# New Performance Benchmarks of AMD's Vega Frontier Edition Surface



## Raevenlord (Jun 30, 2017)

You probably took a long, hard read at our article covering a single-minded user's experience of his new Vega Frontier Edition. Now, courtesy of PCPer, and charitable soul Ekin at Linus Tech Tips, we have some more performance benchmarks of AMD's latest (non gaming specific) graphics card.

Starting with 2560x1440, let's begin with the good news: in what seems to be the best performance scenario we've seen until now, the Vega Frontier Edition stands extremely close to NVIDIA's GTX 1080 Ti video card in Fallout 4. It trails it for about 10 FPS most of the test, and even surpasses it at some points. These numbers should be taken with a grain of salt regarding the RX Vega consumer cards: performance on those models will probably be higher than the Frontier Edition's results. And for the sake of AMD, they better be, because in all other tests, the Frontier Edition somewhat disappoints. It's beaten by NVIDIA's GTX 1070 in Grand Theft Auto V, mirrors its performance in The Witcher 3, and delivers slightly higher performance than the GTX 1070 on Hitman and Dirt Rally (albeit lower than the GTX 1080.)



 

 

 

 





 

 

At 4K (3840x2160), the Vega FE trails the GTX 1080 by about 3 FPS (at 57 FPS, just shy of 60 FPS) on Dirt Rally; trails it again (this time with a 7 FPS difference) in Fallout 4, at around 42 FPS; delivers around 66% of the GTX 1080's performance on Grand Theft Auto V, and less than 50% of the GTX 1080 Ti's performance on the same game. In Hitman, the Vega FE delivers around 83% of the GTX 1080's performance (around 50 FPS versus the 1080's 60), and delivers almost the same result on The Witcher 3, barely maintaining a 30 FPS performance towards the end of the run.



 

 

 

 

 

Do note that all of these tests will apparently be re-run by PCPer, and the publication is looking to publish their results later today. Also keep in mind the Vega Frontier Edition isn't a consumer graphics card, and isn't officially meant for gaming. Instead, it's meant for professionals or prosumers who do some professional workloads as well as some gaming, and want to have the ability to test their development fruits with the same graphics card they developed with. Power draw was rated at around 280 W while gaming, with only 25 of those being taken from the PCIe slot, which seems somewhat disproportionate.

Apparently, there was some testing done on mining software as well, and performance is reported as disappointing (as in, "very low".) This probably speaks to the HBC (High Bandwidth Cache) and HBCC (high Bandwidth Cache Controller), which probably will require a lot of fine tuning from mining software (remember the GTX 1080 is generally poor in mining workloads compared to the GTX 1070 because of the higher latency of its GDDR5X memory implementation.) Perhaps these news come as a relief, however, since availability of RX Vega cards will likely be limited without miners taking up the whole supply.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 30, 2017)

Performance seems all over the place, this is probably a sign that these frontier editions either don't have the drivers ready for games or maybe its the cards themselves.  To me its a bit odd that Fallout 4 would do that because that does not seem to be the case in the past in this comparison unless there is something specific about the Vega FE the game really likes.

Who knows, unfortunately we really are not getting much of a taste of this card and that to me worries on so many levels.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

I wonder how much better RX gaming Vega will be. I know we have to keep in mind that this card is not for gaming and new drivers architecture. Anyway it keeps up in at least one title around 1080 TI which gives some clue although in all other titles if falls behind by a noticeable margin from 1080 TI. Anyway this gives some indications as if the card was able to keep up with the 1080TI in one game who knows if this wont be the case if the RX gaming Vega shows up with proper drivers. Actually i do hope so since i'm waiting to buy one  Xross my fingers for Gamin Vega high performance


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2017)

Mining software will most likely need to be optimized to take advantage of the architecture...


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Mining software will most likely need to be optimized to take advantage of the architecture...


Well i think that's the case not only for mining but sure it does need optimization.


----------



## notb (Jun 30, 2017)

Well... I've written on this forum before that new generations of gaming GPUs could be limited in mining and virtually no one believed me. 

I expect the same from the accelerated Pascal Refresh.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2017)

notb said:


> Well... I've written on this forum before that new generations of gaming GPUs could be limited in mining and virtually no one believed me.
> 
> I expect the same from the accelerated Pascal Refresh.


Why do you think that could be?


----------



## _Flare (Jun 30, 2017)

It has been told that the Card actually runs on a modified GCN4 or even Fiji Driver.
So there may be no GCN5 specific new Features enabled because the Driver lacks support.
Also there could be ECC used slowing Games down by upto 20% alone, in some cases.


With the first real GCN5 Driver the clould be a 20% uplift easy.


----------



## Divide Overflow (Jun 30, 2017)

Where are the workstation benchmarks?


----------



## os2wiz (Jun 30, 2017)

I find it amusing how ignorant people jump on the anti-RX Vega bandwagon the same way they did with Ryzen. Yes the silicon may be the same but the video bios may be considerably different. Since F.E. is not targeted as a gaming card not only are the drivers not optimized for it but the bios may shut off a significant number of registers that are not directly involved withe A.I. the actual target audience for this card. This would be to save power etc. The gaming mode on the card may not entirely resolve this issue. Then the clock speed on F.E. may be 15% lower than RX Vega. Next the state of drivers for F.E. may also incur a 15% penalty over drivers upon RX Vega release.. All told  RX Vega is likely to perform 30% to 40% better than Frontier Edition depending on how many factors I mentioned are in play.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2017)

os2wiz said:


> I find it amusing how ignorant people jump on the anti-RX Vega bandwagon the same way they did with Ryzen. Yes the silicon may be the same but the video bios may be considerably different. Since F.E. is not targeted as a gaming card not only are the drivers not optimized for it but the bios may shut off a significant number of registers that are not directly involved withe A.I. the actual target audience for this card. This would be to save power etc. The gaming mode on the card may not entirely resolve this issue. Then the clock speed on F.E. may be 15% lower than RX Vega. Next the state of drivers for F.E. may also incur a 15% penalty over drivers upon RX Vega release.. All told  RX Vega is likely to perform 30% to 40% better than Frontier Edition depending on how many factors I mentioned are in play.



Or amd could sell them with disabled cores since they are a lower market value and they actual perform worse. Another brand does that with prosumer vs consumer cards.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2017)

I find it amusing people still trying to defend a failed product launch and a bad flagship produxt.


----------



## rainzor (Jun 30, 2017)

_Flare said:


> It has been told that the Card actually runs on a modified GCN4 or even Fiji Driver.
> So there may be no GCN5 specific new Features enabled because the Driver lacks support.
> Also there could be ECC used slowing Games down by upto 20% alone, in some cases.
> 
> ...



Where did you read that? RTG dude at B3D mentioned it uses "older" driver. He didn't say anything about the features missing, he even dismissed the insinuation that the FE driver may be gimped in some way compared to RX driver. Next driver revision should be pretty telling i guess..


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2017)

rainzor said:


> Where did you read that? RTG dude at B3D mentioned it uses "older" driver. He didn't say anything about the features missing, he even dismissed the insinuation that the FE driver may be gimped in some way compared to RX driver. Next driver revision should be pretty telling i guess..



To be fair an amd product with a garbage performing driver is hardly news or unbelievable.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jun 30, 2017)

I'm wondering why is Fallout 4 an exception in these games ... I mean it's a game with DX11 shader support tacked onto aging DX9 era engine ... weird because this arch should be very DX12 friendly, and it doesn't shine in any of the DX12 titles.
What makes Vega almost twice as fast as Fury, but only in Fallout 4?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> I'm wondering why is Fallout 4 an exception in these games ... I mean it's a game with DX11 shader support tacked onto aging DX9 era engine ... weird because this arch should be very DX12 friendly, and it doesn't shine in any of the DX12 titles.
> What makes Vega almost twice as fast as Fury, but only in Fallout 4?



Maybe it can take advantage of the HBC?


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> I'm wondering why is Fallout 4 an exception in these games ... I mean it's a game with DX11 shader support tacked onto aging DX9 era engine ... weird because this arch should be very DX12 friendly, and it doesn't shine in any of the DX12 titles.
> What makes Vega almost twice as fast as Fury, but only in Fallout 4?


I think it is the game driver. it is new here and this vega is not meant for gaming. So i guess this is why. Maybe the Fallout showed the potential of the card?



cdawall said:


> Maybe it can take advantage of the HBC?


I don't think Fallout 4 is that much memory sensitive.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> I find it amusing people still trying to defend a failed product launch and a bad flagship produxt.



Launch was crappy, but lets be honest, this is a production card, not a gaming one. It's not meant to be released with all the colorful and noisy PR that we expect with gamer cards. Anyone remembers a lot of fanfare around every Quadro card release? I sure as hell don't. When was the last time anyone ran Fallout 4, Dirt, Heaven and 3DMark on them (be it FirePro or Quadro)? I honestly can't remember a single time. It doesn't matter what they say, basing whole RX Vega state on FE card is like evaluating gaming performance of GeForce cards using Quadro. Yes, they can run games, but they usually do it like shit as well.

So, people, don't be stupid. With all this excitement of finally having a first actual Vega core, people forgot they just threw all the logic out the window by testing it as a gamer card. If gaming RX Vega will be rubbish, piss on it by all means, but doing that now just makes everyone look like absolute cretins. Yes, I watched PCPer's live stream, but I still believe the same to be true.


----------



## Hood (Jun 30, 2017)

os2wiz said:


> I find it amusing how ignorant people jump on the anti-RX Vega bandwagon the same way they did with Ryzen


Some people try to improve their status on forums by spewing negative comments, as soon as any tiny problem arises with a new or upcoming product, acting as though they have "inside information", and making stuff up.  Some people are afraid of being seen as a newbie or fanboy by saying they like something, it's easier to put down everything so they seem edgy and cool (at least in their own mind).  Nothing new, I've noticed this tendency in bullies and the small-minded since I was in first grade (50 years ago), and now these same losers all have computers and can spew their hate to a much larger group of people.  This negativity is a reliable indicator that they can be safely ignored  Or, you can read their comments and take away a reinforced positive impression of the product (if this nimrod feels threatened by it, it must be a good product).


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 30, 2017)

All this, pro-sumer cards can't game nonsense. While they're orientated at pro markets, it does not somehow mean all that 'identical' hardware can't work with gaming.
I'm on mobile so posting links is too difficult for my 'on holiday's brain. But a quick Google search shows the P6000 Quadro (hothardware I think) beat the Titan X (original Pascal model) in gaming, convincingly.
Yes, far more expensive than Vega FE but the point is, it's a Quadro that games better than a Titan X.
Vega FE doesn't have an excuse unless we beat that worn track, AMD still can't write proficient drivers.  And before I'm lambasted for criticising AMD, explain the Quadro gaming performance in the context of Vega FE gaming performance.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

Did you guys notice the 2k fallout 4 is at 120FPS while the 4k is 40+ FPS. That kind of a drop is just not possible. Although it's not a gaming card but such a difference?


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> All this, pro-sumer cards can't game nonsense. While they're orientated at pro markets, it does not somehow mean all that 'identical' hardware can't work with gaming.
> I'm on mobile so posting links is too difficult for my 'on holiday's brain. But a quick Google search shows the P6000 Quadro (hothardware I think) beat the Titan X (original Pascal model) in gaming, convincingly.
> Yes, far more expensive than Vega FE but the point is, it's a Quadro that games better than a Titan X.
> Vega FE doesn't have an excuse unless we beat that worn track, AMD still can't write proficient drivers.  And before I'm lambasted for criticising AMD, explain the Quadro gaming performance in the context of Vega FE gaming performance.



Just because Quadro works well in 1 game and one benchmark, it doesn't mean it's a great gaming card. There are thousands of games out there and they don't make game profiles for cards like this. They do for GeForce. I mean, why do you think Quadro drivers are basically half the size of GeForce drivers (P6000) if the GPU is essentially the same?


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 30, 2017)

Performance is poor but this is not a gaming card.
Waiting to see the actual gaming card, with its drivers for gaming.

As much as i would like to bash stuff for horrible performance, Gaming VEGA deserve a fair chance just like any other cards.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Performance is poor but this is not a gaming card.
> Waiting to see the actual gaming card, with its drivers for gaming.
> 
> As much as i would like to bash stuff for horrible performance, Gaming VEGA deserve a fair chance just like any other cards.


I hope it does and i do believe that  waiting for the Vega gaming for so long. I'm even one click from buying a 4k display for it  tempting  Already got my pick just waiting for Vega.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

I'd rather see how Vega FE performs in professional applications like Maya, Blender and the likes... After all, even AMD themselves showcased it doing exactly that during presentation. They ran Prey basically for the lolz because everyone (gamers) expected it. And they probably only optimized drivers for that presentation for that one game. Which, surprise suprise, wasn't tested by PCPer so we can't really know.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2017)

This is disappointing. I wonder if they had to lower the IPC -compared to Fiji - to get higher frequencies. In any case I don't expect anything from drivers. Either RX Vega will be some kind of different in hardware, or it will have to be able to sustain a frequency close to 1700MHz to be highly competitive.
For now Vega looks like the GPU big companies where expecting, not like the GPU gamers where expecting.


----------



## r9 (Jun 30, 2017)

I hope is a driver issue.
Otherwise would be a major fail for AMD.


----------



## Countryside (Jun 30, 2017)

People are still having hard time understanding that this gpu is not meant for gaming.


----------



## ratirt (Jun 30, 2017)

john_ said:


> This is disappointing. I wonder if they had to lower the IPC -compared to Fiji - to get higher frequencies. In any case I don't expect anything from drivers. Either RX Vega will be some kind of different in hardware, or it will have to be able to sustain a frequency close to 1700MHz to be highly competitive.
> For now Vega looks like the GPU big companies where expecting, not like the GPU gamers where expecting.


it's totally different than fiji and It's not for gamers but it gives some information. if in fallout 4 this Vega shows the performance of 1080TI maybe Vega gaming edition will be as  fast as1080 TI or even better. Since it's not gaming card and pulls of that much FPS in one game that can be an indication of the speed of RX Vega but across all the games not just one. It would seem that Vega is capable of reaching 1080 Ti's performance.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

The chip is Fury X on steroids (imagine Fury X at 1,6 GHz) in its worst case scenarios and yet it sometimes performs even worse than old Fury X. How it doesn't click in anyone's heads that this just doesn't compute on any level in any way, makes no sense and is entirely illogical?

Old Fury X alone could be ultra competitive if they could run it at 1.6 GHz. So, seeing brand spanking new core with a lot of things further optimized and also learned from mistakes on Fury X from design perspective just doesn't make any sense for it to be still slower.


----------



## robert3892 (Jun 30, 2017)

One thing that everyone seems to have forgotten is that games haven't been optimized for the Vega platform.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Launch was crappy, but lets be honest, this is a production card, not a gaming one. It's not meant to be released with all the colorful and noisy PR that we expect with gamer cards. Anyone remembers a lot of fanfare around every Quadro card release? I sure as hell don't. When was the last time anyone ran Fallout 4, Dirt, Heaven and 3DMark on them (be it FirePro or Quadro)? I honestly can't remember a single time. It doesn't matter what they say, basing whole RX Vega state on FE card is like evaluating gaming performance of GeForce cards using Quadro. Yes, they can run games, but they usually do it like shit as well.
> 
> So, people, don't be stupid. With all this excitement of finally having a first actual Vega core, people forgot they just threw all the logic out the window by testing it as a gamer card. If gaming RX Vega will be rubbish, piss on it by all means, but doing that now just makes everyone look like absolute cretins. Yes, I watched PCPer's live stream, but I still believe the same to be true.




I am going to mark this post and come back to it after July30th. Let's see how people are going to spin after the RX Vega drops. It will be glorious.

And for people calling FineWine, better driver maturation. Here is a little comparison of how much performance Fiji has improved over its current life.

First benchmark right after I got my card, no GPU overclocking. Using launch driver from AMD
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5488050


2yrs of driver optimization, no GPU overclocking. 17.6.1 driver
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12815443

Not the perfect analysis, but basically over the span of 2yrs I got additional 5% performance increase. That might give you some glimpse of how much FineWine you may get for Vega.

Power to you if you want to buy Vega.





RejZoR said:


> The chip is Fury X on steroids (imagine Fury X at 1,6 GHz) in its worst case scenarios and yet it sometimes performs even worse than old Fury X. How it doesn't click in anyone's heads that this just doesn't compute on any level in any way, makes no sense and is entirely illogical?
> 
> Old Fury X alone could be ultra competitive if they could run it at 1.6 GHz. So, seeing brand spanking new core with a lot of things further optimized and also learned from mistakes on Fury X from design perspective just doesn't make any sense for it to be still slower.



FuryX is 4096bit
Vega is 2048bit.

So that fancy HBCC does not counter the loss of memory bandwidth.


----------



## Aenra (Jun 30, 2017)

A bit of a perspective here.

Unlike myself, my bro limits his budget on principle. Also unlike myself, he plays all those stupid, shallow, 193784645287 FPS minimum games i just... anyway, you get the picture.
He had an Ati 77xx, forget its name. He could run everything, never complained or asked for 'more'. *edit: or is it 66xx? Been a while, not certain*
He replaced it with a Fury X? X Nitro? The 4gb liquid cooled one. Has it still, plays everything, never complained.
He will replace it with the new Vega. I bet my hairy behind he will also be able to play everything and not complain.

Because why complain when you can run everything?


Just another perspective. Will leave (some of) you to your flame wars.


----------



## Frick (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> I am going to mark this post and come back to it after July30th. Let's see how people are going to spin after the RX Vega drops. It will be glorious.
> 
> And for people calling FineWine, better driver maturation. Here is a little comparison of how much performance Fiji has improved over its current life.
> 
> ...



Meh, $/performance is the only true metric. Not everyone's an overclocker.


----------



## kruk (Jun 30, 2017)

The FE Vega performance is way off and the most probable reason for that are *massive driver problems*. Tile based rasterization might not be working properly, HBCC might have issues, primitive discard acceleration is breaking, etc. The drivers might be in fallback mode, because otherwise the games are unplayable. Only AMD driver team knows what is wrong, everything else is pure speculation. If the performance of this card would not be fixable, the card would be released months ago. Why drag the launch date otherwise?

I reserve my judgment of Vega's gaming performance for the RX Vega launch (as any sane person would do) ...


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2017)

Frick said:


> Meh, $/performance is the only true metric. Not everyone's an overclocker.




AMD should position RX Vega no more than $399 to be competitive. $349 would be sweet.

They surely love their new slogan "Disruptive" so I am waiting for some disruptive pricing. I agree, if the final gaming variant comes out with a good surprise in pricing it may still sell some.


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> The chip is Fury X on steroids (imagine Fury X at 1,6 GHz) in its worst case scenarios and yet it sometimes performs even worse than old Fury X. How it doesn't click in anyone's heads that this just doesn't compute on any level in any way, makes no sense and is entirely illogical?
> 
> Old Fury X alone could be ultra competitive if they could run it at 1.6 GHz. So, seeing brand spanking new core with a lot of things further optimized and also learned from mistakes on Fury X from design perspective just doesn't make any sense for it to be still slower.


If I am not mistaken, usually when someone is trying to create/change an architecture to work at higher frequencies, it ends up lowering the IPC. Pentium 4 was slower than Pentium III but could go at much higher frequencies. AMD FX was slower than Phenom II but could work at higher frequencies. Yes, these are CPUs not GPUs, but it could be the same case here.
It wasn't making sense to me either when AMD was introducing the 8150. My reaction was the same as yours. We have seen the failure of Pentium 4. How can they come 5 years latter and create a Pentium 4? Why not enhance Thuban cores, shrink them at 32nm and come out with a real 8+ core Thuban monster at 4GHz?



ratirt said:


> it's totally different than fiji and It's not for gamers but it gives some information. if in fallout 4 this Vega shows the performance of 1080TI maybe Vega gaming edition will be as  fast as1080 TI or even better. Since it's not gaming card and pulls of that much FPS in one game that can be an indication of the speed of RX Vega but across all the games not just one. It would seem that Vega is capable of reaching 1080 Ti's performance.


That Fallout 4 score is a big hope for RX Vega, but I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Frick (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> AMD should position RX Vega no more than $399 to be competitive. $349 would be sweet.
> 
> They surely love their new slogan "Disruptive" so I am waiting for some disruptive pricing. I agree, if the final gaming variant comes out with a good surprise in pricing it may still sell some.



So they have to do a Ryzen or burn? I don't think it's _that_ bad.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2017)

Frick said:


> So they have to do a Ryzen or burn? I don't think it's _that_ bad.



How much do you think AMD should price this? Anything over current 1080 price line-up will be bad.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> How much do you think AMD should price this? Anything over current 1080 price line-up will be bad.



Depends how it works in rx form. If it competes with the 1080/1080ti it can be priced as such just like the fury


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

john_ said:


> If I am not mistaken, usually when someone is trying to create/change an architecture to work at higher frequencies, it ends up lowering the IPC. Pentium 4 was slower than Pentium III but could go at much higher frequencies. AMD FX was slower than Phenom II but could work at higher frequencies. Yes, these are CPUs not GPUs, but it could be the same case here.
> It wasn't making sense to me either when AMD was introducing the 8150. My reaction was the same as yours. We have seen the failure of Pentium 4. How can they come 5 years latter and create a Pentium 4? Why not enhance Thuban cores, shrink them at 32nm and come out with a real 8+ core Thuban monster at 4GHz?
> 
> 
> That Fallout 4 score is a big hope for RX Vega, but I am not holding my breath.



That's nonsense. You don't understand the principles or basics of chip designs. No one "lowers IPC" to gain clock. IPC and clock are entirely separate things. Clock only depends on the chip design. NVIDIA is currently using narrow but faster pipeline. AMD is using wide but slower pipeline. Because, if you want to achieve high clocks, you're required to have a lot of stages in the pipeline, making it long. And that isn't always a best thing (Pentium 4 was a huge failure because of this) because whith longer pipeline, you're gaining latency and discarding things half way through costs more, causing even higher performance penalties.

IPC on the other hand means Instructions Per Cycle (IPC). It doesn't matter whether core has 500MHz or 3GHz. One cycle is 1Hz essentially. So, IPC tells you how much work a chip can perform in 1 cycle. That's it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Depends how it works in rx form. If it competes with the 1080/1080ti it can be priced as such just like the fury




I am gonna watch more amd commercial and wait for it to happen then.    











In other news, trolling is more fun when discussing Vega with diehard AMD boys.


----------



## dwade (Jun 30, 2017)

AMD has unofficially lost the GPU war. Volta is coming and that GTX 2060 will plow the fastest Vega.


----------



## Franzen4Real (Jun 30, 2017)

In my opinion only, I think the biggest problem is the fact that they released FE months ahead of RX. If it is true that RX will increase in performance due to drivers, clocks, etc., AMD did themselves NO favors by releasing FE first. My thinking on this is, had the roles been reversed and FE came out a couple months after RX, I seriously doubt it would have cost them lost money due to the card not being on the market for those months. However, what this launch did do was provide plenty of time for forums to buzz about how bad RX is going to be due to tests on a non-gaming version of the card. With the great momentum they have currently in the CPU realm, it really could carry over to the GPU launch in a big way (and no, I do not think 'any publicity is better than no publicity' in this case)

  on a quick side note... I was under the impression that this is not a pro card (FirePro) that competes with Quaddro and it is not a main stream gaming card, but more of a prosumer (i.e. Titan) card. And if that is the case, then I don't think it's right to say this is a non-gaming card so we can forgive crappy results in game testing. I mean, wouldn't we have to say the same thing about Titan too? Except, Titan happens to also be a top end card for gaming performance. If I am wrong in this assumption, flame on....

 For a company hoping to follow the grand slam that was Ryzen, with a walk off game winner in Vega.... They should have played the cards much closer to their chest just as they did with Ryzen and dropped a bomb out of nowhere with Vega (of course, only assuming that they already know for sure that they have a real competitor). They have Intel in scramble mode, and if RX is the real deal, they could have repeated with Vega and really disrupted the status quo.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2017)

dwade said:


> AMD has unofficially lost the GPU war. Volta is coming and that GTX 2060 will plow the fastest Vega.



Volta isn't coming they are refreshing pascal


----------



## HD64G (Jun 30, 2017)

Just by seeing Vega FE matching 1070 on Witcher 3 @4K, it is a SOLID proof about poor performance due to DRIVERS! Fury X is exactly there: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/25.html

No more talk needed, just patience until RX Vega is out.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> I find it amusing people still trying to defend a failed product launch and a bad flagship produxt.


Flagship of what?  The gaming line of cards? Ha!

I'm amazed at how people are disappointed or amazed that performance is all over the place or not as great as hoped for.

THIS IS NOT YOUR GAMING VEGA. RELAX.

Rant over. Move on everyone, nothing to get disappointed or excited for on either side.  Come back when RX Vega is released.

**and no, not a fanboy for either camp. I like both, and am not in the market for anything new right now; frankly, I can play everything I want very well, and that's all anyone needs.


----------



## Hood (Jun 30, 2017)

dwade said:


> AMD has unofficially lost the GPU war. Volta is coming and that GTX 2060 will plow the fastest Vega.


That can't be right, because God looks out for fools, drunks, little children, and AMD fanboys.  So (their thinking goes), Vega will wipe the floor with the GTX 2080...because a million fanboys can't possibly be wrong...


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Volta isn't coming they are refreshing pascal



If that's true this 1080 is gonna last alot longer than i thought


----------



## KainXS (Jun 30, 2017)

PcPer's review is up
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Radeon-Vega-Frontier-Edition-16GB-Air-Cooled-Review


----------



## john_ (Jun 30, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> That's nonsense. You don't understand the principles or basics of chip designs. No one "lowers IPC" to gain clock. IPC and clock are entirely separate things. Clock only depends on the chip design. NVIDIA is currently using narrow but faster pipeline. AMD is using wide but slower pipeline. Because, if you want to achieve high clocks, you're required to have a lot of stages in the pipeline, making it long. And that isn't always a best thing (Pentium 4 was a huge failure because of this) because whith longer pipeline, you're gaining latency and discarding things half way through costs more, causing even higher performance penalties.
> 
> IPC on the other hand means Instructions Per Cycle (IPC). It doesn't matter whether core has 500MHz or 3GHz. One cycle is 1Hz essentially. So, IPC tells you how much work a chip can perform in 1 cycle. That's it.


My apologies for quoting you. My apologies for making you read nonsense. Maybe if you could combine that "lower IPC" I wrote with your info about longer pipelines, you could realize what I was thinking and correct me with a more polite post. Anyway....


----------



## efikkan (Jun 30, 2017)

Like I said just the other day, the AMD product cycle:
_"It's going to be the best thing ever"_ -> denial -> _"it's actually better, you just don't see it because of missing optimizations."_
Many of you are at phase two, but some have even progressed to phase three:


phanbuey said:


> Mining software will most likely need to be optimized to take advantage of the architecture...


There is no reason why mining should be optimized for each architecture.


----------



## Alphadark (Jun 30, 2017)

So a graphics card that is specifically designed and optimized for non-gaming tasks is being blasted for its gaming ability... 

This has to be the saltiest, most negative forum in the PC community


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Like I said just the other day, the AMD product cycle:
> _"It's going to be the best thing ever"_ -> denial -> _"it's actually better, you just don't see it because of missing optimizations."_
> Many of you are at phase two, but some have even progressed to phase three:
> 
> There is no reason why mining should be optimized for each architecture.



That's a silly statement... instruction sets and designs of hardware are constantly evolving to be faster and more efficient.  Code that uses old methods to accomplish the same thing less efficiently should absolutely be rewritten to take advantage of faster/better methods (if they are indeed faster and better).


----------



## efikkan (Jun 30, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> That's a silly statement... instruction sets and designs of hardware are constantly evolving to be faster and more efficient.  Code that uses old methods to accomplish the same thing less efficiently should absolutely be rewritten to take advantage of faster/better methods (if they are indeed faster and better).


In order for that to be true, the new archtecture would have to expose new hardware feature enabled through the API(OpenCL). Does Vega have any such features that you know of?


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 30, 2017)

What happened to the results of the Titan Xp ?

He went through all that trouble testing it before the live stream, referencing the numbers throughout the stream and just left it out ?


----------



## TheOne (Jun 30, 2017)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people defending the Titan Xp vs Vega FE news thread by claiming that this is a Prosumer card like the Titan Xp, and now people are swearing it's a Professional card like Quadro, I don't really follow the Professional or the Prosumer market so I have no idea, just thought I would mention it.

Also I find it kind of funny that this card does well in Fallout 4 when it's one of the games that Ryzen takes a hard hit in.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 30, 2017)

efikkan said:


> In order for that to be true, the new archtecture would have to expose new hardware feature enabled through the API(OpenCL). Does Vega have any such features that you know of?



That's not always true - i.e. Ryzen optimizations do not always require coding for new instruction sets, but there are architecture specific optimizations that enable applications to take better advantage of the architecture (i.e. Ryze of the Tomb Raider).  

My point was - this is a card maker that is known for making cards that perform well in compute tasks... they just came out with a brand new card geared for computing; and the current batch of computing software performs terribly on it... is it 1) that the card maker forgot how to make cards that perform compute tasks well or 2) that the software/drivers/system that is running that card immature and needs optimization?

I would bet 2.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 30, 2017)

TheOne said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people defending the Titan Xp vs Vega FE news thread by claiming that this is a Prosumer card like the Titan Xp, and now people are swearing it's a Professional card like Quadro, I don't really follow the Professional or the Prosumer market so I have no idea, just thought I would mention it.
> 
> Also I find it kind of funny that this card does well in Fallout 4 when it's one of the games that Ryzen takes a hard hit in.



AMD target it to Prosumers.  Here is what the same reviewer said.



			
				PCPerspective said:
			
		

> From a professional workload angle, the Radeon Vega Frontier Edition fares much better, splitting the line between the features, performance, and support that NVIDIA offers between its GeForce and Quadro products. By enabling those features, and in doing so giving the Vega FE the ability to battle a much higher performance GPU (otherwise) in this space, AMD is hoping to convince those creators to take notice and invest. To be clear, in most cases, the P5000 Quadro card will offer performance that exceeds Vega FE, but at double the price.
> 
> Looked at solely through the lens of a professional user that is only tangentially interested in gaming, AMD can claim the product to be a success. For $999 the Vega Frontier Edition offers high levels of performance in some of our tested workloads from SPECviewperf, LuxMark and Cinebench. Our testing obviously isn't comprehensive due to time constraints, but it is a good indicator that AMD was right to target this product and this price at that kind of user.



The results are on this page.  Seams very few read that far into an article if at all.

*PCPerspective - The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition 16GB Air Cooled Review - Professional Testing: SPECviewperf, LuxMark, Cinebench*


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 30, 2017)

john_ said:


> My apologies for quoting you. My apologies for making you read nonsense. Maybe if you could combine that "lower IPC" I wrote with your info about longer pipelines, you could realize what I was thinking and correct me with a more polite post. Anyway....



I'm sorry if you get offended so easily. I just corrected you.


----------



## efikkan (Jun 30, 2017)

TheOne said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't people defending the Titan Xp vs Vega FE news thread by claiming that this is a Prosumer card like the Titan Xp, and now people are swearing it's a Professional card like Quadro, I don't really follow the Professional or the Prosumer market so I have no idea, just thought I would mention it.
> 
> Also I find it kind of funny that this card does well in Fallout 4 when it's one of the games that Ryzen takes a hard hit in.


It doesn't matter, both Titans and Quadros works excellently in gaming, it's not like they lack any gaming oriented features. So anyone who claims that Vega FE as a prosumer card should not perform well in gaming is wrong, unless AMD intentionally neutered the card.



phanbuey said:


> That's not always true - i.e. Ryzen optimizations do not always require coding for new instruction sets, but there are architecture specific optimizations that enable applications to take better advantage of the architecture (i.e. Ryze of the Tomb Raider).


There are no substantial features in Ryzen to optimize for. But Ryzen have an inferior prefetcher, which limits its ability to feed its computational resources. If you want to optimize for Ryzen, you remove bloat and make the code more cache friendly, which will scale on all architectures.



phanbuey said:


> My point was - this is a card maker that is known for making cards that perform well in compute tasks... they just came out with a brand new card geared for computing; and the current batch of computing software performs terribly on it... is it 1) that the card maker forgot how to make cards that perform compute tasks well or 2) that the software/drivers/system that is running that card immature and needs optimization?
> 
> I would bet 2.


As mentioned, there is no reason why a professional or prosumer card should perform any worse.
All new architectures have some specific glitches to be fixed in the drivers, that's why we always see a ~5-15% improvement the first year or so. But arguing that driver maturity will make the product vastly better is nonsense, it's always about fixing a few edge-case.


----------



## Brusfantomet (Jun 30, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> FuryX is 4096bit
> Vega is 2048bit.
> 
> So that fancy HBCC does not counter the loss of memory bandwidth.



4094 bit at 500 Mhz giving 512 GB/s versus
2048 bit at 943 Mhz giving 483 GB/s

the memory bandwith is not that different from the Fury to Vega.

By your comparison my aging 290x with its 512 bit memory bus should have a higher memory bandwidth then  a titan Xp with a 384 bit bus.


----------



## semantics (Jun 30, 2017)

_Flare said:


> Also there could be ECC used slowing Games down by upto 20% alone, in some cases.
> 
> With the first real GCN5 Driver the clould be a 20% uplift easy.


ECC? I have yet to see any documentation or any site talk about how the card has ECC, i doubt the card has ECC. Which is why the card is a joke if you're a professional, the drivers aren't pro drivers the card lacks ECC. Do I want my shit to work or not?


----------



## 0x4452 (Jun 30, 2017)

> the Vega Frontier Edition stands extremely close to NVIDIA's GTX 1080 Ti video card in Fallout 4



The PCPer article shows this:


----------



## S@LEM! (Jun 30, 2017)

HD64G said:


> Just by seeing Vega FE matching 1070 on Witcher 3 @4K, it is a SOLID proof about poor performance due to DRIVERS! Fury X is exactly there: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Gaming_X_Plus_11_Gbps/25.html
> 
> No more talk needed, just patience until RX Vega is out.



that's actually a good point, something is not right here. well we will just have to wait and see, heck AMD was not joking when delaying Vega for software optimization.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 30, 2017)

Was the driver in "Gaming Mode" or "Pro Mode" for these gaming benchmarks? Seems like that might matter. But I can't find it mentioned anywhere.

EDIT: I found the answer to that question. Yes, it was in "Game Mode". Which, as it turns out, is pointless.


> *You probably didn’t have it in game mode!*
> 
> Actually, I did. And, to make matters worse for that point of view, AMD has confirmed that switching between Game Mode and Professional Mode will have no performance impact, only visual and UI elements (of the ReLive driver settings GUI *only* - not your games) will change.


https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...B-Air-Cooled-Review/Answering-Questions-you-A

Also, is "fine tuning from mining software" even a thing? That sounds a little counterintuitive. Shouldn't it be entirely dependant on the hardware how well the software runs? I mean mining software is supposed to be difficult to run right? Isn't that what gives the currency being mined its value. If you could just tweak the mining software to make it easier to run wouldn't that currency's value depreciate?


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jun 30, 2017)

Delightful, another thread full of green fanboism and speculation on something that isnt supposed to be a gaming card, even though it is supposed to be able to play games too. I seriously doubt this card/release was meant to be faster then green its a new entry into a new architecture, period. Check your expectations at the door and be real.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jul 1, 2017)

Obviously some wrong technical decisions were taken by AMD's engineers and now they have to get back to drawing board (I am certain they already are). Remember HD 2900 XT happened but so did HD 4850, 4870, 5850 & 5870. Come back is absolutely possible here but for now AMD suffers market share.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Delightful, another thread full of green fanboism and speculation on something that isnt supposed to be a gaming card, even though it is supposed to be able to play games too. I seriously doubt this card/release was meant to be faster then green its a new entry into a new architecture, period. Check your expectations at the door and be real.



It isn't unrealistic to expect a card to equal the titan Xp when released after and sharing the price point. 

I actually almost ordered one of these just because I had free money from mining. At this point in time its looking like it was a good choice for me to sit on it. Maybe the rx vega stuff will be better, but we don't know, we won't know for probably another 6 months.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 1, 2017)

There's a lot of heads in the sand here.

People are defending it by saying it's not a gaming card. So why the hell did AMD give it a gaming mode that actually has no benefit to gaming performance.
It's another example of terribly misguided AMD marketing. They could have simply said, IT IS NOT a gaming card and it won't have a gaming mode. Instead they say it's not a gaming card and they give it an absolutely pointless gaming mode.
It's another shot in their own foot. You can't defend this type of mixed message, it's just ignorant.

Edit: Ryzen owner so not a hater. I support them with my money.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 1, 2017)

cdawall said:


> It isn't unrealistic to expect a card to equal the titan Xp when released after and sharing the price point.
> 
> I actually almost ordered one of these just because I had free money from mining. At this point in time its looking like it was a good choice for me to sit on it. Maybe the rx vega stuff will be better, but we don't know, we won't know for probably another 6 months.


You may look at cards differently them most folk, but most of the thread is about gaming, not mining. I think many, not all, people are putting unrealistic expectations on this card release. AMD can only reiterate its intended purpose and its not gaming or mining.




the54thvoid said:


> There's a lot of heads in the sand here.
> 
> People are defending it by saying it's not a gaming card. So why the hell did AMD give it a gaming mode that actually has no benefit to gaming performance.
> It's another example of terribly misguided AMD marketing. They could have simply said, IT IS NOT a gaming card and it won't have a gaming mode. Instead they say it's not a gaming card and they give it an absolutely pointless gaming mode.
> ...


AMD didnt misguide anyone here, everyone just started assuming everything and anything else except what AMD had said in the beginning, that its not a gaming card release. Its a card that can game very well. 

I would like to think AMD had actual game developers in mind with this cards not so much the tech, CAD/etc. render type stuff. A card like this could make play-testing games easier to deal with QA issues and less game release date bugs. just an opinion here.


----------



## notb (Jul 1, 2017)

phanbuey said:


> Why do you think that could be?


To stop these cards being sold so quickly to mining customers.
Sure, a card sold is a card sold - it makes the same profit no matter who buys it.
But a gaming customer is so much better for the company! 

1) There's a big issue with guarantees: in some countries consumer products have a minimal length of guarantee, e.g. 2 years in most of Europe). Gaming GPUs aren't built to survive that ~17500 h of heavy load, so companies would have to increase production cost.
This could be, among other things, the reason why vendors seem to ship more high-end products lately (e.g. ASUS Strix, MSI Gaming and Gigabyte G1 are way easier to find than the lower-end models).
If GPUs are divided into 2 segments: consumer (gaming, home GPGPU) and commerial (mining), the latter one could be sold with much shorter guarantee period (the NVIDIA is rumored to offer 3 months).

2) Gaming (and GPGPU) business is pretty simply and easy to forecast. This makes investing in gaming hardware pretty straightforward and low-risk.
Developing a new GPU (or CPU for that matter) takes years. We know N millions people are gaming today, so it's very likely that N millions will game 3-5 years from now.
How many people will be mining in 2020? Will mining still exist? Which financial institution will support developing your new mining-oriented products if you might not sell it at all? 

Also, I don't think gaming crowd would like such a change of the market. We're not far from a situation when only miners (commercial users) can afford new GPUs, while gamers have to buy used parts. This would make the GPU business strangely similar to automotive one...


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> There's a lot of heads in the sand here.
> 
> People are defending it by saying it's not a gaming card. So why the hell did AMD give it a gaming mode that actually has no benefit to gaming performance.
> It's another example of terribly misguided AMD marketing. They could have simply said, IT IS NOT a gaming card and it won't have a gaming mode. Instead they say it's not a gaming card and they give it an absolutely pointless gaming mode.
> ...



Is it misguided when they tell you what it is



			
				AMD said:
			
		

> The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is designed to simplify and accelerate game creation by providing a single GPU that is optimized for every stage of this workflow, from asset production, to playtesting, to performance optimization.



People might have been expecting something else and it seams the issue is with their expectations.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 1, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> You may look at cards differently them most folk, but most of the thread is about gaming, not mining. I think many, not all, people are putting unrealistic expectations on this card release. AMD can only reiterate its intended purpose and its not gaming or mining.



Oh it had nothing to do with it's performance in mining. I would use it for gaming just like I use my pair of 1080Ti's now. Having the ability to mine as well is a bonus.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 1, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Is it misguided when they tell you what it is



I don't think you are being ignorant. I think you are bi or multi lingual, yes? It is very misguided, on a PR front to sell a non gaming card and put a gaming mode on it. That is misleading. It implies it has a mode that is created for gaming. Clearly it does not because as you like to remind me, it's not a gaming card. I know it's not a gaming card.

But it has a Gaming Mode. It's like selling a car with flight mode. Except it can't fly. Or a dog with cat mode, that can't meow. 

I ask about your lingual ability as I want to give you the benefit of understanding my point. If you want it even more clearly, it's like selling a card with Ausum mode that doesn't actually overclock.

If you still prefer to imagine I am thick as shit, then your understanding of English is rather poor.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 1, 2017)

Who cares, waiting on unannounced RX cards to be announced (Still won't be upgrading)


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> I don't think you are being ignorant. I think you are bi or multi lingual, yes? It is very misguided, on a PR front to sell a non gaming card and put a gaming mode on it. That is misleading. It implies it has a mode that is created for gaming. Clearly it does not because as you like to remind me, it's not a gaming card. I know it's not a gaming card.
> 
> But it has a Gaming Mode. It's like selling a car with flight mode. Except it can't fly. Or a dog with cat mode, that can't meow.
> 
> ...



I guess my understanding is so poor I actually understood them.

Guess i should have expected a cat/flying car when they told me in videos and in interviews leading up to the release its wasn't a cat/flying car.

I should have just kept them up to my expectations of what they should have come out with. Guess i'm off to the forums to rant about it.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jul 1, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> I guess my understanding is so poor I actually understood them.
> 
> Guess i should have expected a cat/flying car when they told me in videos and in interviews leading up to the release its wasn't a cat/flying car.
> 
> I should have just kept them up to my expectations of what they should have come out with. Guess i'm off to the forums to rant about it.



Cool. I understand everything I need to know now. I think you'll love your cat/flying car.  Never use fly mode though. Doesn't exist. Even though there's a button.

FWIW, I completely understand your POV. But you utterly ignore the futility of a Gaming Mode on a non-gaming card. I know it's aimed at 'prosumers'. I know RX Vega is the gaming version. I know the FE is hampered.  I know these things.  That's why, as a logical thinking person, it beggars belief they put a Gaming Mode on it...that does nothing for gaming performance.  Why bother?


----------



## 0x4452 (Jul 1, 2017)

Why everyone keeps on saying this is not a gaming card?

It certainly looks and feels like one with all the brushed aluminum and glowing logo. Look at Quadro, that is how a pro card looks, dull plastic shroud. What the pro user cares is the triangle throughput, pro certifications, dedicated customer support. Not looks. All the above are the opposite with this product.

And even if it is not, so what? Quadro's can game too, they just have a bit slower clock, ~5-10% resulting in that much smaller performance. It is non-sense to say that the pro driver lacks gaming features. It is true the other way around.

And stop comparing the price of Vega FE to a Quadro. With Quadro most of what you are paying is the ability to call NVIDIA and get them to help you personally.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

Your logic is invalid when you think why trucks to deliver goods (professional tool) these days look amazing. Where in olden days they were all generic stuff without any touch of aesthetics. It's the exactly same thing here. Who says a professional product cannot look good? If you're a product designer and customers walk into your office and you have a stylish workstation case with glass side and this card inside... you get the picture. Looks do matter these days.

And saying Quadro P6000 isn't stylishly designed... Either you're blind or at lest color blind. Why else would NVIDIA bother placing chrome and green details on it? It could simply have a black or gray shroud. AMD simply opted for all metallic blue shroud and that yellow "R" cube in the corner.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Cool. I understand everything I need to know now. I think you'll love your cat/flying car.  Never use fly mode though. Doesn't exist. Even though there's a button.
> 
> FWIW, I completely understand your POV. But you utterly ignore the futility of a Gaming Mode on a non-gaming card. I know it's aimed at 'prosumers'. I know RX Vega is the gaming version. I know the FE is hampered.  I know these things.  That's why, as a logical thinking person, it beggars belief they put a Gaming Mode on it...that does nothing for gaming performance.  Why bother?



I'm not ignoring it.  I know its there, they've presented it. At the same time I'm not going to beat my chest in anger over how they want to present it and position the card. I don't have a problem with it since I didn't have a preconceived notion of how it should be presented to me.

I personally don't expect RX Vega to be much faster, 8%-15%.  Maybe just in sustained clock rates.

I'm not buying one but if you buy me that cat/flying car I will use Fly Mode and click that button as much as I want.


----------



## kruk (Jul 1, 2017)

Here is what The Source (MSI's marketing director) says:



> Vergelijk deze kaart aub niet teveel met RX Vega.



which probably means (correct me if I'm wrong): "Don't compare this card too much with RX Vega".

Thus, this discussion is just a waste of everyones time until the RX Vega comes out.


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 1, 2017)

0x4452 said:


> The PCPer article shows this:



Yeah, about Fallout 4 anomaly ... he had the wrong resolution in the settings 


> Yah, those numbers looked odd to me last night, only the 2560x1440. I re-ran them three times today, all with the lower score you see in the story today.
> 
> My guess is I had the incorrect resolution set previously.


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I'm sorry if you get offended so easily. I just corrected you.


No you didn't correct me. You just reacted abruptly because you missed the point of what I was trying to say. Maybe that never happened to you in your life. Maybe you know everything and you always express your thoughts accurately. Or maybe it is a sign of lack of manners and/or lack of education. I am sure it's the first one(know everything).



0x4452 said:


> The PCPer article shows this:


Ryan said that their original testing was wrong, probably tested in a lower resolution and didn't noticed it.


----------



## Pruny (Jul 1, 2017)

Vega should drop a memory stack and pack 6000cores
Moar cores pls


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

john_ said:


> No you didn't correct me. You just reacted abruptly because you missed the point of what I was trying to say. Maybe that never happened to you in your life. Maybe you know everything and you always express your thoughts accurately. Or maybe it is a sign of lack of manners and/or lack of education. I am sure it's the first one(know everything).
> 
> 
> Ryan said that their original testing was wrong, probably tested in a lower resolution and didn't noticed it.



You literally said they intentionally lower IPC to increase clocks. Which is complete BS. Yes, that is a correction and yes, you do get offended too easily.


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> You literally said they intentionally lower IPC to increase clocks. Which is complete BS. Yes, that is a correction and yes, you do get offended too easily.


In your own explanations about pipelines and stuff you talk about latencies and performance penalties. You can continue expressing technical superiority here, about how pipelines and stuff are not IPC, or realize that not everyone will post here like having a master in CPU designing. 
But nevermind. I see how others are blind and have invalid logic, so I guess it wasn't the first one(knowing everything).


On other news
AMD announces Capsaicin Siggraph with no word about RX Vega | VideoCardz.com

There was no reason for AMD to keep RX Vega for Siggraph, other than delay it. Siggraph is not for gaming cards. It seems that they are delaying this card because of reasons we don't know. Being the cost of HBM2, availability of HBM2, disagreements about if they should sell this card to the gaming market, drivers, problems with card's design, I don't know. But indications right now show that this card is only a big step forward for professionals and big corporations needing high performance in compute tasks, not a good enough product for gamers. And because of HBM2, AMD probably can't sell it at 1080 price levels without saying goodbye to reasonable profit margins, or without even losing money.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 1, 2017)

Why do people still keep making up excuses for this card claiming it's not meant for gaming? Unless AMD intentionally made this card worse by disabling gaming related features(which I doubt), this _is_ the rough gaming performance of Vega10. The claim that prosumer and professional cards suck in gaming is a myth, and there is no reason why they should do so if they have all the required features enabled.


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Why do people still keep making up *excuses* for this card claiming it's not meant for gaming? Unless AMD intentionally made this card worse by disabling gaming related features(which I doubt), this _is_ the rough gaming performance of Vega10. The claim that prosumer and professional cards suck in gaming is a myth, and there is no reason why they should do so if they have all the required features enabled.


At some point in time (last year?) RTG must've known what Vega could do, I bet this delay is because they can't wait to sell Navi &/or GF 7nm.
Not so sure about that, it's more of a hope, for AMD fans, sprinkled with (some) unrealistic expectations. Can't say this on behalf of everyone, but most us want RTG to be just as competitive as the CPU division as can be seen with Ryzen, if Vega falls way short of 1080Ti then it'd be a major disappointment, that's all there's to it.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Why do people still keep making up excuses for this card claiming it's not meant for gaming? Unless AMD intentionally made this card worse by disabling gaming related features(which I doubt), this _is_ the rough gaming performance of Vega10. The claim that prosumer and professional cards suck in gaming is a myth, and there is no reason why they should do so if they have all the required features enabled.


If that's so than we all can see that 2k res in Fallout 4 vega performance is like 1080 TI. So driver issue since not all game matched. Its not for gaming cause there is no gaming driver. Which means when vega gaming shows up it will be performing like 1080 TI frontier showed in fallout4 but across all games. Does this comfort you?


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2017)

ratirt said:


> If that's so than we all can see that 2k res in Fallout 4 vega performance is like 1080 TI. So driver issue since not all game matched. Its not for gaming cause there is no gaming driver. Which means when vega gaming shows up it will be performing like 1080 TI frontier showed in fallout4 but across all games. Does this comfort you?


Ryan from PCper posted new results in his article, saying that those in live where wrong, possibly wrong resolution. Vega was build for compute. High frequency probably was considered enough to offer gamers the extra performance they needed but things didn't gone as good as AMD was hopping.
That's only bad in gamer's eyes. For AMD Ryzen is a success, Threadripper cough Intel off guard, and Epyc probably would signal an epyc return to servers. Vega will also make many pros and corporations happy. But gamers will probably have to wait longer, because AMD's financial limitations can't offer two miracles in just a few months period. Hopefully consumers will buy AMD processors so that the company have enough cash for better R&D in future products, gaming GPUs included.
Patience.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

john_ said:


> In your own explanations about pipelines and stuff you talk about latencies and performance penalties. You can continue expressing technical superiority here, about how pipelines and stuff are not IPC, or realize that not everyone will post here like having a master in CPU designing.
> But nevermind. I see how others are blind and have invalid logic, so I guess it wasn't the first one(knowing everything).
> 
> 
> ...



Again, saying one has to ever intentionally lower IPC to achieve higher clocks is nonsense. It is, was and always will be. IPC is essentially how efficient shaders are at doing compute, in one cycle (1Hz). You can have a RX Vega core at 1.4 GHz and another one at 30 GHz and they'd still have exactly the same IPC.

I'm far from expert in processor architectures, but I know the basics.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 1, 2017)

ratirt said:


> If that's so than we all can see that 2k res in Fallout 4 vega performance is like 1080 TI. So driver issue since not all game matched. Its not for gaming cause there is no gaming driver. Which means when vega gaming shows up it will be performing like 1080 TI frontier showed in fallout4 but across all games. Does this comfort you?


That makes no sense, try again.


----------



## ratirt (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> That makes no sense, try again.


Nothing for you makes sense unless you say it right? 
Yeah it does make sense if you understand it. It shows how Vega handles Fallout on 2k. Isn't that an indication of performance? AMD sucks with driver deliveries would that be the case it's not as good across the games that it was tested on? Are you an enthusiast, fan, expert or a NV fanboy? Well you are not an expert that's for sure since you miss so much info, even though you try to convince people you are. enthusiast maybe  and a fan. But for sure fanboy. How about you go to NV threads and say how great it is and how happy you are to have one instead?(if you have one or you would really like to have one maybe) Cause your arguments are just lame and honestly i'm tired of this. Not sure about other people. Just go on NV posts and write there how great it is and how fast. Not here telling Vega is bad and sucks which is not even out since this is professional. Professional cards sucks for games and for you it's a myth. That's your opinion. They are not for games and that's my opinion but you can use them for games.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

john_ said:


> I think by now you have understood my point, or at least I hope so, but it is obvious that you will keep saying the same poem. So let's end it here.



So, you're calling facts, "poems". Simple example is clock increase with Intel CPU's while they also boost IPC with each iteration. By your logic, Intel would have to decrease IPC of 7700K to reach 4.5 GHz compared to Broadwell. Yet that's clearly not the case. You can generally run both at 4.5GHz. It's just that 7700K will still have the edge because it has higher IPC.

Maybe it is better that we end here indeed, because you're clearly not interested in learning anything new...


----------



## Xpect (Jul 1, 2017)

the54thvoid said:


> Cool. I understand everything I need to know now. I think you'll love your cat/flying car.  Never use fly mode though. Doesn't exist. Even though there's a button.
> 
> FWIW, I completely understand your POV. But you utterly ignore the futility of a Gaming Mode on a non-gaming card. I know it's aimed at 'prosumers'. I know RX Vega is the gaming version. I know the FE is hampered.  I know these things.  That's why, as a logical thinking person, it beggars belief they put a Gaming Mode on it...that does nothing for gaming performance.  Why bother?



Yeah, it's almost like you would build a phone with flying mode or airplane mode, that doesn't actually fly or transform into an airplane... oh, wait!

You see? It's just a button to enable more game specific options in the driver while deactivating the production specific options, so that a developer can develop a game and then see if it actually runs without the special options he set in his driver for developing said game.

And this Vega Frontier Edition is a card that sits in a bracket between current Titan and Quadro cards from Nvidia. It has no hampered DP and similar output as the current Titan (which is by Nvidia specifically called a GAMING card, not a prosumer card anymore) but it has a bit more consumer oriented driver features the Quadros lack. THIS is a prosumer card, the Titan actually isn't (anymore).


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

GeForce cards (gaming ones) also have "Optimize for Compute" setting in NV CP which has a disclaimer that can negatively impact games, especially those that use sparse textures.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 1, 2017)

Xpect said:


> And this Vega Frontier Edition is a card that sits in a bracket between current Titan and Quadro cards from Nvidia. It has no hampered DP and similar output as the current Titan (which is by Nvidia specifically called a GAMING card, not a prosumer card anymore) but it has a bit more consumer oriented driver features the Quadros lack. THIS is a prosumer card, the Titan actually isn't (anymore).


Stop right there, I'll have to correct you:
Vega FE does *not* have full fp64, 819 Gflop/s fp64. AMD is planning a Vega20 to arrive next year with higher fp64 performance to compete with Quadro.

Titans are prosumer cards. They does work well in gaming, but so does Quadros too. The purpose of Titan is to provide the ultimate performance for demanding power-users/developers which are willing to pay a little extra to get the maximum available. They are made out of cherry-pick top binned chips. Nvidia could have priced them a little lower, but they can't provide them in large quantities, as evident by them often being out of stock and Nvidia having to limit the cards per customer. As a developer, I'm super happy these exist, and I know these are used extensively in development, research/academics, etc. As for all the people complaining about their pricing and their lack of "value" once the GeForce versions come along; *These cards are not meant for you!* All the adolescents doing gaming in their mother's basement have a problem grasping that there is a professional/prosumer market out there, where getting access to better performance is easily worth it in terms of increased revenue. This is not Nvidia screwing their customers, actually the prosumers demand this!


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2017)

Rejzor.
I learned one thing from this. How to add someone in the ignore list.


----------



## Xpect (Jul 1, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> GeForce cards (gaming ones) also have "Optimize for Compute" setting in NV CP which has a disclaimer that can negatively impact games, especially those that use sparse textures.



I didn't know about that. 
Tbh, my last Geforce that actually ran (awesomely) was a 7900GS (@ GTX+ clocks and shaders). After that I once did a swap with someone, my HD4850 vs his 9800GTX. We swapped back because our cards did play up and throw errors in each others PCs. Swapping back and no signs of errors anymore.

Also at the time of the Geforce 7000, Nvidia did some shady stuff with displays, since that times my faithful old display, which does have a DVI port, would only run via DVI if connected to a Nvidia card, neither AMD nor Intel will work with DVI with that display. But the first test of the Display was via DVI on a integrated Intel Chip (on which it also doesn't work anymore). 
So, just for me it's: Nvidia screwed me over by crippling my display, I'll not buy anything from them if possible. 
Still they make awesome cards, just not with the right features for me (Freesync e.g.)



efikkan said:


> Stop right there, I'll have to correct you:
> Vega FE does *not* have full fp64, 819 Gflop/s fp64. AMD is planning a Vega20 to arrive next year with higher fp64 performance to compete with Quadro.



Okay, I didn't do my homework there, I'm sorry.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2017)

john_ said:


> Rejzor.
> I learned one thing from this. How to add someone in the ignore list.



Ignorance is bliss. Stay dumb forever.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> Stop right there, I'll have to correct you:
> Vega FE does *not* have full fp64, 819 Gflop/s fp64. AMD is planning a Vega20 to arrive next year with higher fp64 performance to compete with Quadro.
> 
> ...



Not exactly wording I would have used. VEGA FE has full fp64, which vega10 chip can offer it's not neutered like i.e. hawaii series was. But other than that I agree Vega20/navi should be the next fp64 chip for scientist that really needs higher precision. Now that chip is Firepro W9100.


----------



## okidna (Jul 1, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> GeForce cards (gaming ones) also have "Optimize for Compute" setting in NV CP which has a disclaimer that can negatively impact games, especially those that use sparse textures.



Not all GeForce cards, only Maxwell based.


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> The claim that prosumer and professional cards suck in gaming is a myth



Ah, so cards priced far above others that offer similar performance to far cheaper cards are GOOD FOR GAMING? BRB spending 5k on a card instead of buying a 1080ti to play games with it, that 'makes sense' doesn't it?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 1, 2017)

john_ said:


> Rejzor.
> I learned one thing from this. How to add someone in the ignore list.


Come on, you are better than that.  This is the real world. People will disagree and that's a wonderful thing!  It means we are all free thinkers, and actually using our brains.

We should be happy for a world in which everyone doesn't think the same and expresses a different viewpoint.  To ignore him  because you disagree is to ignore your own humanity.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 1, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Not exactly wording I would have used. VEGA FE has full fp64,


No, it does not have full fp64 performance.
If you bothered to check the link I provided, you'll see Vega FE have 819 GFlop/s fp64
Compared to Quadro GP100 with 5200 GFlop/s fp64


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 1, 2017)

I really would like to see VEGA FE clocked at 1050 with HBM overclocked to the same bandwidth as FuryX and pitch them toe to toe.
Also it seems nobody has mentioned HBM2 timing issue. One thing I learned a lot when playing with my FuryX is the HBM is affect by both timing and speed, with timing affect performance a lot more than speed.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 1, 2017)

Xzibit said:


> Is it misguided when they tell you what it is
> 
> 
> 
> *People might have been expecting something else and it seams the issue is with their expectations.*


The first time I agree with you on this thread. All these expectations from FE card is from selfish motives, the proverbial "I want ...", and it applies to those people bashing the card for not living up to their ignorant expectations.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 1, 2017)

efikkan said:


> No, it does not have full fp64 performance.
> If you bothered to check the link I provided, you'll see Vega FE have 819 GFlop/s fp64
> Compared to Quadro GP100 with 5200 GFlop/s fp64



Yeah, so? Vega10 chip has 1/16 ratio(819GFlops*16=13.1TFlops of fp32) of fp64/fp32 as is all gcns since tonga, you can't just change ratio without changing actual hw inside the gpu. So I'm not quite follow you how it does not have full fp64 performance. GP100 has full fp64 performance by ratio of 1/2 fp64/fp32, gp102 has full fp64 performance by 1/32 of fp64/fp32, R9-290x has neutered fp64 performance by 1/8 fp64/fp32 ratio while firepro w9100 has full fp64 performance by 1/2 fp64/fp32 ratio(like kepler titans with full vs 780&780ti neutered).


----------



## john_ (Jul 1, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Come on, you are better than that.  This is the real world. People will disagree and that's a wonderful thing!  It means we are all free thinkers, and actually using our brains.



Not always 
I don't have a problem with disagreement. I have a problem with people, who keep reacting like they don't understand what you are saying, which is annoying especially when they are saying almost the same thing with you, but you know, with the right technical terms, making them experts and you "forever dumb". In this case, it's not actually an indication of brain activity, but more of game of brain endurance. I didn't had time (or pop corn around) to play that game, so I deleted my last two posts and blocked him. Based on his last post, by doing so, my last chance to learn something in this world, is gone. Forever. 



> We should be happy for a world in which everyone doesn't think the same and expresses a different viewpoint.  To ignore him  because you disagree is to ignore your own humanity.


 Too much philosophy in this one.  We are in a world where everyone has a different viewpoint. And that viewpoint is the correct one. Any other viewpoint is "nonsense", "invalid", "blindness", "ignorance", "dumb". Not my words.



Oh, I almost forgot.

On topic.
AMD confirms Radeon RX Vega is launching at SIGGRAPH | VideoCardz.com


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Jul 2, 2017)

"We waited 2 years, we can wait another 29 days"

We can wait forever, it's not a good thing really.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 2, 2017)

Th3pwn3r said:


> "We waited 2 years, we can wait another 29 days"
> 
> We can wait forever, it's not a good thing really.



Waits for paper launch of cards


----------



## notb (Jul 2, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Yeah, so? Vega10 chip has 1/16 ratio(819GFlops*16=13.1TFlops of fp32) of fp64/fp32 as is all gcns since tonga, you can't just change ratio without changing actual hw inside the gpu. So I'm not quite follow you how it does not have full fp64 performance. GP100 has full fp64 performance by ratio of 1/2 fp64/fp32, gp102 has full fp64 performance by 1/32 of fp64/fp32, R9-290x has neutered fp64 performance by 1/8 fp64/fp32 ratio while firepro w9100 has full fp64 performance by 1/2 fp64/fp32 ratio(like kepler titans with full vs 780&780ti neutered).


1/2 is "full", because if a GPU had FP64 cores only, it'll have a 1/2 ratio as well (as a FP64 core can perform two FP32 operations).
As a result a 1/2 ratio is "full" and everything below is considered not optimal for FP64-intensive scenarios.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

I think AMD didn't expect people to be throwing games at a card clearly meant for professional use. Sure, it can run games, but they never intended this, which is why they released it without half of new Vega performance boosting features for games, assuming they'll gradually add stuff when it's ready for gaming version RX Vega. I mean, the fact tiling doesn't work at all is a telling thing (and this is what actually brings the significant boost and efficiency to Maxwell/Pascal). Which makes you wonder what else isn't working yet for games. Primitive Shaders (since they are suppose to be a switchable thing when possible via profiles)? HBC? The whole DX11/DX12/Vulkan stack?

For compute you don't really need any of this apart from HBC maybe for massive data sets, you just throw data to it and it'll grind it with what it has already. Games aren't that simple really. Which is why I'm still very optimistic about it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> I think AMD didn't expect people to be throwing games at a card clearly meant for professional use. Sure, it can run games, but they never intended this, which is why they released it without half of new Vega performance boosting features for games, assuming they'll gradually add stuff when it's ready for gaming version RX Vega. I mean, the fact tiling doesn't work at all is a telling thing (and this is what actually brings the significant boost and efficiency to Maxwell/Pascal). Which makes you wonder what else isn't working yet for games. Primitive Shaders (since they are suppose to be a switchable thing when possible via profiles)? HBC? The whole DX11/DX12/Vulkan stack?
> 
> For compute you don't really need any of this apart from HBC maybe for massive data sets, you just throw data to it and it'll grind it with what it has already. Games aren't that simple really. Which is why I'm still very optimistic about it.



Sure bro. Luv your optimism. Keep it up and we will discuss this again once rx vega drops.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

We will. Then we can at least spit at it justifiably and objectively.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 2, 2017)

notb said:


> Well... I've written on this forum before that new generations of gaming GPUs could be limited in mining and virtually no one believed me.
> 
> I expect the same from the accelerated Pascal Refresh.



That's silly considering mining is a general compute task.  You limit mining, you limit compute, which many games use.  Won't happen.

Also, mining isn't really a task that takes a ton of optimization.  It's generally a generic opencl kernel.



RejZoR said:


> You literally said they intentionally lower IPC to increase clocks. Which is complete BS. Yes, that is a correction and yes, you do get offended too easily.



Rej, lowering IPC increases clock ceilings via a generally less complex chip that eats less raw wattage.  I really don't see how you aren't connecting the dots here.  Less Transistors = less heat and odds that one won't clock up, in exchange for less IPC.  Please try not to throw tantrums at users using accepted principles on issues you clearly lack understanding of yourself.

I tried to word this nicely, but this is all I could manage.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 2, 2017)

jabbadap said:


> Yeah, so? Vega10 chip has 1/16 ratio(819GFlops*16=13.1TFlops of fp32) of fp64/fp32 as is all gcns since tonga, you can't just change ratio without changing actual hw inside the gpu. So I'm not quite follow you how it does not have full fp64 performance. GP100 has full fp64 performance by ratio of 1/2 fp64/fp32, gp102 has full fp64 performance by 1/32 of fp64/fp32, R9-290x has neutered fp64 performance by 1/8 fp64/fp32 ratio while firepro w9100 has full fp64 performance by 1/2 fp64/fp32 ratio(like kepler titans with full vs 780&780ti neutered).


You know very well a fully featured GPU has double fp32 performance vs. fp64, since fp64 units can be designed to calculate two fp32 operations.



RejZoR said:


> I think AMD didn't expect people to be throwing games at a card clearly meant for professional use.


Seriously? Are you still using that excuse? You have been around long enough to know there is no reason a prosumer card should perform any worse in gaming.



RejZoR said:


> Sure, it can run games, but they never intended this, which is why they released it without half of new Vega performance boosting features for games, assuming they'll gradually add stuff when it's ready for gaming version RX Vega. I mean, the fact tiling doesn't work at all is a telling thing (and this is what actually brings the significant boost and efficiency to Maxwell/Pascal).


Which specific features are you talking about?

Tiled rasterization is a hardware feature. If it's is defective in Vega FE then it will be defective in RX Vega too.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

And you think hardware features just magically operate without driver layer? Oh dear. Especially since there was info floating around about Vega's capability to switch between tiled and "classic" rendering mode. Meaning the software layer plays a huge role and is clearly not functioning as it should at the moment. Just because something is implemented in hardware, that doesn't mean it's not software/driver dependent.

Also all this "prosumer" BS, has anyone bothered actually looking at Vega FE webpage? Like 90% of the time they talk about compute and professional use and in the end they briefly mention about testing games as developer. But sure, go on with the "prosumer" nonsense. Whatever the hell that even means. Vega is Quadro class card. Quadros aren't "prosumer", they are for professional use only. Titan cards are pure gaming cards no matter what NVIDIA or anyone else says. They are for those gamers with endless wallets. That's the end of it.

Vega FE is what FirePro used to be in the past. They are just shifting the product presentation to different looks and naming schemes. Instinct will be what NVIDIA has with Tesla.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> And you think hardware features just magically operate without driver layer? Oh dear. Especially since there was info floating around about Vega's capability to switch between tiled and "classic" rendering mode. Meaning the software layer plays a huge role and is clearly not functioning as it should at the moment. Just because something is implemented in hardware, that doesn't mean it's not software/driver dependent.


Tiled rendering is enabled in hardware. The main purpose of it is to avoid memory bottlenecks and stalls, which is detected and the feature enabled in the hardware. Unless AMD has purposely disabled a central hardware feature, you have no case here.



RejZoR said:


> Also all this "prosumer" BS, has anyone bothered actually looking at Vega FE webpage? Like 90% of the time they talk about compute and professional use and in the end they briefly mention about testing games as developer. But sure, go on with the "prosumer" nonsense. Whatever the hell that even means. Vega is Quadro class card. Quadros aren't "prosumer", they are for professional use only. Titan cards are pure gaming cards no matter what NVIDIA or anyone else says. They are for those gamers with endless wallets. That's the end of it.
> 
> Vega FE is what FirePro used to be in the past. They are just shifting the product presentation to different looks and naming schemes. Instinct will be what NVIDIA has with Tesla.


Deflection is not going to help your case. Both Titan and Vega FE is intended for the same market; developers, researchers and content creators. None of them can compete with a Quadro in fp64, which is why AMD will be bringing Vega20 next year to do exactly that. Claiming Vega (FE I assume) is a Quadro class card is a lie, so is claiming that Titan is a gaming/consumer product. Please stop spewing this nonsense.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

AMD didn't DISABLE a "central" feature, they didn't ENABLE it since their drivers are clearly in a very immature state at the moment. But whatever, I have no case here apparently when being skeptical about how fully functional it is in current state.

Deflection XD Titan is a freaking gaming card. With your logic, GTX 1050 is a professional card as well then.

I'm done with Vega discussions till RX Vega is out, this shit is reaching hilarious levels of ignorance and stupidity. And it ain't from my side.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 2, 2017)

notb said:


> 1/2 is "full", because if a GPU had FP64 cores only, it'll have a 1/2 ratio as well (as a FP64 core can perform two FP32 operations).
> As a result a 1/2 ratio is "full" and everything below is considered not optimal for FP64-intensive scenarios.





efikkan said:


> You know very well a fully featured GPU has double fp32 performance vs. fp64, since fp64 units can be designed to calculate two fp32 operations.



So kepler was not fully featured by your wording. Tesla k20/k20x/k40/kepler titans/kepler quadro k6000 has 1/3 of fp64/fp32 ratio. What if amd releases hpc chip with 1/1 fp64fp32 ratio would you call it over filled or what?

EDIT: Ahh just readed your wording more precise. We just had a different PoV. Mine full was what hardware have, your full what hardware possible might have. So carry on.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> AMD didn't DISABLE a "central" feature, they didn't ENABLE it since their drivers are clearly in a very immature state at the moment. But whatever, I have no case here apparently when being skeptical about how fully functional it is in current state.


The mode switching from immediate to tiled rendering is done in hardware in real time, it actually switches back and forth due to changes in the workload. This feature is in no way _implemented_ in the driver, so if it's not "functional", then the defect is on the hardware side.



RejZoR said:


> Deflection XD Titan is a freaking gaming card. With your logic, GTX 1050 is a professional card as well then.


Both Vega FE and Titan are targeting developers, researchers and content creators. Nvidia has even stopped selling them in stores to emphasize this is not a consumer product. And to use your own argumentation, if Titan is a consumer product, then why isn't Vega FE just the same? There is nothing making Vega _more professional_ than Titan. And your whole argument that Vega FE is "intended" for professionals, well Titan is too. You simply can't have it both ways; applying one logic to one of them, and defying that logic for the other, whichever fits your agenda at the time. You need to learn how to make a logical argument for your case instead of attacking your opponents.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

So, tiling and immediate mode is done in hardware and hardware is magically suppose to know which one to use. LOL? Of course this stuff works on hardware level, do you seriously believe that I think it's done in software? The decision making which of these hardware implementations are used is however done in SOFTWARE. And clearly, AMD has massive issues with drivers at the moment. So, which part of it you don't understand now?

NVIDIA is not selling Titans in stores to have a higher margin and keep it all for themselves. C'mon, it's business 101. They don't have time to sell every GeForce by themselves, but they sure can handle sales of just 1 type of card...


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 2, 2017)

stop using "if" here. Is it disabled on the hardware level? or is it disabled on the driver level?? The drivers tell it to turn on, its not automatically on when you boot your system. 


efikkan said:


> The mode switching from immediate to tiled rendering is done in hardware in real time, it actually switches back and forth due to changes in the workload. This feature is in no way _implemented_ in the driver, *so if it's not "functional"*, then the defect is on the hardware side.
> 
> 
> Both Vega FE and Titan are targeting developers, researchers and content creators. Nvidia has even stopped selling them in stores to emphasize this is not a consumer product. And to use your own argumentation, if Titan is a consumer product, then why isn't Vega FE just the same? There is nothing making Vega _more professional_ than Titan. And your whole argument that Vega FE is "intended" for professionals, well Titan is too. You simply can't have it both ways; applying one logic to one of them, and defying that logic for the other, whichever fits your agenda at the time. You need to learn how to make a logical argument for your case instead of attacking your opponents.


the rest of this is absolutely mind boggling deduction here!


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, tiling and immediate mode is done in hardware and hardware is magically suppose to know which one to use. LOL? Of course this stuff works on hardware level, do you seriously believe that I think it's done in software? The decision making which of these hardware implementations are used is however done in SOFTWARE. And clearly, AMD has massive issues with drivers at the moment. So, which part of it you don't understand now?
> 
> NVIDIA is not selling Titans in stores to have a higher margin and keep it all for themselves. C'mon, it's business 101. They don't have time to sell every GeForce by themselves, but they sure can handle sales of just 1 type of card...



Well you could buy other pascal FEs on geforce.com store too(currently all of them are out of stock)... Ain't vega FE should use the same driver as upcoming RX Vega will use(by amd on that reddit ama)? So probably we will see performance uplift for that too at least at the time RX Vega releases.


Spoiler



The Frontier Edition was designed for a variety of use-cases like Machine Learning, real-time visualization, and game design. Can you play games on Frontier Edition? Yes, absolutely. *It supports the RX driver* and will deliver smooth 4K gaming. But because it is optimized for professional use cases (and priced accordingly), if gaming is your primary reason for buying a GPU, I’d suggest waiting just a little while longer for the lower-priced, gaming-optimized Radeon RX Vega graphics card


----------



## deu (Jul 2, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> I find it amusing people still trying to defend a failed product launch and a bad flagship produxt.



People are not defending VEGA; they are amused of ignorance of people like you. Sorry to be harsh but thats basically what it comes down to. FE is not made for gaming per say. (AMD have even said so), so anyone thinking that it performancewise will resemble the RX VEGA's price/performance is going to do a TITAN on themselves. So either you are a troll or just super badly informed. There are so many unknowns and it looks like RX vega will actually be able to perform as hoped, giving 1080Ti a run for its money (asuming they can price it right)


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 2, 2017)

Seems like tiled based rasterizer is off and fallback (intermediate rasterizer) gets activated, because tests produced same images on Vega FE as on Fiji cards.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

deu said:


> People are not defending VEGA; they are amused of ignorance of people like you. Sorry to be harsh but thats basically what it comes down to. FE is not made for gaming per say. (AMD have even said so), so anyone thinking that it performancewise will resemble the RX VEGA's price/performance is going to do a TITAN on themselves. So either you are a troll or just super badly informed. There are so many unknowns and it looks like RX vega will actually be able to perform as hoped, giving 1080Ti a run for its money (asuming they can price it right)



They think us saying "lets wait for actual RX Vega and see" is more ignorant then their baseless pissing on entire Vega lineup based off Vega FE alone. XD


----------



## deu (Jul 2, 2017)

xkm1948 said:


> How much do you think AMD should price this? Anything over current 1080 price line-up will be bad.



If it performs way better than the 1080 they will price it higher but at a better dollar/performance ratio. But wait until we have ANY actual information of performance (again you can see from the "test" that it by no means can be taken as an indicator of another card for gaming.)


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 2, 2017)

Gamernexus have their review up too:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2973-amd-vega-frontier-edition-reviewed-too-soon-to-call

Seems to confirming pcper's position of card on current driver stack: gaming performance between gtx0170 and gtx1080.


----------



## deu (Jul 2, 2017)

dwade said:


> AMD has unofficially lost the GPU war. Volta is coming and that GTX 2060 will plow the fastest Vega.



Are you by any chance employed in the white house?


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2017)

deu said:


> People are not defending VEGA; they are amused of ignorance of people like you. Sorry to be harsh but thats basically what it comes down to. FE is not made for gaming per say. (AMD have even said so), so anyone thinking that it performancewise will resemble the RX VEGA's price/performance is going to do a TITAN on themselves. So either you are a troll or just super badly informed. There are so many unknowns and it looks like RX vega will actually be able to perform as hoped, giving 1080Ti a run for its money (asuming they can price it right)



I think that "FE is not a gaming card" argument is baseless. The card does come with a gaming mode and the card is also meant for developers of games. So, how helpful is to a game developer, to create a game on FE and then while testing that game on FE, to get a completely false indication about how that game would run on an equivalent RX model? It would always look performing poorly. And why is that? Because the FE is not for gaming? It doesn't make sense to me. Also it will be a first seeing huge performance penalties on a (let's say) semi pro card. I mean from under 1080Ti on an RX, dropping to under 1080 performance on a FE, it's a ridiculously big gap. Add to that that the developer had payed 300 to 500 dollars more and it only gets worst.

AMD delayed Vega RX as much as it could. I mean, there where half a dozen events where they could introduce this card, and they chose Siggraph that has nothing to do with gaming? Obviously the choice had to do with dates. Siggraph was the last one on the list. So, it seems they are not ready yet. In my opinion, if someone was benchmarking an RX Vega TODAY, the performance of RX Vega would have been about the same as FE, if they where running at the same frequency. If RX Vega hits 1700MHz stable, then I guess we will be looking at a power hungry card that would offer at least performance somewhere between 1080 and 1080Ti. If there are some features in the cards, both RX and FE, that are not yet enabled, features that could offer higher performance, then and only then we could see a 1080 Ti competitor, and why not a 1080 Ti killer.

The market needs a 1080 Ti killer. Nvidia fans need a 1080 Ti killer, more than anyone else. Nvidia fans not having a modern Nvidia card need to go to the latest models, because we all know - or at least heard that ugly rumor - about how old Nvidia cards age badly. Nvidia fans that do have a good modern Nvidia card, also need a 1080 Ti killer, because not only Nvidia cards, but also GSync monitor prices are staying high, if not increasing. I was looking at the latest 34UC89G-B from LG. $1000. The equivalent 34UC79G with FreeSync, that was out in last September, but have almost identical specs, had a starting price of $700. We are talking about $300 difference. And considering that now sells for under $600, the difference is over $400. It's only one model but it seems that as long as AMD doesn't have hi end gaming cards, Nvidia fans needing a hi end GSync monitor, would have to pay much more for that GSync tech, compared to the past. Everyone NEEDS a 1080 Ti killer.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

Then why has Raja been saying "wait for faster RX Vega" when gaming was in question? Surely, full fat, 16GB HBM2 would be a better option for games no matter what. And yet, that's not the case. So, clearly there is some sort of difference that makes otherwise superior product inferior for gaming. But apparently bunch of randoms online know more than AMD itself about yet unreleased product. Which makes everyone barking at how poor Vega is even more hilarious...


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jul 2, 2017)

BiggieShady said:


> Seems like tiled based rasterizer is off and fallback (intermediate rasterizer) gets activated, because tests produced same images on Vega FE as on Fiji cards.



This is actually huge news, if true.


----------



## notb (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> They think us saying "lets wait for actual RX Vega and see" is more ignorant then their baseless pissing on entire Vega lineup based off Vega FE alone. XD


But why wait for "actual RX Vega"? Is this one some beta variant for testers? I used to think it's a final product with some target user group in mind.
If you call it a professional card - fine. But it's not very good at professional tasks as well - often loosing significantly to a "pure gaming" (your words!) Titan Xp.
And it uses more power, runs at higher temperature and make more noise.

Is there anything that this card does well? 
(other than being better than previous AMD offerings, so it should win hearts of die-hard AMD fans...)


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 2, 2017)

uuuaaaaaa said:


> This is actually huge news, if true.


During PcPer live stream they were running tiled rasterizer test program, I didn't watch so I unfortunately can't confirm it, but I read it in the article comments by the guy who participated in the test


----------



## efikkan (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> So, tiling and immediate mode is done in hardware and hardware is magically suppose to know which one to use. LOL? Of course this stuff works on hardware level, do you seriously believe that I think it's done in software? The decision making which of these hardware implementations are used is however done in SOFTWARE. And clearly, AMD has massive issues with drivers at the moment. So, which part of it you don't understand now?


Switching between tiling and immediate mode is done in hardware, and it can be done many times during rendering of a single frame. The driver can only tell the GPU which options it's allowed to use, not decide which instruction should be executed in which mode. And as I've told you, if tiled mode have problems(as you hinted at) then that has to be fixed in the hardware, this is outside the realm of what tweaking in a driver is able to do.

Low-level scheduling is after all not controlled by the driver. The GPU itself controls assigning the workloads to various GPU clusters, fetch data/textures, etc. The driver only sees queues of operations, while the GPU scheduler balanced the load, handles resource dependencies/hazards, etc. It is in fact kind of analogous to what your OS kernel sees in the CPU; it sends a chain of instructions, which the CPU's prefetcher decodes, executes out of order, optimizes, prefetches, guesses branches, etc. You can never do this sort of stuff in software, since this has to be completed in clock cycles, which means on a ns scale. The same is true for GPUs, it's just even more sensitive there, if they were to be tightly managed by the CPU the overhead would be huge. If something doesn't work right in the hardware, then the driver can't fix this, it can only enable/disable feature sets, and of course not in real time.



RejZoR said:


> Then why has Raja been saying "wait for faster RX Vega" when gaming was in question? Surely, full fat, 16GB HBM2 would be a better option for games no matter what.


It's called PR bullshit, and everyone does it. The only thing which will happen between now and RX Vega is minor driver tweaks, and of course AMD trying to get a couple of game developers to "optimize" for their hardware so they can claim it shows the _"true potential"_.



john_ said:


> I think that "FE is not a gaming card" argument is baseless. The card does come with a gaming mode and the card is also meant for developers of games. So, how helpful is to a game developer, to create a game on FE and then while testing that game on FE, to get a completely false indication about how that game would run on an equivalent RX model?


Exactly, Vega FE would be useless for development if it performed vastly different from consumer cards.



john_ said:


> If RX Vega hits 1700MHz stable, then I guess we will be looking at a power hungry card that would offer at least performance somewhere between 1080 and 1080Ti. If there are some features in the cards, both RX and FE, that are not yet enabled, features that could offer higher performance, then and only then we could see a 1080 Ti competitor, and why not a 1080 Ti killer. The market needs a 1080 Ti killer…


Yes, and considering Volta will arrive next year and Navi will arrive roughly a year after that, AMD needs to at least compete well with the upcoming GV104 to even be relevant.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

notb said:


> But why wait for "actual RX Vega"? Is this one some beta variant for testers? I used to think it's a final product with some target user group in mind.
> If you call it a professional card - fine. But it's not very good at professional tasks as well - often loosing significantly to a "pure gaming" (your words!) Titan Xp.
> And it uses more power, runs at higher temperature and make more noise.
> 
> ...



This is VEGA FE. It doesn't have RX in front like the GAMING one will. But whatever, right?

I've never seen such abundant ignorance when NVIDIA had anything delayed or released in different than usual manner. But for Vega, everyone is freaking out with such illogical BS it's making my head hurt real badly.


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Jul 2, 2017)

cdawall said:


> Waits for paper launch of cards



We waited 2 years to wait 29 days to be told to wait some more. And I say "we waited" after I bought a 1080. I will buy a Vega card if it turns out to put up the numbers, if not, no big deal 1080tis will be a bit cheaper by then. Hell, a 1080 can probably be had for sub $500 already, I got mine for $520ish.


----------



## Th3pwn3r (Jul 2, 2017)

deu said:


> People are not defending VEGA; they are amused of ignorance of people like you. Sorry to be harsh but thats basically what it comes down to. FE is not made for gaming per say. (AMD have even said so), so anyone thinking that it performancewise will resemble the RX VEGA's price/performance is going to do a TITAN on themselves. So either you are a troll or just super badly informed. There are so many unknowns and it looks like RX vega will actually be able to perform as hoped, giving 1080Ti a run for its money (asuming they can price it right)





deu said:


> If it performs way better than the 1080 they will price it higher but at a better dollar/performance ratio. But wait until we have ANY actual information of performance (again you can see from the "test" that it by no means can be taken as an indicator of another card for gaming.)



Holy smokes, you guys make too much sense, use too much logic and your lack of jumping to conclusions should get you banned from this thread


----------



## notb (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> This is VEGA FE. It doesn't have RX in front like the GAMING one will. But whatever, right?


OK, you've said its a professional card, not a gaming one. I actually agree.
Once again: what is this card good at? Why would anyone choose it over a Titan Xp?

From pro.radeon.com/en-us/product/radeon-vega-frontier-edition/
"The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is designed to simplify and accelerate game creation by providing a single GPU that is optimized for every stage of this workflow, from asset production, to playtesting, to performance optimization."

So I'm not really into game development or even hardcore gaming, but wouldn't it make sense for game-development GPU to perform similarly to the best gaming one from same generation? Especially if it's meant to be used for "playtesting" and "performance optimization".

Also, after going through the Vega description, I have to point something out.
I've been following PC stuff development for quite a while now (possibly longer than many TPU forum users live) and I don't think I've ever seen such a marketing BS. :-/
"
*Be first. Be the Pioneer.*
*The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition Story*
Who are the pioneers? They are the ones who have cured diseases and strengthened our bodies. They work to heal our planet and explore new ones. They work to undo mankind’s mistakes and protect the next generation from making them again. Harnessing science to fuel creativity, and employing creativity to drive science. They pursue an unerring, unwavering path towards their goals. There are no barriers, no compromises. They are people who see boundaries as starting lines, and who risk everything in pursuit of innovation. They are the early adopters, the people whose passion is to pursue what is new and different. Their achievements won’t be measured in days, weeks or even years. They’ll be measured in centuries.
"


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 2, 2017)

It's good at things that you'd otherwise need a $3000+ Quadro...


----------



## deu (Jul 2, 2017)

Th3pwn3r said:


> Holy smokes, you guys make too much sense, use too much logic and your lack of jumping to conclusions should get you banned from this thread



Thanks! Someone have to try!


----------



## deu (Jul 2, 2017)

john_ said:


> I think that "FE is not a gaming card" argument is baseless. The card does come with a gaming mode and the card is also meant for developers of games. So, how helpful is to a game developer, to create a game on FE and then while testing that game on FE, to get a completely false indication about how that game would run on an equivalent RX model? It would always look performing poorly. And why is that? Because the FE is not for gaming? It doesn't make sense to me. Also it will be a first seeing huge performance penalties on a (let's say) semi pro card. I mean from under 1080Ti on an RX, dropping to under 1080 performance on a FE, it's a ridiculously big gap. Add to that that the developer had payed 300 to 500 dollars more and it only gets worst.
> 
> AMD delayed Vega RX as much as it could. I mean, there where half a dozen events where they could introduce this card, and they chose Siggraph that has nothing to do with gaming? Obviously the choice had to do with dates. Siggraph was the last one on the list. So, it seems they are not ready yet. In my opinion, if someone was benchmarking an RX Vega TODAY, the performance of RX Vega would have been about the same as FE, if they where running at the same frequency. If RX Vega hits 1700MHz stable, then I guess we will be looking at a power hungry card that would offer at least performance somewhere between 1080 and 1080Ti. If there are some features in the cards, both RX and FE, that are not yet enabled, features that could offer higher performance, then and only then we could see a 1080 Ti competitor, and why not a 1080 Ti killer.
> 
> The market needs a 1080 Ti killer. Nvidia fans need a 1080 Ti killer, more than anyone else. Nvidia fans not having a modern Nvidia card need to go to the latest models, because we all know - or at least heard that ugly rumor - about how old Nvidia cards age badly. Nvidia fans that do have a good modern Nvidia card, also need a 1080 Ti killer, because not only Nvidia cards, but also GSync monitor prices are staying high, if not increasing. I was looking at the latest 34UC89G-B from LG. $1000. The equivalent 34UC79G with FreeSync, that was out in last September, but have almost identical specs, had a starting price of $700. We are talking about $300 difference. And considering that now sells for under $600, the difference is over $400. It's only one model but it seems that as long as AMD doesn't have hi end gaming cards, Nvidia fans needing a hi end GSync monitor, would have to pay much more for that GSync tech, compared to the past. Everyone NEEDS a 1080 Ti killer.



1. Raja said loud and clear: the GPU is NOT FOR GAMING. Gamers should wait for RX VEGA. Is there any information that proves anything other than the two card will not be the 100% same card as alot of people i this thread already treats them?
2. Assuming that a contencreator using etc. maya performance is will get preportional performance ingame is like saying that render perf should be equal to gaming performance. (Im pretty sure that you agree that that is not the case)
3. It may be possible that the RX Vega is 1:1 with the FE (but we dont know), so presenting that as a fact (as alot of people do), based off of their possitive/negativeness towards AMD is not a solid argument for the performance. There is so many unknowns that people are ignoring (again guessing based off of their own "knowledge".
4. We can all agree that a 1080Ti killer would be nice but I would argue that that is not what VEGA is. VEGA is a solid step into a WAY longer strategy using HBM2 new chip design new (almost everything) What we need is a card that can perform like a 1080+ but at a competive price. Right now I run all games on my 1440p monitor with a 1070 (and it will be enough for 95% of the gamers out there). The problem is that not 95% wanna spent that much money on a 1070+ card let alone a 1440 144 hz monitor so they are the 95% under it. THATS what AMD is targeting. with 460/470/480 they made a huge push to Nvidia's pricing, with VEGA they should hopefully force Nvidia to do the same again, but Nvidia can push out binned 1080Ti-chips out and with a few improvements win the crown, but the crown is the 1% the rest is where the money is. A RX VEGA will push a 1440p in current games to the needs IMO. The 4K monitors with either gsync/freesync is still a 95%+ thing (ALOT of people are still sitting on a 1080 60 hz screen.) Would I like RX VEGA to beat 1080Ti? sure but its not what its for. Its for reclaiming market and pushing new technology; kinda like Ryzen is; it doesnt win the "gamingcrown" but still it is selling like butter to almost every regment due to price performance.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Jul 2, 2017)

john_ said:


> I think that "FE is not a gaming card" argument is baseless.


You missed the fact that AMD said it wasnt a gaming card. Most of your arguments are as delusional as this statement.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 2, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> You missed the fact that AMD said it wasnt a gaming card. Most of your arguments are as delusional as this statement.


No, you missed the part that AMD said it was the ultimate gaming card:


> The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is designed to simplify and accelerate game creation by providing a single GPU that is optimized for every stage of this workflow, from asset production, to playtesting, to performance optimization.


And we're just going to continue knocking down your BS with AMD's own words.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 2, 2017)

efikkan said:


> No, you missed the part that AMD said it was the ultimate gaming card:
> 
> And we're just going to continue knocking down your BS with AMD's own words.


You're talking shit quite frankly, they and I'm quoting your quote said... "The Radeon™ Vega Frontier Edition graphics card is designed to simplify and accelerate game creation by providing a single GPU that is optimized for every stage of this workflow" where in there does it say it's the ultimate gaming card, where in there does it say it has to beat the GTX 1080/ti? basically say's it will enable dev's to create and test content creation with one solution, is it really that hard to comprehend?

Your trolling and assuming that Vega FE will be representative of RX Vega in gaming is either plain ignorance or fanboyism/AMD hatred or a mixture of both. Do you not think that AMD know's exactly how FE and RX will perform compared to each other yet still decided to release the FE knowing it's gaming performance is lacking, hang on scratch that, why would they develop Vega at all for 2+ years and $$$$$'s of R+D costs knowing that based on FE gaming results it's no better than Fury X, heck even if they tweaked polaris with higher clocks/TDP it would be on the same level, so why didn't they just do that? Not too mention you don't even know RX Vega release specs/clocks etc but hey why let facts or reasoning get in the way of a good ol' fashioned fanboy witchhunt


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2017)

deu said:


> 1. Raja said loud and clear: the GPU is NOT FOR GAMING. Gamers should wait for RX VEGA. Is there any information that proves anything other than the two card will not be the 100% same card as alot of people i this thread already treats them?
> 2. Assuming that a contencreator using etc. maya performance is will get preportional performance ingame is like saying that render perf should be equal to gaming performance. (Im pretty sure that you agree that that is not the case)
> 3. It may be possible that the RX Vega is 1:1 with the FE (but we dont know), so presenting that as a fact (as alot of people do), based off of their possitive/negativeness towards AMD is not a solid argument for the performance. There is so many unknowns that people are ignoring (again guessing based off of their own "knowledge".
> 4. We can all agree that a 1080Ti killer would be nice but I would argue that that is not what VEGA is. VEGA is a solid step into a WAY longer strategy using HBM2 new chip design new (almost everything) What we need is a card that can perform like a 1080+ but at a competive price. Right now I run all games on my 1440p monitor with a 1070 (and it will be enough for 95% of the gamers out there). The problem is that not 95% wanna spent that much money on a 1070+ card let alone a 1440 144 hz monitor so they are the 95% under it. THATS what AMD is targeting. with 460/470/480 they made a huge push to Nvidia's pricing, with VEGA they should hopefully force Nvidia to do the same again, but Nvidia can push out binned 1080Ti-chips out and with a few improvements win the crown, but the crown is the 1% the rest is where the money is. A RX VEGA will push a 1440p in current games to the needs IMO. The 4K monitors with either gsync/freesync is still a 95%+ thing (ALOT of people are still sitting on a 1080 60 hz screen.) Would I like RX VEGA to beat 1080Ti? sure but its not what its for. Its for reclaiming market and pushing new technology; kinda like Ryzen is; it doesnt win the "gamingcrown" but still it is selling like butter to almost every regment due to price performance.



1. Well, Raja is NOT Huang. Huang would say "You know, we have an ultra expensive card called Titan which is also good for games. We are going to release a Ti card in 3 months that would perform the same in games for $300 less, but be a nice fanboy and go and buy out Titan card because we love your money and extremely high profit margins". Raja on the other hand says "Don't bother with FE. RX is just around the corner. It will be cheaper, probably clocked higher and the gaming card you are looking for. No reason to go and spent $300-$500 more".
Raja saying that the FE card is not for gaming, doesn't mean that FE is bad in gaming. Just that there is no reason to go and pay for extra pro features in drivers, that are useless in games. He is just more honest.

Also, no one says that those two cards will be 100% identical. RX will have probably higher frequencies and maybe better cooling solution. I wouldn't be surprised if the RX is at the same level of performance, or a little better if clocked higher, compared to the liquid version of FE. Now, if AMD manages also to enable some features that are now disabled in the next days, features that increase performance in games, those features will become available to the FE card also, improving it's performance in games. You'll see that, if it happens.

2. I am not sure what you try to say here, but no one is judging a card's gaming performance based on the performance it has in pro applications. Also no one comes to conclusions about gaming performance, based on the performance in pro applications. So your example here is wrong. No one cambares oranges with apples.

