ethomaz
Banned
It is probably true with the games choosen... real performance between 1080 and 1080ti.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Radeon RX Vega thread
- Thread starter PFD
- Start date
s_mirage
Member
Same. Previews that amount to "AMD let us use these particular games at these settings and this resolution" are worthless. Doom Vulkan being wheeled out is particularly worthless since we know that certain speed boosting features were never enabled on Nvidia hardware, despite Pascal being capable.
I mean, they're comparing against a similarly priced product (the entire point of FE). Why compare to Quadro when it's significantly more expensive?
Locuza
Member
http://pro.radeon.com/en-us/product/radeon-vega-frontier-edition/
And AMD already reduced the pricing for the air-cooled solution, from 1199$ to 999$:
http://ir.amd.com/mobile.view?c=74093&v=203&d=1&id=2283396
Well this whole thing looks shitty.
Yeah, glad I sold my stock at last week at $14+
AMD have made gaming drivers for Vega FE available.
Vega Frontier Edition VRMarkOrange Room Score: 8,157
Asus GTX 1080 Strix OC-Orange Room: 10,834
Source.
Vega Frontier Edition VRMarkOrange Room Score: 8,157
Asus GTX 1080 Strix OC-Orange Room: 10,834
Source.
dgrdsv
Member
This depends on what you want to compare. If it's just these two products in a vacuum then sure, it's a valid comparison. But it doesn't tell us anything about the actual capabilities of the h/w the product is built upon and it doesn't take into account the fact that even cheaper Quadros which are closer in their price to FE cards, may perform similarly or even better than FE because of pro drivers.
Raja did say the consumer Vega will be faster in gaming than the FE version, so that's something at least.
ColdDeckEd
Member
Slower than a 1070? I dont know something seems off. And are those really gaming drivers?
Gaming drivers or not, amd had to be aware people were going to run benches and shouldve optimized their drivers more for gaming even if the frontier isnt supposed to be a gaming card. That score if true is just sad. Raja better start typing up that resignation letter if thats all vega can muster at the moment.
AMD is not good at VR. It'll be different for AAA multiplats.
Amd should focus on cpus. Ryzen is damn good.
It's looking like nothing at all can be construed from Vega FE as far as RX Vega is concerned. Is the purpose of the FE that it allows you to use Pro drivers (no certification) and has 16GB VRAM?
If RX Vega silicon is better than FE silicon (clocks!), then the FE is very weirdly positioned. At least Nvidia make sure Titan is the fastest product, even if it's sometimes by a hair's breadth. Perhaps fewer HBM stacks gives RX Vega a thermal advantage that can translate into more consistent clocks?
Papacheeks
Banned
FE is not a gaming card it's for PRO users?!! Like why are people even using any kind of game benchmark? These were designed for people who would buy a quadro, but can do much more with correct drivers and software. These are meant more for rendering, and running new robust graphics engines for game,film, 3D production.
Your not going to get any conclusive results comparing these to gaming test's. The only test's Iv'e read is against a 1080ti for production purposes not gaming.
Slap me if I missed something in the conversation.
While the FE is not a gaming card it's still the exact same chip so performance here should give you some idea about the RX versions. Most likely the RX version will be slightly better for gaming though.
However, you shouldn't draw any conclusions from a VR benchmark because that's like the worst case scenario for AMD. I still think that it'll end up slightly below a 1080 Ti in AAA multiplats.
Edit: Apparently it even has a gaming mode: http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-17-6-Release-Notes.aspx
I don't get it. People elsewhere say it's positioned squarely at the Titan and AMD compared it directly themselves. Haven't the released results in professional applications shown that the $875 Quadro based on the 150W GP104 is on par or faster than this FE in pro apps? It also barely beats AMD's own pro card based on 480 Polaris.
The only thing that could make sense to me is if it's meant to give better than Titan professional app performance and near-Titan gaming performance in one product. You can run Quadro drivers on the Titan, but it requires tinkering and is probably not at all supported.
Ah here we go.
My take on it is that the FE is a directX/OpenGL card, so of course it supports games. However, it will probably be missing any game specific optimizations that the RX Vega will have in it's drivers, which will obviously increase performance in gaming. FE seems to hold it's own against the Titan in synthetics and compute quite well, which as you say gives a great indication of it's performance potential.
Realize that the Titan in gaming has all the consumer GeForce gaming optimizations give it a pretty good advantage if my take is correct.
Of course the consumer version could also have different clocks than the FE version. I would assume that the FE is early run silicon/HBM2, while the consumer version coming later might clock higher/run at lower voltage decreasing power consumption. The FE version will help offset the expensive lower yield first runs, and be able to get the silicon into the market.
Sir Abacus
Member
Well Huang just raised the price of the 1180 another $50.
What a disappointment.
What a disappointment.
dgrdsv
Member
FE is a "prosumer" card, it's positioning is essentially the same as Titan's plus it has Pro drivers which allows it to compete with Quadro. I'd say that it's actually more of a gaming card than a professional one - but their main selling target is obviously the deep learning crowd, as it will likely be really bland in perf/price on other markets.
I expect Vega to be a stinker but this can't be right, it just can't be that bad. Barely faster than a Fury X shouldn't happen given clock speed increases and architectural enhancements.
