• 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

SickBeast said:
What a shocker, more people preferred the AMD system.

What I don't understand is why they are testing a GTX 1080 Ti at 1440p resolution. A single GTX 1070 can max out Doom on ultra settings at 4k resolution. It never dips below 60fps.

They should have tested something more demanding like Wildlands, at a higher resolution. AMD supplied the 1440p screens so they were kind of stuck. I'm sure that was intentional on behalf of AMD.

I will say that HardOCP's test/demo was far more interesting than what AMD did in Budapest and Portland. But this was by no means reflective of any type of meaningful gaming experience, IMO. It's kind of like testing a GTX 1050 versus a GTX 1080 Ti in Quake 3. Both will run the game so fast that the difference will be inconsequential and imperceptible. AMD is probably encouraging tests like this because they know their product is inferior.
Click to expand...

I can promise you there are alot of people gaming on curved 1440p screens. Because alot of the 4k monitors run in to limitations at this time, either low hz or max 27 or 28inch screen. Is this really a surprise? Ofcourse 1080ti is going to be faster in pure fps but if you did a blind test its just human nature to not be able to tell the difference when you are helped with freesync and gsync. This is not a surprise at all that people can't tell the difference. He could have used a 1070 vs 1080 and I am sure people would still be tripping..
 
Looks like more of an IPS panel vs VA panel test to be honest.

If only the game was something that is actually GPU-intensive and could display some frame variance; a stock RX470 will peg Doom at 1080p/144hz at ultra settings already. I see the point that AMD is trying to make but it seems silly. Pardon the car analogy but it's like Motor Trend driving an AMG and a Cadillac down the smoothest track possible at 35mph and saying, "They're basically the same!".
 
Last edited:
Bankie said:
a stock RX470 will peg Doom at 1080p/144hz at ultra settings already.
Click to expand...

Except we aren't talking about 1080p, and regardless, no, it won't.

My overclocked 980Ti dips to 90fps at 2560x1440 with nightmare textures and shadows enabled, and 8xTSSAA
My 290 was running around 90-100 fps at 1920x1200p with all ultra, just no nightmare textures/shadows.

RX470 is not getting those speeds.
 
Haters gonna hate...

;)

Kyle...thanks for doing this. Pretty interesting to me that the RX goes toe to toe (in this particular venue, blah, blah) with the 1080ti.
 
SickBeast said:
What I don't understand is why they are testing a GTX 1080 Ti at 1440p resolution. A single GTX 1070 can max out Doom on ultra settings at 4k resolution. It never dips below 60fps.
Click to expand...
Well this is 3440X1440, not 1440p. 5M pixels.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
- At all resolutions, with FreeSync and G-Sync enabled, not even the keen-eyed twitch gamers will be able to tell the setups apart. That is, they will both look outstanding.
Click to expand...

I am quite frankly surprised that even a minority could tell them apart - but yeah, Vega + FreeSync is going to cost less than the 1080 Ti + G-Sync and deliver an equivalent experience.

That said, I noted one comment that is remarkable - the dude who played it on Ultra-Violence said system 1 fared better when there was a lot of action. That might not bode well for Vega, or it might be irrelevant.
 
Gigantopithecus said:
FWIW my Asus ROG Strix GTX 1080 sometimes drops below 60fps on Doom in Nightmare at Ultra on my 3440x1440 monitor. It's not common and I've never seen it drop below 45fps, but no, a 1070 can't push Doom at 3440x1440 on Ultra always more than 60fps.
Click to expand...
I stand by my comment. The differences between the two cards would only be apparent in a more demanding game or at a higher resolution. The reason why most of the people couldn't tell which system was which was because they were both running the game so smoothly to the point that any differences were inconsequential. Had Kyle bogged the cards down with a more demanding game, I suspect the GTX 1080 Ti system would have won by a landslide. It's easy to tell the difference between 20fps and 30fps. 90fps and 110fps not so much.

