Vega tested VS Fury X for IPC. So same clocks. The Fury X actually wins in some tests. That's crazy, and a little poo at the same time
Meh, at the end of the day no one is gonna run vega at fury speeds. Maybe Fury was incapable of hitting the speeds vega could, and for the performance to increase they needed to decrease IPC to increase clocks. All in all Vega seems, odd. Maybe drivers, maybe something else, maybe it's just not great. Personally let's hope RX Vega is good/competitive because otherwise it's just bad for all of us!
It's quite clear that they have done a "Honey I Shrunk The Fury X" and because of the enormous amount of cores/shaders/whatever you want to call them the clocks are a bit poo. Not sure if you've read any of the Vega FE reviews but one sample purchased by PCPER was struggling to hold 1400mhz, let alone the 1600 it was supposed to. Because of this it was a close battle with the 1070 and it basically lost. So like the Fury X you need an anchor to run it at anything even approaching decent clocks, which the air cooler obviously can't do.
I won't be getting my hopes up or dashing them until i see the actual gaming cards performance when they're released and with optimised drivers. Edit: AMD have given me the impression that this card was semi rushed out to hit their vega deadline while giving themselves more time on the gaming line up.
Don't know enough about it to agree/disagree tbh. As for PCPER's article, it beats the 1070 in every game bar GTA5 @1440p, and that's with it's clocks being around 1440MHz. If they can compete will come down to how they price it. It needs to be cheap enough to be competitive and also tempt people who have not bought a card in it's price range to buy.
The only problem being is it pulls 100w more than a overclocked 1080. That'll be why it has heat/throttling issues on air. 50w isn't that much. 75w? again not bad. But 100w? that's a lot of power.
It gets worse (yes, that is apparently somehow possible), did you see the Crossfire results pcper added? https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...Frontier-Edition-CrossFire-Testing/Dirt-Rally
TBH even if Crossfire was all of a sudden diamond encrusted and made you dinner I would still avoid it. I was stupid enough to Crossfire two Fury X. Let's just say it was a waste of £400 (for the second card). Even when it did work the texture flicker was atrocious. Even worse when the cards ran out of VRAM there was no warning, the PC would loop a sound sample for a few seconds and then shut down. They've fixed that now but it comes at a massive performance cost, because it streams from your paging file. I know when we move into the future we won't have a choice. AMD are making Navi (with more than one small core on the same die) and Nvidia have just announced they are doing the same. I mean it's good and all that (imagine still using a single core CPU?) but it needs major support. Mind you, if the next consoles have Navi in then pretty much anything coded for that should work OK.
Those multi core gpus should in theory work better than traditional sli / crossfire as the idea is to have the distribution of the work being handled by the gpu itself and to lie to the OS and games and say there is only one GPU. But back to Vega, two of them losing to a single 1080ti is just plain embarrassing and worse, with the 60hz barrier on 4k monitors about to fall the amount of gpu power desired by gamers is guaranteed to go up faster than ever. "Cheap" 12 core Ripper + 2x Volta seems like the only choice towards end of this year at the high end
It does not look good at all on the power and clock front, but I'm still holding out that AMD will drop a driver on retail card launch that will improve performance. I doubt you're gonna see more than 1080, which is a huge 12 month late disappointment. RTG are ****ed if they can't make a 4000+ shader part compete with a 2560 with faster/costly memory interface and bigger silicon. You can't give up the high-end battle - it wins hearts and minds in the mid-range. AIBs will have some of their own designs and better power and thermal control. Looks like GloFo's 14nm process and RTG design is letting everyone down again.
Am I missing something? This isn't a gaming card, what do people who this card is actually aimed at think of it? I may just be way off the mark (not for the last time) but isn't this like saying 'oh noes my new HGV only does 0-60 as fast as a lambo and not a veron'?
Vega is looking like AMD's GTX 480 - Late, power hungry and not enough performance to justify being so... At this point it's looking like they would have been better just up-scaling Polaris into a 4k+ Stream Processor part, giving it the fastest GDDR5(X) they could get in quantity and saying "yeah, it's hot and hungry, but at least it performs well!".
