Will AMD release any high performance GPU's in Q2 or Q3?

[Bigvizz]

pcper is testing card right now.

In 3dmark it scored like 1000 or 1500 points below gtx 1080....not gtx 1080 ti, 1080...

Yea it's looking pretty bad....

[Fascinate]

Power consumption.....this video card uses more power than my entire system at load.

[Life-Binder]

keeping an eye on it too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhGAS_oGN3c


though he didnt bump up the fan or the thermal limit yet IIRC, they want to test exactly how it is out of the box

- - - Updated - - -





http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-vega-...e-tests-pcper/

some numbers from the PCPer testing

[Fascinate]

Well no one in their right mind thought it was gonna compete with 1080ti....

I knew it would be around 1080 levels, but being slower and drawing a lot more power means this thing needs to be sub 450 to make any sense.

[Lillpapps]

But why would it try to compete with the 1080? It doesn't make sense when Nvidia is soon releasing new GPU's. Why are they competing with last years competition?

[Fascinate]

This thing is losing big time to the 1080, im starting to wonder if this thing is gonna beat a 1070.

[Lillpapps]

Running 4k at 30-40 FPS The cinematic experience.

[Fascinate]

Its just wild to me, they finally make a good CPU and their GPU team decides to take a vacation lol? Ryzen is incredibly power efficient for what it is, this thing is consuming power like a GPU from 2010.

[Life-Binder]

PCPer will publish full article with their stream results tomorrow, including Prof apps benchmarks


tl;dr:

- avg 280W load in gaming (this is @ stock and below 1600 mhz)
- slower than a 1080 in all 4K gaming benches (even in Hitman DX12)
- some 1440p results were actually closer to a 1070 than a 1080, like

[mojo6912]

Weird that this is a surprise to so many. This is exactly what was expected/rumored for a long time. Like I said a few pages ago, I'll gladly buy one for around $430. I bet performance on the gaming card 1-3 months after release will be 30% higher than this, as is per usual with amd cards.

[Fascinate]

Weird that this is a surprise to so many. This is exactly what was expected/rumored for a long time. Like I said a few pages ago, I'll gladly buy one for around $430. I bet performance on the gaming card 1-3 months after release will be 30% higher than this, as is per usual with amd cards.

Eh, no lol.

People were nuts if they thought this was gonna compete with 1080ti, but no one was guessing it was going to be closer to 1070 performance than 1080.....no one.

[Tiberria]

Not only that, the 1080 in general is kind of in an awkward spot right now in terms of consumer positioning. If you want to run 4k effectively, or probably 1440p at 144+, you need a 1080 Ti. If you're just going with 1080p or 1440p/60 Hz, there's almost no reason to go past a 1070. The 1080 might make sense in terms of a direct performance line comparison, but when you look at what resolution it effectively lets you game at, I wouldn't ever choose it going 1070 or going big with 1080 Ti.

That's going to put this Vega card in a similarly awkward spot I think if the 1080 is it's approximate performance range. Frankly, to be successful, I think it needs to perform like a 1080 and be priced like a 1070. Otherwise, why would you ever pick it over a 1070? Making the upgrade probably won't let you run at 4k or 1440p/high refresh comfortably, it's going to have a lot more power supply/case airflow/heat and power consumption requirements than the 1070. You can probably run a 1070 just fine on a 500w PSU. If Vega is really 300+ W? Probably going to need a 750+. That adds quite a bit of cost on its own, plus potentially the cost of more case cooling. Not only that, but if you go the Vega route, you're stuck with AMD drivers, and AMD video drivers historically are a bit of a nightmare compared to Nvidia in terms of frequency of updates, stability, etc. Even when AMD is making great hardware, there hasn't been an ATI/AMD card I've bought over the last 20 years that I haven't regretted because I always run into having to troubleshoot issues with poor quality drivers, while I rarely recall significant Nvidia stability issues.

