TheF34RChannel
New member
3DMark 11 result ft. Core i7-8700K and Supermicro C7Z370-CG-L: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/12312851
Quick News
- Thread starter Feronix
- Start date
TheF34RChannel
New member
TheF34RChannel
New member
http://wccftech.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-cpu-benchmarks-leak/
AlienALX
Well-known member
http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64-review-leak/
*Blows a whacking great raspberry*
In gaming, the only title where the Radeon RX Vega 64 was able to give a conclusive beating to the GTX 1080 FE was Battlefield 1 while Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Civilization VI, Metro Last Light Redux, Rise of The Tomb Raider and Titanfall 2 showed GTX 1080 as the best solution for gaming at a price that was $200 US cheaper than the liquid cooled model.
The Liquid model can consumer over 500W of power with +50% power limit which is shockingly high!
It's actually worse than I thought...
*Blows a whacking great raspberry*
In gaming, the only title where the Radeon RX Vega 64 was able to give a conclusive beating to the GTX 1080 FE was Battlefield 1 while Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Civilization VI, Metro Last Light Redux, Rise of The Tomb Raider and Titanfall 2 showed GTX 1080 as the best solution for gaming at a price that was $200 US cheaper than the liquid cooled model.
The Liquid model can consumer over 500W of power with +50% power limit which is shockingly high!
It's actually worse than I thought...
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Yikes, Not looking good for AMD so far.
AlienALX
Well-known member
If and a very big if "it's Wccftech news " this is true I am glad I bought a 1080 back in May for £425 and the Gamerock premium bios works like a dream on my Jetstream without the ugly blue and white shroud
The source was a Chinese review site. Which has now been taken down it seems.
Edit. Been wondering how it could have possibly been worse than the FE. Then it dawned on me, they bin the FE.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
From the benchmarks I'm seeing, I'm disappointed. But I also think there are still driver problems. Vega has a lot more compute power than Fiji, yet it's only 15-20% faster. I hope we'll see a performance increase over the next few months, because otherwise Vega 64 will be a disappointment for a lot of gamers. Vega 56 looks good with its overclocking headroom, but it won't be worth spending £400 when I already have a Fury. The jump just won't be worth it.
AlienALX
Well-known member
It's actually slower than a Fury X at the same clock. Amazing how well Fury has turned out tbh. Yeah, mine won't be going anywhere now. I am not paying £699 for a 500w guzzler. I really don't hate myself that much.
I mean seriously 500w? is that even safe? I guess we will find out.
I mean seriously 500w? is that even safe? I guess we will find out.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I think AMD are banking on WattMan a lot with Vega. I think they expect users to take advantage of its features to help reign in the ridiculous numbers we're seeing. If I only lose a couple of percent using a different power plan, but I'm saving 50-100W, that'll be worth it.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
No, they're not. But they have to say it just in case. They have to be conservative because there will always be someone who doesn't care about power consumption and just wants to push and tweak.
Angrygoldfish don't be disappointed this could be a wolf in sheeps clothing aka the R9 290x
With some driver tweaks and some time spent with WattMan, it really good be.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I've just spent the last 15-20 minutes quickly looking through a wide gamut of reviews and Vega 64 is NOT worth £600. A year ago when Vega was announced I expected those kind of prices, but not at the kind of performance we're seeing and with the kind of TDP its been released with. The only redeeming qualities of Vega right now are, to me, Freesync—irrelevant for anyone who already owns a Freesync monitor such as myself—and potential driver improvements and future capability—but that's not enough. I don't think I'll be buying Vega, not for many months. I may not even at all. I may do what Alien and I chatted about a month or so ago and wait for Volta GTX 2080, sell my Freeysnc panel, buy a similar-spec 1440p Gsync panel, and be a lot happier. My new Ryzen PC just got €650 cheaper. What a shame.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I am a firm believer in Adaptive Vsync. It's been fantastic for me. I would try that first tbh.
Yeah, Vega sucks. It's even worse than I thought. I really thought when they said it could easily beat a 1080 it would be worth living with. But this is the cold hard truth I was talking about the other day.. The one AMD have been hiding quite blatantly.
Had they not used HBM they could have sold this cheaper. Grr, makes me so angry. Fury X is and was a bloody good card and they wrecked it with the price and then stopped making it.
Seriously if the Fury X had released at £400 it would have smacked Nvidia stupid.
*sigh*. Oh well, let's hope it's AMD's last Fermi.
Yeah, Vega sucks. It's even worse than I thought. I really thought when they said it could easily beat a 1080 it would be worth living with. But this is the cold hard truth I was talking about the other day.. The one AMD have been hiding quite blatantly.
Had they not used HBM they could have sold this cheaper. Grr, makes me so angry. Fury X is and was a bloody good card and they wrecked it with the price and then stopped making it.
Seriously if the Fury X had released at £400 it would have smacked Nvidia stupid.
*sigh*. Oh well, let's hope it's AMD's last Fermi.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Irrelevant of whether it was economically possible, Fiji should have been:
€500 for AIO Fury X 1050Mhz - slightly behind a 980Ti in all areas of engineering but will grow to surpass it in many games
€450 for air cooled Fury X 1000Mhz - above a 980 overclocked in most games but behind in efficiency
€400 for air cooled Fury 1000Mhz - around 980 overclocked performance in some areas and less in others
That would have given AMD a clear competitive lead in price to performance. The GTX 980 would have been out for 10 months, the Titan XM would have been out for 3 months, and the 980Ti would have been out at the same time.
Compare that to 2017: The GTX 1080 has been out for 15 months, the Titan XP has been out for 12 months, and the 1080Ti has been out for 5 months. Obviously Fiji was not the pipe dream we're talking about, but at least it wasn't so late and wasn't as far behind in efficiency.
€500 for AIO Fury X 1050Mhz - slightly behind a 980Ti in all areas of engineering but will grow to surpass it in many games
€450 for air cooled Fury X 1000Mhz - above a 980 overclocked in most games but behind in efficiency
€400 for air cooled Fury 1000Mhz - around 980 overclocked performance in some areas and less in others
That would have given AMD a clear competitive lead in price to performance. The GTX 980 would have been out for 10 months, the Titan XM would have been out for 3 months, and the 980Ti would have been out at the same time.
Compare that to 2017: The GTX 1080 has been out for 15 months, the Titan XP has been out for 12 months, and the 1080Ti has been out for 5 months. Obviously Fiji was not the pipe dream we're talking about, but at least it wasn't so late and wasn't as far behind in efficiency.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Yup. I am sure as time went on the Fury would have become easier to produce, too. And that means cheaper. It's so daft that AMD already had a competitor to the 1070 (and a winnner, if it had more VRAM !) yet spunked gawd knows how much money on Vega.
The only thing wrong with the Fury X was the price. It's still very competitive to this day.
The only thing wrong with the Fury X was the price. It's still very competitive to this day.
Similar threads
