I was really hoping to get a GPU that would last me a solid 4-5

>>61671898
Wait for real benchmarks.

>>61671930
Why, so he can be absolutely positive that Vega's not the one to do it?

>>61671898
realistically speaking we don't know what will happen in 4 to 5 years IMO

the requirement would be on 8k and 16k monitors no /g/ anon has that kind of money to waste on that kind of set up.

>>61671898
My 290x already does that

>>61671946
because we know certain features were disabled on vega fe

>>61671964
Is that the new cry of the MAD? "Muh features"? When are you going to go back to chanting "Wait for *"?

>>61671946
So we know 100% how it performs without relying on rumours.
Volta should be announced by then anyway. Buying an old GPU just before new ones launch is stupid.

File: you-can-do-it-meme-17-1.jpg (47KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x400px

>>61671988
provide us with benchmarks of rx vega since you already concluded about their perfomance

what you say? you dont have any? oh thats a shame anon

>>61671930
amd's own benchmarks show vega performing slightly better than 1080 on DOOM, and 30% better than fury x on BF1. we already know it is going to be slightly better than 1080 but worse than 1080ti. my only concern is power, as i cba to buy a new PSU. i will either get a vega and undervolt it, or get a vega nano.

File: 1512136845622.jpg (85KB, 630x472px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 630x472px

>>61671964
Faggots like you are the worst. You piss and moan when Nvidia gimps their products, but think it's perfectly fine when AMD do it.

>>61671954
Not at 144Hz Ultra settings it doesn't. The 290x is a nuclear powered leaf blower. Nobody wants that.

>>61672065
>nvidia
release cards gimped and unlocks its full potential only when threaten >>61671608

>amd
showcase a yet to release card saying that certain features will be enabled once lauched cause the drivers arent ready yet

yeah i can see its literally the same thing

>>61672065
>intel slide: the post

>>61672084
60-90 ultra is good enough for a 5 year old card

>>61672106
>yet to release card
So Vega FE is yet to be released?

This is the problem with AMDrones, you keep moving the goal posts to suit your story.

>>61672133
is vega fe a gaming card? shit who would have knew?

>>61671898
NVidia is a terrible company who I refuse to support and if AMD provides at least an acceptable substitute I will go with them.

>>61672140
>moving the goal posts again
FE is the same as RX. Same silicon. Same chipset. Same PCB. Same configuration. Even the benchmarks AMD have shown of the RX match those of the FE.

>>61672171
you seem a little butthurt

>>61672183
>has nothing relevant to say so resorts to an ad hominem
Every time you reply, you prove to everyone how dumb you really are. This is why nobody takes you AMDrones seriously.

>>61672192
peeved, pajeet?

File: AMD-Radeon-RX-Vega-64-Performance-Battlefield-1[1].png (193KB, 1213x558px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1213x558px

>>61672004
Fresh out of the AMD Vega Oven:

>>61672106
>nvidia
Release gimped cards because they have zero competition in the market and can get away with it

>AMD
Release terrible performing products with unfinished drivers that will barely increase performance and essentially have their rabid fanboys pay $1000 for a beta test.

FTFY

File: 1454039405929.png (49KB, 808x805px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 808x805px

>>61672211
NOOOOOOOOOOO

>>61672248
That's worse than the 1080

>>61672171
so does titanxp with p6000 your point being? are we going to assume that the prof drivers are tailored for gaming? if p6000 is so perfect for gaming why there is only 2 games showing that?
oh wait .....

>>61672268
Actually the P6000 is better than the gaming GP102 cards in gaming.

>>61672273
actually there is literally no proof only 2 games being benchmarked on it
so no
with that mentality firepros are better than regular cards also

File: 01-3dmark[1].png (43KB, 580x844px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 580x844px

>>61672290
>with that mentality firepros are better than regular cards also
Historically they have been the same or better. How do you dumbfuck 14 year olds even find your way to this board?

