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

[Phynaz]

So we're back to the "AMD is in the consoles so they will be better on PC" argument.

Which has been true 0% of the time since that argument was started somewhere around eight years ago.

 

[CatMerc]

What is the performance with Chill enabled ?? that is the big question.

Does it matter? Chill is cool (pun intended), but it's only icing. We need a good cake. I am more curious about RX Vega not being pegged to 300W in all games. This might point to it being able to reasonably sustain DPM7 unlike Vega FE.

 

[Rifter]

This looks bad, AMD better price these right or its going to be DOA. Looks like it should be in the 50$ cheaper than 1080 price range. Looks to be similar in performance but much higher power consumption. Time will tell im sure it will be mining inflated prices for a while. Maybe by Christmas prices will normalize.

Unless Vega priced well i think 1080/1080Ti is where ill be looking for my next GPU.

 

[Elfear]

I applaud your optimism. But Polaris has already been proven to be a terrible overclocker and vega looks to be no different. These are already operating at max capacity with hardly anymore left in the tank. Amd already squeezed the maximum clocks they could out of it.

Vega 64 LC is supposed to hit 1750Mhz in DPM7. Vega 56 boost clocks are around 1450Mhz IIRC. Looks like quite a bit of room to overclock the lesser model.

 

[Rifter]

Vega 64 LC is supposed to hit 1750Mhz in DPM7. Vega 56 boost clocks are around 1450Mhz IIRC. Looks like quite a bit of room to overclock the lesser model.

Perhaps, unless they were binned for 56 model due to not hitting 64 model speeds. Time will tell. Any way you slice it though Vega doesnt have the performance so it had better be priced right.

 

[guachi]

So we're back to the "AMD is in the consoles so they will be better on PC" argument.

Which has been true 0% of the time since that argument was started somewhere around eight years ago.

It's almost impossible to prove what you're saying because you'd have to know what AMD GPU performance would otherwise be without consoles. Without the console contracts keeping the lights on it's possible AMD doesn't even have a GPU division and then it's pretty self-evident that AMD is better on PC because of consoles.

But you'd have to ask AMD executives what the state of RTG would be without consoles.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

It's almost impossible to prove what you're saying because you'd have to know what AMD GPU performance would otherwise be without consoles. Without the console contracts keeping the lights on it's possible AMD doesn't even have a GPU division and then it's pretty self-evident that AMD is better on PC because of consoles.

But you'd have to ask AMD executives what the state of RTG would be without consoles.

That's a pretty dark prognosis. I have a feeling that the APU business breaking into mobile and cheap desktop spaces will be more than enough to justify the expense of RTG going forward... now that they have a solid, energy efficient, high performance CPU to pair with that GPU half.

 

[CatMerc]

Vega 64 LC is supposed to hit 1750Mhz in DPM7. Vega 56 boost clocks are around 1450Mhz IIRC. Looks like quite a bit of room to overclock the lesser model.

1450MHz is DPM6. We don't know DPM7 of Vega 56.

 

[tviceman]

As of right now I'm thinking the best Vega card maybe an aftermarket RX Vega 56.
Give it:

• Excellent cooling
• 2 8Pin power connections
• OC ability approaching core and memory speed equivalent to water cooled Vega64
• ~$425-$450
• No mining tax (not likely right now)

If Vegas problems really are thermal throttling and ROP/Bandwith to SPs ratio then the RX 56 is probably better balanced, especially if mem OC to RX64 can be reached. A good aftermarket cooler takes care of thermal throttling and suddenly it should be nipping at the heels of RX64 and the 1080 for an attractive price.

If the problem is front end throughput beefed up power delivery for a core OC should put it in striking distance if the RX64 and 1080.

Out the box the RX56 has 10% more bandwidth per teraflop than the RX64.

If 1.89GT/s is possible from the default 1.6 then RX56 suddenly has 30% more bandwidth per teraflop than the RX64.

Basically dropping 8CUs reduces power and cost at no impact to over all performance if an aftermarket card can allow for similar core and mem clocks..... Maybe.

Before the mining tax hit, GTX 1080's were going for $450 and GTX 1070's were going for $350. Just saying.

 

[tviceman]

Vega 64 LC is supposed to hit 1750Mhz in DPM7. Vega 56 boost clocks are around 1450Mhz IIRC. Looks like quite a bit of room to overclock the lesser model.

