AMD RX Vega 64 Outperforms NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti By Up To 23% In DX12 Forza 7

[Trixanity]

8 hours ago, System Error Message said:

Starting from GCN2 AMD artificially crippled fp64, but on vega fp64 is not crippled, like with pascal fp64 takes a back seat in the architecture design for faster fp32.

 

so GCN (like the HD 7970) and vega dont have anything crippled on the consumer side.

If 1:16 on Vega isn't crippled I don't know what is. Tahiti was 1:4 and Hawaii 1:8. It's a bad development if you want double precision but most don't.

 

4 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

Yet another of the things that have been successfully marketed as "essential" for gaming.  Like tacky racing style computer chairs.  Keep the gross TN panel, I'll take my 60hz IPS and comfy AF Ikea Malkolm, thanks.

 

If you suck at CS on a 60hz monitor, you're gonna suck at 144hz.

 

Or if you really want a ton more frames, just drop from "maxed out" to "very high".  I doubt you'll notice a visual difference.

 

In the CS:S days I played on a flatscreen CRT at 60hz.  Never had a problem twitching headshots with the scout and getting kicked when other players would get salty.

Psst. High refresh rate IPS and VA panels exist.

[System Error Message]

20 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

If 1:16 on Vega isn't crippled I don't know what is. Tahiti was 1:4 and Hawaii 1:8. It's a bad development if you want double precision but most don't.

 

Psst. High refresh rate IPS and VA panels exist.

check the radeon instincts, they have the same rates.

 

Radeon instinct is the equivalent of nvidia tesla but AMD. It has the same rates as vega fe and vega 64 (slightly different from clock speeds though)

The maxwell and pascal based titans dont enjoy good double fp either. While the consumer cards of nvidia get crippled double fp, the tesla itself for maxwell and pascal based teslas (excluding a couple) get very bad double fp rates. Without ditching double fp the leaps  between kepler and maxwell wasnt as big if you compare the same chip size.

[Ezio Auditore]

23 hours ago, leadeater said:

If that is actually true wow, I was in the mindset of game has finished optimizing for AMD and not yet for Nvidia.

Forza is a title prepared for the xbox and they just port it  to pcs because MS wants that unified ecosys or some shit.

No doubt it is optimized for vega or amd in general as that is what consoles use. 

Also we should also look at dx11 benchmarks because nvidia is great at dx11 whereas amd is great at dx12 although quite a few times I have seen that nvidia dx11 scores are way better than amd dx12.

This is probably cause as amd has more stream processors in general and games don't utilise it as much but as dx12 features async compute they do get utilised whereas nvidia does not have such a problem.

This can be confirmed by the fact that a few days back somebody flashed vega 64 bios on 56 and the 56 had almost identical performance to the 64.

[leadeater]

17 minutes ago, Ezio Auditore said:

Forza is a title prepared for the xbox and they just port it  to pcs because MS wants that unified ecosys or some shit.

No doubt it is optimized for vega or amd in general as that is what consoles use. 

Also we should also look at dx11 benchmarks because nvidia is great at dx11 whereas amd is great at dx12 although quite a few times I have seen that nvidia dx11 scores are way better than amd dx12.

This is probably cause as amd has more stream processors in general and games don't utilise it as much but as dx12 features async compute they do get utilised whereas nvidia does not have such a problem.

This can be confirmed by the fact that a few days back somebody flashed vega 64 bios on 56 and the 56 had almost identical performance to the 64.

Not once under any conditions before has any Vega card been faster than a 1080Ti*, both being faster at 1080p and Vega 64 still faster at 1440p is nothing short of unprecedented hence why my assumption is game build in use was not yet optimized for Nvidia but if that statement is true about Nvidia confirming the performance figures then this is very interesting.

 

*Excluding professional applications, gaming context only.

[AlTech]

17 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

someone is spoiled 

 

 

also i know Tflop numbers dont mean much anymore ,

Gflops. 1 Tflop is 1000 Gflops.

17 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

but considering that VEGA 64 has ~23000 tf compared to the ~12000 of a 1080ti / titan Xppp

*Gflops

 

23 Tflops vs 12 Tflops.

17 hours ago, Space Reptile said:

i mean IT HAS TWICE the horsepower on paper , what is holding it back? 

Tflops don't really mean too much in terms of performance.

 

VEGA still doesn't have TBR enabled in drivers and other architecture features.

[leadeater]

52 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

If 1:16 on Vega isn't crippled I don't know what is. Tahiti was 1:4 and Hawaii 1:8. It's a bad development if you want double precision but most don't.

It just comes down to FP64 simply not being all that useful for current tech R&D that customers are doing. All the fancy AI and machine learning, image processing etc is all being moved to FP16 so that's what customers want. The primary focus of the Tensor cores in Nvidia Volta V100 are for FP16 and are much less flexible, you have to program specially for them.

 

Quote

Tensor Cores are a new type of core for Volta that can, at a high level, be thought of as a more rigid, less flexible (but still programmable) core geared specifically for Tensor deep learning operations. These cores are essentially a mass collection of ALUs for performing 4x4 Matrix operations; specifically a fused multiply add (A*B+C), multiplying two 4x4 FP16 matrices together, and then adding that result to an FP16 or FP32 4x4 matrix to generate a final 4x4 FP32 matrix.

 https://www.anandtech.com/show/11367/nvidia-volta-unveiled-gv100-gpu-and-tesla-v100-accelerator-announced

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Gflops. 1 Tflop is 1000 Gflops.

*Gflops

 

23 Tflops vs 12 Tflops.

Tflops don't really mean too much in terms of performance.

 

VEGA still doesn't have TBR enabled in drivers and other architecture features.

It's actually 13tflops of Vega at 1600 vs 13-14tflops of 1080 ti at  normal boost, those figures are fp32. Only in fp16 does Vega reach 26 tflops and the Ti gets i think half of the fp32 so around 7 tflops

[Spenser1337]

Hackerman

[Tech Enthusiast]

So, we have a new "Ashes" here i guess?

For sure every AMD slide will now showcase their "true" performance via this game only.

 

How new.

 

I sure hope they can get similar numbers in other games, but i am not one to believe in magic much. 

[michaelocarroll007]

On 10/1/2017 at 5:29 AM, Master Disaster said:

So you're buying a $600 GPU to get 200FPS at 1080p?

 

I didn't say it was dead but it is dying.

 

Again, I didn't say it was dead.

 

It's very simple guys, people don't buy TOP OF THE LINE GPUs to game at 1080p. If your gaming at 1080p you buy a $250 GPU, $300 max. A 1060 is more than enough to push 1080p at over 100FPS in the large majority of games these days.

A lot more people then you Think buy a 1080 $600 priced GPU for 1080p 144hz. as there is a lot of games the 1080 cant max it.  Some just like it that way. i am personally a fan of Higher Res over FPS but that is just me.

 

1080p your right is going to be dying sometime in the future. People will jump straight to 4k as monitors at 4k have been droping a lot in price. you can get 27 inch IPS 4k pannels for around $350 and GPUs have been doing okay at 4k. Once we get a like 70 series card that can run 4k high settings i think the adoption will jump.  

[The Benjamins]

11 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Isn’t Forza 7 as of right now not very well-optimized for multicore CPUs?

 

I remember hearing that it only loads up a single core.

I would assume it has good core scaling due to the xbox having 8 weak cores.

 

I love how it runs so well on my 470.

[Trixanity]

2 hours ago, System Error Message said:

check the radeon instincts, they have the same rates.

 

Radeon instinct is the equivalent of nvidia tesla but AMD. It has the same rates as vega fe and vega 64 (slightly different from clock speeds though)

The maxwell and pascal based titans dont enjoy good double fp either. While the consumer cards of nvidia get crippled double fp, the tesla itself for maxwell and pascal based teslas (excluding a couple) get very bad double fp rates. Without ditching double fp the leaps  between kepler and maxwell wasnt as big if you compare the same chip size.

I know there are many advantages to ditching it and I know Nvidia is at the forefront of doing so. I'm merely saying now that we're talking double precision (for some reason) that they're crippled because they are. I didn't really say anything about being for or against the move.

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

It just comes down to FP64 simply not being all that useful for current tech R&D that customers are doing. All the fancy AI and machine learning, image processing etc is all being moved to FP16 so that's what customers want. The primary focus of the Tensor cores in Nvidia Volta V100 are for FP16 and are much less flexible, you have to program specially for them.

 

 https://www.anandtech.com/show/11367/nvidia-volta-unveiled-gv100-gpu-and-tesla-v100-accelerator-announced

I know that FP16 and Int8 is hot shit right now but someone must be using double precision for something otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about it.

