Coulomb_Barrier
Member
It's becoming a joke, the cost of system building. DDR4 prices won't come down either. If it werent for Ryzen and AM4 motherboards, building a good system right now would be prohibitively expensive for most.
-
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
Nydus
Member
PCGH showed a little teaser for next week (unknow topic so far).
But they testet a game where Nvidia ist CPU limited and a 1060-1080Ti are pretty much at the same level.
Interestly enough, Vega 56 and Vega 64 are beating all Geforces.
So in this CPU limited case AMD is in front, which is quite rare.
Hawaii (390X) might perform worse than expected, Fury X is just a bit faster than the 580 but Vega really pulls off there.
But increasing the resolution to UHD absolutely tanks the Radeon performance, Phil from PCGH (blaidd in 3DCenter) says that the Vega 56 is roughly performing on 1060 GTX level, Vega 64 ~ 1070 GTX.
The game could be PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS.
https://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=11465009#post11465009
ok i tested it with my Ti and an 7700k @ 4,8Ghz. I dont get the same numbers @ ultra but in comes close enough. The Vega64 numbers was the worst i have seen in the lobby, plain and after landing. But since pubg is also very dependent on the server it is very possible.
he even said further down that the picturename is a hint and that the game is popular at the moment. the name is "unknown" lol
im happy if vega can help out the amd gamers here
Locuza
Member
Some technical details for the future (Linux focused)
https://www.phoronix.com/forums/for...opengl-proprietary-driver?p=970697#post970697AMD bridgman said:
LelouchZero
Member
It's interesting to see how the Vega FE's performance compares to the Vega 64, the clocks fluctuate quite a lot on both cards in this testing though.
The Witcher 3 AMD RX Vega 64 Vs AMD Vega Frontier Edition Frame Rate Comparison (YouTube)
The Witcher 3 AMD RX Vega 64 Vs AMD Vega Frontier Edition Frame Rate Comparison (YouTube)
dr_rus
Member
64 is running a step higher clocks and gets 1-2 more frames. This basically shows that there's nothing in the driver specifically to make 64 faster than FE.
Delusibeta
Banned
Apparently, there's a bug whereby the drivers report higher clock rates when overclocking, but won't actually change the actual clock rate.
Unknown Soldier
Member
What an interesting "bug"
kirankara78
Member
But the power draw and temperature are increasing when people do this in reviews I've seen
Edit.
Ive seen article. It's not that Vega isn't overclocking, it's just not overclocking to ridiculous clock speeds people think they managing like 2ghz
ethomaz
Banned
The game driver for FE is exactly the same of Vega 64 driver... even the updates are close to each other with the same fixes/features.
thelastword
Banned
ethomaz
Banned
Similar results for both cards.
The only issue I see is that neither card is aimed to 2160p (4k)... both can't hit the minimum target of 30fps in this resolution.
icecold1983
Member
anyone have any insight into why amd is so much faster than nvidia at non culled geometry?
Just wanted to share what just happened.
Got a friend who works for Nvidia that came over to visit and play some games. While playing, I said "So...AMD...."
He then stopped playing, dropped his controller on his lap, looked at me in the eyes, and started laughing hysterically.
He said what he just did represents the general feeling right now Nvidia has over Vega.
Oh man....
Got a friend who works for Nvidia that came over to visit and play some games. While playing, I said "So...AMD...."
He then stopped playing, dropped his controller on his lap, looked at me in the eyes, and started laughing hysterically.
He said what he just did represents the general feeling right now Nvidia has over Vega.
Oh man....
neurosisxeno
Member
Entirely possible it can peak at those points, but is throttling due to heat generation or power draw.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The fallout from the deceptive pricing scheme for Vega continues. JayzTwoCents is done with AMD.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
RTG's marketing deptartment is long overdue for a shitcan anyway.
Why pretend Vega is a gaming GPU this whole time? Why hide performance until release? Why tell everyone the price is $100 less than reality?
I mean obviously the answer is "sell more units", but now AMD's reputation is further tarnished and they will have an even steeper hill to climb to regain consumer trust with Navi.
Funnily enough, literally the complete opposite situation during the Bulldozer years.
Why pretend Vega is a gaming GPU this whole time? Why hide performance until release? Why tell everyone the price is $100 less than reality?
I mean obviously the answer is "sell more units", but now AMD's reputation is further tarnished and they will have an even steeper hill to climb to regain consumer trust with Navi.
