Alleged AMD Vega Performance Benchmarks

[NumLock21]

5 minutes ago, Prysin said:

1.6

L2math, casual!

Gibe me money so I can buy 5K Dell display

[Misanthrope]

Need to take these with a few grains of salt

 

Spoiler

Sorry, couldn't resist:

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 hours ago, stealth80 said:

480 - eventually became card of choice for mid range de-throning the 1060 6gb

Let's start off with a disclaimer, the prices I properly observed were the prices in the UK so...pliz no hate if your country was different  

 

Well, not quite as the cheapest RX480 8GB (not reference as well, sapphire nitro, reference was even cheaper...) was a good £10-15 cheaper than the cheapest 1060 6GB for the majority of the time (not anymore) plus the RX480 4GB was unchallenged at first and even when the gimped 3GB 1060 came out, the RX480 4GB was still the card of choice at 200 odd pounds (and dollars) so in a way I'd agree with how the 1060 6GB had the throne for the best mid range title, the RX480 4GB had the throne for best value while the 8GB was cheaper meaning it offset some of the lower DX11 performance . 

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Let's start off with a disclaimer, the prices I properly observed were the prices in the UK so...pliz no hate if your country was different  

 

Well, not quite as the cheapest RX480 8GB (not reference as well, sapphire nitro, reference was even cheaper...) was a good £10-15 cheaper than the cheapest 1060 6GB for the majority of the time (not anymore) plus the RX480 4GB was unchallenged at first and even when the gimped 3GB 1060 came out, the RX480 4GB was still the card of choice at 200 odd pounds (and dollars) so in a way I'd agree with how the 1060 6GB had the throne for the best mid range title, the RX480 4GB had the throne for best value while the 8GB was cheaper meaning it offset some of the lower DX11 performance . 

I meant more that the 1060 6gb was faster on release, and its taken a few driver updates (as per for AMD) to get its performance to where it should be.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

I meant more that the 1060 6gb was faster on release, and its taken a few driver updates (as per for AMD) to get its performance to where it should be.

But the RX480 8GB at release of both the RX480 and 1060 was cheaper...

[vanished]

Well I have no reason to believe this and so I won't, but I will say that these are quite a bit ahead of what I was predicting, so take that as you will I guess.

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

But the RX480 8GB at release of both the RX480 and 1060 was cheaper...

I'm speaking purely about performance per bracket in response to an earlier statement in this thread, not price per $$$/£££

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

I'm speaking purely about performance per bracket in response to an earlier statement in this thread, not price per $$$/£££

Fair enough  

[stealth80]

4 hours ago, Prysin said:

steam isnt remotely close to being accurate for gamers world wide. Sure, it has what 14 million users? World of Warcraft has what? 8 million active users atm?.....

Same with LOL, Guildwars 2 and Overwatch. Dont use steam, has millions upon millions of players.

Ok, you tell me the percentage of people using 1080P, 1440P and 4k ..... It doesn't really matter what the database is, its a sample of a wide range of people that one can use to base estimations, exactly what I did, I didn't say it was perfect or 100% represents the globes pc users. The figures probably don't differ too much to be honest, its pretty well known that 1080P is vastly the most common screen size/res used followed by 1440P with 4k generally used for production rather than gaming due to hardware costs to drive such a res.

 

3 hours ago, Prysin said:

most used platform for gaming? Please just dont.

 

Game playerbases:

Guildwars 2 -> 5 million users (info from ArenaNet's poster on their second anniversary) (not a steam game)

WOW -> 8 million active users (not a steam game)

Overwatch -> 20 million users (active user count not found. Not a steam game)

League of Legends -> 27 million users play each day, 63 million users play on a monthly basis. Numbers are from RIOT news post in 2014. (not a steam game.)

 

So where is steam in the grand scheme of things?!

Steam -> 14million active users

XBOX One -> 26 million units (aka users)

Playstation 4 -> 51 million units (aka users)

PC gaming (overall) -> estimated to 300 millions to 1 billion users.

 

Steam aint that big, in the grand scope of things. It is insignificant in every way. ANd the hardware survey should be treated as a pointer and not proof.

Again, none of those companies make their users hardware public. I don't see what relevance this post has to do with what I said. A survey is a survey, as I said above, a rough estimation as it's not possible to capture 100% of a target audience, many things are based like this, especially in business

[Fetzie]

39 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Gibe me money so I can buy 5K Dell display

Isn't that the one you need a Quadro to drive?

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Fetzie said:

Isn't that the one you need a Quadro to drive?

No, I believe that was the 8K at CES.

[laminutederire]

5 hours ago, stealth80 said:

No, we don't buy like that though do we. We have a resolution of our current monitor (unless you upgrade at the same time, even then you know your res) so you buy the best card you can afford for the resolution of your monitor. I have a 1440P monitor, I wouldn't buy a card to play 1440P because it's the best card at 4k, i'd buy the best card at 1440P - get my point yet? Very few people in the entire GPU market play beyond 1080P, there's a shift now towards 1440P but very little at 4k. So yes, 1080P and 1440P is massively important from a business perspective

But you don't want to pay a 4k card to play on 1440p, otherwise we should all have bought the titan to play in 720p...

If it is meant to be a 4K card, and if it is priced like it, it'll be bought solely for that anyways, because of the price coherence.

[stealth80]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

But you don't want to pay a 4k card to play on 1440p, otherwise we should all have bought the titan to play in 720p...

If it is meant to be a 4K card, and if it is priced like it, it'll be bought solely for that anyways, because of the price coherence.

That's exactly what I just said?

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, stealth80 said:

That's exactly what I just said?

Not exactly, if it is meant for 4k because of its pricing,  1440p performance won't matter anyways, because they'll be more suitable cards at lower prices.

[stealth80]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Not exactly, if it is meant for 4k because of its pricing,  1440p performance won't matter anyways, because they'll be more suitable cards at lower prices.

I also said that, please read the whole thread

[Memories4K]

17 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

But you don't want to pay a 4k card to play on 1440p, otherwise we should all have bought the titan to play in 720p...

If it is meant to be a 4K card, and if it is priced like it, it'll be bought solely for that anyways, because of the price coherence.

I want to play @ 1440p 144Hz, get out of here

[ARikozuM]

When did the LTT Tech News section become WCCF Tech?

[2FA]

11 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

When did the LTT Tech News section become WCCF Tech?

Not enough fan boying for it to be WCCF.

[Bouzoo]

12 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

When did the LTT Tech News section become WCCF Tech?

It seems that in recent time, last year or so, WCCF has been pumping the most news first, be it true or false news. 

[leadeater]

Moved to General Discussion.

 

Original source does not meet the reputable guideline and subsequent evidence points to it being fake.

 

 

[Taja]

I think its funny... It was obviously fake (which I confirmed in the 4th comment) and STILL people who taught was real say stuff like "meh, thats not really good".

WTF, stop being fanboys. If it was real, this wouldnt be huge, it would be COLOSSAL.

 

Amd fanboys be like "yeah, ofc its real, amd is da bomb"

Nvidia fanboys be like "not impressed, amd is shit and always will be"

...while normal people get it is too good to be real

[Carclis]

7 hours ago, JefferyD90 said:

I don't find these realistic.  But more hopeful.

They don't seem all that unrealistic when you consider what we have seen so far. The Star Wars Battlefront numbers were probably the most impressive though (CES, not December footage) which showed well over 60fps avg performance with one drop to 57 on the most taxing map in the game. 

Compare that to Techspots results.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1174-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/page4.html

 

There are obviously other factors to consider here, but even considering there may have been more enemies/action on screen that is an undeniably large performance lead.

[Citadelen]

13 hours ago, stealth80 said:

-snip-

It's a perfectly valid statement, the 480 still has much improved tessellation performance. The Fury X was bad at lower resolutions because or the under utilisation of its shaders and it's pixel throughput remained unchanged from cards with less shaders, Vega fixes the underutilisation by redesigning the shaders, then there's new geometry and pixel engines. I heavily doubt that Vega will be as unbalanced as Fiji.

[Nena Trinity]

Could be real, but probably false...