Here are AMD's Radeon VII Benchmarks

Conman said:
Anyone willing to spend $700 on a GPU probably already owns something powerful enough to make this card unattractive.
Click to expand...
Well I am jumping into VR this year and I really have little choice. Each has a drawback.
1080ti - Used
2080 - 8GB
V7 - Power use(guessing little OC headroom)
All three are a tie in my mind. Each has pro's and cons. At this point I see no other logical choices if I want to game. And I am running a 7950 atm so I am due!
 
The big deal to me is AMD has caught up (with GCN no less) in general DX11/DX12 performance on similar transistor count/clock speeds to 2080. If Navi improves on power and Nvidia continues using part of their transistor budget on tensor and RT cores then it is conceivable that AMD can win the benchmark wars (in non RT games) with same price\segment next gen cards. I wouldn't hold my breath for that, but I'm genuinely surprised that a GCN card is matching up with 2080 at similar clocks.
 
Ryoohki360 said:
You know when pc gaming commuity is gone to shit when people are arguing on a open avalailble graphical advancement, not exclusive...
Might never be use in console but it's like tesselation, not use that much and if it's used it's very little on console,, been avalailble for what 10 years now, got 15,fps back in the days when enabling it..

Now the whole community rage if the game doesnt do 100+ fps.

Is rtx on nvidia perfect off course not.. But rt like réflection now is better than this ssr crap we got now..
Click to expand...

Oldmodder said:
At least they can make a "1080Ti" and yes it is late and that's not optimal, but the main issue here are how valid are 1080Ti performance now, and what price do the competitor sell that performance at.

I am wondering why Hitman and Forca only see that low gains.
Hitman in particular, but my grey goo don't store game benchmarks any more as no one make interesting games to me and i am no longer a tech writer, but maybe AMD in general take a hard hit on those 2 titles
Click to expand...

OpenGL?

A
 
funkydmunky said:
Well I am jumping into VR this year and I really have little choice. Each has a drawback.
1080ti - Used
2080 - 8GB
V7 - Power use(guessing little OC headroom)
All three are a tie in my mind. Each has pro's and cons. At this point I see no other logical choices if I want to game. And I am running a 7950 atm so I am due!
Click to expand...

Well if you're going VR then Nvidia is really the best option for performance. 2080 probably the best option with the inclusion of VR-link
 
Mega6 said:
I'll say it again, maybe everything I've read is wrong but NAVI is a Polaris mid-range replacement. This is it for a while on the high-end from AMD - Radeon7 / Vega2 whatever you want to call it. I was surprised as the rumors were Vega 7nm was a Datacenter / Compute release only. That was Lisa's Surprise for CES.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's the Polaris replacement but that doesn't mean it can't be high end.

To my understanding Polaris/Navi are GDDR 5/6 gpu's designed with consumer usage in mind while Vega/??? are the more expensive HBM gpu's designed with enterprise/research usage in mind.

Nvidia is using the same approach it seems with Volta being the enterprise and Turing being the consumer GPU's.

With that in mind, I see no reason why AMD can't/won't follow suite with Nvidia and release a HALO consumer GPU based on the NAVI arch.
 
DNMock said:
Pretty sure it's the Polaris replacement but that doesn't mean it can't be high end.

To my understanding Polaris/Navi are GDDR 5/6 gpu's designed with consumer usage in mind while Vega/??? are the more expensive HBM gpu's designed with enterprise/research usage in mind.

Nvidia is using the same approach it seems with Volta being the enterprise and Turing being the consumer GPU's.

With that in mind, I see no reason why AMD can't/won't follow suite with Nvidia and release a HALO consumer GPU based on the NAVI arch.
Click to expand...


Rumors have Navi as a 14nm part, that should tell you a lot.
 
Honestly , still sitting on my Titan Pascal (first one , it oc's to 2000 fine thankfully ) for 2.5 years now. I play at 4k 60hz 32" and won't go back to under 4k. So it looks like going on three years later there's still nothing out there reliably worth an upgrade. Good value for me , ridiculous too at the same time.

