dr_rus
Member
FWIW these clocks seems to be what the card reports as max clocks possible, not the actual clocks it was running at during the benchmark. They also fit nicely for such max clocks of AC and WC versions respectively.
-
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
FWIW these clocks seems to be what the card reports as max clocks possible, not the actual clocks it was running at during the benchmark. They also fit nicely for such max clocks of AC and WC versions respectively.
Wait for Navi
Rushersauce
Banned
So some company called Pixio is releasing a monitor next month with the same specs as that Samsung you get in the Radeon Bundle (100hz Freesynce 3440x1440) but it starts at $700 (and you can pre-order it now for $600) putting it at the same price as the Samsung monitor after the pack discount.
Delusibeta
Banned
I get the sense that the bundle is primarily trying to keep an option open for gamers to buy RX Vegas, particularly those new to PC gaming. Problem is that I don't think miners will mind paying the extra $100 and flipping the game codes and/or discount codes for a tuppence, especially if the rumours on how good RX Vega is at Ethernium mining turn out to be true.
ethomaz
Banned
I believe you can buy the Samsumg one below the discounted price with Vega because they use the MSRP to give you the discount.
AMD wants to raise the Vega 64 price to $599. Is it because of the mining rumors?
Also, here are some new benchmarks:
https://videocardz.com/71771/final-radeon-rx-vega-64-3dmark-performance
Sits comfortably below a 1080ti
The dream is dead
Also, here are some new benchmarks:
https://videocardz.com/71771/final-radeon-rx-vega-64-3dmark-performance
Sits comfortably below a 1080ti
The dream is dead
Thinking of doing a Ryzen Vega Build and I'm attempting to build around the packs because I want to be certain to get one.
Does this look good to everyone? (subtract $100 for the discount assuming it applies to the sale price)
Does this look good to everyone? (subtract $100 for the discount assuming it applies to the sale price)
It was never going to be ti levels I'm more happy that it's comfortably beating an overclocked 1080 in most of the benches
Delusibeta
Banned
Definitely get faster RAM, at least DDR4-3000, preferably DDR4-3200.
I would also personally invest in a larger SSD boot drive, and I would upgrade the power supply to the Corsair RMx series, since it's fully modular and (more importantly) has a ten year warranty. I also am not a fan of the case since it has poor airflow, but that's probably the most subjective part of a build.
Thanks for the advice.
The RAM was chosen for aesthetic reasons. I'll bump it up to a 3200MHZ one as it's only another $9 for a 3200mhz one that matches my color scheme.
The SSD will basically only be used for Windows and some basic programs. Bumping up to 240GB is a fairly significant price increase so I would rather not.
I checked out the RMX prices and I'm not willing to spend another $40 just to go from semi-modular to fully modular so I think I'll stick with it unless there's a serious issue with the model or series.
Regarding the case it won multiple "best case of the year" awards when it released so I doubt the airflow is bad or at least not outside of reasonable management. Going more expensive on the case is not really an option either.
Edit: I tried to cut costs in other areas to make your suggestions possible. I dropped trying to build around the pack discounts and just accepted I'm paying an extra $100 for the game and brushed aluminum finish. That allowed me to get a much cheaper mobo, the non X CPU, and drop the cooler.
Link(s) for those benches?
Delusibeta
Banned
I believe they're talking about the Videocardz link a couple of posts back, whereby the 3dmark scores are indeed slightly higher for Vega 64 compared to the 1080 card tested. Of course, usual caveat applies: synthetic benchmarks are not 100% representative of performance in games.
I saw that one and I wouldn't say that Vega is comfortably beating an overclocked 1080.
It scores better on Firestrike Extreme than a Gaming X, is behind in Timespy and trades blows in the others.
dr_rus
Member
Depends on where you look really.
Overall I certainly wouldn't say that "scores are indeed slightly higher for Vega 64" as they are simply not and you also have to account for the fact that some of these results can be from overclocked cards.
Depends on where you look really.
Overall I certainly wouldn't say that "scores are indeed slightly higher for Vega 64" as they are simply not and you also have to account for the fact that some of these results can be from overclocked cards.
It comes out ahead in every bench but 1 and in some benches it's fairly big leap. That's pretty comfortably ahead.
That 1080 is OC'd as well by a pretty healthy margin (a stock 1080 is clocked at 1607 base)
dr_rus
Member
Actually, it comes out ahead in just one bench, in one it's slower and in the other two they are mostly even.
If I would be guessing I'd say that anything but the lowest couple of results on these graphs are for overclocked Vegas.
1080 Gaming X is a rather mild factory OC card, there are plenty of factory OC cards which are faster and you can OC these cards even further. So no, Vega is not "comfortably ahead" in these benchmarks.
There's no such thing as a stock 1080. Pretty much all 1080s are 1800 mhz+.
Also isn't the Vega overclocked as well according to your logic? "Stock" clocks seems to be around 1300 mhz.
