Its 182 fps btw guys Nvidia might be finished 2.7 tears per

>>60697492
Nice anal-sis. I'm still going to Just Wait(tm) on some actual release benchmarks.

>>60697492
if it really is 182 fps on a crossfire setup, this puts an individual vega at higher than a 1080ti

>>60697568
Have we already forgotten how AMD tried to say 2 480s were as strong as a single 1080? I'm gonna wait on more benchmarks before I believe anything

What game is that, OP?

>>60697666
>tried to say
>actually showed

>>60697568
Which is possible
Consider the following
RX480 has 2304 cores @ 1120mhz with a narrow bus width(single card not an issue crossfire it limits)

Now vega has
4096 cores @ 1500mhz with basically unlimited memory bus

A single vega has to be more powerful than two Polaris chips

Now this is not even including the other specs they have given out
Twice the performance per clock compared to Polaris
3x FP16 compared to fury X
50% more performance per watt

Considering it uses 8 + 6 pin it still uses a lot of power

All of this adds up to performance above 1080 ti.
Two RX580s in crossfire perform as well as a single 1080 ti in games that actually scale well with SLI/crossfire. Like GTA V or FireStrike benchmark crossfire does suck in a lot of games so its hard to judge. But a 1080ti does not perform twice as well as a single RX580 that is it does not have double the framerate compared single vs single.

If what they claim is true on the specs of vega it should be an absolute beast. Assuming it has drivers which amd has no drivers so yea...

>>60697492
English motherfucker

File: CherryPicked.png (1005KB, 1280x721px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 1280x721px

>>60697666
Two 580s outperform 1080 ti in benchmarks and games that actually scale properly with muilti cards
Its very hard to compare two cards to one because of the issues crossfire/sli have

>>60697719
>Assuming it has drivers which amd has no drivers
They've improved on the driver front quite a bit lately.

I need to buy a new 600 dollar video card every year so I can play the latest console ports. Don't ask why.

>>60697719
Is vega going to be the 590/X or they're already going to the 600 series? Or are they going to do like the Fury X, a completely different lineup?

>>60697674
It's Prey.

File: CherryPicked2.png (1003KB, 1278x720px) Image search: [Google]

1003KB, 1278x720px

>>60697804
Yea I know but even roger kadorki said on twitter recently the drivers suck for vega even in prey atm

In this image I beleive the narrow bus of the 580s limit its performance in extreme and ultra settings but on normal it runs full speed it seems and outperforms the 1080ti

>>60697782
>games that actually scale properly with muilti cards
So basically none of them at this point?

File: amdcf.png (61KB, 807x533px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 807x533px

>>60697666
You know that's more or less true, right? Here's one set of benchmarks that gamersnexus released April 22 of this year. You can find the rest on their website, but it shows that a 480 in CF with a 580 is faster than a reference 1080. The AMD cards aren't reference, though, but you can scrape 10% of the AMD performance and it's still faster.

I will give you that the numbers AMD were citing at launch were weird and I have no idea what they were getting at when they said "51% GPU utilization." This is probably a factor in how tight lipped they've been with Vega.

File: CherryPicked3.png (595KB, 1282x716px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1282x716px

>>60697819
different lineup
RX500 series is complete with what you see
Cards are going to be named RX Vega

In this game you see crossfire/sli does not work basically
Single 580 is better than two 580s?

>>60697837
that's some really shitty scale right there on fire strike

File: cJrhek7.jpg (17KB, 214x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 214x200px

Never trust anything GPU related until one month after release of aftermarket cards. You don't want to get 970'd.

