Vega/Navi Rumors (Updated)

Page 168 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Krteq

Krteq

Golden Member
May 22, 2015
1,008
724
136
Bacon1 said:
I wouldn't put too much faith in those specs, like mentioned the TFLops is wrong and it says it doesn't support Freesync
Click to expand...
o_O What exactly is wrong on those TFLOPS numbers? And where is said that it doesn't support FreeSync?

//Those specs are in line with records in CompuBench DB
oe8bpf4.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bacon1
Snarf Snarf

Snarf Snarf

Senior member
Feb 19, 2015
399
327
136
HurleyBird said:
Or they had to push the clocks up as high as they could to compete with 1080Ti, wrecking their perf/watt in the process. It wouldn't be the first time.
Click to expand...

This is a professional card, I doubt that AMD clocked this thing to its ceiling to compete with a gaming card. 1600 MHz is likely well within the efficiency range of the card due to the fact that it's being cooled with a blower style cooler which we know to be less than ideal for max clocks. If it was AIO only at those clocks, then I'd be more inclined to think that was the max clock the card could hit like Fury X.
 
D

Dygaza

Member
Oct 16, 2015
176
34
101
For pure performance, I just hope Vega cards will have atleast some overclocking capacity left. Polaris cards atleast have some room.
 
J

jrphoenix

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,295
2
81
I've been waiting on Vega for months with my crossfire 5850. So, based on the FE links should I keep waiting on,my new ryzen system or go the 1080 / 1080 ti route?
 
I

itsmydamnation

Diamond Member
Feb 6, 2011
3,055
3,862
136
LaikaSpaceCat said:
That's not more perfromance. The Titan Xp doesn't have Quadro drivers. When compared against Quadro, that Vega is slower than GP104.
Click to expand...
Not that it matters, these benchmarks are geometry setup limited, So What that says is that in geometry performance is above GeForce lines but below Quadro lines (not that far really either) unless you think AMD "IPC" regressed ~40% from hawii to vega and so did NV's from Maxwell to Pascel.
 
T

TerionX6

Junior Member
Jun 29, 2015
14
20
46
While we shouldn't be taking these results as a measure of expected real world performance, they show a 20% increase in "typical scenario" power brings a 32% increase in performance within these particular benchmarks.
I suspect it will still be a week or more before any usable leaks show us what's what though. Four programs of a similar workload are practically meaningless.
 
R

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
If those power numbers are true AMD is going to have a very difficult time. Vega needed to be more efficient than GP102 given that it uses HBM2 instead of GDDR5X. Whats even worse is that Volta with GDDR6 will bring roughly 40-50% higher perf/watt. Looks like Nvidia's domination in performance and efficiency will continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tviceman
B

Bouowmx

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,150
553
146
jrphoenix said:
I've been waiting on Vega for months with my crossfire 5850. So, based on the FE links should I keep waiting on,my new ryzen system or go the 1080 / 1080 ti route?
Click to expand...
Wait for Volta:sunglasses:

Some sites may get hands on AMD Vega Frontier Edition and release gaming results. Then, people will say wait for Vega Gaming edition (near end of July).
 
crisium

crisium

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2001
2,643
615
136
Other possibility for water using less watts with same clocks. From the Anandtech Fury X review:

"a side note, as we mentioned in our architectural breakdown, the amount of power this card draws will depend on its temperature. 408W at the wall at 65C is only 388W at the wall at 40C, as current leakage scales with GPU temperature. Ultimately the R9 Fury X will trend towards 65C, but it means that early readings can be a bit misleading."

Lower temps is lower power consumption. While that's only 20W, consider that's only 40C vs 65C. Vega blower could run at over 90C, as Hawaii was 95C IIRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T1beriu
B

Bacon1

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2016
3,430
1,018
91
crisium said:
Other possibility for water using less watts with same clocks. From the Anandtech Fury X review:

"a side note, as we mentioned in our architectural breakdown, the amount of power this card draws will depend on its temperature. 408W at the wall at 65C is only 388W at the wall at 40C, as current leakage scales with GPU temperature. Ultimately the R9 Fury X will trend towards 65C, but it means that early readings can be a bit misleading."

Lower temps is lower power consumption. While that's only 20W, consider that's only 40C vs 65C. Vega blower could run at over 90C, as Hawaii was 95C IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yeah its marked as TDP not real world watt used and obviously a WC can handle more power / heat than air blower, but still very odd to have them marked with the same clocks and specs. It just makes it look like the WC version uses 75w more power since people think TDP = Power Used and not Thermal Design Power (Max power)
 
IllogicalGlory

IllogicalGlory

Senior member
Mar 8, 2013
934
346
136
Bacon1 said:
9G7Ttmo.png


Someone made that comparison of 580 vs Vega, pretty huge boost.
Click to expand...
The chart is misleading. Vega's advantage is actually 100% lower than those numbers.

Here's a corrected version:

DiTMfN4.png


Vega may have a great advantage over the 580, we'll have to wait and see, but the raw numbers aren't really where that is to be found. It'll be under the hood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SMU_Pony, Phynaz and T1beriu
tamz_msc

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,730
136
Pixel fill-rate seems to indicate that it's a Fury X @1.4GHz. Is the new geometry pipeline not working as intended?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom