Vertigo-X on 10 August 2017
| Arkaign said: Take this with a grain of salt, but the leaked FireStrike benches seem MOST reliable out of the leaks so far, thanks to both the source (an AMD staffer account on 3dMark's system), and that AMD hasn't followed up with any denial/disavowing actions. http://www.techradar.com/news/amd-radeon-rx-vega-could-match-gtx-1080s-speed-but-maybe-not-its-price So, close to 1080 speed, but that's .. not a great thing. The pricing appears to be pretty terrible for Vega 64, and we know that the 10xx cards for the most part overclock incredibly well, including the 1080s, many of which can get closer to 1080ti. The 10xx also have been remarkably efficient. And as for power consumption, if FE and the new cards really do use the same silicon and similar clock speeds : https://ibb.co/k5uzRa Woof. The air-cooled version of the FE uses more power than a stock 1080ti or Titan XP, and nearly as much as a fully overclocked Titan XP (overvolt). DO NOT take this as final info however. Even though the Vega 64 gaming model uses the same GPU as the Vega FE, who knows, the final product might just have some tweaks that surprise us, some amazing driver magic, whatever. Until the final cards are in the hands of the big hitter tech sites, it remains a mystery, albeit with a lot of dark clouds circling. It reminds me so much of when Bulldozer was about to come out, or even that hilariously terrible Nvidia 'FX' which culminated in the hilariously awful FX5800. Man, ATI stomped that gen with the 9700 Pro and 9800 stuff. LOL. Nvidia's later FX5900 was improved, but the damage was done. |
I'm right there with ya and I have an R9 Nano. Not that I was seriously looking to upgrade, though I was feeling the temptation before I found out the rumored power consumption numbers. If those and the performance numbers are true, then WTF AMD? Did they focus so hard on HBM2 that they forgot to actually upgrade over Fury X?!
):<
The BuShA owns all!
