Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [KitGuru] AMD Radeon RX Vega caught hiding in plain sight
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[KitGuru] AMD Radeon RX Vega caught hiding in plain sight - Page 6

post #51 of 664
They obtained the 9.8 TFLOPs number by assuming 4096 shaders x 1200 MHz x 2 FLOPS/cycle .

By that same notion a 1300MHz VEGA would be on par with the GTX 1080 Ti number they stated.

Anyhow expecting the RX VEGA flagship to be between the GTX 1080 and GTX 1080 Ti is more realistic. It's effectively 2 x RX 470 in terms of shaders.

As far as bandwidth : The GTX 1080 only has 320GB/s memory bandwidth but delta color compression allows it to perform more like 800GB/s in gaming / graphics workloads. Using the same delta color compression ratio of 1.3x for Polaris for RX VEGA, it would only need 615 GB/s. However, the GTX 1080 Ti has over 1,210 GB/s bandwidth once you factor in 2.5x delta color compression , which means RX VEGA would need ~930GB/s memory bandwidth.

The issue with that is that this is not the performance in reality except peak compute. The RX VEGA GPU will have NCU and other improvements, geometry pipeline improvements, Primitive Shader , etc.
Edited by AlphaC - 4/29/17 at 8:51am
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 #52 of 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by black96ws6 View Post

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2871/radeon-rx-vega
This has to be little Vega?
Release date, clock speed, GCN version (Vega is GCN 5). The performance estimate is also literally just Vega shaders * clock / RX 480 shaders / RX 480 clock. It comes to 0.59 (Polaris) * 1.69 ~ 1. I would not put any value on that, other than as the literal minimum performance estimate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by infranoia View Post

But with 64 ROPs, best of luck pushing those pixels.
Not going to be an issue whatsoever. Polaris already caught up to Nvida on ROP throughput, Vega is going to at least match the 1080 ti with yet another similar throughput/clock improvement and ROPs being able to use the L2, and the increased clock speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickyvida View Post

I don't see how they can sell for half the price when the 1080 already goes for 499. That would be bleeding cash and given HBM price, it'll be more expensive that $500.
It isn't. The reality of the matter is that two stacks of HBM with an interposer isn't going to be significantly more expensive than having more GDDR5X controllers eating die space and having a massive amount of additional high speed traces in the PCB and additional power delivery for the memory. Fury X had a decent gross margin, and Vega should be able to match it at a lower price. GPU price is down (14nm costs more per area but Vega is so much smaller that it more than compenstates for that), memory price is down and interposer size is down (<700mm^2 instead of 1000+), not to mention packaging is easier with fewer stacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lass3 View Post

Nvidia drivers are fine here.

CF is just as bad. Multi GPU is slowly dying. Less and less support on game release.

Multi GPU, never again. I'll rather lower graphics quality and get a smooth experience, than having to deal with issues, stutter, terrible frametimes, bad scaling or downright lack of support.
Multi-GPU is in a terrible spot when AAA development is becoming more and more of an mess. For it to work properly you need a good engine and either a very technically skilled development team or a lot of support from the GPU vendor(s). It's not surprise that most games don't have that when many don't function properly at launch even with a single GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by black96ws6 View Post

Interesting tweet by Raja:

https://twitter.com/GFXChipTweeter
Probably talking about primitive shaders, that essentially increase primitive rate and act as the next level of pixel discard accelerator while doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

I was always saying there is no way Vega will be clocked at 1.5GHz, 1.2 is what I'm expecting. Also with 4096 SPs I hope it can beat GTX 1080 @1440p+

It might be new GCN cores, but they won't be that much better

But I do expect a bigger Vega later on...
1 200 MHz seems incredibly little, that's down from Polaris and only 150 MHz up from the Fury X. Even if they're aiming for 225 W TBP I'd expect at least 1 350 - 1 400 MHz on slightly matured 14 nm and few tweaks to Polaris. Many 580s can do 1 450 MHz out of the box and that's little more than Fiji with pixel discard accelerator, better memory compression and better geometry throughput.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ha-Nocri View Post

Because Polaris can't do that, it's the smaller chip and it's still the same architecture basically, GCN.
And Pascal is basically Maxwell, even more so.
post #53 of 664
If you want Vega to succeed in the market, you do AMD no service by comparing Vega to anything from Nvidia right now. "Poor Volta" aside, AMD has a pretty light touch about that right now, and that should be a hint.

Let it stand as its own thing in its price point and stop pining for a 1080 killer. Don't pump it up. False hype and hypothetical benches do not help.
Parasite
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 G.SKILL 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 Corsair HG10 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B CMSTORM Quickfire XT 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. 
Audio
Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
Parasite
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 G.SKILL 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 Corsair HG10 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B CMSTORM Quickfire XT 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. 
Audio
Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
post #54 of 664
If Vega is as good as the 1080TI i will buy one or two definitely. It would be a shame for this new card to go the same way the Fury X did. Pretty much obliterated by NVIDIA. Take my cash AMD but also provide me with some proper performance. I want solid 1080p frames with 4K potential as I will be moving into 4k gaming.
 
QUEEN OF BLADES
(15 items)
 
ASUS U6Sg
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 REV D0@4.2 HT Asus Rampage II Extreme CFX: ASUS R9 270X DCUII 6GB DDR3 XMP CL6 TRIDENT 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Vertex 2 180 GB+RAID 0 2 * 1 TB SAMSUNG Sony Optiarc Labelflash Thermalright Venoumous X W7 X64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410 IPS Logitech Corsair CMPSU-850TX Antec 1200 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech HAMA Xonar STX / Auzen Forte 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
XEON 5650X @4.45 GHz  Rampage III Formula PCGH CFX: ASUS R9 280X DCUII 16GB G-SKILL CL9@ 1643 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1x 850 Pro 256 GB + 1xWD 500 GB + 2x3TB WD RED Plextor PX-L89OSA Thermalright VX W10 X64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ACER B203W Razer Deathstalker Corsair CMPSU-750TX Antec 902 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G800S Logitech Gaming  Creative Titanium HD + FiiO E17 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo : T8300 Asus U6000Sg Series Notebook NVIDIA 9300 GS 4GB Kingston CL4 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Ultrastar Asus POS Stock Asus with MX3 W7 x64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorAudio
Asus 12.1 " LED Creative X-Fi EX54 
  hide details  
Reply
 
QUEEN OF BLADES
(15 items)
 
ASUS U6Sg
(15 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 920 REV D0@4.2 HT Asus Rampage II Extreme CFX: ASUS R9 270X DCUII 6GB DDR3 XMP CL6 TRIDENT 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Vertex 2 180 GB+RAID 0 2 * 1 TB SAMSUNG Sony Optiarc Labelflash Thermalright Venoumous X W7 X64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2410 IPS Logitech Corsair CMPSU-850TX Antec 1200 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech HAMA Xonar STX / Auzen Forte 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
XEON 5650X @4.45 GHz  Rampage III Formula PCGH CFX: ASUS R9 280X DCUII 16GB G-SKILL CL9@ 1643 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
1x 850 Pro 256 GB + 1xWD 500 GB + 2x3TB WD RED Plextor PX-L89OSA Thermalright VX W10 X64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ACER B203W Razer Deathstalker Corsair CMPSU-750TX Antec 902 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech G800S Logitech Gaming  Creative Titanium HD + FiiO E17 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo : T8300 Asus U6000Sg Series Notebook NVIDIA 9300 GS 4GB Kingston CL4 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi Ultrastar Asus POS Stock Asus with MX3 W7 x64 Ultimate RETAIL 
MonitorAudio
Asus 12.1 " LED Creative X-Fi EX54 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 664
If specs are true then it wont even come close to 1080Ti and Titan X levels. Once again AMD has extremely heavy shader cores and not nearly enough pixel crunching power.
Gaming
(17 items)
 
Gaming PC
(20 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
7700K AS Rock Z170 OC Formula Titan X Pascal 2050MHz 64GB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
950 EVO m.2 OS drive 850 EVO 1TB games drive Intel 730 series 500GB games drive Custom water cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 Pro x64 AMH A399U E-Element mechanical, black switches, Vortex b... EVGA G3 1kw 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Lian-Li PC-V1000L Redragon M901 LH Labs Pulse X Infinity DAC Custom built balanced tube amp with SS diamond ... 
Audio
MrSpeakers Alpha Prime 
  hide details  
Reply
Gaming
(17 items)
 
Gaming PC
(20 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
7700K AS Rock Z170 OC Formula Titan X Pascal 2050MHz 64GB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
950 EVO m.2 OS drive 850 EVO 1TB games drive Intel 730 series 500GB games drive Custom water cooling 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win 10 Pro x64 AMH A399U E-Element mechanical, black switches, Vortex b... EVGA G3 1kw 
CaseMouseAudioAudio
Lian-Li PC-V1000L Redragon M901 LH Labs Pulse X Infinity DAC Custom built balanced tube amp with SS diamond ... 
Audio
MrSpeakers Alpha Prime 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 664
any indication of the TDP of this thing?
hopefully its low enough to fit on a NANO profile like the Fury Nano.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGma1987 View Post

If specs are true then it wont even come close to 1080Ti and Titan X levels. Once again AMD has extremely heavy shader cores and not nearly enough pixel crunching power.

one aspect of Nvidia's supremacy is it's much higher clock speed, if you clock down 1080Ti or Titan X to 1200Mhz it would be barely on-par against RX Vega, in theory.
for whatever reason Nvidia's chips could clock to such a high point, AMD needs to do it as well at their own way, since more clockspeed definitely makes a difference.
Edited by epic1337 - 4/29/17 at 9:41am
post #57 of 664
Another question, why does techpowerup even need this so called 'place holder'? Does this 'place' or 'slot' disappear if they dont have a 'holder'? Its their website and their database, they can add and remove anything they want anytime they want. Seems to me this is more like clickbate and FUD than some mythical slot reservation for a database that they control.
post #58 of 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokin View Post

LOL I made a general statement and you go get all defensive. I guess you know what that says about yourself. You don't reserve any judgement cause you've been saying AMD failed this, AMD delayed that in all the Vega threads....

What's wrong with saying the truth? rolleyes.gif If they set the bar with the poor Volta, it better damn well be matching Volta, or else it'll be like thier overclocker's dream.. again.rolleyes.gif
post #59 of 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaC View Post

They obtained the 9.8 TFLOPs number by assuming 4096 shaders x 1200 MHz x 2 FLOPS/cycle .

By that same notion a 1300MHz VEGA would be on par with the GTX 1080 Ti number they stated.

Anyhow expecting the RX VEGA flagship to be between the GTX 1080 and GTX 1080 Ti is more realistic. It's effectively 2 x RX 470 in terms of shaders.

As far as bandwidth : The GTX 1080 only has 320GB/s memory bandwidth but delta color compression allows it to perform more like 800GB/s in gaming / graphics workloads. Using the same delta color compression ratio of 1.3x for Polaris for RX VEGA, it would only need 615 GB/s. However, the GTX 1080 Ti has over 1,210 GB/s bandwidth once you factor in 2.5x delta color compression , which means RX VEGA would need ~930GB/s memory bandwidth.

The issue with that is that this is not the performance in reality except peak compute. The RX VEGA GPU will have NCU and other improvements, geometry pipeline improvements, Primitive Shader , etc.

I dont understand how you got to the 980GB/s number for vega.

And your own numbers for 'effective bandwidth' are wrong (effective bandwidth is rather disingenous for enthousiast but I'll get to that ) your own link states that the 1080 has 1.7 greater 'effective bandwidth' compared to a 980 without any compression, something the 980 has but is not taking into account by Nvidia in this slide. the actual benefit from compression is 1.2 as stated in the slide and as stated by the reviewer. "NVIDIA pegs the effective increase in memory bandwidth from delta color compression alone at 20%. The difference is of course per-game, as the effectiveness of the tech depends on how well a game sticks to patterns"

which means the 1080's 380GB/s has 320*1.2 = 384GB/s

Then you talk about the 1080 Ti and a factor of 2.5 for compression, If you could elaborate more on this that would be great.

PS, on the same page it mentions bandwith over GPU power is getting lower over generations, how would it be bad if Vega follows that trend?
Edited by Yttrium - 4/30/17 at 1:59am
post #60 of 664
TPU should have added that disclaimer a long time ago, since the beginning. If I'm not mistaken they have had placeholders like this for other upcoming cards for some time now.

Anyway, this is what bad journalism is these days, beginner's mistakes everywhere: TPU made the mistake to not make it clear that they had no inside information for their GPU-Z utility and KitGuru made the beginner journalist's mistake to not ask TPU directly about it.

Accounting for the tile based renderer, not to mention the other architectural improvements, is missing from these high in the air speculations. We can all scale up the Fury X to 1200 Mhz and post some numbers, what are we now? A news source? The unfortunate thing is that from past events, where some sites did indeed pick up such stuff, yes, yes, apparently and against all odds and everything that is to be expected, we are...
Edited by tpi2007 - 4/29/17 at 10:34am
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Metro 2033 review
Metro 2033
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-3820 Asus Sabertooth X79 MSI GTX 750 Ti TF Gaming 16 GB Corsair DDR3 1866 Mhz Dominator 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD 830 128GB + WD Caviar Black 1TB Sony Optiarc DVD-RW Corsair A70 + Noiseblocker M12-P Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ RL2455HM Cooler Master Octane Corsair AX750 Professional Modular 80 Plus Gold Cooler Master HAF 912 Plus 
Mouse
Cooler Master Octane 
  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 › [KitGuru] AMD Radeon RX Vega caught hiding in plain sight