Vega Rumors

razor1 said:
its not clock speed only, IPC tests show that CFL has a 35% advantage outside of clock speed.

cine.png


This is the first review out of a google search for CFL reviews

single core performance is higher by 20% right? So it looks like clock speed is giving them the advantage, but when we look at multi threaded performance, clock speed can't be the only thing that is helping Intel's 6 core part to keep up with AMD's 8 core parts. And we know AMD's SMT approach has advantages over Intel's multi threaded approach.

It just can't be.

And we just need to look back on reviews with equalized clocks of Skylake products vs Ryzen to see the IPC differences.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer his point about clock speed :p is the 8700k clocked the same as an 1800x in a single threaded load?

How far can intel push their core architecture ? we've been sitting at 4.5-5Ghz since Sandy Bridge, and they just now reliably pushed past 5hz.

Maybe it was lack of competition ,or maybe they need to move onto something different to achieve higher speeds.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
That doesn't really answer his point about clock speed :p is the 8700k clocked the same as an 1800x in a single threaded load?
Click to expand...


I agree it isn't that is is why I stated it looks like clock speed only lol but its not only clock speed, it is very hard to tell IPC from the benchmarks given..... really need to isolate by equalizing clock speed and core counts over various applications. But we have seen this though with Skylake vs Ryzen tests when Ryzen was launched, its around 35% difference in IPC. Even by AMD's own targets, they are just under Haswell level IPC.....

Any case, Intel stated they don't expect any drop in sales in Q4 not only that they expect an increase in revenue over this quarter, yes all problems that AMD is saying is coming from themselves. Added on top of this, Intel's revenue for computer products (client) remained flat year over year, AMD has made no ground or very little in market share overall.

About the core clocks and what not, Intel hasn't been focusing on anything other then lower power consumption for a long time now. And they have been doing it purely though node changes. So have to see what they can do with architectural changes. Even Coffee lake doesn't show much in this regard. Just more cores at the same power usage levels.
 
razor1 said:
its not clock speed only, IPC tests show that CFL has a 35% advantage outside of clock speed.

cine.png


This is the first review out of a google search for CFL reviews

single core performance is higher by 20% right? So it looks like clock speed is giving them the advantage, but when we look at multi threaded performance, clock speed can't be the only thing that is helping Intel's 6 core part to keep up with AMD's 8 core parts. And we know AMD's SMT approach has advantages over Intel's multi threaded approach.

It just can't be.

And we just need to look back on reviews with equalized clocks of Skylake products vs Ryzen to see the IPC differences.
Click to expand...

so you are saying its 35% faster at same clock speed on ipc? 8700k turbos to 4.3ghz on all cores correct so that is 700mhz clock speed advantage over 1800x so clearly you are seeing that advantage making up for the performance. Sometimes things are just simple and make too much sense. 700mhz advantage on all cores sure looks like its doing a good job. Run 1800x at 4.3 ghz and you will see the difference as well. So again Intel does have clock speed advantage as I have always admitted. CFL has no magic sauce, its just higher clock rate thats all.
 
Last edited:
NKD said:
so you are saying its 35% faster at same clock speed on ipc? You do know 8700k turbos to 4.3ghz on all cores correct so that is 700mhz clock speed advantage over 1800x so clearly you are seeing that advantage making up for the performance. Sometimes things are just simple and make too much sense. 700mhz advantage on all cores sure looks like its doing a good job. Run 1800x at 4.3 ghz and you will see the difference as well. So again Intel does have clock speed advantage as I have always admitted.
Click to expand...


What about the 25% core count difference? and 4.3 all turbo for CFL from 3.8 all turbo for Ryzen 1800x is only a 12.2% difference. Factor in the threading difference in favor of Ryzen, that should cover the clock speed difference.

Once you start factoring everything in pro's and con's you can see Intel's IPC is way beyond Ryzen there is no disputing that. We can see that in games where IPC is most important, we see more than 30% performance advantages for Intel parts. Sometimes even as high as 45%.

That kind of jump in IPC is not easy to accomplish with tweaks here and there. Intel didn't go from Ivy Bridge - Haswell level IPC to Skylake with just small tweaks, they did small tweaks per generation to get that, AMD would have to do all those tweaks plus hope to god GF can make their next node to clock up to what Intel's 14+++ clocks to with similar voltage specs on top of that or better to keep up before Intel gets to 10nm, or hope Intel fucks up with 10nm and the process doesn't give anything for Intel for the mobile side.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
What about the 25% core count difference? and 4.3 all turbo for CFL from 3.8 all turbo for Ryzen 1800x is only a 12.2% difference. Factor in the threading difference in favor of Ryzen, that should cover the clock speed difference.
Click to expand...

I really don't think ryzen turbos to 3.8 on all cores. I am pretty confident on that. I believe when all cores are loaded its 3.7 and even that is not guaranteed. Its basically 3.6 in cinebench pretty sure of that. On the other hand intel turbo is 4.3 basically because the chips can run high speed.

specs are 3.7 all turbo on 1800x but not guaranteed.
 
NKD said:
I really don't think ryzen turbos to 3.8 on all cores. I am pretty confident on that. I believe when all cores are loaded its 3.7 and even that is not guaranteed. Its basically 3.6 in cinebench pretty sure of that. On the other hand intel turbo is 4.3 basically because the chips can run high speed.

specs are 3.7 all turbo on 1800x but not guaranteed.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure on water they can do it. It all depends on cooling that is process thing, leakage.

Lets say that 100 mhz difference no big deal, 20% difference, still doesn't cover the core amount differences.
 
razor1 said:
Total debt has to be looked into in AMD's case, when their debt is worth 30% of the company its a big no no when you spend more then you take in.

Their debt was one of the things that got them into the position they are in now. They have 900 million cash in hand, they need to ensure they have 600 million cash in hand by 2019 . That means they have 300 million, with next quarter drop, what does that mean, down to 200 million cash in hand? Yeah. See debt is important here.

When a company that is making money and covering their debt that is fine. When a company is not making enough money to cover their debt that is bad.

yes i'm being obtuse to bring this up? Did I even have to bring this up? pretty obtuse right? What did I say its going to take years for AMD to do anything meaningful to help themselves, yeah years, like around 4 to 5 years. And in the mean time if Intel and nV keep going as they are, AMD won't make ground, they just sit in the waiting pool.

Oh yeah lets not forget, Wall street is not happy with AMD either. Said it before the results were coming out, that Intel pretty predicted it will do well in Q3, that means either Intel or AMD covering up things, and AMD results show us they aren't telling us everything. This is the same sentiment Wall Street is saying. So you can try to sit here and say AMD is fine, but I think we will see a mark able down fall on their stock.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-selloff-advanced-micro-devices-182143627.html



This is what I've been saying there is no more growth potential in AMD, if it had growth potential, AMD would not expect a 15% drop in sales next quarter, its the simple, doesn't matter about R&D, this R&D is for what? Zen 3, cause Zen 2 is almost done or is done taped out. So using that money now, don't even know they need to cause all the Zen architectures should be fairly similar. And if AMD is starting to focus elsewhere on R&D, oh boy cause Intel isn't done yet, Coffee Lake is just the first response to Ryzen. Really hope they have more on something they can compete against vs going over and trying to do something on the graphics side, cause that is even a harder mountain to climb because of the release schedules.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/am...ll-street-2017-10-25?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

Remember everyone was praising Ryzen's price/performance ratio

This was one of the causes of this




Didn't I say this yesterday, margins weren't impressive.



Again margins



Yes what did I say, Wall Street is getting over the over hype AMD has done with its products and now AMD has to deliver on the bottom line and they are not able to do it.

AMD can't be playing a price war to sell products and that is exactly what they have been doing. Taking a chip that should sell for 500 and putting it in the 350 bracket cause it can't perform in games as well. They have no choice. The simpletons thought Ryzen must be cheaper to make than Intel CPU's because of its smaller dies act as one BS. That only works if yields of Intel chips are crap. Which they aren't lol. So at the end Ryzen costs the same per mm2.



Cash flow, debt, serious issues coming up for AMD, guess I was obtuse for mentioning that......
Click to expand...


Ok that debt AMD has is nothing, lets take FCA at a valuation of 19.88 billion and a debt of 19.14 billion, now that is carrying a heavy debt load. They sold 72.73 billion in product and made a 3.28 billion profit for a margin of around 5%, yet there true margin is higher about 9% but debt payments keep it down. FCA has paid off a ton of debt but still has quite a bit, but the stock price is pretty much stable at around 13 bucks a share and has gone up since that last report to 17 bucks a share. Seems like Wall street could give a damn about the debt. Oh also cash on hand only went up by 735 million to a total of 12.2 billion. Cash on hand is only important for paying whatever bills you have, they can easily borrow more to pay off debt that is coming due and is a common practice. AMD only has 1.42 billion in debt, that is not very much in terms to the 3.5 billion the company is worth. Would it be better if they paid it off, sure but that debt load is hardly something to worry about. What they did to previously pay off that debt was far more concerning, which was selling assets and IP and of course their fabs. They are positioned much better now then just a few years ago. Profit taking is going to happen and wall street always wants more and you know that AMD had been pushed up higher then it should have been on speculation, we call that a correction.

Also if you follow the reactionary articles of wall street you will end up broke as all these articles came out after the drop in value. Your next paragraph is massive speculation with no actual knowledge of what they are doing so i will just pass on that. margins are up so that is a good thing, would be great if they were higher but gaining market share is important as well, if AMD has sold Ryzen for $500 bucks they would have lost their ass as that puts to high in the cost bracket for most people to buy. Now if Ryzen was as strong as the Athlon when it launched and had the performance edge over Intel then maybe but even then I doubt they could charge too much more and actually get people to try them over a established brand like Intel. Anyone in marketing will tell you the hardest part is trying to get people to give your brand a try against a well known brand. Ryzen is also likely to be cheaper to make over monolithic design but by how much is anyones guess cause no one will tell you.
 
NKD said:
I really don't think ryzen turbos to 3.8 on all cores. I am pretty confident on that. I believe when all cores are loaded its 3.7 and even that is not guaranteed. Its basically 3.6 in cinebench pretty sure of that. On the other hand intel turbo is 4.3 basically because the chips can run high speed.

specs are 3.7 all turbo on 1800x but not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

3.6 all core speed for the 1800x. CFL has clock speed and a improved multi threaded efficiency.
 
Gideon said:
Ok that debt AMD has is nothing, lets take FCA at a valuation of 19.88 billion and a debt of 19.14 billion, now that is carrying a heavy debt load. They sold 72.73 billion in product and made a 3.28 billion profit for a margin of around 5%, yet there true margin is higher about 9% but debt payments keep it down. FCA has paid off a ton of debt but still has quite a bit, but the stock price is pretty much stable at around 13 bucks a share and has gone up since that last report to 17 bucks a share. Seems like Wall street could give a damn about the debt. Oh also cash on hand only went up by 735 million to a total of 12.2 billion. Cash on hand is only important for paying whatever bills you have, they can easily borrow more to pay off debt that is coming due and is a common practice. AMD only has 1.42 billion in debt, that is not very much in terms to the 3.5 billion the company is worth. Would it be better if they paid it off, sure but that debt load is hardly something to worry about. What they did to previously pay off that debt was far more concerning, which was selling assets and IP and of course their fabs. They are positioned much better now then just a few years ago. Profit taking is going to happen and wall street always wants more and you know that AMD had been pushed up higher then it should have been on speculation, we call that a correction.

Also if you follow the reactionary articles of wall street you will end up broke as all these articles came out after the drop in value. Your next paragraph is massive speculation with no actual knowledge of what they are doing so i will just pass on that. margins are up so that is a good thing, would be great if they were higher but gaining market share is important as well, if AMD has sold Ryzen for $500 bucks they would have lost their ass as that puts to high in the cost bracket for most people to buy. Now if Ryzen was as strong as the Athlon when it launched and had the performance edge over Intel then maybe but even then I doubt they could charge too much more and actually get people to try them over a established brand like Intel. Anyone in marketing will tell you the hardest part is trying to get people to give your brand a try against a well known brand. Ryzen is also likely to be cheaper to make over monolithic design but by how much is anyones guess cause no one will tell you.
Click to expand...

Not going to talk to you about stocks and company finances with you anymore, Intel just told Wall Street, they have no such issues as AMD will have with season shifts, that says volumes right there. AMD is on its own. Its the one that has no sales momentum going into the holiday season. NO OTHER COMPANY it competes against has this problem.

Yeah I stated they couldn't sell their processors at 500 bucks its was impossible because of their lack luster single core performance. You can't tell me that didn't matter when it came to pricing Ryzen.

NO FUCKIN semiconductor chip maker ever goes into mass production when yields are not up to snuff, another words 100% of the chips on wafer should be functional cut down or fully functional or damn close to it, that should be enough for you to understand Intel's cost to profit ratio (margins) are why they are what they are.

So where is Ryzen making more then Intel, from having more fully functional chips right? Is that really going to affect the margins over Intel? Nope, very little in fact. This is because when having 6 core chips they need to have two Ryzen CCX, where Intel doesn't. Save one end but lose else where.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
Not going to talk to you about stocks and company finances with you anymore, Intel just told Wall Street, they have no such issues as AMD will have with season shifts, that says volumes right there. AMD is on its own. Its the one that has no sales momentum going into the holiday season. NO OTHER COMPANY it competes against has this problem.

NO FUCKIN semiconductor chip maker ever goes into mass production when yeilds are not up to snuff, another words 100% of the chips on wafer should be functional cut down or fully functional, that should be enough for you to understand Intel's cost to profit ratio (margins) are why they are what they are.
Click to expand...

Oh I see so you dont actually understand how Industry works. Also yields are never 100% and the bigger the chip the more likely that is, yet even AMD said they did this design to save on costs but I am sure you know better then them. Also there is no other company that competes against Intel so thats kind of a mute argument on your point. Most rational people would expect a decline when a competitor has released a more competitive product of course that wont matter if Intel cant actually deliver the product.
 
razor1 said:
Pretty sure on water they can do it. It all depends on cooling that is process thing, leakage.

Lets say that 100 mhz difference no big deal, 20% difference, still doesn't cover the core amount differences.
Click to expand...

600-700mhz core clock advantage on 6 cores is no joke. It will make up a lot of the difference. Real results will be to downclock the 8700k to same speed as 1800x and see the IPC gains. Pretty simple and you get a better picture. Rest is comparing apples to oranges.
 
NKD said:
600-700mhz core clock advantage on 6 cores is no joke. It will make up a lot of the difference. Real results will be to downclock the 8700k to same speed as 1800x and see the IPC gains. Pretty simple and you get a better picture. Rest is comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


I just did the calculations for you if it got linear differences it will get 20% max lol.

Gideon said:
Oh I see so you dont actually understand how Industry works. Also yields are never 100% and the bigger the chip the more likely that is, yet even AMD said they did this design to save on costs but I am sure you know better then them. Also there is no other company that competes against Intel so thats kind of a mute argument on your point. Most rational people would expect a decline when a competitor has released a more competitive product of course that wont matter if Intel cant actually deliver the product.
Click to expand...

Yields per wafer are damn close to 100% man, the only time this isn't is when its reflected on the cost of the chip, those chips that are 3 k and up? Yeah those are the ones that are burning yields. and even then they aren't burning yields, those are binned chips that Intel has very little stock of to begin with.

Oh from a guy that doesn't know how stock strike prices are calculated, you are trying to tell me how the market works?

Oh you are saying the seasonal decline is due to Intel now? You argued against that before when I stated, it should it link it? You are saying CFL is not going to have stock out for next quarter, and yet most rational people will expect that it will have affect on AMD? What is that, if the product isn't out how are anyone going to buy it and why is Intel saying there Q4 is going to be fine? Two horse race man, either Intel is doing good, or AMD is doing bad, in this case AMD is going to be doing bad if the are on the money with their predictions. I think its going to be even worse then they predicted because Lisa Su has been so vague with Q&A this time around, that is not like her.
 
Last edited:
razor1 said:
I just did the calculations for you if it got linear differences it will get 20% max lol.



Yields per wafer are damn close to 100% man, the only time this isn't is when its reflected on the cost of the chip, those chips that are 3 k and up? Yeah those are the ones that are burning yields. and even then they aren't burning yields, those are binned chips that Intel has very little stock of to begin with.

Oh from a guy that doesn't know how stock strike prices are calculated, you are trying to tell me how the market works?

Oh you are saying the seasonal decline is due to Intel now? You argued against that before when I stated, it should it link it?
Click to expand...

care to share your calculations?
 
razor1 said:
I just did the calculations for you if it got linear differences it will get 20% max lol.



Yields per wafer are damn close to 100% man, the only time this isn't is when its reflected on the cost of the chip, those chips that are 3 k and up? Yeah those are the ones that are burning yields. and even then they aren't burning yields, those are binned chips that Intel has very little stock of to begin with.

Oh from a guy that doesn't know how stock strike prices are calculated, you are trying to tell me how the market works?

Oh you are saying the seasonal decline is due to Intel now? You argued against that before when I stated, it should it link it? You are saying CFL is not going to have stock out for next quarter, and yet most rational people will expect that it will have affect on AMD? What is that, if the product isn't out how are anyone going to buy it and why is Intel saying there Q4 is going to be fine? Two horse race man, either Intel is doing good, or AMD is doing bad, in this case AMD is going to be doing bad if the are on the money with their predictions. I think its going to be even worse then they predicted because Lisa Su has been so vague with Q&A this time around, that is not like her.
Click to expand...

Oh should I post the one where you didnt realize that AMD has increase R&D budget by 20%, cause that like 1 page back.
 
Gideon said:
Oh should I post the one where you didnt realize that AMD has increase R&D budget by 20%, cause that like 1 page back.
Click to expand...


I never stated the didn't increase, I stated they need to increase lol.

So lets not try to put words where words aren't ok?

I'll do it for you

https://hardforum.com/threads/vega-rumors.1933112/page-149#post-1043285998

razor1 said:
Well I would say that is good news too but they really need to start making gains to improve their R&D budgets, they can't ride this out on what they are making now, even 100 million more a quarter then what they just got is not enough (and they won't make that much from notebook sales) to go up against Intel and nV pretty much they have to choose either go up against Intel or nV not both. And as we see it right now, CPU's are their best market. But the GPU side is the only market they have advantages over Intel. Its really a tough place for them to be in. Coffee Lake will squeeze Ryzen, If Zen + is much better in IPC and Clocks that will help them quite a bit (it needs to competitive with Intel 8 core 10nm line up which is slated to come out around the same time), if its lacking in one or the other though, they will have difficulty. We already know 4 core mobile coffee lakes are coming, MS is already using those in surface books, so its a no brainier, all gaming laptops and high end laptops will use those too. Intel has been aggressive in the mobile market because they fear ARM. So how much is Ryzen going to get in mobile, I'm guessing a little bit, but there this no niche for them, at least with Ryzen they had a niche with select groups that needed higher core counts at lower costs. I don't see that with notebooks.

Its the same seesawing we saw when AMD first bought out ATi, graphics were bad so they took R&D out of graphics and focused on CPU, when Graphics came back and their CPU's were doing bad they switched R&D back to graphics, when graphics started failing again, well Ryzen was ready.

Its going to be really fuckin hard to fix what happened with the flop of the r600 and price AMD bought ATi for. Its already been a decade and its still going to be many more years to come.

If either division is down its just a lead weight on a swimming person's ankle. Eventually the person is going to run out of energy. In this case money.

Also Anandtech also brought up a good point with the one time expense to GF last year, forgot about that, which made their numbers look awesome from last year, in fact without that expense, their numbers don't look that great at all, better sure, but nothing spectacular.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed, Vega isn't what we expected it to be. Its another failure. Lets move on and hope Navi is better. Vega isn't THAT bad though, its just not that competitive.
 
https://newegg.com/products/N82E16814202300

Sapphire Vega 64 reaches MSRP. No other models through. And on the 56 front, MSI model at $20 over MSRP. Anyone know what amount Apple usually sells of their iMac lineup? Their q3 earnings isn't until Tuesday sadly.

