• 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.

Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **

On or off the hype train?

  • (off) Train has derailed

    Votes: 207 39.2%

  • (on) Overcrowding, standing room only

    Votes: 100 18.9%

  • (never ever got on) Chinese escalator

    Votes: 221 41.9%
  • Total voters
    528
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rroff said:
I hope its a good bit faster than a 1080 - I'm perfectly happy with my 1070 performance but already eyeing up upgrades with medium to longer term thoughts for some of the games coming in about 6 months time and I'll definitely be going for something a good bit faster than a 1080.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if you have a 1070/fury x/OC 980ti etc. then a 1080 competitor won't be much of an upgrade, realistically I think if you are wanting to have high end performance and guaranteed to get a worthy upgrade every year etc. your only option will be nvidia.

For my usage it be plenty for a good few years especially moving forward with low level APIs where I imagine vega will leave a 1080 behind in the dust + I don't really bother with "ultra" settings as generally there is no graphical difference and you gain at least 10-15 fps back just from going to high.

Either way, I am in no rush as most of the upcoming games I am wanting aren't out till October/November+, my next purchases will be 55" HDR 4K OLED and a ps4 pro so by the time the PC market has returned to sensible prices and games are all patched up a few months later, vega should be fully optimized by then if not I'll just enjoy being a dirty console couch casual gamer :D
 
Last edited:
fullmetaltony said:
Way too early to draw any conclusions
Click to expand...
OF course.
But AMD will have to put up with 1 month of disastrous headlines if there really is a river issue that will be resolved.


Apparently they are frantcially deleting posts on reddit, ultimate damage control - just try and run the internet like China and block what you don't want people to see. All entirely avoidable, and entirely predictable.
 
zornyan said:
obviously they were hoping to get more power out of the gpu by optimising drivers, but clearly that's not the case, 6 months of driver work apparently has gained them 0% performance.

since the doom demo put it (in non amd optimised titles) dead on with a gtx1080.

and this release driver puts it dead on with a 1080, hell a highly clocked 1080 cracks 25k graphics score, this is equal with a 2.1ghz gtx 1070
Click to expand...
The dude who posted the benchmark already admitted that the clocks were all over the place. If the card was running at full clocks it'd obviously be faster, so according to your reasoning they've gained >0% performance since the Doom demo and it'll be faster than a 1080.

Whether that's a good result is up for interpretation.
 
Think chill out time is needed here, can we not just wait for some proper reviews from well respected people like PCper for example before jumping on the AMD doomed wagon Lool

And why are we focusing on just gaming to make or break the FE Vega? AMD has clearly stated this isn't only for gaming and its main focus is for creation #chill
 
DragonQ said:
The dude who posted the benchmark already admitted that the clocks were all over the place. If the card was running at full clocks it'd obviously be faster, so according to your reasoning they've gained >0% performance since the Doom demo and it'll be faster than a 1080.

Whether that's a good result is up for interpretation.
Click to expand...

That doom demo was a good 15-20% above a 1080 even back then. It wasn't equal with it.
 
DragonQ said:
The dude who posted the benchmark already admitted that the clocks were all over the place. If the card was running at full clocks it'd obviously be faster, so according to your reasoning they've gained >0% performance since the Doom demo and it'll be faster than a 1080.

Whether that's a good result is up for interpretation.
Click to expand...


well this benchmark has it 10% slower than a fully overclocked 1080, so it needs to clock at least 10% higher than it currently is to match a 1080, let alone the 35% more performance for a 1080ti, or 42% performance for a titan Xp
 
  1. Score 8258, GPU TitanP @2101/2836, GFX Score 8378, Physics Score 19421, Combined Score 4193, CPU 6800k @4.3, Gudu55 - Link Drivers 372.54
  2. Score 5989, GPU 1080 @2164/2762, GFX Score 5888, Physics Score 22846, Combined Score 3029, CPU 5960X @4.7, jabski - Link Drivers 368.39
That's our top scores from the Firestrike Ultra bench thread using a Titan P and 1080. Fury X at 1400mhz 6505 and has a Graphics score of 6974. In theory a Fury X at 1600mhz would just about match the OC Titan P. Vega should be faster again so i honestly think things will look a lot better when under proper drivers. If not then it looks like they have managed to take a step back some how.

Link to the Fury X scores http://wccftech.com/asus-radeon-r9-...y-unlocked-fury-features-1-tbs-bandwidth-ln2/
 
DragonQ said:
The dude who posted the benchmark already admitted that the clocks were all over the place. If the card was running at full clocks it'd obviously be faster, so according to your reasoning they've gained >0% performance since the Doom demo and it'll be faster than a 1080.

Whether that's a good result is up for interpretation.
Click to expand...

I think the guys benchmarks need a heap of salt, but AMDs states typically clock speed as 1382MHZ. Were the guys clock speed bouncing between 1382 and 1600?, in which case the card might have been runnign as expected.
 
five8five said:
It could be thermal throttling, unable to maintain the peak 1600MHz Engine Clock. His case looks a bit cramped, cpu well cooled but not loads of airflow.
Click to expand...

Could be both issues as well. That is a very cramped chassis alright.

I'm really looking forward to thorough 3rd party reviews.
 
D.P. said:
I think the guys benchmarks need a heap of salt, but AMDs states typically clock speed as 1382MHZ. Were the guys clock speed bouncing between 1382 and 1600?, in which case the card might have been runnign as expected.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was something like this, or potentially not even staying at 1382.
 
shankly1985 said:
Think chill out time is needed here, can we not just wait for some proper reviews from well respected people like PCper for example before jumping on the AMD doomed wagon Lool

And why are we focusing on just gaming to make or break the FE Vega? AMD has clearly stated this isn't only for gaming and its main focus is for creation #chill
Click to expand...
But if Vega FE's main focus is for creation, then why aren't the drivers certified, and why is the performance barely any better than a $400 Quadro.


I agree need to wait for PcPer though. It is just sad seeing AMD dig themselves a grave
 
JediFragger said:
The longer pipeline in Vega may have affected it somewhat. It's far too early to tell yet, but AMD really shouldn't have allowed this situation to happen! AMD/RTG Marketing is nVidia's best weapon it seems! :o
Click to expand...

Yea hopefully Navi is on course and this kind of wait with no competition will never happen again. I still can't get a real upgrade for less than £300 for my 290. Crazy times.
 
DragonQ said:
The dude who posted the benchmark already admitted that the clocks were all over the place. If the card was running at full clocks it'd obviously be faster, so according to your reasoning they've gained >0% performance since the Doom demo and it'll be faster than a 1080.

Whether that's a good result is up for interpretation.
Click to expand...
It could have been thermally throttling as his is quite cramped, nowhere near workstation size where a card like this would normally be installed.

Also AMD stated the FX clocks were -
Typical Engine Clock (MHz) 1382
Peak Engine Clock (MHz) 1600

So not expected to run at 1600 all the time.
 
D.P. said:
But if Vega FE's main focus is for creation, then why aren't the drivers certified, and why is the performance barely any better than a $400 Quadro.


I agree need to wait for PcPer though. It is just sad seeing AMD dig themselves a grave
Click to expand...

You know Grey exists between Black and White, right? Just a thought...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom