PC Perspective Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Live Benchmarking - 4:30PM CDT

So a 1200 usd card that performs like a 650 usd 1080? Hmm buzzkill
 
You know what’s really cool though there is driver work in the gallium3d drivers for SRIOV with the new Vega arch. Think about parting the card up to many VMs for much cheaper than the quadro or Tesla cards
 
Azphira said:
Well they did kinda keep saying it's not for gaming.
Click to expand...
You are right. The gamers like me saw Vega and wanted to see what it's gamer legs were like. Defaultuser posted some interesting benchmarks for professional use with a caveat of not having certified drivers. If I was doing work with what this card is for, I would at least evaluate it.
 
Well if you compare the P5000 Quadro to the GTX 1080 with basically the same specs, the Quadro scores about 7% less in 3DMark. So the gaming card may at least be on par with the GTX 1080 and the frontier has its role as a professional card. nVidia is saying it's next card due out in Q1 of next year, but those always get pushed back. If AMD can beat the GTX 1080 and at a lower price, it may have the bigger market for a year.
 
triwolf said:
You are right. The gamers like me saw Vega and wanted to see what it's gamer legs were like. Defaultuser posted some interesting benchmarks for professional use with a caveat of not having certified drivers. If I was doing work with what this card is for, I would at least evaluate it.
Click to expand...
But AMD already has a FirePro line so this card is a gaming card like the Titan xP and so far it fails. Maybe driver improvements will make up some difference
 
I didn't have a chance to watch the live benchmarking. Were they performed at stock clocks or were any overclock results mentioned? What kind of clocks were they able to achieve? I would assume that a gaming version would have higher clocks than the 1600 MHz on the Frontier edition and some driver optimization. Did the initial results suggest what might be realistic in terms of clocks for the RX version?
 
GoldenTiger said:
This is marketed as both types, workstations and gaming, and has a driver selectable mode for each.
Click to expand...

the modes actually don't change anything though, it just changes the radeon driver GUI as far as what AMD told Ryan.

GreenOrbs said:
I didn't have a chance to watch the live benchmarking. Were they performed at stock clocks or were any overclock results mentioned? What kind of clocks were they able to achieve? I would assume that a gaming version would have higher clocks than the 1600 MHz on the Frontier edition and some driver optimization. Did the initial results suggest what might be realistic in terms of clocks for the RX version?
Click to expand...

stock everything, it only ever showed 1600mhz once in a test and thats because the program captured the gpu clocks immediately when the test started but sat around 1520-40 during the test. the fan profile was definitely not aggressive enough on the frontier since it kept thermal throttling in a few of the tests but setting the fan to 100% the throttling went away. it was just too damn loud to bother keeping it at 100% to run more than one test with it.

with a more aggressive fan profile and aftermarket cooling i think 1600+ is a good possibility with the RX cards. given that this isn't really meant as a pure gaming card it'll be interesting to see where the RX cards end up. i think there's room for performance gains but not enough to blow the 1080/Ti out of the water.
 
Last edited:
A couple of thoughts.

I see NOTHING in this advertisement that points to Vega being a card for a competitive gaming experience. No sirs. Instead, I see an advertisement for a card aimed at professional users who would normally be shopping for Quadro cards.

It's important to compare apples to apples in these situations and not loose our heads. I run a Quadro P5000 in my workstation. It's AWESOME for work flow, data modeling, analytics, number crunching, and CAD. The P5000 provides a MUCH better work experience than my Titan.

That being said, the P5000 absolutely SUCKS ASS for gaming compared to my Titan X (pascal). It just does. Oh...and the P5000 was nearly twice the cost of my Titan. Twice. Which brings up an interesting note about the Vega. It's almost just as fast as the P5000 in work based applications. No lie. It's also half the price. This makes it an extremely enticing piece of kit for my purposes. I'd love to see what it does with Hashcat.

There is a huge difference between workhorse cards and gaming cards. You can do either on both, but the experience will suck if you deviate from their intended use.

My 2c.
 
gigatexal said:
But AMD already has a FirePro line so this card is a gaming card like the Titan xP and so far it fails. Maybe driver improvements will make up some difference
Click to expand...
I'm not that familiar with FirePro line. Yes, compared to Titan xP it's a loser, not going to argue that. Probably a niche market for the Vega FE, AMD must see some customers that may choose it.
gigatexal said:
But AMD already has a FirePro line so this card is a gaming card like the Titan xP and so far it fails. Maybe driver improvements will make up some difference
Click to expand...
I don't know a whole lot about the workstation level stuff. I agree on the test vs Titan xP, people will choose that over Vega FE.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcoc...-professional-graphics-products/#482119141e64
AzixTGO said:
i think what he did was irresponsible. He spent the whole time on gaming and mining, didn't have time during the stream to deal with what AMD intended the card for. So now hes going to put out a review on Vega FE talking about games when he has no idea how ready it is to play games. even though, for that price and gaming performance, nobody in their right mind is buying it for games. Not until Rx Vega is out when i expect Vega FE should benefit from the launch driver. If there is no gain then we have a problem.

right now, just no. Vega is not a minor improvement over Fury X. > 2 x polygons per clock for example. in addition to all the other changes. Nobody should be making grand assumptions based on the current software and hardware, especially if it puts the per clock performance below fury x.
Click to expand...
I hear what you are saying. I hope Ryan clearly states on the review he wanted a new toy and to test games and attempt to mine on it. I think most gamers are just wanting to see the new architecture. BTW go watch the video when he is testing VR, it's funny and a typical newb reaction most people have, it's overwhelming, and funny.
 
silent-circuit said:
Step up or sell out, AMD. Put the money in to R&D, prove you're still relevant, or sell your patents to someone who gives a fuck and go die in a corner.

I'm tired of waiting. We're all tired.
Click to expand...
Didn't they do that with Ryzen?
 
Last edited:
Schtask said:
A couple of thoughts.

I see NOTHING in this advertisement that points to Vega being a card for a competitive gaming experience. No sirs. Instead, I see an advertisement for a card aimed at professional users who would normally be shopping for Quadro cards.

It's important to compare apples to apples in these situations and not loose our heads. I run a Quadro P5000 in my workstation. It's AWESOME for work flow, data modeling, analytics, number crunching, and CAD. The P5000 provides a MUCH better work experience than my Titan.

That being said, the P5000 absolutely SUCKS ASS for gaming compared to my Titan X (pascal). It just does. Oh...and the P5000 was nearly twice the cost of my Titan. Twice. Which brings up an interesting note about the Vega. It's almost just as fast as the P5000 in work based applications. No lie. It's also half the price. This makes it an extremely enticing piece of kit for my purposes. I'd love to see what it does with Hashcat.

There is a huge difference between workhorse cards and gaming cards. You can do either on both, but the experience will suck if you deviate from their intended use.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

But the FE isn't certified for application stability. This means your $1000 "deal" could turn into a worthless brick when it crashes repeatedly in the middle of an overnight render or compute load.

It's not a "professional" card, it's a risky investment that could pay off wildly for you, assuming you have the time to do your own verification and are running the right applications.

Time = money. And last time I checked there was a list ten miles long of pro applications for each particular specialty. Completing the SpecViewPerf benchmark doesn't mean it's stable, since that's the 3dmark of the professional world (guaranteed to be used by AMD's driver team).
 
Last edited:
Yup what AMD is only now realizing with their launch of PRO line Ryzen chips is that big OEM purchasers and businesses are often obligated to buy validated and tuned hardware or at the very least purchasers are more at ease and likely to buy the industrial grade stuff which is exactly what Xeons are and what Quadro and Telsa cards are. So this card is marketed to a weird niche IMO
 
Schtask said:
That being said, the P5000 absolutely SUCKS ASS for gaming compared to my Titan X (pascal)
Click to expand...
Of course, P5000 is just an underclocked GTX 1080, a TitanXp will be much faster.

You can game quite well on a Quadro by the way and run any benchmark utility:

NVIDIA-Pascal-Quadro-P6000_Futuremark-3DMark.png


hitman.png

https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-quadro-p6000-and-p5000-workstation-gpu-reviews?page=6
 
Raja Koduri
Quote:
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is going to empower the pioneers creating the next generation of gaming experiences, but it does beg one question: Can you game on a Radeon Vega Frontier Edition? The answer is yes, absolutely. But because this graphics card is optimized for professional use cases (and priced accordingly), if gaming is your primary reason for buying a GPU, I’d suggest waiting just a little while longer for the lower-priced, gaming-optimized Radeon RX Vega graphics card. You’ll be glad you did.
 
