Thursday, July 6th 2017
AMD RX Vega Reportedly Beats GTX 1080; 5% Performance Improvement per Month
New benchmarks of an RX Vega engineering sample video card have surfaced. There have been quite a few benchmarks for this card already, which manifests with the 687F:C1 identifier. The new, GTX 1080 beating benchmark (Gaming X version, so a factory overclocked one) comes courtesy of 3D Mark 11, with the 687F:C1 RX Vega delivering 31,873 points in its latest appearance (versus 27,890 in its first). Since the clock speed of the 687F:C1 RX Vega has remained the same throughout this benchmark history, I think it's fair to say these improvements have come out purely at the behest of driver and/or firmware level performance improvements.
The folks at Videocardz have put together an interesting chart detailing the 687F:C1 RX Vega's score history since benchmarks of it first started appearing, around three months ago. This chart shows an impressive performance improvement over time, with AMD's high-performance GPU contender showing an improvement of roughly 15% since it was first benchmarked. That averages out at around a 5% improvement per month, which bodes well for the graphics card... At least in the long term. We have to keep in mind that this video card brings with it some pretty extensive differences from existing GPU architectures in the market, with the implementation of HBC (High Bandwidth Cache) and HBCC (High Bandwidth Cache Controller). These architectural differences naturally require large amounts of additional driver work to enable them to function to their full potential - full potential that we aren't guaranteed RX Vega GPUs will be able to deliver come launch time.
Sources:
Videocardz, 3D Mark's latest 687F:C1, 3D Mark's first 687F:C1
141 Comments on AMD RX Vega Reportedly Beats GTX 1080; 5% Performance Improvement per Month
Probably going to need a vega 'zen' thread... :p
To add. I get it. Vega will never be as fast or faster than 1080 TI. The prediction :) nice :)
Nobody is predicting the known performance of NVIDIA cards. What seems to be taken exception to here is the extrapolation of leaks about Rx Vega in an RX Vega thread... weird.
It's not predicting? Vega is not out yet but NV fans say no way for it to be faster? isn't that a prediction towards NV ? We don't know how Vega will perform so how can you say it wont be faster? For me it is a prediction towards NV card since NV fans are so scared what would happen if it matches or surpasses 1080Ti's performance. Like Armageddon almost.
My is Vega will be great for 4k. maybe will be around 1800Mhz at launch. Maybe there will be a great OC potential. and I don't care about the 1080 Ti if it is going to be faster since it is fast now.
And now we know at the moment the consumer Vega is roughly at last year's GTX1080 levels.
That's all.
If that makes it a great card in your eyes, feel free to pre-order. I really, really have no problem with that.
That prediction isn't towards NVIDIA, no. We know how NVIDIA performs. I'm sorry though it bothers you, these predictions that are falling short of your personal expectations.
I dont think NVIDIA fans give a damn about Vega beating the 1080Ti, honestly. What is that going to do? Drive cost down? Seriously... it feels like you are arguing in the mirror. :pimp:
I could try and give a full answer, fully addressing your objections, but experience has taught me that I'd be wasting my breath so I won't bother. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you, bud. Really, my answer is in the very post your objecting too. You just need to understand it. Seriously, it's not rocket science.We're agreeing on something. Now stoppit! :p:D
Yeah, why people shoot the messenger, like our friend deu up there, instead of being pissed off at AMD is beyond me, but it happens.
And yes, everything is indicating that what they currently have is pretty much that. OC'ed Fury X. If you all seriously believe that's their final product after full core redesign and 1 year later, seemingly for "no reason", then I'm not really sure what planet you guys live on. AMD may have financial constraints, but they aren't dumb. They have top GPU engineers and designers, they know hot to predict/project the final performance.
I never said my words are the ultimate truth and that it'll be like this 130%. I never said that. But from what I see, how I understand the tech and problems it was facing, Vega FE is most certainly not a final form of performance as far as gaming goes. It just doesn't make any sense from design and marketing perspective and doing this with no good projected gains would be simply absurd. I don't think AMD is that stupid. No way.
I asked you a simple question, you replied how even if Vega looks like an overclocked Fury X, it's not.
I'm gonna leave it at that, because we're not going to settle anything even with RX Vega released (because if it sucks, you'll probably play the "immature drivers" and "who cares if if need 50W more" cards).
Pascal is different. It's like comparing apples to oranges.I already explained it doesn't bother me really :)
I'm waiting with monitor purchase just to see if i go NV or AMD :) i cheer for Vega cause it will come cheaper when thinking of the 4k screen so sue me.
i don't like when people are being attacked by others because of now-days being a fan is like that. whoop his ass his different :p We talk crap instead of exchanging thoughts. NV % of how great it is is not needed here. Some people keep forgetting about it that this here is not praise NV % of performance. We got an opportunity here and i see it and cheer for it. how it turns out will see and then my decision will come. Pretty hard i want new tech stuff :/
I just hope AMD wont FCK Vega's potential. Maybe that's why there's a delay with the launch?
Let me give you some facts if you'll get it then (I doubt it, but I'll try anyway):
- AMD (RTG) is under pressure to deliver Vega to the people
- Vega FE was launched with productivity in mind and with gaming feature set to be rolled out with RX Vega launch (in other words, highly immature drivers, but they expected "that'll do for now")
- AMD didn't expect everyone to be throwing games at it with such enthusiasm (how often have you ever heard whole gaming community raving about any FirePro or Quadro cards on release for gaming? Like, never)
- Productivity tools do show good results
- TBR does NOT function (as seen on PCPer stream) or it's using some unheard of method which I highly doubt
- If TBR doesn't function and it's a core element of rasterizer (which it is), how come no one asks themselves what else doesn't work yet for gaming, potentially gimping performance entirely (which is why it's still not released yet)?
- TBR provides huge leaps in efficiency and performance (of which neither is present on Vega FE as far as gaming goes right now). Prediction material: years of mobile 3D accelerators, Kyro II from 15 years ago as well as Maxwell 2 and Pascal.
I can't predict how fast it'll actually be because there are still too many unknowns, but from given info and from my past knowledge and knowledge of how graphic cards companies work and how technologies on graphic cards work, you'd have to be literally insane to think AMD is spending such long time and so much resources on an entirely redesigned GPU which is barely faster than Fury X from 2 years ago and hardly any faster than GTX 1080, let alone even reaching Titan Xp. And I seriously believe no one at AMD is that insane. A lot of people do apparently with such wild ideas that what Vega FE showcased on release day is Vega's final form for GAMING. Now, that IS insanity.
What I did say is that if AMD would have wanted just that, they'd just shrink and clock higher the existing R9 Fury X. And probably get what you've seen now on Vega FE benches. If you strip Vega of all the unique new features it has, in an essence, it's just a highly clocked R9 Fury X. Now, ask yourself, again, for the N-th time, why on earth would a group of graphics professionals do that? It would literally make no sense. Though, I am wondering why they haven't just shrunk down R9 Fury X, overclock it and sell it as I don't know, RX 490/590. People would buy it for the right price.
And I'm not "playing" the "immature drivers at all. I AM stating that their current drivers are very immature. Have been saying so for the last bloody several posts. I mean, even fucking Ray Charles can see it and he's blind and dead. As for the power consumption, I literally don't care. If you do, well I still don't care, that's your thing. And if you search the forum back, you'll see I didn't care about great power consumption of GTX 980 either. Not because I'm an AMD fanboy, but because I literally DON'T CARE about it.
Again, its simply people taking a guess at where its performance will be. What better to compare with than the cards its slated to perform around? If you really didn't care, which you really shouldn't as what you are argu.....not caring about, is really a spot on comparison using the NV cards as bookends. There are better ways to deliver the message, I am sure, but... come on now. :)
You think it is a guess? well explain fallout 2k just a hair behind of 1080Ti ? sometimes surpassing it tell me what it is? Lucky shot? C'mon. put aside all the argues and restraints. Let the people that come here get something outta it. Not just there's a war between NV and AMD.
Delivering the message i tried.(yeah Yoda) But i got stoned to death with my opinions. Let the normal folks get something. Also an honest request. Try using no abbreviations here. i know it's a TPU forum and we all are aware of the shorts but there's people that don't. What's forum for? us geeks? or normal people seeking answers trying to understand? The simple people CDADWELL they come here. as you said. At least try to be generous with your point of view and knowledge and share :) Society will decide which way to go when they KNOW some stuff. :) thanks guys :D
BTW EARTH, you are so down to EARTH :D just a joke :D i had to . Sorry bro :D No offense. :)
And yeah, the NVIDIA drivers will get better too and I seem to remember NVIDIA sometimes "unlocks" performance to compete with AMD's latest. This is obviously a bit of a shady practice, because it means that the performance of your card was artificially held back all this time just so that NVIDIA can score a marketing point later. I certainly don't like it.
--------------------------
There you go AMD fanboys, I criticise NVIDIA equally when there's reason to, so don't get your knickers in a twist when I do so to AMD.
As for the driver performance gains, people are forgetting a difference on other releases when AMD already had fully functional drivers, they just lacked proper optimizations and polishing. What seems to be the case now is that AMD doesn't even have properly functioning drivers as things stand now. They need to get them working first before we can even talk about any % "optimization" gains. I mean, why else would they wait full month to squeeze out 5%? For what if the performance was already this bad? So, clearly something is going on and it's not just few % that we can expect. Again, it would make no sense wasting all this time for getting no real gains.
I was really sad to see them go the way of the dodo - well into mobile phones actually.