AMD Vega Discussion Thread

[HD64G]

We need to calm down a bit here, don't you all think?

So, to make it clear. This specific benchmark is used in order to compare only the efficiency between GPUs.

And as such, the order is from lower to higher efficiency, not performance, nor power comsumption. RX Vega is here in 2 flavours, a 150W and a 220W one. Most possibly, the 150W iteration is the RX Vega Nano and the 220W is the RX Vega 56 air cooled in stock settings. Here, we can see RX Vega being +50% more efficient on the 220W setting than Fury X and 2X vs Fury X on its 150W setting which on turn, is almost equal to 1080FE.

From those numbers, we can get that Vega RX can be very efficient when tuned properly or when v-sync or chill feature is on, and none will have problem with its power consumption if not heavily oc it. And more often than not, factory oced custom GTX1080s have close to 220W power consumption and way lower efficiency. As anyone knows, oced gpus have much higher power consumption than the stock ones.

An example from the latest @W1zzard review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/31.html & https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/28.html

To sum up, if Vega RX 64 in stock is on par to 1080FE with ~220W for $499, it will be a good product as 30-40W more when gaming isn't too much and on most DX12 and Vulcan games it should be faster. As for the custom-oced ones, let's see them once they are tested.

10 days more to have reviews on hand and be sure about all those things.

 

[EarthDog]

BlablablaYadayadayada.. jenky at best using perlin noise from a decade ago to show efficiency. I would have liked to see firestrike/timespy/unigine supposition or better yet, A REAL GAME! This is cherry picking and enabling software to limit performance to use less power. Any gpu can do that, no?

 

[cdawall]

Sounds like I need to grab a Vega 56 for mining.

 

[fullinfusion]

Sounds like I need to grab a Vega 56 for mining.

I'm trying to find out where I seen the Vega cards able to run around 100 mh give or take but i'll post it when I find it.

 

[cdawall]

I'm trying to find out where I seen the Vega cards able to run around 100 mh give or take but i'll post it when I find it.

OCuK I believe

 

[fullinfusion]

OCuK I believe

Here ya go
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-mining-performance-great/

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Well.. when I read it I felt bad, it wouldn't be fair keeping it all to myself

I will be glued to my computer on release day. I'm going to try to get two.

Ill be glued alright but only for one , I also feel bad , people like me have escalated the prices beyond people like me.
But it's the shops gouging no one else , please remember that , and I am sorry to the gamers but playing fair i want a focus cosworth ,the mental one but i would have to wait two years,even more for a ferari but its one of those ques im aiming for so it is what it is.

 

[notb]

Here ya go
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-mining-performance-great/

This is just idiotic if true (I'm still skeptical).
How can it be that much better than Vega FE, when it has the same hardware? It doesn't even scale well with theoretical compute performance.
It's almost like if AMD found a way to make this card better at mining than it should be (ASIC-style) and built it around this idea.

So until Polaris AMD GPUs were powerful gaming chips, so they worked well at mining.
But since Vega AMD GPUs will be powerful mining chips, but they'll also work for gaming...

I'm surprised they put a video output on this card. I guess they wouldn't if Ryzen had an IGP.

 

[Eric3988]

The mining craze can't end soon enough! Retailers, do your part and only sell 1 or 2 of the same card to the same address. Consumers do your part and don't buy used cards that will probably crap out from being used like government mules...

 

[notb]

Ill be glued alright but only for one , I also feel bad , people like me have escalated the prices beyond people like me.
But it's the shops gouging no one else , please remember that , and I am sorry to the gamers but playing fair i want a focus cosworth ,the mental one but i would have to wait two years,even more for a ferari but its one of those ques im aiming for so it is what it is.

But you won't get that Focus thanks to mining and gamers won't get a GPUs for their hobby.
Even if some people started early enough to make actual money on this, we'll all loose on average.

 

[okidna]

We need to calm down a bit here, don't you all think?

So, to make it clear. This specific benchmark is used in order to compare only the efficiency between GPUs.

And as such, the order is from lower to higher efficiency, not performance, nor power comsumption. RX Vega is here in 2 flavours, a 150W and a 220W one. Most possibly, the 150W iteration is the RX Vega Nano and the 220W is the RX Vega 56 air cooled in stock settings. Here, we can see RX Vega being +50% more efficient on the 220W setting than Fury X and 2X vs Fury X on its 150W setting which on turn, is almost equal to 1080FE.

From those numbers, we can get that Vega RX can be very efficient when tuned properly or when v-sync or chill feature is on, and none will have problem with its power consumption if not heavily oc it. And more often than not, factory oced custom GTX1080s have close to 220W power consumption and way lower efficiency. As anyone knows, oced gpus have much higher power consumption than the stock ones.

An example from the latest @W1zzard review: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/31.html & https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/28.html

To sum up, if Vega RX 64 in stock is on par to 1080FE with ~220W for $499, it will be a good product as 30-40W more when gaming isn't too much and on most DX12 and Vulcan games it should be faster. As for the custom-oced ones, let's see them once they are tested.

10 days more to have reviews on hand and be sure about all those things.

I understand very much that those chart represent power efficiency. And also, my question is not related to performance nor power consumption, all I'm asking is why they chose to use an old legacy benchmark to make a point about power efficiency? As EarthDog said, why not newer benchmarks? Or recent game titles? Or even their own optimized games (Sniper Elite 4, the new Deus Ex, Ashes, etc.)?

And both 3DMark06 and Vantage are on a legacy section at Futuremark website, they even stated that "These benchmarks should not be used to test modern graphics hardware."

As far as I know old benchmarks are 1) not optimized for today's hardwares and drivers so it could consumes higher or lower power than it should, 2) it's too weak for today's hardwares so not much GPU power used = lower power consumption, 3) won't run at all on a modern hardware and OSes.

 

[HD64G]

I understand very much that those chart represent power efficiency. And also, my question is not related to performance nor power consumption, all I'm asking is why they chose to use an old legacy benchmark to make a point about power efficiency? As EarthDog said, why not newer benchmarks? Or recent game titles? Or even their own optimized games (Sniper Elite 4, the new Deus Ex, Ashes, etc.)?

And both 3DMark06 and Vantage are on a legacy section at Futuremark website, they even stated that "These benchmarks should not be used to test modern graphics hardware."
View attachment 90760

As far as I know old benchmarks are 1) not optimized for today's hardwares and drivers so it could consumes higher or lower power than it should, 2) it's too weak for today's hardwares so not much GPU power used = lower power consumption, 3) won't run at all on a modern hardware and OSes.

All your points are correct, but we can easily compare FuryX to Vega GPU imho. And also the 2 different Vega iterations that show its sweet spot for power consumption. For the rest to be sure, we should wait a few days more to see the reviews.

From this chart however, the most important thing is that it shows Vega RX 64 consuming 220W in stock settings and not 300W or 350W as many around tend to believe. And another Vega RX consuming 150W.

 

[RejZoR]

UK prices:
https://www.lambda-tek.com/shop/?region=GB&searchString=rx+vega

Auch. Sweet ol' European prices nowhere near what Muricans get. Not only it's not even competitive against GTX 1080 offerings, it just doesn't make any sense. Most vanilla RX Vega 64 (non LE) is 699 GBP. Aorus GTX 1080 goes for 580€ (GBP and € are about the same). MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X+ for 610€. Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Gaming OC for 725€. I want to give RX Vega a spin coz I'm curious, but for basically 25€ more I can get GTX 1080Ti which is guaranteed faster now. RX Vega may become way faster later, but that's a pretty huge gamble.

Also, my idea of going with RX Vega 64 AiO kinda got shattered when Gigabyte recommended freaking 1000W PSU lol. I generally don't care about consumption, yes, but this is a bit much even then.

 

[HD64G]

UK prices:
https://www.lambda-tek.com/shop/?region=GB&searchString=rx+vega

Auch. Sweet ol' European prices nowhere near what Muricans get. Not only it's not even competitive against GTX 1080 offerings, it just doesn't make any sense. Most vanilla RX Vega 64 (non LE) is 699 GBP. Aorus GTX 1080 goes for 580€ (GBP and € are about the same). MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X+ for 610€. Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Gaming OC for 725€. I want to give RX Vega a spin coz I'm curious, but for basically 25€ more I can get GTX 1080Ti which is guaranteed faster now. RX Vega may become way faster later, but that's a pretty huge gamble.

Also, my idea of going with RX Vega 64 AiO kinda got shattered when Gigabyte recommended freaking 1000W PSU lol. I generally don't care about consumption, yes, but this is a bit much even then.

Once @W1zzard gets its review online we will see how many W the PSU will need for Vega RX. Imho, Gigabyte's and all such info are BS and referred to trush PSUs and not high-quality ones. As for the price, presale ones are ALWAYS overpriced, especially now with some rumors telling that RX Vega will get the miners much hash power. Once they get on sale worldwide, we will see normal prices, even a bit higher than MSRP ones due to mining craziness.

 

[EarthDog]

Also, my idea of going with RX Vega 64 AiO kinda got shattered when Gigabyte recommended freaking 1000W PSU lol. I generally don't care about consumption, yes, but this is a bit much even then.

Im certain your 750W PSU will be fine...you know very well they always overestimate and typically by quite a bit.

 

[RejZoR]

If my speculations go well, GTX 1080 series should drop even further. At least they usually do when competition has at least something, which until now, we didn't have.

 

[cdawall]

Why would they drop their price? Everything leaked shows they have a cooler, quieter, lower power consumption product that is already at the same price point.

If the mining leaks are correct the Vega cards will be sold vastly over msrp as soon as they are released anyway.

 

[the54thvoid]

Had i been awake @ the time the mail man showed up (working night shift, this week), i would have received the Noctua AM4 mounting kit already: will have to go pick it up tomorrow.

Ordered it this past Saturday: surprised it's already here, tbh!

Still asleep? MIght have put this in the wrong thread.

 

[HTC]

Still asleep? MIght have put this in the wrong thread.

Confirmed ... LOL ... oooooops ...

 

[Jism]

UK prices:
https://www.lambda-tek.com/shop/?region=GB&searchString=rx+vega

Auch. Sweet ol' European prices nowhere near what Muricans get. Not only it's not even competitive against GTX 1080 offerings, it just doesn't make any sense. Most vanilla RX Vega 64 (non LE) is 699 GBP. Aorus GTX 1080 goes for 580€ (GBP and € are about the same). MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X+ for 610€. Gigabyte GTX 1080Ti Gaming OC for 725€. I want to give RX Vega a spin coz I'm curious, but for basically 25€ more I can get GTX 1080Ti which is guaranteed faster now. RX Vega may become way faster later, but that's a pretty huge gamble.

Also, my idea of going with RX Vega 64 AiO kinda got shattered when Gigabyte recommended freaking 1000W PSU lol. I generally don't care about consumption, yes, but this is a bit much even then.

Drivers will be improved in the future and more and more games are being optimized to make use of that GCN stuff. TBP is not to be misconfigured with TDP. Nobody is sure yet of the boards total power consumption as games and futuremark are 2 complete different things. I'm putting my money on the Vega anyway.

 

[Eric3988]

How's the community feel about the Vega 56? Since the 1070 came out I've wanted to get it due to the attractive price/performance ratio. The 56 is reported to be very competitive vs the 1070 too.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ghGMAo&usg=AFQjCNHBNP8_4P-ZHNNmnMTcMrvj5mOt9w

Since it's difficult to find a 1070 for less than $350, Vega 56 looks like it could be in a very sweet spot. I know Volta is down the road and who knows about Navi, but why not pull the trigger on Vega 56 if it's 20-30% better than the 1070?

 

[r9]

At 100 MH/s Amd would not have issue selling it out. Even if it has issues running Minecraft.

 

[the54thvoid]

Big question. Does TPU have a review sample?

 

[notb]

Big question. Does TPU have a review sample?

I bet they have. Isn't this what all the AMD bootlicking was for?

 

[Th3pwn3r]

First review is out. Vega 64 looks awful.