AMD Vega (FE and RX) Benchmarks [Updated Aug 10 - RX Vega 64 Unboxing]

[PhonakV30]

Power, shmower. Give me better than NVIDIA performance for less money: SOLD. I need to upgrade my GTX 970.

lol You're dreaming? then wait for 2019 !

 

[guachi]

It's certainly not the Ryzen of GPUs but AMD will certainly get more sales at the high end than they have now (that is, zero).

At least it seems competitive for professional use. Really competitive. If AMD can rake in bucks from EPYC and Vega at the high end (and I hope and expect they will) then AMD at least has a chance to offer more competitive cards in the future. I can't believe the margins on gaming Vega cards is that great. AMD has margins of about 33% and both nVidia and Intel are running twice that.

Too bad you can't get the water-cooled version without buying the packs. The price/performance of the Vega 64 and Vega 56 will probably be good but I doubt the Vega 64 water-cooled will able to get close to whatever you can get for $700 from nVidia.

 

[SpaceBeer]

Power consumption, it matters.

The power consumption is horrendous, especially for the reputed performance.

I agree. I mean, imagine custom Vega 56 models - those will probably be some huge cards, with 3x 90mm fans, occupying 2.5 or even 3 slots, with 250W TDP, price and perfromance of some custom GTX 1070 model. No one will buy such card when nVidia has much better offer like Zotac gtx-1070-amp-extreme with the same performance, same board size, same TDP and same price. Oh

 

[insertcarehere]

I agree. I mean, imagine custom Vega 56 models - those will probably be some huge cards, with 3x 90mm fans, occupying 2.5 or even 3 slots, with 250W TDP, price and perfromance of some custom GTX 1070 model. No one will buy such card when nVidia has much better offer like Zotac gtx-1070-amp-extreme with the same performance, same board size, same TDP and same price. Oh

You mean the exact same, factory-OCed card that drew 277W total system power (~=Fury Nano) in a test system with a 5960X? Yeah why don't I believe aftermarket Vega 56s will match that...

 

[Tup3x]

The problem is two fold - architecture and process. AMD have a vastly inferior architecture fir gaming and the GF 14LPP process cannot compete with TSMC 16FF+ . The most disturbing aspect is regressing over Fiji in perf/watt and perf/ sq mm and perf/flop with respect to gaming. Vega is an unmitigated disaster 10 years after the HD2900XT.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Their process is not optimal but considering how well GTX 1050 Ti for example clocks (and how efficient it is) it's definitely not the main problem.

 

[cfenton]

Anyone know what percentage of the market owns a Freesync display? I'd bet it's less than 1% overall, and probably about 10% in the market they are aiming for (high-end gaming). I think it's really weird to only show demos with Freesync when only a small percentage of the market owns a Freesync display (unless I'm way off and Freesync is way more popular than I think).

When I'm shopping for a card, I want one that can hit 60FPS minimum at the resolution I want to play at. Right now, that's 2560x1440. I don't care that Vega will look smoother than a 1080 with a Freesync display, I don't own a Freesync display and won't in the near future, just like most of the market. It's just useless information for most people trying to decide if they should wait for Vega or just go buy something from Nvidia. Show me numbers in a wide variety of games (not just Doom) and give me a reason to keep waiting.

 

[Crumpet]

Anyone know what percentage of the market owns a Freesync display? I'd bet it's less than 1% overall, and probably about 10% in the market they are aiming for (high-end gaming). I think it's really weird to only show demos with Freesync when only a small percentage of the market owns a Freesync display (unless I'm way off and Freesync is way more popular than I think).

When I'm shopping for a card, I want one that can hit 60FPS minimum at the resolution I want to play at. Right now, that's 2560x1440. I don't care that Vega will look smoother than a 1080 with a Freesync display, I don't own a Freesync display and won't in the near future, just like most of the market. It's just useless information for most people trying to decide if they should wait for Vega or just go buy something from Nvidia. Show me numbers in a wide variety of games (not just Doom) and give me a reason to keep waiting.

To be fair, most decent monitors that aren't G-sync these days are Freesync.. because its free.

 

[Insomniator]

Anyone know what percentage of the market owns a Freesync display? I'd bet it's less than 1% overall, and probably about 10% in the market they are aiming for (high-end gaming). I think it's really weird to only show demos with Freesync when only a small percentage of the market owns a Freesync display (unless I'm way off and Freesync is way more popular than I think).

When I'm shopping for a card, I want one that can hit 60FPS minimum at the resolution I want to play at. Right now, that's 2560x1440. I don't care that Vega will look smoother than a 1080 with a Freesync display, I don't own a Freesync display and won't in the near future, just like most of the market. It's just useless information for most people trying to decide if they should wait for Vega or just go buy something from Nvidia. Show me numbers in a wide variety of games (not just Doom) and give me a reason to keep waiting.

Next display I buy will 100% have a sync feature -- its one of the very few technologies that has come out recently that actually sounds like a leap forward and isn't related to VR. People that are spending $400+ on gaming GPU's should also be looking at other important areas to improve their game play experience. Free/Gsync is one of them. It would be foolish to ignore it.

I bet a lot of people have upgraded to these monitors, otherwise they wouldn't be constantly pushing them and making new models all day. Both technologies are nearly universally lauded for being excellent and a must have for gamers these days.

 

[railven]

Anyone know what percentage of the market owns a Freesync display? I'd bet it's less than 1% overall, and probably about 10% in the market they are aiming for (high-end gaming). I think it's really weird to only show demos with Freesync when only a small percentage of the market owns a Freesync display (unless I'm way off and Freesync is way more popular than I think).

When I'm shopping for a card, I want one that can hit 60FPS minimum at the resolution I want to play at. Right now, that's 2560x1440. I don't care that Vega will look smoother than a 1080 with a Freesync display, I don't own a Freesync display and won't in the near future, just like most of the market. It's just useless information for most people trying to decide if they should wait for Vega or just go buy something from Nvidia. Show me numbers in a wide variety of games (not just Doom) and give me a reason to keep waiting.

I only got numbers for my circle of friends, and FreeSync is high among them solely because it was feature in basically any newer panel worth money since 2016. My wife, best friend, and brother in law have FreeSync panels, all three also have Nvidia GPUs. In the gaming circle I frequent, using rough estimates, I'd say 2/5 have FreeSync where two of us have GSync. The remaining 3/5 have mentioned buying a new monitor and have all been looking at FreeSync monitors. However, only a fw of them have AMD cards.

Outside of forumers, I feel like Gsync/FreeSync isn't as highly sought. [EDIT What I mean is the working combination.] Either NV/AMD don't do a good enough job marketing it or it just doesn't seem to factor for buyers as much as it does for those who have used it and speak highly of it.

If I had to guess, outside of business and such, FreeSync has a healthy user base, but I'd guess not many are actually using it.

TL;DR:
I'd wager we'd see a lot more FreeSync+NVidia users than we'd see FreeSync+AMD users.

 

[SpaceBeer]

You mean the exact same, factory-OCed card that drew 277W total system power (~=Fury Nano) in a test system with a 5960X? Yeah why don't I believe aftermarket Vega 56s will match that...

Spoiler: img

Well, official Zotac spec says it's power consumption is 250W. Also some other tests point out it consumes 80W more than FE (which is ~150 W as I know, and i7-6850K used in test consumes ~80 W during gaming acc. to this one though they put 6800K in the chart, but it is 6850)

I'm not saying Vega is as efficient as Pascal because it is not. But it looks like some people think GTX consumes no power at all while RX requires power plant for it to run. If you buy good custom GTX 1070 or 1080 it might consume 30% more power than FE and be ~10% faster. And will certainly be in 190-250 W range. So I really don't see how 190-250 W is extremely power efficient and yet 210-300 W is extremely power hungry for the same level of performance. I'm just wondering what would be acceptable TDP of RX Vega so you could say it has good power efficiency? Is it ~270 W? Does the 30 W really make the difference between good and unacceptable (and it is only 10%).

 

[swilli89]

Here is an internal benchmark pitting Vega against Fury X

 

[Arachnotronic]

The problem is two fold - architecture and process. AMD have a vastly inferior architecture fir gaming and the GF 14LPP process cannot compete with TSMC 16FF+ . The most disturbing aspect is regressing over Fiji in perf/watt and perf/ sq mm and perf/flop with respect to gaming. Vega is an unmitigated disaster 10 years after the HD2900XT.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Yeah, Vega seems like a misfire. AMD really ought to stay out of the ultra-high end and just focus on doing good "sweet spot" price cards.