AzixTGO said:
i think what he did was irresponsible. He spent the whole time on gaming and mining, didn't have time during the stream to deal with what AMD intended the card for. So now hes going to put out a review on Vega FE talking about games when he has no idea how ready it is to play games. even though, for that price and gaming performance, nobody in their right mind is buying it for games. Not until Rx Vega is out when i expect Vega FE should benefit from the launch driver. If there is no gain then we have a problem.

right now, just no. Vega is not a minor improvement over Fury X. > 2 x polygons per clock for example. in addition to all the other changes. Nobody should be making grand assumptions based on the current software and hardware, especially if it puts the per clock performance below fury x.
Click to expand...

he's going to finish the professional stuff tomorrow and put that in the review, the stream had been going for 5 hours at that point and i think they were all tired. secondly most of the stuff he did was asked for in the stream chat and so they did it. i agree the gaming doesn't tell the entire story about this card though. but it does bring up important points when it comes to the thermal throttling that you may not otherwise notice with the professional application benchmarks.
 
Shintai said:
So to reach 1600Mhz you either need a golden sample or 375W and water cooled. And that still only brings it up around actual GTX1080 performance.
Click to expand...
Performance in what, and why are you comparing this card with a 1080? Do you not understand things?
 
Disappointing results abound at the moment.

I suppose if the card is <$500 its not a total market failure. Can still give good value if AMD can somehow post a small enough MSRP.

If I remember correctly, AMD was somewhat screwed with the 400 series because of process (GloFo) couldnt give them a good enough die. I wonder if this is the same. I wonder how much of AMD's recent struggles are just due to a very piss poor foundry.
 
Cali3350 said:
Disappointing results abound at the moment.

I suppose if the card is <$500 its not a total market failure. Can still give good value if AMD can somehow post a small enough MSRP.

If I remember correctly, AMD was somewhat screwed with the 400 series because of process (GloFo) couldnt give them a good enough die. I wonder if this is the same. I wonder how much of AMD's recent struggles are just due to a very piss poor foundry.
Click to expand...

The foundry is fine, look at Ryzen, look at GP107
 
Cali3350 said:
Disappointing results abound at the moment.

I suppose if the card is <$500 its not a total market failure. Can still give good value if AMD can somehow post a small enough MSRP.

If I remember correctly, AMD was somewhat screwed with the 400 series because of process (GloFo) couldnt give them a good enough die. I wonder if this is the same. I wonder how much of AMD's recent struggles are just due to a very piss poor foundry.
Click to expand...
What? And the apps your comparing?
 
funkydmunky said:
Performance in what, and why are you comparing this card with a 1080? Do you not understand things?
Click to expand...

Dont tell me its the "Oh its a Pro card". First of all AMD says its a gaming card as well as semi Pro card. Its more a gaming card than Pro if you like. The Vega FE is AMDs answer to the Titan. Also Pro cards do like gaming cards in games, its just a driver update cyclus part.

You can take a Quadro card and test with games, and you see A P6000 for example is the fastest gaming card you can buy, unless the game perhaps is quite new due to the optimized driver release cycle for gaming.
 
Shintai said:
Dont tell me its the "Oh its a Pro card". First of all AMD says its a gaming card as well as semi Pro card. Its more a gaming card than Pro if you like. The Vega FE is AMDs answer to the Titan. Also Pro cards do like gaming cards in games, its just a driver update cyclus part.

You can take a Quadro card and test with games, and you see A P6000 for example is the fastest gaming card you can buy, unless the game perhaps is quite new due to the optimized driver release cycle.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I guess you missed my post above. So for you.

Raja Koduri
Quote:
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is going to empower the pioneers creating the next generation of gaming experiences, but it does beg one question: Can you game on a Radeon Vega Frontier Edition? The answer is yes, absolutely. But because this graphics card is optimized for professional use cases (and priced accordingly), if gaming is your primary reason for buying a GPU, I’d suggest waiting just a little while longer for the lower-priced, gaming-optimized Radeon RX Vega graphics card. You’ll be glad you did.
 
funkydmunky said:
Sorry. I guess you missed my post above. So for you.

Raja Koduri
Quote:
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is going to empower the pioneers creating the next generation of gaming experiences, but it does beg one question: Can you game on a Radeon Vega Frontier Edition? The answer is yes, absolutely. But because this graphics card is optimized for professional use cases (and priced accordingly), if gaming is your primary reason for buying a GPU, I’d suggest waiting just a little while longer for the lower-priced, gaming-optimized Radeon RX Vega graphics card. You’ll be glad you did.
Click to expand...

Yes, just as a 1080TI is a better buy than a Titan Xp just for gaming due to pricing. Yet as shown above if you want the fastest gaming card for Hitman for example its a P6000!

Or are you going to let yourself fool yet again?

RX Vega will sell at less than half price. Also dont expect RX Vega to be clocked more than 1500Mhz as boost and having slower memory.

There is no magic savior waiting. If anyone waited for Vega they waited for a 1080 FE in best case at 300W for a year.
 
Shintai said:
Yes, just as a 1080TI is a better buy than a Titan Xp just for gaming due to pricing.

Or are you going to let yourself fool yet again?

RX Vega will sell at less than half price. Also dont expect RX Vega to be clocked more than 1500Mhz as boost and having slower memory.

There is no magic savior waiting. If anyone waited for Vega they waited for a 1080 FE in best case at 300W for a year.
Click to expand...
So your half understanding, then piling on a bunch of non related goof-ball.
This card performs very well, in its intended market. Maybe even a bit too well eh! ;)
Anyways more goof-ball and misdirection please. We expect it here.
 
funkydmunky said:
So your half understanding, then piling on a bunch of non related goof-ball.
This card performs very well, in its intended market. Maybe even a bit too well eh! ;)
Anyways more goof-ball and misdirection please. We expect it here.
Click to expand...

How much of its Pro line did AMD have to sell out to beat the Titan where the Titan didn't have any acceleration?

A stunning success!

And Guess what GPU it competes with in the Pro segment, GP104 again at 105-180W depending on model.
 
Shintai said:
How much of its Pro line did AMD have to sell out to beat the Titan where the Titan didn't have any acceleration?

A stunning success!
Click to expand...
I am so glad you are staying logical and relevant. What topic are you on at the moment just so I can figure out where your at?
Or is that possible! LOL
 
defaultluser said:
The one good thing I can say about this card is that it does swap blows with the Quadro P5000 in certain applications, which is a $2000 card.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/251780-amd-radeon-vega-frontier-edition-benchmarks

VegaFE-Chart1.png


Of course, that required you to put up with the fact that the drivers aren't certified. That will come in FirePro packaging, with a higher price.

So good for professional applications, assuming you don't mind rolling the compatibility dice.
Click to expand...

Well it's under performing the P5000 more often than not, and you'll notice that the P4000 is right on Vega's tail as well and even outperforms it in some cases. The Quadro series have application certification, Vega FE does not. At the end of the day even matching the P5000 regularly is a pyrrhic victory because they of how the die sizes and power draw figures compare.

AMD stock is taking a hit

upload_2017-6-30_10-7-27.png

Edit: stock appears unrelated, NV taking similar hit as well
 
Ieldra said:
Well it's under performing the P5000 more often than not, and you'll notice that the P4000 is right on Vega's tail as well and even outperforms it in some cases. The Quadro series have application certification, Vega FE does not. At the end of the day even matching the P5000 regularly is a pyrrhic victory because they of how the die sizes and power draw figures compare.

AMD stock is taking a hit

View attachment 29101

Edit: stock appears unrelated, NV taking similar hit as well
Click to expand...
Interesting review, and done at such speed eh!

Isn't this AMD's Titan class card?
How did it compete against it? (and please don't drag-out a gaming bench until they drop with the consumer card )
 
funkydmunky said:
Interesting review, and done at such speed eh!

Isn't this AMD's Titan class card?
How did it compete against it? (and please don't drag-out a gaming bench until they drop with the consumer card )
Click to expand...

Titan X does not ship with pro-oriented drivers, what else could you possibly bench if not games?

There is only one more thing to test, performance in machine learning frameworks, virtually all of which support CUDA extensions and have been doing so for years.

You want to compare Vega FE to Titan X in specviewperf? Go ahead, it's a hollow victory.
 
regardless if frontier edition is good at gaming or not, my expectation of RX Vega performance is beating the 1080 by a convincing margin 10-20%, but so far FE is 10% slower than the 1080, which means RX needs to pull over 30% more performance compared to the FE, i don't think it's doable.
looking at the power and knowing glofo's 14nm, the extra performance wont come from clocks, im surprised they even managed 1600mhz, and since ryan said the drivers are up to date for like a month or so prior to validation, the best RX might get is 5-10% extra, that would put it on par with 1080, if it's the case, vega RX is better be coming at 399$.
 
