AMD Vega Discussion Thread

[kruk]

GamersNexus has tested the Vega FE and FuryX clock-for-clock (article here). Vega FE at 1050 MHz is much better than FuryX in compute tasks, but performs almost identical (or slightly slower) as FuryX in games. This just strengthens my point that any DOA theories about RX Vega are pointless until the card releases. Just a few weeks and we will see ...

 

[xkm1948]

GamersNexus has tested the Vega FE and FuryX clock-for-clock (article here). Vega FE at 1050 MHz is much better than FuryX in compute tasks, but performs almost identical (or slightly slower) as FuryX in games. This just strengthens my point that any DOA theories about RX Vega are pointless until the card releases. Just a few weeks and we will see ...

Nope on the computing part. You are comparing computing performance of a pure gaming card R9 FuryX with no professional driver support to a Pro/Gaming card vega fe. So your statements does not stand.

 

[kruk]

Nope on the computing part. You are comparing computing performance of a pure gaming card R9 FuryX with no professional driver support to a Pro/Gaming card vega fe. So your statements does not stand.

So you are saying:

In pro tests a comparison between a pure gaming card which can also run Pro tests (FuryX) and Vega FE cannot be made because the former doesn't have properly optimized Pro drivers.

But at the same time you (and others) are all over the numerous Vega threads comparing gaming performance of a "Pro" card which can also run games (Vega FE) and a pure gaming card (GTX 1080/1080 Ti) and you don't care if the former has properly optimized gaming drivers.

Well, well, well ...

 

[Rehmanpa]

Drivers matter a crap ton. Also you never compare quadro and gtx cards, so why do that with vega?

 

[xkm1948]

So you are saying:

In pro tests a comparison between a pure gaming card which can also run Pro tests (FuryX) and Vega FE cannot be made because the former doesn't have properly optimized Pro drivers.

But at the same time you (and others) are all over the numerous Vega threads comparing gaming performance of a "Pro" card which can also run games (Vega FE) and a pure gaming card (GTX 1080/1080 Ti) and you don't care if the former has properly optimized gaming drivers.

Well, well, well ...

Pro drivers makes a huge difference in Pro benchmark.

Gaming card with gaming drivers cannot be used for Pro work, completely un-optimized.
Pro card with pro driver can be used either for gaming or pro work. As it has been shown that Quadro games just fine comparing to gaming counterparts that sports the same silicon.

What AMD made is abomonation, and intentionally so. They don't want you to compare it to real Pro cards, that is where they have Radeon Pro WX9100 for(Source: TPU news). They also don't want people to compare it to gaming cards such as 1080Ti. So in the end we got this FE Vega. This way Vega FE can't be defeated, because basically AMD created a completely new tier for it. And lunatic fans will die to defend this new tier for them. Pretty shitty marketing strategy IMO because informed potential consumer will clearly see through this and conclude themselves that Vega FE is hot, slow, power hungry and expensive

As for you, keep believing in what ever you want to believe. Unless RTG has some unicorn driver that can whip up a 40% performance increase for RX Vega, Vega is DOA.

This whole Vega shitshow has dragged on for an entire year. Delay after delay. I am an AMD graphic user and so far I haven't even bought nVidia GPU once TBH. The track record is simply not good for RTG.

So five stages of grief, where are you now?

 

[Rehmanpa]

http://www.game-debate.com/news/232...rks-leak-beats-gtx-1080-first-specs-confirmed

I know it's synthetics but it's kind of disappointing for me that rx vega gaming is only 15 percent faster but at probably around the 300-375w power draw the vega founders edition uses. Still drooling over the hbm 2 ram though.

 

[xkm1948]

http://www.game-debate.com/news/232...rks-leak-beats-gtx-1080-first-specs-confirmed

I know it's synthetics but it's kind of disappointing for me that rx vega gaming is only 15 percent faster but at probably around the 300-375w power draw the vega founders edition uses. Still drooling over the hbm 2 ram though.

It is likely those are the AIO variant of RX Vega. Too power hungry for what it outputs. Also from an HBM user, HBM ain't that great. They do not down clock to save power and overclocking them is quite impossible.

RTG bet big on HBM, From FuryX/Nano to Vega, I don't really see the benefit of it. They are better off using just GDDR5/X

 

[5DVX0130]

Seriously.
Why is everyone losing their marbles? It’s just a graphics card, it’s not the first nor the last.

It’s always the same story.
Announcement … Rumours … Hype train … Waiting … Speculating … Delays … Bitching … Arrival … Losing marbles … New announcement …

One would think people would learn by now, ... but then again, we already have Transformers 6 in the making.

 

[Rehmanpa]

It is likely those are the AIO variant of RX Vega. Too power hungry for what it outputs. Also from an HBM user, HBM ain't that great. They do not down clock to save power and overclocking them is quite impossible.

RTG bet big on HBM, From FuryX/Nano to Vega, I don't really see the benefit of it. They are better off using just GDDR5/X

I thought HBM was significantly faster than gddr5/gddr5x.

