Jump to content
Hunter259

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

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP
10 hours ago, leadeater said:

And we all know that buying slightly lower end parts and upgrading more often is actually more beneficial and gives you a higher performance average over time, but we generally ignore that because sometimes it's just nice to have nice things even if we don't need it.

 

A PC brought to last 6 years will be far worse off than a cheaper one upgraded one or two times during that time span.

 

Of course there are the people that upgrade to the best of the best as soon as it comes out every time, some of us can only dream or can't overcome that feeling of wasted money.

Honestly that really is only true mattering on what you got. If someone bought a 2600k back in 2011 then they would still be find today. You can even go back to the i7 860 and you would still be GPU limited at higher resolutions (I had only 4-5fps increases in minimums going from a 4.1GHz x3470 to my 4.5Ghz 2600k). Unless you really need 100+ FPS capability in every game then even Intel CPU's from 7 years ago can do that.


Spoiler

i7 2600k 4.7Ghz @ 1.38v - EVGA Hybrid 980ti 1450Mhz Boost 7.9Ghz Mem.- Asus P8P67D Deluxe - Corsair H115i - Kingston Fury 16GB 1866Mhz - HX850i - Samsung 840 Pro 120GB SSD  - Toshiba 3TB Green 7200RPM HD - Phanteks P400S

Spoiler

iPhone 6 - 16gb, AT&T, iOS 9 Beta 5 iPhone 4 : 16gb, AT&T Go Phone, iOS 7.1.1 Jailbroken. iPhone 3G : 8gb, AT&T Go Phone, iOS 4.2.1 Jailbroken.

 - 8GB Ram - Intel Iris 5100 - 2560x1600 Retina Display - 128GB Stock SSD - Mac OSX El Capitan Public Beta Former FOR SALE - Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15 i7-2675QM - 16GB Ram - AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB - 1440x900 Glossy Display - 500 GB Stock HD - Mac OSX Yosemite 10.13 + Windows 10 

Spoiler

Mid 2014 Retina Macbook Pro 13 i5 4278U

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

Honestly that really is only true mattering on what you got. If someone bought a 2600k back in 2011 then they would still be find today. You can even go back to the i7 860 and you would still be GPU limited at higher resolutions (I had only 4-5fps increases in minimums going from a 4.1GHz x3470 to my 4.5Ghz 2600k). Unless you really need 100+ FPS capability in every game then even Intel CPU's from 7 years ago can do that.

Even my 1090T was still fine for solid 1080p gaming performance with an RX470, I just wanted to build something new.  I threw all my spare parts together into a build for my friend with an unlocked 960T, an SSD, 8 gigs of DDR3, and a 2gb R9 270x.  It's a great machine that offers a better gaming experience than a console, and all we had to buy was a case, a $45 960T, a cpu cooler, and the SSD.


SFF-ish:  Ryzen 5 1600X, Asrock AB350M Pro4, 16GB Corsair LPX 3200, Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro -75mV, 512gb Plextor Nvme m.2, 512gb Sandisk SATA m.2, Cryorig H7, stuffed into an Inwin 301 with rgb front panel mod.  LG27UD58.

 

Aging Workhorse:  Phenom II X6 1090T Black (4GHz #Yolo), 16GB Corsair XMS 1333, RX 470 Red Devil 4gb (Sold for $330 to Cryptominers), HD6850 1gb, Hilariously overkill Asus Crosshair V, 240gb Sandisk SSD Plus, 4TB's worth of mechanical drives, and a bunch of water/glycol.  Coming soon:  Bykski CPU block, whatever cheap Polaris 10 GPU I can get once miners start unloading them.

 

MintyFreshMedia:  Thinkserver TS130 with i3-3220, 4gb ecc ram, 120GB Toshiba/OCZ SSD booting Linux Mint XFCE, 2TB Hitachi Ultrastar.  In Progress:  3D printed drive mounts, 4 2TB ultrastars in RAID 5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD NEEDS to pull the rabbit out of hat, otherwise evrything they gained with Ryzen will be lost due to Vega failing to deliver.


On a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
10 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

Even my 1090T was still fine for solid 1080p gaming performance with an RX470, I just wanted to build something new.  I threw all my spare parts together into a build for my friend with an unlocked 960T, an SSD, 8 gigs of DDR3, and a 2gb R9 270x.  It's a great machine that offers a better gaming experience than a console, and all we had to buy was a case, a $45 960T, a cpu cooler, and the SSD.

If Linus did a CPU through the ages (Obviously only the stuff that can run Windows 10 which is nearly everything since 2000) it would really show people just how much CPU power you need. If they went and overclocked them as well then I could see late model Core 2 Quads even doing well at high resolutions.


Spoiler

i7 2600k 4.7Ghz @ 1.38v - EVGA Hybrid 980ti 1450Mhz Boost 7.9Ghz Mem.- Asus P8P67D Deluxe - Corsair H115i - Kingston Fury 16GB 1866Mhz - HX850i - Samsung 840 Pro 120GB SSD  - Toshiba 3TB Green 7200RPM HD - Phanteks P400S

Spoiler

iPhone 6 - 16gb, AT&T, iOS 9 Beta 5 iPhone 4 : 16gb, AT&T Go Phone, iOS 7.1.1 Jailbroken. iPhone 3G : 8gb, AT&T Go Phone, iOS 4.2.1 Jailbroken.

 - 8GB Ram - Intel Iris 5100 - 2560x1600 Retina Display - 128GB Stock SSD - Mac OSX El Capitan Public Beta Former FOR SALE - Late 2011 Macbook Pro 15 i7-2675QM - 16GB Ram - AMD Radeon HD 6750M 512MB - 1440x900 Glossy Display - 500 GB Stock HD - Mac OSX Yosemite 10.13 + Windows 10 

Spoiler

Mid 2014 Retina Macbook Pro 13 i5 4278U

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Agost said:

AMD NEEDS to pull the rabbit out of hat, otherwise evrything they gained with Ryzen will be lost due to Vega failing to deliver.

No? That's not really how this all works.

 

AMD just needs a high enough stack of GPUs to power the FreeSync monitors well enough in higher refresh gaming. The 1080 class, for as much as we talk about it, is a pretty small chunk of the GPU market. 

 

I still expect the top SKU to fit between the 1080 and 1080 Ti, though it's going to be a big power hungry. Whatever their 1070 competitor is will probably be the more important GPU in reality. And I'm really, really interesting in the 7700k vs Ryzen 5/7 results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Agost said:

AMD NEEDS to pull the rabbit out of hat, otherwise evrything they gained with Ryzen will be lost due to Vega failing to deliver.

Not really. The company future hinged on Zen being good. Vega has nowhere near that level of importance. It won't come close to sinking AMD even if it really sucks. At worst  Nvidia will keep winning the high end GPU battle until Navi when AMD will try to challenge again.

 

Whereas Zen cores were basically the future of AMD, the amount of money it brings in is so much greater. And it hits/will hit so many more markets from desktop to HEDT to laptops to servers and future consoles and APUs etc, as well as the basis to iterate in next few years over all those markets with Zen2, Zen3 etc. What we have seen with Ryzen desktop is just the start of the impact Zen core technology will have and even that market segment alone is way more lucrative than Vega.

 

You have to understand that if Vega is a turd it's just a question of AMD cutting prices and selling what they can in the high end until Navi. Whereas if Zen cores had sucked it would have been game over for AMD. No money and no question of trying again a year later...

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

No? That's not really how this all works.

 

AMD just needs a high enough stack of GPUs to power the FreeSync monitors well enough in higher refresh gaming. The 1080 class, for as much as we talk about it, is a pretty small chunk of the GPU market. 

 

I still expect the top SKU to fit between the 1080 and 1080 Ti, though it's going to be a big power hungry. Whatever their 1070 competitor is will probably be the more important GPU in reality. And I'm really, really interesting in the 7700k vs Ryzen 5/7 results.

If we pretend the mining goldrush didn't happen, the 1070 really is the most important card in Nvidia's lineup, and is something AMD doesn't really have an answer to yet.

 

The 480/580 competed well enough with the 1060 that the card to get was more a matter of "do you care about adaptive sync" and "which one is on sale for cheaper this week".  The RX 470/570 was an absolute monster in the sub-$175 price bracket, and didn't really have any natural predators.  I loved mine.

 

There are a whole lot more consumers looking for a bit more than the RX480/580, but not necessarily looking to game at higher resolutions where the 1080/ti come into play (or shell out the cash for those).  The 1070 didn't use stupid amounts of power, and offered a "sane" high-end option before getting into full "enthusiast" level hardware.  You could run anything at 1080p and get high framerates with it, and it offers enough muscle to get into 1440p gaming for those that wanted to as well.

 

If small vega can sit between the 1070 and 1080, and undervolts well (preferably if AMD does the undervolting themselves...), AMD won't have any problem selling them if the price is right.  A 20-30W difference is not a big deal at all and will likely be ignored.  A 50-70W difference is.


SFF-ish:  Ryzen 5 1600X, Asrock AB350M Pro4, 16GB Corsair LPX 3200, Sapphire R9 Fury Nitro -75mV, 512gb Plextor Nvme m.2, 512gb Sandisk SATA m.2, Cryorig H7, stuffed into an Inwin 301 with rgb front panel mod.  LG27UD58.

 

Aging Workhorse:  Phenom II X6 1090T Black (4GHz #Yolo), 16GB Corsair XMS 1333, RX 470 Red Devil 4gb (Sold for $330 to Cryptominers), HD6850 1gb, Hilariously overkill Asus Crosshair V, 240gb Sandisk SSD Plus, 4TB's worth of mechanical drives, and a bunch of water/glycol.  Coming soon:  Bykski CPU block, whatever cheap Polaris 10 GPU I can get once miners start unloading them.