Just like vanilla Fury, R9 290, and HD 7950, AMD's shining star always seems to be their second best card. More headroom and much more competitive perf/$.

 

[Insomniator]

That's a pretty dark prognosis. I have a feeling that the APU business breaking into mobile and cheap desktop spaces will be more than enough to justify the expense of RTG going forward... now that they have a solid, energy efficient, high performance CPU to pair with that GPU half.

They barely have a competing GPU line even with the possible help of consoles. If they had gone NV instead of AMD I wouldn't be shocked if Radeon did not exist, or was limited to crap like APU's.

 

[Magic Hate Ball]

They barely have a competing GPU line even with the possible help of consoles. If they had gone NV instead of AMD I wouldn't be shocked if Radeon did not exist, or was limited to crap like APU's.

Or maybe upper AMD management wouldn't have hamstrung the entirety of former ATI?

 

[Elixer]

This looks bad, AMD better price these right or its going to be DOA. Looks like it should be in the 50$ cheaper than 1080 price range. Looks to be similar in performance but much higher power consumption. Time will tell im sure it will be mining inflated prices for a while. Maybe by Christmas prices will normalize.

Unless Vega priced well i think 1080/1080Ti is where ill be looking for my next GPU.

They already said what the MSRP prices will be. Vega 56 for $399, & Vega 64 for $499.
If those prices actually hold, who knows.

 

[Paratus]

Before the mining tax hit, GTX 1080's were going for $450 and GTX 1070's were going for $350. Just saying.

Note I said "Best Vega Card".

 

[Rifter]

They already said what the MSRP prices will be. Vega 56 for $399, & Vega 64 for $499.
If those prices actually hold, who knows.

MSRP has exactly zero meaning in reality when talking about GPU prices since mining became a thing.

 

[Paratus]

MSRP has exactly zero meaning in reality when talking about GPU prices since mining became a thing.

Then it doesn't matter if AMD prices them right does it?

So what was your point?

 

[Qwertilot]

Especially if they really don't make many of them in the first place. (see Fiji iirc.).

 

[Konan]

Nvidia has been able to improve perf by 80% from Titan Maxwell to Titan Pascal. This is in line with what we are used to with a new process node. AMD has failed to do this . Simple as that.

GM102 - 8 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
GP102 - 12 billion transistors (80% perf improvement) TSMC 16FF+

Fiji - 8.9 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
Vega - 12.5 billion transistors (35% perf improvement) GF 14LPP

Whatever problems AMD has with improving perf are unique to them as Nvidia is executing like clockwork. Volta GV102 on TSMC 12FFN is going to bring another 50% perf improvement over GP102. There will be a die size increase from GP102 to GV102. But the key metric - perf/watt is going to increase in a big way.This is why AMD are failing hard with GCN and Vega.

btw 14LPP brings 2x improvement in transistor density and almost 60% power reduction at iso-perf. The or is only when looking at perf improvement or power reduction - either 50% perf improvement or 60% power reduction.

Hey @raghu78 what's the math on that 80% & 35%, how did you get that (the perf improvement)? Thanks (I'm just having a brain fart)
I see transistor change as:
GM102 - 8 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
GP102 - 12 billion transistors (80% perf improvement) TSMC 16FF+
33% more

Fiji - 8.9 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
Vega - 12.5 billion transistors (35% perf improvement) GF 14LPP
28.8% more

 

[Head1985]

MSRP has exactly zero meaning in reality when talking about GPU prices since mining became a thing.

Exactly.Here in czech republic rx580 sell for 400-420USD and GTX1070 for 500-600USD.No one cares about MSRP.And it will be same with vega if vega is good at mining.
First cards will sell after 5mins and then they will sell it for 1000USD.

 

[mohit9206]

Vega 64 LC is supposed to hit 1750Mhz in DPM7. Vega 56 boost clocks are around 1450Mhz IIRC. Looks like quite a bit of room to overclock the lesser model.

Yeah but why would you buy a card based on its potential to overclock.
Out of the box performance is the key.
Also overclocking a vega 56 would probably increase the power consumption far beyond the TDP.

Just like vanilla Fury, R9 290, and HD 7950, AMD's shining star always seems to be their second best card. More headroom and much more competitive perf/$.

Is rx470/570 good overclockers?
Rx570 is a pretty sweet card if i could buy one around $150.

