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
Or am I just unaware of some scientific way they use describe a cooler's cooling capacity?
Capacity of a rad/heatsink is its capacity, period.
Let me ask you this... which is hotter? A yellow flame from a lighter, or yellow flames from a bonfire? (A: both the same temperature)
Now let me ask..which has more energy that lighter or the bonfire? (A: The bonfire)
See where im going with this? :)
The temps are a product of that heatsink as well as many other variables...things like the core material, whats on the die making the heat, size of it, thermal paste under the ihs, the ihs, thermal paste above the ihs...now we get to the heatsink...then fans.
You cant really compare temps between amd and intel. ;)
As far as cpu temperature, that would vary by cpu and its tdp. In theory a processor with a lower tdp than the heatsink it shouldnt reach tjmax. And vice versa with higher. But again soooo many other variables...
Think of it the other way around...rad/heatsinks given capacity doesnt change (assuming no other variables change), yet, temperatures between the exact same model cpu vary, none the less completely different brands in amd and intel with two different processes/parameters for their substrate and getting the heat out to the ihs.
Damn AMD......... i expected over 1080Ti perf... :(
Price should be U$400 max.
Ryzen has not proven to be any faster than the equivalent clocked and cored Intel cpu's, however it is hugely cheaper. I finally upgraded my own personal pc to Ryzen R5 1600X.
I don't expect Vega to set any speed records, but it needs to be at least as fast as the 1080 with a price somewhere between the 1070 and 1080 for success.
Firestrike scores show a similarity to the 1080, so now we need to hope for a price at or around the $450-$499 mark.
I am planning on buying Vega myself, I need better performance than the RX 580 to drive my 2560x1440 IPS 144hz Freesync monitor. I will not be happy if performance is at 1080 levels with a higher cost of entry along with higher power requirements.
Just saying...
While decidedly an increasing minority, i don't have the mindset of a juvenile, nor their customs or habbits. "Above 'X' FPS" performance is more than good enough for me, leaving it to brand preference, price vs performance and/or voicing my arguments as a customer in the only i have available to me; by paying. And i can assure you i will be paying for one of these.
People are free to stick to their pixelated pew pew, RGB lightz and 'does it come from Asus' mentalities, they are entitled to them.
They should however refrain from generalising. Not all of us are and think like "gamerz", thank God :)
Look at the equation here. considering this is not LaTex we are using here i will simplify the Q-dot and m-dot signes with Q and m.
The equation then becomes this: Q =m*Cp*ΔT
where:
Q = cooling capacity [kW]
m = mass rate [kg/s]
Cp = specific heat capacity [kJ/kg K]
Δ T = the temperature change [K] from the cooled thing to the ambient air.
m and Cp are given by the cooler, in a normal tower cooler m can be increased with a fan blowing more air over the cooler, but for our experiment we keep the same fan on the same speed, this means that m*Cp is a constant.
ΔT for the first cooler will be 80 degrees (100 °C - 20 °C = 80 °C and °K) and Q for this ΔT is 0,125 kW, giving us:
0,125 = m*Cp*80
hence m*Cp = 0,125/80 = 0,0015625
now, using the lower ΔT (80 °C - 20 °C = 60 °C and °K) we get the flowing equation:
60 * 0,0015625 = 0,09375 and 0,09375 kW is 93,75 kW.
This means that a cooler rated at 125W for a ΔT of 80 °K will cool 93,75 W when the ΔT is 60 °K.
So no, unless you have a fixed ΔT it is not. From Wikipedia: Cooling capacity
In other words, a heatsink rated at xxxW with a xxC delta will yield different temps on different cpus...but its the cpu (and all other variables) which is causing the difference in temperature between different cpus with the same heatload.
Heatsinks arent tested initially with chips, outside of computer modeling, its hot plates with specific heat loads. Its essentially saying, this chunk of metal can dissipate xxxW at a deltaT of xxC. When you put something under it at ths same heatload with different substrate materials, die sizes, paste, ihs, etc...its going to have a different temperature due to the OTHER variables. I think what you are trying to say is the amount of wattage a heatsink can handle will vary based on the max temp you want out of it... which is of course true...but not what im saying. ;)
Am i missing something still?
@Brusfantomet Yeah! What you said, with the math numbers and stuff!
Your calculations are incorrect to this scenario, as they are for a closed-loop refrigerant-based cooling system. I did go to school for this stuff, so I saw this, I nearly spit my tea all over my desk seeing refrigerant calculations in this thread. You need a far more complicated equation; mass in your equation refers to the refrigerant flow, not airflow. You cannot increase "m" with a higher fan; that's not the purpose of this equation. "m" is the flow rate of the refrigerant, in this case, water, not the air across the rad (which is why it is rated in Kg/s, and not CFM). The Cp is actually the specific heat of the refrigerant, or the water in the loop, not the cooler. We use various refrigerants, which is why it works this way. Delta-T is the change across the evaporator (ie, from the inlet to the outlet), not the cooler's difference from ambient. Delta-T refers to how the refrigerant changes, and is not TD, which is what you at referring to. Delta-T always refers to temperature changes within the same media, not differences between two media. Many people get this bit wrong,
It's not often the stuff I learned in school I get to put to practice... but thanks. ;)
it will be out soon than we can talk about it. 1080 was the Vega's perf point it always has been. Some even say they predicted that :) funny. How can you predict something which was stated by the company producing the chip and announced.
in my opinion the confusion is at the highest state now.
Vega was hitting on 1080 and it did. ( well from what we know so far). Maybe the power consumption isn't satisfying but well AMD was never great at that.
THE DELAY.
Well it is delayed and there was so many assumptions.
First HBM is so expensive and that might cause a delay in delivering the memory or simply the demand was big and lack of resources caused that.
Second driver issues. Well might be true since AMD is hiring people for the driver development but keep in mind that console market is in AMD's hands now. It's almost twice as much customers than PC market.
And third. They are tweaking Vega to boost performance to match or come close to 1080 TI. I'm sure AMD is at least trying to accomplish that. if they succeed I don't know but I think Vega has the potential and they can squeeze more outta it.
As for me all above can be true but also none can be right. There's so many things you people may not be aware of what's going on in AMD and that's the one fact here that's correct. Soon it will be out and it will all come clear :)
Fully clocked custom 980 Ti is pretty much on par with 1080 FE. 30-40% faster than reference here. Go see TPU's 980 Ti reviews for proof.
I had 1080 shortly, but returned it because it felt like a side-grade coming from 980 Ti @ 1.5+ GHz.
Hard to think AMD will make any money off these. After all this time and they can't even match Maxwell's efficiency. Gotta hand it to them that PR got everyone hyped up and they delivered a lemon, same performance you could've gotten an year ago. Fun stuff.
My 2 x 290X get roughly the same FireStrike score, 2 x almost 3 year old cards at 600MHz less (each, that's 60% uplift on Vega's clock) and only 25% more power consumption for the same result and Vega does not have to use crossfire? Weird stuff. Although the die area is not much larger than Hawaii the compute performance is supposed to be > 2x ... :confused::confused:
As mentioned 2 x RX580 would use the same or less power and produce a similar score for ~€500-600 at non-gouged RRP.
I can't believe all this money, R&D time/effort etc. would be poured into the new architecture to effectively end up with 2 x 290x/RX580 in one slot.
There must be more to this or gaming is just an afterthought "we can do it and it'll be good with freesync and no crossfire issues, but the main focus of Vega is pro/AI/compute".
Anyway we should know more over the next few days.
I'm still a little hopeful the numbers posted (if real) are for the lowest tier card/older API/old drivers.
Then again, as cadaveca points out I am not completely correct myself. closes ting i get to cooling is on hobby basis with computers.
Also, so that not all of this post is OT, if the new RX vega can handle a higher Tj a single 120 mm rad could be enough.
I digress as well.. OT. :)