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

[Glo.]

DSBR isn't a API call, that happens automatically in Vega, it is made to reduce the amount of work Vega must do.

In other words, game sends geometry to DX/Vulkan/openGL API. Drivers take that data, do whatever tweaking on it, and send it on to the hardware.

DSBR works on a pixel level, and it may have zero (0) impact on the workload, depending on if the game's workload has already culled the geometry down to the pixel level. Hint, most modern AAA game engines already do this.
That means, that if the game/app already is doing pixel level culling, then DSBR won't have any work to do, and you won't see any savings (which is why some of those benchmarks we have seen, this feature has zero impact on them).
That also means, that in really old games where the culling wasn't down to the pixel level, DSBR should show some nice gains, but again, this is workload specific (some engines are better than others).

*Edit, is there any AT'er that got a Vega FE? If so, and they have a Unreal 4 based game, they could turn off occlusion via TOGGLEOCCLUSION console command, and DSBR should keep the framerates the same as before, well, in theory. I don't got a Unreal 4 based game to see what that actually does.


Which patches do you speak of? I did a quick glance, and didn't see anything relevant.

Here is what Sebbbi thinks about Vega GPU.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1992079/

"It behaves just like any other GCN GPU".

In theory you are correct that this is automatic. The problem is: Are drivers enabling the new features? Is it all working properly as it should or we have to wait 6 months after Vega RX release to get best out of it?

Engineering samples of Ryzen were clocked lower than final chips, so why would these very early leaks of Raven Ridge be a the final clock speeds? Which specific Bristol Ridge part was it compared with?

Assumptions like this, leaping to conclusions, is how Vega got overhyped.

No they do not have to be final clock speeds. The same way have seen 3.6/4.0 GHz on Ryzen 7 Eng samples few months before release, not be final clock speeds. Or was it?

Doesn't DX12 still need to know what's there through drivers?

Yes it has. But its applications job to decide what to do with them.

That is why Raja have said that with Low-Level APIs they cannot do very much for control of performance.

 

[OatisCampbell]

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...ga-Frontier-Edition-16GB-Liquid-Cooled-Review

Liquid cooler review is out.
tl;dr
Between 13% and 17% faster than air cooled version in 4K at stock. So 15% more performance for 16% more power, with liquid cooling reducing leakage. Sounds about right.

Spoiler: Images

The water cooling makes it a 1080 competitor, will depend on pricing for value.

AMD caught a HUGE break here with the mining craze inflating the cost of NVIDIA cards as well. (or more accurately, "We (gamers) all got the shaft because mining makes gaming cards more expensive.")

 

[Dribble]

The water cooling makes it a 1080 competitor, will depend on pricing for value.

AMD caught a HUGE break here with the mining craze inflating the cost of NVIDIA cards as well. (or more accurately, "We (gamers) all got the shaft because mining makes gaming cards more expensive.")

Only not the 1080's or 1080Ti's as they aren't great for mining, and they are Vega's competitors so in fact no break at all.

As for that watercooled review, well it says something pretty terrible that you have to increase power target and use watercooling using 400W+ to just get it to stay at the 1600Mhz boost speed through testing.

 

[Glo.]

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...rs-and-discussion.59649/page-151#post-1992110

I know this is "not conclusive", however try to compare the benchmarks and then come up with any conclusion about Vega.

What the ...?

 

[Tee9000]

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...ga-Frontier-Edition-16GB-Liquid-Cooled-Review

Liquid cooler review is out.
tl;dr
Between 13% and 17% faster than air cooled version in 4K at stock. So 15% more performance for 16% more power, with liquid cooling reducing leakage. Sounds about right.

Hmm I don't think it's at stock, but OC to 1712 Mhz because all graphs show that

 

[CatMerc]

Hmm I don't think it's at stock, but OC to 1712 Mhz because all graphs show that

It's stock with the 350W BIOS switch. The OC involves increasing power limit beyond that.

 

[Tee9000]

It's stock with the 350W BIOS switch. The OC involves increasing power limit beyond that.

As I said before, all graphs show "Radeon Vega FE (WC 350W) 16GB (1712/945)" for stock 350W BIOS with OC and "FE WC (1382/945)" for stock 300W BIOS. There's nothing in sight of 350W at 1600 Mhz stock.

