Actual power consumption doesn't seem too bad in the 56 at least but of course so way behind the competition
This info makes me really question why apple is using this in the iMac pro. Seems like a heat nightmare waiting to happen.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
This info makes me really question why apple is using this in the iMac pro. Seems like a heat nightmare waiting to happen.
llien
Banned
It ain't coming in 2017, so.
Undervolting and binning works wonders.
But I think the main reason is that nVidia's Huang pissed them off.
dgrdsv
Member
It's so poor that NV cancelled it after Vega's launch.
I mean they could delay it even further or just skip it.
They're more than competitive as is.
Now, I hate driver talks, but this is crazy:
I mean the 1070 is .5fps off the 1080ti wtf lol.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Vega 56 will sell like hot cakes at 399. 1440p performance advantage over 1070 is the killer app.
DX11 vs DX12 in Civ VI
Better lol
LelouchZero
Member
The Vega 56 looks like a really nice card, judging by EuroGamer's, PC Gamer's and Bit-tech's reviews it appears that it can come close to and possibly even match the Vega 64 at around the GTX 1070's price point depending on how well an individual card may overclock. However the power consumption can see a sizable rise as a result of overclocking the core.
Why don't you just get some 1070s that legitimately hash at 30mh/s?
General Lee
Member
GPU market looks pretty miserable atm. Hopefully Navi will have something better to show for itself, but that might not happen before 2019. I'm sure Nvidia will happily just continue reaping high margins meanwhile.
It really is quite something how thirsty Vega is. Yet again the architecture is seemingly efficient, but the cards have been tuned to so high voltage/clocks that all efficiency goes out the window just to compete on performance. Hopefully the FP16 performance will benefit Vega in the future games, but like usual, AMD cards are banking on fine wine instead of performance in today's games.
At least a custom 3-fan Vega 56 ought to be a decent value option combined with higher end FreeSync panels.
It really is quite something how thirsty Vega is. Yet again the architecture is seemingly efficient, but the cards have been tuned to so high voltage/clocks that all efficiency goes out the window just to compete on performance. Hopefully the FP16 performance will benefit Vega in the future games, but like usual, AMD cards are banking on fine wine instead of performance in today's games.
At least a custom 3-fan Vega 56 ought to be a decent value option combined with higher end FreeSync panels.
LordOfChaos
Member
There's a cryptocurrency specific ISA addition, eh. People wanting it for graphics may hate it, but this may see huge demand from miners.
Also we can put numerical figures on what kinds of gains FP16 has (i.e not a magic doubling).
Duxxy3
Member
Great. Miners can buy the Vega cards and leave the rest for gaming.
Probably not, but that would be nice.
Still not seeing any options on Amazon this is supposedly the link (from AMD's official vega site) to the sales page but it brings up nothing.
http://amzn.to/2fwOzl1
http://amzn.to/2fwOzl1
franklyshankly
Member
I doubt they will actually sell at $399 unfortunately.
Also not really that big of an advantage.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
That's me, I have a Freesync monitor that I'm not benefiting from and I'm ready for the 56.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
Watching this now, beating 1070, coming close to 1080 occasionally. If the fucking miners don't ruin the price the v56 is going to be great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Rl_zkgMOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Rl_zkgMOI
kirankara78
Member
Cant talk about other parts of world, but there's a Gigabyte WindForce3 OC for £489 whilst the air cooled Vega 64 is £549. Know which i'd choose if I wasn't already an owner of freesync or planning to buy one.
I'm also waiting for a pricedrop. Would buy a 1080 for 400 immediately.
Duxxy3
Member
Right before the 1180/1170 come out. I don't think Vega is going to hurt Nvidia sales much.
blankempathy
Member
That's the position I'm in since I have 2 freesync monitors in my setup. Although if you want g sync you're still gonna pay extra for that g sync tax. Either way you're paying more.
Unless you don't care about free/g sync.
56 seems like the best out of the Vega lot for now, but I'll wait for AIBs. I thought what the hell might as well get that 16GB FE, as it seems it's actually available at retail, for MSRP even, but performance seems very close to Vega 56. My 280x will soldier on for a bit longer. The ROG in September looks nice, but I wonder what Sapphire will come up with.