If AMD had come out with a card at 800-900 even with zero RTX features , but 2080ti 4k speeds with zero chance of space invaders I'd jump on it.

I don't give a shit about RTX featuers for some shiny shit in two games for the next three years at a god awful performance hit.

Are Nvidia and AMD stuck at some point for "normal" speeds (no new RTX , split hair ends that glow, other shit that doesn't matter etc etc ) wall that can't really be gone past much for some reason ?


As it is a card from August of 2016 at 4k doesn't really have anything that trounces it in 2019. With nothing on the near future either.

Both companies suck at the high end atm.
 
piscian18 said:
I repeat, it is an awkward time to be a GTX1080 owner. The only value upgrade out of either of these is a GTX2080ti and it doesn't remotely compare to the value I'd getting spending that money on bourbon. I could shower in woodford for these prices

View attachment 134169
Click to expand...
also 1080 here.

$1200 is double what i paid, and it's just almost double the performance.

usually new generations give you better price/performance. This is just silly.
 
So there are several games that go from ~28fps to ~34fps. Woooooow!!

/sarcasm.

They're still unplayable.
 
DF-1 said:
also 1080 here.

$1200 is double what i paid, and it's just almost double the performance.

usually new generations give you better price/performance. This is just silly.
Click to expand...

Its more complicated for me because The GTX 2080ti shines over the GTX 1080 in 4K. I game at 1440p. They don't make a (34"+ 4k 144hz monitor.) There only seems to be a 40-50% gain. $500-600? sure. 1300???? shooo go on get outa here. I paid exactly $525 for my GTX1080 in 2017.
 
Meh, going to sit on my 1070 and ride it out until after Navi is released. By then, we should know if Nvidia's 1100 series rumors pan out. At 1440p gaming, still have respectable FPS now and for the foreseeable future.

With AMD & Nvidia's pricing right now, not compelled to upgrade at the current price points.
 
Eymar said:
The big deal to me is AMD has caught up (with GCN no less) in general DX11/DX12 performance on similar transistor count/clock speeds to 2080.
Click to expand...

But they haven't caught up- they're still two years behind, while using a more advanced node.
 
DPI said:
Doesn't change what he said. You can grab a 1080Ti for $500 easily.

AMD zealots are equally as useless. Both sides ultimately are once it turns into a red herring fest.
Click to expand...

What’s more terrible, this post or that it was like by 3 people?
 
Am I wrong in thinking this card is inefficient with its 300W TDP? The 1080 Ti which it is somewhat similar to is only about 250W if im not mistaken. I would of thought 7nm would of got the power draw down or is AMD just clocking this high to compete?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
But they haven't caught up- they're still two years behind, while using a more advanced node.
Click to expand...

Ah, nope, they are not two years behind at all. But hey, not our fault Nvidia is dragging their feet and over charging for the "product". Oh, and the end result of the on screen image has to through compression on the Nvidia product, not so on the AMD product and in my opinion, that means that the image is not as good and they are reducing the quality just to up the fps.
 
gbnz said:
Am I wrong in thinking this card is inefficient with its 300W TDP? The 1080 Ti which it is somewhat similar to is only about 250W if im not mistaken. I would of thought 7nm would of got the power draw down or is AMD just clocking this high to compete?
Click to expand...

We don't know since we do not yet have that information.
 
Mega6 said:
Relax

Navi is 2H 2019

EDIT: Should qualify this, R7 is it for high end AMD for now. Navi Mid-Range. AMD has ceded the high end market on these gens.
Click to expand...

If I did not already have a RX Vega 56 flashed with a Vega 64 bios, I might consider this card. However, I have been gaming at 1080p 144hz freesync style with my Powercolor Red Devil RX580 and enjoying that very much.
 
