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

Clock for Clock, Vega VS FuryX and discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 50521
  • Start date Start date
Indeed, let's start with the sins!

https://videocardz.com/blog/all-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-sins

Some really dodgy console ports may or may not save the day.

Funny how the GPU comes in two flavors, top one should dissipate heat better ... adds a whole new layer to the silicon lottery :laugh:
1832be23e8d71bb03d02bc49a8c2339f24977349813e74ca69633464548e5876.jpg
 
Last edited:
sorry for the yuge pic, I don't know how to scale it.
xNvPTtk.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lets not assume anything till we have cards in for testing...
 
Funny how the GPU comes in two flavors, top one should dissipate heat better ... adds a whole new layer to the silicon lottery :laugh:
View attachment 91187
Except to my eye the chips are all as equally level as they should be, only the edge packing differs , i wouldn't be assed and im not assed about that id expect no cooling difference and I wont be opening mine up to check this non starter news event unless someone shows the chips are different and or aligned different ,meh.
 
But GP102 is a gaming chip - NVIDIA designed and optimized it to dominate gaming benchmarks and it does. Who cares about "pretty much everything else"?
you are basically praising AMD then .... :D that's so nice, since technically the card that get over them in nearly anything that they are not designed for (dominating gaming) are way cheaper than the one they designated to do anything else the prior can't do (not dominating gaming) too bad they gimped the Titan XP ... since now it's just a "overpriced gaming dominator" instead of a "prosumer" card ... :laugh:

oh well i guess i keep my 1070 till Navi/Volta tho a Vega 64 would've been nice to toy with (well it would be the same price as my 1070, if the retailers greed and my own country taxes would not interfere :laugh: pfaahahahaha 599$ launch? more like 900$ ... thanks miners :p ) ... ;)
 
Except to my eye the chips are all as equally level as they should be, only the edge packing differs , i wouldn't be assed and im not assed about that id expect no cooling difference and I wont be opening mine up to check this non starter news event unless someone shows the chips are different and or aligned different ,meh.
Seems to me on one chip interposer top material is extended to the height of the die and hbm2, makes one big even smooth surface ... the question is not about cooling really, more is the first flavor a "fix", or is the second flavor a production saving?
 
you are basically praising AMD then .... :D that's so nice, since technically the card that get over them in nearly anything that they are not designed for (dominating gaming) are way cheaper than the one they designated to do anything else the prior can't do (not dominating gaming) too bad they gimped the Titan XP ... since now it's just a "overpriced gaming dominator" instead of a "prosumer" card ... :laugh:
There's really no such thing as "prosumer card". It's just a 2x2 matrix of possible scenarios:
1) You either use a card for gaming or for productivity/computation.
2) You either use it for profit or with no profit in mind.
This "prosumer" nonsense is really pretty boring by now. You can sense that it's made up by 30-year-olds that want to get powerful gaming PCs, but feel embarrassed for spending so much.

The thing I like about NVIDIA is that they make cards for gaming and cards for professional use - 2 very well separated groups.
And, because they know what they want to make, they succeed: they make the most powerful products in both segments. And the most efficient. And, coincidentally, the best selling (by far).
Sure, you can game on Quadro M6000 and you can solve PDE on an MSI 1050 Gaming (really, I've checked both!), but you know what to expect and what these cards were made for - what they'll be really good at.

AMD is trying to make "universal" products. They (usually) make good gaming cards that are best at calculations and mining. They make good pro cards that hardly anyone buys (apart from Mac Pro owners).
I'm sure many gamers buy AMD cards with the idea that "they'll do some serious stuff now!" but these plans end up as participating in WCG or something like that. Or, most likely, nothing. You know... this is another topic in which I see praise for Vega's FP16 performance from people that don't seem to understand what FP16 means.

Here's the inevitable car analogy. For me NVIDIA is like a refined manufacturer: doing great cars for consumers and for professionals. Think: Mercedes. Yes, you can carry potatoes in an S-class or take your children to school in a Sprinter, but you can feel that this is not what they're best at.
AMD is like... well... like this:
71cc2ac2bc760bf47b93f894534f6df7


And this is all very sad for me. I really liked the old days when Intel and AMD were making similar products. When the choice was down to refinement/robustness, not the whole philosophy...
 
I'm absolutely rolling from that car analogy
 
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08...ts-escalation-rx-vega-56-vs-vega-64-vs-fury-x

View attachment 91166

So basically the performance per clock cycle, which in theory should be purely from improved design, only gives a tiny amount of performance boost. The most performance boost comes from the bumped clock rate.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11717/the-amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-and-56-review/2


This feels like Pentium4 and Faildozer to me. RTG tries to maximize clock hoping it will give them some performance boost. What they ended up getting is a power hungry monster. I am sure @W1zzard would do some in depth analysis of Vega design in the future.
I wont even post as I'll just piss ya off o_O

But great justification on why the fury is so fury against the Vega.

I feel the pain, really I do ;)
 
Back
Top