Leaked benchmarks list the RX Vega 56 as a GTX 1070 killer

The point is, when they only show games that favor AMD, it does not show the real thing. To tell the performance you need a proper review with games favoring both sides, running both cards with the same settings.
So there is nothing wrong with showing the games, they just cannot stand alone.

You just reaffirmed my point. DX12 games are the real thing so therefore AMD GPU's are relevant because they run well on AMD hardware. These games are an integral part of a greater picture and therefore so is AMD, so why discount them? You can't discount them any more than you can discount DX11 games for Nvidia. And I recognise that the list of benchmarked games does not have any Nvidia-favoured games, but that doesn't mean we should discount them just because of that, or that it is not indicative of actual performance. Actual performance is those games, as well as others.

So yeah, I will stick where I am. If Vega comes as a surprise? it will be a nice one. Does that make sense?

Yes. It's stupid to claim one thing when it's likely going to be another just because you don't want to be disappointed, but it makes sense. I do it in my life too. We probably shouldn't though. We should be honest and see things as they are, without assumptions or overt pessimism inspired by previous disappointments. They call those schemas.
 
By real thing, i mean. Show the real performance of the card.
If game A favors card 1 and game B favors card 2.
In game A card 1 beats card 2 by 2x FPS.
In game B card 2 beats card 1 by 5%
You then only show FPS from game B = Card 2 looks the best, but is it overall?

What i'm trying to say is, that the real overall score between Vega and 1070/1080 will not be seen until thorough benchmarks with a lot of games sees the light.

And to me it seems like AMD is doing everything to hide the power for as long as possible.
In my eyes not a good sign. = Oh look you cannot see the difference between Vega and 1080ti. If the card really was that good, they would just show som FPS.
 
If Vega really was that good they would not be hiding it. They don't want you buying Nvidia..

Too much cloak and dagger, and in the cold light of day the FE sucked pretty badly.

Once the reviews come out you will get the truth. But it just sucks double ass that AMD have hidden it. That really annoys me, and was what had me buy a Titan XP. AMD did that, no one else.
 
By real thing, i mean. Show the real performance of the card.
If game A favors card 1 and game B favors card 2.
In game A card 1 beats card 2 by 2x FPS.
In game B card 2 beats card 1 by 5%
You then only show FPS from game B = Card 2 looks the best, but is it overall?

What i'm trying to say is, that the real overall score between Vega and 1070/1080 will not be seen until thorough benchmarks with a lot of games sees the light.

And to me it seems like AMD is doing everything to hide the power for as long as possible.
In my eyes not a good sign. = Oh look you cannot see the difference between Vega and 1080ti. If the card really was that good, they would just show som FPS.

DX12 is real performance of the card.

DX12 and Vulkan games are becoming more popular, and now we know two massive upcoming games (Far Cry 5 and Wolfenstein 2) that will support their features. And even some DX11 games favour AMD well, or more accurately, don't abnormally favour Nvidia. How many games does it have to be for them to be factored into the "overall"? 10? 12? More?

Here is a list of games from Techpowerup's suite of games that show AMD beating or at the very least matching Nvidia's counterpart:

DX12/Vulkan games:
Hitman
BF1
Deus Ex
Doom
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Sniper Elite 4

DX11 games:
COD Infinite Warfare
Resident Evil
F1 2016
Fallout 4
Rainbow Six Siege

There are others from their suite that show relative parity.

Guru3D's suite, for instance, shows some different numbers, but again there are many that favour AMD. How many before you consider them part of the "overall" and allow them to be used to calculate the power of the graphics card?

If Vega really was that good they would not be hiding it. They don't want you buying Nvidia..

Too much cloak and dagger, and in the cold light of day the FE sucked pretty badly.

Once the reviews come out you will get the truth. But it just sucks double ass that AMD have hidden it. That really annoys me, and was what had me buy a Titan XP. AMD did that, no one else.

"Once the reviews come out you will get the truth."

I don't want to sound angry, but that kind of passive aggressive, condescending chatter irritates me and serves no purpose. Of course we'll know the truth. But are you suggesting you have some inside scoop and know the "overall" numbers of Vega while the rest of us have to wait in silence?

And how can it be AMD's fault alone that you bought a Titan? Is it impatience or is it something else? Why can't you just say, 'A Titan XP came up at a reasonable price and it catered for my needs so I bought one.' Instead of, 'AMD were too slow and forced me into buying the competitor who I love to hate.'
 
"Once the reviews come out you will get the truth."

I don't want to sound angry, but that kind of passive aggressive, condescending chatter irritates me and serves no purpose. Of course we'll know the truth. But are you suggesting you have some inside scoop and know the "overall" numbers of Vega while the rest of us have to wait in silence?

And how can it be AMD's fault alone that you bought a Titan? Is it impatience or is it something else? Why can't you just say, 'A Titan XP came up at a reasonable price and it catered for my needs so I bought one.' Instead of, 'AMD were too slow and forced me into buying the competitor who I love to hate.'

OK firstly you do sound angry. And because of that you are being passive aggressive. That is how forums work when you get mad, because the option to be aggressive isn't there. I just press the power button on the laptop and walk away. So any aggression on the internet is passive aggressiveness.

I have no inside scoop on Vega. Sorry. Nothing at all, my mate in Taiwan has been silent. When I say we will know the truth I mean just that. Not trying to pick peanuts out of the poo AMD have been feeding us but the real facts and figures. Lest not we forget that it already eats 100w or more than a 1080, probably more once overclocked, so it's not looking good. That is what I see, not what any one has told me.

As for my calculations? I'm not geeky enough, sorry. I could be, I could learn anything I want but GPU cores 101 is not really a subject that interests me. I am far more interested in the final result, rather than the guessing and calculations. Most of what I knew about Vega was there for all to see - OCUK forums. It is one of the busiest computer forums I frequent. As such you generally tend to get a lot of brainiacs hanging around doing the maths with a complete understanding of how it all works. That was who called Vega performance "Around 1070 performance" based on info that leaked out of AMD and the supposed clocks etc.

Going back to getting the truth? that is how this industry works. They will say anything they can to make you want it (see AMD throwing parties and giving stuff to people with their name on to big it up etc) but the truth always comes out in the end. Once those cards are handed over to reviewers that's it. AMD can try and poke reviewers into linear reviews (like Intel and Nvidia do with their review guides) but at the end of the day the beans are always spilled and the horse always bolts. And you get the truth. No more BS, no more fancy names for a new vertical sync, no more "meshes" bollocks just the raw, hard performance facts. And the temps, and the power use and everything else AMD have done their level best to hide.

And *that* is why I went Nvidia again. I hate Nvidia trust me I *really* do, but the crap AMD have pulled with Vega has been almost unforgivable.

When I mention the 1080Ti? that is what AMD are putting into people's heads right now. They are running their big Vega card right next to a 1080Ti with some muppet saying he can't tell the difference. As soon as those cards touch reviewer's hands AMD won't have their rep standing over them. It will be truth time.

So no, it isn't impatience, it's payback for a company trying to play me for an idiot. Because that is exactly what they have been doing.
 
You just reaffirmed my point. DX12 games are the real thing so therefore AMD GPU's are relevant because they run well on AMD hardware. These games are an integral part of a greater picture and therefore so is AMD, so why discount them? You can't discount them any more than you can discount DX11 games for Nvidia. And I recognise that the list of benchmarked games does not have any Nvidia-favoured games, but that doesn't mean we should discount them just because of that, or that it is not indicative of actual performance. Actual performance is those games, as well as others.



Yes. It's stupid to claim one thing when it's likely going to be another just because you don't want to be disappointed, but it makes sense. I do it in my life too. We probably shouldn't though. We should be honest and see things as they are, without assumptions or overt pessimism inspired by previous disappointments. They call those schemas.


I understand what you are trying to say and I agree with you.
It is indicative of real world performance. Where the others disagree is that it doesn't. In fact it DOES indicate real world performance. What it doesn't do which they seem to gloss over without realizing is that while it does show real world performance, it doesn't show worst case scenario. It just shows the (assumingly) best case scenario. AMD are known to do this, so to me it makes sense that AMD choose the best case scenario for there card instead of showing it just barely beating the 1070. AMD's GPU marketing is still meh guys.

I don't understand how hard this should be to get? Seems logical to me personally.
 
Well you don't know what you say until the receiver replies. And what i think i write is obviously not what you guys read.

I'm not saying that there is something wrong with the tests they show. Just that you need a full test suite before you can compare the cards, as NeverBackDown also says.
I hope that the 64 will be awesome, because real competition will push things forward.
And the 56 should beat the 1070 otherwise AMD is stupid. They know the 1070 performance, and have a GPU architecture that is faster, so they just need to disable the right amount of CU's to be sure of it being fast enough.
 
It's just been going the same way. AMD show Vega last September, people say it will be faster than the 1080. Then the Ti comes out, and all of a sudden it's going to compete with the 1080Ti and be faster than a Titan because it does this one thing faster than a Titan XP.

Then benchmarks start to appear and it looks terrible, so every one says it's going to be slower than a 1070. Then the FE comes out, and it's bit meh. Hot, guzzles power, throttles, can't even maintain stated clocks without being in a wind tunnel. Then every one says it's crap.

Then a few weeks go by and more supposed benchmarks leak out and now it's faster than a 1080 and could possibly be faster than a 1080Ti in certain things.

*that* if anything is what I am angry at. When it comes out and it is what it is people will be slagging it off, scoffing saying "Pah ! that's no 1080Ti and look at the power use etc !!!!".

Me? I prefer to hold it steady. It is what it is. I'm not easily fooled either, and if I was I would be queuing up for this card right now if I believed everything AMD had said.

Funniest part is it doesn't matter how good it may or may not be, you won't be getting one any way. AMD *are* having supply issues/teething issues with HBM2 as they rightly should it's a brand new technology, and even if they could supply enough to gamers they will make sure the miners are sorted first, as they will pay higher prices than us. And all the time that card is a mining card you _will not_ get one.

AMD are very busy right now with their GPU assembly lines. Sony have sold 64 million was it? PS4s, more than any gaming card will ever sell. They have the 4 and 5 series being gobbled up by miners (all by the crappy ones that can't game very well) and Vega will be no different. Turn and burn, supply and demand. And we come last, just as we always have.

P.S have you ever used a laptop that changes most of the words you say? I have, it's called a MacBook, and if it carries on it will meet its demise rather soon.
 
OK firstly you do sound angry. And because of that you are being passive aggressive. That is how forums work when you get mad, because the option to be aggressive isn't there. I just press the power button on the laptop and walk away. So any aggression on the internet is passive aggressiveness.

I have no inside scoop on Vega. Sorry. Nothing at all, my mate in Taiwan has been silent. When I say we will know the truth I mean just that. Not trying to pick peanuts out of the poo AMD have been feeding us but the real facts and figures. Lest not we forget that it already eats 100w or more than a 1080, probably more once overclocked, so it's not looking good. That is what I see, not what any one has told me.

As for my calculations? I'm not geeky enough, sorry. I could be, I could learn anything I want but GPU cores 101 is not really a subject that interests me. I am far more interested in the final result, rather than the guessing and calculations. Most of what I knew about Vega was there for all to see - OCUK forums. It is one of the busiest computer forums I frequent. As such you generally tend to get a lot of brainiacs hanging around doing the maths with a complete understanding of how it all works. That was who called Vega performance "Around 1070 performance" based on info that leaked out of AMD and the supposed clocks etc.

Going back to getting the truth? that is how this industry works. They will say anything they can to make you want it (see AMD throwing parties and giving stuff to people with their name on to big it up etc) but the truth always comes out in the end. Once those cards are handed over to reviewers that's it. AMD can try and poke reviewers into linear reviews (like Intel and Nvidia do with their review guides) but at the end of the day the beans are always spilled and the horse always bolts. And you get the truth. No more BS, no more fancy names for a new vertical sync, no more "meshes" bollocks just the raw, hard performance facts. And the temps, and the power use and everything else AMD have done their level best to hide.

And *that* is why I went Nvidia again. I hate Nvidia trust me I *really* do, but the crap AMD have pulled with Vega has been almost unforgivable.

When I mention the 1080Ti? that is what AMD are putting into people's heads right now. They are running their big Vega card right next to a 1080Ti with some muppet saying he can't tell the difference. As soon as those cards touch reviewer's hands AMD won't have their rep standing over them. It will be truth time.

So no, it isn't impatience, it's payback for a company trying to play me for an idiot. Because that is exactly what they have been doing.

I don't know how sounding frustrated and stating why in a reasonable manner is passive aggressive. I'm not even sure what you think constitutes 'frustrated'. I read your comment and found it annoying and stated so. A man can be frustrated and annoyed without being aggressive, or even passive aggressive. And what's more they can still be friends. Being on the Internet doesn't change that in any dramatic or quantifiable, provable way. I simply find statements like "Once the reviews come out you will get the truth" pointless and condescending, and thus, if repeated enough times, irritating. Why? The wording is all wrong. However, you changed the wording in your second comment, swapping "YOU will get the truth" to "WE will get the truth". Then the comment includes you. It's still pointless and contrary to your other points about AMD failing to deliver when the truth is not out yet, and you say you don't have any inside scoop so therefore don't know the truth—or at least can't prove it—but now I'm just nitpicking and repeating myself, which can be annoying to others.
 
Don't sweat it man it's cool. The biggest problem with anything on the internet is context. You get no facial expressions, no eye contact, nothing. I'm pretty sure if we were in the same room we'd be able to convey ourselves far more clearly.. But yeah, as I said whatever. I'm not easily offended and I don't really lose my cool any more unless it's something pretty extreme.

Certainly don't worry about being repetitive either. I'm terrible for that, it's an autism thing. I think unless some one understands something I say perfectly I need to keep repeating it and going on about it until they can see it through my eyes. Which of course they can't, because they are not autistic.
 
Don't sweat it man it's cool. The biggest problem with anything on the internet is context. You get no facial expressions, no eye contact, nothing. I'm pretty sure if we were in the same room we'd be able to convey ourselves far more clearly.. But yeah, as I said whatever. I'm not easily offended and I don't really lose my cool any more unless it's something pretty extreme.

Certainly don't worry about being repetitive either. I'm terrible for that, it's an autism thing. I think unless some one understands something I say perfectly I need to keep repeating it and going on about it until they can see it through my eyes. Which of course they can't, because they are not autistic.

Absolutely, I agree.

This is not referring to you, but over the years people have downgraded or devalued the relevancy or impact of text on a message board, chat room, or social media site. But if someone's career or life can be ruined with less than 140 types of a keyboard, I think we should try and make sure context is understood. Like you said, sometimes it's borderline impossible to fully convey context, but we try anyway.
 
Back
Top