• 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
28,472 (4.25/day)
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory 32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s) RTX 2070 Super
Storage 500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
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
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
2,648 (0.56/day)
Location
Greece
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 5600@80W
Motherboard MSI B550 Tomahawk
Cooling ZALMAN CNPS9X OPTIMA
Memory 2*8GB PATRIOT PVS416G400C9K@3733MT_C16
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Pulse 12GB
Storage Sandisk SSD 128GB, Kingston A2000 NVMe 1TB, Samsung F1 1TB, WD Black 10TB
Display(s) AOC 27G2U/BK IPS 144Hz
Case SHARKOON M25-W 7.1 BLACK
Audio Device(s) Realtek 7.1 onboard
Power Supply Seasonic Core GC 500W
Mouse Sharkoon SHARK Force Black
Keyboard Trust GXT280
Software Win 7 Ultimate 64bit/Win 10 pro 64bit/Manjaro Linux
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:
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
3,984 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
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

Vanguard Beta Tester
Joined
Nov 26, 2004
Messages
7,955 (1.13/day)
Location
Canuck in Norway
System Name Hellbox 5.1(same case new guts)
Processor Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Motherboard MSI X570S MAG Torpedo Max
Cooling TT Kandalf L.C.S.(Water/Air)EK Velocity CPU Block/Noctua EK Quantum DDC Pump/Res
Memory 2x16GB Gskill Trident Neo Z 3600 CL16
Video Card(s) Powercolor Hellhound 7900XTX
Storage 970 Evo Plus 500GB 2xSamsung 850 Evo 500GB RAID 0 1TB WD Blue Corsair MP600 Core 2TB
Display(s) Alienware QD-OLED 34” 3440x1440 144hz 10Bit VESA HDR 400
Case TT Kandalf L.C.S.
Audio Device(s) Soundblaster ZX/Logitech Z906 5.1
Power Supply Seasonic TX~’850 Platinum
Mouse G502 Hero
Keyboard G19s
VR HMD Oculus Quest 2
Software Win 10 Pro x64
Pretty happy with my Vegas performance at 1440 I don’t need “more”
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
20,773 (5.97/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) ASRock RX7900XT Phantom Gaming
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define R5
Audio Device(s) Harman Kardon AVR137 + 2.1
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
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
2,242 (0.40/day)
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.1Ghz (100x41 @ 1.3250V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-32 CR1 @ 3266
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1025Mhz 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
3,984 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
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
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
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
8,860 (3.36/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
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
2,242 (0.40/day)
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.1Ghz (100x41 @ 1.3250V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-32 CR1 @ 3266
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1025Mhz 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.
 

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
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
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
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
3,984 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
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
2,388 (0.67/day)
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
2,242 (0.40/day)
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.1Ghz (100x41 @ 1.3250V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-32 CR1 @ 3266
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1025Mhz 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
46,274 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 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
5,717 (0.98/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 RTX 3090 FTW3 Ultra
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 1TB + 860 EVO 2TB + WD Black 5TB
Display(s) 32'' 4K Dell
Case Fractal Design R5
Audio Device(s) BOSE 2.0
Power Supply Seasonic 850watt
Mouse Logitech Master MX
Keyboard Corsair K70 Cherry MX Blue
VR HMD HTC Vive + Oculus Quest 2
Software Windows 10 P
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
19,366 (3.72/day)
Benchmark Scores Faster than yours... I'd bet on it. :)
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
2,388 (0.67/day)
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
2,242 (0.40/day)
System Name Budget AMD System
Processor Threadripper 1900X @ 4.1Ghz (100x41 @ 1.3250V)
Motherboard Gigabyte X399 Aorus Gaming 7
Cooling EKWB X399 Monoblock
Memory 4x8GB GSkill TridentZ RGB 14-14-14-32 CR1 @ 3266
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon RX Vega₆⁴ Liquid @ 1,800Mhz Core, 1025Mhz 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
2,388 (0.67/day)
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
25,559 (6.52/day)
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
46,274 (7.69/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 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
40,435 (6.61/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
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
3,984 (1.21/day)
System Name Wut?
Processor 3900X
Motherboard ASRock Taichi X570
Cooling Water
Memory 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz
Video Card(s) Vega 56
Storage 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) 3440 x 1440
Case Thermaltake Tower 900
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum
Top