Vega FE Hybrid Mod - Passing the 1080 but 400W+ Power Draw

[Clanscorpia]

18 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

And I do care. Which is why I buy their products even if its inferior. Given them my money and market share provides them with an increased budget for next year. What we need are more people investing into AMD with their wallets. 

I was just skimming through the thread and saw this. This is tbh the single most stupid thought I have possible ever seen. 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

I was just skimming through the thread and saw this. This is tbh the single most stupid thought I have possible ever seen. 

If people bought 0% of a companys product, company goes under, then theres no competition. In this case leaving only Nvidia. I guess thats what you want then?

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

If people bought 0% of a companys product, company goes under, then theres no competition. In this case leaving only Nvidia. I guess thats what you want then?

No, I just find it extremely stupid that you buy an inferior product just to support a company. Thats one word. Fanboyism. If these companies didnt hold their patents so stringently and made it so other companies could actually compete we wouldnt have issues like this. And you know, AMD could make a good higher end card for once too.

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

No, I just find it extremely stupid that you buy an inferior product just to support a company. Thats one word. Fanboyism. If these companies didnt hold their patents so stringently and made it so other companies could actually compete we wouldnt have issues like this. And you know, AMD could make a good higher end card for once too.

Where are they going to get the R&D budget with no cashflow exactly? is it fanboyism to want the literal only other competitor to succeed? Its not possibly for that to happen without cash flow.

 

If everyone thought like you then we would only have Nvidia.

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Where are they going to get the R&D budget with no cashflow exactly?

Making a good product

 

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

 is it fanboyism to want the literal only other competitor to succeed?

If you only buy their product, yes.

 

1 minute ago, goodtofufriday said:

If everyone thought like you then we would only have Nvidia.

No, AMD would be forced to make a card that could properly compete

 

Thinking like that completely ruins how our Economy works, where the best product gets bought the most, and the competitor steps it up to that level and vice versa. As was already said, you are basically promoting AMD to make mediocre products. 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

Making a good product

 

If you only buy their product, yes.

 

No, AMD would be forced to make a card that could properly compete

 

Thinking like that completely ruins how our Economy works, where the best product gets bought the most, and the competitor steps it up to that level and vice versa. As was already said, you are basically promoting AMD to make mediocre products. 

Cant Make a good product with no cash.

 

I have two other systems - 6700k 1070 strix, 4790k 980ti. And then my main rig in my signature. So I don't only buy their products.

 

Cant make a card that can compete without cash. 

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Cant Make a good product with no cash.

 

I have two other systems - 6700k 1070 strix, 4790k 980ti. And then my main rig in my signature. So I don't only buy their products.

 

Cant make a card that can compete without cash. 

If their products arent selling, they will be forced to make a new card. Its not like AMD will have 0 cash in their wallets if a line of products fail

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

If their products arent selling, they will be forced to make a new card. Its not like AMD will have 0 cash in their wallets if a line of products fail

Not having enough cash flow is the explicit reason that they fell behind to being with. Starting with Intels sabatoge. 

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, goodtofufriday said:

Not having enough cash flow is the explicit reason that they fell behind to being with. Starting with Intels sabatoge. 

And you know, their stuff sucked. 

[goodtofufriday]

Just now, Clanscorpia said:

And you know, their stuff sucked. 

in 2006 when intel started their sabotage AMDs cpus were blowing intels out of the water. Soon after this is when AMD acquired ATI which was competitive with nvidia. While their cpu market was shrinking due to intel forcing system builders to only use their cpus, thus demolishing AMDs r&d budget. The gpus stood competitive at the high end until about the 290x, which was only 4 years ago. 

Don't know how old you are, or what you know, but AMD was always at the heals of intel, or past them for most of their existence before 2006. And that hurt every other part of their business.

So for you to say their stuff sucked means you have literal no idea what youre talking about. To the point of having so much fanboyism for nvidia, that you think companys can do anything without money. 

[ravenshrike]

11 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

If their products arent selling, they will be forced to make a new card. Its not like AMD will have 0 cash in their wallets if a line of products fail

Had Ryzen failed AMD would have gone under. They were leveraged to the hilt.