Still reading through HardOCP's review. Some interesting tidbits so far.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided: Vega64 slightly faster 1080GTX in DX11 and is 8% faster in DX12. However when you switch to 2X MSAA the roles are reversed and 1080GTX is 13% faster.
GoW4 and RotTR the 1080GTX is slightly faster however RotTR experiences the exact same behavior when 2X SSAA is enabled. Though in RotTR neither is playable because of the frame rate being all over the place.
I'm still reading over the review.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided: Vega64 slightly faster 1080GTX in DX11 and is 8% faster in DX12. However when you switch to 2X MSAA the roles are reversed and 1080GTX is 13% faster.
GoW4 and RotTR the 1080GTX is slightly faster however RotTR experiences the exact same behavior when 2X SSAA is enabled. Though in RotTR neither is playable because of the frame rate being all over the place.
I'm still reading over the review.
DryvBy
Member
The 1700x chip is on Amazon's DOTD right now for $100 off. Would it be worth it to go from a i7-6700k to this?
Duxxy3
Member
Not worth it IMO.
I have a 1700X.
It's worth it if you do multi-tasking, like video streaming, hardware rendering, etc.
If you're just gaming you won't see an appreciable boost to performance, in fact you might see a bit lower of performance as IPC perf relative to Skylake is still not quite there yet and I don't know of any games that take advantage of 16 threads.
That being said I do love my 1700X and it's pretty amazing to be able to play a game, encode a video, listen to music, and have a video stream run all at the same time.
There are freesync monitors everywhere, practically tripping over them, chances are that most new medium priced monitors will support freesync. It certainly won't always be the best of ranges, but for many it is good enough.
If it's mainly for gaming then definitely not.
All the cards except for the 1060 seem to operate at the CPU limit in that scenario. NV's DX11 driver is much better. (Which used to be something you couldn't say without people jumping at you, hah!)
Really?
You get basically the same performance:
with ~70 Watt more power consumption:
Will be fun to see if some of the RX Vega 56 can flash to a 64?Just finished HardOCP's review.
Overall not bad and now you have an AMD option. I'm sure some driver updates will fix the issues hurting performance, just can't do much against the criticism that this performance was available a year ago.
Curious how the liquid cooled one runs.
- Takes DX12 or Vulkan to bring up to 1080GTX level or slightly better
- SSAA or MSAA hurt Vega's performance
- Shader Based AA works better for Vega
- Vega performance falls down to 1070 levels on Fallout/Watch Dogs which rely heavily on texture performance
- Vega 64 playable settings match up to 1080GTX which has been out for a year.
Overall not bad and now you have an AMD option. I'm sure some driver updates will fix the issues hurting performance, just can't do much against the criticism that this performance was available a year ago.
Curious how the liquid cooled one runs.
Rabid Wolverine
Member
dgrdsv
Member
Dunno about anyone else but I'm quite enjoying how basically the same people who were saying "480 is equal to 1060" are now saying that 56 is faster than 1070 even though the actual comparison is almost an exact reversal between the brands.
This isn't saying a lot as most AMD sponsored DX12 games tend to actually hurt NV's performance. In most cases NV remains in the lead if benched in DX11 against AMD's DX12.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
It's a decent/good CPU set as opposed to great/outstanding.
Its good in that it can offer Geforce 1070/1080 levels of performance, but at a much higher power cost.
I would have been great if it could have offered 1080 Ti levels of performance.
It would have been outstanding if it could have done the above with less power consumption.
Its good in that it can offer Geforce 1070/1080 levels of performance, but at a much higher power cost.
I would have been great if it could have offered 1080 Ti levels of performance.
It would have been outstanding if it could have done the above with less power consumption.
icecold1983
Member
waiting on thelastword
Ahhh the Radeon 9700 days.
llien
Banned
But that's Ref vs AIB.
capitalCORN
Member
9500 pro to 9700 was such a sweet jackpot.
Duxxy3
Member
Personally speaking I would get a 1600 if I was getting a new CPU for gaming. ~$200 price tag and it comes with the cooler. I try not to spend more than that on a CPU.