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
You people should really stop evaluating companies based on their behaviour, they're lucrative companies, they'll always do shady things no matter nvidia amd intel or whatever you want, there's nobody better than the other in doing such, there's only who does a better job in terms of product, and since one can't rely on their tests, because ofc they'll be biased, one has to rely on 3d party tests or even personal tests.
I have already gone through this in a recent discussion about how Vulkan DOSE NOT favor anyone. Nvidia is at the top of charts aren't they ? Did they need DX 11 ? No , because Vulkan is great at taking advantage of modern hardware. DX11 doesn't do that anymore.
Seriously...
Actually since the december re-tests of RX480 vs 1060, they are equal in DX11. Check the reviews, usually on YT but there are updated reviews on sites like Hardware Canuks, for example. The tipical ~10% advantage of the 1060 in DX11 titles has evaporated to 0-2%, not to mention the DX12 advantage of RX480. So yeah, you were unlucky with the coil whine RX480, but overall, you got an overall bit worse card (for more money).
I do, however, greatly enjoy reading the bias response people have on both sides of the fence when going off of "leaked" or "rumored" data. You get those that will defend the data to the end and those that will dispute it with all their might. Most of the comments are laughable and make it for good reading material.
I could be wrong, but it fits the tone of the rest of the comments on this article.
I don't think you're too pro AMD but you sure are extremely indecisive.
I on the other hand will buy Vega if it can beat the 1080ti. If not I'll buy another Nividia card(1080ti).
Hell average price for 580's is 500$!
Besides, who wants to buy crap cooled blower style standard editions anyway.
Half a dozen aftermarket 1070's were available for 349.99 or lower at one point. Don't forget this.
Vulkan, and Doom specifically run much better on AMD hardware, i understood everything i assure you.
Vulkan favors AMD whether they like it or not, so much they sold doom with amd cards for a while, what are we talking about cmon, are you only sharp when it suits you? Vulkan favors AMD even because (and i'll say it again) it's mantle's offspring.
I'd say pascal is more modern than polaris seen consuption and everything else related.
This last thing actually reminds me of those people that when it's pro AMD it's sure and can't be wrong, otherwise it's wrong, so if a game runs better on an AMD cards then it means the game is good, it's well optimized and well developed to gain from newer hardware, if the game runs better on nvidia but be badly optimized and doesn't scale well enough with new hardware.
So that's practically AMD fanboy, what else would you need?No i looked even at the most recent reviews i could find, and the 1060 was still above, and on the same percentage, the only thing going really head to head with the 1060 is the 580, i looked at hardware canuck's re-review, and it's probably the only one that showed those shift, which i could find anywhere else besides, dx12 worked better on 480, that is true, and also you're probably true about saying i got the worst bang for the buck between those 2, but 1060 had more valid AIB choices and the overall consumption is lower on 1060, so in the end i'd say it's on par.
Vulkan does not favor AMD , hell think about this : The president of The Khronos Group who developed Vulkan works at Nvidia. Whoop de doo , you still think it favors AMD ? Nvidia along side other members and partners from all around the computer graphics technology world would let such a ridiculously biased thing happen ? Just because a piece of hardware performs better in a certain application doesn't mean that application favors it. Come on man. And do I have to remind you again that Titan Xp is at the top of the charts in Doom and Vega with the same raw power doesn't. Is that bias ?Doom is well optimized to run on any newer hardware , Nvidia and AMD.
So yeah, overall the RX480 (including the DX12 and Vulkan games) is a somewhat faster (or equal) card than the GTX 1060 since about 8 months now, and before that mining fever, it was about 30-40 bucks cheaper. At start, I would say they were egal (2016 summer), considering cost, performance, power consumption, but since decembers Crimson drivers, RX480 is simply the better choice. And for the RX580... yeah, its actually a faster card than the 1060. And it was sold for around 480 prices till the fever hit... Yeah, it consumed more than the RX480, it's for sure.
The 580 was maybe a little faster, costing more, and not at 480 price as you say, because i checked for that (i actually was planning to buy it) and it cost like a good AIB 1060, while having additional power draw, and it needed a bigger heatsink due the the higher TDP, which not everyone did, like sapphire on the pulse version.