[System Error Message]

Just now, Trixanity said:

I know there are many advantages to ditching it and I know Nvidia is at the forefront of doing so. I'm merely saying now that we're talking double precision (for some reason) that they're crippled because they are. 

I know that FP16 and Int8 is hot shit right now but someone must be using double precision for something otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about it.

i meant artifical crippling. They arent crippling fp 64, they just have less of it. For instance changing the shader units or any dedicated units that did it before and do it through software which obviously is how we get the 1:16 ratio we have now (or worse for maxwell/pascal).

 

FP 16 is artifically crippled on nvidia consumer cards and has been for quite a while. Only int 8 on pascal consumer cards arent artificially crippled due to demand for it.

 

there are a lot of things that fp 64 is used for but it basically boils down to the card not doing it natively (like trying to do larger data type operations on a CPU that doesnt have the unit for it). However before vega the cards did do it natively which is how we got decent fp 64 rates from GCN. However people have found that SSE and AVX provide very good performance for larger datatypes that using a GPU for it was not a massive speed increment to justify the cost and power use.

 

Nvidia is adding a lot of dedicated units to volta to accommodate the demand for specific applications so the 10x, 15x performance increases are only for specific applications, everything else just follows the same rules as a typical GPU.

[LukaH]

when ryzen launched people praised intel for being 1080p king. vega beats the 1080ti at 1080p and 1440p and people complain about it being a 10 year old resolution, people with 1080ti dont game at 1080, its just one game and blah blah blah.... cant we just be happy that AMD apparently did something right with vega?

 

on the other hand this gives me hope that vega will be amazing in wolfenstein 2 and far cry 5 since they use all of the new technology in Vega. 

[System Error Message]

16 minutes ago, LukaH said:

when ryzen launched people praised intel for being 1080p king. vega beats the 1080ti at 1080p and 1440p and people complain about it being a 10 year old resolution, people with 1080ti dont game at 1080, its just one game and blah blah blah.... cant we just be happy that AMD apparently did something right with vega?

 

on the other hand this gives me hope that vega will be amazing in wolfenstein 2 and far cry 5 since they use all of the new technology in Vega. 

i got a titan xp and game at 1080p 60 fps

[Spenser1337]

On 10/1/2017 at 5:01 AM, Master Disaster said:

Amazing job AMD, your top of the line GPU manages to smash everything in a 10 year old resolution.

 

All hail the new 1080p king.

I just bought a 1080p 144hz monitor. Not dead

[raultherabbit]

Just my 2 cents...

 

I have the ultimate edition of Forza 7 and I've been able to play it pre-release, and I can confirm there is a legitimate issue with the game for me and my GTX 1080ti. The game usually runs 140FPS+ maxed out at 1440p, but I kept getting random slowdowns and crashes to desktop.  Curious, I left afterburner running on my second monitor and played the game again.  Every time there was a frame rate hitch or stutter, I saw the GPU go from 1500/5505~ clocks down to 800/1xxx~ and it remained there for a moment before going back up to normal speeds, and the hitching stopped.  This was mostly random and I couldn't find a combination of things going on in the game that regularly caused this to happen, but it did not improve.  Prior to the hitching the GPU was only running about 71C and 70% utilization, the game was taking up about 5GB of vram, and my cpu and memory loads were in the 50% range.  I really think this is optimization issue that has to be worked on and not a driver issue.  I used DDU to uninstall and then reinstall the latest driver that NVidia put out for F7 with no changes in the stuttering, but a marked improvement in frame rate when not stuttering. 

 

I'll reply to this later tonight with some graphs from afterburner to show this.  I've never seen this issue with another game before.  It's frustrating.  It's a pretty fun game aside from those issues.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, LukaH said:

cant we just be happy that AMD apparently did something right with vega?

Squishy fleshies are generally unhappy creatures when it comes to tech.

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, raultherabbit said:

Just my 2 cents...

 

.......

Have you fiddled with the video settings?

 

I have a 470, and all I did is set the resolution to 2560x1440 (wish 3440x1440 worked ;-;) and set my FPS target to 60. and my game runs smooth and I rarely get any stutters. (keep in mind I have 100+ chrome tabs open and listen to music from YouTube)

 

Mine ran smooth out of the gate, I love the game.

[michaelocarroll007]

9 hours ago, Phate.exe said:

Tell that to the general "gamer" consumer base who seems to think CSGO and Overwatch will be literally unplayable at less than 100Hz.