File: 04-Crysis2[1].png (30KB, 580x610px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 580x610px

>>61672304

File: 02-avp[1].png (18KB, 580x358px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 580x358px

>>61672315
>hurdur FE isn't a gaming card of course it will perform worse than gaming card
Never in the history of the planet has a Firepro or Quadro card performed considerably worse than its consumer counterpart in gaming performance.

Teenagers who don't know a thing about GPUs and just hype shit because they watch LTT and the like on YouTube need to shut the fuck up.

>>61672304
did you just posted 3dmark as a proof of enterprise cards being able to play games?

like FOR REAL?

>>61672331
Are you saying the FE has better 3DMARK performance than RX Vega?

Jesus, RX Vega really is DOA.

File: 1467398933388.png (91KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 653x726px

>>61672268
>>61672290
https://youtu.be/LC_sx6A5Wko?t=4m34s
>I don't know where this while myth comes from, that quadro cards are meant for specific workloads and are not meant to game.
>No, a gpu is a gpu, it just means that quadro cards are ALSO made for other things

>>61672127
As someone with a Fury X; and what about games like Fallout 4?
Oh sure, I can get 100+ fps when I unlock the limiter, but go to Swans Pond while forgetting to force godrays off? ...no chance.

>>61672049
>trusts a company's own benchmarks

>>61671898
Just get a 1080 Ti and stop making threads about products not catering to your needs.

File: 2997237-kepler+gimped.jpg (64KB, 1380x646px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1380x646px

>>61671898
inb4 Vega does last 4-5 years at 1440p while the 1080ti reduces to half the performance of Vega.

>>61672769
if the fp16 on games really explodes then it wont matter pascal 1.0 and 2.0 is literally shit at it nvidia intetionally crippled their perf 1070/80/80ti on fp16 to get a better power draw
i wonder what their excuse will be when they finally had to release the full cuda power on those cards and the tdp skyrockets to infinity

>>61672794
They won't bother and will just use it as an excuse to sell newer cards rather than fixing the older ones. As usual.

>>61672000
volta announcement august 14th?

File: 6336203+_912032fc435c4eb96acd34bfceb6c025.jpg (91KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 728x546px

>>61672794
>if the fp16 on games really explodes
AMDummies said the same thing about GCN 6 years, and guess what? The only thing to really reap the benefits is mining. Doom is often confused as taking advantage of GCN, but that's wrong. The huge improvement seen in AMD cards is because Tile Based Rasterization is performed at the software level, something AMD cards never had.

Game developers aren't going to cater to the 10% of gaymers that have AMD cards.

Look, another dedicated shitposting thread.
BR monkey kill yourself

Vega runs at 80degrees on air

She's dead Jim.

Gonna get a volta when it comes out

>>61673151
oh yeah unifying their console and pc market
making the same tools available to devs on both ecosystems
providing the devs tools that make their life easy than to hand over their game to nvidia and let them adapt their shit to the game..
also literally taking 3 out of 5 biggest game companies on their side to develop their popular games under its belt

yeah i guess the devs arent bothered at all
/g/ always knows better

>>61673151
>The only thing to really reap the benefits is mining.
you realize 70% of gaming market runs on GCN
also already wolfenstein and farcry 5 will run fp16

File: 1460528368615.jpg (79KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x960px

>>61673250
>you realize 70% of gaming market runs on GCN
>source: my ass

You couldn't be more wrong
>http://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/2017-video-game-trends-and-statistics-whos-playing-what-and-why/
>Devices the most frequent gamers are playing on:
>PC: 56%, dedicated game console: 53%, smartphone: 36%, wireless device: 31%, dedicated handheld system: 17%
And of those 53% playing on dedicated consoles, approximately 70% of those are playing on older consoles
>https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales-of-video-game-consoles/

So yeah, great, AMD is teaming up with developers to help them develop gaymes on weak, under-powered consoles. That means we're going to see more rubbish console ports where PC performance has been gimped so console owners don't feel bad for owning inadequate hardware. It's not like anyone's mad about it, or creating petitions, or, Oh, wait...
>https://www.change.org/p/microsoft-stop-pressuring-game-developers-into-downgrading-their-games-on-the-pc
>https://www.change.org/p/ubisoft-stop-downgrading-the-games-for-pc
>https://www.change.org/p/ubisoft-pc-gamers-take-a-stand-and-boycott-ubisoft-no-more-lazy-pc-ports

But you're right. Let's have AMD, the perpetual runner-up in the GPU segment, the first loser in every race, influence the gayming industry to create games less than what they should be. And the whole FP16 thing? Awesome. So what happens to all the consoles that don't have FP16 support? Not even PS4 will be able to run SJWolfenstein or Far Cry 5 with it.