>>60697819
I think it's basically like fury

So I guess in 2019 we'll see RX670, RX680, Vega 20

>>60697882
>>60697919
thanks for the clear up, I was wondering about this for some time

>>60697855
Yea but the point of this is to show the Vega cant possibly slower than a 1080 ti based on the specs
4096 cores @ 1500mhz even on polaris architecture would be faster than a 1080 ti but AMD is also claiming 50% performance increase per clock as well for vega.
>>60697878
I think on ultra the narrow bus is hurting the crossfire cards on this a bit

>>60697974
ur so smart

>>60697940
if what they're claiming is true, Nvidia is destroyed until volta, and then Navi will destroy them again

amd is out for blood now isn't it? after all those years being left behind and bullied

Yeah, I'm still waiting on benchmarks. This reddit-tier analysis and flakey crossfire comparisons aren't doing anything for me.

Since vega is being integrated into their APUs, does that mean vega will be eventually phased down to replace vega, perhaps when navi is ready.

>>60698062
what?

>>60698001
Yes but no one will buy Vega anyway.

>>60698055
the only reason anyone's talking about CF is because that one anon said two 480s aren't as powerful as a 1080 when they are. Those comparisons have nothing to do with Vega, really.

>>60698001
FX died because they though silicon would clock higher as the nm scaled down which it does not due to leakage.

Radeon has been performing well up until pascal came out. AMD simple did not have a flagship to compete with it. R9 300 series cards competed with 900s nvidia quite nicely
AMDs release cycle is about 8 months behind nvidias.

>>60698090
fx dies for a lot of reasons, but clockspeeds weren't one

>>60697719
sadly these numbers don't perfectly extrapolate to moar frames per second, just look at the Fury X

>>60698062
Small cut down Vega 11 goes into the APUs

File: HallEffect.jpg (566KB, 1325x650px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 1325x650px

>>60698088
They do in the fact that vega has 4096 cores compared to 2304 cores in a 480
Also 1500mhz vs 1120

So Vega has 1.78 times more cores and clocks 1.34 times high on the base clock.
Not including IPC improvements(said to be 50%) we can guess the performance to be the following
Lets say 100% is 480 performance and GTX 1080 is twice as powerful so 200%

100% times 1.78 times 1.34 = 238.5% performance of a single 480 not including vram scaling of HBM2 or the IPC scaling of 50% they claim

>>60698162
No.

>>60698162
That's never the case, APUs have 11-16 CU

>>60697719
>All of this adds up to performance above 1080 ti.
The best indication of Vega quality are two facts:
1 it absolutely rapes Pascal based Tesla in any computational scenarios - so obviously a better GPU Chip.
2 It also has way better memory bus

Given that Volta will have no edge over Pascal for gay ming application Volta actually looks rather poor.

>>60698132
Compare a Fury X to a R9 380x
Fury X has twice the cores and is about 85% faster in gaming
It scales quite well as GPU compute is nearly perfect threading

>people don't know Vega's minimum framerate will be absurdly high compared to their average due to HBCC and HBM2's 3x higher tFAW than GDDR*

>>60698266
Everyone knows that, they demoed HBCC like twice already. Looks really impressive.

>>60698266
Minimums being close to averages would be game changing, I hope it's true.

>>60698301
You wouldn't even need gsync or freesync then.

>>60697903

What do you mean 970'd? I just got 2 970's for SLI (kinda regretting it, but it cost me $230 total)

>>60697492
>182 fps

This is why frame rate caps exist, idiot. If the game doesn't support it it can still be forced in your drivers. This is entirely the user's fault.

File: FuryXvs380X.png (193KB, 650x663px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 650x663px

>>60698301
Means you would stay in freesync range pretty much always
>>60698257
Core count scaling on single card is near 100% if the game is on a modern API
Fury x has twice the cores as the 380x
Fury non X has twice the cores as a 380 non x

Texture fill rates and GP/s are basically double as well

a 4096 core polaris if it actually clocked at 1500mhz would crush a 1080 ti

>>60698399
???
People are saying AMD is finished because the vega demo had screen tear
My guess is it was intentional so people like us can sit around and stroke off counting pixel to calculate FPS

For reference a 1080 ti gets 60-65 FPS on 4k in prey with the latest patch 1.2v(old patches did not display shadows on nvidia hardware raising FPS)
Comparison of the Prey patches

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC2ZlLoo14w

>>60698399
It's ebin AMD marketing trying to sbot ebin CF Vegas on 60hz no FreeSync projector.

Titan X performance at 1080ti prices.

>>60698464
>no AA
What if the demonstration had AA?
I'm sure someone with a good eye can see it even in that pixelated mess.

>>60698479
$489 for the big vega on water cooler
$449 without water cooler
$369 small vega normal air cooler only

>>60698493
If it had AA Nvidia is basically fucked.

>>60697492
It's funny, because the shittier vega scales with crossfire, the better it actually comes out against the 1080ti, even with 100% scaling (which is impossible) it already performs better

>>60698493
They eye can't see more than 28FPS of AA anyway

>>60698493
What if the projector was 30Hz? What if it was 4x SSAA? What if Vega scaling in Prey is under 60%? What if threadripper was clocked low? What if Vega wasn't a full Vega 10? What if Prey wasn't optimized for Vega yet(confirmed by Raja tweet)? What if generally Vega wasn't optimized on driver side yet?

Too much fucking variables, only a idiot would try to gleam some kind of absolute from this

>>60698493
they said ultra so who knows what that means for AA
>>60698562
eyes cant see more than 24fps man thats why film is always 24 frames
We cant hear more than HD audio either

>>60698394
3.5

>>60698601
The only thing I can say is RX Vega is 15% slower to 30% faster than a 1080ti in average framerate.

In summary, I can't say anything worth jack shit because it's a 50% margin of error

>>60698394
970 was advertised as having 4GB VRAM, but was really 3.5GB and 500MB of substandard fuckedness that some say is/was causing microstutters when you use more 3.5GB. Nvidia had to pay out in a class action as a result iirc.

>>60697492
If they actually achieved those frame rates they would have showed fps counter.

>>60698630

3.5?

File: ultradewideprey580s.png (14KB, 611x266px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 611x266px

>>60698601
30hz would be ~82 fps based on how many tears per frame it has but i think its 60hz projector

Based on the fact two 580s net 56~ fps in Prey @ 4k
Do you really think two Vegas would run the same level of performance of two 580s?
Crossfire scaling in prey seems to be very good
Video below for 4k 580s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YQ3DYl4Ffg

>>60698673
>some say is/was causing microstutters when you use more 3.5GB.

microstutters?

lol the fps tanks like 60% when a game tries to use the last 500mb of vram

that isn't microstutters what nvidia fanboys have you been listening to

>>60697492
This straight up just looks like the return of microstuttering. The bottom and top frames are the same the one in the middle is different. GAYMD fanboys cucked again

File: 1458848012974.gif (1MB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x169px

>>60698695

>>60698673

Awwww.... I didn't know. Is there anything I can do?

I bought them both used, so I doubt I could get any class action money.

>>60698750
Thought microstuttering was just between two frames.

File: 1494617269466.gif (540KB, 360x359px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 360x359px

>>60698695
The 970 has 3.5 GB of fast VRAM and 512 MB of really slow VRAM which tanks performance whenever it's used. It was "decent" when NVidia optimized the drivers (i.e. when it was a current gen card) but now they don't give a fuck and many games use it normally, as they see a 4GB segment, and the performance is shit. It would be better if it didn't exist, to be honest.

File: 1496354438702.jpg (61KB, 552x696px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 552x696px

>>60697492
wait for it

>>60698757
No, you're basically fucked. And it's not microstuttering like he said either. It literally goes from 60FPS down to 3-5FPS. It's completely unplayable.

Hope you're only running games at 1080p, mate.

>>60697568
>if it really is 182 fps on a crossfire setup, this puts an individual vega at higher than a 1080ti

Too bad it'll be up against Volta by the time it comes out.

>>60698811
>just wait for that GPU that taped out a few weeks ago
>it's coming out in a few months

>>60698811
Consumer Volta is Q2 2018 and will be barely 10% faster than Pascal.