I'm quite interested seeing how this Vega Nano performs. Is it at least confirmed to have more that 4GB? If so, it could be a very interesting upgrade for someone like me.
Edit: Videocardz has listed their speculated specs, but I really wish they posted more details about this. I hope they list it as being cheaper that the typical RX Vega if it ends up being a little bellow its performance, and especially with the 1070/1080 ITX cards out in the market already. They need to get as competitive as they could get in the small form-factor space.
Edit: Videocardz has listed their speculated specs, but I really wish they posted more details about this. I hope they list it as being cheaper that the typical RX Vega if it ends up being a little bellow its performance, and especially with the 1070/1080 ITX cards out in the market already. They need to get as competitive as they could get in the small form-factor space.
It quite literally comes out ahead in 3 of the 4 benches you posted. The 1080 is clocked about 20% higher than stock at 1924mhz that's more than a mild factory overclock it's running higher than the AIO water cooled cards do from the factory. Some 1080 cards hit only a few mhz higher as the factories guaranteed max stable OC obviously a good board can be pushed a higher but the sample in the example (a non founders edition at the same link) only goes 7% higher than the one used in videocardz testing.
I never said Vega wasn't overclocked but you are right that a lot of 1080's have a boost clock higher than 1800mhz.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Still interested in a Vega 64 since the 4k monitor I'm using has FreeSync tech (although only 60hz).
I'll wait for them to come out and see what the prices are before ultimately deciding if I just bite the bullet and get a 1080ti and deal with not having variable refresh rates.
I'll wait for them to come out and see what the prices are before ultimately deciding if I just bite the bullet and get a 1080ti and deal with not having variable refresh rates.
Unknown Soldier
Member
You could just bite the bullet and buy a G-sync monitor and maybe try to sell the other one. It's not as if you wouldn't get good use out of it for years.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Do you think we can expect cards to start shipping on Monday? Is it typical for pre-orders to not be up this soon before the official launch date?
dr_rus
Member
No, it doesn't come out ahead in 3 out of 4 benchmarks. You're completely ignoring the lower range of results there and thus your conclusion is invalid.
1924 MHz is basically a stock clock of many GTX1080 cards even before you apply factory OC on them. NV's boost doesn't work like you think it does. My factory OC GTX1080 gives out ~2025-2038 MHz as its max clocks to the same 3DMark monitoring module (for example) while being rated at 1885MHz for its boost clocks and is generally keeping at 1987MHz in gaming. 1924 MHz is a very conservative max clocks report for a 1080 card in 3DMark.
ISee
Member
You're obsessing too much about overclock vs 'stock' boost performance. The MSI Gaming X runs 11% (1924MHz vs 1733 MHz) higher than nvidias official boost clock speed because nvidia wants you to feel special about your precious "highly" overclocked, custom 3d party card.
In truth all cards are build with overclocking in mind (today), even Founder or Frontier Editions. Consumers expect to be able to oc and companies sell them exactly that: "Get your free performance upgrade people, you're able to get 10-15% over official specs! FOR FREE" But in truth it is calculated. They know what they are selling to their consumers, it doesn't matter if it is an AMD or Nvidia card. Modern cards overclock rather nice, because that's what consumers want.
So far I've not encountered one single 1080 that isn't able to at least hit 1950MHz (+13% higher than official boost clock). Moderate cards are able to hit 2000 - 2038 MHz (+17%), good cards 2038-2063 (+19%) MHz and very good card 2075-2101 MHz (+21%). Certain cards can also be flashed with an unlocked bios that can apply consistent 1.25V to the core. You can go up to ~2300 MHz on that, but temperatures become rather higher and water-cooling becomes necessary. Volt modding is the next step after that, but that's for pros.
Long story short: It doesn't matter if a custom 1080 is running 11% over nvidias official specs. What matters is the fact that the silicon is able to run at such clockspeeds on average. The same will apply to RX 64. The official boost clock speed is just 1546 MHz, but even the infamous Vega FE is able to run higher than that. I expect good custom designs from MSI, Sapphire, Asus (etc.) to reach at least 1650 MHz with some cards being able to push for 1730 MHz. The average OC will probably be around 1680-1700 MHz, which will be the "free +10% performance if you buy a "high end" 3d party card and overclock. But don't tell anybody about it, overclocking is a big secret and AMD don't want you to reach 1700 MHz on your Vega.
And to be honest that Firestrike Extreme GPU score (10048) looks somewhat on the low side for a 1080 Gaming X
I get 11641 with a standard overclock and dr_rus 11270 with his 1080
A Gaming X Plus (same GPU frequency as the Gaming X but with 11Gbps memory) scores 11208 and I doubt that the memory overclock would explain that 1000+ points gap.
The 1080 G1 scores 10742 on that same pic
I get 11641 with a standard overclock and dr_rus 11270 with his 1080
A Gaming X Plus (same GPU frequency as the Gaming X but with 11Gbps memory) scores 11208 and I doubt that the memory overclock would explain that 1000+ points gap.
