By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Radeon RX Vega revealed

OdinHades on 31 July 2017

So barely faster than my 1080 which is already one year old? Bummer. Waiting for Volta.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

Around the Network
Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 31 July 2017
shikamaru317 said:
Captain_Yuri said:

Neh, maybe. It's odd for AMD to release a "conservative" benchmark at a time where they really need to show people that Vega was worth the wait. What I am wondering is whether or not it is actually conservative or did AMD gimp Fury X to make Vega look better. Ik that sounds pretty conspiracy but it's really odd if they went for conservative.

I hope not. I mean it has been 2 years since Fury X released, so a 30% performance improvement like AMD's benchmark shows does seem logical.  It really doesn't make sense though that Vega 64 is getting the same FPS on AMD's benchamrk that the 2 year old Fury X is getting on Guru3D's charts. I can think of 2 possible explanations for the discrepancy, one is that the Guru3D benchmark was taken from a much less demanding section of the game, the other is that Guru3D hit the silicon lottery so to speak and had a really good Fury X sample, whereas AMD used poorer samples for their benchmark.

That's true. Hmm, something smells fishy.

Alright, I found another benchmark which maybe makes Guru3d's benchmark seem more ??? with the FuryX but makes it a bit more in line with AMD's findings.

Still, the one that is the same on both of these benches is that the 1080 is hovering around 150fps at 1080p.

Here's another one just in case which is more closer to AMD's findings while keeping the 1080 the same:

Yea not sure why Guru3d's Fury X was like crazy high loll.



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Dgc1808 on 31 July 2017
vivster said:
bananaking21 said:

damn, that would be an impressive jump in hardware. so we are looking at at least 13-14 teraflops for next gen? 

I hope so. I doubt we will go above 15TFLOPS though. Benchmark next Gen will be native 4K 30fps across all games. 12-15TFLOPS is more than enough for that.

I expect 4k60 to be "the promise" and expected by most gamers before the launch of the systems. With most games ending up being 4K30. Naughty Dog will give us an in-engine 4k60 trailer of TLOU3, as well as remasters of TLOU2 and UC4 at 4K60, but then release a 4K30 TLOU3 with a lower resolution but higher framerate multiplayer mode. Some games will end up around 1800p30, or even 1440p30 and this will be considered lame and "last-gen". The AAA games that end-up 4k60 will be regarded as "impressive" for their output at next-gen graphical fedelity. The games at 4K30 that offer a lower-res/higher framerate mode will be applauded by us internet folk. We will also consider games that only support 1440/1800p60 as good decisions by the developers.

Basically i'm expecting 4K60 to be the new 1080p60.



4 ≈ One

Skeeuk on 31 July 2017
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Im still rocking a 970, wonder when i should upgrade

me to, im using the evga ssc edition that ive got +100 on core & +300 on memory but dont wanna buy another due to the current low temps i have. wouldnt mind a 980 though but is it much of a jump



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

thismeintiel on 31 July 2017
shikamaru317 said:
Captain_Yuri said:

That's true. Hmm, something smells fishy.

Alright, I found another benchmark which maybe makes Guru3d's benchmark seem more ??? with the FuryX but makes it a bit more in line with AMD's findings.

 

Still, the one that is the same on both of these benches is that the 1080 is hovering around 150fps at 1080p.

Here's another one just in case which is more closer to AMD's findings while keeping the 1080 the same:

 

Yea not sure why Guru3d's Fury X was like crazy high loll.

I wouldn't be surprised if Vega 64 is a pretty close match with 1080 at release in most games, might even beat it in some DX12 stuff, where AMD has consistently had an advantage this GPU gen. But the question remains, why would you want to buy a nearly 300 watt GPU when you can get approximately the same performance from the 180 watt 1080? Sure the HBM2 might be better for games where you want to mod in some higher res textures, but I'm still hard pressed to see why I would want to buy either of these instead of the 1070/1080, unless the performance in games is better than I'm expecting based on this early benchmark. AMD does a good job on the mid-range imo (I would gladly buy an RX 580 over a GTX 1060 if I could actually find one somewhere, damn Ethereum miners), but they've been failing on the high-end for several years now. 

And then there's Volta coming next year. All AMD seems to have done is play catch-up and match the 1+ year old 1080 instead of actually taking a significant step into the lead. Meanwhile Nvidia is working on Volta, the 1180 is most likely going to be at least 20% more powerful than Vega 64 when it releases next year. I hope for AMD's sake that 2018's Navi is a full GPU range instead of a half GPU range like Polaris was, but I doubt it will be. 

Navi hits 2019, not 2018.  Next year, AMD will have the Vega 64 Pro Duo (this may still release late this year) and Vega 20.  Not sure what the latter will be called.  Maybe Vega 64+.  But, that is supposed to be 20% more powerful than the normal Vega 64, so that is probably what is going to be competing with Volta until Navi is actually ready for the masses.  The Volta may still prove to be a little more powerful, but my guess is AMD is going to try to beat them on price next year.



 

Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 31 July 2017
vivster said:

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll pick whatever is the second best choice of a mobile APU for the PS5.