>>60698811
Volta to pascal is like 580 from 480 + tensor cores that dont do jack shit in games.

File: 970ed.png (478KB, 1271x720px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 1271x720px

>>60698783
Yea hitting Vram cap and caching to SSD/HDD = wat

See the 3gb 1060 as well
It gets fucked with high texture games

>>60698831
>Consumer Volta is Q2 2018

And consumer Vega is Q4 2017, if AMD keeps up its current schedule (right now they say Siggraph '17 for the paper launch of the Pro cards, and gamer cards "a bit later").

>>60698954
High end Vega is coming out end of July.

>>60698954
Don't spread FUD, End of June for pro cards, end of July for gaymer shit.
Both launches.

>>60697552
alt+0153 gets you a ™, friend. You're welcome.

>This much autism over so little information
Just Wait™ for the actual numbers.

>>60698970
boy I love paper launches

>>60699010
>windows user
hows that ransomware treating you, windowsfriend?

>>60698757
>anything i can do

Run DX12 games that pool the total VRAM together and don't play above 1080p.

>>60699041
That depends on how long ago they've started stockpiling

>>60698800
>It literally goes from 60FPS down to 3-5FPS
The frames dip, but it's not anything that severe.

>>60699053
I have no idea what your buzzwords mean, but I'm doing literally everything I care to do on the computer without being interrupted or made to pay more money or being raped by the police, so it's going pretty well for me.

When I need to code something, I just boot up my ubuntu distro and compile and then go back to using Windows because it just works. All in all, a pretty great experience. Hell, Microsoft even offers to track my usage and give me tips for improvement, for free. How great is that?

>>60697492
How is tearing even allowed to exist in 2017?

>>60698840
It doesn't cache, the VRAM is there, and it's used. It's just so slow it basically acts like an SSD.

>>60698966
>>60698970
The Pro cards were confirmed to launch on July 31 on Siggraph 2017, availability was confirmed to be the end of Summer (which means Siggraph will be a paper launch), and the gamer cards were confirmed to launch a few months after that.

Considering that AMD has been consistently 2-4 months late with launches (Zen was promised for Q4 16, Vega for Q2 17), and that they already confirmed that gamer cards will be a few months later, this means that you'll be lucky to buy a Vega card by Xmas.

And I'm saying this as a guy who owned Ati/AMD cards since the 9600 Pro.

>>60698966
No, they didn't say launch, they said announcement

Computex was another announcement of an announcement.

>>60699098
running out of vram is that severe...
It goes from caching to 5000mhz ram to caching to a 7200rpm HDD or SSD if you run the game off that

>>60699152
Because no vsync and fucking projectors aren't fucking 144Hz output?

>>60699098
Mate I've seen the gameplay videos. It might've been a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still sub-10

>>60699158
Wrong it runs out of vram to cache and pull textures from so it uses the HDD
If you only have HDD it will run at 3-5 fps while over the vram cap
>>60699168
Depends on coin miners
They are already ravaging the 580s and 480s

>>60699168
>Vega FE launching end of June
>RX Vega launching during SIGGRAPH

t. Lisa Su

Go home, idiot.

File: 1484935986272.jpg (166KB, 822x740px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 822x740px

>>60698757
It isn't a terrible card, and it will play fine (but SLI'ing them is retarded), but it's sad to see how it aged like milk. Hell, probably even the HD 7950/7970 and rebrands are better than it now.

>>60699194
Wrong, it doesn't uses the HDD, it uses the slow VRAM. Lurk more.

>>60699168
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/amd_release_rx_vega_and_frontier_edition_launch_dates/1

What are you trying to pull here? Launch dates are publicly available information for these products.

>>60699197
Paper launch.

>>60699246

Nice of you to tell us, any more insider info?

>>60698840
>>60699194
You don't get it, you can use 3.6 GB of VRAM, not cache, and still slow down terribly because of how slow the last section of the 970's VRAM is. It could also cache slowing it down a tiny bit further if you use 4.1 GB but that's a moot point.

