Vega says "Hello World"

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,092
Last edited:
So, it's looking like same case as Fury / 980 case. Vega looks like being faster than 1080, but will probably be slower than 1080 ti.

Everything will depend on price. If AMD males same mistake and prices Vega at price level of 1080 Ti, as Fury X, though slower was at same level on 980 Ti (when I was buying my 980 Ti it was about 20 USD more expensive, and that was AIB card). Especially if NV will cut 1080 price to current 1070 prices.

So if Vega will be like 1080 +20% at current 1070 price, it will be great card, and I'll get one. But I'm kinda sceptic about that.
 
MorgothPl said:
So, it's looking like same case as Fury / 980 case. Vega looks like being faster than 1080, but will probably be slower than 1080 ti.

Everything will depend on price. If AMD males same mistake and prices Vega at price level of 1080 Ti, as Fury X, though slower was at same level on 980 Ti (when I was buying my 980 Ti it was about 20 USD more expensive, and that was AIB card). Especially if NV will cut 1080 price to current 1070 prices.

So if Vega will be like 1080 +20% at current 1070 price, it will be great card, and I'll get one. But I'm kinda sceptic about that.
Click to expand...
Too early to tell what the performance is like as we do not even know if the Vega card had Shader Extension support (provides greater performance boost than Async Compute and worked very well for Fiji) and really cannot say if it is used or not (vague statement about not optimised unfortunately is not clear enough), but then why else would AMD deliberately select Vulkan API Doom...
Worth noting the gaming GPU was not the 12.5 TFLOPs model but the cut down core that will be Prosumer-Gaming and in theory should compete strongly depending upon the game.but may end up like the past and between the current 1080 and 1080ti.
But importantly it needs to be seen how they have balanced the architecture between gaming/Prosumer/HPC along with other games, and how well it overclocks for AIB partners (not extremes).

Cheers
 
Last edited:
dopefishz said:
On something else than Doom.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wonder how much Doom (presumably with Vulcan) is a cherry picked benchmark for AMD.

As an example, a RX480 and a GTX 1060 - on average - tend to perform pretty similarly, however in Doom with Vulkan, the RX480 takes a pretty sizable lead.

It would be a shame if AMD showcased Vega to much fanfare in the one benchmark it does well, while ignoring others, but then again, we've come to expect this from AMD and their recent harping on AotS, because they do well in it, rather than looking at overall performance across popular titles.

This is why I trust NOTHING from them until Kyle (or someone of his ilk) does actual testing.

Press releases are pretty much useless, because you can cheat and cherry pick to high heavens in them, and AMD has shown us that they are willing to do it. Most other companies probably wouldn't, because - you know - when it actually launches, you wind up with pie on your face, but for some reason AMD has no qualms, with this, with the AotS benchmakrs, with that Zen blender benchmark....


Having been in college and built several systems during the K7 and K8 era I have a special place in my heart for AMD, as I have very many fond memories, and consider it to be the best time in history for our hobby, but I just don't trust anything they say these days...

I hope Vega does well, and I hope Zen does well, but honestly, there is nothing to see here, because AMD Marketing can't be trusted at all.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I hope Vega does well, and I hope Zen does well, but honestly, there is nothing to see here, because AMD Marketing can't be trusted at all.
Click to expand...

Why would you worry about things that every marketing department does, they showcase their product in the most favourable way. Not just AMD but Intel and Nvida too.
No marketing department is going to show the least impressive side of their product.

That is where [H] steps in and tests it thoroughly in their review.
 
This is encouraging for me, my Nano at 4K Ultra gets around 45fps in Doom so adding another 25fps on an un-optimized plus poorly cooled case (likely thermal throttling I would guess) still gives it >50% performance. If properly cooled, better drivers etc. should make this a rather decent card depending upon price.

In addition with two stacks of HBM and GPU will make the interposer smaller than Fiji (cheaper cost) and possible even allow even a smaller configuration over Fiji due to lower power requirements and interposer size.
 
I don't know what the big deal is. I run Doom at 2560x1440 with everything on "high" (except I changed decal filtering to 16x aniso), using Vulcan, and get 60-70pfs on average, on a 7970 (stock clocks) and i5 sandy bridge at 4.0Ghz (she just won't OC like she used to :(). This game isn't that hard to run.
 
prime2515102 said:
I don't know what the big deal is. I run Doom at 2560x1440 with everything on "high" (except I changed decal filtering to 16x aniso), using Vulcan, and get 60-70pfs on average, on a 7970 (stock clocks) and i5 sandy bridge at 4.0Ghz (she just won't OC like she used to :(). This game isn't that hard to run.
Click to expand...