 

[Insomniator]

I guess I get why they are comparing to the Fury X but.... wasn't that a super niche card? Does anyone actually own one? Wasn't it rather hot, expensive (at first), and only had 4GB of memory?

I feel like the comparisons to AMD people should be to the 390/480/580. Fury X seems like a collectors item to me, unique card to own but couldn't have sold all that much.

 

[n0x1ous]

I guess I get why they are comparing to the Fury X but.... wasn't that a super niche card? Does anyone actually own one? Wasn't it rather hot, expensive (at first), and only had 4GB of memory?

I feel like the comparisons to AMD people should be to the 390/480/580. Fury X seems like a collectors item to me, unique card to own but couldn't have sold all that much.

It occupied the same position in their stack as the liquid cooled RX Vega does and was their previous flagship so the comparison makes perfect sense. Hot? no it was liquid cooled . Expensive? yes, launched at 649 but probably should have been 599 due to being slower than 980ti. 4gb? yes that was one of its major bottlenecks

 

[caswow]

vega might be KIND OF doa in the gaming market but thats not all amd is targeting. i think ssg is big for amd and content creation and infinity fabric might be the next big thing too.

 

[SpaceBeer]

What do you mean by DOA? If someone needs a card in Vega 10 or GP104 range, he shouldn't buy any of those? What are the other options?

 

[Glo.]

Can we now get by the "it's the drivers" excuse?

Explain then why Vega is performing as it is touted by AMD? Use logical reasons, and break the architecture down, onto the low level.

There is NOTHING in the hardware that would make it perform per clock WORSE than Fiji. If its not the hardware - what is then?

I do not believe its drivers, either.

 

[Malogeek]

Here is an internal benchmark pitting Vega against Fury X

Yeah not sure why that's something to tout when you're only getting 20-30% increase from Fury X. No details there of course and we'd need to wait for full reviews but I assume this testing was with an air card that was downclocking a lot. At least I'd hope so.

 

[raghu78]

Yeah, Vega seems like a misfire. AMD really ought to stay out of the ultra-high end and just focus on doing good "sweet spot" price cards.

AMD need a post GCN architecture. That is painfully obvious. Going back to the drawing board with a clean sheet is the only way out. There are risks but thats the only option for long term survival of RTG.

 

[caswow]

What do you mean by DOA? If someone needs a card in Vega 10 or GP104 range, he shouldn't buy any of those? What are the other options?

thats why i said kind of doa.

 

[kawi6rr]

Here is an internal benchmark pitting Vega against Fury X

If those are true and it consumes less power then the Fury X and is in my price range then I'll buy one when I'm ready to purchase a new card. I look for the most performance I can get in my price range.

 

[tential]

Freesyncs cheapness is outweighed by amds time to market for a large segment of high end gamers. I imagine that segment just got larger.

If you need more than gtx 1080 performance from amd you have to wait til 2019 to get it now. Compared to Nvidia where a gtx 2060 will deliver this level of performance shortly.

 

[SpaceBeer]

Source?

 

[cfenton]

Next display I buy will 100% have a sync feature -- its one of the very few technologies that has come out recently that actually sounds like a leap forward and isn't related to VR. People that are spending $400+ on gaming GPU's should also be looking at other important areas to improve their game play experience. Free/Gsync is one of them. It would be foolish to ignore it.

I bet a lot of people have upgraded to these monitors, otherwise they wouldn't be constantly pushing them and making new models all day. Both technologies are nearly universally lauded for being excellent and a must have for gamers these days.

Oh yeah, if I were to buy a new monitor I'd get one with one of the adaptive sync technologies. But, I have a two year old Dell Ultrasharp that's great for games and work. I'm not going to buy a monitor only for gaming, and I'd never do work on a TN panel again. That leaves only the high-end adaptive sync options with better panels and those are still really expensive.

I just don't think many people buy new monitors unless there's something wrong with their old one, especially if they already have something decent. I'd rather put that extra money into buying a 1080ti instead of Vega and a Freesync monitor, if I had to spend the money.

 

[tential]

Source?

https://gaming.radeon.com/en-us/product/vega/radeon-rx-vega-64/