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

#101
Vya Domus
"oxidized said:
Doom isn't impartial at all, neither is Vulkan
And let me guess all the other games and APIs aren't ?impartial. OK dude , you can keep your incorrect belief to yourself.
Posted on Reply
#102
Prince Valiant
I didn't think my joke would get taken seriously :laugh:.

I can scarcely wait for proper reviews to come out. The speculation with Vega is as bad as Ryzen if not worse.
Posted on Reply
#103
oxidized
"Vya Domus said:
And let me guess all the other games and APIs aren't ? OK dude , you can keep your incorrect belief to yourself.
Other games and APIs don't show such great amount of shift in performance going from nvidia to amd or the opposite, Doom and hitman are 2 titles that favour AMD much more than the rest is favouring nvidia, again no idea if meant or not, but it's there.
Posted on Reply
#104
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
"Assimilator said:
Do you even proofread? The word you're looking for is "median".

And you're also completely ignoring that GTX 1070's MSRP is $349, i.e. $50 less than Vega 56, which is extremely fair considering the (supposed) relative performance of these cards - in fact I'd say the 1070 still wins on price/performance if these Vega 56 numbers are truthful. So calling Vega 56 a "GTX 1070 killer" is laughable.

The price of GTX 1070 cards has only been pushed up because of the cryptomining BS. Vega 56 is unlikely to offer a better hashrate-per-watt than GTX 1070, which means GTX 1070 prices will stay high and they will continue to be bought in volume by miners, whereas Vega 56 will be bought in much smaller quantities by gamers. So NVIDIA still wins in terms of the pure numbers game, and therefore in revenue.

You can't blame NVIDIA that they made a great card that is in such high demand, regardless of the reason, that it commands a nearly 25% price premium over its MSRP.
MSRP doesnt exist for 1070 anymore its $450+
and $500 for founders

editor is not wrong there
Posted on Reply
#105
DeathtoGnomes
I'm convinced. There are too many posters in this thread being paid specifically to attack other people and hijack the discussion.

As for me the unverified results are nice considering AMD hasnt been in such a position in a long time. I think Nvidia will up its game with Volta, which might mean a delayed release until they prove they retake top daug slot without much fanfare.
Posted on Reply
#106
efikkan
"RejZoR said:
GTX 1070 for 350 ahaha. Good luck finding one. Especially in Europe. Cheapest I could find was 413€. Zotac Mini. So, no, it's not cheaper...
Keep in mind most western European countries have local VAT included in their MSRP, but the US MSRP does not.

"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?
Nvidia is dominant in desktop gaming, but AMD is dominant in console gaming. Many games start out as console exclusives or console focused titles.
Posted on Reply
#107
Captain_Tom
No surprise here.

$400, and it slightly loses to the 1080 while having FAR better long-term technology. This will sell well, and Vega64 should be at least 15% stronger than this!
Posted on Reply
#108
efikkan
"Captain_Tom said:
No surprise here.

$400, and it slightly loses to the 1080 while having FAR better long-term technology. This will sell well, and Vega64 should be at least 15% stronger than this!
Precisely, which "better" long-term technology are you talking about?
Posted on Reply
#109
Captain_Tom
"efikkan said:
Precisely, which "better" long-term technology are you talking about?
FP16 (It will be a 26+ TFLOP card in many upcoming games), HBC, and asynchronous compute. There are more, but those are the big ones.


Although you are very "vocal" in these forums, so I already know you are aware of them, and I can''t wait to see what your fanboy response will be.
Posted on Reply
#110
B-Real
"oxidized said:

No sir, the 1060 was and is a faster even if sligthly card compared to 480, JayzTwoCent's 480 was a pretty lucky one since he could overclock it much while leaving untouched the voltage, i couldn't find anyone else that reached those frequencies, also there's nothing to control, Polaris is just designed with a higher TDP (232mm^2 vs 200mm^2, which is 16% bigger die) than Pascal, there's nothing to adjust. So again, overall the 480 isn't a faster card than 1060, it's the opposite, it's true the 480 increased performance overtime but couldn't still catch the 1060, put it as you want, and again what kept AMD floating was price/performance, nothing else really.
The 580 was maybe a little faster, costing more, and not at 480 price as you say, because i checked for that (i actually was planning to buy it) and it cost like a good AIB 1060, while having additional power draw, and it needed a bigger heatsink due the the higher TDP, which not everyone did, like sapphire on the pulse version.
As i wrote, the 480 is equal (and better in DX12-Vulkan) compared to the 1060. Even if you believe it or not.

And who the heck cares what kept AMD floating? :O It was ~10% slower for about $40 cheaper and a bit more power consumption. And 5-6 months later, the performance gap was reduced to 0-2% and still costing $30-40 less.
Posted on Reply
#111
efikkan
"Captain_Tom said:
FP16 (It will be a 26+ TFLOP card in many upcoming games), HBC, and asynchronous compute. There are more, but those are the big ones.
- FP16 is surely going to be interesting in some years, but still doesn't make Vega a better buy than Pascal. And remember Volta will be here in a few months.
- HBC is relevant for pure compute workloads, but not for gaming.
- Asynchronous compute is supported by Nvidia as well.
Posted on Reply
#112
DeathtoGnomes
"efikkan said:
- FP16 is surely going to be interesting in some years, but still doesn't make Vega a better buy than Pascal. And remember Volta will be here in a few months.
- HBC is relevant for pure compute workloads, but not for gaming.
- Asynchronous compute is supported by Nvidia as well.
Volta might be delayed, they will try to slam the door closed on AMD with it, which takes extra time.
Posted on Reply
#114
oxidized
"B-Real said:
As i wrote, the 480 is equal (and better in DX12-Vulkan) compared to the 1060. Even if you believe it or not.

And who the heck cares what kept AMD floating? :O It was ~10% slower for about $40 cheaper and a bit more power consumption. And 5-6 months later, the performance gap was reduced to 0-2% and still costing $30-40 less.
Nothing you say happened plain simple

"Captain_Tom said:
FP16 (It will be a 26+ TFLOP card in many upcoming games), HBC, and asynchronous compute. There are more, but those are the big ones.


Although you are very "vocal" in these forums, so I already know you are aware of them, and I can''t wait to see what your fanboy response will be.
I just hope you're right my friend...
Posted on Reply
#115
arbiter
"B-Real said:
As i wrote, the 480 is equal (and better in DX12-Vulkan) compared to the 1060. Even if you believe it or not.

And who the heck cares what kept AMD floating? :O It was ~10% slower for about $40 cheaper and a bit more power consumption. And 5-6 months later, the performance gap was reduced to 0-2% and still costing $30-40 less.
If i remember a story of 480 vs 1060 in doom. As cpu became slower the 480 suffered a lot in fps where as the 1060 barely lost any. Same thing happened in both gl and vulkan.
Posted on Reply
#117
oxidized
"Vya Domus said:
You are so wrong , but just as always you're going to ignore facts and carry on.
Yeah yeah keep it up, AMD is deus ex machina of hardware, while both nvidia and intel are evil companies that support stagnating technologies. Could actually make a nice fairy tale.
Posted on Reply
#118
Vya Domus
"oxidized said:
Yeah yeah keep it up, AMD is deus ex machina of hardware, while both nvidia and intel are evil companies that support stagnating technologies. Could actually make a nice fairy tale.
You can both hold hands , the all mighty anti-AMD brigade.
Posted on Reply
#119
oxidized
"Vya Domus said:
You can both hold hands , the all mighty anti-AMD brigade.
Not anti-AMD at all, i'll most likely be buying ryzen if coffelake lacks performance, hell i might be buying it anyway, that's the difference between me and you, i don't care at all if not for performance and overall quality of something.
Posted on Reply
#120
Sasqui
"bug said:
Because of 4 leaked benchmarks? You know what they say about a fool and their money...
Meh.

The 1070 will be sold at a profit, and just wait to see how prices sit in the Fall after mining peters out. Back in with either red or green then depending on price points
Posted on Reply
#121
Captain_Tom
"efikkan said:
- FP16 is surely going to be interesting in some years, but still doesn't make Vega a better buy than Pascal. And remember Volta will be here in a few months.
- HBC is relevant for pure compute workloads, but not for gaming.
- Asynchronous compute is supported by Nvidia as well.
Volta is professional only at the moment, and I don't expect that to change till MAYBE the end of 2018. In fact I am pretty sure Nvidia confirmed the next series is another maxwell...cough.... Pascal refresh (But likely with more GDDR5X/6. It will be stronger, but lack all of these features.

The only exception I can think of is possibly a cut-down Volta sold as a Titan card for $1500 - $2000.
Posted on Reply
#122
Captain_Tom
"Sasqui said:
Meh.

The 1070 will be sold at a profit, and just wait to see how prices sit in the Fall after mining peters out. Back in with either red or green then depending on price points
Hate to say it, but I don't think mining will ever "peter out". For sure there will be periods of boom and bust, but mining is here to stay buddy.

And if you think about it, it was only a matter of time before some program found a way to make money off of the massive computational power modern GPU's have.
Posted on Reply
#123
the54thvoid
"Captain_Tom said:
Volta is professional only at the moment, and I don't expect that to change till MAYBE the end of 2018. In fact I am pretty sure Nvidia confirmed the next series is another maxwell...cough.... Pascal refresh
Is that not worrying? All Nvidia have to do is refresh maxwell...cough Pascal... to stay quite far ahead at minimal cost. All AMD are doing with these compute heavy consumer cards is fueling the mining craze. There is no disputing AMD's consumer compute ability but:

1) It's still not enough to be the fastest gaming GPU and ;
2) It keeps the profit margins very low

Anyway, if you see my post further up, Vega 64 is a mining monster. So it's going to disappear fast on one of those jumbo jets. Not good news at all for gamers. :mad:
Posted on Reply
#124
FrustratedGarrett
"RejZoR said:
Just posted this in VEGA discussion thread few seconds before this one :D

Sure it's still a 210W TDP card, but people don't realize this is max. If you fire up Radeon Chill, you'll drop consumption dramatically. It usually halves the consumption. And if you use Enhanced Sync, it'll be locked to screen refresh. Which means consumption will again drop, maybe not as significantly as with Chill, but still worth mentioning considering how everyone scares buyers with the max TDP numbers...

Battlefield and Doom numbers are pretty significant.
Too little too late! The GTX1070 uses cheap GDDR5 memory and is based on a much smaller chip that is a whole year older. It doesn't matter at this point. Volta should be around the corner, with GDDR6 and definite performance upgrade over Pascal, Vega is DOA.
Posted on Reply
#125
RejZoR
Dream on about both, Volta and GDDR6.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment