Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
No, "possibly". Seems like a bad idea to gamble on that happening.
-
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 **
- Thread starter TNA
- Start date
- Status
No, "possibly". Seems like a bad idea to gamble on that happening.
Well there's that, or you HAVE to believe Vega has nearly 30-40% less IPC than Fiji; and runs far hotter.
We will see. I do not buy that RX Vega won't be able to beat a 1080. Drivers can make a big difference.
We also had the PCWorld chaps stating it was close to the 1080Ti in their "hands on" preview.
So I'm not sure what AMD's Marketing is playing at. Refused to source any credible reviewers; and instead launch in some limited quantities allowing any ole joe to mess with them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
Which again makes little to no sense considering a Fury X oc is not to far behind. He's using a Duo but only one core. I posted a 1400mhz run on Fury X and it was just under 7000 graphics score. Either the figi core is superior and AMD have taken a step back in IPC which is hard to fathom or something is not right with the drivers being used.
- Score 4466, GPU Duo(1) @1172/600, GFX Score 4424, Physics Score 19371, Combined Score 2145, CPU 5960X @4.0, AMDMatt - Link Drivers 16.5.3
Please no! I'd rather have the Videocardz rumor of Frontier Edition made from a defective Vega stepping than that actually being accurate.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,188
It'll turn out that AMD are just trolling and having a bloody good laugh at us 
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
It'll turn out that AMD are just trolling and having a bloody good laugh at us
If i was in that much debt i wouldn't be trolling
Fury x at 1215mhz needs 1.35v, the power consumption draws around 375-400w. 1400+ needs around 1.9v and ln2 and draws crazy power. If you.put vega on ln2 i'd imagine it'd scale to 1800-1900mhz.
It can only be a few things?
Driver is borked,
The clocks were meant to be higher
The performance is what it is, just pascal is much better.
On the brightside folks, the dude test Frontier Edition for mining. It sucks for it. Getting 30-35 MH/s
Also he's getting a joke of a Cinebench OpenGL score, 97.39 FPS
He states no difference in performance between Pro and Gaming driver mode.
That DOOM Score WTF?! That's overclocked Fury X levels again!
Also he's getting a joke of a Cinebench OpenGL score, 97.39 FPS
He states no difference in performance between Pro and Gaming driver mode.
That DOOM Score WTF?! That's overclocked Fury X levels again!
Maybe arch was designed pro/server market in mind and they didn't expect it to be so ****** in gaming
Well for £999 it compares well against the Quadro P5000 at least in those tasks.
Clearly drivers aren't optimised, i read somewhere that in one of the games tested half of the screen wasn't rendered correctly lol With proper drivers etc i expect gaming line to reach ti levels or be close to thatOn the brightside folks, the dude test Frontier Edition for mining. It sucks for it. Getting 30-35 MH/s
Also he's getting a joke of a Cinebench OpenGL score, 97.39 FPS
He states no difference in performance between Pro and Gaming driver mode.
That DOOM Score WTF?! That's overclocked Fury X levels again!
This can only be a good thing. Maybe the gaming mode driver doesn't do much/anything differently to the pro mode yet and that's why the performance isn't great. It could be that it's currently a placeholder while they actually finalise optimised gaming drivers.
- Status