• 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 Rumors

5150Joker said:
He actually tested Battlegrounds which is nice and something HardOCP should do even if the game is in alpha considering how immensely popular it is on the PC (it eclipses Battlefield 1):
View attachment 33328
Click to expand...

Never heard of it until today. What API is it using for this test? Is it using a stupid amount of AA in this test, beyond what is noticeable I mean? No one here knows, yet.
 
ManofGod said:
Never heard of it until today. What API is it using for this test? Is it using a stupid amount of AA in this test, beyond what is noticeable I mean? No one here knows, yet.
Click to expand...

What rock have you been living under?
IMG_1707.PNG
 
5150Joker said:
Sounds like you're already making excuses. #FineWine
Click to expand...

Nope, it is called having the money to do what you want as opposed to having the money to only do what you can. :) You already knew that though. :) Ryzen is fantastic and finally making AMD money but there things take time. They sure are a long way away from the doom and gloom of AMD is dead crap.
 
ManofGod said:
Nope, it is called having the money to do what you want as opposed to having the money to only do what you can. :) You already knew that though. :) Ryzen is fantastic and finally making AMD money but there things take time. They sure are a long way away from the doom and gloom of AMD is dead crap.
Click to expand...


Dude you are talking to a doctor just FYI, pretty sure he makes enough money a year ;)

Never go down the money route unless ya know so.
 
razor1 said:
Dude you are talking to a doctor just FYI, pretty sure he makes enough money a year ;)

Never go down the money route unless ya know so.
Click to expand...

Um, what? I was not aware AMD was a doctor, I could have sworn they were a tech company. (Oh, and if the person I responded too is a doctor, I just had my respect meter go down a notch, very few actually care enough to listen.)
 
ManofGod said:
Nope, it is called having the money to do what you want as opposed to having the money to only do what you can. :) You already knew that though. :) Ryzen is fantastic and finally making AMD money but there things take time. They sure are a long way away from the doom and gloom of AMD is dead crap.
Click to expand...

What's any of what you said have to do with Vega being too little too late?
 
In both The Witcher 3 and Rise of the Tomb Raider, there is a distinct difference between the RX Vega GPU and the GeForce Pascal-based products. The RX Vega 64 Liquid uses 350 watts in its default configuration while the standard RX Vega 64 consumes around 290 watts. The Vega 56 more or less hits its expected 210-watt TDP.

On the NVIDIA side of things, the primary competition for the RX Vega 64 is the GTX 1080 that uses 170-180 watts under a full gaming load. The GRX 1070, which is the target of the new RX Vega 56, consumes around 140 watts in both games here. The GTX 1080 Ti sits right at its 250-watt power draw rating, but will outperform the RX Vega 64 and GTX 1080 by a wide margin.
Click to expand...

Where is our prophet
Anarchist4000 when we need him? Read from the holy scriptures, tell us more about how power consumption will reduced by 30% etc. God knows, we need it.

500W in unigine heaven when overclocked. This is litetally half as efficient as a 1080
 
ManofGod said:
Um, what? I was not aware AMD was a doctor, I could have sworn they were a tech company. (Oh, and if the person I responded too is a doctor, I just had my respect meter go down a notch, very few actually care enough to listen.)
Click to expand...


You just insulted yourself dude, you said to a person that has no issue in getting what ever hardware they wanted to get that you can only do it by getting AMD products cause they are cheaper ;)

Anycase, this is what I've been saying since when

1080 competitor and less, nothing more. A year ago. 6 months extra time just wasn't going to change what GCN can do.
 
Last edited:
AnandTech
Bit-Tech
BitWit
Blunty
ComputerBase
GamersNexus
Golem
HardwareBattle
Hardware.fr
Hardware.info
HardwareLuxx
HardwareUnboxed
HotHardware
Hexus
JayzTwoCents
JokerProductions
KitGuru
Lab501
LesNumeriques
LinusTechTips
MoreleTV
NordicHardware
Paul’s Hardware
PCGamer
PCGamesHardware
PCLab
PCPerspective
PCWorld
Phoronix
SweClockers
TechOfTomorrow
TechReport
TechSource
TweakTown
XFastest

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/images/small.png

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/images/small.png

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-8gb-review,1.html

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-8gb-review,1.html

http://www.4gamer.net/games/337/G033714/20170814075/

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.4gamer.net/&prev=search


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,5173-16.html

Mining benchmarks @ toms, Vega is not good at Mining! Well based on its power consumption!

So that 100mhs figures absolute BS.
 
Last edited:
I like TechReport's summary; Vega 64 might be a wash, but it also appears to be pushed to the 'ragged edge'. The more (fiscally) accessible Vega 56 appears to put on a decent showing next to the GTX1070.

As we've seen with ambitious AMD parts in the past, getting that last 'oomph' out of their products has always pushed them toward stratospheric power envelopes...
 
Another amd flop with terrible power consumption and heat, higher price than competition for the same 15 month old performance and even no improved mining performance as it was hyped. Good job! But of corse it's nvidia that's bad and at fault here.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I like TechReport's summary; Vega 64 might be a wash, but it also appears to be pushed to the 'ragged edge'. The more (fiscally) accessible Vega 56 appears to put on a decent showing next to the GTX1070.

As we've seen with ambitious AMD parts in the past, getting that last 'oomph' out of their products has always pushed them toward stratospheric power envelopes...
Click to expand...

Yes, but nvidia leart from their 480 fiasco, but amd is stepping on the same rake again and again. Whole Pascal lineup is a perfection compared to this.
 
Raendor said:
Yes, but nvidia leart from their 480 fiasco, but amd is stepping on the same rake again and again. Whole Pascal lineup is a perfection compared to this.
Click to expand...

So did Intel, with the Pentium IV, and the lesson is this: efficiency matters, both for mobile and in the datacenter, and if you fix that, high performance follows pretty easily.
 
5150Joker said:
He actually tested Battlegrounds which is nice and something HardOCP should do even if the game is in alpha considering how immensely popular it is on the PC (it eclipses Battlefield 1):
View attachment 33328
Click to expand...

nobody plays battlegrounds higher than very low, unless they're not very good, the input lag at medium+ is just ridiculous, you can easily notice the massive input lag going from 130 fps down to like 80-90, arma 2 engine limitations
 
Reality said:
nobody plays battlegrounds higher than very low, unless they're not very good, the input lag at medium+ is just ridiculous, you can easily notice the massive input lag going from 130 fps down to like 80-90, arma 2 engine limitations
Click to expand...

PUBG uses Unreal Engine 4. We're not talking about the old mod here. I don't play it so can't comment on input lag issues but from what I've heard people play on low for the improved visibility more than anything. And that's not a valid excuse for not benchmarking one of the 3 most popular PC games of the last few months (on Steam but it's far more popular than say BF1 and does use a modern engine).
 
Reality said:
nobody plays battlegrounds higher than very low, unless they're not very good, the input lag at medium+ is just ridiculous, you can easily notice the massive input lag going from 130 fps down to like 80-90, arma 2 engine limitations
Click to expand...

Huh? PUBG runs on UE4 and I have no problem running everything on ultra and winning tons of matches in duos and squad.
 
Reality said:
nobody plays battlegrounds higher than very low, unless they're not very good, the input lag at medium+ is just ridiculous, you can easily notice the massive input lag going from 130 fps down to like 80-90, arma 2 engine limitations
Click to expand...

You do realize it's on Unreal engine and not any ARMA engine, right? I also notice zero extra input lag going from low to ultra in PUBG. The lower settings just make it easier to see people at distance and whatnot imo (which is a problem I hope they fix).
 
bpizzle1 said:
You do realize it's on Unreal engine and not any ARMA engine, right? I also notice zero extra input lag going from low to ultra in PUBG. The lower settings just make it easier to see people at distance and whatnot imo (which is a problem I hope they fix).
Click to expand...

damn, Googled it and first thing that popped up for me was arma 2 engine, lol

what hardware do you have?
 
I don't know. PUBG runs like garbage for me. I had to turn settings on medium with a Titan X (Pascal) at 1080p and it still was kind of choppy.
 
cybereality said:
I don't know. PUBG runs like garbage for me. I had to turn settings on medium with a Titan X (Pascal) at 1080p and it still was kind of choppy.
Click to expand...

Recent patches have given me easily +20 min and max frames. The recent patch to allow 6 core processors also really improved performance.

Which is why I would recommend AGAINST using it for benchmarking... the results won't hold up historically. You could easily benchmark something today and have it be worthless in a comparison in a month.
 
All the reviews are stating that the price of the Vega 64 air-cooled is $500 MSRP but it looks like the cheapest I could find is $600... All the retailers are sold out as well.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814150807
https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rxvega64/

$100 more than a 1080, double the power consumption, no Crossfire support at launch at basically the same performance. Liquid cooled isn't much better (5-10% better than air) at 1080 TI prices. Yet all sold out. I'm wondering if the stock was really low on launch and its more of a paper launch.
 
So it's
GreenOrbs said:
All the reviews are stating that the price of the Vega 64 air-cooled is $500 MSRP but it looks like the cheapest I could find is $600... All the retailers are sold out as well.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16814150807
https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rxvega64/

$100 more than a 1080, double the power consumption, no Crossfire support at launch at basically the same performance. Liquid cooled isn't much better (5-10% better than air) at 1080 TI prices. Yet all sold out. I'm wondering if the stock was really low on launch and its more of a paper launch.
Click to expand...

If it did support crossfire , you'd be looking at a 1500 watt power supply to have any kind of headroom on the system overall.
 
NKD said:
well guys. I just got a newegg promo email. looks like 599.99 it is. What a bunch of horse shit!. You want to buy a card at 599 that amd said was suppose to 499? AMD has the balls to let this happen, same performance as gtx 1080 and much more power and 100 more dollars lol!

even if you are a fanboy AMD just insulted your intelligence and is ready to ass rape you!

View attachment 33325
Click to expand...
I want to point and laugh at the guy who kept telling me this was not a real thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top