Alleged AMD RX Vega benchmarks have surfaced online
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AlienALX
Well-known member
First and foremost, AMD always do quite well in 3DMark. So yeah, let's get that out of the way. Vega did very well in 3DMark.. Also 1630 clock. That must be under water, or an AIO, because there is no way unless you live in the North Pole that you will get those clocks on air.
Still though, if there is a way for it to clock that high (3rd party cooler or what not) then it may just close in on the 1080 which is pretty cool.
Hmm just thought about it. If AMD are advertising the FE at 1600mhz and this is supposedly running at 1630 then that could be the brick wall. My Fury X will only do about 30mhz before it bombs in games. Does 105 for benching though.
Still though, if there is a way for it to clock that high (3rd party cooler or what not) then it may just close in on the 1080 which is pretty cool.
Hmm just thought about it. If AMD are advertising the FE at 1600mhz and this is supposedly running at 1630 then that could be the brick wall. My Fury X will only do about 30mhz before it bombs in games. Does 105 for benching though.
Last edited:
The performance of these new Vega cards is irrelevant, we all know they're going to be at 1070/1080 level.
All that matters is the price, if AMD can offer that kind of performance for $50 & $100 respectively, cheaper than Nvidia, then they'll gain market share.
..If they can't, it doesn't matter, Vega will have no impact whatsoever.
Of course right now we have all these scum bag, parasite miners distorting the market so it may not matter what price AMD want these cards to go for..
All that matters is the price, if AMD can offer that kind of performance for $50 & $100 respectively, cheaper than Nvidia, then they'll gain market share.
..If they can't, it doesn't matter, Vega will have no impact whatsoever.
Of course right now we have all these scum bag, parasite miners distorting the market so it may not matter what price AMD want these cards to go for..
Last edited:
The_Governour
New member
If its a BIT better than a 1080 then its all about price!
AlienALX
Well-known member
The good thing about mining is that when it crashes so do GPU prices. Right now I am happy for AMD to make a little extra money tbh. There's always the second hand market (between friends on forums, not money grabbing chancers) so I will always be able to keep my rigs running.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I won't buy a 1080. Not for the prices they are demanding for them. I can get a Ti for about £50 more.
I've never really wanted a 1080 and have never really considered one because I have two "1070 like" cards already (Fury X, Titan X(M))
As such it would be pointless to spend that sort of money on 20% or so. I would want at least Ti performance for spending out that kind of dough.
Vega needs to cost less than the 1080. And less enough for people to want to put up with the thermals and 100w extra power consumption. This isn't like the 1080, which you can pair up with a 450w PSU you are going to need quite a bit more juice.
So given that it's a bit impractical it needs to be cheaper. Yet, the Fury X was not cheaper than the 980Ti despite being crap at low resolutions, 2GB VRAM down on the Ti and you had to fit a radiator to your rig.
Now if AMD had got the Fury (non X) price right? then yeah, that would have been a popular card. But they didn't. And this is all because of a large die and HBM.
So I just can't see how they can undercut the 1080 enough to make this card viable.
AMD cards are for enthusiasts. The same as their CPUs. IE - those who don't want bleeding edge performance but want great value. We've seen it with Ryzen. Those who couldn't give a crap about money are all lining up to buy X299, those with some sense and those who need to be careful are buying Ryzen.
However, if the Vega does not have great VFM then who in their right mind is going to buy it?
I'll tell you. Some one like me, who wanted to punish Nvidia for making me feel like a muppet for buying two Titan Blacks. Some one who would not buy Nvidia no matter how cheap or good they were. So I bought a Fury X instead. Year later I ended up going back to Nvidia (Titan XM) because I was running out of VRAM and games were crashing, BSODing and rebooting my PC.
AMD have fixed that now, but it comes at a massive performance penalty. So whenever I want raw speed I use my 5820k and Titan XM. Whenever I do anything else? low clocked Xeon with Fury X all water cooled practically silent.
Tolemac
Active member
I bought a 1080 in May but I only paid £425 for it well £315 as I sold my R9 290X. A couple of weeks after I bought it the prices rocketed again.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I'm not sure I agree with that. The 980Ti easily beats the Fury X in 3DMark 11, yet in modern games the Fury X handles itself well against the 980Ti.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Just out of curiosity I ran 3DMark11 and I managed to get a few points under 44K graphics score with a 1080 Ti+AIO, So if these scores are real the prices need to be around 1070 money to sway people over to team red otherwise people will choose Nvidia due to much larger mindshare but if the price is right and around 1070 cash, It may be enough to temp people over.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Not ran 3DMark 11 but IIRC it was good. I know that in 3DM Firestrike the Fury X does very well against the 980Ti. Maybe even artificially well... When I OCED my Fury X to 1150 (sadly in games it was useless) I scored a very high graphics score.
They (Radeons) are also known to do very well in Crossfire in 3DMFS too. Like, better than 980Tis. That was about the only pleasure I got from Fury X CFX tbh. Everything else was a disaster.
Yes, it needs to cost around £400-£450 to even be viable. However, I can not see that happening with HBM2. I just can't. And the fact that it guzzles down 100w extra is pretty significant too. That's not like 40w, or even 60w.
That could mean you could need a new PSU, as a lot of people are running 450w PSUs these days because of the way that lower powered PSU units shot up in price with Brexit.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Very true. Also, a point that hasn't been raised.. I bet Nvidia hate mining. It absolutely thrashes the cards to death and they don't last long, given that they are often in a pretty humid environment. I've seen ex mining cards for sale and they make bugger all. I saw 290s going for £80 when they were selling for £200. Unless of course the seller is a liar, but you can usually tell.
That must push up warranty claims, because Nvidia and AMD have absolutely no way of proving outright that the cards have been used for mining (or indeed folding, but there's no cash to be made in that
) and so on.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I was talking about 3DMark 11 because that's what was benched in the article.
In my experience the GTX 980 could be able to overclock to match or surpass a Fury in Fire Strike Normal. The 980Ti usually beats the Fury X in Fire Strike Normal as well. And then you've got the appalling overclocking headroom of Fiji but the vast ocean that is Maxwell (especially with water and modding), that extends the lead further. I've seen a Fury X match or beat a 980Ti in Time Spy and in Fire Strike Extreme/Ultra, but not in 3DMark 11 and only with good overclocks in Fire Strike Normal.
The_Governour
New member
If you are talking about buying second hand then here in spain a 1070 is selling for around 320€, at that price then its pretty good for its performance.
If Rx Vega would come new at 400/450€ then it COULD be a hit.
If Rx Vega would come new at 400/450€ then it COULD be a hit.
Similar threads