 Man Such a Large % of people think this But i mean a 1-5Ms 1080p 60hz panel for $100 will Pretty much be good enough for the average player. Yeah you might argue the 100+HZ is nicer experience/ more enjoyable to play on and gives you a minimal advantage but lets be real in saying you wont go from a .75kd to a 1.5kd At all. your talking milliseconds of advantage.  

[mynameisjuan]

21 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

 Man Such a Large % of people think this But i mean a 1-5Ms 1080p 60hz panel for $100 will Pretty much be good enough for the average player. Yeah you might argue the 100+HZ is nicer experience/ more enjoyable to play on and gives you a minimal advantage but lets be real in saying you wont go from a .75kd to a 1.5kd At all. your talking milliseconds of advantage.  

Even milliseconds of an advantage is not much of an advantage. Like I get pros wants the minimal delay as possible but I think its stupid that people says some games are unplayable at anything less than 100-120hz.  

[cj09beira]

3 hours ago, raultherabbit said:

Just my 2 cents...

 

I have the ultimate edition of Forza 7 and I've been able to play it pre-release, and I can confirm there is a legitimate issue with the game for me and my GTX 1080ti. The game usually runs 140FPS+ maxed out at 1440p, but I kept getting random slowdowns and crashes to desktop.  Curious, I left afterburner running on my second monitor and played the game again.  Every time there was a frame rate hitch or stutter, I saw the GPU go from 1500/5505~ clocks down to 800/1xxx~ and it remained there for a moment before going back up to normal speeds, and the hitching stopped.  This was mostly random and I couldn't find a combination of things going on in the game that regularly caused this to happen, but it did not improve.  Prior to the hitching the GPU was only running about 71C and 70% utilization, the game was taking up about 5GB of vram, and my cpu and memory loads were in the 50% range.  I really think this is optimization issue that has to be worked on and not a driver issue.  I used DDU to uninstall and then reinstall the latest driver that NVidia put out for F7 with no changes in the stuttering, but a marked improvement in frame rate when not stuttering. 

 

I'll reply to this later tonight with some graphs from afterburner to show this.  I've never seen this issue with another game before.  It's frustrating.  It's a pretty fun game aside from those issues.

could you check individual cpu core utilization plz, 

[cj09beira]

2 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Even milliseconds of an advantage is not much of an advantage. Like I get pros wants the minimal delay as possible but I think its stupid that people says some games are unplayable at anything less than 100-120hz.  

it might not be about advantage, for example i have a 80hz 21:9 ips screen, and while gaming the thing that distracts me the most is lack of smoothness, even at 80hz its not enough for my eyes to be happy, so next time i wont settle for lower than 120hz

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

A lot more people then you Think buy a 1080 $600 priced GPU for 1080p 144hz. as there is a lot of games the 1080 cant max it.  Some just like it that way. i am personally a fan of Higher Res over FPS but that is just me.

 

1080p your right is going to be dying sometime in the future. People will jump straight to 4k as monitors at 4k have been droping a lot in price. you can get 27 inch IPS 4k pannels for around $350 and GPUs have been doing okay at 4k. Once we get a like 70 series card that can run 4k high settings i think the adoption will jump.  

Take a look at the Steam hardware survey. It's going to take a long, long time for 1080p to die.

 

Currently 1080p is by far the most common resolution, but even more interesting is that the next 4 on the list are lower than 1080p. 1440p is the most common resolution above 1080p, but accounts for just 2.68% with a growth of 0.02%. 4K is at 0.79% and actually decreased in popularity.

 

And get this - the fastest-growing resolution, by far, is 1080p. It grew by 2.51%, nearly as much as the entire existing share of 1440p monitors.

[cj09beira]

2 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Take a look at the Steam hardware survey. It's going to take a long, long time for 1080p to die.

 

Currently 1080p is by far the most common resolution, but even more interesting is that the next 4 on the list are lower than 1080p. 1440p is the most common resolution above 1080p, but accounts for just 2.68% with a growth of 0.02%. 4K is at 0.79% and actually decreased in popularity.

 

And get this - the fastest-growing resolution, by far, is 1080p. It grew by 2.51%, nearly as much as the entire existing share of 1440p monitors.

ya the reality is that there is a lot of people that don't have the money to upgrade their pcs often, although i still think that maybe next gen of gpus will help increase the adoption of higher res screens, but right now i for example value more the frequency of the panel than resolution per say.