AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Leaked Benchmarks: GTX 1070 Killer

pfc_m_drake said:
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.
Click to expand...
I doubt the leaks are tru and even if they where I do not think that it would contribute to a huge success. What they are doing in the PC market with Ryzen would only be matched in the GPU market if NVIDIA had decided to stop inovating 4 years ago. NV has been pretty good at delivering solid follow ups year after year.
 
AzixTGO said:
why should AMD sell "on par" hardware with newer features for $120 less than the older cards MSRP? Why would equal pricing make no sense?
Click to expand...
1080's support CUDA, simultaneous multi-projection, and draw much less power. at the same price, if the two cards trade blows, the 1080 is almost always the better choice.
the wildcard in the equation (and it's a huge one) is FreeSync - if you are dead-set on a variable refresh rate display, FreeSync is $200 cheaper than G-Sync. If you don't care about variable refresh rates (you should!), AMD better offer something to sweeten the deal, either lower prices or tangibly higher across-the-board performance (enough to make, say, 4K playable at visibly higher settings on Vega).
 
bwang said:
1080's support CUDA, simultaneous multi-projection, and draw much less power. at the same price, if the two cards trade blows, the 1080 is almost always the better choice.
the wildcard in the equation (and it's a huge one) is FreeSync - if you are dead-set on a variable refresh rate display, FreeSync is $200 cheaper than G-Sync. If you don't care about variable refresh rates (you should!), AMD better offer something to sweeten the deal, either lower prices or tangibly higher across-the-board performance (enough to make, say, 4K playable at visibly higher settings on Vega).
Click to expand...
Interestingly AMD earlier in the year was talking up Freesync 2 and admited it would cost closer to gsync. Now that Vega is finnaly launching we are hearing nothing about Freesync 2 and only hearing about how much cheeper freesync is than gsync.
 
1070 numbers look way lower than they should be at 1440p, these are probably min fps numbers.
 
AzixTGO said:
the only real advantage it would have is likely drawing less power. that difference won't be enough to justify $120 less. it has better dx12 support. CUDA is not for gamers and there is always opencl. You're reaching. Most times when people say AMD should charge less for their competitive hardware its only because they are AMD. There is no reason a newer architecture should cost less when it holds more value with its newer features. definitely not $120 less.



when did they say it would cost the same? iirc it was freesync + hdr. yes hdr in a monitor will cost more than a non-hdr monitor i guess.
Click to expand...
They never said it would cost the same but it is likely to be expensive. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming

The final shift in FreeSync 2 – and really what makes it a parallel effort as opposed to a replacement for FreeSync 1 – is how AMD will be approaching the market. The costs of meeting the HDR and variable refresh requirements for FreeSync 2 means that this is very much a play at the high-end monitor market. Budget monitors won’t be able to meet these requirements (at least not right away), so AMD’s focus is going to be on the high-end of the market.
Click to expand...
 
I honestly don't think Vega 56 is designed to drag people away from the already owners of 1070, but for those who were on Fury X and those with FreeSync monitor owners.

Otherwise, Vega 56 would need miracles to pull people off their 1070, like 1080-like performance for 1070-ish prices.

Presbytier said:
They never said it would cost the same but it is likely to be expensive. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10967...improving-ease-lowering-latency-of-hdr-gaming
Click to expand...

It's odd that they aim for the high end monitor market but not in the high-end GPU market, but I admit, they might not have had the choice.
 
chenw said:
I honestly don't think Vega 56 is designed to drag people away from the already owners of 1070, but for those who were on Fury X and those with FreeSync monitor owners.

Otherwise, Vega 56 would need miracles to pull people off their 1070, like 1080-like performance for 1070-ish prices.



It's odd that they aim for the high end monitor market but not in the high-end GPU market, but I admit, they might not have had the choice.
Click to expand...
I think AMD would be very happy to aim for the high end GPU market. Pure speculation but I think part of why Vega took so long is they where cought with their pants down with how well Pascal performs. That is why their marketing is this silly King of the GPU under $500
 
True, but I feel they should have seen it coming.

Maxwell was able to keep up their generation improvements over Kepler WITHOUT any node changes (and a lot of us were bashing TSMC for it), that should have sent them a few alarm bells that they have learned a few new tricks up their sleeves.

Navi needs to have those lessons learned.

Does AMD have any plans to start selling Vega chips (if feasible) on laptops? Seems like nVidia is dominating there, for good reason.
 
chenw said:
True, but I feel they should have seen it coming.

Maxwell was able to keep up their generation improvements over Kepler WITHOUT any node changes (and a lot of us were bashing TSMC for it), that should have sent them a few alarm bells that they have learned a few new tricks up their sleeves.

Navi needs to have those lessons learned.

Does AMD have any plans to start selling Vega chips (if feasible) on laptops? Seems like nVidia is dominating there, for good reason.
Click to expand...
Supposedly Zen APU will be based on Vega, but man that power consumption on Vega is pretty big.
 
