Tuesday, July 25th 2017
![AMD Radeon Graphics](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/amdradeon-v1723816949774.png)
AMD Radeon RX Vega Put Through 3DMark
Ahead of its July 27 unveiling at AMD's grand media event on the sidelines of SIGGRAPH, performance benchmarks of the elusive Radeon RX Vega consumer graphics card surfaced once again. Someone with access to an RX Vega sample, with its GPU clocked at 1630 MHz and memory at 945 MHz, put it through 3DMark. One can tell that it's RX Vega and not Pro Vega Frontier Edition, looking at its 8 GB video memory amount.
In three test runs, the RX Vega powered machine yielded a graphics score of 22,330 points, 22,291 points, and 20.949 points. This puts its performance either on-par or below that of the GeForce GTX 1080, but comfortably above the GTX 1070. The test-bench consisted of a Core i7-5960X processor, and graphics driver version 22.19.640.2.
Source:
VideoCardz
In three test runs, the RX Vega powered machine yielded a graphics score of 22,330 points, 22,291 points, and 20.949 points. This puts its performance either on-par or below that of the GeForce GTX 1080, but comfortably above the GTX 1070. The test-bench consisted of a Core i7-5960X processor, and graphics driver version 22.19.640.2.
175 Comments on AMD Radeon RX Vega Put Through 3DMark
I know that's not that big of a difference, but it's still nearly 50 MHz.
Here's my 1080 with a 7900X (both at stock, but memory bus @ 3600 MHz, because 100gb/s memory bandwidth :p) I ran this just now, just for you (note the 1911 MHz reported clock)
www.3dmark.com/fs/13200948 Most companies rate 120 mm as good for 250W+. You can thank Koolance for that. ;)
koolance.com/radiator-1-fan-120mm-30-fpi-copper
That one is rated for 400w. ROFL.
What evidence is there for "potential"?
Do you remember Fiji? ~53% more GFlop/s and still it was beaten by GTX 980 Ti. So much for "potential". So, in full damage control mode already?
I knew we were going to see people in denial about Vega…
Let's assume that indeed Vega is a worst-case-scenario, and it's performance will fall short of what it's spec suggested. If so, I would say this should be the line-up:
- $350= Cut down, lower clocked, 4GB Vega. This is the card that beats the 1070 for a tad less money.
- A very important gap to fill between the RX 580 and RX Vega cards.
- I would expect 8GB and Nano variants.
- It would be sweet if they could make a GDDR5 version to further reduce price, but I know that won't happen.
^^^I know this is a long-shot, but I feel this is what's required to even have a chance of competing. Nvidia can surely drop prices by $50 across their entire line-up, and a minor Pascal refresh could be out by December (Or a 12nm refresh by Spring 2018). Plus even at these aggressive prices AMD would still be profiting some on each card.no way in hell underwater with a 400WTDP its barely matching a vanilla 1080
Can you read? Most of my posts here center around Vega being a big disappointment so far (And likely overall). But everything I said still stands:
- Although none of us are fortune tellers, it would be idiotic to think performance won't increase by a decent margin considering how bad they are now. In fact GCN 1.0 had gained so much performance from it's 12.11 drivers that TechPowerUp said "The 7870 felt like an entirely different card", and GCN had nowhere near the issues Vega clearly has buddy:
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/This entire Vega launch is like a train wreck in slow motion at this point.
I mean even the 2nd year old Polaris is designed for DirectX 12/Vullkan gaming, yet everybody loses their mind over a directx 11 benchmark score.
Im confident that Vega will show very good fps numbers, and prove that these older benchmarks does not represent the real-world performance of a newer graphics card.
This is just the same old excuse; "the drivers are immature, buy it and the performance will come". GCN 1.0 was a brand new architecture, while Vega is a slight refinement in comparison.
Don't forget that the competition also improves their drivers, so even if Vega improves 10% over the next year, Nvidia will also improve. You don't like the tough facts, do you?
Fury X (Fiji), offered significantly more computational performance, more memory bandwidth, etc., and yet it was beaten by a much "weaker" on paper GTX 980 Ti. As I always say; theoretical figures are irrelevant, only real performance matters. That's why I bring it up, because the same history keep repeating itself; AMD fall short, but fans claim they have potential to be unleashed (which of course never happen).
Of course my statement assumes that RX Vega will perform similarly to Frontier Edition; which I also assume is a safe bet.
I stand by 150w being a nice safe, silent number. There is a reason I can passively cool my 5960x if notched down to stock clocks. I am going to take this point by point.
How do you rate drivers as bad? Are they crashing, do you have proof that we will see improvement or are you just assuming this?
Vega is just GCN with an elongated pipeline to allow high clockspeed, as well as the addition of an HBC. Neither of those should require a ground up driver rewrite. This is further proven from the usage of a Fury driver from the get go. Consider the GCN 2.1
10-20% which is wishful thinking puts this even with an AIB 1080, which still consumes less than half the power.
980Ti vs Fury debate is awful, more so when you try and make the fury sound better than it is. The reference 980Ti is barely edged out by the fury, which sees no improvement in performance with AIB cards in normal situations.
The AIB model 980Ti's still consistently compete and often best 1070's Long shot is a nice way to put "not going to bloody happen"
That is simply too much risk for a consumer to wait for market saturation of dx12/vulkan games and improved drivers.
There is nothing inherent in these APIs giving GCN an edge, but rather many of the initial games being developed as AMD exclusives. Nvidia also chose to bring the driver side improvements of Direct3D 12 to all APIs, giving them a lower "relative gain". Over time Nvidia has prioritized Direct3D 12 more, reducing the initial advantage of AMD. Still, considering that nearly all games so far are using an abstraction layer instead of the new APIs directly, so we have no evidence to claim AMD have an advantage. The claims that AMD is superior in these APIs are approaching superstition at this point.
I see a lot of reverse hype going on lately, and it annoys the crap out of me, but only because people don't see things for what they obviously are.
Anyway the Vega train is DOA. Move on. People should be gearing up for the Volta/Navi train now.
Short memories I guess.