Vega 56 bench rumor/leaked - The last hope of the Vega mess?

>>61706206
I remember awhile back someone from /g/ emailed tweaktown a bait story and they made an article about it.

that being said the 56 looks to be the best of the lineup. didnt amd say 56 was late august though?

>>61706206
finally, rip 1070, you had a good 1 year run

File: 1475777560892.png (106KB, 662x594px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 662x594px

>yfw miners buy them all up at launch

>>61706206
>1070 killer

>AMD shills waited a year to get a 1070 killer that also kills their local power grid

It's a good thing they're so used to waiting because that disappointment would have really upset a normal person.

>>61706206
>Vega mess
What mess?
Vega brings some incredible stuff for applications with large datasets.

>>61706564
we only care about vidya here anon

>>61706590
>we
Who?
I care about technology.
HBCC is fucking awesome, it's the first remotely complex memory system in GPUs.

I'm interested on the kind of integrated devices AMD will be able to deliver.
A Raven Ridge with integrated HBM memory is an absolute fucking monster, because well, you pretty much only need to have the AMD thing, a south bridge and that's fucking it.
A PCB that is so clean and small, it delivers a retarded amount of PC power for like 100 bucks.
A GPD-Win made out of this would be a very, VERY tempting thing.

>>61706553
UMA

>>61706695
I think they can integrate HBM PHY into iGPU portion of the die.
One stack of HBM2 will make an incredible performer out of even small iGPU.

>>61706726
Yep, and then let the CPU do it's thing there too, and well, pretty much PC on a chip.
Actually, it would be interesting if AMD could integrate the south bridge and make a literal SoC out of this.
One chip, one computer.

File: 1501510708307.jpg (690KB, 1263x1920px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 1263x1920px

>>61706206
i want to believe

>>61706756
Zeppelin is already a SoC, anon.
Chipset is there only for MOAR USB (Zeppelin only provides 4 3.0 ports) and MOAR SATA.

>>61706812
Glorious.

>>61706828
And EPYC is truly a SoC. It uses no chipset.

>>61706294
Depends if you want to go stock or wait for sapphire's version, which might be October?

>>61706838
EPYC mobile when? AMD SoC cellphones when?

>>61706840
56 is AiB-only. No ref afaik.
>>61706845
EPYC is a datacenter CPU, lmao.
Also AMD is not interested in phone market.

File: because we can sell 4 cpus by the price intel is charging for one.jpg (33KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 700x525px

>>61706863
I'm pretty sure you can't even fit an Epyc in a phone.

In all honesty the 56 was probably the one i was going to go for anyway, so this just sweetens the deal. But it is prudent to wait for real reviews rather than rumours, you know where AMD rumours gets us.

File: spurdoEBYN.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>61706899
It's too ebyn for phones.

>>61706899
"don't worry, we just adopt the 21:9 aspect ratio and it will just fit!"

>>61706590
Wrong board mate

>>61707000
No, it looks like /g/ only cares about vidya when it comes to GPUs.

And i believe Raven Ridge is going to use an Vega derived GPU. Will AMD finally take the integrated graphics crown from Intel?

(Their latest iGPUs pulled ahead of bristol ridge, granted it's a $600 processor vs a $100 one)

>>61706863
If the 56 is AIB only why are they offering a radeon pack for it?

It might not get one of those metal enclosures though.

>>61707000
I think you've got the wrong board if you think anything otherwise

>>>/r/eddit back you go

>>61706442
In an interview with HardOCP, Chris Hook had this to say:

"Part of the reason it's taken us a little longer to launch Vega - and I'll be honest about that - is that we wanted to make sure we were launching with good volume. (...) Obviously we've got to compensate for things like coin-miners, they're going to want to get their hands on these. We believe we're launching with a volume that will ensure that gamers can get their hands on them, and that's what's important to us."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vLL1O9iQo

>>61707033
Intel's latest iGPU uses fucking gigantic 128MB eDRAM slab.
Vega iGPU will snap it in half, Vega iGPU with HBM2 would probably murder entry-level cards like 1030 or 550.

>>61707053
>Vega iGPU with HBM2 would probably murder entry-level cards like 1030 or 550.
No.
Vega igpu is just 700 stream processors and no hbm 2.
For a reference polaris is 2300 stream processors.

>>61707085
Vega is not Polaris, though.

>>61707085
Polaris 10 is 2304 (2048 in the 570/580)
Polaris 11 is 1024 (512 in the 550/540)
A 700 stream processor vega, even with system memory, should kick the shit out of a 550. It will be interesting to see how HBCC affects system memory access.

>>61706206
considering that this will only need a bump on the memory clock to reach the 64 indeed it is the sane choice

but if the same bump happens on the 64 then we are in for a nice lineup regardless

>>61707196
>bump on the memory clock
Yeah, nah... HBM is a pain in the ass to overclock, and you basically have to watercool to get the temps low enough to do it.
HBM needs <50'c temps to OC the VRAM.

>>61707222
hbm2 has a nice headroom on it thus the big clocks we saw on this generation of gcn

>>61707241
>hbm2 has a nice headroom on it
Yes, as long as you can keep it cool.
Samsung HBM becomes extremely unstable above warm temperatures. You need to watercool, or use a 3-slot cooler to overclock it.

>>61707257
i think amd is using only hynix on rx and sam on the big ones

>>61707267
Ok, that would be interesting.
We still don't know how Hynix HBM2 responds to temperature though.

