AMD Vega (FE and RX) Benchmarks [Updated Aug 10 - RX Vega 64 Unboxing]

[Malogeek]

100 FPS in W3 is around GTX 1080 FE performance level.

It's not comparable based on a couple of screenshots. That's the problem with this, it's ridiculous. Unless someone with a similar system (CPU etc.) goes to exactly the same place and matches settings to compare, it's useless. fps can vary wildly depending on where you are and where you're looking. One of those screens he's looking at the skybox, yeah that's a good test.

 

[Karnak]

It's not comparable based on a couple of screenshots. That's the problem with this, it's ridiculous. Unless someone with a similar system (CPU etc.) goes to exactly the same place and matches settings to compare, it's useless. fps can vary wildly depending on where you are and where you're looking. One of those screens he's looking at the skybox, yeah that's a good test.

Pretty much this.

CB has ~100fps in 1080p for a 1080ti, PCGH around 93fps and TPU around 130fps. You need to know what exactly they're benching.

Edit: The 93fps from PCGH are in 1440p, so higher resolution. But results from CB and TPU are still 1080p.

 

[Dribble]

Something is really off here. The Vega FE seems to have 25-35% better perf than fury x, although having a little over 50% clockspeed advantage and supposedly better architecture. If these scores are to be believed then Vega has worse perf per shader/clock than Fiji which itself was worse in that regard compared to Hawaii..

It doesn't have 50% more memory bandwidth, it's probably memory starved.

AMD's comparison for Vega FE to Titan is perfectly valid. It's not AMD's fault that NV can't decide what the Titan card is supposed to be, or provide pro drivers for their prosumer card. So it bodes pretty well i'd say that AMD's prosumer Vega FE card stands up to the best Quadro card on the market, and AMD have a whole line of higher performing Radeon Pro cards yet to be revealed.

The Titan's only sell because they are the fastest - that makes them a halo product for people who don't really care about the cost. Vega is not the fastest(for gaming or pro), AMD is the budget brand recognised for value for money, it's not going to sell as a halo product like the Titans.

 

[Bacon1]

It doesn't have 50% more memory bandwidth, it's probably memory starved.

It wasn't running @ 1600 in the firestrike score posted which has been said multiple times, including by the guy who ran it.

The Titan's only sell because they are the fastest - that makes them a halo product for people who don't really care about the cost. Vega is not the fastest(for gaming or pro), AMD is the budget brand recognised for value for money, it's not going to sell as a halo product like the Titans.

This looks to be the middle ground card. Its faster than Quadro in gaming, while slower than them in complete "Pro" work. Seem to be great for game developers who need both instead of having to buy two cards for twice the price.

 

[Bouowmx]

It's not AMD's fault that NV can't decide what the Titan card is supposed to be, or provide pro drivers for their prosumer card.

NVIDIA TITAN's purpose is pretty clear to me: early-adopter's tax (of the biggest die) and poor-value halo gaming. TITAN never received any 'pro' or Quadro drivers.

So it bodes pretty well i'd say that AMD's prosumer Vega FE card stands up to the best Quadro card on the market

The following is called standing up to NVIDIA Quadro P6000? In what way?
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/...mance_benchmarks_detailed/#comment-3390277423

Spoiler: Image

Just leave NVIDIA Quadro comparisons to AMD Radeon Pro WX9100.

 

[Face2Face]

It's not comparable based on a couple of screenshots. That's the problem with this, it's ridiculous. Unless someone with a similar system (CPU etc.) goes to exactly the same place and matches settings to compare, it's useless. fps can vary wildly depending on where you are and where you're looking. One of those screens he's looking at the skybox, yeah that's a good test.

Non-skybox screen shots.

 

[Bacon1]

Non-skybox screen shots.

Cheers... now if he'd only turn on VSR and get some 1440p/4k #s ;D

 

[Shlong]

I was hoping for closer to 1080ti, but if the price is right, well, I still might. The wait though... It's been exhausting. I'm about done even caring at this point.

I was thinking about waiting for this back in March/April when I was building my Ryzen rig and just using the GTX 970 for now but Microcenter had an open box GTX 1080 for $410, so I jumped on that and I'm glad I made that decision.

 

[crashtech]

I was thinking about waiting for this back in March/April when I was building my Ryzen rig and just using the GTX 970 for now but Microcenter had an open box GTX 1080 for $410, so I jumped on that and I'm glad I made that decision.

I don't have a Microcenter near me, so kindly allow me to hate you.

 

[Maverick177]

So basically Vega Founder Edition is around 1080 level in gaming?

Was hoping Big Vega will be around GP102, but oh well.

A
Massive
Dissapoinment.

 

[Bacon1]

So basically Vega Founder Edition is around 1080 level in gaming?

Source?

You can't compare it to other reviews since it isn't the same scene. Does anyone care to test their GPU in those same spots?

 

[Krteq]

Well, comparing Vega results in 1080p on i7 4690 rig with Titan Xp/1080Ti 1080p results on Broadwell-E/Hasswell-E/Skylake-X rigs? Really?

 

[jpiniero]

So basically Vega Founder Edition is around 1080 level in gaming?

I think that's the problem, people's expectations are too high.

 

[cytg111]

So basically Vega Founder Edition is around 1080 level in gaming?

Was hoping Big Vega will be around GP102, but oh well.

A
Massive
Dissapoinment.

