• 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

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
26,009 (5.34/day)
Likes
12,442
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 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 480GB MX200 SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
GTX 480 was hot and loud and still managed a decent performance. I would expect similar results here.
The GTX480 also wasn't a 300w card, it peaked around 250w.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
1,176 (0.41/day)
Likes
1,167
Location
Greece
Processor AMD FX-8350 4GHz@1.3V
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-970A UD3 Rev3.0
Cooling Zalman CNPS5X Performa
Memory 2*4GB Patriot Venom RED DDR3 1600MHz CL9
Video Card(s) XFX RX580 GTS 4GB
Storage Sandisk SSD 120GB, 2 Samsung F1 & F3 (1TB)
Display(s) LG IPS235
Case Zalman Neo Z9 Black
Audio Device(s) Via 7.1 onboard
Power Supply OCZ Z550
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Trust GXT280
Software Win 7 sp1 64bit
Benchmark Scores CB R15 64bit: single core 99p, multicore 647p WPrime 1.55 (8 cores): 9.0 secs
When the detail settings are near identical the performance is also near identical. Don't kid yourself. While I agree not every ultra setting is worth going for... I do get a much better sense of immersion from this:
Ultra
View attachment 115110


Opposed to this:

High
View attachment 115111
The thing is, the little things DO matter. And they are mostly in additional shadows and lighting, plus LOD on more distant objects. Look at the vegetation further away and its detail, for example. All that LOD is going to shift and change as you move around the world. Not nice.

What Ultra offers, overall, is a far more stable, natural picture. The lower you go in settings - even to very high - the more you sacrifice in those qualities.



I don't know man, it looks like there is far more than an AO pass going on there. The contrast is heavily increased, its almost as if someone went crazy with SweetFX and overdid it all.

While I agree the shadows 'pop' much more, you can also see that many colors are simply crushed into pure whites and blacks. HBAO+ has more variations of shadow depth. In the first picture you can see the note on the box to the right being glowy white (wtf?) while on HBAO+ you can see the lines of text on it and the box isn't crushed into blacks. On the second picture you can see that HBAO+ offers more shades of darkness in the shadows too.

That aligns with my example above - look at the vegetation in the shadows under the trees (middle of pic). The HBAO+ Ultra screenshot allows you to still see the individual leaves clearly. The High (SSBC) screenshot completely darkens that area, and it barely interacts with the god rays.
You missed to show us a picture of the very-high setting which exists in that game and is quite lesser demanding than the ultra one, especially in VRAM. And the most it changes is the ultra texture pack.

Ok so you were responding to someone. You didn't make it clear who you were talking to or talking about. And you quoted me so you know how to, so let's do that in future to save on confusion.

Given what you mentioned, a theoretical RX670 would likely be a $350 range card and a RX680 would likely be a $400 range card. So $300 is still unlikely.
Most possible tier the small Navi will take over is the Polaris10 one in price range and the Vega10 in performance, consuming less than Polaris. And until then, the R7 will have stopped being sold being a limited quantity product for sure (not only 5K units though) or will have a lower price. So, with the Navi10 full-chip GPU (680?) being a bit faster than Vega64 and winning over RTX2060, a good price would be $300, with the cut chip (670?) sold for $50 less.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
1,266 (0.86/day)
Likes
849
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ Stock
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
The GTX480 also wasn't a 300w card, it peaked around 250w.
According to TPU it was 320. Also, it was around 75W higher than the 5870.

Edit: Actually, the maximums were 108W difference. The shoes are just on the other feet. Albeit for a while.

AMD managed to match 1080Ti 2 years later
I don't understand this argument. The 2080 only matches the 1080ti 2.5 years later. Does that mean the 2080 is underwhelming?
 
Last edited:

INSTG8R

My Custom Title
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
5,384 (1.03/day)
Likes
2,416
Location
Canuck in Norway
System Name Hellbox 3.0(same case new guts)
Processor i7 4790K 4.6
Motherboard Asus Z97 Sabertooth Mark 1
Cooling TT Kandalf L.C.S.(Water/Air)AC Cuplex Kryos CPU Block/Noctua
Memory 2x8GB Corsair Vengance Pro 2400
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro+ Vega 64
Storage WD Caviar Black SATA 3 1TB x2 RAID 0 2xSamsung 850 Evo 500GB RAID 0 1TB WD Blue
Display(s) Samsung CGH70 27” 1440 144hz Freesync 2 HDR
Case TT Kandalf L.C.S.
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster ZX/Logitech Z906 5.1
Power Supply Seasonic X-1050W 80+ Gold
Mouse G502 Proteus Spectrum
Keyboard G19s
Software Win 10 Pro x64
Pretty happy with my Vegas performance at 1440 I don’t need “more”
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
8,142 (4.93/day)
Likes
7,175
Location
Duiven, Netherlands
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
You missed to show us a picture of the very-high setting which exists in that game and is quite lesser demanding than the ultra one, especially in VRAM. And the most it changes is the ultra texture pack.


Most possible tier the small Navi will take over is the Polaris10 one in price range and the Vega10 in performance, consuming less than Polaris. And until then, the R7 will have stopped being sold being a limited quantity product for sure (not only 5K units though) or will have a lower price. So, with the Navi10 full-chip GPU (680?) being a bit faster than Vega64 and winning over RTX2060, a good price would be $300, with the cut chip (670?) sold for $50 less.
Correct, I had never restarted the game, all these shots are with Ultra textures enabled. VRAM load is not very relevant here, is it, it peaks out at 4.7GB :D We're well up in the range of all cards having 8GB. Very High is nearly 100% the same as Ultra otherwise - also in performance cost. Between V High and Ultra I'm seeing 3-5 FPS gaps at the most... on 75-90 FPS average.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,084 (0.55/day)
Likes
395
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.025Ghz (100x40.25 @ 1.325V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-34 CR1 @ 2933
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1100 HBM2
Storage 1x ADATA SX8200 NVMe, 1x Segate 2.5" FireCuda 2TB SATA, 1x 500GB HGST SATA
Display(s) Vizio 22" 1080p 60hz TV (Samsung Panel)
Case Corsair 570X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Seasonic X Series 850W KM3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
I don’t think so as even overclocked the Vega 64 does not get close to the GTX 1080 Ti in which both the RTX 2080 and Radeon 7 are suppose to surpass

Depends on how well the HBM2 does on the Vega64. My LC Vega64 can hit 1150 on the HBM2 and it feeds it fairly well. 1800Mhz core, 1150Mhz HBM2. Given however, my card is an actual LC card binned for those higher speeds. Even so, Vega64 was just severely bandwidth limited.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
1,266 (0.86/day)
Likes
849
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ Stock
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
Even so, Vega64 was just severely bandwidth limited.
There's a problem if the Vega 64 is severely bandwidth limited because it had some of the most theoretical bandwidth available. It was on par with the 1080ti. How do you design a card that you can't possibly feed? That to me is a problem.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
13,890 (4.12/day)
Likes
8,041
Weird how an HBM based card is bandwidth starved.

Serious question...what good is it these days? It's not cheap. It does save some power vs gddrx, bandwidth isnt impressive comparatively. Did it lose it's way along the line? This was being tauted as the next best thing since sliced bread years ago.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
3,925 (4.87/day)
Likes
3,041
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Scythe Katana 4 - 3x 120mm case fans
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Zalman R1
Power Supply 500W
Every GPU architecture out there can stand to use more memory bandwidth, same goes for CPUs as a matter of fact. They are designed and optimized to soak up every GB/s of bandwidth that's available. It's a result of the fact that memory technology is advancing much slower than the rate at which manufacture have been able to put more and more execution units on their chips.

A GTX 280 had 10 SMs and 240 FP32 units and 140 GB/s of bandwidth. That's 14 GB/s per SM and 1.7142 GB/s per FP32 unit.

Vega 64 has 64 CUs , 4096 FP32 units and 480 GB/s. That's 7.5 GB/s per CU and an abysmal, by comparison, 0.1171 GB/s per FP32 unit. Chips like Vega are actually a lot more efficient at making use of all the memory bandwidth that's available compared to past designs.

Now there have been improvements over the years to help mask this lack of memory bandwidth such as ever increasing caches but fundamentally this has remained a major issue for all GPUs out there.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,084 (0.55/day)
Likes
395
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.025Ghz (100x40.25 @ 1.325V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-34 CR1 @ 2933
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1100 HBM2
Storage 1x ADATA SX8200 NVMe, 1x Segate 2.5" FireCuda 2TB SATA, 1x 500GB HGST SATA
Display(s) Vizio 22" 1080p 60hz TV (Samsung Panel)
Case Corsair 570X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Seasonic X Series 850W KM3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Weird how an HBM based card is bandwidth starved.