 

[xkm1948]

I thought HBM was significantly faster than gddr5/gddr5x.

higher bandwidth if you can clock it higher. not necessarily faster. and on top of that there is latency issue as well.

 

[Rehmanpa]

higher bandwidth if you can clock it higher. not necessarily faster. and on top of that there is latency issue as well.

If it makes zero diffence why use it since it costs a lot more? Does it help with mining or something?

 

[R-T-B]

higher bandwidth if you can clock it higher. not necessarily faster. and on top of that there is latency issue as well.

I thought latencies were lower as well?

I don't think HBM is the problem. I think AMD's chip design is.

 

[kruk]

Pro drivers makes a huge difference in Pro benchmark.

And gaming drivers make a huge difference in gaming benchmarks ...

Pro card with pro driver can be used either for gaming or pro work. As it has been shown that Quadro games just fine comparing to gaming counterparts that sports the same silicon.

But Quadro surely uses specific gaming optimizations. Are you saying that nVidia writes the pro driver from scratch and then it just magically works with all the games? Come on ...

So five stages of grief, where are you now?

Why do you think we need these childish games? I'm in no stage, as I have no emotional attachment to a piece of silicon. You seem to hate it with passion, but that is your decision.

My interest in Vega architecture is solely because of the APUs (Raven Ridge), but since no civilized discussion can be made in any Vega thread, I'm just going to skip them from now on until the RX Vega releases.

 

[Rehmanpa]

And gaming drivers make a huge difference in gaming benchmarks ...



But Quadro surely uses specific gaming optimizations. Are you saying that nVidia writes the pro driver from scratch and then it just magically works with all the games? Come on ...




Why do you think we need these childish games? I'm in no stage, as I have no emotional attachment to a piece of silicon. You seem to hate it with passion, but that is your decision.

My interest in Vega architecture is solely because of the APUs (Raven Ridge), but since no civilized discussion can be made in any Vega thread, I'm just going to skip them from now on until the RX Vega releases.

The heck dude. He was joking, nobody is being uncivilized or refusing to have a conversation as this entire forum is 1 big discussion. Drivers do make large differences and comparing a professional card versus a gaming card in gaming is not a fair comparison. Quadro drivers are very optimized towards specific programs. If you go onto nvidias website for quadro drivers, I think there are like 200 plus different drivers (maybe it's only 50 idr) and each driver is for a different program. For example, one for after effects, one for sony Vegas pro, one for premier pro, etc. Nvidia gaming drivers aren't for the quadro cards and they suffer as a result. Flip side is in rendering stuff the Quadros shine. You don't have to start name calling, this is simple gpu hierarchy. We're simply saying a direct comparison between nvidia gaming cards and rx vega founders edition does not tske the best amd has to offer and you shouldn't be soley basing your opinion of it upon an unfair comparison.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

well vega has just been tested with very early drivers. this was the full chip being tested not the gaming version which will be a slightly cut down version. the performance was dismal. we were told to expect the gaming version to compete with the 1080 or more likely the 1070.... ???????

am'a just leave this here with this ee'jit

Careful, the AMD Red Guards will show up shortly and tear you apart, with marks such as "It is not for gaming!" and "Unfair to compare to Quadro" and etc.

 

[Xzibit]

Why do you think we need these childish games? I'm in no stage, as I have no emotional attachment to a piece of silicon. You seem to hate it with passion, but that is your decision.

 

[Vya Domus]

Gaming card with gaming drivers cannot be used for Pro work, completely un-optimized.
Pro card with pro driver can be used either for gaming or pro work. As it has been shown that Quadro games just fine comparing to gaming counterparts that sports the same silicon.

You sure ? Because I have seen plenty Quadros that had abysmal performance compared to their regular consumer counterpart. And others that didn't.

You can run CUDA on a Quadro and be fine without ever touching anything DirectX or OpenGl related , support might as well not be there.

Shit's broken with current Vega driver , whether that's due to piss poor drivers or something else who can tell till RX is out. If you can't see that , you are in that "denial" stage you keep spamming as with , a different kind of denial , but denial for sure.

Ya'll chill.

 

[dorsetknob]

Pro drivers makes a huge difference in Pro benchmark.

Gaming card with gaming drivers cannot be used for Pro work, completely un-optimized.
Pro card with pro driver can be used either for gaming or pro work. As it has been shown that Quadro games just fine comparing to gaming counterparts that sports the same silicon.

What AMD made is abomonation, and intentionally so. They don't want you to compare it to real Pro cards, that is where they have Radeon Pro WX9100 for(Source: TPU news). They also don't want people to compare it to gaming cards such as 1080Ti. So in the end we got this FE Vega. This way Vega FE can't be defeated, because basically AMD created a completely new tier for it. And lunatic fans will die to defend this new tier for them. Pretty shitty marketing strategy IMO because informed potential consumer will clearly see through this and conclude themselves that Vega FE is hot, slow, power hungry and expensive

As for you, keep believing in what ever you want to believe. Unless RTG has some unicorn driver that can whip up a 40% performance increase for RX Vega, Vega is DOA.

