• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Vega countdown has appeared

One thing is sure, there is no bigger Vega chip than this.

Its also a HPC focused chip. So not that surprising to see Techreport saying performance is GTX1070-1080ish.
 
razor1 said:
Hmm nope, base clocks to boost clocks of ~1900 mhz, the gtx 1080 gets around 60 in both Vulkan and Ogl.
Click to expand...

I wasnt talking about stock clocks. do you have benchmarks? Cause heres an actual video showing a 1080 at 2100 getting 55-60 fps sometimes even lower. not sure how youd get 60 at -200 mhz.



show proof please.
 
Phlorge said:
I wasnt talking about stock clocks. do you have benchmarks? Cause heres an actual video showing a 1080 at 2100 getting 55-60 fps sometimes even lower. not sure how youd get 60 at -200 mhz.



show proof please.
Click to expand...


A note, your video is over half a year old.
 
Phlorge said:
just making a point - vega was definitely above the 1080 for doom 4k performance. that video had it playing at over 70 fps.
Click to expand...

It better be. Fiji is close to 1080 performance in DOOM because it uses AMD Shader Extensions. Its like Hitman, something you are not going to see in any way as average. So consider it best case scenario at all.

Also those there, like Techreport wasn't as impressed (They say GTX1070-1080 performance). The video we see may have been a bit more...optimal? ;)
 
razor1 said:
Wasn't pointing to the rx 480 in that regard, was specific to why the FE was done the reasons why OEM's wanted the FE and nV tried to use the same reasons to push to consumers, which that didn't work.
Click to expand...
your example was 3 years old. the FE weren't even thought of then. and I'm still pretty damn sure that nv came up with the idea not oems, regardless of the "quote" from falcon.
 
pendragon1 said:
your example was 3 years old. the FE weren't even thought of then. and I'm still pretty damn sure that nv came up with the idea not oems, regardless of the "quote" from falcon.
Click to expand...


Problem must be identified first before its fixed right?

Those articles were also responses to other articles claiming nV paid OEM's off to drop AMD cards....

Go figure lol.
 
Shintai said:
It better be. Fiji is close to 1080 performance in DOOM because it uses AMD Shader Extensions. Its like Hitman, something you are not going to see in any way as average. So consider it best case scenario at all.

Also those there, like Techreport wasn't as impressed (They say GTX1070-1080 performance). The video we see may have been a bit more...optimal? ;)
Click to expand...

Makes sense they would show an AMD favored game thats true. I feel like 1080 performance at a good price though will do the market right. This lack of competition has let Nvidia just do whatever they want for pricing.
 
Phlorge said:
Makes sense they would show an AMD favored game thats true. I feel like 1080 performance at a good price though will do the market right. This lack of competition has let Nvidia just do whatever they want for pricing.
Click to expand...

I dont think you are going to get anything cheaper in terms of performance metrics and pricing. Its more just a question of who is pricing it there.

Last time Nvidia and AMD released at the same price. 649$ GTX980TI and 649$ Fury X. The better card kept price longer.
 
Phlorge said:
just making a point - vega was definitely above the 1080 for doom 4k performance. that video had it playing at over 70 fps.
Click to expand...
I am confused, I thought Vega Doom did not use Nightmare setting but Ultra including for shadows, but the video you linked for the 1080 showed Nightmare shadows?
Did I miss something.
Thanks

Edit:
Yep the Doom Vega demo was ultra shadows, 13secs in shows settings.
 
Phlorge said:
I wasnt talking about stock clocks. do you have benchmarks? Cause heres an actual video showing a 1080 at 2100 getting 55-60 fps sometimes even lower. not sure how youd get 60 at -200 mhz.



show proof please.
Click to expand...



yes please look at reviews, there are many out there that show the 1080 gets 60 fps.

So most likely you are talking about specific areas in the game that go below that.


Uno

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2510-doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-rx-480-gtx-1080

vulkan-doom-4k.png


Dos

http://www.pcgamer.com/doom-benchmarks-return-vulkan-vs-opengl/2/

N4FqJrLT5CoUGbW2hLLECE-650-80.png


Tres

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-the-tide-turning-in-amds-favour/

G7prIO2.png
 
CSI_PC said:
I am confused, I thought Vega Doom did not use Nightmare setting but Ultra including for shadows, but the video you linked for the 1080 showed Nightmare shadows?
Did I miss something.
Thanks

Edit:
Yep the Doom Vega demo was ultra shadows, 13secs in shows settings.
Click to expand...


Its not just that, the insistence on trying to glean meaningful comparisons from looking at 'benchmark videos' of DOOM is a fruitless endeavor...

The game has no repeatable benchmark run, so unless one person repeats the same test multiple times on different cards it's meaningless
 
Shintai said:
A note, your video is over half a year old.
Click to expand...

That would only matter if NV relied on their "Aged Spirits" technology to compete with AMD's "Fine Wine." ;)

I honestly can't wait to see my 7950 2012 kick the shit out of my 1080 2016. Imagine the possibilities of Vega in 4-5 years.

Fine wine indeed!!!!!
 
heres bitwit's vid on a 1080 OGL 4k nightmare getting 40-60fps. so if vega is holding close to 60fps...
 
pendragon1 said:
heres bitwit's vid on a 1080 OGL 4k nightmare getting 40-60fps. so if vega is holding close to 60fps...
Click to expand...



Is that the same parts of the level they were showing with Vega?

All we can at this point it, most likely they seem close, in a game where AMD should have a 20% advantage when running with Vulkan.
 
no one knows price point, it appears it can be competitive with only an i7 4790K (unknown clocks). competitive = win for all of us, better prices (eventually) and quicker release of product. Nvidia has no competition, why fight themselves or play their next card when it's AMD's turn.

I think 12 months from now we'll all be very pleased at the CPU/GPU landscape and upcoming pipelines
 
you guys, you cant compare doom benchmarks with the Vega. It shows Vega beating a 1080 GTX which some Nvidia loyalist do not like.

They will make this thread a punching bag of back and forth and get it locked!
 
Brackle said:
you guys, you cant compare doom benchmarks with the Vega. It shows Vega beating a 1080 GTX which some Nvidia loyalist do not like.

They will make this thread a punching bag of back and forth and get it locked!
Click to expand...


It should be beating it lol, and it needs to be beating the 1080 by 20% otherwise the rest of the games its going to be slower!

And if you consider that to be a nV loyalist, you need to do you homework.

And you can't compare Doom without having the same test paths.
 
razor1 said:
It should be beating it lol, and it needs to be beating the 1080 by 20% otherwise the rest of the games its going to be slower!

And if you consider that to be a nV loyalist, you need to do you homework.
Click to expand...

And right now there is no way to measure if it is beating it. And if it does show it being it, Nvidia loyalist will shoot it down and make up some excuse that you cant use this benchmark or this benchmark because

#1. Benchmark is to old

#2. Benchmark isnt in the same location

#3. Titan XP is still better.

#4. Some other Nvidia argument making Vega look bad.
 
pendragon1 said:
heres bitwit's vid on a 1080 OGL 4k nightmare getting 40-60fps. so if vega is holding close to 60fps...
Click to expand...


The 1080 is at nightmare and Vega is at ultra.... Can't compare. Who knows what shennanigans AMD pulled in the background. Remember AMD said Fury X would be faster than Titan X in the 7/7 titles they showed and what happened when reviewers got the card?

I am most curious how they will cool the beast.
 
razor1 said:
yes please look at reviews, there are many out there that show the 1080 gets 60 fps.

So most likely you are talking about specific areas in the game that go below that.


Uno

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2510-doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-rx-480-gtx-1080



Dos

http://www.pcgamer.com/doom-benchmarks-return-vulkan-vs-opengl/2/



Tres

https://www.hardwareunboxed.com/doom-vulkan-vs-opengl-benchmark-the-tide-turning-in-amds-favour/
Click to expand...
razor1 said:
Is that the same parts of the level they were showing with Vega?

All we can at this point it, most likely they seem close, in a game where AMD should have a 20% advantage when running with Vulkan.
Click to expand...

no nobody has the exact same runs and you know that. the GN article you link talks aboot it in the video and steve clearly says they are playing at ultra and he tweaked the AA setting but he does not actually show the setting screen. the second link also says ultra not nightmare. the third does state nightmare and gets better performance than GN and PCG?! even in GNs video on that page it shows their run through sitting in the 40s.
 
Brackle said:
And right now there is no way to measure if it is beating it. And if it does show it being it, Nvidia loyalist will shoot it down and make up some excuse that you cant use this benchmark or this benchmark because

#1. Benchmark is to old

#2. Benchmark isnt in the same location

#3. Titan XP is still better.

#4. Some other Nvidia argument making Vega look bad.
Click to expand...


Yes that is what I have been saying, all we can say at this point they are somewhere near each other, that is it, nothing is conclusive. And TitanXp, don't expect it to reach it with just the Doom showing There is a huge difference from a 1080 to Titan.
 
moral of the story is wait until reviews showing direct comparisons with matching settings to see if it beats the 1080.

honestly if it doesnt beat the 1080 maybe that explains why we have no 1080ti
 
pendragon1 said:
no nobody has the exact same runs and you know that. the GN article you link talks aboot it in the video and steve clearly says they are playing at ultra and he tweaked the AA setting but he does not actually show the setting screen. the second link also says ultra not nightmare. the third does state nightmare and gets better performance than GN and PCG?! even in GNs video on that page it shows their run through sitting in the 40s.
Click to expand...


Different areas, are going to stress the card differently, and the nightmare settings was not what was used in the Doom showing, Nightmare is not just AA settings, its also a higher level of shadow settings.
 
exactly and nightmare setting are for textures and shadows, not AA. my point was that only 2/3 examples used were only at ultra not nightmare.
 
pendragon1 said:
exactly and nightmare setting are for textures and shadows, not AA. my point was that only 2/3 examples used were only at ultra not nightmare.
Click to expand...


Yeah and the video with Vega was on Ultra, the one with nightmare was even higher in FPS then the others, because it was a different map being testing.

Edit

This is why all we can say is they are close to each other, the other guy that I was responding to states the 1080 doesn't get 60fps at all! I just showed him it does and it does it at higher settings.
 
pendragon1 said:
heres bitwit's vid on a 1080 OGL 4k nightmare getting 40-60fps. so if vega is holding close to 60fps...
Click to expand...

You need to find one that does not use nightmare settings but Ultra including for shadows.
Vega doom I linked earlier is from the actual AMD CES demo and is using Ultra including for shadows, it is shown as part of the demo.

Cheers
 
Brackle said:
And right now there is no way to measure if it is beating it. And if it does show it being it, Nvidia loyalist will shoot it down and make up some excuse that you cant use this benchmark or this benchmark because

#1. Benchmark is to old

#2. Benchmark isnt in the same location

#3. Titan XP is still better.

#4. Some other Nvidia argument making Vega look bad.
Click to expand...


meh, forget them. The Nv 'fanclub' will be arguing and spinning right up until launch. And after of course. The die size and arch improvements over Polaris alone shows the potential. We have a teaser with a high level overview of the arch, that's a good start and more will be revealed as we approach launch. Clocks, NCU count, etc etc. In the meantime we have the newest Ryzen F4 samples at 3.6/4.0. :D
 
heres one; 4k ultra no nightmare. has a fps range of 45-90ish. haven't seen an unlocked fps on vega so... we wait for them to hit shelves and reviewers(kyle's) hands.

 
pendragon1 said:
heres one; 4k ultra no nightmare. has a fps range of 45-90ish. haven't seen an unlocked fps on vega so... we wait for them to hit shelves and reviewers(kyle's) hands.
Click to expand...

If AMD hands one to [H] I'll be excited. Otherwise we know that AMD isn't interested in an honest review.

People, we've been down this road before when the Fury X became road kill on this site. AMD benches showed it being much better than it ended up being in reviewers’ hands. “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” —Edmund Burke
 
companies don't like it when ya keep it real lol, think they would learn by now sheesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
razor1 said:
It should be beating it lol, and it needs to be beating the 1080 by 20% otherwise the rest of the games its going to be slower!

And if you consider that to be a nV loyalist, you need to do you homework.

And you can't compare Doom without having the same test paths.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Early Doom levels, I got 70-90 FPS. Later levels with more outdoors, I get between 40-60fps. And even within the level, the frame rate can vary as much as 20fps.

Wait for real benchmarks from a 3rd-party before your crown a winner here, I seem to recall people doing similar shit with the early hype "benchmarks" AMD released for Fiji.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top