I don't blame Kyle for this, I blame AMD. They created this test knowing full well that both systems would run the game well. I'm actually wondering if AMD had veto power over choosing certain games. I'm wondering if they showed Kyle a list of games that they knew Vega could handle extremely well at 1440p resolution, to the point that people couldn't tell a difference between Vega and the GTX 1080 Ti system. I have a feeling AMD told Kyle that the Vega driver was only optimized for certain games at this point, and he therefore had to test one of those games.
 
SickBeast said:
I stand by my comment. The differences between the two cards would only be apparent in a more demanding game or at a higher resolution. The reason why most of the people couldn't tell which system was which was because they were both running the game so smoothly to the point that any differences were inconsequential. Had Kyle bogged the cards down with a more demanding game, I suspect the GTX 1080 Ti system would have won by a landslide. It's easy to tell the difference between 20fps and 30fps. 90fps and 110fps not so much.

I don't blame Kyle for this, I blame AMD. They created this test knowing full well that both systems would run the game well. I'm actually wondering if AMD had veto power over choosing certain games. I'm wondering if they showed Kyle a list of games that they knew Vega could handle extremely well at 1440p resolution, to the point that people couldn't tell a difference between Vega and the GTX 1080 Ti system. I have a feeling AMD told Kyle that the Vega driver was only optimized for certain games at this point, and he therefore had to test one of those games.
Click to expand...

Where do you buy your tinfoil hats? I'm wondering if they come in my size.
 
SickBeast said:
I stand by my comment. The differences between the two cards would only be apparent in a more demanding game or at a higher resolution. The reason why most of the people couldn't tell which system was which was because they were both running the game so smoothly to the point that any differences were inconsequential. Had Kyle bogged the cards down with a more demanding game, I suspect the GTX 1080 Ti system would have won by a landslide. It's easy to tell the difference between 20fps and 30fps. 90fps and 110fps not so much.

I don't blame Kyle for this, I blame AMD. They created this test knowing full well that both systems would run the game well. I'm actually wondering if AMD had veto power over choosing certain games. I'm wondering if they showed Kyle a list of games that they knew Vega could handle extremely well at 1440p resolution, to the point that people couldn't tell a difference between Vega and the GTX 1080 Ti system. I have a feeling AMD told Kyle that the Vega driver was only optimized for certain games at this point, and he therefore had to test one of those games.
Click to expand...

Kyle chose the game, not AMD. Doom is the right choice for the kind of test he was doing. The comparison is Freesync vs G-sync not Vega vs 1080ti. For that test you want a game that is well optimized on both cards, to reduce the chance of raw performance overly effecting impressions. You want to reduce independent variables, not add them.
 
SickBeast said:
I stand by my comment. The differences between the two cards would only be apparent in a more demanding game or at a higher resolution. The reason why most of the people couldn't tell which system was which was because they were both running the game so smoothly to the point that any differences were inconsequential. Had Kyle bogged the cards down with a more demanding game, I suspect the GTX 1080 Ti system would have won by a landslide. It's easy to tell the difference between 20fps and 30fps. 90fps and 110fps not so much.

I don't blame Kyle for this, I blame AMD. They created this test knowing full well that both systems would run the game well. I'm actually wondering if AMD had veto power over choosing certain games. I'm wondering if they showed Kyle a list of games that they knew Vega could handle extremely well at 1440p resolution, to the point that people couldn't tell a difference between Vega and the GTX 1080 Ti system. I have a feeling AMD told Kyle that the Vega driver was only optimized for certain games at this point, and he therefore had to test one of those games.
Click to expand...
I have already addressed what you are wondering about with specific statements. Game choice was 100% my call.
 
Anarchist4000 said:
Not really an issue. Lower clocks by a third and a pair of Vegas would likely use less power than a single while being 33% faster and running cooler.
Click to expand...
33%? Why not just buy a 1080ti and be done with it?

Any cost savings (assuming that we are choosing between panels that have a choice between FS ans GS) of buying FS would have been easily destroyed by the fact that you have to buy 2 Vega GPUs.
 
cybereality said:
He could have used the new Deus Ex game, it runs like garbage on anything.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I don't want to go on and on about this though. Kyle made the decision. He has been at this a long time. The video turned out outstanding, much better than I had anticipated. Who knows, had he chosen Deus Ex or some other more demanding game, perhaps other issues would have come up and it wouldn't have been a good comparison. Actually Deus Ex has some horrible mouse lag. That could have skewed the test. My own game preference would have been Ghost Recon Wildlands or maybe the Witcher 3. People would complain that Wildlands is an nVidia game though and the Witcher 3 is pretty dated at this point. Kyle knows what he's doing. I just want to know more about Vega, I was hoping to gain a clearer picture of how well it performs. This thing has been delayed since forever. I'm going to be paying close attention to the launch.
 
EDIT: Nevermind, completely missed the not including VAT part.

Honestly, I don't see it being THAT high, because at that price, even pitting against 1080ti would make the card a failure, let alone against an 1080...

But they may not have a choice in the matter.
 
chenw said:
EDIT: Nevermind, completely missed the not including VAT part.

Honestly, I don't see it being THAT high, because at that price, even pitting against 1080ti would make the card a failure, let alone against an 1080...

But they may not have a choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it will be that high but I wouldn't be surprised if it was + or - $50 of the MSRP of the 1080.
 
Derangel said:
I highly doubt it will be that high but I wouldn't be surprised if it was + or - $50 of the MSRP of the 1080.
Click to expand...
Neither will I, that's the best pricing bracket for Vega with the way things are looking (it's actually what I'd expect), if the "go FreeSync, it's cheaper" line is to hold.

At $850, not even when pitted against the original 1080 FE will that argument stand.
 
dook43 said:
Except we aren't talking about 1080p, and regardless, no, it won't.

My overclocked 980Ti dips to 90fps at 2560x1440 with nightmare textures and shadows enabled, and 8xTSSAA
My 290 was running around 90-100 fps at 1920x1200p with all ultra, just no nightmare textures/shadows.

RX470 is not getting those speeds.
Click to expand...

I said Ultra settings - Not Nightmare. But I just loaded my latest save game and it was running from 110fps up to 139fps (probably around 115-117fps most of the time in that level) which is off from what I originally said but the point still stands: The 470 is (well was) a $150 card and it has no problem with DOOM.
 
Wait, i just realized that AMD's own pepsi challenges had these same monitors.

With their own "$300 cheaper system" comment... Does it mean Rx Vega is seriously $850? Holy fuck, no amount of blind tests can salvage that.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Wait, i just realized that AMD's own pepsi challenges had these same monitors.

With their own "$300 cheaper system" comment... Does it mean Rx Vega is seriously $850? Holy fuck, no amount of blind tests can salvage that.
Click to expand...
Except it just did. More people preferred the Vega.
 
Archaea said:
Except it just did. More people preferred the Vega.
Click to expand...
1. In one game... which is Doom in Vulkan to top it off.
2. No matter what Kyle tried to do with panels, Samsung VA vs LG IPS is bound to affect preferences in unknown way. Especially since these Samsung VA panels are pretty damn fast, while LG IPS one is pretty slow (without extreme usage of overdrive with obvious outcome). Matter of fact, i am pretty sure if you ended up using the Freesync monitor on both, experience would be indistinguishable.
3. You use Fury X, your opinion is discarded.
4. Ironically if 1080 Ti is v-synced then it would be inferior to freesyncd Vega simply because of v-sync input lag.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Wait, i just realized that AMD's own pepsi challenges had these same monitors.

With their own "$300 cheaper system" comment... Does it mean Rx Vega is seriously $850? Holy fuck, no amount of blind tests can salvage that.
Click to expand...

What resolution did AMD blind test at?

4k G-Sync monitor and FreeSync monitor discrepency is actually REALLY big, especially in the large panels. 32" 4k IPS G-Sync costs $1249.99, but FreeSync can be had for around $400,

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA4JH4R92713

Granted, this is after that huge discount, but there is still $450 difference between their MSRPs.

Add that to using 1080 FE's original $599 pricing, $300 is not too unreasonable, even if slightly stretched.
 
chenw said:
What resolution did AMD blind test at?
Click to expand...
3440x1440. Kyle's article lists monitors they used. Coincidentally those are monitors AMD used for their own blind tests.

chenw said:
Granted, this is after that huge discount, but there is still $450 difference between their MSRPs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and $250 of it is the difference in ASUS ROG brand vs Qnix brand. Or maybe panel quality, but come on, it's probably brand name. We all know what G-Sync tax is: $200.

P. S. Threads over at /r/AMD are juicy as hell, this article and video was worth the effort just for that.
 
lolfail9001 said:
3. You use Fury X, your opinion is discarded.
Click to expand...
Hey dummy, You use Nvidia. So your opinion is discarded as well

It's gonna be a pretty silent thread if everyone is eliminated from commentary because they use either AMD or Nvidia.

BTW, I own four gtx 1080 ti too for mining.
 
Last edited:
lolfail9001 said:
Correct, i do, because the one i use ended up as by far the best GPU in it's price sector.

You used a known to be inferior GPU. So, my discard joke is justified, is yours?

I had a chuckle.
Click to expand...
Butt hurt your GPU didn't win blind test. Too bad. SUCK IT UP!
 
SighTurtle said:
https://videocardz.com/press-releas...-graphics-and-high-performance-computing-socs

AMD using Synopsys's IP for memory controller.
Click to expand...
Ah the irony, I was shot down by several quite a long time ago at B3D suggesting they could be using Synopsys in context of HBM2 when I linked some of their presentations.

Separately still curious just how SK Hynix managed the 8-Hi and overcame the thermal challenges, albeit seems only very limited production as the FE is pretty scarce but still that is some achievement.
Cheers
 
lolfail9001 said:
That aggregate bandwidth number is suspiciously similar to the number produced by the card.

So basically, AMD advertised that their card has X bandwidth being fully aware that controller can't produce more than Y? Oh boy.
Click to expand...


You seem to know a lot. Please go on..
 
sine wave said:
You seem to know a lot. Please go on..
Click to expand...
Look at that
Synopsys, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNPS) today introduced its complete DesignWare® High Bandwidth Memory 2 (HBM2) IP solution consisting of controller, PHY and verification IP, enabling designers to achieve up to 307 GB/s aggregate bandwidth, which is 12 times the bandwidth of a DDR4 interface operating at 3200 Mb/s data rate.
Click to expand...
Now look at that: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/commoncfm/comparison/clickSwitch.cfm?id=140219
See those nice 303GB/s memory copy numbers for Vega FE?

Now that it is official that AMD uses Synopsys IP, that aggregate number lining up with test results suggest that it is indeed the real bandwidth of the card and not whatever they claim it is based on chips being clocked sky high.

Not a lawsuit material, but shady nonetheless if you ask me.
 
chenw said:
33%? Why not just buy a 1080ti and be done with it?

Any cost savings (assuming that we are choosing between panels that have a choice between FS ans GS) of buying FS would have been easily destroyed by the fact that you have to buy 2 Vega GPUs.
Click to expand...
That's assuming a single Vega isn't already faster than the 1080Ti. A dual would be well beyond any current Nvidia offerings and not have to use any more power.

lolfail9001 said:
Now that it is official that AMD uses Synopsys IP, that aggregate number lining up with test results suggest that it is indeed the real bandwidth of the card and not whatever they claim it is based on chips being clocked sky high.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be funny. Only a single or half stack of HBM2 enabled on all the current benchmarks. Second stack just waiting to be enabled for another 307GB/s. Almost like they've been emulating Vega11 this whole time with a single stack of HBM2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top