>>60699246
>I want to believe worst case scenarios because I love shitting on AMD : The post

>>60699173
>running out of vram is that severe...
Oh, sure, running out of VRAM is an FPS death-sentence.
But running off the wedged-on 500MB of slow VRAM on the 970 isn't running out of VRAM. And it's infinitely faster than caching from off card.
Look around at the numbers. There are many websites that have shown the performance penalty for running off the shitty 500MB section. The hit is measurable, but it's in the margin of single-digit FPS% lost. Notable, but not unplayable.
>>60699186
Hardware Unboxed did a video IIRC where there was some hitching, but it's really not that bad. Here's PCGamer's article.
>http://www.pcgamer.com/why-nvidias-gtx-970-slows-down-using-more-than-35gb-vram/
Look around. I don't know where you looked, but using the extra VRAM doesn't completely kill the card. And is still much more ideal that offloading it.

File: 1476071426663.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>60699226
???
If you go over 4gb it uses the HDD
Most cards use 4gb of actual high speed vram
970 can use 3.5gb of high speed vram and 500mb of aids ram but if you go past that it caches to HDD

Cards should be full speed until the vram cap then go into aids mode. The 970 slows way down once past 3.5gb and goes full aids at 4gb+

Why did nvidia cut a high speed ram module for a shit tier one and call it 4gb?
Pic related

>>60699246
Your credibility is about beawesome-tier after trying to FUD about release dates that are public.

>>60699183
Absolutely disgusting.

>people jacking off over framerates again.
It's a proven fact that each of your eyes can see 24 fps individually and when you're really focusing you can detect up to 48 fps. Why in God's name do you care about 180+ fps?

>>60699322
>needing useless shit like 144hz or gaysync on a fucking 20 feet light projector meant to show powerpoint slides or 24FPS videos

>>60699340
You don't understand, I want a huge projector, like a cinema one projecting on the side of my house so every neighbor can see how pro a CS:GO player I am and they'll become my friends and we'll have BBQ with Razer Gamer Sauce and pork shoulders

File: 1495143251007.jpg (50KB, 600x833px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x833px

>>60699339
>24fps
>HTC vive 90fps

cant into how eyes actually work
Sure 15fps can seem fluid motion but its not going to be ideal
Human eyes can detect a difference of 300hz to 500hz

File: its a feature.jpg (118KB, 992x633px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 992x633px

>>60699295
>it's a feature

>>60699295
it's not the RAM, it's the bus that connects to the RAM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_900_series#GTX_970_hardware_specifications
>32 bits instead of 224 bits
ouch.

>>60699478
Lol
Its like when the GTX 590 was out
they said 3gb but its actually 1.5gb + 1.5gb separate on each card and in SLI they dont add together so its actually a 1.5gb card

File: 1482391725120.jpg (12KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x640px

these delusional tears are going to be so delicious when it turns out to be 1070 levels with the shit drivers they have at launch.

>>60699728
>I am desperate to be negative about AMD in every way possible: The post

>>60699728
Yes, Fury X with 50% more transistors at 1600MHz+ is 1070 levels.

Your knowledge of hardware is as far reaching as your brain capacity.

>>60699728
Nothing is going to happen. Amdrones will just fall back for a couple of days back to /r/amd and return again shilling for navi.

>>60699746
>I'm desperate to damage control a very likely possibility: the post

I'm not even a fanboy of either company I just like to laugh at pajeets and fanboys on both sides.

>>60699786
being "neutral" doesn't excuse you from making dumb, retarded and uninformed statements.

In fact it just makes you sound like some retarded normalfaggot

>>60699786
>pajeets
Back to pol you go
>>>/pol/128049590

>>60699053
Heh. There's another thing for my "Things Linux Can't Do" novella.

>id rather run at 60fps or 144
Fps and not have tearing

>>60698691
and let your competition know two months before launch? I think AMD learned their lesson with the Polaris launch.

