Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Agg, Jan 6, 2017.
5 hours sleep.
high as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuq
on no sleep i swear
hahaha ok forgiven
Pass the smoke.
You do realise there are 30-144hz FreeSync monitors right?
The 48-100hz demonstration was a 3440x1440 Ultrawide and they are all limited to 100hz for the time being regardless of which adaptive sync tech is used.
I'm starting to think that FreeSync Monitor list needs to be a sticky in here
Do it please!
lol if a 1080ti runs like that, your 1070 must be a slideshow
Other AAA games @4k seems to indicate the above games you play are not well optimised.
Asus 1080ti Strix @ 4k
BF1 - 72.5fps
COD:IW - 86.3
Witcher 3 - 63fps
Batman AK - 85.6
Dues Ex: MK - 40.9fps
Dishonoured 2 - 63.2fps
Doom - 74.5fps
F1 2016 - 73.2fps
Fallout 4 - 87.8fps
Hitman - 75fps
Well here's the list as it stands: http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/freesync
Might work on a thread at some point if I get the spare time.
There really isn't that many Freesync monitors that support the high range.
Two titans get the job done, there's only very few games that I dip under the 60fps mark @ 4k
Yeah, that's about right and would have gone a long way in the Green vs Red graphics card war.
To be honest, I'd say there are plenty of people who would have thought for thes Vega prices, performance would have been sitting in between a 1080 and 1080 Ti.
On paper these Vega cards looked overpriced, especially for local stock that will soon be hitting the shelves.
you must be high Navi is AMD's next gen, Volta is nvidia's, i was asking when's the next nvidia uarch due.
For admins about to bring the hellfire, it relates because Vega was so damn late it wouldn't surprise me if Volta was a direct competitor to vega (i use competitor in the loosest of terms).
Seriously, I don't get how we can go what, 2 years? since fury and really have not made much progress. I know Intel hasn't either but we've been seeing great leaps in graphics, especially with the new process nodes, or is this that hybrid process that was made for cpu/gpu so they could cut costs and thus reduce clock speed?
I'd call that a goal kicked, considering their old cpu's weren't competitive. competitive in desktop consumer, in hedt, in server markets. goalSSSS
AMD and Nvidia are both working on 'gluing' dies together.
Going from competing on pretty much nothing but the super low end market, to having competitive products in every single segment of the market (portable market pending their reveal), I'd say that sounds like a pretty decent goal as yuo say.
Hopefully someone benchmarks the card vs the Fury to see if AMD have indeed gone backwards. Still I'm excited to see Vega 56 benchmarks vs the 1070.
Gamers nexus did it, clocked FE @ fury speed. No great difference overall (a couple of things went slightly backwards, some went up) but now we know how much wasn't working on the rushed FE... it needs to be redone.
AMD's glue >>> Intel's toothpaste [emoji38]
so top of the line RX is $499 USD and GTX 1080 is $549?
Pretty obvious Nvidia will drop 1080 now to $499 yeah? Be a mad troll if they went even lower..
edit: Ahh water one is higher power & clocks @ $699..
Is it the water one that is comparable to 1080? I hope its the air one..
Here's a list of the specs when compared to previous AMD cards.
Larger version: http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/d5jnTBxVGyh6AtNdwnxrCC.png
The 1080 has sold for $459 in the past though...
Also none of them are comparable to a 1080, lets be realistic.
We are just waiting for benchmarks to find out if Vega is good enough when combined with freesync to be worth buying compared to the extra price of gsync.
This seems to be one of the fundamental issues with the architecture - they've sacrificed a lot of transistor budget to leverage higher clock speeds. This approach makes sense now, after comments Raja had made in the past about the difficulties scaling up shader counts, It's just it has not paid off - not this round anyway, and not on this process node. They're just not getting the 1.7Ghz target at any sane voltage level. Something they desperatly needed to pull of to make the die size sacrifice worthwhile.
Looking deeper Under the hood, Moving to what appears to be and 8 shader engine layout, the double rate FP16, primitive shaders - all will absolutely pay off - Definitely a 'watch this space' scenario I think. No doubt Volta will bring the faster FP16 to consumer volta, so whilst it also would have contributed to bloat, and be 'wasted' on legacy games, it will be fundamental moving forward.
For now, I personally think the Vega 56 has the best chance of having appeal - we'll have to wait for reviews of course, but it looks like it has the goods to be consistently faster than a 1070, but thanks to relaxed clocks - at a MUCH more sane 210w TDP.
This will also make it a prime Candidate for overclocking.
moving up the stack though it just gets ugly - the WC 64 especially - That TDP..
OMG it looks like AMD Vega is much worse then I anticipated. Lines taken form Hardware Canucks article in here :
Wonder what AMD will do if nVidia reduces their price or unleash Volta very soon!
Power numbers/efficiency is terrible from these early reports. Not sure if AMD Just thought they would tack on hbm2, drop process node and release something quick to have a 1080 level card 12 to 16 months ago and just cooked the hbm2 availability. Looks like a great deal of these cards will be bought by miners tho, as that's one aspect they have hit out of the ballpark...
Damn it, and their cocky Marketing campaign early on had me salivating hoping for the 9700pro days again hehe
When should we expect reviews?
Kinda want to wait for reviews to see how they go before I decide if I wanna go Vega 56 or a Zotac 1070 mini.