Serious question...what good is it these days? It's not cheap. It does save some power vs gddrx, bandwidth isnt impressive comparatively. Did it lose it's way along the line? This was being taunted as the next best thing since sliced bread years ago.
It was designed to be a low power, small footprint. The problem became clock speeds didn't climb as fast as they had hoped. I mean, I am pushing about 600GB/s on my Vega64's HBM2. Which is pretty good for Vega64.
 
Likes: HD64G

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
11,113 (4.25/day)
Likes
6,298
Location
Concord, NH
System Name Kratos
Processor Intel Core i7 3930k @ 4.5Ghz
Motherboard ASUS P9X79 Deluxe
Cooling Corsair H100i V2
Memory G.Skill DDR3-2133, 16gb (4x4gb) @ 9-11-10-28-108-1T 1.65v
Video Card(s) Sapphire AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
Storage 2x120Gb SATA3 SSD Raid-0, 4x1Tb RAID-5, 1x500GB, 1x512GB Samsung 960 Pro NVMe
Display(s) 1x LG 27UD69P (4k), 2x Dell S2340M (1080p)
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek® ALC898 8-Channel High Definition Audio
Power Supply Seasonic 1000-watt 80 PLUS Platinum
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Rosewill RK-9100
Software Ubuntu 18.04 (5.0-rc7 Mainline Kernel)
Benchmark Scores Benchmarks aren't everything.
Even so, Vega64 was just severely bandwidth limited.
Even with a 20% overclock on HBM, I saw literally zero performance benefit from it on mine. I think that calling the Vega 64 bandwidth starved is an inaccurate statement to say the least, because 20% higher HBM clocks translates to just about an increase of 100GB/s worth of bandwidth which isn't peanuts. If it were truly starved of bandwidth, it would help performance, but it doesn't. The fact that it can overclock that far, but wasn't, also goes to show that AMD had no reason to push it. If anything, it has more than enough bandwidth ootb.
It was designed to be a low power, small footprint. The problem became clock speeds didn't climb as fast as they had hoped. I mean, I am pushing about 600GB/s on my Vega64's HBM2. Which is pretty good for Vega64.
The lower clocks were made up with a much wider data bus. It moves a heck of a lot more data per clock cycle.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
13,890 (4.12/day)
Likes
8,041
Remember when hbm was first introduced...whatever nvidia gpu it was going against (780ti??) What happened was we saw that card close the gap as the resolution (and memory bandwidth needs) went up. If it was 15% at 1080p it was down to less than 10% (making those values up, note). This was attributed to by reviewers, for the most part to be because of memory bandwidth.

When you look at vega56/64, they arent catching up to the 1080/1080ti/2070 these days. So, are they really that starved compared to gddr5x and gddr6 if e rent seeing gains at higher bandwidth needy resolutions?
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
1,266 (0.86/day)
Likes
849
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ Stock
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
1.7142 GB/s per FP32 unit.
I think the math is wrong on that one. Shouldn't it be 140GB/s / 240 FP32. Using your numbers, it would be 240 FP32 * 1.7142GB/s != 140GB/s. Maybe I am still recovering from last night.

In any case, I think people are confusing throughput with bandwidth. GCN has all the bandwidth it needs, it is just struggling to make use of it. Hence, the throughput is the problem not the available bandwidth.

Edited for clarity.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
2,178 (1.26/day)
Likes
1,613
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia USA
System Name Home Brewed
Processor i9-7900X and i7-8700K
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme & ASUS Prime Z-370 A
Cooling Corsair 280mm AIO & Thermaltake Water 3.0
Memory 64GB DDR4-3000 GSKill RipJaws-V & 32GB DDR4-3466 GEIL Potenza
Video Card(s) 2X-GTX-1080 SLI & 2 GTX-1070Ti 8GB G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage Both have 2TB HDDs for storage, 480GB SSDs for OS, and 240GB SSDs for Steam Games
Display(s) ACER 28" B286HK 4K & Samsung 32" 1080P
Case NZXT Source 540 & Rosewill Rise Chassis
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM1000 & Corsair RM850
Mouse Generic
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Tournament & Corsair K90
Software Win-10 Professional
Benchmark Scores yes
I love my (several) NVIDIA GPUs, but I believe that there needs to be valid competition in the Gaming Marketplace. So I'll support AMD's efforts after all of my favorite review sites do the smack-down on what is good and bad.
I've always done this.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,084 (0.55/day)
Likes
395
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.025Ghz (100x40.25 @ 1.325V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-34 CR1 @ 2933
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1100 HBM2
Storage 1x ADATA SX8200 NVMe, 1x Segate 2.5" FireCuda 2TB SATA, 1x 500GB HGST SATA
Display(s) Vizio 22" 1080p 60hz TV (Samsung Panel)
Case Corsair 570X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Seasonic X Series 850W KM3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Remember when hbm was first introduced...whatever nvidia gpu it was going against (780ti??) What happened was we saw that card close the gap as the resolution (and memory bandwidth needs) went up. If it was 15% at 1080p it was down to less than 10% (making those values up, note). This was attributed to by reviewers, for the most part to be because of memory bandwidth.