I'm still thinking that Apple is getting first dibs on the chips, which is why no aib cards or msrp pricing yet.
 
I had a bunch of credits ($60) at amazon. Ended up ordering the vega 56 since i have a free sync monitor. Cost me 429 out the door. I think vega 56 is best bang for your buck and 64 is not worth the power usage to performance ratio. If vega 56 hits 399, I think it will soon. It really is a decent buy for the price.
 
Rvenger said:
Agreed, Vega isn't what we expected it to be. Its another failure. Lets move on and hope Navi is better. Vega isn't THAT bad though, its just not that competitive.
Click to expand...

vega 56 is actually a damn good competitor, at 399 its not bad at all. I think it will hit that price soon. Vega 64 is already hitting 499.99.
 
its a shit competitor atm. No AIB cards, not at MSRP. If AMD cant get stock in at least for holiday sales, Nvidia will make a killing.
 
razor1 said:
LOL its the same price as some of the rx 580''s that is pretty funny.

Nice to see its price dropped to what it should be though. But that is the only one available at that price.
Click to expand...

Just a supply and demand issue raised the prices to astronomical levels initially. Now they are back to normal finally. Hopefully they can have some sales soon as I remember reading that PC motherboard manufacturers are expecting less than stellar motherboard sales this winter. Don't remember where I saw that mentioned at though.
 
SighTurtle said:
its a shit competitor atm. No AIB cards, not at MSRP. If AMD cant get stock in at least for holiday sales, Nvidia will make a killing.
Click to expand...

The only thing that makes Radeon RX Vega 64 worth buying at all is its support for FreeSync.

There isn't a single other good reason to buy it.

That's just how bad it is.
 
_mockingbird said:
There isn't a single other good reason to buy it. That's just how bad it is.
Click to expand...
So I guess there is no reason to buy a GTX 1080 either, since Vega seems to be doing similar performance at about the same price now.
 
Last edited:
cybereality said:
So I guess there is no reason to buy a GTX 1080 either, since Vega seems to be doing similar performance at about the same price now.
Click to expand...

freesync don't work for most users and give them more headaches than enjoyment, vega can compete with the 1080 but it require tweaking or a liquid cooled version so more power hungry yet, however a 1080 AIB will still be cheaper and offer even way more performance out of the box. you should know it you have two of those.

the amounts of games where vega can do better than a 1080 are sporadic and mostly those AAA optimized for or by AMD. the rest of games mostly favor nvidia. I have done lot of testing with my 1080 and vega64 and while vega may be a fun toy to tweak for a time it not worth over a 1080 unless it's offered way cheaper, one can be excited for couple of days and *enjoy* that constant tweaking and learning however it don't worth the time (very limited for a lot) one it's losing to enjoy games.

freesync was the main point and favor on Vega and freesync mostly doesn't work. gsync may be expensive but it works.
 
Araxie said:
freesync don't work for most users and give them more headaches than enjoyment, vega can compete with the 1080 but it require tweaking or a liquid cooled version so more power hungry yet, however a 1080 AIB will still be cheaper and offer even way more performance out of the box. you should know it you have two of those.

the amounts of games where vega can do better than a 1080 are sporadic and mostly those AAA optimized for or by AMD. the rest of games mostly favor nvidia. I have done lot of testing with my 1080 and vega64 and while vega may be a fun toy to tweak for a time it not worth over a 1080 unless it's offered way cheaper, one can be excited for couple of days and *enjoy* that constant tweaking and learning however it don't worth the time (very limited for a lot) one it's losing to enjoy games.

freesync was the main point and favor on Vega and freesync mostly doesn't work. gsync may be expensive but it works.
Click to expand...

I have yet to find an instance where freesync hasn't worked. Perhaps you could provide some facts to back up that claim?
 
Araxie said:
freesync don't work for most users and give them more headaches than enjoyment, vega can compete with the 1080 but it require tweaking or a liquid cooled version so more power hungry yet, however a 1080 AIB will still be cheaper and offer even way more performance out of the box. you should know it you have two of those.

the amounts of games where vega can do better than a 1080 are sporadic and mostly those AAA optimized for or by AMD. the rest of games mostly favor nvidia. I have done lot of testing with my 1080 and vega64 and while vega may be a fun toy to tweak for a time it not worth over a 1080 unless it's offered way cheaper, one can be excited for couple of days and *enjoy* that constant tweaking and learning however it don't worth the time (very limited for a lot) one it's losing to enjoy games.

freesync was the main point and favor on Vega and freesync mostly doesn't work. gsync may be expensive but it works.
Click to expand...


