Possible Vega TimeSpy benchmark result (from the amd subreddit)

[Valentyn]

3 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

And a 700MHz memory clock.

Which is less than the slower 1.4Gbps HBM2 used on NVIDIA's Tesla P100, which runs at 715Mhz.

https://www.microway.com/hpc-tech-tips/nvidia-tesla-p100-pci-e-16gb-gpu-accelerator-pascal-gp100-close/

Where as AMD is supposed to be using 1.6 and 2.0 Gbps HBM2.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2517-hbm2-specs-and-launch-in-3q16-under-sk-hynix

[TheRandomness]

Just now, Valentyn said:

Which is less than the slower 1.4Gbps HBM2 used on NVIDIA's Tesla P100, which runs at 715Mhz.

https://www.microway.com/hpc-tech-tips/nvidia-tesla-p100-pci-e-16gb-gpu-accelerator-pascal-gp100-close/

Where as AMD is supposed to be using 1.6 and 2.0 Gbps HBM2.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/2517-hbm2-specs-and-launch-in-3q16-under-sk-hynix

So basically, either faked or early engineering sample.

[Valentyn]

Just now, TheRandomness said:

So basically, either faked or early engineering sample.

 

Yes, especially when comparing it to the Fury X's score. It's clocked nearly 20% higher, but barely 6% faster in Time Spy.

So either it's fake, or Vega, despite improvements to GCN, and their new NCUs, has regressed dramatically in IPC.

[xAcid9]

13 minutes ago, Valentyn said:

 

Clocked nearly 20% faster than Fury X, but only 6% faster? 
It's fake.

Maybe it's true and thats why Vega is taking so damn long to prep.  

 

In the meantime, Vega should outperform Fiji pretty significantly.

 

[Valentyn]

Just now, xAcid9 said:

Maybe it's true and thats why Vega is taking so damn long to prep.  

Well Vega in the form of Instinct is already being sold.

 

Liquid Sky are using Vega based cards for their Cloud Game Streaming services.

http://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/103957-amd-vega-powered-liquidsky-streaming-servers-go-live/

[Agosto]

28 minutes ago, xAcid9 said:

Maybe it's true and thats why Vega is taking so damn long to prep.  

I'm sure the silicon is more than ready and they're just working on the last vBIOS fixes and prerelease drivers, other than preparing large enough stocks

And hopefully there's more collaboration with AIBs this time (unlike Ryzen launch)

[ApolloFury]

This benchmark has a Ryzen CPU of around 3.6GHz only?

[RadiatingLight]

58 minutes ago, Agost said:

AIBs this time (unlike Ryzen launch)

There are no AIBs for Ryzen. only motherboards.

 

it would be pretty strange for someone to be selling a motherboard with a soldered-on Ryzen CPU.

[Godlygamer23]

Thread moved to Graphics Cards.

[Doobeedoo]

Definitely fake yeah. Like mentioned reasons above.

[Agosto]

6 hours ago, RadiatingLight said:

There are no AIBs for Ryzen. only motherboards.

 

it would be pretty strange for someone to be selling a motherboard with a soldered-on Ryzen CPU.

Come on, I meant the mobo manufacturers for the ryzen part

[cj09beira]

this gpu is performing at the levels of a fury x at 1220 mhz with 540 mhz hbm while having the same clock but much less memory bandwidth,

the fury x was memory starved for some reason so seeing this levels of perf at lower bandwidth is good.

 

What i expect: core clock to increase to around 1525 mhz and up; hbm2 running at 2 Gbps to achieve 512 Gb/s memory bandwidth.

fury   x  :1220 mhz core 540 mhz hbm => 10 tflops, and 552 Gb/s memory bandwidth 5762 graphics score

Vega ??:1200 mhz core 700 mhz hbm2 =>9.8 tflops, and 358 Gb/s memory bandwidth 5721 graphics score

 

 

sources:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741

http://hwbot.org/submission/3272905_dagget3450_3dmark___time_spy_radeon_r9_fury_x_6179_marks

[lxyfutures]

it's fake. This ID is from mainland of China which cannot be the first place for AMD to test their new VEGA anyway. it should be either taiwan or the US

The score is ridiculous too. a pretty obvious drawback compare to Fiji (frequency/score)

[mr moose]

58 minutes ago, lxyfutures said:

it's fake. This ID is from mainland of China which cannot be the first place for AMD to test their new VEGA anyway. it should be either taiwan or the US

The score is ridiculous too. a pretty obvious drawback compare to Fiji (frequency/score)

I was wondering about that.  . 

[bakidota]

another overhype for amd, vega will not outperform a 1080ti which was a gpu made in 2016 and held up for release until 2017 for marketing purposes, with the recent amd skybox fiasco where they zoom in battlefield 1 and point the cursor to the skybox in sniper elite 4 just to gain more fps over intel, i don't expect anything to change, they will show superb fps scores in doom, sniper elite 4 and prey at computex and over hype the shit out of vega

[thewipyk]

I think you are forgetting one thing. This card not necesserely be a VEGA #80 card (680?)
What if this is a #70? For that, it really is a good one, and without proprer drivers it gets near a 1070. I wouldn't bury this card right away.

[Master Disaster]

What ever it is its only scoring within 300pts of my 1070

 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/640382

 

If that's really Vega then things are not looking good for AMD but I agree, its best to wait and see before jumping to any conclusions.

[AlTech]

16 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

And a 700MHz memory clock.

The OG HBM was running at 500MHz though iirc.

 

I did say a while back that AMD would need some damn horsepower to beat the 1080.

 

According to my calculations, VEGA will not beat the GTX 1080Ti and you can quote me on that sadly.

