• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
tviceman said:
Or the problem is that Vega FE can't maintain it's max boost clock with a blower cooler and we have, yet again, disingenuous advertising by AMD on clock speeds.
Click to expand...
That's possible as well, but we don't know. As an aside, my opinion is that single fan blowers are the dumbest coolers ever invented. Dual/Triple fans or water only, please.
 
tviceman said:
It blows my mind that people's expectations were as high as 1080 TI plus to begin with. Polaris didn't come close to AMD's touted perf/w improvements, Polaris 11 is 30% slower than GP107 at the same power draw, and even updated Polaris 10 is drawing 85% more power, is 15% larger die, and needs 25% more bandwidth vs. GP106 for only a 3-5% (average) advantage.
Click to expand...
You're looking at the wrong place if your intent is to verify the performance/watt claims that AMD made with Polaris.
 
nathanddrews said:
If you are actually following this guy's disqus thread, he has stated that the core frequencies are "all over the place" and he can't keep it at 1600MHz. That suggests a problem with the FS score he posted, no matter the state of the drivers.
Click to expand...
Thats why AMD was very stupid to not give the card to professional websites. We knew that some random dude will get the card first and publish a hurry up number for what will become the best day of his life !
At least with reputable websites, you can damage control the situation with reviewer guide and direct support from AMD.
But no, all what we will remember from Vega launch is a single firestrike number with the catastrophic conclusion in the mind of average Joe: "Meh... Vega is barely matching a 1080"
But why AMD ? 🙁😕🙄
 
Glo. said:
I suggest reading about the game mode. It is designed to TEST development stage, and performance of the developed game, not to game on this GPU.
Click to expand...
That can easily be put to test by trying to run the usual benchmarks with the toggle off.
 
xpea said:
Thats why AMD was very stupid to not give the card to professional websites. We knew that some random dude will get the card first and publish a hurry up number for what will become the best day of his life !
At least with reputable websites, you can damage control the situation with reviewer guide and direct support from AMD.
But no, all what we will remember from Vega launch is a single firestrike number with the catastrophic conclusion in the mind of average Joe: "Meh... Vega is barely matching a 1080"
But why AMD ? 🙁😕🙄
Click to expand...

Who knows? I really don't get AMD. They can tout it's a prosumer card all they want, but the fact is that they, themselves, pitted it against the Titan from day 1. Therefore, I expect numbers similar to the Titan. I understand it's not quite ready, immature drivers, amateur reviewer, etc, etc. It's always the same old, same old with AMD. "Guys, you were supposed to only look at Titan's workstation numbers!" Please.

I'll hold out hope that by the time RX Vega comes out, they can get this new architecture straightened out, but after so long of a wait, this isn't looking good. AMD needed a win, not more excuses, no matter how valid they may be.
 
The best sign that the drivers are not ready is that this GPU is actually getting per clock regression in performance, compared to Fury X, even at 1.4 GHz core clock.
 
Glo. said:
The best sign that the drivers are not ready is that this GPU is actually getting per clock regression in performance, compared to Fury X, even at 1.4 GHz core clock.
Click to expand...

They have had working silicon for over six months now. Excuses are officially out of the window. Add 5-10% to this score and that is what RX Vega will be.
 
Glo. said:
I suggest reading about the game mode. It is designed to TEST development stage, and performance of the developed game, not to game on this GPU.
Click to expand...

Surely they should have called it Test Mode instead of Gaming, they can always rebrand it later on to Gaming when it's actually that (if it ever would be).
 
tviceman said:
It blows my mind that people's expectations were as high as 1080 TI plus to begin with. Polaris didn't come close to AMD's touted perf/w improvements, Polaris 11 is 30% slower than GP107 at the same power draw, and even updated Polaris 10 is drawing 85% more power, is 15% larger die, and needs 25% more bandwidth vs. GP106 for only a 3-5% (average) advantage.
Click to expand...

Thats not the point. This was AMD's first major architectural change after GCN launch in 2012. So if this fails then a post GCN architecture is needed to compete against Nvidia Volta and the 7nm next gen GPUs from Nvidia.
 
tviceman said:
They have had working silicon for over six months now. Excuses are officially out of the window. Add 5-10% to this score and that is what RX Vega will be.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to excuse. It is logic, and knowledge about the architecture.

