AMD Vega GPU

August 14th (Which will be 15th for us)

 

Yeah i saw that, if you notice its saying between $799 and $999.

 

That would make sense if the memory controller/bandwidth is ~3x higher than previously.

To put it in perspective, while mining, a 570's actual processor sits around doing fuckall while the memory controller is bouncing off the rev limiter.

 

I'm a little bit suspicious of CiV6 in particular but they're probably legit. Though keep in mind the other 3 of those at least are newer games that AMD does well on. If you'll note except for CiV 6 a fury x is also considerably beating the 980 TI (was slower than at launch) and ahead of a 1070. For Vega 64 is to trade blows with a 1080 including slightly older dx11 titles like Fallout 4 or GTA V that nvidia usually are ahead on, it has to beat it noticably in those titles and be say 10-15% faster in doom for example.

edit: there's also another factor. While you might expect Vega 64 to be 20% or so faster because it's got 15% more shaders and higher clocks, It probably has the same issue as Fiji that it's more geometry limited and shaders end up sitting idle, so expect only 10-15% faster.

 

That article seems to be written by someone without mining experience, based off a user forum post without evidence....

That said, an example is one of my mining cards at 1080Mhz with 2048 stream processors = ~ 4.44TFLOPs and atm gets ~ 26.5MH/s in Claymore (Eth).

This uses 100% of the memory controller, if an algorithm could take advantage HBM2 to at least the same extent the Vega 64 is capable of ~ 3 times that hashing power (so ~ 80MH/s in my case).

So it's possible, but due to Vega FE results I would have thought it there might be some sort of issue like with GDDR5X or just the requirement for a purpose built miner/algorithm.

Otherwise there will likely be another algorithm/coin that can take advantage of the horse power (like XMR seems to) it just depends whether or not the coins value, card purchase price and power consumption are worth it.

I'll likely get a Vega 64 to play with in the media pc, with the hopes that I can extract some wealth out of it at the same time (with a custom cooling solution).

 

Even at 10-15% its unbelievable

The performance would be too high.

 

Ah. Yeah, I didn't read it.

I've seen scores in the 28-30 range with high end overclocked memory.

Mine get about the same as yours.

 

Like the with the FE numbers that keep getting thrown around as gospel I'll wait for the real numbers to show up through proper reviews before I make up my mind on whether to buy, wait longer or buy a current Nvidia card.

 

If it was much better wouldn't AMD them self announce or leak, I agree with the link, because if true wow, AMD marketing are rank amateurs.

"Either the RX Vega 56 is actually on par with the GTX 1080 (which would be a monumental change for AMD because they would actually be sandbagging their product to deflate hype and speculation), or Tweaktown's source is using lowered settings that end up giving RX Vega 56 the edge. Their own reputation here on r/AMD aside, the only incentive they have to lie about it is to generate clicks and ad revenue, which they've done before."

 

Think that could be accurate for the price we'll see?

 

who knows eh, they whole launch has been a disaster.

 

haha who knows. I would hope AMD undermine the 1070 with the 56 Vega for $600 AUD. Currently any good 1070 is over $700.

 

I don't see it being unbelievable. Again keep in mind these are AMD favoured titles. To put in perspective look at the fury x compared to a 1070 in these reviews @ 2560x1440 resolution.

DX12/vulkan titles:
Doom: 5% faster than a 1070
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/kfa2_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_hof_review,20.html

Battlefield 1, 6 % faster than a 1070:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/kfa2_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_hof_review,16.html

But take some older dx11 titles but are still very valid/important benchmarks:

GTA V: 27% slower than a 1070:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/kfa2_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_hof_review,26.html

Witcher 3, 19% slower than a 1070:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/kfa2_geforce_gtx_1080_ti_hof_review,25.html

 

that seems about right, AMD have struggled with DX11 and have bet the farm on DX12 giving them a free boost. One that hasn't paid off.

 

Well moving forward DX12 is going to be the go to so they've just bet on the future a bit too early.

 

They didn't bet too early.

They have basically been dragged into it by their commitment to XBox.

If you frame everything within the context of the amount of resource they have and the requirements of a console. The "disappointing" performance and focus on DX12 makes a lot of sense.

 

Direct X 12 is a joke.

It's more than 2 years in the market now and hasn't done shit.

Give me GPU crippling DX versions that bring new and shiny and push GPU makers to make more things for effects and stuff.

 

Given current implementation I'd say too early is apt. I have no issue with this as their GPUs will gain performance as more titles take advantage of DX12.

DX12 might not add detailed seminal fluid reflections but it does some neat things with hardware. Also yes, everything is a dick reference with me.

 

A grand total of zero gamers care about that. We want SHINY TOYS DAMMIT!

 

And Vega is still too early.

Late 2018-2020 is a realistic timeframe where you might say you need DX12 in your GPU.

At the moment we have a few decent DX12 implementations and some buggy tacked on implementations.

Eventually all the popular engines will offer it natively and all new games will support it. Just not in Vega's life.