9 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

And you know, their stuff sucked. 

No, their stuff was really good. Then budgets shrank, and AMD made a bad bet on Bulldozer. Without the sabotage they would have been able to recover from their misstep much quicker. Moreover, they probably wouldn't have convinced themselves that APUs were where the graphics market was headed.

[hobobobo]

Sadly, all the stuff taught in economics about superior product selling better because its superior is kinda crap. Economics as a science assumes that an agent (a customer in this case) possesses perfect information and is rational, which is never the case. Whole goddamn industries for the past 50+ years been trying to distance the product from its specs (ie quality, materials, features etc) and move customers attention to the "lifestyle choices" coinciding with their products. Nike, Marlboro, Apple, BMW etc are all doing this shit. And its the same thing with nvda, intl and amd, at least they are forced to focus on the actual specs because their main customers are not completely braindead. And yet, all of them push that marketing bs, for the sake of a strong brand, as they would like to say, with a dream of making your product seem like the only worthwhile thing in the market till the end of times. Intel and Nvda actually succeded in this in the recent years, so unless an average customer hears "XXXX CUDA CORES" or "TOP OF THE LINE I7" their expectation of the product would be considerably lower, as can be observed with ryzen now.

 

I've kinda lost the line of thought somewhere, but ive typed all this crap so might as well hit altenter

[Clanscorpia]

18 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

To the point of having so much fanboyism for nvidia, that you think companys can do anything without money. 

My first ever GPU purchase was an RX 480 and I loved that card. Then I sold it, and am buying a 980ti because it makes way more sense then buying a Fury X. Im not paying more for a lesser product just to support a company. Its stupid. And no, Im not that stupid. Im saying if they make a bad product, they'll learn next time and make a better one. 

 

12 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Had Ryzen failed AMD would have gone under. They were leveraged to the hilt.

My mistake, should have said RTG instead of AMD. 

14 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Had Ryzen failed AMD would have gone under. They were leveraged to the hilt.

No, their stuff was really good. Then budgets shrank, and AMD made a bad bet on Bulldozer. Without the sabotage they would have been able to recover from their misstep much quicker. Moreover, they probably wouldn't have convinced themselves that APUs were where the graphics market was headed.

Intel did pull a completely dick move, but AMD dropped the ball and screwed up. 

[juri-han]

58 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

The gpus stood competitive at the high end until about the 290x, which was only 4 years ago. 

Don't know how old you are, or what you know, but AMD was always at the heals of intel, or past them for most of their existence before 2006. And that hurt every other part of their business.

So for you to say their stuff sucked means you have literal no idea what youre talking about

 

33 minutes ago, Clanscorpia said:

My first ever GPU purchase was an RX 480 and I loved that card. Then I sold it, and am buying a 980ti because it makes way more sense then buying a Fury X. Im not paying more for a lesser product just to support a company. Its stupid. And no, Im not that stupid. Im saying if they make a bad product, they'll learn next time and make a better one

you pretty much just confirmed what he was saying lol

 

AMD dropped out of the highend GPU race after fury x flopped no one is saying buy a fury x, instead of a 980 ti wait to see what RX vega has to offer if they have two models the lower end will be more on par with the 1070 and probably cost what you would have paid for that 980 ti with better performance, now how is that stupid? 

 

 

[Clanscorpia]

Just now, juri-han said:

 

you pretty much just confirmed what he was saying lol

 

AMD dropped out of the highend GPU race after fury x flopped no one is saying buy a fury x, instead of a 980 ti wait to see what RX vega has to offer if they have two models the lower end on will be more on par with the 1070 and probably cost what you would have paid for that 980 ti with better performance, now how is that stupid? 

 

 

I wont be able to afford Vega. The only reason Im looking at a 980ti is because its only slightly more than a new 480 when its at normal price and I gained $100 after selling mine

[Hunter259]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

in 2006 when intel started their sabotage AMDs cpus were blowing intels out of the water. Soon after this is when AMD acquired ATI which was competitive with nvidia. While their cpu market was shrinking due to intel forcing system builders to only use their cpus, thus demolishing AMDs r&d budget. The gpus stood competitive at the high end until about the 290x, which was only 4 years ago. 