 

MintyFreshMedia:  Thinkserver TS130 with i3-3220, 4gb ecc ram, 120GB Toshiba/OCZ SSD booting Linux Mint XFCE, 2TB Hitachi Ultrastar.  In Progress:  3D printed drive mounts, 4 2TB ultrastars in RAID 5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phate.exe said:

If we pretend the mining goldrush didn't happen, the 1070 really is the most important card in Nvidia's lineup, and is something AMD doesn't really have an answer to yet.

 

The 480/580 competed well enough with the 1060 that the card to get was more a matter of "do you care about adaptive sync" and "which one is on sale for cheaper this week".  The RX 470/570 was an absolute monster in the sub-$175 price bracket, and didn't really have any natural predators.  I loved mine.

 

There are a whole lot more consumers looking for a bit more than the RX480/580, but not necessarily looking to game at higher resolutions where the 1080/ti come into play (or shell out the cash for those).  The 1070 didn't use stupid amounts of power, and offered a "sane" high-end option before getting into full "enthusiast" level hardware.  You could run anything at 1080p and get high framerates with it, and it offers enough muscle to get into 1440p gaming for those that wanted to as well.

 

If small vega can sit between the 1070 and 1080, and undervolts well (preferably if AMD does the undervolting themselves...), AMD won't have any problem selling them if the price is right.  A 20-30W difference is not a big deal at all and will likely be ignored.  A 50-70W difference is.

Correct. AMD decided not to make a "Big Polaris" and so there's a gap in the market. (Kind of ironically, no one can buy a 580 or below, but AMD will end up selling every GPU they ended up making. Go figure.) The lower SKU RX Vega at, say, $299 would be a beast for the next 7-9 months before Volta lands. It would also help AMD fill out that big market of FreeSync monitors that's coming online. Given that 1440p widescreen seems about as far as "gaming" probably has any reason to stretch for, that's the target market they really need to hit.

 

This does go back to the GCN architecture issues. It's very much an iGPU that's been scaled up. So as you approach 1080 class, it's going to eat up a lot of Power. This has happened every generation so far. (Nvidia's GPUs are all cut-down Machine Learning processors. CUDA was stupidly brilliant by them and they've been running with it ever since.) That's why the RX580 vs 1060 stuff is blow for blow. With a bit more Perf/Watt, the 1070 competitor should be solid. The top SKU stuff is its own issue. Though I'm suddenly curious if 3x CrossFire still works? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

No? That's not really how this all works.

 

AMD just needs a high enough stack of GPUs to power the FreeSync monitors well enough in higher refresh gaming. The 1080 class, for as much as we talk about it, is a pretty small chunk of the GPU market. 

 

I still expect the top SKU to fit between the 1080 and 1080 Ti, though it's going to be a big power hungry. Whatever their 1070 competitor is will probably be the more important GPU in reality. And I'm really, really interesting in the 7700k vs Ryzen 5/7 results.

 

1 hour ago, Humbug said:

Not really. The company future hinged on Zen being good. Vega has nowhere near that level of importance. It won't come close to sinking AMD even if it really sucks. At worst  Nvidia will keep winning the high end GPU battle until Navi when AMD will try to challenge again.

 

Whereas Zen cores were basically the future of AMD, the amount of money it brings in is so much greater. And it hits/will hit so many more markets from desktop to HEDT to laptops to servers and future consoles and APUs etc, as well as the basis to iterate in next few years over all those markets with Zen2, Zen3 etc. What we have seen with Ryzen desktop is just the start of the impact Zen core technology will have and even that market segment alone is way more lucrative than Vega.

 

You have to understand that if Vega is a turd it's just a question of AMD cutting prices and selling what they can in the high end until Navi. Whereas if Zen cores had sucked it would have been game over for AMD. No money and no question of trying again a year later...

 I mean in terms of market share, stock value, general public opinion. 

If Vega fails miserably (and it's sadly very probable), the AMD lineup will be just the same as before, valid only up to midrange (except for zero cards in stock) with some power hungry, not strong enough GPUs on the high end. 1440p 144Hz (actually quite common among enthusiasts) can't be properly driven by Vega in its current state; same for UHD 60 Hz. By "properly" I mean 1080Ti levels, which is the first "affordable" card capable of pushing 60 fps on many games at UHD


On a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Honestly that really is only true mattering on what you got. If someone bought a 2600k back in 2011 then they would still be find today. You can even go back to the i7 860 and you would still be GPU limited at higher resolutions (I had only 4-5fps increases in minimums going from a 4.1GHz x3470 to my 4.5Ghz 2600k). Unless you really need 100+ FPS capability in every game then even Intel CPU's from 7 years ago can do that.

I wasn't just talking about CPUs though e.g. buying two 780's and hoping they would last a long time is worse than buying one 780 then one 980 then one 1080 etc.

 

Buying the best of every part or two if GPU and hoping for long life will leave you quite down in performance over time, sure it can still be absolutely fine as you said but you could of had better for the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×