Funnily enough, literally the complete opposite situation during the Bulldozer years.
This might be a bad fallout for amd marketing.
Can you blame him? AMD is years late and their cards can only trade blows with the 1070 and 1080 while consuming more power. This pricing bait and switch isn't going to play out well either. Nvidia is literally sitting on volta because they don't need to release it right now. Volta consumer graphics cards could be released in a couple months if Nvidia wanted to do so but they can stay with Pascal until 2018.
Vega isn't going to shake things up like Ryzen has.
Can you blame him? AMD is years late and their cards can only trade blows with the 1070 and 1080 while consuming more power. This pricing bait and switch isn't going to play out well either. Nvidia is literally sitting on volta because they don't need to release it right now. Volta consumer graphics cards could be released in a couple months if Nvidia wanted to do so but they can stay with Pascal until 2018.
Vega isn't going to shake things up like Ryzen has.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Product pipelines are already on a planned schedule years in advance. Nvidia doesn't have consumer Volta out because they simply aren't ready to release it. They will release it when they are ready.
All the big players here, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, they all have their research and development planned out at least 2 years ahead of what you see on the market today. Nvidia isn't sitting on anything. Volta exists solely as GV100, a GPU design intended for compute applications. There isn't a secret consumer Volta in a vault somewhere, ready to ship to TSMC for manufacturing on a 24 hours notice. That's just not how it works.
llien
Member
So AMD sells Vega as:
standalone card
bundle 1 (deal with games)
bundle 2 (another deal I don't know with what)
As bundles are rather shitty, hardly anyone wants them.
AMD, however, officially stated that they restock all the offerings.
Yet, since bundles are shitty, it is dirty play, hidden FE-ing nVidia easily got away with would have been "more open" and less damaging PR wise.
But, reviewer drama is laughable. Oh my god, we have recommended card at MSRP but it is nowhere to be found at MSRP 1-2 weeks after launch, so what?
standalone card
bundle 1 (deal with games)
bundle 2 (another deal I don't know with what)
As bundles are rather shitty, hardly anyone wants them.
AMD, however, officially stated that they restock all the offerings.
Yet, since bundles are shitty, it is dirty play, hidden FE-ing nVidia easily got away with would have been "more open" and less damaging PR wise.
But, reviewer drama is laughable. Oh my god, we have recommended card at MSRP but it is nowhere to be found at MSRP 1-2 weeks after launch, so what?
That's not how it worked with 980Ti which was sitting there waiting for Fury X.
michaelius
Banned
opticalmace
Member
Their complaint isn't that no cards are available at MSRP, it's that apparently that initial MSRP is a lie and was only valid for one week (which was not disclosed to reviewers). So now the standard MSRP is apparently going to be $100 higher.
At least, that is my understanding of the issue. They talked about it on the latest WAN show.
Unknown Soldier
Member
980 Ti was not new technology, it was a cut-down Titan.
Volta is a whole different ball of wax at this stage in it's development.
Also 1080 Ti was released by Nvidia when it was ready, they didn't bother to wait for Vega either and it turns out now we know no one should have waited for it.
llien
Member
And that's the actual problem with the whole story.
Gibbo (ocuk guy behind faux mining claim) claimed literally what I've posted above about bundles.
He added, that basic package is no longer provided by AMD and HENCE it is a price increase.
AMD stated "we are restocking them ALL", which is the opposite of "no longer", "only for one week".
It's not like you can come and cut chips with scissors, it's helluva process which is not done overnight. nVidia WAS having that card for a while, but only released it when Fury X posed a threat (it would basically wipe the floor with 980 otherwise).
This defeats your "nVidia doesn't align launches, no matter what AMD does" argument.
Volta was indeed planned a while ago. Volta means bigger die. But why bother releasing more expensive to produce products, if your 314 mm^2 one is happily selling at $500 mark.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Well Vega release must have been best day at Nvidia ever since AMD released 7970 for 550$ and it turned out they can counter it with midrange GK104 die
I dunno why people keep parroting this just based on die code names, because Tahiti XT (352 mm²) wasn't significantly bigger than GK104 (294 mm²), and NV didn't have anything faster until 14 months later. Additionally, back then the landscape was far more competitive, and people think NV just sat on their highest performing chip because equalizing AMD was "good enough", when they don't even do that now that they have far more market share?