>>61707267
No, it's Samsung for both 4-Hi and 8-Hi.

>>61707286
i mean they use samsung hbm2 on the workstation/enterprise
and hynix on the rx series

>>61707295
Probably no. It's almost certainly Samsung for both 4-Hi and 8-Hi stacks.

>>61707295
doubtful
they are too buddy buddy with samsung these days

>>61707323
>>61707330
we know they are getting from both of them
this is the more sane approach tho

>>61707142
I remember people saying Raven Ridge would match the rx 460, guess that was just another pipe dream.

>>61707362
Samsung has near-limitless wafer capacity.
And as other anon said, AMD & Samsung are buttbuddies now, Samsung is platinum partner for EPYC.

>>61707372
Assuming DSBR works as intended - it will.

>>61707372
Having less SPs and memory bandwidth than an rx 460, not possible.

>>61707372
I would piss my pants if that happened, imagine Raven Ridge laptops with quad cores and iGPU performance roughly as a 460

>>61707372
It really might do. The 460 is an 896SP part, so if the Vega cores an APU can clock really well, it's got a good shot at it. That said, seeing how power hungry Vega can be, it's hard to see how,
1. It can be cooled properly on a package with a CPU
2. It can be powered well enough by the SoC VRM on any AM4 board, including the ridiculous 4-phase SoC on the CH6 which is more powerful than the VCore on a lot of B350 boards.

>>61706787
How autistic you have to be to draw this.

>>61707402
>power hungry
Vega10 is fucking 4096SP clocked REALLY high.

>>61706206
>>61706564
Titan Xp does all of those things without performance loss vs Vega FE/RX Vega.

>>61707415
Titan Xp will get out-of-memory error.

>>61707375
that has nothing to do with what i said lol pretty sure amd wont drop hynix since they both co developed hbm we know they are getting from them also because they listed vega and tesla as products

>>61707415
HBCC looks like it's the tits.

File: 1498641067682.png (13KB, 329x338px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 329x338px

I hope someone puts out a thicc heatsink on it before october

>>61707439
Asus ROG Strix is a 3-slot triple fan monstrosity. At least, the 64 version.

>>61707013
Sadly this

>delivers around 20% better performance
Reminder that the difference between a 1080 and a 1070 is only 19%. If it beats a 1070 by that much it's a direct 1080 competitor

>>61707475
There were like 3 SSG threads.
For some reason these had no shitposting.

any more benchmarks out there? i could sell my 1070 for like ~500€ and buy a Vega at launch but only if it beats the 1070 by 10 - 20% in non-AMD sponsored gaymes too.

>>61707575
No official benches till the NDA lifts on the 14th

>>61707486
>If it beats a 1070 by that much it's a direct 1080 competitor
It's price that determines what it's competing with retard

>>61706206
Is that the Vega 56 pictured?
2 8pins to kill the 1070 which only has 1 8 pin?

>>61707455
2.5 slot

>>61707637
>power connectors determine power consumption
I thought this was /g/

>>61707653
Hey if it was lower it would have 8+6 or 6+6

>>61707637
Only Vega 64 Limited Edition has that silver shroud

>>61707653
Newfag here. Please explain why some cards have 2 8pins and some have 1 8/6 pins.

File: sapphire_r9_290_vaporx_trix_oc-10.jpg (99KB, 600x430px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x430px

>>61707439
Vapor-X pls

>>61706206
>Vega 56
>Total Board Power 210W
>$400
>Releases in August 2017

>GTX 1070
>Total Board Power 180W
>$379
>Released in June 2016

>>61707801
AIB is going to make Vega56 at least 450 if you buy Sapphire or Asus.

>>61707814
>AIB is going to make Vega56 at least 450 if you buy Sapphire or Asus.
A 1070 isn't exactly $380 either, but these are the MSRPs listed by both companies.

Vega 56 just doesn't seem to do enough for the price. Will it beat the 1070 right now? In games that do not favor Nvidia they will. In games that favor Nvidia, eg UE4 games like PUBG, Vega 56 will still fall short from the 1070.

On top of all of this Vega is a year late compared to Nvidia. Nvidia's going to release a new GPU line at which point Vega gets fucked.

>>61707832
Given the 1070 inflated prices due to mining, it might be value to buy Vega 56 at MSRP. But all of the Vega56 might be snatched up if it is any good for mining at all. Well we will see.

>>61707801
thats only 30w anon.

why are you crying anon seem good to me
an i'm not even a fanboy.
also since i own a EVGA GTX1070 SC I know i can go way over 150w with gpu boost 3.0
power useage is more like 185W at max load.

Why nvidia lies I don't know.

File: poo.png (312KB, 595x654px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 595x654px

>18 months later we might beat 1070 at double the power draw
WE DID IT AMDBROS

>>61707050
Having more supply at launch just means that miners will be able to get more cards at lower prices.

>>61706206
HAHAHAHAHA

>>61707850
Not only did I say "Total Board Power" I also mentioned the 180W number.

The GPU launches more than a year later, uses more power and offers performance better that is about in line with the higher power usage. Oh, and the card has a higher price as well.

It just doesn't seem very good value in the long run, especially since it's an AMD card.

>>61707866
you tried nvicuck but failed
your HAHAH meme is better

>>61707866
Just wait for navi bro

I will wait for the actual benchmarks to determine shit, INCLUDING power draw.

