Share your thoughts on the Radeon VII launch

[hollyh88]

you people are forgetting something here.. 

AMD is now already at 7nm and it just reached the rtx 2080 performance while that is still at what was it 12nm? imagine an nvidia card at 7nm it would dominate this card. Its such a disappointment. 


Honestly.. AMD is falling behind in gpu tech. But going better and better in the cpu compartment. 

 

[pstarlord]

4 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

I read your entire novel lol,  Here is the thing with nVidia you pay700 more dollars just to get 11GB RAM.  nVidia workstation cards are 14GB and 28GB I believe and one model at 44GB VRAM.  The cost was 2 thousand up to 10 thousand for the 44GB VRAM card.  Which puzzles me how AMD got away with 16GB VRAM for such a low price.  If you wanted a nVidia 16GB VRAM gaming card, you will have to wait years before they release a desktop GPU at 16GB VRAM.  Very pointless, this new radeon can not beat nVidia period.  However check out the reviews and benchmarks before you make any kind of move, until then yes stick with your Vega card my friend.

To my understanding, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, It's because of the HBM2 VRAM they use.  In order to get 16 Gigs of HBM2, it's 4 chiplets on the dye.  With Vega 56 and 64, the GPU portion of the dye took up more room, only leaving space for two HBM2 chiplets on the dye, with the 7nm GPU on the RVII it double the space for the HBM2.  In order to get that many of DDR5, you'd have to put RAM chips all over the PCB.  HBM2 is more expensive, but its much more efficient so you can fit more of it into smaller spaces.  Look at a PCB tear down of the two different styles, Nvidia cards have RAM chips littering their PCB, Vega does not.  Now, this is cool, but it also centralizes the heat and is one of the main reasons that AMD cards run a bit hotter.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

16gb of VRAM doesn't make sense for current games...but if you play at 1440p or higher or if you do high end VR it'll come in handy long before this card is obsolete....imho it's 8gb that is NOT enough....not that 16 is too much

[ch3w2oy]

You really all don't get the point of the 16gb VRAM, even after it's been mentioned repeatedly.. They couldn't get the type of bandwidth they achieved with less than that. It's just how it works. 

 

Resident Evil 2 can take over 11gb VRAM, to name one game. 

[ch3w2oy]

9 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

I just got a Sapphire Vega 64 reference and counting the value of the games I wanted, it was $320.

 

I'm very satisfied with that and the VII launch only validates my decision.

You can edit the power tables to get more performance. Buildzoid did a video on it. According to userbenchmark my 64 is on par with the average 2080.

 

[Mister Woof]

5 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

You can edit the power tables to get more performance. Buildzoid did a video on it. According to userbenchmark my 64 is on par with the average 2080.

 

I'm pretty happy with mine. It's the reference cooler and with an undervolt and aggressive fan curve, it hangs around 1630-1660mhz most of the time with HBM at 1050mhz.

 

Firestrike i score around 26k, which is around 12% higher than most published stock benchmarks.

[ch3w2oy]

5 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

I'm pretty happy with mine. It's the reference cooler and with an undervolt and aggressive fan curve, it hangs around 1630-1660mhz most of the time with HBM at 1050mhz.

 

Firestrike i score around 26k, which is around 12% higher than most published stock benchmarks.

I play at 4k so I'm trying to push mine as hard as I can lol. Probably gonna do a custom water loop as well. Im also glad I didn't wait for the Radeon VII, but I'm sure it'll end up being a great card, though, as drivers improve..

[Zeitec]

3 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

you people are forgetting something here.. 

AMD is now already at 7nm and it just reached the rtx 2080 performance while that is still at what was it 12nm? imagine an nvidia card at 7nm it would dominate this card. Its such a disappointment. 


Honestly.. AMD is falling behind in gpu tech. But going better and better in the cpu compartment. 

 

And it's worrying because they're falling further and further behind every generation.

[Mister Woof]

Just now, Zeitec said:

And it's worrying because they're falling further and further behind every generation.

AMD needs to play to their strengths.

 

Personally, I feel if they can continue to dominate the $200-300 CPU market and also the $200-400 GPU market, they can let Intel and Nvidia have the rest and they'll still be doing amazing.

[Mick Naughty]

31 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

You can edit the power tables to get more performance. Buildzoid did a video on it. According to userbenchmark my 64 is on par with the average 2080.

 

 

So because that says 148% means its close to a 2080? Is this thing that accurate? Just heard of it today fixing a cpu thread issue. Doesn't seem to a reliable comparison.

[ch3w2oy]

19 minutes ago, Mick Naughty said:

So because that says 148% means its close to a 2080? Is this thing that accurate? Just heard of it today fixing a cpu thread issue. Doesn't seem to a reliable comparison.

That's why I said according to userbenchmark. I don't know real world usage as i dont have a 2080 to compare it to. But one thing I can say is that you can't trust any YouTube video with benchmarks.

 

You can definitely use userbenchmark to get an idea, at the least.

[Mick Naughty]

2 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

That's why I said according to userbenchmark. I don't know real world usage as i dont have a 2080 to compare it to. But one thing I can say is that you can't trust any YouTube video with benchmarks.

Yea, tend to just get stuff based off what I need. Youtubers never bench games I play. But a 1080 scored 140% so I assumed it has to be way off to do so.

[Blademaster91]

55 minutes ago, ChewToy! said:

You can edit the power tables to get more performance. Buildzoid did a video on it. According to userbenchmark my 64 is on par with the average 2080.

 

 

Spoiler

 

I'm not sure how accurate Userbench is but I take that site with a large amount of salt. Looking at actual benchmark comparisons is more accurate to me. You also need a high quality PSU to do the power limit mods, I don't know about the Vega 64, but the power table mods GamersNexus did with a Vega 56 to beat the RTX 2070, the Vega 56 had a peak power consumption over 500 watts for the whole system.

10 hours ago, Mick Naughty said:

Not a conclusive tests from ltt. Most people test the same games over and over so still goesnt show much. 

 

Lacts a lot of features not just ray tracing.

Id buy the 2080 simply for the best encoding. I can also replace thermal paste easily, which can’t be said for the amd card. But as most people can’t maintaine their equipment, I guess that can’t be a pro/con. 

I think it's good AMD has something that does mostly compete with a 2080, but it does lack features even if some think ray tracing is a pointless gimmick. I don't mess with replacing thermal paste on my GPU's for warranty reasons, though I am considering EVGA over other brands since they allow you to change thermal paste and coolers.

[ch3w2oy]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

I'm not sure how accurate Userbench is but I take that site with a large amount of salt. 

Pretty much. The higher you get on that, the higher you get on other benchmarks as well, in my experience. Believe me, I know the 2080 is better than the 64, I couldn't get my superposition score close to a 2080. Every benchmark is different.