Exactly what i was looking for. Cheers.
-
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 Vega Review Thread.
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,353
- Location
- Planet Earth
TH,just released their Vega 56 review:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-rx-vega-56,5202.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-rx-vega-56,5202.html
Yes, in comparison to recent GPUs yes. Though I should have clarified I meant you had a fixed 3d clock speed as a baseline, no boost clocks or throttling nonsense. The 7950 was overclocking a genuine 50% and giving about 30-35% extra performance.
How the hell did they manage to get such odd results for their mining benchmarks O.o
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,295
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Earlier this year fury nitros were 300 pound.
380 pound is higher than 25%. How does this make the 56 very good value?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,828
It was something like march last year as I bought mine for 300 from here so yeah vs £300 its not very good value if that's what you paid. 25% increase in performance is interesting but not at current price for me
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,295
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Which is the crux of it.
Ultimately I don't think 380 is a terrible price for the performance it offers. However it has negatives that can't be denied, and thus at 380 I'm just out. I'll wait.
A very biased post and surprised to see it in truth. The testing is done with stock V stock or OC V OC (as it should be). Having to undervolt a card to make it look better is very poor in my opinion and not something anyone should have to do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
There is no stock any more when cards automatically boost. There is effective performance, average and upper limits possible. Its fine to say the 64 is comparable to 1080 and preference is personal, it'll be unknown which is best for what exactly for a while yet. Cant draw firm conclusions when theres +18% performance occurring in the most widely played steam game
It should have been 350 or less but thats too bad. Ideally the v64 would have been well below 450 not struggling to stay near to that price point. I still think its generally best to wait unless making big gains, its not terrible but not worth the bother as its not much of an upgrade for many
I would have expected the Fury X to fall way further behind the 56 on 4K tests due to the 4GB, but it doesn't and it holds it's minimums as well compared to the 56, there's only really ghost recon and tomb raider where the Fury falls a significant amount behind, but then they aren't the most flattering titles for AMD either. But overall I didn't expect Fiji to be that close to the 56. And i'll have to go back and look at other reviews, because I can't remember the Fury X being that close in other reviews.
Last edited:
It certainly does complicate things - its very easy to get a good few percent difference in performance just from the variation of boost from a "stock" card - my 1070 for instance boosts to 1911MHz out the box and mostly holds it while some other people with the same model card have reported only getting boosts to around 1860MHz and dropping back to around 1750 quite quickly once temperatures get up which results in around a 5-6% performance difference to my card.
EDIT: Interestingly I seem to be running a custom voltage bin and slightly lower than they do - might have to see what happens actually lowering voltage a touch on their cards or whether the difference in silicon quality means they need that extra voltage to be stable and hence warms up quicker.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 223
- Location
- Dublin
Speaking of silicon quality, are folks seeing anything shown for that in GPU-Z? It's on one of the menus IIRC.
That should be the case yes, from what I've understood on the 10 series, the clock just boosts up as high as it can with the stock voltage given and that last P-state varies depending on the cards (even within the same AIB SKU) so I wouldn't be surprised that if you jave one that clocks higher out of box than the norm bringing down the voltage a bit while upping the power limit a bit could quite possibly help it maintain that high clock all the time.
I agree, the fact he stated that AMD looks better when undervolted ignored the fact the comparison would no longer be stock vs stock. Though the fact a card can be undervolted within the official driver control panel makes it a perfectly valid thing to do, so long as you are making similar tweaks and improvements on the GTX 1080 for comparison.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Yeah looking a the reviews at my res (1440p), its mostly single digit frames faster, like 5/8, odd game its more than that, but still, looks more like a sidegrade to me, id rather have a performance increase, than a vram increase.
Ironically removing VRAM limits give the biggest FPS boost you can get. Fury (non X) at release was around £440 here in the UK, but as usual people compare massively reduced EOL pricing.
If Nvidia or AMD brought new tech out and price matched their EOL products we would have GPUs costing a few pence by now.
- Compared to Fury non X, RX 56 is at a lower price point on release prices (even accounting for lower exchange rate)
- It has double the VRAM
- And is up to 35% faster
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/22/amd_radeon_rx_vega_56_video_card_review/13
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,951
Odd in what sense?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Ironically removing VRAM limits give the biggest FPS boost you can get. Fury (non X) at release was around £440 here in the UK, but as usual people compare massively reduced EOL pricing.
If Nvidia or AMD brought new tech out and price matched their EOL products we would have GPUs costing a few pence by now.
Yeah a complete rip off at those prices.
- Compared to Fury non X, RX 56 is at a lower price point on release prices (even accounting for lower exchange rate)
- It has double the VRAM
- And is up to 35% faster
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/22/amd_radeon_rx_vega_56_video_card_review/13
The Fury pros were £40 cheaper than the 56 (i only paid £430 each for mine), the 56s are only a tenner cheaper than a 1080 now, as the first 300 at the launch price of £380, are now gone.
Be mad to pay £470 for a reference 56, when an extra tenner would get you a faster 1080, even non ref overclocked 1070s are cheaper.
Overclocked custom 1070, £110 cheaper than a reference Vega 56
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/zota...s-graphics-card-zt-p10700g-10m-gx-10r-zt.html
Last edited: