AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Leaked Benchmarks: GTX 1070 Killer

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
These benchmark numbers were just sent to me via Google Hangouts by cageymaru. He pointed me to Tweaktown as they are saying that "an industy source" of theirs passed along AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 benchmarks. As always, take these with a grain of salt.

My source said that the RX Vega 56 card was running on an Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz, had 16GB of DDR4-3000MHz RAM, and was running Windows 10. The benchmarks were run at 2560x1440 with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 easily beating NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 1070 in Battlefield 1, DOOM, Civilization 6, and even Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare. My source said that Battlefield 1 was run on Ultra settings, Civ 6 was on Ultra with 4x MSAA, DOOM was at Ultra with 8x TSAA enabled, and COD:IW was running on its High preset.

Radeon RX Vega 56 benchmark results:

Battlefield 1: 95.4FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS)
Civilization 6: 85.1FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS)
DOOM: 101.2FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6FPS)
COD:IW: 99.9FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1FPS)
 
I'm dying to get something to be better capable of 4K.
I'm dying to get some AMD graphics in Linux again.

hoping RX Vega doesn't suck, and now you post the first posetive vega performance estimate since friggin last december!

if the 64 doesn't surpass GTX1080 I'm going fuck linux desktop experience and buy a 1080ti and continue to bodge it till it does something semi usefull with crappy nvidia drivers and live happy with the gaming performance :D

but if this is true, 2017 may be the most exciting hardware year since 2005\6?
 
He won't be pacing in his office, he will be planning his latest AMD killer card !!!
 
How long until we can see some honest ((well, reliable?, (how about not made up?)) head to head with the nvidia cards?
 
He won't be pacing in his office, he will be planning his latest AMD killer card !!!
No problem. 1070Ti, and people will line up around the block to pay $$$ for the privilege of sucking off Jen-Hsun.
Not that I'm one to talk, since I ditched my R9 290s and 390s for 1080s :p
 
Those numbers look wrong... I quickly checked 1070 results in Doom 1440p Ultra and it's sure as hell ain't 85fps. Possibly minimums being reported ?
 

Attachments

  • doom_2560v.png
    doom_2560v.png
    141.2 KB · Views: 78
Those numbers look wrong... I quickly checked 1070 results in Doom 1440p Ultra and it's sure as hell ain't 85fps. Possibly minimums being reported ?
Different CPU, also OC'ed higher than the 7700k they had for numbers in the other cards, along with HOW did they bench isn't mentioned.
 
oh lord. nobody replying to this guy? too many consumers like this and we can expect 1060 tier cards for $600 in a couple years.

everybody releases on their schedule. Takes too much planning to not. usually the change would be they end up being delayed, not moving up launch.

I don’t “pity buy”. I buy what I believe is the best in terms of performance/price/power consumption. AMD hasn’t delivered, especially not this generation. I’m not out here to buy for some “greater good”.
 
Different CPU, also OC'ed higher than the 7700k they had for numbers in the other cards, along with HOW did they bench isn't mentioned.
Doesn't the 7700k boost to 4.5 single? So the clock difference doesn't matter due to IPC difference at that point. It also could vary widely in different areas but I don't imagine a 20%~difference happening in averages...
 
oh lord. nobody replying to this guy? too many consumers like this and we can expect 1060 tier cards for $600 in a couple years.

everybody releases on their schedule. Takes too much planning to not. usually the change would be they end up being delayed, not moving up launch.
You would be foolish to think that product releases are not scheduled industry-wide with consideration given to what the competition is up to.
 
I'm more concerned with what will be available and at what prices if mining keeps burning up gpus. I don't see any of these being sold at their respective msrp anywhere near launch.
 
Doesn't the 7700k boost to 4.5 single? So the clock difference doesn't matter due to IPC difference at that point. It also could vary widely in different areas but I don't imagine a 20%~difference happening in averages...

7700 @ 4.2
 
I'm more concerned with what will be available and at what prices if mining keeps burning up gpus. I don't see any of these being sold at their respective msrp anywhere near launch.
this the fact GPU prices are higher then they where almost a year ago is fucked they should be cheaper now not more
 
Not "Average" or "Minimum" or "Median Low", FPS, just plain old FPS with no methodology.

