Monday, May 8th 2017
AMD Vega 10 3DMark Fire Strike Results Surface
Another day, another set of Vega results see the light of it. It would seem like this saga has been going on for ages, ever since we've seen AMD showcase its prototype Vega cards running Star Wars Battlefront (4K, Ultra settings at over 60 FPS) and Doom (4K, Vulcan render path at over 60 FPS on pre-production hardware). But with the lack of official information coming from AMD (let's hope this changes on May 16th), it would seem the company is content to see us hardware news sites jumping at every detail and offering free publicity.
This is known to be Vega because the device ID, 687F:C1, was spotted on AMD's own hands while running that Doom demo in 4K. The device clocks seem to be in line with previous leaks: a 1200 MHz core clock and 8GB of video memory running at 700 MHz memory clocks. With these clocks (which are expected to be extremely conservative when we take into account what we know of Vega), the Vega video card manages to deliver a 17,801 points graphics score, approximately 1,400 points more than your average Fury X, but some hundreds less than your average, current-generation GTX 1070. Remember: AMD's MI25 is expected to come in at 1,500 MHz core clocks, and this is a professional, passively-cooled graphics card. This means that unless AMD greatly overestimated the clock capability of its Vega cards, the consumer version of Vega will have necessarily higher clocks. But we'll stay here, waiting for some more details to pour our way, as always.
Source:
WCCFTech
This is known to be Vega because the device ID, 687F:C1, was spotted on AMD's own hands while running that Doom demo in 4K. The device clocks seem to be in line with previous leaks: a 1200 MHz core clock and 8GB of video memory running at 700 MHz memory clocks. With these clocks (which are expected to be extremely conservative when we take into account what we know of Vega), the Vega video card manages to deliver a 17,801 points graphics score, approximately 1,400 points more than your average Fury X, but some hundreds less than your average, current-generation GTX 1070. Remember: AMD's MI25 is expected to come in at 1,500 MHz core clocks, and this is a professional, passively-cooled graphics card. This means that unless AMD greatly overestimated the clock capability of its Vega cards, the consumer version of Vega will have necessarily higher clocks. But we'll stay here, waiting for some more details to pour our way, as always.
60 Comments on AMD Vega 10 3DMark Fire Strike Results Surface
But the simple fact is we have no idea which Vega was benched here (with the only lead hinting at the fastest model, but let's disregard that for one more week).
The card that could compete with the 1080Ti is more interesting though as Nvidia won't want to budge on price as it is so new and any competition here is much more current.
That said, I certainly hope to see Vega succeed and provide much-needed competition to nVidia on the enthusiast end of the market. Unless MI25 is an extremely highly-binned part, I'd expect the flagship consumer graphics chip to achieve similar performance, which I believe correlates to a core clock closer to 1,500 MHz.
I had one that did 2176 ingame and stabilized at 2149mhz @ 70 C.
Another thing to realize: we have the (ever so slightly, but still, 4-5% is more than 0) faster 11GBps 1080's now too.
But we are discussing Vega here.
Let's say they got 10% improvement from architecture, that would be 68% improvement over Fury X.
For reference:
1080 is 37% faster than Fury (1080p)
1080Ti is 68% faster than Fury (1080p)
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1080_Ti_Gaming_X/30.html
Still, we know 687F:C1 to be the device ID of the first engineering sample of Vega 10, demonstrated multiple times by AMD in December-January. If AMD continue their device naming scheme, we can expect the final Vega 10 products to be named 687F.1, 687F.2, 687F.3, …No, that's just a misquotation. Vega 10 is the large one.
One can dream...
1080 is 37% faster than Fury (1080p)
1080Ti is 68% faster than Fury (1080p)"
seriously we all know that furyx was not for 1080p at least comapre them at qwhd or 4k LOL
Trolololol in video card land.
*and they're paid to believe it
Regardless, it has little to do with architecture and everything with pushing over 120-150fps.
Just to point that about synthetics out for you; here's the CPU footprint of 3DMark Firestrike - in the pure Graphics tests you can see one core at 90+% already; the first burst of max load you see is physics so duh, but the second one is Combined, which makes up part of the graphics score. I saw 75% GPU usage on a 1080. In addition, relatively, I see 25k graphics scores compared to the 21k of a 1070 OC'd. That's not the +30% I see in ingame FPS...