Vega hits Compubench

[LeStringMan]

Just now, Space Reptile said:

https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&D=AMD+687F%3AC1&testgroup=info

 

That's cache, not ram, GCN has 16 kilobytes of L1 cache per CU which is what thats showing, look at any other GCN card like a 260X and it will show the same.

https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&D=AMD+Radeon+R7+260X&testgroup=info

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Droidbot said:

somehow you fail to realise that that's their point

they're a business

they have to make money somehow

and if that's putting fanboys onto a dream

so fucking be it

O V E R C L O C K E R ' S
D R E A M

[Space Reptile]

33 minutes ago, LeStringMan said:

That's cache, not ram, GCN has 16 kilobytes of L1 cache per CU which is what thats showing, look at any other GCN card like a 260X and it will show the same.

https://compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&D=AMD+Radeon+R7+260X&testgroup=info

oh that explains it 

 

derp 

[Paragon_X]

15 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

If they are coming to fight the GTX 1080, unless they are gonna sell it for 1060 price, its gonna fall really deep into the deep and be left in there lol.

So you want a 1080 level card for 250 USD. I mean we all do but a reallity check is in dire need.

[VerticalDiscussions]

15 minutes ago, Paragon_X said:

-snip-

Well, they got you an almost 1000$ performance for 499$. You were saying?

[Orangeator]

3 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

What's really cancerous are the people who complain about other people's posts, imposing their decision on others. Personally, Idgaf if you're using the night theme, deal with it.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

[Paragon_X]

1 minute ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Well, they got you an almost 1000$ performance for 499$. You were saying?

Thats a 250 USD price difference or 100% up from the GTX 1060 MSRP. 

[VerticalDiscussions]

16 minutes ago, Paragon_X said:

-snip-

Okay. But at least it shouldnt cross the 450$\500€ mark if they want a match for the 1080 and be sucessfull uh?

[cj09beira]

12 hours ago, DocSwag said:

It's a lot of driver stuff, as evidenced by all the drivers that give performance boosts. I'd say it's more so on the driver side than dev side.

with vega there is some things that need to be coded for, and need to be implemented by devs like: use of more fp16 for increased performance, the new memory might also need some sort of dev intervention, but yes theres a lot they need to do with the driver side 

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

48 minutes ago, DocSwag said:

Nvidias products aren't delayed so that's not really that valid of an argument. You could argue, "AMD doesn't have the money for this!" But this would be something that could make them money over the long term!

Well, AMD has to have the money to invest in better on-launch drivers, and right now they simply don't have the money.  Nvidia, iirc, also has a much larger driver team.

[DarkBlade2117]

4 hours ago, Morgan Everett said:

Where did they say that?

 

4 hours ago, Prysin said:

n

e

v

e

r

That, is where you are wrong.

I'll say it once more. One of their latest share holder reports.

[MoonSpot]

1 minute ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

 

That, is where you are wrong.

I'll say it once more. One of their latest share holder reports.

 

Oh, you were being serious?  I thought you were doing an impersonation of someone else that used to say that (often).  Well, I for one would love for that to be true; but will remain skeptical until verified.

[arnavvr]

Is AMD never going to be on top again? They used to challenge Nvidia's best. Now they are just aiming to beat the midrange cards. Quite sad honestly.

[DocSwag]

46 minutes ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Well, AMD has to have the money to invest in better on-launch drivers, and right now they simply don't have the money.  Nvidia, iirc, also has a much larger driver team.

They've been making money recently so they've got bucks, Ryzen should give them some $$$ too. Anyhow, defending companies being sub-par to others because they don't have the bucks doesn't mean anything to me, since I just buy whatever's the best, and if they're sub par I don't care why I'm just not gonna buy their stuff.

[Morgan Everett]

39 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

 

That, is where you are wrong.

I'll say it once more. One of their latest share holder reports.

I was looking for a little more than that. What share holder report?

[dizmo]

17 hours ago, TechGod said:

I hope so too because otherwise Vega will fail if the big chip can't compete with the Ti

I don't think it will fail. If it's priced properly there's loads of people that wouldn't mind saving a little money if they can get 1080 performance for less. More volume with less profit is generally how AMD seems to operate.

17 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

With all the new processors out in the last few months, and the ti now out. I think they could miss the boat on many people upgrading now.

Yes and no. I think a lot of people are going to wait for Ryzen 5 to see how it plays out. Could be the perfect in between chip. I know I am. Plus I'm hoping for a SFF Vega card. Something more powerful than a 1070 for an UW.

16 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

A while ago I made some predictions based on info we had at the time, that suggested that Vega would be (after driver optimization and all that) 95% as good as an OCed 1080 in non-Vulkan games and ~20% better than an OCed 1080 in Vulkan games. 

-snip-

 

Don't tease me like that!

Hopefully the price isn't completely insane, and they come out with a really small card like the Nano again.

16 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

We have no info on this.. all we know is AMD said 1080 performance at 480 prices.

If that's true, that's pretty incredible. We'll see what we actually get. I think it'll fall short of that.

11 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

It might be in this one.

Edit: Raja mentions it starting @ 7:00 in that video. Not sure if there's more mention about it later on. He says AMD was 2 - 3 years behind when they started working on Polaris, because AMD didn't feel that discrete GPU gaming was important to gaming's future. He also says he had to convince AMD that discrete GPU gaming needed to be a focus, and that the goal with Polaris was not to be competing again (with Nvidia) but just to start getting back some market share, while Radeon continues to work on catching up in development.

They pushed hard for APUs for a long time. I'm not too surprised that's the case.

1 hour ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Well, they got you an almost 1000$ performance for 499$. You were saying?

That's kind of different, AMD didn't have a CPU that matched anywhere near that performance, so Intel could charge whatever they wanted. The price differences when we talk about GPUs are a lot different.

[JamieOlive]

I don't think this information is legit.

 

Remember a few months back when the MI25 Vega based sever GPU presented to the press. It had an estimated compute performance or 12,5 Tflops beating the Titan XP.

 

But if you consider that consumer cards hit bigger clock speeds and will be offered in a variety of configuration from 4Gb TO 12Gb it would be quite possible that the Vega top dog will be faster than the GTX 1080 by 10-15%, and if you factor in a price of around 350-400$ that would make it quite the King in very high end GPU Market, especially if you consider than more than 60% of gamers still use 1080p 144Hz monitors.

 

On top of that I read somewhere not sure where but it was a reputable forum, that Ryzen and Vega will play along much nicer than Nvidia and Intel does today, along with API improvements and developer focus on Ryzen and Vega release, it might gain more FPS for less technology on the actual card, very much as Apple MacBook Pro does in recent years.

Raza mentioned it in the recent event too.

[MyName13]

6 minutes ago, JamieOlive said:

especially if you consider than more than 60% of gamers still use 1080p 144Hz monitors.

 

Wait what?

[JamieOlive]

Just now, MyName13 said:

Wait what?

What do you mean, its broadly true that gamers prefer either 1080p or 1440p with more than 100Hz for their gaming than 4K

 

And even if you don't believe me, do the math.

 

Until recently you would need a GTX 1080 with a 6700K, you would overclock them both (1000$ just for CPU AND GPU, whole system lets say 1500$ Min), and then you would need at leaast 500-750$ for a 4K 60Hz Monitor.Total cost at $2000+, just to play at 40-55 fps, of course they would get 2 or 3 1080p monitors for suround gaming, at approximately 65-80 fps at 144hz, although those monitors might cost a little more depending on the model.

[Paragon_X]

2 hours ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Okay. But at least it shouldnt cross the 450$\500€ mark if they want a match for the 1080 and be sucessfull uh?

To this I agree yes.

[jasonc_01]

10 minutes ago, JamieOlive said:

What do you mean, its broadly true that gamers prefer either 1080p or 1440p with more than 100Hz for their gaming than 4K

 

And even if you don't believe me, do the math.

 

Until recently you would need a GTX 1080 with a 6700K, you would overclock them both (1000$ just for CPU AND GPU, whole system lets say 1500$ Min), and then you would need at leaast 500-750$ for a 4K 60Hz Monitor.Total cost at $2000+, just to play at 40-55 fps, of course they would get 2 or 3 1080p monitors for suround gaming, at approximately 65-80 fps at 144hz, although those monitors might cost a little more depending on the model.

umm no

[JamieOlive]

32 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

umm no

Why no??

[jasonc_01]

40 minutes ago, JamieOlive said:

Why no??

because 60%+ are not using 1080p 144Hz monitors, 60-100 Hz 1080p and below are the vast majority.

 

Your second paragraph just looks like nonsense, not sure what your getting at.

Quote

Until recently you would need a GTX 1080 with a 6700K, you would overclock them both (1000$ just for CPU AND GPU, whole system lets say 1500$ Min), and then you would need at leaast 500-750$ for a 4K 60Hz Monitor.Total cost at $2000+, just to play at 40-55 fps, of course they would get 2 or 3 1080p monitors for suround gaming, at approximately 65-80 fps at 144hz, although those monitors might cost a little more depending on the model.

 

 

 

As well these are claims and estimates on a still unreleased product vs real numbers of the actually released titan xp and now actual numbers from an ACTUAL Vega powered device.

1 hour ago, JamieOlive said:

I don't think this information is legit.

 

Remember a few months back when the MI25 Vega based sever GPU presented to the press. It had an estimated compute performance or 12,5 Tflops beating the Titan XP.

 

So REAL vs AMD CLAIMS = umm no

[JamieOlive]

1 hour ago, jasonc_01 said:

because 60%+ are not using 1080p 144Hz monitors, 60-100 Hz 1080p and below are the vast majority.

 

Your second paragraph just looks like nonsense, not sure what your getting at.

Alright, here we go again, we were talking about gamers, if gamers is our target group then the majority of use cases says 1080p or 1440p at 100+ Hz.

 

If we are talking about casual things and a little gaming like "Lol or Overwatch or etc", then the config I listed is non valid, noone would buy a 1080 for that purpose.

1 hour ago, jasonc_01 said:

Your second paragraph just looks like nonsense, not sure what your getting at.

Quote

Until recently you would need a GTX 1080 with a 6700K, you would overclock them both (1000$ just for CPU AND GPU, whole system lets say 1500$ Min), and then you would need at leaast 500-750$ for a 4K 60Hz Monitor.Total cost at $2000+, just to play at 40-55 fps, of course they would get 2 or 3 1080p monitors for suround gaming, at approximately 65-80 fps at 144hz, although those monitors might cost a little more depending on the model.

Where I was getting at is, than unlike what we see in youtube most people don't have 2000$ to burn on gaming, thus 1080p 100+Hz Monitors are the most used ones at the moment.Y need to have SLI on either 1080 or 1080Ti to run frames for Gaming-Gaming on 4K that's why I stated that config, to point out that Vega doesn't need to be at 1080Ti or Titan XP levels, even 20% lower performance for 350$ would win the market in their favor and would do what Ryzen did on the CPU market, even if you or anyone else isn't sold on it yet.

[DocSwag]

3 hours ago, JamieOlive said:

What do you mean, its broadly true that gamers prefer either 1080p or 1440p with more than 100Hz for their gaming than 4K

 

And even if you don't believe me, do the math.

 

Until recently you would need a GTX 1080 with a 6700K, you would overclock them both (1000$ just for CPU AND GPU, whole system lets say 1500$ Min), and then you would need at leaast 500-750$ for a 4K 60Hz Monitor.Total cost at $2000+, just to play at 40-55 fps, of course they would get 2 or 3 1080p monitors for suround gaming, at approximately 65-80 fps at 144hz, although those monitors might cost a little more depending on the model.

Do you have any sources to back up your statement that 60% of gamers have 1080p144hz monitors?