 

[Paratus]

Yeah but why would you buy a card based on its potential to overclock.
Out of the box performance is the key.
Also overclocking a vega 56 would probably increase the power consumption far beyond the TDP.

Is rx470/570 good overclockers?
Rx570 is a pretty sweet card if i could buy one around $150.

Ok let's clear this up.

I said the RX Vega 56 could be the best Vega card. I meant this based on rumored performance:

• Battlefield 1: 95.4 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS)

• Civilization 6: 85.1 FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS)

• DOOM: 101.2 FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6FPS)

• COD:IW: 99.9 FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1FPS)

Listed price: $399

And the potential increase in performance from an aftermarket card.

Paratus said: ↑
As of right now I'm thinking the best Vega card maybe an aftermarket RX Vega 56.
Give it:

• Excellent cooling
• 2 8Pin power connections
• OC ability approaching core and memory speed equivalent to water cooled Vega64
• ~$425-$450
• No mining tax (not likely right now)

If Vegas problems really are thermal throttling and ROP/Bandwith to SPs ratio then the RX 56 is probably better balanced, especially if mem OC to RX64 can be reached. A good aftermarket cooler takes care of thermal throttling and suddenly it should be nipping at the heels of RX64 and the 1080 for an attractive price.

If the problem is front end throughput beefed up power delivery for a core OC should put it in striking distance if the RX64 and 1080.

Out the box the RX56 has 10% more bandwidth per teraflop than the RX64.

If 1.89GT/s is possible from the default 1.6 then RX56 suddenly has 30% more bandwidth per teraflop than the RX64.

Basically dropping 8CUs reduces power and cost at no impact to over all performance if an aftermarket card can allow for similar core and mem clocks..... Maybe.

So TLDR:

• Rumored Performance and Price make RX Vega 56 more than competitive with the current market price of the 1070
• A hypothetical aftermarket RX Vega 56 may improve many of the likely problems with big Vega, (thermal throttling, potential memory, ROP, and geometry bottlenecks)
• Should be more power efficient than big Vega
• OC may provide nearly 1080 and big Vega performance for less power (than big Vega) and money (than big Vega and 1080)

 

[tviceman]

So TLDR:

• Rumored Performance and Price make RX Vega 56 more than competitive with the current market price of the 1070
• A hypothetical aftermarket RX Vega 56 may improve many of the likely problems with big Vega, (thermal throttling, potential memory, ROP, and geometry bottlenecks)
• Should be more power efficient than big Vega
• OC may provide nearly 1080 and big Vega performance for less power (than big Vega) and money (than big Vega and 1080)

The problem is you and I both know there won't be a single RX Vega 56 going for anywhere close to $399 after the first two weeks if it can mine as efficiently as Polaris.

 

[Paratus]

The problem is you and I both know there won't be a single RX Vega 56 going for anywhere close to $399 after the first two weeks if it can mine as efficiently as Polaris.

I know. The GPU prices are insane right now.

 

[antihelten]

Hey @raghu78 what's the math on that 80% & 35%, how did you get that (the perf improvement)? Thanks (I'm just having a brain fart)
I see transistor change as:
GM102 - 8 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
GP102 - 12 billion transistors (80% perf improvement) TSMC 16FF+
33% more

Fiji - 8.9 billion transistors TSMC 28nm
Vega - 12.5 billion transistors (35% perf improvement) GF 14LPP
28.8% more

Transistor change and performance change is not the same.

I don't know where Raghu got his performance numbers from, but it could be something like this (1080 Ti 83% faster than 980 Ti, both cards use the same GPU as the Maxwell/Pascal Titan cards). For the 35% number he would obviously have to go off rumours and statements from AMD (since there are no reviews out yet), and if their statement that it trades blows with the 1080 holds true, then that would put it roughly 35% ahead of Fiji (Potentially even less though, if you look at the previously linked chart).

Also you did your transistor change calculations incorrectly. It is not 33% and 28.8% more, it's 33% and 28.8% less, since you calculated it relative to the higher number. The increase (and thus relative to the lower number), is 50% and 40% respectively. So in other words Nvidia achieved ~80% better performance with 50% more transistors, whereas AMD might only achieve ~35% more performance with 40% more transistors.

 

[Muhammed]

then that would put it roughly 35% ahead of Fiji (Potentially even less though, if you look at the previously linked chart).

AMD's own numbers have it @20~25% at low resolutions, and 34% at 4K.