• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Vega Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 50521
  • Start date Start date
Oh FFS, stop squabbling.
 
the54thvoid said:
Oh FFS, stop squabbling.
Click to expand...
No squabbling. :cool:

We simply have a case of a young upstart who doesn't understand that no card can play every game at 4K 60fps. Oh, and his definition of "every game" in W1zzard's review is not including the 3 games that overwhelm the 1080Ti. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
ratirt said:
Excuse me ? Nonsense? https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_1080_Ti_Amp_Extreme/
Here you go. All games on TI run 60 FPS average. That's decent.
3 games give a bit struggle. Warhammer, Deus EX and watch dog2 average 45 FPS. Those were measured in highest possible settings. you can get those tweaked to make it go 60 FPS without much effort. What is a 4k gaming for you? 4K and 160FPS ? or what is it?
980 Ti 4k? yeah with 20 FPS? Good quality - highest preset with tweaks like reduce shadows a bit and you are good to go. Not going medium detail preset. did You get hit in the head or something?
Click to expand...

AVERAGE FPS

Maintaining 60 fps is not happening. Min FPS will be 38-45 in many, many cases.

Its clear you only read reviews and don't speak from experience. I play on 1080p and have a 1080 that doesn't keep 60 fps in quite a few recent titles. You can tweak settings, but you definitely lose some IQ then. Your specs say you've got a 780ti, I just moved up from that card, back when that card was released people said the same nonsense of 780ti 'will slaughter anything @ 1080p' and look at where we are now.
 
As another 1080ti/4k guy. Fps dips in many games.
 
60 fps with double Vega with vsync enabled. I wonder how many frames hide behind vsync.
 
A regular 1080 can give you 4K 60fps in Prey , that being said the demo would have been underwhelming even if they showed the fps counter which I'm sure was trough the sky.

In other words we would have learnt nothing. Prey is very well optimized and not that demanding to begin with.

Also I am pretty sure Bethesda has some sort of marketing agreement with AMD which means this wasn't even meant to be an actual demo for Vega.
 
While Prey 2017 doesn't put everything to a halt, saying it's easy on system isn't exactly true. It's still quite demanding at 4K and while it generally runs stupendously fast even on my GTX 980, I can sense dips in certain areas. Especially in Arboretum currently as it's a large open area with very diverse textures. Same goes for Talos 1 exterior. I've sensed few quite large dips and lags there. But other than that, smooth experience.
 
Vayra86 said:
AVERAGE FPS

Maintaining 60 fps is not happening. Min FPS will be 38-45 in many, many cases.

Its clear you only read reviews and don't speak from experience. I play on 1080p and have a 1080 that doesn't keep 60 fps in quite a few recent titles. You can tweak settings, but you definitely lose some IQ then. Your specs say you've got a 780ti, I just moved up from that card, back when that card was released people said the same nonsense of 780ti 'will slaughter anything @ 1080p' and look at where we are now.
Click to expand...
and you clearly have no idea what to say. You said you can play 4K with 980TI . I don't know what you are after but i don't live on a deserted island and people here get to play 4k on 1080 Ti but oh well. Dips happen but I see no reason you coucldn't play a game when 40 Fps is a min you get and it goes up to 60+. You prove no point what you proved is that what you say is ridiculous. For me 4k 1080 Ti is reality. If you got problem with that that's your problem.
 
ratirt said:
and you clearly have no idea what to say. You said you can play 4K with 980TI . I don't know what you are after but i don't live on a deserted island and people here get to play 4k on 1080 Ti but oh well. Dips happen but I see no reason you coucldn't play a game when 40 Fps is a min you get and it goes up to 60+. You prove no point what you proved is that what you say is ridiculous. For me 4k 1080 Ti is reality. If you got problem with that that's your problem.
Click to expand...

the54thvoid said:
Oh FFS, stop squabbling.
Click to expand...
 
RejZoR said:
While Prey 2017 doesn't put everything to a halt, saying it's easy on system isn't exactly true. It's still quite demanding at 4K and while it generally runs stupendously fast even on my GTX 980, I can sense dips in certain areas. Especially in Arboretum currently as it's a large open area with very diverse textures. Same goes for Talos 1 exterior. I've sensed few quite large dips and lags there. But other than that, smooth experience.
Click to expand...

Considering I am always above 80 fps on my setup at 1080p maxed , I would say it's pretty easy on any relatively new hardware. I guess we all have different standards but you can't say you were truly impressed by that demo or that you learnt anything from it.
 