Where does it say that's a "gaming driver?", I haven't installed it, but the link if for "firepro", and this is the description:
"The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is purpose-built to empower a new generation of pioneering creative professionals. By harnessing the power of Vega GPU architecture along with Radeon Pro Software, developers can be pioneers in game development, designers can be pioneers in visualization using Radeon ProRender, and artists can be pioneers in VR content creation."
I posted it when there was only very scant info available. Since then AMD has posted the main FE page. Much more information there. That driver is for Workstation workloads or Gaming and you switch between the two modes in software.
Ok, cool, thanks for the clarification.
Papacheeks
Banned
Yea from what I'v ready though they are better than a 875$ Quadro when using to scale in gaming engines for productivity and development.
Which is why they are so expensive, wait for there to be updates for game engines for developers.
Being a newer architecture, hopefully driver updates can also bring up the performance.
I'd be nice if AMD could compete at the high level again!
Alexander DeLarge
Member
I think I'm going to ignore the FE benchmarks completely and just wait for the consumer versions to release. This seems really reminiscent of Ryzen and I was pleased with Ryzen's performance.
When are those going to be shown?
Looking through the known issues in the release notes, I see several items that add up to Don't count on this card waking up from sleep node.
There's also this item:
Whatever the merits of the silicon, I think it's clear that the drivers are not ready for prime time.
There's also this item:
Translation: does not work right in common benchmark.
Whatever the merits of the silicon, I think it's clear that the drivers are not ready for prime time.
ethomaz
Banned
AMD and drivers never worked well.
Locuza
Member
From AMD's Rys Sommefeldt:
Well that's at least something really good.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1989116/
Well that's at least something really good.
dgrdsv
Member
This was leaked a month or so back via the driver capabilities dump. Good to hear it's being confirmed though. Maybe we'll see some >FL12_0 usage now outside of NV sponsored titles, although I'm not expecting much with consoles sticking to older GCN versions.
Locuza
Member
I would be very curious about the source.
dgrdsv
Member
Eh, let me try to find it...
This is the closest I got from recent links:
I'm pretty sure that I saw something on this earlier though.
Locuza
Member
I saw that DX12.1 (Actually FL12.1 would be correct) listing too, but many product listings are using placeholders so you never 100% sure if the datapoints are legit or not.
I just never recall that anywhere a driver capability dump was posted.
So FL12.1 is a good official conformation and that it has the highest tiers available even better.
I just never recall that anywhere a driver capability dump was posted.
So FL12.1 is a good official conformation and that it has the highest tiers available even better.
OK, there must be some kind of NDA in place, which is beyond daft when you can buy the product. Apparently some guy actually has a card and is sharing pics and GPU-Z shots etc. Reddit and WCCFTECH have removed the posts and images several times and everything has had to be re-hosted.
Fake Edit: 3Dmark Firestrike Graphics score ~23000.
Fake Edit: 3Dmark Firestrike Graphics score ~23000.
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Apparently he could be PSU bound, with 550W psu, it's a bit of a stretch to run this apparently very hungry GPU.
But overall? With the way mods over /r/amd act? What a fiasco of a launch.
I read all that too, but really a 80+ platinum 550W PSU in a mini ITX system and a 4790K should be totally fine. GPUs don't clock down if the PSU is insufficient.
But yes, we'll basically have to wait until Siggraph until all the possible reasons for these results can be brushed aside.
Delusibeta
Banned
3DMark FireStrike graphics scores
Graphics Score
GTX 1080 Ti AMP Extreme 29613
GTX 1080 Ti Founders 28340
GTX 1080 AORUS 11 Gbps 23197
Vega Frontier "gaming mode" 22916 <--
GTX 1080 AORUS Xtreme 22805
GTX 1080 Founders 21905
GTX 1070 Gaming X 19103
GTX 1070 Founders 18255
Fury X 16081
RX 580 Strix 1411 MHz 14624
GTX 1060 Gaming X 9 Gbps 13544
RX 480 Gaming X 1303 MHz 13411
GTX 1060 Founders 13156
RX 480 Reference 1266 MHz 12195
so yeah, it's basically a GF 1080.
Unless AMD price this well, it will be dead on arrival.
Graphics Score
GTX 1080 Ti AMP Extreme 29613
GTX 1080 Ti Founders 28340
GTX 1080 AORUS 11 Gbps 23197
Vega Frontier "gaming mode" 22916 <--
GTX 1080 AORUS Xtreme 22805
GTX 1080 Founders 21905
GTX 1070 Gaming X 19103
GTX 1070 Founders 18255
Fury X 16081
RX 580 Strix 1411 MHz 14624
GTX 1060 Gaming X 9 Gbps 13544
RX 480 Gaming X 1303 MHz 13411
GTX 1060 Founders 13156
RX 480 Reference 1266 MHz 12195
so yeah, it's basically a GF 1080.
Unless AMD price this well, it will be dead on arrival.
miners will take care of the "good price" part of it
Well, one of the good things of Fury, was the Nano. It was the smallest, most powerful card release so they could still push that agenda here. For small mini-itx form factors there are a few on nvidias side: the 1070 and 1080. With the gigabyte 1070 mini itx smaller than all mini 1080s. If they can size it at the mini 1070 size w/ 1080 power, it has that market.