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

Will You Be Buying Radeon VII ?

Will You Be Buying Radeon VII ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 14.9%
  • No

    Votes: 105 62.5%
  • Maybe (Depending on Performance)

    Votes: 38 22.6%

  • Total voters
    168
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,359 (2.01/day)
Location
Memphis, TN
System Name Black Prometheus
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard ASRock B350 Pro4
Cooling Corsair H70
Memory SK Hynix 32GB(8GBx4) DDR4 @2666MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Navi 5700 XT 50TH Anniversary Edition
Storage Sandisk X300 512GB + Seagate 2TB
Display(s) HP LA2405WG 24" Triple Monitor (5760x1200)
Case DeepCool Matrexx 55 w/ 3x120mm Intake + 4x120mm Exhaust
Audio Device(s) Samsung 5.1 Setup
Power Supply Corsair RM750X
Mouse Logitech Trackman
Keyboard Dell OEM
Software Windows 10 EDU x64
So now it's "matches or surpasses".
AMD's own estimates say it will be, on average, 30% faster than Vega64. Applying that with no grain of salt and looking at TPU's performance graphs, that would be still 5% slower than a FE 2080. You can translate that as a "match" (5% isn't something you'd feel), but surpass? I'll believe that when I see it.
I'm pretty sure that says "If" meaning maybe
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,628 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
2,912 (1.21/day)
Location
GMT +2
System Name Red Radiance l under construction
Processor 2600x
Motherboard x470 taichi
Cooling stock wrath
Memory TridentZ rgb 3200mhz (2x8 kit)
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 nitro+
Storage 970 evo nvme
Display(s) c27gh70
Case tt core x5 tge
Audio Device(s) sennheiser's pc323d usb soundcard
Power Supply corsair AX860i
Mouse roccat leader
Keyboard roccat ryos mk fx
Software windows 10
So now it's "matches or surpasses".
AMD's own estimates say it will be, on average, 30% faster than Vega64. Applying that with no grain of salt and looking at TPU's performance graphs, that would be still 5% slower than a FE 2080. You can translate that as a "match" (5% isn't something you'd feel), but surpass? I'll believe that when I see it.
amd's results for 7
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RadeonVII-vs-Vega64.jpg
vs
w1zz' zotac amp extirme (firts 2080 i've seen in reviews list)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/6.html

sure tests are ran by amd but results are very close to what amd annouced at ces.
2 weeks left till 7 hit the shelves. revriews will be available soon enough
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,570 (1.08/day)
System Name Virtual Reality / Bioinformatics
Processor Undead CPU
Motherboard Undead TUF X99
Cooling Noctua NH-D15
Memory GSkill 128GB DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) EVGA 2080Ti
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 1TB + 860 EVO 2TB + WD Black 5TB
Display(s) Acer K272HUL, HTC Vive
Case Fractal Design R5
Audio Device(s) BOSE 2.0
Power Supply Seasonic 850watt
Mouse Logitech Master MX
Keyboard Corsair K70 Cherry MX Blue
Software Windows 10 Professional/Linux Mint
So now it's "matches or surpasses".
AMD's own estimates say it will be, on average, 30% faster than Vega64. Applying that with no grain of salt and looking at TPU's performance graphs, that would be still 5% slower than a FE 2080. You can translate that as a "match" (5% isn't something you'd feel), but surpass? I'll believe that when I see it.
I have seen claims on r/AMD saying Vega64 undervolt overclocked faster than 1080Ti. So i am really not surprised any more by bold claim like OP’s

But yeah, let the final benchmark from reputable source do its job.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
10,109 (5.43/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
amd's results for 7
https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RadeonVII-vs-Vega64.jpg
vs
w1zz' zotac amp extirme (firts 2080 i've seen in reviews list)
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_RTX_2080_AMP_Extreme/6.html

sure tests are ran by amd but results are very close to what amd annouced at ces.
2 weeks left till 7 hit the shelves. revriews will be available soon enough
Pfoooh that is painful, painful indeed. Look at the consistency of those performance boosts. Its simply not there. This would immediately turn me away from Radeon VII if I were in the market. Half the benches in there show barely noticeable gains.

I have seen claims on r/AMD saying Vega64 undervolt overclocked faster than 1080Ti. So i am really not surprised any more by bold claim like OP’s

But yeah, let the final benchmark from reputable source do its job.
Hahah r/AMD is hilarious to read, right. It also has so many mea culpa topics... about Fury, about Vega... at least some fans are strong enough to admit they got it all wrong in the end :D
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
26,487 (5.21/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 8700K@4.8GHz(Quick and dirty)
Motherboard AsRock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H110i GTX w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) ASUS Strix GTX 1080Ti
Storage 500GB Crucial MX500 + 3TB with 500GB MX500 SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
The way I see it now, there really isn't a compelling reason to go with Radeon VII, in fact there are a few compelling reasons not to. Sure, I'm all for supporting the underdog, but at the same time AMD seems to be doing some pretty stupid shit with the Radeon VII.

First, they appear to only be allowing the reference design. It actually seems like they are actually going to be the only manufacturer(actually probably Sapphire), and all the AIBs will have to buy the cards from AMD and just slap their stickers on them. AMD has tried this in the past on their halo products, and it just doesn't work. It leads to increased costs and short supplies of the cards. AIBs don't really want to sell the cards, because there isn't much money in it for them.

On top of that, it seems the AIBs that do choose to sell the card will have to sell gimped versions of the cards that can't actually reach the maximum boost clock of 1800MHz. This seems shady to me.

Then there is the what we know for sure, and that is the card is going to use more power than the RTX2080, it will put out more head than the RTX2080, and it might match the performance, and it won't have ray tracing tech, all for the same price at the RTX2080.

If AMD had priced the Radeon VII $100 cheaper, it might be a compelling option. But even then, we know the RTX2080 is only selling for $699 because it has no competition, there isn't any reason for nVidia to sell it cheaper. So if Radeon VII was $100 cheaper than the RTX2080, chances are nVidia would just respond with a $100 price cut on the RTX2080 to make it competitive in price/performance again. But I think the problem is AMD is already selling the Radeon VII at the absolute minimum they can afford to. Reports are they are actually loosing money on every card but I don't believe that. I'm more inclined to believe they are either making no money on each card, or making a razor thin profit. So they had no choice but to sell it at the $699 price point.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
2,912 (1.21/day)
Location
GMT +2
System Name Red Radiance l under construction
Processor 2600x
Motherboard x470 taichi
Cooling stock wrath
Memory TridentZ rgb 3200mhz (2x8 kit)
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 nitro+
Storage 970 evo nvme
Display(s) c27gh70
Case tt core x5 tge
Audio Device(s) sennheiser's pc323d usb soundcard
Power Supply corsair AX860i
Mouse roccat leader
Keyboard roccat ryos mk fx
Software windows 10
Pfoooh that is painful, painful indeed. Look at the consistency of those performance boosts. Its simply not there. This would immediately turn me away from Radeon VII if I were in the market. Half the benches in there show barely noticeable gains.
are you sure you are looking at the right graph?
cause what i see is that if you remove anomallies hitman 2 and faulout 76 performance boosts sits right between 20 and 30% with only 2 titles below 20% and at least 5 above 30%
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
887 (0.42/day)
Location
somewhere
The only thing going for the Radeon VII is the 16GB of VRAM. I also don't think it's going to beat the 2080. Match it in a few games sure, but i think overal the 2080 is going to be the faster card. So unless you find a use for the extra 8GB of vram i don't see the point in paying the same for this card and getting the same or worse performance but much higher power use and heat output. So no i won't be buying one even if i could afford it, as I would prefer to try RTX in BF5 and Metro Exodus if i absolutely had to spend £650-700 on a video card.

Atm I am thinking either GTX 1660 (non Ti) or Navi at the $200~ price point to replace my 570.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
887 (0.42/day)
Location
somewhere
How does this help in gaming? Its a QHD card and few (any?) titles will reach 8GB there.
I mean it's the only potential advantage or selling point it has over the 2080. And btw you can use over 8GB quite easily with high-resolution texture packs. I think there was a memory leak in Fallout 4 HD texture pack and they fixed it but i remember hitting the 8GB on my Vega back then and stuttering because of it(without HBCC enabled). also in Far Cry 5 HD textures, both at 1080p(!). The way games are going the more VRAM the better in all honesty.

But anyway i wasn't arguing for the Radeon VII actually i was arguing against it lol, but stating a potential advantage it has.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,464 (4.31/day)
I mean it's the only potential advantage or selling point it has over the 2080. And btw you can use over 8GB quite easily with high-resolution texture packs. I think there was a memory leak in Fallout 4 HD texture pack and they fixed it but i remember hitting the 8GB on my Vega back then and stuttering because of it(without HBCC enabled). also in Far Cry 5 HD textures, both at 1080p(!). The way games are going the more VRAM the better in all honesty.

But anyway i wasn't arguing for the Radeon VII actually i was arguing against it lol, but stating a potential advantage it has.
Right.... but I'm saying it isn't an advantage for most users. Typical usage scenarios don't use texture packs and additions. Some do, but this is a minority. So there are cases for its use, just fringe. I would call it advantage for the few who can utilize it... :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
63 (0.05/day)
System Name Acer Predator 500 Helios AMD
Processor AMD Ryzen 2700
Cooling 5 copper pipes with Aeroblade 3D
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) RX Vega 56 8GB HBM2
Storage 256GB SK Hynix SC300
Display(s) AU Optronics AHVA
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD
I currently have a Vega 64 LC that I purchased on October 29 of 2017 at MSRP (Which was almost impossible at that time as right after that, either availability or inflated prices started to begin). I dropped the voltage from 1.150-1.250 to 11.00 and 1.200 as going lower would cause throttling due to lack of power to keep the default clockspeed (Seems that I got myself the very first batch of those Vega LCs edition). And raised the clockspeed to 2% and increased the power budget and fan curve to the maximum and never goes below 1,710-1,730MHz no matter what. (Haven't tampered with the HBM clocks yet). So I think that it won't be an upgrade worth of investment unless if AMD decides to release a fully unlocked Vega VII with all its 64 CUs functional. Vega is a strange animal, while its power hungry, you can tame it with undervolt and can drop its power consumption to amazing levels. Heck, my Acer Predator laptop has a Vega 56 clocking at 1,240MHz with the HBM at default 800MHz and does not go beyond 100W while playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider maxed at DX12 with 1080p native display resolution. AMD likes to overvolt their GPUs for the sake of yields.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,628 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
I currently have a Vega 64 LC that I purchased on October 29 of 2017 at MSRP (Which was almost impossible at that time as right after that, either availability or inflated prices started to begin). I dropped the voltage from 1.150-1.250 to 11.00 and 1.200 as going lower would cause throttling due to lack of power to keep the default clockspeed (Seems that I got myself the very first batch of those Vega LCs edition). And raised the clockspeed to 2% and increased the power budget and fan curve to the maximum and never goes below 1,710-1,730MHz no matter what. (Haven't tampered with the HBM clocks yet). So I think that it won't be an upgrade worth of investment unless if AMD decides to release a fully unlocked Vega VII with all its 64 CUs functional. Vega is a strange animal, while its power hungry, you can tame it with undervolt and can drop its power consumption to amazing levels. Heck, my Acer Predator laptop has a Vega 56 clocking at 1,240MHz with the HBM at default 800MHz and does not go beyond 100W while playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider maxed at DX12 with 1080p native display resolution. AMD likes to overvolt their GPUs for the sake of yields.
I'm pretty sure if vega would have run that well at lower voltages, AMD wouldn't have volted it as they did. If everyone undervolted, we'd get quite a number of unstable boards. I mean, if 8 out of 10 guy will report success undervolting, the audience would be amazed. But if AMD sold you undervolted cards that were failing 20%, that would be a crapstorm.
But hey, if it works for you, congrats, enjoy your card!
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
5,544 (1.08/day)
Location
USA
System Name Small ATX Desktop
Processor Intel i5 8600K @ 4.6 GHz Core & 4.3 GHz Cache @ 1.168V
Motherboard Asrock Z370 Taichi
Cooling Phanteks PH-TC14PE, MonoPlus, Fans: 2xThermalright TY143 / 2xCorsair SP-120L / 2xYate Loon D14BH-12
Memory G-Skill TridentZ 2X8GB DDR4 3200 CL14 F4-3200C14D-16GTZ @ 3200 14-14-14-34 2T @ 1.35V
Video Card(s) Zotac 1060 6GB Mini ZT-P10600A-10L with Arctic MonoPlus and Yate Loon D14BH-12 Fan
Storage OS Samsung 970 Pro 512GB NVMe, Games Phison E12 NVMe 1TB, Data WD10EZEX HDD 1TB
Display(s) 2x Asus PB258Q 2560x1440 25" IPS
Case Lian Li PC A05NB (Inverted Mobo)
Audio Device(s) Audiotechnica ATH M50X, Antlion Mod Mic 4, SYBA SD-CM-UAUD, Acoustic Research 2Ch Speakers
Power Supply Seasonic SS-660XP2 660 Watt Platinum
Mouse Zowie EC2A Mouse, Razer Naga Chroma '14, Corsair MM600, Inateck 900x300 XL pad, Tiger Gaming Skates.
Keyboard Filco Majestouch II Ninja TKL, Goldtouch GTC 0033 Ten Key, PS3 Controller
Software Win7 Pro 64 (Installed on Coffee Lake using AsRock's handy PS/2 Simulator in Bios)
I plan to run my current 1060 until 2020-2021 unless it fails. So not buying Radeon VII.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
63 (0.05/day)
System Name Acer Predator 500 Helios AMD
Processor AMD Ryzen 2700
Cooling 5 copper pipes with Aeroblade 3D
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) RX Vega 56 8GB HBM2
Storage 256GB SK Hynix SC300
Display(s) AU Optronics AHVA
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD
I'm pretty sure if vega would have run that well at lower voltages, AMD wouldn't have volted it as they did. If everyone undervolted, we'd get quite a number of unstable boards. I mean, if 8 out of 10 guy will report success undervolting, the audience would be amazed. But if AMD sold you undervolted cards that were failing 20%, that would be a crapstorm.
But hey, if it works for you, congrats, enjoy your card!
Yeah, but the picture overall is confusing. AMD tamed Vega to cram it on a laptop on a 100 TDP that matches and outperforms the GTX 1070 laptop that uses similar power. But on the desktop, is different. While Vega 56 is faster as well, it also uses more power. Another example but on older generations, the R9 M290X on laptops, on a 75W power envelope, is just a desktop HD 7870 minus -50Mhz on the core clock, while the desktop version uses around 150-180W and offering 90% of its performance or more. Able to match and even outperform the GTX 780M on games (The GTX 780M is just a slightly underclocked GTX 680) Yet, in the desktop world, the HD 7870 never touched the GTX 680 and used almost similar power. I think that AMD overvolt their GPUs in order to maximize functional dies out of the waffer, unlike nVidia who sets the lower voltage possible on a specific SKU and any chip that does not conform to it, gets discarded. I haven't heard any reports of Vega 64s not being able to undervolt, is just that if you do, you will experience core clock decrease if its not done right, plus I am also sure AMD tried to maximize the clockspeed to remain competitive as its the main principle of the Vega architecture, which is kinda sad as the IPC is the same as Fiji, Pascal IPC is worse than Maxwell but they increased the clockspeed considerably to offset that, and Turing IPC is about the same or 6% slightly better. Seems that AMD GCN ran out of steam and nVidia's SMM approach is about to.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
27,528 (6.12/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
This is a Trimmed Instinct Card.

Watch the Video from buildzoid and you will generally get an Idea of what this card is about.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
1,427 (0.65/day)
Location
Depends.... on where YOU are
System Name The Big Black Smoked One
Processor i7-9700k, oc'd to 4.9 ghz
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix-E Gaming
Cooling CoolerMaster AIO 360mm push/pull Rad + 8x Corsair 140mm ML RGB Fans (top, sides, bottom, rear)
Memory 32GB Corsair Vengence RBG pro DDR4-3200 (4x 8GB) in XMP 2x
Video Card(s) Zotac GTX 2080Ti w/15% o/c
Storage 2x WD Black SN750 1TB nvme + 2x 2TB Crucial SSD
Display(s) 2x Samsung 43" LCD's @4k-1440p
Case Thermaltake Level 20 XT
Audio Device(s) Built-in
Power Supply EVGA G2 SuperNova 850W Modular
Mouse Logitech MX5500 combo
Keyboard see above
Software Windows 10 pro 64 bit, with all the unnecessary background shiite turned OFF !
Benchmark Scores Quicker & Faster than flies on a dung pile
Yeppers, I bought 10 of them a long time ago, but only the models that included a free, all-expenses paid 10-year long residency at a certain florida resort property where a certain "famous" person spends way too much of his time....
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
63 (0.05/day)
System Name Acer Predator 500 Helios AMD
Processor AMD Ryzen 2700
Cooling 5 copper pipes with Aeroblade 3D
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) RX Vega 56 8GB HBM2
Storage 256GB SK Hynix SC300
Display(s) AU Optronics AHVA
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD
That would be true but then why an undervolted Vega performs better than the stock voltage settings and why they managed to release a Vega 56 version on a laptop that uses 100W and is nearly as fast as the Vega 56 on desktops while using much less power?
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,464 (4.31/day)
Yeah, but the picture overall is confusing. AMD tamed Vega to cram it on a laptop on a 100 TDP that matches and outperforms the GTX 1070 laptop that uses similar power. But on the desktop, is different. While Vega 56 is faster as well, it also uses more power. Another example but on older generations, the R9 M290X on laptops, on a 75W power envelope, is just a desktop HD 7870 minus -50Mhz on the core clock, while the desktop version uses around 150-180W and offering 90% of its performance or more. Able to match and even outperform the GTX 780M on games (The GTX 780M is just a slightly underclocked GTX 680) Yet, in the desktop world, the HD 7870 never touched the GTX 680 and used almost similar power. I think that AMD overvolt their GPUs in order to maximize functional dies out of the waffer, unlike nVidia who sets the lower voltage possible on a specific SKU and any chip that does not conform to it, gets discarded. I haven't heard any reports of Vega 64s not being able to undervolt, is just that if you do, you will experience core clock decrease if its not done right, plus I am also sure AMD tried to maximize the clockspeed to remain competitive as its the main principle of the Vega architecture, which is kinda sad as the IPC is the same as Fiji, Pascal IPC is worse than Maxwell but they increased the clockspeed considerably to offset that, and Turing IPC is about the same or 6% slightly better. Seems that AMD GCN ran out of steam and nVidia's SMM approach is about to.
They both do this for laptop type cards... This isn't anything new. Typically it is lower clocks and lower voltage to bring the TDP if not a slightly cut back card.

EVERY CPU and GPU I have ever owned is able to lower voltage a bit at stock speeds. This is not an uncommon thing at all.
That would be true but then why an undervolted Vega performs better than the stock voltage settings and why they managed to release a Vega 56 version on a laptop that uses 100W and is nearly as fast as the Vega 56 on desktops while using much less power?
Because it is able to boost higher and doesn't run into its power/temp thresholds. The key word here is "NEARLY" as fast. Typically its about a card level down laptop GPU vs discrete namesake.

See above for the rest...
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
63 (0.05/day)
System Name Acer Predator 500 Helios AMD
Processor AMD Ryzen 2700
Cooling 5 copper pipes with Aeroblade 3D
Memory 16GB DDR4 2400
Video Card(s) RX Vega 56 8GB HBM2
Storage 256GB SK Hynix SC300
Display(s) AU Optronics AHVA
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD
The Vega 56 laptop version does not support boost at all, is just fixed at 1,246MHz.
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,628 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Yeah, but the picture overall is confusing. AMD tamed Vega to cram it on a laptop on a 100 TDP that matches and outperforms the GTX 1070 laptop that uses similar power. But on the desktop, is different. While Vega 56 is faster as well, it also uses more power. Another example but on older generations, the R9 M290X on laptops, on a 75W power envelope, is just a desktop HD 7870 minus -50Mhz on the core clock, while the desktop version uses around 150-180W and offering 90% of its performance or more. Able to match and even outperform the GTX 780M on games (The GTX 780M is just a slightly underclocked GTX 680) Yet, in the desktop world, the HD 7870 never touched the GTX 680 and used almost similar power. I think that AMD overvolt their GPUs in order to maximize functional dies out of the waffer, unlike nVidia who sets the lower voltage possible on a specific SKU and any chip that does not conform to it, gets discarded. I haven't heard any reports of Vega 64s not being able to undervolt, is just that if you do, you will experience core clock decrease if its not done right, plus I am also sure AMD tried to maximize the clockspeed to remain competitive as its the main principle of the Vega architecture, which is kinda sad as the IPC is the same as Fiji, Pascal IPC is worse than Maxwell but they increased the clockspeed considerably to offset that, and Turing IPC is about the same or 6% slightly better. Seems that AMD GCN ran out of steam and nVidia's SMM approach is about to.
Neah, it's not confusing at all. Vega just doesn't scale as AMD needed it to. They needed to have an entry in the high end so they pushed the architecture out of its sweetspot. That explains why it works at lower clockspeeds, but to match Pascal it needs to burn through like 50% more power. The trouble is, AMD can't scale it down for the desktop because of HBM.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
15,464 (4.31/day)
The Vega 56 laptop version does not support boost at all, is just fixed at 1,246MHz.
Better binned then. There are reasons.

