Vega hits Compubench

[RagnarokDel]

7 hours ago, Orangeator said:

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

Night theme users, keep up!

[jasonc_01]

58 minutes ago, JamieOlive said:

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.

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.

Well steam statistics says your wrong. I guess your more informed than they are......

 

SO your argument is that Vega can win the market by being a GTX 1080 for $350, i think thats a pipe dream. The RX 500 line up will be fleshed out with an upclocked polaris rebrand so theres your $100-$300 price bracket, competing with the 1050/ti and 1060 at $100-$250 price bracket. Where the 1060 beats the rx 480 for less. Then you have Vega to compete with the 1070 refresh, 1080 refresh and 1080 ti from $400-$800.

 

So how do you see $350 for just over 1080 performance? There not going to undermine the midrange card pricing structure.Also you can run 4k 60fps on the 1080, no sli and crush it with the 1080ti.

 

 

[Citadelen]

On 2017-3-10 at 11:33 PM, LeStringMan said:

-snip-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Raja said multiple times that Vega is a ground up design?

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

8 hours ago, DocSwag said:

[1]They've been making money recently so they've got bucks, Ryzen should give them some $$$ too. [2] 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.

1. Uh, well, I'm sure they're in the positive after Ryzen, but they still weren't profitable last quarter -- they were just significantly less unprofitable.  

 

2. I completely agree with that, but AMD isn't sub-par.  2/3 of their current cards (I'm unsure about the 460) beat their Nvidia counterparts in many, if not most games.  Yes, it took a bit of waiting, but that waiting has payed off.  Those who bought AMD's cards now have the arguably superior product.

[Grinners]

8 hours ago, JamieOlive said:

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

 

 

I would bet that 90% plus of gamers are on 60hz monitors. You are very out of touch with your estimate here. 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

Where the 1060 beats the rx 480 for less

This isn't true in either's favor or true in different countries, it varies a lot. Try to stay away from such comments with products so close to each other with localized pricing differences, these two cards are better called equivalent (not equal). I say this because we don't need a thread littered with 1060 vs RX 480 comments.

 

The cheapest 1060 6GB in my country is 10% more than the cheapest RX 480 8GB (Ref) or exact same price for cheapest custom RX 480. Then if I go over to Amazon for more international prices the RX 480 is cheaper.

 

4 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

So how do you see $350 for just over 1080 performance? There not going to undermine the midrange card pricing structure.

Agreed, cheapest I could possibly see something of that performance area would be $380 but more likely $420-$450.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Citadelen said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Raja said multiple times that Vega is a ground up design?

Mostly correct yes. It's still got a ton of GCN DNA in there but it is a very big rebuild under the Next Compute Unit (NCU) moniker.

[Delicieuxz]

Steam's hardware survey (I only included resolutions that had at least 1% market share):

1024 x 768

1.57%

-0.03%

1280 x 800

1.50%

-0.15%

1280 x 1024

3.86%

-0.05%

1360 x 768

3.01%

+0.19%

1366 x 768

24.09%

-0.72%

1440 x 900

4.72%

+0.06%

1536 x 864

1.16%

-2.72%

1600 x 900

6.18%

+0.12%

1680 x 1050

3.52%

-0.10%

1920 x 1080

43.23%

+4.13%

1920 x 1200

1.11%

-0.06%

2560 x 1440

1.81%

-0.02%

Other

1.80%

-0.19%

 

 

And I agree that the number of people with a more than 60 hz display is very small - I'd guess less than 6%.

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

[snip]

1536 x 864? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)  Who manufactured such a thing and how can we burn down the factory?

 

 

[Valentyn]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

1536 x 864? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)  Who manufactured such a thing and how can we burn down the factory?

 

 

Laptops for ya!

 

I use to game at 1280x1024 for years on my CRT! 

[DocSwag]

11 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:1. Uh, well, I'm sure they're in the positive after Ryzen, but they still weren't profitable last quarter -- they were just significantly less unprofitable.  

 

2. I completely agree with that, but AMD isn't sub-par.  2/3 of their current cards (I'm unsure about the 460) beat their Nvidia counterparts in many, if not most games.  Yes, it took a bit of waiting, but that waiting has payed off.  Those who bought AMD's cards now have the arguably superior product.

Part of the reason was because they paid off a significant amount of debt last quarter, if they hadn't done that they woulda been profitable.

 

I'm not saying they actually are sub par, but when I buy a product I just look at what it's performing like right now as my metric. I can't be sure amd will actually improve performance more over the long run than Nvidia, and so I'd rather just go for the better performing card at the time that I want to buy the card. Hence why last year I was consistently recommending the 1060 over the 480, though now I recommend the 480. It really can put off customers by having performance slowly increase rather than be there at the beginning is what I'm saying, so it's just better to invest the money in the beginning for better drivers.

[DocSwag]

6 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

1536 x 864? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)  Who manufactured such a thing and how can we burn down the factory?

 

 

[vanished]

7 hours ago, Valentyn said:

Laptops for ya!

 

I use to game at 1280x1024 for years on my CRT! 

I still use a display with that for my secondary, but certain resolutions were common, and some should not exist.

• 800 x 600
• 1024 x 768
• 1280 x 960 / 1024
• 1440 x 900
• 1600 x 1200
• 1680 x 1050
• 1600 x 900
• 1280 x 720
• 1920 x 1080
• etc

Those are all fairly common and have nice numbers.  Some on the other hand aren't so great

• 1360 x 768
• 1366 x 768 (Why on god's green earth do we need both of these!? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)  One was bad enough, especially considering they're not even exactly 16:9, but the fact there are two so close together makes this pair my most hated resolution(s))
• 1152 x 864
• 1536 x 864

Some of these are also common but I wish they weren't.  There are other resolutions very close in size to them with much nicer numbers that already existed... these had no reason to live  

[themctipers]

im gonna be salty when vega releases and its cheaper than the 1070 and probably faster (canada)

 

i like totally could've waited 5 months with the iGPU's 30hz 1440p

[Belgarathian]

On 3/11/2017 at 11:32 AM, bakidota said:

vega was never designed to beat 1080ti, it was designed to go head to head vs 1080gtx

At least they didn't lead with "Hunting Titans" this time... 

[Zeeus]

On 3/10/2017 at 5:10 PM, Misanthrope said:

Oh but wait for:

 

1) DX12

2) drivers 

3) No not THAT DX12 game others like AOTS and....wait for the API to mature and devs to git gud! 

4) No not those drivers. Not those either...it takes like a year for them to mature! 

 

Ah the joys of AMD future proofing. 

GOLD.

[Spenser1337]

On 3/11/2017 at 5:38 PM, jasonc_01 said:

Well steam statistics says your wrong. I guess your more informed than they are......

 

SO your argument is that Vega can win the market by being a GTX 1080 for $350, i think thats a pipe dream. The RX 500 line up will be fleshed out with an upclocked polaris rebrand so theres your $100-$300 price bracket, competing with the 1050/ti and 1060 at $100-$250 price bracket. Where the 1060 beats the rx 480 for less. Then you have Vega to compete with the 1070 refresh, 1080 refresh and 1080 ti from $400-$800.

 

So how do you see $350 for just over 1080 performance? There not going to undermine the midrange card pricing structure.Also you can run 4k 60fps on the 1080, no sli and crush it with the 1080ti.

 

 

What world do you live in where the 1060 beats the 480 for less

the 1060 is equal to the 480 for more

[Memories4K]

15 minutes ago, Spenser1337 said:

What world do you live in where the 1060 beats the 480 for less

the 1060 is equal to the 480 for more

Early on in both cards' release, the GTX 1060 was about the same price, if not cheaper, to the RX 480 but had better performance.

