llien
Member
Not sure about mentioned logic, but I didn't take neither of the "leaks" as real.
How would they get to 12.5Tflops at lower frequencies?
-
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.
AMD VEGA: Leaked TimeSpy DX12 benchmark?
- Thread starter ISee
- Start date
How would they get to 12.5Tflops at lower frequencies?
This. Saying nothing about real world game performance, but AMD have always managed to hit their stated computation figures in the final products.
ISee
Member
It's not that old, the entry is maybe ~ 1 week old afaik.
ethomaz
Banned
I tried hard to find some results and only the OP one is real...
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741
I saw a slide saying 12TFs... that means ~1466Mhz boost clock but I believe it will reach 1500Mhz in boost.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741
Where it says 12.5TFs?
I saw a slide saying 12TFs... that means ~1466Mhz boost clock but I believe it will reach 1500Mhz in boost.
"Vega" mid-range variant is called Polaris and it was launched last month with the name RX 580... AMD won't use Vega for mid-range until next year or RX 6xx.
Huh... I remember seeing other people saying it was old at some point last week.
Well, I meant maybe a lower clocked variant. Of course Polaris takes the mid-range and lower slots.
Maybe it's the nano?!
lol... I really hope AMD has something better performing at the launch of VEGA, and I hope they overclock better than the Fury cards (with adequate cooling)
ISee
Member
The Windows version suggests the benchmark was running on Windows 10 with the new creators update. At maximum this is ~ 4 weeks old, but probably newer.
Hesemonni
Banned
What else would he say?
Also I just remembered this thing:
Should we expect something Vega related when Prey is released?
True. Though at some point "Vega is the shit" will become something that hurts them if it actually isn't.
ISee
Member
What else would he say?
Also I just remembered this thing:
Should we expect something Vega related when Prey is released?
Hmm, is this a recent add?
Hesemonni
Banned
I think February.
capitalCORN
Member
SUCK IT DOWN.
ethomaz
Banned
The OP bench was done in April 12.
The latest rumor puts them on a tie-in with Quake Champions, I guess Prey is too early to coincide with Vega now.
The 12.5 TFs number comes from the announcement of the Machine Intelligence line of accelerators AMD held back in december:
Given the seemingly obvious naming convention, people expects the Vega based MI25 to be capable of roughly 25 TFlops of FP16 opereations, which given the 2x Packed Math should equate to about 12.5 Tflops of the FP32 stuff that's mostly used by game engines.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
The 12.5 TFs number comes from the announcement of the Machine Intelligence line of accelerators AMD held back in december:
Given the seemingly obvious naming convention, people expects the Vega based MI25 to be capable of roughly 25 TFlops of FP16 opereations, which given the 2x Packed Math should equate to about 12.5 Tflops of the FP32 stuff that's mostly used by game engines.
On that note it seems most people have also missed the point that the Vega architecture was built first and foremost for machine intelligence/AI and deep learning. The hardcore gaming market is small fry compared to the billions Google, MS, Apple etc are throwing into those endeavours, and you need GPU acceleration for that.
The design is telling on its own as well. It's not an architecture that is going to go toe-to-toe with Nvidia's latest.
That seems really low.
My current 1060 gets 4400 on timespy.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1683501
I hope its the cut down ver.
My current 1060 gets 4400 on timespy.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1683501
I hope its the cut down ver.
ethomaz
Banned
Well the MI6 has 5.7TFs.The 12.5 TFs number comes from the announcement of the Machine Intelligence line of accelerators AMD held back in december:
Given the seemingly obvious naming convention, people expects the Vega based MI25 to be capable of roughly 25 TFlops of FP16 opereations, which given the 2x Packed Math should equate to about 12.5 Tflops of the FP32 stuff that's mostly used by game engines.
The only think saying in this pic is that Vega does Double Packed Math.
Anyone who wants 1080 performance likely already has it. We're not talking about $200 mid-range, right?
I dont think there is a cut down version. Only one card.
Why was vega shown so early btw. The card was running games last December. I hope they tweaked the hardware since
ethomaz
Banned
Why low memory clock?
P100 HBM2 uses 700Mhz memory too... that give 732GB/s of bandwidth that is overkill for Vega power.
Most estimated put Vega memory at 500Mhz.
ISee
Member
We don't know how fast the memory clock will be in the end. It could easily be faster than 700 MHz. Does it need to be faster? Probably not, but higher is always better for marketing.
This. I upgraded to a 1070 last year because AMD has been sluggish as hell with releasing a viable upgrade to the 290x/390x.
I previously had a 290x Lightning and the Fury X was an underwhelming upgrade path.
dr_rus
Member
The one which is in the 3DMark DB is as real as they can be. It's anyone's guess how close it is to representing the final card's performance of course.
The one which isn't and exist as an image is a 99.9% fake. Which is why you only see it on Reddit and some forums.