3. If you don't like an assumption, that doesn't mean that people who believe that this assumption is closer to the truth, are negative to AMD. I would not point you to my system specs(3 AMD PCs) to see if I am positive or negative towards AMD, I would just suggest to you to look my older posts. Believe me. You are not a bigger AMD fan than me.

4. I was always saying that Vega was meant to fight 1080 and beat it. But Vega was delayed and every time Nvidia was coming out wth a new high end GPU, people where assuming that Vega will go against that new GPU. Not AMD's fault. On the other hand AMD enjoyed this speculation and never came out to clarify which card from the competition was it's target.
As for the rest you write, I will only say one thing. Having the fastest cards, helps to sell many mid/low end cards, even when the competition is offering better models.



DeathtoGnomes said:


> You missed the fact that AMD said it wasnt a gaming card. Most of your arguments are as delusional as this statement.


No it's not a gaming card, it's just a card that offers a gaming mode and also is targeting developers of games. How could I misunderstood that?
Thank you for your wisdom.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 2, 2017)

efikkan said:


> No, you missed the part that AMD said it was the ultimate gaming card:
> 
> And we're just going to continue knocking down your BS with AMD's own words.


Actually, look more closely at what they said. You are putting words in AMD's mouth. They basically said that devs can use this card from development thru testing without having  to switch out cards when testing.


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, look more closely at what they said. You are putting words in AMD's mouth. They basically said that devs can use this card from development thru testing without having  to switch out cards when testing.


They do say that the card is "optimized for *every* stage of this workflow". If the card had inferior performance in final game testing, then that statement is misleading.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 2, 2017)

john_ said:


> They do say that the card is "optimized for *every* stage of this workflow". If the card had inferior performance in final game testing, then that statement is misleading.


Not really. They don't have to have the blistering performance that we as consumers demand in order to optimize a game.

The real problem here are the sheer number of people who never read these professional card descriptions are suddenly doing so, and trying to apply their views onto something that is foreign to them.

As an example, I've played plenty of mods in different games in which the creator had a low level GPU. Does that mean I cannot crank up awesome details on what he or she produced? Nope. He provides that capability and only needs to test that is works as intended, not see it at the same level as I can.


----------



## semantics (Jul 2, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It's good at things that you'd otherwise need a $3000+ Quadro...


Yeah but for 3000 dollars I get full support, ECC and drivers that are actually reliable and known hardware support from 3rd party software. That may not matter to some homegamer but to a  corporation it sure the hell does. Dress it up however you want the card is a dud as it essentially has no market outside of fanboys or miners who at this point will take anything that works for them, although maybe not with the watts this beast draws.


----------



## john_ (Jul 2, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not really. They don't have to have the blistering performance that we as consumers demand in order to optimize a game.
> 
> The real problem here are the sheer number of people who never read these professional card descriptions are suddenly doing so, and trying to apply their views onto something that is foreign.


The problem here is not about having or not blistering performance. The problem here is that people insist that FE is inferior in gaming. And if I understood correctly, they don't talk about lower frequencies. It's just inferior, because it's not a gaming card. As simple as that. It is build to be inferior. OK, that would be great news for the RX card. But that doesn't go well with "optimized for every stage of this workflow". It can't be optimized in every stage and at the same time build to be inferior in one at least stage of that workflow.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 3, 2017)

john_ said:


> But that doesn't go well with "optimized for every stage of this workflow". It can't be optimized in every stage and at the same time build to be inferior in one at least stage of that workflow.


Sure it does. Optimized to be a "do everything at every stage" does not mean it has to be better than any gaming card.  Are you really under the impression that game devs are making games on GPU beasts that would blow all our GPU's out of the water?

No, they just make the program and make sure it works as intended as they go along with enough detail for them to see their work.  The tests of their implementation of the game engine comes later with gaming cards.


----------



## notb (Jul 3, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> It's good at things that you'd otherwise need a $3000+ Quadro...



Like what? In the few tests we've seen Vega FE lost to a Titan Xp ($1200). The cards are in fact very similar and the gap in performance and efficiency is just what you expect when looking at RX580 vs GTX1080.
Other than performance, it doesn't have any of Quadro bonuses - an existing pro support for example.

And BTW: is AMD planning a Vega-based Radeon Pro? What about the FirePro line?
Will there be a competitor to GP100 (i.e. high FP64)?


DeathtoGnomes said:


> You missed the fact that AMD said it wasnt a gaming card. Most of your arguments are as delusional as this statement.


Maybe AMD said it wasn't a gaming card, because it doesn't perform well in games? Sadly, it's also not good at anything else. It's just "some card".
And some here are even praising AMD officials for openly saying that this card is awful and they should wait for RX. Just how twisted is that? 

AMD lineup becomes a mess. They had gaming cards and pro cards. It all worked. The cards even used to be pretty good few years back.
Now they released a new segment, which is so confusing that even they got lost (just check their websites).

So when you compare Vega FE to similar cards based on Pascal, Pascal wins.

But you can't compare, because Vega is different. It's so different that it sits alone in it's cave of misunderstood and overlooked greatness. They should borrow competitor's naming convention and call it AMD Copernicus. Of course other than the fact that Copernicus did something forever important and this is just a card.
If NVIDIA chooses to join the race and make a Pascal-based "pro Titan" (which - looking at the Vega benchmarks - would only need a rebranding) we'll finally be able to officially call Vega s..t.



rtwjunkie said:


> No, they just make the program and make sure it works as intended as they go along with enough detail for them to see their work.  The tests of their implementation of the game engine comes later with gaming cards.


And until now they were using normal gaming GPUs. Why do we need a "pro" card for game development? What does this card offer over 1080?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 3, 2017)

notb said:


> And until now they were using normal gaming GPUs. Why do we need a "pro" card for game development? What does this card offer over 1080?



By spec more compute performance


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 3, 2017)

notb said:


> And until now they were using normal gaming GPUs. Why do we need a "pro" card for game development? What does this card offer over 1080?



Now THAT is the best question asked in this thread!  I have no answer, other than it appears AMD is trying to create that role. If you get an answer, I would love to know. 

Of course, it could be that your premise is flawed, and that a number of game devs are not using gaming cards, but some form of pro card.


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 3, 2017)

AMD isn't going to let Vega FE's gaming performance be as good as RX Vega. Not after telling everyone time and time again that's not what we should be expecting from Vega FE. So how would they make sure that's actually going to be the case? Given that Vega FE hardware-wise is almost exactly the same as RX Vega is going to be. Except for RX Vega having 8GB less HBM2. There's only one logical conclusion to make as to what they've done. They disabled some feature(s) in the drivers. Namely the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer. Which, I don't care what efikkan has to say on the matter, is driver/software controlled. Rasterization is not entirely a function of hardware. In this case the driver can tell the GPU what type of rasterizer to use or not use. DBSR or not DBSR. And it's been shown, by PCPer with trianglebin tool, that DBSR or tile-based rasterization is not currently working with Vega FE.










So why has AMD done this with the drivers for Vega FE? Because it has little to no impact on non-gaming performance or professional workloads. It just, intentionally, gimps Vega FE for gaming purposes. And they really do NOT want Vega FE to appeal to gamers(not that it would at the $1000+ price point anyway). They need gamers to buy up the RX Vega when it's released. By that time the drivers will suddenly be "fixed". DBSR will work with FE and RX. FE owners will get a nice gaming performance boost as a result. But in comparison to how well RX is going to perform it will still not justify having bought an FE for gaming. So there, hopefully, won't be any pissed off gamers wishing they'd saved their money for later and bought the much cheaper and better for gaming RX, instead of the FE. Because they were repeatedly warned ahead of time not to buy the FE for gaming. And shown very convincing benchmarks proving they shouldn't. If they did it anyway, then that's their own dumbass fault and they have nobody to blame but themselves. And that's why AMD is doing this. To keep gamers, and Vega owners in general(FE and RX), happy. Plain and simple. Because Vega FE will never game like the RX Vega will. They know already that. And they're doing their best to keep gamers from making a bad decision by purchasing the Vega FE for gaming. And, all the while, still letting "prosumers" have a generous piece of the Vega gaming pie too. And they will be praised for doing so when all is said and done. And not talked shit about for not doing so. Because they did. It was the smart thing to do. It was the right thing to do. And in the end = happy gamers, happy Vega owners all around(FE and RX), happy AMD. Everyone's happy.

Sounds stupid to you? Well it's a good thing I'm not asking you then isn't it. I'm telling you this is the way it is. If you don't believe it I don't really care. Time, and only time, will tell if what I've said here is true or isn't.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 3, 2017)

notb said:


> Maybe AMD said it wasn't a gaming card, because it doesn't perform well in games? Sadly, it's also not good at anything else. It's just "some card".


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jul 3, 2017)

i thought at first that this card is built to fill Machine Learning/Deep Learning "gap" solution from AMD and not for gaming. I am so tempted to get this card to build deep learning server but now I am so lost and confused after reading many comments here. lol


----------



## john_ (Jul 3, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> Sure it does. Optimized to be a "do everything at every stage" does not mean it has to be better than any gaming card.  Are you really under the impression that game devs are making games on GPU beasts that would blow all our GPU's out of the water?
> 
> No, they just make the program and make sure it works as intended as they go along with enough detail for them to see their work.  The tests of their implementation of the game engine comes later with gaming cards.


Who says about better? I am only saying "not much worst", compared to a gaming card with the same number of stream processors, using the same architecture, having the same word, "Vega", in it's name. And who said that you need a GPU beast to program? In that first paragraph you really implying things that where never been said, to make my point of view to look biased.
As for the second paragraph, thats the idea behind FE. Not to have to use a gaming card to see how the game engine REALLY performs. Let me be more specific here. How it really performs under a gaming card with the same specs, using the same architecture, with only frequencies probably being different.


SIGSEGV said:


> i thought at first that this card is built to fill Machine Learning/Deep Learning "gap" solution from AMD and not for gaming. I am so tempted to get this card to build deep learning server but now I am so lost and confused after reading many comments here. lol


You need Instinct for this kind of jobs. 
Radeon Instinct™ MI Series


----------



## BiggieShady (Jul 3, 2017)

> The draw-stream binning rasterizer won't always be the rasterization approach that a Vega GPU will use. Instead, it's meant to complement the existing approaches possible on today's Radeons. AMD says that the DSBR is "highly dynamic and state-based," and that the feature is just another path through the hardware that can be used to improve rendering performance.


It's obvious that driver has to have dynamic DSBR control enabled. What I wouldn't like to see is games having DSBR disabled all together in the driver game profile, because it crashes the game, or frequent switching between modes.


----------



## Fx (Jul 3, 2017)

Hood said:


> Some people try to improve their status on forums by spewing negative comments, as soon as any tiny problem arises with a new or upcoming product, acting as though they have "inside information", and making stuff up.  Some people are afraid of being seen as a newbie or fanboy by saying they like something, it's easier to put down everything so they seem edgy and cool (at least in their own mind).  Nothing new, I've noticed this tendency in bullies and the small-minded since I was in first grade (50 years ago), and now these same losers all have computers and can spew their hate to a much larger group of people.  This negativity is a reliable indicator that they can be safely ignored  Or, you can read their comments and take away a reinforced positive impression of the product (if this nimrod feels threatened by it, it must be a good product).



LOL. Sad, but true. People do tend to spew what they believe their peers want to hear rather than adding new lines of thought to a debate.

I still maintain my stance of wait until the *consumer* cards have arrived and get benchmarked.


----------



## Nergal (Jul 3, 2017)

Well, this sounds.....PROMISING!!!!

I vividly recall that the "realistic" guess was that it(the actual gaming card with drivers some months old) would preform between 1070 and 180 speed.

I see now that the FE with like alpha drivers is achieving those values already.

So add the extra speed of the Gaming edition and add the fact that it isn´t the actual decent gaming driver. Let this soak in some months of driver optimization (against the 1080 whose drivers are now solid and wont improve that much anymore)

- Gaming edition
- Drivers
- 1080 drivers already optimal
- AMD drivers age much better
- ...pricing(cost/performance)?

My guess is that the intel+nvidia combination will be beaten by the AMD+AMD combination 

Clear win for AMD here folks


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Jul 3, 2017)

Nergal said:


> Well, this sounds.....PROMISING!!!!
> 
> I vividly recall that the "realistic" guess was that it(the actual gaming card with drivers some months old) would preform between 1070 and 180 speed.
> 
> ...



Well Vega FE is being beaten by Xtreme Addict's 1400MHz fully unlocked Fury Strix in fire strike extreme. (Vega FE runs @1600MHz)

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142320

The driver issues are clear.


----------



## efikkan (Jul 3, 2017)

john_ said:


> …Raja on the other hand says "Don't bother with FE. RX is just around the corner. It will be cheaper, probably clocked higher and the gaming card you are looking for. No reason to go and spent $300-$500 more".
> Raja saying that the FE card is not for gaming, doesn't mean that FE is bad in gaming. Just that there is no reason to go and pay for extra pro features in drivers, that are useless in games. He is just more honest.
> 
> Also, no one says that those two cards will be 100% identical. RX will have probably higher frequencies and maybe better cooling solution. I wouldn't be surprised if the RX is at the same level of performance, or a little better if clocked higher, compared to the liquid version of FE. Now, if AMD manages also to enable some features that are now disabled in the next days, features that increase performance in games, those features will become available to the FE card also, improving it's performance in games. You'll see that, if it happens.


You pretty much nailed it there. There is no reason for gamers to pay extra for features they don't need, which is why it's not meant for only gaming, meaning it's not the best value option, not that it's any worse at it. The same goes for Titan and Quadro; they are excellent at gaming, but are not the best options if you're doing only gaming.


----------