>295W
>345W

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

File: bf1-benchmark-1080p-dx12.png (39KB, 712x609px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 712x609px

>>61672253
Suuuuuure.

>>61673250
GCN has been around for 6 years. It's not unfair to assume that there would be at least 1 game released per quarter that takes full advantage of GCN. So 6 years would make that 24 titles.

Name 24 titles that have been proven to greatly benefit from GCN and ultimately leave Nvidia cards in the gutter. Doom doesn't count as per >>61673151

>>61673229
>>61673250
>"""""""High end""""""" gaming on a 6Tflop console
6Tflop console with GCN, meaning it's going to have the relative gaming performance of a 4.2Tflop card.

CAN'T.
FUCKING.
WAIT.

>>61673151
>Tile Based Rasterization is performed at the software level

So what you are saying is, Game engine does Tile Based Rasterization and then AMD GPU does the Basic Rasterization.
How exactly does this benefit AMD cards?

>>61672769
1440p is shit I want true 4k 60hz+ lock or bust and the Vega can't do it

File: 1111325638292345.jpg (109KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x800px

>>61673613
AMD cards (prior to Vega) never did TBR, so extra unnecessary work was put on the CU's. That's one of the reasons why efficiency and power consumption has been so shit with GCN based cards. The RX480 was a step in the right direction with the primitive discard engine, but again, GCN held it back.

Then doom comes along with TBR at the software level, and suddenly AMD cards aren't slugged for performance, but they still can't compete flop-for-flop against the nvidia equivalent. Vulkan improves the software level TBR by allowing it to occur through multiple render paths, and even Nvidia gains from this despite not having any sort of GCN.

Honestly, if they did a revised version of the RX480/580 with hardware level TBR, GDDR5X, and completely did away with GCN, it would be an amazing performer. Instead, AMD is trying to force a cube through a circular hole, and treating the gpu like a swiss army knife that does everything. If it wasn't for mining, AMD's discrete gpu division probably would have stopped making consumer gpu's.

>>61671898
muh video games :(

>>61673910
This is 7/10 shitposting.

>>61674016
it ain't shitposting if it's true

>>61674032
It is shitposting and it's hilarious.

>>61671930
>Wait™

Fucking pajeets man, I swear you all need to be gassed.

File: untitled-27.png (32KB, 676x753px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 676x753px

>>61672211
RX VEGA is DOA

http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=31635&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1

>>61673910
>Then doom comes along with TBR
That doesn't negate the hardware rasterization, what you did now is introduce two rasterization, for some reason on software level, even when software doesn't actually rasterize.

>>61674111
uh oh.....

>>61673457
this has to be the worst "i pull numbers out of my ass" thing i ever see on /g/

File: untitled-3.png (26KB, 682x653px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 682x653px

>>61674111
>Some monster sized 3rd party card
Use reference cards plz.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-1080-ti-review,14.html

File: next gen 4k console with 6tflops.png (604KB, 757x875px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 757x875px

>>61674365
>http://www.xbox.com/en-us/xbox-one-x
>A 6 Teraflop GPU enables 4K environments and characters to become more realistic than ever, with more detail and smoother animations.
>6 TERAFLOP
The new Playstation won't be much different, as it will use the same APU.

RX480 is a 5.8Tflop gpu that performs worse than a 3.8Tflop GTX1060. If anything, saying a 6Tflop console will perform like a 4.2Tflop is pretty generous, and will in all reality be worse.