The 1080 G1 scores 10742 on that same pic
TVexperto
Member
Monday
I cant preorder it anywhere
thelastword
Banned
These are pretty much reference RX Vega clocks for the most part, no Vega card in those benches has an OC on memory....And they're putting this against the most expensive MSI 1080Ti, even more expensive than the armor with a huge OC on Core and memory. so of course it will speed ahead...
I'm interested in gaming benches tbh and I'm interested in AIB Vega cards, with their cooling and OC. Regardless, the biggest takeaway for me is the Vega architecture/features. How future games will take advantage of these features and how NV will stack and compare there. I'm pretty sure we'll see it get competitive with the Ti eventually..... AIB cards won't be here till September though, So I think AIB to AIB is a better comparison...
FWIW, I'm perfectly fine with this performance for Vega if my min fps and frametime is better, but I suspect that's not the end of the story here.....We'll see how this develops...
Leonidas
Member
Here's hoping Vega 56 is available on the 14th, some places are saying it's coming later...
I don't think most GPUs do pre-orders. The last time I ordered a GPU at launch it was available for order the day after the reviews went out.
I don't think most GPUs do pre-orders. The last time I ordered a GPU at launch it was available for order the day after the reviews went out.
The Gaming X is neither the most expensive nor the fastest 1080 Ti
I'd hardly call going from 11024MHz to 111124MHz a huge OC on the memory
The Aorus, Aorus Xtreme, Strix OC, Zotac Extreme, MSI Lightning, Asus poseidon, Inno 3D IChill X3 and others are all clocked higher on the GPU
Edit: and the Armor is pretty much the worst custom 1080 Ti you could buy
opticalmace
Member
^ lol. Oh snap.
Damn rip Vega
lol
lucebuce12
Member
thelastword
Banned
I specified MSi 1080 TI's......not the fastest 1080ti tbh...Looking on Amazon I see the MSI Gaming X (the one used in those benches) as the most expensive in the bunch at $779....
As I said, the gaming x has a very good core OC, and a boost in memory speed .....In none of those tests do we see RX Vega getting an OC on memory or anything close to the core/boost speeds that the AIB 1080ti got, reference core/boost speeds on the 1080ti are much lower. In essence, we're comparing NV 1080ti AIB cards with mature drivers and improvements to reference AMD boost speeds or a slight OC and immature drivers...
To get some perspective, a reference 1080 ti is specced at 1480 core and 1582 boost.....What I'm seeing here on the NV OC cards for both core and memory is much higher than 1080ti reference speeds...I'm simply saying it's not a fair comparison...At least let some AIB Vega cards come out.....Of course better drivers after launch will come into play as well...
thelastword
Banned
I can't even pre-order on Amazon, are we doomed? Have miners taken all alreadyWould love to get one of these on Monday. Miners are going to kill this though.
Lol, it's business guys, Ryzen and Threadripper is hot "fiyah" right now...so naturally....
Damn rip Vega
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiBRqsDlet4
blankempathy
Member
So this is my first time possibly buying a gpu at launch. Where do I even begin to start looking for these?
This is entirely the point of my argument I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
The 1925mhz 1080 used is edging on the max oc for standard 1080 cards on average as you said.(1950mhz)
The Vega is winning against that with an oc on what is essentially a founders edition blower style card in 75% of the tests. Meanwhile 3rd party Vega cards should get even better results. As you said Vega will get 3rd party cards at higher clocks as well so comparing the stock clock of the Vega to a non-stock clocked Nvidia is disingenuous. It's better to look at the overclocked speeds of the Vega in comparison to the overclocked speeds of the 1080 there's no reason to think 1750mhz is further out of reach on Vega than 1924mhz is on the 1080.
1924mhz is not a stock clock on any 1080 that is close to msrp. You're comparing a premium 3rd party card or an overclocked card (yes I get that is a clock basically any 3rd party card can hit) to a blower style reference Vega and then claiming the Vegas overclock speeds are invalid. Compare stock to stock and overclock to overclock there's no reason to believe that 1750mhz won't be as normal of a clock for 3rd party Vega cards as 1924mhz is for 3rd party Nvidia cards.
You think Frys Electronics would do this?
Colbert
Banned
Some info on embargos for RX Vega 64 and 56 from GamersNexus:
Source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3016-amd-moves-vega-56-embargo-forward-prioritizes-over-64
Ignore if old.
GamersNexus.net said:
Source: http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3016-amd-moves-vega-56-embargo-forward-prioritizes-over-64
Ignore if old.
Colbert
Banned
Let's just hope that vega is amd's Windows Vista for navi being w7
To me Vega 56 seems to be a good value. If I would build a new PC it would be a R7 1700 / Vega 56 build.
llien
Member
Damn rip Vega
Does it beat Vega FE at prof workloads?
Somewhat burying the flagship, bold strategy. Let's hope the 56 is actually competitive with the 1070...