Vega FE benchmarked by random dude

[cj09beira]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

It's speculated that Vega is using tiled rasterization, similar to what NVIDIA did when they made Maxwell 2.

 

So that shouldn't really have an effect on anything considering Maxwell 2 performed admirably well across the board.

i guess then that we have to wait to see what they can do on the driver side.

(come on vulkan release the fp16 support, i wanna see doom be even faster)

[zMeul]

AMD fucked up really big

 

so not only they can't provide top tier performance from a top tier GPU, but they're also few years behind

if memory serves, GTX1080 was around GTX Titan X (Maxwell v2) in terms of perf - so ... Vega is what? two years behind  with Volta right around the corner

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

AMD fucked up really big

 

so not only they can't provide top tier performance from a top tier GPU, but they're also few years behind

if memory serves, GTX1080 was around GTX Titan X (Maxwell v2) in terms of perf - so ... Vega is what? two years behind  with Volta right around the corner

Don't be silly zMeul... The GTX 1080 was about 20-25% faster than the Titan X (Maxwell)

 

But seriously, we should probably wait to see how the rest of the vega lineup looks. While I don't buy it that they will be releasing cards that will beat Nvidia's current top end, we all know AMD likes to hold that price:performance crown in every part of the consumer market segment. If they can release a card that performs relatively close to a 1080 Ti, but priced at around a 1080, it will still be a win. Not many people buy a $700-$800 GPU for gaming, but a $400-$500 GPU that gets close, would certainly shake things up a bit.

 

The problem is, if this card is any indication of what their cutdown cards do, then they are in for a world of hurt. If they do release a card that cuts down on all of the compute performance, and is capable of much higher clock speeds as a result (think Maxwell vs Kepler), then they might be able to produce a competitive product in that regard. I just won't be holding my breath until then.

[Valentyn]

12 minutes ago, zMeul said:

AMD fucked up really big

 

so not only they can't provide top tier performance from a top tier GPU, but they're also few years behind

if memory serves, GTX1080 was around GTX Titan X (Maxwell v2) in terms of perf - so ... Vega is what? two years behind  with Volta right around the corner

The GTX 1070 is advertised by Nvidia as Titan X performance. The 1080 is over 24% faster than that. 

 

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1080/26.html

[zMeul]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

This is the slower VEGA card.  You don't know the performance of the card/s coming out in July as nobody does.  Why would base that conclusion on only one card?

I'm not talking about the card I'm talking about the perf of the architecture that seems really really bad even compared to Fiji

and the power draw

 

doing some on the knee "calculations" a Vega card that would be similar in perf to a 1080Ti would require well over 400W - that's simply not going to be

[zMeul]

9 minutes ago, MageTank said:

But seriously, we should probably wait to see how the rest of the vega lineup looks. While I don't buy it that they will be releasing cards that will beat Nvidia's current top end, we all know AMD likes to hold that price:performance crown in every part of the consumer market segment. If they can release a card that performs relatively close to a 1080 Ti, but priced at around a 1080, it will still be a win. Not many people buy a $700-$800 GPU for gaming, but a $400-$500 GPU that gets close, would certainly shake things up a bit.

 

The problem is, if this card is any indication of what their cutdown cards do, then they are in for a world of hurt. If they do release a card that cuts down on all of the compute performance, and is capable of much higher clock speeds as a result (think Maxwell vs Kepler), then they might be able to produce a competitive product in that regard. I just won't be holding my breath until then.

assuming the RX Vega would be as cheap as you say, but can AMD afford them to be cheap? don't think so

you would buy a cheaper card to get fucked over the electricity bill - a GTX1080 draws significantly less power

[MageTank]

Just now, zMeul said:

assuming the RX Vega would be as cheap as you say, but can AMD afford them to be cheap? don't think so

you would buy a cheaper card to get fucked over the electricity bill - a GTX1080 draws significantly less power

Can they afford to? Probably not. However, selling at a loss to try to gain more marketshare isn't unheard of. It's done everywhere. Also, the electrical bill argument is a stale one, and doesn't apply universally. We are talking insignificant differences at idle, and even at load, not enough to warrant a real concern for electrical cost unless you were buying several of them to run full bore at all times. 

 

Now, you can make an argument for longevity, as high power consumption without a proper way to dissipate it will no doubt have consequences on their lifespan(especially once you factor in how high the thermals are without an OC), it's still something that can be remedied by third party manufacturers or a water block. 

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

assuming the RX Vega would be as cheap as you say, but can AMD afford them to be cheap? don't think so

you would buy a cheaper card to get fucked over the electricity bill - a GTX1080 draws significantly less power

You would have to have seriously high energy costs and play at full GPU load every day for multiple hours for that to matter much.

 

If Vega uses 50W more and you play games 6 hours a day that cause maximum power draw and you pay $0.23/KWh that's $25 a year more. So if you pay $200 less for the card that is an overall net win. The number of hours used, full 365 days and the power cost I used are all unrealistically high so yea power cost isn't a consideration.

[zMeul]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You would have to have seriously high energy costs and play at full GPU load every day for multiple hours for that to matter much.

around here electricity is quite a pain

I went from a Q9950 + GTX970 to a i5 6500 + GTX1070 and my bill about halved!! and you need to take into account that my new system allows to play games with higher quality setting and FPS

[MageTank]

11 minutes ago, zMeul said:

around here electricity is quite a pain

I went from a Q9950 + GTX970 to a i5 6500 + GTX1070 and my bill about halved!! and you need to take into account that my new system allows to play games with higher quality setting and FPS

Going from a CPU that used 95w and a GPU that used 145w, to a CPU that uses 65w and a GPU that uses 165w,(a 10w combined difference) cut your bill in half? I find that hard to believe. Barring the technological advances in power saving features for CPU's, Maxwell and Pascal idle at almost exactly the same power consumption, and that simply doesn't add up to your claims.

 

Either you are over-exaggerating the extent of your power savings, or you use your system far less now than what you did back then. Factoring in the CPU power saving features that we have today, you are still not cutting your system power consumption in half, no matter how you look at it. This is especially true under load, not to mention modern instruction sets causing CPU's to use more power (regardless of their advertised TDP). 

 

Either way, you cannot use yourself as the be all, end all example of electricity costs as a means to write this card (or it's architecture as a whole) off as a failure. I am willing to let your history with this company slide, but do not mislead people intentionally to frame that narrative. 

[zMeul]

at mining Eth is worse than Titan Xp 

according to Ryan 

[zMeul]

28 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, essentially just assumptions.

assumptions with basis in reality - this is not pixie dust and unicorns

if you expect RX Vega to perform differently from what we're seeing today, mate prepare for disappointment 

[Notional]

13 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Either you are over-exaggerating the extent of your power savings, or you use your system far less now than what you did back then. Factoring in the CPU power saving features that we have today, you are still not cutting your system power consumption in half, no matter how you look at it. This is especially true under load, not to mention modern instruction sets causing CPU's to use more power (regardless of their advertised TDP). 

 

If you want to throw him a bone, the Q9550 is so extremely obsolete, that it would probably run at 100% performance 100% of the time. The new CPU won't. But yeah, it's a BS statement.

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

at mining Eth is worse than Titan Xp 

according to Ryan 

AWESOME! That means gamers will be able to actually get a hold of the RX cards when they launch. Thanks for the good news

[cj09beira]

20 minutes ago, Notional said:

If you want to throw him a bone, the Q9550 is so extremely obsolete, that it would probably run at 100% performance 100% of the time. The new CPU won't. But yeah, it's a BS statement.

AWESOME! That means gamers will be able to actually get a hold of the RX cards when they launch. Thanks for the good news

except it will probably be very good for other algorithms, but it should help to reduce the impact miners have on it by a lot as ethereum is the main coin by a long shot.

ethereum is going away from mining and then they will spread to other coins.

[HKZeroFive]

Between this rando and PCPer's "benchmarks" of the card, RX Vega does look to disappoint. Ryan doesn't sound impressed. I'm definitely not.