File: siggraph_vega_architecture-41.png (180KB, 2667x1500px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 2667x1500px

>>61672171
>http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680/radeon-rx-vega-unveiled-amd-announecs-499-rx-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august/3

>Speaking of Fiji, there’s been some question over whether the already shipping Vega FE cards had AMD’s Draw Steam Binning Rasterizer enabled, which is one of the Vega architecture’s new features. The short answer is that no, the DSBR is not enabled in Vega FE’s current drivers. Whereas we have been told to expect it with the RX Vega launch. AMD is being careful not to make too many promises here – the performance and power impact of the DSBR vary wildly with the software used – but it means that the RX Vega will have a bit more going on than the Vega FE at launch.

>>61675669
And yet RX Vega still benchmarked the same results as the FE.

When will AIB Vega 56 release? Looking forward to the AMD exclusive partner offerings from both Sapphire and XFX.

>>61672328
Nice shitposting! I'm sure Maxwell would have performed astoundingly well compared to Keplar with TBR disabled, right?

File: eskOwrv.jpg (80KB, 1173x456px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1173x456px

>Let's release a Titan Xp with gimped hardware
>Lets release a 1080ti which will be faster for cheaper
>Let's release another Titan Xpp without the gimped hardware so people will still be fooled into buying it
>Oh, one last thing lets, ungimp the Titan X's software since Vega FE is offering competition
And this is why you can't trust Nvidia with a monopoly and need a strong AMD to push them.

>>61675683
Show me the benchmarks please?
>>61675688
Probs early September for XFX and late September for Sapphire (these fucks are always late).

>>61675708
Why is Sapphire always late?

>>61675718
Perfection takes time.

>>61675683
>And yet RX Vega still benchmarked the same results as the FE.
Gee, I wonder what the logical inference of that is? Is it A) DSBR doesn't exist and doesn't do anything and AMD made up its existence or B) It's not turned on in RX Vega's drivers yet?

Hint: How would Maxwell perform compared to Kepler with TBR disabled?

>>61675745
Like hourse goo.
Everything Maxlel has less ALU that competitive Kekler offerings.

>>61671898
The bundle deal comes with a 144hz 1440p monitor. Of course it can push that easy. You are just falling for green team lies.

>>61672049
>we already know it is going to be slightly better than 1080
No we don't, in fact it's looking like it might perform slightly worse with almost double the power draw.

File: IF_VEGA.png (1MB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1125px

>over 45MB of SRAM
What the fuck RTG.
It's Intel-tier SRAM boner.

>>61672211
Yeah, vega can push even 4k at over 30hz. Not sure what you all are bitching at.

>>61672248
Amd has 3 months to offload their vega cards before volta comes out and out shines them.

File: gallery-2.jpg (537KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1920x1080px

>>61675884
Can biggur dies beat that?

>>61672769
>1440p
Why do people care about this cuck resolution?

Use 1080p if you are a poor and 4k if you are not a pleb.

>>61675884
but they're currently outshined by the 1080. who will they off load them to? AMD fanboys? I know there are plenty here, maybe if you guys buy a dozen or so each.

File: 712tY-S-AzL._SY355_.jpg (26KB, 355x355px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 355x355px

>>61673423
>comparing this to aircooled reference Vega

Ok, next we can compare watercooled Vega to a stock 1080 reference.

>>61674111
How the hell does a 10 month old mid range card btfo of a brand new flagship model?

>>61675884
>3 months
Try 7-9.
>>61675928
>they're currently outshined by the 1080
It looks to be dead even with the 1080 in most and ahead in some games.
>>61676004
>mid range card
1080 is not mid-range you retard. And it didn't get BTFO.

>>61675922
Because 1440p at 144hz is that patrician resolution for gaming right now. You can't push frames at 4k no matter what you do, 1440p is a nice in-between.

