Thursday, August 3rd 2017

AMD RX Vega 56 Benchmarks Leaked - An (Unverified) GTX 1070 Killer

TweakTown has put forth an article wherein they claim to have received info from industry insiders regarding the upcoming Vega 56's performance. Remember that Vega 56 is the slightly cut-down version of the flagship Vega 64, counting with 56 next-generation compute units (NGCUs) instead of Vega 64's, well, 64. This means that while the Vega 64 has the full complement of 4,096 Stream processors, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and a 2048-bit wide 8 GB HBM2 memory pool offering 484 GB/s of bandwidth, Vega 56 makes do with 3,548 Stream processors,192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, the same 8 GB of HBM2 memory and a slightly lower memory bandwidth at 410 GB/s.

The Vega 56 has been announced to retail for about $399, or $499 with one of AMD's new (famous or infamous, depends on your mileage) Radeon Packs. The RX Vega 56 card was running on a system configured with an Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz, 16 GB of DDR4-3000 MHz RAM, and Windows 10 at 2560 x 1440 resolution.
The results in a number of popular games were as follows:

Battlefield 1 (Ultra settings): 95.4 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 32% in favor of Vega 56)
Civilization 6 (Ultra settings, 4x MSAA): 85.1 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 17% in favor of Vega 56)
DOOM (Ultra settings, 8x TSAA): 101.2 FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6 FPS; 20% in favor of Vega 56)
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (High preset): 99.9 FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1 FPS; 8% in favor of Vega 56)

If these numbers ring true, this means NVIDIA's GTX 1070, whose average pricing stands at around $460, will have a much reduced value proposition compared to the RX Vega 56. The AMD contender (which did arrive a year after NVIDIA's Pascal-based cards) delivers around 20% better performance (at least in the admittedly sparse games line-up), while costing around 15% less in greenbacks. Coupled with a lower cost of entry for a FreeSync monitor, and the possibility for users to get even more value out of a particular Radeon Pack they're eyeing, this could potentially be a killer deal. However, I'd recommend you wait for independent, confirmed benchmarks and reviews in controlled environments. I dare to suggest you won't need to look much further than your favorite tech site on the internet for that, when the time comes. Source: TweakTown
Add your own comment

169 Comments on AMD RX Vega 56 Benchmarks Leaked - An (Unverified) GTX 1070 Killer

#1
Vya Domus
oxidized said:

Wrong, i'm as neutral as one can be, i don't care about brands and stuff, i only buy what i think and what is said to be the best thing, and AMD, aside from ryzen, isn't best, in any kind of way atm, not even on polaris
Wrong in what way ? That comment wasn't aimed at you but it was more of a general thing. If you buy whatever is said to be the best thing then you let other's bias influence you. That's still bias at work there you know , just not directly.
Posted on Reply
#2
birdie
Coupled with a lower cost of entry for a FreeSync monitor, and the possibility for users to get even more value out of a particular Radeon Pack they're eyeing, this could potentially be a killer deal.
So much fanboyism, it's staggering.

Meanwhile GTX 1070 has 150W TDP, while RX 56 won't differ much from it's older brother and will consume at least 300W. Some people here don't care about the cost of electricity, true, but I don't know the people who don't care about raw power dissipation which needs to be removed from your system.

Also, > 95% of people around me have neither FreeSync, nor GSync monitors, so you guys need to slow down a bit. Very few people actually care about tear free monitors. Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED, which supports true 10/12bit colors and HDR.
Posted on Reply
#3
oxidized
Vya Domus said:
Wrong in what way ? That comment wasn't aimed at you but it was more of a general thing. If you buy whatever is said to be the best thing then you let other's bias influence you. That's still bias at work there you know , just not directly.
I said i buy what i think it's best, and what is said to be the best, ofc not said to be the best from a person, i read multiple sites and stuff, and make my conclusion.
Posted on Reply
#4
Vya Domus
oxidized said:
I said i buy what i think it's best, and what is said to be the best, ofc not said to be the best from a person, i read multiple sites and stuff, and make my conclusion.
Still , one that is 100% neutral , wouldn't really get involved in these discussions , just to say they are neutral would they ? ;)

I mean everyone can just go on review sites right ?
Posted on Reply
#5
oxidized
Vya Domus said:
Still , one that is 100% neutral , wouldn't really get involved in these discussions , just to say they are neutral would they ? ;)

I mean everyone can just go on review sites right ?
Nothing is 100%, that's why i used "as neutral as one can be"

Everyone can just go on review sites, but do they all really?
Posted on Reply
#6
Gasaraki
Sempron Guy said:
I couldn't explain it right but I see tearing at 75fps in all the games I tested. Capping it at 74fps does the trick. Though I'm not sure about the explanation behind it.
That is the correct way to fix your "issue". This problem happens with G-Sync also because once Freesync and G-Sync reach the optimal frames of your monitor (in your case, 144fps) it turns off Freesync/G-Sync. But your video card is not able to maintain 144 CONSTANTLY, so when frames drop below 144, Freesync/G-Sync turns back on. This turning off and on causes the tearing you see. Setting the max frame below the max for you monitor will keep Freesync/G-Sync active at all times so tearing won't occur.
Posted on Reply
#7
B-Real
birdie said:
So much fanboyism, it's staggering.

Meanwhile GTX 1070 has 150W TDP, while RX 56 won't differ much from it's older brother and will consume at least 300W. Some of people here don't care about the cost of electricity, true, but I don't know the people who don't care about raw power dissipation which needs to be removed.

Also, > 95% of people around me have neither FreeSync, nor GSync monitors, so you guys needs to slow down a bit. Very few people actually care about tear free monitors. Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED, which supports true 10/12bit colors and HDR.
Vega56 has 210W TDP.
You cannot generalize only from your environment's habits. There may be at least that much gamers who would like a Sync monitor compared to the amount of gamers who would like an OLED HDR display.... Not to mention that Freesync doesn't really make that actual monitor expensive, compared to G-Sync.
Posted on Reply
#8
RejZoR
oxidized said:
Wow you sound pretty mad, but whatever, every and i say EVERY post i read coming from you it's always pro AMD, i swear, i'm not even joking, that's the difference between someone unbiased and someone neutral, i don't care whose hardware i buy, i just buy whatever is best for my money



Wrong, i'm as neutral as one can be, i don't care about brands and stuff, i only buy what i think and what is said to be the best thing, and AMD, aside from ryzen, isn't best, in any kind of way atm, not even on polaris
NOT PISSING ON AMD DAY AFTER DAY DOESN'T FREAKING MAKE YOU PRO AMD.

It just means I don't see point in pissing all over it day after day because even RX Vega no matter how crappy you people think or say it is, it has its benefits and things that most likely will push the whole graphics industry forward. AMD has rarely been the absolute king of the hill and yet if you look through history, they are the driving force for many technologies used by everyone. Like for example Tessellation (ATi TruForm) and normal maps compression (ATi 3Dc), Vulkan/DX12 low level API (Mantle) and you can be assured that HBC will be used by everyone in the future. Maybe it won't prove itself super useful now, but it certainly will lead to yet another innovation made by AMD.

People just love to accuse me of being an AMD fanboy, but they conveniently leave out all the times I say good things about NVIDIA, where I confirm their superiority and when I correct things that are BS on AMD end (like the BS scaling of graphs for RX560 "review" here on TPU). Go on, search it a bit and you'll see. All these whiners calling me an AMD fanboy will never do that because it's inconvenient for their BS narrative that I'm an AMD fanboy. I can remember from top of my head that I've said several times that I'd have hard time considering AMD ever again if it didn't include Fast V-Sync like feature. To my luck, they did (Enhanced Sync). I also said several times that NVIDIA currently holds undisputed superiority in terms of performance. But whatever. Look it up and you'll see who's full of manure and who isn't.
Posted on Reply
#9
Raevenlord
News Editor
birdie said:
So much fanboyism, it's staggering.

