Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted - Page 30

post #291 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Unless Vega match or beat 1080Ti, it will be yet another card that will barely pay for manufacturing/engineering cost and a tiny bit more. Barely making any sales and any profit.

If its a GTX 1080 card, why are they even bothering? Destroying their reputation further?
People asked this over and over. Yes.... There is a place for VEGA even if it's at 1080 level. Those of us who have invested/saved money on a freesync ​monitor can have a card better than a Fury X. It just hopefully will be priced accordingly.
Water5930k
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5930k asus x99 pro/3.1 Fury Nitro OC+ gskill ddr4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
evo 1tb samsung 1tb hdd blu ray burner custom watercooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 preview Qnix UHD325 4K 32" ducky shine 4 EVGA 1600w titanium 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
enthoo primo Corsair M65 pro RGB logitech  bose speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
Water5930k
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5930k asus x99 pro/3.1 Fury Nitro OC+ gskill ddr4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
evo 1tb samsung 1tb hdd blu ray burner custom watercooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 preview Qnix UHD325 4K 32" ducky shine 4 EVGA 1600w titanium 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
enthoo primo Corsair M65 pro RGB logitech  bose speakers 
  hide details  
Reply
post #292 of 566
I don't mind AIO liquid cooling solutions on high end graphics cards as long as it isn't the only option.
Maybe Later
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 7 1700 GIGABYTE GA-AB350M-Gaming 3  Affordable VEGA 16GB DDR4 2667MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Caviar Blue 120GB Crucial M500 2x Fractal Design Venturi HP12 Windows 10 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Nixeus EDC 1440P 144Hz IPS Freesync XFX TS 550W Silversone TJ08E 
  hide details  
Reply
Maybe Later
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD RYZEN 7 1700 GIGABYTE GA-AB350M-Gaming 3  Affordable VEGA 16GB DDR4 2667MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
1TB Caviar Blue 120GB Crucial M500 2x Fractal Design Venturi HP12 Windows 10 x64 
MonitorPowerCase
Nixeus EDC 1440P 144Hz IPS Freesync XFX TS 550W Silversone TJ08E 
  hide details  
Reply
post #293 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLeakStuff View Post

Unless Vega match or beat 1080Ti, it will be yet another card that will barely pay for manufacturing/engineering cost and a tiny bit more. Barely making any sales and any profit.

If its a GTX 1080 card, why are they even bothering? Destroying their reputation further?

I think worst case with 4096 shaders is performance of 2x 2048 shader RX470 4GB (CFX), so that's already GTX 1080 level without NCU improvements, etc. If it clocks at ~ 1500MHz then it will be above the GTX 1080. If it comes in around $350-400 I think that worst case would still be purchased over a GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 but they could probably get $500-550 for it provided it is faster than the GTX 1080.

The R9 Fury X is a ~ 8.6 TFLOPs card @ 1050MHz with 4096 shaders. The VEGA GPU supposedly is 4096 shaders with ~12 TFLOPS @ ~ 1500MHz. This suggests that on pure compute performance it hasn't gained vs ~1200MHz 2x RX 470 either. However, the Sisoft Sandra result from earlier had +35% vs GTX 1080 but ~ 25% slower than GTX 1080 Ti (https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-sisoft-benchmarks , https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-vega-4.096-shader/)

We have no idea how much the NCU improvements , geometry pipeline , and primitive shaders will truly benefit. Will the NCU improvements add 15% , geometry pipeline +5% , primitive shaders 5%? If yes that's a > +25% improvement overall and put a 4096 shader part closer to the ~$700 GTX 1080 Ti.

I don't think they will win the absolute performance crown but instead win all the price/perf tiers under the $1K mark, just as Ryzen did for the CPU market under $1K.
From my prior post (Click to show)
If the new RX 580 Firestrike Extreme results are to believed, a card with 2x 1500Mhz RX 580 8GB performance would be just under a GTX Titan X pascal with no overclock while one with 2 x RX570 performance (i.e. 4096 shader) would be just over a GTX 1080. Don't expect much more or you're setting yourself up for disappointment if things don't pan out with whatever NCU optimizations, geometry pipeline changes, and primitive shaders they had been hawking.
Workstation stuff
(407 photos)
SpecViewperf 12.0.1
(117 photos)
PGA 1331
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Zen SR7 octocore (Ryzen 7 1700) Overclockable AM4 motherboard X370 To be determined , AMD Vega? 2x8GB DDR4 low-profile or heatsink-less 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 950 Pro / 960 Evo / 960 Pro 256GB or 51... Samsung 850 Evo 1TB SSD Storage Black or black+white Twin tower air cooler or s... EK Vardar F2-140 140mm, Phanteks PH-F140SP 140m... 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Fractal Design Dynamic GP14 (included with case) Win 10 Pro 64 bit 4K monitor with Freesync EVGA Supernova G3/P2 750W or 850W 
Case
Fractal Design Define R5 Blackout edition 
  hide details  
Reply
Workstation stuff
(407 photos)
SpecViewperf 12.0.1
(117 photos)
PGA 1331
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Zen SR7 octocore (Ryzen 7 1700) Overclockable AM4 motherboard X370 To be determined , AMD Vega? 2x8GB DDR4 low-profile or heatsink-less 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 950 Pro / 960 Evo / 960 Pro 256GB or 51... Samsung 850 Evo 1TB SSD Storage Black or black+white Twin tower air cooler or s... EK Vardar F2-140 140mm, Phanteks PH-F140SP 140m... 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Fractal Design Dynamic GP14 (included with case) Win 10 Pro 64 bit 4K monitor with Freesync EVGA Supernova G3/P2 750W or 850W 
Case
Fractal Design Define R5 Blackout edition 
  hide details  
Reply
post #294 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