Don't know how old you are, or what you know, but AMD was always at the heals of intel, or past them for most of their existence before 2006. And that hurt every other part of their business.

So for you to say their stuff sucked means you have literal no idea what youre talking about. To the point of having so much fanboyism for nvidia, that you think companys can do anything without money. 

Uh. You do realize they also made Piledriver right? You act as if their lack of money was only because of that dick move. Core 2 was a better architecture than the early K10 designs so even while intel was forcing them to use only their CPU's they were still the better CPU anyway. Even when Phenom 2 came out it was only as good as late model Core 2's were. Then Nehalem came out and completely curb stomped them and what does AMD come out with? The overhyped, hilariously poor performing, Piledriver that tried to change a market when they owned so little of it. Not to mention the fact that Nehalem was still faster. Stop acting like AMD has done no wrong. They have had chances but have fucked them up on many occasions. Don't give them money for a shit product. That's just stupid. 

[cj09beira]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) That is not a proper comparison which can be used to conclude that the driver is responsible for the performance difference. When you want to compare something you need to change as few variables as possible. You can't just change both the software and hardware. Find me a Quadro card with the same core as a GeForce card, and then we can test things.

2) "Raw compute power", if you're referring to FLOPS, is not an indicator of performance outside of very specific things. You can not just look at the FLOPS and go "this card has 7 times more compute power therefore it will perform 7 times better".

3) If you look at the comments people are posting how to import the SolidWorks profile using Nvidia Inspector, and that will significantly boost performance on the GeForce cards. Nvidia tend to artificially disable things to segment their cards. Just take 10 bit color as another example. This has, as far as I aware, never happened when it comes to GeForce/Radeon things ported to Quadro/FirePro cards though (so for example Radeon getting specific features enabled which is artificially locked out on FirePro, with the exception of overclocking).

4) As you can see, the profiles are not card specific. Now feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, but I am fairly sure that's because the application profiles runs on top of the driver, before the system calls reaches the GPU.

 

I believe point 4 is why AMD claims that Vega is running a "Fiji driver". Because it uses profiles for games which were developed for Fiji and other cards. However, the reason why it even works at all is because profiles do not need to be custom tailored for each GPU they can be used on. I am sure that there are game profiles originally developed on Cypress, Cayman, Pitcairn and so on in the latest AMD drivers for Polaris. That does not mean the 580 runs on a Cypress driver though, right?

 

No you did not, but you responded to my post where I was talking about people who do.

I totally agree that we should wait for reviews to come out before making up your mind about Vega. The people I have issues with are those who are already coming up with excuses for why Vega will be better than expected. We have a fairly solid indicator of what it will be like, so people are making up ridiculous excuses and trying to build hype for it.

Just look at the amount of people on here who parrots "tile based rasterization" without having the first clue about what it is or what effects it will have, yet they think it will be the saving grace of Vega.

 

Just vague marketing stuff. I wouldn't put to much faith in it being true.

 

 

It is good, but like I said people are expecting it to do miracles. It most likely won't. It might have a small effect on 4K gaming, and it will make the GPU more efficient. Don't expect anything else though. I've seen several people on this forum make wild claims like it will have a significant performance increase once enabled. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that supports that claim. I have however seen plenty of evidence, mostly based on Maxwell, that it will not be performance increasing feature. It is first and foremost an efficiency feature.

 

Of course I am picking specific points, because those are the points I have been arguing against every since I first posted in this thread. It is those specific things that I have a problem with people parroting even though they lack even basic understanding of what they are talking about.

 

 

Yep, and the Fiji drivers are in fact a "branch of the Cypress drivers".

 

 

 

"Modified it a bit" is an understatement. The Mesa project had roughly 150 patches submitted to just get Vega working at all (on top of the special binary blobs AMD submitted). At what point do you say something is a Fiji driver vs a Vega driver? By definition, as soon as it is working to some degree it is a Vega driver. AMD will not rewrite their entire driver stack just for Vega, so if your definition is some arbitrary threshold of newly written code for this specific GPU you might as well say Vega will never have a driver released.

