Vega FE benchmarked by random dude

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, raphidy said:

It's weird, why ryzen exists without apu then? I thought that if that's the direction to go, then ryzen should have come with apu only no?

Ryzen will have a APU version, H2 for mobile and Q1 2018 for desktops.

It is easier to release CPU and GPU archs separately before combining them.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

So in other words, Vega at 1600-1682 is barely able to beat a (pretty much) stock 1080 while drawing almost 2x more power.  Not very impressive IMHO. 

Where do we get this 2x the power? Was there proper system draw measurement that I missed or something?

[Misanthrope]

43 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Actually, that was the exact argument from everyone except for the strawman that Zmeul built. Nobody actually said that the Quadro couldn't game, just that it was woefully unoptimized for such an application. A 20-30% performance hit vs the same platform when optimized for gaming is a pretty damn significant performance hit.

But wouldn't that be just the difference between the drivers though? Or a good chunk of it at least. 

 

Point is moot btw since I know the drivers here would be very early anyway just entertaining a notion. 

[MoonSpot]

On 6/28/2017 at 3:41 PM, MageTank said:

It's a 550w corsair PSU with what looks like flat modular cables (unsleeved). This means it can only be 1 of 5 PSU's. The CXM550W (2015), the TXM550W (2017), the CSM550W (2013), RMx550W (2016), and RM550W (2013). Of these 5 PSU's, only one of them are bronze, with the rest being gold. So at worst, the PSU is either 4 years old and gold rated, or 2 years old and bronze rated. The other options make it a newer, gold rated model.

...

Oh shit.  Columbo is in the house!

 

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, raphidy said:

It's weird, why ryzen exists without apu then? I thought that if that's the direction to go, then ryzen should have come with apu only no?

I believe R3 will be their APU line-up. R5 and R7 would have been paired with a GPU likely making the iGPU an extra expense they didn't want to release so that it could be refined with profits for R&D.

 

Just now, leadeater said:

Where do we get this 2x the power? Was there proper system draw measurement that I missed or something?

People are confusing TDP with actual power consumption. 

Spoiler

As if we were expecting any less...

 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, leadeater said:

Where do we get this 2x the power? Was there proper system draw measurement that I missed or something?

TDP

 

I know that TDP=/= power draw, but it does give you a rough idea of how much power the card will draw....

[Valentyn]

6 minutes ago, raphidy said:

It's weird, why ryzen exists without apu then? I thought that if that's the direction to go, then ryzen should have come with apu only no?

The APU part of Ryzen is delayed because the Vega part is. Q3 for those.

 

[leadeater]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

TDP

 

I know that TDP=/= power draw, but it does give you a rough idea of how much power the card will draw....

Then unless I failed math 300W is not 2x 250W 

[MageTank]

Just now, leadeater said:

Where do we get this 2x the power? Was there proper system draw measurement that I missed or something?

There wasn't. We don't even know how much it consumes. We only know what it can "safely consume" if it follows ATX specs. We also see similar power configurations on the 1080 Ti and Titan XP, but they come nowhere near that in real-world. Granted, Pascal is an architecture that simply scales poorly with more volts, so you don't see people pushing them that hard anyways.

 

People are just grasping at straws to explain the poor 3dmark performance (as if 3dmark is the be all, end all of benchmarks in the first place). The problem is, none of their theories mean anything if we have nothing to compare it against. We have no other examples of how a Vega FE should run, therefore, we cannot dismiss this result (or confirm it, for that matter). We have to do what we always do, which is wait for more results.

3 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Oh shit.  Columbo is in the house!

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

That genuinely made me laugh, thanks for that.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, leadeater said:

Then unless I failed math 300W is not 2x 250W 

The 1080 has a 180W TDP tho  And the Vega card has a 300W TDP and the liquid cooled one has a 375W TDP, which is almost 2x more.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Then unless I failed math 300W is not 2x 250W 

Does New Zealand even have a school system? 

Spoiler

Please no ban, senor.

 

[leadeater]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

The 1080 has a 180W TDP tho  And the Vega card has a 300W TDP and the liquid cooled one has a 375W TDP, which is almost 2x more.

Right 1080 vs 1080ti, always forget about the 1080 now that the 1080ti exists lol.

[leadeater]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Does New Zealand even have a school system? 