That is also 200+ MHz behind the desktop version.. makes sense it can undervolt and reach those clocks... that is more in its sweetspot.

As bug said, these cards are pushed close to their limits to reach higher clocks and performance thresholds. This is why they use so much power as they are out of their sweet spot.

Again, all cards/cpus I had (dozens upon dozens over the last 20 years) will undervolt this is nothing new and nothing to correlate from at the same time. :)

I don't think they will
Any support for that, or just a hunch from the belly of Durvelle? :)

It is only rumors (from websites), but again, this is a cut down $1500 card. While some of that cost is in the additional support of a pro card, not all of it is. If they are making anything off of these, it isn't much.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bug

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
6,628 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x8GB DDR4 2400 G.Skill
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 128 and 256GB OCZ Vertex4, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Chieftec BX01
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Better binned then. There are reasons.

As bug said, these cards are pushed to their limits to reach higher clocks and performance thresholds. This is why they use so much power as they are out of their sweetspot.

Again, all cards/cpus I had (dozens upon dozens over the last 20 years) will undervolt this is nothing new and nothing to correlate from at the same time. :)
The question here is whether they can undervolt and maintain the same level of performance. Obviously, not all Vegas would do that, but it's great that many seem to.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,359 (2.01/day)
Location
Memphis, TN
System Name Black Prometheus
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard ASRock B350 Pro4
Cooling Corsair H70
Memory SK Hynix 32GB(8GBx4) DDR4 @2666MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Navi 5700 XT 50TH Anniversary Edition
Storage Sandisk X300 512GB + Seagate 2TB
Display(s) HP LA2405WG 24" Triple Monitor (5760x1200)
Case DeepCool Matrexx 55 w/ 3x120mm Intake + 4x120mm Exhaust
Audio Device(s) Samsung 5.1 Setup
Power Supply Corsair RM750X
Mouse Logitech Trackman
Keyboard Dell OEM
Software Windows 10 EDU x64
How does this help in gaming? Its a QHD card and few (any?) titles will reach 8GB there.
At my resolution if I crank all settings and enable HD textures I can definitely surpass my VRAM on my 2070
The way I see it now, there really isn't a compelling reason to go with Radeon VII, in fact there are a few compelling reasons not to. Sure, I'm all for supporting the underdog, but at the same time AMD seems to be doing some pretty stupid shit with the Radeon VII.

First, they appear to only be allowing the reference design. It actually seems like they are actually going to be the only manufacturer(actually probably Sapphire), and all the AIBs will have to buy the cards from AMD and just slap their stickers on them. AMD has tried this in the past on their halo products, and it just doesn't work. It leads to increased costs and short supplies of the cards. AIBs don't really want to sell the cards, because there isn't much money in it for them.

On top of that, it seems the AIBs that do choose to sell the card will have to sell gimped versions of the cards that can't actually reach the maximum boost clock of 1800MHz. This seems shady to me.

Then there is the what we know for sure, and that is the card is going to use more power than the RTX2080, it will put out more head than the RTX2080, and it might match the performance, and it won't have ray tracing tech, all for the same price at the RTX2080.

If AMD had priced the Radeon VII $100 cheaper, it might be a compelling option. But even then, we know the RTX2080 is only selling for $699 because it has no competition, there isn't any reason for nVidia to sell it cheaper. So if Radeon VII was $100 cheaper than the RTX2080, chances are nVidia would just respond with a $100 price cut on the RTX2080 to make it competitive in price/performance again. But I think the problem is AMD is already selling the Radeon VII at the absolute minimum they can afford to. Reports are they are actually loosing money on every card but I don't believe that. I'm more inclined to believe they are either making no money on each card, or making a razor thin profit. So they had no choice but to sell it at the $699 price point.
I mean if the reference cooling is adequate why should it matter. I mean with the 2080 AIB cooling barely offers much cooling headroom above the reference triple fan design.
 
Top