Vega RX faster than 1080 a tad slower than ti.

damn good read with decent info. Although a good portion is speculation on rumors. I can't wait for the technical write-ups.
 
The Frontier Edition drivers did not even enable part of the card for gaming benchmarks yet. So all benchmarks done on it for gaming were known to be useless. Why AMD didn't get semi-functional gaming drivers for the Frontier edition ready for people who would inevitably benchmark it? Who knows.
But soon we will have real information about Vega and it's price points and performance to actually discuss in the community.
 
Vader1975 said:
The Frontier Edition drivers did not even enable part of the card for gaming benchmarks yet. So all benchmarks done on it for gaming were known to be useless. Why AMD didn't get semi-functional gaming drivers for the Frontier edition ready for people who would inevitably benchmark it? Who knows.
But soon we will have real information about Vega and it's price points and performance to actually discuss in the community.
Click to expand...

Which part of the card isn't enabled?

Decent showing otherwise if it is real. I'd buy one if it was <$500 and 15% faster than a 1080. But seriously... 3DMark 11?!?
 
Ocellaris said:
Which part of the card isn't enabled?

Decent showing otherwise if it is real. I'd buy one if it was <$500 and 15% faster than a 1080. But seriously... 3DMark 11?!?
Click to expand...
It's part of the gaming driver that isn't there at all in the beta Frontier Driver. So some parts of software to run games are not optimized at all. This driver was built entirely for professional development and is incomplete. The drivers for the desktop model are designed to properly run Vega driving gaming applications. I am not claiming it will be some super Titan killer or anything, just that the drivers they released for Frontier are garbage and should be taken with a grain of salt for any gaming benches done on it. I too agree that I expect between 1080 and 1080TI when the drivers are out. Pricepoint will be important. I recall people talking more specifically about what parts of the driver are not enabled and not working and what features are not functioning just after the benches started coming out but I don't recall specifically what that was. I'll have to look around abit.
 
Ocellaris said:
Which part of the card isn't enabled?

Decent showing otherwise if it is real. I'd buy one if it was <$500 and 15% faster than a 1080. But seriously... 3DMark 11?!?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming it came from this, even though just looking at decompiled machine code isn't going to tell you anything. Still, drivers are not going to enable or disable hardware...
 
Armenius said:
I'm assuming it came from this, even though just looking at decompiled machine code isn't going to tell you anything. Still, drivers are not going to enable or disable hardware...
Click to expand...

This just means there is some more work they possibly can do with the drivers. This doesn't mean "part of the card isn't enabled" as originally noted. Everything is enabled, it just isn't working as efficiently as it might be able to.
 
Ocellaris said:
This just means there is some more work they possibly can do with the drivers. This doesn't mean "part of the card isn't enabled" as originally noted. Everything is enabled, it just isn't working as efficiently as it might be able to.
Click to expand...
I believe he was referring to tiled-based rasterization. There is speculation that Vega is supposed to be using it however the current driver is not.

That is, however, just speculation.
 
1. 3DMark11...seriously?
2. Interesting choice of descriptors in the title. A "tad" slower than the 1080 Ti? It's 17% slower than the 1080 Ti in 3DM11, which is an even larger difference in performance than between RX Vega and the 1080...:meh:
 
I was assuming it was but a matter of tine before the AMD demolition
exlink said:
1. 3DMark11...seriously?
2. Interesting choice of descriptors in the title. A "tad" slower than the 1080 Ti? It's 17% slower than the 1080 Ti in 3DM11, which is an even larger difference in performance than between RX Vega and the 1080...:meh:
Click to expand...

I bet you complain at Christmas when your free toys aren't good enough.
 
exlink said:
And I bet you take all click bait news titles at face value.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? It is somewhat informative and quite a bit longer than your conventional "click bait". I do agree with the "tad" part but come on... this is the AMD sub-forum where a little wishful thinking and Pro-AMD speak should be allowed. Hell it is hard enough in the majority of AMD threads being 90% of the occupancy is anti-AMD.
 
The 31K score comes from an overclocked part according to VCZ:

VideoCardz said:
Well, I didn’t really want to post this because I think it’s still too early, but since the highest score started to float around the web I think it’s worth to clear some misunderstanding. The highest score the 687F:C1 has achieved is an overclocked chip. 3DMark11 does not recognize unreleased overclocked graphics cards very well. The good news is that this puts RX Vega above overclocked GTX 1070, bad news, it might still be slower than overclocked GTX 1080.
Click to expand...

https://videocardz.com/70777/amd-radeon-rx-vega-3dmark11-performance
 
JustReason said:
Did you read the article? It is somewhat informative and quite a bit longer than your conventional "click bait". I do agree with the "tad" part but come on... this is the AMD sub-forum where a little wishful thinking and Pro-AMD speak should be allowed. Hell it is hard enough in the majority of AMD threads being 90% of the occupancy is anti-AMD.
Click to expand...
The clickbait title was in reference to this thread title. Its written as if the RX Vega beats the 1080 in overall performance (when so far its only been indicated for 3DMark11 - a 7 year old benchmark...) and is within 5% of Ti performance which is not the case at all.

You guys can be Pro AMD all you want, I'm not "Pro" anything. I just go where my money takes me for the best performance. I'd be happy with great Vega performance so there is finally some competition.

But this is a misleading thread title and I called it out.
 
Last edited:
exlink said:
The clickbait title was in reference to this thread title. Its written as if the RX Vega beats the 1080 in overall performance (when so far its only been indicated for 3DMark11 - a 7 year old benchmark...) and is within 5% of Ti performance which is not the case at all.

You guys can be Pro AMD all you want, I'm not "Pro" anything. I just go where my money takes me for the best performance. I'd be happy with great Vega performance so there is finally some competition.

But this is a misleading thread title and I called it out.
Click to expand...
Its my thread dont like the title then go complain to the unicorn tears dept. Plus we are not allowes to modify thread titles which I cant understand why in the world? Because although your whining about my title you are somewhat correct.
 
Last edited:
I know to some, it being slightly faster than a GTX 1080 is going to big deal. To me, it's not because if it does perform better than a GTX 1080, the only thing that says to me that it's faster than a GPU that is almost a year & a half old. That is hardly impressive to me & leaves the door wide open for Nvidia to drop Volta uncontested. Odds are, The Volta XX70 variant will outperform Vega which is just going to knock AMD back to square one. AMD will most likely just go the usual route of undercutting Nvidia again with a part that should be priced higher to reflect the specs it has.
 
Last edited:
For most the question isn't just how fast it is but how much $$$.If it's 1080 to 1080ti performance but priced better there will still be a place for it in the market. I'm waiting to see it myself, so I can make my little NCASE an all AMD box- something I didn't think I'd be able to ever do again.
 
DarkLegacy said:
I know to some, it being slightly faster than a GTX 1080 is going to big deal. To me, it's not because if it does perform better than a GTX 1080, the only thing that says to me that it's faster than a GPU that is almost a year & a half old. That is hardly impressive to me & leaves the door wide open for Nvidia to drop Volta uncontested. Odds are, The Volta XX70 variant will outperform Vega which is just going to knock AMD back to square one. AMD will most likely just go the usual route of undercutting Nvidia again with a part that should be priced higher to reflect the specs it has.
Click to expand...

Considering Fury wasn't cheap, I highly doubt Vega is going to be cheap either, I'd laugh if this sells for more than $500, which it probably will.
 
1080 levels (possibly) and FreeSync? If priced right they'll sell.
 
Im betting close to 1080ti with final release drivers and subsequent optimizations.might even be faster in dx12 etc..but we have NO benches of shit yet. That will be essentially not a year old tech. If its within 7 perc of 1080ti that would be newer than 1080 techI would even say moat modern if the price is right. Volta... well see I dont know. My 980ti is plenty fast for me for now. I can wait if vega is just another 1080 plain. I think AMDs next card is the winner and this is just a gap filler card.

Im.not crying blood like some of you are. We just have to wait and see.

Is it worth waiting o nvidia next tech? Depwnds on what you have now and need now to upgrade too.
 
tangoseal said:
Im betting close to 1080ti with final release drivers and subsequent optimizations.might even be faster in dx12 etc..but we have NO benches of shit yet. It will get very close but not pass it bit be less in price. That will be essentially not a year old tech. If its within 7 perc of 1080ti that would be newer than 1080 techI would even say moat modern if the price is right. Volta... well see I dont know. My 980ti is plenty fast for me for now. I can wait if vega is just another 1080 plain. I think AMDs next card is the winner and this is just a gap filler card.

Im.not crying blood like some of you are. We just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Jesus dude, sober up before making yourself look even worse.
 