Yea so far... there might still be some percentages in the drivers and the possibility that it will age better. One way or the other it will come down to price.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I think that's the problem, people's expectations are too high.

It's wasn't unreasonable to expect Vega to get close to GP102 for a variety of reasons.

 

[Armsdealer]

I'm pretty sure rx vega will present an excellent value proposition given how small of a window amd has before volta shows up and they have a lot of development costs to recoup. They have to move product over the next 6-12 months. The consumer wins here. The loser is amd's financials.

 

[ZipSpeed]

I think that's the problem, people's expectations are too high.

Agreed. AMD doesn't have the financial clout or mindshare that Intel or Nvidia gets to enjoy, so they have to pick their battles. By dumping most of their eggs into Zen, the outcome was inevitable that Vega would get the short end of the stick. It doesn't mean Vega is a complete failure though. They can still get some sales through perf/$. Graphics was what propped AMD only until recently. Hopefully CPU can return the favor and give some much needed funding to RTG.

 

[jpiniero]

It's wasn't unreasonable to expect Vega to get close to GP102 for a variety of reasons.

You really think so? The 1080 Ti FE is 70-85% faster in most games than the Fury X, and sometimes more. That's a lot to ground to cover with no extra cores or ROPs.

 

[crashtech]

Agreed. AMD doesn't have the financial clout or mindshare that Intel or Nvidia gets to enjoy, so they have to pick their battles. By dumping most of their eggs into Zen, the outcome was inevitable that Vega would get the short end of the stick. It doesn't mean Vega is a complete failure though. They can still get some sales through perf/$. Graphics was what propped AMD only until recently. Hopefully CPU can return the favor and give some much needed funding to RTG.

Putting that way gives good perspective. The CPU side clearly needed the most work, so with limited resources, they did the right thing.

 

[piesquared]

The Titan's only sell because they are the fastest - that makes them a halo product for people who don't really care about the cost. Vega is not the fastest(for gaming or pro), AMD is the budget brand recognised for value for money, it's not going to sell as a halo product like the Titans.

It was originally branded as a prosumer card, and that was the justification at the time for the premium price tag. Vega FE beats both Titan XPs in the area NV built the Titan brand around and escalated prices with. So in fact Vega is the fastest card in the pro space that Titan is supposed to occupy. Now that Vega FE is on the market, the perception of Titan is an expensive gaming card with poor pro performance. Regardless of the hysteria and FUD running rampant, Vega FE will probably be quite successful with developers, which is what counts since that is the target market.

 

[IEC]

A power supply does not throttle a graphics card or CPU. It either powers the system entirely, or it shuts down the system and possibly damages components.

Come on dude, you should know this.

This is actually not entirely true. While it is usually the case that it either works, or it doesn't work at all, has instability, or randomly shuts down under load, there are cases where a power supply can be defective in a way that leads to low GPU performance and "hitching" in benchmarks. I had this occur with a Radeon 7950 + Seasonic X750 combination several years ago. After swapping of components between two PCs I determined that the PSU was at fault. The RMA replacement restored normal performance (as did the PSU from the other PC).

This is extremely unlikely to be the case here, but it is worth correcting the assumption that such an occurrence is impossible (it isn't).

 

[crisium]

So basically Vega Founder Edition is around 1080 level in gaming?

I think that's the problem, people's expectations are too high.

Are expectations too high? Have you seen what Raja said?

Q: Many argue that vega is just a refined polaris gpu, how would you respond to this ?
A: My software team wishes this was true
Vega is both a new GPU architecture and also completely new SOC architecture. It's our first InfinityFabric GPU as well
...
The new geometry pipeline in Vega was designed for higher throughput per clock cycle, through a combination of better load balancing between the engines and new primitive shaders for faster culling. As a programmer you shouldn't need to do anything special to take advantage of these improvements, but you're most likely to see the effects when rendering geometrically complex scenes that can really push the capabilities of the hardware.

So if it has worse performance-per-flop than Fiji which had worse than Polaris then why did you bother to engineer a new architecture? And what the hell are you talking about higher throughput per clock? Raja please.

Don't forget: "Vega performance compared to the Geforce GTX 1080 Ti and the Titan Xp looks really nice." - Don Woligroski, AMD

And remember this joke of a marketing attempt: https://i.redd.it/phn0bwnobq7y.jpg

Raja also said this though:

RX will be fully optimized gaming drivers, as well as a few other goodies that I can't tell you about just yet

This here is your only hope. AMD make themselves look foolish with this card, but RX Vega launch drivers will make or break them.

 

[DiogoDX]

Very poor performance if true.

980Ti SC+ stock with 382.33 driver
3930K 4.2GHZ

1080p ultra hairworks off

Same place now in 4K

 

[Bacon1]

Very poor performance if true.

980Ti SC+ stock with 382.33 driver
3930K 4.2GHZ

1080p ultra hairworks off

Why is the UI so much larger in that one?

Edit:NM Forgot about Hud scaling options. Looks like the Vega guy scaled his hud down

 

[DiogoDX]

Why is the UI so much larger in that one?

Edit:NM Forgot about Hud scaling options. Looks like the Vega guy scaled his hud down

Mine is default HUD.

EDIT: Curious to see 4K performance since is my native resolution and the 980Ti get destroyed on the same settings. I have to turn down a lot of settings and play with 45~50 fps.