>>61707892
>"people" like this are allowed to shitpost on our great board
how is this allowed

>>61707902
If you wait for actual benchmarks, you lose to miners who are willing to snatch your cards.

>>61707909
AMD probably has something quite nasty in the store for them.
And a "specialized mining line" that cut costs on everything that is not mining.

File: cutting corners.jpg (128KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1000x1000px

>>61707935
AMD is only known for cutting corners.

>>61707962
Everything you can say about AMD you can say about Nvidia in some point of their woodscrewy story.
Cutting corners, housefire cards, shitty drivers (but ATI/AMD is more frequent on this one), cheating benchmarks left and right, trying to force developers to use proprietary shit.
It's a quite fun duo.

>>61708009
Woodscrews weren't on mass-produced and shipping to customer cards though.

Housefire, both sides did it.

As for cutting the corner of a 6 pin connector because the fan would hit it, on a production card, shipped to customers...

>>61708036
Yep.
If i would point out at some physical fuck up of Nvidia, probably a better example is the FX5800:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qspdnAYiiug

>>61708058
What the fuck is THAT?

>>61708074
The Geforce "dustbuster" FX5800.
It was so bad, even nvidia themselves did joked with it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVjZqC1AE4

Is Radeon Technologies Group about to be jettisoned off? This is a failure of massive proportions. If this released even 6-8 months after Pascal, this would be fine, good even. but we are probably less than 2 quarters away from Volta.

>>61708096
No one cares what extremely loud gaymen minority says.
Radeon Pro SSG has no competition, this alone is an achievement for RTG.

Ironically I never intended to get a Vega card, but due to mining I've put enough cash into my pc budget that I can go higher end than I initially planned. Yay for miners I guess

File: 800px-NVIDIA_GeForce_FX_5950_Ultra_ES[1].jpg (128KB, 800x475px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x475px

>>61708058
>Loud fan
Yeah, they didn't have the massive coolers and heat pipes they have now back then and CPU coolers were still a single block of machined aluminium

Nvidia went and fixed the dustbuster 5800 with the 5900 Ultra and the 5950 using revised the FlowFX cooler.

Heatpipes came along much later.

File: 11512356626.jpg (1MB, 2344x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2344x2832px

>>61706206
>Vega56
>Barely 1070 performance
>Almost 1080Ti power consumption
>Literal housefire

>>61708058
Reminds me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk

>>61707404
very

>>61708185
>epyc dies with infinity fabric.jpg

>>61708475
>2 GPU dies
BUT NOT YET

>>61708185
Power consumption only matters when its Intel. AMD GPUs have been more power hungry than Nvidia for a while and no one here cares, after all are you too poor to afford a 1000W PSU for your gayming PC?

>>61708846
Power consumption matters when its CPU, because it's going through the fucking socket.

>>61707404
Armored princess is pretty hot desu.

File: bf1_2560_1440.png (17KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x330px

>>61706206
>Radeon RX Vega 56 benchmark results: >Battlefield 1: 95.4FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS) >Civilization 6: 85.1FPS (GTX 1070: 72.2FPS) >DOOM: 101.2FPS (GTX 1070: 84.6FPS) >COD:IW: 99.9FPS (GTX 1070: 92.1FPS)
Gee, it's almost as if several major uarch features weren't working in drivers previously. Who could have foreseen such a possibility?

File: civ6_2560_1440.png (18KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x330px

>>61709274

File: codiw_2560_1440.png (19KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x330px

>>61709289

File: doom_2560_1440.png (17KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x330px

>>61709297

>>61709274
That's still too low for 3.5ALU card.

>>61709308
Fair enough, but the point remains that these benchmarks suggest that Vega 56 performs how people were assuming Vega 64 performed yesterday.

>>61707868
So what? They should have less cards at launch?

File: images_0.jpg (10KB, 306x165px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 306x165px

Haha AMD cucks

Autistic Micro Dicks

>>61709522
>>61709542
Are you having a stroke dude

>>61706206
>1070 killer
Kek
Still focused on mid range amd
never change

>>61708096
>This is a failure of massive proportions
not bigger than GTX480 vs HD5870. Fermi easily burned ~80W more for the same performance.

>>61709563
Depends what time your mum gets here.

>>61709586
>1070
>mid range

File: oh-snap.gif (895KB, 351x227px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 351x227px

>>61709607

>>61709586
1070 is not midrange and halo Radeons never sell.
Anyway Vega is focused on visualisation and large datasets, not gaymen.

>>61709620
Sadly it is. Both 1070 and 1080 outsell 1060
$400 is the new midrange

>>61709675
>midrange is a social construct
this place finds new levels of retardation.

>>61709675
You cant outsell something that doesn't exist.
Like G4560 for example.

>>61706206
Anyone with even a few months of tech experience should know that early leak content is a load of shit. Wait for official release and then pass judgment. Until then, you're just filling your head with trash data.

>>61707050
They always say that, they've said that every single launch of every single card ever.

>>61709793
In this case it can't be helped. Vega is too interesting of a puzzle of contradictory fragments of information to be able to avoid fiending for information until the NDA drops.

>>61709819
Yea.
Like, 45MB of SRAM?
In the GPU?
Whaddya fuck AMD.

>>61709846
yeah, that explains why this die is fucking huge.
and what the fuck is the purpose of it?

>cut down Vega performs neck and neck with the GTX 1080 in some titles
I'm sure some games like GTA V will still heavily favor Nvidia, but not much will ever change that.

AMD really needs to double the size of their driver development team. Time and time again they release solid GPUs that take months for them to really deliver the performance on.

>>61709696
it is

>>61709914
Their driver team is rock solid right now.
It's just they focused on Pro drivers to be ready for SIGGRAPH and I DO understand them.

>>61709951
>Their driver team is rock solid right now.
but they are small.
>It's just they focused on Pro drivers to be ready for SIGGRAPH and I DO understand them.
if you double the team, you prepare all sides of the driver on time.

>>61708879
>OC i7-7700K
>require thermal suit to remain in same room
>laugh at poorfags who can't afford thermal suit and have to run stock clocks

anything gonna beat the 1080 ti anytime soon?

>>61709914
With DX12 or Vulkan you don't have to focus so much on driver.
Nvidia is trying to sabotage DX12 whit GoyWorksTM shit tho.

>>61710006
Probably no. Dunno really.

>>61710006
not at least a year.

>>61710018
nvidia tries it with vulkan too. fuckers released gimpworks for vulkan.

>>61710018
It sounds bad, but I'm pleased at anything that could ruin DX12. It's pointless monopoly support with the existence of Vulkan.

>>61710057
It's fun to see DX12 being pretty much abandoned for vulkan on the emulation world.
Dolphin pretty much dropped it stone cold.

Its ridiculous amd needs the fury equivalent to beat the 70 series now. I don't see how the hell they're selling these things at $400 and making a profit when its a fury x with more shit on it.

Whatever, maybe Vega 56 Crossfire will be a decent 1080 ti alternative, and these things will be god like in 2 years at $200 each when the market is flooded with dumped mining cards.

>>61710126
One SSG costs $7k. I assure you designing Vega will be more than profitable for them.

>>61710170
Assurances of a random AMD /g/entooman aren't worth much.

>>61710189
But assurances of RED's CEO are worth a lot.

>>61710126
If its gonna cost about same as 1070 and perform 15% better I see no reason to not buy it.
Crossfire/SLI sucks so no.

>>61707085
700 shades on Vega is the equivalent of 800+ shader on polaris, if the rest of the components aren't bottlenecking. Also, expect 10-20% higher clocks. I think a 20-30% improvement over last gen is likely, maybe more with dsbr

>>61710281
The 580 is $400 and has been all month since I've been checking. I don't even expect Vega to make it past a few days of pre-order before sell outs. Polaris still did and no one gave a fuck about miner shit back then.

>>61709274
if those numbers are correct then amd once more sandbagged the whole industry

to summarize the 64 is just a show off while the 56 is the actual card that with the problem OC can reach the 64 while being more efficient

nice move if indeed this shit is real

>>61710530
That's still reeeeeeeally shit performance for 3.5k ALU card.

>>61710530
>if those numbers are correct then amd once more sandbagged the whole industry
It's very likely they are fake.

>>61710541
not really considering that this is just another gcn the perf is quite good

>>61706206
1070 killer

Lamo whats the point in beating a budget model card where is the 1080 and 1080ti killer?

>>61710565
Thats what Vega64 is aimed at.

>>61710565
1070
budget model

shills are literally trying to desegment nvidia cards to shit on vega

oh man this is going to be epyc

>>61710530
The cut version is the "real" card has always been the case with amd. The 290 was like $400 to the $550 for 290x.

File: product-image-85902883_530x.jpg (24KB, 530x530px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 530x530px

>>61710530
>Radeon Vega 56 means 56 ROPs
>Vega 64 has 64 ROPs
>just overclock it

>>61710561
Vega is far and away from being another GCN.

>>61710642
its literally a gcn with hbcc and nothing more

>>61710642
Vega is still GCN pal, just like Navi will be.

>>61710658
explain 45 mb of sram

>>61710692
And Pascal is still G80.

>>61709351
Which makes no sence given it is $200 cheaper.

>>61710707
shit they changed their traditional cache to sram

LETS TALK ABOUT IT

>>61709643
How is 1070 not midrange. 1080ti is top, 1080 and 1070 are mid high and mid low, while 1060 and the rest of the shit is low tier pleb cards.

File: 1492373686114.png (784KB, 899x899px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 899x899px

>>61706442
>mfw thinking about the profits i will make memecoin mining with this card

>>61707892
>It just doesn't seem very good value in the long run, especially since it's an AMD card.

I'd definitely argue that in the long run you're worse off with an Nvidia card since they gimp cards more than a few generations old with driver updates.

>>61710658
Yeah, just with bigger cachez, changes to geometry pipeline, redesigned CUs to support 2:1 FP16, DSBR, etc etc

>>61710707
The size of available L1 and L2 caches doesn't change what the architecture is based on, kid.
The arrangement and structure of the CU is still fundamentally the same. The biggest change is in regards to the SIMD lanes themselves for handling half precision ops at higher throughput.
Southern Islands is directly related to Sea Islands. Sea Islands is directly related to 3rd gen GCN. 3rd gen GCN is directly related to 4th gen GCN which is Vega.
AMD refers to their arch as such in their own programmed reference manuals, you tech illiterate spastic.

>>61710710
>muh analogy fallacy

>>61710742
1080ti enthusiast
1080 high
1070 mid high
1060/580 mid
1050ti/50 entry

but i guess /g/ in order to save nvidia's face they will go as far as calling 1080ti an entry level if vega passes it

>>61710771
>1080ti enthusiast
>1080 high

Why are these two in different cathegories?

>>61710759
>The size of available L1 and L2 caches doesn't change what the architecture is based on, kid.
but you speak about hbcc like it is in the architecture. you clearly showed me.

>>61710752
so? polaris had almost everything but a culling mechanism and hbcc
talking about the microcode is moot since it doesnt really change anything on a hardware level..

>>61710793
enthusiast means cash cow

>>61710797
You're not even responding to the same posters. Imagine that? Moron.

>>61710793
because one is 30% faster than the other

>>61710802
>Polaris had DSBR or double FP16
?

>>61710816
then don't butt in, retard.

>>61710834
Don't be wrong and you won't get corrected, shit eating child.

>>61710844
he was the wrong one, and I was drawing him out, you fucking idiot.

>>61710844
>calling someone else a shiteater while eating shit himself
?

>>61710561
It should be performing on par with a 1080ti with 3500+ alus and like 11.5tf

>>61710866
it will, in 6months when the drivers are fixed

>>61710866
That means something is wrong, probably frontend choking again.

>>61710822
seriously now stop posting

File: aika ur a faget.jpg (59KB, 507x525px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 507x525px

>>61710897
>Polaris has double FP16 and DSBR

>>61710903
god damn it its like trying to teach a monkey but its a spastic monkey

>>61710916
Oh its you, my dear BR ape.

>>61706206
amd was sandbagging after all.

>>61710822
Hey, since you are one of the few people who actually seems to know anything about GPUs (assuming you are the usual question mark guy in GPU threads), do you know of some other forums where people who actually know ANYTHING about GPUs are arguing about WTF is going on with Vega? Besides Beyond3D, I mean.

>>61710933
It's B3D or bust.

I ordered the 1080ti but I'm not proud of this and I'd like to mask it as RX VEGA. Can I spoof the graphics card id somehow?

>>61710923
sorry im not your favela born brother

>>61710975
That's the gayest shit I've ever heard.

>>61710822
he is right tho
i wont say much just wait for the new 3dmark demo to come out in 2-3 weeks...
tl dr everyone from 260x and above can

>>61710981
SOPA MACACO
>>61711002
Totally!

>>61711008
you obviously have no idea how the gcn cores actually work eh

>>61710983
I only used ATI and later AMD gpus since I was 13 and that's why I'm ashamed to buy the novideo gpu.

>>61710881
Probably scheduling is choking. MUH ASYNC. But game programmers shouldn't have to implement an efficient, asynchronous schedule themselves to make sure the shaders get max usage

>>61711070
You don't understand anything, do you?

File: 1500133188047.jpg (153KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 2000x1125px

Did I miss something? AMD didn't say ANYTHING about TDP even once. Where the heck TDP numbers are coming from?

>>61711094
If it were just front end Vega wouldn't have shit tier compute performance too.

>>61711173
Vega has exceptional compute performance.
It also performs splendidly and CAD and other 3D modeling workloads.

>>61711182
it got exactly x2 in tflops over 580, but not even close to x2 in games.

>>61711228
>gayms
>compute
?

>>61711182
You knucklehead specview tests VIEWPORT rendering. It's real-time in opengl or d3d and follows the same pipeline as games. The difference is that the 99% of the assets remain the same at any given time while the artist works on a single mesh so there are very few memory operations. We've seen compubench opencl tests and the titan xp humiliates the Vega FE

>>61711238
i'm pointing out inconsistency between AMD flops, which wasn't the case with previous cards.

>>61711252
>what if Fiji

>>61711168
they did, it's 210W for Vega 56. It's 20W per Tflop, preddy gud

where the fuck is VEGA 48?!

>>61711247
>We've seen compubench opencl tests and the titan xp humiliates the Vega FE
The ones where Fiji outperformed Vega?
Come on.

>>61711256
>390x 5.9TFLOPs
>Fury x 8.5TFLOPS

it's pretty much in line performance scaling, more or less.

>>61711276
The one where Vega is like 10% better than fury x because AMD's opencl drivers are trash tier

>>61711260
http://www.amd.com/en-us/press-releases/Pages/amd-redefines-2017jul30.aspx

Can't find where AMD themselves say it anywhere, card is not listed on the site yet either. Just curious because PR guy in interview didn't mention any TDP numbers either.

>>61706206
>1070 killer
For a lower price?

>>61711371
1070 is about $450-500 now, so yeah if they deliver promsied volume and miners won't rabid rush it
going to be best card on the market for a little while even with these numbers

>>61711349
do you mean they are sandbagging even more?

>>61711409
Well they confirmed AVFS in RX Vega will have more aggresive checks.

>>61711409
Well voltage regulators do not work in FE, no idea.
Only thing PR guy said is that power draw going to be dynamic depending on the load, pretty much like ryzen does it, probably same c-states IP.

>leaked benchmarks
nah i will wait for the official ones
i still remember the bulldozer leaks claiming it will be faster than i7s

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_Preview/5.html

God, Vega or not, GPU market is totally screwed for normal users.

Vega won't change anything.

>>61711452
it's other way around now, everything points out to vega being terrible

>>61711470
And that's great.
We need nVidia monopoly.
It'll allow them to deliver the best gaming products we all deserve.

>>61711468
the mid range gpu are fine for normal users
and it's where amd and nvidia are actually in competition

File: 1489564783414.jpg (455KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2000x1125px

>>61711462
hah, I somehow missed this one

>>61711468
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vLL1O9iQo

Last time they promised Polaris volume, what did happen? I can't remember.

>>61711499
Dude, the GTX1060 here costs atleast 300€.
The RX580 about the same or even more expensive.

Combined with bad availability.

Only lowend shit is available for a relative decent price.

Why is AMDs marketing so abysmal? They got lucky Ryzen marketed itself. Polaris marketing was bad and Vega is 10x worse, people were at least hyped for Polaris. Everyone thinks Vega will be shit.

>>61706553
Dude its TDP is 210W that ain't shit

Who even cares about power consumption, it's 12c/kWh here in the shithole I live in, doubt it's much more expensive where you live, but I may be very wrong

>>61711557
>Everyone thinks Vega will be shit.
Because it is?
For gaymen that is.

>>61711568
>AMD
>Who even cares about power consumption
>Intel/Nvidia
>HOUSEFIRE

>>61711568
americans pay 34-38c or something it's crazy
I pay 0.03 haha

>>61711557
>Everyone thinks Vega will be shit.
That's not an accident. The question is whether AMD is trying to soften the blow when Vega goes over like a lead balloon or whether they are sandbagging so leather jacket man doesn't get a head start in responding to it.

>>61711557
Why?

Would you think it is wiser to sell Vega as overclocker's dream again when it is already running at its limit?

>>61711586
>AMD is trying to soften the blow when Vega goes over like a lead balloon
It's that.
It's not a gayming design at all.

>>61711580
you know how insignificant the difference of 30w is?
Also everyone laughs to this day about FX being housefire worse than presshot, presshot at least had some performance

>>61711580
I'm enjoying my 4690K very much and if Vega turns out to be garbage I'm replacing my HD7870 with a GTX1060 (maybe 1070)

I'd only give a fuck with about power and heat with disasters like the GTX480 and 7900X

>>61711585
I pay 7c. Guess its good to live in shitty third world country sometimes, at least our energy is cheap.

>>61711508
FineWine™

>>61711610
>It's not a gayming design at all.
Please feel free to explain to me how a GPU can perform extremely well in 3D rendering in pro applications but be a turd in 3D rendering in gaming applications.

In application testing has already shown Vega FE trades blows with a P6000 is 3D rendering, so how can it simultaneously be shit at 3D rendering games?

Also, why does this leak have an RX Vega 56 performing like everyone was claiming that RX Vega 64 would perform?

>>61711629
and we have better,cheaper internet.

>>61711665
FineWine is no joke, I'm still on my HD7870

That said, I'm also on 1280x1024

>>61711666
It still performs like shit considering it's 3.5k ALU chip.

>>61706442
As long as AMD makes bank to fund more R&D I really don't care

>>61711678
Okay, sure. Now do you want to try and explain the questions I asked?

>>61711690
I can't.
RX Vega still performs like shit according to AMD's own slides.

>>61711674
I'm still on my HD7970 with 1080p display. Breddy gud experience if you turn down settings to high. Especially considering this is a 6yo card.

you wont see a replacement from intel for the 1070 for another 6 months so unless they price drop the 56 should do rather well at $400 and have a good run

>>61711666
>how a GPU can perform extremely well in 3D rendering in pro applications but be a turd in 3D rendering in gaming applications
that's a mystery and only AMD knows why
>Also, why does this leak have an RX Vega 56 performing like everyone was claiming that RX Vega 64 would perform?
according to a slide from linustechtips the 64 should be around gtx1080's performance level, in some games slower, in some faster
these results are from games where almost any AMD product performs at least good, so you can bet that vega 56 will be around gtx1070's performance, maybe 10% slower

File: 04b02ee2ef6b313d9dd849d644ee5ad2.png (174KB, 696x678px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x678px

>>61707866
>180w vs 210w
>double
Nvidiots can't into math.

>>61711666
Because a 3d workspace usually has a small number of objects that don't fluctuate much. Games are constantly caching new data to the VRAM and then to the cache and the scheduler is constantly issuing new instructions to render those new objects

You can't trust what /g/ says about GPUs ever since the 480
>1070 killer!
>Buy Crossfire 480s!
This board just shills AMD whether the product is good or not. There are plenty of people here who still defend Bulldozer.

>>61706863
>Also AMD is not interested in phone market.
I wonder if they will be in 10 years once they've saturated their traditional markets

>>61711733
the 1070 has a 150W TDP

>>61711761
1070 is also 20% slower according to "leaks".

>>61707866
>GTX 1070 23Watts per Tflop
>Radeon 56 20Wats per TFLOP
>radeon double the power draw

what the fuck are you talking about. the Vega 56 is literally the most efficient architecture in the high/enthusiast market

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS8yL0wvNTg5NzczL29yaWdpbmFsLzEwLVBvd2VyLUNvbm1zdW1wdGlvbi1HYW1pbmctT3ZlcnZpZXcucG5n.png (28KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x450px

>>61711761
On the foundry edition yes. Not on anything anyone actually buys.

>>61711698
Just never try Dishonored 2

>>61711716
It's not a mystery, a GPU is a shit ton of nice ALUs stuck together; programs that can parallelize properly take advantage of that.

>>61711795
Tflops dont mean anything for gaming AT ALL, 480 has like double the tflops of the 1060 yet they perform the same.

>>61711810
Programs that run on GPUs inheretly can parallelize properly.

>>61711769
that's in games where amd was always faster (doom, battlefield)
i bet it will be around 5-10% faster

>>61711795
don't look at TFLOPs, that doesn't mean much when it comes to games
wait for the benchmarks

>>61711828
that's why all miners are crazy for the 1060?

>>61711835
Because RX570/580 is overpriced and unavailable.

>>61711835
that's because you can buy them right now for half the price of an 580

>>61711666
>but be a turd in 3D rendering in gaming applications.

>>61711846
>>61711856
so you appreciate the compute power of the rx 580? and since vega beats pascal in geometrics, why shouldn it perform less in games again?

>>61710719

Which would surely mean that Vega 64 outperforms Vega 56.

>>61711908
We don't know.
Maybe it's bandwith starved?
Maybe frontend somehow chokes?

>>61709478
yes
fuck miners

>>61711529
Nope, last week Nvidia 1030 was around $70, 560 $120 and 1050 $130.
Now all of them raised by around $30-$40.
1050 Ti to RX580 are gone, bought by scalpers and miners.

This in Indonesia by the way.

>>61711908
Because AMD's gaming drivers are fucking horrible, just like they've always been. Anyone buying Vega for games is retarded.

>>61709478
>>61712011
Nah, if amd really wants to fuck miners, then raja needs to keep those bundles coming. I mean seriously, a 580 bundled with discounts on an R5/mobo combo and a 1080p freesync monitor would sell like hotcakes to people looking for a new system

>>61711529
in poland everything that isn't a rx580/570 is now only about 10% overpriced
the cheapest gtx1060 3gb version costs around 215€

>>61712060
you are clearly a fucking shill
stop any time

>>61712060
Crimson is fucking stellar mate.

>>61706442
exactly, if it weren't for the miners these cards wouldn't be worth shit
they're making money off butt coiners and don't a shit about consumers
They are just another company thinking of profits, they have nothing out ATM worth a damn

>>61712156
They do not count GPU sold to miners even in their Q3 guidance, anon.

File: 37383838576.jpg (81KB, 500x459px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 500x459px

>>61711266
this

> tfw no $299 Vega 48

File: 1351234151.jpg (7KB, 179x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 179x200px

>>61706206
SHUT UP WAIT FOR THE SPECIAL FEATURES
SLI 1080ti FOR 200 DOLLARS

>>61712196
>eren-kun

>>61712060

No matter how much you shitpost, you will never convince anyone that nvidia doesn't gimp cards with their drivers or that geforce experience is literally a piling heap of shit.

>>61711266
But according to "leaks" it would perform worse than Polaris.

>>61712249
how is that even possible?

>>61712342
>64 is 1080 tier
>56 is 1070 tier
48 would be the same as a 1060 = the same as an rx580 or maybe even worse

>>61712342
Ask RTG, then local shitposters.
Also ask why would Vega11 exist then if per-clock perf is worse than Polaris (assuming Vega11 is half Vega10, that is).

>>61712359
2304SP vs 3072SP
32ROP vs 48 to 64ROP
~1350mhz vs ~1500mhz
>worse

>>61712359
WTF anon, you're doing it wrong
> 64 is 1080 tier
> 56 is 1075 tier
> 48 would be 1070 tier
> 40 would be 1065 tier
> 32 would be 1060 tier
> 24 would be 1050ti tier
> 16 would be 1050 tier
> 8 would be RX 550 tier
> 0 would be Intel Iris tier

Can someone answer me why Vega11 ever exists?

Why doesn't AMD just mine buttcoins themselves?

>>61712503
Because commiefornia.

>>61712465
to replace polaris next year.

>>61712664
Why would you replace Polaris with bigger die with the same performance?

>>61712693
11 is the smaller die.

>>61712693
because it's going to be fury performance. they are replacing polaris and fiji in one model

>>61706756
Zeppelin is already an SoC. No need for southbridge in Raven Ridge APUs.

>>61712720
No it's not. 2k Vega ALUs can't even hope to touch Fiji.

>>61712759
I think 40cu versions will be enough to replace polaris. people will be satisfied with it.
fiji is not a consideration at this point.

>>61712846
It's bigger die for barely (if any) peformance gains.

>>61710466
Have gone to amds website and looked there?

>>61712857
at the first glance, it is. but I'm hopeful about software updates and what it brings.
I say 15-20% uplift we could see with both hardware updates vega brings over polaris and software updates that make it work.

>>61712246
And AMD's drivers don't become acceptable until a year later, and even then you get 50% worse gaming performance per tflop than Nvidia. People keep going on about compute, why is AMD so much better at compute but shittier in gaming? Its their drivers dude, the no drivers meme is still well and alive. ATI/AMD GPUs arent for gaming.

>>61707866
As an AMD user I must say I'm pretty disappointed

>vega's hasrate is between 70-100.

we are fucked. no card for us.

File: 1385420494989.jpg (292KB, 852x939px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 852x939px

>>61712951
>As an AMD user
t. leather jacket man.

Will Vega support DX11 SMT? If not then it's going to be fucked in performance.

>>61712960
but bald man said they anticipated miners, and there will be enough volume!

>>61710466
$269 us
http://shop.amd.com/en-us/components/graphic-cards/GVRX580GAMNG8GD

>>61712984
>DX11 SMT
what the fuck is that?

>>61712988
It won't be enough.

>>61711795
You have understand that anything else than gayming performance/efficiency is irrelevant to these /v/irgins.

>>61713040
what else is relevant? vega 56/64s are gaming cards

If you need a new high end GPU now pre order VEGA as soon as you can because those mining fuckers will grab them all regardless. Forget waiting for benchmarks. By the time you decide to buy it they will all be GONE!

>>61712999
I guess it's not actually called SMT. I think it should be called Deferred Command Lists in DX11. It allows the CPU to use multiple threads throw stuff into the renderer. AMD does not support this as well as Nvidia, or game engines seem to favor Nvidia's implementation in this case.

It's the reason why Nvidia cards crush AMD cards in a bunch of games. Unreal Engine 4 games run a lot better on Nvidia cards because of this. Eg PUBG.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
FUCK YOU GAYMEN FAGS
NO MATTER HOW GOOD VEGA WILL BE ON LAUNCH YOU'LL NEVER GET ONE

>>61713099
No, AMD is not going to implement driver shim to use command lists independetly of game.
Its up to dev to use it.

>>61713088
>preorder
>don't wait for benchmarks
fuck off Raja

>>61713136
You can resell it to miners.

>>61712960
If thats true I will buy all cards I could.

>>61713001
Well, I'll get one in ruslands before prices rise first batch is always close to MSRP.
I wonder if i'd be able to resell it to EU for $1k or so.

>>61713126
In other words, AMD is going to lag behind pretty hard in performance to Nvidia cards in some very popular games. Even if AMD's GPU were better, just this one thing means that PUBG will run better on Nvidia GPUs.

>>61713167
DX11 is dead. bury it.

ayy for real tho im looking to drop a fat wad on a vega + threadripper combo. I'll only ever be using it for gaymen. or should i just threadripper + 1080ti? the 1080ti's seem expensive.

not a miner or graphic designer

>>61713195
As long as some of the most popular games run on it, it's not dead.

>>61713167
Things kind of shifted since last year, they got pretty huge support from Ubi and Bethesda(Id,Arkane), not to mention old ones like DICE, edios and creative assembly. Things are looking bright for AMD future in next 1-2 years.
gimpworks was EVERYWHERE, but market got tired of this bullshit and bad rep.

>>61713213
1080 ti is going offer you better performance. Even 1080 might be better because of this: >>61713195
>>61713167
>>61713126


Threadripper is pointless for gaming. You would be served just as well by a Ryzen 7 with very good (highly clockable) RAM.

>>61713195
Literally 90% of all new releases are still DX11 and will continue to be becuase DX12 requires actual skill to work with and developers are lazy and retarded
Until consoles take full advantage of DX12, we won't get much. That's how it works, consoles gotta get it then it will finally be common on PC

>>61713215
>some of the most popular games run on it
like what? most AAA publishers shifted to dx12 in 90% of announced games, did you miss e3?

>>61713248
>Literally 90% of all new releases are still DX11
no it is not.

>>61713248
>Until consoles take full advantage of DX12
anon, you are ignorant or stupid? consoles already take full advantage of low level API

>>61713240
thank you poster-sama i will consider your wisdom

>>61713231
But UE4 performance is going to be shit even if the rest of the stuff will do okay. PUBG right now on Twitch is only eclipsed by LoL in viewership (and dota due to a tournament right now). There are a bunch of other UE4 games in the top lists too: Fortnite, Dark and Light, Ark etc.

>>61713248
>Literally 90% of all new releases are still DX11 and will continue to be becuase DX12 requires actual skill to work with and developers are lazy and retarded
They all require skill, some just require a whole bunch of skills many developers didn't have before.

Games can almost always be better optimized, but there just isn't time and money to invest in optimizing them. There isn't enough of a return.

>>61713248
Consoles have been using low-level APIs since forever.
In fact Mantle was created by DICE as an instrument to replicate their expirience developing Bad Company games.

>>61713310
>But UE4 performance is going to be shit
epic games ceo on AMD stage didn't tell you anything?

>>61713345
what did he say?

>>61713310
Not every game is an UE4 early access crafting survival trash cashgrab.
>>61713345
What? Sweeney the jacketman's cumdump?
On AMD's keynote?
You gotta be shitting me.

>>61713359
watch it yourself

File: 1491855305599.jpg (74KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 323x323px

>>61713367
post link

>>61713363
nope, he was there. telling you people are slightly tired of same nvidia bullshit specially in corporate world, and it shows

File: W1wVJ8vnKtpvF6ty.jpg (487KB, 1616x1080px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1616x1080px

>>61713363
have some sweeney nano

>>61713380
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuFGUVg0U9U&t

>>61713388
Why does he looks like he's secretly praying for death?

>>61713428
because he wrote shitty ue4.

>>61713428
He knows jacketman will torture him for that soon thereafter.

>>61713436
ue4 is really good, in good games
most games that use ue4 are like most unity games made by incompetents

>>61713506
On the other hand, games like Ark and Dark & Light likely would never have been made if it weren't for UE4. None of the other engines offer quite as much for as small of an entry cost while also giving you support.

Try contacting Unity developers as a nobody. They won't even reply to you. Meanwhile UE4 devs can give very good answers to your problems.

>>61713413
he got a free threadripper and vega nano and left?

>>61706590

>we

4chan is 1 person.

>>61711749
>>61706863
>>61706845

iirc they can't into the ARM/x86 SoC market directly to compete with Qualcom and others, this is due again iirc, to the Adreno sell out agreement. Thats why they focus mostly on the "custom" market on those 2 sectors.

>>61714746
1 bot

File: tumblr_m72samLD4r1rohho4o1_1280.jpg (87KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1280x720px

>>61714905
>mfw 4chan as a whole is just a simulation

>>61714931
ikr