Curtis Grove
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2017
- Messages
- 3
Thanks! So a good 30% lower power at the same clocks (full system power). Not bad.Power is talked about on the conclusion page.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks! So a good 30% lower power at the same clocks (full system power). Not bad.Power is talked about on the conclusion page.
I want my Vega with four 8-pin power connectors and i want it now!All about power on that one, they simply needed the power savings of HBM2 to run the GPU clock so high, otherwise board power would be through the roof.
Fully address in the article more than once. Reading is fundamental.Excellent work. But doesn't being able to cope with higher clocks count for something?
That is exactly what I would like to know.absolutely outstanding work Brent and Kyle, I really hope theres some performance in Vega waiting to be unlocked
As power draw is concerned it seems to be something for seriously warm countries.If you believe the whitepapers, there's a lot of latent tech buried in Vega. I think it's going to come down to which of two camps is correct: 1) RTG's driver team is going to unlock this latent tech transparently for existing titles allowing 'full' Vega to be experienced, or 2) Game developers are going to have to code explicitly for this latent tech for 'full' Vega to be experienced.
As far as power draw is concerned, not surprising at all. RTG tried to clock it as high as it could so it could trade blows with a 1080. It's no secret that a chip running 'within design parameters' is going to run more efficiently than a chip clocked balls to the wall.
Any Vega 64 should do 1050 without anything done.It was easier to downclock Fury X, than try and overclock Vega 64 that high and introduce instability. I did not need that complication.
I don't know about that, at 1050 my 64 LC locks up in Supersition, 1020 ok. It will depend on the card on hand.As power draw is concerned it seems to be something for seriously warm countries.
I'm down 67watts, up 67 mhz average clock, down a couple of DB of noise.
And I like my room quite warm....
Warmer climates = more heat = more voltage.
Also add in some room for bad psu voltage ripples and you got a seriously high stock voltage.
Any Vega 64 should do 1050 without anything done.
I tested 1125 on mine(Samsung) and 1100 on V56 with V64 bios, and yes it's very much very stable.
Although the benefits of HBM plummets past 1050mhz suggesting that these cards are not bandwidth starved as many "internet experts" seems to suggest.
There doesn't seem to be good scaling above 1650 mhz core either.
Great article.
But what is the deal with the pcie 3.0 dropping to 1.1?
I would think 3.0 vs 2.0 vs 1.1 etc would be a pure bios setting that shouldn't change through software?
Honestly I don't know much about how this works, but it just seems like it shouldn't do that.
Any insight into this, from anyone, would be great.
Yes that is normal and with the slower clocks that maybe getting the drivers to do that.PCIE slots drop down to slower modes to decrease power consumption.
I wonder if Microsoft will need to do an update to DX as well? Really only AMD can answer this. Or it just shows up in driver releases.Looks all the new hot features are either disabled or not working properly. Can a driver update solve this? We'll see.
I think all of that is wishful thinking. Lets just accept Vega for what it is an overclocked Fiji with extra math capabilities. I don't think there will be a driver that magically unlocks all of these features. if it existed AMD would have launched with it. You only get one launch.I wonder if Microsoft will need to do an update to DX as well? Really only AMD can answer this. Or it just shows up in driver releases.
Would you like me to come to your house and read it out loud for you. I guess you are asking me to cut and paste from the article here? Reading is fundamental.I'm sorry, but having re-read the article, I still can't see it. All I see is the odd line like 'All performance advantages Vega 64 has over Fury X is down to clock speed differences.' (from page 9).
I wonder if Microsoft will need to do an update to DX as well? Really only AMD can answer this. Or it just shows up in driver releases.
If you believe the whitepapers, there's a lot of latent tech buried in Vega. I think it's going to come down to which of two camps is correct: 1) RTG's driver team is going to unlock this latent tech transparently for existing titles allowing 'full' Vega to be experienced, or 2) Game developers are going to have to code explicitly for this latent tech for 'full' Vega to be experienced.
As far as power draw is concerned, not surprising at all. RTG tried to clock it as high as it could so it could trade blows with a 1080. It's no secret that a chip running 'within design parameters' is going to run more efficiently than a chip clocked balls to the wall.
I think we'd all LOVE it if AMD pulled a rabbit from a hat with a driver release and the Vega WTFPWND the 1080s. I know I would.
Just doesn't seem super likely. <shrug>
Two thumbs up on this article.
I actually thought Vega would do worst from a number of opinions expressed on the forums. Brent did an outstanding investigation with good number of data points. If only a few tests were done it could look like a 6%-8% gain or virtually nothing. Just enough to nail it in other words.
AMD: ,(just in case AMD can respond here)
- Can we expect performance gains in future drivers that are significant as in 10% or more in current select games? Like GTA 5 or others?
- Also gains from hardware ability in Vega not exposed or used yet in the drivers?
This discussion about a magic driver seems oddly reminiscent of the HD 2900 XT.Looks all the new hot features are either disabled or not working properly. Can a driver update solve this? We'll see.
I love [H] for doing these kinds of reviews.
My thoughts (without having read a bunch of whitepapers) is that portions of the pipeline have had some tweaks. Some game engines will benefit more than others.
If the die shrink allowed for higher clocks, it is still an improvement.
I think the pipeline type tweaks only result in a percent or 2 here and there in IPC increases. Worth doing but it's just not like the old days where performance jumped 50% or more each generation.
Completely out of my ass guess here, but I think they where blindsided by Pascals performance. If we look at what Vega is you realize it sacrifices cooling and power to go toe to toe with the GTX 1080, but when you you use the lower power bios and under-volt Vega suddenly it drops power and heat incredibly and still performs well but can no longer match a 1080. I think those lower power requirements was where Vega was originally designed at, but once the GTX 1080 came out they did not want to be seen as behind NVIDIA yet again.I mean, they got 8% in some games so there is deifnitely some improvement. If they can get that across the board, it would be pretty decent, but yeah I'm still struggling to see what took them 2 years unless they had to completely re-lay the thing out to get it to clock at 14nm...Which could be the case.
Completely out of my ass guess here, but I think they where blindsided by Pascals performance. If we look at what Vega is you realize it sacrifices cooling and power to go toe to toe with the GTX 1080, but when you you use the lower power bios and under-volt Vega suddenly it drops power and heat incredibly and still performs well but can no longer match a 1080. I think those lower power requirements was where Vega was originally designed at, but once the GTX 1080 came out they did not want to be seen as behind NVIDIA yet again.
I have Scotch and cigars.
if its over 12 years aged, I'm there!
Typically Macallan 18. (I go for highlands usually.) Lately though I've gotten back into wine a bit more, but it doesn't go quite as good with the cigars. (well, depending on the wine)
I love [H] for doing these kinds of reviews.
My thoughts (without having read a bunch of whitepapers) is that portions of the pipeline have had some tweaks. Some game engines will benefit more than others.
If the die shrink allowed for higher clocks, it is still an improvement.
I think the pipeline type tweaks only result in a percent or 2 here and there in IPC increases. Worth doing but it's just not like the old days where performance jumped 50% or more each generation.
That was an interesting comparison. There must have been some architecture improvements over the Fury X as there is no way in hell that the Fury X would reach Vega clock speeds. Whatever we all think about the Vega series GPU's, they are more competitive now that they have been for a long time which gives people a choice of the mid to high cards.