Maybe they chose it because it is a benchmark because it is one where already the FE is doing better than the 1080.
Are you sure about that?
I tried to do a quick google search for reviews comparing FE with 1080 in BF1, but the only thing I found was
this video review, where the two are neck and neck (which again, is also what AMD's numbers would suggest).
My bad, I miscalculated. But here is a 46% more in RottR for the Vega FE from an indipendent review, with early drivers (no tile based rasterization until August 14th, it seems).
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graph...ition-16GB-Air-Cooled-Review/Rise-Tomb-Raider
So it depends on where the bottleneck is.
That's nice and all, but it's also quite obvious why AMD didn 't use RotTR in their marketing material. Vega FE may be 46% faster than Fury X here, but Fury X kind of sucks to begin with (24% slower than 1070). This ultimately means that even though Vega FE is 46% faster than Fury X, it's still 13% slower than 1080.
How so? Nvidia fans always complain about the green cards being so vastly superior because their geometry throughput...
Anyway, depends on the game and features turned on, but in any case having less bottleneck on geometry is preferrable to having one.
I'm guessing that you meant "brag" not "complain" (after all it would be weird to complain about your preferred brand being superior).
Honestly I couldn't care less about what fans of either side decides to tout as the latest and greatest feature, in which their chosen brand rules supreme.
Unless it's reflected in actual game performance it doesn't matter.
I am not saying anything before reviews come out. I already said that power consumption is a negative point. Many people, instead, are very fast to judge Vega as a failure before that, an this more due to their "brand loyalty". than facts.
People are not judging Vega as failure based upon brand loyalty, they are doing so based on AMD's own marketing material. And unless you think AMD outright lied in their material, this is indeed fact (albeit cherrypicked).
Also it's worth noting that this is only about Vega failing as an architecture on a perf/mm2 metric, not as a consumer product. Vega could utterly suck on a perf/mm2 metric and still be a great consumer product. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as bad products, only bad prices.
Facts that must take in account the novelty of the architecture and that the actual Vega chip will address much more than the gaming market.
I own an Nvidia card, but being a tech enthusiast I will be objective until I see the actual results.
Regarding the novelty of the architecture, I suppose it is possible that AMD FineWine(R) will strike again, but they look to have one hell of a hill to climb in this regard. Vega doesn't really appear to be all that exceptional outside of the gaming market either, with the exception of its low price (compared to quadro cards), seeing as it trades blows with GP102 (and quite often loses).
Also I don't really think that downplaying AMD's own marketing material and arguing that Vega will somehow be better than what AMD is claiming is particularly objective. I mean, by all means we should wait for reviews, but when was the last time you saw a product perform better in reviews than in the marketing material?