When you look at vega56/64, they arent catching up to the 1080/1080ti/2070 these days. So, are they really that starved compared to gddr5x and gddr6 if e rent seeing gains at higher bandwidth needy resolutions?

Well, most Vega64/56's are being reviewed at 1500-1600Mhz core clocks and HBM2 kept stock. Crank the HBM2 and core clocks up to 1000-1050Mhz/1700-1750Mhz and Vega64 matches the 1080 and in most cases beats it.

Cost per frame for me when I bought my Vega64 was better than the 1080 and 1080Ti. $525 for a Vega64 Liquid card in Sept 2017.. I just couldn't pass it up.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
36,521 (8.72/day)
Likes
18,797
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Colorful iGame GTX 1070 Ti Vulcan X
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590 28-inch 4K UHD
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Antec EarthWatts Pro Gold 750W
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
Voted no, because if it has RTX 2080-like non-RT performance and lacks RT features, then it's overpriced. Things would be different if it was $100 cheaper.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,089 (1.02/day)
Likes
3,189
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
Well, most Vega64/56's are being reviewed at 1500-1600Mhz core clocks and HBM2 kept stock. Crank the HBM2 and core clocks up to 1000-1050Mhz/1700-1750Mhz and Vega64 matches the 1080 and in most cases beats it.

Cost per frame for me when I bought my Vega64 was better than the 1080 and 1080Ti. $525 for a Vega64 Liquid card in Sept 2017.. I just couldn't pass it up.

OC is a moot point. Vega can overclock sure. Guess what? The competion GPUs can also overclock and sometimea OC better.
Comparison between GPUs should only be made according to manufacture specfication sheet as that establishes a baseline. Not all GPUs or CPUs can be overclocked to similar level.

I love my (several) NVIDIA GPUs, but I believe that there needs to be valid competition in the Gaming Marketplace. So I'll support AMD's efforts after all of my favorite review sites do the smack-down on what is good and bad.
I've always done this.
Good for you! I probablt wont touch another GCN card. Maybe in 3~4 years when I need to upgrade GPU again i will consider AMD(or Intel if they manage to deliever)
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
13,890 (4.12/day)
Likes
8,041
Well, most Vega64/56's are being reviewed at 1500-1600Mhz core clocks and HBM2 kept stock. Crank the HBM2 and core clocks up to 1000-1050Mhz/1700-1750Mhz and Vega64 matches the 1080 and in most cases beats it.

