• 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

Archaea said:
Don't be too concerned with that score being 17,000. As someone who does stuff with futuremark, that score is lowered by the CPU used. If an overclocked 7700K was used here that score would likely be in the low 20s (based on my experiences)


Example given: Here is a 1080TI with a 7700K @4.8GHz and 32GB of PC3000 RAM that I built.
Click to expand...

Being "someone who's done stuff with futuremark" I'd think you'd understand the difference between the overall score and the graphics score. 23k for the Vega FE and 28k for your TI. ;)
 
Ieldra said:
Archaea you're a phoney! a big phat phoney! 1600x1200 display. 1080Ti

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On a more serious note, I think I am officially tired of waiting for Vega, there isn't even a review yet... It feels like I have been waiting for 20 years


~1500 ? what? mhz? where are the clocks reported?
Click to expand...
I assume you are being sarcastic, but if not - Future Mark doesn't care what your desktop resolution is. It still benchmarks for stated default res. My desktop "building station" has a old Dell 2007 FP monitor that is 1600x1200. Score is immaterial of your monitors native res.
 
yeah i am looking at graphics score, vega is scoring ~23k and 1080Ti is at around 28

Archaea said:
I assume you are being sarcastic, but if not - Future Mark doesn't care what your desktop resolution is. It still benchmarks for stated default res. My desktop "building station" has a old Dell 2007 FP monitor that is 1600x1200. Score is immaterial of your monitors native res.
Click to expand...

yeah im just kidding, but i found it amusing to see 1600x1200, haven't seen that in years
 
Bankie said:
Being "someone who's done stuff with futuremark" I'd think you'd understand the difference between the overall score and the graphics score. 23k for the Vega FE and 28k for your TI. ;)
Click to expand...

yes --- I am speaking to the combined score of 17K. I simply said it would be low 20's with a current gen 7700K.

I didn't go into the idoscycracies of the scoring.
 
here is a comparison of

2 Fury X Crossfire (no overclock) with a 47770k @4.5Ghz (mine)
1 Fury X (with moderate (for AMD) overclock) with a 4770k @4.5Ghz (mine)
aledged Vega FE with a 4790k @4.4Ghz
1 1080TI (default O/C) with a 7700k @4.8Ghz (mine)

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12912580/fs/8467364/fs/12987144/fs/12899512


firestrike.JPG
 
Last edited:
noko said:
Only way I see Vega around 1080Ti speeds is if it can maintain it's clock at 1500+. The gaming cards with better cooling hopefully will be available. I do like the Pro aspect to the FE, just want to see some solid reviews on it. Do not know about the excuses for not giving out samples - if you have a hot product, have much faith in it, it clearly performs well - I would think you would Damn well get as many samples out there to be have it broadcasted as loud as possible. As for the FE, I would like to know more about what software it supports well in Pro Mode - a list that is. I will see if AMD has anything about what software it performs well in.
Click to expand...
AMD did give out samples, but they went to developers. Sebbbi for example and probably many more. Considering the DX12.1 top tier everything, there is probably a lot of work and research to be so there. Devs don't need the performance, just enabled features to get started. Maybe in a month some features will be patched into games.

I doubt the cooling will matter much, but getting rid of 8-Hi HBM2 stacks with their thermal issues will help. Along with early benchmarks using 550W power supplies and probably weak CPUs.
 
Anarchist4000 said:
AMD did give out samples, but they went to developers. Sebbbi for example and probably many more. Considering the DX12.1 top tier everything, there is probably a lot of work and research to be so there. Devs don't need the performance, just enabled features to get started. Maybe in a month some features will be patched into games.

I doubt the cooling will matter much, but getting rid of 8-Hi HBM2 stacks with their thermal issues will help. Along with early benchmarks using 550W power supplies and probably weak CPUs.
Click to expand...


Do you know tier III is just more of Tier II right? We haven't even gotten to using tier II 50% limits yet. its just a bullet point a nice to have. That is even why even with Maxwell I stated and reiterated with Pascal, its not necessary to have DX12.1, the only good thing is CRV's are now on all GPU's (outside of AMD mid range and lower). So there is still a ways to go before those tier III features will be used like a couple generations down the road.
 
Ieldra said:
well if there's on positive thing to come out of this spectacular launch it's that r/AMD seems to be collapsing under its own weight
Click to expand...


If those futuremark graphics scores are real, and Volta's early 2017 is release comes to fruition, its going to be AMD's CPU division keeping up RTG for the near to mid future. So end of it all, its going to back in the early 2000's, AMD just has to hope Intel's Coffee Lake is a bust, or its going to be a long 5 years again.
 
