Read more.Website compares AMD's pro Vega-powered card against the Nvidia Titan Xp.
Read more.Website compares AMD's pro Vega-powered card against the Nvidia Titan Xp.
"close to that of a GTX 1080 Ti card" I understand games are probably not that optimised for the new vega cards but why would you spend $1200 on this when you can buy a 1080Ti for cheaper :/
I though the main attraction to ATI was their prices....
For gaming, you won't. You'll spend considerably less on the almost identical Radeon RX Vega. The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition, tested here, is a professional card, and as such attracts a higher price than a comparable consumer product.
Assuming there's a separate "professional" driver package for the Frontier edition that PCWorld were using, getting close to the Titan Xp in games is actually pretty impressive as its doing that without any driver optimisations...
To add to what scaryjim said - No you don't just buy them because they are cheap they also tend to have longer life spans (a 7970 is still a decent card that has overtaken its nvidia equivalent over time due to excellent driver updates). They also tend to do better in DX12/Vulkan compared to their nvidia equivalents. It was this reason I got a RX480 over a 1060.
Also its AMD not ATI...
Nvidia's Titan range quickly departed from what seemed to be the original target market, like the Vega FE Pro they were meant to target professional content creators who wanted or needed to run games, when the Titan XP was released they all but forgot about the professional content creator and targeted well off gamers.
It makes me wonder if there's no market for professional content creators who run games so Nvidia decided to abandoned that idea.
I think that's why AMD aren't pushing the gaming aspect that hard. It's a professional card first and foremost. They sold to this market with the Radeon Pro Duo, so they must have some sense of how much demand there is; the fact that they're producing the card means they obviously think there's a market for it
It's also worth noting that the RX Vega is meant to only have 8GB of HBM2 rather than 16GB, so there is at least some differentiation there.
To be honest I don't trust the cinebench scores for the gpu... my i7 4790k when it had a gtx570 got higher than that although it might be resolution as I was at 1080p.
Specperf is also really out of date when it comes to the software it tests so I wouldn't trust those numbers being accurate with real world experiences. I know from personal experience that half the time the CAD software it uses in it's tests don't get updates to support the new gpu's until the next major update/patch.
The titan Xp is still a good card for my use as cuda is far more prevalent and usually performs better than opencl on those that have both. It's also a LOT cheaper than going for a quadro/tesla for the same or better cuda performance.
Quadro and firepro (sorry I mean radeon pro... still use the old name) perform pretty much identically to the geforce/radeon they're based off in my experience. There might be a small difference due to driver optimisations and clockseeds but nothing worth worrying over. Unless a program specifically codes to exclude features from the gaming gpu (solidworks does this for example) the performance of a gaming gpu in professional apps is usually pretty much the same too unless it uses opengl like maya or is it alias... (whichever it's a weird one, quadros really out perform geforce for some reason)
Last edited by LSG501; 27-06-2017 at 12:24 PM.
I hope Vega does well, but it is definitely lacking in aesthetics - the card in the photos looks like a home-built jobbie.
Suppose it depends on use, it looks good as a 'pro' card in a professional environment machine, but lacks the aggressive wow factor of most consumer gaming cards.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)