Ocellaris said:
FreeSync, for a good experience when your dated GPU can't match your monitor refresh rate.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the market, but I can see that one can exist. I may have Team Green under the hood but that doesn't mean I can't see Team Red making a good show...
 
dvsman said:
For most the question isn't just how fast it is but how much $$$.If it's 1080 to 1080ti performance but priced better there will still be a place for it in the market. I'm waiting to see it myself, so I can make my little NCASE an all AMD box- something I didn't think I'd be able to ever do again.
Click to expand...

Same plans here:

ASRock Fatal1ty X370 Gaming-ITX/ac MB
Ryzen R7 1700 CPU
G.Skill Flare X Series DDR4 RAM (2 @ 8GB DIMMs. 3200 / CAS14)
1TB Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe SSD
RX Vega Nano GPU
Corsair SF600 SFX PSU
Custom cables
Custom water cooling loop (all EKWB, excepting FrozenQ reservoir)
 
Pricing will be the real interesting point. It's basically how low can they price it whilst making a profit and considering it is looking like matching the 1080.
 
What a shock looks like the RX Vega will be faster like AMD said, I also expect the FE to get mysteriously better when the RX launches as well. Right between a 1080 and a 1080ti also where most of us thought it would be. I love all the raging on a card almost no one here was ever interested in tho. I look forward to the reviews when it releases and will be happy these speculation threads will end.
 
Gideon said:
What a shock looks like the RX Vega will be faster like AMD said, I also expect the FE to get mysteriously better when the RX launches as well. Right between a 1080 and a 1080ti also where most of us thought it would be. I love all the raging on a card almost no one here was ever interested in tho. I look forward to the reviews when it releases and will be happy these speculation threads will end.
Click to expand...

nothing can save FE, because its price killed it. Price can save Vega, no matter where performance lands, because freesync already costs $200 less than gsync.
 
buzzbomb said:
Same thing happened before Ryzen launched..."if it's not cheaper than an i3 and can't outperform a 7700K IT'S GARBAAAGGGEEEEEE RAWR!@#!@$"
Click to expand...


But it can't beat an i7 7700k in gaming, and if you look at the pricing structure of AMD's Ryzen they line up with gaming performance levels of Intel CPU's.

AMD is a NOT a charity company, if they have better performance and metrics they will price higher, if they are competitive in all aspects they will price competitively, if they have lower performance or metrics, they price lower. Its always been that way for the most part.

Why else was Fiji priced the same as the 980ti, why is the FE priced lower than the Titan Xp? FE is actually over priced, but it can be justified to so degree because of its certain professional app performance, but that doesn't' justify buying it for what they stated.
 
geok1ng said:
actually, those are the best leaked numbers i have seen for Vega, and more or less in line with what was expected from hardwrae specs: better than 1070 and trading blows with 1080 depending on overclock.

now the question is : can AMD sell it at ~1080 prices??
Click to expand...

"The RX Vega scores 31,873 in the 3DMark 11 graphics stakes, compared with 27,618 for the GTX 1080 and 38,389 for the GTX 1080 Ti."

I wonder where they plucked those scores from?

The 3DM11 HOF scoreboard has a couple of 1080 scores in there, the lowest placed 1080, coming in at #94, has a graphics score of 34,093 - quite a ways from the 1080 they chose to go against.

The lowest placed 1080Ti, coming in at #100 (they only go down to 100) has a graphics score of 42,957.

Nothing in the top 100 has a score in the 32K range.

The lowest placed 980Ti has a graphics score of 37,464!
 
Dullard said:
"The RX Vega scores 31,873 in the 3DMark 11 graphics stakes, compared with 27,618 for the GTX 1080 and 38,389 for the GTX 1080 Ti."

I wonder where they plucked those scores from?

The 3DM11 HOF scoreboard has a couple of 1080 scores in there, the lowest placed 1080, coming in at #94, has a graphics score of 34,093 - quite a ways from the 1080 they chose to go against.

The lowest placed 1080Ti, coming in at #100 (they only go down to 100) has a graphics score of 42,957.

Nothing in the top 100 has a score in the 32K range.
Click to expand...

Plucked that number from wccftech, so god knows where they got those numbers from.
 
I do apologize for the misleading title.

Lets hope drivers and price pan out in favor of 1080 like performance.

If they dont its not worth leaving my 980ti for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top