

Can you source me the results you're using please, I can only find 3 games with the VII being compared against the 2080. Battlefield 5 (DX11, 1440p), Forza Horizon 4 (DX12, 3440x1440) & Strange Brigade (Vulcan, 4K). I'm pretty sure you can't be coming to this conclusion based on those three results.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-first-radeon-7-benchmark-results-in-25-games

You can also look at the claimed performance increases over Vega64, and find this average also puts it behind a 2080

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/31.html
At 4K, V64 is at 65% and stock 2080 is at 94%. AMD claims R7 is 29% faster on average than Vega64, so 65*1.29 = 83.85 , 83.85/ 94 = 89.2% of a stock 2080 performance, or over 10% slower.
When compared to the higher clocked 2080 models available, well you are at 83.5% of the performance of the review Zotac model.

As I said, 10-15% slower than the 2080 for the same money, less features, but more vram.


Another aspect is AMD claims the 7nm process offers 25% more performance at the same power. Power usage is likely to be the same as it is already at 295w. This performance comes form increased clocks. R7 has no new features or architecture difference that would significantly help beyond bandwidth. On the flip side, although R7 might have gained around 25% on clocks, being a salvage chip there are only 60CUs, so 92.75% of the compute per clock. Which means in games that arn't bandwidth limited performance increases will often be under 20%. Conversely games and settings that are bandwidth limited might enjoy the 30-40% gains reported. If you are not running 4K maxed then you wont see these benefits. Which is why AMD's numbers come form 4K max settings where the Radeon 7 actual fails to maintain a 60FPS average.

 

[D.P.]

Actually AMD won't kill FP64 performance on RVII, which is why it will disappear from the shelves.
AMD will kill though pci-e 4.0, Infinity Fabric and no access to Instinct drivers.

https://twitter.com/RyanSmithAT/status/1083959608371175424

---------------------------------
@4K8KW10 & @Illuminist should i remind you that Vega 64 is not a pure gaming card either yes? And is amazing workstation card for content creation also.
It can also use general system memory(ram) as a fallback cache in GPGPU situations while the Nvidia card cant, when doing workloads need extra ram. Like rendering or eg Blender.
And talking about Blender, and content creation, the Vega 64 has similar performance to GTX1080Ti not GTX1080 on this area. (actually bit better than the 1080Ti these days).

And things like 3d Studio, Blender, Unity can easily gobble 16GB VRAM, and at 1TB/s RVII will be beating even the RTX2080Ti easily on such workloads, which is 40% more expensive.

RVII like Vega 64 are gobbling the Nvidia Quadro market share, thats the issue the Nvidia CEO has and is so salty.

No, AMD confirmed that 1:2 FP64 has been disabled, you get the same old 1:32 as vega64. The transistors are there, liekly drawing power, but you wont be able to use them.

 

[Scougar]

What is it with you as of late, 4K8K? You used to make some valid points and keep discussions and speculation within relatively sensible parameters, but now you're seemingly off on one, decrying everything because you fail to acknowledge, let alone comprehend, the bigger picture.

I have been thinking the same thing of late. I always imagined him as being an older guy but now it is looks a teenager took over his account. Sorry, 4k8k, just something I had also observed, not trying to personally attack you.

 

[Panos]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-first-radeon-7-benchmark-results-in-25-games

You can also look at the claimed performance increases over Vega64, and find this average also puts it behind a 2080

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/31.html
At 4K, V64 is at 65% and stock 2080 is at 94%. AMD claims R7 is 29% faster on average than Vega64, so 65*1.29 = 83.85 , 83.85/ 94 = 89.2% of a stock 2080 performance, or over 10% slower.
When compared to the higher clocked 2080 models available, well you are at 83.5% of the performance of the review Zotac model.

As I said, 10-15% slower than the 2080 for the same money, less features, but more vram.


Another aspect is AMD claims the 7nm process offers 25% more performance at the same power. Power usage is likely to be the same as it is already at 295w. This performance comes form increased clocks. R7 has no new features or architecture difference that would significantly help beyond bandwidth. On the flip side, although R7 might have gained around 25% on clocks, being a salvage chip there are only 60CUs, so 92.75% of the compute per clock. Which means in games that arn't bandwidth limited performance increases will often be under 20%. Conversely games and settings that are bandwidth limited might enjoy the 30-40% gains reported. If you are not running 4K maxed then you wont see these benefits. Which is why AMD's numbers come form 4K max settings where the Radeon 7 actual fails to maintain a 60FPS average.