 

Or think of it this way. AMD has been showing working Vega drivers since late last year. That means that they have probably been working on the drivers for at the very least 8 months (and this is assuming they threw together a working driver in like a week). Do you really think they spent over 8 months getting the driver to where it is now, and then you expect them to make huge improvements from just 1 extra month?

The drivers we got today will most likely not be very different from what we will see used in Vega reviews in a month or two.

 

Got any examples of these new instructions?

Is it better at tesselation because of a much beefier tesselation units or because of new instructions? That matters a lot when determining what a future update might improve on.

When I say Fiji drivers I mean the drivers aren't using some huge Vega features like rasterizer and the extra geometry output. According to AMD Vega has 2.75 the geometry output of Fiji (might be in relation to something else) and that has not been seem in any test. 

I only expect lower power for the same perf (no clue how much) and better perf on geometry heavy benchmarks. 

I don't know how or why it's not working I just know it's not. 

I think In part it might be new instructions because if it wasn't it would be on as soon as the card was working, unless it's disabled on silicon but I find that hard to believe

[HKZeroFive]

If only I had as much confidence for Vega as I have for Threadripper...

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) That is not a proper comparison which can be used to conclude that the driver is responsible for the performance difference. When you want to compare something you need to change as few variables as possible. You can't just change both the software and hardware. Find me a Quadro card with the same core as a GeForce card, and then we can test things.

Um what? The software is the same in the test all the way through, Solidworks 2016 SP 0.1. As I said you are almost asking for the impossible beyond me personally doing it. Puget Systems are also experts in building professional workstations and you wanted evidence that GTX vs Quadro drivers had real impact on professional application performance well there it is, the software won't even let you run certain features on GTX drivers without hacking around it.

 

If you want to utterly ignore it and write it off for arbitrary and stupid reasons to fit your point go ahead, it shows exactly what you asked for.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

"Raw compute power", if you're referring to FLOPS, is not an indicator of performance outside of very specific things. You can not just look at the FLOPS and go "this card has 7 times more compute power therefore it will perform 7 times better".

For cards running the same base architecture and for applications that are specifically using CUDA acceleration yes you can, this isn't gaming. Those figures come from the number of CUDA cores, clock rate, memory bandwidth etc. There is no other semi impartial way of comparing GPUs to each other other than GFLOPs, the proper way is to test the product which funnily enough has been my point.....

 

The Titan X with the GM200 die should stomp all over the K2200 with the GM107 die and it doesn't, it's not even close.

 

GeForce GTX Titan X GM200    3072:192:96   1000  1089   7010   96   192    12288    6144    192 4096   336  GDDR5    384    6144   192

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_900_series

 

Quadro K2200    GM107   640:40:16(5 SMM) 1000    1000    1250(5000)  16    40    4096    80    GDDR5    128    1280.0    40.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

 

There is nothing about that 68W TDP card that should be able to beat that 250W TDP card for anything ever.

 

You can look here for M6000 vs M4000 then relate that back to the original benchmark that has a M4000 included in it to get a sense of how much faster the M6000 would be to the Titan X both being GM200 based dies. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/SOLIDWORKS-Visualize-2017-Quadro-GPU-Performance-Comparison-895/

 

Here's another review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-9.html. Here it shows both that there can be little difference between GTX and Quadro and it also hows the difference can be huge.

 

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

There can be as much as 80% difference in performance between the Quadro drivers and GeForce drivers and some things outright will not work and cause errors.

So as I said and have shown this is a real thing, denying it is denying the truth.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I believe point 4 is why AMD claims that Vega is running a "Fiji driver". Because it uses profiles for games which were developed for Fiji and other cards. However, the reason why it even works at all is because profiles do not need to be custom tailored for each GPU they can be used on. I am sure that there are game profiles originally developed on Cypress, Cayman, Pitcairn and so on in the latest AMD drivers for Polaris. That does not mean the 580 runs on a Cypress driver though, right?