I don't even care what the numbers say, that grain of salt is too large...
 
whats a pity buy? who said anything about that? The issue with your comment was that its ... prob cant use that word. Its dumb. AMD hasn't been competitive where? 290x vs 780ti? fury vs 980? fury x vs 980ti? 480 vs 1060? 470 vs 1060 3gb? 470 vs 1050ti? 4gb 460 vs 1050? 2 x 480 vs 1080 for those who went that route and are happy with it. where? you make that massive broad statement as if its universally true. its patently false. Ask someone who paid $700 for a 780ti how happy they are that they didn't buy the $550 290x instead. There are too many tiers, too many factors to be saying crap like that. All you can really say is amd doesn't have a competitor for the 1080 and 1070 right now. and for the 1070 you even have to qualify it because it only applies to dx11. a fury x still kicks a 1070s butt in most lower lvl api games stock v stock. Too many factors to be making statements like that. You call other people fanboys but statements like that are what fanboys make.

I've had equal amounts of AMD cards as Nvidia, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about in terms of fanboy. "Fury X still kicks a 1070s butt in most LOWER LVL API games...STOCK VS STOCK". Ok, first of all, nobody runs a 1070 stock so lets move on from that. Second, who cares about something like Doom? My 1050Ti can run that at ultra 60FPS at 1080P and it has mediocre graphics. 90% of games out there don't use low level API's, and I don't buy my GPU's based on a small sample of games. If you love Doom, Hitman and Benchmark of the Singularity, then by all means go ahead and go with the Fury X or dual 480's. In games that I actually care about, Nvidia is ahead in almost all of them.

I must not have made it clear that my post was my opinion and based on my needs. AMD isn't competitive there and hasn't been since I bought my HD 7950.
 
Encouraging to say the least, looking forward to some more in depth reviews from trusted unbiased sources ...*cough, cough* Kyle.

I want a Titan Xp killer damn it.

We will likely be waiting a while :(, these will be good bang for the buck though. Nothing screams [H] like bang for buck.
 
I do expect the Vega56 to be faster than the GTX1070 as its only mildly cut down from Vega64. But it seems to me those numbers are pretty much in line with a GTX1080. And thats Vega64 territory.
 
I don't pity buy....but (repeating mantra) I desperately want a proper 2K Freesync card.

I'd be fairly happy if these numbers are semi accurate. Is AMD behind the ball? Sure. But who cares. A year later NVidia's product stack has only changed by a Ti so worst case a decent showing by Vega pushes them to get Volta out. We all win when they trade blows.
 
nvidia have a year lead.

it's likely the 1170 or whatever is on the horizon.

this is more of a bottlerocket than a MOAB.

actually it's been over a year lead.

good on amd for keeping up but this seems lack luster to me.
 
Wait, a brand new $500 video card is faster than a year old 1070 I paid under $400 for? Alert the presses.

Even if the price isn't that high, AMD is way late to this party. Still, I guess competition is good regardless.

OK - so this part isn't a dig, it's a question. Have the AMD/ATI drivers improved any in the last couple years? I think my last ATI card was about 6 years ago and the drivers .... did not impress (trying to be nice).
 
I'm more concerned with what will be available and at what prices if mining keeps burning up gpus. I don't see any of these being sold at their respective msrp anywhere near launch.

this the fact GPU prices are higher then they where almost a year ago is fucked they should be cheaper now not more

I am going to go on a limb here but i imagine a lot with etherium mining is going to change in the next few months. Either the price is going to tank, which looks likely, or they are going to release that new fangled way to mine which will make GPU mining moot.
 
nvidia have a year lead.

it's likely the 1170 or whatever is on the horizon.

this is more of a bottlerocket than a MOAB.

actually it's been over a year lead.

good on amd for keeping up but this seems lack luster to me.
Keeping up would have been Vega launching at least by the beginning of this year. We should hopefully see solid numbers on the 14th but I doubt this will be a big deal in the long run.
 
Nvidia doesn’t care what AMD does anymore, it’s been mentioned multiple times that they release on their own schedule. AMD isn’t competitive except in the eyes of their fanboys.
You're right, of course. But the sad thing is that AMD doesn't even need to have the performance crown. They just need to follow their 'Ryzen' business model: Specifically being competitive on performance and ultra competitive on price.

Assuming the leaks turn out to be correct and RX Vega 64 turns out to be on par with 1080, then if AMD priced it at $399 with $20 mail-in-rebate, they'd have a huge success. At $499 it makes no sense.
 
Back
Top