AMD RX Vega 64 Outperforms NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti By Up To 23% In DX12 Forza 7

[TheRandomness]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

It's very simple guys, people don't buy TOP OF THE LINE GPUs to game at 1080p. If your gaming at 1080p you buy a $250 GPU, $300 max. A 1060 is more than enough to push 1080p at over 100FPS in the large majority of games these days.

Uhhh
Yes they do. There are people who've bought 1080 Tis and 1080p monitors (albeit 144Hz) just for the sake of getting as many FPS as possible.

[samcool55]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

So you're buying a $600 GPU to get 200FPS at 1080p?

Well there are 240Hz 1080p monitors out there so i can imagine people would pay money for that.

The fact that there are products out there means there's a market for it.

 

I think you underestimate how hard it is to run at a high framerate (144fps or higher), it's usually more difficult than 1440p60...

And the high refreshrate market is growing, more and more people are getting them. Also i can understand not that many people care about high-res monitors. I've gamed at 1440p60 and 4k60 and imo it's just not as good of an experience as 1080p144.

[PopReference]

7 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

No that just shows you that 4GB isn't enough for 4k

There's a joke somewhere around here, have you seen it?

[AresKrieger]

Just now, PopReference said:

There's a joke somewhere around here, have you seen it?

I tend to be oblivious to jokes that parody the absurdity of fanboyism since those people say things so absurd that I can't tell what is real or not anymore

 

 

Hmmm do they happen to mention what CPU is being used for these tests? Since async compute reduces strain on CPU calculations and the frametimes show a lack of data flow continuously on Nvidia's tests it could very well be a case of bottlenecking due to the cpu optimization amd has with async and what not.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

I tend to be oblivious to jokes that parody the absurdity of fanboyism since those people say things so absurd that I can't tell what is real or not anymore

Well this holds true and shows no sign of letting down.

 

[AlTech]

@leadeater OP hasn't added any original input to their article.

[AlTech]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is an xbox title so I wouldn't be surprised if it was mostly QA tested and optimized on Polaris computers.

*Xbox Live and UWP Title.

 

Xbox One X uses modified Polaris Arch so there's no doubt it was tested on it.

18 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Uhhh
Yes they do. There are people who've bought 1080 Tis and 1080p monitors (albeit 144Hz) just for the sake of getting as many FPS as possible.

Somebody I know uses a 1080Ti to play at 1080p in CS:GO. Not even joking .

[ATFink]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

So you're buying a $600 GPU to get 200FPS at 1080p?

 

I didn't say it was dead but it is dying.

 

Again, I didn't say it was dead.

 

It's very simple guys, people don't buy TOP OF THE LINE GPUs to game at 1080p. If your gaming at 1080p you buy a $250 GPU, $300 max. A 1060 is more than enough to push 1080p at over 100FPS in the large majority of games these days.

Sometimes people want more than 100 fps. That and many games require more than a $300 modern graphics card to play 100 fps or more 1080p. A GTX 1060 6 GB can get just about 100 fps in GTA V and there are many games that are harder on GPUs than GTA V.

 

 

[Trixanity]

Is it just me or does it appear like Vega runs into memory problems at 4K? It looks like it runs into a wall when you up the resolution. Maybe HBCC could actually do something here. Appears to be the reason 1080 Ti pulls ahead in average fps.

 

With that being said, so far this is a fluke. No reason to celebrate really.

[cj09beira]

5 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Is it just me or does it appear like Vega runs into memory problems at 4K? It looks like it runs into a wall when you up the resolution. Maybe HBCC could actually do something here. Appears to be the reason 1080 Ti pulls ahead in average fps.

 

With that being said, so far this is a fluke. No reason to celebrate really.

vega has weirdly enough not enough bandwidth, and at 4k with so much more data been processed its easy to imagine that it might be running in to a bottleneck, its something i saw happen in almost every title at 4k vega usually loses ground which is very rare with amd cards

[TheRandomness]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

vega has weirdly enough not enough bandwidth, and at 4k with so much more data been processed its easy to imagine that it might be running in to a bottleneck, its something i saw happen in almost every title at 4k vega usually loses ground which is very rare with amd cards

Yeah, Vega has a memory bottleneck essentially despite the massive bus. It's the one problem with the architecture pretty much

[cj09beira]

7 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Yeah, Vega has a memory bottleneck essentially despite the massive bus. It's the one problem with the architecture pretty much

my guess is that they were expecting 1ghz hbm2 to be available and even then it would be a close call, with the lower than expected hbm2 frequencies they got screwed, hopefully they do a bunch more compression for navi, because navi will need all the bandwidth it can get, because i am guessing each die will have a single hbm stack

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

my guess is that they were expecting 1ghz hbm2 to be available and even then it would be a close call, with the lower than expected hbm2 frequencies they got screwed, hopefully they do a bunch more compression for navi, because navi will need all the bandwidth it can get, because i am guessing each die will have a single hbm stack

Honestly though, once they get a good supply of decent HBM2 stacks, then Vega should drop in price and therefore should start beating the 1070 and 1080 in price/perf. They also need to stop overvolting their chips to hell

[Trixanity]

19 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

vega has weirdly enough not enough bandwidth, and at 4k with so much more data been processed its easy to imagine that it might be running in to a bottleneck, its something i saw happen in almost every title at 4k vega usually loses ground which is very rare with amd cards

In this case it appears to be capacity as well. 1080 Ti has 11 GB of memory versus 8 GB for Vega. Their memory bandwidth should be similar. Nvidia has better compression though so the effective memory bandwidth might be significantly higher. 

 

Having to swap data from memory instead of just reading it definitely reigns in the performance of Vega in this case.

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, PopReference said:

There's a joke somewhere around here, have you seen it?

I remember seeing a graph that put 390 8GB at the same performance tier as 980Ti while being both were faster than Fury X due to VRAM. It was 5K iirc. 

[cj09beira]

20 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Honestly though, once they get a good supply of decent HBM2 stacks, then Vega should drop in price and therefore should start beating the 1070 and 1080 in price/perf. They also need to stop overvolting their chips to hell

in my opinion that right there is their NUMBER 1 problem right now,

11 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

In this case it appears to be capacity as well. 1080 Ti has 11 GB of memory versus 8 GB for Vega. Their memory bandwidth should be similar. Nvidia has better compression though so the effective memory bandwidth might be significantly higher. 

 

Having to swap data from memory instead of just reading it definitely reigns in the performance of Vega in this case.

i really dont think that its memory capacity, the difference in bandwidth is significant, and its easy to check with some hbm oc, hopefully some one does more tests no it

[TheRandomness]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

in my opinion that right there is their NUMBER 1 problem right now,

i really dont think that its memory capacity, the difference in bandwidth is significant, and its easy to check with some hbm oc, hopefully some one does more tests no it

About the bandwidth, both the Vega 64 and 1080 Ti have about 484GB/s bandwidth. But yeah, once they get decent supplies of everything it'll all be good.

[Tieox]

Interesting results for sure, I'm still happy at 1080p for now. 

[Princess Luna]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

. A 1060 is more than enough to push 1080p at over 100FPS in the large majority of games these days.

No it is not, people should really quit generalizing, there are a great deal of people who wants to play even if at 1080p with no compromises at all, you need bare minimum a V56 / GTX 980ti / GTX 1070 to be able maxing out games and keeping 60fps, even so it might not be enough on very GPU intensive titles like The Witcher 3 with hairworks on and such.

 

I personally feel my TITAN XM is starting to run short on 2560x1080p80hz or 4k/60fps which are my current displays, monitor and TV... Though neither the GTX 1080ti or the Vega 64 are interesting enough to my book... I'll grab the TITAN X Volta next year... hopefully it does actually give meaningful boost over Maxwell... being honest neither the two companies got far enough from Maxwell top end yet....

 

Vega 64 pricing also makes it a ridiculous choice regardless of a few hit and miss success here and there like seeing on specific settings at Forza and Dirt, every where else the 1080ti destroys the V64.

[Trixanity]

10 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

in my opinion that right there is their NUMBER 1 problem right now,

i really dont think that its memory capacity, the difference in bandwidth is significant, and its easy to check with some hbm oc, hopefully some one does more tests no it

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to check if it's a capacity issue? Run the benchmark on a Vega FE card; I assume RX drivers work on it by now?

 

I know that memory OC does wonders for Vega but would it really remove the bottleneck we see here? It would seem like either Vega needs much more bandwidth to perform at 4K or it's simply being stalled by having to swap data.

[Godlygamer23]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

It's very simple guys, people don't buy TOP OF THE LINE GPUs to game at 1080p. If your gaming at 1080p you buy a $250 GPU, $300 max. A 1060 is more than enough to push 1080p at over 100FPS in the large majority of games these days.

That is quite an assumption about people's purchasing habits. I personally game at 1080p144, and at this point, I prefer a higher frame rate over a higher resolution. Some video games are also poorly optimized and require something more expensive than a 300USD video card, and not only that, but some people want more than 100FPS in video game, especially if they bought a 144Hz or higher monitor over a 120Hz monitor.

[Sauron]

Sadly given the current mining inflated pricing this is not nearly enough to make it a good recommendation. Still, if this becomes a trend the next iteration of vega might be a very strong offer.

[cj09beira]

8 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to check if it's a capacity issue? Run the benchmark on a Vega FE card; I assume RX drivers work on it by now?

 

I know that memory OC does wonders for Vega but would it really remove the bottleneck we see here? It would seem like either Vega needs much more bandwidth to perform at 4K or it's simply being stalled by having to swap data.

ya, thats a good point, if vega fe can use vega drivers now, it would be cool to test,

 

(one thing to keep in mind is that many times games "use" more memory than they need, thats why you can have 2 cards with different amounts of vram playing the game at the same fps while one has a lot more vram used than the other.)

[Vode]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

If that is actually true wow, I was in the mindset of game has finished optimizing for AMD and not yet for Nvidia.

Forza is very well optimized.

 

It‘s a very similar situation as with RX 580, Fury X on DOOM. 

 

I doubt Nvidia can close the gap in this title. It must be taking advantage of the feature Vega offers.

[DocSwag]

If you pay close attention the 1080 ti is only beating the 1080 ti by 10% ish rather than 25-30%. I think this explains a fair bit of it: The 1080 ti isn't properly optimized.

 

I'm not entirely sure why Vega does so well here. Maybe the game is just good at filling up all those CUs

2 hours ago, PopReference said:

Single digit FPS for Fury X? Clearly not OPTIMIZED for AMD MeMe

Fiji =/= Vega.

 

Just because a game is optimized for one architecture from amd doesn't mean that it suddenly is great on all of their architectures.