• 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

ISee

ISee

Member
Mailbox said:
What data are you basing this "20-25% gains" from?
Click to expand...

1.) 4.8GHz on a 7700k vs 4GHz on a 1700(x) (+20%). Doable overclocks on both CPUs and single core performance is currently still king for gaming performance.

2.) CPU heavy gaming benchmarks like Watch Dogs 2 where a stock 7700k (4.5 GHz) is able to beat an overclocked 1700 (4 GHz) by 30%.

https://abload.de/img/r7-1700-watch-dogs-2xpy8e.png

But you can also take a look at Witcher 3, GTA V etc. Maybe the average performance plus for the 7700k isn't exactly 20% on average, but it is still a better estimate than the 200% price premium nonsense.

Again: if you want a good PC for a low cost the r5 1600 is currently the best choice. If you need to handle gaming and heavy cpu workloads the 1700 is a very good choice. But if you only care about the best gaming performance the 7700k is the best choice out there.
But no, there is of course no reason to get intel over amd currently, because only AMD buyers are able to make educatated and reasonable decisions. Because everybody has the same needs when building a gaming PC.
 
E

Evolution of Metal

Member
ISee said:
1.) 4.8GHz on a 7700k vs 4GHz on a 1700(x) (+20%). Doable overclocks on both CPUs and single core performance is currently still king for gaming performance.

2.) CPU heavy gaming benchmarks like Watch Dogs 2 where a stock 7700k (4.5 GHz) is able to beat an overclocked 1700 (4 GHz) by 30%.

https://abload.de/img/r7-1700-watch-dogs-2xpy8e.png

But you can also take a look at Witcher 3, GTA V etc. Maybe the average performance plus for the 7700k isn't exactly 20% on average, but it is still a better estimate than your 200% price premium nonsense.

Again: if you want a good PC for a low cost the r5 1600 is currently the best choice. If you need to handle gaming and heavy cpu workloads the 1700 is a very good choice. But if you only care about the best gaming performance the 7700k is the best choice out there.
But no, there is of course no reason to get intel over amd currently, because only AMD buyers are able to make educatated and reasonable decisions. Because everybody has the same needs when building a gaming PC.
Click to expand...

Look, the comment about AMD being a bad competitor for 15 years was comical, so it was met with the same levels of extreme responses.

I am not going to dispute the fact that 7700k is the fastest pure-gaming processor right now. But, the cost for the 7700k + Mobo does rise close to the 200% if you compare it to the Ryzen 5 + Mobo items for around 30% FPS loss (even less depending on different testers like that 30 game bench in the Ryzen thread). The original comment wasn't model-specific, and the Intel was sitting on the monopoly in certain CPU markets (Xeon particularly) before Ryzen/EPYC brought an alternative for half the Intel's price.
 
R

riflen

Member
The main problem I have with HardOCP's "test", is that DOOM is trivial to run, even at 3440x1440 on these settings. A 1080 Ti can hit 170 fps which can definitely be detrimental to the experience if your panel is 100 Hz.

Kyle doesn't say whether he used V-Sync on or off during this, so on the Nvidia system either players were seeing tearing often, or they were more often dealing with V-Sync judder. Did he frame limit? Again, I can't find an answer, so I would assume not because DOOM has no frame limit feature.
With a variable sync 100 Hz monitor, which ever system remained consistently under 100 fps could appear the better one to a lot of people.
 
C

catmincer

Member
ISee said:
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.
Click to expand...

More like 10% in 1080p and 2-3% in 1440 and above
 
Leak

Leak

Member
ISee said:
1.) 4.8GHz on a 7700k vs 4GHz on a 1700(x) (+20%). Doable overclocks on both CPUs and single core performance is currently still king for gaming performance.

2.) CPU heavy gaming benchmarks like Watch Dogs 2 where a stock 7700k (4.5 GHz) is able to beat an overclocked 1700 (4 GHz) by 30%.

https://abload.de/img/r7-1700-watch-dogs-2xpy8e.png

But you can also take a look at Witcher 3, GTA V etc. Maybe the average performance plus for the 7700k isn't exactly 20% on average, but it is still a better estimate than the 200% price premium nonsense.