>>60700312
yeah like nvidia will release another titan or volta in the meantime
Nvidia already released thier entire Pascal based line
if anything people will buy nvidia if there's no hard info on vega performance
go be dumb at /r/amd

>>60700312
>Polaris
And Fiji before that. And Hawaii even earlier.

File: 1491717152341.gif (437KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 500x333px

>>60699914
>implying tearing is a product of the GPU

File: Untitled.png (50KB, 625x345px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 625x345px

Nope.

And he tries to spin a dual GPU setup being a single GPU (even though it doesn't if it's "about 60") as a positive.

>>60700945
He corrects himself in a later tweet to "above 60."

>>60700959
It was a freudian slip! Conspiracy!

>>60700312

why would you think that it would make a fuck if Nvidia saw the framerate two months from launch? it's not like they would suddenly make a new GPU or change anything in that timeframe

they were hiding the framerate and running dual GPU because it wasnt impressive, period

some of you guys keep falling for self-created AMD hype over and over and over again only to be disappointed

>>60697492
Pajeet head honcho himself said it was barely running above 60fps LMAO

>>60700945
RX 580 in crossfire run around 60 fps 4k in this game

Are we implying 580s are equal to vega?

>>60701028
Wow, AMD managed to make a chip three times Polaris size, run slower than Polaris!

How does AMD do it? What a mystery

>>60701028
yes that's exactly what it means. Inescapable logic.
VEGA is the first time in tech history where the new line is beaten by the old architecture

>>60701049
Wouldn't it be cool if it was running at 50W?

>>60701068
I'd actually want that more than a 1080ti + 20%, there's a much bigger market for that and ultra efficient hardware is interesting

>>60701068
you forgot one zero pajeet

File: thermi.gif (592KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 500x500px

>>60701083
Trust me, you don't want to go there.

>>60701083
>500w gpu
this aint 45nm + days

>>60699010
OR you can just you a fuggin smartphone...

>>60699134
>to code something
>Ubuntu
Such a masochism...

>>60699152
Who cares?

>>60703180
The fucking irony

>>60697719
So...was Polaris just a meme until Vega comes out ?

>>60698179
Nvidia brankupt and finished, how will they ever recover :-)

>>60704048
It was half-Fiji on 14nm. A stopgap measure.

>>60699226

Well, in practical performance it is neck and neck with my RX 480 4gb.

I am gaming in 1080p, I could have gotten a higher res display, but instead I got a 1080p 144hz display. Excellent decision IMO.

>>60704108
They needed something new on the 14nm so they came up with polaris quickly as vega was still a ways out
Polaris has a ton in common with GCN 3.0

Good for you faggots if Vega turns out not shit. I'm personally waiting for Navi, having a small die scale up to whatever they want sounds really nice.

>>60698062
Nope, the die is different. Small Vega is a complete discrete graphics chip which will probably replace Polaris in 2018, the "Vega" on their Ryzen Mobile APU is a collection of Vega CUs and ROPs integrated with Ryzen and its memory controllers via Infinity fabric.

>>60704235

Sounds familiar, almost like they have experience doing that by now.

>>60703212
I care.
It looks terrible. Why even bother having good graphics and high framerates if it fucking tears to shit whenever you move the mouse?

Tearing shouldn't exist in 2017. Fucking do something. And not just that Gsync/Freesync bullshit.

>>60697782
Why the hell has Elric been using that old lame version of his benchmark song for like two months now?

File: raj.jpg (73KB, 756x699px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 756x699px

>>60701025

You mean this?

File: trashman3.jpg (31KB, 352x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 352x450px

>>60705864
>amd game
>CF vegas
>no fps counter
>ambigious answers regarding performance
>wait
>mfw

File: 1496260748258.png (574KB, 628x818px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 628x818px

>>60705911
>being retarded and discarding tech before it's even out
>not reading reviews and then making up your mind whether it's worth a purchase or not

whatever man, I bet you're also excited for the iphone 9