It's only somewhat recently that i could really recommend a 480 over a 1060, thanx to driver updates from AMD increasing performance.

[maartendc]

Im surprised nobody is commenting on the fact that the price is what really matters here.

 

If they offer GTX 1080 performance for the price of a 1070, theyve got a killer card.

 

Also, these metrics mean very little in terms of actual performance. Time will tell.

[Spenser1337]

8 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

Early on in both cards' release, the GTX 1060 was about the same price, if not cheaper, to the RX 480 but had better performance.

It's only somewhat recently that i could really recommend a 480 over a 1060, thanx to driver updates from AMD increasing performance.

480 is way cheaper, go on newegg

[maartendc]

On 3/11/2017 at 11:34 PM, Delicieuxz said:

Steam's hardware survey (I only included resolutions that had at least 1% market share):

1024 x 768

1.57%

-0.03%

1280 x 800

1.50%

-0.15%

1280 x 1024

3.86%

-0.05%

1360 x 768

3.01%

+0.19%

1366 x 768

24.09%

-0.72%

1440 x 900

4.72%

+0.06%

1536 x 864

1.16%

-2.72%

1600 x 900

6.18%

+0.12%

1680 x 1050

3.52%

-0.10%

1920 x 1080

43.23%

+4.13%

1920 x 1200

1.11%

-0.06%

2560 x 1440

1.81%

-0.02%

Other

1.80%

-0.19%

 

 

And I agree that the number of people with a more than 60 hz display is very small - I'd guess less than 6%.

Holy shit, more people on 1366 x 768 than 1440p??

 

It must be all those shitty $500 laptops that didnt even have 1080p screens they sold up to last year. Seriously, ANY laptop around $500-$600 had a 768p screen! Meanwhile, every $300 smartphone has a 1080p screen. WTF

[Notional]

On 12/3/2017 at 7:49 AM, Ryan_Vickers said:

1536 x 864? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)  Who manufactured such a thing and how can we burn down the factory?

 

 

 

Seems like a non native resolution, as many laptops seems to default to it, with a native 1080p panel. Oh well.

20 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Holy shit, more people on 1366 x 768 than 1440p??

 

It must be all those shitty $500 laptops that didnt even have 1080p screens they sold up to last year. Seriously, ANY laptop around $500-$600 had a 768p screen! Meanwhile, every $300 smartphone has a 1080p screen. WTF

 

"Problem" with steam survey, is that it combines ALL computers from ALL markets into one. That includes crappy laptops that can just about handle CS Go, Dota 2 and hidden object games, as well as obsolete crappy pc's from poorer parts of the world like south america, eastern europe, parts of asia, etc.

 

This is a tech forum, where people like to go for the best and newest. You won't see all of steam users group be like us.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

Early on in both cards' release, the GTX 1060 was about the same price, if not cheaper, to the RX 480 but had better performance.

It's only somewhat recently that i could really recommend a 480 over a 1060, thanx to driver updates from AMD increasing performance.

Are you sure?  I seem to recall the 1060 being ahead and more expensive at launch, until the AMD drivers improved and pushed it ahead.  Haven't kept up on what the prices have done since then.

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Are you sure?  I seem to recall the 1060 being ahead and more expensive at launch, until the AMD drivers improved and pushed it ahead.  Haven't kept up on what the prices have done since then.

Depended on region... some regions had the 480 at Nvidia prices and the 1060 at AMD prices... It was weird lol

[Memories4K]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Are you sure?  I seem to recall the 1060 being ahead and more expensive at launch, until the AMD drivers improved and pushed it ahead.  Haven't kept up on what the prices have done since then.

I believe they were the same price, or cheaper; if i'm wrong, then the 1060 was at such a price where it was the clear better value at the time for it's performance over the 480.

I saw recent benchmarks a few months ago and started recommending the RX 480 from then on because the 480 is definitely cheaper now and at the time i had saw the performance increase to such a degree that it would be the better option.