>>61675807
It doesn't come with a monitor, it comes with a $200 discount on a 100Hz 1440p ultrawide monitor, a monitor which retails for almost USD$1k, and that monitor has screen flicker problems when using one of the two available freesync modes. So it seems like Samsung is trying to offload dodgy stock onto prospective Vega buyers.
>https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824022484

>http://www.anandtech.com/show/11680/radeon-rx-vega-unveiled-amd-announecs-499-rx-vega-64-399-rx-vega-56-launching-in-august/2
>Bundle Contents
>AMD Radeon RX Vega Card
>2 Bundled Games (For US: Wolfenstein II and Prey)
>$200 Discount: Samsung CF791 34-inch Widescreen Freesync Monitor
>$100 Discount: Ryzen 7 + Motherboard Combo

>>61675894
Easy since they almost match the 1080. That means bigger die is all it takes to do 10-20% better then biggest vega, and navi is 11 months away.

>>61676036
>not 1440p 165hz

pleb tier

>>61676051
Hahahahaha
No I mean can jacketman make a Quadro suitable to work with large datasets?

>>61675928
Amd specifically designed vega for multi gpu setups. That is why they claim to support 4k.

>>61676080
No, they didn't.
In fact they are burying crossfire.

>>61676021
Ti is top of the line
1080 is mid range.
1070 low
1060 budget/broke ass

I don't see how else you could interpreted the line up.

>>61675928
>who will they off load them to? AMD fanboys?
Basically. That's why they're offering them as bundles, you're essentially paying for Freesync with the power draw of the card. Otherwise, other than brand loyalty there's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't just get a 1070 or 1080.

Honestly though, brand loyalty might sell more cards than normal because I'm sure people are hoping AMD would come back swinging like they did with Ryzen and they just didn't. Vega is a disappointing upgrade from Fiji. Only real way to rationalize purchasing Vega is to convince yourself you're helping AMD not bend over and give the market to Nvidia.

>actually considering the limited 64 edition
>realize it will have terrible cooling and will need custom water loop to deal with nearly 400watt draw

WHY COULDNT YOU MAKE A POWER SIPPER LIKE THE RYZEN REEEEE

>>61676108
You realize very few people need a card stronger than a 1060 right? At 1080p 60hz, what most people use, you don't need more than that. The 1070s and 1080s are for people who have the high refresh rate and resolution monitors who need stronger equipment to push frames. The only games that the 1060 can't manage 1080p 60 fps in are select modern AAA titles and that's only at ultra. Lowering to high the 1060 can play anything.

>>61676105
Since when?

>>61671898
Yeah, Good you didn't get your hopes up OP.
The vega is going to be complete shit.

File: 1464932868185.png (126KB, 750x709px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 750x709px

>>61676080
>Going to need a 2kW PSU to run dual Vegas

File: I am a genius.jpg (152KB, 640x720px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 640x720px

>>61676165
>Running multi-gpus
>2017

>>61676139
Pay attention boys because this is what am drones actually believe.

Do you even hear yourself?

>4mb is all anyone will ever need

>>61675928
I was going to buy a Vega64 if it matched or beat the 1080Ti.

Not happening now.

>>61676177
Perhaps the after market overclocked cards will be worth it?

>>61676108
>I don't see how else you could interpreted the line up.
By not being a flaming retard? Where does 1050 ti/1050/1030 end up then?

>>61676174
Why do you need a 1070 at 1080p 60hz? Everyone's needs vary but unless you have the monitor for it you really don't need more than a 1060. You're paying hundreds more for a performance difference you'd rarely notice.

>>61676177
We've known for a while it wouldn't.

>>61671898
>I was really hoping to get a GPU that would last me a solid 4-5 years at 1440p res, and I thought vega would be the one to do it. Guess not.
Yeah, sure with that obvious shitpost BLACKED image I totally believe you.

>>61672211
1440p results aren't even that bad. I can easily see this lasting for 4-5 years like other AMD GPUs since they will continue to improve the drivers instead of abandoning them the second the next GPU lineup arrives.

>>61675606
Reference was right there on the chart. Basically it equals a 1080 with more power consumption and over a year late.

>>61676211
Those are 3rd world tier.

You literally don't buy them unless you're from Brazil or South Africa.

>>61675994
be fair to nvidia here, custom loop 1080 to clc vega.

