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
Add your own comment

60 Comments on AMD Vega 10 3DMark Fire Strike Results Surface

#51
dozenfury
Given AMD's history of leaks, and performance nearly every time not aligning with what was leaked, I'd suggest it's probably prudent to wait on concluding anything. It's not bad info to see and speculate on. But before the 480X came out we had "leaks" showing it anywhere from faster than sli'd 980ti's (lol, in hindsight) to slower than an AMD 380.

Even after release and third-party reviews people will still blame drivers for poor numbers on either side.
Posted on Reply
#52
medi01
dozenfuryperformance nearly every time not aligning with what was leaked
You are seriously blaming AMD for existence of some made up bullcrap by who knows whom?
Posted on Reply
#53
bug
medi01You are seriously blaming AMD for existence of some made up bullcrap by who knows whom?
He's just highlighted how well past leaks have aligned with actual products.
Posted on Reply
#54
evernessince
bugApart from AMD's own marketing team*, nobody believes Fury was built for 4k. Because it can't actually do 4k@60fps without lowering settings.

*and they're paid to believe it
The Fury X had a problem at 1080p because the schedulers couldn't keep the GPU cores loaded. The GCN architecture was never designed to have that many cores under each cluster. Vega has an improved scheduler designed specifically to fix that issue so we are not only going to see performance improvements from the other changes but you will finally see them taking advantage of all of those hardware resources. 4K doesn't have as many draw calls so it makes sense that the Fury X performed better at that resolution.
Posted on Reply
#55
diatribe
I really hope AMD can knock one out of the park with Vega's release. I'm just afraid that it may be too little too late as Nvidia has been releasing competing products for a year without much competition from AMD.

From a strategic standpoint Nvidia is killing AMD due to their much stronger R&D and capital investments. I truly believe that AMD is doing their best to release strong products, but they are limited by their resources to truly compete with Nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#56
EarthDog
Hopefully the lower SKU... the flagship had better fall between 1080-1080ti!!!
medi01You are seriously blaming AMD for existence of some made up bullcrap by who knows whom?
I mean we already blame them for their own made up bullcrap they release...why not this? :p
Posted on Reply
#57
medi01
Remind me Zen/Ryzen leaks pretty please.

Or 290 leaks.
Or 290x leaks.
Or, goddamn Fury X leaks.
Or, perhaps, 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx series leaks.
(I don't recall when wccftech has been created)

You know, I want to see a goddamn pattern and not feel like it's just somebody's FUD repeated multiple times.
Posted on Reply
#58
dwade
WCCF is the CNN of PC hardware.
Posted on Reply
#59
EarthDog
dwadeWCCF is the CNN of PC hardware.
hahahahahahaha omg... no. Jesus no. Holy moly no. Its not like foxnews either... sweet marmalade just no.


Wccf is like TMZ or one of those gossip magazines or something...
Posted on Reply
#60
idx
People! calm down, I checked my cooking pot and I can confirm this is just a click-bait started to spread through 3 other websites ( I guess someone was hopping to make some drama specially on the market side on AMD). I'm 100% sure that VEGAs is faster than the GP104 and a little bit slower than the GP100 ( we will see.. right ?).

Chill ! people chill !:kookoo:

Edit: I realized that I posted in the wrong thread.. posting it again.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 23rd, 2024 21:41 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts