AMD Radeon VII 16 GB

[M2B]

It's not more accurate just because it has more games, it does cover more titles for sure. What if you take an avg from 100 games, will that be more/less accurate?

Yeah, It's more accurate just because it has more games. Simple logic.

 

[Space Lynx]

Lol, they said that? :O Ryzen is fantastic and taking the fight directly to Intel. Radeon's just... a bit behind xD (still can have great value, take my 570 for example).

3700X will be in another league to 9700K. I'm not abandoning AMD because of the VII being a bit.. mediocre. xD

we will see. 9700k still beats AMD 2700x in min fps and 0.1% mins across the board at 1080p by 10 fps sometimes as high as 30 fps. but @W1zzard no longer benches min fps testing. and overall fps avg and highs is always won by 9700k for about 95?% of games, i mean 2700k is very close, but yeah i dunno

if 3700x can do 4.8ghz, and 9700k at 5ghz - i will be very interested to see those benches, rumors are IPC is not improving with 3700x, only clock speeds. so 9700k at 5ghz prob will still be the winner.

Feel free to waste your money. Ryzen 3000 is going to make lot of 9th gen parts obsolete at their current prices.

I'm waiting for benches before I buy. so no worries. but we will see.

 

[moproblems99]

I was going to buy one of these if it was within 5% of the 2080. Or there abouts. 14% is a tough sell.

What a joke, Lisa Su lost all respect from me for allowing this product to be released. I was considering a 3700x, but screw it. 9700k and rtx 2080 is probably my next build.

really disappointing, 30 fps slower across the board at 1080p almost... and using 100 watts more... wow so pathetic...

What? You can't be serious? Why would you not get a likely perfectly good cpu that is going to be likely better than the 9700K because of this GPU? What did you really expect from this GPU? Simple math told you this is where it was going to be. Besides, the i9 9900K is basically the equivalent of this GPU in the CPU space.

 

[R0H1T]

Yeah, It's more accurate just because it has more games. Simple logic.

No it's not, certainly not logical the way you make it sound!

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

we will see. 9700k still beats AMD 2700x in min fps and 0.1% mins across the board at 1080p by 10 fps sometimes as high as 30 fps. but @W1zzard no longer benches min fps testing. and overall fps avg and highs is always won by 9700k for about 95?% of games, i mean 2700k is very close, but yeah i dunno

if 3700x can do 4.8ghz, and 9700k at 5ghz - i will be very interested to see those benches, rumors are IPC is not improving with 3700x, only clock speeds. so 9700k at 5ghz prob will still be the winner.



I'm waiting for benches before I buy. so no worries. but we will see.

Rumours of IPC not improving? Where did you hear that. The Zen2 arch has an entirely re-designed front-end, including a better branch-predictor. That alone will result in some bottlenecks in the execution engine being removed (Z1 is front-end limited apparently) and higher per clock performance. Honestly i'm expecting around 5-10% higher IPC in most things. We'll see how gaming IPC improves, especially with regards to DRAM latency, which i fear may not actually improve that much with the seperate I/O die.

 

[XXL_AI]

Not a dime... don't be a fool.

Correct... the $3000 Titan RTX isn't in there, nor the 2080 Ti for $1100. But will it be 2x faster to justify their pricing???? Look bigger picture.

Drivers will vary from no gains to several percent. It will vary by title. But as someone said, there isn't much difference under the hood here compared to Vega and that is a mature process. On this front, I won't hold my breath.

THe aftermarket cards will be more quiet, but will also fetch an additional premium making price to performance (where AMD typically shines) even worse...

My $1200 Titan X Pascal never stopped for a second in 2 years on Deep Learning training, I've never seen an amd gpu can last that long under heavy compute work. When I pay for it, I expect workstation class performance. Radeon VII marketed as a gpu that can do all the jobs, these reviews are proof of it'll contribute global warming, nothing more. Also, whole AMD is able to make 1000 cards at best, I wonder how many GPU units they have left for other companies lol. amd lost the gpu war, this gpu and its hype is the proof of it.

 

[Space Lynx]

I was going to buy one of these if it was within 5% of the 2080. Or there abouts. 14% is a tough sell.