However CPUs are different. AMD results are with 7700K. Techpowerup are with 8700K.

 

[Boomstick777]

Wow more interest in an AMD card not even launched yet, than in Nvidia's new RTX cards. Shows the state of the GPU space. Sad times for sure.

Overpriced and underwhelming in terms of generational improvements across the board AMD and Nvidia.

Nvidia started this price hikery and AMD following suit, I mean for them it makes sense.

Thanks Nvidia.

Looking forward to Nvidia's next gen cards ( /sarcasm ), quick guess at launch prices would put the RTX 3080 at £850 and RTX 3080 Ti at £1500. Yay !

 

[Panos]

No, AMD confirmed that 1:2 FP64 has been disabled, you get the same old 1:32 as vega64. The transistors are there, liekly drawing power, but you wont be able to use them.

Disappointing to be honest but still it will more than 2x than the RTX2080Ti. (862 Gflops over 420 Gflops).

 

[Brazo]

However CPUs are different. AMD results are with 7700K. Techpowerup are with 8700K.

Neither will be a bottleneck, certainly not at 4K, even Ryzen would work as well as the 7700k.

 

[Panos]

Neither will be a bottleneck, certainly not at 4K, even Ryzen would work as well as the 7700k.

You will find many games would perform better these days on 8700K over 7700K. Especially those used in these tests.

 

[Boomstick777]

Disappointing to be honest but still it will more than 2x than the RTX2080Ti. (862 Gflops over 420 Gflops).

Yup but people need a reason to complain at AMD.

The gpu space is in sad state, people are angry, that anger will go AMD's direction xD

Nvidia massively boost prices this gen, blame is squarely with them.

No real improvements per gen in traditional games and ray tracing that does not deliver in performance or being rolled out in games. It's simply not ready.

It's all really disappointing and as usual AMD will get the blame lol. Poor AMD.

 

[TNA]

Does VII = V2, as in Vega 2 or Radeon 7?

Does Radeon 7 even make sense? Surely it is Vega 2?

 

[Boomstick777]

Does VII = V2, as in Vega 2 or Radeon 7?

Does Radeon 7 even make sense? Surely it is Vega 2?

Yes, it's VII (Vega II) but also VII (7 nm).

It's quite straightforward no?

 

[Illuminist]

Yes, it's VII (Vega II) but also VII (7 nm).

It's quite straightforward no?

I actually thought that was kinda clever, a bit like RESIDENT EVII for resident evil 7

 

[nashathedog]

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-first-radeon-7-benchmark-results-in-25-games

You can also look at the claimed performance increases over Vega64, and find this average also puts it behind a 2080

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/31.html
At 4K, V64 is at 65% and stock 2080 is at 94%. AMD claims R7 is 29% faster on average than Vega64, so 65*1.29 = 83.85 , 83.85/ 94 = 89.2% of a stock 2080 performance, or over 10% slower.
When compared to the higher clocked 2080 models available, well you are at 83.5% of the performance of the review Zotac model.

As I said, 10-15% slower than the 2080 for the same money, less features, but more vram.


Another aspect is AMD claims the 7nm process offers 25% more performance at the same power. Power usage is likely to be the same as it is already at 295w. This performance comes form increased clocks. R7 has no new features or architecture difference that would significantly help beyond bandwidth. On the flip side, although R7 might have gained around 25% on clocks, being a salvage chip there are only 60CUs, so 92.75% of the compute per clock. Which means in games that arn't bandwidth limited performance increases will often be under 20%. Conversely games and settings that are bandwidth limited might enjoy the 30-40% gains reported. If you are not running 4K maxed then you wont see these benefits. Which is why AMD's numbers come form 4K max settings where the Radeon 7 actual fails to maintain a 60FPS average.

Thanks, While I'd seen the 25 games comparison with the Vega 64 I hadn't seen this article, It looks worse than I thought it'd be if the numbers are as accurate as they appear to be but when an articles author writes "That means we can suggest how the Radeon 7 would compare against a wider range of cards in these titles" so while they may be accurate it's only 2 games, one of which (AC series) tend to prefer Nvidia gpu's over Radeon's anyway. The interesting bit will be how well we can tweak VII & how big a performance improvement is possible, if Vega's anything to go on that's where the VII will shine and give the competition (1080ti, 2080) a run for their money.

