AMD Radeon Vega in the League of GTX 1080 Ti and TITAN Xp

[m1dg3t]

It completely depends on application. There is still a large number of workloads that the 5960x wins not only clock for clock, but in maximum clockspeed.

Considering the price of that platform and the fact that software has been geared to that -Intel- process for so long it does not surprise me. So 5960x routinely clocks higher and costs more, yet can't maintain a lead in all areas. Gotcha.

Good thing they have AVX/AVX2 I guess, eh?

 

[cdawall]

Considering the price of that platform and the fact that software has been geared to that -Intel- process for so long it does not surprise me. So 5960x routinely clocks higher and costs more, yet can't maintain a lead in all areas. Gotcha.

Good thing they have AVX/AVX2 I guess, eh?

Q3 of 2014 was release date for the 5960x. I mean there are two ways to look at that, AMD still can't maintain a complete win over a 3 year old CPU or AMD can somewhat beat old tech with a cheaper product.

If price is the argument, it also beats the P4 EE chips that were released many moons ago at a higher cost. It is great that AMD is making leaps and bounds forward in performance, but I would hope 3 years later for a product that was not only as stable as the 5960X was on release date, but had the performance crown it carried.

 

[RejZoR]

The difference here is that nvidia pulls through reliably - and then tells you it's available monday.

Vega is already climbing a steep hill if competing with 1080ti is it's target, because 1080 ti's are already in gamers hands.

Vegas target market is shrinking every time a 1080 ti is sold.

Are they? I'm a gamer and I don't have GTX 1080 or GTX 1080Ti. Not because I don't like NVIDIA, just because 1080 series, despite their speed are so dull they just don't make my geek thingies tingle.

 

[ShurikN]

Ryzen does clock slower. I don't mean IPC, I actually think it's better than Skylake at the same clocks. It's not a community thing, it's a real, evidentially based thing. Skylake and Kabylake clock higher than Ryzen. Even the 4 core Ryzens seem to be topping out at 4.1Ghz.
But I firmly believe a refresh and process maturity will allow higher clocks #thats why i bought the platform. I'd like to think in 2 years time i can upgrade to an 8 core Ryzen at 4.2-4.4Ghz. That would be pretty cool.
I am a Ryzen fan, it's working great for me.

From all the tests I saw, Ryzen has IPC on par with Sky/Kaby if not a bit better, and has better multithreading. It's really held back by clock speed. Ryzen 2 with matured process and architectural refinements will be amazing.

 

[notb]

Is there any data on that ?

I guess not. But there most likely isn't any data supporting AMD's claim either. Even if they know that a client has a FreeSync LCD and AMD GPU, they can't assume he uses this tech. And even if they collect this data (via their software), how would they get these figures for G-SYNC?

Why would the majority of users buy a VRR monitor when a Non-VRR monitor will be suitable at a lower price.

Are you sure?
I checked the current ASUS offer of 4K LCDs and you know what? The cheapest available one (MG24UQ) has FreeSync. It's also the only 24" in this group.

In general, most people choose monitors based on manufacturer, resolution, size and looks - other properties (even matrix tech) being less important. By all means it is very likely that people buy FreeSync LCDs without knowing what it is and how to use it.

 

[etayorius]

Excellent News! but... nVidia is already thinking GTX2096... i really hope AMD can hasten their products and be ready for Volta. Otherwise AMD will not be able to compete for a whole year again.

 

[Xzibit]

I guess not. But there most likely isn't any data supporting AMD's claim either. Even if they know that a client has a FreeSync LCD and AMD GPU, they can't assume he uses this tech. And even if they collect this data (via their software), how would they get these figures for G-SYNC?

So there is no data you were just speculating

Are you sure?
I checked the current ASUS offer of 4K LCDs and you know what? The cheapest available one (MG24UQ) has FreeSync. It's also the only 24" in this group.

So according to you the majority of FreeSync monitor buyers are 4K buyers now.

 

[etayorius]

It has it's limitations - I have one. Ryzen's slower clocks do make a tangible difference at 1080p res with moderate settings. I ran the Superposition bench at 1080p Extreme and got the 4th highest score (got Ryzen into the charts). Ran it at Medium and GPU usage plummetted to 70-80% average (from 99% at Extreme).

Clocks. It'll all be in the clocks for Vega and with all that hardware...... Time will tell.

Well Ryzen is a good 7-8% behind* in regards to IPC and a whole 25% behind too* in regards to Clock Speeds... no wonder 7700k is* almost 30% ahead* in 1080p. If Ryzen would had just arrived with 4.5 Clock speeds... if only...

 

[GhostRyder]

If it is, great! But thats a big IF. I hope that it will be as they really need to be in full on competition again and I really would be interested in it depending on the price and performance only because I still have not invested in a G-Sync monitor and still own a Freesync one. Kinda miss using the tech as it does make a difference.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Well Ryzen is a good 7-8% in regards to IPC and a whole 25% behind in regards to Clock Speeds... no wonder they are almost 30% in 1080p. If Ryzen would had just arrived with 4.5 Clock speeds... if only...

