Vega FE benchmarked by random dude

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, The Benjamins said:

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.

H2 for Mobile & consumer APU; Q1 2018 for "commercial" APU products.   That was the most recent announcements. 

[NumLock21]

 

[Drak3]

14 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

An RX580 is already as power hungry as a GTX 1080 and it's only GTX 1060 speeds.

In gaming. For quite some time, AMD's cards have been better at GPGPU/compute than their equivalents in terms of gaming performance. Or, you can also say that AMD's cards have been worse at gaming than their equivalents in terms of GPGPU/compute performance.

51 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Every benchmark is credible until there's enough data to show outliers.

Other than a worse case scenario, I don't think this particular bench run is all that credible. As a worse case scenario, Vega is looking rather good to me.

 

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

Don't worry, everyone has

I haven't. Namely because the Armor OC one I got has no freaking thermal headroom to boost outside of the advertised boost clocks, and it pisses me off.

[Hunter259]

Just now, Drak3 said:

In gaming. For quite some time, AMD's cards have been better at GPGPU/compute than their equivalents in terms of gaming performance. Or, you can also say that AMD's cards have been worse at gaming than their equivalents in terms of GPGPU/compute performance.

Other than a worse case scenario, I don't think this particular bench run is all that credible. As a worse case scenario, Vega is looking rather good to me.

 

I haven't. Namely because the Armor OC one I got has no freaking thermal headroom to boost outside of the advertised boost clocks, and it pisses me off.

Why even bring that up? This whole thread is about gaming performance...

[Taf the Ghost]

25 minutes 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.

Vega is on some transitional architecture. It should be thought of as GCN 5.0, but we've got an entirely new Driver architecture to go with it.  Thus, a bunch of stuff has changed.  It's also why the really interesting part is going to be the RX Vega gaming drivers. Vega was never going to catch up for energy efficiency at the high-end, but as we just went through with X299, that apparently doesn't matter for enthusiasts.

 

I'm much more curious about the new driver architecture.  Considering AMD has Ryzen, I'm quite curious how it'll handle across a lot of cores on the CPU.  Also, even if the RX Vega SKUs come in in the range of the 1080/Ti on Intel, they may perform a lot better on Ryzen comparatively. (There's issues with the Nvidia drivers on Ryzen, though it only crops up in certain combinations.)

[Drak3]

Just now, Hunter259 said:

Why even bring that up? This whole thread is about gaming performance...

Because it's about gaming performance on a card that's made to do both. Specifically made to do both. And when it comes down to it, gaming performance on AMD's arches can be improved greatly by optimizing for AMD's strengths, but that won't realistically happen. What they have, at the cost that they offer it, is more than good enough for most developers.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

Why even bring that up? This whole thread is about gaming performance...

I don't see any gaming benchmarks... unless I'm blind. 

[MageTank]

8 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

Why even bring that up? This whole thread is about gaming performance...

Really? I thought it was about 3dmark results? I surely hope you don't believe 3dmark scores to be indicative of gaming performance. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

3D mark is a synthetic bench that has no real application.  I'd like to see this card's application in actual rendering over gaming considering this is a professional card meant for rendering not gaming.

Meant for both. It's AMD's Titan/ Black/ Z.

 

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Really? I thought it was about 3dmark results? I surely hope you don't believe 3dmark scores to be indicative of gaming performance. 

Some people do.

Personally, I only find that gaming performance is truly indicative of gaming performance, and that said performance may, or may not, differ between games. Revolutionary thinking, I know.

[Hunter259]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Really? I thought it was about 3dmark results? I surely hope you don't believe 3dmark scores to be indicative of gaming performance. 

It's fairly good at showing where it stands in a leader board. Not good at percent difference but good for showing it's around 1080 performance.

[Drak3]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

To be fair, which I added in the edit, there are 2 more levels of a pro cards. This is just the one that is a pro card that can game.  Their true pro cards are the 64 and 56.  The one that is for gaming I think is just dubbed VEGA Gaming atm.

As it stands, the product stack is supposed to be:

Instinct - Vega counterpart to NVidia's Tesla line - machine learning

Vega Pro - Radeon Pro Vega - counterpart to Nvidia's quadro line - workstation cards

Vega Frontier - counterpart to the Titan's original claim to fame - a mix of the workstation and gaming oriented cards

RX Vega - Purely gaming and media consumption cards. Akin to the GT/GTX lineup.

[MageTank]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

3D mark is a synthetic bench that has no real application.  I'd like to see this card's application in actual rendering over gaming considering this is a professional card meant for rendering not gaming.

The card is whatever the consumers that buy it, use it as. AMD can call it whatever they want, if people buy this card to game, it's a gaming card to them. Does it mean it's good at that specific task? Not really. This whole "IT'S A PROFESSIONAL CARD, NOT A GAMING CARD" nonsense needs to end. AMD is also digging themselves into that hole by presenting a "gaming mode" for the card.

 

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Meant for both. It's AMD's Titan/ Black/ Z.

 

Some people do.

Personally, I only find that gaming performance is truly indicative of gaming performance, and that said performance may, or may not, differ between games. Revolutionary thinking, I know.

Then some people are wrong. We see cards like the 750 Ti scoring 10x higher than an Iris Pro 580, but isn't 10x faster in gaming. I've even seen cards that performed worse in 3dmark, outperform cards that were faster in 3dmark when gaming. Case in point? The 960 beating the 780 in some gaming titles. 

 

Just now, Hunter259 said:

It's fairly good at showing where it stands in a leader board. Not good at percent difference but good for showing it's around 1080 performance.

It's really not. Gaming performance goes far beyond a synthetic benchmark. Some titles are programmed to leverage specific architectural features that 3dmark simply doesn't take into consideration. In my previous example with the 960 and 780, Maxwell's handling of tessellation was superior than Keplers, to the point in which a superior card (dramatically so in terms of raw compute) lost to a weaker card. If you want to compare gaming results, then compare the gaming results. Do not use 3dmark as an indication of gaming results, because you are setting yourself up for some disappointment. 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Then some people are wrong.

 

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

I think this is just the base card intended/aimed for rendering pros.  It just has the option to game, but is not the intent of the card by AMD.  The Titans were just base Teslas that could game and game really well.  I don't see this card rivaling the Titan XP in gaming, but they're trying to make it be around that high.  AMD has a different line of VEGA cards coming out next month intended for gaming only.  This card is not part of that gaming line.  

I understand that, and trust me, I certainly wouldn't recommend this card to gamers, but it's going to happen. There exists a small portion of gamers that shop strictly based off price tags. "This graphics card costs more money, therefore it must be faster". They will still buy this card, with the full intent of gaming (regardless of what AMD's initial intent for the card is). It's the same for the people that buy the 1280 Xeon's and game on them as cheaper alternatives to locked i7's. The "intent" at the end of the day, is whatever the end-consumer intends to use it for.

 

That being said, AMD's pricing for a card with this much lifting potential is pretty great. I imagine a Threadripper/Vega setup could save true content creators a small fortune for what they can get in return. I just hope it doesn't get overrun by "this card sucks at gaming" reviews to the point in which it scares off the people that can truly use it.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I just hope it doesn't get overrun by "this card sucks at gaming" reviews

Don't let JayzTwoCents touch it. Got it.

 

But for gaming, it's looking like it'll be a pretty good option.

7 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I imagine a Threadripper/Vega setup could save true content creators a small fortune for what they can get in return.

It all depends on their workflow. If it benefits heavily from AVX, then X299 can really flex its muscles, and the lower core parts will likely outpace their equals, in terms of pricing. If the TR = 2 Ryzens stapled together holds true.

[Drak3]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

He probably won't drop it though.

Right. Cock block Linus from VEGA too.

[Drak3]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Can we trust that tech of tomorrow guy?  
 

 

@MageTank Guess what your new job is once VEGA launches! You're the only one we can trust to be unbiased, apparently. Also, you don't fanboy over these things enough to sway people just on fanboyism alone.

[itsNikku]

I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic here. The guy said he had troubles keeping the clock stable, so that could be due to a variety of factors. I'm willing to bet the "gaming mode" driver is probably to blame, and I doubt AMD will try to fix it as they don't view these as gaming cards. It's also possible the guy got a bad card, it's a tad unusual, but not unheard of.

 

I think before a final verdict can be given A) we'll need more than just this guy's review and B) the actual RX Vega. I know AMD is often guilty of the hype train but I doubt they'd delay the RX line for this long if they weren't working to optimize the drivers/the cards themselves as much as they could.

 

That said, I really hope some vega derivative comes out as a 1070 competitor. The 1070 is where I'm eyeing my next upgrade, but I'd like to see what team red has to offer in that price bracket.

[Techicolors]

1 hour ago, Its Not Important said:

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

so am i. but the nice trade-off with getting a larger capacity PSU is that the fans never kick on (least for my particular unit)

 

38 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

He probably won't drop it though.

i won't be surprised if Jay pushed out a video in the coming days about this, just like he did with titan xp and 1080ti 

[cj09beira]

this is all about drivers,

amd is giving themselves a extra month to make sure the drivers are solid,

and probably also trying to see if vulkan can support fp16 (working on it) as that would be a huge jump in perf for vega

[pas008]

3 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Yet the thread cleaning didn't eliminate the quotes used in the posts that remained. What was said is that the quadro cards don't game well. Which, compared to what the chip in any given quadro card is actually capable of when tuned correctly, they don't. It was never said that they can't game at all. Two fundamentally different statements.

In the link where was its gaming performance?

Now compare it its similar spec'd gaming card 

Looks pretty reasonable

[i_build_nanosuits]

why are people taling about ''gaming card'' and ''gaming driver'' this is FIRESTRIKE which is NOT a GAME, it came out YEARS ago and it's backed into every driver set you can find both on nvidia and amd...it's on point...has been for years...it will run the same regardless of the drivers used...face it: vega is not what people hope it to be, amd is a generation behind now....pascal came out a year and a half ago and this is falling short...end of the story.

 

Also, it's not THAT bad...GTX 1080 performance on a blower POS card, if this thing can clock 1700mhz on aftermarket cards it might very well beat a GTX 1080 in SOME amd optimized titles and stuff...some people will buy it.

 

Also, BTW if you guys are interested this guy is benchmarking it LIVE right now on youtube:

 

[Techicolors]

16 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

 

what's he benched so far? i know he tried witcher 3 earlier today 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, Technicolors said:

what's he benched so far? i know he tried witcher 3 earlier today 

yeah he is still trying witcher 3 i don't know i've only been watching for about 20 minutes the card is very loud and very hot and trottling is real...it looks like it's an aweful card right now, it's slower than my GTX 1080 by a fair amount in games...about the same in firestrike.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah he is still trying witcher 3 i don't know i've only been watching for about 20 minutes the card is very loud and very hot and trottling is real...it looks like it's an aweful card right now, it's slower than my GTX 1080 by a fair amount in games...about the same in firestrike.

Don't worry, though! It isn't a gaming card!