Meanwhile GTX 1070 has 150W TDP, while RX 56 won't differ much from it's older brother and will consume at least 300W. Some of people here don't care about the cost of electricity, true, but I don't know the people who don't care about raw power dissipation which needs to be removed.

Also, > 95% of people around me have neither FreeSync, nor GSync monitors, so you guys needs to slow down a bit. Very few people actually care about tear free monitors. Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED, which supports true 10/12bit colors and HDR.
Yeah, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

A card with 20% better performance in the numbers covered on the article (not representative) and 15% lower cost than the current GTX 1070 pricing is objectively, financially more attractive than the alternative. Your mileage may vary with power consumption costs, yes, but this is something I know most users look way lower in the shopping list than performance and retail pricing.

A Radeon Pack for $499 with two games, $100 discount on Ryzen/mobo combo, and a $200 discount on a FreeSync monitor is objectively better than $460 pricing for a GTX 1070 for people who are interested in the extra parts. That's why I said "has the potential to be a killer deal." For those who only want the card, there's a chance it won't be. For those who want more, it will be a killer deal.

Sentences like "Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED," fully enters the subjective realm which wasn't even approached on the article. Objectivelly, $-wise, at the quoted prices, the RX Vega 56 is a better deal.
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
Gasaraki said:
That is the correct way to fix your "issue". This problem happens with G-Sync also because once Freesync and G-Sync reach the optimal frames of your monitor (in your case, 144fps) it turns off Freesync/G-Sync. But your video card is not able to maintain 144 CONSTANTLY, so when frames drop below 144, Freesync/G-Sync turns back on. This turning off and on causes the tearing you see. Setting the max frame below the max for you monitor will keep Freesync/G-Sync active at all times so tearing won't occur.
That's not true. Just because graphic card outputs same or less frames as refresh, that doesn't mean it won't tear. You can have 60Hz screen and you have 60fps and it can tear like crazy if the frame is 1/3 of a frame late which means all 60 frames per second are 1/3 of a second late and it'll tear at around 1/3rd of the screen because they aren't aligned with the refresh. It just gets particularly bad at very high frames because it'll miss the refresh cycles even more often and in different places across the screen, making it way more noticeable and annoying. I think NVIDIA had actual presentations for Fast V-Sync and you'll see what I mean. For example, FreeSync and G-Sync both make sure that frames are always in sync, even when they are lower than refresh, because it adapts the refresh to the framerate, meaning it can't tear since both are identical.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
oxidized said:
Nothing is 100%, that's why i used "as neutral as one can be"
So basically you agree with what I said , that everyone is biased to a degree.

oxidized said:
Everyone can just go on review sites, but do they all really?
So they go on places like this right ? But if everyone here is "neutral" with advice only taken from review sites , what is the point ?

One needs to figure out stuff on their own to be truly neutral. If all you do is stare at charts , you're not really doing a good job at remaining neutral.
Posted on Reply
#12
birdie
Raevenlord said:
A card with 20% better performance in the numbers covered on the article (not representative) and 15% lower cost than the current GTX 1070 pricing is objectively, financially more attractive than the alternative. Your mileage may vary with power consumption costs, yes, but this is something I know most users look way lower in the shopping list than performance and retail pricing.
You're comparing the current pricing for the GTX 1070, however you instantly forget that RX4XX and RX5XX are nowhere to be found at their MSRP, and if Vega RX proves to be a good mining card, it will be priced way above its MSRP which makes you price comparison totally invalid. 20% faster in cherry picked titles, favoring AMD.

Raevenlord said:
A Radeon Pack for $499 with two games, $100 discount on Ryzen/mobo combo, and a $200 discount on a FreeSync monitor is objectively better than $460 pricing for a GTX 1070 for people who are interested in the extra parts. That's why I said "has the potential to be a killer deal." For those who only want the card, there's a chance it won't be. For those who want more, it will be a killer deal.
This could have been true 6 months ago when Ryzen got released. Again most people have either already upgraded to Ryzen or will not upgrade to it at all (as an Intel Core i5 2500 owner I don't care a bit about Ryzen - it has a similar IPC to my 6 years old CPU). Most people with actual money, fanboys notwithstanding, have already upgraded to 1080/1080 Ti.