There is a lot more to it than application profiles. Drivers have to work in tandem with the hardware to get the best possible performance, what you are in essence saying is that drivers do not effect performance is counter to reality and something that AMD demonstrates every time in part due to never having that good drivers at release of a product.

 

Radeon application profiles don't do a hell of a lot at all, only time they really do is when a game is known to have issues with crossfire and the profile disables it making the game playable.

 

I wish I could find the better source I know exists but here is something.

Quote

“Nearly every game ships broken. We’re talking major AAA titles from vendors who are everyday names in the industry. In some cases, we’re talking about blatant violations of API rules – one D3D9 game never even called BeginFrame/EndFrame. Some are mistakes or oversights – one shipped bad shaders that heavily impacted performance on NV drivers. These things were day-to-day occurrences that went into a bug tracker. Then somebody would go in, find out what the game screwed up, and patch the driver to deal with it. There are lots of optional patches already in the driver that are simply toggled on or off as per-game settings, and then hacks that are more specific to games – up to and including total replacement of the shipping shaders with custom versions by the driver team. Ever wondered why nearly every major game release is accompanied by a matching driver release from AMD and/or NVIDIA? There you go.”

 

http://wccftech.com/exnvidia-driver-developer-game-ships-broken/

 

And

https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/44947/why-do-gpus-require-game-specific-drivers/44950

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Just vague marketing stuff. I wouldn't put to much faith in it being true.

So don't test it or talk about it because it's marketing? Faith has nothing to do with it.

[Morgan Everett]

17 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not according to AMD who said all Vega gaming products will be faster than Vega FE.

Where did they say that?

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

Where did they say that?

I believe it was in the Reddit AMA, but it seems I did not remember it correctly. Some Vega cards will be faster, example of hype train poison right there heh.

 

Quote

gfxchiptweeterIn Raja We Trust 171 points 1 month ago 
Consumer RX will be much better optimized for all the top gaming titles and flavors of RX Vega will actually be faster than Frontier version!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6bklro/we_are_radeon_technologies_group_at_amd_and_were/

 

[Morgan Everett]

Just now, leadeater said:

I believe it was in the Reddit AMA, but it seems I did not remember it correctly. Some Vega cards will be faster, example of hyper train poison right there heh.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6bklro/we_are_radeon_technologies_group_at_amd_and_were/

 

OK. At this point, I'm not sure how much credence I lend even that more modest claim. 

[Hunter259]

8 minutes ago, Morgan Everett said:

OK. At this point, I'm not sure how much credence I lend even that more modest claim. 

"Fury X will be an overclockers dream" 

 

We all know how that turned out...

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

"Fury X will be an overclockers dream" 

 

We all know how that turned out...

Fury X hitting the OC wall.

 

[PCGuy_5960]

On 7/14/2017 at 11:43 PM, goodtofufriday said:

And I do care. Which is why I buy their products even if its inferior. Given them my money and market share provides them with an increased budget for next year. What we need are more people investing into AMD with their wallets. 

I completely agree with @Clanscorpia. Buying a product "because it's AMD" even though it's inferior is just stupid. Why should you care if the box has an AMD or an Nvidia logo? Just buy the card that offers the best performance in the games that you play.

 

Believe me there are lots of good reasons to get an AMD card, but "It's made by AMD" is just not one of them. 

5 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

If people bought 0% of a companys product, company goes under, then theres no competition. In this case leaving only Nvidia. I guess thats what you want then?

You're forgetting that AMD has sold a crap ton of 480s, 580s, 470s and 570s. 

5 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

Where are they going to get the R&D budget with no cashflow exactly? is it fanboyism to want the literal only other competitor to succeed? Its not possibly for that to happen without cash flow.

 

If everyone thought like you then we would only have Nvidia.

You keep repeating that, you are forgetting that AMD's mid range cards are amazing and a lot of people buy 480s and 580s instead of 1060s. Why? Because they perform better (in most games anyways).

 

If AMD makes a card that can barely outperform the 1080 while drawing almost 2x more power, why would you buy this card? Don't tell me "because AMD needs the money" because a multi million dollar company doesn't need your "support"