A TDP of >150 watts is hardly what anyone would call 'mobile' ...

Pemalite said:

By 2020, I would be hoping to be staring down the barrel of Direct X 13 with hardware feature sets to match.

We already know that Graphics Core Next falls short in the efficiency stakes as well, Vega does try and make amends in that aspect, but it's still not going to be beating nVidia... Let alone hardware in 2020.

Should wait until 2021 to release new hardware ... (it's worthwhile to wait for Samsung to introduce their new transistor structure) 

You need more than just hardware to succeed ... 

Pemalite said:

SSD Caching might be a thing/Hybrid Drive. Use a mechanical drive for sheer storage capacity, SSD caching to bolster performance.
Hopefully they use faster optical drives, install times are so painful on consoles, it's retarded.

16GB would seem pretty inadequate next-gen in my eyes.  It's only a 30% increase over Scorpio, I would not be surprised if we see 24-32GB of total Ram next gen.

Need to remember that System Memory and Graphics Memory is shared in console land.
On the PC, 6-8GB GPU's are becoming the norm today in the mid-range with 16GB system memory backing that up.
In a few years time I would expect GPU's to trend towards 12-16GB in the mid-range.

16GB will be fine since we're still going to be stuck at 1080p (This time I don't even think it's going to be native, we're going to reconstruct to 1080p and still be stuck with 30FPS since everyones going to chase for the holy grail known as physically based global illumination)

I think bandwidth is going to be an important bottleneck going into next generation so if it's a choice between 16GB (2TB/s bandwidth) vs 32GB (1TB/s), I'd very much choose the first option as a console hardware designer since procedural texturing might become viable by then ... 

I also don't like the idea of hardware going to waste either since overengineering is the root of all evil ...



Errorist76 on 31 July 2017
KBG29 said:
thismeintiel said:
I'm going to guess the Vega 64 is what the PS5 is going to be rocking. Of course, I'm going to guess it'll be somewhat customized with a few advancements in tech made along the way. So, ~6.5X-7X more powerful than the OG PS4 and 3X more powerful than the Pro. Add in a much better Zen or Zen+ CPU and 16GB of RAM. I'd say that's good enough for a generation leap.

Not enough for next gen. Every PlayStation console has had ~10 - 12x increase in CPU/GPU power and a 16x increase in RAM. What you are describing sounds like a PS4.5, as the Pro is basically a PS4.1. 

As for the OP. We are starting to reach the point when PC gaming looks interesting to me during the console cycle. I know the idea behind the Pro and the X is to stop people from going PC, but they need to offer something more high end IMO. I would love a $999.99 XBO or PS4 that can stand toe to toe with a 1800X + RX 64 PC.

I will be buying the XOX this holiday. If Sony can not deliver something next year (PS4 Premium or PS5), then I will seriously have to consider a new PC.

I don't get that logic. There is no chance for a PS5 before 2019 earliest. Why don't you just skip the XOX and just go for a PC to complement a PS4Pro..?! by far the best option. Best of both worlds imho.



thismeintiel on 31 July 2017
shikamaru317 said:
thismeintiel said:

Navi hits 2019, not 2018.  Next year, AMD will have the Vega 64 Pro Duo (this may still release late this year) and Vega 20.  Not sure what the latter will be called.  Maybe Vega 64+.  But, that is supposed to be 20% more powerful than the normal Vega 64, so that is probably what is going to be competing with Volta until Navi is actually ready for the masses.  The Volta may still prove to be a little more powerful, but my guess is AMD is going to try to beat them on price next year.

I must have missed the delay announcement, last I checked Navi was on AMD's roadmap for a Q3/Q4 2018 release. 

Those were from leaked slides that came out sometime in early-mid 2016.  They haven't really announced a delay because they never officially announced when its supposed to come out.  But, if you look at all the reporting that has been done in the recent months, there was a newer slide leaked in late 2016 that shows Navi coming in 2019.  Here's one.   Here's a more recent one stating that AMD just want to launch it sometime before 2020, with its successor due out sometime in 2020.  Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't get delayed til 2021, either.  It also shows updated info about Vega 20, which before was supposed to be using the 7nm process, like Navi, but now seems to be using something called 14nm+.  Looks like they are saving 7nm for Navi.

Now, there may be the off chance they get Navi out in 2018, but it's going to be very late in the year, and not ready for the masses.



 

caffeinade on 31 July 2017
curl-6 said:
Pemalite said:

Ryzen 1700 ain't happening.
People expecting Ryzen with the Xbox One X. The Xbox One X was timed right, it had a higher price, there were potential "hints" like Microsft showcasing Xbox next to Ryzen... And I was right then that Ryzen wasn't happening. And I doubt it will happen next gen either.

What's the alternative though, if next gen doesn't use Ryzen?

Something from IBM, ARM, Intel, ect.



curl-6 on 31 July 2017
caffeinade said:
curl-6 said:

What's the alternative though, if next gen doesn't use Ryzen?

Something from IBM, ARM, Intel, ect.

How likely are those though? Isn't another AMD APU with a Ryzen CPU the next logical step from where they are now?