Vega FE vs. Fury X Clock-for-Clock: "IPC" Tested

[tom_w141]

Article: 

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

 

Video:

 

So in conclusion Vega is great if AMD have a time machine and plan to release it in 2015... Seriously though at the same clocks it just about trades blows with the Fury X. It does not take 2-3 years to improve on clock speeds alone. Hopefully RX Vega drivers will improve this. It could also be the Professional/Gamer driver switching nature that the FE tries to exhibit. Jack of all trades, master of none kind of situation perhaps. We will have to wait for RX Vega to be sure but the future looks dim. "Poor Vega" Indeed.

[manikyath]

except.. vega doesnt need a watercooler to survive, and the vega comes out the box with higher clocks

[zMeul]

I just saw this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

 

in /r/amd, when the 1st benches appeared there was talk that Vega is actually a regression against Fiji .... guess what:

 

 

 

jeez H Crist, AMD

[tom_w141]

Just now, zMeul said:

I just saw this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

That's in the OP... Thanks for repeating the OP  If you are gonna link 3 graphs maybe use spoiler tags as you make the page huge for others. Especially if someone quotes you.

[DXMember]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I just saw this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

 

in /r/amd, when the 1st benches appeared there was talk that Vega is actually a regression against Fiji .... guess what:

 

jeez H Crist, AMD

did you even see the compute and pro workloads?

doesn't bother you how it doesn't really scale with clock speed either? - it bothers me - Why the hell do we see less than 20% performance with +60% clock speed????

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

except.. vega doesnt need a watercooler to survive, and the vega comes out the box with higher clocks

except Fury Nano is a Fiji XT GPU, air cooled

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

I just saw this: http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

 

in /r/amd, when the 1st benches appeared there was talk that Vega is actually a regression against Fiji .... guess what:

 

jeez H Crist, AMD

It's worse in several of the game tests. Especially AOTS (though that's a sort of synthetic).

 

But... that's also potentially a good thing for the upcoming RX Vega, because it likely represents easily available performance headroom for driver optimizations.

 

We'll see.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

except.. vega doesnt need a watercooler to survive, and the vega comes out the box with higher clocks

From memory the Fury X came with a 120mm rad/AIO arrangement. I don't think this was entirely a technical choice but a marketing decision to help differentiate between themselves and nvidia at the time. They wanted to give the illusion of a small board, which they later did realise with air and the Nano. If they went for a large heatsink (triple fan) it would have no problems at its TDP.

 

Also from what I recall of the pcper testing, the air cooled Vega FE failed to turbo up to its rated clock. It is a thermally limited card.

[tom_w141]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

except.. vega doesnt need a watercooler to survive, and the vega comes out the box with higher clocks

Kinda beside the point. No "IPC" gains over 2 generations ago. Yet nice pro performance. Suggests something is up.

[Drak3]

Guys. Stahp. I'm already sold on getting an RX Vega.

[PCGuy_5960]

Let's hope that drivers can fix Vega's performance

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Guys. Stahp. I'm already sold on getting an RX Vega.

Enjoy your overpriced 1070

[Drak3]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Enjoy your overpriced 1070

Why you bringing in my G1 Gaming 1070, that I bought when everything was going way ass over MSRP, into this? After the cost of shipping, second cheapest 1070 I could find. I enjoy her very much every time I fire up my HTPC.

[Memories4K]

On the other thread going on right now, RX VEGA seems to be a tiny bit above the 1080; no idea why.

So if AMD prices this well, it will be good; although at this point they would have already forsaken the entire high-end since it's been over a year with the 1080's release and the 1080ti being completely unopposed. Even then, a GPU that's as good as the 1080 for around $399-$450 USD would be so rad

[Humbug]

18 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

So in conclusion Vega is great if AMD have a time machine and plan to release it in 2015...

The only thing this shows is that Vega is not working properly in games.

It's no faster than a Fury X clock for clock.

 

Two possibilities

(1) Gaming drivers are not ready yet

OR

(2) Vega is a terrible architecture moving IPC backwards. Like the bulldozer of GPUs.

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Why you bringing in my G1 Gaming 1070, that I bought when everything was going way ass over MSRP, into this? After the cost of shipping, second cheapest 1070 I could find. I enjoy her very much every time I fire up my HTPC.

I meant that Vega is an overpriced 1070, but nvm just get 2x2080s

[Memories4K]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I meant that Vega is an overpriced 1070, but nvm just get 2x2080s

tfw when Volta's just around the corner

P O O R
V O L T A G E
though, amirite guise? lmao AMD needs a better marketing team

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

I meant that Vega is an overpriced 1070

The joke.

[Sauron]

Wait for the gaming cards. As much as you can be skeptic about magical driver updates, these cards have 25TFlops of raw compute power. Almost 3 times what a Fury X offers. Of course TFlops don't automatically mean more gaming performance but there's definitely a chance these can be optimized to perform a LOT better in games than the FE does. Let's just wait and see, it can't hurt to wait for the actual gaming release before making a blanket judgement on the whole architecture.

-edit-

actually it's 25tflop in fp16, the more relevant figure is 13tflop in fp32 - still more than a fury x by a good margin, but not 3 times as much.

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

As much as you can be skeptic about magical driver updates, these cards have 25TFlops of raw compute power.

Nope, 25 FP16 TFLOPs, which don't really matter for gaming  FP32 is more important for gaming

[Humbug]

4 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

From what I remember, Pascal is slower than Maxwell clock for clock with a node shrink.

From everything AMD has told us Vega is a radical overhaul of GCN and a much more efficient architecture with better IPC.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/2

 

So if it is losing or barely matching a Fury X clock for clock then either

(1) Gaming drivers are not optimized yet

OR

(2) The new innovations which AMD tried didn't work out and backfired badly (like Bulldozer)

[MEC-777]

7 minutes ago, Humbug said:

From everything AMD has told us Vega is a radical overhaul of GCN and a much more efficient architecture with better IPC.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/2

 

So if it is losing or barely matching a Fury X clock for clock then either

(1) Gaming drivers are not optimized yet

OR

(2) The new innovations which AMD tried didn't work out and backfired badly (like Bulldozer)

I would lean towards #2. Was already worried because they were taking so long to launch Vega. Now that it's here and we've had a taste, I don't believe it will deliver. Too little too late, IMO. 

 

When RX Vega launches and sits between the 1080 and 1080Ti with a competitive price, I will stand corrected. But with the terrible power efficiency, AMD has already lost this round, in my eyes.  

[Drak3]

Just now, MEC-777 said:

But the terrible power efficiency

If I traded systems with @done12many2, slapped in 4 top TDP VEGA's, OC'd them to max, I'd probably see an increase of 2USD at the end of the year from the increased cost of running the PC AND my air conditioner. For some (many) of us, power efficiency isn't that huge, until we need to run on 120v/20A or higher.

[zMeul]

PCPer has finalized their CF Vega FE benches: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-CrossFire-Testing

 

CF Vega FE is not capable of keeping up with 1080Ti .. oh dear

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

I would lean towards #2. Was already worried because they were taking so long to launch Vega. Now that it's here and we've had a taste, I don't believe it will deliver. Too little too late, IMO. 

 

When RX Vega launches and sits between the 1080 and 1080Ti with a competitive price, I will stand corrected. But with the terrible power efficiency, AMD has already lost this round, in my eyes.  

Not to mention, probably down a tier once Volta rolls around so they're way behind at 1080 levels