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, MageTank said:

-snip-

Even halving the power usage on a computer won't cut the power bill in half, unless that is literally the only electricity consuming device in the house 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

Between this rando and PCPer's "benchmarks" of the card, RX Vega does look to disappoint. Ryan doesn't sound impressed. I'm definitely not.

It's not RX Vega.

 

Also, considering the point of the card, it actually seems to do really well for its true tasks. I'm quite curious how the Instinct line will also perform.

[HKZeroFive]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

It's not RX Vega.

 

Also, considering the point of the card, it actually seems to do really well for its true tasks. I'm quite curious how the Instinct line will also perform.

But it is. It's fundamentally the same architecture, minus some features here and there. The silicon will be the same.

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's not RX Vega.

It may not be "RX Vega", but it also isn't astonishing or exciting at anything.

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

But it is. It's fundamentally the same architecture, minus some features here and there. The silicon will be the same.

It's similar. The 1080 and the Titan X have the same GPU, but that doesn't mean AMD is doing the exact same thing.  Further, I've also yet to see if it has the new cache controller, which is actually the really interesting tech to explore.

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

It may not be "RX Vega", but it also isn't astonishing or exciting at anything.

Have you seen the compute & compile results? It looks really good for the price class it is in.

[MageTank]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Even halving the power usage on a computer won't cut the power bill in half, unless that is literally the only electricity consuming device in the house 

Yeah, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, because he used the word "about" in regards to halving his bill. As a man that believes context is everything, I assumed he used that word for a reason. Even so, I simply do not believe his claims are accurate.

 

I simply do not understand why he is putting in this much effort to demean this card, when it's initial review has already done so. While most understand that this card won't speak for the entire lineup, it's current price from a strictly gaming standpoint, will not earn it any praise. Those that defend it will claim it's not a gaming card and move on, and those that seek to mock it, were never going to buy it in the first place. At this point, he is wasting effort.

 

Now, if his intent is to bring down the entire architecture before we see it's full release (which, given the context of his other posts, that seems to be the case) then he is still at a loss. Nobody, not even AMD's diehard fanboys, expected Vega to actually beat Nvidia's raw performance with a single GPU. They are looking for a competitive alternative. Meaning, similar, or slightly less performance, for a much better price. Even knowing the potential performance ceiling, the fact that we do not know the pricing of the rest of the vega lineup, means it's impossible to judge whether or not it's a failure.

EDIT:

2 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's similar. The 1080 and the Titan X have the same GPU, but that doesn't mean AMD is doing the exact same thing.  Further, I've also yet to see if it has the new cache controller, which is actually the really interesting tech to explore.

Have you seen the compute & compile results? It looks really good for the price class it is in.

 

Not entirely true. The 1080 is GP104, while the Titan X (Pascal) is GP102. The architecture might be the same, but the GPU itself is still different. 

[cj09beira]

7 minutes ago, HKZeroFive said:

But it is. It's fundamentally the same architecture, minus some features here and there. The silicon will be the same.

drivers can make huge differences and their deadline for finishing those is in a month

[Techicolors]

but hey, it performs better than a 1070. pair it with a freesync 2 monitor and you probably won't notice the performance deficit 

 

Spoiler

/s

 

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

drivers can make huge differences and their deadline for finishing those is in a month

Let's not forget the Witcher 3 release where that "other company" got blamed for destroying "this company's" performance when a driver update two weeks later fixed the issue.

 

AMD needs to start releasing their "full" drivers with the card rather than waiting for the public to find issues. 

[HKZeroFive]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's similar. The 1080 and the Titan X have the same GPU, but that doesn't mean AMD is doing the exact same thing.

You would be suicidal to make two product stacks that have two fundamentally different architectures. They will either:

 

a) give the ability to laser off/disable certain parts to create a lower-end product in their product stack

 

or

 

b) make each setup modular

 

Especially with HBM2, cost efficiency would be disastrous if they ever did it. So it's more than safe to say that this Frontier Edition is indicative of what "consumer RX Vega" will bring... and unfortunately for gamers, it doesn't look like much.