You mean that Cageymaru is trolling all of us ?
 
prime2515102 said:
I don't know what the big deal is. I run Doom at 2560x1440 with everything on "high" (except I changed decal filtering to 16x aniso), using Vulcan, and get 60-70pfs on average, on a 7970 (stock clocks) and i5 sandy bridge at 4.0Ghz (she just won't OC like she used to :(). This game isn't that hard to run.
Click to expand...
Big difference between 1440p and 2160P in number of pixels. One 1070 in Vulkan runs Nightmare (maxed out all settings) 3440x1440 around 65-70fps which I use - going to 4K the 1070 becomes slower than the Nano in this title.
 
noko said:
Big difference between 1440p and 2160P in number of pixels. One 1070 in Vulkan runs Nightmare (maxed out all settings) 3440x1440 around 65-70fps which I use - going to 4K the 1070 becomes slower than the Nano in this title.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem right. This random website I found shows different. 1070 stays ahead, way ahead taking mins into account.

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-the-tide-turning-in-amds-favour/

Anyone remember how drastically misleading the Fury X benches were? I sure do since I put off my Titan X purchase because of it. AMD was a literal waste of time for me.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Why would you worry about things that every marketing department does, they showcase their product in the most favourable way. Not just AMD but Intel and Nvida too.
No marketing department is going to show the least impressive side of their product.

That is where [H] steps in and tests it thoroughly in their review.
Click to expand...

You are right., Marketing departments are supposed to put their products in a good light, but AMD's attempts over the last 2 years have been beyond excessive, to the point where it's embarrassing when the things launch and they don't meet expectations over and over again.

If they are going to use benchmarks at all (which honestly, I think is best left to the press with review samples) would probably be advised to not keep over-hyping expectations only to underwhelm at launch. That's just a recipe for pissing people off.
 
noko said:
Big difference between 1440p and 2160P in number of pixels.
Click to expand...
Of course; I'm just saying, the game isn't that hard to run (not as hard as a lot of people make it out to be anyway). Maybe it's just skewed toward AMD hardware, I dunno. I honestly expected to have to run it at 1080 with medium settings (which is what the game's recommended settings were).
 
I really hope AMD gets back in the game, but specs really don't say much about performance. So as impressive as bandwidth and compute sounds, I'll won't hold my breath.

Still, even if it can't beat the 1080 it could give the 1070 a run for its money
 
I get 40 fps with everything except AA setting on ultra for doom. So running the game on vega is not pushing it to the limit.
 
GTX 1080 launch features Doom (just before its official release) and it's awesome.

Vega launch features Doom (which is now a six month old title) and it's cherry-picking.

??
 
jbc029 said:
GTX 1080 launch features Doom (just before its official release) and it's awesome.

Vega launch features Doom (which is now a six month old title) and it's cherry-picking.

??
Click to expand...


I completely missed any Doom involvement in the Nvidia launch or pre-release teasers.

Even so, at that time Doom didn't have the Vulkan patch, and was a more balanced benchmark.

When run under Vulkan AMD GPU's perform significantly better when compared to Nvidia GPU's than in typical titles on the market, which means it is a misleading title to use to show representative performance.
 
AMD needs to get this card out ASAP, they're already 6 months behind the competition.
 
Quix said:
AMD needs to get this card out ASAP, they're already 6 months behind the competition.
Click to expand...


lol go look at the yearly graphic card sale projections in the article that was posted earlier for Nvidia and AMD, they're not really behind since sales are way down for both companies.
 
By the time this "Maybe faster than a 1080" card hits retail, Nvidia will have already started selling cut-down versions of the TIx as the 1080Ti.

I remember saying this before, if AMD want to beat Nvidia, they have to beat the BEST Nvidia has to offer, not the best 'mainstream' Nvidia has to offer. The only reason the GPU in the TiXP is not 'mainstream' is because Nvidia can get away with charging top-dollar for it. As soon as AMD comes sniffing-distance to their throne, they'll pull another 980Ti.
 
I would be absolutely shocked if anything AMD released out performs Nvidia. Could happen I supposed but would be a hella of a shocker to everyone.

On 2nd thought, it would be amazing for Nvidia owners. Means prices might actually drop.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
lol go look at the yearly graphic card sale projections in the article that was posted earlier for Nvidia and AMD, they're not really behind since sales are way down for both companies.
Click to expand...

I think it is more a case of we want it, and want it now.
 
KazeoHin said:
By the time this "Maybe faster than a 1080" card hits retail, Nvidia will have already started selling cut-down versions of the TIx as the 1080Ti.