This whole Vega shitshow has dragged on for an entire year. Delay after delay. I am an AMD graphic user and so far I haven't even bought nVidia GPU once TBH. The track record is simply not good for RTG.





So five stages of grief, where are you now?

 

[xkm1948]

New sauce to play with

TLW

AIO Vega ~ 1080 in all aspect while drawing double the amount of power.

 

[Nuckles56]

New sauce to play with

TLW

AIO Vega ~ 1080 in all aspect while drawing double the amount of power.

I find it hard to believe that AMD screwed up so hard, they could have die shrunk Fiji and clocked it higher and done better that that

 

[Vya Domus]

I find it hard to believe that AMD screwed up so hard, they could have die shrunk Fiji and clocked it higher and done better that that

They didn't , at least not hardware wise ( despite what many are led to believe ). Software plays a huge role now , more so than with any other new architecture they have released. Software that is currently broken , at least with regards to FE.

 

[xkm1948]

They didn't , at least not hardware wise ( despite what many are led to believe ). Software plays a huge role now , more so than with any other new architecture they have released. Software that is currently broken , at least with regards to FE.

Nah, GCN is way too outdated as of now. Vega is still GCN tweak, not a completely new design.

 

[purecain]

omg software isn't going to improve this by much... a 10percent improvement over the lifetime of the card at the absolute maximum. for the fe. we'll see with the rx.

all I know is, that card is not good compared to its competition. the price/performance is terrible. £1100 of todays money with austerity in full swing. lets hope amd bring a much cheaper faster RX version... I'm sure the price for that card has been released to the public and it was £599-699 it could be more. too tired to check right now. still feeling really guttered about the state of affairs with vega. hell if this card is worth £1100 shouldnt NVidia up the price of their cards as amd are offering much less performance for the same price??? we needed amd to force NVidia to cut prices... not the other way around...

 

[Vya Domus]

omg software isn't going to improve this by much... a 10percent improvement over the lifetime of the card at the absolute maximum. for the fe. we'll see with the rx.

all I know is, that card is not good compared to its competition. the price/performance is terrible. £1100 of todays money with austerity in full swing. lets hope amd bring a much cheaper faster RX version... I'm sure the price for that card has been released to the public and it was £599-699 it could be more. too tired to check right now. still feeling really guttered about the state of affairs with vega. hell if this card is worth £1100 shouldnt NVidia up the price of their cards as amd are offering much less performance for the same price??? we needed amd to force NVidia to cut prices... not the other way around...

Jesus , stop making pricing and doomsday predictions based on a product not targeted at the mainstream market. This ain't RX Vega. This thing is 1000$ , even if it was like a 1080ti it was still a bad deal , clearly not targeted or representative of their gaming line of cards. AMD is trying to shove this FE in a niche that doesn't really exist so lets start ignoring it for now.

Nah, GCN is way too outdated as of now. Vega is still GCN tweak, not a completely new design.

It's not a 100% new design , but it's the biggest change yet to come from GCN. I mean they couldn't make the most out of Fiji which was much less of a change than Vega is hardware wise. And outdated is not exatcly the right word , because if this is outdated so is Volta , Skylake-X , etc you get the idea.

 

[RejZoR]

Nah, GCN is way too outdated as of now. Vega is still GCN tweak, not a completely new design.

Lol, people still going with that "GCN" and how it's just a refresh. While people have absolutely no clue what's with NVIDIA rasterizers because they don't really fancy name them anymore. NVIDIA could just as well be running a 4th refresh of Kepler and no one would bat an eye. But with AMD, oh noes, muh GCN. Jesus. I really held TPU too highly when it came to technical aspects.

It's especially hilarious seeing people raving about how "outdated" GCN/GCN5/NCU is and yet RX Vega will provide superior D3D12 feature level set, one far exceeding everything NVIDIA currently has. So, how can something "outdated" be better than what NVIDIA has? C'mon people, use some logic. Mercedes is using same name for ages, it must be really old and outdated then, right?

GCN literally only means a feature set provided by AMD GPU. How do you know what's "outdated"? Based on what metric? So, if AMD just renamed GCN to FUM (F U MUCH) and literally not change anything else, you'd all be raving how new and up to date it is. But AMD bumping GCN from version 4 to 5 and it's "oudated". People literally think just because it has a GCN name that it's the same as the one found on HD7000 series, just slightly tweaked. Dear god. The GCN found on HD7000 hardly has anything in common with the RX Vega GCN5/NCU.

Do you people seriously believe that AMD engineers will tell you every tiny detail about the under the hood "GCN" operations? They tell you what fancy new major features it brings (like basic compute at different precisions, HBC, Primitive Shaders etc) and that's it. Literally "what set of features" it has.