• 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 91 - 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.
Konan said:


Apparent Vega hash rates -

Some bench from vega 64 with nicehash 1.8.1.0

keccak 0.724 GH/s
DaggerHashimoto 31.275 MH/s
DaggerDecred 31.317 M/0.940G H/s
DaggerPascal 30.993 M/0.930G H/s
DaggerSia 30.718 M/0.922G H/s
Decred 2.659 GH/s
CryptoNight 800.000 H/s
Lbry 0.192 Gh/s
Pascal 1.668Gh/s
X11Gost 13.400 Mh/s

Claymore 9.8 ETH + SIA
33MH/s - 1011MH/s
Click to expand...
we could have used some perspective
but thanks, nonetheless
 
nathanddrews said:
Any word from AMD yet that Vega will have all the DRM it needs to enable 4K streaming and UHD Blu-ray?
Click to expand...

I would say no, when i contacted them about polaris being able to stream 4k netflix(playready 3 DRM) they pretty much blew it off and from how i read the response pretty much said they have no interest in adding it. I doubt thats changed for vega but who knows for sure i guess we will in a few days.
 
Rifter said:
I would say no, when i contacted them about polaris being able to stream 4k netflix(playready 3 DRM) they pretty much blew it off and from how i read the response pretty much said they have no interest in adding it. I doubt thats changed for vega but who knows for sure i guess we will in a few days.
Click to expand...
If it's not in Raven Ridge then they've officially abandoned the HTPC market. They used to be the goto with their APUs.
 
Malogeek said:
If it's not in Raven Ridge then they've officially abandoned the HTPC market. They used to be the goto with their APUs.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't think they can be competitive in the laptop space if they don't support at least the codecs and DRM that Kaby Lake currently does. With AMD trying to push FreeSync 2 (HDR, etc.), why abandon the primary sources of HDR content? I dunno, I hope they deliver us from the 4K wilderness...
 
Konan said:


Apparent Vega hash rates -

Some bench from vega 64 with nicehash 1.8.1.0

keccak 0.724 GH/s
DaggerHashimoto 31.275 MH/s
DaggerDecred 31.317 M/0.940G H/s
DaggerPascal 30.993 M/0.930G H/s
DaggerSia 30.718 M/0.922G H/s
Decred 2.659 GH/s
CryptoNight 800.000 H/s
Lbry 0.192 Gh/s
Pascal 1.668Gh/s
X11Gost 13.400 Mh/s

Claymore 9.8 ETH + SIA
33MH/s - 1011MH/s
Click to expand...

Well, that's pretty terrible. Unless that pretty much doubles, no one is going to be paying $600 for Vega strictly for mining.
 
lobz said:
we could have used some perspective
but thanks, nonetheless
Click to expand...

If those numbers are true and AMD doesn't have some secret sauce solution, Vega is mediocre at mining. It's expensive and sucks juice. For reference, my 1070s pull ~ 31mh/s while dual mining and pull ~ 110watts from the wall off a Platinum PSU. I hope for AMD's sake that they have something up their sleeves because if they don't it's game over.
 
Vega 56 I have no idea if systems being compare to are even the same, I doubt it.
Basically a bit better than reference 1070.
FS 19357, 19320
FSE 9506, 9213
FSU 4851, 4741
TS 6238, 6156
Click to expand...
compare to
ClX9Bac.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6t6avy/vega_56_3dmark_benchmark/
 
Last edited:
Slowly i'm loosing my hopes in AMD, they are just ridiculous.

@ryszu Any idea when Vega's primitive shaders are likely to be exposed via a Vulkan extension? A ball park estimate would be good to have 🙂

Rys Sommefeldt‏ @ryszu
No plans to expose them programatically today, but we do review the state of play periodically so that might change. No plans rn though
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/ryszu/status/895587041269952512
So they implement primitive shaders as a great feature, put it in every presentation, but have no plans to make it accessible? In DX12 that's not possible, but in Vulkan you could use a extension and do that. Seems more like a feature to show off to console makers as marketing for the next deals.
 
Samwell said:
Slowly i'm loosing my hopes in AMD, they are just ridiculous.


https://twitter.com/ryszu/status/895587041269952512
So they implement primitive shaders as a great feature, put it in every presentation, but have no plans to make it accessible? In DX12 that's not possible, but in Vulkan you could use a extension and do that. Seems more like a feature to show off to console makers as marketing for the next deals.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums up the situation, for AMD. And the reason why I am going Coffee Lake+Volta setup early next year.

Edit. There is continuation on this topic:

https://twitter.com/ryszu/status/896304786307469313
The driver takes care of it for you. Just render as normal.
 
Last edited:
Elixer said:
Vega 56 I have no idea if systems being compare to are even the same, I doubt it.
Basically a bit better than reference 1070.

compare to
ClX9Bac.png

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6t6avy/vega_56_3dmark_benchmark/
Click to expand...

Pretty much expected this after all the cloak and dagger of RX Vega blind testing. AMD didn't say Vega 64 is the "new king" at $499 because it will only trade blows at DX12. Vega 64 is going to be ~5-10% slower across the board than a GTX 1080, and Vega 56 will be ~5-10% faster than a GTX 1070.
 
Its not bad.GTX1070 2140/9400 manage 9700GPU points in firestrike extreme(1440p).And thats pretty much max out GTX1070.99% GTX1070 will score less.
So stock throttling vega 56 will have +- same performance as max out GTX1070.
 
Actually it is pretty confusing. Even my fellow friends from game dev community are... surprised with this information.

About drivers, we should see immediate effect of this on performance, but, typically for AMD hardware it does not appear this way. Drivers quality for GCN5?
 
PeterScott said:
That really isn't good news either, because then all these benchmarks leaks should then already be benefiting from Primitive Shader support, and they still aren't very good.
Click to expand...
AMD's own numbers don't even indicate these shaders doing any tangible difference in performance.
 
AMD cannot "value" up the performance benefits, because this will rely on situation, and complexity of the scene.

All you can do is say: "at least 50% of geometry culled will go elsewhere", but how big affect on performance it will have will rely on the complexity, and the total amount of triangles culled.
 
Glo. said:
AMD cannot "value" up the performance benefits, because this will rely on situation, and complexity of the scene.
Click to expand...
But you did, you claimed when developers will implement them Vega will be 30% faster! And now we know they are automatically driver activated, which means Vega has no hope, it's performance is not competitive enough as it is with primitive shaders! Shows what you know about things!
 
Muhammed said:
But you did, you claimed when developers will implement them Vega will be 30% faster! And now we know they are automatically driver activated, which means Vega has no hope, it's performance is not competitive enough as it is with primitive shaders! Shows what you know about things!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we can state that it's active in the FE edition, until that point, it's pointless arguing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top