I think worst case with 4096 shaders is performance of 2x 2048 shader RX470 4GB (CFX), so that's already GTX 1080 level without NCU improvements, etc. If it clocks at ~ 1500MHz then it will be above the GTX 1080. If it comes in around $350-400 I think that worst case would still be purchased over a GTX 1070 or GTX 1080 but they could probably get $500-550 for it provided it is faster than the GTX 1080.

The R9 Fury X is a ~ 8.6 TFLOPs card @ 1050MHz with 4096 shaders. The VEGA GPU supposedly is 4096 shaders with ~12 TFLOPS @ ~ 1500MHz. This suggests that on pure compute performance it hasn't gained vs ~1200MHz 2x RX 470 either. However, the Sisoft Sandra result from earlier had +35% vs GTX 1080 but ~ 25% slower than GTX 1080 Ti (https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-sisoft-benchmarks , https://www.computerbase.de/2017-03/amd-vega-4.096-shader/)

We have no idea how much the NCU improvements , geometry pipeline , and primitive shaders will truly benefit. Will the NCU improvements add 15% , geometry pipeline +5% , primitive shaders 5%? If yes that's a > +25% improvement overall and put a 4096 shader part closer to the ~$700 GTX 1080 Ti.

I don't think they will win the absolute performance crown but instead win all the price/perf tiers under the $1K mark, just as Ryzen did for the CPU market under $1K.
From my prior post (Click to show)
If the new RX 580 Firestrike Extreme results are to believed, a card with 2x 1500Mhz RX 580 8GB performance would be just under a GTX Titan X pascal with no overclock while one with 2 x RX570 performance (i.e. 4096 shader) would be just over a GTX 1080. Don't expect much more or you're setting yourself up for disappointment if things don't pan out with whatever NCU optimizations, geometry pipeline changes, and primitive shaders they had been hawking.
I've done some math based on the raw throughput numbers Tech Report has (from 480/Fury X/1080 ti: http://techreport.com/review/31562/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-graphics-card-reviewed/3 ) and the supposed clock speed (rounded to 1500 MHz) and the performance should be 5 - 10 % off the 1080 ti. That's pretty much without architectural improvements, the only change from straight out multiplying RX 480 / Fury X numbers with units or clock was 10% increase to ROP throughput due to being now able to access the L2 cache.

Weirdly enough the Vega results ended up having better polygon throughput (~tesselation) and worse texture filtering while the situation has traditionally been the other way around. ALU throughput ended up with a tie while pixel fill was about 25% worse. Overall, just essentially having Polaris scaled up to 4096 SP/ 64 ROPs and 1500 MHz seems good even against the 1080 ti with minor arch improvements. Efficiency is pretty much the big question mark, but if that ends up as a 275 W card the efficiency is only about 20 % off big Pascal. It looks much like a slightly worse version of Hawaii against GK110.

Vega being ~20% faster than the 1080 would certainly look very good as a $500-550 card. That price should be doable with a much smaller GPU, interposer and fewer HBM stacks than on the Fury X.
post #295 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa View Post

It had better soundly beat it. AMD essentially skipped a year on the high end by not bringing 1 or 2 big polaris GPUs to the fight vs GP104 and GP102. So essentially with vega we should be getting the volta competitor. If big vega is 500mm2 and does not clearly beat the 1080Ti to submission, then AMD will suffer badly when volta hits. No way to sugarcoat this. 480 was a relative success but the PC gaming market is moving fast towards higher price points. AMD successfully restablished itself to the high end CPU world but the 1070,1080,OG Titan XP and 1080Ti have been uncontested. Hell the Titan is getting discontinued without facing competition for its entire lifespan and the 104 duo will effectively run a full year like that too. The masses of dedicated gamers that used 970s and 290/390s (which also influence their peers) want no 480s or 1060s.

Wrong. Vega is still AMD's flagship card for this generation, meant to compete with Pascal not Volta. They simply flipped their release schedule putting out the low/midrange cards first with Polaris and then hitting the higher end stuff with Vega. You can argue whether or not that was a sound business decision but Vega is absolutely a Pascal competitor and as such should not be expected to beat the 1080Ti outright considering the performance deficit they have to make up from last generation. I'd love to see it happen but it would be shocking if it did. Should be definitely faster than the 1080 but not quite at the 1080Ti level I'm guessing.
post #296 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Wrong. Vega is still AMD's flagship card for this generation, meant to compete with Pascal not Volta. They simply flipped their release schedule putting out the low/midrange cards first with Polaris and then hitting the higher end stuff with Vega. You can argue whether or not that was a sound business decision but Vega is absolutely a Pascal competitor and as such should not be expected to beat the 1080Ti outright considering the performance deficit they have to make up from last generation. I'd love to see it happen but it would be shocking if it did. Should be definitely faster than the 1080 but not quite at the 1080Ti level I'm guessing.

No amount of sugar coating will gloss over the fact that that wasnt a sound buisness decision. It should at least match a 1080Ti or at least slightly under it. Its been late to the party for more than a year and has been in development for longer.
post #297 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Wrong. Vega is still AMD's flagship card for this generation, meant to compete with Pascal not Volta. They simply flipped their release schedule putting out the low/midrange cards first with Polaris and then hitting the higher end stuff with Vega. You can argue whether or not that was a sound business decision but Vega is absolutely a Pascal competitor and as such should not be expected to beat the 1080Ti outright considering the performance deficit they have to make up from last generation. I'd love to see it happen but it would be shocking if it did. Should be definitely faster than the 1080 but not quite at the 1080Ti level I'm guessing.

I don't think it can be classified as just flipping their release schedule any longer. It's been almost a year since the RX 480 was released, and they are already launching a new/rebrand line. Flipping the release schedule would be a 3 or 6month difference maybe, but a whole year is more like missing a release.
post #298 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickyvida View Post

No amount of sugar coating will gloss over the fact that that wasnt a sound buisness decision. It should at least match a 1080Ti or at least slightly under it. Its been late to the party for more than a year and has been in development for longer.
So a better decision is putting out tech that is not matured?
Gaming Rig
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-4670K Asrock Z87 Extreme6 Powercolor RX 480 G-skill Ripjaws x-series  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Adata SPG 900X adata 120GB Antec H2O 620 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
MG279Q 27inch free sync CM Storm quickfire Seasonic 650W Fractal Design R5 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G502 ZERO Sennheiser PC-363D 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming Rig
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i5-4670K Asrock Z87 Extreme6 Powercolor RX 480 G-skill Ripjaws x-series  
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Adata SPG 900X adata 120GB Antec H2O 620 Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
MG279Q 27inch free sync CM Storm quickfire Seasonic 650W Fractal Design R5 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G502 ZERO Sennheiser PC-363D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #299 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syan48306 View Post

AMD Vega finally makes its first appearance in 3rd party benchmark.



Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



If Vega is only has a boost clock 1200mhz, then it's really in trouble compared to a 1,582MHz Boost & 2000+ Mhz max clock GTX 1080Ti.

Time to whip out that wallet and buy that GTX 1080Ti!

Vega's processing power isn't linked to it's MHz. The Vega GPU is now a processing cluster, no longer a direct driven shader array.
post #300 of 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by steadly2004 View Post

I would buy it with 1080 performance at $550. LOL but I'm not the market as a whole. I want something >fury performance for the freesync monitor. I don't care about the cooling as as it's sufficient. I'm not measuring my e-peen against Nvidia owners. Not after having Titan x SLI.... LOL


Are you crazy? the GTX 1080 has been lowered too $500 USD. Please try to go around online shop to see.
Project Frostbite
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core I7-6800K OC 4.2GHz @ 1.28 Vcore ASUS X99 Sabertooth Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11G Corsair Vengeance White LED 4x8GB DDR4-3200MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Evo 850 1TB Corsair H100i V2 AiO Window 10 64-Bits Home Premium Acer Predator XB271HU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Spectrum Mechanical Keyboard (Blue Switc... Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W Gold Phantek Enthoo Pro Full Acrylic Black Razer Diamondback 3G 
AudioAudioAudio
Audio Engine A2+ Speaker Audio Engine D1 DAC Audio Engine S8 Subwoofer 
  hide details  
Reply
Project Frostbite
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core I7-6800K OC 4.2GHz @ 1.28 Vcore ASUS X99 Sabertooth Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11G Corsair Vengeance White LED 4x8GB DDR4-3200MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung Evo 850 1TB Corsair H100i V2 AiO Window 10 64-Bits Home Premium Acer Predator XB271HU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Spectrum Mechanical Keyboard (Blue Switc... Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W Gold Phantek Enthoo Pro Full Acrylic Black Razer Diamondback 3G 
AudioAudioAudio
Audio Engine A2+ Speaker Audio Engine D1 DAC Audio Engine S8 Subwoofer 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Videocardz] AMD Vega with 64 Compute Units spotted