Check windows 7 benchmarks. Everything is shit all the way around. With high ram speed those deficits are dwindling.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

AMD keeps comparing their "new" architecture against Intel & Nvidia's one year or older chips. It's that how comparison are done these days? =.=

 

[ShurikN]

AMD keeps comparing their "new" architecture against Intel & Nvidia's one year or older chips. It's that how comparison are done these days? =.=

Kaby Lake released in Jan/Feb or smth, only 2-3 months before Ryzen. Intel have literally nothing interesting throughout the year. Coffee Lake is the same chip as Skylake and will have 0% IPC improvements. They'll probably up the clock another 100-200MHz just as they did with Kaby.

 

[etayorius]

Sorry, fixed my last comment and i was not paying too much attention to what i was typing. Yeah, Ryzen is in the same spot that PhenomII was back in 2009-2010 with same margin of performance behind it's main competitor, the i7 2600k. This time is not that far behind in regards to IPC since this time is only a 8% max IPC difference. But this time is a Clock Speed deficit. If only Ryzen would had been released with the same level of Clock Speeds as Kabby Lake it would had been a completely different story.

 

[ratirt]

then what about RX480? the card is even much slower than 390X that it should replace. and if you look at it closely there isn't really much difference between nvidia and AMD when it comes to performance improvement over the year. nvidia still coming up with 10%-15% performance increase each year and for AMD while we got much bigger performance jump from their previous flagship to new flagship you also need to wait longer for it because of their 2 year cadence in upgrading their flagship. also pricing wise it is not much different since 2013. you mentioned 1080ti for example but 780ti also cost $700 back in 2013. the only mistake that nvidia did with 1080/1070 was the FE pricing. because it encourage the board partner to price their card near or even exceed the FE base price instead of the actual MSRP.

Dude. you have a price tag on those i mentioned changed within months not years. buy titan X pascal then TI comes around and then another Titan. Dont you think that's crazy and unfair. I would feel screwed like never. You can play the good guy here defending but for me that's the fact. And please dont compare rx 480 to 390X. Rx was for mid tier cards competing with 970 not 390x which was a high end back then

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

#HYPE

"In an AMA (ask me anything) session with Tom's Hardware community, AMD desktop processor marketing exec Don Woligrosky answered a variety of AMD Ryzen platform related questions. He did not shy away from making a key comment about the company's upcoming high-end graphics card, Radeon Vega, either. "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice," Woligrosky stated. This implies that Radeon Vega is in the same league of performance as NVIDIA's two top consumer graphics SKUs"

or, OR, it doesnt. Vega performance looks really nice could easily imply that vega is a $400 card with 1080 performance, or anywhere else on the performance spectrum. (as such a card could be 70% the performance of a 1080ti for 60% the price. see? its performance looks really nice) This, in no way, means that vega is a titanXP level card.

Why on earth would you believe anything out of a marketing director's mouth, ESPECIALLY when said marketing is AMD's? A talking alligator trading swamp gas is more reliable then AMD's marketing.

Excellent News! but... nVidia is already thinking GTX2096... i really hope AMD can hasten their products and be ready for Volta. Otherwise AMD will not be able to compete for a whole year again.

This is the same AMD that decided to give nvidia more then half the GPU market, the end with super lucrative parts, on a silver platter while chasing scraps.

Somehow, I doubt AMD is going to have navi (or VEGA 2) ready to fight volta anytime soon. VEGA will most likely be pascal level, and three months after vega releases nvidia will paper launch volta and completely derail the VEGA train. I'd love to be wrong, but there is no evidence to support vega being titanXP level.

 

[efikkan]

If AMD knew Vega would beat GTX 1080 Ti, you can be sure they would brag about it. As we've seen in the past, they always make the products look better than they turn out to be. So the fact that they claim it "looks nice" compared to GTX 1080 Ti only means there is some aspect where they consider it comparable. This could mean two games, performance per dollar in a segment, etc.

This is actually another article about nothing.

Are they? I'm a gamer and I don't have GTX 1080 or GTX 1080Ti. Not because I don't like NVIDIA, just because 1080 series, despite their speed are so dull they just don't make my geek thingies tingle.

Well, I guess it's because you already own a GTX 980 and even gamers rarely upgrade every generation?

 

[Captain_Tom]

Not quite a full generation behind on mid-range. RX 480 is competition for the 1060 3GB and was released 2 months earlier than the 1060. The RX 580 is competition for the 1060 6GB. 1070 released June of last year and 1080 released May of last year. Vega is almost guaranteed, from what I see, to counter those two. If Vega brings something to compete with 1080 Ti then that was only released last month.

LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out. The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480. It really is that simple.


By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.

 

[oxidized]

LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out. The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480. It really is that simple.


