Support NeoGAF

[Sinistral]

GPU rendering. I don't work in VFX anymore but I still like to mess around with it.

To be honest I'm better off with Nvidia (more renderers support CUDA than OpenCL) but I like to support AMD in any way I can.

Yeah I just read this review:
https://techgage.com/article/a-look-at-amds-radeon-rx-vega-64-workstation-compute-performance/2/

It does great there. But the OpenCL vs CUDA argument comes in again.

 

[Bunta]

Apparently I need to do a lot more research into Freesync monitors. Would it be beneficial to pair one like this with a Vega 56? https://www.amazon.com/VG245H-1080p-Console-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B01JGYM5H6/?&tag=bom-tomshardware-20

 

[LordOfChaos]

Apparently I need to do a lot more research into Freesync monitors. Would it be beneficial to pair one like this with a Vega 56? https://www.amazon.com/VG245H-1080p-Console-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B01JGYM5H6/?&tag=bom-tomshardware-20

Freesync will always be a benefit due to better handling of frames rendered inside or outside the monitors refresh rate, they can just throw up the frame rather than waiting another 16ms.

However 75Hz at 1080p seems like it would be too trivial for Vega 56 on current games.

 

[Kayant]

GPU rendering. I don't work in VFX anymore but I still like to mess around with it.

To be honest I'm better off with Nvidia (more renderers support CUDA than OpenCL) but I like to support AMD in any way I can.

Ha fair enough thought it was something like that if not it's a bit crazy to do for gaming 😁.

Apparently it's good in blender if that interests you - https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6tnu9r/vega_64_20_faster_in_blender_than_gtx_1080ti/

 

[Bunta]

Freesync will always be a benefit due to better handling of frames rendered inside or outside the monitors refresh rate, they can just throw up the frame rather than waiting another 16ms.

However 75Hz at 1080p seems like it would be too trivial for Vega 56 on current games.

Ah, I see. And yeah, that's kind of what I was figuring, I might be better off going for 144hz instead if I'm going to go 1080p. Maybe I should shoot for 1440p at least.

 

[sorathecrow]

That was a long wait for them to essentially release something on par with cards that have been out for over a year (if you don't mind the excessive power draw). And they don't even have anything to match the 1080ti.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Ah, I see. And yeah, that's kind of what I was figuring, I might be better off going for 144hz instead if I'm going to go 1080p. Maybe I should shoot for 1440p at least.

I recently bought a 1080p/144Hz monitor, I did a lot of research and the Viewsonic XG2401 is regarded by most as the best available, I've been very happy with it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01A0ZRR50/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Bunta]

I recently bought a 1080p/144Hz monitor, I did a lot of research and the Viewsonic XG2401 is regarded by most as the best available, I've been very happy with it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01A0ZRR50/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Awesome, I actually just took a quick look at it a few minutes ago. Good to hear it's well regarded. I might jump on getting it somewhat soon before actually upgrading my card. I had a 120hz Viewsonic years ago that I liked, only bad thing is I ended up with a dead pixel.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Awesome, I actually just took a quick look at it. Good to hear it's well regarded. I might jump on getting it somewhat soon before actually upgrading my card. I had a 120hz Viewsonic years ago that I liked, only bad thing is I ended up with a dead pixel.

I'm sitting here now with a GTX 970 and my Freesync option unticked, I can hit 144fps in a few modern games and many older ones and when I do it's just incredible, the difference is night and day. Even though I've only had it a couple of weeks when I game on my TV at 60Hz it feels so slow and choppy in comparison. My plan is to upgrade to a V56 to hit 100 - 144fps in more modern games as that's when you really feel the benefit, plus I want to tick the Freesync option

 

[bomblord1]

So are they sold out everywhere or just not in stock to purchase yet? I've been wondering that all morning.

I'm debating going with a 1080 since I've already ordered all the other parts for my new build.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

So are they sold out everywhere or just not in stock to purchase yet? I've been wondering that all morning.

I'm debating going with a 1080 since I've already ordered all the other parts for my new build.

I've only seen it available for purchase on Newegg and even then just one model for $599.99 (RX Vega 64 Air).

Keep an eye on the situation here:

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rxvega64/

 

[bomblord1]

I've only seen it available for purchase on Newegg and even then just one model for $599.99 (RX Vega 64 Air).

Keep an eye on the situation here:

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rxvega64/

Thanks for the link

 

[Krayz]

Holy shit that power consumption. Just goes to show how far ahead Nvidia really is in architecture.

 

[pretty done]

That was a long wait for them to essentially release something on par with cards that have been out for over a year (if you don't mind the excessive power draw). And they don't even have anything to match the 1080ti.

I expect nothing with AMD and I'm still disappointed.