Titan wasn't a gaming card. Titan X (not Geforce, so XP) was not a gaming card.. We've had this debate elsewhere. If the AMD is not a gaming card then why does it have a placebo "Gaming" switch on it? Anfield - Nvidia announced last week that they were not moving onto Volta any time soon. So I think they've bought a FE, done a belly laugh and then decided to stay put. So I think the "Intel era" is about to begin in GPU land. Wakka - every card AMD have made since the 5870 has been Fermi. Hot, power hungry, noisy.. The 6000 series were bad.The 7000 series were good at launch, but soon matched by Kepler which were far better mannered. 290 was ridiculous as was the 290x and the Fury X needed a AIO. Nvidia commented on the 7970 as it launched and said "This is AMD's Fermi". And they have pretty much stuck to the kitchen sink since, which is why clock rates on die shrinks are lame. Totally agree about Polaris. IMO it has been a roaring success. Edit. Bindi - They have had Vega for over a year now. They showed it last year (with the odd extension and USB3 socket). If the technology is the same used for the Fury X it would use the same drivers. I don't know if Vega is a ground up tech but it isn't looking that way. Yes I anticipate drivers to make it better over time (because the Fury X looks like a whole different card these days, especially in DX12 against the 980Ti) but I am not holding my breath. Looking at the power use/thermals pretty much nails about as many nails as you could think of into the coffin. I just don't want blast furnaces in my rig any more. Last one I had was a GTX 280.. Never again. Even my 480s in SLi were tame by comparison.
Arguably Titan was a gaming / professional card, even more so when they released the XP (Pascal) version, the Vega Pro on the other hand is a professional / gaming card IMO.
What's going to be interesting is, if AMD's best Vega card does indeed barely beat a GTX 1080 (and with considerably higher power draw), how will Nvidia approach Volta? Let's be honest, they really didn't need to bother with the Titan and Ti versions of Pascal (much like most consumers didn't need to, but that's another argument heh), and at this point they could easily move the different configurations of Volta chips up a tier, so what would normally have been the GTX 2060 essentially becomes the GTX 2070, because AMD isn't going to push Navi out in 6-8 months if Vega was a year late to the party and it'd still be well ahead in performance (let alone performance per watt) if they get even a modest 10-15% generation bump. I hope that isn't the case, but as of right now, between the lack of high end competition and ******* miners buying out the middle range entirely, the whole situation could reach breaking point.
Dunno, maybe so developers can test what they've developed not that they need a swicth for this? That does seem a bit odd. I think it's a bit early to be jumping the gun re the gaming cards yet to come though. Edit: From the professional testing it looks like it only gets outperformed by the P5000 Quadro that costs twice the price, it's not a card that's designed to go up agains the Titans (which it outperforms in the pro testing it seems).
TBH I just see it for what it is. As I may have mentioned Vega has been around for at least a year, as they showed it off (covered in black tape) around this time last year. So they have had an entire year to work on drivers. They've released it as a card that has a gaming switch, so that means you can use it for gaming. They did something similar with the Fury Pro Duo. Said it wasn't for gaming but all it was were two Fury X CFX on one card. When Titans release the first thing we do is look for reviews. When they come in we have a bloody good idea of what to expect from a Ti version. How is this any different? IIRC the specs of this Vega card are everything, so this is what the high end Vega will be. They may do a cut down one but that isn't going to be any faster.
From what I read on PCPer it seem the switch has no performance impact, only visual and UI elements (of the ReLive driver settings GUI *only* - not your games) will change, seem a bit daft to have a switch for that as i would have though a change in GUI could be implemented in the software itself. It could be very different, without all the FP16 and FP32 compute units enabled it would not only draw less power but probably be capable of being clocked higher.
Yup. It's still there though. On another forum we've been arguing, well, discussing how much could change when Vega desktop comes out. I see it like this.. If the card was not a gaming card then why does it work in games? if it was not a gaming card when you loaded up a Direct X game for example it would not work and would throw a DLL error. So it must have wrappers/drivers in there for gaming. Same goes for OGL. If the card did not have the drivers it would not work. And the fact it also works perfectly in Doom in Vulkan? It is what it is. I've had to accept that. It's hot, power hungry, can't maintain its boost on air etc. That much will not change. Well, maybe if they redesign the PCB like Sapphire did with the RX 480 the power may come down a tiny bit, or just be distributed differently. But this is Vega, and aside from driver improvements over a space of time (like their other cards, fine wine etc) I can't see it doing a Transformers and becoming something excellent between now and launch. In fact, AMD have dodged the performance of this card for almost a year, dropping stuff like "Compared to the 1080Ti it offers nice performance" and so on. So they have played cloak and dagger. Why? to try and stop people buying Nvidia. But if AMD had something to brag about trust me, they would brag. They made it pretty clear what we could expect with Ryzen and it was everything they said it would be. Why have they been so secretive about Vega? Probably because in reality it's a bit crap. This is a £1000 card. If this doesn't show off Vega then they're a bit screwed really.
Professional cards work in games, they're just not optimised for them so may lack driver support or even an output. Personally I'm going to reserve judgment until the RX cards are reviewed as the Pro cards are (IMO) professional cards first and gaming cards second whereas Nvidia's Titan cards are gaming cards first and professional cards second.
