Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Agg, Jan 6, 2017.
I believe this is it:
From my own personal results, this puts it exactly inline (almost bang on) with my GTX 1080 FE overclocked (on water) based off Firestrike/Ultra/TimeSpy results.
I don't think the Vega silicon will be much different but it looks like it might have a bit more power capacity... Still not much to gain.
notice how it's the same people that are involved at the threat of getting the channel locked?
So seems Vega is back to AMD how it used to be.. competitive speed to Nvidia but hotter/noisier/hungrier? Keen to see pricing though, if its quite a bit better, it might be worth it (Especially under water)
But it might still be better to pay the premium and get more efficient card.
Most of what you'd see of their architecture, is lost on gamers when compared against Nvidia
been watching all the GN clips with interest and with that card it just feels like something is bottle necking it like the RX series.
Concerned about these power levels, maybe I will need to wait for a price drop and get a 1080Ti mini card instead.
I like AMD and have freesync but 375-400W power draw is stupid... These cards are going to need to be super cheaper.
FYI a overclocked 1080ti will hit 250W draw, and its looking like that will be significantly faster then Vega, I dunno what AMD is doing with these HUGE power draws....
If it was double the performance of NVIDIA cards I would be ok with it, but its looking very much NOT the case...
Also after seeing the ULTRA SIZED water cooling system for the Vega FE card, I have serious doubts that they will have a more compact design for the gaming card. I was hoping the RX Vega water cooling card would be like FuryX, nice an compact card to fit ITX cases but that dream looks to be snuffed out. The fan cooled card will be large, and the light card will probably perform under the 1070... lol.
Not entirely true, a stock 1080 Ti net's around 250W, stock OC AiB's ~ 280W and custom overclocks >300W. Still though, this power draw from for a GTX 1070 / GTX 1080 (~200W) level of performance is far from ideal, but it really depends on your usage. If the card was competitive in price and you were only an intermittent part time gamer (a few hours a week) it's probably less of a concern, compared with if you spend every waking non working hour in game.
While it is a thirsty card, it doesn't seem to be having major issues with temperature, I don't think it would be unrealistic to expect that the card could be made smaller and still kept cool.
I'm not sure why the PCB is so large considering there is a lot of empty space, this could just be so they can use the same PCB design with room for their reservoir/overflow or whatever it is as Gamers Nexus pointed out, or it could have been due to the nvme add-in that was rumoured.
Either way I see no reason why an AiB card manufacturer couldn't reduce its size to fit that market if they think it's worthwhile.
That's the 16GB FE that's 375W, I imagine the RX will be less thirsty
I'm not sure why you think the Vega will consume less juice?
I'm not sure why you're still in this thread.
The FE has more VRAM than the normal RX is rumoured to and may be higher spec'd as well. This is why I assume that the RX Vega will use less juice.
Because GPU HW interests me, duh?
AMD have been having power consumption issues for some time now - you make a good point (IF Vega only ships with 8GB), if Vega will have less RAM so it kind of is a given - are we really only going to see 8GB high end Vega though I wonder. That seems like a low frame buffer for very high end.
Does anyone know how much power the 16GB HBM2 memory uses? Apparently 8GB of GDDR5X uses a pissy 20 watts or 2.5watts per chip.
I can only guess its possible that HBM2 uses a bit more and 16GB might draw 50watts or so (pure guess here)
if wikipedia is to be believed they use less than GDDR of any kind and were created to combat high draw.
So it must be the rest of the card that's doing the damage.
Ah right cool. (well not cool )
Nah not really. HBCC tech reduces vram requirements by half or so, in part because HBM2 has lower latency than gddr5 etc. Recal Fury x punches well above it's weight with 4gb hbm and doesn't have HBCC.
I don't see halving the ram making more than 10w of difference. Having tile based rendering working in the driver might make a small dent as well (or more likely may just help keep clocks closer to boost). That was a feature nvidia went to great lengths to conceal that was part of what made maxwell more power effecient than Keplar despite being on the same nm process.
Didn't the Fury cards have this same problem? heaps of power needed for very little performance at the time.
No not really to the same extent. Fury x went up against the 980 ti and drew a little bit more power but not a huge.
It was slightly slower at launch overall, but now beats a stock 980ti.
More a case of newer Nvidia cards drawing less power than they used to, and AMD vega is drawing more
For those interested in what actual pro cards are like, Wendell has a cool video up looking at the WX7100 (RX480).
Dunno if it's been posted already but PCPerspective have a review of the watercooled FE card.
Has a weird cooler design to.