You can also look at the claimed performance increases over Vega64, and find this average also puts it behind a 2080

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/31.html
At 4K, V64 is at 65% and stock 2080 is at 94%. AMD claims R7 is 29% faster on average than Vega64, so 65*1.29 = 83.85 , 83.85/ 94 = 89.2% of a stock 2080 performance, or over 10% slower.
When compared to the higher clocked 2080 models available, well you are at 83.5% of the performance of the review Zotac model.

That's 83.5 % of what's likely the highest clocked 1080 model out there, I forgot how to do this type sort of math years ago but it'd be a better comparison if you used a Founders edition 2080 so we can see it compared fairly to that and also how it compares to the 1080ti?

The real comparisons will be done once their in users hands so they can be compared with both overclocked, As mentioned before Vega can hold a much better clockspeed once you tweak it compared to how it comes out of the box & real world performance is what matters.

 

[TNA]

Yes, it's VII (Vega II) but also VII (7 nm).

It's quite straightforward no?

Sure is. But I don't see anyone calling it Vega 2. But calling it either Radeon 7 or Vega 7

 

[malachi]

I actually thought that was kinda clever, a bit like RESIDENT EVII for resident evil 7

HEAD.......BLOWN!!!!!

 

[shankly1985]

Wow more interest in an AMD card not even launched yet, than in Nvidia's new RTX cards. Shows the state of the GPU space. Sad times for sure.

Overpriced and underwhelming in terms of generational improvements across the board AMD and Nvidia.

Nvidia started this price hikery and AMD following suit, I mean for them it makes sense.

Thanks Nvidia.

Looking forward to Nvidia's next gen cards ( /sarcasm ), quick guess at launch prices would put the RTX 3080 at £850 and RTX 3080 Ti at £1500. Yay !

Tbh
This is always the case on this forum. Amd threads always get more traffic.

It's mostly Doom and gloom posts

 

[Gerard]

Tbh
This is always the case on this forum. Amd threads always get more traffic.

It's mostly Doom and gloom posts

Sadly correct

 

[4K8KW10]

What is it with you as of late, 4K8K? You used to make some valid points and keep discussions and speculation within relatively sensible parameters, but now you're seemingly off on one, decrying everything because you fail to acknowledge, let alone comprehend, the bigger picture.

I do not understand why you are so crushingly disappointed by the Radeon 7. You seem to think that AMD have specifically designed this card to be their new top-level product, when the truth is completely the opposite, and cannot be swayed from the opinion no matter how many times you're told otherwise.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Radeon 7 is nothing more than a repurposed Instinct card? At some point in construction, a Vega 20 + HBM package was deemed insufficient to be sold as Instinct, so AMD stuck it onto a gaming card to recoup some losses rather than throwing it in the bin. How is that so hard to understand? So every complained you've made about "why didn't they do this, why did they design that" etc. are entirely moot. AMD literally made no significant design choices to create a new gaming SKU. Rather, AMD just had a gaming SKU fall into their lap by virtue of wastage from Instinct.

Kill the FP64 capability (which is probably the part of the die that failed to begin with), don't use PCIe Gen4, ramp some clocks up and make a cooler. These are the only choice that have been made, AMD didn't create anything new.

Edit: and yes I know it's still speculation that AMD are repurposing failed Instinct packages, but it makes no sense to sacrifice massive profit margins by taking perfectly healthy Instinct packages away from that product line.

My questions are two and very simple:
1. Why doesn't AMD want to make the Vega 20 specifically for gaming?
2. Why was the last new gaming SKU coming from them back in 2016, the Ellesmere from the Arctic Islands, which was renamed to Polaris?
(Vega = Greenland).

 

[Vince]

No, AMD confirmed that 1:2 FP64 has been disabled, you get the same old 1:32 as vega64. The transistors are there, liekly drawing power, but you wont be able to use them.

Course you will, just flash it with an mi50 bios and be done with it. I recon these will be unlocked and flashed within a few days.

 

[TNA]

My questions are two and very simple:
1. Why doesn't AMD want to make the Vega 20 specifically for gaming?
2. Why was the last new gaming SKU coming from them back in 2016, the Ellesmere from the Arctic Islands, which was renamed to Polaris?
(Vega = Greenland).

Lol. You do know that not until recently AMD have been in the red for MANY years? This means not enough money for R&D. Not only that, but it takes ages to make the changes your are talking about. Can’t just do it in a couple of months. Things are playing out from decisions made years ago.

Tbh
This is always the case on this forum. Amd threads always get more traffic.

It's mostly Doom and gloom posts

A lot of people probably want to know if AMD have delivered anything competitive and hope it will lower prices on Nvidia GPU’s. If not they can have a laugh in there. Win win