ManofGod said:
If I did not already have a RX Vega 56 flashed with a Vega 64 bios, I might consider this card. However, I have been gaming at 1080p 144hz freesync style with my Powercolor Red Devil RX580 and enjoying that very much.
Click to expand...

Freesync 1080 144hz Vega 56 here too.

No way im paying 700 for this card plus a new 1440 or 4K monitor. That’s my only upgrade path. I’m stuck.

Edit,
Overwatch maxed out plays at 144fps
Rise of the Tomb Raider maxed (i think) runs at 60-80 FPS
Doom maxed runs at 90-110 FPS

if I get a new 1440 or 4K monitor my frames will drop below 60 and if i keep the monitor and buy this card I gain some frames. Have to do both to see a real difference. EXPENSIVE
 
RobCalleg said:
Freesync 1080 144hz Vega 56 here too.

No way im paying 700 for this card plus a new 1440 or 4K monitor. That’s my only upgrade path. I’m stuck.
Click to expand...

Well, I have a Samsung 4k 43 inch TV that I have hooked up to my Vega 56. :) I bought that in December of 2017 for $349 plus tax.
 
hmmmm…..

Lot's of new AMD gaming machines out there now.

Is anybody else out there like me with the ocd?

Right now I have Intel/Nvidia. But I am intrigued to consider an all AMD system... It is viable now without giving up much if anything....
 
crazycuz20 said:
This is the way I see it... this is the high end segment. People have been yelling and screaming for months about how AMD doesn't have a product to compete with Nvidia in the high end segment. AMD's invested a ton of money in their Vega architecture and it underperforms.Raju, who was heading the project left because his best engineers were moved to the much more successful and profitable Zen architecture and Navi which has it's R&D cost shared by both Sony and Microsoft. More than likely there are contractual agreements where AMD can't announce Navi until Sony or Microsoft are ready to announce they're next gen consoles. In the meantime, you've invested heavily in 7 nm. Why not recoup some of your investment and answer the public demand for a product that can compete with Nvidia's 2nd highest product offering.

At $700 you're paying 30% more for 30% more performance and 3 triple AAA games that can drive a 4K/60 or 144/120 or 1080/240. This will satisfy all the AMD fanboi's that want to play at these resolutions and frequencies with and AMD product.

No it doesn't do 4K/120 but then again how many players have 3K to spend on a setup for just the monitor and GPU. Yes I know I'm on [H}ardforum but even most of us aren't gonna spend that much on just a those two pieces of hardware.

Instead, now I'm getting into just my theory territory, if I were AMD, Vega 2/Rx 590 is stop gap solution until I can deliver Navi. Remember, AMD bet the house on Ryzen and they won. They won big, but that just means they can finally start adding to their graphics R&D budget. It's not realistic to think that they'd have a product ready for launch in the 6 months to 1 year with that additional funding. If we were to look at their model, Zen/Epyc is based of a scalable architecture where all you need to do is throw more cores to get more performance. You get economies of scale and as you're not having to have different fabs for different segments of the market, then I would surmise that Navi would be designed the same way. A scalable GPU chiplet connected through their infiti fabric. You can add more chiplets for more rendering power, add it to an APU.

By doing this you can stay on one platform for years, with tic's being small improvements in the design for 10% gains and toc's being smaller silicon/architecture. This allows them to be more competitive without the R&D budget.

Now between Radeon VII vs the RTX 2080. Ray tracing is way too infant, and Nvidia's trying to recoup some of their R&D by gouging Nvidia fanboi's. Until at least 50% of triple AAA games support it, I won't even bother to use it in a features comparison. DLSS on the other hand is much more interesting and I think much more easily implemented. Whereas AMD offers 16GB of ram. I prefer the 16GB of ram as I think it's more future proof. I think it'd be easier and more useful for game developers but increasing details in Textures. Some titles already use up 11 GB's.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the trickle effect of having a halo product on the lower tier products.

Pieter3dnow said:
I cannot hold my laughter any more I got to get this off my chest, the people that have been paying for overpriced GPU by Nvidia telling us the card is overpriced, I mean this is hilarious.

btw (not just in this thread) .
Click to expand...

