Undervolting Vega

Sorry OP, I don't speak nazi.

File: Screenshot 2017-08-21 at 5.47.00 PM.png (74KB, 644x424px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 644x424px

>>62031571
Gee, if only someone could have predicted that Vega would perform much better with undervolting, and that an undervolted Vega 56 at the same clocks as Vega 64 would perform 100% the same since both cards remain front end bottlenecked until primitive shaders are implemented in driver.

File: trashman2.jpg (105KB, 398x503px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 398x503px

>$500+
>hot
>14 months late

>>62031571
what else is new
Overclocking memory and tweaking timings on Polaris could get you ~10% more performance. When you underclock and undervolt to get the same performance as stock you can make it use like 20-40% less power with the same exact performance as the stock card.

Why is AMD retarded like that and not tweaking shit in factory is beyond me.

>>62031790
>Why is AMD retarded like that and not tweaking shit in factory is beyond me.

It's a yield issue, the voltage target they set, the more good chips they can get.

>>62031790
>Why is AMD retarded like that and not tweaking shit in factory is beyond me.
It's called the Nano.

The rest are all mass market products.

File: Screenshot 2017-08-22 at 9.57.19 AM.png (62KB, 605x414px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 605x414px

>>62031712
>hot
Not anymore :^)

>>62031790
>Why is AMD retarded like that and not tweaking shit in factory is beyond me.
because it's silicon lottery. You can't get all the chips to be mantain the target clock at that voltage. The same reason not all 7700K can reach 5Ghz at somehow acceptable volts.

>>62031712
/Thread

Even if it matches (18 month old, lol) Pascal performance, mining prices will keep it out of the competition until Volta comes out. This shit is just too little, too late

>>62032267
>Vega64
>same performance as 1080
>10w more than a 1080ti when undervolted, or 90w more than a 1080
Yrev very goodsame power draw

>>62031571
How is this different for any GCN chip? It's literally the same thing has been doing for 6 years, AMD cards are diamond in the rough, Nvidia since Maxwell has optimized their manufacturing and binning to the max at the expense of yields, so they're better out of the box.

>>62031712
Because everyone buys their hardcore gaming gear the day it's released, right?

>>62031571
If they just find some way to magically unfuck the memory bottleneck the whole Vega line will be saved. The Pascal family is really mature, we're already seeing all Nvidia can squeeze out of it with driver optimization. AMD however is can wring a lot more out of Vega.
The Vega64 might end up only 15% slower than the 1080ti which isn't terrible by any stretch.

>>62032301
Vega 64 on current drivers is massively front end bottlenecked by only having a polygon thoughput of ~4 triangles per clock. Once primitive shaders are enabled in drivers, Vega 64 will no longer be front end bottlenecked and its perf/watt will be competitive.

Vega 56 comparatively suffers less from the current 4 triangles per clock bottleneck than Vega 64 does, so it shows undervolted perf/watt that beats a 1070 FE already.

HEY GUYS LET'S ALL PRETEND TO BE SURPRISED AND ASTONISHED THAT AMD IS REPEATING THE SAME MANUFACTURING JAZZ THEY'VE BEEN DOING SINCE GCN1 LAUNCHED EVERY SINGLE YEAR WITHOUT FAIL


HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>62032369
I'm hopeful about vega 11 and low-cost hbm. with drivers ready, it can perform 1070 level. I hope q42017 or q1 2018 will be distant enough time to ready the drivers.

File: uv.png (34KB, 638x422px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 638x422px

>>62031571
Why does the undervolted cards perform better than stock? That doesn't make any sense.

>>62031571
Concern trolls are noted, suddenly it's a good mining card when overvolting comes in

Oh my gosh who would have thought.

>>62032460
Lower voltage, thereby generating less heat, allows the card to sustain higher boost clocks as it isn't hitting thermal/power limits.

The era of fixed clock rates is over. We dynamic clock now. CPUs and GPUs will clock to what they can hit.

>>62032460
Because it's not throttling as much.

>>62032460
It only doesn't make sense since you're stupid.
It's called power throttling.

>>62032460
it doesn't get hot, so it doesn't throttle and keeps the clock steady.

Sorry, i don't have time to fuck around with overclocking and shit, I'm a busy man with a life, if AMD can't provide that experience out of the box then they're dead to me.

File: amd-rxveganano-2.jpg (70KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x668px

>>62032510
AMD made a card just for you fags that are too busy to pull a slider back but not to busy to shitpost on /g/

>>62032325
There's no memory bottleneck.
The front-end is chocking, maggots shipped gaymen Vega with NGG path disabled.

>>62032460
Basically the yields are so poor they have to use higher stock voltages to ensure all the chips function properly. This means they generate more heat.

However, the better chips can run fine at a lower voltage, so you get less heat an better overclock/boost performance.

This is the silicone lottery.

>>62032561
this desu. Reviewers have gotten the better silicone as usual and undervolting so they look more attractive to miners.

>>62032325
A non-throttling Vega FE is already like 20% slower. They should seriously be making up that difference with drivers

>>62032561
You don't know the yields, AMD did this crap for tiny dies like Polaris 11 and Cape Verde, and pretty much any GCN GPU.
I can assure you those don't have bad yields or they wouldn't be sold.

AMD overvolts simply because it's cheaper to them and they get more units per wafer.

>>62032550
Performance increasing by significant amounts when memory clocks is increased = memory bottleneck.
There is no getting around this.

The theoretically deliverable bandwidth is far off from what measured bandwidth shows. Fiji had the same issue.

>>62032596
Should I undervolt my 390x?

>>62032623
Do you want to? Do you need lower power draw? Do you already have a OC on it?

>>62032615
It only increases for 56, which is literally segmented by memory BW.

Can't wait for all the retards who think this applies to all chips and cards start crashing unable to reach the voltage target at stock clock.

>>62032561
>Basically the yields are so poor they have to use higher stock voltages to ensure all the chips function properly. This means they generate more heat.

Or they just pumped the freqs to max to squeeze out all the possible performance out of the chip because otherwise it wouldn't be able to compete with Nvidia. This results in higher than anticipated power draw.

Polaris had the same issue. Heck, Zen has the same issue too (it was designed for lower clocks), except that Zen performs well enough anyway so it's not a problem other than being shit at overclocking.

>>62032596
>You don't know the yields
You can speculate the yields from the voltages they ship at.
While we don't know the actual yields if they had good yields they would literally toss the chips that required a higher voltage in the bin.
Seeing they use a higher than optimum voltage on the cards it seems likely they are shipping the less desirable chips as well, which they wouldn't do if they could supply enough good chips.

>>62032691
>Or they just pumped the freqs to max to squeeze out all the possible performance out of the chip because otherwise it wouldn't be able to compete with Nvidia. This results in higher than anticipated power draw.
Na, then you wouldn't be able to undervolt effectively except on like, the golden silicone.

>>62032685
You got a sample size of 2 for undervolting currently, we'll know the average soon enough.

>>62032685

Same motherfuckers who want everyone to buy a R5 1600 although most samples can't quite OC to 1600x levels.

>>62032777
How many FPS is that 100MHz?

AYYMD HOUSEFIRES

>>62032476
How do I enable dynamic clock on my cards?

>>62032874
And your cards are?

>>62032874
If its new enough to have the feature its already enabled.

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

MINERS ARE GONNA EAT THEM ALL

>>62033062
No.
580 or 1070 are still better at mining.

>>62032455
there will not be any more vega anon there are only 3
56 64 and that nano just like fiji

>>62033085
People are getting 45MH/s on a undervolted FE with alpha blockchain drivers, with no client support, Polaris and Pascal are dead.

>>62033088
Are you retarded?
Vega is full lineup, including smaller (Vega11), the smallest (Vega12), and big dick FP64 (Vega20).
Fiji was double Tonga.
Tonga existed before Fiji.

>>62032460
in gcn undervolting means higher clocks with less heat and less power draw

>>62033113
as i said
THERE WONT BE ANY MORE VEGA on this lineup

the full lineup is expected to come on the vega refresh NOT NOW because amd is building up stock binned chips for them

>>62033104
45mh/s at what 200w?
What are people getting with Polaris cards? 30mh/s for 150-180w~?

Vega will undoubtedly grow into the mining monster it was rumored to be. They should be able to hit 60mh/s given the amount of CUs and its clocks combined with an actual instruction set for it.

>>62033115
It means that everywhere if the clock/TBP/voltage is skewed too much in one field (which would be voltage for AMD)

>>62033142
gibbo is a fucking liar dont fucking repost his shit about 100mh/s

>>62033141
Vega refresh is who knows when and I doubt they'll refresh Vega10.

>>62033158
60 to 70 should be entirely within the realm of possibility.
36CU at 1200mhz~ is pulling 30mh/s.
Vega is 64CU at 1500mhz~

File: 1441436464781.jpg (45KB, 460x645px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 460x645px

>>62031571
>Vega 56 coming close to 1070 power draw with near 1080 performance.
Guess those miners are gonna be really happy

>>62033160
around late q4 17 with q1 18 cause navi needs to be on track at q4 18 to q2 19

people dont realise that amd has to feed apple ms sony their new opening on the rendering farms their workstation cards
all of them needs high binned chips consumers are stucked with low bines hence the stupid overvoltage out of factory

>>62033180
ETH is bandwith and memory latency.
Not compute.

>>62033180
62 is the max i believe that it can achieve if you have a good hbm2 stack we will soon find out

>>62033180
Hashing is limited by bandwidth just like all compute. Each block of w/e is x MB so you can only work on as much as the effective bandwidth can fulfill. You can optimize for it but I doubt it'll go over 50 considering the out of box performance is junk

>>62032638
Nah it's stock oc

I'll try ocing it once I get my new build

>>62032888
>>62032892
1070

I use EVGA Zog, not sure if its dynamic its more like a log curve

>>62033317
EVGA use a log curve unfortunately

>>62032615
>>62032642
Until the front end bottleneck gets fixed with primitive shaders actually being enabled in drivers, it is impossible to accurately assess how memory bandwidth botttlenecked Vega is or isn't. Wait until after prim shaders are enabled to try and assess how much of a memory bottleneck there is.

>>62031712
>14 months late
that would be a great argument if I wanted to buy a graphics card 14 months ago, but if I want to buy one now what benefit is there to buying a graphics card that's 14 months older than the other?

>>62033900
DSBR saves a LOT of bandwith though.
I doubt there's a BW bottleneck in Vega.
Vega is fairly balanced assuming everything works as intended.

>>62033922
It's proven. It's cheaper. It's better. No Waiting™ for usable drivers.

>>62033940
Yeah, I understand what you are saying, but you can't test to confirm that until prim shaders are working.

File: 1502245989988.gif (2MB, 288x430px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x430px

AMD FAGS ON FULL DAMAGE CONTROL MODE WHEN VEGA IS CONFIRMED SHIT

File: Screenshot 2017-08-22 at 9.52.53 AM.png (68KB, 607x621px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 607x621px

>>62034089
:^)

>>62034089
this desu

>>62033991
>It's proven.
ye olde graphics card isn't much of a selling point.

>It's cheaper.
really?

>It's better.
by what metric?

>No Waiting™ for usable drivers.
drivers are already usable and since they're early there's still potential in contrast to ye olde drivers.

>>62034107
>Vega 56 better in an Nvidia Goyworks game than the GTX 1080
Thats impressive.

>>62034119
Whatever, it's your money

File: 1456036973189.jpg (163KB, 600x956px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x956px

PSA: It's spelt 'silicon'. Unless you want a breast enlargement.

>>62034107
>Vega beating nVidia cards in goyworks gayme
niiice

>>62032830
About tree fiddy

Isn't goyworks all retarded amounts of geometry?
Actually working Vega will chew through it nicely due to hilarious triangle throughtput.

>>62034240
>Vega barely about equal to a 1080 in a known game after 3 days of setting hacking on the GPU

So... Is Vega secretly amazing?
> Undervolting gives significantly better performance and power consumption compared to stock
> Lots of missing features in the drivers that will result in significant performance improvements over time as they get added in

>>62031571
Too bad it costs $200 more than a 1070.

>>62034254
No. Vega doesn't even have the geometry throughout boosting primitive shader enabled yet. Nvidia goyworks is mostly physics simulations

>>62034273
The 56 msrp is 400 USD, $50 more than the 1070 msrp but cheaper on practice due to gpu price increases

>>62034272
>secretly
You can't read the damn whitepaper?

>>62034261
You are in for a whole world of butthurt

File: crysis2-tesselated-mesh-barrier.png (2MB, 1239x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1239x800px

>>62034254
what? no. :^)

>>62032295
And since high end volta is still 8-12 months away I have to buy the 1080ti as a stopgap. At least I will be able to resell the thing and recoup a few hundred bucks.

The thing I hate the most tho is that it means I will have to buy a high refresh Gsync monitor instead of a freesync one like I had hoped to do.

>>62034328
BUT
WHY?

>>62034272
Its definitely not as bad as shill are trying to make it seem. Even with a rocky launch Vega56 looked like a clear winner for a high end card. Really the only issue is that Vega 64 isn't going head to head with the 1080ti.

>>62034301
What difference does msrp make when the product is sold at major markups by vendors??

>>62032325
You cannot software patch a hardware issue.

They may fix it in navi, but not before then.

>>62034348
Literally Nvidia payed them to.

>>62034351
It can't go head to head with GP102 because front-end currently chokes.
It'll be fixed in a driver update or two.

>>62034328
>incompetent devs

wow

>>62032455
Vega 11 will be targeting the 1050 performance wise.

>>62034373
Bold claim. Care to back it up?

>>62034397
nope, it is to replace rx580/570.

>>62034363
Because Vega 56 will be available at msrp for 10 minutes when it releases on the 28th

This whole thing is even dumber because AMD released these $100 extra bundles (with $10 worth of games) for gamers so miners wouldn't buy all the cards (they did anyways). Then, they go and release a driver specifically for the miners. So, you either pay a $100 extra to get the bundle or you pay a $100 extra for a plain card because mining tax. Fucking re-tar-ded

>>62034466
The bundles were garbage thought, lets be honest. The monitor it came with has horrible flickering and the freesync only exaggerates that. The miner specific drives bring money and, at the end of the day, that's AMD's goal.

>>62034579
*though
fuck

>>62034579
>Flickering
GN put up a video showing that it doesn't flicker on Vega, and I believe the newest drivers fixed it for all AMD cards.

>>62034579
>has horrible flickering
only on polaris and vega fe. not on rx vega.

JUST WAIT GUISE AMD CAN DO IT PLEASE BUY VEGA

>>62034602
>>62034603
Shit, my bad then.

>>62034609
YOU CANT FUXKING BUY VEGA
YOU
LITERALLY
CANT

>>62034650
this desu. Miners and cucks bought up all the stock.

You can buy RX Vega *RIGHT NOW* on shitty Gibbo's site for £578.99

File: fuckinhell.png (285KB, 1009x953px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1009x953px

>>62034747
>Doing business with known liar Gibbo
>Ever

>>62034747
>trusting le epik anglo of 100MH hashrates
Nah.

>>62034602
freesync is a mess as it is. this samsung panel isn't the only one to experience those weird flickering issues. there are people who have those high end asus and dell freesync monitors with the same problems. there's a reason amd are releasing the certified QC freesync 2 because they know that currently freesync is hit or miss and also their driver support isn't where it should be either. i reckon freesync 2 will be the exact same as gsync with some form of module integrated into the monitor which allows for a standardized experience across all freesync 2 monitors.

when amd release freesync 2 i predict nvidia will release the non-standardized gsync monitors and be like "hey look we offer gsync for much cheaper than freesync 2 now!". these monitors will probably have the same issues as freesync monitors though.

>>62034767
Probably why he has stock at not vastly inflated prices (compared to scalpers) . People lost trust.

>>62034837
No, FreeSync2 is not going to use any kind of ebin modules.

>>62034837
Freesync 2 is just freesync with some gpu LUT mapping spec for HDR. So there isn't a massive 50-100ms delay introduced by the monitor's controller trying to do it

>>62034411
we dont know if they payed them but we know nvidia had a big advantage in culling against amd for a long time
and while this hurt also nvidia cards it was literally KIA amd a fucking 570 was faster than a 6970 in crysis.....

>>62031674
do we know what will and what won't be able to be done in drivers yet? I have been interested in this for a while, vega 56 is likely what I would get and even at stock the thing looks good up against nvidias counterparts with the less fucking annoying drivers, I mean seriously, let me fucking controll what the mhz is, one program I want ti to run 1500+ but telling the driver performance power with that program just makes the driver lock to 1500 permanently after it detects it once.

>>62035096
Yes, the culling would bring a LOT of performance.

>>62032272
but you could sell 2 different skus, possibly 3

1 sku is shit, needs the high voltage and will never undervolt, this is a very cheap competitively sku
sku 2 is mid range, this is what would normally be a 580 in terms of price, but lower voltage. more oc headroom, and its test just means it was not stable at holy fuck levels. but easily stable over the non retard card levels.
sku 4 is nano equivalent, imagine a polaris gpu overclocked and undervolted to a top 5% range for all cards if not higher, sold to gamers for 1-200$ more. I mean lets face it, embedded and the like only need it to hit X voltage at X power and why sell them better cards when a slightly worse one fits the bill?

If amd wants in on the gamer market, the need to do this, not so much to gain market share but to maintain it till they either have initiatives paying out that make amd undeniably better or make an advancement that puts them just that far ahead.

>>62035125
what isn't amd culling at the moment?
I honestly don't know what is in amds driver, what isn't, and if there is any part of the hardware that is fundamentally broke thanks to all the fucking fud and hype around vega.

>>62031571
>No CUDA
Dead on arrival for Unis and Research institutions
>But mah OpenCL
Nobody in research cares

>>62035391
amd already has a HIP tool that translate cuda to opencl and needs only few manual inputs depending on the program.......

nobody cared cause amd didnt care till now...

Why is this being brought up like a victory for AMD?

Do the people not realize you can undervolt Nvidia cards as well and see similar improvements?

>>62035441
Nobody is gonna care because that's like trying to run wine on an enterprise scale because you're too cheap to afford windows licenses.

>>62035456
no you cant nvidia doesnt gain nowere near as much

plus ondervolting is something everyone does on amd cards because all of them comes way overvolted in the first place given that they are low bins obviously

>>62035441
>ellipsis
you have to go back

>>62035456
B-B-B-BUT AMD THE GOOD GUYS!

>>62035464
i think you need to read a bit
http://www.amd.com/Documents/HIP-Datasheet.pdf

>>62035497
Learn English, Pajeet.

>>62035535
when someone runs out of arguments it transforms into an nvidia shill

>>62031571
I feel like this will be HD7970 vs GTX 680 all over again.

Had I chosen the HD7970, I'd have a good card even for today.

>>62035456
Or alternatively overclock it to the point where the power envelope equals to an undervolted Vega. Now you have 25% free performance gain.

File: 1501944059454.png (174KB, 696x678px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x678px

amd hired an rpg character
https://twitter.com/gcyoungblood?lang=el

>>62035456
Except you can't because they locked voltage control for pascal driver side. Any app that claims to be adjusting it is self reporting the valurbit believes it set

>>62035608
980 ti is 2.5 years old and it still trades blows with the $600 Vega.

>>62035649
Value it believes it set. Fucking phones

>>62035649
>what is power limit

>>62034261
Can you repeat that in English?

>>62035691
Read a book, shitskin

>>62034747
I'm out of the loop, what did he lie about?

>>62035611
You could but just like AMD's cards undervolting gives a performance gain and drops the power usage significantly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/681kit/1080_ti_msi_gaming_x_undervolting_results/

>>62035671
A very coarse grained control that automatically controls both voltage and FREQUENCY among some other attributes that affect how the card draws power. There's a reason why when undervolting GCN people keep power limit at stock or more commonly they'll raise it.

>>62035651
980Ti is 2.5 years old and still trades blows with the 1080

>>62035705
/r/nvidia is that way ------>

>>62035713
AMD gets a performance gain from undervolting because their shit is housefires and lowering the temperature allows it to sustain a consistent clock. Lowering the voltage alone doesn't increase performance.

>>62035713
he lowered the voltage and the card managed to pull more power?

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

>>62035796
if lower voltaged one performs better than out of the box one, it means there is a performance increase.

File: lgryuzi.jpg (33KB, 475x285px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 475x285px

>>62035802
Can you not read? Maybe colorful a graph will help.

>>62035802
check the first and then the second pic

he lowered the voltage and the card was drawing more power

>>62035802

It's just the drivers throttling the card once it hit a specific temperature I guess. AMD are retards anyway.

I kinda want a Vega56 but they'll fuck up the launch anyway so I guess I'll wait for a good deal on the gtx 1070.

>>62035857
nvidia throttles the card and the card manage to pull more power

doesnt make any sense

>>62035733
Back to reality: nobody undervolts nvidia cards, so none of that applies. Nvidia cards provide a performance and power consumption reference point for amd to reach. There's no reason to lower the power consumption even more other than to prove a point.

>>62035796
73c at full load is housefire? 290x was pulling 94c and gtx 590 reached 109c
you dont know what a housefire is young anon the cooler amd put this time is actually decent

>>62035883
oh im going to laugh my ass off when 3dmark release its new benchmark with double fp16 on it
http://www.geeks3d.com/forums/index.php?topic=5077.0

i wonder who will be the first to make a power draw test on nvidia cards when nvidia actually unlocks the cuda cores to be used on gaming

>>62032302
This is different in the sense that AMD has locked down its BIOS. No more tweaking timings, no more tweaking powerplay table.

>>62035901
Modern nodes starts underclocking at a significantly lower temperature. 73c is very high for a modern card.

File: untitled-1.png (57KB, 682x1025px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 682x1025px

>>62035943
and your illiterate ass out of here

>>62035883
Sounds like they should be undervolting though, it was explained here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/681kit/1080_ti_msi_gaming_x_undervolting_results/dguy6md/

>The undervolting results stayed perfectly stable and provides smoother frametimes (as it is not hitting the power limit). Highly recommended for all Pascal owners to undervolt their GPU using a curve OC as it actually improves both performance, thermals and the gaming experience (smooth frametimes).

>>62035965
Stock fan profiles means nothing. Gpu boost starts underclocking at 65c. Polaris begins to throttle at 70c.

File: Intel_Inside_but_who_is_outside__20140226_IntelInsidebutwhoisoutside.jpg (17KB, 403x337px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 403x337px

>>62036007
yara yara temps dont matter
bench dont matter
everything that amd wins dont matter
gee i wonder where i saw this kind of shilling before

>>62036038
Applying 65nm thermal thresholds to 14nm is foolish. Frankly, shut your stupid mouth.

>>62036111
you literally said 73c is too much for modern nodes didnt you?
the bench proved you wrong
and now you just went into damage control as always

>>62036143
High temperature leads to higher leakage, leakage leads to instability. That's why gpu begins to throttle at 65c and not 100c.

You're fucking stupid and I'm done talking to you.

>>62036186
holy fuck looks like someone needs a lesson on node shrinking

>>62034372
>hardware issue
Nope. Prim shaders just aren't enabled in drivers yet so Vega's still limited to 4 triangles per clock.

File: incoming miners.jpg (83KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1280x720px

>>62033062
But that already happened, anon.

>>62035241
Basically, Vega is currently limited to a front end triangle throughput of 4 triangles per clock, like Fiji was, because one of the key features of thew new Vega uarch isn't enabled in drivers yet. Primitive shaders were designed to implement a lot of geometry culling functionality into an early enough stage of the rendering process to prevent Vega from suffering the same bottlenecking issues that Fiji did.

AMD claim in the whitepaper about Vega that primitive shaders can reach an effective triangle throughput of 17 triangles per clock, which would be an absurd increase in Vega's geometry throughput.

File: 1502849893682.png (274KB, 1280x1440px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1280x1440px

>>62035456
>>62035611
Actually, even before the latest driver update fixed undervolting, an undervolted Vega 56 was already beating a manually overclocked AIB 1070. This gap has likely widened on the new drivers.

>>62032460

Because power throttles to stay within a given power limit. When undervolting, you both increase the power limit to (so it doesn't give a shit for meeting the rated wattage), thereby removing that throttling, whilst reducing the power draw with the undervolt anyway.

Without even touching the frequencies you go from a card that is fluctuating at 1350-1500MHz, to a card that is pinned at 1600MHz with less actual power draw. I don't understand how they don't ship them with this shit already tweaked.

Unless your cooling is utter dogshit, you shouldn't be getting thermal throttling without an overclock.

>>62034372
did you even whitepaper anon?
http://radeon.com/_downloads/vega-whitepaper-11.6.17.pdf
the card can discard 17 triangles per clock this is 60% more than we currently knew vega was capable back in the first event and its 130% more than nvidia can
that alone can save massive amount of bandwidth this alone can literally let vega cards to pass a 512tri/px and dont even have a perfomance impact

>>62036327
C'mon dude the Vega 56 is $600 and the 1070 is 1.5 years old and it went for $320 before the mining craze.

Mining will be dead in mid September from the recent ethereum metropolis announcement.

>>62035711
70-100Mh for mining in order to sell more cards.

>>62036374
>C'mon dude the Vega 56 is $600
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-launch-price-reduction

>I spoke to AMD’s Gerald Youngblood on the showfloor of Gamescom today about the struggles with both stock and pricing of Radeon graphics cards, and specifically about whether we were ever going to see Vega at its original launch price. So, how much does Vega really cost?

>“Our SEPs, and the price tag that we announced,” Youngblood says, “is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”

>What happened, though, was we launched the product and the demand was really huge. Now we’re focused on replenishing so that there is plenty of stock so we can encourage our partners to hit the SEPs that we announced.”

In a shocking turn of events, known liar Gibbo proven once again to be a known liar. Hope AMD sues the shit out of the cocksucker for libel and ceases supplying his store. Congratulations to all the YouTube box readers who went out on a limb on claims single sourced from a known liar!

File: txqAfWv.png (486KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1000x624px

>>62036374
>Mining will be dead in mid September from the recent ethereum metropolis announcement.
Please confirm this. I'd love to have a newer GPU for muh comfy winter gaymen

>>62036374
>ethereum metropolis announcement.
amd nvidia intel every single one of them has predicted that mining will be upwards for at least 8 years
a random anon comes and say eth will DOA in a matter of days

>>62036327
It makes sense. If you look at Anandtech's review for Vega it shows all the pieces are there. Texture filtering, compute performance, geometry throughput, the thing has a ton of raw power. They've just got to sort their drivers out. they made tons of changes between this and Polaris.

Seems like its basically a sleeping giant right now. I'd bet on the 56 coming to out perform Nvidia's 1080.

>>62036424
>I'd bet on the 56 coming to out perform Nvidia's 1080.
I'm also expecting that. really excited for vega 11 actually.

File: Screenshot_20170822-144712.png (225KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1440x2560px

>>62036414
Demand will drop off a cliff. Some might panic sell their cards within these few weeks. Be on the lookout.

>>62036422
Where?

>>62036412
but those youtubers claimed AIB's told them

ayyyyyyy
as always once a lair always a liar and it was good tho since so many youtubers jumped the gun and throw their trust away

>>62036478
their recent financial report all of them but intel stated that it will go upwards and they are going to create "lines" with mining specific cards

>>62031571
>vega 56 can come close to 1080 performance while only drawing 150W like a 1070 instead of the 150W of a 1080
wat(t)

Pascal can also be undervolted

>>62036552
the factor here is the gainz not that it can undervolt or not
nvidia cards are already to the edge

>Mining will be dead next month
>Being this delusional to believe this

>>62036552
I doubt many do though because the performance increase is minimal if any.

>>62036478
Jesus, read your email and run your updates. Fuck

>>62036573
I'm making $30 a day with my $4500 rig. Come September it'll only be $7 day after electricity costs.

>>62031571
>Vega 56 coming close to 1070 power draw with
>near 1080 performance.
Yeah, sure. "near 1080 performance." Is that why even a Vega 64 can barely keep up with the 1080?

>>62036617
>more people will join the grid
>eth will go up

being mining and not knowning the basic facts

File: just.jpg (204KB, 1190x925px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1190x925px

Who is this jibbo cunt and what the fuck am I looking at

>>62036638
What the fuck are you taking about dude

What is the grid? Nethash?

Stop fucking using code words like a 60 yo boomer trying to fit in

>>62036287
If we can take amds claim of 17 into account, what that mean to real world performance?

>>62036457
>>62036424

um, the 56 is already right on if not beating a 1080 once you undervolt oc it.

File: Screenshot 2017-08-22 at 9.56.06 AM.png (68KB, 611x621px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 611x621px

>>62036630
Not on the newest driver, which merely fixed 1 (one) of the bugs with the Vega launch driver.

>>62036673
17 discards per clock
130% more than nvidia
add to that the back face culling which is unknown how good it will be since its a world first its like occlusion culling but more complex

>>62036673
The pro drivers on Vega FE seemed to indicate that Vega 64 should be able to--at minimum--trade blows with a 1080ti in games. That would be consistent with Vega FE's performance in pro 3D rendering applications (where primitive shaders are already implemented) and where Vega FE trades blows with the Quadro P6000 in applications like Creo, Solidworks, and 3ds Max.

>>62036707
I mean by a significant margin.

>>62036811
said applications also have 10's of hundreds of millions of faces in many tests, i'm personally not as optimistic as that in a gaming load that phishing geometry that fast won't be bottlenecked somewhere else.

>>62036828
Id only expect 10% if that personally.

>>62036639
A lying cunt from bong land trying to make a quick buck (pound).

>>62036936
A clear 10% lead is nothing to scoff at.

>>62036961
no, but it's also not a commanding lead that nvidia won't make up for with gameworks for vulcan.

a 10-20% fluctuation between when amd is better and nvidia is better is kind of the norm, personally vega 56 is looking to be the card I buy if I get a new gpu this cycle, I got upgraded to a 1060 6gb from a 280x rma, so im not feeling the need, but I have the desire as I built a high end computer that's only missing the high end tier card.

>>62036961
a clear 10% without hbcc and primitives is damn impressive by only undervolting it

>>62034411
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYL07c74Jr4
Google "crysis 2 tessellation ocean"

>>62037047
will they ever enable proper power gating on vega or they will let it pump an unhealthy 1.2V forever?

>>62037568
17.8.1 fixed it already.

>>62037608
so now we have Prim shaders and HBCC to go or there's something else?

>>62037708
I think HBCC works, it has a toggle in gui, disabled as default.
prim shaders probably comes with crimson update. in october.

Vega is here.
Should I undervolt it?

>>62037817
of course! 56 or 64?

>>62037743
did/can they ever implement HBCC onto polaris? It looks like it would be a great thing, specially for cards with low VRAM

>>62037863
it needs a uarch change. and polaris is already dead. vega 11 is the way for mid range.

>>62037863
>>62037889
The first limited version of HBCC is used in Polaris ala the Radeon SSGs. That control scheme is what allows them to utilize the on board SSD. Its just more fleshed out in Vega.

>>62037836
64
56 isn't even out yet

>>62037951
well ssgs are different enough.
>>62037953
and 64 is nowhere to be seen. yet you have it.
undervolt it.

>>62033728
So which software should I use?

>>62035201
>but you could sell 2 different skus, possibly 3
they're already doing that

one is called the Vega 64, the other is called Vega 56

>>62036327
AIB?

>>62038149
56 - cut chip
64 - full chip
64 liquid - watercooled full chip

56 retard - stupid fucking high voltage
56 normal - reasonable voltage, what we see in under volt tests
56 stupid - retarded low voltage, how did this chip get made? with either a hardware or software switch to go from low voltage reasonably clock for very low watt use, or high voltage high clock for the pinnacle of oc on the product

rince and repeat for the 64 and possibly watercool.

sell retard as either 50-75$ less as this chip wants to die
sell normal at msrp
sell stupid at 100-200$ above msrp, trust me the fury nano was able to fit two of the fucking chips on one card and still come in lower watt then the fury x, this level of efficiency demands and deserves a high price.

>>62038280
rabid segmentation is bad, ask intel they don't know what to do with i9s now

>>62038280
ALL good chips go to pro line

wow even adoredtv is now saying he can't recommend vega

literally doa if your number 1 shill is saying that

There is an important question I need to ask.
What happened to Vega™ cube?

>>62036748
Backface culling is simple and ancient you retard.
> take cross product of two triangle edges in screen space, check sign value, discard if facing away

Occlusion culling is way more fucking complex, even if you have inner coverage conservative rasterization, since you're trying to find the envelope of front facing triangles in a mesh then determine which pixels are guaranteed 100% covered, even when the occluder has holes like a donut or a house with doors and windows.

>>62038858
Considering that AMD came out and stated on the record that MSRP has not changed, I look forward to all of these moronic YouTube box readers posting retractions now that it's proven that known liar Gibbo was--surprise surprie--fucking lying.

>>62039019
desu, they should've posted an official statement a few days ago.

>>62031571
>implying you cant overclock the 1070/1080

>>62039074
undervolting is not overclocking you retard

>>62039091
I never said that

>>62039105
thread is about undervolting, you came and spurt hurr durr implying you can't overclock.
just go be retard somewhere else

>>62031571
AMD push Vega to the limit, it's why it's shit. The die was DOA so they trying to factory OC it without good drivers.

File: ATI_Technologies_(logo).svg.png (29KB, 1200x802px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1200x802px

AMD was a mistake

>>62039143
But I never said that

>>62039057
The few extra days time does not make known liar Gibbo any less of a known liar, and any YouTube box reader that single sourced their claims off his lies and didn't realize what was up when no one else would confirm his comments on the record should be forced to post a public retraction or never get sampled again.

>>62031571
Who cares about amd shit?

File: Screenshot 2017-08-22 at 9.55.12 AM.png (71KB, 607x615px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 607x615px

>>62039188
Maybe try reading the thread before you shitpost.

>>62039243
Literally what?

>>62039226
Kek. Everyone will forget about it in a couple of weeks. Vega, however, will still be too little, too late.

>>62039019
they didn't say shit.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/matthew-wilson/ocuks-andrew-gibson-clears-up-rx-vega64-pricing-disaster/

>Update: Here is AMD’s official statement:

>“Radeon RX Vega64 demand continues to exceed expectations. AMD is working closely with its partners to address this demand. Our initial launch quantities included standalone Radeon RX Vega64 at SEP of $499, Radeon RX Vega64 Black Packs at SEP of $599, and Radeon RX Vega64 Aqua Packs at SEP of $699. We are working with our partners to restock all SKUs of Radeon RX Vega64 including the standalone cards and Gamer Packs over the next few weeks, and you should expect quantities of Vega to start arriving in the coming days.”

>AMD’s statement is ambiguous at best and unfortunately, provides no real, definitive answers.

>>62031571
>it's another episode of AMD fucking up a launch with ridiculously unfinished drivers, spotty availability, and cards that are quite overvolted from the factory

>>62039243
>vega fe is faster than titan xp on professional application
>the drivers are not ready for gayming
>vega is so hot and draw so much power than you need to undervolted it for better performance
>then you still can't overclock it for beat the 1080ti

File: 1503075443263.png (35KB, 645x342px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 645x342px

AiBs will have the same stupid issues??????????

I under volted my waterblocked gtx 1080 by 11%
Can still sustain a boost of 2,210mhz
Dropped temps by 7Cfor a Max load of 34C.

Pascal also benefits from undervolting. I can imagine an air cooled reference card would benefit even more.

>>62035391
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
At this point basically everything but legacy stuff has OpenCL engines and ports

>wait™ the drivers

>>62039292
Shut your fucking mouth you knowing and deliberate liar:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-launch-price-reduction
>I spoke to AMD’s Gerald Youngblood on the showfloor of Gamescom today about the struggles with both stock and pricing of Radeon graphics cards, and specifically about whether we were ever going to see Vega at its original launch price. So, how much does Vega really cost?
>“Our SEPs, and the price tag that we announced,” Youngblood says, “is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”

>What happened, though, was we launched the product and the demand was really huge. Now we’re focused on replenishing so that there is plenty of stock so we can encourage our partners to hit the SEPs that we announced.”

File: Screenshot 2017-08-22 at 11.21.03 AM.png (89KB, 1032x538px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1032x538px

>>62039386
Vega FE trades blows with a P6000 in 3D pro rendering applications because the pro drivers are uarch feature complete. Once the gaming drivers implement primitive shaders and are no longer bottlenecked as pictured in polygon throughput, Vega 64 will have reasonable perf/watt.

>>62040377
>Wait for drivers
>MUH fine wine

>>62038590
honestly that would be stupid as the pro line, so long as they work within specs, are good to go.

a highly efficient chip that gets ran at shit speeds or high voltages for no reason but a blanket would suck be worth nothing, and a stupid efficany pro line card, while it would have its place, would likely not demand the same premium over its non highly binned counterpart.

however a halo in gaming, where if they could just get their foot in the door again would pay dividends.

>>62038280
3 skus per chip
1 that would be significantly lower cost
1 that would be great value
1 that is a niche but has a desirable feature for two different sets of people.

segmentation like this makes sense, intel's segmentation however doesn't, they put a few skus out to try to upsell you to a higher sku,

>>62031571
>almost 1070 power draw
>almost 1080 performance
AMDrone argument, ladies and gentlemen

>>62040744
this ain't fine wine, this is finished drivers you are retarded so you don't know the difference but the difference is there.

>>62040744
This isn't a matter of fine wine. RX Vega was launched with core uarch features not enabled yet in drivers. We're not talking about mere optimizations here.

If you had read the whitepaper and were actually capable of understanding >>62040377 you'd be able to calculate the triangle per clock rate yourself and see empriical proof that primitive shaders aren't enabled yet.

>>62040902
our 400$ card draws 20 watts more then a 1070 but is matching a 1080

yep, sounds like an amd argument.

In a few years everyone will still be wondering why no one bought vega when it was cheaper and more powerful then what nvidia had.

>>62032573
>>62032561
>Silicone
AMDummies my senpai

Wasn't the price increasing to about $600? Just a thing I heard somewhere don't quote me pls

>>62040928
>our
>almost as good as 1070
>almost as good as 1080
Keep going ill screencap

>>62040941
https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-rx-vega-launch-price-reduction

>I spoke to AMD’s Gerald Youngblood on the showfloor of Gamescom today about the struggles with both stock and pricing of Radeon graphics cards, and specifically about whether we were ever going to see Vega at its original launch price. So, how much does Vega really cost?

>“Our SEPs, and the price tag that we announced,” Youngblood says, “is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”

>What happened, though, was we launched the product and the demand was really huge. Now we’re focused on replenishing so that there is plenty of stock so we can encourage our partners to hit the SEPs that we announced.”

In a shocking turn of events, known liar Gibbo proven once again to be a known liar. Hope AMD sues the shit out of the cocksucker for libel and ceases supplying his store. Congratulations to all the YouTube box readers who went out on a limb on claims single sourced from a known liar!

File: image.jpg (46KB, 480x550px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x550px

>>62040928
>our
You're the reason people are embarassed to own amd hardware
You're the reason Ryzen was hyped up to be twice what it actually was
You're the reason dumbasses bought out vega on mere speculation and you can't find any at MSRP whatever that may be nowadays

>>62040966
>It's not our fault guys honest were the victims here!
You do know MSRP is "suggested" by definition and has nothing to do with availability
Would it be just as justified if they jacked up RX480's MSRP to the $400 it sold at because "cryptominers guys, nothing we can do about it except tack on $100"

>>62034348
nvidia is faster at geometry than radeon, so the more triangles, the faster nvidia is compared to radeon

>>62041004
>“Our SEPs, and the price tag that we announced,” Youngblood says, “is our full intention of where we would suggest the product be priced. Not just for launch, but ongoing.”
>Not just for launch, but ongoing
(You)

>>62036007
>Polaris begins to throttle at 70c
why does my RX480 drop clocks at 84C then?

>>62034107
>>62034175
>>62034240
kek, love how they build vega around (((gameworks)))

>>62041089
I don't think anyone has quite realized what such a massive increase in polygon throughput would mean for results in games previously considered to favour Nvidia, as those games are typically the most geometry heavy. In theory, it should come close to meaning there very few titles that categorically favor Nvidia hardware anymore.

>>62034107
what did they do here? driver update, overclock?

>>62041711
Driver update that got voltage settings working better, which in turn enabled easier and more stable undervolting. Basically RTG managed to fix ONE (1) of the bugs in the launch drivers.

>>62041759
you're telling me that it got those results while still running at 4 triangles per clock and bottlenecked to shit?

File: bVobYT.jpg (489KB, 1188x909px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1188x909px

>>62040928
>when it was cheaper
Let me know when that happens. Maybe around the time Volta comes next year?

File: 8T8fm98.gif (3MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x500px

>>62041774
Well, they were undervolted and with an increased power target to allow clock rate to stabilize.

But yes. That's without primitive shaders. Also someone on here earlier was claiming prim shaders are likely to hit the public drivers in 10-15 days. Do you have your popcorn ready? Because DIS GON BE GOOD.

>>62041817
poor volta indeed my friend, poor volta indeed

>>62031674
>both cards remain front end bottlenecked until primitive shaders are implemented in driver.

explain

>>62041840
watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC5Dy_b-kE8
tl:dr: primitive shaders kill the triangles that shouldn't be rendered before they take up the precious bandwidth from the ones that should

>>62041921
How is this different from occlusion culling?

>>62041840
Vega is based on the same basic GPU architecture as Fiji, called GCN. One of the inherent limitations of the GCN architecture historically is that it can only process 4 triangles per clock at the front end of its rendering pipeline, as opposed to the 6 triangles per clock that Pascal is capable of.

Primitive shaders are a software feature designed for Vega to increase its capacity to process triangles by figuring out which triangles it can throw away at a much earlier stage of the rendering pipeline than culling is usually done. In this way, they were able to increase Vega's triangle throughput rate up to a maximum of 17 triangles per clock effective throughput.

The problem is that this feature is not enabled yet in Vega's drivers and so until it is Vega 64 especially is bottlenecked like crazy in geometry heavy workloads because the front end of its rendering pipeline cannot process triangles fast enough to keep the rest of the rendering pipeline fed.

>>62041960
Why is it not implemented? Is there any sort of timeline when or if it will be implemented?

>>62041935
Primitive shaders duplicate a conservative version of the type of culling that in Polaris was done at he fixed function culling stage and move it to immediately after the position shading stage and before attribute shading. In so doing the goal is to solve GCN's tendency to geometry bottleneck prior to reaching the fixed function culling stage.

>>62041980
Because RTG doesn't have enough driver monkeys to rewrite the pro and gaming driver stacks--more or less from scratch--fast enough. The pro drivers appear to be feature complete, but the gaming drivers shipped fucking half finished with core uarch features not enabled yet.

>>62041980
RTG has put all their (small) manpower towards the professional drivers on the last months, thus neglecting the gaming drivers

It will be implemented because it's a core feature on Vega, we don't know when, their dev team is quite small and no one knows for how long they've been messing with the gaming drivers, could be 15 days from now, could be 2 months, surely before november

>>62041817
I just want to see all those stupid box readers getting bit in the ass after saying vega is bad without understanding what's going on

>>62042135
That they launched a mediocre, unfinished card that may, or may not, beat 18 month old cards?

>>62042135
It's not even that they don't understand, it's that they don't seem to care enough to even ask WHY they are getting the results they are. Anyone that participated in GPU discussions and didn't even make an attempt to figure out WTF was up with Vega has, in my mind, totally lost the right to be taken seriously.

File: bait_musical.gif (371KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 900x900px

>>62042166
(You)

>>62042189
How is that bait? That is literally what is happening right now

>>62042135
>How dare they review a card on launch day instead of three months later when RTG finally released drivers!
>Why didn't everyone spend 3 days playing with the voltage and power settings to find the optimum configuration, and then compare it to the Founder's Edition Nvidia cards! Who cares if Vega literally doesn't work OoB and undervolting is mandatory to get anywhere near advertised performance!

>>62031571
yfw the architecture of vega actually performs worse because they overheat from terrible design

File: u.gif (1020KB, 257x194px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 257x194px

>>62041960
thank you very much for explaining instead of merely shilling for a video

>>62042022
>>62042047
That is what happens when you try to make radioisotope thermoelectric generators write code.

>>62042327

t. didn't follow the link

>>62042353
this is the most red handed I have ever been caught

File: 1390657701655.jpg (283KB, 782x788px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 782x788px

>>62031571
>posting a literally who muslim site that makes outrageous claims
>some retarded AMDfag actually buys it

>>62042383

oi mate none of that

>>62042366
>>62042353
ok so from what I'm reading it is what I said

the card runs better when you undervolt because AMD are retarded

>>62032830
5 to 10

>>62042383
Yeah, its not like anyone else has an undervolted Vega 56 beating an AIB overclocked 1070!
Oh wait:
>>62031674
>>62036327

>>62042409

Yes. More bad AMD than bad Vega

>>62042401
Come on anon, we both know it to be true
AMD has failed for years now because they keep using cheap chinkshit components and have everything made in taiwanese sweatshops
>>62042442
First one is literally just "performance rating" with no actual explanation to the numbers
Second is most likely by an AMD shill, identifiable easily if you notice they have many videos that praise AMD

fake news lol AMD lost again

>>62042461
The first one is from ComputerBase.de and the second is from Joker Productions. Three independent sources all show the same thing, but I'm sure that won't even slow down you shitposting.

File: LRM_EXPORT_20170411_145818.jpg (1MB, 1293x1730px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1293x1730px

>>62042471
Kill yourself you perma-BTFO'd tripfaggot

>>62042507
Joker is literally a confirmed AMD shill, he was the one who falsified Ryzen benchmarks at launch.

>>62042507
>The first one is from ComputerBase.de
So another literally who site
also
>.de
kys my man

>Joker Productions
lmao, literally a fucking AMD shill
Just go to his channel and it's nothing but AMD content

>>62042535

[Citation Needed]
[Evidence Needed]

>>62042537
Show me some interesting desktop products from 2017 that aren't from AMD

How loud is the reference cooler at idle and at game load?

>>62042535
>>62042537
The fucking Germans are the only ones who actually test GPUs properly these days. They even do crazy shit like actually running the Beyond 3D Suite on them and analyze the results! Can you imagine such a thing in this day and age or clueless box readers?