Again: if you want a good PC for a low cost the r5 1600 is currently the best choice. If you need to handle gaming and heavy cpu workloads the 1700 is a very good choice. But if you only care about the best gaming performance the 7700k is the best choice out there.
But no, there is of course no reason to get intel over amd currently, because only AMD buyers are able to make educatated and reasonable decisions. Because everybody has the same needs when building a gaming PC.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, it's just a lack of optimization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LSYqaNwfL4

The 1700 (No X) cores are mostly not reaching the 50% usage. With all threads being correctly used it's just far over 7700k (in the video it's 6700k, I'm not speaking about that).

Intel is still best for limited number of cores applications, but the breach is little even with stock speeds in 4Ghz ryzens. The maximum breach is in 7th generation which additionally has cooling problems and will need a good and separately buyed fan just to make really few games to run a bit higher between 60 and 100fps, so where it's core limited and dependent a Ryzen will do 60-75fps but an i7 won't reach even 100fps, not even close to 144Hz (or higher) gaming monitors speeds.

I'm a big "IPC fan" for emulating and poorly optimized strategy games which I love, but there isn't a way where I choose Intel now. Coffee lake looks even worse, same architecture, same nm, more cores but less frequency... It's a seriously WTF to Intel. They've been years and years and years taking advantage of their technologically superior processors to sell us the same chips at different prices just capping hyperthreading and overclocking. Now it should be time to bring hyperthreading to i5s and upgrade i7s to six cores but they're resisting, probably hoping to not loose much market share before 7nm arrives and they anticipate they're next generation to AMD's one, attributing the merit to their new architecture and promoting it as hell.

Intel had it's time to be the best. But it's over.
 
K

kirankara78

Member
riflen said:
The main problem I have with HardOCP's "test", is that DOOM is trivial to run, even at 3440x1440 on these settings. A 1080 Ti can hit 170 fps which can definitely be detrimental to the experience if your panel is 100 Hz.

Kyle doesn't say whether he used V-Sync on or off during this, so on the Nvidia system either players were seeing tearing often, or they were more often dealing with V-Sync judder. Did he frame limit? Again, I can't find an answer, so I would assume not because DOOM has no frame limit feature.
With a variable sync 100 Hz monitor, which ever system remained consistently under 100 fps could appear the better one to a lot of people.
Click to expand...


It's a ridiculous premise in almost every sense.

If it was a GTX 1080 they were using and both GPU were being pushed to max and freesync/gsync were instrumental in making sure both have a smooth experience, it makes sense, but when the 1080ti is ultimately being hampered by the choice in game and the naturally high fps on display in both GPUs, it becomes comical.

Sure it can serve to illustrate that above a certain framerate it becomes hard to distinguish differences in how high a framerate is, but it also fails to show how your GPU performs in more demanding games, at more demanding resolutions, how much you have to drop settings to achieve similar framerates etc etc.

They should also do this test when running more demanding titles that struggle to hit 60fps at 4k or even 3440x1440. Lets see them run Ark with both for example.
 
ISee

ISee

Member
Evolution of Metal said:
Look, the comment about AMD being a bad competitor for 15 years was comical, so it was met with the same levels of extreme responses.

I am not going to dispute the fact that 7700k is the fastest pure-gaming processor right now. But, the cost for the 7700k + Mobo does rise close to the 200% if you compare it to the Ryzen 5 + Mobo items for around 30% FPS loss. The original comment wasn't model-specific, and the Intel was sitting on the monopoly in certain CPU markets (Xeon particularly) before Ryzen/EPYC brought an alternative for half the Intel's price.
Click to expand...

From that point of view buying a r7 1700x and a 'high end' x370 Mainboard doesn't make any kind of sense either, because the much more expansive 1700x/x370 combo isn't faster than a 1600/b250 build (~290€ vs ~500€, +70%). But I'm pretty sure some people still went with the 1700x and a x370 mb. Maybe just to have a higher chance of reaching 4.1GHz or because they believe that better multithreading is the future (which is reasonable).
Btw I still don't understand the 200% price ratio. A 7700k/z270 combo is ~75% more expensive than a 1600/b250 combo. And what's the point of 1700x/x370 builds anyway if they are as expansive as 7700k/z270 builds but perform about 20%-30% worse, right? No, of course not.

But this is starting to derail this thread too much, I guess. It is very hard to choose a new CPU currently, imo. Because both AMD and Intel have valid offerings with different things speaking for them. The same can be applied on rx vega. As much as I disagree with the way AMD is handling Vega PR. If the card is priced right, it will be a valid option for many people. While others will just shrug and ignore it because they need/want better performance.


Leak said:
Oh c'mon, it's just a lack of optimization.

...

Intel had it's time to be the best. But it's over.
Click to expand...

You know, my first Computer was a C64 and my first PC (or IBM compatible as it was called back than) was a 486DX33. Since than I'm interested in PC tech. I'm following benchmarks, building PCs, overclocking and upgrading them. Still, I'm just a layman, PCs are just a hobby and I didn't chooce a profesion in the computer buisness. But experience thought me two things: Huge and consistent improvements because of driver optimisations are possible but rather rare and it has been always an up and down. Nvidia had the lead and then ATI (later bought by AMD) took over (or vice versa). Intel was sometimes on top only to release a shitty product (dual core pentium 4 anybody?) that was no competition to AMDs new CPUs. Sometimes even companies that were able to change the buisnees entirely, like 3dfx, vanished.
So please understand why I roll my eyes everytime somebody says that company X is done, dead and already burried.
 
K

kirankara78

Member
ISee said:
As much as I disagree with the way AMD is handling Vega PR. If the card is priced right, it will be a valid option for many people. While others will just shrug and ignore it because they need/want better performance.
Click to expand...

If they can price lower than a 1080. by say $50-100 they have a big success on their hands, as they will be selling a relatively high end gpu at almost mass market prices, but if it's less than $50 cheaper or even same price for the reference card, then frankly, Vega is an unmitigated disaster.

The reference card is guaranteed to thermal throttle, it's ugly as hell, and is power hungry whilst only competing with a reference or low oc'd 1080.

HBM 2 was a big mistake at this point in time it seems
 
D

DieH@rd

Banned
Kuosi said:
Apparently ~1000€ in northern europe, topping 1080ti pricing, god speed amd.
Click to expand...

thumbsdowngns1o.gif
 
Leak

Leak

Member
ISee said:
You know, my first Computer was a C64 and my first PC (or IBM compatible as it was called back than) was a 486DX33. Since than I'm interested in PC tech. I'm following benchmarks, building PCs, overclocking and upgrading them. Still, I'm just a layman, PCs are just a hobby and I didn't chooce a profesion in the computer buisness. But experience thought me two things: Huge and consistent improvements because of driver optimisations are possible but rather rare and it has been always an up and down. Nvidia had the lead and then ATI (later bought by AMD) took over (or vice versa). Intel was sometimes on top only to release a shitty product (dual core pentium 4 anybody?) that was no competition to AMDs new CPUs. Sometimes even companies that were able to change the buisnees entirely, like 3dfx, vanished.
So please understand why I roll my eyes everytime somebody says that company X is done, dead and already burried.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I think I didn't explained well. I'm not saying Intel is buried, I'm saying that their unreachable leadership hasn't only lost the unreachable part, they're also back to the second position.
 
zeomax

zeomax

Member
ISee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I use my PC only for gaming and Ryzen/Vega are huge disappointments for the performance in games.
 
X

Xyphie

Member
1080 Ti starts at 7500-8000 SEK
1080 starts at 5500-6000 SEK.

9000 SEK (even if it's the premier 375W board power CLC version) would be insta-DOA.
 
K

kirankara78

Member
zeomax said:
Exactly, I use my PC only for gaming and Ryzen/Vega are huge disappointments for the performance in games.
Click to expand...

Calling Ryzen a disappointment is a bit silly. Sure it didn't really offer any amazing gains over equivalent Intel cpu, but they area little more future proof with multi cores available and price wise they are reasonably placed, plus obviously are better cpu for other purposes.

I say this as someone who wouldn't have touched an AMD cpu with barge pole since becoming pc gamer in 2011, but right now I feel Ryzen is best cpu when viewed as overall product and on it's value for money.

Sure you can drop a lot more on a high end i7 or i9, but it doesn't really offer any reason to do so for purely gaming purposes anyway.
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
kirankara78 said:
Calling Ryzen a disappointment is a bit silly. Sure it didn't really offer any amazing gains over equivalent Intel cpu, but they area little more future proof with multi cores available and price wise they are reasonably placed, plus obviously are better cpu for other purposes.

I say this as someone who wouldn't have touched an AMD cpu with barge pole since becoming pc gamer in 2011, but right now I feel Ryzen is best cpu when viewed as overall product and on it's value for money.

