https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBx 73n-fgdE

>>61992391
Based Steve.

>>61992391
Nice to see Steve clearly lay out that core overclocking basically isn't working on Vega's launch drivers.

As I've been saying, all you can get out of Vega on the launch drivers is to set power target to +50%, overclock the memory as much as you can, and then undervolt as far as you can. Until these overclocking bugs get fixed there is no reliable way to test Vega core overclocking performance.

>>61992391
That's what I thought.
There's no way people hit 1980mhz on Vega.

File: vega drivers.jpg (96KB, 612x818px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 612x818px

It keeps happening.

AMD.
>drivers later

>>61992391

Why the fuck are you trying to overclock a bloody Vega 64? The damn thing already hits its thermal wall with stock HSF. You barely getting any mileage with AIO solutions. It is a PITA to deal with 400W+ of heat on a discrete card.

You are better far OC'ing a 1080Ti for goodness sake and kicks that Vega 64's ass at gaming performance.

>>61993147
Because overclocked Vega 56 is really good performance for the money.

>>61993158
not really, OCing RAM is giving you that nice 7% boost with almost no watt difference.
Ocing core gives you 7% with that 200watt delta

>>61993191
But I don't care about power draw anon, only performance per dollar

File: lol15.jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>61992391
>amdfags waited 2 years for this

>>61992391
>The 25k scores were all under bugged conditions and are not valid.
priceless

>>61993206
t. guy who lives with his Mom

>>61993158
But only if you can get it for the actual MSRP, which you can't.

>>61993533
I have at least 10 minutes, 6 AM PST on the 28th to get it, not sure if I'm going to try or just buy a 4k IPS display

>>61993206
>>61993485
Your mum cares about the power draw.

>>61993308
W-wait for navi!

>>61993485
>>61993655
Solar niggas

>>61993664
If Navi is multi-die as it should be, it will completely shit stop nvidia just as Ryzen is doing to intel.

>>61993681
How many times has amd rehashed their shit but with muh double gpu

>>61993551
Did you pull the trigger?

>>61993756
>next time amd will btfo nvidia
>just wait guise

>>61993756
>>61993768
Obviously they wouldn't be relying on crossfire, that's why nvidia is likely moving to multi-die after volta or skipping gaming volta all together depending on how Navi does

>>61993763
It's not the 28th yet? Leaning towards a 4k display, only thing is there's free-sync 2 coming and those displays will likely be better for the same $400, I can always use VSR to do some 4k stuff, but I think I'm going to like 4k more than 1080p 144hz that I currently use.

File: australia.gif (564KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 800x430px

>>61992391
>the immense amdtard butthurt in the comments
>w-why do you care
>i-it's immature to point out amd fuck ups despite waiting 2 years for this piece of shit

>>61992586
Even undervolting doesn't apply sometimes if you watched some sections of their livestream of the 56. Sometimes dropping the voltage wouldn't drop the amperage at all through the PCIE rails.

I have to say to those that waited and got one. You my friend have a paience of a saint.

>>61993681
LOL!

How will 4 Vega chips at 65W each even touch Volta?

Which, oh by the way adds even further driver complexity because it has 4 Vegas on one die connected via infinity fabric. With a software and driver team proven to be so completely overwhelmed by the hardware they have trouble keeping up with a single Vega chip.

How do you propose they solve this issue in one fucking year you piece of shit shill?

>>61994456
I think AMD needs to work on the power issue first and the obvious drivers.

>>61994456
Never said it was coming in a year, They likely have prototypes already planned though. Not an engineer either, but it might require a hardware scheduler for frame delivery.

The Radeon team was clearly lacking funding for this round since AMD had to push Ryzen so hard. They just shrunk Fury, added a thing or 2, then released it with mostly Fury Drivers

Is there any chance that Vega will significantly improve with drivers and more DX12 adoption in games or is it pretty much DoA?

>>61994489
DOA

>>61994400

>>61992717
what's the point? buildzoid says it stops scaling after 1650 anyway, and who cares? it's ln2 territory

>>61994489
>Is there any chance that Vega will significantly improve with drivers and more DX12 adoption in games or is it pretty much DoA?
Yes, they've yet to implement NGG pipeline.

>>61994489
56 is faster than 1070(even faster in dx12)
64 has exact same performance as 1080(slightly faster in dx12)
on alpha drivers
the heck else do you want?

>>61994535

A better price and electricity bill?
Why would I buy an equally priced equally performing AMD card that draws more power and isn't as optimized for?

>>61994535
I don't get it, it has performance, the problem is the price
it's like you missed all the benchmarks

>>61994545
>486mm^2 die that performs as 314mm^2 die
Are you serious?

>>61994489
It's DOA. Drivers will only help reduce power consumption, and throttling, and the performance will see slight upticks like the 7970, but as the NCU evolves and they attempt to fix it's shortcomings it will get farther and farther behind. So in two years from now, it will be closer to a 1080ti, as the 1080ti loses development support.

>>61994541
>A better price and electricity bill?
we've been over this, difference is negligible

>>61994549
There's not wrong with Vega's CUs you retard.
Current RX Vega drivers just lack NGG path.

>>61994473
They need to go back to the drawing board, and come up with a new architecture, because so far, Raja has produced absolute garbage for AMD.

>>61994535
You know than Vega GPU chip is bigger, hotter, draw more power, have more transistors than the GP102 (Titan X/1080ti) chip

>>61994548
how is this relevant? the only relevant metric is the price, which sucks at the moment

>>61994567
Vega is the new uarch.
And it's very nice.
Just needs polishing and driver work.
>>61994570
It's only 15mm^2 bigger than GP102.

File: Lern to reed.png (349KB, 678x381px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 678x381px

>>61994562
NCU. Faggot.

>>61994570
hilariously it's not hotter
I don't know how nvidia does it but they manage to have 75C chips with 200 powerdraw

>>61994586
FUCKING HELL YOU RETARD NCU IS JUST GCN CU WITH RPM.

>>61994579
There's nothing nice about Vega unless you're a miner not paying the power bill. Polishing a turd, means you're still holding a turd.

>>61994579
>It's only 15mm^2 bigger than GP102.

...and match like a 1080 non Ti...

>>61994609
BECAUSE IT LACKS NGG PATH CURRENTLY.
IT'S NOT TAPPING INTO SHADERS TO CULL GEOMETRY.
Holy fuck GPU threads are more retarded than even AT forums, and this is something.

>>61994567
It is a new Uarch though Just fucked it up.

>>61994586
not a arguement Its just minor edit of GCN.

>>61994616
hey wtf is NGG?
need a link to read shit.

>>61994535
>56 is faster than 1070(even faster in dx12)
Oh fuck off mate theres no need to kick us GTX 1070 owners here.
we come for the hardware specs'n shit not a kick down.

disagree with the Vega 64 its 3% slower.

>>61994604
>4k ALUs with 200w powerdraw on normal setting

gee, I wonder why miners want it

>>61994579
>AMD 486mm*2 die
>NVIDIA 314mm*2 die
>same performance + more power consumption + poor OC
>normal

Raja is incompetent

>>61994654
>still spamming the same shit instead of reading the thread
>>61994642
>hey wtf is NGG?
>need a link to read shit.
Are you telling me you can't even read fucking whitepapers?
http://radeon.com/_downloads/vega-whitepaper-11.6.17.pdf

>>61994662
The fact is that's not good, period.

>>61994541
>1080 costs $70 per year
>Vega 64 pantsonhead bios settings costs $80 per year

such difference, have to sell my house

>>61994667
(You) are still trying?

>>61994654
Except Polaris was the best choice in every category?

>>61994679
>denial

Vega is not and will never be good.

>>61994695
You're a little too desperate for these (You)s.

File: 1444602501945.jpg (65KB, 638x357px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 638x357px

>>61992391

>>61994662
>http://radeon.com/_downloads/vega-whitepaper-11.6.17.pdf
thanks mate, i'm having a read now.
>>61994678
I'm not a american and my power is .18cents per kwh

>>61994804
those calculations made with 0.2c per Kwh

>>61992391
Is Steve the most handsome youtube tech guy? That hair, man

>>61994826
Yeah but I can't see where all that power is going to. My only thought is its getting wasted in heat and on the HBM its self. its confussing as fuck.

>>61994804
Actually where I live in murrika I have the cheapest power on this hemisphere

>>61994678

Are you fucking retarded? Power consumption angle has never been about electrical bill. It is all about noise level and cooling solutions you need to keep the GPU under control.

If you are worry about the silly elecrtical bill then chances are you couldn't afford the damn card in the first place unless you got it as a "gift".

>>61994971
>noise level and cooling solutions you need to keep the GPU under control
It's all the same 2-2.5 slot thick coolers.

>>61994854
HBM consumes 20w peak even if you OC it to hell
HBM is actually pretty neat

>>61994971
that's exact point i'm trying to make, and with modern coolers it makes no difference at all
unless you buy reference, please don't

>>61992391
can we stop promoting this jew boy, we already know vega piece of shit

>>61995001

Nope, not the same fan speed.

Vegas 64 require faster fans (and louder) to keep themselves cool versus their Nvidia counterparts.

Not everyone wants their computer to sound like it belongs in a server room when loaded.

>>61995082
>Vegas 64 require faster fans (and louder) to keep themselves cool versus their Nvidia counterparts.
All these 2.5 slot thick 3fan monstrosities are near silent at every fucking fan speed anyway.
You're so desperate for (You)s.

>>61995082
don't use blower style. problem solved.

>>61995082
https://youtu.be/A6PXixRnrkA?t=3m58s

at 3:59 vega running benchmark on 2.5 slot cooler and retarded no power limit asus settings

File: file.png (2MB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1180x842px

>242% Power offset.

>>61995327
At least you can do it without shuntmodding (thanks Jensen).

>>61995200
wtf.
no power limit? yeah something is fishy.

I know stock on vega 64 is like 295w but the Unlocked boost 400w flaming watts?

eh? is that even possiable.

>>61995711
fun fact, power saver setting keeps it at 200w and only 6% slower

>>61995711
>but the Unlocked boost 400w flaming watts?
yeah, it's due to the glofo node, just like ryzen goes into overdrive above 4.1Ghz

thing is, it's barely any real performance gain
v56 is the card to get, 64 makes no sense

>>61995743
Interesting.

>>61995761
So its like a prototype thing for amd.
well I hope the scalling works on Navi. A bit of a shame it doesn't work this gen though.

>>61993308
I kinda feel sorry for them, and I am kinda happy for myself, got an Aorus GTX 1080TI for $850 when shit was cheap.

>>61995815
>sorry for them
Nah. They deserve to be shot on sight. Just look at the state of the board and their constant cancer and bitching.

>>61995987
I guess you are right.

Just finished watching that Bildzoid video and basically the card is locked down on all fronts except maybe on loonix which means only good for miners.

>OCing Vega
Enjoys paying 400$ more in just 3 years for electricity compared to a 1070