Raevenlord said:
Sentences like "Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED," fully enters the subjective realm which wasn't even approached on the article. Objectivelly, $-wise, at the quoted prices, the RX Vega 56 is a better deal.
There's no RX Vega 56 to speak of. It will be released on August 14 in unknown quantities with unknown prices. Two weeks prior to its hard launch you make absolutely ridiculous unearthly claims.
Posted on Reply
#13
basco
i wonder how much peeps in these typical discussions have aircondition and like it cold or a car and like to go faster then you are allowed and dont think about what the car or aircon consumes but uuh ahh ohh the amd gpu uses so much power bäääh.

yes i know i love ya all
Posted on Reply
#14
oxidized
RejZoR said:
NOT PISSING ON AMD DAY AFTER DAY DOESN'T FREAKING MAKE YOU PRO AMD.

It just means I don't see point in pissing all over it day after day because even RX Vega no matter how crappy you people think or say it is, it has its benefits and things that most likely will push the whole graphics industry forward. AMD has rarely been the absolute king of the hill and yet if you look through history, they are the driving force for many technologies used by everyone. Like for example Tessellation (ATi TruForm) and normal maps compression (ATi 3Dc), Vulkan/DX12 low level API (Mantle) and you can be assured that HBC will be used by everyone in the future. Maybe it won't prove itself super useful now, but it certainly will lead to yet another innovation made by AMD.

People just love to accuse me of being an AMD fanboy, but they conveniently leave out all the times I say good things about NVIDIA, where I confirm their superiority and when I correct things that are BS on AMD end (like the BS scaling of graphs for RX560 "review" here on TPU). Go on, search it a bit and you'll see. All these whiners calling me an AMD fanboy will never do that because it's inconvenient for their BS narrative that I'm an AMD fanboy. I can remember from top of my head that I've said several times that I'd have hard time considering AMD ever again if it didn't include Fast V-Sync like feature. To my luck, they did (Enhanced Sync). I also said several times that NVIDIA currently holds undisputed superiority in terms of performance. But whatever. Look it up and you'll see who's full of manure and who isn't.
The fact that you NEVER talk bad about amd makes me say you're a fan, not the fact you're not pissing on amd, you're not never talking bad about amd, never, let alone pissing on it.

Vya Domus said:
So basically you agree with what I said , that everyone is biased to a degree.




So they go on places like this right ? But if everyone here is "neutral" with advice only taken from review sites , what is the point ?

One needs to figure out stuff on their own to be truly neutral. If all you do is stare at charts , you're not really doing a good job at remaining neutral.
I agree to a certain point, if 8/10 reviews talk about the same stuff, and agree on 90+% of the stuff they talk about, it's pretty hard to be biased, unless they're all settled to say all the same things, which is again pretty hard since some of those websites hate each other. So even if there's a 1% or even 5% of bias it's as good as unbiased
Posted on Reply
#15
B-Real
birdie said:
You're comparing the current pricing for the GTX 1070, however you instantly forget that RX4XX and RX5XX are nowhere to be found at their MSRP, and if Vega RX proves to be a good mining card, it will be priced way above its MSRP which makes you price comparison totally invalid. 20% faster in cherry picked titles, favoring AMD.
The card will start at its MSRP ($400). If the miners want to get their hands on those, in some weeks, it will get more expensive. But at the start, it will be $400. So if someone wants it, he can get it.
Posted on Reply
#16
vega22
RejZoR said:
Ok, how in bloody hell that even works? If AMD has small market share, why would anyone bother specializing their engines favoriting AMD? Just pointing out the obvious. You know, maybe AMD is just good at it? Why can't that be a possibility? Why that only applies when NVIDIA is good at it?
amd owns the console market, which is the main target for like 75/80% of all games (makers) so it makes sense to squeeze as much out of that as they can.