This card is rated at 300W and cost some 20000 USDs meaning that they can use very rare highest clocking GPUs in it. Look at the specs of the Polaris 10 based Instinct MI6 - they are considerably higher/better than what RX480/580 are able to reach on the desktop. Same is likely true for MI25 card. So 1.5GHz for RX Vega would be amazing I think. It's more realistic to expect clocks closer to these of RX580, maybe some 50MHz more for the water cooled version.
We don't know that it is 300W, and there is also the fact that it is passively cooled.
Just think how crazy it is to passively cool 300W (not that passively cooling +175W isn't crazy already).
MI6(5.8) has the same amount of tflops as RX480(5.8). How are they considerably higher? As far as I'm aware all the server parts are clocked the same or more conservatively than their desktop equivalent.
So expecting them to be less this time around really has no basis in reality, and you should actually expect higher clocks from the consumer version if anything.
Aztechnology
Member
If they release a product competitive to the 1070 in both performance and price, it will still be a win (Provided it doesn't have horrible Power usage/TDP). But not what I was expecting. They really need to be aiming at getting as close to 1080ti performance as possible and using price as incentive.
They won some points for the budget market with the 4 and 5 70/80, but Nvidia quickly narrowed that gap with the 1060 price drops. The only real advantage they have right now is optimizations for some titles due to console, deals and non costly monitor features.
They won some points for the budget market with the 4 and 5 70/80, but Nvidia quickly narrowed that gap with the 1060 price drops. The only real advantage they have right now is optimizations for some titles due to console, deals and non costly monitor features.
Passively cooled is probably a misleading term if you are only used to PCs. These are compute cards intended to be stacked into a rack, so while the card itself will not have a fan, there will be big noisy fans on the rack to keep it cool:
You probably shouldn't try passively cooling a 300W card in a normal ATX mid tower without also adding enough case fans to make the cabinet air worthy.
GameAddict411
Member
From every rumor I have read, it seems to be performing similarly to a GTX 1070 and slightly above in some cases. It's not bad or anything, but I hope the price reflects this. I also hope the power consumption is reasonable considering the GTX 1070 is rated below 200 watts. If the RX 580 is rated at 180 and the vega basically doubles the GPU core, I don't see this happening.
Not sure if legit but fun to speculate.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5426676&postcount=1172
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5426676&postcount=1172
TimFL
Member
That's the cycle:
New AMD product announced/leaked -> AMD fans leave their caves to boast how this time it's different and NVIDIA should be very afraid -> turns out AMD shits the bed again -> AMD fanboys return to their caves, waiting for the next big thing
Can't wait.
If thier replacement for the R9 Nano happens to be 8GB I'm game.
miller.skippins
Banned
seems similar to the sonic cycle..
also, my condolences to people that bought AMD shares recently......it plummeted 25% on tuesday following their latest quarter earning calls.......25%!!!
ISee
Member
The problem with the 'There will be multiple Vega versions with very different levels of performance' rumors. They're all based on this one picture that has no source in the 3d mark database and I tried to find it!
I'm not saying it is impossible, though. It's just not good enough, imo.
llien
Member
It isn't even remotely imaginable that faster Vega is slower than 1080.
ArtificialIntelligence
Member
llien
Member
Ryzen is solid. (and is selling quite well too`)
RX 480,470,580,570,560,550 are good GPUs, x70's in particular.
Let's wait for Vega to appear before we judge it.
smh.
Come on, Ryzen is pretty good 😗
Although I'm not optimistic on Vega, neither is r/AMD overall.
ArtificialIntelligence
Member
Actually Ryzen is impressive indeed but it still cannot compete with Intel in Core Performance wise. Maybe it is possible for AMD to catch Intel in later years (I don't believe this at all) , but it is impossible for AMD to catch or even compete with Nvidia. Nvidia isn't a company that only produces graphics cards for individual users. It is a company that contributes AI, deep learning etc. The technology that Nvidia uses is years ahead from AMD.
llien
Member
$300+ Ryzens are listed in top 10 bestsellers on mindfactory.de, to address your picture about bestsellers.
8 core ryzens are beating 8 cores by Intel at a number of practical tasks.
Intel still has single core perf crown, but gap is no where as drastic as before and there is a wide range of Intel CPUs that are much slower than that.
Competition is back to CPU market, at least for now.
Really? Which one?
DemonCleaner
Member
1240MHz core clock is considerably higher than the usual RX480/580?
? AMD catching up to intel was always the more unlikely scenario than catching up to nvidia. Granted, Intel basically giving up on anything more than small incremental gains on performance gave AMD an opening, but AMD has come reasonably close to Intel's IPC and exceeded their performance per dollar in the I5 range with the ryzen 5s, and their 8 cores are on par with intel's 8 cores in a lot of tasks already at a drastically lower price.
I highly doubt that AMD spent all this time making a chip that is within Fury X range. I also doubt that AMD will have anywhere near the performance per watt of NVIDIA in the near future, but if they have a powerful chip that's priced right, people can ignore the fact that the chip will guzzle power.
icecold1983
Member
oh brother