I've asked Ryan if that's a mistake. I'm waiting for a response.

 

[CatMerc]

As I said before, all graphs show "Radeon Vega FE (WC 350W) 16GB (1712/945)" for stock 350W BIOS with OC and "FE WC (1382/945)" for stock 300W BIOS. There's nothing in sight of 350W at 1600 Mhz stock.

I've asked Ryan if that's a mistake. I'm waiting for a response.

Good idea. I'll be honest, didn't see the actual clockspeed, just the W there in the graphs

 

[Malogeek]

Here is what Sebbbi thinks about Vega GPU.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1992079/

"It behaves just like any other GCN GPU".

And this is why he doesn't post about it and stays out of any of the discussion. People quote him and draw conclusions. You don't know what he's referring to when saying that, but it merely is referring to the way the pipeline works and CUs operate. It doesn't mean any features are there or not or disabled etc.

 

[Glo.]

And this is why he doesn't post about it and stays out of any of the discussion. People quote him and draw conclusions. You don't know what he's referring to when saying that, but it merely is referring to the way the pipeline works and CUs operate. It doesn't mean any features are there or not or disabled etc.

Am I drawing any conclusions based on this?

 

[insertcarehere]

That OC power consumption is nuts...

 

[Cloudfire777]

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...ga-Frontier-Edition-16GB-Liquid-Cooled-Review

Liquid cooler review is out.
tl;dr
Between 13% and 17% faster than air cooled version in 4K at stock. So 15% more performance for 16% more power, with liquid cooling reducing leakage. Sounds about right.

Spoiler: Images

So it consumes 350W and perform the same as a 170W GTX 1080.

Holy bleep

 

[n0x1ous]

That OC power consumption is nuts...

msi warned us

 

[Elixer]

Pcper's water cooled Vega tests aren't really shocking, we already knew that Vega runs hot and eats power. With no new drivers released by AMD, no new info is shown.

One really has to wonder what the heck kind of cooler RX Vega will have?
It absolutely needs tri-fans and a vapor chamber for reference design, but, will they use that, or another crappy blower? If blower, then people should stay far away, and wait for the OEMs to get a good cooling solution in, which means closer to end of August it seems before you see them.

*edit, that Water cooler on that card looks to be really expensive, I wonder if this is from CoolerMaster, or someone else? I am betting that sucker costs $130 easily.

 

[Malogeek]

*edit, that Water cooler and that card looks to be really expensive, I wonder if this is from CoolerMaster, or someone else? I am betting that sucker costs $130 easily.

The water cooler is CoolerMaster and is massively overbuilt on the FE. GamersNexus have a breakdown thanks to someone taking their apart and sending them photos.

 

[Tee9000]

that Water cooler and that card looks to be really expensive, I wonder if this is from CoolerMaster, or someone else?

It is indeed CoolerMaster.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Just gonna take a stab at it:

$450 Vega RX Air: 10% slower than GTX 1080 reference

$550 Vega RX Water: 5% faster than GTX 1080 reference

Thats the best case scenario I think. Still a huge MEH and 15 months too late

 

[tviceman]

So it consumes 350W and perform the same as a 170W GTX 1080.

Holy bleep

Who in their right mind is going to buy this at $500? Even $450? Before mining destroyed the current market, 1080's were going for $450-$480 fairly regularly.

I don't see AMD coming in at $400 with full tier RX Vega, so I still see this as shaping up to be the biggest high end flop in 10 years.

 

[Elixer]

Who in their right mind is going to buy this at $500? Even $450? Before mining destroyed the current market, 1080's were going for $450-$480 fairly regularly.

I don't see AMD coming in at $400 with full tier RX Vega, so I still see this as shaping up to be the biggest high end flop in 10 years.

That is the thing, if AMD can launch with the inflated prices that are around now, they will price it high. Then, down the road, they can throw in some "free" games.
Monero miners would be first in line to buy out all the Vega RX cards they can get, Vega is that good for them. 1080ti ~0.76kH/s, 390 ~0.81kH/s, and Vega FE 1.16kH/s.