imo anyway.

these resluts i take with a pinch of salt till i see them from respected reviewers. that being said if they have the tiled rasterization working now the jump makes sense.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vya Domus
oxidized said:

I agree to a certain point, if 8/10 reviews talk about the same stuff, and agree on 90+% of the stuff they talk about, it's pretty hard to be biased, unless they're all settled to say all the same things, which is again pretty hard since some of those websites hate each other. So even if there's a 1% or even 5% of bias it's as good as unbiased
I'll just give an example , when I bought my 1060 I initially wanted to buy an RX 480 and I would have still bought one today , there was one issue , Nvidia's drivers favor more cores as opposed to AMD's which hammer down on just one core/thread.

My CPU would have been more a bottleneck if I went with an RX 480 , even though I would have preferred it above a 1060. However none of the review sites talked about this aspect , because 95% of them are very shallow with their reviews. Just some charts put together in one day and sent out as fast as possible to gain as much traffic as possible. I do not blame them , they are in the business of making money , but I cannot really much on their relevance and you shouldn't either.

I understand not everyone has the time to do research and just end up going on to popular review sites , but one should acknowledge how inaccurate they can be and how little of the whole story do they convey most of the time. Not to mention that some of the practices that are happening with regards to review samples make me question their relevance and bias even more.

So again , I am not saying you can't use them , but please don't infer they are anywhere near being 100% neutral or accurate.
Posted on Reply
#18
Raevenlord
News Editor
birdie,

birdie said:
You're comparing the current pricing for the GTX 1070, however you instantly forget that RX4XX and RX5XX are nowhere to be found at their MSRP, and if Vega RX proves to be a good mining card, it will be priced way above its MSRP which makes you price comparison totally invalid. 20% faster in cherry picked titles, favoring AMD.
I'm comparing the values we know now. With the information we have, the current state of affairs, the GTX 1070 costs on average $460, and the Vega 56 costs $399. I'm not comparing RX 400 or 500 series. I don't even mention them in the piece. I don't care about their pricing - they're not relevant for the article. When, if, Vega is at a higher price than MSRP, I'll revise my position accordingly. If these performance numbers are a dud, I'll revise my position accordingly. Why don't you revise your current one?

birdie said:
This could have been true 6 months ago when Ryzen got released. Again most people have either already upgraded to Ryzen or will not upgrade to it at all (as an Intel Core i5 2500 owner I don't care a bit about Ryzen - it has a similar IPC to my 6 years old CPU). Most people with actual money, fanboys notwithstanding, have already upgraded to 1080/1080 Ti.
For the people who care about it, it's a killer deal. I don't understand your insistence on this topic. Not everyone will think so. True. And? For those who care, it is. Those're the people I'm referring to.

birdie said:
There's no RX Vega 56 to speak of. It will be released on August 14 in unknown quantities with unknown prices. Two weeks prior to its hard launch you make absolutely ridiculous unearthly claims.
It's just a matter of reviewing our current knowledge on the situation, I really don't understand how you don't see it. What will happen doesn't matter. What matters, for the scope of the article, is what we know, what is.

When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?
Posted on Reply
#19
RejZoR
oxidized said:
The fact that you NEVER talk bad about amd makes me say you're a fan, not the fact you're not pissing on amd, you're not never talking bad about amd, never, let alone pissing on it.



