First I think Vega suppose to be faster than 1080TI or even Titan XP because it will become the benchmark for Nvidia for their new GPU (might be 2000 series) which usually they introduce on Q4. So how good is Vega perform will reflect on the

Second is the speed bump on 1080 and 1060 Its pretty much an economical act, similar to what AMD did with their RX500 series so why not, as long as can bring money for them.

For me well, I just stick to what I can afford and to what game I want to play.

Holy cow, it certainly doesn't take long for haters to fill just about any AMD thread with a veritable shitstorm!

Divide OverflowHoly cow, it certainly doesn't take long for haters to fill just about any AMD thread with a veritable shitstorm!

Sure, because Intel/NVIDIA threads are not filled with AMD fanboy's comments :P

ratirtDude. Read my post. Are we talking about food or cloths? I think not. Besides, don't judge the books by its covers. Which means cloths mean noting to me and food I make myself. Electronics is a different thing.

It's not. It's just another product. Some people like to spend time choosing PC parts, some like trying shoes on.
There is nothing special about computers (or electronics in general).

And please don't call me "dude". It seems English is not your first language, so how did you learn to use possibly the worst word in it? :/

msroadkill612gpu & cpu are 2 parts of a whole, a team, but only amd make both.

Actually, no. CPU is an essential part of a computer. It actually is THE computer - the rest is just there to help.
A GPU is optional. :)

And of course all of the 3 big names: Intel, AMD and NVIDIA make both CPUs and GPUs.
What you were trying to say is that only AMD makes both for high-end gaming PCs.

msroadkill612it beggars belief they cant come up with some important synergies.

OMG. The word "synergy" brings to mind some of the worst corporate nightmares.
And no, it's very unlikely there will be any "synergies". CPU and GPU communicate via a standardized interface and instruction set. Nothing like that has been documented in the last 10 years.

Stop multiple posting... edit to add!!!!

notbActually, no. CPU is an essential part of a computer. It actually is THE computer - the rest is just there to help.
A GPU is optional. :)

And of course all of the 3 big names: Intel, AMD and NVIDIA make both CPUs and GPUs.
What you were trying to say is that only AMD makes both for high-end gaming PCs.


OMG. The word "synergy" brings to mind some of the worst corporate nightmares.
And no, it's very unlikely there will be any "synergies". CPU and GPU communicate via a standardized interface and instruction set. Nothing like that has been documented in the last 10 years.

Good luck selling consumers PCs sans video.

Nit picking. amd & nvidia ~own the $100-$1000 gpu market.

In the inevitable scenarios where one or the other (gpu/cpu) is the limiting factor to better performance, amd is free to rob peter to pay paul, for a better net result.

good luck to nvidia asking intel or amd to make concessions to their cpu to make nvidias cards work better. amd only rigs can be treated as a whole more so by amd.

Its hardly news some processors work better than others,despite using same standards. its what u do within those boundaries that counts.

EarthDogStop multiple posting... edit to add!!!!

Wow. That's something new. Do we have that in forum's netiquette? You've been here for much longer, so I assume you know.
I'll apply for now, but that needs explanation.

msroadkill612Good luck selling consumers PCs sans video.

I have 2. What's the matter?
5 minutes ago Ryzen was great for productivity task, now you say a PC without a video output is pointless...

EarthDogNit picking. amd & nvidia ~own the $100-$1000 gpu market.
[/QUOTE
Which doesn't change the fact that a significant majority of consumers use Intel's GPU. Thankfully it costs less than $100.

EarthDogIn the inevitable scenarios where one or the other (gpu/cpu) is the limiting factor to better performance, amd is free to rob peter to pay paul, for a better net result.
[/QUOTE
That I don't understand.
PCs are custom built. Optimizing combined performance by moving R&D between 2 parts will only work, if you're sure, that a final product will use both of them. So this is OK in consoles and phones, but not in PCs.

EarthDoggood luck to nvidia asking intel or amd to make concessions to their cpu to make nvidias cards work better. amd only rigs can be treated as a whole more so by amd.
[/QUOTE
You can treat it as you want. It has never been confirmed for AMD chips to get any boost when used with other AMD's parts, so it's just your theory at this point. :)
And again: if AMD has a market share of 80%, this could be sensible business-wise, but what about ethics? Again: CPU and GPU communicate via a standardized interface. AMD would have to artificially limit performance with Intel/NVIDIA in software.

As AMD share is 20% (in CPUs), there really is no point in doing anything like that. It's actually the opposite: AMD has to work hard to be as compatible with other manufacturers as possible. That's why they often go for open-source solutions (OpenCL, FreeSync) instead of proprietary ones. That's also why they cooperate with Microsoft so much.

notbWow. That's something new. Do we have that in forum's netiquette? You've been here for much longer, so I assume you know.
I'll apply for now, but that needs explanation.

Double/multiposting is against forum rules. You've just been lucky so far that you haven't been cited for it yet.

notbIt's not. It's just another product. Some people like to spend time choosing PC parts, some like trying shoes on.
There is nothing special about computers (or electronics in general).

And please don't call me "dude". It seems English is not your first language, so how did you learn to use possibly the worst word in it? :/

Some people like to put shoes on when they buy it? assume you just burst through the door of a cloth store and get whatever checking the size. That's great.

And please don't mock my English. that's just rude and you have no idea where i am from really. Yeah English is not my first language I’ve learned but native. Not like yours I bet. I don't see DUDE worst word but that's just your opinion.

I simply disagree with you with what you said. Please stop being offensive with that little language scuffle cause that was really rude and not even about correcting (which is fully understandable where I live)but mock people with your opinion about words which you may have no idea what they actually mean?. :) Anyway. its not a language lesson. so next time when you mock somebody with your ways of language understanding mind your tongue and stop mocking people :)

bugYes. And then you have to check the quality of the implementation before buying, because some vendors go overboard with overdrive.

You need to check reviews of the monitor you are buying anyhow.
And the fact that all GSync monitors have wide adaptive sync range is simply a myth.

bugby giving up on G-Sync, Nvidia would actually be dropping features

Not true.
For starters, it doesn't have to be all or nothing and then, FreeSync seems to be superior on input lag front.

bugAnd this leads to user qq and even lawsuits

No way it could lead to lawsuits.

medi01You need to check reviews of the monitor you are buying anyhow.
And the fact that all GSync monitors have wide adaptive sync range is simply a myth.

I'm planning to buy a new monitor and it would be free sync for sure. I wanna go with the Vega card. I tried to get some info on both of those technologies but there are always 2 sides and hard to tell which one is better(if you can compare those in terms better and worse). I could go 1080 TI and gsync but the price is horrendous. Vega and Freesync seems more reasonable. if I get fsync monitor, any options that I should be concerned about? Vega should be freesync compatible knowing that AMD is using this open tech for other cards.

Still waiting for VEGA to show up and it's been hell. I'm so tempted to buy something new and move on from my current setup. I only hope, this VEGA will be as good as people say it might be :)

ratirtif I get fsync monitor, any options that I should be concerned about?

Low Framerate Compensation LFC is a must have (covers lower refresh rates by repeating frames)

List of monitors with ranges (doen't tell you if LFC is there or not)
www.144hzmonitors.com/list-of-freesync-monitors/

AMD's list (doesn't contain the newest ones available, select "monitors" tab on the bottom of the page):
www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync


FreeSync2 has been announced, it has stricter requirements and some HDR input lag magic, but I haven't seen FS2 monitors yet.

Compubench 2 numbers, possibly Vega:
compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=dGPU&hwname=AMD 687F:C1&did=45270653&D=AMD 687F:C1

Looks a bit better than 1080, but far from 1080Ti/Titan, I was told.

ratirtI heard about the freesync 2. Not sure how it would work exactly and when released but I'm sure it will bring some improvements over the freesync as well.