Of course, this assumes that nvidia isn't going to lower the price of the 1070/80 or offer a good bundle. I don't see the 1080Ti getting lower at all.

So, yeah, for the very high-end consumer mark (1080Ti), AMD will still have no answer.

 

[insertcarehere]

That is the thing, if AMD can launch with the inflated prices that are around now, they will price it high. Then, down the road, they can throw in some "free" games.
Monero miners would be first in line to buy out all the Vega RX cards they can get, Vega is that good for them. 1080ti ~0.76kH/s, 390 ~0.81kH/s, and Vega FE 1.16kH/s.

Of course, this assumes that nvidia isn't going to lower the price of the 1070/80 or offer a good bundle. I don't see the 1080Ti getting lower at all.

So, yeah, for the very high-end consumer mark (1080Ti), AMD will still have no answer.

But on a Perf/W standpoint, given this consumes roughly 2x GTX1080 Power, does it actually get the 2x speed in mining that will justify the expense? Given that miners are suckers for perf/W first and foremost...

 

[tviceman]

That is the thing, if AMD can launch with the inflated prices that are around now, they will price it high. Then, down the road, they can throw in some "free" games.
Monero miners would be first in line to buy out all the Vega RX cards they can get, Vega is that good for them. 1080ti ~0.76kH/s, 390 ~0.81kH/s, and Vega FE 1.16kH/s.

Of course, this assumes that nvidia isn't going to lower the price of the 1070/80 or offer a good bundle. I don't see the 1080Ti getting lower at all.

So, yeah, for the very high-end consumer mark (1080Ti), AMD will still have no answer.

Skip mining customers. I still fully believe mining is a fad that is going to (eventually) crash and for all but the .01% of all wanna-be miners. Who, in their right mind, will buy RX Vega to play games?

 

[vissarix]

Just gonna take a stab at it:

$450 Vega RX Air: 10% slower than GTX 1080 reference

$550 Vega RX Water: 5% faster than GTX 1080 reference

Thats the best case scenario I think. Still a huge MEH and 15 months too late

Yeah Vega sounds like a terrible terrible gpu...even overclocked and while consuming 440W cant beat the gtx1080 on an Amd friendly game like Hitman..

http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-vega-frontier-edition-liquid-cooled-model-overclock-power-test/

 

[Armsdealer]

Stop. Look at nVidia's share price and put yourself in Lisa's shoes.

1) eventually being a profitable player in gpu has enormous potential upside to my share price

2) ergo AMD has to maintain market share in gpu.

3) we built vega when nVidia's share price was in the gutter and everyone thought dgpu had no future and thus we under invested and vega sucks.

Conclusion: Take a profitability hit, maintain share, and invest more into the next generation.

Vega is going to be a bargain folks. It only has 12 months to live. 300 USD ish for the cut die with better than 1070 performance.

 

[Elixer]

Vega is going to be a bargain folks. It only has 12 months to live. 300 USD ish for the cut die with better than 1070 performance.

They can't sell it for much lower than $400. Look at the Fury line. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to do that. They need to use premium cooling + circuitry to handle Vega, and that isn't cheap.
I also wonder if they can get away with only 1 HBM2 chip for a 4GB card, or will it have to be 2 x 2GB? Then again maybe they won't offer a 4GB model.

AMD was just caught off guard with the 1080Ti, they have no answer for it.
Heck, with them having to pump up voltages so high, it seems they got fab issues for both HBM2 & Vega, unless Vega was never design to compete with the 1080, and instead was a Polaris replacement.

 

[french toast]

They can't sell it for much lower than $400. Look at the Fury line. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to do that. They need to use premium cooling + circuitry to handle Vega, and that isn't cheap.
I also wonder if they can get away with only 1 HBM2 chip for a 4GB card, or will it have to be 2 x 2GB? Then again maybe they won't offer a 4GB model.

AMD was just caught off guard with the 1080Ti, they have no answer for it.
Heck, with them having to pump up voltages so high, it seems they got fab issues for both HBM2 & Vega, unless Vega was never design to compete with the 1080, and instead was a Polaris replacement.

My original post sort of deleted and posted somehow, can mods delete this please.
Thanks.