AMD should have made two GPUs, one for gaming and another for compute. The power consumption is UNACCEPTABLE. I don't know what Raja is upto.
Corky34 (15-08-2017)
Hi scaryjim,
Those figures came out of two separate reviewers guide, and even I thought they were suspect because they contradict what AMD has said before. Looking for clarification on this today. I'll take out that reference now; I believe AMD is referring to power profile limits rather than TDP, but we'll see.
Last edited by Tarinder; 15-08-2017 at 07:53 AM.
This is very disappointing. Especially since AMD has done such a great job with their new Ryzen and Threadripper CPU,s. Am I missing something or am I correct in assuming Vega is just overpriced crap!
Everytime I hear Nvdia user talk about why they do not want/use an ATI it is almost always comments about sucking up power and cooking the PC. Perhaps they would increase their market share if they focused on those issues a little instead of just trying to up the raw power.
Honour in peace,
A leprichaun talks to me....
Right now I can buy an MSI GTX1080 Seahawk which includes a waterblock for £499 and have it delivered tomorrow. Why would I buy this train-wreck?
Can't deny I'm slightly disappointed that they haven't pulled out another 5850/5870 release, but an interesting point I noted while reading the review: is it me or is the minimum fps generally pretty strong from Vega cards?
Would be interested to see frame time analysis to see how they compare.
Cheers for the review, Tarinder - lot of work in there as always
Also - this review really highlights the ridiculous position NVidia have taken not to sell the Xp on to 3rd party vendors. That cooling solution looks so inadequate
Here are some video reviews from Digital Foundry and Joker Productions,that do show it in a number of games with Vega56:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Rl_zkgMOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S37ziow96JA
Price is the main concern - if miners push this part past £400,it becomes an issue though.Originally Posted by Digital Foundry
There is also a review thread here:
http://forums.hexus.net/graphics-car...ew-thread.html
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-08-2017 at 10:30 AM.
Finally got some time to read through some reviews.
What struck me, with 40% more transistors than Fiji, if they had just scaled up Fiji with the same clocks then that would give them 90 shaders and thanks to graphics scaling well should get them 40% more performance. Vega 64 seems to get less than that, which makes me think something went wrong.
But they spent their time and resources adding features and making changes that improve the product in ways other than a direct FPS / frame pushing horsepower way? The earlier post about new instructions being just one way RTG seems to have distracted itself from the simple picture.
They're probably hoping Vega is a good miner's card and a good test of new features that should be available in a Navi with more horsepower (and a better HBM2 supply..?) but really Navi has to burn the candle at both ends and be much more power efficient while pushing noticably more pixels. I am going to sit comfortably on my R9 for a while...
It also has much more extensive DX12 and Vulkan support than any other card out there - Nvidia actually supports some features better than Polaris,and now AMD has gone past that. It also has extended FP16 support which is being used in some games such as Wolfenstein 2 and Far Cry 5:
http://gamingbolt.com/far-cry-5-and-...id-packed-math
This is probably why so many more reviews are positive about Vega56 - it beats the GTX1070(with higher power consumption but more like an RX580),and unless miners jack up the price is around the same price.
Many reviews also have said Vega seems to do much better than past AMD cards in Nvidia Gameworks games.
It will be with all the recent AMD card releases,its crap,meh - I remember people arguing with me here about the merits of a GTX1060 3GB over a RX470 4GB on this forum,and yet now see this:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...-pulse-oc-4gb/
That is basically an aftermarket RX470 against a GTX1060 6GB.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-08-2017 at 11:28 AM.
I feel bad for AMD with this, they have been doing so well on the CPU side of things that a decent GPU could have given them a huge boost in parts sales to OEMS for pre built gaming machine sales, I mean that may still happen to a point, but not as much as they would have hoped I guess.
It just all seems too little too late to pull any customers away from Nvidia now. It's not a big enough boost to be worth making a jump from a 1070, and 1080+ owners won't even look at it. I doubt even many GeForce 9 series or 1060 users will be too impressed by it either and will be waiting for 11 or 12 series from Nvidia now. It seems to me that these are literally only worth looking at if you are a die hard AMD fan that has been holding out for a 1070 alternative.
I don't think owners of current or even last gen cards are the target here. I probably spend more on graphics cards than most households, yet right now we only have an RX 480 in my wife's PC as an up to date card. My daughter has an R7 260X at the lowest end. But still, I have to look at the performance improvement over my R9 380 and wonder if there are more fun things I can spend my money on as graphics cards are way beyond an impulse purchase these days compared to the £130 I used to spend on the 4200GT, 6600GT etc.
Something that might interest a few people here, according to Phoronix the open source driver for Vega trounces the closed source hybrid Linux driver: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...lium-pro&num=3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)