Sure you can drop a lot more on a high end i7 or i9, but it doesn't really offer any reason to do so for purely gaming purposes anyway.
Click to expand...
That is cool and all but it didn't change the fact Intel has the best CPU for gaming the market... performance and price.

You are in a gaming site, talking about games and a guy say Intel is a better option for games... that is perfect reasonable and expected.

He is indeed right... if you want the best for your games go Intel.

You are right too about Ryzen being a better overall CPU.

PS. About Vega I will wait the launch because I can't believe in so disastrous launch... a never saw a GPU so late with so disappointing performance.
 
F

Frankfurter

Member
ethomaz said:
That is cool and all but it didn't change the fact Intel has the best CPU for gaming the market... performance and price.

You are in a gaming site, talking about games and a guy say Intel is a better option for games... that is perfect reasonable and expected.

He is indeed right... if you want the best for your games go Intel.

You are right too about Ryzen being a better overall CPU.

PS. About Vega I will wait the launch because I can't believe in so disastrous launch... a never saw a GPU so late with so disappointing performance.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Intel has one better CPU - the 7700k. If you don't wanna spend $300+, the Ryzen 5 1600 is a pretty amazing CPU actually and arguably the better option compared to Intel, even for gaming only machines.
 
Leak

Leak

Member
ethomaz said:
That is cool and all but it didn't change the fact Intel has the best CPU for gaming the market... performance and price.

You are in a gaming site, talking about games and a guy say Intel is a better option for games... that is perfect reasonable and expected.

He is indeed right... if you want the best for your games go Intel.

You are right too about Ryzen being a better overall CPU.

PS. About Vega I will wait the launch because I can't believe in so disastrous launch... a never saw a GPU so late with so disappointing performance.
Click to expand...

What? Ryzen is kickin' Intels when it comes to performance with all cores / price. The only thing where Intel has a little advantage is in single core performance, a little dip that just goes noticeable with the hot 7th generation and in very few core-limited applications. Even Intel is betting for more cores/threads instead of single core performance with coffee lake, same architecture and less frequencies.
 
K

kirankara78

Member
ethomaz said:
That is cool and all but it didn't change the fact Intel has the best CPU for gaming the market... performance and price.

You are in a gaming site, talking about games and a guy say Intel is a better option for games... that is perfect reasonable and expected.

He is indeed right... if you want the best for your games go Intel.

You are right too about Ryzen being a better overall CPU.

PS. About Vega I will wait the launch because I can't believe in so disastrous launch... a never saw a GPU so late with so disappointing performance.
Click to expand...

The differences between say ryzen 1500 and Intel kaby lake i5 for gaming purposes is negligible for most part with a gpu benchmark far more likely in real world.
 
T

THEaaron

Member
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
DemonCleaner said:
some ultrawide benchmarks i could find for doom (mind that they are pretty old):

ultrawidek7sv8.png


source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Doom-2016-Spiel-56369/Specials/Benchmark-Test-1195242/
Click to expand...

A review from yesterday: http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/107944-nvidia-titan-xp/?page=7

09f6f202-d69e-471b-85b2-12c6bd690585.png


ac37cda9-ddea-44da-bc33-a3815d9b9c3b.png


I'd say chances are pretty high that 1080Ti was always at the 100Hz refresh rate peak in this blind testing. Even 1080 would probably hit 100 fps in 3440x1440 there more often then not.

Kuosi said:
not price holders, actual price.
Swedish
Finnish
Click to expand...

English: https://www.techpowerup.com/235522/...cing-information-leaked-in-sweden-feels-wrong

This doesn't seem right but it may explain why AMD is so secretive of card's actual performance - it would be a very tough sell if it would cost more than 1080 14 months after 1080's launch with 1080's performance.

In fact, if this will be the case, I will seriously wonder why they even launched the thing instead of just keeping it to Vega FE lineup where it at least have some advantages over the competition.

All in all one have to wonder how did this even happen. Didn't they see these results in simulations? Somehow, I feel that a wider Polaris with G5X support would be a lot better than such Vega - it would at least be able to somewhat compete with 1070/1080 in perf/die area.

Another worrying thing is that they apparently plan to ride on Vega 10 all the way till Navi in 2019 which means that there won't be anything better than this from AMD in GPUs for about two years. A rather grim picture.
 
S

saskuatch

Member
Nvidia will be pricing out of their minds

I have a 980 ti I been waiting to upgrade but I don't think I will if Nvidia keeps jacking up their prices and AMD keeps dropping turds. Seriously what have they been doing for 5 years, they haven't released a competitive gpu in forever. They must be devoting all of their resources to console gpu development
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
Overclockers.ru are reporting that there will indeed be a RX Vega card which will cost more than $800 - they speculate that this is likely a WC top end solution while the other two planned AC RX Vega cards should be a lot cheaper.

They also say that the actual launch of RX Vega will happen on 31st of July with retail availability pinned on middle of August.
 
T

THEaaron

Member
BobbeMalle said:
I bought a 144hz Freesync monitor a couple of months ago in preparation for Vega.
I hope this launch won't be a disaster.
Click to expand...

I also have a Freesync monitor and I would like to buy an AMD card again. Just give me a card between 1070 and 1080 level without drawing 100w more than the nVidia counterpart for a reasonable price and its ok.
 
dr_rus

dr_rus

Member
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 coming in two variants

Apparently, the previous naming was changed, Radeon RX Vega XTX and XT are now both called Radeon RX Vega 64. ...

Both Radeon RX Vega 64 variants are to be shown at SIGGRAPH in 3 days. The full chip cards will be available in August, but from what I heard, they won’t hit the shelves anytime soon. As for the RX Vega 56, this model is expected to launch September. It will only be available from AIB partners.
Click to expand...
 
A

Aztechnology

Member
THEaaron said:
I also have a Freesync monitor and I would like to buy an AMD card again. Just give me a card between 1070 and 1080 level without drawing 100w more than the nVidia counterpart for a reasonable price and its ok.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat but I'm going for 1080ti if it isn't somewhere between a 1080/1080ti. I already have a 1070 as once the 480 was announced I decided I wasn't going to wait. Glad I didn't. But I really do want to grab an AMD card. I also hope that Nvidia caves with HDMI 2.1 for adaptive sync support.
 
P

PFD

Member
Aztechnology said:
I'm in the same boat but I'm going for 1080ti if it isn't somewhere between a 1080/1080ti. I already have a 1070 as once the 480 was announced I decided I wasn't going to wait. Glad I didn't. But I really do want to grab an AMD card. I also hope that Nvidia caves with HDMI 2.1 for adaptive sync support.
Click to expand...

If you have a 1070 you may as well wait for Volta
 
R

Rushersauce

Banned
dr_rus said:
Overclockers.ru are reporting that there will indeed be a RX Vega card which will cost more than $800 - they speculate that this is likely a WC top end solution while the other two planned AC RX Vega cards should be a lot cheaper.

They also say that the actual launch of RX Vega will happen on 31st of July with retail availability pinned on middle of August.
Click to expand...
Why bother? I mean, we have already seen the performance of Vega and it's not good. So whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy release a card over 800usd that performs like a 499usd one.
Unless, of course, they release a "magical driver" that puts Vega over the 1080ti. But that's nooooot happening.
 
P

PFD

Member
Aztechnology said:
Everything about the graphics market right now sucks. Miners have driven up the cost of everything (I'm guilty as well) and of AMD's high end doesn't live up we will see Nvidia do another price hike.
Click to expand...

That's what people said before the 1080Ti came out, expecting it to sell for anywhere from 800-1000$ since there's no competition, but it actually released at a decent price
 
ethomaz

ethomaz

Banned
If these rumors ended to be true... why HBM2 for Vega?

Less bandwidth, more expensive, more power drawn... everything is working against this choice.
 
P

PowerThroughLov

Member
If AMD are pricing it really high, they might be just cutting their losses. There comes a point where its more beneficial to them to sell very high with few sales and low production than lower with razor thin margins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Review Thread
Analysis Hardware
28
2K
Gaiff replied
Radeon RX 7600XT 16GB - Review Thread
16
2K
winjer replied
AMD Radeon RX 6500XT and RX 6400 to be the first 6nm graphics cards
10
2K
Xyphie replied
AMD Publishes More Radeon RX 6900 XT, RX 6800 XT & RX 6800 RDNA 2 Graphics Card Benchmarks in 4K & WQHD
2 3
147
14K
Kazekage1981 replied
AMD's latest driver update fixes a bunch of bugs, including more Radeon RX 5700 black screen issues
1
709
D.Final replied
Top Bottom