Jump to content

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

Gdourado
5 minutes ago, Vode said:

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.

I have no doubt that the game will be, remember this is an unreleased game being tested on an unknown build. Unless we have the retail game being tested I wouldn't say how well it is or isn't optimized just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I have no doubt that the game will be, remember this is an unreleased game being tested on an unknown build. Unless we have the retail game being tested I wouldn't say how well it is or isn't optimized just yet.

I‘m going by track record. The engine is known to be very well optimized and the programmers seem to know their stuff. Hence it‘s very likely.

 

But yes I agree you never know for sure until you test the retail game at launch or after a couple weeks after that.

\\ QUIET AUDIO WORKSTATION //

5960X 3.7GHz @ 0.983V / ASUS X99-A USB3.1      

32 GB G.Skill Ripjaws 4 & 2667MHz @ 1.2V

AMD R9 Fury X

256GB SM961 + 1TB Samsung 850 Evo  

Cooler Master Silencio 652S (soon Calyos NSG S0 ^^)              

Noctua NH-D15 / 3x NF-S12A                 

Seasonic PRIME Titanium 750W        

Logitech G810 Orion Spectrum / Logitech G900

2x Samsung S24E650BW 16:10  / Adam A7X / Fractal Axe Fx 2 Mark I

Windows 7 Ultimate

 

4K GAMING/EMULATION RIG

Xeon X5670 4.2Ghz (200BCLK) @ ~1.38V / Asus P6X58D Premium

12GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz

Gainward GTX 1080 Golden Sample

Intel 535 Series 240 GB + San Disk SSD Plus 512GB

Corsair Crystal 570X

Noctua NH-S12 

Be Quiet Dark Rock 11 650W

Logitech K830

Xbox One Wireless Controller

Logitech Z623 Speakers/Subwoofer

Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vode said:

I‘m going by track record. The engine is known to be very well optimized and their programmers seem to know their stuff. Hence it very likely.

 

But yes I agree you never know for sure until you test the retail game at launch or after a couple weeks after that.

Just good to not get one's hope up too much, otherwise it could turn out to be another Vega and Doom scenario pre-launch i.e. the greatest GPU of all time ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Just good to not get one's hope up too much, otherwise it could turn out to be another Vega and Doom scenario pre-launch i.e. the greatest GPU of all time ;).

still would like to know what is holding vega back, :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

still would like to know what is holding vega back, :/

Bits & Chips has said pretty much none of the new features are actually working right now. Or they "work" in & of they're official on, but they don't do much. The big IPC gain path isn't active, so it's just a higher clocked Fury right now. At least in gaming. In compute tasks? Things a monster. 

 

Realistically, I think this ended up being the "Product from Hell" for RTG. The GloFo process isn't great for a GPU (apparently), HBM2 was late & Hynix still isn't online and the chip packaging company has really messed things up as well. There was also a rumor that an early run of dies had an error and they lost a bunch of full wafers. (Or that became the Vega FE; no one seems sure.) 

 

And apparently they also had to remake a huge chunk of the drivers, which probably explains a lot of the Gaming side of things. They built a stable driver branch for RX Vega in games, but put most of their development time into the Professional cards. So, for gaming, the cards are higher-clocked Furys running hot & running into bottle necks. Not a great situation for AMD in the Gaming space. (Though, to their credit, they do work.)

 

Even from the roadmap, this was always going to be a transition uArch. They want to move to Navi on 7nm with a cluster of smaller GPUs. A collection of 1-8 GPUs running at a lower power level in a Ryzen-like manner would completely change their production pipeline. (If the scaling for the uArch works well enough.) But that's almost 2 years off, still. Vega should see a move to 12nm next year for the refresh. Apparently Polaris is getting a refresh as well on that process. "Vega 20" appears to be headed to TSMC, so we'll see what that does. And, hopefully, HBM2 will cost less than DDR4 by next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Bits & Chips has said pretty much none of the new features are actually working right now. Or they "work" in & of they're official on, but they don't do much. The big IPC gain path isn't active, so it's just a higher clocked Fury right now. At least in gaming. In compute tasks? Things a monster. 

 

Realistically, I think this ended up being the "Product from Hell" for RTG. The GloFo process isn't great for a GPU (apparently), HBM2 was late & Hynix still isn't online and the chip packaging company has really messed things up as well. There was also a rumor that an early run of dies had an error and they lost a bunch of full wafers. (Or that became the Vega FE; no one seems sure.) 

 

And apparently they also had to remake a huge chunk of the drivers, which probably explains a lot of the Gaming side of things. They built a stable driver branch for RX Vega in games, but put most of their development time into the Professional cards. So, for gaming, the cards are higher-clocked Furys running hot & running into bottle necks. Not a great situation for AMD in the Gaming space. (Though, to their credit, they do work.)

 

Even from the roadmap, this was always going to be a transition uArch. They want to move to Navi on 7nm with a cluster of smaller GPUs. A collection of 1-8 GPUs running at a lower power level in a Ryzen-like manner would completely change their production pipeline. (If the scaling for the uArch works well enough.) But that's almost 2 years off, still. Vega should see a move to 12nm next year for the refresh. Apparently Polaris is getting a refresh as well on that process. "Vega 20" appears to be headed to TSMC, so we'll see what that does. And, hopefully, HBM2 will cost less than DDR4 by next year.

we still no almost nothing of vega 11 do we, 12nm is probably a why not kind of thing, they do seem to be focusing a lot on the enterprise side, which i think its the best move they can make, because of more informed people in that area, although i wanna see vega unleashed, or a vega with 8 pipelines (that would be sick) and unless vega 20 is that i don't see it happening because after navi amd will probably never make huge dies ever again (unless we get multiple 500mm^2 dies (delicious))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Amazing job AMD, your top of the line GPU manages to smash everything in a 10 year old resolution.

 

All hail the new 1080p king.

it also wins at 1440p, and 4k 99th percentile 

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

still would like to know what is holding vega back, :/

*nods*

So say we all.

2 hours ago, samcool55 said:

I've gamed at 1440p60 and 4k60 and imo it's just not as good of an experience as 1080p144.

Personally hoping to hit 3440x1440p80 or 100.  I'm down with chasing more Hz over resolution to a point.  Would be nice if things were as easy as saying them though; think we've all played games that played better at rock sold low framerates than some high fps titles with frequent frame spikes.

 

OT: Its nice to hear, but its only one title.  Also, only the one source thus far, so don't count your chickens until they're hatched.  We've felt this heartache before...soo many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, one title. If it started being the norm and not the outlier, then sure, that'd be exciting. This isn't. 

 

4 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.

Haha, you're so wrong on so many levels. Not everyone chases resolution, some chase frame rate. Some want the best and money isn't an issue. 

CPU: Ryzen 9 5900 Cooler: EVGA CLC280 Motherboard: Gigabyte B550i Pro AX RAM: Kingston Hyper X 32GB 3200mhz

Storage: WD 750 SE 500GB, WD 730 SE 1TB GPU: EVGA RTX 3070 Ti PSU: Corsair SF750 Case: Streacom DA2

Monitor: LG 27GL83B Mouse: Razer Basilisk V2 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red Speakers: Mackie CR5BT

 

MiniPC - Sold for $100 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i3 4160 Cooler: Integrated Motherboard: Integrated

RAM: G.Skill RipJaws 16GB DDR3 Storage: Transcend MSA370 128GB GPU: Intel 4400 Graphics

PSU: Integrated Case: Shuttle XPC Slim

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

Budget Rig 1 - Sold For $750 Profit

Spoiler

CPU: Intel i5 7600k Cooler: CryOrig H7 Motherboard: MSI Z270 M5

RAM: Crucial LPX 16GB DDR4 Storage: Intel S3510 800GB GPU: Nvidia GTX 980

PSU: Corsair CX650M Case: EVGA DG73

Monitor: LG 29WK500 Mouse: G.Skill MX780 Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

OG Gaming Rig - Gone

Spoiler

 

CPU: Intel i5 4690k Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 Motherboard: MSI Z97i AC ITX

RAM: Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3 Storage: Kingston Fury 240GB GPU: Asus Strix GTX 970

PSU: Thermaltake TR2 Case: Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX

Monitor: Dell P2214H x2 Mouse: Logitech MX Master Keyboard: G.Skill KM780 Cherry MX Red

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Nvidia will have a game ready driver for this game narrowing down or erasing this win. Maybe not, who knows? It might inspire some miners to take a break to actually enjoy a game in kind of a gaming miracle they'll realize they were frustrated gamers all of this time!!!

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Humbug said:

I was gonna say maybe it's a case of Nvidia needing to optimize more for this game.

 

but then I noticed that at 1080p the Vega64 is also 60% faster than fury X. That's a much bigger margin than we see in other games.

It looks like it might be VRAM starved. Look at the 2160p graphs. If it weren't VRAM starved, I'd imagine it'd have a much easier time at that resolution.

Check out my guide on how to scan cover art here!

Local asshole and 6th generation console enthusiast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

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

900fps FTW brah!!!

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

It looks like it might be VRAM starved. Look at the 2160p graphs. If it weren't VRAM starved, I'd imagine it'd have a much easier time at that resolution.

I was talking about 1080p. The Fury X is not VRAM starved at 1080p. It performs exactly where you would expect. i.e. faster than an RX 580 and slower than a GTX 1070.

And yet the Vega64 is 60% faster than it. Much bigger gap than in other games... That much is clear. Leaving aside the Nvidia comparisons...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

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.

I can nearly max out Witcher 3 on 1440p with hairworks and get a fairly solid 60ish fpsFPS with a 980Ti, albeit on a AIO GPU cooler, and the clocks pushed as far as I can reliably take them. 

 

But I agree that I feel it’s time for an upgrade. But Pascal is a pretty good upgrade from Maxwell considering we were stuck on 28nm for so long. I’m sure nVidia could have done much better though, especially since they have working Volta chips. I’m going to have the cash for a 1080Ti within the next few days and I’m probably just going to spring for it lol

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zberry7 said:

l

The only reason I'm considering upgrade the TITAN XM to the 1080ti is because I'm upgrading my i7 6700 for an i7 8700k and I know I won't notice too much performance gain in gaming as the i7 6700 is perfectly capable of driving the TITAN XM.

I'm not 100% excited about GPU upgrade regardless... I wish Volta was closer.

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

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

 

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.

Have you never heard or seen high refresh rate monitors?

Most AAA game cannot run more than 100FPS maxed out consistently with a GTX 1060 or even GTX 1070 on 1080p.

I don't read the reply to my posts anymore so don't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

these performance numbers seem pretty strange to me, Vega usiually does better at 4K, but its not winning there, but winning at 1080p

I spent $2500 on building my PC and all i do with it is play no games atm & watch anime at 1080p(finally) watch YT and write essays...  nothing, it just sits there collecting dust...

Builds:

The Toaster Project! Northern Bee!

 

The original LAN PC build log! (Old, dead and replaced by The Toaster Project & 5.0)

Spoiler

"Here is some advice that might have gotten lost somewhere along the way in your life. 

 

#1. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

#2. It's best to keep your mouth shut; and appear to be stupid, rather than open it and remove all doubt.

#3. There is nothing "wrong" with being wrong. Learning from a mistake can be more valuable than not making one in the first place.

 

Follow these simple rules in life, and I promise you, things magically get easier. " - MageTank 31-10-2016

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ApolloFury said:

Have you never heard or seen high refresh rate monitors?

Most AAA game cannot run more than 100FPS maxed out consistently with a GTX 1060 or even GTX 1070 on 1080p.

Yes. I FUCKING HAVE HEARD OF THEM ALL THE TIME. You people are relentless in pushing high refresh rates to the point where I am fucking sick of hearing about it.

-------

Current Rig

-------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gdourado said:

choppy 60hz

someone is spoiled 

 

 

also i know Tflop numbers dont mean much anymore ,

but considering that VEGA 64 has ~23000 tf compared to the ~12000 of a 1080ti / titan Xppp , im suprised that it actually does so badly in most games ,

i mean IT HAS TWICE the horsepower on paper , what is holding it back? 