Well that's something, hopefully it will at least kick Intel's Iris' ass

But APU doesn't sound like it'll be able to approach nV's discrete GPU
 
chenw said:
Well that's something, hopefully it will at least kick Intel's Iris' ass

But APU doesn't sound like it'll be able to approach nV's discrete GPU
Click to expand...

As hopeful as I am about AMD's APUs, I don't see them competing (well) out the gate in mobile.

Efficiency under load is something Intel and Nvidia have focused on, and while AMD seems to have made decent gains there with Ryzen in the desktop/workstation CPU space, mobile is another matter entirely. Trying to maintain performance within a hard package thermal limit will be tricky.

The other challenge, with mobile, is that Intel provides the CPU power and dare I say enough GPU power for casual usage. If you need more than that you're likely to need significantly more and might as well move up to a discrete option. Here, we know AMD isn't competitive, so we might see gaming-oriented laptops with AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs more often than we see AMD/AMD builds.

That narrow mobile region where you want more GPU power, but don't want to go discrete, is where a Ryzen APU might operate.

On the desktop, AMD may have more success, where prices are more sensitive than package thermal constraints.
 
-Strelok- said:
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”.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you buy what you "believe" is the best but hey, you are not always correct. (No, a bunch of online "benchmark numbers" never tell the whole story.
 
ManofGod said:
Yeah, you buy what you "believe" is the best but hey, you are not always correct. (No, a bunch of online "benchmark numbers" never tell the whole story.
Click to expand...
So what is the whole story? Benchmarks and price metrics are kind of what you normally base a decision on.
 
Snowdog said:
This is only one side of the "Trades Blows" story.
Click to expand...

When it trades blows, it wins some and loses some. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

For example, if Vega is suddenly much faster in GTA V or Gears of Wars 4 vs 1070/1080, that would be a shock right there.
 
Presbytier said:
No reason to get worked up we will have actual benchmarks in a few days, well at least for the Vega 64.
Click to expand...

The hope if one is not biased is that they get close, not just to win or lose but are close. Look at what has happened with their cpus and the fire its finally lit under Intel's ass! I hope we see the same with gpus.
 
Elios said:
this the fact GPU prices are higher then they where almost a year ago is fucked they should be cheaper now not more
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be an issue if they released a miner centric card. Doesn't need display connections and can be PCIe x1 with appropriate power adapters so people don't need their injecting adapters, or better yet, bundle it with one. I still have a bunch of the USB3 to PCIe adapter (just use the cable to pass the signals). Design it for low power operations. Price accordingly.

Could double as a compute unit for those doing AI and/or non-mining calculations.
 
thesmokingman said:
The hope if one is not biased is that they get close, not just to win or lose but are close. Look at what has happened with their cpus and the fire its finally lit under Intel's ass! I hope we see the same with gpus.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I am less worried about the GPU market. For the most part NVIDIA does not sit on its laurels like Intel has. Well unless you count the fiasco of enabling Pro features on the Titan Xp, that is just shitty period, but raw permanence wise NVIDIA improves pretty solidly generation after generation.
 
To be perfectly honest though, here is a few things that differ between nV and Intel:

1. nV also was playing catch up during Fermi days (I think? could be earlier), but they did turn it around during Kepler, so they know first hand how quickly things can change in the GPU landscape, unlike Intel who just bribed their way out.

2. nV is also only firmly ahead in 1 gen, which AMD were before. This is just AMD's turn, and could still turn it around with Navi.

I'd say nV may end up resting on its laurels, but it will take at least a failed Navi for that to happen, and I honestly don't want it to happen (not for any moral or monopoly reasons, or even price reasons, but I'd like more options, especially after the fact that I discovered a monitor that has specs closest to what I am looking for in a 'perfect' gaming monitor, with the only quirk it being FreeSync rather than G-Sync.
 
Bottom line! Vega will sell out. Pascal will (essentially) sell out. Volta! Will sell out. Not the worst time to be gaming on PC, but the pricing could be a little more bearable.
 
The fact that AMD can compete at all against giants on two fronts is pretty impressive to me. I mean they as one company are literally the only other company doing both GPU and CPU and while they lag in both it's not by much, considering NVIDIA and Intel have magnitudes of market cap on them.
 
Presbytier said:
Sure, but I am less worried about the GPU market. For the most part NVIDIA does not sit on its laurels like Intel has. Well unless you count the fiasco of enabling Pro features on the Titan Xp, that is just shitty period, but raw permanence wise NVIDIA improves pretty solidly generation after generation.
Click to expand...

Sure? That's ironic. How do you know what you are missing if you don't know any better?
 
thesmokingman said:
Sure? That's ironic. How do you know what you are missing if you don't know any better?
Click to expand...
I think you are missing forest for the trees. All companies screw up or do shitty things, which is why I pointed that out, but overall NVIDIA has advanced its tech with no direct consumer GPU competition. The main reason is primarily because they build computational cards for high end industries now and trickle down the tech to consumers.
 
Interestingly, I watched a video from Jayz2Cents recently in which he implied that the compute performance on Vega is supposed to be very, very good (implied via nVidia's sudden need to improve TitanXP compute performance in some applications by 300%). I was surprised at the time because I had not yet heard ANYTHING nice about Vega in any enthusiast forums anywhere.