What? You can't be serious? Why would you not get a likely perfectly good cpu that is going to be likely better than the 9700K because of this GPU? What did you really expect from this GPU? Simple math told you this is where it was going to be. Besides, the i9 9900K is basically the equivalent of this GPU in the CPU space.

yeah im serious. look at the ryzen benches below. ryzen is a joke compared to intel, for some reason GND is the only website that tests Ryzen properly.

http://imgur.com/a/oTNrz

 

[dirtyferret]

Over priced and by the time you need 16GB the GPU will be far slower then what will be on the market for a fraction of the cost. I'm hoping AMD comes out with some solid $200-250 price range cards soon as I think Nvidia is dropping the ball in that price range.

 

[moproblems99]

yeah im serious. look at the ryzen benches below. ryzen is a joke compared to intel, for some reason GND is the only website that tests Ryzen properly.

http://imgur.com/a/oTNrz

What does a 1700X vs 8700k have to do with a 3XXX and 9700k? Everyone knows there was a decent jump from 1XXX to 2XXX. There is also likely going to be a similar jump from 2XXX to 3XXX. All they need is that last jump to have parity.

 

[W1zzard]

yeah im serious. look at the ryzen benches below. ryzen is a joke compared to intel, for some reason GND is the only website that tests Ryzen properly.

http://imgur.com/a/oTNrz

those graphs aren't starting at 0 !

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

yeah im serious. look at the ryzen benches below. ryzen is a joke compared to intel, for some reason GND is the only website that tests Ryzen properly.

http://imgur.com/a/oTNrz

1700X is 6% slower in that bench the bars are misleading lmao. Also the 1700X is cheaper and there it is vs a decent max OC 8700K where the 1700X is only at 3.7. Try again, this time with 2700X which is the 8700K competitor (and even that is cheaper).

 

[cucker tarlson]

3700X will be in another league to 9700K. I'm not abandoning AMD because of the VII being a bit.. mediocre. xD

it's still gonna get beat in games.
it's gonna beat it in cinnabon and video encoding tho.

look at cpu performance numbers at 720p,doesn't get much more cpu intensive than that

Spoiler

9600k stock is 15% faster than 2700x,2700x is only 12% faster than 1600.
2700x has 20% higher clock than 1600,plus more cores too.I'll add to that the fact that 6-8 cores is a much more critical core increase than going from 8 to higher. there's 7% ipc improvement too

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/5/

now what are you getting with zen 2 ? probably less than 20% core clock boost,core count increase but it's from 8 to 10/12 now and probably more than 7% ipc improvement though not anything massive. now let's take a look at that 15% number I mentioned earlier again.

 

[Basard]

Well..... this is embarrassing.

 

[moproblems99]

those graphs aren't starting at 0 !

Didn't even catch that! Also, how much cheaper was the 1700X vs the 8700k to have a video encode take 767 seconds instead of 792 seconds.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

it's still gonna get beat in games.

look at cpu performance numbers at 720p,doesn't get much more cpu intensive than that

Spoiler

9600k stock is 15% faster than 2700x,2700x is only 12% faster than 1600.
2700x has 20% higher clock than 1600,plus more cores too.I'll add to that the fact that 6-8 cores is a much more critical core increase than going from 8 to higher. there's 7% ipc improvement too

https://www.computerbase.de/2018-04/amd-ryzen-2000-test/5/

now what are you getting with zen 2 ? probably less than 20% core clock boost,core count increase but it's from 8 to 10/12 now and probably more than 7% ipc improvement though not anything massive. now let's take a lokk at that 15% number I mentioned earlier again.

In games, it will mostly be a bit behind Intel, you're right. But it's going to be so close that it doesn't matter, unless you're pushing 240Hz and playing highly competitive games (2700X can do 100fps gameplay). So Intel will likely have that gaming niche. But Zen2 is going to offer more cores, better value and performance in multi-threaded workloads including those with AVX2. Similar to how the 2000 series competes now, but with more of the good stuff

 

[moproblems99]

now what are you getting with zen 2 ? probably less than 20% core clock boost,core count increase but it's from 8 to 10/12 now and probably more than 7% ipc improvement though not anything massive. now let's take a lokk at that 15% number I mentioned earlier again.

IPC is not the end-all. With that IPC increase and a clock speed, there will essentially be parity.

 

[delshay]

Can you do a Superposition 1080p extreme test & upload screenshot please.

 

[iO]

If only AMD wouldn't go the cheap route and apply such unnecessary high voltages everytime to each card as some reviewers were able to push ots efficincy to Turing levels with some undervolting.

 

[Dante Uchiha]

Stall or win in some AAA games, loses on some less-known or Nvidia biased games. The average consumption in games is similar to 2080.
It looks decent, it was a much better launch than the Vega 64.

View attachment 115950

TPU's performance summary is based on significantly more games and it's definitely more accurate because of this.

IMHO, TPU has a lot of games to dilute the advantage that the Radeon VII has in some AAA games that are really relevant.

driver update will close a 40 fps gap over a oc'd 2080 at 1080p while using less wattage? lol mmk. i still play a lot of DX11 games so yeah... no thanks.

1080p on a U$ 700 GPU? The only resolution that matters in this thread is 4k. "Ah but I want to play 1080p @ 250fps", whatever, this public does not represent 0.0001% of the market. Nobody cares.

 

[OneMoar]

well can't say I didn't see this coming
about the only time it comes close to a 2080 are in Battlefield V & farcry 5 which are probably the worst examples of a optimised properly sorted game engine on the market as per-usual all those CU's and no way to utilize them

#gcnneedstodie

 

[unikin]

What was AMD thinking? Why release GPU that is slower than 2080 and costs €100 more than 2080 (at least here in Germany €749 Vs €649)? What a joke... Coming from AMD fan

 

[phill]

Drivers will vary from no gains to several percent. It will vary by title. But as someone said, there isn't much difference under the hood here compared to Vega and that is a mature process. On this front, I won't hold my breath.
THe aftermarket cards will be more quiet, but will also fetch an additional premium making price to performance (where AMD typically shines) even worse...

I believe it's another card that people have a choice to buy or not, I can understand the reasons why people might not but I could also understand why people could I like to think positively with AMD, they have come a decent way. Nvidia does have a lot more chance at getting it right as it does like to release 20 of the same cards compared to AMD's one or two.. But again, everything is down by choice and I wouldnt blame anyone for buying it or not
I hope that like Nvidia, they don't add a few hundred quid to the price for a slightly tweaked version.. But..... Who knows

That's pretty optimistic especially given this isn't a new design. It's doubtful the drivers are very different from Vega, if at all. I would not sell your 1080ti's for this anymore than the 2080 - they are all virtually the same card.
Definitely wait for the 7nm redesign.

If it was a complete build up for the card I would have hoped for something even more, but if this is just taking an older Vega and building on it, I can see why it's not quite as good as we were hoping for.. I don't think there's anything out there that I'd change my 1080 Ti's for at all...

driver update will close a 40 fps gap over a oc'd 2080 at 1080p while using less wattage? lol mmk. i still play a lot of DX11 games so yeah... no thanks.

I never mentioned power issues, I'm guessing that's AMD giving the GPU core a little more juice than it needed, just like Vega.. Hopefully it might change in a new card release, whenever that might be but I don't really tend to worry about power usage... Efficiency is great but still, we've all had worse efficient GPUs in our time... I can remember a few

 

[cucker tarlson]

In games, it will mostly be a bit behind Intel, you're right. But it's going to be so close that it doesn't matter, unless you're pushing 240Hz and playing highly competitive games (2700X can do 100fps gameplay). So Intel will likely have that gaming niche. But Zen2 is going to offer more cores, better value and performance in multi-threaded workloads including those with AVX2. Similar to how the 2000 series competes now, but with more of the good stuff

there's people,and I think it's the vast majority,that would take 9600k's gaming performance and 9900k's utility performance at the price of 9700k (or slightly lower) in a heartbeat.
not me tho,I want purely gaming chips only

 

[Xuper]

Computerbase tested with UV.Did you try it ?

https://www.computerbase.de/2019-02...istungsaufnahme-der-grafikkarte-wolfenstein-2

From 275w to 207w in Wolf2

 

[XXL_AI]

What a joke, Lisa Su lost all respect from me for allowing this product to be released. I was considering a 3700x, but screw it. 9700k and rtx 2080 is probably my next build.

really disappointing, 30 fps slower across the board at 1080p almost... and using 100 watts more... wow so pathetic...

in the end of the day, lisa su is the niece of jensen huang, all gpu is a family business