I agree to a certain point, if 8/10 reviews talk about the same stuff, and agree on 90+% of the stuff they talk about, it's pretty hard to be biased, unless they're all settled to say all the same things, which is again pretty hard since some of those websites hate each other. So even if there's a 1% or even 5% of bias it's as good as unbiased
Ok, if being quiet and not bitching over AMD all the time automatically means I'm favoring AMD, so one would assume I'm constantly saying how garbage NVIDIA is, right? Well, good luck finding that, coz you won't find any (and don't pull stuff out of context). Only time I ever mentioned downsides about NVIDIA was about particular features or FX and Kepler series. And how Pascal is ridiculously fast, but doesn't really bring any tech that would excite me. It's just a very fast card. And that's about it. Wouldn't that, I don't know, kinda make me you know, neutral? Just because I can find positives in otherwise underwhelming launch of RX Vega, that doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
Posted on Reply
#20
bug
RejZoR said:
Ok, if being quiet and not bitching over AMD all the time automatically means I'm favoring AMD, so one would assume I'm constantly saying how garbage NVIDIA is, right? Well, good luck finding that, coz you won't find any (and don't pull stuff out of context). Only time I ever mentioned downsides about NVIDIA was about particular features or FX and Kepler series. And how Pascal is ridiculously fast, but doesn't really bring any tech that would excite me. It's just a very fast card. And that's about it. Wouldn't that, I don't know, kinda make me you know, neutral? Just because I can find positives in otherwise underwhelming launch of RX Vega, that doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
Do this exercise: go back and see how many positive posts you had about AMD and how many about Nvidia in the past couple of months. Then do the same for negative posts.
Posted on Reply
#21
oxidized
Vya Domus said:
I'll just give an example , when I bought my 1060 I initially wanted to buy an RX 480 and I would have still bought one today , there was one issue , Nvidia's drivers favor more cores as opposed to AMD's which hammer down on just one core/thread.

My CPU would have been more a bottleneck if I went with an RX 480 , even though I would have preferred it above a 1060. However none of the review sites talked about this aspect , because 95% of them are very shallow with their reviews. Just some charts put together in one day and sent out as fast as possible to gain as much traffic as possible. I do not blame them , they are in the business of making money , but I cannot really much on their relevance and you shouldn't either.

I understand not everyone has the time to do research and just end up going on to popular review sites , but one should knowledge how inaccurate they can be and how little of the whole story do they convey most of the time. Not to mention that some of the practices that are happening with regards to review samples make me question their relevance and bias even more.

So again , I am not saying you can't use them , but please don't infer they are anywhere near being 100% neutral or accurate.
Until like 3 months ago i had an old GTX580, i decided to buy something new, i found a 480 GTR black edition from xfx at something like 240€ on amazon france, received it, so happy, but afterwards i found out it had consistent coil whine, it had few stupid issues, which put together made me send it back, and get a 1060 gaming x which is been doing pretty good at least until now.

Now i'd been reading all kind of reviews in the months before buying the new card, and in pretty much ALL of them the 1060 was faster on most of the games tried in the benchmark it was something like 60/40 in favour of nvidia, but the price of that gtr black edition was just too good, and you know what happened next. So what?

You're all obsessed with this thing where nvidia pays everyone to make it look good, and make amd look bad, it's not like that, it could be like that in some case, but if you examine 20 reviews or something around it, and at the end of the story 90% of them agree over most of the points, there's no way they could all be biased, just this.

Also i'm pretty sure someone (because i already read it somewhere) would start to think someone isn't biased if they start talking good about amd in any case.

RejZoR said:
Ok, if being quiet and not bitching over AMD all the time automatically means I'm favoring AMD, so one would assume I'm constantly saying how garbage NVIDIA is, right? Well, good luck finding that, coz you won't find any (and don't pull stuff out of context). Only time I ever mentioned downsides about NVIDIA was about particular features or FX and Kepler series. And how Pascal is ridiculously fast, but doesn't really bring any tech that would excite me. It's just a very fast card. And that's about it. Wouldn't that, I don't know, kinda make me you know, neutral? Just because I can find positives in otherwise underwhelming launch of RX Vega, that doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
We're talking about AMD here not nvidia, i don't care what you think about nvidia.
It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
And you don't even realize that amd has most of the mind share atm especially of forums, everyone just loves AMD because they're the underdogs, so they must be good and right, and nvidia is the villain which is wrong and only want to steal our money. That's a fairy tale.
If you're looking for a less harsh on AMD forum or anyway, somewhere AMD fun are automatically right just go on OCN, TPU is much more neutral and there's all kind of people, from nvidia fanboys to amd fanboys pretty much in the same quantity.
Posted on Reply
#22
the54thvoid
RejZoR said:
Ok, if being quiet and not bitching over AMD all the time automatically means I'm favoring AMD, so one would assume I'm constantly saying how garbage NVIDIA is, right? Well, good luck finding that, coz you won't find any (and don't pull stuff out of context). Only time I ever mentioned downsides about NVIDIA was about particular features or FX and Kepler series. And how Pascal is ridiculously fast, but doesn't really bring any tech that would excite me. It's just a very fast card. And that's about it. Wouldn't that, I don't know, kinda make me you know, neutral? Just because I can find positives in otherwise underwhelming launch of RX Vega, that doesn't mean I'm a fanboy.