>>62042556
>Show me some interesting desktop products from 2017 that aren't from AMD
So you don't buy shit based on its price/performance/quality ratio, but rather on how "interesting" it is?
Nigga are you fucking 12 years old or something?=

File: 1391014141608.jpg (163KB, 857x536px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 857x536px

>>62042556
>Show me some interesting desktop products from 2017 that aren't from AMD
Everything they're competing with came out in 2016

>>62042577
>Not being interested in technology outside of your own narrow purchasing decisions.
The absolute STATE of /g/.

>>62042556
>Show me some interesting desktop products from 2017 that aren't from AMD
Vega is only interesting as a mining device. RX Vega is overpriced trash in gaming. Vega FE has no target market, no one bought one except reviewers, who weren't even given review samples since AMD had no confidence in it. Ryzen and TR are the only good things AMD have done this year.

File: 1500658720998.jpg (221KB, 704x442px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 704x442px

>>62031571

They have been lucky with fucking Zen, it should have failed if Intel kept their promises with their 15-25% performance increase per generations

but no, now the meme is "intel is bad woa"

ATI shouldn't belong to AMD and Ayy aim Dee CPUs is sheisse
>inb4 bait

File: 1441883613265.jpg (96KB, 800x437px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x437px

>>62042597
Sorry anon, I'm only interested in technology that has more uses besides just throwing it in the trash

File: the average amd shill.png (524KB, 759x449px) Image search: [Google]

524KB, 759x449px

>>62042556

>>62042604
AMD should have merged with Nvidia. They bought ATI because it was cheap, but AMD was in severe financial trouble at the time and couldn't properly invest in it. Even worse the former ATI engineers appear to have gone rogue and aren't on the same page as AMD proper. You can tell AMD and Nvidia still belong together with that Threadripper tweet.

>>62042280
see >>62042180

>>62042642
right now nobody cares about threadripper, everything is flooded with AMD vega thingies that everyone knows now

>>62042556
>[Citation Needed]
>[Evidence Needed]

see >>62042639

and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWarC_Nygew

>>62042600
>Vega FE has no target market

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/building-a-50-teraflops-amd-vega-deep-learning-box-for-under-3k-ebdd60d4a93c

>>62042671

What does this prove? Some pleb aussie has a chip on his shoulder?

>>62042657
Why would anyone recommend vega when it requires so much autistic tweaking when Nvidia performs reasonably out of box? Clocks, voltage and power adjustments are a fun bonus, but should not be mandatory. You can scream about muh whitepapers and muh undervolting all you want, it doesn't matter. People who buy GPU's for workstation use won't care, they'll see Vega at stock runs worse, has more power consumption and runs hotter than the competition and won't bother with it. Normies won't either, they want something that just werks and plays games.

I want all the AMDrones ITT to understand something. MOST PEOPLE DON'T OVERCLOCK. For most people AMD simply isn't an option because of their habit of overvolting the shit out of everything. Yes it raises yields but it hurts their image.

>>62042723
are you actually retarded or just pretending to be retarded? he shows clear evidence that jokerproductions lied about several of his benchmarks to put amd in a better light. not even adored tv stoops that low

All I want is a Vega 56 for $500aud but i know it's not gonna happen scummy retailer's fuckwhit miners just buy a asic rig and fuck off

>>62042726
so what you're saying is we should all just buy consoles and forget about PCs all together

>>62036552
Prove it

File: 20161117105741_big.png (156KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1000x1000px

So with all this talk of undervolting, what does this mean for normies who dont' have a grossly overcompensating card in their machines?

I have an RX 470, which was regarded for a while (is it still?) as the best value Polaris. Kind of concerned it gets up to 88*C though, as Overwatch says. How the heck would I even undervolt it? Wattman doesn't do shit. Is it because it's a Gigabyte SKU?

>>62042671
>>62042744

The Tech City guy was trying to fuck Joker over after they split up. He picked single frames to try and draw conclusions from. Pretty retarded.

File: 1355433685825.gif (956KB, 288x198px) Image search: [Google]

956KB, 288x198px

>>62042748
>$500aud

>>62042754
Are you seriously saying people in a professional environment should manually adjust clocks and voltage settings before doing 3D CAD work? Because they usually don't. There's a reason why AMD's marketshare has continued to freefall since GCN, it's too hot and has too much voltage at stock.The only people who care about GCN are miners who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty and mess with low level settings and even flash the BIOS. Oh wait, whoops, AMD killed BIOS flashing so it's not even appealing to enthusiasts.

>>62042789
Welcome to the Australia text. Shouldn't be laughing, should be praying for us.

>>62042781
no he wasn't. joker himself knew he fucked up and went on some random tangent about how rottr is a bad benchmark to damage control for his obvious fuckup

>>62042797
*Australia tax what the fuck is wrong with me?

File: rofl.jpg (16KB, 469x338px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 469x338px

This was a lot of fun today, guys. See you in tomorrow's thread

>>62042793
>Why would anyone recommend vega

if it performs better why wouldn't you use it

that's like saying why use a car that you can fix when you can buy a fresh lamborghini

sure most lazy people will opt for convenience, but we're talking about bleeding edge performance and that takes effort

>>62042842
>and that takes effort
Yea, effort by the manufacturer BEFORE they put it on sale.

>>62042842
You don't install MSI Afterburner on your job's workstation computer and start overclocking you fucking autist. It's the reason why no one ever complains Xeons and Opterons are locked, companies typically don't mess with stock hardware settings unless they need to.l

>>62042812
I feel the same way every hour of every day.

But yeah our prices are fucked.

We pay 25%+ more for everything taxes and cost of living are insane

File: aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLmJlc3RvZm1pY3JvLmNvbS9SLzgvNjkzMDQ0L29yaWdpbmFsLzAzLUNyZW8tU2NvcmUucG5n.png (37KB, 711x533px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 711x533px

>>62042793
>>>62042754
>Are you seriously saying people in a professional environment should manually adjust clocks and voltage settings before doing 3D CAD work? Because they usually don't.
They don't need to, Vega FE was trading blows with a $6,000 Quadro P6000 on launch in pro 3D rendering applications because the pro drivers are uarch feature complete.

>>62042726
Congratulations on totally missing the point. The point was that YouTube box readers did not even think to ask why Vega was not performing like it should based on the white paper they did not read and benchmarks in pro applications they did not look up and Beyond 3D Suite test results they did not generate.

Anyone who doesn't even think to ask WHY a piece of technology performs the way it does is just a fucking box reader, whose opinions should be treated as fungible.

>>62042726
The new drivers have working profiles. Balanced will now give you good results. Once all the UARCh features are enabled and working it will be better still. For extra performance you need to tweak just like any other GPU. And yes that includes Nvidia GPU's if you want to get the best performance from them.

>being an early adopter
You faggots never learn.