Purported AMD Vega benchmark shows it is faster than the Titan Xp
http://www.techspot.com/news/69567-purported-amd-vega-benchmark-shows-faster-than-titan.html

2017-06-05-image-4.jpg
 
Wouldn't surprise me , performance in Doom scales incredibly well with shader core count and Vegas has plenty of that.
 
rtwjunkie said:
LOL! I can't stand it. The up and down rollercoaster of speculation on whether it is going to suck or be through the roof is making me nauseous. :eek:
Click to expand...
It's just looked like our train was out of steam a little bit. :D
 
kruk said:
I have seen the same image months ago. On the original image it says confidential until may 8-th. Looks like a fake to me ...
Click to expand...

Yeah - that NDA make it very suspicious.

There is also the possibility that is two cards giving crossfire performance. A lot of words recently have been talking about crossfire Vega being great. Did Raja himself not mention that recently?

Also:

doom_3840_2160.png


So Vega is 3X faster than Fury X? Yeah, not happening. Let alone Titan Xp 2X faster than a 1080.
 
the54thvoid said:
Yeah - that NDA make it very suspicious.

There is also the possibility that is two cards giving crossfire performance. A lot of words recently have been talking about crossfire Vega being great. Did Raja himself not mention that recently?

Also:

doom_3840_2160.png


So Vega is 3X faster than Fury X? Yeah, not happening. Let alone Titan Xp 2X faster than a 1080.
Click to expand...

How did you concluded that Vega is 3X faster than Fury X from that ? You are comparing two charts but no one knows how the benchmarks where taken.

Frame rates vary hugely throughout sections of the game , you can get a 60 fps avg in one place and 100 fps avg in another.
 
Vya Domus said:
How did you concluded that Vega is 3X faster than Fury X from that ? You are comparing two charts but no one knows how the benchmarks where taken.

Frame rates vary hugely throughout sections of the game , you can get a 60 fps avg in one place and 100 fps avg in another.
Click to expand...

Well, in the world of speculative benchmarks, I can do whatever the hell I want. Point being, bogus graphs are bogus.
 
the54thvoid said:
Well, in the world of speculative benchmarks, I can do whatever the hell I want. Point being, bogus graphs are bogus.
Click to expand...

Yeah but using a bogus chart to draw conclusions based on one that isn't makes it even worse.
 
Vya Domus said:
Yeah but using a bogus chart to draw conclusions based on one that isn't makes it even worse.
Click to expand...

No. In the logic of these threads, there is no logic (that is illogical itself). You may as well post a picture of banana fighting a tangerine to say if Vega is better than a beach holiday.

We just need the freaking thing released already. We know it'll make an appearance end of June in the guise of the pro card at $$$'s but the consumer version wont be out till when? July/August?

It's actually become very boring now.
 
the54thvoid said:
It's actually become very boring now.
Click to expand...

That's because most people are still in denial and can't accept the fact that even AMD themselves do not care how Vega is going to turn out for the consumer market.
 
I mean we all know amd likes benchmarking how the sky looks.
 
I'm getting that old school Duke Nukem Forever vibe here.

You too?

ratirt said:
and you clearly have no idea what to say. You said you can play 4K with 980TI . I don't know what you are after but i don't live on a deserted island and people here get to play 4k on 1080 Ti but oh well. Dips happen but I see no reason you coucldn't play a game when 40 Fps is a min you get and it goes up to 60+. You prove no point what you proved is that what you say is ridiculous. For me 4k 1080 Ti is reality. If you got problem with that that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Back when the 1080 was released, that was a 4K card too. Back when 980ti got released, people also ran games at 4K on it - it had more than enough VRAM for it already, it has a wide bus, and it has delta compression. There is no reason it could not run 4K. And Fury X was no different either... Would it be sub 30 fps? Of course. Would you have to tweak settings? Naturally. Quite similar to the arguments you use *today* to say 1080ti is now a great card for 4K. Mmmm no. Its just the fastest you can acquire today. But its nowhere near comfortable pushing 4K either. Evidenced by its frequent, or constant drop under 60 fps which is considered smooth for gaming. Even at slightly tweaked settings. Some games don't even EVER see 60 fps at high (not ultra) settings. This is why the real evidence for 'capable' should be the min. fps numbers. Every shitty GPU can push lots of frames in the easy, low-load bits of a game. Its the variation in FPS that matters. Pascal can push massive FPS numbers, but it also falls apart fast under heavy loads, seeing 120 fps tops with dips to 30-40 fps is not at all uncommon, making 'average fps' far less relevant. You can blame GPU Boost 3.0 for that.

The reality is, 4K is still early adopters' territory. It has made strides, but its not there yet. Especially on the GPU side of things. That was the point I'm making. Its not a problem at all, just perspective.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top