By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.

Proof of this, last i remember 480 was only faster than 1060 in dx12 and vulkan, and not even in all games, consuming much more, and with higher temperatures.

 

[64K]

LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out. The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480. It really is that simple.


By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.

I know the 480 came out first. That's what I said and I agree that the 480 was good competition for the 1060 3GB but not the 1060 6GB which also has more cores than the 3GB version.

By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480

Not from any benches that I've seen that I trust unless you are basing it on the slower 1060 3GB.

 

[efikkan]

LOL no the 480 came out first, and then remained the best mid-range card even after the 1060 came out. The 1060 has less VRAM, and a 2100 MHz 1060 loses to a 1400 MHz 480. It really is that simple.

By now the 1060 is a healthy 5-10% behind the 480, and the 580 is just expanding that lead.

You better be joking.
GTX 1060 clearly beats RX 480, unless you cherry-pick AMD-favoring games. It even does better with it's 6 GB than RX 480 with it's 8 GB. Even though GTX 1060 is the least efficient Pascal chip, it still is much more efficient than RX 480. RX 580 only manages to close some of the performance gap, at the cost of terrible efficiency. Only a fanboy would choose RX 480/580 over GTX 1060, which is clearly reflected in the sales where GTX 1060 crushes it.

 

[Captain_Tom]

VEGA is gonna fail. Higher cost due to larger size and HBM2, weaker performance than 1080Ti. AMD is in an awkward situation which is why they have not released the card.

Tons of talk and no solid hardware/software to back it up.

Comments like this really make me laugh.

1) HBM2 costs vs GDDR5X? (Please provide link showing direct comparison)

2) Weaker than 1080 Ti? (Based on what? Link please)



They aren't losing marketshare anymore. The midrange-only 400 series was calculated to maintain marketshare while costing AMD very little money since their main focus is Zen.

Now Zen is out, and they can go for the high end again. Radeon typically only releases Halo Products every 1.5 - 2 years, and every time we come close to a product launch people act like AMD hasn't released anything "Because they can't! AMDead!". But IT'S A CONSCIOUS BUSINESS DECISION.

We don't know exactly how good Vega will be. But it is laughable to suggest that it won't match the 1080 Ti because it couldn't. It can, and most leaks point to it being able to at least trade blows.

 

[Captain_Tom]

I know the 480 came out first. That's what I said and I agree that the 480 was good competition for the 1060 3GB but not the 1060 6GB which has more cores than the 3GB version.



Not from any benches that I've seen that I trust unless, again, you are basing it on the slower 1060 3GB.

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/bf1_2560_1440.png

^When you remove the Nvidia-nerfed games the 480 almost always wins, and btw the 3GB 1060 is lucky to be competition for the 470 4GB. That is, unless you like stuttering on an outdated framebuffer size.



Even when you throw in the rarely working Gamesworks games, the 480 typically only loses by 5% or so. I would say the extra VRAM and lower price MORE than make up for that. The 1060 fell quite short of expectations (Like mose x60 cards have the past few years).

 

[oxidized]

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/Sapphire/RX_580_Nitro_Plus/images/bf1_2560_1440.png

^When you remove the Nvidia-nerfed games the 480 almost always wins, and btw the 3GB 1060 is lucky to be competition for the 470 4GB. That is, unless you like stuttering on an outdated framebuffer size.



Even when you throw in the rarely working Gamesworks games, the 480 typically only loses by 5% or so. I would say the extra VRAM and lower price MORE than make up for that. The 1060 fell quite short of expectations (Like mose x60 cards have the past few years).

I really suggest you go look at latest benchmarks from TPU and guru3d, almost nothing you're saying is there, i also suggest you check better your sources next time.

 

[kruk]

You better be joking.
GTX 1060 clearly beats RX 480, unless you cherry-pick AMD-favoring games. It even does better with it's 6 GB than RX 480 with it's 8 GB. Even though GTX 1060 is the least efficient Pascal chip, it still is much more efficient than RX 480. RX 580 only manages to close some of the performance gap, at the cost of terrible efficiency. Only a fanboy would choose RX 480/580 over GTX 1060, which is clearly reflected in the sales where GTX 1060 crushes it.

Actually, it is a fact that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the brand name. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. doesn't matter at all to them. They probably don't read a single benchmark before buying it, they just want something that has GeForce on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...

 

[oxidized]

Actually, it is a fact that most consumers buy nVidia cards only because of the brand name. The performance per dollar, power efficiency, etc. doesn't matter at all to them. They probably don't read a single benchmark before buying it, they just want something that has GeForce on it. That and only that's why nVidia is outselling AMD by that much. There are of course also consumers that exclusively buy AMD/ATI, but their numbers have always been much smaller ...

It's actually because nvidia has the better product overall, sometimes not even by much, but still, it's not that people likes more green than red, or likes more geforce than radeon label, stop with this nonsense guys seriously.