Cost per frame for me when I bought my Vega64 was better than the 1080 and 1080Ti. $525 for a Vega64 Liquid card in Sept 2017.. I just couldn't pass it up.
the nvidia card overclocks as well...and this doesnt address the point of it not 'catching up' as it use to with higher res.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
2,178 (1.26/day)
Likes
1,613
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia USA
System Name Home Brewed
Processor i9-7900X and i7-8700K
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme & ASUS Prime Z-370 A
Cooling Corsair 280mm AIO & Thermaltake Water 3.0
Memory 64GB DDR4-3000 GSKill RipJaws-V & 32GB DDR4-3466 GEIL Potenza
Video Card(s) 2X-GTX-1080 SLI & 2 GTX-1070Ti 8GB G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage Both have 2TB HDDs for storage, 480GB SSDs for OS, and 240GB SSDs for Steam Games
Display(s) ACER 28" B286HK 4K & Samsung 32" 1080P
Case NZXT Source 540 & Rosewill Rise Chassis
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM1000 & Corsair RM850
Mouse Generic
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Tournament & Corsair K90
Software Win-10 Professional
Benchmark Scores yes
OC is a moot point.
I agree. It's not the same with every card and sometimes it's a pain in the ass to do.
I usually tweak my cards a little bit and don't have to worry about stability problems.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
2,084 (0.55/day)
Likes
395
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.025Ghz (100x40.25 @ 1.325V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-34 CR1 @ 2933
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1100 HBM2
Storage 1x ADATA SX8200 NVMe, 1x Segate 2.5" FireCuda 2TB SATA, 1x 500GB HGST SATA
Display(s) Vizio 22" 1080p 60hz TV (Samsung Panel)
Case Corsair 570X
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Seasonic X Series 850W KM3
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
OC is a moot point. Vega can overclock sure. Guess what? The competion GPUs can also overclock and sometimea OC better.
Comparison between GPUs should only be made according to manufacture specfication sheet as that establishes a baseline. Not all GPUs or CPUs can be overclocked to similar level.
1700-1750Mhz Core isn't overclocking on the Vega64. 1751Mhz+ is as that goes above manufacturer specs. Mine does 1758Mhz on its core stock* while gaming. HBM2 on Vega64 is spec'd from the factory at 1.0Ghz, but underclocked by AMD so I will concede to you there.
*As in, I don't touch AMD overdrive. It just clocks up to that speed and holds it as long as temps are in check. (under 59C Core Temp)
I understand your point though. :)
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
2,178 (1.26/day)
Likes
1,613
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia USA
System Name Home Brewed
Processor i9-7900X and i7-8700K
Motherboard ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme & ASUS Prime Z-370 A
Cooling Corsair 280mm AIO & Thermaltake Water 3.0
Memory 64GB DDR4-3000 GSKill RipJaws-V & 32GB DDR4-3466 GEIL Potenza
Video Card(s) 2X-GTX-1080 SLI & 2 GTX-1070Ti 8GB G1 Gaming in SLI
Storage Both have 2TB HDDs for storage, 480GB SSDs for OS, and 240GB SSDs for Steam Games
Display(s) ACER 28" B286HK 4K & Samsung 32" 1080P
Case NZXT Source 540 & Rosewill Rise Chassis
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Corsair RM1000 & Corsair RM850
Mouse Generic
Keyboard Razer Blackwidow Tournament & Corsair K90
Software Win-10 Professional
Benchmark Scores yes
I have a pair of Vega-64 cards, but they're not the same brand and one of them is stock-clocked higher than the other one. (Gigabyte Vega-64 Gaming OC and Powercolor Red Devil)
When I run them, it's usually together in the same system.
I'll be installing them in my i7-9900K build later this week when I put it together.

I'll probably try to match their clocks as much as possible, but I couldn't get them very close when they were in my i9-7900X system. It worked out well anyway.
The i7-9900K board seems to have a lot more tweaking potential so maybe it will work better this time.
I'm probably not going to waste a lot of time on it as long as it games well.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
5,133 (2.46/day)
Likes
3,289
Location
USA
Voted no, because if it has RTX 2080-like non-RT performance and lacks RT features, then it's overpriced. Things would be different if it was $100 cheaper.
As much as I like my 2080, the RTRT has yet to be a real feature in games. Granted those games are coming and it is a very winning feature. But for non-RTRT gaming(which is currently all but two titles) the Radeon 7 seems like it's going to be a winner for AMD, even at that price-point.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
36,521 (8.72/day)
Likes
18,797
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard MSI B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Colorful iGame GTX 1070 Ti Vulcan X
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590 28-inch 4K UHD
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Antec EarthWatts Pro Gold 750W
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
As much as I like my 2080, the RTRT has yet to be a real feature in games. Granted those games are coming and it is a very winning feature. But for non-RTRT gaming(which is currently all but two titles) the Radeon 7 seems like it's going to be a winner for AMD, even at that price-point.
Radeon VII isn't faster than RTX 2080, even in AMD's graphs made public so far. It's as fast as RTX 2080 (or within 1%). So when I pay $699 for an RTX 2080, not only am I getting performance on par with Radeon VII, but also RTRT (a little more). That's why Radeon VII is overpriced. By how much it's overpriced is up for debate, but I think $599 would be a price that can apply pressure on the RTX 2080.
 

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
25,512 (5.96/day)
Likes
8,689
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
Radeon VII isn't faster than RTX 2080, even in AMD's graphs made public so far. It's as fast as RTX 2080 (or within 1%). So when I pay $699 for an RTX 2080, not only am I getting performance on par with Radeon VII, but also RTRT (a little more). That's why Radeon VII is overpriced. By how much it's overpriced is up for debate, but I think $599 would be a price that can apply pressure on the RTX 2080.
Rtrt is a pointless feature.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
1,266 (0.86/day)
Likes
849
System Name Wut?
Processor 4770K @ Stock
Motherboard MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16GB DDR3 2400
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake T81
Power Supply Seasonic 750 Watt Gold
Top