• 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.

What happened to Pascal cards?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TNA
  • Start date Start date
From what I've heard there are some problems benchmarking it in that it doesn't maintain the same settings - the presets actually change depending on what graphics card is used so high on one GPU isn't the same settings as high on another, etc. so the reviewers that haven't picked up on it have flawed results.

That said even looking at the corrected results Pascal drops quite a bit, though not as much as the TPU review, behind the Vega cards, etc.

EDIT: Reading the TPU conclusion and what has been said elsewhere though sounds like there tons of issues with the "port" none the less it isn't optimised for performance at all.
 
Well it is a DX12/Vulkan title only, and Pascal doesn't support the full feature set if I remember correctly. Its why AMD cards flew ahead compared to Pascal in other Vulkan games like DOOM.
Turing fixed this and AMD already had full support.
 
greatash said:
Well it is a DX12/Vulkan title only, and Pascal doesn't support the full feature set if I remember correctly. Its why AMD cards flew ahead compared to Pascal in other Vulkan games like DOOM.
Turing fixed this and AMD already had full support.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Just mad seeing such a top card being beaten by a 2060S. Lol.
 
Nvidia always knew this would happen.

They stopped with the kitchen sink after Fermi. Kepler et al were all cut down and cut back, yet they clocked way higher. That was good for then. AMD stuck to the kitchen sink. From the 6000 series on they have stuck by huge great tank cores, hoping DX12 would happen a lot faster. It didn't.

With RTX Nvidia have started making tank like cores again. That is why they are so expensive. However, they timed it right unlike AMD, and put it back when they needed to.

It's no surprise that Vega is doing well in DX12. That was AMD's plan for years, it just took an entire dev cycle (5 years or so) for it to finally happen. In that time Nvidia have gotten to take the pee a bit, and we are where we are.

If AMD continue to support it you can expect good things out of the R7 too, if they can be bothered of course.

I'm, going to keep my Vega 64 but only for a TV rig. Sitting too close to it just makes me sweat.
 
Sort of - as I've said all along Pascal cards are mostly barely even mid-range cards really if you look at the core size, various fill rates and GFLOPs, etc. they should never really have been able to keep up with the Vega cards in the first place - sadly people even defend this practise from nVidia. On the other hand the Pascal cards have done their job at the peak of their life the were the better alternative to the competition and once the new cards drop it will be time to move on regardless.
 
Rroff said:
Sort of - as I've said all along Pascal cards are mostly barely even mid-range cards really if you look at the core size, various fill rates and GFLOPs, etc. they should never really have been able to keep up with the Vega cards in the first place - sadly people even defend this practise from nVidia. On the other hand the Pascal cards have done their job at the peak of their life the were the better alternative to the competition and once the new cards drop it will be time to move on regardless.
Click to expand...

I'll be the first to say I defend it. It was the right move at the right time to move away from space heaters and grills. It got the job done and it worked. It also saved me a buttload in power, and thus money.

Kepler and on have been great cards. You can't deny that. As I say, right moves, right time. AMD should have cut back and gone for higher clocks like they did with Polaris. Raja had the right ideas. RTG didn't.
 
ALXAndy said:
I'll be the first to say I defend it. It was the right move at the right time to move away from space heaters and grills. It got the job done and it worked. It also saved me a buttload in power, and thus money.

Kepler and on have been great cards. You can't deny that. As I say, right moves, right time. AMD should have cut back and gone for higher clocks like they did with Polaris. Raja had the right ideas. RTG didn't.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that. Unless you game all day long the difference is not as big as you may think. My Vega takes about 200-220 watts. Don’t think the Titan is much less, I forgot what it was, I did have one a while back.
 
Rroff said:
Sort of - as I've said all along Pascal cards are mostly barely even mid-range cards really if you look at the core size, various fill rates and GFLOPs, etc. they should never really have been able to keep up with the Vega cards in the first place - sadly people even defend this practise from nVidia. On the other hand the Pascal cards have done their job at the peak of their life the were the better alternative to the competition and once the new cards drop it will be time to move on regardless.
Click to expand...

100% right on the money.

For me Pascal smelled as soon as I looked at 4K & HDR performance, then DX12/Vulkan. Plus Kepler & Maxwell stank as well looking at the games holistically, and it was clear what kind of lifespan Nvidia cards have, in terms of support, which is half the battle. As always, customers have short attention spans & little interest in value, to say nothing of being wilfully ignorant. That's why I was happy to buy a Vega & why I look at what AMD's doing now with Navi with disgust, they're pushing nothing more gimped Geforce cards.

But just like it was right for Nvidia to do it and milk the dummies, so it is for AMD. At the end of the day if the customers are morons then treat them as such. Seems fair enough & seems to be working great for both parties.
 
TNA said:
Not sure about that. Unless you game all day long the difference is not as big as you may think. My Vega takes about 200-220 watts. Don’t think the Titan is much less, I forgot what it was, I did have one a while back.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, after i switched from a 4790k and a 1080ti to a Ryzen 2600@4,0 with a vega 64(UV, running around 1570 core effective, 1025 mem) and now a ryzen 3600@4,3 and the same vega card i've seen a reduction in my power bill quarterly by around 100 pounds. That's spite the fact that we are washing/drying cloth like never before due to my boy's obsessive need to be knee deep in mud :D. Now i'm not claiming that the entire power saving is due to my "new" combo of ryzen/vega but more that it can't be that bad on power, if tuned properly, as a lot of folks makes it out to be. Again most figures on the net for Vega is rubbish, as reviewers puts no effort in to tune the cards they test outside of dialing sliders to the right in afterburner(applying this mentality to Vega will most likely cause burned power plugs as the card can be excessively hungry if pushed to the max). Goes to show the amateur show out there in the "tech press" community. I remember running both my 980ti and 1080ti undervolted due to **** stock coolers. Helped a lot actually.
 
Pascal kinda sucks at async and AMD excels there so maybe that's the reason. No DX11 option neither :p
 
I agree however my 1080 has been the best buy ive ever made will be 4 year old soon and only now starting to suffer. I just hope the big vega or ampere land soon so i finally feel if worth an upgrade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom