The reason you stay here is because you also have a feeling something is missing and its out if the ordinary. So just let it go.
We dont know what performance it will give but its imo better to take a slight positive approach than the opposite.
I trust Zlatan because his prior predictions have been good as i can tell. Even for far longer term than this. If he says what Vega needs is ngg and psedo channel enabled and his guess is nov/dec for the ngg i think its as solid a guess we can get.
When we look at the missing features and the performance profile - and especially inefficiency - of vega it adds up.
Well, if you are taking whitepapers as a marketing materials, go read ISA documentation which is backing up those claims in whitepaperWhitepapers, until they are backed up by benchmarks and real world testing(by independent third parties), are exactly marketing material.
Feel free to go read the thread on the Beyond 3D Forum for yourself here, where I started the argument about whether primitive shaders were or were not enabled in Vega's public drivers on page 57 that continued until Ryan Smith confirmed that they were not enabled in Vega's public drivers on Page 59:
Whitepapers are not marketing.
Probably worse. What people don't realize that even people that are completely fine in terms of flooding.. food is running out. None of our grocery stores are admitting people.. most have lines outside and are admiting people 1 by 1. Food running out as most don't know how to prepare.Great you being safe. Is it as bad as it looks?
Whitepapers are marketing by definition!
Was wondering about that. I live in the tropics on the edge of the hurricane belt, and was cut off earlier this season for 4 days. Roads impassable with flooding, trees down, etc plus no power for 1 week. Always be prepped.Probably worse. What people don't realize that even people that are completely fine in terms of flooding.. food is running out. None of our grocery stores are admitting people.. most have lines outside and are admiting people 1 by 1. Food running out as most don't know how to prepare.
I was not claiming that Ryan Smith and others looked into it as a result of seeing my posts about it it. I meant only what I said: that the discussion about it that I reignited led to finally getting some on the record confirmations of what the evidence I presented pointed to.You seem to have missed that the issue of the primitive shaders not being enabled and the results of the Beyond 3D Suite were brought up a week before you posted about it. You also seem to think Ryan saw your post, contacted AMD, got a response back and posted about it within 17 hours of your post - less than one business day.
Excellent, so do you have any evidence to support the contention that RTG is lying about the existence of primitive shaders? Or that their estimates of the expected benefits is overstated by more than double? More than quadruple? Do you have any evidence of RTG previous lying in white papers? Please do share if you have any such evidence.Whitepapers are marketing by definition!
So, it is both!A white paper in the high-tech industry is a technical document that describes how a technology or product solves a particular problem. It's a marketing document and a technical document, yet it doesn't go too far in either direction. A good white paper is informative and is designed to show off the advantages of a product or technology.
White papers are perhaps the most challenging type of technical document to write. They require a deep understanding both of a product's technology and of its application in solving a technical business problem. White papers are tuned specifically to:
- Show that the vendor understands customer problems;
- Describe the vendor's technology; and
- Explain why that technology is the customer's best choice among available products.
I was not claiming that Ryan Smith and others looked into it as a result of seeing my posts about it it. I meant only what I said: that the discussion about it that I reignited led to finally getting some on the record confirmations of what the evidence I presented pointed to.
In the end it was directly my trying to figure out what was going on with RX Vega's performance that led to Ryan Smith and several others to finally confirm on the record that primitive shaders were not enabled RX Vega's public drivers.
Excellent, so do you have any evidence to support the contention that RTG is lying about the existence of primitive shaders? Or that their estimates of the expected benefits is overstated by more than double? More than quadruple? Do you have any evidence of RTG previous lying in white papers? Please do share if you have any such evidence.
Well, if you are taking whitepapers as a marketing materials, go read ISA documentation which is backing up those claims in whitepaper
Your inability to understand that I said led them to confirm on the record, not led them to investigate, is your own issue.Backpedal some more
It is quite obvious exactly what both you and Rifter intend to imply about the Vega whitepaper, and by extension about primitive shaders as described in the whitepaper. That neither of you appear to have any interest in discussing the underlying substance of what the performance implications of even a 50% increase in Vega's culled geometry throughput would be speaks for itself.You are very, very confused. I have never made any claims of the above, so why would you ask me for evidence? I'm actually rather befuddled by your posts, considering the amount of inaccuracies and goalpost shifting in them. Are you trying to make an argument that Vega is actually better than what AMD says it is?
It is quite obvious exactly what both you and Rifter intend to imply about the Vega whitepaper, and by extension about primitive shaders as described in the whitepaper.
Please do us a favor and report your results. If I thought I could obtain a Vega 56 now at MSRP, I would. Most likely I will await third-party vendors.Time will answer all questions, I put my money on vega56 over time ( I keep gpu 2-3 years). It's now siting on my desk, fun times when I get home.
Right, so you agree with me that Vega was a failure and cannot compete with current Nvidia offerings either in perf/watt or overall performance. And at current street prices not in perf/$ either.
To me the freq seems very fine for gcn and they claim they do it using same lenght of pipeline. If anything it seems to me this hardware work on the different parts making able to hit the timings is working well. Thats is backed up by ipc is so close to fiji.It would hardly be the first time efficiency has been horrid on a new arch and needed hardware refinement to really shine(GTX 480---->GTX580)
This is not the first time I've had to point out how certain posters routinely show up in threads about new AMD GPUs, and then intentionally work to completely derail them. It is almost clockwork, and if you actually look at their posting, it indicates a concerted effort to do this. Generally they don't post much if at all until there's something they need to try to actively spin. They tend to also have a habit of posting blatantly trolling/astonishingly stupid things from time to time and then slink away for a while when called on it. But then as the release gets closer/happens you'll see them as a group start slowly posting more and more, until they've managed to completely derail the threads. I've also noticed in the past few years that there's regularly 1-2 new posters echoing their general sentiment and tone, sometimes downright to almost the exact same phrasing and points. Strangely you'll often notice one or two of the regular names being absent even though you can often find those usernames posting on other forums, even specifically discussing this forum clearly indicating that they're actively watching it (often while gloating about $#!^posting here). But the ones being active tend to badger users that bring up points of discussion that don't fit the narrative they're going for (especially if its someone they feel they can goad into the following), often by turning the thread into a moronically pedantic back and forth about specific words or phrases that they are just using to derail serious discussion, whilst they claim that others are "not trying to have an honest discussion about the actual topic" even though they seem to believe they get to subjectively decide what that is at any given point (and even when given point blank answers to questions they'll continue to badger over it; see the talk of "you agree Vega sucks? well you're not agreeing well enough, stop trying to deflect by saying that the performance as is is lacking and talking of "magical drivers" and features that are turned on and don't do anything for performance - but by the way Nvidia totally does that stuff already and they do it well but AMD nope - no matter that the GPU editor for the site we're posting on has straight up verified the feature isn't currently turned on!").
The single saddest part is that, this actually used to happen both ways and it was near constant all the time and not just hitting a fever pitch like 2-3 times a year, so this is actually kinda an improvement over how this subforum used to be. Scratch that, the actual saddest part is that there have been several very good posters that put in effort to having great objective discussions that have gotten roped into this type of garbage posting to refute this type of activity, and you'll notice that most of them no longer post here because of it.
i wanted my first test to be 3dmark01 but i cant get it to run on windows 10.Please do us a favor and report your results. If I thought I could obtain a Vega 56 now at MSRP, I would. Most likely I will await third-party vendors.