File: ohmy.jpg (185KB, 1213x1909px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 1213x1909px

k

File: i am the alpha and the omega.jpg (1MB, 2344x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2344x2832px

>>61676242

>>61676174
>>61676220
name the games, and do not I said games, that cant be pushed to 60 with a 1060 6gb.

you have to go full retard with settings and push engines past breaking points to manage this, or use nvidia gameworks.

>>61676143
vega may be the last gpu that will support multiple ones, as navi will do it in firmware, across multiple dies, and because info doesn't need to be shared between cores nearly as much as cpus, it can get away with it with very little penalty, the only issue that sli and crossfire had was instead of having a hardware on card solution, they relied on drivers.

>>61676114
>other than brand loyalty there's absolutely no reason why you wouldn't just get a 1070 or 1080.

I hate nvidia, and am neutral for amd, but there is no third party so as long as amd is ballpark nvidia without fucking me on the price, and they have been for each time I upgraded gpus since my 6800 ultra, ill go amd.

kind of in the same situation with intel, but till zen amd was not competitive and I zen was the deadline for my new computer. thankfully zen was great.

>>61676234
we honestly still don't know.
If air cooled vega can match the 1080, then water cooled vega will get near 1080ti, and this is still with shit not fully enabled.

farcry 5 will be an interesting game as it seems to be utilizing half precision over traditional, so while nvidia has 10tflops (they gimp half precision to 1/50th of even amds low end cards) amd could be rocking 12-25tflops, depending on what can and cant be done in half precision.

>>61676702
Processing effects profit around 20% from fp16. It's literally 1-5fps difference

>>61671898
There are no GPUs out there that can even offer consistent 60 fps at 1080p in all the games I play. You're asking for way too much to get the same at 1440p that will last for another 4 years.

>>61676702
>farcry 5 will be an interesting game as it seems to be utilizing half precision over traditional, so while nvidia has 10tflops (they gimp half precision to 1/50th of even amds low end cards) amd could be rocking 12-25tflops, depending on what can and cant be done in half precision.

But you will only have like 5 games supporting it. Meanwhile AMD doesn't support DX11 SMT, which means that all the AMD cards get dogshit performance in UE4. Games like PUBG, Ark, the upcoming Kingdom Hearts, Squad, upcoming Street Fighter, Unreal Tournament etc.

File: 1501600030116.jpg (208KB, 960x874px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 960x874px

>>61672049
Doom is very optimzed especially vulkan.
You can expect on majority of titles vega will be on par with 1070 or even worse, like fury was such a piece of shit.
>>61672211
Wtf 1080 gets more than 150 fps on 1080.
Repeat with me doa

>>61677021
There are BF1 benchmarks that put in on par with the 1080 already. And it does better in Doom regardless. Fuck off with this 1070 shit.

File: 1267592301855.png (1MB, 817x693px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 817x693px

>>61677069
1070 levels are nothing to be ashamed of. AMD is just a late bloomer

>>61676933
>There are no GPUs out there that can even offer consistent 60 fps at 1080p in all the games I play

Are you fucking mentally retarded?

>>61677004
>the upcoming Kingdom Hearts
Is that coming to PC?

>>61677091
>Are you fucking mentally retarded?
I'm being realistic. I'm playing Dark and Light right now and I'm not getting a smooth 60 FPS in the game at 1080p.

>>61677109
That's a good question. I thought it might be, because it has multiple entries in the UE4 wiki, but you might be right that it's not going to be released on PC.

>>61677090
Like a potato retard child

>>61677115
There are 'NO GPUS OUT THERE THAT CAN'? I don't care about your fucking anemic bullshit card, you just said there's NO GPU out there that can do a consistent 1080p60. Which is fucking retarded.

>>61676115
Even Polaris is better.

They should have scrapped this Vega turd it's unfathomably bad

Eh, I got a new 580 for $200 so I'm not gonna be worried about GPUs until Pascal 2/Volta. Maybe if Vega's good post driver updates I'll upgrade if the price is right. But I'm not really worried.

>>61677242
>turd
>unfathomably bad
Nice hyperbole.