That's like saying the "mid-range" 290X (438 mm²) could counter the "high-end" 780 Ti (561 mm²).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Whatever the case the first Volta cards are not releasing until at least 6 months, likely longer. That is great news for AMD actually.
how? at this point nothing amd does matters, the miners buy all the cards, even with the price hike. which leaves nvidia in a fine position because gaming is what the cards are best at, the prices are actually lower and availability is there.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Not unless they sort out the pricing situation. No one will (or should) be buying $500+ Vega 56 or $600+ Vega 64.
Reallink
Member
Nvidia almost assuredly had multiple 1080Ti launch windows planned, the problem is Vega was delayed so many times they couldn't afford to sit on it any longer.
llien
Member
Mobile Vega (APU) spotted:
https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-vega-8-and-vega-10-mobile-spotted
(Vega 10 has... 8 compute units, Vega 8 has 11, so confusing)
Die size was quite similiar.
Compare that to GTX 480 (529mm^2) vs 5970 (334mm^2)
(I don't know why people clamied that "it was at least faster", as no, it wasn't)
https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-radeon-vega-8-and-vega-10-mobile-spotted
(Vega 10 has... 8 compute units, Vega 8 has 11, so confusing)
Well Vega release must have been best day at Nvidia ever since AMD released 7970 for 550$ and it turned out they can counter it with midrange GK104 die
Die size was quite similiar.
Compare that to GTX 480 (529mm^2) vs 5970 (334mm^2)
(I don't know why people clamied that "it was at least faster", as no, it wasn't)
It means Navi (7nm) will be a bit "less late".
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Lol what do you mean, how? There's no chance of anything coming out that is significantly better than the 64 or 56 at their (launch) price ranges for a long while.
The pricing will return to more normal levels when they have produced enough units to sell. Quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about any reference card prices because you're a mug if you buy these anyway. This time next month the customs should be more readily available at more competitive prices.
I don't see any business value in keeping a product in the backpocket just to greet a competitor. Just release it and get uncontested enthusiast dollars, humans are thirst.
thats fine but it doesn't actually have much to do with nvidia right now
Unknown Soldier
Member
It doesn't make any sense to sit on something which could be making you money if it's released. This goes against every rational business decision imaginable. But some people really believe that literally everything related to Nvidia is a vast conspiracy so I'll leave them to their wild conspiracy theories.
llien
Member
That's a strawman.
It does make sense to sit on something that would make you LESS money.
Instead of going straight to 1080Ti, harvest money of those buying 1080 for 1080Ti price.
Later on, when sales slow down, bump it up with Ti, harvest money again.
If Volta chips are bigger they are more expensive to produce and hence, would be making less money than wonderful 1080 that is 314mm but sells for $500. With AMDs lower end cards selling for not much less than that (used 480 sold at $450, insane), nVidia should be quite happy with current sales.
FingerBang
Member
Wait, the alleged price controversy was about Vega 64, wasn't it? Or is it expected to include Vega 56 as well?
Anyway, air cooled Vega 64 in Japan (not the bundled version) is 700$. You can have a 1080 for less than 600$.
LC Vega is 850$. You can have a 1080ti for 800$.
I really don't know what to think. Why would ANYONE buy those cards?
I guess they can't pull off two Zen in a single year.
Free sync?
TC McQueen
Member
Here's official stuff on the ASUS Strix Vegas:
https://www.techpowerup.com/236303/asus-announces-rog-strix-radeon-rx-vega-series
https://www.techpowerup.com/236303/asus-announces-rog-strix-radeon-rx-vega-series
thelastword
Banned
No, that's not how this is done, Vega won in 4 games in dx11, 1070 won 2 in dx11 with a tie in witcher 3...In DX12 and vulkan Vega won in all games..
I agree that these are not 4k cards at the highest settings in newer games, but as it stands even the Vega 64 and GTX1080 are not...I think 1440p is the sweet spot for the these cards...
Yes it will, just you wait. The Vega 56 has a pretty nice lead over the 1070 and that's due to increase much more....The highest selling cards are not 1080ti's and titan XP's, they are 1080p cards like the rx 580/1060 and 1440p cards like vega 56/1070. with the lead vega 56 has over the 1070 at launch it will be the card to beat.
Generally, I think people are overreacting because there are hardly any cards to buy at MSRP anyway.....The 1070 and 1080 have been in the market for over a year, when was the last time you saw a card for MSRP, how about the 1080ti?
Suggested Etail Price is simply AMD's recommendation for selling the cards online, and business wise, I could see how they would encourage the retailers to push the bundles or that most of their stock would go towards the bundles they set. They sold through their stock on day one, they did say they delayed vega to push stock, but even then it seems they didn't have enough, notwithstanding the card everybody wants to get their hands on launches on the 28th....So yes, I'm sure more standalone cards will become available soon enough......There are also custom AIB cards coming soon too (64 and 56), so there will be plenty of stock soon enough.
I also think that a 56 should go for more than a 1070, it's a better compute card, it's a better gaming card, it has a more advanced memory technology and architecture and eventually we will see it stretch it's lead significantly in games utilizing it's unique architecture. It's also a higher quality made card over the NV cards...... HBM is new and expensive, GDDR5 prices are going to rise, you can't blame AMD here, it's what they woke up to in the industry....Even RAM has gone up significantly since I built my system last year.....In any case, even if prices go up $100.00, not saying it will, you're still buying into a more affordable ecosystem with Vega and Freesync as opposed to Nvidia and Gsync.
I think people should let these cards come into stock, and at least let the AIB cards roll in, you will get the cards at reasonable prices, very close to the SEP MSRP at least...
What coupon is he talking about? He now even thinks to abondon his Threadripper build. A bit of an overreaction tbh.
Anyway, I think it's supply & demand. They released some blockchain drivers, pushing the Vega 56 to 30.8 MH/s, with overclocked memory to 1GHz 32 MH/s in Ethereum-Mining: Claymore 9.8 DAG 199 according to hardwareluxx.de.
I assume with some fine-tuning and under-volting and -clocking, the Vega 56 will be sold out for a very long time.
I'm guessing it's related, but at Micro Center and at Newegg, the 1080 Ti Gaming X MSRP was $750, but I noticed recently the price on that went up to $780(!). Maybe MSI is raising prices for their cards?
TC McQueen
Member
Basically, there's a behind the scenes thing where tech companies give retailers coupons/rebates for stuff, and Vega got a one day coupon/rebate to boost sales. GamersNexus explains it better than I can: Market Development Fund & Hardware Companies.
I think a 1070 and especially 56 are decent 4k cards as they do 4k30 pretty much maxed and generally you can get 60 without sacrificing much, or just go with 4k30 for single player type games and 1440/60 for multi-player.
I had been doing just fine with 1x 1070 on a 4k monitor but picked up a second for mining. Sli if well implemented gets me 4k60 max but that honestly doesn't look much better than tweaking settings and getting the same fps on a single card.
With dell's g-sync monitor pretty consistently at $450 I don't think freesync really matters all that much.
Benching games only on dx12 on a game that has dx11 available as well is a bit shitty as in most cases nvidia cards perform better on dx11 than they do on dx12, so wouldnt the more equal output be to run vega on dx12 and nvidia on dx11? You are looking for the best performance out of the cards..
thelastword
Banned
Yes, they are definitely solid 4k cards if you lower a few settings for 4k 60 or 4k 30fps in some cases. I didn't want to think of 4k 30fps since so many pc gamers say they don't play at that refresh....With freesync though, 4k @ 40-45fps should be worth it on a Vega 56... I would imagine......
BF1 is the only game where Nvidia does better in DX11 over DX12, but even then, AMD's performance in DX12 still supercedes NV's dx 11 code by a good bit, so the results would remain the same...I think overall, the results are fair and representative...Also, you will have to get used to more dx12 and vulkan benchmarks in the future, devs are moving on as it is....
dr_rus
Member
1080Ti was selling since August 2016, as Titan X (Pascal), at $1200.
1080Ti released in March was basically a huge price cut of $500 on this card from NV.
They released it at the point where all possible sales at $1200 were done, this is pretty clear as there was (and still is) no other reasons to even release 1080Ti.
They would've likely released it a lot earlier if AMD would launch Vega back in 2016 with a significantly better performance than 1080.
Any links?
dr_rus
Member
Well, if I had to guess I'd say that Vega's 100% culled numbers are limited by something in the pipeline as they are the same as 50% culled. This limitation is removed in case of 0% culled and there Vega is running at max of its geometric throughput. This may also have something to do with Vega's bandwidth advantage over 1070 (which is rather considerable).
0% culled is unrealistic case though, no modern game would run like this.