It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
I kinda wanted to do that with Ryzen. Now I have Ryzen I'm happy i gave AMD money but I did not foresee Intel cutting it's costs. Dont buy something to spite others, it makes you a fool. Buy it to experience something new. At least with my CPU, gaming is not entirely affected though it does hold back a 1080ti at 2Ghz, even at 1440p. At least the fps is high enough tha it doesn't matter on a 60Hz monitor.

The Vega 56 does sound totally like Fury to Fury X - the better value proposition but wait for reviews to see how it manages. Also, dont forget, a custom 980ti tends to beat a 1070 (or level with it) so you're looking at a 2 year old card matching a Vega 56 potentially (20% OC results on stock 980ti is quite common). If you frame it that way, it's not quite as good looking.

If I had the budget for a card like a 1070 or a Vega 56, I'd wait for reviews for sure. The few titles used to bench so far are not AMD biased but they absolutely paint AMD's better side. Just watch Nvidia discretely lower 1070/1080 prices if Vega is a threat to them. Really dude - wait, read, consider the options and buy your card and enjoy it, whatever you choose.

EDIT: I dont want Vega to be too good because I cant afford to buy a new gfx card yet :rolleyes: (upgrade itch is like herpes - it never truly goes away). Hoping I'm safe with my 1080ti on steroids.
Posted on Reply
#23
RejZoR
bug said:
Do this exercise: go back and see how many positive posts you had about AMD and how many about Nvidia in the past couple of months. Then do the same for negative posts.
Of course there's more discussion about Vega in recent months. Why would I talk about a year old product (Pascal) that I don't care since it has all been discussed like trillion times already? VEGA is the shit everyone talks about now. Including me, you and everyone else.
Posted on Reply
#24
Vya Domus
oxidized said:

You're all obsessed with this thing where nvidia pays everyone to make it look good, and make amd look bad, it's not like that, it.
I have no idea how they payed anyone , but one thing is clear : they did their best to shove things like GameWorks and other things ( which are in my opinion shady tactics ) such as making developers put ludicrous amounts of tessellation because they knew AMD wasn't as efficient at it.

You may think these are perfectly legit methods but that doesn't change the fact that yes , Nvidia did do their best to make AMD look bad.
Posted on Reply
#25
springs113
B-Real said:
Actually you are the first one complaining about these results. Yes, AMD is faster on DX12 BF1 but isn't 30%+ faster... It's faster in CoD IW, but AMD had nearly 20% advantage there, and here it has less than 10%. It's faster in Doom Vulkan. However, Civilization DX12 is head-to-head (1060 6GB vs RX580 8GB shows 10% difference for AMD, but compared to the 480 there is 2 fps difference in 1440P).

So overall, IF these results are true, there won't be a 20% overall difference between the two, more like 10 or maximum 15%. But, given the HBM2, the promising features (that will be used by NV supported titles like Far Cry 5), the Vega56 looks charming.

I was wondering whether AMD was trolling us and using Vega56 at the comparison events with the 1080, emphasizing Sync... We will see.
In some ways I believe they were, because it(vega 56) was touted as the ultimate freesync gaming card by AMD so I wouldn't be surprised if they were somewhat sandbagging the numbers on their slides. After all remember it was the Ryzen 7 1700 that they pitted against Intel throughout the Ryzen pre release events. Nonetheless I will be getting my hands on 1.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment