FingerBang
Member
Well, it would still be a huge upgrade from an RX480.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
Well, it would still be a huge upgrade from an RX480.
This... My 980 Ti is getting a bit long in the tooth, but still trying my best to wait for Volta.
DemonCleaner
Member
Radiator is one thing, power circuits is another. It's hard to have a small card when you need to supply 300W+ to it. In fact, the WC Vega FE teardown on PCPer have shown that they use a second water chamber to take heat off the power converters as well:
that not what is said in the quoted text at all. the second chamber is basically for keeping fluid pressure up over time to counteract fluid loss. it can't contribute to cooling as there is no fluid circulating through it.
No idea. We don't have reliable full reviews yet, but from what we do have it looks like pretty much all the architectural enhancements AMD was talking about fell completely flat at actually improving game performance/FLOP compared to Fury.
Maintenance
Member
dr_rus
Member
A fluid is always circulating through a pump, otherwise it's not a pump. Re-read the quote. It helps with fluid movement.
ISee
Member
But the fluid in this tank can only move in one direction. It is used to keep a constant fluid preasure and volume in the rest of the system when preassure/volume starts dropping and isn't being drawn all the time. This is a pretty common technique in many AIOs to increase the lifespan.
neurosisxeno
Member
I highly doubt it. Vega already possesses most of the gains GCN cards made from when the 7970 launched through the 390X. It's been out for over a year and the Fury X hasn't exactly aged like wine--it's basically the same performance level it was at launch. I honestly wouldn't suggest getting a Vega card unless the RX variations are substantially better than the FE ones we've seen so far....
dr_rus
Member
Sure, the point is that without it the cooler would be less efficient and more noisy. It can be done obviously, and I fully expect AMD to release Vega Nano at some point too - heavily downclocked most likely with performance below that of 1070 probably but still.
Edit: Interestingly it seems that HBM2 for Vega 10 (as well as GP100 and GV100) is provided by Samsung, not Hynix as was assumed previously. I wonder if Hynix somehow botched their HBM2 offering, and this is partially the reason for such a big delay of Vega.
kirankara78
Member
You think it might be pulling a extra 30fps ????
I am willing to bet my house on the answer to this one.
Not a chance.
We haven't seen any great gains with GCN since they closed gap on dx11 performance (previously was awful) and dx12 and Vulkan still remains their greatest asset.
We still don't know why, clock for clock, the Fury X is faster than Vega.
If they manage to make it at least on par via drivers, we might see some decent gains.
kirankara78
Member
thelastword
Banned
My take on this is that "AMD told me to compare this card to a GTX 1080? but it's on par or better than a 1080Ti.....
It's not too far off now folks...
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Freesync is a big reason I'll go AMD next, it's complete bullshit I have to pay £200 more for Gsync when I only paid £240 total for my Viewsonic XG2401 (1080p/144Hz/Freesync). I'm hoping the bottom or mid tier Vega will shit on my GTX 970 at a reasonable price.
DemonCleaner
Member
you needed an in and outake from the seperate compartment if you wanted to support circulation, which this card does not have. the used term "diaphragm pump" in this context is misleading as it's not a pump in the sense of a circulator pump. you can think of the extra compartment as a pressure container with a "spring loaded" piston. it's just there to keep pressure stable in the case of cooling liquid loss (e.g. thorugh evaporation over time)
yeah no ...it wouldn't.
dr_rus
Member
Blind Gaming Test AMD RX Vega FreeSync Vs NVIDA GTX 1080 Ti G Sync
Since this isn't said explicitly in the video description and it's easy to miss in the video and comments - they were using Doom Vulkan for comparison.
Since this isn't said explicitly in the video description and it's easy to miss in the video and comments - they were using Doom Vulkan for comparison.
tioslash
Member
Another very comprehensive and conclusive test. Hyped.
Delusibeta
Banned
FYI: both monitors are 1440p 100Hz monitors. No wonder they couldn't spot a difference: 100 FPS on Doom at 1440p is fairly trivial to achieve.
dr_rus
Member
Well, there's still a point in all this - which is you can save some couple of hundreds bucks on a monitor if you only plan to play games like Doom (i.e. not very demanding) in sub-4K resolutions. I mean, it's a valid point and a clear advantage for AMD's GPUs, probably not really so for top Vega specifically but more for Polaris or Vega Nano but still.
Edit: I also haven't found in your link how the top framerate was setup - was it capped at refresh rate with vsync? If yes then it's easy to guess why some participants preferred Vega over 1080Ti as default vsync solutions in Doom's Vulkan can be pretty different between vendors in the amount of input lag they are introducing.
zeomax
Member
Well AMD you had your chance, twice this year. My next PC will be Intel+Nvidia like always in the past 15 years.
kirankara78
Member
Totally. I'm loving that this blind test is rigged at ultra wide quad hd where the fps will already be so high it's hard to tell difference between two cards anyway with free sync and g sync on.