Personally, I have 2 main gaming computers, 1 using R9 290x and the other RX 480 8G. Both play all of my games at max settings at 1080p (Resolution of my monitors). I don't really have a horse in this race until games stop working like this. I upgraded one of these systems away from a 6950, for example - not because it was slow, but because it wouldn't run Star Wars Battlefront.
 
Bahanime said:
When it trades blows, it wins some and loses some. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Click to expand...

Really, because you seem to have missed my point. These are cherry picked most favorable to AMD benchmarks. It's only half the story because they aren't showing benchmarks that normally do well on NVidia cards.

Until then it is only half the story.

When you only show cherry picked benchmarks it looks like they are trying to mislead people, with one half the story.
 
mvmiller12 said:
Interestingly, I watched a video from Jayz2Cents recently in which he implied that the compute performance on Vega is supposed to be very, very good (implied via nVidia's sudden need to improve TitanXP compute performance in some applications by 300%). I was surprised at the time because I had not yet heard ANYTHING nice about Vega in any enthusiast forums anywhere.

Personally, I have 2 main gaming computers, 1 using R9 290x and the other RX 480 8G. Both play all of my games at max settings at 1080p (Resolution of my monitors). I don't really have a horse in this race until games stop working like this. I upgraded one of these systems away from a 6950, for example - not because it was slow, but because it wouldn't run Star Wars Battlefront.
Click to expand...
At 1080p, unless you are going for high refresh rates, very few games are going to push a mid tier GPU anymore. There really has not been a big jump in PC Graphics in some while and it is not do to the hardware, but mostly software tends to skew towards the common denominator.
 
CIV 6 is well known to do very well on VEGA.
DOOM and BF1 have both been used at AMD official events to highlight how great VEGA is.

Sure, VEGA will have strengths and that's great and all. But at this time, given publicly available performance information, I am rather hesitant to accept that VEGA is any kind of game changer. It's *good*, and it's some competition.

But the thing about VEGA that gets me is: it is absolutely not **exciting**. It's like "oh here is our version of 1070 and 1080, cool eh?". No thanks.

The best I could find is that it fully implements DX12_1 requirements. Neat! I do like that. Am I going to sell my 1070 for that? $(%($*%*# no.
 
lollerwaffle said:
The best I could find is that it fully implements DX12_1 requirements.
Click to expand...
And DX12 might have the slightest shred of meaningfulness if game developers gave two shits about it within this decade. They don't, and they won't.
 
At this stage I'd rather they use Vulkan more than DX12.

So far none of the DX12 games have shown any promise in performance, all of its talk were on paper, and the only thing it really did was put AMD on par with nV's offerings, rather than consistently several % behind.

At least Vulkan runs well on both and runs on more platforms (Linux especially), not withstanding opinions of high performance = shitty graphics or low performance = shitty optimisation arguments.
 
Honestly... they are competing against a card released in June of last year, why am I going to get excited about this? Nvidia possibly being pressured to release their next gen earlier?

Had a 1070 and upgraded to a 1080, I didn't even rush out to upgrade. I waited for a nice deal to drop. I don't think this will be much of a competitor to Nvidia or make them sweat, at least not nearly close to what Zen is doing.
 
All you people going on about nobody wanting to buy this to replace their 1070 (or 1080), there's more than a few of us out there that are still a generation or two behind and ready to upgrade, and having more to chose from other than a single card in a particular performance bracket, with variations on cooling solutions, game bundles, and LED designs is a good thing.
 
Being a year late doesn't help Vega though, those who are one generation behind there is already a fair number already gave up the waiting and got 1070/1080 instead.

More cooling solutions, yes, but I personally wouldn't want a AIO at all because I don't like water running in my system, and if I do, I'd rather do custom loop. But his is me.

Having more options is good yes, but it would have helped immensely, for everyone, if one wasn't so late to the other.
 
Croak said:
All you people going on about nobody wanting to buy this to replace their 1070 (or 1080), there's more than a few of us out there that are still a generation or two behind and ready to upgrade, and having more to chose from other than a single card in a particular performance bracket, with variations on cooling solutions, game bundles, and LED designs is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Any tech forum poster already knows this, that the market is still full of plebs on very old hardware that upgrade over time.

It's only when they are being purposefully misleading and hostile, is when they bring up such claims to belittle AMD bringing competition.

Let's say Vega 56 trade blows with the 1070 at $399, that's still cheaper than 1070 prices now. So from the 14th of August, gamers looking to spend around $399 for a GPU will have the option of Vega 56 or paying more for the 1070. Thus, these gamers benefit as a result.

Anyone trying to belittle competition, is clearly anti-consumer.
 
Remember, Ryzen didn't beat Intel either. 7700K still supreme.

The 1080Ti will still be supreme, but once Vega is released, gamers will have more choices instead of auto defaulting to the 1070 and 1080. Heck, they may even ponder about going with a 1440p Freesync monitor instead of a GTX + Gsync build.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top