Always thought of this as some sort of hybrid card - a pro card that could do quality gaming (not a good gaming card that could do pro)? I've never heard of any pure gamer getting a pro card to game with (they were always waaay more expensive and didn't game as well as normal video cards - for the cards that DO game well - why would any normal person pay several thousand bucks on a card when a $500 card or whatever will do almost as well?) Just curious about the actual gaming card... though at this point i think it'll very likey disappoint folks regardless of the outcome. Looks like RTG's words are tripping them up on expectations (even though they said gamers should wait for the actual gaming card and that they wouldn't be disappointed? lol). I'll wait and see.
 
alamox said:
regardless if frontier edition is good at gaming or not, my expectation of RX Vega performance is beating the 1080 by a convincing margin 10-20%, but so far FE is 10% slower than the 1080, which means RX needs to pull over 30% more performance compared to the FE, i don't think it's doable.
looking at the power and knowing glofo's 14nm, the extra performance wont come from clocks, im surprised they even managed 1600mhz, and since ryan said the drivers are up to date for like a month or so prior to validation, the best RX might get is 5-10% extra, that would put it on par with 1080, if it's the case, vega RX is better be coming at 399$.
Click to expand...

I think there's room for a bit higher price. AMD doesn't just need to sell cards, they need to make profit. 1080's right now on the 'egg are going somewhere between $500-$600 for air cooled models. Typically, AMD cards will significantly surpass NVIDIA counterparts in certain applications, so I can see a $450-$550 price range turning RxVega into a hot seller - provided it generally meets 1080 performance.

If RxVega generally performs better than the 1080, don't expect to pay a penny less for it than you would a 1080 - and I expect they will sell very well.
 
Schtask said:
A couple of thoughts.

I see NOTHING in this advertisement that points to Vega being a card for a competitive gaming experience. No sirs. Instead, I see an advertisement for a card aimed at professional users who would normally be shopping for Quadro cards.

It's important to compare apples to apples in these situations and not loose our heads. I run a Quadro P5000 in my workstation. It's AWESOME for work flow, data modeling, analytics, number crunching, and CAD. The P5000 provides a MUCH better work experience than my Titan.

That being said, the P5000 absolutely SUCKS ASS for gaming compared to my Titan X (pascal). It just does. Oh...and the P5000 was nearly twice the cost of my Titan. Twice. Which brings up an interesting note about the Vega. It's almost just as fast as the P5000 in work based applications. No lie. It's also half the price. This makes it an extremely enticing piece of kit for my purposes. I'd love to see what it does with Hashcat.

There is a huge difference between workhorse cards and gaming cards. You can do either on both, but the experience will suck if you deviate from their intended use.

My 2c.
Click to expand...

well of course there is no way P5000 can beat TXP in gaming. that is essentially like GTX1080 vs TXP. more fair comparison for P5000 is GTX1080 since both card using the same chip with same core configuration. hot hardware did a review for Quadro P6000 and P5000. on the second last page they did test the card in games including several GTX card like 1080. it is not extensive test i think they just throw that out to see the potential of GP102 in games since back then there is no other card using fully enabled GP102 other than Quadro P6000. they test time spy and hitman in DX12 but only include GTX1080 in time spy and 1080 is only around 7.4% faster than P5000.
 
jardows said:
I think there's room for a bit higher price. AMD doesn't just need to sell cards, they need to make profit. 1080's right now on the 'egg are going somewhere between $500-$600 for air cooled models. Typically, AMD cards will significantly surpass NVIDIA counterparts in certain applications, so I can see a $450-$550 price range turning RxVega into a hot seller - provided it generally meets 1080 performance.

If RxVega generally performs better than the 1080, don't expect to pay a penny less for it than you would a 1080 - and I expect they will sell very well.
Click to expand...
1080 price droped to 499$ when Ti got released, Nvdia already sold tons of them, and the 1st thing nvidia will do is drop another 50$ when vega shows to compete, if you have vega barely matching stock 1080, and selling at the same price 499$, imagine when arguments start flying that a faster OC 1080 now sells at 449$...
vega needs to match (if not beat) an OC1080 out of the box, then a 500$ price tag would make sense, if not they need to put it at 400$ so even when nvidia knocks 50$ off the 1080's price, it would still have convincing perf/$.
so far raja didn't show anything worthwhile since he came to radeon, but talk, that he knows, i would get that fury or even polaris is not on him, but vega, that's all raja.
i do hope FE have most gaming features disabeled, allowing RX to surprise us, but i highly doubt it, i always end up disapointed by readeon launchs, even though i manage my expectations to slightly sub realistic ones, and radeon almost everytime not only fail to surprise me, but also fail to reach most conservative expectations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top