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.
I think GTX1070 can only manage 3triangles/clock with 3x GPC and GTX2070 will be probably again 3x gpc with 3x triangles/clock.
But yeah 4x SE will be probably again bottleneck.AMD need 6x or better 8x shader engines.
1650MHz and only 6785 graphics score? That's actually pretty bad. Even slower than a 1080 and we're talking about Time Spy and DX12.Live testing of AMD Vega Frontier Edition
One result already obtained: TIme Spy 6785 graphics score
1650MHz and only 6785 graphics score? That's actually pretty bad. Even slower than a 1080 and we're talking about Time Spy and DX12.
The drivers were released yesterday.I was just thinking the same thing... that's really really disappointing. Hopefully it's just old drivers that are holding it back.
The drivers were released yesterday.
Actually, I believe that the equivalent of AMD's Geometry Processor is the nVidia's Polymorph Engine. A Geometry Processor can do one triangle per clock and recent AMD designs have four Geometry Processors for four triangles per clock. nVidia designs have 15, 20 or 30 Polymorph Engines for the 1070, 1080 and 1080 Ti respectively, so even at one triangle every two clocks, you end up with 7.5, 10 and 15 triangles per clock respectively, although I don't believe that any nVidia cards can achieve this throughput (they just aren't bottlenecked by triangle setup).
The guy on the livestream was getting around 40-45fps in 4k, ultra no hairworks.Running 4K ultra + hairworks off would give a better indication of GPU-bound performance.
Yeah then he ran Witcher 3 again to test (with no difference) and I noticed he had vsync on as well. It must have been running triple buffering.I tuned into the stream to hear him say "it was in workstation mode oops".
If they can release the vega gaming version and it it is not crippled in any way, is not a paper launch, has drivers working on day 1 and is priced at $399 there might be something left of my stock by next month >.<
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.
This is excelent news for 99% people.Miners wont buy vega for mining.The mining was also disappointing at ~ 33mhs. "This is not the card you are looking for"...
They cant do anything without money and AMD didnt give them.All money after 7970/290x went to ryzen.Fury X was a severely bottlenecked card. In terms of perf/TFlop it was substantially worse than Polaris. Many of us expected (or at least hoped) that these bottlenecks would be eliminated (now that reticle size was no longer a limiting factor) and that the new hardware features would increase perf/TFlop to Maxwell/Pascal levels. That would have resulted in a competitive product.
Instead, we get what appears so far to be an epic disaster. The gaming benchmarks look very much like what you'd expect if you took Fury X and were able to boost the clock speeds to 1400-1600 MHz. Architectural improvements since then don't seem to have made any difference at all in ordinary gaming. The only thing I can think of that could possibly excuse this is if the Draw Stream Binning Rasterizer (tiled rendering) isn't active in the current drivers. Otherwise, it indicates that whatever bottlenecks held back Fury X are still present. The most likely culprit is the front end; we know from Linux drivers that there are still only 4 shader engines. And, as you noted, there are only 64 ROPs (GP102 has 96). It looks like the cut-rate Chinese design team that put together Vega (and Polaris) wasn't skilled enough to work around the limitations of GCN. Vega was supposed to remove the 4 shader engine limitation but it doesn't appear that they were able to pull this off.
Another disappointment is clock rates. Pascal can easily do 1600-1700 MHz without substantially sacrificing efficiency, and easily overclocks to nearly 2000 MHz. In contrast, it looks like Vega barely clocks higher than Polaris. We were expecting 1600 MHz as the sustained speed, but it looks like this will only be obtainable on watercooled cards, if that. And the power budget is going to be obscene. "Typical Clock" for aircooled Vega FE is only 1382 MHz, which is barely better than Polaris 20 and far worse than the Pascal competition.
It's time for Raja to go. No longer can we make the excuse that he's just inheriting someone else's problems. Vega is his legacy, and it looks like it's going to cripple RTG for years to come. Enough. Get rid of Raja, get rid of the cheap Chinese design team, and reboot RTG in America where it belongs.
Yeah then he ran Witcher 3 again to test (with no difference) and I noticed he had vsync on as well. It must have been running triple buffering.
Imagine the humiliation when Vega comes out and it's barely faster than a GTX 1080.
Think you said this before?It's time for Raja to go. No longer can we make the excuse that he's just inheriting someone else's problems. Vega is his legacy, and it looks like it's going to cripple RTG for years to come. Enough. Get rid of Raja, get rid of the cheap Chinese design team, and reboot RTG in America where it belongs.