>>61677287
Nice 400 watt toaster that can't catch a year old 200 watt card

>>61676310
You're a retard.

>>61677310
T. Poorfag.

I've never bought anything lower than a card that's been 2nd from the top

>>61677326
I don't give a shit what you bought, you're a dumb fuck and nothing that comes out of your mouth has any value. Go back to /v/ and stay there.

>>61672084
I think a nuclear leaf blower would be neat-o.

>>61677302
There is not a single Vega using 400 watts. Some guys OCed it to that level just to see what would happen.

Vega has 70% better alu performance than fury x. The card is poorly designed with an excess of resources that can't be taken advantage of but will draw power. Very good chance one of the teams working on a new component lied about the performance. Common with Chinese

File: revy_60.png (400KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 600x600px

>>61677326
>>61676310
>>61676108
(You)

>>61671898
Gaymers BTFO

>>61671898
>I was really hoping to get a GPU that would last me a solid 4-5 years

you are doing it wrong

>>61677449
>Vega has 70% better alu performance than fury x
in fp16?

>>61677449
Read this

>>61668965
>>61669431

>>61677544
Not everyone wants to ride the NVidya upgrade train and chuck their old GPUs every two years.

>>61677556
No, just straight up. Tom's .de site showed this. 15% performance per Hz improvement and clocked about 50% higher. Vega did in fact improve "ipc"

>>61677004
you do have a point, and its not that amd doesn't support dx11 smt, its that developers themselves don't fucking do it and nvidia has a scheduler that they can change on the fly per game to fix what shit devs refuse to do themselves.

lets look at amd performance in current dx11 titles, its pretty much always adequate, not the best but usually not I require a new gpu this fps is bullshit. however, amd is making efforts to push vulcan, dx12, and doing it on the dev level, already pushing their new features of vega before launch or a tech demo game shows them... the promise is there for games going forward and the performance is good enough for games going backwards.

>>61677561
Not him but why the fuck market it as a 4k gaming card at all?

>>61676220
You can a buy a ips 60hz Dell 24" 4k monitor off newegg right now for less than $300.

4k is not expensive at all.

>>61672567
>Fallout 4

>>61677631
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Vega-Codename-265481/Tests/Benchmark-Preis-Release-AMD-Radeon-Frontier-Edition-1232684/3/#a5

It was pcgameshardware.de not toms

>>61672127
are you rendering your own dreams or just csgo

>>61677768
It seems more like they're marketing it as a good 1440p 144hz card with good minimum framerates on freesync monitors.

>>61676933
Name one game a 1080 ti cannot max out at 1080p.

>>61676108
There are people (including me) replying to this shitty bait

>>61677768
There are no good >60hz 4k monitors scdulled for release until 2nd q 2018. No point trYing to drive out side of the 30-60hz range. And if you turn settings to medium or high I stead of ultra 60 at 4k is easy to maintaineven with big vega or 1080.

>>61675635
so wait are you actually saying that a 480 is perfoming worse than a 4.4 tflops 1060?
yeah no unless your head was on the sand the past 1 year you are literally uninformed

>>61675683
shit anon you already saw RX benches on the wild?

PLEASE GIVE US THE LINKS ON THE INTERWEBS

>>61676051
they match 1080 without even their whole features enabled
imagine when raja press the button and fire up that nuke

>>61678063
Except for the part where the performance estimates from official slides were done with drivers that have tbr enabled

>>61678135
they literally said that tbr wasnt enabled in any case on FE
yet "estimates" are being done with it enabled

/g/

>>61678140
Yea the estimates from their fucking labs for the press release yesterday that said Vega 64 will barely beat 1080 in minimum frames

>>61678181
i dont think you even understood quite well..

File: slides-49.jpg (437KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 2000x1125px

>>61678202
Page 43 notes. 17.2 has dsbr enabled. Benches were in 17.3

>>61678335
>prototype RX Vega sample with a prototype branch of driver 17.320

I'm really interested in seeing the results from the finished GPU with finalised drivers.

>>61677236
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to add that I have a GTX 1080, so there isn't really much room to improve there.