I remember saying this before, if AMD want to beat Nvidia, they have to beat the BEST Nvidia has to offer, not the best 'mainstream' Nvidia has to offer. The only reason the GPU in the TiXP is not 'mainstream' is because Nvidia can get away with charging top-dollar for it. As soon as AMD comes sniffing-distance to their throne, they'll pull another 980Ti.
Click to expand...
yeah no shit but if amd comes out with something that is close to or on par with a 1080 at a lower cost then that could be a big seller.
 
After putting up with the R9 Xfire trouble for years, I jumped ship earlier this year to a 1070, much smoother/better.

That being said, I still like competetion -- I'm interested to see what they can do. I don't have high hopes, but maybe they can hit one out of the park. Using a single demo of doom running isn't a good sign though. Everyone knows the Vulkan API effect.

If you happen to only care about DOOM - then this is great news if they price it right. If they want to impress me, take a spin in 4K GTA5, and some 4K BF1 then get back to me.
 
Dayaks said:
That doesn't seem right. This random website I found shows different. 1070 stays ahead, way ahead taking mins into account.

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-the-tide-turning-in-amds-favour/

Anyone remember how drastically misleading the Fury X benches were? I sure do since I put off my Titan X purchase because of it. AMD was a literal waste of time for me.
Click to expand...
I can retest, there has been some game improvement for Nvidia Vulkan plus the Nano probably gets some benefits from the I7 vice the FX. I also use a higher power setting allowing the Nano to maintain a higher speed over stock (big difference comes from this).
 
collegeboy69us said:
After putting up with the R9 Xfire trouble for years, I jumped ship earlier this year to a 1070, much smoother/better.

That being said, I still like competetion -- I'm interested to see what they can do. I don't have high hopes, but maybe they can hit one out of the park. Using a single demo of doom running isn't a good sign though. Everyone knows the Vulkan API effect.

If you happen to only care about DOOM - then this is great news if they price it right. If they want to impress me, take a spin in 4K GTA5, and some 4K BF1 then get back to me.
Click to expand...
Well if Vega performs similar to how other GCN performs in games then if Doom is X amount faster then it would suggest (be careful) that other games will see similar speed ups. We won't know until the fat lady sings and HardOCP does a real review. Hopefully with an early sample or two.
 
are any of the current amd cards able to run doom at 4k/60? I don't think any can
 
Show me the Witcher 3 or The Division at 4k/60fps then we will talk, until then there is nothing to see here.
 
Even a Pascal Titan isn't quite comfortable enough for 4K/60hz, Ultra settings across the board, so I wouldn't be too demanding on them, but it would be nice to see it be able to tango with a 1080.
 
My excitement is in the form of AMD putting a little (just a little) heat under nvidias ass to get the 1080ti on the streets. I don't exactly need one... but, I want one :)

As an nvidia stockholder... I still want them to come out on top :)
 
They probably don't want to run anything besides Vulkan because they don't have any decent drivers for this thing yet. In all likelihood it won't be for sale until June, it's nice for them to show they have the hardware up and running, but we're still ways away from launch day. I have more interest in ZEN at this point, any competition with Intel at all is good competition, as long as it's actual competition and not a dud. They've been price gouging the market for years, i'll be elated if someone steps in and starts taking a little market share back from them.
 
NeoGohan said:
Probably gonna suck in VR like the rest of their cards.
Click to expand...
Oh no my friend, this offers the most premium of vr experiences.

If this card doesn't beat the 1080 in most other games (and in dx11) AMD's marketing dept. needs to be canned. Down to the last intern. They have done so much damage to their brand it's unreal. I'd like to get excited about the launch of vega, but I can't. All I can think about is the likely disappointment when we learn it's not really on par with the 1080, costs more than a 1080, and to add insult to injury nvidia will drop the 1080ti a week later making vega totally irrelevant.
 
If they are actually using HBM2, supply might become an issue. Not to mention, it would be difficult for them to price such products competitively, considering the rather minimal benefit higher VRAM bandwidth seems to offer. I would've hoped, they learned something from the 'Fury' experience.
 
capt_cope said:
Oh no my friend, this offers the most premium of vr experiences.

If this card doesn't beat the 1080 in most other games (and in dx11) AMD's marketing dept. needs to be canned. Down to the last intern. They have done so much damage to their brand it's unreal. I'd like to get excited about the launch of vega, but I can't. All I can think about is the likely disappointment when we learn it's not really on par with the 1080, costs more than a 1080, and to add insult to injury nvidia will drop the 1080ti a week later making vega totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Ehh
Me too

Wanna look forward to it, but ...

I really hope I'm wrong with this
But I would think from what you listed there is one other thing and one wrong

I'd think Nvidia releases a 1080ti a week before Vega
There's nothing that's holding Nvidia back bringing one out now, except business decisions
Hell maybe they're already binning the gpu for nice clocks already

And secondly I fear that, traditionally, Vega will burn more power and thus require better/louder cooling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top