34% more Min-FPS and 23% more Max-FPS than a Fury X, looks like a worthy R600 successor.
This is a travesty. Why are they comparing against my 2-year old 980 Ti
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
This is a travesty. Why are they comparing against my 2-year old 980 Ti
Yeah, I also feel like all this hype for Vega was nothing, at least in terms of power.
I guess you'll save an extra few hundred bucks though if you take advantage of that RX Vega coupon pack where you get the two free games and coupon discounts on Ryzen CPU/mobo and Freesync monitor, on top of of the already lower prices of AMD parts.
Maybe in due time, it will get better kind of like what happened with Ryzen, as driver updates and optimizations occur.
I guess you'll save an extra few hundred bucks though if you take advantage of that RX Vega coupon pack where you get the two free games and coupon discounts on Ryzen CPU/mobo and Freesync monitor, on top of of the already lower prices of AMD parts.
Maybe in due time, it will get better kind of like what happened with Ryzen, as driver updates and optimizations occur.
So the new binning rasterizer wasn't turned on in the drivers for the FE edition https://youtu.be/51SsMsUXTt8?t=5m31s
The only value proposition here is the Vega 56. Beats the 1070 by a fair margin... but extremely late to the game. I honestly don't know what I expected, but it certainly wasn't this.
Someone made a very poor and rookie design choice if the rumors of lower-clocked HBM2 is somehow bottlenecking Vega. Why on earth would they risk their GPU with an unproven and expensive technology (edit: and from an outside supplier for that matter)?
I thought we knew this already?
Does anyone know what Navi even is at this point in time? The only thing of note is a "scalable" technology from AMD's own slides.
edit: Just realized something, if Raven Ridge -- the next APU -- has Vega GPU cores, how would that even work if the existing tech is geared for HBM?
Someone made a very poor and rookie design choice if the rumors of lower-clocked HBM2 is somehow bottlenecking Vega. Why on earth would they risk their GPU with an unproven and expensive technology (edit: and from an outside supplier for that matter)?
I thought we knew this already?
Does anyone know what Navi even is at this point in time? The only thing of note is a "scalable" technology from AMD's own slides.
edit: Just realized something, if Raven Ridge -- the next APU -- has Vega GPU cores, how would that even work if the existing tech is geared for HBM?
Leonidas
Member
Yeah the 56 is the best flops/watt and flops/$. Hoping it launches soon.
It was assumed but never confirmed before.
FingerBang
Member
Well, by the time it will be widely available, Volta will be out. I'm still interested in Vega but those prices are 50-100$ too expensive to be competitive.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
So I assume that these won't be HDMI 2.1? At this point I'm thinking that even Little Volta won't ship with it because of the delays in finalizing the spec.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
Your comment inspired me to more quick and dirty math, this time for TFLOPs/dollar. I'm sure you already did the math, but I figured I might as well share the numbers I got with the thread.
(Note: I'm using all AMD-reported numbers. I'm also using the reference prices I could find for the 500 series, but I'm not sure which memory configurations they apply to.)
RX 560: 0.0263
RX 570: 0.0302
RX 580: 0.0271
RX Vega 56: 0.0263
RX Vega 64: 0.0253
RX Vega 64 (Liquid): 0.0196
These numbers represent a really skewed version of what performance actually looks like, but I suppose it's still interesting. Once again, I'm very curious what the upcoming low TDP Vega will look like in comparison.
GameAddict411
Member
Highly unlikely. And even if they end up supporting the standard, it doesn't mean they will support refresh rate sync. HDMI 2.1 will be a thing some time next year.
Unknown Soldier
Banned
HDMI 2.1 will likely be late 2018 for the first sources that can support it like GPU's. The first TVs and monitors which support it likely won't be until early 2019 because of the yearly refresh cycles.
Early 2019 should line up well with when I'll be ready to buy a new TV. My current Sony 65X900A is a 2013 model and has held up very well but it would be nice to have things like 4:4:4 RGB support in 4K/60, HDR, and HDMI 2.1 with VRR.
Doubt it will be 20%, but according to Anandtech's article:
There may be some performance improvements to be seen with the RX launch drivers.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Well at least I won't regret my X9000E purchase if the stuff doesn't hit until 2019.
Sir Abacus
Member
Someone in AMD actually signed off on this strategy.
Someone who makes millions at AMD looked at an executive summary of a strategy that was "come to market a year late without a better performing card" and thought it was a brilliant plan.
Fire the RTG leadership, put the entire BU up for sale and let someone else have a stab at it. Taking two years to drag the bloated corpse of GCN out for some minor architectural bolt-ons and another HDMI version bump isn't a strategy.
Someone who makes millions at AMD looked at an executive summary of a strategy that was "come to market a year late without a better performing card" and thought it was a brilliant plan.