Now let's watch them try it at 4k and you would need a blind person to not tell difference
I would take ryzen over Intel tbh
DemonCleaner
Member
they were UWQHD 3440×1440 (5 million pixels) monitors not plain 1440p (3,7 million Pixels). 4K is 8,3 Million pixels.
Aztechnology
Member
If the Vega is as expensive as the 1080ti. Then even as someone who's a largely against the cost of G-sync as you know, I say who cares. When it comes down to that still better to buy a standard/freesync 144hz monitor and go with a 1080ti.
Did they confirm any pricing yet? I guess we also have to wait for other benchmarks too, but I doubt it will be on par with the 1080ti.
LelouchZero
Member
I don't understand AMD's secrecy with Vega, sigh. Why not just show the performance?
I'm expecting the worst now.
I'm expecting the worst now.
dr_rus
Member
I'm pretty sure that top AC model will be $499, just as 1080. WC one - who knows, they do have some space to fight the 1080OC models between $500 and 1080Ti's $700.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
I can't wait for a Digital Foundry Vega vs 1060/70/80 video, hopefully they get to do one early.
michaelius
Banned
I'm expecting 550$ since one of youtube hardware reviewers who is active in Polish community suggested it will be slightly more expensive than 1080.
I'd wager the answer is perhaps deceptively simple: having a 1080 equivalent may not land well in the enthusiast market when Nvidia can just point to and, if need be, discount not only the 1080 but also the Ti. To be frank, and perhaps I'm jumping the gun a bit here, the fact that we're mere days from launch and yet the strongest word we have is a "blind", variable refresh rate-based testing environment speaks volumes about the level of confidence AMD has vis-a-vis Vega and the metaphorically titanium-laced, Pascal-based elephant in the room.
Buggy Loop
Member
Wut
What does Ryzen have to do with this? It's an amazing processor. They hit it out of the park with the cpu, aparently not for gpu. It's ok, the pc does not explode if you pair a ryzen cpu with an nvidia gpu.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
If you're making a pure gaming rig, then an Intel chip is a better investment than the equivalent Ryzen part.
Rushersauce
Banned
LMAO. Ryzen is amazing. Get outta here. Vega, though, keep ignoring it. Disappointing would be an understatement.
Rushersauce
Banned
Not really....
papersleeves
Member
4K is around 8,3 million pixels, not 6,1 so UWQHD is actually much closer to UHD than 4K.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
I'll be happy with 1080-level performance with AMD's drivers. In the process of selling my 1080Ti at the moment to get Vega as soon as it becomes available. Sure, it's a disappointment but at least AMD has something moderately high-end to take the place of the Fury X. My next PC will definitely be Ryzen-based though.
dr_rus
Member
Do you have a Freesync monitor? Otherwise I don't see why you would make such a downgrade.
icecold1983
Member
this blind testing is awful
Unknown Soldier
Member
Looks like Team Radeon is blasting off agaaaaaiiiinnnnn
DemonCleaner
Member
your right, kinda fucked up the numbers in the calculator. was getting late yesterday
Beautiful Ninja
Member
Even if he has a Freesync monitor, losing 20-30% raw performance isn't a good tradeoff. He'd be better off trying to unload the monitor instead of the 1080 Ti and buying a G-Sync one, though it'll probably be a lot harder to unload a Freesync monitor than a 1080 Ti.
ISee
Member
What is this blind gaming test nonsense? They are trying to market a high end, top tier GPU and not trying to conveince a housewife that their nobrand softener is just as good as the other products.
Give people data about performance and let them decide based on that and your pricing. Everything else is a joke:" Buy a RX Vega, it feels like playing on a nvidia 1080!"
Give people data about performance and let them decide based on that and your pricing. Everything else is a joke:" Buy a RX Vega, it feels like playing on a nvidia 1080!"
Hesemonni
Banned
I understand the Nvidia part, but Intel?
Evolution of Metal
Member
Got to pay that premium Intel fee for 110% performance at 200% price.
DemonCleaner
Member
some ultrawide benchmarks i could find for doom (mind that they are pretty old):
source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Doom-2016-Spiel-56369/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1195242/
source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Doom-2016-Spiel-56369/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1195242/
ISee
Member
Stop this nonsense, there are reasons to get ryzen over intel in certain tiers and for certain builds and reasons to get intel over ryzen in certain situations. One is gaming at very high framerates. The 7700k is currently the best and most importantly the fastest gaming CPU on the market, especially overclocked at 4.8GHz+, which is doable even on air coolers. Ryzen may have been the better CPU for your build, but not for other people where 20%-25% performance gains are needed and they are happy to pay the extra 30€ for it.
michaelius
Banned
It's part of AMD buy our stuff you might not notice it's slower campaign.
When they released Ryzen they were insisting that reviewers test it at 1440p or with mid range cards.
What data are you basing this "20-25% gains" from?