Where is your source? or is that just your opinion?
 
ragnarz said:
I have yet to find an instance where freesync hasn't worked. Perhaps you could provide some facts to back up that claim?
Click to expand...

Haven't had freesync issues at all with my 34f791 since I got my Vega 64 either.
 
One thing that is missed here is that there may be odd driver issues, sure, but I don't think FreeSync is broken for everyone.

I mean, I'm currently having an issue with horrible OpenGL performance, but I wouldn't go to say it's broken for everyone. There are so many variables between hardware, software, drivers, OS versions, etc. it's easy for there to be odd edge-cases.

I don't doubt you found a problem, Araxie , but it's a stretch to say that one thing broken on one particular hardware configuration means that the feature is broken across the board.
 
cybereality said:
One thing that is missed here is that there may be odd driver issues, sure, but I don't think FreeSync is broken for everyone.

I mean, I'm currently having an issue with horrible OpenGL performance, but I wouldn't go to say it's broken for everyone. There are so many variables between hardware, software, drivers, OS versions, etc. it's easy for there to be odd edge-cases.

I don't doubt you found a problem, Araxie , but it's a stretch to say that one thing broken on one particular hardware configuration means that the feature is broken across the board.
Click to expand...

you are right I may have gone a bit far with my statements but yes I found several issues with my Vega card, it will be the only AMD card I get rid off, I preserved my toasted 7970, my 280X and my 390X. heck the 280X it's still hoocked to a 3770k system and it's been used regularly by nephews and it's one of the machine I use regularly for testing games.

There are more miss than hits with Vega, again, it's a fun card to toy and tweak for a time, then after that time every issue become annoying and just feel PITA.
 
Freesync working great here too - Vega 64 LC.

Playing Wolfenstein The New Colossus, having a hard time keeping it in the FreeSync range at 4K (35hz-61hz). Frame limiter not working, vertical sync crashes the game (it work prior tho, so not sure what changed). Anyways game plays very smooth, using chill to help keep it more in the freesync range which works pretty good.
 
noko said:
Freesync working great here too - Vega 64 LC.

Playing Wolfenstein The New Colossus, having a hard time keeping it in the FreeSync range at 4K (35hz-61hz). Frame limiter not working, vertical sync crashes the game (it work prior tho, so not sure what changed). Anyways game plays very smooth, using chill to help keep it more in the freesync range which works pretty good.
Click to expand...

It's the one big area where Freesync is lacking (enough high hertz monitors). The sooner all monitors are 100hz minimum, the better.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Where is your source? or is that just your opinion?
Click to expand...

ragnarz said:
I have yet to find an instance where freesync hasn't worked. Perhaps you could provide some facts to back up that claim?
Click to expand...

Doesn't work for me, and I'm definitely not alone. It's hit or miss right now based on your monitor? and what driver you have installed (potentially?) It works less often than it works in my two months of ownership. I tried three different Vega cards. Two 56, one from powercolor, one from sapphire, and a liquid cooled Vega 64 from sapphire.

Post 647
https://hardforum.com/threads/rx-vega-owners-thread.1941944/page-17#post-1043280339

Quick video showing it broken on my AMD Vega with HP Omen 32" monitors. (that worked fantastic with Freesync with Fury X)
https://hardforum.com/attachments/broken-freesync-zip.40481/
 
Heh, the question I'd really like to know is: where the heck are the Vega AIB models? What is taking so long? If AMD misses the Black Friday rush for their AIBs on Vega, that doesn't sound good at all.
 
tungt88 said:
Heh, the question I'd really like to know is: where the heck are the Vega AIB models? What is taking so long? If AMD misses the Black Friday rush for their AIBs on Vega, that doesn't sound good at all.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't even feel like they are needed. Price premium over the retail price is not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top