Well, that's easy, actually, it is technically just FreeSync, it mandates LFC and it can drastically reduce lag when communicating with HDR monitor.
There is work that needs to be done when using HDR monitors and what AMD has done is doing the needed calculations directly in GPU, so that monitor doesn't need to.

Apparently, that is completely irrelevant with normal monitors (and I haven't yet seen REAL HDR monitors that don't cost a fortune ).

Slightly better in some areas, slightly worse in most, horrifyingly worse in one.
GTX 1080: compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080

Worse across the board and often significantly.
GTX 1080 Ti: compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080+Ti

Almost double across the board.
RX 470: compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+RX+470+Graphics
RX 480: compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+RX+480

Slightly better.
Radeon Pro Duo (2 x Fiji): compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=33282997&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+Pro+Duo&D2=AMD+687F:C1

Something is seriously wrong on "Catmull-Clark Subdivision Level 3."


Clockspeeds: 1000 (1200 boost)
Compute Units: 64

medi01Compubench 2 numbers, possibly Vega:
compubench.com/device.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&os=Windows&api=cl&cpu-arch=x86&hwtype=dGPU&hwname=AMD 687F:C1&did=45270653&D=AMD 687F:C1

Looks a bit better than 1080, but far from 1080Ti/Titan, I was told.

Well people say things then withdraw stuff others say different and stick to it. I'm still gonna wait for Vega but it's definitely a great improvement over my 780 Ti. I saw that link already but you know samples improvements before release and of course drivers. Who know what this vega will eventually be capable of.

Been looking through the sites for any information about the LFC's Got some of those which are pretty useful. Anyway when swapping my screen with a new one I will definitely seek advice on the TPU which monitor to pick. 2k would be an enormous improvement but maybe 4k is the way to go. Still you don't have to play 4k with that type of monitor. You can always settle at 2k which in my case would be hellishly awesome: D

I heard about the freesync 2. Not sure how it would work exactly and when released but I'm sure it will bring some improvements over the freesync as well.

FordGT90ConceptSlightly better in some areas, slightly worse in most, horrifyingly worse in one.
GTX 1080: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080

Worse across the board and often significantly.
GTX 1080 Ti: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+1080+Ti

Almost double across the board.
RX 480: https://compubench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=compu20d&did1=45270653&os1=Windows&api1=cl&hwtype1=dGPU&hwname1=AMD+687F:C1&D2=AMD+Radeon+(TM)+RX+480


I think it's Vega (approximately 2 x RX 470) and it's about GTX 1080 performance.

There's something seriously wrong with Vega on "Catmull-Clark Subdivision Level 3."

For me what counts is the final product not some benches of a sample. It's not even out yet and there's a problem with it. I really doubt that bro :) Besides I'm willing to change my monitor. Free sync is the way to go over G-sync which is so expensive not mentioning nv cards. Waiting for Vega is the way to go for me and when it's out, deciding which way I wanna go :D

So... the new Radeon Pro Duo has 72 compute units, not 64. Pretty confident it is Vega because Vega has 64, not 72.

FordGT90ConceptSo... the new Radeon Pro Duo has 72 compute units, not 64. Pretty confident it is Vega because Vega has 64, not 72.

VEGA is a single gpu not dual so what you are talking about is irrelevant and it's totally new architecture so comparison with older dual polaris is not the way to go in MO bro:)

Trying to identify what it is based on what clGetDeviceInfo returns. More evidence: it matches what the GPU database says it should be.

You are basing it on TPUs guess of what it 'should' be?

FordGT90ConceptTrying to identify what it is based on what clGetDeviceInfo returns. More evidence: it matches what the GPU database says it should be.

oh that so relevant :) to bad I didn't see it :) TPU should be careful what it puts on the database. Assumptions as always :) when they score :) wow :D