 

AMD's VEGA GPU should perform similarly to a GTX 1080...

 

Spoiler

My Calculations.

 

Take a GTX 1060 perf and try to establish an equivalent with an RX 580.

 

1280 Cuda Cores * 1.7GHz == 2304 Stream Processors * 1.3GHz

 

1280 * 1.7 = 2176

2304 * 1.3 = 2995.2

 

so therefore we divide 2176 by 2995.2 to get 0.726495

 

For each 1 VEGA Stream Processor (assuming arch is kinda similar to Polaris), it will perform like 0.726 Pascal Cuda Cores.

 

Therefore, we can multiply 0.726 by 4096 to get 2975.73

 

So basically, AMD's GPU will not beat a GTX 1080Ti. It will struggle to beat a GTX 1080.....

 

VERY RIP indeed.

 

[Agosto]

7 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

The OG HBM was running at 500MHz though iirc.

 

I did say a while back that AMD would need some damn horsepower to beat the 1080.

 

According to my calculations, VEGA will not beat the GTX 1080Ti and you can quote me on that sadly.

 

AMD's VEGA GPU should perform similarly to a GTX 1080...

  Hide contents

My Calculations.

 

Take a GTX 1060 perf and try to establish an equivalent with an RX 580.

 

1280 Cuda Cores * 1.7GHz == 2304 Stream Processors * 1.3GHz

 

1280 * 1.7 = 2176

2304 * 1.3 = 2995.2

 

so therefore we divide 2176 by 2995.2 to get 0.726495

 

For each 1 VEGA Stream Processor (assuming arch is kinda similar to Polaris), it will perform like 0.726 Pascal Cuda Cores.

 

Therefore, we can multiply 0.726 by 4096 to get 2975.73

 

So basically, AMD's GPU will not beat a GTX 1080Ti. It will struggle to beat a GTX 1080.....

 

VERY RIP indeed.

 

 

You should consider the 1060 at about 1850 MHz, which is the average clockspeed under load for the reference edition. Current nvidia declared frequencies mean almost nothing because of gpu boost.

[TOMPPIX]

this might actually be the rx 490. device Hardware ID 687F:C1 http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/device-id-687fc1-surfaces-in-aots-vega-10-aka-rx-490-spotted.html

you have to compare the scores and it will reveal the device id.

[Carclis]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

According to my calculations, VEGA will not beat the GTX 1080Ti and you can quote me on that sadly.

 

AMD's VEGA GPU should perform similarly to a GTX 1080...

  Reveal hidden contents

My Calculations.

 

Take a GTX 1060 perf and try to establish an equivalent with an RX 580.

 

1280 Cuda Cores * 1.7GHz == 2304 Stream Processors * 1.3GHz

 

1280 * 1.7 = 2176

2304 * 1.3 = 2995.2

 

so therefore we divide 2176 by 2995.2 to get 0.726495

 

For each 1 VEGA Stream Processor (assuming arch is kinda similar to Polaris), it will perform like 0.726 Pascal Cuda Cores.

 

Therefore, we can multiply 0.726 by 4096 to get 2975.73

 

So basically, AMD's GPU will not beat a GTX 1080Ti. It will struggle to beat a GTX 1080.....

 

VERY RIP indeed.

 

I think your calculations make a few too many assumptions. The main two are your assumption that RX Vega is likely to be around 1300Mhz when evidence directly from AMD points to 1500Mhz (15% over Polaris) or more and the other one is that the RX Vega will bring no IPC improvements compared to Polaris/Fiji. Also consider that the GTX 1060 boosts to 1700Mhz at a bare minimum, when in reality GPU boost usually clocks higher and often closer to 1900Mhz.

[TheRandomness]

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

The OG HBM was running at 500MHz though iirc.

 

I did say a while back that AMD would need some damn horsepower to beat the 1080.

 

According to my calculations, VEGA will not beat the GTX 1080Ti and you can quote me on that sadly.

 

AMD's VEGA GPU should perform similarly to a GTX 1080...

 

  Hide contents

My Calculations.

 

Take a GTX 1060 perf and try to establish an equivalent with an RX 580.

 

1280 Cuda Cores * 1.7GHz == 2304 Stream Processors * 1.3GHz

 

1280 * 1.7 = 2176

2304 * 1.3 = 2995.2

 

so therefore we divide 2176 by 2995.2 to get 0.726495

 

For each 1 VEGA Stream Processor (assuming arch is kinda similar to Polaris), it will perform like 0.726 Pascal Cuda Cores.

 

Therefore, we can multiply 0.726 by 4096 to get 2975.73

 

So basically, AMD's GPU will not beat a GTX 1080Ti. It will struggle to beat a GTX 1080.....

 

VERY RIP indeed.

 

But then, due to the different architectures between AMD and Nvidia, there's no reliable way to compared them except though gaming benchmarks.

[i_build_nanosuits]

This is where it's at so far for vega, after being slower than a GTX 1080 in DOOM back early this year at the AMD event:

 

 

 

Still if they come in at 399$...assuming they pull around 50W more than a GTX 1080...it might fit well for some people...i guess

 

 

[AlTech]

=

9 hours ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

This is where it's at so far for vega, after being slower than a GTX 1080 in DOOM back early this year at the AMD event:

 

 

 

Still if they come in at 399$...assuming they pull around 50W more than a GTX 1080...it might fit well for some people...i guess

 

 

That is depressing af.

 

AMD spent time redesigning NG GCN to basically not avail.

[Tam3n]

Based on the rumors that Vega beat 1080 ti at RRA GPU certification, I doubt it's that slow.