  Reveal hidden contents

Please no ban, senor.

 

We only have practical education like how to hunt, sail boats and play rugby.

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, leadeater said:

always forget about the 1080 now that the 1080ti exists

 

[MageTank]

Just now, leadeater said:

Right 1080 vs 1080ti, always forget about the 1080 now that the 1080ti exists lol.

Don't worry, everyone has

[Flavio hc 16]

2 hours ago, HKZeroFive said:

 

4. Drivers. The last line of hope, as always. The release of the "consumer" card is about a month away and drivers aren't optimized yet? Don't kid yourself. The guy even used the "gaming" profile during his test run. And let's be real. Drivers will probably only provide a 5% boost, which isn't going to get this card to GTX 1080Ti performance levels anytime soon if this is true.

 

 

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

  Reveal hidden contents

I want to be excited, but after reading the thread (haven't seen so many cleanups in a thread since an AMD v Intel thread went two days without moderation) I'm not too excited. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

or is it that AMD lost the plot?!

if you look at the numbers, Vega has worse perf/Watt than Fury X, and that card was also hot

 

I still question AMD's pigheadedness of insisting using that exorbitantly expensive HBM2l it showed no benefit in Fury

why?!

Guys, have all of you lost your mind? (or actually, have read the thread/gave attention to the images) The "reviewer" was using a driver released in january (17.1) when the first driver that actually support vega is the 17.2, but truly everything before the launch of vega ( 17.5) is pointless, amd released during theese days the 17.6. I want some of you to put some driver that were released 6 months before your videocard architecture release and  see if your system even boot up!

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Flavio hc 16 said:

The "reviewer" was using a driver released in january (17.1) when the first driver that actually support vega is the 17.2, but truly everything before the launch of vega ( 17.5) is pointless, amd released during theese days the 17.6. 

Check out the "featured comment" on the videocards page. It seems to suggest the long version number is current, and that the displayed Crimson version in GPU-Z is incorrect.

[Flavio hc 16]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

 

if so, my bad ;-)

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Flavio hc 16 said:

 

 

Guys, have all of you lost your mind? (or actually, have read the thread/gave attention to the images) The "reviewer" was using a driver released in january (17.1) when the first driver that actually support vega is the 17.2, but truly everything before the launch of vega ( 17.5) is pointless, amd released during theese days the 17.6. I want some of you to put some driver that were released 6 months before your videocard architecture release and  see if your system even boot up!

The irony of asking us if we read the thread, but didn't read this thread to see his entire point was already refuted. 

 

I love you, but you can't be doing that, come on.

[Analog]

6 hours ago, zMeul said:

I'm not acting like, but do not think for a moment the recommendations are actually valid?!

 

nVidia reccomends a 500W PSU for a GTX1080: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/geforce-gtx-1080/

the same for a GTX1070: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/geforce-gtx-1070/

and guess what? I'm barely hitting 400W under full tilt (synthetic workloads) with my whole system (GTX1070 G1)

They indicate that number for worst case scenarios. Imagine running an overclocked 6950X and an overclocked 1080... a 500W is a minimum... My rig consumes about 550W from the wall. 

[Sacriledgy]

47 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

I think you mean 290X vs 780

Both shown that AMD cards tend to aged better than Nvidia

[ARikozuM]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Some random guy isn't credible.

Every benchmark is credible until there's enough data to show outliers. Otherwise, none of our (forum users) benchmarks would matter. 

[Sacriledgy]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Every benchmark is credible until there's enough data to show outliers. Otherwise, none of our (forum users) benchmarks would matter. 

Lol that's actually a fair point

[Hunter259]

Unless Vega is somehow much more power efficient per cluster, which I doubt because I believe they are using the same architecture, then this thing is going to absolutely eat power. An RX580 is already as power hungry as a GTX 1080 and it's only GTX 1060 speeds. Honestly given the power consumption the performance makes sense.

[Sacriledgy]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

Unless Vega is somehow much more power efficient per cluster, which I doubt because I believe they are using the same architecture, then this thing is going to absolutely eat power. An RX580 is already as power hungry as a GTX 1080 and it's only GTX 1060 speeds. Honestly given the power consumption the performance makes sense.

At this point I'm just glad i pick up a 750W power supply