Core clock improvement vs Fury X alone should make the GPU on par with GTX 1080 Ti.
 
raghu78 said:
Thats not the point. This was AMD's first major architectural change after GCN launch in 2012. So if this fails then a post GCN architecture is needed to compete against Nvidia Volta and the 7nm next gen GPUs from Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Its still GCN with 4x shader engines ect ect and power hungry.They needed move post GCN years ago.You know GCN is with us since fermi days...
 
Glo. said:
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12987144/fs/11047656/fs/6657103#

According to this, Vega is losing to even Fury X at 1150 MHz.

I hope that this is final proof for you guys, that drivers are not ready, for this architecture?
Click to expand...

1150mhz Fury X cannot tie a GTX 1080. Get a grip dude. First you say it's the PSU's fault (which is impossible) and now you're saying it's drivers. You literally have either no idea or no proof of anything you're saying.
 
tviceman said:
They have had working silicon for over six months now. Excuses are officially out of the window. Add 5-10% to this score and that is what RX Vega will be.
Click to expand...

Look at the guy's screenshots. They shipped the card with Crimson 17.1.1 drivers. Guess what? Those are 6 month old drivers. This thing still has bare bones game driver support or they would have had a much newer driver version included. I read that Raja said the game driver would not be released until the RX Vega launch. We need to wait until then because given the evidence everything is a huge jump to conclusions. There are parts of this architecture that require lots of per-game driver work from AMD. Namely the primitive shaders.

EDIT: Yup the guy needs to at least use the driver released yesterday.
http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/frontier?os=Windows+10+-+64
 
Last edited:
tviceman said:
1150mhz Fury X cannot tie a GTX 1080. Get a grip dude. First you say it's the PSU's fault (which is impossible) and now you're saying it's drivers. You literally have either no idea or no proof of anything you're saying.
Click to expand...
In new games, like those from 2016 and 2017, 1050 MHz Fury X is very close(within 10-15%) to GTX 1080. So I have no idea where you see no credence here.
 
nathanddrews said:
That's possible as well, but we don't know. As an aside, my opinion is that single fan blowers are the dumbest coolers ever invented. Dual/Triple fans or water only, please.
Click to expand...

To be fair to blowers, I was getting a firestrike gfx score of around 31k on my overclocked pascal titan x nearly a year ago
 
Glo. said:
In new games, like those from 2016 and 2017, 1050 MHz Fury X is very close(within 10-15%) to GTX 1080. So I have no idea where you see no credence here.
Click to expand...

Going through a benchmark suite of 21 games, 18/21 games has the 1080 ahead by 25-50%. I see 3 games where Fury X comes within 15% of a 1080, and fire strike isn't one of those 3 games. You're in denial.
 
Despoiler said:
Look at the guy's screenshots. They shipped the card with Crimson 17.1.1 drivers. Guess what? Those are 6 month old drivers. This thing still has bare bones game driver support or they would have had a much newer driver version included. I read that Raja said the game driver would not be released until the RX Vega launch. We need to wait until then because given the evidence everything is a huge jump to conclusions. There are parts of this architecture that require lots of per-game driver work from AMD. Namely the primitive shaders.
Click to expand...
AMD is providing game drivers, linked from their Radeon Pro page for the FE release. And it's version 17.6

http://support.amd.com/en-us/download/frontier?os=Windows+10+-+64

Uncontrolled release allowing ridiculous speculation on single firestrike scores on some random guys system, which is already generating "articles" on the usual clickbait site. The worst thing is people will actually make up their minds on what to buy/not to buy on this kind of stuff.
 
DeathReborn said:
Surely they should have called it Test Mode instead of Gaming, they can always rebrand it later on to Gaming when it's actually that (if it ever would be).
Click to expand...

Or at least release a statement to the effect of "Current Game mode drivers are an early beta version. Improved drivers will be released with the launch of the RX Vega lineup later this fall." and that would be suitable to stem the flood of bad news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top