If they can't price it at $350, maybe $400 tops (given current Bitcoin inflated GPU pricing), I think it's going to be a bust.

[Life-Binder]

performance on the gaming card 1-3 months after release will be 30% higher than this, as is per usual with amd cards

RX 480 got maybe 5-6% faster across the board in a year after its release (and 1060 improved too, so the gap barely changed, if at all)

they had to release an overvolted, max overclocked 480, aka the 580, to slightly beat a stock 1060


290X was slower than 780Ti in 2013 on release and was still slower than it in 2015 - 2 years later .. only in 2016+ it caught up and more, mostly thanks to some dx12 games


so Id say you're an optimist




best thing right now is to hope that RX Vega ends up to 10% faster than a stock 1080 in the end, with a very aggressive price (for a 500+ mm2 HBM2 chip)

- - - Updated - - -

GTX 1080 is good for 1440p/144hz because not every game needs 144 fps

it can do 1440p 144 fps in Overwatch, but cant in Witcher 3 or RotR, which is totally fine


alternatively you can get it for 1440p/60 hz for overkill/future-proofing


or use it for 4K@60, but with lowered settings

[Fascinate]

Eh its clearly never going to be a faster card than a 1080.

[mojo6912]

I'm comparing 3 month post launch performance on the gaming card vs the frontier edition pre-release with beta drivers. And yes, I'm an optimist. In reality it probably won't be 30% and probably it won't be $430 either.

- - - Updated - - -

but no one was guessing it was going to be closer to 1070 performance than 1080.....no one.

Oh? Read through this thread again.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm curious, does AMD card usually beat nvidia card in something like fallout (580 vs 1060)? The frontier edition is reaching 1080ti performance in that one game. lol. wtf is that?

[Life-Binder]

fallout 4 might be a bit AMD favored I think, not sure, check reviews


but the 1440p Fallout 4 bench was clearly some kind of outlier/brainfart (settings ?)/bottleneck

Ryan checked on stream and the 4K Fallout 4 result is the same as the rest - Vega below a 1080 .. its only 1440p F4 that was an anomaly, probably just needs a correct retesting



Hitman Dx12 is a much more AMD-favored game and even there Vega lost to 1080 in both resolutions

[Remilia]

Fallout 4 is an Nvidia sponsored game, so saying it favors AMD is a bit... lawlsy.

[Auxora]

It's always the same routine with AMD. They simply don't have the R&D budget to hang with Nvidia (or Intel on the cpu side). What they can do though is marketing. It's a lot easier to "leak" cherry-picked benchmarks that show them ahead before release and that exaggerate performance. Everyone gets excited, and then when they release they end up being massively let down when we get actual apples-to-apples 3rd party unbiased benchmarks.

I want AMD to succeed to keep competition with NV and Intel, but I've seen this rodeo way too many times with them. 6 months ago they were marketing the cryptic "5.0Ghz on air" hype on the Ryzen chips that turned out to be about 1Ghz off.

If Vega can end up close to the 1080 (not ti, that's not going to happen) for around $499 I'm sure they'll sell some. AMD's driver flakiness in games is much more prevalent and much slower to be fixed than Nvidia. So they need to come in at least a bit lower to be worth the headache. And with 1080's running in the low $500's now new, I don't see a big market higher than those unless it's an amazing miner (and early word is looking like it wont' be).

[Remilia]

Just a note, 5 GHz thing wasn't done by AMD, it was by CanardPC with the caveat of having 1 core enabled.

[mrgreenthump]

I want AMD to succeed to keep competition with NV and Intel, but I've seen this rodeo way too many times with them. 6 months ago they were marketing the cryptic "5.0Ghz on air" hype on the Ryzen chips that turned out to be about 1Ghz off.

Then again, Ryzen is probably the best CPU to launch in the past 4-5 years. Including Intel launches.. So yeah, saying they ain't keeping up is pretty dead wrong, because Intel just can't compete with Ryzen's price/performance with their current architecture.