How much difference is it in GB/s?It only says 530 which is a 30hz OC for memory, or 6%
I just tested my Fury Nitros @ 1000 and 1100 and got ~9% faster with a 10% OC
Nitro @ 1000: 15032
Nitro @ 1100: 16352
How much difference is it in GB/s?
This is HBM, you forget.
NoThe card loses to a slightly OC'd (1150) Furx X in fire strike graphics score. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think that many surprising turns have yet to come.
The price is speculation, but that's probably not far out. The true 'gaming' platform might be able to squeeze a few more % out to place it as sort of a middling-tier between 1080 and 1080ti.So now Vega is targeting 1080 performance or better, probably for between $499-$549?
Heh, I was done years ago when I switched to NV/Intel. Joined the dark side, no issues since.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.
Graphics score. Fury X 1125 MHz 23120 GPU score. Radeon Vega FE 1.6 GHz - 22916 GPU score.
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12987144/fs/11047656/fs/6657103#
Something is definitely up. We already saw Vega running @ 1080 levels of gaming perf 6 or 8 months ago using debug level Fury drivers. If there hasn't been an uplift in perf there is some piece to this that we just don't know. My gut it telling me there is major driver work being done, moreso than normal, to get all of the new Vega features running optimally with each other.
RX Vega X2 please... [deleted]
AMDs logic is to rather have people bench the cards themselves and post results so people can compare.Is there any body home in amd gpu marketing and pr department?
Well probably miners will clean up the mess for the shareholder perspective. But what is this launch?
I mean how in this world can you make a product launch without doing anything ? Like nothing. Man thats a new benchmark.
Sorry but i dont get the meaning. Is it launching in 2 days or what?
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.No
Fury X 1135MHz OC: 8046
GTX 1080 Firestrike Extreme: 10200
Vega FE: 10600
GTX 1080 Ti: 13600
Fury X 1135MHz OC: 4115
GTX 1080 Firestrike Ultra: 5200
Vega FE: 5350
GTX 1080 Ti: 6700
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-video-card-review_167134/10
AMD has repeatedly stated that they are "focused on developers and content creators" and they have some special driver optimizations specifically for those use cases. Other than offering a "game mode" in the drivers, they are not focusing on that for reasons that only appear obvious. In benchmarks using those pro applications, it is "up to 70% faster than the GTX Titan Xp for less money" and that's the narrative they want to own.
The problem is that NVIDIA markets the Titan Xp as a halo gaming card, where AMD has created this artificial bubble in which they can beat the Titan Xp in select situations where a Quadro or FirePro card would be most appropriate and effective, but still lose gaming benchmarks to the Titan Xp (based only upon limited FireStrike scores). The other problem is that gamers have been foaming at the mouth for Vega and now it shows up with possible issues and so-so FS benchmarks. AMD needs to get control of the narrative again before Vega is written off as a failure in its entirety - some of you are already banging that gong.
If this marketing move by AMD proves successful and Vega FE starts to make a dent, NVIDIA can just release equivalent driver updates for the GTX Titan Xp to accelerate the same applications while also keeping its performance advantage in games. That's a sucky place for AMD to be, I think. For now, I'm going to assume we're looking at poor driver optimization and very unscientific benchmarks.
Hey, if Vega truly ends up as a disappointment at least Ryzen was a home run. Every once in a while, you have to bunt.
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.
I see two possibilities: they have have locked the gaming perf down in drivers/drivers are really raw or they messed something fundamentally up in the architecture. At the moment im sadly leaning towards the second option. And as it was originally supposed to launch at the end of last year makes me especially suspicious. I don't think the problem was HBM2.
Looks like he ran some more tests. Witcher 3 as well, but pretty hard to make a comparison.
https://disqus.com/by/klaudiuszkaczmarzyk/
He was able to get it to stabilize at 1600MHz and it's topping out at 81c from the looks of it.
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.
Looks like he ran some more tests. Witcher 3 as well, but it's pretty hard to make a comparison.
https://disqus.com/by/klaudiuszkaczmarzyk/
He was able to get it to stabilize at 1600MHz and it's topping out at 81c from the looks of it.
I already correct you that this result is wrong.Why you keep posting that bs result?Graphics score. Fury X 1125 MHz 23120 GPU score. Radeon Vega FE 1.6 GHz - 22916 GPU score.
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12987144/fs/11047656/fs/6657103#