I should have got a fucking Gsync monitor =/

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I expect nothing with AMD and I'm still disappointed.

I should have got a fucking Gsync monitor =/

Just sell the one you have now and buy one!

Unless you actually think you're going to buy Vega or wait for Navi, it's better to just eat your losses and move on to G-sync.

 

[cyen]

Just sell the one you have now and buy one!

Unless you actually think you're going to buy Vega or wait for Navi, it's better to just eat your losses and move on to G-sync.

You should work for NVIDIA. Ever tried to apply?

 

[mrklaw]

Assuming the ps5/xb2 release in 2020 or later. How likely would it be to have cards with similar/equal performance while producing/consuming less heat/power?

Well of course, but unless AMD really get a grip on their power consumption, they’ll still have a hotter, hungrier chip than nvidia which will mean limitations on what is possible to put in a console.

 

[capitalCORN]

You should work for NVIDIA. Ever tried to apply?

Lol.

 

[Audioserf]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if AMD simply took the architecture they had with the Fury X, coupled with basically a full node shrink, a higher clock rate and the minor architectural improvements you get with subsequent generations, wouldn't that have produced a GPU that would be on par with or exceeds what Vega is doing?

I mean, it's not a big step over their previous flagships, but it does have a higher clock and ridiculous power draws. Seems weird.

 

[Kuosi]

I'm happy with the performance, but that power draw...

I was hoping to fit 4 of these babies in my rig. Already sweating just thinking about the heat...getting flashbacks to the time I crossfired 3 7970s lol

Hope your pc is next to AC

 

[WetPotatoBread]

Thinking about side grading from a 1070 to the vega 56 so I can take advantage of freesync, I hope the resale value stays where it is.

 

[bomblord1]

1 in stock at newegg $599 with games
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125996&ignorebbr=1

edit: gone

 

[LegendX48]

Some of y'all complaining about heat, meanwhile benches are showing Vega 56 doesn't get that hot and I'm just left wondering what everybody's on about.

 

[kirankara78]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if AMD simply took the architecture they had with the Fury X, coupled with basically a full node shrink, a higher clock rate and the minor architectural improvements you get with subsequent generations, wouldn't that have produced a GPU that would be on par with or exceeds what Vega is doing?

I mean, it's not a big step over their previous flagships, but it does have a higher clock and ridiculous power draws. Seems weird.

Vega is kinda a refinement of Polaris according to what i read.

 

[Kadey]

Even if I wasn't ever planning on getting Vega I wanted them to come out with something that puts the 1080 Ti to shame so that Nvidia can bring something out with better pricing and performance but we'll have to deal with Nvidia's price gouging and bare minimum gains until further notice.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Even if I wasn't ever planning on getting Vega I wanted them to come out with something that puts the 1080 Ti to shame so that Nvidia can bring something out with better pricing and performance but we'll have to deal with Nvidia's price gouging and bare minimum gains until further notice.

Really? I thought the 1060, 1070, 1080, and 1080 Ti cards were widely perceived as being great value, despite the lack of competition from AMD.

 

[Papacheeks]

Really? I thought the 1060, 1070, 1080, and 1080 Ti cards were widely perceived as being great value, despite the lack of competition from AMD.

They were way more than what people expected when they launched price wise. a GTX 1070 was $459.99 when a generation earlier a gtx 970 was $399 or below.

The founders edition card thing was complete bullshit and raised prices by a decent margin.

 

[Paganmoon]

Really? I thought the 1060, 1070, 1080, and 1080 Ti cards were widely perceived as being great value, despite the lack of competition from AMD.

Thing is, they were all (at least 1070 and 1080, maybe 1060 to some extent), more expensive than their 9 series counterparts at launch. So the lack of competition has allowed Nvidia to "price-creep" a bit.

 

[Kadey]

I was around when the top tier GPUs were no more than $500 (7950GX2, 4870X2) at most and they were dual GPUs. Nowadays something like the Ti commands $700 minimum.

 

[Marmelade]

I was around when the top tier GPUs were no more than $500 (7950GX2, 4870X2) at most and they were dual GPUs. Nowadays something like the Ti commands $700 minimum.

A 8800 GTX was 600-650€ at launch

 

[Deleted member 17706]

A 8800 GTX was 600-650€ at launch

Yeah, I remember it being the $800 (USD) card that could actually run Vanguard: Saga of Heroes decently. I was in no position to buy higher end GPUs back then, but it definitely wasn't $500 or lower at launch.

Anyway, back on topic about Vega... this stock situation is abysmal. The only one I've seen go up on US sites is that Newegg $599 game bundle.

 

[ISee]

Yeah, I remember it being the $800 (USD) card that could actually run Vanguard: Saga of Heroes decently. I was in no position to buy higher end GPUs back then, but it definitely wasn't $500 or lower at launch.

Vanguard ran at 19-24 fps on my system back than, we still played it.
I think it was a 9800 GT paired with an athlon XP.

Back to topic. The Vega 64 (reference design) is currently more expansive in germany than 1080s, sometimes by ~80€. That's a bit of a problem, I'd honestly pick up the 1080 Windforce for 530€ over a vega 64 for 610 €.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

For those losing it over Vega's efficiency, check Vega 56 reviews. It's actually pretty decent.

Besides good performance the other big surprise is how power-efficient Vega can be, if it's operating in the right clock/voltage band. Our testing shows power efficiency being close to the GeForce GTX 1060, which means Pascal is not that far away, when running at the right settings. This increased efficiency translates into lower power draw, which means less heat is generated. This lets the cooler work less hard and results in less fan noise distracting your ears.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/37.html

As I said, it's clearly faster than a 1070, especially at 1440p and 4K, on launch drivers, so if it can be had for close to $400 it's a great little card (or at least custom cards will be). Cannot wait to see a high-end solution from Sapphire, as their Nitro revision on the 580 was very good in the end.

 

[RaijinFY]

I more fear for PS5/XB2. AMD might give them good business deals but a hot, big, not exactly efficient GPU is not what you want in a small, limited cooling console

But then Nvidia burned all their bridges with Sony and MS I guess

Indeed, Vega's power consumption is bad news for the next gen of consoles.

 

[RootCause]

For those losing it over Vega's efficiency, check Vega 56 reviews. It's actually pretty decent.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/37.html

As I said, it's clearly faster than a 1070, especially at 1440p and 4K, on launch drivers, so if it can be had for close to $400 it's a great little card (or at least custom cards will be). Cannot wait to see a high-end solution from Sapphire, as their Nitro revision on the 580 was very good in the end.

Sounds 👍

 

[jrcbandit]

For those losing it over Vega's efficiency, check Vega 56 reviews. It's actually pretty decent.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/37.html

As I said, it's clearly faster than a 1070, especially at 1440p and 4K, on launch drivers, so if it can be had for close to $400 it's a great little card (or at least custom cards will be). Cannot wait to see a high-end solution from Sapphire, as their Nitro revision on the 580 was very good in the end.

This is why AMD asked reviewers to focus on the Vega 56 instead of 64. Sounds like an actual win unlike the huge disappointment of the 64.

 

[Timedog]

Apparently, according to computer base, a bunch of features on Vega are not enabled. Which, if true, makes the 56 look pretty damn good if we're also gonna get future improvements on top of it's already good performance per dollar.

For the 64 we'll see, I guess.

Some of y'all complaining about heat, meanwhile benches are showing Vega 56 doesn't get that hot and I'm just left wondering what everybody's on about.

Heat only becomes a pervasive meme when AMD is worse in that regard. In CPUs and GPUs.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The 64 honestly doesn't seem that bad if it can be had for its MSRP. It trades blows with the GTX 1080, and I'm sure some of the aftermarket versions will be even better.

Pretty much a no-brainer for anyone with a FreeSync monitor. Then again, it's hard to argue that the 56 isn't a much better value (also assuming it can be had for MSRP).

 

[Maroon Gamer]

I like the Vega 56, I like it a lot. Let's hope that the prices will be normal in Europe.

 

[AtlAntA]

That's not how it works. The PCI-e slot is 75W, although 10W of that is at 3.3V. A 8-pin is specced at 150W (though you can exceed this with ease), so with two of them like Vega 64 you get 300W.

Thank you for the explanation / clarification.

 

[kirankara78]

Thing is, they were all (at least 1070 and 1080, maybe 1060 to some extent), more expensive than their 9 series counterparts at launch. So the lack of competition has allowed Nvidia to "price-creep" a bit.

And here we find AMD coming out with a gpu competing with 1080 a year later and still charging as much or more in some cases for a reference gpu.

at least Nvidia actually offers some genuine progress with their high end cards.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I was hoping that this would push NVIDIA to actually price with competition but unfortunately I do not see that happening.

Womp womp...

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I was hoping that this would push NVIDIA to actually price with competition but unfortunately I do not see that happening.

Womp womp...

Assuming the RX 56 is actually widely available, I could see the GTX 1070 actually coming down to its MSRP ($379).

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

And here we find AMD coming out with a gpu competing with 1080 a year later and still charging as much or more in some cases for a reference gpu.

at least Nvidia actually offers some genuine progress with their high end cards.

Yeah and here we are a year after the 1070/1080 released and both cards now sell for significantly more than they cost last year. So context is important, and while it might be gratifying for some to say 'AMD is a year late with the same performance', the 56 is a very welcome and much needed addition to the market.

 

[ISee]

I was hoping that this would push NVIDIA to actually price with competition but unfortunately I do not see that happening.

Womp womp...

8 months ago I was hoping for Vega to be an affordable 4k/60 card.
Today it's not even an option, because I already have a 1080.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yeah and here we are a year after the 1070/1080 released and both cards now sell for significantly more than they cost last year. So context is important, and while it might be gratifying for some to say 'AMD is a year late with the same performance', the 56 is a very welcome and much needed addition to the market.

1080s are definitely cheaper than they were at launch. You couldn't find one for less than around $650 ~ $700 at launch, but you can easily snag one for around $550 now.

 

[secretanchitman]

Comparable performance to the GTX 1080 and GTX 1070, at significantly more power consumption and heat. The difference in die size are staggering excluding the HBM memory. It's either Nvidia is deploying some kind of magic with Pascal, or AMD is very incompetent. Either way, Vega is here too late. Volta refresh is coming in a few months and it will kick even more ass in efficiency. If Navi doesn't ditch the aging GCN architecture I am afraid we will see another disappointment coming.

Yep. I was excited for these cards and it's nice to finally have another option from AMD (freesync users especially), but damn am I let down by them, especially due to the power consumption.

 

[RoboPlato]

For those losing it over Vega's efficiency, check Vega 56 reviews. It's actually pretty decent.



https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/37.html

As I said, it's clearly faster than a 1070, especially at 1440p and 4K, on launch drivers, so if it can be had for close to $400 it's a great little card (or at least custom cards will be). Cannot wait to see a high-end solution from Sapphire, as their Nitro revision on the 580 was very good in the end.

The 56 is pretty much the star of the show here. The 64 really seems like AMD just wanted to have something comparable to a 1080 on the market.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

How long before custom 56 you think? I assume the performance gains will be worth the wait?

 

[thelastword]

Vega 56 looks like it might be a decent option if the price falls to around where the 1070 is sitting, although for that money you might as well step up to the 1080 instead.

Vega 64, on the other hand, looks kinda DOA.

What does that mean? The cheapest you can get a 1070 right now is $429.00 on Amazon (Gigabyte G1). The Vega 56 comfortably beats even these AIB 1070's and even pricier 1070's at that for $400.00......What's even more interesting is that the Vega 56 is pretty competitive to the GTX 1080 in a few games as well. So imagine AIB Vega 56 cards over these AIB 1070's, it's already a clean sweep but Vega 56 should shoot up to 1080 levels of performance..

If you want to get a proper perspective of Vega 56 vs 1070, watch these...you'll thank me later...

Joker Productions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0VvJ6f38Ko&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S37ziow96JA

Digital Foundry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Rl_zkgMOI
Wish they didn't put the GTX-1080 and the Fury-X in the video though, it would be much easier to read against the card the Vega 56 is competing with....

Tech of Tomorrow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flVdpuxKze8

Very solid reviews, especially the first 2, it shows the games actually running in Joker's (second) and DF's videos. Vega 56 always has the lead over the 1070, with lower clock speeds, lower memory speeds and if you look at GPU usage in Joker's gamerun video, you would see Vega 56 fluctuating between 96-99% whilst the 1070 seems hardlocked and maxed out at 99% for the most part....


Also, look at when explosions occur in the Ghost Recon test, Vega keeps it's framerate up whilst 1070 loses quite a few frames. I think that will become a staple in future comparisons....Of course, most of these tests were done on beta drivers (just released), so expect much better performance in the coming days and weeks....

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if AMD simply took the architecture they had with the Fury X, coupled with basically a full node shrink, a higher clock rate and the minor architectural improvements you get with subsequent generations, wouldn't that have produced a GPU that would be on par with or exceeds what Vega is doing?

I mean, it's not a big step over their previous flagships, but it does have a higher clock and ridiculous power draws. Seems weird.

According to gamer's nexus, the Vega 56 is probably the most quality card he has seen in his workshop with quality voltage regulator modules, but he figures the cards are being held back through power restrictions....1.2v on the 56 vs 1.25 on the FE cards. There are also restrictions on flashing the bios of these cards to make adjustments, so if AMD decides to unlock the bios or allows vendors like Asus, Zotac, Msi full reign, we might get some pretty impressive Vega 56 AIB's on the market come September....I'm stoked because the performance at stock values is already impressive and handily beats the AIB 1070 with the GTx's mature drivers et al. (1 year and half right?)

Some of y'all complaining about heat, meanwhile benches are showing Vega 56 doesn't get that hot and I'm just left wondering what everybody's on about.

Yeah pretty impressive, but as I said before, power draw is always something blown out of proportion depending on what side of the argument you're debating....