Thursday, August 3rd 2017
AMD RX Vega 56 Benchmarks Leaked - An (Unverified) GTX 1070 Killer
TweakTown has put forth an article wherein they claim to have received info from industry insiders regarding the upcoming Vega 56's performance. Remember that Vega 56 is the slightly cut-down version of the flagship Vega 64, counting with 56 next-generation compute units (NGCUs) instead of Vega 64's, well, 64. This means that while the Vega 64 has the full complement of 4,096 Stream processors, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and a 2048-bit wide 8 GB HBM2 memory pool offering 484 GB/s of bandwidth, Vega 56 makes do with 3,548 Stream processors,192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, the same 8 GB of HBM2 memory and a slightly lower memory bandwidth at 410 GB/s.
The Vega 56 has been announced to retail for about $399, or $499 with one of AMD's new (famous or infamous, depends on your mileage) Radeon Packs. The RX Vega 56 card was running on a system configured with an Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz, 16 GB of DDR4-3000 MHz RAM, and Windows 10 at 2560 x 1440 resolution.
The results in a number of popular games were as follows:
Battlefield 1 (Ultra settings): 95.4 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 32% in favor of Vega 56)
Civilization 6 (Ultra settings, 4x MSAA): 85.1 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 17% in favor of Vega 56)
DOOM (Ultra settings, 8x TSAA): 101.2 FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6 FPS; 20% in favor of Vega 56)
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (High preset): 99.9 FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1 FPS; 8% in favor of Vega 56)
If these numbers ring true, this means NVIDIA's GTX 1070, whose average pricing stands at around $460, will have a much reduced value proposition compared to the RX Vega 56. The AMD contender (which did arrive a year after NVIDIA's Pascal-based cards) delivers around 20% better performance (at least in the admittedly sparse games line-up), while costing around 15% less in greenbacks. Coupled with a lower cost of entry for a FreeSync monitor, and the possibility for users to get even more value out of a particular Radeon Pack they're eyeing, this could potentially be a killer deal. However, I'd recommend you wait for independent, confirmed benchmarks and reviews in controlled environments. I dare to suggest you won't need to look much further than your favorite tech site on the internet for that, when the time comes.
Source:
TweakTown
The Vega 56 has been announced to retail for about $399, or $499 with one of AMD's new (famous or infamous, depends on your mileage) Radeon Packs. The RX Vega 56 card was running on a system configured with an Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4.2GHz, 16 GB of DDR4-3000 MHz RAM, and Windows 10 at 2560 x 1440 resolution.
Battlefield 1 (Ultra settings): 95.4 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 32% in favor of Vega 56)
Civilization 6 (Ultra settings, 4x MSAA): 85.1 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2 FPS; 17% in favor of Vega 56)
DOOM (Ultra settings, 8x TSAA): 101.2 FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6 FPS; 20% in favor of Vega 56)
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (High preset): 99.9 FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1 FPS; 8% in favor of Vega 56)
If these numbers ring true, this means NVIDIA's GTX 1070, whose average pricing stands at around $460, will have a much reduced value proposition compared to the RX Vega 56. The AMD contender (which did arrive a year after NVIDIA's Pascal-based cards) delivers around 20% better performance (at least in the admittedly sparse games line-up), while costing around 15% less in greenbacks. Coupled with a lower cost of entry for a FreeSync monitor, and the possibility for users to get even more value out of a particular Radeon Pack they're eyeing, this could potentially be a killer deal. However, I'd recommend you wait for independent, confirmed benchmarks and reviews in controlled environments. I dare to suggest you won't need to look much further than your favorite tech site on the internet for that, when the time comes.
169 Comments on AMD RX Vega 56 Benchmarks Leaked - An (Unverified) GTX 1070 Killer
Meanwhile GTX 1070 has 150W TDP, while RX 56 won't differ much from it's older brother and will consume at least 300W. Some people here don't care about the cost of electricity, true, but I don't know the people who don't care about raw power dissipation which needs to be removed from your system.
Also, > 95% of people around me have neither FreeSync, nor GSync monitors, so you guys need to slow down a bit. Very few people actually care about tear free monitors. Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED, which supports true 10/12bit colors and HDR.
I mean everyone can just go on review sites right ?
Everyone can just go on review sites, but do they all really?
You cannot generalize only from your environment's habits. There may be at least that much gamers who would like a Sync monitor compared to the amount of gamers who would like an OLED HDR display.... Not to mention that Freesync doesn't really make that actual monitor expensive, compared to G-Sync.
It just means I don't see point in pissing all over it day after day because even RX Vega no matter how crappy you people think or say it is, it has its benefits and things that most likely will push the whole graphics industry forward. AMD has rarely been the absolute king of the hill and yet if you look through history, they are the driving force for many technologies used by everyone. Like for example Tessellation (ATi TruForm) and normal maps compression (ATi 3Dc), Vulkan/DX12 low level API (Mantle) and you can be assured that HBC will be used by everyone in the future. Maybe it won't prove itself super useful now, but it certainly will lead to yet another innovation made by AMD.
People just love to accuse me of being an AMD fanboy, but they conveniently leave out all the times I say good things about NVIDIA, where I confirm their superiority and when I correct things that are BS on AMD end (like the BS scaling of graphs for RX560 "review" here on TPU). Go on, search it a bit and you'll see. All these whiners calling me an AMD fanboy will never do that because it's inconvenient for their BS narrative that I'm an AMD fanboy. I can remember from top of my head that I've said several times that I'd have hard time considering AMD ever again if it didn't include Fast V-Sync like feature. To my luck, they did (Enhanced Sync). I also said several times that NVIDIA currently holds undisputed superiority in terms of performance. But whatever. Look it up and you'll see who's full of manure and who isn't.
A card with 20% better performance in the numbers covered on the article (not representative) and 15% lower cost than the current GTX 1070 pricing is objectively, financially more attractive than the alternative. Your mileage may vary with power consumption costs, yes, but this is something I know most users look way lower in the shopping list than performance and retail pricing.
A Radeon Pack for $499 with two games, $100 discount on Ryzen/mobo combo, and a $200 discount on a FreeSync monitor is objectively better than $460 pricing for a GTX 1070 for people who are interested in the extra parts. That's why I said "has the potential to be a killer deal." For those who only want the card, there's a chance it won't be. For those who want more, it will be a killer deal.
Sentences like "Instead of a tear free free display, I'd rather buy something based on OLED," fully enters the subjective realm which wasn't even approached on the article. Objectivelly, $-wise, at the quoted prices, the RX Vega 56 is a better deal.
One needs to figure out stuff on their own to be truly neutral. If all you do is stare at charts , you're not really doing a good job at remaining neutral.
yes i know i love ya all
imo anyway.
these resluts i take with a pinch of salt till i see them from respected reviewers. that being said if they have the tiled rasterization working now the jump makes sense.
My CPU would have been more a bottleneck if I went with an RX 480 , even though I would have preferred it above a 1060. However none of the review sites talked about this aspect , because 95% of them are very shallow with their reviews. Just some charts put together in one day and sent out as fast as possible to gain as much traffic as possible. I do not blame them , they are in the business of making money , but I cannot really much on their relevance and you shouldn't either.
I understand not everyone has the time to do research and just end up going on to popular review sites , but one should acknowledge how inaccurate they can be and how little of the whole story do they convey most of the time. Not to mention that some of the practices that are happening with regards to review samples make me question their relevance and bias even more.
So again , I am not saying you can't use them , but please don't infer they are anywhere near being 100% neutral or accurate.
When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do?
It almost makes me want to buy RX Vega just to piss people off here at TPU. Seeing all of you implode here would be the best s***t ever.
Now i'd been reading all kind of reviews in the months before buying the new card, and in pretty much ALL of them the 1060 was faster on most of the games tried in the benchmark it was something like 60/40 in favour of nvidia, but the price of that gtr black edition was just too good, and you know what happened next. So what?
You're all obsessed with this thing where nvidia pays everyone to make it look good, and make amd look bad, it's not like that, it could be like that in some case, but if you examine 20 reviews or something around it, and at the end of the story 90% of them agree over most of the points, there's no way they could all be biased, just this.
Also i'm pretty sure someone (because i already read it somewhere) would start to think someone isn't biased if they start talking good about amd in any case.We're talking about AMD here not nvidia, i don't care what you think about nvidia.And you don't even realize that amd has most of the mind share atm especially of forums, everyone just loves AMD because they're the underdogs, so they must be good and right, and nvidia is the villain which is wrong and only want to steal our money. That's a fairy tale.
If you're looking for a less harsh on AMD forum or anyway, somewhere AMD fun are automatically right just go on OCN, TPU is much more neutral and there's all kind of people, from nvidia fanboys to amd fanboys pretty much in the same quantity.
The Vega 56 does sound totally like Fury to Fury X - the better value proposition but wait for reviews to see how it manages. Also, dont forget, a custom 980ti tends to beat a 1070 (or level with it) so you're looking at a 2 year old card matching a Vega 56 potentially (20% OC results on stock 980ti is quite common). If you frame it that way, it's not quite as good looking.
If I had the budget for a card like a 1070 or a Vega 56, I'd wait for reviews for sure. The few titles used to bench so far are not AMD biased but they absolutely paint AMD's better side. Just watch Nvidia discretely lower 1070/1080 prices if Vega is a threat to them. Really dude - wait, read, consider the options and buy your card and enjoy it, whatever you choose.
EDIT: I dont want Vega to be too good because I cant afford to buy a new gfx card yet :rolleyes: (upgrade itch is like herpes - it never truly goes away). Hoping I'm safe with my 1080ti on steroids.
You may think these are perfectly legit methods but that doesn't change the fact that yes , Nvidia did do their best to make AMD look bad.