RyzenAir : AMD R5 3600 | AsRock AB350M Pro4 | 32gb Aegis DDR4 3000 | GTX 1070 FE | Fractal Design Node 804
RyzenITX : Ryzen 7 1700 | GA-AB350N-Gaming WIFI | 16gb DDR4 2666 | GTX 1060 | Cougar QBX 

 

PSU Tier list

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Space Reptile said:

i mean IT HAS TWICE the horsepower on paper , what is holding it back? 

Software side?

Personal Desktop":

CPU: Intel Core i7 10700K @5ghz |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock Pro 4 |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Z490UD ATX|~| RAM: 16gb DDR4 3333mhzCL16 G.Skill Trident Z |~| GPU: RX 6900XT Sapphire Nitro+ |~| PSU: Corsair TX650M 80Plus Gold |~| Boot:  SSD WD Green M.2 2280 240GB |~| Storage: 1x3TB HDD 7200rpm Seagate Barracuda + SanDisk Ultra 3D 1TB |~| Case: Fractal Design Meshify C Mini |~| Display: Toshiba UL7A 4K/60hz |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro.

Luna, the temporary Desktop:

CPU: AMD R9 7950XT  |~| Cooling: bq! Dark Rock 4 Pro |~| MOBO: Gigabyte Aorus Master |~| RAM: 32G Kingston HyperX |~| GPU: AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX (Reference) |~| PSU: Corsair HX1000 80+ Platinum |~| Windows Boot Drive: 2x 512GB (1TB total) Plextor SATA SSD (RAID0 volume) |~| Linux Boot Drive: 500GB Kingston A2000 |~| Storage: 4TB WD Black HDD |~| Case: Cooler Master Silencio S600 |~| Display 1 (leftmost): Eizo (unknown model) 1920x1080 IPS @ 60Hz|~| Display 2 (center): BenQ ZOWIE XL2540 1920x1080 TN @ 240Hz |~| Display 3 (rightmost): Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 3840x2160 IPS @ 60Hz 10-bit |~| OS: Windows 10 Pro (games / art) + Linux (distro: NixOS; programming and daily driver)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did they do differnetly in Forza 7 compared to pass games that gave Vegaa hufe lead does anyone know?

Ex frequent user here, still check in here occasionally. I stopped being a weeb in 2018 lol

 

For a reply please quote or  @Eduard the weeb me :D

 

Xayah Main in Lol, trying to learn Drums and guitar. Know how to film do photography, can do basic video editing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Space Reptile said:

someone is spoiled 

 

 

also i know Tflop numbers dont mean much anymore ,

but considering that VEGA 64 has ~23000 tf compared to the ~12000 of a 1080ti / titan Xppp , im suprised that it actually does so badly in most games ,

i mean IT HAS TWICE the horsepower on paper , what is holding it back? 

You've misread. Your Vega number, which is actually over 25k, is FP16 whereas the 12k for 1080 Ti is FP32. Vega has a higher flops number still but not to the degree you assume. FP16 flops numbers are twice that of FP32 as a rule of thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

You've misread. Your Vega number which is actually over 25k is FP16, whereas the 12k for 1080 Ti is FP32. Vega has a higher flop number still but not to the degree you assume. As you can see, FP16 numbers are twice that of FP32 as a rule of thumb.

 

i just noticed that , why the fuck does Wikipedia list FP16 for amd cards but NOT nvidia cards , wtf 

 

but then still , the vega 64 thereabouts matches a titan xppp / 1080ti , yet those are like 20% faster 

 

 

EDIT : 

look at those double pres numbers , its +100% for AMD there

 

Unbenannt.JPG.e16c441d3b5b558daf7ba0b89b7465c6.JPG

Unbenannt2.JPG.e38b116805102cb9bbfadfc09bb5beff.JPG

RyzenAir : AMD R5 3600 | AsRock AB350M Pro4 | 32gb Aegis DDR4 3000 | GTX 1070 FE | Fractal Design Node 804
RyzenITX : Ryzen 7 1700 | GA-AB350N-Gaming WIFI | 16gb DDR4 2666 | GTX 1060 | Cougar QBX 

 

PSU Tier list

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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


×