Overclock.net banner

[WCCFtech] AMD’s RX Vega 64 Blows Away The Titan V At 2055 H/s With XMR Monero

4K views 30 replies 16 participants last post by  Blameless 
#1 ·
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Radeon: Mining Evolved.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: RickRossBigBoss
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVLux View Post

It's also using 70 more watts, FYI.

Not the most negligible amount.
I wonder why the article fails to ever actually point out that Titan V is actually delivering more performance per watt. Obviously Vega is the better value proposition regardless.
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post

I wonder why the article fails to ever actually point out that Titan V is actually delivering more performance per watt. Obviously Vega is the better value proposition regardless.
Volta 12nm and HBM, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't more efficient than Vega. But if you are buying a brand new $700 card, efficiency is whatever. For second-hand owners it might be more important when cross-shopping last year's high-end with this years midrange.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0451 View Post

Volta 12nm and HBM, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't more efficient than Vega. But if you are buying a brand new $700 card, efficiency is whatever. For second-hand owners it might be more important when cross-shopping last year's high-end with this years midrange.
For the consumer I agree that efficiency is only relevant to anyone when a user's brand of choice is the one currently excelling therein. However for mining there are people who run large farms looking to strike gold, and at that scale efficiency is a big deal. Probably not a big enough deal to justify the Titan V specifically, but nonetheless.

I must say, though, and no offense to any Vega owners (I'd buy a 56 if I was in the market for a GPU today), but its efficiency is really Fermi-tier bad, to the point where it has to at least be acknowledged. A PSU sufficient for a 1080 build may not be sufficient for the same build with a V64.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post

For the consumer I agree that efficiency is only relevant to anyone when a user's brand of choice is the one currently excelling therein. However for mining there are people who run large farms looking to strike gold, and at that scale efficiency is a big deal. Probably not a big enough deal to justify the Titan V specifically, but nonetheless.

I must say, though, and no offense to any Vega owners (I'd buy a 56 if I was in the market for a GPU today), but its efficiency is really Fermi-tier bad, to the point where it has to at least be acknowledged. A PSU sufficient for a 1080 build may not be sufficient for the same build with a V64.
An RX Vega is also slightly more powerful than a GTX 1080. To get V64 power out of a 1080, it would need V64 power. I'd rather have another inch under the gas pedal.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitrzac View Post

And vega cards require constant babysiting to maintain that speed. On top of a mountain of other issues with mining with vega cards.
The XMR train left last month, you're all a little late.
rolleyes.gif
If you don't know how to overclock, I can understand your concern. It's not for everyone.

Revenue is $7 a day and it only took me 10 minutes to set up a wallet and get going. Guess I'm late?
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil View Post

11.12 h/w vs 9.68 h/w.

could buy 5 Vega 64's for one Titan V in Canada.
But then you would need a motherboard, that can hold those Vega, and not melt. Along with a much beefier PSU. or multiple PSUs. Then there is in-house wiring to consider.... I mean, if you live in an igloo in Canada, and get free elec, go for it.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVLux View Post

It's also using 70 more watts, FYI.

Not the most negligible amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usario View Post

I wonder why the article fails to ever actually point out that Titan V is actually delivering more performance per watt. Obviously Vega is the better value proposition regardless.
This. Nvidia Titan V looks very efficient.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0451 View Post

If you don't know how to overclock, I can understand your concern. It's not for everyone.

Revenue is $7 a day and it only took me 10 minutes to set up a wallet and get going. Guess I'm late?
$7 a day and plummeting fast on an $800 card is not a good idea, especially considering that the cryptonight algo is the only thing they do well for the price.
thumb.gif

Last week my vega card rig was making ~$12 a day each.
tongue.gif
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitrzac View Post

$7 a day and plummeting fast on an $800 card is not a good idea, especially considering that the cryptonight algo is the only thing they do well for the price.
thumb.gif

Last week my vega card rig was making ~$12 a day each.
tongue.gif
Because I paid $800 for it and I bought it to mine, right?
 
#23 ·
Actually, VEGA 56 getting over 2kh/s (average is 2kh/s, max is about 2150h/s for now). Give it few more months for proper miner support and good timings, and it will do over 2.2kh/s average.
Hell, i get 1kh/s on my RX 480/580 cards.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01 View Post

Isn't Cryptonight that algorithm that is very memory and communication heavy such that it achieves almost no speed up over CPU (purposely done to make it ASIC resistant)?
Scrypt was meant to be resistant in that way. Cryptonight is similar with its main feature being that it is very latency sensitive. It fits in modern CPU caches but is too large for GPUs to do efficiently at the moment. As such, it's suitable for CPU mining right now.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle View Post

Scrypt was meant to be resistant in that way. Cryptonight is similar with its main feature being that it is very latency sensitive. It fits in modern CPU caches but is too large for GPUs to do efficiently at the moment. As such, it's suitable for CPU mining right now.
Yeah, pretty much. Pretty poor algorithms to run power hungry GPUs on. Granted that if @ku4eto's benchmarks are true, that's very slow and inefficient even when compared to 6 year old CPUs.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01 View Post

Yeah, pretty much. Pretty poor algorithms to run power hungry GPUs on. Granted that if @ku4eto
's benchmarks are true, that's very slow and inefficient even when compared to 6 year old CPUs.
Welp, i can screenshot you my sgminer. No Vega tho. I may get a screenshot from Wolf for this.

Also, i can show you screenshot on how it runs on 2 cores on E5-2660 v2 (with and without double L3 usage), and on a FX-8350.

A single CPU is handling better the cryptonight algo, than a GPU.

But you cant scale it properly. For whatever price you want. Thats why GPU's are preferred.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top