Yes, it is overpriced, especially when comparing it to how Ryzen was priced against Intel.
 
I play a lot of total war Warhammer 2. I just used DSR to mimic 4k on my 1080p system and ran the battle benchmark with my OCed rtx 2070. I got 32.6 fps while amd is reporting 34.6. Though they do not say what benchmark they used.

In the campaign benchmark I got 40.0 fps.

In the Skaven benchmark I got 42.3 fps.

This is with my OCed 2070 with the core clock averaging 2085 mhz with the memory at +800. I don't even know what stock is. 1600mhz or something.

Will be interesting to see the [H] review.

And hey will be even more interesting if "it just works" DLSS ever actually works.
 
5960X with 2 cores disabled + V64 Farcry 5 benchmark in 4k with HD Textures on. Scores exactly what AMD claims. This Vega VII can swing 4K with FreeSync comfortably. Sneaking in the card will be easy, but how will I explain to the other half that my monitor suddenly got bigger :D
 
Imhotep said:
5960X with 2 cores disabled + V64 Farcry 5 benchmark in 4k with HD Textures on. Scores exactly what AMD claims. This Vega VII can swing 4K with FreeSync comfortably. Sneaking in the card will be easy, but how will I explain to the other half that my monitor suddenly got bigger :D
Click to expand...

they always find out man lol
 
So basically,
  • it lack RTX and PhysX
  • being sold at a guesstimated $50USD loss
  • same performance as a 1080TI from 2 years ago
What really jumps out at me is they used an Intel i7 7700K. Was Ryzen not fast enough?!

AMD should really foucson the valuse segment.
 
ecktt said:
So basically,
  • it lack RTX and PhysX
  • being sold at a guesstimated $50USD loss
  • same performance as a 1080TI from 2 years ago
What really jumps out at me is they used an Intel i7 7700K. Was Ryzen not fast enough?!

AMD should really foucson the valuse segment.
Click to expand...

Its not like AMD didn't want to focus on the mainstream segment, but at the moment they cannot due to whatever issues AMD is having with Navi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ecktt
like this
ecktt said:
So basically,
  • it lack RTX and PhysX
  • being sold at a guesstimated $50USD loss
  • same performance as a 1080TI from 2 years ago
What really jumps out at me is they used an Intel i7 7700K. Was Ryzen not fast enough?!

AMD should really foucson the valuse segment.
Click to expand...

  • PhysX is a software layer thats been incorporated into game engines and is now platform agnostic.
  • How did you come up with this ascertain? show me the numbers that support your statement?
  • Same performance as a rtx 2080 that was launched 3 months ago your 1080ti argument is useless compare new to new ffs
Amd is doing what they do best release a product that is an alternative to nv's high end card.

perhaps you should stick to your day job?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DF-1
like this
IdiotInCharge said:
It's missing the features on the 2080, so it is 1080Ti-level.
Click to expand...

those features are dead on arrival as till consoles support ray tracing! no dev without buckets of nv money are going to waste time for the 1% that have rtx cards and with those "features" off the table off the cards are comparable
 
  • Like
Reactions: DF-1
like this
maxius said:
  • PhysX is a software layer thats been incorporated into game engines and is now platform agnostic.
  • How did you come up with this ascertain? show me the numbers that support your statement?
  • Same performance as a rtx 2080 that was launched 3 months ago your 1080ti argument is useless compare new to new ffs
Amd is doing what they do best release a product that is an alternative to nv's high end card.

perhaps you should stick to your day job?
Click to expand...

Last time I checked No physX in Borderlands with AMD. We'll see if that changes with Borderlands 3.
As for my asscertion :

did you not read the word guessimate?

And finally the last guy answered you.

My be you should also stick to your day job?
 
Your opinion is so valuable here simply because those of us that will be buying it also expect RTX at 30 FPS...from a VEGA VII...:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top