Fire the RTG leadership, put the entire BU up for sale and let someone else have a stab at it. Taking two years to drag the bloated corpse of GCN out for some minor architectural bolt-ons and another HDMI version bump isn't a strategy.
I would really love that they stop using Doom as benchmark. It is nice that Vulkan works great on AMD cards but DX11 is still main API that majority of games are using these days.
Maybe because people were waiting for more than a year and got product that they could have year ago.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
RX Vega will likely perform like a GTX 1080 based on AMD's supplied benchmarks. In reality I would expect performance to be slightly lower in real world, third party benches. Using 50% more die space and nearly double the power consumption. That's terrible for AMD. Due to the die size and the robust PCB design they'll need to keep the thing from lightning on fire due to power consumption, the cost of the card itself to build is going to be significantly higher than a GTX 1080. And they have to sell it for the same price as a GTX 1080 because good luck if it was priced any higher.
And it took them 14 months to get to this point. If you waited for Vega instead of buying a cheap 1070/1080 when prices were really good pre mining craze, you probably feel like a jackass right now.
blankempathy
Member
At the same prices too.
Okay, that I get.
Unless I'm missing something, that $500 RX Vega 56 bundle seems like a decent package if you're building a PC from scratch and are on a budget.
Edit: I was missing something--that Samsung monitor is $700 and is capped at a 100Hz refresh rate (you can get a better monitor for that money) and the MoBo Ryzen combo is a Ryzen 7, not a Ryzen 5--even though iirc there isn't really a reason to go for the Ryzen 7 over Ryzen 5 for gaming.
Edit 2: Upon further inspection, while that monitor is $700, its MSRP is actually $900 (assuming it's this one). If that discount is based off of MSRP and not a coupon that applies to street price...yikes.
Though I am just judging this based off of LTT's video, I haven't been able to see this bundle in writing anywhere yet.
Edit: I was missing something--that Samsung monitor is $700 and is capped at a 100Hz refresh rate (you can get a better monitor for that money) and the MoBo Ryzen combo is a Ryzen 7, not a Ryzen 5--even though iirc there isn't really a reason to go for the Ryzen 7 over Ryzen 5 for gaming.
Edit 2: Upon further inspection, while that monitor is $700, its MSRP is actually $900 (assuming it's this one). If that discount is based off of MSRP and not a coupon that applies to street price...yikes.
Though I am just judging this based off of LTT's video, I haven't been able to see this bundle in writing anywhere yet.
ISee
Member
Especially if you build AMD only and use the voucher to get the discounted price for a ryzen cpu, a mb and a freesync monitor discounted.
In general Vega 56 and 64 would have been great about 6-10 months ago, but so close to nvidias next GPU lineup people (or maybe it's just me) were hoping for more power. Actually I was really hoping for a good, affordable and reliable 4k/60 card... and vega isn't that.
Wait really? Only Ryzen 7?
I think having a discount on mobo+1600 is a much better option. Having a $100 discount for R7 means it would cost the same as a R5, and the gaming performance is around the same, so there's no real reason to buy the bundle really, at least for gamers.
ISee
Member
R7 for the price of a R5 is a great offer, imo. I was mostly buying i7s, even when i5s were considered to be much better value propositions and i7s were pretty much useless. Still i7s have a much longer lifespan, for example the 2500k/3570k are running out of breath while the 2600k/3700k is still holding up. I think the same is going to happen with the r5 vs r7.
Yeah. I did the math (roughly):
$550 for monitor (assuming the discount is off street price and not MSRP)
$100 MoBo + $340 Ryzen 7 (applying discount to MoBo, CPU on sale at Newegg)
$500 GPU Bundle
$50 PSU
$100 Case
$100 for small SSD + 1TB platter drive
$100 for RAM
You end up at roughly $2000 for what's basically an i7-1070 equivalent, including monitor but with some sacrifices for storage, PSU, case, etc. Guess some might find that appealing, I don't really.
DemonCleaner
Member
:-/
the only silver lining on the horizon with this is the vega56 for $400. should get about -10% to vega64 when overclocked to similar core clocks.
Sir Abacus
Member
That's if AMD literally tried to squeeze every last drop out of 1070 during its benchmarks. A 1070 boosting to 2-2.1GHz performs a hell of a lot better than a 1070 boosting to stock 1683MHz.
Given FE's inability to sustain boost past 1600MHz we're looking at Vega's performance being what's on the box vs Nvidia giving another 20% for nothing.
You reckon? I was expecting a whole lot of HDMI2.1 TVs at next CES for 2018 release.
The funny thing about pricing discussions in GPU threads is always how americans say NVIDIA wins market battles or other products are DOA because apparently NV cards are dirt cheap for you guys.