Anarchist4000 I struggle to see how primitive shaders will effectively improve its performance. If you offload rasterization to the shader array as a compute shader you are simply taking away resources from the pixel and compute shader portions of the render. So this will only make sense insofar as the load is balance to provide the optimum framerate which will necessarily be lower than that of the competition in this case (no geometry bottlenecks)
 
Ieldra said:
Anarchist4000 I struggle to see how primitive shaders will effectively improve its performance. If you offload rasterization to the shader array as a compute shader you are simply taking away resources from the pixel and compute shader portions of the render. So this will only make sense insofar as the load is balance to provide the optimum framerate which will necessarily be lower than that of the competition in this case (no geometry bottlenecks)
Click to expand...


In the future it comes in handy, as nV has to move over to something similar to that too but at a later date. Primitive shaders for geometry is very important, the flexibility it creates is going to be paramount in future games, but as you stated resource contention is important too and right now with nV and AMD at parity with theoretical shader performance (considering boost clocks), the use of shader units vs fixed function units, is going to be something AMD is going to have problems with. Programming side this is what I stated earlier, its going to be problematic. Not hard to do, but by splitting work loads up its going to create a divide and graphically fidelity over different cards if one wants to keep performance relative to one another.
 
I love the "but gaming RX Vega will be way better" meme. Obviously it will, it's the same chip on the same clocks with a gayming sticker. So I'd wager it'll be at least 20% faster.
 
https://videocardz.com/70541/amd-radeon-vega-frontier-lands-in-the-hands-of-the-first-owner

MSI GTX 1080 TI Gaming X* 1924 MHz 1390 MHz 29425

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X* 1924 MHz 1263 MHz 22585

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #1 1600 MHz 945 MHz 21202

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #2* 1600 MHz 945 MHz 22916

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #3 1528 MHz 945 MHz 21421

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #4* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 22986

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #5* 1682 MHz 945 MHz 22304

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #6* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 21818

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #7* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 22654

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #8* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 21292

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #9* 1528 MHz 945 MHz 21056

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #10* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 22088

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #11* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 22035

AMD Radeon Vega Frontier #12* 1602 MHz 945 MHz 22963

COLORFUL GTX 1070 1797 MHz 2002 MHz 18561
 
Love how people are conveniently overlooking the fact that the guy who has this card doesn't seem to have that much of a clue what he's doing. A barely adequate psu and its questionable if he's even got the right driver installed. But of course that won't deter the trolls from spreading their shite.
 
razor1 said:
I don't think Navi is a Vega replacement, cause 7nm is not going to be ready anytime soon.

What would be totally funny consumer Navi drops HBM like a bad date, and the HBCC works on traditional vram and other memory types lol.
Click to expand...

They have already announced navi will use a new memory type. That said I'm wondering if instead they mean SSG and will keep HBM especially if they do MCM - they might go GDDR for the mid-low end cards though like Polaris is.

HVM 7nm from GF is 2H 2018. Could see Navi late q4'18 to q1 '19. That's not so far off.
 

Attachments

  • 7nm navi.jpg
    7nm navi.jpg
    91.6 KB · Views: 18
Chris_B said:
Love how people are conveniently overlooking the fact that the guy who has this card doesn't seem to have that much of a clue what he's doing. A barely adequate psu and its questionable if he's even got the right driver installed. But of course that won't deter the trolls from spreading their shite.
Click to expand...


gaming drivers are available on AMD's website, they were posted earlier this week.
 
N4CR said:
They have already announced navi will use a new memory type. That said I'm wondering if instead they mean SSG and will keep HBM especially if they do MCM - they might go GDDR for the mid-low end cards though like Polaris is.

HVM 7nm from GF is 2H 2018. Could see Navi late q4'18 to q1 '19. That's not so far off.
Click to expand...


Well that is pretty far if Volta is coming early 2018
 
Chris_B said:
And from what ive seen some people say, he hasn't got them installed.
Click to expand...


Did you check videocardz link? They are using gaming mode.

  • WhyCry VideoCardz.com morphog • 39 minutes ago
    The driver from January would not even recognize Frontier.
    He used the latest driver from AMD website. I checked. And it's called 17.6 or 17.20* not 17.1.1
    * "Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition 17.6 with base driver version 17.20.1035."
    http://support.amd.com/en-u...

So the people saying otherwise, don't know what they are talking about or WhyCry is wrong, and with his screenshots, I don't think he is wrong.
 
Chris_B said:
Love how people are conveniently overlooking the fact that the guy who has this card doesn't seem to have that much of a clue what he's doing. A barely adequate psu and its questionable if he's even got the right driver installed. But of course that won't deter the trolls from spreading their shite.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, AMD could have sent around review cards to avoid the whole mess. And AMD further screwed themselves by including a Gaming Mode, yet people will still claim RX Vega will have better performance when it launches.
 
razor1 said:
Did you check videocardz link? They are using gaming mode.
Click to expand...

One post mentioned hes using a driver from jan 2017. He seems to have vanished for the time being anyway. I know pc per has one of these on order, would prefer to see what they think.
 
So what's the big shock, that it is at GTX 1080 levels? I'm ok with that if they price it right. I just want something that is as good as my 1080 and has Freesync :p
 
Ocellaris said:
Alternatively, AMD could have sent around review cards to avoid the whole mess.
Click to expand...

They could have but as they already stated in the 25 min video this card isn't the gaming iteration which is still coming next month at some point.
 
Chris_B said:
One post mentioned hes using a driver from jan 2017. He seems to have vanished for the time being anyway. I know pc per has one of these on order, would prefer to see what they think.
Click to expand...


Check is post in the thread underneath. He is using the latest drivers.
 
Chris_B said:
They could have but as they already stated in the 25 min video this card isn't the gaming iteration which is still coming next month at some point.
Click to expand...

This is just another delay tactic. The gaming iteration isn't likely to be much faster.
 
Ocellaris said:
This is just another delay tactic. The gaming iteration isn't likely to be much faster.
Click to expand...

Its more possible the drivers will be better tuned for gaming, its obvious this card seems to be trying to be a jack of all trades. Not looking to upgrade anytime soon anyway, would just like to see some competition.
 
razor1 said:
Check is post in the thread underneath. He is using the latest drivers.
Click to expand...


Results from the 3DMark Fire strike, as of now is on level of 1080. I have dig on the drivers as they are not showing correctly and I've downloaded correct package from AMD but I've used half pro and game drivers now I will use just the gaming ones to see the difference.
Click to expand...
 


Yeah that is what he posted up,

gaming drivers are part of the driver package which also come with the pro drivers. He benched with gaming mode. Each table showed *gaming mode under the tables.
 
razor1 said:
Well that is pretty far if Volta is coming early 2018
Click to expand...

If Nvidia did go 12nm as TSMC says then that's not the case. 10nm was scrapped, they moved to 12nm and 12nm doesn't start until 1H 2018. So there could be 5-6 months in it at most if AMD doesn't drag their feet, e.g. Volta late Q2-Q3 2018 and I bet it'll be the piddly x80 Volta too, not big.

It appears there may be a uarch advantage to AMD for once. And possibly a scaling advantage with MCM. I wouldn't write navi off if GF is already moving on to 5nm with IBM currently.... AMD might have a decent uarch for once scrapping GCN and most of the efficiency disparity could be gained back. Throw in process and scaling you might even see AMD kicking ass outside of mining in recent years. Time will tell if they can make something of navi.


Also with Vega, it sounds like we have a Gaming Ryzen v2.0. Wait for the drivers and never be a week 1 or 2 AMD owner lol (that's coming from an AMD aficionado).
 
N4CR said:
If Nvidia did go 12nm as TSMC says then that's not the case. 10nm was scrapped, they moved to 12nm and 12nm doesn't start until 1H 2018. So there could be 5-6 months in it at most if AMD doesn't drag their feet, e.g. Volta late Q2-Q3 2018 and I bet it'll be the piddly x80 Volta too, not big.

It appears there may be a uarch advantage to AMD for once. And possibly a scaling advantage with MCM. I wouldn't write navi off if GF is already moving on to 5nm with IBM currently.... AMD might have a decent uarch for once scrapping GCN and most of the efficiency disparity could be gained back. Throw in process and scaling you might even see AMD kicking ass outside of mining in recent years. Time will tell if they can make something of navi.


Also with Vega, it sounds like we have a Gaming Ryzen v2.0. Wait for the drivers and never be a week 1 or 2 AMD owner lol (that's coming from an AMD aficionado).
Click to expand...


12nm is already ready for production, no one but nV can use it cause its a specific node for them, nV probably helped make it, not sure though or it was tailored to their needs.

I'm not writing off Navi, but after seen what Volta is bringing to table on virtually a modified 16nm node (12nm), I think Navi is going to be the make it or break it for RTG. They can't sustain being back 1 generation, and then being down again.

In the graphics industry just one bad generation can break the back of a company. We are talking about 3 generations if Navi doesn't pan out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top