GTX 1080 (not Ti) cards that are actually great start at about $750 in Germany and Ti cards are in the $950 range, so NVIDIA is basically no option if you want to get the bang of your buck. And no, there were no major sales where you could get such cards for those prices. NVIDIA is taking a fuckton of margins from european customers. You can almost always add 200 bucks to the announced MSRP when new cards are coming up. AMD hasn't been that extreme in that regard. Should the Vega 64 base version actually retail at about 500 bucks here then the 1080 is fucked over here. If not, then.... well. Then they really have some problems.
Beautiful Ninja
Member
AMD's best attempts at bullshitting with their in house benchmarks barely get them above a 1080. I fully expect your standard third party benchmark to have RX Vega slightly behind a 1080, just like the Vega FE is.
you can buy a gigabyte 1080 for 599€ in Finland and our prices as expensive as hell, I bought my 1080ti msi gaming x from mindfactory.de for 820€ at launch. So it's not only a "us thing". And do note that it's the watercooled 699$ version that actually manages to trade blows with reference 1080, cheaper models do worse and you can clock that 1080(unlike the vegas that are more or less tapped out)
Do mind that the MSRP prices do not include VAT
kirankara78
Member
They are naturally cherry picking benchmarks that portray product in best light, but they really should be using better range of benchmarks.
Some games like assaasins creed unity fared really badly on the FE. How does it do in the games that aren't better on AMD to start with?
Another point to add is that all their blind tests centred around using freesync it was hard to distinguish differences in frame rates, yet they cherry pick benchmarks with dx12/vulkan results games that give them frame rate advantage. Talk about inconsistent
ISee
Member
I know. The thing is GPU prices exploded here recently. We really had some cheap 1080s for around 500 a couple of months ago, like the kfa2 exoc or the gigabyte windforce. Meanwhile a good 1080 card like the strix is about as expansive as a 1080ti card a couple of months ago. If good vega 64 third party cards are going to position themselv around 530, I really see vega managing to sell well. At least in europe.
Nydus
Member
I bought a used 1080ti from asus for 650 and selling an asus strix 1080 oc used for 500 myself. So you can get good prices on nv if you hunt long enough.
I'm not the biggest fan of buying PC hardware used, though, especially with the bitcoin mining thing going on right now where tons of worn-out cards end up on eBay. Sure, used is a great way to get some of those cards for much less, but PC hardware is one of the very few things I always buy new.
Damn, I always forget the VAT thing. Didn't keep that in mind, my bad. I was under the impression that the air-cooled version of the 64 actually gets to 1080 levels, but if it's really only the watercooled one, then ouch.
Nydus
Member
Fair enough. Your only hope is that vega prices wont get inflated the minute they hit shelves. :/
We wont really know for sure till the cards actually come out and we get some 3rd party benches, I based that on the 3dmark results where it took 1630 mhz vega to reach 1080
opticalmace
Member
Damn, gotta wait till Aug 14. I was hoping we could get reviews tonight.
Unknown Soldier
Banned
The standard isn't even finalized yet. A standard needs to be finished, then hardware (HDMI transmitters etc.) that supports the standard must be developed and manufactured, then TVs needs to be developed which use this hardware.
We're already midway through 2017. There's not exactly any time left for all these things to happen in time for the 2018 TVs, receivers, and source devices.
When do you think can we expect independent benchmarks using retail RX vegas? That will be really interesting since all we have had so far is benchmarks using the frontier edition and RX Vega benchmarks from AMD themselves (which seems to be really biased: a focus on Vulcan/DX12 games and resolutions where AMD may have an advantage). Given the price differential between the frontier edition and RX vega, maybe it is reasonable to expect even lower performance (e.g. 1070 or lower level performance for vega 56 and middle between 1070 and 1080 for vega 64)? I expect GTX 1080 to outperform RX vega 64 in most games, a huge disappointment for a 13 TF card.
kirankara78
Member
Yikes, being a UK gamer, i totally forgot those prices are pre tax.
Putting that in context, we seem to literally be looking at competing product at price and performance with a 1080. Without extensive searching a gigabyte windforce oc card was available for £472. Same card on Amazon.Com was $509.
RX Vega doesn't look cheap in uk if prices translate dollar for pound in similar way.
This only starts looking good value if you will be taking advantage of vouchers for ryzen 1700 and a freesync monitor or have a freesync monitor.
Putting that in context, we seem to literally be looking at competing product at price and performance with a 1080. Without extensive searching a gigabyte windforce oc card was available for £472. Same card on Amazon.Com was $509.
RX Vega doesn't look cheap in uk if prices translate dollar for pound in similar way.
This only starts looking good value if you will be taking advantage of vouchers for ryzen 1700 and a freesync monitor or have a freesync monitor.